RPTS JACKSON

DCMN PARKER

EXECUTIVE SESSION

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

WASHINGTON, D.C.

DEPOSITION OF: BRUCE R. LINDSEY

Monday, September 8, 1997

Washington, D.C.

The deposition in the above matter was held in Room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, commencing at 10:00 a.m.

Appearances:

Staff Present for the Government Reform and Oversight Committee: Barbara Comstock, Chief Investigative Counsel; Kristi Remington, David N. Bossie, Oversight Coordinator; Investigative Counsel; Kenneth Ballen, Minority Chief Investigative Counsel; and Andrew J. McLaughlin, Minority Counsel.

For MR. LINDSEY:

WILLIAM J. MURPHY, ESQ.

NEIL R. WHITE, ESQ.

Murphy & Schaffer

Ninth Floor,

100 Light Street

Baltimore, Maryland 21202­1019

Also Present: Representatives Waxman and Kanjorski.

Ms. Comstock. Good morning, Mr. Lindsey. I'd like to begin by thanking you on behalf of the members of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight for appearing here today. This proceedings is known as a deposition. The person transcribing this proceeding is a House reporter and notary public. I will now request that the reporter place you under oath.

THEREUPON,

BRUCE R. LINDSEY,

a witness, was called for examination by Counsel, and after having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:

Ms. Comstock. I would like to note, for the record, those who are present at the beginning of the deposition. My name is Barbara Comstock. I'm the chief investigative counsel of the committee and designated Majority counsel today. I'm accompanied today by Kristi Remington, who is also Majority investigative counsel. Ken Ballen will be the designated counsel.

Mr. McLaughlin. I'll note, for the record, that the notice we got was that this deposition was to be in 2203 Rayburn, so Ken Ballen is currently being retrieved. We will allow the Majority counsel to go ahead with reading the preamble, but maybe we'll pause when Mr. Ballen arrives.

Ms. Comstock. Mr. Ballen will be accompanied by Andrew McLaughlin, who is also with the Minority staff. Although this proceeding is being held in a somewhat informal atmosphere, because you've been placed under oath, your testimony here today has the same force and effect as if you were testifying before the committee or in a courtroom. If I ask you about conversations you have had in the past, and you are unable to recall the exact words used in the conversation, you may state that you are unable to recall those exact words and then you may give me the gist or substance of any such conversation to the best of your recollection.

If you recall only part of a conversation or only part of an event, please give my your best recollection of those events or parts of conversations that you could recall. If I ask whether you have any information upon a particular subject and you've overheard other persons conversing with each other regarding it or have seen correspondence or documentation regarding it, please tell me that you do have such information and indicate the source, either a conversation or documentation or otherwise from which you have received such knowledge.

Before we begin the questioning, I would like to give you some background about the investigation and your appearance here today. Pursuant to its authority under House Rules 10 and 11 of the House of Representatives, the committee is engaged in a wide­ranging review of possible political fund­raising improprieties and possible violations of law within the committee's jurisdiction.

[Mr. Ballen enters the room.]

Mr. McLaughlin. Barbara, let's go off the record for a second.

[Discussion off the record.]

Ms. Comstock. Pages 2 through 4 of House Report 105­139 summarizes the investigation as of June 19, 1997, and encompasses any new matters which arise directly or indirectly during the course of the investigation. Also pages 4 through 11 of the report explain the background of the investigation. All questions related either directly or indirectly to these issues or questions which have a tendency to make the existence of any pertinent fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence is proper.

The committee has been granted specific authorization to conduct this deposition pursuant to House Resolution 167, which passed the full House on June 20, 1997. Committee rule 20 of which you've received a copy outlines the ground rules for the deposition.

The Majority and Minority committee counsel will ask you questions regarding the subject matter of the investigation. Minority counsel will ask questions after Majority counsel is finished. After the Minority counsel has completed questioning you, a new round of questions may begin. Members of Congress who wish to ask questions will be afforded an immediate opportunity to ask their questions at any time when they may be present. When they are finished, committee counsel will then resume questioning.

Pursuant to the committee's rules, you're allowed to have an attorney present to advise you of your rights. Any objection raised by your attorney during the course of the deposition may be stated for the record. If a witness is instructed not to answer a question or otherwise refuses to answer a question, Majority and the Minority counsel will confer to determine whether the objection is proper. If Majority and Minority question agree that a question is proper, the witness will be asked to answer the question.

If the objection is not withdrawn by the witness' attorney, a Chairman or Member designated by the Chairman will decide whether the objection is proper, which means it may not be made public without the consent of the committee pursuant to clause 2(k)(7) of House Rule 11.

You are asked to abide by the Rules of the House and not discuss with anyone other than your attorney this deposition and the issues and questions raised during this proceedings. Finally, no later than five days after your testimony is transcribed and you have been notified that your transcript is available, you may submit suggested changes to the Chairman.

The transcript will be available for your review at the committee office. Committee staff may make any typographical and technical changes requested by you. Substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments to the deposition transcript submitted by you must be accompanied by a letter requesting the changes and a statement for your reasons for each proposed change. A letter questioning any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments must be signed by you. Any substantive changes, modifications, clarifications, or amendments shall be included with an appendix to the transcript conditioned upon your signing the transcript.

With agreement by Minority counsel, we have extended that beyond five days, and we can also mail the transcript to you. We just ask that you sign a form saying that you haven't copied it or shared it with anybody else and that both you and the witness. So whatever is convenient for you, we can make arrangements.

The Witness. That will be more convenient, I'm sure.

Ms. Comstock. Do you understand everything we've gone over so far?

The Witness. Yes.

Is there anything in Rule 20 about a tape recorder? Sorry.

Mr. Ballen. I have a statement for the record. Under House Rule 112(k)(8), any objections as to relevancy or pertinency are ultimately matters for the full committee to decide even after ruling by the Chair.

Ms. Comstock. I want to go over a few ground rules, too, before we get started. If you don't understand a question, I'd asked that you let me know, and I will repeat or rephrase it so that you do understand the question. The reporter will be taking down everything we say and will make a written record of the deposition. You must give verbal, audible answers because the reporter cannot record what a nod of the head or other gesture means. If you can't hear me, please say so and I'll repeat the question or have the court reporter read the question.

I would ask that you wait until I finish each question before answering, and I will wait until you finish your answer before I ask the next question so that we're not speaking over each other.

Your testimony is being taken under oath, as if we were in court, and it will be assumed that you understood the question and answer and that the answer you provide was intended to be responsive to it.

Do you have any questions about any of those matters?

The Witness. No. I mean, the only thing I would do, I mean, is say that, obviously, if I answer a question that I don't understand, it is not necessarily ­­ I obviously understood the question that I thought I was understanding. I may not have understood the question you were asking. So I don't believe it is fair to suggest that if I answer a question, I understood the question that you were asking, clearly that I understood what I thought the question was.

Ms. Comstock. Sure, I think that will be clear.

Mr. Murphy. I think the law takes into account what you just said, Mr. Lindsey.

Ms. Comstock. If we can go off the record for a minute.

[Discussion off the record.]

EXAMINATION BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Are you here voluntarily today or as a result of a subpoena?

A Voluntarily.

Q Okay. I am not going to go through all the preliminary background things because we have that on previous records. So I'd like to go into initially some matters that you handled when you were Personnel Director.

Could you just state for the record, then, Mr. Lindsey, when you first became Director of Personnel at the White House.

A January 20, 1993.

Q And in that position, did you have various assistants?

A Yes.

Q And who were your main assistants at that time?

A Two. One, John Emerson, was a Deputy, and Jan Piercy was a Deputy. We then had associate directors and others. We started out with a staff probably, a hundred plus. We ended up with a staff nine, ten months later of 24. So we were downsizing throughout that entire period.

Q And at that time, was there an office called Priority Placement that handled priority placements?

A I'm not sure that's what it is was called. But I mean, there was ­­ there were several offices. We had an office that dealt with congressional inquiries, which were considered to be priority placements. We had an office that dealt with political individuals who had been involved in the campaign, which is probably what you're referring to.

Q Was that Michael Whouley?

A Michael Whouley, yes. And again, he dealt mostly with trying to place people who were involved in the campaign. But again, we got hundreds and thousands of requests from Congressmen and we had an office that also sort of tried to prioritize those, and we consider those to be priority requests, too.

Q Did Bob Nash work in your office at that time?

A For a short period of time, yes. Bob Nash was one of the Deputy Directors during the transition. I think there were four or five deputy directors during the transition. He continued to work in Presidential personnel until he went to the Department of Agriculture, and I don't quite remember when that was.

Q And did Gil Colon work in that office?

A Yes.

Mr. Ballen. Who? I'm sorry, I'm having trouble hearing.

Ms. Comstock. C­O­L­O­N.

The Witness. Yes. He worked in the one of the ­­ he worked in the Personnel Office, yes. I'm not sure exactly what year and area.

BY MR. COMSTOCK:

Q And did you know Mr. Colon prior to him joining that position in your office?

A No, I don't believe so. Unless I knew him in the campaign. But I don't recall knowing him in the campaign.

Q So the first time that you recall meeting him is when he was working in your office?

A I mean, I don't recall the first time I met him. First time I ever dealt with him I probably was ­­ other than in passing was when he was in the office.

Q Do you know what his background was before he started working in your office?

A No.

Q Do you know who hired him?

A No.

Q Who was hiring people for the Personnel Office at that time?

A Most of the people in the Personnel Office came from the transition, in fact, and were part of the transition personnel operation; and they simply came in as White House employees, if you will, once the President became President. Dick Riley was the Personnel Director during the transition. So, you know, he ultimately, I guess, would have been responsible. Whether he actually hired the people or not, I don't know.

Q So Mr. Colon just sort of arrived on January 20th?

A Again, I don't have any recollection of whether or not he was there before or came after. You know, if he went to work on the 20th, then most likely he came as part of the transition personnel operation. If he came later, again, we hired some people. Again, most of it was a downsizing, not increasing.

Now, obviously, there might have been people that we need who had particular background or expertise, but I don't remember whether he was one of those or not.

Q Do you know how long he worked in the office?

A No.

Q And did a Gary Chrisopherson work in your office at that time?

A Yes.

Q In 1993?

A Yes.

Q And how did he come to work in your office?

A I have no idea.

Q And do you recall how long he was there?

A He outlasted me. I think he was still there when I left. Again, as we downsized, he took on more and more responsibility and more and more agencies. But I think he was still there when I left.

Q Did Maria Haley work in the office at that time?

A Yes.

Q And what was your understanding of what her responsibilities were?

A She clearly predated me. I mean, she was there as part of the transition group. Again, she had certain areas that I can't recall today which departments or agencies she had, but she had a group of agencies and departments. She also helped with our outreach mostly to the Asian­American community.

Q Did you have an understanding of her working on the campaign?

A She is from Arkansas. I don't ­­ I'm sure she was involved in the campaign in some way. I'm not quite sure what her role was in the campaign, whether she had a formal role or just simply was a supporter.

Q And was Ginger Lu in the office at that time?

Mr. Ballen. Excuse me, I'm having great difficulty hearing you. I'm not hearing most of the questions. If you could try to speak up a little bit.

Ms. Comstock. Okay.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Was Ginger Lu in your office at that time?

A At some ­­ again, I don't know whether she predates my coming there or came after. But, yes, at some point she was in the office.

Q And what was your understanding of what she did?

A I don't ­­ I believe she had several departments or agencies under her, but I couldn't tell you which ones they were.

Q Do you know if she was involved in the Commerce Department at all?

A Before she went there, I don't know.

Q That is before she went to become General Counsel at the Commerce Department?

A Yeah, at some point she became general counsel at the Commerce Department. I don't know whether she did Commerce Department before then or not. I was thinking that Maria at one point did the Commerce Department, but I don't ­­ I'm not absolutely sure of that. There should be ­­ there should be some sort of records within the Personnel Office that would show who had which agencies and departments.

Q Do you know somebody by the name of Martha Watanabe, W­A­T­A­N­A­B­E, who worked in the Personnel Office?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of her being involved in tracking in kind of Asian priority hires?

A No.

Q Do you know Melinda Yee?

A Yes.

Q And how did she come to have her position in the Personnel Office?

A Again, I don't know. My speculation is that she would predate me, that she would have been there as part of the transition, but I don't know that for a fact.

Q When you're saying that she predated you or somebody predated you, you mean they were involved in the transition and then just sort of everyone ended up in the Personnel Office or whoever had been involved in personnel throughout the transition ended up in your office?

A Right. We had a transition personnel operation that was headed by Dick Riley that Jan Piercy was involved in, and I know Bob Nash was involved in that. Maria Haley, I know, was involved in it, and I believe a number of these other people were also involved in it. They, during the transition, began to put together a list of people for the Cabinet and the sub­Cabinet positions, mostly for the sub­Cabinet, because the President did most of the Cabinet from Little Rock, but for the deputies, secretaries, the assistant secretaries, and so forth.

When Dick Riley was named Secretary of Education, we then began looking for a new Personnel Director. Several people were considered; either had the good sense to turn it down or couldn't do it. Toward the end, I was named Personnel Director in addition to my other responsibilities. So I went in on January 20th into this operation, but into an operation that had basically been going on for two months prior to that period. And, so, most of the people who were there predated me and I simply inherited them, if you will. And then, when we moved into the White House, that entire operation, to the extent we had the slots for them, came with us. So they were there before I was there.

Q When you started working on personnel, did you become aware of the DNC being involved in providing any lists of personnel who were "must hires"?

Mr. Murphy. I'm sorry, "who were must hires?"

Ms. Comstock. "Must hires." Put "must hires" in quotes.

The Witness. Yeah. We got lists ­­ I don't know if I can tell you I recall seeing a DNC list. We got lists from everybody, you know, political, nonpolitical, ethnic, you know, whatever, any organization basically. And frankly, we sought it, too. I mean, if they knew the kinds of people we were looking for, if they had people they could recommend for that, we wanted as many names in our pool as we could to choose from. So we would receive, you know, lists from all sorts of people and organizations.

You know, whether I knew there was a DNC list, I don't know that I can tell you I recall seeing a DNC list. I would expect there to be a DNC list of people that they would be recommending, yes. The campaign had a list. Individual States have lists. Asian­Americans, African­Americans, Hispanic­Americans, all of these various organizations and groups provided us lists of people they thought we should consider.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Did there come a time where you received lists that had John Huang's name on it for hiring?

A Again, I don't recall at the time. I would not have gotten the list. I've seen lists lately, you know, since all of this, with John Huang's name on it.

Q You mean you've seen lists in the past few months?

A Right.

Q Or in the course of depositions elsewhere?

A Right. I'm trying to remember the woman's name in California that sent a list of eight or nine Asian­Americans that she thought we should consider and John's name was on there. It is the one that I sort of specifically remember.

Q Nora Lum?

A No. She worked for the State Senate.

[Witness confers with counsel.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q March Fong Eu?

A No.

Mr. Ballen. Was this something you saw recently?

The Witness. Right. This is something that was out there in the last month or two. Probably on the Senate committee where she had a whole list of people and one person was John Huang. I remember seeing him on that list.

Ms. Comstock. I'm sorry on what committee.

The Witness. Senate committee, your counterpart.

Mr. Murphy. Counterpart across the Hill.

Ms. Comstock. I didn't understand with the "I" instead of the "E".

The Witness. Anyway, I don't remember what the woman's name is, but I know she sent a list of 9 or 12 people that she considered to be priorities of the Asian­American committee and John's name was on that.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you recall independently, do you have a recollection of talking to anybody about John Huang in 1993?

A Well, at some point in 1993, I must have talked with Gary Chrisopherson. But I don't ­­ today, I don't recall doing that. I just know that, you know, he says he and I met and discussed John Huang in October or November of 1993, you know. But other than that, no, I don't recall.

Q All right. And again, your knowledge of Mr. Chrisopherson is only from recent depositions or information you've gathered recently. You don't have an independent recollection?

A I do not independently recall having a conversation in September, October, November of 1993 with Gary about John Huang. Though, if you look at the documentation and his testimony, we must have had that conversation.

Q So you don't dispute his testimony as to your talking with him about ­­

A No.

Q ­­ John Huang in September­October '93?

A No. I just don't recall it.

Q Do you recall any previous conversations with anybody in the spring of 1993 about John Huang?

A No.

Q Did the Riadys ever talk with you about Mr. Huang in the spring of 1993?

A I don't believe so, no.

Q Did you have occasion to meet or visit with the Riadys in the spring of 1993?

A Meet or visit. My sense is I think I remember passing them in the White House and saying "hello" to them. I don't recall ever having a meeting with them in that time frame.

Q Do you recall Mr. Riady being in your office to make any phone calls in the spring of 1993?

A In my office, no.

Ms. Comstock. This is a document I believe we received from the White House. It just has a mark on the top of page 22. I'm not sure which production we got from the White House. I think this is one of the early­on productions. It is a Lippo Group letter, and it is to Bruce from James Riady.

Do you recall receiving this note from Mr. Riady?

Mr. Murphy. Are we marking this as an exhibit, Ms. Comstock?

Ms. Comstock. Yeah, I will. I just want to move along here.

The Witness. I don't recall getting this.

Mr. Ballen. I'll note, for the record, there's no date on this document.

Ms. Comstock. That is correct.

The Witness. It does refer to a trip to Tokyo, which I think occurred in June of '93.

Ms. Comstock. Yes. I believe we have other White House records that indicate, I believe, Merriam Nemitz reviewed a number of visits with the Riadys. And I guess, from talking with people and looking at records, it was the White House's best estimate that this letter was at or around June of 1993 or sometime prior.

Mr. Ballen. I'm going to object. If we're going to ask the witness questions and elicit the witness' testimony, that's fine. But I don't think we should be representing what other people have told us.

Ms. Comstock. Well, I'll be happy to find the White House document indicating that. But I think the witness has indicated that this Tokyo trip, which is referred to here, is in June of '93, which was also the basis for the White House determining that's what they thought the letter was from. But if we could move on.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q You don't recall getting this note from Mr. Riady?

A No.

Q The first line of it says, "Thanks so much for your kind help and attention."

You don't know what help or attention you may have given the Riadys in the spring of 1993?

A No. I don't know ­­ no. Other than I would speak to them and be, you know, pleasant I would hope.

Q And the next sentence says, "Have a nice and successful trip in Tokyo, and God bless you."

The Tokyo trip was in June of 1993; is that correct?

A I believe so.

Q And was a trip the President went on?

A Yes.

Q Do you know were there any trade issues that you were working on in that trip in 1993?

Mr. Ballen. I'm going to object as to relevancy whether Mr. Lindsey was working on trade issues. It is far afield from the campaign finance investigation we're supposed to be conducting.

The Witness. Do you still want me to answer?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Yes.

A He's absolutely correct. I didn't work on trade issues. So if you're asking me whether there were any trade issues that I was working on, the answer is, no. If you're asking whether there were trade issues the White House was working on ­­ I take that back, there is a trade issue I work on now. But I didn't at the time. If you're asking whether or not there were trade issues the White House worked on, I have no idea.

And I'm trying to remember what the purpose of the Tokyo trip was. I'm having trouble even doing that. It may have been a G­7 meeting.

Q In the spring of 1993, were you aware of anyone from the Riady family expressing their views on trade issues to anybody at the White House?

A No.

Q So you were not aware of Mr. Mochtar Riady or James Riady writing to the President regarding any trade issues regarding MFN or Vietnam or anything like that?

A Not at the time, no. I've seen the letter again ­­ after all this came out, I saw the letter that Mochtar Riady wrote the President, but I was not aware of it at the time.

Q And that letter was regarding trade issues; is that right?

A I don't recall.

Q When did you first meet either James or Mochtar Riady?

Mr. Ballen. Excuse me. I'm going to note, for the record, Mr. Bossie of the Majority staff has entered the room.

Mr. Murphy. I was going to object and say that's a compound question.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Have you ever met Mochtar Riady?

A Yes.

Q When did you first meet him?

A First and only time I met him was in Indonesia.

Q And when was that?

A November of '94.

Q And that's the only time that you ever met Mochtar Riady?

A That I recall, yes.

Q When did you first meet James Riady?

A Don't know. The first time I recall meeting him I believe was probably in the campaign of '92. Though, it is possible that I was introduced to him at some point in Arkansas when he was there. Though, I had no dealings with him. It would have simply been that he and I were at the same spot at some point and someone introduced us. I don't recall that, but it certainly would be possible.

Q Were you aware of the Riadys donating large amounts of money to the DNC in 1992? Did there come a time when you learned that they had made large contributions to the DNC?

A I don't quite know what you mean by "large contributions." I knew that the Riadys were supporters of the President. Now, you know, I had ­­

Q Hundreds of thousands of dollars?

A Again, I had nothing to do with the DNC in 1992, so I wouldn't have known who contributed to the DNC in 1992. And whether I ­­ you know, I mean, whether I've seen stories about how much they contributed over the years to the DNC or to other Democratic groups, it would all be from probably newspaper and those sorts of articles, not from personal knowledge.

Q So, in 1992 or 1993, you didn't have any knowledge of the Riadys having contributed to the President's campaign?

A Again, I knew they were supporters of the President. And to the extent that ­­ I would assume, to the extent that they could, they would have contributed to the campaign. But of course, that's a fairly limited amount that you can contribute to a Federal campaign, and it is only in the primary.

Q Did you have any knowledge of them contributing to State parties?

A No.

Q Did you have any knowledge of them making large contributions to the Arkansas Democratic party in 1992?

A I don't think so.

Q So this document, which I'll mark as Deposition Exhibit Number 1, the Lippo Group note from Mr. Riady, you have no recollection of what this is about?

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­1

was marked for identification.]

Mr. Ballen. I'm going to object. That's the third time the witness has been asked the same question. He's testified three times already he has no recollection. I doubt his answer is going to change on the fourth time.

Mr. Murphy. I'll join in that objection. Is this a copy we can keep?

Ms. Comstock. No. Actually, our documents we have to keep.

Mr. Murphy. I don't get a copy? I object.

Ms. Comstock. This is a document from the DNC, which was a memo to Chairman Wilhelm from Vida Benavides regarding an APA Must Place List. It is an Asian­Pacific American must place list. It is Bates­stamped F 31769 through 71.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you recall ever seeing any list such as this in the Personnel Office?

A No.

Q And directing your attention to the second page, the Commerce Department lists John Huang as a DAS for Asia, Shan Thever serve as a DAS for Africa, and T.S. Chung for export/import.

Do you recall any of those individuals being discussed as "must hires" in the Personnel Office?

A No. I mean, I don't recall anybody being discussed as a "must hire." The fact of the matter is, again, I was not ­­ the way the process worked was that social directors would cull the various lists when there was a position, meet with others, meet with groups, they would formulate a recommendation, which would work its way ultimately to me, and I would receive a decision memo.

If it was a DAS, which would be not a Senate­confirmed position, then I would sign off on the memo. If it was an assistant secretary, a deputy secretary, an under secretary position, or one that required Senate confirmation, if I concurred, I would forward it to the President and the President would have to sign off on it.

But I would not be involved in any, if you will, sort of internal vetting and discussion of the candidates. That would all be done by the associate directors before it ever would get to either the deputies or to me.

Q What was your understanding of how that process worked for John Huang?

A Same way I just described. Again, most of this is after the fact, listening to Gary Christopherson's testimony, but that he met with a group of people to discuss various positions and John's name came up, that they considered him to be qualified; that on the one position they offered him ­­ you know, there are other positions he was considered for that he did not get ­­ that on the position that he ultimately took that they had made a recommendation, that that recommendation went to me, that, according to Gary, I concurred in it. We had a problem with the timing and it was delayed, and ultimately Phil later signed off on it because it was delayed until after I left Personnel Operation.

Mr. Ballen. Mr. Lindsey, is this in your own personal recollection?

The Witness. No, this is none of my recollection. This is Gary Christopherson's testimony.

Mr. Ballen. Well, I think the committee is capable of looking at someone else's testimony, and I think both Majority and Minority counsel would like to ask you to restrict your testimony to your own personal knowledge.

Ms. Comstock. Well, he's explaining whose knowledge it is. So I think that's clear from the record that we did in opening ask you for any knowledge of this.

Mr. Ballen. What is the point of the preamble, then, which tells him that he should not speculate?

Ms. Comstock. The preamble discusses what the basis of his knowledge is, what he's telling us.

Mr. Ballen. I'm going to object to any recounting by the witness of newspaper articles, testimony of other people, or anything along those lines. The witness is here to testify as to his own personal knowledge and recollection. We're perfectly capable of reading the newspapers ourselves.

Ms. Comstock. Well, it is also of some assistance that the witness does not dispute cross accounts. So even though he is indicating he doesn't recall these things, he doesn't dispute or deny that things occurred, which is of some assistance to the committee in determining how these matters occur.

Mr. Ballen. But he doesn't recall them, so to ask him to recount someone else's testimony, I think, is unfair to the witness and unfair to the members of the committee.

Mr. Murphy. Let's move on. Mr. Lindsey, in the future I think if you're going to testify about something that you only know from having seen someone else's testimony or read something in the newspaper and the like, just let us know that right at the start.

The Witness. I thought I had, but okay.

Mr. Murphy. I thought you had, too.

Ms. Comstock. I think he did.

I will make this APA must place list Deposition Exhibit Number 2.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­2

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q This is a document from the White House, EOP 48876 through 77, which is an Asian Pacific American Must Consider Recommendations to the Clinton Administration, submitted by Doris Matsui, with Maria Haley and Melinda Yee. Melinda Yee's name is on the second page as well as John Huang's.

Do you recall in general discussing John Huang with any of these individuals, Doris Matsui, or actually I want to go through each individual. Do you recall discussing John Huang with Doris Matsui?

A No.

Q Or with Maria Haley?

A No.

Q Or with Melinda Yee?

A No.

Q It was your understanding Melinda Yee was working in the Personnel Division, that she would have been one of these persons who was working on preparing the material for somebody such as Mr. Huang?

A I don't understand that question.

Q When you had previously testified that there were others of your staff beneath you that were putting together the material and you weren't involved in some of the details, was Melinda Yee one of the people?

Mr. Murphy. I think he said one of the people involved in putting together lists of people to be considered for positions.

It was your understanding that Melinda Yee was one of those people involved in putting together lists of people?

The Witness. Well, I don't recall Melinda Yee's position was within the personnel operation. I don't remember whether she had her own agencies and departments or whether she worked under one of the associate directors who had an agency or department. So, again, you know, I think I knew that Melinda Yee was involved in Asian outreach and therefore would help to identify Asian­Americans for consideration. But whether or not she did that in addition to having specific departments and agencies that she was responsible for, I don't recall.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q And the same question for Maria Haley. Do you recall if she was involved with preparing lists?

A Again, Maria Haley had, I do know, had specific departments and agencies that she was responsible for, and therefore she was responsible for making recommendations ultimately to me and to the President with respect to her agencies and departments. You know, she also being Asian­American was concerned about Asian­American outreach and so I assume she also helped identify qualified Asian­American candidates.

