HearingMay 9, 20081STATE OF NEW YORKCOMMISSION ON PUBLIC INTEGRITY-------------------------------------------xIn the Matter of the Investigationinto the Alleged Misuse of Resourcesof the Division of State Police-------------------------------------------x123 William StreetNew York, New YorkMay 9, 200810:10 o'clock a.m.HearingMay 9, 200821234P R E S E N T:HERBERT TEITELBAUMExecutive DirectorCommission on Public Integrity567MEAVE TOOHER, ESQ.Investigative CounselROBERT J. SHEAAssociate Confidential Investigator89101112LAWRENCE J. MURELLOAssociate Confidential InvestigatorPAUL, WEISS, RIFKIND, WHARTON& GARRISON, LLPAttorneys for Eliot Spitzer1285 Avenue of the AmericasNew York, New York 10019-606413BY:1415161718MICHELE HIRSHMAN, ESQ.ANNE S. RAISH, ESQ.ROBIN FEINMAN, ESQ.JAMES L. BROCHIN, ESQ.* * *19202122232425HearingMay 9, 2008312E X H I B I T S34COMMISSION'SDESCRIPTIONPAGE5173E-mail957174E-mail988175DA's report1219176Document13910177E-mail chain18111178E-mail chain18112179E-mail26713180E-mail Chain2706141516171819202122232425HearingMay 9, 2008412E L I O T3called as a witness, having been first duly sworn4by a Notary Public of the State of New York, was5examined and testified as follows:67S P I T Z E R,EXAMINATION BYMS. TOOHER:89L A W R E N C EQWould you please state your fullname for the record.10AEliot Laurence Spitzer.11QAnd Mr. Spitzer, you are here today12pursuant to subpoena?13AI'm here because I wish to testify.14QBut there is a subpoena issued?15AThat's what I've been told.I've16offered to testify since the initiation of17this inquiry.1819QAnd, Mr. Spitzer, where are youpresently employed?20AFamily businesses.21QAnd what was your previous22position?232425AGovernor of the State of NewQAnd how long were you in thatYork.HearingMay 9, 200851position?2AFourteen-and-a-half months or so.3QAnd during your time frame in4that position, were you familiar with Darren5Dopp?6AAbsolutely.7QCan you tell me who Mr. Dopp is.8AI think his title was either9Press Secretary or Communications Director10during my tenure as Attorney General, and11then he was Communications Director during my12tenure as Governor.13QAnd what were Mr. Dopp's duties?14ATo be the individual who would15deal with media requests, and craft a16communication policy.171819QAnd did he report directly toANo.you?He would report through the20Secretary to the Governor.21chart, virtually everybody reported to the22Secretary of the Governor.23formal as the old chart was.2425QGovernor?Although on orgIt was not asAnd who was the Secretary toHearingMay 9, 200861ARich Baum.2QAnd when you say it was not as3formal as that, regarding Mr. Dopp, what was4your relationship in terms of him coming to5you concerning official duties?6AI would have conversations with7Darren, I would say over the course of my8tenure as Attorney General, and as Governor,9multiple times.101112QAnd how long had you known Mr.AI think I met him when I wasDopp?13running for Attorney General, and he was14employed by Mike Bradman, I believe.1516And I then hired him to work whenI was elected Attorney General.1718That's when I began to know him,to work with him.19QAnd when was that?20AIt would have been January 1st of211999 as an employment date.22to that.232425QI met him priorAnd he served in what capacitywith you as the Attorney General?AAs I said, I think he wasHearingMay 9, 200871either -- I'm not sure if the title was2Communications Director or Press Secretary,3but the function was that.4QAnd when you were elected5Governor, he continued in a similar capacity6with you?78910AHis title became CommunicationsDirector, Director of Communications.QAnd did Mr. Dopp come to you withmedia issues ever?11AEver?12QWhile you were Governor?13AAbsolutely.14QWhat type of issues would he come1516Sure.to you with?AIt's almost too broad a question17to answer, but there would be how do we18respond to this particular issue?19to generate and float this concept in the20State of the State?21this TV program today?22232425Do we wantDo we want to appear onIt could be anything from a microto a macro issue.QBut I assume he wouldn't come toyou with day-to-day communications issues?HearingMay 9, 2008812ASometimes he would, sometimes --it would depend upon the context.3QWere there particular high4priority issues that he would come to you5with?6AYes.7QWhat types of issues would thatAIn the midst of budget8be?910negotiations, then, obviously, how we respond11to media inquiries about the budget.1213That would be a high priorityissue.14The nature of the priorities15would vary, based upon the rhythm of the16cycles, all through the tenure as Attorney17General, obviously different cases, different18efforts, different priorities would generate19different types of contact.20QSo in the Attorney General's21office it might be a high priority case, a22case that was getting a great deal of media23attention, or had large-scale ramifications24for the citizens of the state, things like25that.HearingMay 9, 200891As Governor, were there2particular types of issues that Mr. Dopp3would bring to you?4AYes.5QCan you give me some examples.6ABudget negotiations, discussions7about substantive issues that were at a8particular moment high priority from a media9perspective.10Obviously, as negotiations on any11issue reached a critical point, and the media12focused on them, that becomes something that13generates greater conversation.1415QAnd would Mr. Dopp discuss pressreleases with you before they went out?16ANot ordinarily, no.17QWere there times when he would18discuss press releases with you before they19went out?202122AAgain, the question is -- I'mtrying to give you a precise answer.I don't think I ever read a press23release in draft form to participate just in24editing it for syntax, or perhaps tone.25Occasionally I would see a press releaseHearingMay 9, 2008101before it went out, but ordinarily not.23MS. HIRSHMAN:the Governor's Office?4MS. TOOHER:5MS. HIRSHMAN:6The time period inA7think so.8tenure.9Yes.Okay.In the Governor's Office, I don'tI was thinking over the nine-yearIn the Attorney General's office,10I occasionally would, when it related to11settlement or initiation of a major case in12the Governor's office, I don't believe I ever13saw a press release in the sense of do you14want to edit this, or anything more than15information, this is what's going to go out.1617QSo it was not his habit to go toyou with press releases --18ANo.19Q-- prior to it going out while20you were in the Governor's office?21AThat is correct.22QDid he ever come to you in the23Governor's office with a press release, not24for editing, but to