Q Do you recall having any conversations with her about John Huang?

A You asked me that. No.

Q Make that deposition Exhibit Number 3.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­3

was marked for identification.]

The Witness. Just in order would reflect ­­ you asked me earlier whether Melinda Yee was there before I was and this would reflect she was.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q This is an August 27th, 1993, memo to John Emerson from David Wilhelm regarding Asian Pacific American administration appointments. And attached to it is a list of Asian Pacific Americans who are interested in being considered for positions with the administration. And I believe Mr. Wilhelm asks that a staff person contact Martha Phipps, who was a staffer in his office, with the status of the applications of the various people who are listed on here.

Were you aware of John Emerson ever talking to anyone at the DNC about any of the people on this list, if you'd like to take a chance to review it?

A Again, the answer is do I know that he did? The answer to that is, no, I did not. Would I expect that he would be involved partially because of what his position was with talking to all sorts of groups about all sorts of people? The answer is probably. But I don't know that I ever knew he talked specifically to the DNC about any personnel matter.

Q And directing your attention to the last page of the document, which is F 31768, it mentions John Huang and it mentions that he is a DNC trustee and major fund­raiser. Did you often get recommendations that indicated that people were trustees or major fund­raisers?

A I have no idea. Again, I don't know if I ever got ­­ I don't think I ever got this document so, you know.

Q I'm just wondering in general, if you recall, getting recommendations that included the people who were DNC trustees or major fund­raisers?

A Again, if you're asking me whether I can recall specifically, the answer is, no. Would I expect someone to reflect if he was a DNC trustee or a major fund­raiser either on a resume or in a letter, yes, I would think that if that was part of their background and involvement in the Democratic Party and involvement in the Presidential election, that that ­­ that they would reflect that.

Do I recall specifically? Can I tell you any person that I remember seeing that on? The answer is, no.

Q And it also indicates here that under John Huang, it says, quote, "needs extra push for Deputy Assistant Secretary position for the East Asia and Pacific." Do you recall any discussion of John Huang needing an extra push or anything like that?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge on or around the summer of '93 of there being any reluctance to hire Mr. Huang at the Commerce Department?

Mr. Murphy. At the Commerce Department?

Ms. Comstock. Or hiring him for a position in the administration in general?

Mr. Murphy. Are you asking about any reluctance on the parts of anybody?

Ms. Comstock. Yes. It says he ­­ I'm just wondering if in general if you recall any reluctance to give him a position?

The Witness. Specifically to John Huang, no.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Did there come a time when you became aware that there were people at the Commerce Department who didn't feel that Mr. Huang was qualified for the positions he was being considered for?

A At the time? No.

Q Did you ever talk to Martha Phipps at the DNC about any of the individuals listed on this memo?

A I doubt it. No, I mean not that I recall.

Q Were you involved in the appointment of March Fong Eu?

A To ambassador?

Q Yes.

A Yes.

Q Could you just tell us who had recommended March Fong Eu for this position?

A I have no idea. I mean, you know, she was again either recommended to me or was on a list. Most of the people who got to be ambassadors were sort of self­suggested. They would contact us and indicate that they would like to be considered to be an ambassador, and they would indicate to us sort of where they would be interested in serving. You know, we would then review the list of ambassadorial appointments and make a judgment as to, you know, who we would recommend or who the President would recommend for the various embassies.

Q Were you aware of March Fong Eu being involved in fund­raising in 1992?

A I know that March Fong Eu was a supporter of ours in California. Whether or not it was fund­raising or political support, I don't think I knew.

Q I'll make that deposition Exhibit Number 4.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­4

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q This is EOP 004234 through 36, which is a memo to Jan Piercy and John Emerson, which I believe you indicated were Deputies at that time, from Maria Haley regarding Asian Pacific Americans. It is a March 11th memo and it is cced to you and then it is attached to a March 10th, 1993, memo to Maria Haley from Melinda Yee.

Do you recall receiving this memo?

A No.

Q I'm directing your attention to the last page. John Huang is listed on here. And on page 4235, the second page of the document, the memo to Maria Haley from Melinda Yee, reads "Per your conversation with John Emerson and Jan Piercy on March 2, the following Asian Pacific Americans were extremely helpful, dedicated and involved during the campaign and/or transition." It says, "All are sponsored internally by Doris Matsui, you, and me."

Does that refresh your recollection as to who may have recommended John Huang to you?

A You showed me the November '92 document. I mean I have no recollection other than you just showed me a document that showed that Doris Matsui, Maria Haley and Melinda Yee recommended John Huang plus ­­

Q But this document in particular, it was cced to you?

A No, I don't recall seeing this document.

Q Okay. And then directing your attention back to the last page where it mentions John Huang. It mentions he is currently Vice Chair of Lippo Bank. It says, "met in meetings with BC several times." I'm assuming BC is Bill Clinton. And then it says, "close to many Senators and Members of Congress and co­host of Asian Pacific American fund­raiser during campaign in Los Angeles."

Did you have any knowledge about John Huang being in meetings with the President? And this is any time prior to this March 11th, '93 memo.

A You know, yeah. I don't know if I have specific knowledge of John Huang being there. We had tons of meetings in California with Californian supporters all during the '92 campaign, and do I think John Huang probably attended some of those meetings? Yes.

Do I recall him attending them? No. But you know, I found it, you know, I had ­­ I would believe that he probably ­­ he was a supporter of ours and I would believe that he did attend meetings we held in California throughout the '92 campaign.

Q Do you recall when you first met John Huang?

A I think I first met John Huang in the '92 campaign.

Q And at that time did you have knowledge of the President being a long­time friend of John Huang?

A I'm not sure I have ­­ a long­time friend is not the way I probably would do it. The answer probably is, no. But I mean I'm not sure that I would characterize Clinton's relationship with John Huang prior to that as being friend as opposed to acquaintance. But the answer is I probably did not know about the President's relationship either way with John Huang at that time.

Q Well I'm using the President's words, actually, on July 22nd, 1996. At a fund­raiser, the President had described Mr. Huang as "my long­time friend." I think "my long­time, good friend, John Huang." Do you have any reason to dispute the President's description of his long­time friendship with Mr. Huang?

Mr. Murphy. Objection. When did the President say ­­

The Witness. Ninety­six.

Ms. Comstock. Ninety­six. It was "long­time friend."

Mr. Ballen. I think that is a very unfair question. The President makes a statement in a fund­raiser about someone and now you're going to ask the witness does he dispute the President's characterization.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you have knowledge that the President was friends with him before '92 or long­time friends between '96 and back to '92?

A Again, you're asking me whether I knew in 1992 that they were long­time friends. I said I would have some question as to whether or not that would describe the relationship before 1992. I don't think using ­­ again, I don't think using a quote in '96, 4 years later to describe the relationship at that time would necessarily describe the relationship prior to 1992. But the answer is, you know, in 1996, would I believe that Bill Clinton and John Huang were friends? Yes. In 1992, did I know that Bill Clinton and John Huang were long­time friends? The answer is, no.

Q Did something happen between '92 and '96 to make you think that they were long­time friends?

A Four years in which I knew they had a relationship transpired.

Q And what was that relationship, well, he appointed him in 1993. In 1995, he indicated he wanted to go to the DNC. He went to the DNC. He was involved with much of the campaign fund­raising, and in the first half of 1996 a lot happened between 1992 and '96 that would allow an acquaintanceship to Bill, a friendship.

Q Okay. And could you just describe generally the growing friendship, then, of Mr. Huang with the President between '92 and '96?

A I just did, I thought. I mean, you know, at least from my point of view, I saw the President and John Huang interact ­­ I saw them interact none prior to 1992. I saw them interact, you know, on six or seven occasions between 1992 and June or July or August of 1996. So if you're asking, you know, you know, I don't know how many times they had met or seen each other prior to 1992.

I think I met John Huang for the first time in 1992. I knew he worked with the Riadys. I knew the Riadys had a relationship with Arkansas. But beyond that, I didn't know much or anything about Bill Clinton's relationship with John Huang.

Mr. Ballen. Mr. Lindsey, during the time from 1992 to '96, was John Huang a close personal advisor or close policy advisor to the President of the United States?

The Witness. No. No. Again, he probably saw him, y'all have the records better than I, three or four or five times in the first 3 years of that 4­year period, and in the fourth year to the extent that he was involved in fund­raising activities and the President attended fund­raisers, they probably saw each other more. But as a policy advisor during any of that period, I don't believe John was a policy adviser.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Were you aware of Mr. Huang being involved with a group called APAC, Asian Pacific Advisory Council?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge about APAC fund­raising in 1992?

A No.

Q Do you know a woman named Nora Lum?

A I know who she is. You ­­ they, I don't know her. I may have met her on occasion, but I don't know her.

Q Do you recall meeting with her?

A No.

Q Do you recall her meeting with you in the spring of 1993?

A No.

Mr. Murphy. Isn't that the same question?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q So you have no recollection of any of the ­­

A I know that she attended a meeting with other people in the Asian Pacific American community that was, you know, that may have been with me, they may not have been with me that I may have had John Emerson go to in my place. If I went, then I met her, I assume, if she was in that meeting.

Do I recall Nora Lum versus anybody else in that meeting? The answer to that is, no. I don't even recall the meeting.

Ms. Comstock. I'd like to make this March 11th, 1993, memo Deposition Exhibit Number 5.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­5

was marked for identification.]

Ms. Comstock. And this is EOP 2153 through 154. It is an April 19, 1993, memo to the President through Bruce Lindsey from Gil Colon and Maria Haley, and the subject is Associate Deputy Administrator for Business Development at the Small Business Administration, and it is discussing a position for Mary Leslie.

In paragraph number 2 it notes that it should be noted that there is another qualified candidate for this position, Mr. John Huang.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you recall this memo?

A No.

Q You mentioned previously that memos to the President only went on certain levels of appointment; is that correct?

A Correct.

Q And they would stop, though, with you before they went on to the President. Would that be ­­ if Gil Colon and Maria Haley wrote this memo to the President without you having reviewed it before it went on to the President?

A Yes.

Q Okay. But you don't recall ever reviewing this?

A No.

Q Do you recall being involved in Mary Leslie's selection?

A No. I mean, you know, I knew Mary Leslie. I knew Erskin wanted Mary Leslie to be at the SBA. Whether I recall this memo or anything, Erskin was the designated head of the SBA and Mary Leslie was his choice, and I would not have opposed that. I would have been inclined to give him who he wanted.

Q We were just discussing Nora Lum, whom you said you didn't know. Do you recall when Gil Colon, I guess, left the Personnel Office, did he go to the Commerce Department to work?

Mr. Murphy. Objection to the preface of that question. What does Ms. Lum have to do with the question?

Ms. Comstock. We'll get to that in a moment.

Mr. Murphy. Why don't you just ask the question. The question is whether Mr. Colon went where?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you know if Mr. Colon was going to work for Nora Lum at Dynamic Energy?

A No.

Q Do you know when Mr. Colon did, indeed, leave the Personnel Office?

A At some point, yes.

Q Do you recall him telling you where he was going to work?

A No. I thought Gil Colon went to the Minority Business Section of, maybe, Commerce.

Q And did you have ­­ did you keep in touch with him when he went there?

A I don't think so.

Q Do you know of anyone in your office keeping in touch with him?

A No.

Q Do you know of anyone in your office keeping in touch with him when he was at Dynamic Energy.

A I don't think that he was ever at Dynamic Energy.

Q But you have no knowledge of anybody in the Personnel Office communicating with Gil Colon?

A I left the Personnel Office in November of '93. Are you telling me he went to Dynamic Energy before then?

Q I'm asking if you have any knowledge.

A You asked me whether anybody in the Personnel Office ­­ I wasn't in the Personnel Office. You said in my office. And the answer ­­

Q No, he went there after November of '93.

A Then if he kept in touch with someone in the Personnel Office, they were not in my office.

Q Did you have any reason to keep in touch with Mr. Colon?

A No.

Mr. Murphy. Can we take a break?

Ms. Comstock. Yes. Before we go off the record, why don't we make this April 18, 1993, memo Deposition Exhibit Number 6.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­6

was marked for identification.]

[Recess.]

RPTS MAZUR

DCMN HERZFELD

[11:00 a.m.]

Ms. Comstock. We're back on the record.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q This is a document from the White House that was prepared ­­ I believe the Counsel's Office by someone, which goes through Nora Lum's WAVEs into the White House, and it's ­­ directing your attention to March 8, 1993. It has ­­ it lists your name there.

Mr. Ballen. Excuse me, counsel, could I ask the origins of this document?

Ms. Comstock. It's from the White House.

Mr. Ballen. Do we know who prepared it, because usually WAVE records come in a computer printout.

Ms. Comstock. I think we have theirs also, but this was Counsel's Office had prepared these various versions.

Mr. Ballen. So it could be a draft. We don't know the accuracy, do we?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you recognize the handwriting?

A No.

Q Okay. But you do not recall that meeting with Nora Lum in March 1993 other than what you testified to?

A Correct.

Q And then on March 23 ­­ it lists Haley there. Do you have knowledge of Nora Lum meeting with Maria Haley?

A No.

Q And then on March 29 it lists Yee. Do you have any knowledge of Nora Lum meeting with Melinda Yee?

A No.

Q And then there are a number of other visits with Melinda Yee. You don't have any knowledge of Nora Lum ever meeting with Melinda Yee?

A No.

Q You had said you thought you met John Huang in 1992. Do you recall where you met him?

A No.

Q Do you recall generally if you met him in California?

A No. I mean, I don't recall. I mean, he worked in California so that it would be logical, but I don't recall.

Q Okay, so you have no general recollection of how or where you met John Huang?

A No. And I say '92, it could have been '91. It was the '92 campaign, but it could have been sometime after we began campaigning for the Presidency in October of 1991.

Q And is there a time when you met with John Huang that you recall the meeting?

A No, I don't think I ever met with John Huang individually, I mean, so, you know, again­­

Mr. Murphy. You mean during the campaign?

The Witness. I only met with him, I think, once, frankly. Um ­­ maybe once, maybe twice, period; but I don't remember any time during the campaign meeting with him specifically.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Okay, and what are the one or two meetings that you recall meeting with him?

A Yes, I mean, obviously one of them was the meeting with the President in whatever the year was ­­ what was it? October of '95?

Q So you were at the September 13, 1995 meeting with James Riady and Mr. Giroir and the President?

A Right, and John Huang.

Q And that was September 13 ­­

A September 13, 1995.

Q And we'll return to that later.

A Yeah, but I'm trying to ­­ that may be the only time I ever met, you know, with John that I recall.

Q Okay.

A Oh. I take that back. I met with him 3 days, 2 days later in my office to follow up on that meeting.

Q On September 15, 1995?

A Whatever. You know the date better than I do, whatever the date is.

Q All right, okay. But you had no ­­ would it assist your recollection on Nora Lum for me to tell you that Gil Colon, John Huang and Melinda Yee and Maria Haley all had done some work with APEC in California in 1992?

A No. I mean, help me. In what way?

Q Just wondering if that could help assist you in placing when you may have met any of these people, because all of they these people worked in California on APEC in 1992, and a number of them, Melinda Yee and Maria Haley and Gil Colon all end up in the Personnel Office in your office, and then one of the people they recommend is John Huang, who was somebody who also worked in there, and then Nora Lum is coming in for meetings with these various people. I'm wondering if­­

A Sounds like they all had a relationship with each other.

Q But you had no knowledge of those relationships?

A No. I mean, you know, we did events in the Asian community, you know, in California. Again, you know, whether ­­ you know, whether John was at those events or not ­­ you're asking me whether I recall whether he was at those events. I don't recall. Was he probably at some or all of those events? The answer probably is yes, but if you're asking me whether I recall seeing him, talking with him, and having a specific memory of it, the answer is no.

Q Did Ron Brown ever talk to you about John Huang?

A I don't think so. Not that I recall.

Ms. Comstock. Mark this Deposition Exhibit Number 7, Nora Lum, chronology of visits.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­7

was marked for identification.]

Mr. Ballen. Purported chronology of visits, because I object to ­­ we have the actual WAVEs records. We should be introducing those into evidence rather than ­­

Ms. Comstock. I'll be happy to get those for the record also.

Mr. Ballen. That would be preferable.

Ms. Comstock. Apparently we're not ­­ we just have these summaries from the White House.

It is a White House document.

Mr. Murphy. It's got an EOP stamp on it.

Ms. Comstock. Yes.

Mr. Murphy. So unless somebody else is stamping things EOP, it ­­

Ms. Comstock. No.

Mr. Murphy. ­­ came from the White House.

Ms. Comstock. You're correct.

Mr. Ballen. ­­ announce that for the record I'm going to note that the Secret Service provides­­

Ms. Comstock. They don't provide us with WAVE records, they provide us with exits and entrances, and at that time the Secret Service in 1993 and 1994 did not do exits and entrances for visitors. That did not begin until June of 1995. So the Secret Service is not able to provide us with any of Nora Lum's visits prior to 19 ­­ the summer or thereabouts of 1995.

Mr. Murphy. Is there a question coming?

Ms. Comstock. I'm just correcting the record.

I'm showing the witness a letter to James Riady from Vernon Weaver, which is HHH 3958.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q It's a May 19, 1993 letter from Vernon Weaver to James Riady, and directing your attention to the second paragraph, it says, "We have heard nothing from the White House yet on the Indonesian appointment, although we are keeping up the pressure."

Do you have any knowledge of Vernon Weaver talking to you about any appointments ­­ any Indonesian appointments?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge about any interests that the Riadys had in any Indonesian appointments in 1993?

A Do I now have knowledge?

Q Did you then, and then I'll ­­

A The answer is no.

Q Do you now have knowledge of the Riadys having interest in Indonesian appointments?

A Appointments, no.

I'm sorry, when you say, do I now have knowledge what were you ­­ you said "appointments" with an S. I believe this refers to them trying to get a meeting with the President and the President of Indonesia.

Q This is regarding the meeting with Suharto and the recommendation for the meeting with Suharto ­­

A If I was reading this, that's what I would read in that, not personnel appointments. But again, it's just from reading it. It's the way it's written, it's what the words are. I don't think it has anything to do with personnel appointments.

Q And were you aware of them putting some pressure for the President to meet with Suharto?

A Was I then? No.

Q And when did you learn that they did?

A I don't know that they did. I know that there's an issue. As to whether they raised it with the President, that I've learned in the last 6, 7 months.

Q But you had no knowledge of it then?

A No.

Q And what is your knowledge of it now, just what you've read in the paper; is that what you're suggesting?

A Yes.

Q Have you discussed that with anybody at the White House?

A No. Within the Counsel's Office maybe.

Q And who have you discussed that with?

A You know, probably everybody in trying to pull together whatever documents we had with respect to, you know, whether or not they saw the President, what they talked to the President about, you know, all in response to your all's subpoenas.

Q And what did you learn about the attempts of the Riadys to meet with the President or get ­­

A I didn't learn anything about the attempts. I learned that there was a photo op at some time prior to us going to Tokyo, and there was a question as to whether or not ­­ during that photo op they raised with the President whether or not he was going to meet with Suharto. I think I've read the President has indicated that if he met with them before that, he thinks that they may have, although he doesn't recall, and, you know, everything I know has basically come from the newspapers.

Q Have you ever discussed this with the President?

A No.

Q You've never discussed any of the meetings the President had with the Riadys with the President?

A I was in two of them, but, you know, I don't know if I ever discussed independently of being there other than, you know ­­ but, you know, I don't know that I've ever discussed with the President because I wasn't there, and my understanding is he doesn't recall whether or not he ­­ whether the Riadys mentioned to him meeting with Suharto.

Q But I'm asking you about this April photo op and then the Suharto discussion, if you've ever discussed that with the President.

Mr. Murphy. Objection.

Do you want to answer that?

The Witness. I think ­­ you know ­­

Mr. Murphy. I think that's a privileged communication. To the extent that Mr. Lindsey had a conversation with the President, it's privileged.

Ms. Comstock. Would you like to consult with the White House on that?

Mr. Murphy. Well, they're not here.

Ms. Comstock. Have you talked with ­­ I mean, is that a position of the Counsel's Office that the President wants to claim executive privilege over conversations that you had with him about discussions with the President involving Mr. Riady?

The Witness. I don't know what the White House position is on that.

Ms. Comstock. Well, I'm not ­­ the White House hasn't informed us that they were intending to claim executive privilege over any conversations that the President had about Mr. Riady. If we could ­­ if you would like to call Mr. Ruff and clarify that for the record ­­

The Witness. Do you want us to do it now?

Ms. Comstock. ­­ because there might be other questions as we go along. So we can go off the record.

[Discussion off the record.]

Ms. Comstock. Go back on the record.

Mr. Lindsey has called Chuck Ruff, the White House counsel, while we were off the record.

The Witness. Right. And Mr. Ruff informs me ­­ he says that these sorts of conversations give rise to serious executive privilege concerns; that at this time I should not respond, and that he will be happy to discuss it with you after the deposition.

Mr. Murphy. Well, given that advice from White House counsel, Mr. Lindsey is not free to answer the question.

Ms. Comstock. Okay. I would ask that the reporter please mark the question and the instruction to this witness and prepare an index of the page at which each instruction is given to this witness not to answer such questions, because we will have other questions about any discussions you had with the President about Mr. Riady or Mr. Huang.

Ms. Comstock. Could we take a break for just a minute?

[Discussion off the record.]

Mr. Murphy. After consulting with Mr. Lindsey, let me just inform you that it's my understanding that the conversation with the President to which Mr. Lindsey made brief reference was a conversation in anticipation of an interview with the New York Times about the subject that you were inquiring about. And Mr. Lindsey, I think, would be free to say that what Mr. Clinton had to say about this subject to the New York Times was consistent with what Mr. Lindsey and the President discussed in advance of the New York Times interview.

We don't have any problem with Mr. Lindsey talking about things that the President disclosed to the New York Times, obviously. So if it sort of short­circuits a major constitutional crisis here, we can do that by Mr. Lindsey confirming that what the President recalled as he recalled it to the New York Times about the subject of the Suharto meeting or the efforts on the part of the Riadys to have President Clinton agree to meet with Suharto ­­ basically Mr. Lindsey would say that what the President said to the New York Times about that subject is consistent with what the President also told Mr. Lindsey about that subject.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Okay. Well, why don't we skip the New York Times as the middleman now, and if you could just tell me what the President had said to you?

Mr. Murphy. I don't want Mr. Lindsey to do that because I think it's important that we recognize that the reason why Mr. Lindsey may be free to talk about the subject is because it's a subject that the President has disclosed to the public.

Mr. Ballen. And I also like to put on the record the Minority's view on this, which is that had White House counsel been permitted to be in this deposition, we could work ­­ as they were in the Senate depositions, we could work out these issues of executive privilege to everyone's satisfaction without taking long breaks. And I think that's unfortunate that White House counsel is not here ­­

Ms. Comstock. I don't think we had to take a long break at all. Mr. Lindsey was able to reach Chuck Ruff very quickly.

Mr. Ballen. It took 10 minutes.

Ms. Comstock. It wasn't ­­ we did not take a break for that issue.

Mr. Murphy. Well, be that as it may, Mr. Lindsey was able to reach Mr. Ruff quickly, which is fortunate, but in any event, I've told you what I told you, and if you want to follow up on that, you're free to do so.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q I'd like to ask you what the conversation was you had with the President prior to the New York Times article, if that's the conversation you had with the President?

A Again I'm not ­­ you know, I'm not prepared today to talk about a conversation I had with the President that arose after these issues, you know, came up and that I believe with ­­ in my role as a member of the Counsel's Office. I will say what Bill said, which is what he told me was consistent with what he told the New York Times.

Ms. Comstock. Okay. Well, I think we'll probably be returning to the New York Times article, but I would still ask the reporter to mark the question and instructions to this witness and to prepare an index at that page so that we can return to that at a later date or time.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Is that the only such conversation you had with the President ­­ this conversation prior to the New York Times article, is that the only conversation you had about the April meeting ­­

A Yes.

Q ­­ that the President had with the Riadys?

A Again, I don't know if I could characterize it as a meeting, but yes.

Q Okay. Returning to the May 19, 1993 letter, the second sentence in the second paragraph reads that "I believe that a decision should be made in the next 3 or 4 weeks so it may be time to get John Huang involved again."

Do you know what involvement John Huang had ­­

A No.

Q ­­ with the meeting regarding Suharto?

A No.

Q Or do you have any knowledge of John Huang being involved in any matters that the Riadys or the Stephens Group were trying to bring to the attention of the White House?

A No.

Mr. Ballen. Mr. Lindsey, have you ever seen this document before?

The Witness. No, sir.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Okay. Do you know Vernon Weaver?

A Yes.

Q How long have you known Mr. Weaver?

A Oh, I probably met him prior to 1993, but I don't think I really knew him until '94 or '95.

Q And how did you come to know him?

A Well, at one time we lived in a apartment at the Watergate, and he also had a apartment at the Watergate, and we were at the pool together.

Q Okay. And were you friendly with Mr. Weaver; do you go out on social occasions?

A I don't know that I've ever been at a social occasion with Mr. Weaver, so, you know, I mean, we were friendly, passing friendly, but not social friends.

Q And were you aware of his work with the Stephens Company?

A Yes.

Q And did he have occasion to visit the White House or discuss any matters with you about Stephens?

A Yeah, but I don't know the answer to the first part. The answer to the second part is no, he never discussed any matters with me.

Q Are you aware of him discussing any matters related to Stephens with anyone else at the White House?

A No.

Q Did you have any involvement in his appointment as Ambassador?

A No.

Ms. Comstock. Can I make this Deposition Exhibit Number 8?

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­8

was marked for identification.]

Mr. Ballen. What about the second page? There's two pages stapled together. So that's also part of the ­­

Ms. Comstock. The first page referred to the second page, so that's ­­ even though ­­ didn't question the witness about it.

Mr. Ballen. For the record sir, have you seen either of the pages of the exhibit?

The Witness. No, sir.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q September 23, 1993 letter to John Huang from March Fong Eu. And in it Miss March Fong Eu discusses that, White House sources have confirmed I have been nominated as United States Ambassador to Micronesia following routine clearances.

Can ­­ you previously said that you had been involved somewhat in March Fong Eu's appointment. Could you tell us what your involvement in that was?

A I was part of a group that met to discuss ambassadorial appointments.

Q Did you meet with March Fong Eu at any time?

A No.

Q Do you recall discussing her with the President?

A Do I recall specifically? No.

Q Do you have any general recollections of who you discussed her appointment with?

A Well, I'm sure that her appointment came up with the President as we were discussing who to a point. I don't recall specifically it coming up, but it would have had to come up as part of our discussions on ambassadorial appointments.

Q Okay, and directing your attention to the second paragraph she writes to Mr. Huang, "I want you to know how much I appreciate your support in this lengthy appointment process. I am truly honored to have had the benefit of your endorsement."

Are you aware of John Huang endorsing March Fong Eu or providing any recommendations to your office?

A No.

Q Did there come a time that you learned that March Fong Eu wanted to leave her post as Ambassador to Micronesia?