demonstrate to you, or to25show you, this is what is going out on aHearingMay 9, 2008111particular issue?2AThere were certainly times when3the issue would have been what statement4should we issue in response to this question,5or dynamic, sure.6Again, I don't know if it was7formulated as a press release, or there would8be a discussion about what the nature of the9statement should be in response to any given10set of circumstances.11QAnd when Darren Dopp would come12to you on issues, would he come to you13directly, or would it be a senior staff type14meeting?15AThere was no set structure.It16would depend on many variables, where I was,17where he was, was it a phone call with18multiple parties, was I in the Capitol?19And so, if nobody else was there,20he'd walk in and say we should talk about21this.22232425But there was no set process.QWould it be fair to say thatDarren Dopp had fairly free access to you?ASure.HearingMay 9, 2008121For nine years there was free2access for senior officials within the3administration.4AG's office, it was the case as Governor.56QThat was the case in theAnd Mr. Dopp would have beenconsidered one of your senior officials?7AYes, that is correct.8QAnd who were your other senior9officials?10ADuring what time frame?11QDuring the Governorship.121314Unless I specify otherwise, I'mtalking about during the Governor ship.AIt would have been my counsel,15David Nocenti; it would have been the16Secretary, Rich Baum; it would have been the17Director of State Operations, Olivia Golden;18and Paul Francis.19It would have been any of the20Deputy Secretaries.21Chief of Staff.22It would have been myAnybody who worked within the23Executive Chamber, Drew Warshaw, to anybody24in the counsel's office.25Marty Mack to Mike Shaw.HearingMay 9, 20081312There was Lloyd Constantine, whowas a Special Advisor.3There was a rather large circle4of individuals whom I would discuss issues5with.6QWould it be fair to say that that7was your practice as Governor to keep a8fairly open flow of communication with senior9staff?10AYes.Although I had a schedule11such that people could not just walk in12without going through Chief of Staff, or13somebody would say -- I don't know how they14referred to me, the Governor, is Eliot there.15They could check, and if I was there, they16could stop in.17QAnd again, getting back to Darren18Dopp, what was his authority in terms of his19actions as Communications Director?20me explain that a little bit.And let21ASure.22QIn terms of a press statement, he23would have authority to issue that without24consulting with you?25AI was not necessary sign off onHearingMay 9, 2008141press releases.2As press releases would be3issued, he could check, how many were issued4every day, or press statements, in response5to, you know, by each of the agencies, by6each of the press officers, by the press7officers, not only in the capital, but press8officers in the agencies, hundreds per week.9And I saw probably one or two, at10most in the packet of materials that I would11get.1213So I certainly was not involvedin the issuance of press releases.14Whether he had to get sign-off15from the Secretary or anybody else, I don't16know.17QAnd what other activities was Mr.18Dopp authorized to engage in besides press19releases?2021AWell, the entire dynamic of --interfacing with the media.22There were hundreds, if not23thousands, of incoming requests for24information every week and month from the25media.HearingMay 9, 2008151And his responsibility was to2both be responsive and to be proactive in3generating an affirmative communication4strategy.56789QAnd what about his authority inregards to communicating with other agencies?AI'm not sure I understand thequestion.QWell, the executive branch,10obviously, is involved with a number of other11state agencies and responsible for them.12ARight.13QDid Carl have authority to reach14out to those agencies in his position as15Communications Director?16A17Of course.The information officers at each18of the agencies were part of the structure19that he was in charge of.20He was responsible for the21communications policies and the statements22issued by everything from the Dormitory23Authority, to DCJS, to budget.2425So that was his responsibility.QWould you consider it withinHearingMay 9, 2008161Mr. Dopp's authority to conduct internal2investigations?34AYou would have to define theterm.5And, obviously, as a lawyer an6internal investigation is going to be7conducted by an IG, or the counsel's office.8910And so when you phrase it thatway, intuitively, I say no, he doesn't dointernal investigations.11But if he is responding to12inquiries, and he is gathering information in13order to do so, that may be viewed14as an internal investigation.15by someSo the answer is no, he doesn't16do internal investigations the way we, as17lawyers, think of them.18information in order to respond to media19inquiries, yes.20QBut he gathersDuring your tenure with Mr. Dopp21while you were Governor, did he ever discuss22anything in those words as an internal23investigation?24ANot that I recall, no.25QDid he ever discuss conductingHearingMay 9, 2008171any investigatory action, and using those2words, investigation?34Aphrases, no.56I don't recall that he used thoseQSenator Bruno, who was majorityleader during your tenure as Governor --7ACorrect.8Q-- would Mr. Dopp come to you9concerning press issues and Senator Bruno?10AOf course.11QAnd was that a subject matter12that had high priority?13AThe issue that had high priority14was moving our agenda through the15Legislature.16Obviously, Senator Bruno, as has17the majority leader, was part of that18process.19QAnd was there any standing20recognition that issues concerning Mr. Bruno21were issues that Mr. Dopp should bring to22you?23ANo.But inevitably, if Senator24Bruno made a comment on a radio show, or to25the media that evoked inquiry to us, and aHearingMay 9, 2008181request for a response, then that was2something that Mr. Dopp would deal with the3Secretary, or the Director of Operations, or4the Budget Director, or the appropriate5individual with respect to it in order to6craft a response.7So the reality is that when the8Speaker Silver, majority leader Bruno or I9speak publicly, it evokes, and elicits a10response from usually the other two.11And that dynamic required that he12participate in those conversations.13Darren Dopp.14QHe did,And was it Mr. Dopp's practice,15or did Mr. Dopp have a practice, concerning16information on Senator Bruno and relaying17that to you?18AYou would have to ask him.19QYou were not aware of any20particular behavior as far as