A I don't believe so.

Q Have you had any communication with March Fong Eu at all since her appointment?

A I don't believe so.

Q And you have no knowledge of her involvement in fund­raising in 1996?

A No.

Q Who was the working group on ambassadors?

A Secretary of State, the national security ­­ it was in '93. I don't know who it was this time ­­ Secretary of State, national security adviser, the Vice President, myself and the President.

Q And so that would have been the group that discussed this appointment?

A Would have discussed all ambassadorial appointments, yes.

Q And do you know who prepared ­­ who had done the preliminary work to prepare for this appointment ­­ who within the office would have done that?

A John Emerson, I think, had responsibility for ambassadorial appointments, so he would have prepared paperwork ­­

Q And were you aware of him being in touch with March Fong Eu or having meetings with her?

A No.

Ms. Comstock. Make that Deposition Exhibit Number 9.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­9

was marked for identification.].

The Witness. There may have been meetings in which John was also involved, and maybe Jan, frankly, were involved, also when we discussed ambassadors, but I'm not sure they attended most or all of the meetings. But there may have been at times when we were doing ambassadorial discussions John and/or Jan would have been there as well.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q And do you recall if there was any discussion of March Fong Eu having been a fund­raiser, raised funds for Clinton­Gore?

A I don't remember any discussion of March Fong Eu specifically at all, so the answer to that is no. Again, I knew she was a supporter of ours in California.

Q All right. This is an October 1993 memo I believe that you have previously referred to, was a memo for Bruce Lindsey from Gary Christopherson, Associate Director of Presidential Personnel, dated October 18, l993, and it was regarding John Huang being appointed Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asia and Pacific International Trade Administration at the Commerce Department.

You previously indicated you did not recall getting this memo from Mr. Christopherson; is that correct?

A That's correct.

Q And do you recognize the handwriting on the top of the memo?

A No.

Q All right. I believe the handwriting on the right says, "Check this with Bueno."

Do you recall someone named Bueno who was at the Counsel's Office who worked with your office on appointments?

A Vaguely.

Q Do you know what his job was?

A We had a whole group of people who vetted candidates. I assume he was one of the vetters.

Q Okay, and did Bill Kennedy at that time oversee that group of vetters in 1993?

A No.

Q Who did?

A We had two different groups, and I don't know which one. There was ­­ Personnel has their own vetting operation, and I can't remember who oversaw it; and the Counsel's Office had their own separate vetting operation that Bill Kennedy was over.

We did initial vetting within the Personnel Office prior to a person being selected. Once a person was selected, they then filled out a whole lot of forms, and those forms were given to the Counsel's Office, and the Counsel's Office then vetted the person after the fact. But again the initial vetting of people as we were making a decision were done by a separate vetting operation within the Personnel operation.

Q And who worked on that?

A Again, I can't recall.

Q Okay, but at this point when this memo ­­ this is getting to the point where the vetting has been done and this ­­ in your office and was now going to move on to Counsel's Office; isn't that correct?

A Do that in Counsel's Office after we check this.

Q Approve or disapprove?

A Approve or disapprove. We then give back, they send out all the forms to the candidate, the candidate fills out the forms, sends the forms back, and at that point the Counsel's Office vets the person before we actually nominate or appoint, depending on whether it's a nomination or appointment. So this would be prior to ­­

Q Mr. Kennedy is in charge of that vetting process ­­ the second ­­ in the Counsel's Office?

A Right, but there is no sign­off on this memo, so this would not have gone to the Kennedy vetting operation because we would not have sent Mr. Huang his forms.

Q Well, I understand, but I'm just asking in general the process. Once this was signed off on, it would have gone to Mr. Kennedy; isn't that correct?

A The forms would have gone to Mr. Kennedy's operation, yes.

Mr. Murphy. Clarify the record. Mr. Bueno; do you vaguely recall which operation was he?

The Witness. I think he was in our operation, not in Kennedy's operation.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Mr. Bueno you think may have been in the Personnel Office, not the Counsel's Office?

A I believe that's right,.

Q Is it Edgar or­­

A It's something like Edgar Bueno, I think, is in the Counsel's Office ­­ I may be wrong ­­ I mean, in the Personnel Office. I may be wrong, but I think he's in the Personnel Office.

Q One of the things it indicates there, it says, check this with Bueno, fund­raiser on December 4th.

Do you recall the issue of a fund­raiser holding up Mr. Huang's appointment?

A I don't recall anything about John's appointment or meeting with Gary or talking about any of this. Have I seen documents that suggested that that happened? Yes. But do I recall contemporaneous with October or November of '93? No.

Q And do you normally travel with the President when he goes to California?

A Yes.

Q And were you aware of a December 4th fund­raiser that was ­­ Creative Arts Agency fund­raiser? Do you remember being at one in California?

A I remember ­­ I don't remember the date. I remember is I came to a CAA fund­raiser, yeah.

Q And do you recall if John Huang had anything to do with that fund­raiser?

A I don't recall that, no.

Q Do you recall any fund­raisers that John Huang was involved in on that trip that involved the CAA fund­raiser?

A No. I mean, we did two fund­raisers that night. We did a CAA fund­raiser, and then we did a fund­raiser at somebody's house. Again, I don't remember John ­­ again, I wouldn't have known whether John was involved in the fund­raising or not. Whether I saw him there or not, I don't recall ­­ at either of the two fund­raisers.

Q It's your testimony that you have no recollection of anything having to do with Mr. Christopherson writing this memo ­­ or anything having to do with this December 4th date on here?

Mr. Ballen. I'm going to object. That's the fifth time now in the course of an hour and a half the witness has been asked the same thing.

Ms. Comstock. The witness hadn't looked at this document before today ­­ I mean ­­

Mr. Ballen. The witness has testified on five different questions, record speaks for itself.

Mr. Murphy. I think the witness has made it clear that other than hearing Mr. Christopherson testifying about this and seeing the memo, he has ­­

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Have you ever seen this memo before today?

A Yes.

Q So you have seen this memo, and you still have no recollection of December 4th or anything having to do with Mr. Huang's position being held up for a fund­raiser?

A I don't doubt that it happened. Do I remember a conversation with Gary or any discussion about it? The answer to that is no.

Ms. Comstock. I'd like that marked Deposition Exhibit Number 10.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­10

was marked for identification.]

Mr. Ballen. And for the record, whether or not the position was held up was not established by testimony from this witness.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:.

Q Okay. I'll just go through a few more documents that I guess you probably won't recall, but just look through them if you can.

Mr. Murphy. Don't anticipate.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Okay. December 4th, 1993, my understanding­­

Mr. Ballen. I'm going to object to that characterization. I think it's unfair, "You probably don't recall."

Ms. Comstock. The witness has indicated that he doesn't recall anything about John Huang, but I would like to go through a number of more documents to attempt to refresh his recollection.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q I don't know which documents you may or may not have seen in other depositions, so I will need to go through these, but I'm just trying to see if we can get any assistance here in refreshing your recollection on any matters related to John Huang's appointment.

Have you seen this December 4th memo?

A I don't recall ever seeing this one.

Q To you from Gary somebody?

A No, I don't recall seeing this until today.

Q Okay. So this is the first time you have seen this document.

Okay, and this document is an EOP 2126 document. It is a redacted document also, so I don't know what else is on here. It is a document from the White House, which reads, "The appointment of John Huang to this Commerce position is one we discussed in your office and agreed to proceed with in early December."

Does that refresh your recollection as to whether you talked with Mr. Christopherson about John Huang?

A No. My lawyer tells me I may have seen this in the Senate deposition, but I don't recall even seeing it in the Senate deposition. But no, it was not­­ nothing I've seen refreshes my recollection that it occurred. I don't remember the meeting.

Q Okay, and the letter also reads that both Presidential Personnel and the Department strongly recommend this appointment.

Do you know who in the Department of Commerce strongly supported Mr. Huang's appointment?

A No.

Ms. Comstock. Make that Deposition Exhibit Number 11.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­11

was marked for identification.].

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q This is a December 6 memo for Bruce Lindsey from Gary Christopherson, Associate Director Presidential Personnel, and from Eileen Parisi, who ­­ White House Liaison, Department of Commerce.

Can you tell us what Ms. Parisi's position ­­ what she did?

A Says White House Liaison, Department of Commerce.

Q And what did that involve?

A Well, the White House Liaison and all were sort of their link back to the White House and specifically, from my point of view, to the White House Personnel Office, so that they helped us identify positions that were available, they helped us understand what the qualifications were for the positions, and they helped us identify potential candidates for those positions.

Q Do you recall any conversations you had with Ms. Parisi about John Huang?

A I don't know if I know Eileen Parisi at all, and I was not in Personnel, by the way, on December 6, 1993.

Q Okay. Do you know why this memo is directed to you on December 6, 1993?

A No. I can speculate, but I don't know.

Q Okay. Do you know if you received it?

A No.

Q You don't know, or you didn't receive it?

A I don't know.

Q I believe ­­ this December 6th memo as well as the October 18 memo, which I understand you don't recollect, but do you recall there was a reference on both of them that Senator Paul Simon and Senator Conrad had supported Mr. Huang. Do you recall any vital communications you received from either of those Senators regarding Mr. Huang?

A No.

We received hundreds if not thousands of congressional recommendations for candidates, 99.9 percent of which I would never see.

Q Do you recall if anyone ever called you up there, made a phone call or anything, that left an impression on you from any congressional or Senate source?

A On behalf of John Huang?

Q Yes.

A No.

Ms. Comstock. Make this December 6 memo Deposition Exhibit Number 12.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­12

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q So by December of 1993, you had moved on to your next position at the White House; is that correct?

A Sort of. Was a position I held from January 20th on, so Personnel was added to what I was previously doing, and I gave up Personnel, just continued to do what I was ­­ my other responsibilities, which was senior adviser.

Q And that included traveling with the President?

A Well, I traveled throughout the whole time I was Personnel Director, too. I started out with the title Assistant to the President, senior adviser and Director of Presidential Personnel. It was intended that I would start out with the title Assistant to the President and senior adviser. As I indicated earlier, when we were unable to find someone to handle the personnel functions after Dick Riley was appointed Education Secretary, that was added to my portfolio. So in November after the Congress went home, I gave it up.

Q This is the March 25, 1994 memo to Beth Nolan from Maureen Lindsey, and I understand you are not in the Personnel Office at the time.

Mr. Ballen. Could the Minority have a copy, please?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you know who Maureen Lindsey is?

A No.

Q No relation?

A No relation.

Q Okay, and this memo is regarding the results of follow­up interview with John Huang, candidate for Deputy Assistant Secretary, East Asia and Pacific International Trade Administration, Commerce.

So you did not see this document?

A No.

Q Were you aware of any of the information about Mr. Huang that was relayed in this document at any time, in particular anything relating to deportation proceedings?

A No.

Q Okay, or anything relating to any tax problems?

A No.

Q So ­­ after you left the Personnel Office, do you recall ever hearing anything about John Huang again in terms of his position or his hiring at Commerce?

A No.

Ms. Comstock. Okay, make that Deposition Exhibit Number 13.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­13

was marked for identification.].

Q This is a document from the White House, EOP 10384 through 10401, which is titled "Memorandum for Prospective Appointees," from Bernard Nussbaum, counsel to the President. And then it has a data statement questionnaire attached to it, which John Huang has filled out and signed at the bottom, and it's dated 12­22­93.

Were there any transition duties that you had as ­­ when you left Personnel, were you still involved in any way with seeing any documents or anything in the December time frame?

A No.

Q Is this generally ­­ do you recall this form being something that was used when things moved on to the Counsel's Office after it had been approved in your office?

A Yes. Well, I knew they sent a form, and I probably have seen this packet not filled out by anyone, but I don't know of anyone in Personnel who saw ­­ I don't believe ­­ I don't know of anyone in Personnel who saw that information that came back came back to the Counsel's Office and not back to our office.

Q So if this form has a date of 12­22­93, and it's signed by John Huang, would this ­­ you would have filled this form out for the Counsel's Office by that date ­­ this wasn't something he filled out for your office?

A That's correct.

Q Or would have filled out for the Personnel Office?

A I believe this is something he would have filled out for the Counsel's Office. It's part of their vetting process.

Q And if he was filling out forms for the Counsel's Office, would that mean he would have been signed off for the Personnel Office at that point?

A He would have been ­­ yes, assuming that there's no vetting problems. That means he would have been signed off for by us ­­ signed off on by us.

Q And were you aware of any vetting problems about Mr. Huang?

A No.

Q In either the Personnel Office or the Counsel's Office?

A Again, I don't have any recollection. It is clear, at least from Mr. Christopherson's testimony, it would appear that he raised with me the possibility that he was doing this fund­raiser and whether we should move forward with an appointment while the fund­raiser was pending. Again, according to Gary, he and I had that discussion. I don't recall that discussion ­­ you know, if that is a, quote/unquote, vetting problem, then apparently I was familiar with it at the time.

Mr. Ballen. Are we going to mark this?

Ms. Comstock. No, not that exhibit.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q I think earlier we had discussed Mr. Riady coming back to meet with the President for a photo op in the spring of 1993. I believe the date actually was April 13, 1993, the records we've obtained from the White House. This is a phone message slip to Webb Hubbell from James Riady. It indicates that "Mr. Riady is at the OEOB. Please call."

Do you know who number 456­2684 was at that time?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of Riady making phone calls to Mr. Hubbell in this time frame ­­ spring of 1993?

A I think ­­ no, the answer to that is no.

Q I'm sorry, did you have anything you want to add to that?

A The question was did I know at the time that Mr. Riady was making phone calls to Mr. Hubbell? The answer is no.

Q Did there come a time that you learned that Mr. Riady did get in touch with Mr. Hubbell?

A I think there came a time in the last 6 months that I learned that this phone record existed and that Mr. Riady apparently called Mr. Hubbell from the OEOB.

Q Okay, but other than that?

A No.

Q You did not know ­­

A No.

Q ­­ about him making phone calls from the White House?

Mr. Ballen. For the record, how did you learn ­­

The Witness. I think you all probably leaked, the committee probably leaked, the phone records, and it was in the Washington Times.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Okay, this is GRO 1436, which are records of Mr. Hubbell's phone records that actually, I believe, were discussed at a public hearing in February of 1996 when Mr. Hubbell was asked about work with the Riadys.

A I don't think I knew ­­ I don't think I remembered it from that time frame. I mean ­­

Q These are documents that are available to a number of committees for several years.

A Okay.

Ms. Comstock. Mark that Deposition Exhibit Number 14.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­14

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q This is another phone record of Webb Hubbell's from 1993. Mr. Hubbell's ­­ received a call from James Riady and Mark Grobmyer. Do you know Mr. Grobmyer?

A Yes.

Q Do you have any knowledge of him working with Mr. Riady?

A In this time frame ­­ I'm not sure what this time frame is.

Q Actually ­­ these are '92 and '93. It doesn't have 1993 on the date, but we do have a complete set of these, and these are from 1993 ­­

A The answer to that, I think, is no.

Q Mr. Hubbell was not at the Justice Department in 1994?

A Right. The answer is I don't believe I knew Mark Grobmyer was working with Mr. Riady in 1993.

Q Okay. Did there come a time when you did learn that Mr. Grobmyer was working with Mr. Riady?

A Again, in the course of this investigation since, I've learned that Mr. Grobmyer either did or was trying to do some work with Mr. Riady.

Q You had no knowledge prior to that?

A I don't think so, no.

Mr. Ballen. Again, this is something you learned from press accounts?

The Witness. Yeah, probably, or congressional testimony, or something like that.

Ms. Comstock. Good morning, Congressman Waxman. At this time if you would like to ask any questions?

Mr. Waxman. I'll let you proceed. I want to hear how the tone is of this questioning, whether you're getting to the issues that are important, because I'm getting reports that a lot of these depositions are wandering in an unfocused way. But I'll sit in anyway.

Ms. Comstock. Thank you. If at any time you would like to ask questions, please let me know, and we'll stop and allow you to have the floor.

Mr. Waxman. Okay.

Ms. Comstock. Okay, make this Deposition Exhibit Number 15.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­15

was marked for identification.].

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Did there come a time when you learned that Mr. Hubbell was doing work for the Lippo Group after he left the Justice Department?

A I'm not sure what the answer to that is. There was a time that I was told that someone thought Mr. Hubbell was doing work for the Lippo Group or for the Riadys.

Q And who was that someone?

A It was probably Doug Buford.

Q And what did Mr. Buford tell you?

A Well, it related to the list of people to go to ­­ from Arkansas to go to Indonesia at the time that the President was going to Indonesia in November of 1994. I had been given a list that included a group of Arkansans and also included Mr. Hubbell's name on it. I believe I asked why Webb's name was on there, and I believe I was told that his name was on there because he was doing some work for him.

Q Okay, and who was Doug Buford?

A Doug Buford is a former law partner of mine with the firm of Wright, Lindsey and Jennings in Little Rock, Arkansas.

Q And does Mr. Buford also do work for the Lippo Group?

A Yes.

Q And what type of work does he do for them?

A I have no idea.

Q Do you know how long your former law firm has represented the Lippo Group?

A I believe since I left, but I don't know when they began to represent him.

Q And while you were there, you had no knowledge of the Lippo Group being represented by Wright, Lindsey and Jennings?

A I don't believe so. We did do work for Worthen Bank and Trust Company, and at one time the Riadys had an interest in Worthen Bank and Trust Company, but I don't believe that we ­­ I don't remember or recall our law firm doing work for either the Riadys directly or the Lippo Group while I was there.

Q So you yourself did not do any work for the Lippo Group at any time while you were at Wright, Lindsey and Jennings?

A Other than I did labor work for Worthen.

Q Okay, and this is a September 21, l994 memo to John Huang from Joe Hanna regarding the Arkansas delegation list.

Is this the list that you were referring to regarding the trip to Jakarta in November of '94?

A I don't believe so.

Q Okay. Have you ever seen this list before?

A I don't believe so.

Q Okay. This was produced to us by the White House. It's EOP 20112, and then there is another copy of it, which is also ­­ just attached here, which was 20359, both documents from the White House.

Do you recall John Huang giving you any such list?

A No, not to me. I believe I learned it through a memo from Marsha Scott.

Q You learned about the Arkansas delegation from a memo from Marsha Scott?

A I believe so, yes.

Q And could you tell us about that?

A I believe at some point Marsha Scott sent maybe Mack McLarty and I a memo indicating that there is going to be a group of Arkansans who were going to attend the Asian Pacific Economic Conference. Shortly thereafter Mack and I, maybe Marsha, met, decided, concluded, that we didn't think it was a good idea, and I took on the responsibility of trying to stop it. I called Doug Buford at some point asking what he knew about it. We talked about it. I told him I didn't think it was a good idea. He relayed that back to the Riadys, and in effect it was canceled.

Q The list that you saw from Marsha Scott, was that shorter or longer than this list?

A Shorter than this one.

Q Okay. Do you know how Marsha Scott had made up her list?

A No.

Q Do you know if she had talked to Mr. Buford.

A No, I doubt if she talked to Mr. Buford, but I don't know how she did it.

Q When she came to you, did you have any idea how she learned about this?

A No.

Q She never told you where the idea came from?

A If she did, I don't recall. But, I mean, she just had a list of people that she said were planning to ­­ Arkansans ­­ who were planning to attend the APEC conference. You know, how she got that list or how she learned about the list, I don't ­­

Q And what was her position at the time in the fall of '94?

A Probably still head of White House Correspondents, probably ­­ '94 ­­ oh, no, I don't know if she was still head of White House Correspondents then. She may have been in ­­ I don't know.

Q Okay. Do you know who had tasked her to work on this or how she got to work on it?

A I don't think anybody tasked her. I think what she was asking was to be a part of it. I think she wanted to go and sort of supervise the Arkansans who were going to be there. So I think it was her way of trying to include herself into the trip.

Q But you have no knowledge of how she heard about the trip?

A No.

Q I mean, heard about the Arkansas delegation?

A No.

Mr. Ballen. It's been asked and answered now three times.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you know whose handwriting is on this document?

A I'm not a handwriting expert.

Q I'm just wondering if you recognize the handwriting.

A I believe it's Mack's ­­ McLarty's.

Q Do you recall Mr. McLarty ever giving you a list or sharing a list with you of the Arkansas delegation?

A No, I had a meeting with Mr. McLarty in which we discussed Arkansans going. I don't remember him sharing a list with me.

Q And that meeting was with McLarty and Marsha Scott?

A I told you I didn't remember whether Marsha Scott was there. I knew it was Mike and I, and Marsha Scott may have ­­

Q Do you know if anybody else was present at that meeting?

A I don't recall ­­ no, could be, but I don't recall.

Q When ­­ you had said when you talked to Doug Buford, you told him it was a bad idea to have this list of people come?

A Yes.

Q And ­­

Mr. Ballen. Again for the record, not this list, but in terms of the exhibit before the witness ­­

Mr. Murphy. A group of Arkansans.

The Witness. Correct.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q And did you have a correction of the group that was going to be going, who it was?

A I believe on Marsha's memo there listed a group of people who were going or ­­ you know, at some point I had a list of people who were going, including ­­ people on this list, and it had Pryor on it, and it had the Governor on it, it had Grobmyer, it had a good number of the people who were on this list. But I don't think it had my wife's name on it, for example. You know.

Q And your wife is here as number 14; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Do you know why ­­ I mean, you said the list that you saw did include ­­ I'm sorry ­­ I don't think we have that of Marsha Scott's, do you?

A I don't have it.

Q We haven't seen it, so I don't know, so I'm sorry we're working off this one which we received from the White House. I'm not familiar with the one from Marsha Scott.

Do you know why, for example, Governor Tucker was included in this delegation?

Mr. Murphy. Objection. He doesn't even know who formulated the group.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Did you have any discussion about Mr. Tucker being ­­ Governor Tucker being included in the delegation?

A Yes, because ­­ no. I mean, I asked whether Mr. Tucker was going. I asked whether Senator Pryor was going. My attitude about the delegation was different if they were going to go. If they wanted to head a delegation of Arkansans to go to Indonesia, who am I to tell them they can't do that? I learned in talking with Mr. Buford that it was unlikely that either of them were going, you know, which again reinforced my view that this was not a good idea.

Q What was your understanding of who was going to go then, if it wasn't ­­

A I wrote a memo, and I went through ­­ you know, I don't have it, but I went through the people who we talked about and who we took off the list and who was still on the list.

Q This is an undated memo; is that the memo referred to?

A Yes.

Q And this is a memo to Mack McLarty and John Podesta from Bruce Lindsey ­­ is that your signature on the "from" line?

A Yes.

Q And it's re: Arkansas delegation to APEC.

So this was the memo that you were referring to?

A Yes.

You know, again, I had a list that when ­­ in talking with Doug and with John Tisdale, we ­­ you know, these people appeared to have a reason for being there, as I tried to explain, for the most part. The rest of the people did not seem to have a reason for going. I wasn't going to deny anybody the right to go to Indonesia if they had a legitimate reason for being there. I just didn't think that there should be a large delegation of Arkansans that the Riadys knew over there because they believed the President would like to see some, you know, friendly faces. And so these were the people who in the end had some reason, in my judgment, for being in Indonesia during the Conference.

RPTS JACKSON

DCMN PARKER

[12:10 p.m.].

Q And in this memo, you begin it saying, "I spoke with John Tisdale and Doug Buford."

Do you recall speaking with John Tisdale?

A I believe ­­ I think I called Doug. I think John was in the room and they put me on the conference line, speakerphone.

Q So Mr. Tisdale also was at Wright, Lindsey & Jennings?

A Yes.

Q And to your knowledge, does Mr. Tisdale also work on Lippo matters?

A I have no idea.

Q Do you know approximately when you wrote this memo? There is not a date on it?

A No. Obviously, it was before we went to Indonesia. But I don't know. I would say late October, but I don't know that for a fact.

Q Late sometime in October or late October 1994?

A Right.

Q Okay. This is for the November 9th Jakarta trip; is that correct?

A Right.

Q Do you know why you memo it to John Podesta?

A John may have been in this meeting that I had with Mack. Again, I don't know why.

Q Do you recall discussing this issue with Mr. Podesta at all?

A No, not in ­­ no. It doesn't mean I didn't. I just don't recall.

Q And is that Mr. ­­ I'm sorry, on the right­hand corner there, do you recognize the handwriting on the document?

A The "to Leon from McLarty"?

Q Yes.

A No, I don't.

Q Do you recognize the handwriting on the bottom of the page?

A That appears to be Mack's handwriting.

Q Okay.

Mr. Waxman. Counsel, I just want to observe that you asked a lot of questions pertaining to this memo before it was presented to Mr. Lindsey. Might this proceeding be a little bit more expeditious if you gave the document and then asked the questions about the document to Mr. Lindsey or any other witnesses have a chance to review it and respond to it?

Ms. Comstock. Well, I was asking about the previous memo and it became apparent that general sentence talked about this memo, and I provided it to him so we could discuss it. We were trying to establish this was a document that was in the White House, which apparently no one knows how it got in there, from Mr. Huang.

Why don't I go ahead and make this previous September 21st, 1994, memo Deposition Exhibit Number 16, and make Mr. Lindsey's memo Deposition Exhibit Number 17.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­16

was marked for identification.]

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­17

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q So the list of people that you have on this list ­­

Mr. Murphy. Exhibit 17.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q ­­ Exhibit 17, on your memo we're talking about now, is it your recollection that you got this from the list that Marsha Scott gave you, or did you independently come up with the list?

A I don't know ­­ in discussing with Doug who was going, we walked through all the people that they thought were going and I would ask, why is that person going, what is he doing, what role did he play, and in the end came up with ­­ I mean, you know, frankly Doug may have a broader list. But in the end, these were people that we ­­ I understood had a reason for being there other than just going.

Q The September 21st memo is from Joe Hanna. Do you know Joe Hanna?

A No.

Q Did you have any knowledge of Joe Hanna is an employee at Lippo. Does that assist you at all in recalling who Joe Hanna is?

A No, I don't know Joe Hanna.

Q And do you have any knowledge of Mr. Huang being in touch with Lippo employees in connection with the Jakarta APEC trip in the fall of 1994?

A No.

Q So you have no knowledge as to why Mr. Huang would be receiving a list from Mr. Hanna?

A No.

Q And the September 21st memo indicates it was prepared by James Riady and Joe Giroir.

When you talked with Mr. Buford, were you ­­ did he mention anything about Mr. Riady or Mr. Giroir working on a list?

A Well, I always understood it was a Riady list.

Q Because they were going to be paying for the delegation to go over there; is that correct?

A That's my understanding, yes.

Back up a little bit. There was a delegation from Arkansas that went to the '93 APEC conference in Seattle. It was headed by Jim Guy Tucker. The purpose of that delegation was to try to develop relations with some of these Asian countries to try to bring business to Arkansas. It acted, for the most part, independent of the President or the President's being there. They simply used that as an opportunity to make a pitch for Arkansas on behalf of these Asian countries.

Again, you know, originally when we got a list with Jim Guy Tucker on it and David Meyer's name appeared, could be something similar. As I found out they were not planning to go, then it became more problematic, in my view, as to why we were sending a delegation if there was nobody sort of really heading the delegation. So again, you say the Riadys were going to pay for it. I think that was always an assumption. I don't know if I knew that.

Q So I was asking you, in your understanding ­­

A I, frankly, don't know ­­ I knew the Riadys were encouraging the delegation. I don't know whether or not they intended to pay for the delegation or whether every person who was going to go was going to pay their own way. So, again, I don't know the answer to that.

Q And you had mentioned the fall '93 APEC meeting, so I just wanted to show you a memo from that time frame. This is a September 7th, 1993, memo to you from Maria Haley. And, then, is it your testimony, then, you attended that APEC meeting in '93 also?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall the Riadys being at that meeting?

A Yes.

Q And Governor Tucker was also at that meeting, correct?

A Yes.

Q Were you aware of Nora and Gene Lum being at that APEC conference?

A I don't think so.

Q Do you have any knowledge about them being represented by John Tisdale?

A Yes.

Q And when did you learn of that?

A Since they got into trouble. I mean, since, you know, it was in the press that John represented them.

Q Other than press accounts, you had no knowledge of that?

A I think John has told me that he represented the Lums.

Q Do you recall when he told you about that?

A No. I think it has been, again, the last year or so, but I don't recall exactly when.

Mr. Waxman. Counsel, I'm going to have to leave. But I would like to ask a few questions.

BY MR. WAXMAN:

Q Mr. Lindsey, first of all, let me thank you for being hear for this deposition. I know it is an intrusion on your time.

Politicians often refer to each other as "good friends." As a matter of fact, the protocol of the House often requires us, in order to not say anything to the contrary, we refer to each other as "my long­time, good friend."

Do you have any reason to believe that President Clinton's description of John Huang as a "good and long­time friend" in 1996 was anything other than a conventional expression of gratitude to one of his many dedicated political supporters?

A No, sir. I mean, I knew that they knew each other and had come into contact with each other over the years. And, as you know, Bill Clinton makes friends fairly easily. But, you know, I did not know that his relationship with John Huang was any different than his relationships with hundreds of other people who have also been supporters of his in the past and who he has come in contact with through various political and governmental occasions.

Q It is just not unusual for politicians to talk about others as "good friends" when they are acquaintances or supporters?

A Right.

Q I know my good friend, Chairman Dan Burton, would want me to have it clarified for the record.

Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Counsel. I'm going to have to go to my office and meet with some other people, but I'll try to come back. Thank you.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q In your memo, Exhibit 17, when you say the list has been whittled down, do you know who was involved in that whittling process besides yourself?

A I think Doug Buford and John Tisdale. I mean, I would ask them ­­ they would tell me who was going. I would ask them why they are going, what role they have, what responsibility, why are they on the list. And as we got to people that we couldn't ­­ who didn't have a role, I suggested that they not go.

Q And do you know what Mr. Grobmyer's reason for going was?

A Yeah, listed here he is the chairman of the international business community of the Little Rock Chamber of Commerce.

Q Aside from that, were you aware of his business dealings with the Riadys or Asian businesses?

A Again, I don't think I knew of his relationship with the Riadys, if he had any sort of business relationship at the time. But I did know that he was active in this international business center that they had in Little Rock.

Q And you wrote that Doug, I guess meaning Doug Buford, who negotiated the revised list with James Riady, asked about list status and that he clearly would like to go but will do whatever we want.

Who was "we" there?

A The White House.

Q And what was he told?

A He did not go.

Q And was that ­­

Mr. Ballen. I'm sorry, for the record, who is "he"?

The Witness. Doug Buford did not go.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Was he asked not to go by the White House?

A I think I suggested to him, since I couldn't, you know ­­ I was Chairman Elect or President Elect of the Chamber, but I think I told him I thought it better he didn't go.

Q And then the next line there says, "he believes his presence will help to control the group."

Do you know what you meant by how he was going to control the group?

A I think he ­­ you know, "control" I put in quotes. I think he thought he would be able to help, sort of make sure that they did go where they were supposed to go, didn't try to intrude upon the President's time.

As you notice, I say that they don't expect to do anything with the President. People can have that sort of understanding on one level and not on another level, and I think he thought he could make sure that they did not try to establish meetings or, you know, interfere with what the President's official responsibilities were while he was there.

Q Then, as you said in the next paragraph, it says, "delegation does not expect to do anything with the President, but would like to be invited to the American reception."

Do you know if they were, indeed, invited?

A I don't know.

Q Do you know if they were invited to any speeches or any events?

A I think they were probably invited to whatever public events ­­ for example, Systematic and Entergy, the Department of Commerce had some sort of a big ­­ I want to call it affair, but it wasn't, sort of where they showed Arkansas ­­ not Arkansas, American companies and products and the President gave a speech there.

My guess is that any Arkansans who were there were invited to that, but I don't know that for a fact.

Mr. Ballen. Do you know for a fact who, if any, of these individuals actually went?

The Witness. I remember seeing Mark Grobmyer, not in Indonesia, but in the Philippines. So I don't know whether he went to Indonesia or not. We went to the Philippines before that. Paul Berry, I don't believe went. Someone from University of Arkansas Medical Sciences, I don't believe it was Alan or Gene Suggs, the president of the system, but I think it may have been Harry ­­ and I can't think of Harry's last name ­­

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Ward?

A ­­ Ward, who was head of the medical school, went.

Q Now, Harry Ward was on the September 21st, 1994, memo?

A Okay. I think I may have gone and Alan and Gene Suggs did not go. I don't know ­­ I don't recall seeing the Cranfords. And I don't know who the representatives from Entergy or Systematic would have been. So I think only two or three at most of these people actually went.

The people that I do remember going were directly related with this sort of sister school relationship between the University of Arkansas School of Medical Science and some Indonesian medical school.

Mr. Ballen. Thank you.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Were you aware Mr. Hubbell went on the trip at all?

A I did not.

Q Were you aware of Mr. Hubbell previously going to Jakarta on the trip in the fall of 1994?

A Again, not at the time. I think I learned that later that he went over there at one point again for press reports.

Q Did you have discussions about whether or not Mr. Hubbell should be included on the trip?

A Yes. I asked Mr. Buford why Mr. Hubbell was on the list, and I believe Mr. Buford told me that he thought he was doing some work for the Riadys. The extent of my knowledge at any point that Webb did any work for the Riadys, and again that's not ­­ I don't know ­­ at the time I didn't know that he had done any work. I just know that Doug said he thought he was on a list because it was his understanding that he thought he was doing some work for the Riadys.

Q Do you recall relaying that to Mr. McLarty or others at the White House?

A I don't think so. I think, since he was not on the revised list, I don't think we talked about who wasn't going. I think we talked about who was going and why.

Q Do you recall if he was on Marsha Scott's list?

A I believe he may have been, but I don't think ­­ I don't recall.

Q And have you seen the Marsha Scott list recently? Have you had an opportunity to review that list?

A I've seen it sometime in the last year. I mean, I don't know what "recently." I have not reviewed it in the last month or month and a half.

Q So that's a document that you've seen at the White House?

A Yes.

Mr. Murphy. I think we saw it in the documents produced by the White House to the Senate.

The Witness. Yes.

Ms. Comstock. I apologize if we've missed it.

Mr. Murphy. It may have at his deposition. I just don't remember.

The Witness. Could be. It was a memo saying there was this delegation going. I am almost sure it listed some of the people in the delegation, though I could be wrong about that, then saying I'd like to go and sort of be responsible for these people.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you recall what Marsha Scott was told about the delegation?

A Marsha apparently received a copy of my memo. I don't know that. I don't know.

Q Do you know if she went on the trip?

A She did not go on the trip.

Q You don't know of any discussions with her about somebody telling her "you're not going to go on the trip"?

A I may have told her she wasn't going on the trip, but I don't recall.

Q Do you recall discussing this with Leon Panetta?

A No.

Q Or with John Angel in his office?

A Who?

Q Is it John Angel?

Ms. Remington. Angel.

The Witness. Angel? No.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q And Skip Rutherford, do you recall if you discussed it with Skip Rutherford?

A No. Did I discuss it with Skip?

Q Yes. I mean, that's Mr. McLarty's handwriting on there, so I'm asking if you recall discussing it with Skip Rutherford?

A No. I don't see Skip's name on it. Is 4 Skip?

Q That's number 4, yes.

A I don't remember discussing it with Skipper.

Q Do you know if he went on the trip?

A He did not.

Q Do you know why Mr. McLarty wanted Skip Rutherford's input on this whole Arkansas delegation?

A No. Is Skip on the longer list?

Q No.

A No, I do not know.

Q You had mentioned earlier, you had noted that your wife's name was on this list.

Did any list that you see have your wife's name on it?

A No.

Q And were you aware of the Riadys ever approaching you or discussing with you taking your wife on this trip?

A No. The answer to that is, no one ever approached me about Bev going on this trip.

Q And she doesn't do any work for Lippo or the Riadys or anything like that?

A No. She, at this time, was head of a Department, State Department, Department of Arkansas Heritage.

Q The last paragraph in your memos reads that "James Riady and his father would like to have an opportunity to visit briefly with President Clinton during the visit."

Did that occur?

A Yes.

Q And when did that occur?

A They came by the room for about 5 minutes before we went to some event.

Q Who came?

A James and his father, and I think both wives, but I don't know.

Q Both wives?

A Wives, both Mochtar Riady's wife and James Riady's wife.

Q And they came by the President's hotel?

A Yes.

Q And you were there?

A Yes.

Q And could you describe that meeting?

A It was just, "Hello. How are you?" And then they said a prayer.

Q And that was all that occurred?

A Yeah. I don't even know if they ever sat down. I think it was just right ­­ sort of right there they stood around, they talked about old times, you know, about when they had met before, and then Mr. Riady ­­ Mochtar Riady is apparently a very religious man; and as they were about to leave, he wanted to say a prayer. So they said a prayer.

Q And was anyone else at the meeting?

A Mrs. Clinton may have been there. I don't recall.

Q And, so, it was you and the President and Mrs. Clinton?

A Maybe, and the Riadys.

Q And this says, "We should try to schedule a 15­minute meeting for them."

Do you recall, was this a scheduled meeting?

A Scheduled in the sense that we were going to try to do it when we were there. It was not scheduled in the sense that it was on the schedule. It was during right before the President was to leave for something. And I don't think it lasted 15 minutes. I think it lasted less than that. And they, basically, came by the hotel room as the Clintons were about to leave either for a dinner or meeting or some other event.

Q But do you recall if it was planned to have them come by, who was involved in planning that?

A No. My ­­ no.

Q Presumably, the President's scheduler would have to have something to do with that?

A No, I doubt it.

Q I'm not sure how this works when you're in a foreign country, but if someone were coming to visit the President in the White House, they would have to go through some procedures in getting in and getting waved in.

Is that not the case when he travels?

A No. What would happen most likely ­­ and I'm speculating because I don't recall ­­ is Mack and I would have talked about it after this meeting; and if he agreed, which I assumed he probably did, that, you know, we should do it, I probably would have told the President at some point that, before you leave one time, I think, you know, we will ­­

Back up. The Riadys wanted the Clintons to go to their house, and that was not going to happen. The President was not going to go to the Riadys' house while he was there. And, so, I think I probably said to James one time, look, the President is scheduled to leave at 6:00 to go X. Why don't you and your dad come by at ten till. I would have then told the Secret Service that the Riadys were going to come by so they would have known that they were coming up, would have let them come up. I would have met them in the hallway and made sure the Clintons were ready and knocked on the door, and they would have visited.

Q Would that be all that was involved? Secret Service doesn't have to run a name check?

A No.

Q Or do anything you normally do here? Can you just go to the Secret Service and say "someone is going to come up to see the President. It's okay"?

A "Okay, let them up".

Q And then you would escort them to see the President, would that be the normal procedure?

A That would be the normal ­­ "normal" is not the right word. That would be a procedure on something like this.

Q So that wouldn't appear on any type of public record?

A No.

Q Or any type of record that anybody keeps of the schedule?

A No.

Q Okay.

Mr. Murphy. Is the memo Mr. Lindsey wrote Exhibit 17?

Ms. Comstock. Yes.

Mr. Murphy. And are you marking the Maria Haley to Bruce Lindsey memo of September ­­

Ms. Comstock. Yeah, I'll go ahead and make that Deposition Exhibit Number 18.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­18

was marked for identification.]

Mr. Murphy. Okay.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Were you aware of March Fong Eu being on the trip to Jakarta?

A No.

Q This is a document from Hip Hing Holdings to James Riady from Ambassador March Fong Eu, September 30th, 1994. It begins by saying, "I look forward to seeing you in Jakarta."

Second paragraph, midway through the second paragraph, says, "In the meantime, I am asking Bruce Lindsey and another couple of my White House contacts to get word to the White House staffers working on the conference that I will be there and to see if any name could be added to the official American delegation list."

A I don't recall that document. I don't believe she was part of the official delegation.

Q Do you recall her contacting you or anybody that you were working with about ­­

A No.

Q ­­ including her in some type of delegation?

A I don't recall, no.

Q Were there any other events in the fall of '94 in Jakarta that she would have been ­­ I'm trying to determine if there is any other event in Jakarta that she may have been referring here to that the President was involved in?

A No. I assume ­­ I don't know dates of the APEC conference, but I would assume this was the APEC conference.

Q And then the fifth paragraph here, second from the bottom, discusses spending a few days in Bali.

Were you aware of Mr. Riady having people stay in Bali as some part of this delegation?

A I know that the Arkansans that he wanted to take, he wanted to, then after the APEC, he wanted to take them to Bali.

Q And do you know if that occurred?

A No, I don't believe it did. The delegation didn't occur.

Q There's been reported a trip that Mr. Hubbell went on to Bali. Is that a separate trip, then, in the fall of '94? Was this a separate one from this, if you have any knowledge of it?

A Mr. Hubbell did not go on the APEC trip. So, yes, it would have to be separate from the APEC trip.

Mr. Ballen. If, in fact, you knew whether or not he went.

The Witness. If he went. He was not part of the APEC trip, and he was not there during the APEC conference that I know of.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Riady taking any group of people to Bali after this conference?

A No.

Q That was something you had originally heard about in terms of this bigger group?

A Right, when he was going to do this bigger group, they were going to go to the conference and then go to Bali. The group didn't occur. It didn't happen. So, as far as I know, nobody went to Bali.

Q And what was the purpose of going to Bali?

A I think there's supposed to be a wonderful golf course. I think it was fun and relaxing.

Q And then I believe you testified you didn't know if he was going to pay for it, but your understanding was you thought he was going to?

A The answer is, you know, you asked a question about whether or not he was taking his delegation. I was trying to answer it by saying, I don't know whether he was taking this delegation or whether he was simply inviting the delegation and they were going to be expected to pay their own way. I just don't know the answer to that.

Ms. Comstock. Make this Deposition Exhibit Number 19. 18 was the '93 APEC meeting.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­19

was marked for identification.]

Mr. Murphy. Ms. Comstock, do you have any thoughts about lunch?

Ms. Comstock. Well, I guess you've given me the 3:30 time line, but I don't think we're going to be able to finish. We're not going to get that through without lunch. I'd be happy to break for lunch, and if you can give me time here.

Mr. Murphy. Can we go to 5:00 or 6:00?

The Witness. Personally, it is better for me to skip lunch and get through so I can go back to work.

Mr. Ballen. Maybe at some point we can take a 10­minute break.

The Witness. Yeah, that's fine.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Were you aware of Susan Thomases doing any work for the Lippo Group or for the Riadys?

A No.

Q You have no knowledge of her being on any trips paid for by the Riadys or entertaining any ideas like that?

A No. First time I ever heard it. Haven't even read that one.

Q Returning to Mr. Hubbell, when did you first learn of Mr. Hubbell's legal problems with the Rose Law Firm?

Mr. Murphy. You mean legal problems of any sort?

Ms. Comstock. With the Rose Law Firm.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Why don't we make it of any sort, since some of them extend beyond the firm.

A I don't know the answer to that. I think ­­ I'm trying to remember whether in January or February ­­ I think I first learned about it in the press. So I'm trying to remember when the first story was that he was having some sort of discussions with his law partners about legal matters. But I think that was the first I learned about it.

Q This is one of the first extensive articles on it. It is March 2nd, 1994, in the Post: "Law Firm Probing Hubbell. Billing Irregularities Alleged. Clinton Denies Wrongdoing."

A Yeah, I don't know if this is the one that I knew about it. But I think I first learned about it through a press report.

Q Prior to the press reports, had you heard from any Arkansas legal colleagues about any rumblings about Mr. Hubbell having problems with the firm?

A I'm having trouble sequencing the time. At some point, I learned that Webb had represented his father­in­law and his brother­in­law in a matter on a contingency basis, which they lost, and that there was a disagreement among the firm and Webb as to what the terms of the contingency arrangement was.

I don't remember ­­ I can't tell you today whether I learned that before ­­ before this or after this.

Mr. Ballen. "This" being the newspaper?

The Witness. "This" being the article.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Just to give you a time line, Special Counsel Fisk had been appointed in late January '94. Then there were stories about documents at the Rose Firm being shredded and there were these two young paralegals who had been ­­ it would have been in early February '94, and then there were the matters with Roger Altman in mid February 1994.

Does that help place in time when you learned of Mr. Hubbell's problems ­­

A No.

Q ­­ whether it was before or after these events?

Mr. Ballen. I'll object. These are unrelated. You're stating events, and we can talk about other events, but why these would help with Mr. Hubbell ­­

Ms. Comstock. In terms of special counsel being appointed. He very quickly began looking into Mr. Hubbell's billings and things.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q I'm wondering if, following the appointment of special counsel, if you heard anything from Arkansas?

A No. In fact, I think the premise ­­ I don't know when the special counsel began looking in Mr. Hubbell's billings. The question of shredding of documents didn't have anything to do with Webb's billings; it had to do with, you know, Whitewater­related documents. And Roger Altman certainly didn't have anything to do with Webb.

Now, again, I don't know whether or not just through general discussion in Arkansas or among the Arkansas bar that I knew that there was general unhappiness about Webb's handling of this lawsuit for his father in terms of how much it cost and who bore the cost or whether these stories came out and later I heard those stories. Nothing you've said helps me with the sequencing of whether I heard about it beforehand or after.

Q Okay. Then directing your attention to the fourth paragraph here, it does mention that the pace of the Rose Firm's inquiry has sped up in recent weeks as the law firm was subpoenaed in a criminal investigation by Special Counsel Robert Fisk, who was investigating President Clinton's Whitewater land venture.

It just discusses generally that the Rose Law Firm was being subpoenaed, I guess, at some time prior to March 2nd?

A Yeah. But if I recall, those subpoenas and the documents didn't relate to Webb's problem, they relate ­­

Q No, it doesn't indicate that here. I'm just wondering whether that refreshes your recollection whether you had heard anything in the context of Mr. Fisk subpoenaing documents from the firm that these other matters might arise in the course of him looking at the firm in general?

A No.

Q So your first recollection of hearing about Mr. Hubbell's problems, then, is from the press?

A No, I can't say that.

Mr. Ballen. He's testified three times to this now.

Mr. Murphy. Objection. He testified that, either from some conversations with Arkansas lawyers or from press inquiry, he heard something about it.

Ms. Comstock. Of a billing dispute.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you have a recollection of any person talking with you about this when you first learned of it?

A Not when I first learned of it, no.

Q Did there come a time when you discussed this with people at the White House?

A I don't think so.

Mr. Ballen. Is there a time frame?

The Witness. I don't think so. I mean, I assume at some time, especially around the time he resigned, that we discussed it. But I don't think ­­ I mean, again, I don't remember talking to anybody at the White House. I'm sure we probably talked about this article once we saw it. But I don't have any specific recollection of that. And I certainly don't remember talking to anybody before it was generally known.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q At this time, were you responding to Whitewater inquiries, in general, with the press?

A Depends on what "this time" is.

Q March of '94?

A John and I probably ­­ both John Podesta and I both were probably doing it around then. After the Independent Counsel was appointed and after and around the time that I got a grand jury subpoena based upon the so­called RTC meeting, I quit handling it altogether. Now, I think that's slightly later in March, if I recall.

Q I think that was March 4th.

A Well, that's close to March 2nd. After I became involved in that, I quit handling press inquiries. So this is around the time that I was transitioning out of it.

Q Between March 2nd and March 14th, which is the date that Mr. Hubbell announced his resignation, do you recall any conversations you had with the President about Mr. Hubbell?

Mr. Murphy. You can answer that "yes" or "no" just to start off.

The Witness. I don't recall, no.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you recall if you had any conversations with the President?

A Again, if I was around the press, around the time of this article, I think he and I would have talked about it. But I don't remember whether we did.

Q You have no general recollections of discussing Mr. Hubbell with the President prior to his resignation, then?

A Again, you know, around the time these stories came out, if I was around the President, I would have said, "Did you see the stories" and we could have had a general conversation about it. Do I recall those conversations? No. I mean, it is only ­­ again, I'm not recalling anything. I'm just saying that if, on the day of the Washington Post story, I saw them, I'm sure I probably said something to him about it.

Q You don't recall seeing him or saying anything?

A If I didn't see him, I don't recall, I don't think I ever made a special point of calling him or going to see him to talk about it. But if I was with him and saw him, we probably talked about it.

Q But you can't recall even generally any conversations?

Mr. Ballen. Objection. For the record, that's the third time the witness has been asked the question, and he has answered it each time.

The Witness. The conversation would have been no more than, you know, "Did you see the story? What do you think is going to happen?" You know, I don't know any more than that.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q So the President never asked you to look into anything ­­

A No.

Q ­­ about Mr. Hubbell?

A No.

Q Or your opinion on Mr. Hubbell or anything like that that you can recall?

A No. He knew my opinion of Mr. Hubbell.

Q Had you discussed Mr. Hubbell's legal problems with the President prior to this?

A No.

Q What do you mean when you say ­­

A Webb Hubbell is a friend of mine. The President knows that. He is a friend of the President's.

Q But did he ever say to you "we need to look into this" or anything that led you to believe that there might need to be some evaluation of this matter?

A No.

Mr. Ballen. Objection. The witness has asked and answered it.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Were you aware of Jim Blair looking into these matters for the President?

Mr. Murphy. Webb Hubbell matter?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Webb Hubbell?

A No.

Q Were you aware of Jim Blair being in touch with anybody at the Rose Law Firm about Mr. Hubbell's problems with the firm?

A No.

Q Were you aware of Jim Blair talking with the President about Mr. Hubbell?

A No. Later I became aware that apparently ­­ and, again, this was through the press or something ­­ that there was two or three conversations on, like, the Friday and Saturday, but I learned that all after the fact.

Q That there were conversations with whom?

A If I remember right, that Jim Blair and the President had a conversation, that Jim Blair then had a conversation ­­

Mr. Ballen. Excuse me. Is this from reading the newspaper accounts?

The Witness. Yes. Again, I know no more about that than what is in the press.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Actually, I don't believe Mr. Blair's conversations with the President have been ­­

A There's been a story somewhere that says, I thought, that said that Jim spoke to the President on, like, the Friday or the Saturday and then maybe spoke to Mr. Hubbell. I think that has been in the press.

Q And your recollection is ­­ and those are accounts very recently that Mr. Blair said that he had ­­

A Right.

Q ­­ that told people at the White House?

A Right.

Q But your understanding was he talked with the President?

A I thought he did, yeah. I thought it was in the story. I'm trying to relate the story. So if it's not in

the ­­

Mr. Ballen. Mr. Lindsey, if you're trying to relate a story that we can all read, I don't think that serves ­­

Mr. Murphy. You're not advancing the committee's inquiry.

The Witness. I have no knowledge, then, except what was in the press accounts. And the press accounts are obviously of what Mr. Blair said probably a better indication of what happened than my trying to recall what the press article said.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q And at that time did you ­­

A At what time?

Q At the time prior to Mr. Hubbell resigning, you had no discussions with Mr. Blair?

A No.

Q And did you have any discussions with the First Lady about Mr. Hubbell?

A No.

Q Were there discussions in the counsel's office that you recall about Mr. Hubbell?

A Again, not any sort of an official way. I mean, I may have ­­ you know, I probably would have said something to Cheryl Mills or someone else once the stories were in there. But, again, it would have been talking about what was in the press, not about any sort of independent investigation or independent knowledge.

Q But you don't recall the President or the First Lady ever expressing any concern to you prior to Mr. Hubbell's resignation?

A About what?

Q About any problems that he had with the Rose Law Firm?

A I don't remember him expressing it to me, no.

Q Were you aware of ­­ do you have any knowledge of the First Lady being in touch with anybody at the Rose Law Firm?

A No.

Q Did you talk to Bill Kennedy about any knowledge he had about what the Rose Law Firm was doing with Mr. Hubbell? Did you ever talk to Bill Kennedy about the Rose Law Firm's actions regarding Mr. Hubbell?

A I don't believe so. Again, I may have expressed to Bill or Bill may have expressed to me in general, you know, something about all of this. But he never imparted to me information, and I had no information that would not have been publicly reported for the most part.

Q Because Mr. Kennedy was also a former partner at the Rose Law Firm; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And so, you never heard about him saying, well, I've talked to so­and­so at the firm and here's what's going on? He never said anything like that to you?

A No. I don't believe so, no.

Q Did the President ever ask your opinion about whether Mr. Hubbell should resign or not?

A I don't believe so, no.

Q Did the First Lady ever ask your opinion?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of who ­­ actually, if anyone asked Mr. Hubbell to resign?

A No.

Q What is your understanding of how Mr. Hubbell came to resign from his Justice Department position?

A He resigned. I don't have any knowledge beyond he resigned.

Q It is your understanding he just woke up on March 14th and said, "I'll resign," or do you have any knowledge of any of the activities preceding that?

A I have no knowledge of any of the activities preceding that. I don't know whether he woke up that morning or whether he thought about it the day before.

Q Do you have any knowledge as to who he talked to about it?

A No.

Q Did he talk to you about resigning?

A No.

Mr. Murphy. That's been asked and answered.

The Witness. No. I mean, if he had, I would have some knowledge about it. No.

Ms. Comstock. Make this March 2nd article Deposition Exhibit Number 20.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­20

was marked for identification.]

[Witness confers with counsel.]

Ms. Comstock. Are there any matters you wanted to clarify for the record?

Mr. Murphy. No.

The Witness. I don't think so.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you know Amy Stewart, who was in the Rose Law Firm?

A I don't know who she is. I don't know her. I mean, I don't have a relationship with her.

Q Were you aware of her being at the White House on or around May of 1993?

A No.

Q For an extended period of time?

A No.

Q Do you know Jerry Jones from the Rose Law Firm?

A Again, I know him. I don't know him well.

Q Did you have any knowledge of Mr. Jones or anyone else coming to Mr. Hubbell in 1993 to ask him about problems in the law firm?

A I don't think I knew that in 1993, no.

Q Did you only learn of that in press accounts recently?