information21concerning Senator Bruno and you?22AOnly that when Senator Bruno23would make comments when I was in Albany --24when I was not in Albany, I couldn't spoke to25it -- but when I was in Albany, and he madeHearingMay 9, 2008191comments that evoked, or stimulated media2inquiry, that would become a subject of3conversation; how do we respond, what should4the response be.56QAnd you mentioned David Nocenti.He was your counsel as Governor?7AThat is correct.8QWhat was your working91011121314relationship with Mr. Nocenti?ADavid and I would probably speakthirty or forty times a day.QAnd what were Mr. Nocenti'sduties as counsel?AHe was, as counsel to the15Governor, the lawyer responsible for16ensuring -- he had an enormous jurisdiction,17everything from bill drafting, ensuring that18we responded to every bill that was passed by19the Legislature, which was a larger task than20people appreciate, to ensuring that the21budget was crafted properly, in accordance22with law, and ensuring that everything we23did, in his perspective, abided by the24strictures of the laws and ethics that we25were living up to.HearingMay 9, 2008201QAnd what was your understanding2as to Mr. Nocenti's working relationship with3Darren Dopp?4AI have none, other than that they5had worked together for eight years, David6was my counsel throughout my eight years in7the Attorney General's office.8counsel to Claire Shulman; he had been had an9assistant counsel to Governor Cuomo.He had beenAnd10then I think first assistant counsel to11Governor Cuomo.12Eastern District.13Had been prosecutor in theSo he was a stupendously14experienced lawyer, who knows when and what15data or information he needs to reach a16conclusion, and he obviously, since he was at17the very senior most levels, both when I was18Attorney General and when I was Governor,19knew how to speak to individuals, including20Darren, to get the information he needed, or21to participate in decisions to make sure22things were done properly.23QWere you aware of any times of24Darren speaking with David Nocenti concerning25press issues?HearingMay 9, 2008211AWas I aware of any?2QYes.3AI could not give you a specific4instance where I can say on this date, on5that, issue they spoke, but I would, at the6risk of evoking the ire of my counsel here,7speculate that they spoke thousands of times8about press issues, because David and Darren9were at the very senior levels of10decision-making, both in the eight years I11was Attorney General and my tenure as12Governor.13QAnd what were the types of issues14that David Nocenti would bring to you15directly?16AEverything from judicial17appointments, to conversations about whether18I should sign or veto a particular bill.19Budget conversations, judicial policies,20legal arguments.21It was almost impossible to cabin22the range of conversations that we had.23was expansive as one might imagine.2425QAnd what about Rich Baum?Baum was your Secretary?ItRichHearingMay 9, 2008221AThat is correct.2QAnd what were his duties?3AThe secretary to the Governor is4by law essentially the -- other than the5Lieutenant Governor, I suppose -- the primary6decision maker, primary advisor, to the7Governor with respect to the structuring of8state policies.9So our conversations ranged from10every legislative budget policy, economic11development issue, to the politics and how we12would succeed in effectuating the agenda that13I had been elected to effectuate.14QAnd Mr. Baum reported directly to16AThat is correct.17QAnd are you aware of what Mr.15you?18Baum's working relationship was with Darren19Dopp?20AThey worked together.I could21not tell you if they had a regular 7:00 a.m.22meeting, or how and precisely they23communicated.2425But I can tell you that theyworked closely together, sure.HearingMay 9, 20082312QAnd Mr. Baum was also obviouslyone of your top senior staff?3AYes, that's correct.4QMarlene Turner, who is Mr.5Turner?6AHer title was Chief of Staff when7I was Governor, and prior to that, when I was8Attorney General, she had been a scheduler,9but really she ran the executive office in10the Attorney General's office.1112QAnd what were her duties in thatcapacity?13ATo --14QIn the Governor's office.15ATo essentially, from my16perspective, ensure that the everyday17schedule was maintained, the flow of paper to18me was such that I would receive the19necessary briefings, the information the20night before the next day's events, so that I21was prepared, and that the paper flow was22handled in accordance with my needs.23QAnd do you know what Ms. Turner's24working relationship was with Darren Dopp, if25any?HearingMay 9, 2008241AAgain, as my prior answers, we2had all worked together for years when I was3Attorney General, and so, it was a close4relationship, where issues were discussed and5matters were raised.6QAnd William Howard, what capacity7was Mr. Howard serving in your8administration?910AAgain, during the AttorneyGeneral's office, no.11QNo, in the Governor's office.12AI'm clarifying, because I've13spoken to both periods.14He had been -- and I do not know15his title, in fact, I'm not sure of what his16precise titles were in any period of time.1718He had been a senior officialwithin the Pataki administration.19And when I was elected Governor20and approached the inaugural, the concern I21had was how would we ensure that we were22prepared in the event of a blizzard, a23natural disaster, a prison uprising,24whatever, a sort of an event that would25require immediate response from the NationalHearingMay 9, 2008251Guard, or any other element of the state2response, from the State Police on down.3And as we interacted with the4Pataki administration, Bill Howard's role in5that structure, and decision-making6structure, became more and more apparent.7So we decided to keep him has a8holdover from the Pataki administration,9because he seemed to be the individual who10knew what levers to push, what buttons to11push, and levels the pull, who to call in the12event of a disaster.1314And he remained on the secondfloor.1516His precise title, I could notgive you.1718QAnd do you recall who had inputin that decision to keep Mr. Howard?19AI could not give you a complete20list.21decision-making process.2223And I know Rich Baum was part ofit.2425I know that I was part of thatBeyond that, I could not tellyou.HearingMay 9, 2008261Others had, in a similar way,2viewed him as being a useful participant in3that decision-making process.4QAnd did Mr. Howard have a5relationship with the State Police during his6tenure in your administration?7AYes.Part of his responsibility8was to be one of