A Yes. I don't know how recently, but yes, press accounts.

Mr. Ballen. Maybe it would help, for the record, rather than have you testify that when you learned about it in press accounts, simply I think what we're after here is your own personal knowledge. If you don't have any personal knowledge, say "no". If you do, say "yes".

The Witness. That's fine, and I'll be happy to do that. On the other hand, I was told at the beginning that if I knew about it, I should say that I knew about it. I don't ­­ it is a lot easier for me to do that. I don't want to follow your instructions and her directions ­­

Ms. Comstock. It is also possible that somebody at the White House could have said to Mr. Lindsey, I learned of such and such happening in 1993 and '94, and has imparted that to Mr. Lindsey. And he can tell us that, and that is personal knowledge he has of somebody telling him about these affairs.

The Witness. I don't believe anybody at the White House had told me that Mr. Jerry Jones had come to visit Mr. Hubbell. I believe I read it.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Did you ever have any conversations with the President about Mr. Hubbell after the resignation about his legal problems?

A Again, if I did, it was in a very general sort of way, it wasn't ­­ you know, it wasn't instructions from him or my imparting information to him. It would have been two people talking about, you know, "can you believe it" and "isn't it a shame," those sorts of conversations.

Q And that's the entire extent of any discussion ­­

A Yeah. I'm sorry, go ahead.

Q That's the only type of conversation you ever had?

A Yeah. We never had a specific conversation about, you know, Webb's legal problems or what to do about them or, you know, what Webb's going to do about them or anything else. It would have been two friends simply talking about a third friend saying, you know, "it is a shame what's happened to him, it is a shame what's happened to his family. Can you believe it happened? Can you believe he did this," that kind of stuff.

Q This is a March 1994 Washington Post article in which it relates that all 28 partners of the Rose Firm agreed to send a complaint to the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct.

Do you recall any general discussion on the fact that the whole firm had sort of united against Mr. Hubbell on issues like that?

Mr. Murphy. Any conversations with who?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q With the President?

A No.

Q Or the First Lady?

A No.

Q Do you recall any curiosity on the part of the President or the First Lady as to, you know, why all 28 partners of the firm were suing Mr. Hubbell, that they might, just a general curiosity, want to go know why?

Mr. Murphy. Objection to "suing". It doesn't say, I don't think, they were going to sue.

Mr. Ballen. I'm also going to object, because the witness has already testified that he recalls no

conversation ­­

Ms. Comstock. I'm wondering if he has a general curiosity.

Mr. Ballen. Could I finish my objection, please? Would that be possible? You interrupted me. I was in the middle of a sentence. If the witness testified that he recalls no conversation about it, he stated there was no conversation, why would he recall any curiosity if he already testified there was no conversation?

I'll object to the question as being asked and answered already.

Ms. Comstock. And I'm showing the witness an article from March 19, 1994, certain matters about the firm, and asking if it refreshes his recollection to see if he can recall any sense of curiosity that he recalls, not any particular conversations, but if there was any curiosity as to what was going on with the matters involving the Rose Law Firm.

The Witness. Barbara, the problem I'm having is that I don't recall a conversation where he said or I said, "Can you believe all 28 people did this?" So if that's what you're asking is did we have a general conversation like "can you believe everybody did this?" I don't ­­ I don't recall that.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Given that all 28 members of the firm, partners, had agreed to send this complaint, was there ­­ did that change people's view at the White House that maybe Mr. Hubbell's account, which to that date apparently was just a dispute versus the 28 people, that maybe his account, what he had told you at the White House, wasn't accurate? Was there ever any concern expressed like that in the spring or summer of '94?

A I do not believe that the fact that all 28 partners signed the ethics complaint ever was a factor in people's views of what had happened caused them to change ­­ caused anyone to change their view as to who was right and who was wrong.

Q So there was no change­­

Mr. Murphy. Excuse me.

[Witness confers with counsel.]

The Witness. At some point around this time, a lawyer in Arkansas named David Matthews contacted me and told me that there was a division within the law firm as to what to do about this and he didn't know which way the law firm was going to go.

David Matthews is a lawyer in northwest Arkansas. And I don't know quite who he was talking to about this, but he indicated to me there was a division. And, you know, so I don't believe, you know, the fact that once a decision by the law firm to do this was signed by all 28. I'd actually be surprised, once the firm had made a decision to file the ethics complaint, that it wouldn't be signed by all 28. I mean, you know, if it was my firm and I was on the side that didn't want to do it and I got out­voted, I think I would be prepared to sign on to it.

So I did not put any stock in the fact that there were 28 persons versus ­­ what is one­half plus one ­­ 15 people who signed the ethics complaint. Because I understand from David Matthews that there was a division within the firm as to whether or not they should or shouldn't do this.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q And who is David Matthews?

A He's just a lawyer in northwest Arkansas.

Q So when I asked you about lawyers you may have talked with in Arkansas, David Matthews is a person you may have talked to at some point, but you don't recall?

A You asked me whether or not I talked to lawyers. I learned about it before the March 2nd event. I do not believe my conversation with David Matthews occurred before the March 2nd event.

Q You think this occurred after March 2nd?

A I think it occurred around the time that the firm issued the ethics complaint. I think David Matthews indicated to me after these stories were public that people he was talking to inside the firm indicated that there was this big division in the firm as to what to do about this and that they were going to have a meeting to decide what to do and he didn't know which way it would go, whether they would file an ethics complaint or not file an ethics complaint.

Q Do you recall how this conversation with Mr. Matthews came about?

A I think he called me to tell me that.

Q Had you reached out to him before that?

A No.

Q So he just called you up one day about this?

A Yeah, and said, you know, you should know ­­ again, this is not verbatim, this is the essence ­­ you should know that the firm may file an ethics complaint against Webb. There is a big debate going on within the firm; and, you know, I don't know how it is going to turn out, but it may turn that there's an ethics complaint filed.

Q And did you relate that to anybody at the White House?

A Again, I don't ­­ I don't know. Again, if I saw the President, I may have told him that the Rose Firm may end up filing an ethics complaint. I don't recall whether I did or not. I would not have gone ­­ again, I did not go out of my way to tell him. But if I saw him, I probably would have related that to him.

Q Did you consider that a serious matter?

A For Webb it was a serious matter if they filed an ethics complaint. The mere fact that they were debating it, if you read any of the stories that were coming out about this time, you will know there was a conflict within the Rose Law Firm about what to do and, you know, two sides and everything. So again, you know, if you're a lawyer and your law firm files an ethics complaint, that's a serious matter. Whether or not I considered it to be, you know ­­ it didn't change the equation very much. Because, based upon the stories, I had a sense that that sort of debate and discussion was going on within the law firm.

[Witness confers with counsel.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q How long have you known Mr. Matthews?

A Fifteen years.

Q What firm is he with?

A He is either a solo practitioner or he's with one or two other people. He practices law in a small town in northwest Arkansas.

Q And is he a friend of the President or First Lady?

A President, probably both.

Q Do you know how long he has known them?

A No. As long as or longer. Because, you know, the President was in Fayetteville, which is in northwest Arkansas, before he moved to Little Rock. So my guess is that he has known them since when the President first came to Arkansas, came back to Arkansas.

David Matthews was a member of the State legislature at one point.

RPTS MAZUR

DCMN HERZFELD

[1:10 p.m.]

Q And did you have a sense of who he was talking to at the firm?

A No.

Q All right. Other than telling you about the division, did he give you a sense of what the details were that were involved?

A No. Again I think the details or at least the issue was out there. You know, I think this all occurred after the March 2nd, so I think the general issue about whether or not, you know, this billing dispute with his father­in­law was the issue that I thought was out ­­ was in the press and everything, so I think I thought I knew what the issue was.

Q Did you ever ask him if this would spill over or have any effect on any matters relating to the First Lady in the law firm?

A No, no, I had no sense it would.

Q And that never was a point of discussion with anybody?

A No.

Q At the White House or anything like that?

A No. This personal to Webb.

Q So your understanding was then these are matters just related to Seth Ward?

A Yes.

Q And was that the POM case?

A Right.

Q And so it didn't have anything to do with any other matters where Seth Ward was represented by the firm?

A I don't know of any other matters that Seth Ward was represented by the firm.

Q Or had any dealings with ­­

A I thought it had to do with the POM lawsuit. Park­O­Meter.

Q Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Ickes ever doing any work for POM?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of Vinson & Elkins working on the Rose Law Firm matter?

A Yes ­­ I mean, it was in the press that they had hired Vinson & Elkins.

Q Do you ever have any contact with anyone at Vinson & Elkins about any of these matters?

A No.

Q Do you know a gentleman named Mike Schaufele or Schaufele?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever discuss Mr. Hubbell's resignation with Mr. Schaufele?

A No.

Q Were you aware of him setting up any trusts for Mr. Hubbell?

A Again, after the fact ­­ I knew it has been reported in the press ­­ established like, I guess, two trusts, one for the kids' education and one for living expenses.

Q Did you ever have any discussions with David Kendall about Mr. Hubbell's legal situation?

A Again, if I did, it was in the nonspecific category of us talking about it. I never had any conversations with him other than, you know, sort of isn't it a shame type.

Q Because you have testified previously you had discussions with Mr. Kendall about Whitewater legal matters; is that correct?

Mr. Ballen. I'm going to object.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q I'm not going to go into that area, I just wanted to distinguish between your discussions with Mr. Kendall were not of the type that you had of Whitewater, but these were just sort of, gee, did you see the newspaper article type of discussions?

A Right.

Q So they would be not of the nature of the discussions that you had regarding Whitewater, where you did have substantive discussions with Mr. Kendall about Whitewater; isn't that correct?

Mr. Murphy. Mr. Lindsey has testified about that subject in the past.

Ms. Comstock. Well, we're not going into that here.

I just wanted to distinguish between the two and to see if in your mind the two are very different types of communications.

Mr. Ballen. Well, I believe the witness' testimony, he doesn't recall any conversations with Mr. Kendall. He was just speculating that if he had, it would have been of that nature.

The Witness. That's correct. You know, I would not say that my conversations with David with respect to Whitewater had been all that detailed. I have more knowledge about Whitewater than I do about Hubbell. So to the extent that I had conversations, they would probably be more extensive with respect to Whitewater, but I would not ­­ I'm having a little trouble making the distinction, because I don't think ­­ I'm having trouble remembering very detailed conversations I ever had with David about Whitewater. You know, I sat in a meeting in which we all imparted all of our information, but beyond that sort of general meeting that we had, I've not had multiple conversations with Kendall about Whitewater.

Q Were you aware of any efforts by Mr. McLarty to assist Mr. Hubbell with employment after he left the Justice Department?

A Only what I've read in the paper.

Q The March 13, 1994 meeting at the White House that was the Sunday before Mr. Hubbell resigned, do you recall if you were at the White House or around on that day?

A No, I do not.

Q Have you ever talked to Mr. McLarty about Mr. Hubbell's employment after the Justice Department?

A No.

Q To this day?

Mr. Ballen. I'm sorry, what was the question?

The Witness. Whether I've ever discussed with Mack his efforts on behalf of Webb, and the answer was no, and then the question was, to this day?

I don't recall ever speaking to Mack about his efforts. But again, other than just if we had a conversation, it would have been nothing more than, no good deed goes unpunished. I mean, it would have been more of a general lament than it would have been a discussion.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Okay. Were you aware of any discussions at the White House about law firms being reluctant to hire Mr. Hubbell after he left the Justice Department?

Mr. Murphy. I'm sorry, discussions with whom?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q With anybody at the White House?

A I don't recall.

Q Were you aware ­­ what was your understanding of what Mr. Hubbell was going to be doing after he left the Justice Department?

A I don't know if I had an understanding. I mean, I knew at some point he opened an office, or, you know, he was given office space by Michael Cardozo, but I don't know ­­ you know, I don't know what his plans were.

Q And how did you learn of that?

A I don't know. Webb may have told me; someone else may have told me that he had an office at Michael's office.

Q All right. After Mr. Hubbell resigned, did you talk with him about his resignation or any matters related?

A About his resignation, no.

Q Or about what he was going to do?

A No, not ­­

Q When was the first time you recall seeing him after he resigned?

A I don't recall. I mean, I had ­­ I saw Webb off and on mostly at large group gatherings in '94 up until the time he went to jail, but I can't tell you when the first one was or the second one or, you know.

Q So you continued to see him in a social setting?

A Sure, yes.

Q Every week, every few weeks?

A Probably less, probably more like once a month ­­ that may even be too much. I mean, there may be 2 or 3 months I wouldn't see him, and, you know, I'd go to somebody's house for Fourth of July, and, you know, there would be a Fourth of July gathering, he would be there. There would be a lot of the Arkansans, Thanksgiving, whatever.

Q Okay, and who was included in that ­­ did you have a regular ­­ is it a Tuesday night group or group that you all got together?

A We did back early on, but that lasted less than 6 months, into '93, but we did have a group of most of the Arkansans who came up to events: Webb, me, Marsha, Maria Haley; you know, most of the Arkansans who came to the White House. But that lasted less than 6 months.

You know, I mean, Marsha Scott might have a Thanksgiving group over for dinner on Thanksgiving Day, and all the Arkansans who hadn't gone home for the holidays would be invited plus a lot of Washington people as well. But, I mean ­­ you know ­­ or I remember sometime in the fall that the Hubbells had something at their house that I went to. I think it was some holiday because we were watching football or something. So, I mean, you know, I would have dinner with different people, and the Hubbells would be included.

Q And do you recall Mr. Hubbell, I guess his wife, being invited to the First Daddy's birthday party in October in '94, that year?

A I don't recall that, but I wouldn't be surprised.

Q When you mention Thanksgiving, do you recall Thanksgiving of '94, that time frame, if there was a gathering at that time Mr. Hubbell was involved in?

A Usually Marsha Scott had a group of people over at Thanksgiving. Whether she had a group over or whether that's the time I remember that we had dinner at Webb's, I can't recall. It was some holiday. I thought that we had brunch or lunch at Webb's.

Q Okay. Were you aware of Mr. Hubbell being in touch with the President and First Lady around Thanksgiving time, '94, to discuss what he was going to do, about whether he was going to plea or what he was going to do with his legal situation?

A No.

Q Did there come a time when you learned that he had had a discussion with the President and First Lady about whether or not he should plead guilty?

A I don't recall. You know, if I did, it was through the newspapers, and I'm trying to remember whether there was an article in the newspapers that indicated that he either ­­ I don't know, he saw him or related to one or the other that he was going to plead guilty.

Q Okay, and did you have any knowledge of the First Lady telling him that she thought he should fight the charges?

A Again, I vaguely feel like I've read that somewhere, but I have no personal knowledge.

Q You don't recall any conversations among people at the White House about that the First Lady was in Webb Hubbell's camp as opposed to the Rose Law Firm camp that was trying to get money from Mr. Hubbell?

A No.

Q Did you ever ­­ were there ever any such discussions about ­­ with anyone at the White House about the allegations involved a lot of money ­­ the partners were out a lot of money at the firm, and Mrs. Clinton and actually Bill Kennedy were both partners who would have been shorted such money? Do you recall generally any such discussions about where they were going to fall in terms of wanting to recoup any financial losses vis­a­vis Mr. Hubbell?

A No.

Ms. Comstock. Congressman Kanjorski has joined us this afternoon, and would you like to take ­­ ask questions at this time?

Mr. Kanjorski. No, that's all right, just follow.

Ms. Comstock. Okay, I'm sorry.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q So your testimony is you don't recall any such conversations about recouping any money from the firm or anything like that?

Mr. Murphy. Whether Mrs. Clinton or Bill Kennedy wanted to try to recoup funds from Mr. Hubbell?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Whether there was any discussion in the White House about such matters.

A No, I don't recall .

Q Were you aware of any discussions about any settlement offers that Mr. Hubbell made throughout the 1994 time period after he left the Justice Department?

A No.

Q Okay. Do you know John Richardson, Peggy Richardson's husband, I believe ­­ IRS Commissioner­­

A I'm sorry, I didn't hear the question.

Q John Richardson?

A I know him ­­ I've met him with his wife, but I don't know him.

Q Okay. Do you have any recollection of him calling you regarding Mr. Hubbell ­­

A No.

Q At or around April of '94?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Richardson assisting Mr. Hubbell in any way with any law firms or trying to get him work?

A No, I don't think so.

Q I just wanted to go through some of the other employers of Mr. Hubbell and see if you have any knowledge to any of those.

Do you know Jack Williams?

A Yes.

Q And how long have you known Mr. Williams?

A I don't know. Pretty well since 1978.

Q Okay, and did you have any knowledge of him assisting Mr. Hubbell in any way with any consulting contracts or work in 1994?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Hubbell working on any matters related to Pacific Telesis?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge about Mr. Hubbell working on anything for the Sprint phone company?

A No. I mean, you're talking about at the time?

Q Yes, at any time prior to press ­­ other than press reports?

A No.

Q Okay. And then I would also include other than press reports, or if anyone at the White House has told you, yes, I knew about this, and he got that through somebody. I would include that. I'll exclude solely reading it in the paper.

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Hubbell doing any work for McAndrews & Forbes?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Hubbell doing any work for Mid­America Dairymen?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Hubbell doing any work for Sun America?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Hubbell doing any work for Truman Arnold?

A No.

Q Okay. Do you know Mr. Arnold?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Were you aware of him being in touch with Mr. Hubbell in the months following Mr. Hubbell's resignation?

A Yes, I probably had dinner with the Arnolds and the Hubbells during that period.

Q And in the course of these dinners, did you ever learn that Mr. Hubbell was working on any matters?

A No.

Q All right. Did you ever meet a Mr. Wayne Reaud?

A I had dinner with him one night, yes.

Q Okay. At Truman Arnold's house?

A No, at a restaurant here.

Q And how did you come to might meet Mr. Reaud?

A Reaud. I believe ­­

Q Sorry, it's R­E­A­U­D.

A I believe I was asked by maybe Truman that they were having dinner at a restaurant on Pennsylvania Avenue, which I'm drawing a blank on the name, and asked me to join them, and when I got there, Wayne Reaud was one of the people at the table. I don't even remember whether the Hubbells were at the table or not. I don't remember that.

Q Do you have any knowledge of him hiring Mr. Hubbell for any kind of consulting work?

A No.

Q Okay. Do you know Bernard Rapoport?

A Yes.

Q And how long have you known Mr. Rapoport?

A Oh I've known ­­ you know, I don't know him well. I've known him off and on, oh, 8 years or so. I mean, he's a big supporter of the President's.

Q And do you have any knowledge of him hiring Mr. Hubbell to do any work?

A I don't think I did, no.

Q You seem to hesitate. Was there ­­

A Well, at some point in '96, during the '96 campaign, B. Rapoport told me that he had helped Webb's children, and my understanding of that was that he had contributed money for their education. That's the only knowledge I had about that B. had tried to help Webb. I did not have any knowledge until I read it that he had hired Webb separate and apart from helping making a contribution to the trust to help the kids.

Q And what did he tell you about the ­­

A I think he indicated that he had tried to help Webb educate his children.

Q Do you recall how this came up?

A No, I think we were in the middle of ­­ I think we were in Texas during a political stop in the fall campaign, and he and I were just talking, you know, and he said something like, I tried to help Webb, you know, I helped support, you know, educate his kids.

Q Do you recall if this came up in the context of news articles about Mr. Hubbell in the fall of '96?

A I'm trying to remember when B. was ­­ no, I don't know if it came up in any particular context. I mean, I think he was just talking in the course of the conversation, said something, but I don't remember what the predicate was for it.

Q Did he ever mention that to the President or the First Lady?

A I don't think so.

Q Did you ever talk with Mr. Hubbell about that?

A No, Mr. Hubbell was in jail.

Q Did you keep in touch with Mr. Hubbell when he was in jail?

A I spoke to him once.

Q And what was the context of that conversation?

A How you doing? You know.

Q You called him or ­­

A No, he called­­ I was at a party, and he called his wife, and several of us spoke to him. It was Thanksgiving, probably, of '95. Several of us spoke to him probably for less than ­­ maybe Easter, but basically I just got on the phone, said, you doing okay? We're going to take care of Suzy, and the kids seem to be okay.

Q Okay. You're aware of Mr. Rapoport being in touch with Mr. Hubbell about a conversation that he had with you?

A Hum­um.

Q Were you aware of Mr. Arnold or Mr. Rapoport, any efforts they were going to make to help Mr. Hubbell after he got out of jail?

A No.

Q Do you know a John Moores, San Diego Padres?

A I met him ­­ I don't know him.

Q Were you aware of him hiring Mr. Hubbell to ­­

A No.

Q Were you aware of Mr. Arnold talking to Mr. Moores about hiring Mr. Hubbell?

A No.

Q Do you know C.W. Conn?

A I met him. I don't know him.

Q Did you meet him ­­ I want to go back. Did you meet Mr. Moores with Mr. Arnold; was that the context of meeting Mr. Moores?

A I met Mr. Conn and Mr. Moores at a party at Mr. Arnold's house.

Q And then you also said that you met Mr. Reaud or Reaud, however his name is pronounced, also with Mr. Arnold?

A Right, but not at that same party; at a restaurant on Pennsylvania Avenue.

Q Okay. But you had no knowledge of Mr. Hubbell doing any work for C.W. Conn?

A No.

Q What was your understanding of how Mr. Hubbell was going to be supporting himself in that ­­ after he ­­ the Justice Department?

Mr. Ballen. Objection. This has been asked and answered. The witness testified he had no understanding. If your answer has changed since the last time you were asked the question ­­

The Witness. No, I had no understanding. You know, I knew he was trying to make a living. I didn't know who he was trying to make a living from or how much of a living he was making.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Well, when you saw him once a month or every 3 months, did you ever discuss with him what are you doing or ­­

A No.

Q Did you ever discuss with Marsha Scott like, is Webb employed, or is he not employed?

A No, I think Marsha and I probably had general discussions about, you know, boy, it must be tough on them, but, you know, I don't think I ever had specific conversations about who he was working for or what he was doing or how much money he was making.

Q Did you have an understanding if he had an income at all?

A No, I ­­ you know ­­ you know, again, I don't ­­ I had no idea who his clients were or whether he had clients, who they were or whether he was making any money.

Q All right. And did there come a time when Mrs. Hubbell asked you for any assistance in getting a job at the Interior Department?

A No.

Q Do you know anything about how Mrs. Hubbell came to her job at the Interior Department?

A Well, Mrs. Hubbell had a job at the Interior Department. She took a leave of absence. On the day she announced that she was coming back from her leave of absence, or she shoved back out from her leave of absence, she showed up at the Interior Department and apparently was told that she couldn't come to work because the White House hadn't cleared her coming back to work.

She called me as well as other people, I think, in the White House to try to find out what was going on. I told her I didn't know what was going on and I would try to find out. I went down to ­­ I think talked to Erskine, who I think had also gotten a call from her or somebody over there, and was told that it was taken care of. But it was she already had a job at the Department of Interior, she had just taken unpaid leave.

Q Were you aware of Mr. Hubbell meeting with Tom Collier at the Interior Department?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of what Mr. Hubbell would have been meeting with Mr. Collier about?

A No.

Q And during these months after Mr. Hubbell left the Justice Department, did at any time you have discussions or hear of discussions about Mr. Hubbell and how he was supporting himself, discussions that other people had?

A Not specifically. I mean, I may have had discussions with Marsha about, you know, it's going to be tough on them, but I don't, you know ­­ but I had no discussions about who his clients were or whether he had clients.

Q During that time frame did you have any sense of any growing legal problems that he was having in connection with the ­­ with Mr. Fiske, or then as of August '94 it was Mr. Starr?

A Again, I can't recall. Anything I would have learned about growing legal problems would have been in the press.

Q Okay. You never heard anything at the White House about any of Mr. Hubbell's legal problems with the Independent Counsels?

A No.

Q Okay, no discussion even about newspaper articles or anything like that?

Mr. Ballen. Objection.

The Witness. Yeah, we ­­ you know, we may have had ­­ you know, if we saw an article, you might say to someone, did you see the article about Webb? But no discussion that suggested any level of knowledge over and above what was reported in the newspaper.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Were you aware of Mr. Hubbell meeting with the President in July of '94 at Camp David to discuss any matters ­­

A No.

Q ­­ related to his legal situation?

A Well, I don't think that was ­­ what I have read about it, I don't think that's a proper characterization of their meeting, but no, I did not know that they had gone to Camp David over the Fourth of July holiday.

Q And did there come a time when you learned ­­ is it only through news accounts that you know of that Camp David meeting?

A Yes.

Q So you never heard from anybody at that time the President was going to meet with Mr. Hubbell?

A No.

Q Okay. At that time after Mr. Hubbell left the Justice Department and ­­ actually the March 19 article ­­ March 2nd, when he was discussing the Independent Counsel's interest, not of Mr. Hubbell, but that came later in the summer, some interest in that, did you ever hear ­­ did anyone ever, as a result of anything that was in the news, ever recommend to the President that he shouldn't meet with Mr. Hubbell during this time frame?

A Again, I don't know the answer to that. Since I didn't know he was meeting, I don't know ­­

Q No, I'm not asking about the meetings, but have you ever heard, you know, like maybe you shouldn't meet; not whether you heard about a particular meeting, but whether there was any general discussion about whether or not Mr. Hubbell should be at the White House or be at events, that kind of thing?

A I was unaware of that. No one had that discussion with me, and I was unaware of those discussions if they occurred.

Q In June of '94, there were a number of meetings where Mr. Huang and Mr. Riady came to the White House. Were you aware of the Riadys, James Riady or John Huang meeting with anybody at the White House at or around June of '94?

A Without some sort of anchor as to­­ I think the answer is no. Again, I would see John Huang and James Riady at various times in the hallway. I would stop and say hello to them. So it is possible I would have seen them in and around the White House during that time frame. But again, there is no way for me to relate when I would see them in the hall with any particular month or even year.

Q Okay. When you saw Mr. Huang, was there ever any discussion on, you know, how's your appointment coming along, or where is that; you know, did he ever have any discussions in '94 about him getting a job in the administration?

A No.

Q Just if you ran into him, like has anything happened yet, anything like that?

A No, I mean, at some point I assume I knew, though I couldn't tell you when, that he was over at the Department of Commerce, but I had no sense, you know, as to when he went over there or what the status at any point of his appointment was.

Q All right. And Mr. Hubbell got his 100,000 or so from the Lippo Group in late June of '94. Did you ever hear anything about that prior to press reports?

A No.

Q Have you had any discussion with anybody at the White House since the press reports about those matters about Mr. Hubbell getting that amount of money from the Lippo Group?

A No.

Q And that would include the President and the First Lady on that also?

A Yes.

Q I just wanted to go through some other employers. Did you have any knowledge of Time Warner hiring Mr. Hubbell to do anything?

A Not at the time, no.

Q Do you know Michael Berman?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Prior to the press reports of Michael Berman assisting Mr. Hubbell getting Time Warner, did Mr. Berman ever tell you anything about that assistance?

A No, not prior to the press reports.