the individuals who would9deal with the State Police on a multitude of10issues, but I could not tell you which, and I11could not tell you precisely what.1213QAnd did Mr. Howard report to youduring your administration?14ADirectly?15QYes.16ANo.17QWho did he report to you, do youAHe reported to the Deputy1819know?20Secretary, who I guess would be Senator21Balboni.22And then from the Deputy23Secretary would be to, really, the Director24of State Operations, and the Secretary.25So really, there were severalHearingMay 9, 2008271layers between Mr. Howard and me in terms of2a reporting structure.34QAnd did you have conversationswith Mr. Howard during your administration?5ASure.6QConcerning what types of issues?7AThe contact with Bill was limited89to two areas, as I best recall.The first would be disasters,10usually State Police-related shootings.11There were several losses in State Police and12hostage situations and/or floods that13resulted in damage.14And Bill would be the individual15who would keep me updated as those events16unfolded during those periods of time.17And he would be the conduit of18information to ESP or SIMO, the Emergency19Management Office.20So that was the preponderance of21my interaction with Bill.22to those discrete events.23And It was limitedSecond, which is ancillary, but24he is something of a historian, and he helped25put together certain displays in the Red RoomHearingMay 9, 2008281of historical memorabilia.2And I remember we spoke about3that, and I think he was there when we did a4press availability.5I think it was a draft of the6Emancipation Proclamation, and somebody saw7it.8910That was the set ofcircumstances.QDid you ever have any11communications with Mr. Howard concerning the12State Police and the use of the airplane?13AI do not believe so.14QDid you ever have any15conversations with Mr. Howard concerning the16State Police and Senator Bruno's use of the17helicopter?18AI do not believe so.19QDid you ever have any20conversations with Mr. Howard concerning the21State Police provision of ground transport to22Senator Bruno?232425AI do not believe so.MR. TEITELBAUM:Mr. Spitzer, Ijust want to ask you whether Mr. Dopp usedHearingMay 9, 2008291the term "investigation."23Did he ever use the term"monitoring" to you?45THE WITNESS:I do not recall hisusing that term, no.6MR. TEITELBAUM:And was there7anybody in the Executive Chamber who viewed8the press releases prepared by the9communications people?10THE WITNESS:I'm sure there was.11MR. TEITELBAUM:12THE WITNESS:Do you know who?I do not know what13the precise review process was in the14Governor's Office.15I know that -- I don't want to16speculate, but I am quite confident that with17respect to certain types of issues, there18would be involvement from the senior staff,19meaning Rich Baum, or others who were20involved in a particular issue.2122On mundane matters, I imaginethere was not.232425But beyond that, I could not tellyou.MR. TEITELBAUM:Do you knowHearingMay 9, 2008301whether Mr. Nocenti drafted press releases?23THE WITNESS:idea.45I would be surprised, but I donot know.67MR. TEITELBAUM:Why would you besurprised?89I would have noTHE WITNESS:Well, because hehad enough paper to read without reading10press releases, and I just don't think that11he David would have been called in to12issuance of a press release unless it related13to the appointment of a judge, or a14particular subject matter that was within his15domain.16MR. TEITELBAUM:Did you ever17have communications with Mr. Nocenti18concerning a draft press release?19THE WITNESS:20MR. TEITELBAUM:2122Did I ever?As best you canrecall.THE WITNESS:I don't recall ever23having a conversation with David about a24press release, but then again, our25conversations were expansive and covered soHearingMay 9, 2008311many topics.2For instance, again, I'm not time3limited on this.4--56When I was Attorney GeneralMR. TEITELBAUM:During theGovernorship.7THE WITNESS:Again since David8was involved in so many issues, if there was9a press release relating to the budget, and10it had something to do with judicial11salaries, perhaps he would have participated.12I'm speculating there.13But, again, it's subject matter1415dependent.MR. TEITELBAUM:I believe you16gave testimony that Mr. Howard was one of the17people who had responsibilities with respect18to the State Police.19THE WITNESS:That is correct.20MR. TEITELBAUM: Was there anybody21else on the second floor who had that22responsibility?23THE WITNESS:24MR. TEITELBAUM:25second floor?Senator Balboni.Was he on theHearingMay 9, 2008321THE WITNESS:Well, by "second2floor," I perhaps have a different sense of3-- what I mean by the second floor is an4inner decision-making group of individuals.5Where the offices physically were6didn't matter a lot to me, because my office7was hardly ever on the second floor.89Senator Balboni, as the Deputysecretary with responsibility for law10enforcement issues, was somebody who had11responsibility over the State Police, as did12Denise O'Donnell, Commissioner of DCS.1314So there were others who had arole within that decision-making, yes.1516MR. TEITELBAUM: Besides Balboniand O'Donnell, and Howard, anybody else?17THE WITNESS:18The Secretary.Anybody?If you look at19the organizational chart, he clearly has the20supervisory responsibility.21But in terms of direct22interaction with the State Police, I think23those are the individuals.24BY MS. TOOHER:25QWas there a FOIL policy that youHearingMay 9, 2008331established in the Governor's office?2AYes, there was.3QAnd can you describe what that4policy was.5ANo.6QDid you have discussions with7your staff concerning FOIL, your senior8staff?9A10No.I mean, the discussions were -- I11don't want to be flip.12policy, I never participated in drafting it,13editing it.14I never read the FOILWe had one in the AG's office.15never looked at it, never made a decision16about FOIL.17181920212223IIt was answer FOIL requests, betransparent.I may have signed some executiveorders relating to it.But I did read, obviously, whatcounsel's office would have drafted.The effort was to be transparent,24but I did not ever look at a FOIL document,25or participate in decisions relating to it.HearingMay 9, 2008341QWhat was your understanding as to2what the FOIL policy was in the Executive3Chamber?456AGive the media publicinformation.QAnd when you say "give the media7public information," how so?8happen?910AHow did thatThey call and ask questions, youanswer it.11And understand, FOIL is a12threshold.It does not define the outer13limit of information's flow to the media.14I would say that only in a de15minimus