Q Okay. So at or around the time when Mr. Hubbell pled guilty in December '94, Mr. Berman never called you up about anything relating to this?

A No, not that I recall.

Mr. Ballen. Could we take a break on this point?

Ms. Comstock. Sure.

[Brief recess.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Okay. You had mentioned that you thought you attended dinner with Truman Arnold and the Hubbells at some point?

A At least one.

Q And the reason I ask is I have a document from April 5th of '94 that Mr. Arnold produced that shows a dinner, and the following morning he calls Mr. McLarty about Mr. Hubbell. So I was just wondering if you can recall if in the course of the dinner any discussion with Mr. Hubbell came up about any type of work he might be doing for Mr. Arnold?

A Is that a dinner I attended?

Q Yeah, the April 5th one is Bruce Lindsey, the Hubbells and Erskine Bowles. Does that ring a bell that Mr. Bowles was there?

A I'm thinking that maybe the one ­­ you know, that was at this restaurant, but I'm not sure of that because if I remember right, Erskine ­­ I came late because I came from the White House, and I think Erskine came even later than I did, but again I don't remember any discussion of any substance at the dinner.

Q This was just a social occasion?

A Right.

Q Mr. Arnold didn't discuss his business or anything he was doing in Washington?

A No. I mean, he lived here at the time, he had a house here, but no, he was ­­ he was finance director, I guess, of the DNC at that time, I think.

Was that before he was finance director?

Q I don't know.

A Anyway, he had a presence here anyway. We did not discuss business.

Q Um­hum. And do you know who Tony Harrington is?

A Yes.

Q And who is he?

A Tony Harrington is a partner at Hogan & Hartson.

Q And do you recall him calling you about Mr. Hubbell at any time?

A No.

Q Do you recall ever talking to him about Mr. Hubbell going to Hogan & Hartson?

A No.

You know, I had conversation, and again, I don't believe it was Tony Harrington, but it may have been with John Richardson, which made me think about it. I had a conversation with one person in which they indicated to me that no law firm or very few law firms were going to be willing to hire Webb until such time as his problems were resolved at his law firm.

Again, he was no more specific than that. It was just ­­ and I don't quite know what the context of it coming up was, but someone at one time said, you know, there is no law firm here that is going to look at him until he gets his problems worked out.

Q And do you recall that was either Mr. Richardson or Mr. Harrington?

A No. I don't know, I don't think ­­ I don't recall any conversation with Tony Harrington. When you mentioned did you ever talk to John Richardson, it could have been a conversation with John. It could have been with a third party, I don't know. The only conversation I remember having at all about ­­ about Webb going to work anywhere was someone just telling me that, you know, that they didn't think any law firm would take a look at him until he got his problems solved with the Rose Law Firm. But I don't remember who it was or when it was, but it is the only conversation I recall having with anybody about employment opportunities for Webb.

Q Okay, and did you ever relay that to anybody at the White House?

A No. I mean, it was self­evident in a way that if you were having a dispute with your law firm in Little Rock, not many other law firms are going to go out and hire you. It was not ­­ you know, it was not surprising to me. It was, you know ­­ so, no, I don't think I related it to anybody.

Q Did you ever discuss that with Mr. Hubbell?

A No.

Q Did you have an understanding of Mr. Hubbell working during this time, like sort of sitting at a desk doing some type of work?

Mr. Ballen. I'm going to object because the witness said he already testified three times now that he did not have an understanding of what work, if any, Mr. Hubbell was doing.

The Witness. That's correct. I mean, I had a sense that he had a desk and an office, or a desk at least, if not an office, but I didn't know whether he ­­ how often he went there or what he did when he got there.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Okay. You didn't know if he was regularly getting up, going to work, sort of 9 to 5, anything like that?

A No. You know, I mean, obviously ­­ if you're trying ­­ if you're trying to get work or find work, you know, it's better to sort of have a place to, you know, to go every day than it is to be sitting around at home in your housecoat. But I had no idea how often he went there, when he got there, whether or not he had clients, or whether or not he just used it as a way to take messages, looking for clients.

Q And during that time if you had to reach him, would you call home or his office?

A I don't have any sense. I don't know if I ever tried to reach him.

Q Were you aware of Marsha Scott being in touch with him during this time?

A Sure.

Q Would Ms. Scott relate to you conversations she had with Mr. Hubbell?

A No.

Q Did she ever tell you anything about what her understanding of his work was?

A No. Again, I testified earlier that if there was any person in the White House that I would have had a general conversation about Webb's situation, you know, how tough it was going to be on his family and how tough it must be on his family, it would have been Marsha. But I don't remember any conversation more than general, you know, isn't it a shame type of conversation.

Q And did you have any knowledge of Mr. Hubbell traveling to any foreign countries during this time frame, spring/summer/fall of '94?

A No.

Q All right. Do you know John Phillips and Linda Douglas?

A Yes. Not well, but I know who they are.

Q Were you aware of Mr. Hubbell being asked to do some writing for the Consumer Support and Education Fund by Mr. Phillips?

A Not at the time.

Q Okay. Were you aware of Phillips taking a vacation with the Hubbells and paying for some of that vacation?

A I don't think so, no.

Q Okay. When was the first time you learned of the John Phillips matter, the work he did for the Consumer Support and Education Fund?

A The work he did or didn't do?

I think after it came out in the press that he was writing a book, I think I learned that John Phillips was unhappy that Webb had agreed to do some writing for his project and that he hadn't done it, and now he was writing a book. And so I think I just learned of that, sort of a general unhappiness on John Phillips' part.

Q Do you recall how you learned that?

A Probably Mickey Kantor.

Q Okay. And what did Mr. Kantor tell you?

A I think what I just said, you know, that John ­­ that Webb had agreed to do some writing for John, and, you know, that he hadn't done it, and now he was writing a book, and he was being paid supposedly, I guess, some sort of ­­ what's it called ­­ an advance, thank you, for the book.

Mr. Ballen. Sir, do you recall what time this was approximately that you learned this?

The Witness. It would have been after Webb went to jail and after it was announced in the press that he was ­­ that he was writing a book. But again, beyond that I can't tell you.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q I think the fact he was writing a book was announced sometime about when he went to jail, around ­­

A Early '96, but anyway ­­ because if I remember right, the book was supposed to come out like in July of '96, and it was maybe 6 months or so before that. I don't remember. When did he go to jail?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q August '95.

Were you aware of Mr. Phillips paying back the Consumer Support and Education Fund for the advance that had been given to Mr. Hubbell on that matter?

A I think so, yes. I think that was reported in the press that he had done that.

Q Did Mr. Kantor mention anything about that to you?

A I don't believe so.

Q Okay do you recall how this came up in the discussion with Mr. Kantor?

A No. I believe ­­ I'm sort of speculating that I saw him in the hall and said something to him about, I see we're ­­ Webb's writing a book. Did you know about it or something? He said no, and in the course of that conversation, he said that John Phillips was unhappy because he didn't know about it and that Webb had agreed in writing for him, and that, you know, he hadn't done it, and now he was writing this book. I think it was just my asking Mickey in general whether he knew or was aware that this book deal was out there.

Q Were you aware of Mr. Kantor assisting Mr. Hubbell in any way to find employment?

A No, not at the time.

Q Okay, and did there come a time when you learned that Mr. Kantor had assisted him in any way?

A I think that has been in the press, so I don't believe I became aware of it until it was in the press.

Q Have you ever discussed anything with Mr. Kantor about whether or not he helped Mr. Hubbell?

A No.

Q Did there come a time when you learned that Mr. Hubbell was doing some work for the LAX airport in the city of Los Angeles?

A Yes, what was in the press.

Q All right. And prior to that had you ever heard anything about Mr. Hubbell trying to get payment?

A No.

Q Had Mr. Kantor ever said anything to you about Mr. Hubbell having problems getting paid by the city of Los Angeles?

A No.

Q Do you know somebody named Lisa Specht?

A No.

Q Okay, and you had worked on the LAX matter some, and during the course of your working on that, you had never learned that Mr. Hubbell was representing the city?

A No.

Q And so the answer is that you had provided previously to the committee last year, those are accurate, and you have nothing you want to change in regard to any of this?

A No.

Q Okay.

A Didn't know about it last year, don't know about it this year.

Q Okay. We'll skip through that.

When did you first hear that Mr. Hubbell was going to plead guilty to two felony counts of mail fraud and tax evasion?

A Well, those are two different questions. I'm not sure I knew until the day he pled what he was pleading guilty to. So the question is when I became aware that he was pleading to those counts, it would have been the day ­­ if there was a story 2 or 3 days before that in the press, which I think there was, I probably learned that he was going to plead guilty or was expected to plead guilty at that point.

Q All right. Do you know if Mr. Neel had called the White House Counsel's Office to just give anyone a heads up on Mr. Hubbell pleading to anything in general?

A Again, you know, I'm not aware of that.

Q Okay. And after the guilty plea, did you talk to Mr. Hubbell about in general the legal matters in light of that he was pleading guilty?

A No.

Q Were you surprised by the guilty plea?

A Yes. I was surprised by the allegations and the amount of money involved, yes.

Q And did you ever talk with him about that?

A No. I don't know if you or anybody ever plea guilty, but it's not something that you bring up and discuss with him, no.

Q Fortunately, no.

A I mean, it's something you avoid, not something you want to get into discussion about.

Q But given that he's been a longtime friend of yours and all, and he had told you all that there wasn't anything to this once; isn't that correct?

A Hadn't told me that, you know ­­

Q Told others at the White House?

A Press reports said that's what he told the President, you know. I mean, you know, the only thing ­­ I'm trying to remember when I knew about anything more than just simply this so­called billing dispute, you know. I mean, the allegation that he had, you know, that he had charged expenses, personal expenses, to clients or charged personal expenses to the firm ­­ I'm not sure ­­ again, you know, it would depend on what was in the public press. I'm not sure any of that was sort of known until almost the day that he actually pled. I mean, there were certain questions about whether he had double­billed the RTC or something, but I don't think this sort of personal use of the firm or client money came out until the fact that he pled.

Q Did you ever talk with anyone at the White House at that time or the time of the guilty plea when those facts came out?

A He did talk to me. I don't know whether he talked to anybody else or not.

Q Did you ever talk to anyone at the White House about that?

A Again, not in any sort of way other than, can you believe it; or, can you believe how much it was; you know, what do you think he was doing; you know, how did he ever think he could get away with that? I mean, nothing ­­ I never talked to anybody who knew anything about it other than just sort of general conversation, you know, any two people would have about, you know, did you see what he did, did you see how much money it was, did you see, you know, like what the allegations are?

Q Did you ever talk with the President or the First Lady about the guilty plea?

A Did I? Again, if I did, it was in the same sort of general way. You know, what was he thinking of, how does anybody believe they can get away with that amount and that extensiveness of doing that.

Q Did you ever hear the President say anything in terms of that he felt betrayed or anything like that?

A No, no.

Q Or that he had lied to him about matters previously?

A No. I mean, I think no ­­ no.

Q Following his guilty plea were you aware of anyone in the White House ­­ the Sherburne memo where it talks about monitoring Webb Hubbell's cooperation? Were you aware of Mr. Hubbell's cooperation with the Independent Counsels being monitored by the White House Counsel's Office following his guilty plea?

A No, not in, you know, not in any sort of sense like that.

Q Do you know if anyone in the Counsel's Office or Ms. Sherburne in particular was following what Mr. Hubbell may have been telling the Independent Counsel?

A Well, again, I mean, you know ­­ to the extent that she is reading and processing what is, you know, out there, you know, yeah, I would expect her to follow it up, you know, and that's ­­ follow up; but in the sense of trying to find out what he's going to do or anything like that, no, I was not aware of efforts like that.

Q Were you aware of Mr. Neel's ever calling the White House Counsel's Office to tell anyone about what Mr. Hubbell had testified to in any matters?

A No.

Q Was there ever any discussion at the White House about what Mr. Hubbell may be testifying to because at that time he had agreed to cooperate with the Independent Counsel?

A No.

Q You never heard of any concerns expressed or anything like that about what Mr. Hubbell might be testifying to?

A No.

Q Were you ever present when anybody else discussed anything relating to Mr. Hubbell's guilty plea with the President, First Lady?

A Not that I recall. I mean, again, could have come up in a conversation that a third person was there and participated in, sure, but it was in a nonspecific sort of way if it did.

Q I wanted to ask you some questions about when the issues about Mr. Huang came up last fall and some of the fund­raising stories started appearing. Why don't we start with the September 13, 1995 meeting where Mr. Huang reportedly decided he wanted to change jobs and move from the Commerce Department to the DNC. Would you tell us how that meeting came about?

A I don't know how it came about.

Q Okay. You were at that meeting on September 13, 1995?

A Um­hum, yes.

Q And who did the meeting include?

A James Riady, his wife, John Huang, Joe Giroir, President, myself ­­ I'm trying to remember whether John's wife was there or not. I don't recall.

Q Okay. And what occurred in the meeting?

A Basically it was, you know, sort of a general conversation about, you know, James' family, the President, Chelsea. Again, I don't recall the conversation, but there was nothing unusual about the conversation.

At some point in the conversation, I believe John said something like, you know, maybe I could be of more help at the DNC than at Commerce. And, you know, the President, I think, indicated, if that's something you'd like, you know, that would be good, and that was sort of the way it was left. There was nothing further done.

After the meeting I called John and asked him to come by to see me, which I did, as you indicated, 2 days later, and I said, I just wanted to make sure, you know, that you really want to do this. I don't want to do anything or put anything in motion, you know, if you were just being polite and you're perfectly happy where you are and want to stay where you are. And he said, no, he thought he could, you know, do more good for the President over at the DNC and raising money and trying to organize the Asian American community. And so I told Harold that he had indicated an interest in going to work at the DNC then. That was sort of the end of my involvement.

Q Do you know why you were included in that meeting?

A We usually try to include someone in almost every meeting with the President, so there was always another person. Why I was included ­­ I don't know the reason, you would have to ask the people that asked me to come to it. The fact ­­

Q Do you know who that is? Who asked you to come?

A Probably got a called from either Betty Currie or Nancy Hernreich, someone in the immediate office. Again, because the Riadys relationship with the President is more ­­ stems from Arkansas ­­ you know, they may have decided that I was ­­ and because it was not going to be specifically ­­ at least my understanding was it was not going to be specifically on any sort of topic, you know, it wasn't going to be on any matter that was either an NSC matter, an NEC matter, domestic policy matter, that I was sort of, you know, a good person to be there; again, because my Arkansas relationship as well.

RPTS JACKSON

DCMN WASSERMAN

[2:20 p.m.]

Q And do you know why Joe Giroir was there?

A He came with them. I don't know ­­ I don't know ­­ you know, I don't know who included him, whether he was with them that day or whether they asked for this, they said Joe Giroir is going to be with them or not. I don't know any specific reason why he was there.

Q And at this time, Mr. Huang was still working at the Commerce Department, correct?

A Yes.

Q Do you know why he was there with Mr. Riady?

A No.

Q Did you get a sense that he was there with Mr. Riady in order make this pitch that he wanted to move?

A No, because I really didn't have a sense that the purpose of this meeting was about their pitch. One of the reasons I wanted to follow up with John was in the context of the discussion, I can't quite tell you, something ­­ it just seemed like he said ­­ he didn't sound to me like ­­ it didn't sound like he said it, you know, prearranged. And I didn't want it to be sort of an offhand comment that he made that, you know, that we went off and the next thing you knew he felt duty bound, you know, to go because he had mentioned he wanted to. So I wanted to make sure that this was something that he really had thought about and really wanted to do before I did anything about it.

Q Presumably Mr. Huang was ­­ this was a day that he would normally be at work so, he is taking off from work to come over to this meeting with Mr. Riady. I'm just trying to get an understanding of why he is leaving his job to come over for this what appears to be somewhat undefined meeting.

A I have no answer for that. I mean, you know, it did not seem unusual to me for John to be there with the Riadys because frankly, you know, they had worked together for so long. They were friends. You know, if James is in town, it did not seem that strange for John to, you know, take time off from his job to go around with his friend.

Q Were you aware of Mr. Huang keeping in touch with Lippo Group while he was still at Commerce?

A The answer to that is no. I mean, you know, whether ­­ I would have expected ­­ I mean, I keep in touch with my former law firm. It would not surprise me that he kept in touch with them but I was unaware that he did.

Q Are you now aware of him making lots of phone calls to his former employment on his government phone card?

A I read the paper. I am aware of what the papers are saying. I don't know what the facts are.

Q Have you had any discussions with anyone at the White House about what he was doing, whether he was making all those phone calls to the Lippo Group while he was working at the Commerce Department?

A No.

Q Did you have any knowledge of any job at the Commerce Department that required him to call the Lippo Group frequently?

A No. I mean I don't know if I knew what he did at the Department of Commerce so, you know, I'm not in a position to answer that because I don't know ­­ I have no idea what his responsibilities were at the department.

Q Do you recall what time of day the meeting was?

A Seems like afternoon. I don't remember.

Q When you came into the meeting, was everyone already there, or did you escort the group in?

A I don't recall. My sense is that, just the normal way those things happen, they would not have a meeting start ­­ if I was going to come, they wouldn't let them into the office until I got down there. But I don't recall.

Q Are you aware of John Huang being in touch with Harry Thompson?

A No.

Q Do you have any knowledge of what the relationship between Harry Thompson and John Huang is?

A No.

Q Did Mr. Huang mention anything about Harry Thompson on that day?

A On that day? No, as far as ­­ I don't recall John Huang ever mentioning Harry Thompson on any day.

Q Our records reflect that he made some phone calls to Harry Thompson the day before and that day. I'm wondering if that ever came up in a conversation or if you have any knowledge as to what that connection would be?

A No, ma'am.

Q Do you have any knowledge of Mr. Huang working ­­ was he going to be doing anything ­­ working on the convention, Mr. Huang?

A No, not ­­

Q At that time?

A ­­ at that time. I'm not even sure, you know, Harry was going to be working on the convention. Again, I hadn't thought much about the convention in September of '95. So, no, the answer to that is I don't know if Harry would have been working on the convention. And even if he was, I don't know why John would be talking to him.

Q Did the President ask you to follow up with Mr. Huang?

A I don't ­­ I don't recall. I mean, he may have said, you know, "Bruce, will you make sure the right people know about it?" But I don't recall that. But, again, one of the purposes of having a person there is to know that, you know, if there's something that needs to be followed up on, that there is a mechanism, that the President doesn't have to, you know, follow up, so that somebody else is there to sort of make sure it gets followed up.

Now, whether as we were leaving, if he turned to me and said, "Will you follow up on John's request," or when John said it, if he turned and said, "Bruce, will you follow up on that," I don't recall that, but it wouldn't be unusual. It wouldn't probably be necessary, either.

Q So you were generally talking about ­­ I mean, they were generally talking about family matters and things and then somehow this came up?

A Well, they may have been talking about the campaign, frankly. Again, I don't ­­ they were talking just in general about what was going on, and the campaign was starting to heat up. I don't know exactly what they were talking about. I don't know the context that this came up, if somewhere in the conversation John indicated an interest in going ­­ I'm not even sure if he indicated an interest in going.

He indicated that he thought he could do the President more good if he went to the DNC than he could at the Department of Commerce. And as I say, I thought ­­ sort of the way he said it, I couldn't tell whether it was maybe out of a sense of obligation that he should, you know, this is what he should be offering or whether or not it was something he really wanted to do, which is why I felt the need to not simply go to Harold and say, you know, you might want to follow up on this, but go back to John and make sure John really meant what he said.

Q Were you aware of the President having approved a large media budget in early September of '95 on commercials, Dick Morris's commercials at the time?

A The $10 million media budget that had been approved? I thought ­­ the answer to that, I guess, is no. I was involved ­­ slightly involved in the decision to buy media in June or July of 1995. But I don't recall a separate discussion ­­ or I mean a separate buy in September.

Q That was the initial media buy?

A Right.

Q And then there was a big project sort of signed off on in early September, sometime between September 7th and 10th. The $10 million was going to be borrowed, largely.

Do you have any knowledge of that?

A Not that I recall. I mean, I was involved in some of the meetings involving media but not many of them, but I don't recall that one.

Q Do you recall if in this meeting that generally came up at all, like, you know, the next campaign is going to be a challenge, we're going to need to raise a lot of money, sort of something that caused Mr. Huang to say, well, maybe I can help there?

A Again, I don't recall the specifics of the conversations. But it is possible that in talking about the campaign they would have been talking about, you know, it is going to be an expensive campaign, or something like that that would have led to his comment. Again, since I don't recall the specifics, I can't tell you that it happened. But it is not ­­ it would not be that out of the ordinary for there to be in a general discussion about the campaign, a discussion about how expensive it was going to be.

Mr. Ballen. Sir, do you remember that coming up or no?

The Witness. No, I don't remember the specifics. I remember John offering to be of help, thought he might be of more help to the DNC. I don't recall how ­­ what the predicate of that was, what we were discussing that caused him to do that. Again, it is reasonable that we were talking about the campaign, but I don't recall that.

Mr. Ballen. But you could have been talking about baseball? You could have been talking about anything?

Ms. Comstock. I don't think he indicated that he was talking about baseball.

Mr. Ballen. Could I finish my question, please? The witness is speculating. And if he doesn't recall, he's making an assumption, and I want that clear for the record.

The Witness. Right, I don't recall what the discussion was prior to John's statement.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you recall if you took any notes at the meeting?

A I don't recall. I doubt if I would have.

Q Do you normally take notes or not take notes in meetings with the President?

A Depends. I don't take notes unless there is something I need to follow up on. Now, I may have written down "John Huang DNC." But if I did, it would have only been to remind ­­ I don't recall doing that. But I would not have been taking notes as we went along. I would have written down ­­ if I intended to follow up, I might have written a reminder of me to follow up, at which point I probably would have thrown it away once I called him.

Q Was this a meeting in the Oval Office?

A Yes.

Q And were you seated?

A Yes.

Q Do you recall how long it lasted?

A No. I think the records reflect how long it was; 15 minutes, maybe.

Q And was Betty Currie or Nancy Hernreich in the meeting at any point? Did they walk them in?

A Again, it would be logical they would walk them in or come in and try to break the meeting up if Steve Goodin wasn't there.

Q And who is he?

A He's the President's personal aide. He's sort of the person who is always with the President, who comes in and says, "Mr. President, your next appointment is standing out here," or "Mr. President, you need to go to get ready to go to dinner." Whatever the schedule is, he tries to, to the extent he's around, he tries to keep the meetings on some sort of regular schedule.

Q And where does he work physically?

A He has a desk in the front office across from Betty Currie's. His main desk is back somewhere else on the first floor.

Q Is there anything else about that September 13th, 1995, meeting that you recall?

A Huh­uh. No.

Q Parts of conversations or ­­

A No.

Q Do you recall where Mr. Huang or Mr. Riady were going after the meeting?

A No.

Q Or Mr. Giroir?

A No.

Q Did the President ever ask you anything after the meeting about ­­ if you followed up on anything?

A No, not that I recall.

Q And were you aware of Mr. Riady or Mr. Huang coming back at next day ­­ and this isn't the meeting on the 15th ­­ on the 14th, if you recall them coming back?

A No.

Q So the next time that you dealt with Mr. Huang or Mr. Riady was on the 15th, you met with Mr. Huang?

A Yeah. I didn't deal with Mr. Riady. I dealt with Mr. Huang. I called and asked if he would come by and see me.

Q You called Mr. Riady?

A Uh­huh.

Q At his office?

A Yes.

Q So you initiated the phone call?

A Yes.

Q And you told him you wanted to follow up on ­­

A Right. I don't know ­­ I don't know whether I did it or whether I had my assistant call and say would John be willing to come back over and visit with me.

Q So at that point you knew where he was located at the Commerce Department?

A Probably.

Q You knew where to tell somebody to find him?

A Probably. Again, I would have probably said he's at the Department of Commerce. I don't know if I would have known any more specifically what office. I doubt if I knew what his title was. In fact, I'm probably pretty sure I didn't know. I would say, "Will you see if you can get in touch with John Huang over at the Department of Commerce and see if he can come back over and visit."

Q And did he come over that day that you called?

A I don't know if he came over that day. I don't know whether we called on the 14th and he came over on the 15th or if he called on the 15th and he came over on the 15th.

Q And then when he came over on the 15th, do you recall how long you met with him that day?

A No. Not very long. My only purpose was to ask him whether or not he really wanted to do this, was it something he really wanted to do. And he said yes.

Q And why did he say he was interested in doing it?

A I think he thought he could help the President more at the DNC than he could at the Department.

Q And did you discuss with him his fund­raising abilities?

A No.

Q Was there any attempt to find out, you know, if this was something, you know, that was his strong suit or something that he was suited for?

A Well, I knew he had been active in the Asian­American community, so I knew to the extent he could help us organize the Asian­American community that it was something he had done before. But that really wasn't my role. I wasn't interviewing him for this. I just didn't want to pass it along to people who would make those decisions if he was not serious about it, it was just a polite comment he had made to the President and he really didn't want us to follow up on.

Q And you had said you didn't want to set things in motion unless he was really serious about it. So your understanding was that you were going to have this meeting to see if things should be set in motion?

Mr. Ballen. Objection. This is the third time the witness has been asked and answered the exact same question, for the record.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q It was your understanding you were going to begin a process whereby you would see if he could go over to the DNC?

A I was going to mention to Harold that John Huang had expressed an interest in going to work at the DNC. I didn't want to express John Huang's interest in going to the DNC if John Huang really didn't have an interest in going to the DNC. So before I saw Harold or called Harold and said, "By the way, John Huang was in the office the other day and indicated to the President that he might like to go to work over at the DNC," I thought I should make sure that that in fact was what John Huang wanted.

Q And if that's what John Huang wanted, was that what John Huang was going to get?

A No, I don't have any sense of that. I was simply going to tell someone that that was what his interest was. It would be their decision as to whether or not they had a position, whether they could work it out or anything else. I just didn't want to pass along his interest if it really wasn't his interest.

Q And so you told Harold Ickes that he was interested in this?

A That he had expressed an interest in going to work for the DNC.

Q And then what happened?

A I have no idea.

Q You don't know if Harold met with him or not?

A I know that now, but I didn't know it at the time. I had no other involvement in it at the time. I mean, I read that Harold at some point met with him and so forth, but again, that's all from press accounts and after the fact accounts, not from knowledge I knew at the time.

Q Were you aware of Truman Arnold saying anything to anybody at the DNC on behalf of John Huang?

A No.

Q Were you aware of Joe Giroir suggesting to anybody at the DNC that John Huang should be hired?

A Not at the time.

Q Did you only learn of that through press accounts?

A Yes.

Q Has anyone at the White House since told you whether that was the case or not?

A I don't know if anybody in the White House knows if it is the case. No. The answer is no, no one did.

Q I'm wondering if anyone mentioned it to you.

A No. I read a press story at some point that said that Joe Giroir had called Fowler or somebody at the DNC.

Q When you spoke with John Huang, did he discuss the fund­raising he had done in 1992?