percentage of media inquiries is16there a FOIL involved.17The media asks for information,18and is given information if it's public, and19that was the policy.20FOIL is provided or served only21if there is hesitancy, or if there is some22other reason, I suppose.23But there is an enormous flow of24information between and among the public25information officers and the mediaHearingMay 9, 2008351independent of FOIL.23QAnd why would there be ahesitancy in responding to a media request?4AWell, because you might say it's5going to take time, it's going to be6burdensome.7It's a chore to gather it.8you need it.9Stuff like that.10QHere is a FOIL, get it for us.So a FOIL request, what is your11understanding of what a FOIL request is12particularly?13is that an oral request?14MR. BROCHIN:15Is that a written request, orYou're asking for alegal definition?1617DoMS. TOOHER:No, I'm asking forhis understanding.18AI'm not sure if, in fact, there19is a distinction between a request that can20be on a piece of tissue paper that says21pursuant to the Freedom of Information Law.22I'm asking for A, B and C.23oral.I believe the24I'm not sure.25If somebody says FOIL, it becomesHearingMay 9, 2008361a FOIL request.2request.3Otherwise, it's a mediaThe distinction between the two,4in my mind, is de minimus to the point of5nonexistence, because either way we provide6public information.78MR. BROCHIN:Did you routinelysee FOIL requests?9THE WITNESS:I don't think I saw10more than -- I'm not aware that I ever saw a11FOIL request in my years as AG or Governor.12Maybe one or two FOIL requests13specifically related to me and the charities,14some particular issue, I may have seen it, my15family's charity, I may have seen it.1617QDid you ever have discussionswith your staff concerning FOIL?18AAgain, the word "ever" --19QDuring --20AI understand.Even time limiting21it to my gubernatorial tenure, the issue of22FOIL compliance may have come up, and23certainly on January 1st of 2007 I signed24certain executive orders relating to25information flow.And I don't know if thoseHearingMay 9, 2008371related to FOIL in particular.2But the notion of transparency.3So there were general4conversations that we were going to be5transparent, and try to provide as much6information as possible.7Beyond that, I do not recall.89QYou relayed the transparencyissue to your senior staff?10AThat is correct.11QAnd did you relay that to Darren13ANecessarily, so yes.14QBecause he was --15AWell, he was really the fulcrum12Dopp?16of that conversation.17Director, that is really where the media18interfaces with the executive.19As the CommunicationsAnd it came down to things as20fundamental as whether the second floor would21be locked, and whether there would be access22to the second floor for reporters, which had23been, you may recall, a point of some24contention during my predecessor's tenure.25And we made a significant effortHearingMay 9, 2008381to open up the second floor, so that2reporters could actually walk onto the second3floor, a portion of the second floor that's4considered to be the Executive Chamber, and5talk to people.67And Darren was the one whocoordinated that.89QAre you aware whether or not theExecutive Chamber had a FOIL officer?10AI am sure we did.11QDo you know who that was?12ASomebody within counsel's office.13QBut you don't know who the14individual was?1516AI don't know if it was one personthroughout, or changed.17It might have been a sort of18burdensome responsibility or duty that you19rotate around.20I don't know.MR. TEITELBAUM:Mr. Spitzer, was21it your understanding that there was a22written FOIL policy.232425THE WITNESS:I imagine therewas.MR. TEITELBAUM:Is that yourHearingMay 9, 2008391best information that you have?2THE WITNESS:3MR. TEITELBAUM:4THE WITNESS:5but I'm sure that it was.6was.78Yes.Was it written?I've never read it,I presume thereMR. TEITELBAUM:Did somebodytell you that?9THE WITNESS:I think it's the10sort of thing you just assume, and know11intuitively.12There has to be some process by13which FOIL's are responded to, deadlines,14time frames.15there's got to be a rule somewhere.16Like everything in government,MR. TEITELBAUM:What I mean by a17written FOIL policy, I mean a FOIL policy in18written form that was developed by your19administration.2021THE WITNESS:I do not know if itwas developed by us, amended by us.22That I do not know.23When I was Attorney General,24there was a FOIL policy that dealt obviously25with how you deal with requests forHearingMay 9, 2008401litigation documents and other documents2which you need to analyze from various3perspectives.4There must have been, I presume5there was such a policy with respect to the6executive.7QDid Darren Dopp ever come to you8concerning a FOIL request for Senator Bruno9information?10AHe came to me and said that there11had been information requested which would be12the subject of a FOIL, yes.13QWhen was that?14AOne such example, and it may be15the only one I can recall, it was related to16the use of the airplane, the helicopter.17QAnd do you know when that was?18AThe initial contact on that issue19I believe was in early May, but it was not a20request limited to Senator Bruno, it was for21anybody's use of the State airplane.2223QAnd what was your understandingas to where that request was coming from?24AI do not recall.I don't know.25QWhat did Mr. Dopp say to you inHearingMay 9, 20084112that regard?AThey are asking for information3about use of the plane.4not Senator Bruno's use of the plane, it was5my use of the plane, which had been a6constant source of media input.78QAnd frankly, it wasAnd when you say "they'reasking," who's "they"?9AThe media.10QAnd were you aware of any1112particular members of the media at that time?A13No.There had been articles in14virtually every media outlet, from the New15York Times to the New York Post, to the Times16Union, to TV stations, about use of the17airplane going back years and years and18years.1920212223This was a constant source ofinquiry.QBut in early May, what were theinquiries directed at?AI knew only that there were24inquiries about use of the airplane.25MR. BROCHIN:Did you say it wasHearingMay 9, 2008421early May?23THE WITNESS:I think it wasearly May.4And let me preface this by saying5that I'm going to give you my absolute best6recollection about when events occurred.7sometimes gets difficult to parse8recollection as I sit here today versus what9I have read in multiple reports and multipleIt10investigations of this issue, which have11brought to light facts that I now believe I12recall, but do not know when I actually first13recalled them.14QLooking to the early May time15frame, and Darren relayed to you that there16were media requests concerning the plane, had17been there discussions concerning the plane18prior to that time in the chamber?19AOh, sure.20QAnd what type of discussions wereAUnderstand that going back to2122they?231994, the issue of Air Cuomo, which George24Pataki turned into quite a significant issue25during the gubernatorial campaign, framingHearingMay 9, 2008431this as abuse of public assets.2Since that date, there had been3an awareness that this would and could be a4media issue.5During my campaign it was an6issue, it didn't relate to the public plane,7it was funding of airplanes.8When I was elected Governor, we9changed the certification that was to be10appended to request for the airplane, in11order to do our best to ensure that there12would be a public purpose attached to the use13of the plane on a given day.14151617QAnd when you say "we changed thecertification," who is "we"?AI use "we" because I'm not quitesure who was involved in that.18I know I at some point had raised19it as an issue where I wanted us to be20careful.21QWho did you raise it with?22AI don't remember if it was with23David Nocenti, Marlene Turner, Rich Baum,24Darren.25I do not know with whom I raisedHearingMay 9, 2008441it, but I know I made the point, let's make2sure we are careful, this is something that3is often a media focus.45And we did change thecertification.678910I was not involved in craftingthe wording, or involved beyond that.QWhat was your understanding as towhat the change in the certification was?AThere was, I believe, I believe11that there was an amendment that required12that there be a signed statement that there13be a government purpose to the trip.14I do not know what the form had15been beforehand, but I believe that was16added.17Q1819And what was the intent in makingthat change?AJust to make sure that the plane,20or the helicopters were used for a public21purpose, rather than for a purely political22purpose, or personal.232425There are many other purposes forwhich one can imagine.QAnd did you have an understandingHearingMay 9, 2008451at that time as to what was appropriate use2of the plane?3AAccording to who?4QAccording to you.5AWhat I thought was appropriate,6789or what the law thought was appropriate?Qappropriate?A1011What the law thought wasThat's why I asked.The law, as I understood it, wasvague.12And that vagueness was what13worried me, and hence I sought to add some14element of clarity to it.15QVague how so?16AThere was uncertainty about17either the need or the proportion of public18purpose that needed to attach to any given19set of meetings that were being made possible20by virtue of using the plane, and even to the21definition of what public purpose was.22This is an area that the courts23had grappled with in the Orenstein case,24where I was one of the Prosecutors, and25clearly, there was some ambiguity thatHearingMay 9, 2008461continued to be reflected in the guidance2from the Ethics Commission; or lack of3guidance.4So we were trying to say, what do5we do to make sure we act properly here.6Because the Executive Chamber needs, for7whatever reason to sign off on others' use of8the plane, as well, so we wanted to be9careful.10QAnd when the certification was11changed, what was your understanding as to12the appropriate use of the plane or13helicopter at that juncture, following the14change?15AAgain, it was obligatory -- what16was added was a statement, I believe, and the17document I'm sure is before you somewhere --18a statement that there be a government19purpose for the trip.202122QCould there also be anotherpurpose for the trip?AI believe we would have to look23at the language, but I don't think it said24exclusively government purpose.25said a government purpose.I believe itHearingMay 9, 2008471And again, that is the area of2latitude that I believed should have been3addressed, and needed to be addressed.45QAnd in terms of thecertification, were you a part of that?6ANo.7QWas that --8AThe drafting of it?9QYes.10ANo.11QWas that ever discussed with you12in terms of the language of the13certification?14ANo.I was a bit more concerned15with the budget, 3,000 appointments, and $12516billion, and how we would spend it.17QAnd was it ever relayed to you18that there had been conversations with the19Senate concerning the certification20requirement?21AI heard at some point that the22Senate was worried about a separation of23powers issue, and did not want to provide24some information, but I know beyond that.25QAnd who did you hear that from?HearingMay 9, 2008481AI do not recall.2QAnd were there ever discussions3about requiring more information in4requesting use of the plane than just the5certification?6AI do not know.7QDid anyone ever relay to you the8concept of using itineraries or schedules as9a requirement for using the plane?10AMaybe that is the information11that the Senate was hesitant to provide, but12I do not know.13MR. TEITELBAUM:Mr. Spitzer, did14you participate in discussions where the15standard was established for the proper use16of the helicopter aircraft?17THE WITNESS:18MR. TEITELBAUM:19No.Do you know ifthere were such discussions that took place?20THE WITNESS:I have no idea.21MR. TEITELBAUM:22THE WITNESS:Do you know --Although implicit23in the crafting of the certification, one24might argue a certification is a standard.25So if you're crafting a certification, inHearingMay 9, 2008491essence, you're creating a standard.2MR. TEITELBAUM:And what is your3understanding of how the certification4clarified the ambiguity that you just5testified to?6THE WITNESS:I could not tell7you without examining the certification and8contrasting it to the prior form, which I9have not done.10MR. TEITELBAUM:But your11understanding is that certification did lend12clarity to the --13THE WITNESS:It's my14understanding that it was an effort to lend15clarity.16others determine.1718Whether it did or didn't, I'll letMR. BROCHIN:He didn't testifybefore that it lacked clarity.19MR. TEITELBAUM:20understanding that it did lend clarity?21THE WITNESS:Was it yourIt was my22understanding that it was designed to lend23clarity.2425And we were attempting to addressan issue that was, dare I say, was not evenHearingMay 9, 2008501tertiary, it was probably about eighty-fifth2on the priority out of eighty-four, in terms3of things that I was worried about.4was something to get done.56QBut itDid you discuss the certificationissue with Richard Rifkin in your office?7AI don't recall doing so.8QWere you aware that Mr. Rifkin9had drafted, or