A No.

Q In the meeting with the President, had he mentioned anything like "Remember what a good job we did in '92," or anything like that?

A Not that I recall. I think he expressed, and again, in what I thought was some sort of halting way that didn't sound to me ­­ it almost sounded polite: "Well, maybe I can be of more help to you" or "maybe I can be of greater assistance at the DNC than I can at the Department of Commerce."

Again, the reason I felt the need to follow up was I thought it did not sound, you know, gung ho, you know, "I really want to do this," you know, "The reason I wanted to come see you today was to tell you I wanted to do it." None of that was expressed. It sounded to me like, you know, as almost a polite statement that he may not have meant, and I didn't want to do anything about it if he didn't mean it.

Q Did he ever mention to you the amounts of money he could raise or what, you know, what kind of dollar figures you were looking at?

A No.

Q Or what his ­­ if he did something like that, what would be expected of him?

A No.

Q So this was a very generic conversation you had with him?

A I called back. He asked me to come in. I said, "John, before I do anything, I just want to make sure this is something you really want to do." And in the course he said, "Yes, I really would like to do it." I said, "Fine, I just wanted to make sure." And that probably was the extent of the conversation. And then with that I told Harold.

Q Did there come a time when you learned that Mr. Huang had indeed moved over to the DNC?

A Oh, I'm sure I did. I don't remember when I learned that. But I'm sure that, yes, at some point I learned that he moved to the DNC.

Q Did you have occasion to see him at fund­raising events throughout '96?

A Oh, yeah, at several, yeah. But you know, again, I didn't go to fund­raising events here in the District. I usually only go to fund­raising events if we're on the road and we're already there anyway. I remember at one event in Los Angeles seeing him, but that's sort of the only time I remember seeing him, was at that event where the President acknowledged Mr. Huang.

Q July 22nd event?

A I don't know. I was not in the room when he acknowledged Mr. Huang, so I don't know. I don't usually go to the fund­raisers. I usually try not to go to the fund­raisers.

Q Did you have any knowledge of John Huang having any contacts with Charlie Trie?

A No.

Q Did you have any knowledge of John Huang having any contacts with was Pauline Kanchanalak?

A No.

Q Or with Johnny Chung?

A No.

Q Did you have any contacts with Johnny Chung?

A Not that I'm aware.

Q Or with Pauline Kanchanalak?

A Not that I'm aware of.

Q And I'll return to Charlie Trie.

Mr. Ballen. Could you speak up?

Ms. Comstock. I'm sorry. I will wait on Charlie Trie, the Charlie Trie matters at this time.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Did you ever, in the summer of '96, hear about Mr. Fowler pushing John Huang to, you know, raise more money or their quotas or whatever targets that they were saying needed to be higher?

A No.

Q When was the first time that you heard of some problems in connection with John Huang's fund­raising?

A I don't remember. I believe it had to do with the press reports about ­­ whatever that company in Korea that was ­­ Am Choeng?

Q Choeng Am, C­H­O­E­N­G A­M?

A Yeah, I think that's the first I heard anything about any problems.

Q And how did you hear about that?

A It was in the press, I think the L.A. Times.

Q Just the press accounts? Were you aware of anyone from the DNC calling the White House to ask about that?

A No.

Q And were you aware of any discussions then with the White House about returning the funds that were raised from Choeng Am?

A I don't recall. I mean, if we determined or if the DNC determined that they didn't come from the American subsidiary, I think we would have concurred that they should be returned. But I don't think ­­ I don't specifically remember that we had that conversation about ­­ over contributions. I don't know that I specifically remember it with respect to this one.

Q And what were the conversations you had about other contributions being returned?

A At different times when different amounts or different people came up, I remember the Gandhi contribution as one, we would try to, you know, once it was sort of in the press or publicly a question was raised about it, we would try to determine whether or not there was any basis for the story, Gandhi's being ­­ whether or not he had ever pled or made a claim in a court in California that he had no money and that he was living off the credit card of an uncle or cousin or anybody. And if we determined that there was a basis for it, we would, you know, agree that the money should be returned because there was a question as to whether or not that money was either the money of the person who gave it, or in the case of a U.S. subsidiary, whether it came from a legal entity.

Q Were you aware of ­­ with Mr. Gandhi, were you aware of him trying to set up a meeting at the White House?

A Yes. Well, I don't know if I was aware. I was aware at one time that Mr. Gandhi wanted to present the President with this peace prize and give him $100,000, I believe it was. And in the counsel's office I was involved in discussions as to whether or not we would do it or not. And the decision was that we would not take the money or direct the money go to charity or do anything with respect to the money.

I think we learned that Bush and Reagan and others had taken the peace prize, the prize, and so we were prepared to accept it. Again, I didn't have any details with scheduling it or whether it was going to be scheduled at the White House or anything else. I was involved in the legal discussions as to whether or not we could accept it, and whether we could accept the money or whether we should accept the money.

Q Were you aware of the DNC objecting to the President's meeting with Gandhi?

A No.

Q No one at the White House ever told you about that?

A No.

Q Did you attend the event of May 13, 1996, that Mr. Gandhi gave the award to the President?

A No.

Q Along with I guess at some point gave a check to the DNC for $325,000?

A No.

Q Were you aware of Craig Livingston arranging anything having to do with that?

A No. Would doubt it, but no.

Q Would doubt ­­

A That he had anything to do with it.

Q In fact, he did make some arrangements, and that's been reported, that he made some arrangements to ­­ did some advancement with Mr. Gandhi.

A Made arrangements or did something for the event?

Mr. Ballen. Is there a question?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you have any knowledge otherwise ­­

A No. No. No. I'm not sure what Craig did, but arranging for people to see the President was not one of them.

Q And I presume you still don't know who hired him?

A I don't.

Q Are you aware of any discussions in the White House Counsel's office, you know, in the past months about Mr. Gandhi and about how this meeting was set up, any new information that you had learned about this meeting at the hotel?

A No. I mean, the discussions about whether or not we could accept the award or should accept the award and/or the contribution or $100,000, I was involved in some discussion.

Once the decision was made that we would not accept the money and that we could accept the award, I had no more involvement.

Q Do you have any idea how the $325,000 to the DNC came up?

A No.

Q Because it was going to be $100,000 that they wanted to give to the President, or I guess to the President's charity?

A Well, they wanted to give it to the President. That clearly was unacceptable. And then the question was whether or not we would could accept it and designate a charity. And the legal consequences, we decided, of that were the same as his accepting the contribution, which was that we weren't going to do it.

So, no, once we made a legal decision that we were not going to take the money, that was end of it as far as I knew. I never knew he made a contribution to the DNC until after the fact.

Mr. Ballen. Nor, as the question implies otherwise, did you notice there was any connection between the $325,000 and the $100,000?

The Witness. Right. Other than just a pure legal decision as to whether or not we would accept a peace prize from this guy, I was involved in no discussions about, you know, when, if, you know, whether or not, even once we made the legal decision that we could, whether we would. And I certainly didn't know anything about any money or any connection between the money and the prize.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q And you weren't aware, then, of any National Security Council concerns about meeting with Mr. Gandhi?

A No.

Mr. Ballen. Asked and answered. Objection.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q I'm wondering, in terms of the President meeting with Mr. Gandhi in a DNC fund­raiser, were you aware of anyone at the DNC ever trying to check out if it was okay for the President to meet with him in this fund­raising context?

A No. I mean, I didn't know he met with him. I didn't know he was going to meet with him. I didn't know anybody had arranged it or anything about it.

Q So once you were done with the work in the counsel's office on Gandhi, you didn't know about this other fund­raising?

A Right.

Q Until you read about it in the paper?

A Yeah, until ­­ yeah, after the fact, yes, that's probably right.

Q Did you know of Craig Livingston being in touch with DNC people about campaign events?

A No.

Q So you have no knowledge of anything he had to do with facilitating this meeting?

A No. Craig Livingston started out as an advance person. I could see the White House using Craig to advance a local event. But ­­

Mr. Ballen. Do you know, sir?

The Witness. No. But again, I can't imagine him having a role other than an advance person in any of this. I take that back. I did go to an Orioles ball game one time and Craig was one of the advance people. So I do know that, at least to an Orioles baseball game, we did use Craig Livingston as an advance person.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Didn't he go on a Russia trip, too?

A Not that I'm aware of.

Q Now, during the campaign, the issues of John Huang came up and there was some interest in his fund­raising. Can you just generally describe to us how you learned about some of the problem contributions that John Huang had solicited and any discussions that you had about that? If you could just walk us through.

A I don't know if I can. Basically, I think most of what we have learned was in the press. We were usually trying to find out whether or not factually it was correct and then trying to make a decision with respect to how to respond ­­ how to respond, whether or not we should return the funds or not.

Q During this time, were you traveling with the President?

A Yes.

Q Did you ever talk with the President about these matters?

A Doubt it.

Q Did he ever say, you know, "Get to the bottom of this" or, "I want to find out what's" ­­ you know, "Let's get this cleared up"?

A Again, I don't recall. I mean, it would have been more on a case­by­case basis if he did. I mean, he might see an article and say, "What do you know about this?" But again, it was never sort of an ­­ I don't recall, at least to me, a general "Let's get to the bottom of this." It seemed more like we were responding to other people's press accounts and trying ­­ we were trying to follow up after the fact as opposed to ever getting ahead of it.

Q Do you recall discussing the issue of the $450,000 that was contributed by the Widjajas? The husband was the gardener and they were the ­­

A Yes.

Q Who did you have a conversation with about that?

A Probably Harold and maybe Jane.

Q Do you recall what that discussion involved?

A I think at the time we thought it was appropriate. We thought they had the ability to make the contributions and that they were legally in this country and, therefore, entitled to make the contributions.

Q And what was that based on?

A I think that we knew, at some point we knew that she was the daughter of someone who ­­ you know, a very wealthy Indonesian businessman, and therefore had wealth or had money.

Q Did you have knowledge of them living in the country at the time when they were making the contributions?

A I think we did. I think we thought they lived in Virginia. I thought there were pictures of the house they lived in. First of all, I don't think describing him as a gardener is quite right. I think he had a degree in ­­

Mr. Kanjorski. Architecture.

The Witness. Architecture. But, you know, I think the DNC, it came up and tried to determine whether or not there was a basis for returning the contributions, and at the time determined there was not.

Later, when they left and went back to Indonesia or Jordan to renew or maintain their status, a different decision was made. But the different decision I think was we had no basis for questioning those contributions.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you know who was working on those matters at the DNC at that time?

A Joe Sandler probably. Who else, I don't know.

Q Do you recall talking with Mr. Sandler during that time?

A Probably. I mean, I talked to Joe a lot during this period, you know, working through the various issues and problems and questions.

Q And this was not an effort to reach out to John Huang to ask him about the contributions, in particular like the Widjajas' contributions?

A I didn't reach out to John. Whether or not they did or not I don't know the answer to.

Q Did you learn of some conversations that Joe Sandler had with John Huang about these contributions?

A Again, you would have to be more specific than that for me.

Q I'm just trying to walk us generally through what you were learning about at that time.

A I think I did. I mean, generally, I learned that these people were in the country, they were legally in the country, they had in our judgment the ability to make the contributions; and, therefore, we knew no reason why the contributions should be returned.

You know, I didn't learn that in one conversation. I learned that over a period of time. That was basically the information I learned. Now how much of that I learned from Joe or Harold, or how much Harold learned from Joe was based upon conversations with John Huang, I don't know if I can tell you. But, basically, that's the information I learned.

Q Do you recall if there were ever any conversations with John Huang about the Choeng Am contribution, which by October had been returned?

A Again, I don't ­­ I don't ­­ I don't think I ever had any conversations. Whether or not anybody else at the DNC ­­ anybody at the DNC would have had a conversation with them, I don't know.

Q In light of that $250,000 contribution which John Huang was associated with having solicited having been returned, was there any concern that some of the other money he was raising may not be legitimate?

A I don't think at that point, no. You know, it is not that unusual that an American subsidiary gives a check, and, you know, on its face it looks proper; and then you learn that the American subsidiary didn't have a domestic operation and therefore could not have generated the money locally, and so you therefore return that contribution.

In my mind, that did not trigger any sort of greater concern about every other contribution.

Q And during this time, were you aware of people in the counsel's office and back at the White House, while you were traveling, pulling up documents on John Huang and the Riadys and things like that to evaluate what the context was with the President?

A Well, almost all those requests ­­ all of those attempts were in response to press requests. So if there was a press account ­­ and again, I don't quite remember whether different issues became important ­­ but if there were press inquiries about how many times have the Riadys been to the White House or how many times did John Huang go, yes, there were attempts made at the counsel's office to gather that information so that we could respond to those requests.

Q And to your knowledge, who was involved in that?

A Jane Sherburne was involved, most of the people in her group were involved. Cheryl Mills was involved to some extent. And I guess Jack Quinn, if Jack was counsel at that point, would be involved.

Q And were they faxing you materials on the road or anything like that?

A No. I mean, I sat in San Antonio on the phone for an hour and a half and took down longhand every one of John Huang's visits to the White House, I think. But it usually was not a form that could be easily faxed. It was usually taken off of these. They had just gone through the WAVE records, sort of like frankly that sheet you showed me where they simply went through all the WAVE records and tried to come up with the number of visits and things.

Q Did you talk with people at the White House about the number of visits Mr. Huang had had?

A I don't remember whether John Huang came up. There was a story that was reported in the press that had some number that was taken from primarily the ­­

Q Secret Service records?

A Yeah. That was sort of out there. And then we went back in trying to verify that and came up with the two John Huangs and tried to separate out which John Huang was which, which involved many times going to the people that waved him in and asking them "Which John Huang did you wave in?" and trying to get information. So I don't recall whether that was in October or November.

Q Late October.

A Okay. Well, then, yes, I was involved. And they would be passing that information to me, and in some sort of general form.

Q And did you discuss this with the President at all?

A We did ­­ I did on the John Huang one.

Q And what did you tell him?

A It was mostly factual, I think. I told him, you know, this is what we've been able to find. He has been to the White House X number of times. He saw you X number of times. Those appeared to be for the following events. He went to the California event. He wasn't at the Asian­American event. He went to this event. He saw, you know, Maria Haley X number of times. He saw Mark Middleton X number of times.

It was mostly just very factual.

Q Were you aware of anyone going to Mark Middleton to find out what he was meeting with John Huang about?

A I don't know if we went to Mark Middleton or not. We tried to go to everybody that was on the list. Now, most of the time we went to people who were still in the White House, and Mark wasn't. But, yeah, we were trying to find out. The press was asking why were these people here and what were they ­­ what was John Huang here for and who was he seeing and what were they discussing. And the only way we knew how to do that was go back to the people and say, "You waved John Huang in. What was he here for? What were you discussing? Why did you see him?"

Q Do you know who talked to Mark Middleton or if anybody did?

A I have no idea.

Q So you have no knowledge about what Mark Middleton was meeting with John Huang for?

A No.

Q Did you get a sense from the other people who were talked to what John Huang was meeting with people for?

A In general, yeah. You know, I mean, he met with some of the Asians about Asian appointments. Once he was at Commerce, he came to a number of meetings within the area of his responsibilities at Commerce. We knew what he had met with the President about because most of them were public events, when he was waved in to go to a public event for ­­ it was either the September 13th meeting or September 15th meeting, or we learned that he had met with Harold shortly after that.

We were able to reconstruct, if you will, you know, as best we could, who he met with and in general, to the extent people remembered, what they discussed.

Q Did you have an understanding of during 1996, when he was working at the DNC, what he was meeting with people about?

A I don't remember ­­ I don't remember how many times he came to the White House. If you showed me how many times he came and who he met with, I might be able to tell you. My guess is, to the extent he was there it was probably related to the political department, was meeting with people on Asian­American politics.

Q But was it at all connected with fund­raising, was your understanding?

A Again, I don't know if I had that sort of knowledge. The only people he would probably be meeting with on fund­raising would be people like Harold. So if he was meeting with people like Melinda Yee ­­ she wasn't there. Depending on who he was meeting with, my guess is most of it was not fund­raising related.

Q We have a number of different documents. I'm just going to show you ­­ I don't have an extra copy, and I'm not going to represent this is, you know, accurate, but what this is is, we've gone through ­­ and actually, it is accurate. But we've gone through both the WAVE records and Secret Service records and compiled a combination of lists.

But, as we've previously discussed, prior to June '95 there weren't any Secret Service records of people coming in and out. So these are a combination of both the Secret Service and the WAVE records, and sometimes one will pick them up and the other doesn't.

A Does it eliminate the wrong John Huang?

Q No, it does not.

Mr. Ballen. If you're going to show it to the witness, I'd like it to be made part of the record.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q One of the things that is on there is the person, the visitee and the requester, so to the extent that that assists at all and refreshes your recollection.

A In '96 this reflects a number of visits with Matsui and somebody in Presidential Personnel, who I believe probably worked for Weaver, Vanessa Weaver. And then it has a 3­15­96 with the Vice President. That may be the one that's been in the press this week, 3­27­96 with the President. I don't know what that is. That's probably a public ­­ some sort of an event, not a meeting.

Q And I can check. This is presidential visits to which Mr. Huang was invited. That's only the presidential visits. It doesn't include everybody else.

A Yes. DNC dinner is 3­27­96.

Q And this is also U.S. Secret Service WAVE records for entry into the White House complex, also. So those are two documents we received from the White House that provide some assistance?

A Again, almost all of the visits in '96, except for one with Ickes on 3­29­96 in which there is no TOA, POA, which I think means time of arrival, so that probably means he didn't come, almost all of them are with people in Personnel except for the ones with the Vice President and two with the President, both of which appear to be DNC­related dinners and coffees.

So, again, just looking at this, it would suggest to me that none of these meetings were fund­raising related.

Q In other words­­

Mr. Ballen. Can we make that part of the record?

The Witness. Sure, absolutely.

Ms. Comstock. This?

Mr. Ballen. Yes. You were showing it to the witness, so it is clear what he's referring to in the testimony.

Ms. Comstock. Okay. Make that Deposition Exhibit 21. Then make the other two 22 and 23.

Mr. Ballen. Which one is 22?

Ms. Comstock. Make the one presidential events 22 and the other one that has "draft" across it is 23. They are both White House documents.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­21

was marked for identification.]

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­22

was marked for identification.]

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­23

was marked for identification.]

The Witness. Again, without any knowledge what those meetings are about, just from who they saw, they would not appear to me to be fund­raising related at all.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you know Vanessa Weaver, who is in the Personnel Office?

A Yes.

Q Do you know if anyone determined what Mr. Huang was meeting with her about?

A I assume they tried to talk to her or did talk to her. I don't know the answer to that.

Q Do you know anything that she was working on with Mr. Huang?

A Again, I don't know, no. She was involved in personnel. Whether it was, you know, making recommendations for Asian­American personnel. Vanessa Weaver is also Vernon Weaver's daughter. So, to the extent they may have had a personal relationship because Vernon worked for Stevens and was connected with the Riadys through Stevens, they may have had a personal relationship. But, again, I don't know.

RPTS BRYAN

DCMN WASSERMAN

[3:05 p.m.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q I'm sorry. You were indicating ­­

A I was just indicating, Ken has been chastising me correctly for speculating, and I am again speculating.

Ms. Comstock. I would just like the record to reflect the gestures that were happening.

The Witness. I was indicating to him that ­­

Ms. Comstock. Ken was indicating to the witness not to ­­

The Witness. He wasn't indicating to me, I was indicating to him that, again, if the question was all of that is pure speculation, the answer would be yes. I don't know what ­­ I'm sure someone who tried, probably I think tried, spoke with Vanessa about what those meetings were about. I don't know what they were about.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q I just wanted to show the witness a group of documents from the White House which ­­

Mr. Ballen. Excuse me. Do you have an extra one?

Ms. Comstock. Yes. It's EOP 4943 ­­ actually, we probably should separate these out. Why don't we go to EOP 4056, which is in the middle of the stack, 4056 through 60, and it's a November 26, 1996 memo to Leon Panetta and Erskine Bowles from Jane Sherburne regarding White House statements re Riady meetings.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q In this memo, Jane Sherburne goes through her understanding of the development of White House statements related to the meetings between the President and James Riady. I just wanted to go through that with you. The second sentence in her memo, she indicates that "In early October 1996, Mark Fabiani reported to me that the Wall Street Journal was working on a story about the President's relationship with the Riady family, John Huang and the Lippo Group."

Do you recall if you learned about that in early October of '96?

A At some point Jane came to me and asked me about the meetings, so I think I learned about it when she came and asked me about the meetings.

Q Okay. And it indicates, because it says, "On checking records of meetings with the President, Miriam Nemetz reported to me that there were at least two White House meetings: one in April 1993 that lasted about 5 minutes and a 20 minute meeting in the Oval Office in September 1995."

Do you recall generally that Jane and Miriam were checking on records in early October 1996?

A No, I wasn't aware of that until Jane came to me and told me what they had ­­ what the records reflected.

Q Okay. And so Jane came to you at some point in October?

A Yes, probably.

Q And told you that they had been reviewing records about Riady and John Huang?

A I think she said that ­­ she indicated to me that they showed two White House meetings with the President, and I told her that there was at least one additional White House meeting, and I also told her about the meeting in Jakarta.

Q So you told her about the meeting at the hotel in November of 1994 in Jakarta that you had previously described today?

A Right.

Q And that's reflected in the bottom of the first paragraph here?

A Right. This says a social event in Jakarta. We also attended, while we were there, we stopped by a dinner that the governor of Jakarta, I guess, was having for the hospital, and it was in the same hotel that we were staying in, so we stopped by that on the way back from a dinner that the President attended which was part of APEC. We stopped by that and said hello to the Arkansans and the Indonesians who were at the dinner, and James Riady was at that dinner. So he saw him at least twice in Jakarta, once at the meeting with Mochtar in the suite and once at this dinner that we stopped by.

Q Okay. Do you recall, though, in October, in early October, had you told Jane about ­­ she says the President also had a brief encounter with Riady at a social event in Jakarta. Do you recall if you just told her about the sort of stop­by at this bigger event, or if you also told her about the hotel meeting?

A I don't recall whether I told her about both or one, or I don't remember.

Q And then it indicates that you also had told her about the September 1995 meeting; is that correct?

A Yes.

Q And then she goes on to say that she consulted with you about how to describe these meetings. Do you recall that?

A Well, the ordering, in my memory, is different from Jane's. I think in that same time that we were discussing those meetings, I told her about the additional meeting, the whatever it is, September of '96 meeting. Is that right?

Q The limo meeting?

A No, I don't know anything about a limo meeting, but good try. The meeting in the Oval Office with James Riady in September, I believe, of '96.

Q Okay. And did you describe these as social visits to Ms. Sherburne?

A Again, I don't remember whether I did in that conversation. She was upset or concerned that she didn't have this last meeting, and so I don't remember whether we got into much discussion or if she went out to find out whether there was, in fact, a third White House meeting.

Q She was upset she didn't know about the September 9th Oval Office meeting?

A Is that the date, September 9, 1996?

Q Yes.

A Yes, she did not know about that. And so I don't remember whether we described the two meetings that I attended in that conversation or whether she immediately left, as I said.

By the way, there was also a third meeting that I attended, or a second meeting that I attended, but a third meeting. I was unaware of it until she told me about the April 3 meeting. I think she then left to try to find out why they didn't have a record of the third meeting. She came back later, she called me later, I think, and told me that in fact Nancy had told Miriam about the third meeting and it just hadn't gotten written down.

She asked me what happened at the two meetings I attended, and I didn't describe them to her in terms of saying they were social. I told her what happened, so I described what occurred at the meetings.

Q And did you both agree on how to describe them?

A She asked me how I thought they should be described and I said I thought they should be described as social.

Q And what did she say?

A I think ­­ I don't know if she agreed with that. She reflects here that she told Mark to describe them as social. But at the time she was aware of not only my description of the meeting but of the substance of the meetings.

Q Now, she says, "He said they were social visits. Nancy Hernreich confirmed that the April 1993 meeting had been simply to say hello. Accordingly, I instructed Fabiani to describe the meetings as casual, drop­by visits, primarily social in nature."

Is it your testimony, then, that you didn't just say they were social visits; that you, in fact, went into detail and described them at some point?

A I described them in much the same way that I described them to you, or at least the September 13th meeting to you, in saying that they dropped by, that they had this conversation, that the only thing I could recall from the conversation was John Huang indicating an interest in going to the DNC.

Q Did she tell you that John Huang had refused to discuss that September 13th meeting with Joe Sandler?

A I don't think so. I don't think at this time, no.

Q Did you learn at some point that he had refused to discuss that with Joe Sandler?

A No, I don't know if I knew that or not. But again, it wasn't just the September 13th, 1995 meeting. I also described to her the September 9, 1996 meeting.

Q So your recollection is you described the September 9th, 1996 meeting.

A Yes.

Q And what was your understanding of what that meeting was?

A Again, that it was basically a social meeting, that at the end of the meeting as they were leaving, that Riady indicated to the President, I believe as they were standing up to leave, that he thought that our policy with respect to China was a correct policy and that he urged the President to stay engaged.

Q Do you know how the September 9th, 1996 meeting came about?

A I believe when we were ­­ I don't know how. I mean I assume the Riady ­­ James Riady made a request for it. I was asked ­­ Nancy called me one time when we were on the road and said that James Riady was going to be in town sometime in early September and did the President ­­ and wanted to see the President and was the President willing to see him. And I think I asked the President, do you want to see James Riady when he's in town, and he said, sure, for a few minutes. But I mean, again, the request had come from the Riadys.

Q Okay. So you asked the President if he wanted to see Mr. Riady pursuant to Nancy Hernreich's request, and he said sure?

A Yeah. James Riady apparently had called the President ­­ had called Nancy and said that he was coming to town and he would like to see the President. The President ­­ wanted to know whether or not she should set it up, so she called me to ask the President on this trip whether or not, you know, he wanted to see him, and the President said fine.

Q Were you aware of Mark Middleton also making that request on behalf of Mr. Riady to anybody at the White House?

A Let me take it back. I don't know ­­ I don't know that James Riady called. A request was made to the White House on behalf of James Riady. I don't know whether James made it directly or Mark Middleton or, you know, someone else made it. All I know is that Nancy called me and said that James had made a request. Now, whether that James had personally made the request or Mark Middleton had made a request on his behalf, but James had made a request to see the President, and did the President want to see him.

Q All right. Did you have experience in the past of Mark Middleton making requests for James Riady?

A Huh?

Q Did you have experience in the past of Mark Middleton making requests on behalf of Mr. Riady?

A No, I didn't. Again, I don't know if I knew at this time that he had made a request on behalf of Mr. Riady.

Q Did you have any knowledge of Mr. Middleton working with the Riadys in any capacity?

A No, not at that time.

Mr. Ballen. Excuse me, counsel. If I may interject at this point, it is now 20 after 3, and we had ­­ my understanding is we had agreed to a 3:30 termination.

Ms. Comstock. We had not agreed to a 3:30 termination.