had given an oral statement,10of the policy concerning the aircraft11previously?12AMuch after the fact, I became13aware, that to the extent there was a policy,14it was based upon an oral statement that15Richard had given when he was, I guess,16Executive Director of the Ethics Commission.17I don't know if that was the18formal policy, if it was the informal policy.19I know that became one element of the20conversation.21QBut you didn't have conversations22with Mr. Rifkin early in your administration23concerning the use of the aircraft?24ADid I?25QYes.HearingMay 9, 2008511ANo.I would get on the airplane2when they said we're using the airplane.3would get off when we got there.45II did not make any determinationswhether I used the airplane.6QDid you ever have discussions7with anyone in the chamber concerning Senator8Bruno's use of the aircraft?9AYes.10QAnd who would you have those11discussions with?12A13It began -MS. HIRSHMAN:You mean who14would, or who did he have those discussions15with?16QWho did?17AThe first conversation, as it18related to Senator Bruno's use of the plane,19resulted in from my conversation with Senator20Bruno during the campaign.21And I recounted that conversation22to individuals who then, were not then, but23would become part of the chamber staff.2425But it's relevant, I believe, toyour inquiry.HearingMay 9, 2008521And this was a conversation which2I'm sure you've read of, which he asked me3not to deny him access to the plane.4And I said I would not deny him5access to the plane.6was not my property, it was public property,7and that he would have access to it when it8was appropriately being used.910It was not my toy, itI conveyed that conversation toseveral individuals.11I could not tell you whether it12was Rich, Marlene, at that time, because13those were the individuals with whom I was14dealing during the campaign.15Darren was not.He ran my16campaign staff, so I dealt with him much less17during that period of time.18QAnd after you came into office,19was there conversations with your staff20concerning Senator Bruno's use of the plane?21AThere were a few, very few, and22I'm sure you have seen, as I have since this23whole inquiry began, the various e-mails back24and forth in which Marlene on occasion asked25me whether we should say yes or no to aHearingMay 9, 2008531request for the plane by Senator Bruno.2And so an event like that,3obviously, it was my attention.4were very, very few of those.567But thereIn fact, I can't remember anyother than that indicated by the e-mail.QAnd that event where Marlene8Turner spoke to Catesby Perrin, did Catesby9come to you and relay Marlene's request?10A11I imagine he did.I'm presuming that, but if12Marlene asked him to ask me something, I'm13sure he did.14And then there may have been one15other time, actually, when Marlene yelled16out, "Senator Bruno is asking for the plane."17And I would say yes.18to the plane, as long as they say it's for an19appropriate purpose.2021We do not deny accessThat was always my response.QAnd did you ever give direction22to Marlene, or anyone on your staff, to keep23you advised as to Senator Bruno's use of the24plane?25ANo, I did not.HearingMay 9, 2008541I have no idea how often he used2the plane, or when and where, other than3these interactions that we have discussed.456QDo you know why you received theinquiry on that occasion?AAs the events have been7reconstructed, and I was not focusing on this8at the time, there were moments when Senator9Bruno made comments, or made public comments10that were, by any standard, violative of the11civil discourse that we were trying to12maintain at a public level.13And I think somebody said, "You14want to act the way your predecessor did and15take the chopper, or the fixed wing plane,"16and I said no.17I told him back last summer, it18was not during the summer, we found out it19was in November, that I told him I wouldn't20do that, I'm not going to.212223QWho relayed that to you, "Do youwant to take the plane away"?AAgain, I don't think those were24the precise words.It would have been25Marlene, just by saying, "He wants the plane.HearingMay 9, 2008551What do you want to say?"2I mean, technically, as the3Governor, I could have said no, but I never4id.5QAnd in terms of saying yes, what6was your understanding as to the basis for7approving or denying the use of the plane?89AMerely that they would have tofill out the form that had been created.10So I do not know anything other11than that they had to fill out a form.12don't know what they were doing with those13things.14QISo in making a determination of,15yes, you can use the plane, or, no, he can't16use the plane, did you consider any17information?18A19No.I was not saying I have examined20the information, therefore, he can use the21plane.22process by peremptorily determining, as23Governor of the State of New York that he24will not use the plane, and I'm grounding25him, like apparent grounding a teenager.I was saying I am not overriding thatHearingMay 9, 2008561I'm saying, "Do whatever the2process requires."3authorization, he gets the plane.4don't fill it out, I guess they don't get it.569than the ordinary process requires.Parents aren't successful withteenagers, either.Q1011If theyBut I'm not doing anything other78And if he fills out theI have two.MR. TEITELBAUM:QOff the record.Concerning the media inquiries on12the use of the plane, and you testified13earlier, in early May, Darren notified you14that there were media inquiries.1516Those inquiries also concernedyour use of the plane; is that correct?17AThat is correct.18QAnd what was the nature of those19inquiries?20A21about them.22your use of a plane.23QI've told you everything I knowThe media is inquiring aboutFine, big deal.What was your understanding as to24the question concerning your use of the25plane?HearingMay 9, 2008571AWell, implicit in the question2always is -- and I'm not sure if it was3articulated this way -- the question is are4you using the plane to go to a fund-raising5event, are you using the plane to go visit6your parents in Florida, are you using the7plane to do government work in Rochester or8Washington.9It was essentially the effort to10parse that public, nonpublic, divide we11referred to earlier.12QAnd was there a particular trip13that the media was interested in at that14time?151617AI do not know.There may havebeen, but I don't know.QDid Darren Dopp ever mention to18you that they were inquiring about a19California trip during that time frame?20AI do not know if that was raised21ever, or certainly at that point in time22during my -- during the