Mr. Ballen. Could I finish my sentence? Would that be possible? You can say whatever you want. I would like a chance to say something here today uninterrupted, at least one time.

We had agreed to a 3:30 termination, as I was saying, and the Minority, we have been going since 10 o'clock with very short breaks. The Minority has about 10 minutes worth of questions that we would like to ask before this deposition is terminated, and it is now 20 after 3.

Ms. Comstock. Let the record reflect that the Minority counsel was uninterrupted, but inaccurate. We did not agree to a 3:30 termination time. When we set up this deposition, we did indicate that it would go most of the day and did not agree to any termination point other than when we were completed with the questioning.

Mr. Murray. Well, as you know, Ms. Comstock, we have requested, because of Mr. Lindsey's other duties, that we adjourn this afternoon so that he can get back to work. However, he would be willing to finish this line of questioning about this subject, which is I guess the subject of the various meetings with the Riadys at the White House and Ms. Sherburne's take on that and all of the correspondence that was engendered as a result. And Mr. Lindsey would be willing to sit and finish this line of questioning, and then allow the Minority to ask whatever questions they have about this matter or any other matters that have gone previous.

So can we do that?

Ms. Comstock. We still do have matters related to Charlie Trie to go into, too, which I don't think will be too lengthy, the meetings you had on May 9th with Mr. Cardozo regarding Mr. Trie.

The Witness. Maybe we could try to do this and then look at the timing and see whether or not it is 3:45 or 4:45, and then decide whether to go into Charlie Trie today or another time.

Ms. Comstock. Okay. Well, I'll ­­ I would like to finish up today.

Mr. Kanjorski. What is the estimated time on the other two?

Ms. Comstock. Well, we are going to, I guess, continue to go through these documents.

Mr. Kanjorski. This is to wind up visits by Riadys, but then you will have another series of questions you are interested in. My question is, how long do you anticipate they will take?

Ms. Comstock. Well, it depends on the witness's knowledge of Charlie Trie, which I'm not fully aware of.

Mr. Murray. Well, I've gone through this process with the Senate, which I understand the House people are not privy to when what the Senate has done, but I don't think it took the Senate too long to get through the Charlie Trie matter. So perhaps you all can do as well.

Mr. Kanjorski. Well, we will move through this and then go to the Minority questions.

Ms. Comstock. Okay. And maybe we can go back to the Charlie Trie matters, depending on where we are in time.

Mr. Kanjorski. Mr. Lindsey may have nothing to do, but I have a schedule.

The Witness. What was your question?

Mr. Murray. The only one with nothing to do, Congressman, are all the lawyers sitting here. We have nothing better to do.

Mr. Kanjorski. That's right.

Ms. Comstock. Well, now we have.

The Witness. You had asked me about what role I knew Mark Middleton had played, and I told you I knew no role or relationship with Mark Middleton with Mr. Riady at the time.

Mr. Ballen. There was no question pending.

Ms. Comstock. I did not interrupt the question.

Mr. Murray. Let the record so reflect.

Mr. Ballen. There you go.

The Witness. Anyway, we were walking through this document.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Okay. While we are addressing this, on this topic, this is regarding the September 6th, '96 meeting. This is a memo to Mack McLarty from Mark Middleton. It's CCH 000157, and it's dated September 6th, 1996.

And in this memo, Mr. Middleton is thanking Mr. McLarty for his expeditious assistance and indicates the meeting participant was staying at the Four Seasons Hotel in New York, was going to be arriving in Washington, D.C., and he was trying to facilitate a Monday meeting. We have had testimony that this memo was regarding Mr. Riady, in setting up this meeting in September of '96 with Mr. Riady.

Does that refresh your recollection as to whether or not Mr. Middleton or Mr. McLarty or somebody else was involved in setting up this meeting for Mr. Riady with the President?

A Nancy Hernreich called me. I don't know who talked to Nancy Hernreich. Nancy Hernreich called me, told me that James Riady would like to see the President, and did the President want to see James Riady.

Q Ms. Hernreich never indicated to you that Mack McLarty had forwarded the request to her on behalf of Mr. Riady, or Mr. Middleton or anything like that?

A No.

Mr. Ballen. Have you ever seen this document before, sir?

The Witness. No, sir.

Ms. Comstock. We will make that Deposition Exhibit No. 24.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­24

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Were you aware of any visit that the President had several weeks before this with Mr. Riady where they hadn't completed a conversation and that that's why Mr. Riady wanted to arrange this appointment?

A No.

Q Did the President indicate to you when you asked him about the meeting with James Riady whether or not he had talked to Mr. Riady recently?

A No.

Q Were you aware of Mr. Riady being at a dinner on July 30th, 1996, a small dinner that included Mr. Huang and Mr. Riady, Mr. Fowler, just a small group of other people?

A No.

Q Were you aware of the President meeting with Mr. Riady at all at the Olympics?

A No.

Q Did you travel with the President to the Olympics?

A Yes.

Q Did you have any knowledge of Mr. Riady being at the Olympics?

A No.

Q So you were actually present in this September 9th, 1996 meeting?

A Yes.

Q And who else was there?

A Mark Middleton, James Riady and the President.

Q So Mark Middleton was at the meeting on September 9th?

A Yes.

Q Did you know how he came to be at the meeting?

A No. He came with Mr. Riady, but I don't know ­­ you know, I don't know any more about it than that.

Q Did you know why he was there with Mr. Riady?

A No.

Q Was that normal?

A Normal? I mean there were two meetings of this nature in 4 years. The other one had John Huang and Joe Giroir and Riady's wife. This one had Mark Middleton. These were basically drop­by, social visits. You know, if Mark was with James, you know, then it would not be unusual for him to stop by with him. Again, these were not policy discussions or specifically related to any matter, they were just drop­by because James was in town.

Q Well, we have had other testimony indicating this was a follow­up to a previous meeting. You know nothing about that?

A I know nothing about that.

Q And generally, what was discussed in the meeting was?

A They discussed, again, they talked about social sort of things, family, what they were doing. James asked the President, made some comment to the President about how ­­ had he given any thought to what he was going to do after he was President because he'd be so young. And they talked about, you know, staying involved and sort of Jimmy Carter­type ex­presidency, former presidency or post presidency versus a more Reagan or Bush type. I mean, it was just general chitchat like that.

Then at the end of the meeting, as whoever came in to sort of tell the President that his next meeting was waiting or it was time to break up, people sort of stood up and, as I indicated earlier, James said something as he was leaving to the effect of I think you made the right decision on MFN and I hope you will stay engaged in China.

Q And what did the President say during this meeting?

Mr. Murray. In response to that comment?

The Witness. He may have said thank you. I don't know if he said anything. It was not sort of the comment ­­ it was not a discussion point, it was simply, you know, a ­­ you know, I think you made the right decision and I think you should stay engaged. I think in response to earlier stuff, he probably said that he hoped to be an active former President.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q And did Mark Middleton participate in this discussion at all?

A I don't remember if Mark said anything in the meeting. I mean, he was there but I don't remember him saying anything.

Q Did you say anything?

A Probably not.

Q So was this basically a discussion between Mr. Riady and the President?

A Yes. I mean, it was basically a social visit between the two of them.

Q And there was no reference to a previous meeting that they had, continuing on a conversation, nothing to that effect?

A No.

Mr. Ballen. For the record, that's the third time that was asked and answered.

Ms. Comstock. I'm just trying to assist the witness in reconciling this with previous testimony.

The Witness. My previous testimony?

Ms. Comstock. No, previous testimony from other witnesses, if he has any knowledge about how that refreshes his recollection as to anything that may have been said that seemed to be a continuation, that you didn't know how the topic came up.

Mr. Ballen. Where is the previous testimony to refresh the witness's ­­ to try to reconcile? Where is the previous testimony?

Ms. Comstock. Mr. McLarty had testified that this meeting was set up to follow up on a previous meeting that the President and Mr. Riady had had, which apparently this witness is not familiar with, so ­­

Mr. Murray. Well, Mr. Lindsey's recollection is not refreshed by your recollection to whatever it was that Mr. McLarty said.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Did you ever talk to Mr. McLarty about this meeting?

A No, not that I recall.

Q Either before or after the meeting?

A Not that I recall, no.

Q Okay. On the next page it reads that during the same time period, Fabiani had been asked whether the President and Riady had a private conversation in a limousine somewhere around the time of the summer Olympics during which they discussed policy toward China.

Do you recall discussing that with Ms. Sherburne?

A No. Jane asked me whether or not the President had ever met in a limousine with Riady, and I told her I had no earthly idea.

Q Did anyone ever ask the President about that?

A I don't know. I didn't.

Q All right.

A I did say to her, you know, that if they were having a conversation outside in the open, that the Secret Service could well have urged them to get inside of the limo because the Secret Service gets very nervous for the President to stand around outside having conversations. I did not confirm that Riady had sat with the President in his limousine following a political dinner in Washington sometime since the Olympics, because I had no earthly idea whether that was the case.

Q So that sentence here is inaccurate?

A That's correct. The only thing I said to her was it would not surprise me, again, that if they were standing outside talking, that the Service might ask them to get inside of the limo in order to complete the conversation because they don't like him standing around in the open air.

Now, "He did not know what they had discussed, and said it likely was private only because the Secret Service would have been uncomfortable with the President standing outside in the open air," again, I told her I had no idea whether they had met, I had no knowledge that they had met. If they had ­­ if there had been a dinner, she may have told me that there was a dinner that he attended. And I told her if there was a dinner and if they were standing outside talking, it is quite likely that they were asked to get in the limo as opposed to standing outside.

Q Are you aware of anyone at the White House checking any records about this matter, about the limo meeting, the alleged limo meeting?

A I don't know anything about a limo meeting. I think there was an event at one of the hotels in D.C. around the end of July.

Q July 30th.

A Okay. That Riady attended. But, you know, again, I wasn't at that dinner, I don't know whether he was at that dinner. I don't know anything about it. But I do think the records reflect that he attended a dinner around the end of July.

Q But your testimony is, then, that you never spoke with the President about what may have been this other meeting that Mr. Fabiani had been asked about?

A No.

Q Okay. And then in the second paragraph it indicates that "On October 10 or 11, I asked Records Management to pull all the Riady correspondence."

Do you recall discussing the Riady correspondence with Ms. Sherburne?

A Yes.

Q And what did you discuss?

A She brought the correspondence to the Albuquerque debate prep and she showed it to me. It was the first time I had seen it. She suggested that she thought that referring to the meetings as social, given this piece of correspondence, would not be believed, and therefore we should change our description of the meeting to reflect something more than just a social conversation.

I told her I thought that was crazy, that I didn't see how a 1993 letter from Mochtar Riady could or should change two conversations that I participated in in 1995 and 1996, and that I didn't think ­­ I thought it was a mistake. I thought if we tried to recharacterize it, it would be mischaracterizing it.

She said the press would never believe, based on this letter, that these other meetings weren't ­­ were only social and weren't more policy related, and I said I didn't care what they believed, that was the fact.

Q Was it your understanding when you responded to the press inquiries that they were only interested in the meetings that you had had with the Riadys, or that they generally wanted to know what the meetings with the Riadys and the President were about?

A There were only three that I was aware of, private meetings, one of which I did not attend, which was described as a photo op in April of 1993; one in September of '95; and one in September of '96. So I was at the only two real, if you don't include the photo op, meetings that occurred, so other than the President of the United States, I was probably the best person to describe what happened at those meetings, you know, in terms of being able to describe them.

Again, she knew at the time, she was aware of what happened at those two meetings. It was only in light of the letter that she thought that the press would not accept our explanation as to what those two meetings were about.

Q Okay. And then she indicates in the last paragraph at the bottom that there was a conference call on handling it, handling the Riady matter, which included you. The other participants were Harold Ickes, Joe Sandler, Amy Weiss­Tobe, and Joe Lockhardt.

Do you recall that conference call?

A We have conference calls almost every day, so whether or not we had a conference call in which we discussed the inquiries of various people, what the DNC or the White House was getting ­­ so it's quite possible we had a conference call in which we talked about the inquiries of ­­ about the Riady visits.

Q And one of the sentences here says, "I believe this was the call in which Fabiani also expressed the view that the press did not expect a detailed explanation until after the election."

Did you have a discussion about, you know, when ­­ wait until after the election to discuss the full ­­

A No.

Q ­­ picture on this?

A No.

Q Okay.

A The next sentence is correct: "Bruce reiterated his concern about overstating the significance of the meetings."

Again, my position from day one was that an April or March, whatever the date is, letter, 1993 letter to the President from Mochtar Riady could not and should not have anything to do with how we described two meetings with James Riady 2­1/2, 3 years later.

Q At this time were you aware of the amount of donations that the Riadys had given to the DNC?

A When? In '96 or 1992?

Q Well, were you aware of the total donations that had been given in 1992 or '96?

A No.

Q You had no idea on the numbers or the figures?

A No.

Q Did you have any knowledge of the amount of money that they had given to the Inaugural?

A No, I don't think so.

Q Was there ever any discussion of the amount of donations that the Riady family had made to the DNC and to the Presidential Inaugural Committee?

A No, no. What would it have to do with these two meetings? I mean, you know, Riady and Clinton were on friendly terms so, you know, the President saw him not because he gave money to the DNC or to the Inaugural, but because they had a relationship going back to when James had business interests in Arkansas.

Q And would they be considered longtime friends? When we talked before, not just in the context of what was previously indicated, that maybe the use of "long­term friends" by politicians doesn't really mean friends, was this a real friendship or ­­

A You know, I don't quite know ­­ I mean, you know, in my world a real friend is a guy you have over to your house for a beer, and you sit around and you talk and you go to movies together, and you do things like that. In that sort of world, no, the Riadys would not be real friends. They saw the President, you know, if it wasn't as a social event, a fund­raising event or a White House type event, they saw the President two, three times in four years, okay?

Do they have a friendship? I mean, do they see each other as friends? Do they ask about, when they see each other, do they know what their wives' names are, maybe how many children they have and ask about them? Yes. You know, so they have that sort of relationship. But again, you know, it's degrees of friendships. They are not a close personal friend, but they clearly were friends.

Q The last line here reads, "However, no one, including Bruce, disagreed that we needed to provide a fuller account of these meetings if press interest persisted."

Is that true?

A I don't know if that would have been true or not. I don't recall us having a discussion about whether we should go further. Again, I did express concern that I didn't think we should, in my judgment, mischaracterize these meetings based primarily on a three­year old letter.

Q And then on the next page, EOP 4058 indicates on the top of the page that Joe Sandler had told Jane Sherburne that John Huang had refused to tell him about one of the subjects that had been discussed in his September 1995 meeting with the President, Bruce and Riady.

Do you recall discussing that with Jane?

A Again, I think I told her that probably in one of the first conversations we had at about this time. I had probably a 30­minute telephone conversation with her in mid­October, prior to all of this, in which ­­ or early to mid­October, in which I went through as much detail as I could remember about what the two meetings involved, and I think I had told her in that ­­ at that time that in this meeting John Huang had raised going to the DNC.

Q Did you ever talk to John Huang about these matters in this time frame, in October of 1996?

A What matters?

Q About the meetings that ­­ the Riady meetings?

A No, not that I recall, no.

Q Or the September of '95 meeting?

A No, I don't think so.

Q Were you aware of people trying to get in touch with them at the DNC ­­ I mean people at the DNC trying to get in touch with him and not being able to find him?

A I don't know if I was aware that the DNC wasn't able to find him. I was aware of the whole dispute about making himself available to the plaintiffs in the Commerce Department lawsuit, Judicial Watch lawsuit. I was aware of that.

Q Did you have any discussions with him about that, or John Huang?

A No.

Q Or with anyone at the DNC?

A Oh, I had a lot of discussions with people at the DNC.

Q And what did you discuss with them about John Huang making himself available?

A We agreed that John Huang would make himself available or he would be terminated.

Q And were you aware of Mr. Huang going to the Hartford presidential debate? Did you see him at that event?

A I don't recall seeing him at that debate.

Q You never had any discussions with anyone about him being up there at that event?

A I don't think so.

Q Are you aware of him being at the White House at any time during this controversy, anyone talking to him at the White House?

A I don't recall, no.

Q Are you aware of Harold Ickes trying to get ahold of him?

A Separate and ­­ no, I don't remember Harold trying to get ahold of him, separate and distinct. Harold was involved in many of the same conversations I was involved in about what the DNC's reaction should be if John didn't make himself available for the deposition.

Q Were you aware of him traveling around to avoid the press or leaving Washington?

A No. I had a sense ­­ again, this is a sense ­­ that the DNC knew where he was, he just wasn't going to make himself available for, you know, for the subpoena, but that he was calling in and that they, you know, either knew where he was or were talking to him, and they also knew who his lawyer was, and they communicated to his lawyer that if, you know, if he didn't make himself available to accept service on the subpoena, that he would be terminated.

Q Was there any concern at the White House during that time that ­­ I mean, there became sort of a, you know, "Where's Waldo?" kind of situation where he wasn't coming in and people are trying to find him, and it went on for about a week or so, trying to ­­ is he going to return to Washington? Where is he? Do you recall any discussions about that?

A No. I didn't have a sense that people at the DNC ­­ I knew he was not making himself available to be served with a subpoena, but I didn't know that he was actively avoiding either the DNC or actively avoiding the service of the subpoena. He just wasn't going to voluntarily make himself available for it.

Q Was the White House concerned about that, about him not making himself available for the subpoena?

Mr. Ballen. I think the witness has already testified on this point.

The Witness. The White House indicated to him that if he didn't make himself available to accept subpoena he would be terminated.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q I know that was the final decision, but what were the discussions leading up to that?

A This is all about 2 days. I don't know if there was all that discussion. The judge had called Joe Sandler down, had suggested to him that, you know, that the DNC ­­ maybe Joe had indicated he didn't know where he was, said that the DNC had some sort of ability to find him. And with that, you know, we said the only ability we had was to tell him to show up for work on Monday and accept service or be terminated, and that we passed that word to his lawyer that, you know, if he didn't show up for work on Monday to accept service, he would be terminated.

Q Did you have any discussions with the President about that?

A No.

Q Did the President ever express any concern to you that this was going on and becoming somewhat of an issue in the campaign?

A Not that I recall. It got resolved in about 2­1/2, 3 days. It seemed like this was a Friday, and by Sunday he had accepted service and it was over, and by Wednesday they had taken his deposition and it was a nonevent. I mean there was a little coverage on it that night, but it didn't seem to me to be his ­­ you know, his deposition seemed to be nothing earth­shattering.

Q You don't recall any conversations with the President?

A I don't believe I had any conversations with the President.

Q And Ms. Sherburne indicates, she quotes the L.A. Times report on October 16th where you indicated you weren't going to discuss what the September '95 meeting was about.

A That's not quite true. I told them I wouldn't discuss any meeting that anybody had with the President of the United States with the press. You know, he said, "What did they discuss?" I said, "I'm not going to talk to you about meetings that the President has and what's discussed."

Q And then did you ­­ Ms. Sherburne writes about how she removed herself from this matter at some point. Did you have any discussions about her not being involved in these matters at that time?

A She didn't remove herself from this matter. It became apparent that this was going to last beyond the election and beyond Jane's decision to leave the White House. And therefore, I think it was her decision that someone else who was going to be there, who could see it through, should pick it up, as opposed to her doing it and then leaving and having the person with all of the knowledge about it be gone. So it wasn't any sort of a ­­ I mean it was more of this thing will not be resolved by the time I leave, and therefore, someone else ought to be handling it.

Q And then she indicates that you had a discussion with Jack Quinn about this. Do you recall that discussion?

A Where's that?

Q It says, "Harold discussed my concern with Bruce," about the middle of the paragraph there on the bottom, "and reported back that Bruce had conferred with Jack Quinn and they agreed it was sensible for Fabiani and me to withdraw."

A Possible. I don't recall it.

Q And then she indicates that she briefed you and Cheryl Mills on the information she had collected. Do you know who made the decision that you and Cheryl Mills should be the people addressing these matters?

A No.

Q Did Jack Quinn make that decision, or did you all just kind of take them on?

A Well, again, she may have briefed me. I don't think ­­ I think Cheryl was actually involved in it. You know, I again was on the road 99 percent of the time. So other than to the extent that I was, you know, the person who knew something about at least two of the events, Cheryl really took it over.

Q Okay. And then briefly, because the rest of the discussion is regarding the New York Times story that then followed and said there were disputes on how to characterize the Riady visits, you had ­­ did you have a disagreement with Ms. Sherburne at this time on how to explain this to the New York Times?

A I didn't know anybody was explaining it to the New York Times until I read it in the New York Times.

Q Did you receive a copy of this memo that we are reviewing?

A Yes.

Q And we have another, EOP 8737, another ­­

A What's it say at the top?

Mr. Murray. It says, "Jack, this is mostly crap. Bruce."

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q That is your handwriting?

A That is my handwriting and that is my comments.

Ms. Comstock. This is EOP 8737 through 41. I want to make the first one, EOP 4056 through 60, make that Deposition Exhibit No. 25. And then I'll make your copy, EOP 8737 through 41, Deposition Exhibit No. 26.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­25

was marked for identification.]

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­26

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you recall who gave you a copy of the memo?

A I think Jane did.

Q And did you discuss the memo with Jane?

A No.

Q Did you discuss it with Jack Quinn?

A Other than writing my comments on it, no. I may have told him that personally I thought it was mostly crap.

Q And what were you referring to there?

A Well, we just went through my disagreements and differences with the factual statements here. I mean ­­

Q Did you identify to Mr. Quinn or to anyone at the White House the points that you disagreed with?

A Oh, you know, there was a whole series of discussions, most of which you have here. Jane called me in Australia when the New York Times story came out and told me that, you know, that she hadn't said what this said, that she wasn't the source for some of the information in here, that she and I never had a disagreement, and so on and so forth.

A decision was made that Jane should write a letter to the editor of the New York Times outlining what she said happened. That letter never got written. Cheryl Mills ­­ Jane had told me, she had told Maggie Williamson, she had told Cheryl Mills, she may have told David Kendall, she told all of these people that what was in the New York Times and the suggestions in the New York Times were not correct.

So Cheryl made an attempt, based upon what she had told all of those people, to write the letter that Jane wouldn't write. Jane then told Cheryl ­­ you know, but that was based upon not only what she had told Cheryl and me but what she had told Maggie and Kendall and others ­­ Jane said she couldn't sign that letter and wrote this memo.

So at this point there had been an extensive, not with me personally, but an extensive back and forth about what Jane was telling us she had said and what I think is reflected in the letter to the editor and then what is reflected in this.

Q And so the letter to the editor, which is EOP 4943 through 45, has a handwritten note, I believe, to Jane from Cheryl Mills?

A Yes.

Q That is her handwriting on the front of that page?

A Yes.

Q It's dated 11­22­96. It says, "After talking with you yesterday about the letter you've been working on." Jane was working on a letter?

A She said she was. I mean, no one ever saw it, but she claims for a period of time that she was writing this letter, and we thought time was slipping away and if you were going to respond to it, you should respond. We were hoping to respond by the Sunday paper, so that there would be a response in the Sunday paper. Time was slipping away, so Cheryl took her hand at drafting something.

Q Did you work on this with Cheryl Mills?

A I think she read it to me, but I don't know if I worked on it with her.

Ms. Comstock. I'll make that Deposition Exhibit No. 27.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­27

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Was it Mr. Fabiani who was discussing this with the New York Times? Is that the concern, about how he was characterizing it in some way?

Mr. Murray. Characterizing what?

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Characterizing the meeting, what he had been told?

A I don't know who ­­ whether Mark Fabiani or Jane were talking to the New York Times. I don't know.

Q Okay. And then EOP 4946 through 47 is another draft of the letter, which is dated 11­23­96. At the top it says, "New draft reflects comments of Evelyn, McCurry and Lindsey." Do you know whose handwriting that is on the top of that version?

A Maybe Cheryl's, but I can't tell.

Ms. Comstock. I'll make that Deposition Exhibit 28.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­28

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you recall discussing this with Harold Ickes?

A I don't recall.

Q Because we have another copy of the November 26th memo. It's EOP 7378 through 82. It appears to have Harold Ickes' handwriting on it. Did you ever see a copy with Harold's handwriting?

A No. The only copy of this memo I ever saw was the one that I got that I returned to Jack.

Ms. Comstock. I'll make this copy, which has Harold Ickes' handwriting on it, Deposition Exhibit No. 29.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­29

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Finally, this EOP 49 ­­ actually, I'm sorry. This is ­­ during this time frame, did you have any discussions with the President about the characterizations of these meetings and the President clarifying it, as opposed to you or Ms. Sherburne qualifying it, how the meetings were characterized?

A Yes.

Q Because the President had made statements in the New York Times; is that correct?

A My understanding is that the President would characterize the meeting the same way I did.

Q But did you have discussions with him about that?

A I've had him tell me, "I don't know how these people can characterize the meetings since you and I were the only two in them."

Q And then EOP 4948, which is a memo to Cheryl from Jane, it's 4950 ­­ I'm sorry, 4948 through 4950, to Cheryl Mills from Jane Sherburne. Did you get a copy of this November 26th, 1996 memo going through the letter to the editor?

RPTS STALLSWORTH

DCMN PARKER

[4:05 p.m.]

A No.

Ms. Comstock. Let's make that Deposition Exhibit Number 30.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­30

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q And we've also received these handwritten notes.

A I may have seen this. Cheryl may have shown this to me. I just don't recall.

Q Okay.

Mr. Murphy. This being the November 26, '96, note from Jane to Cheryl.

Ms. Comstock. Right, we just made it Deposition Exhibit Number 30.

The Witness. I did not receive a copy. Whether or not Cheryl had shown me a copy, I just don't recall.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Okay. And then there's some handwritten notes which I believe are Jane Sherburne's written notes, which are EOP 4061 through 63. Did you ever receive these notes for any reason?

A No.

Ms. Comstock. Okay. Let's make that Deposition Exhibit Number 31.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­31

was marked for identification.]

Ms. Comstock. And then there's a December 7th, 1996, memo for Jack Quinn from Cheryl Mills regarding the November 26th memo.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Did Ms. Mills discuss this memo with you?

A I don't ­­ I don't recall. I don't ­­ I don't think so.

Q And I believe you've kind of testified, in essence, to what is in here, so I won't go through this again, but just for the record, I'll make this Deposition Exhibit Number 32. And that's EOP 4956.

[Lindsey Deposition Exhibit No. BL­32

was marked for identification.]

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Is there anything that you would want to comment on on this document? I'll certainly give you the opportunity if there are any additional comments you have.

A No.

Mr. Murphy. I've got two left. Do you have two left?

Ms. Comstock. Those were repeats. I don't know if ­­

The Witness. That's not a repeat. That's another ­­

Mr. Murphy. Erskine Bowles' copy or Leon ­­

The Witness. No.

BY MS. COMSTOCK:

Q Do you know whose handwriting that is?

A No. It's different than the one that Erskine says he doesn't need to be involved with this until he becomes Chief of Staff.

Q But is that the same memo?