relevant time period.23In the course of this investigation, it has24somehow emerged that maybe that was the25inquiry.HearingMay 9, 200858123But I do not believe I was awareof that fact at that time.QDid you give Darren any4instruction in terms of responding to the5media inquiries at that time in early May?67AI mean, my recollection is Iprobably shrugged and said okay, next.89No.Big deal.QAnd did Darren have further10conversations with you after early May11concerning media inquiries on the use of the12plane?13AThe next conversation that I14recall -- and this is a conversation that, as15you can see from examining the multitude of16documents in this case -- we did not recall,17I did not recall until more recently, was the18mid-May conversation that somehow related to19the draft press release, and that sequence of20events, the May 17th.21QAnd what was that conversation?22AIt was a conversation in which23the question was whether or not information24should be released, provided to the media,25about use of the plane by Senator Bruno.HearingMay 9, 2008591Maybe others, but I recall Senator Bruno.2And my perspective was that this3was a nonissue, the law was remarkably4porous, that I referred to the Orenstein case5as the -- not by case name, I referred to it6as the Orenstein -- maybe I said the7Orenstein case established a very lax8standard.9Who cares, this is a nonevent,10and we're trying to do a lot of business with11these guys.12involved in any of this?131415QWhat's the point in gettingAnd who participated in thisconversation?AI believe it was Rich Baum.16believe it was Darren Dopp.17Nocenti may have been there.1819II believe DavidBut again, this was a very briefconversation.20Q21take place?22AAnd where did this conversationI do not recall if it was in my23office, or the adjoining conference room, but24it was, again, brief, because I was25dismissive of the issue, and indicated thatHearingMay 9, 2008601to those involved.2QI'm going to show you what has3previously been marked as Commission's4Exhibit 30.5(Witness reviewing document.)67Qthis document.89And I ask you if you can identifyAI can identify it as the draftpress release that has become a subject of10inquiry in this investigation, but I do not11make that inquiry, because I recall seeing it12at the time.13QWere you shown this document at14the time of your conversation with Darren15Dopp, Mr. Baum and Mr. Nocenti?16AI do not recall seeing this17document until this investigation was under18way.19QAnd by "this investigation," you20mean the Commission on Public Integrity's21investigation?22AWell, I'm not sure when you23began, as opposed to the DA, the IG, and the24others who have been parsing this.25I did not -- let me phrase itHearingMay 9, 2008611this way.2time frame of May, June, July of 2007.3QI do not recall seeing this in theSo you have no recollection of4Darren Dopp bringing this press release to5you in or around the May 17th time frame?6A7That is correct.And clearly, this was a topic of8conversation, but I do not recall, have any9recollection of seeing this document.10QAnd during the conversation about11this press release, was a decision made12concerning the press release itself?131415AI'm not sure the conversation wasabout the press release.I'll try not to quibble, but the16conversation I described was about an issue17separate and apart from the press release.18Now, the press release may have19been either the trigger, or may have been a20predicate to the conversation.21But the conversation was about22the release of information, and I was23dismissive about it, and whether that was24taken as final judgment, I guess, as the25Governor, I said, "This is a waste of time.HearingMay 9, 2008621This is an issue who cares."2I guess others might have viewed3that as a determination, because my4understanding is this press release was not5issued.6QWhat was your understanding as to7the information that was going to be8released?9AThe information relating to10Senator Bruno's activities on days when he11used the plane.12131415QWere you shown any documentsduring this conversation?AI do not recall seeing anydocuments.16Others may have looked at17documents, but my involvement in the18conversation was brief, as I said.1920MR. TEITELBAUM:anybody looking at a press release?2122Did you seeTHE WITNESS:QI don't recall.Did Mr. Dopp express any concern23at this time during this meeting about the24use of the plane by Mr. Bruno?25AYes.The predicate to theHearingMay 9, 2008631conversation was concern that the plane was2being used for purely political purposes, as3opposed to governmental.4that is perhaps hard to articulate.5This is a divideMy brief observation was that how6are you ever going to know which is which,7and what is what, and who cares.891011Qgoing forward from that date about use of theplane at this time?A1213Did Mr. Dopp express any concernsI'm not sure I understand.Concerns about Senator Bruno'suse of the plane.14QCorrect.15AI don't remember.16QDid you give him any direction17following this meeting concerning Senator18Bruno's use of the plane?1920AIn the course of thisconversation?21QYes.22ANot that I recall.23The conversation did not relate24to use of the plane, which was not a25determination that Darren would be involvedHearingMay 9, 2008641in making.2It was a question of release of3information, and that is the issue I spoke4to.5QDid Darren relate to you that6there were, again, media inquiries concerning7use of the plane?8A9Yes, that was the predicate.This was shortly after the10initial conversation about inquiries, and so,11it was part of that.12Q13plane.1415What did he say to you about theMR. BROCHIN:The sameconversation?16QIn sum and substance.17AThere were media inquiries.1819This is an issue that the mediawas always interested in.202122That was part of the backdrop tothe conversation.QDid Darren indicate he would be23doing anything in response to the media24inquiry?25AI do not recall.HearingMay 9, 20086512QDid you give him any instructionconcerning what he should be doing?3ANot that I recall, no.Other4than my indicating that I thought it was5sillyish.67QDid you give him any direction tocontinue to keep an eye on this issue?8ANot that I recall.9QDid you give him any direction10concerning obtaining any records in response11to media inquiry at that time?12AI do not believe so.13QWas there any discussion at the14May 17th time frame of Darren doing anything15further on Senator Bruno's use of the16airplane?17A18I do not recall.And I'm glad you added the words19"time frame," because I do not know if the20conversation was on the 16th, 17th, 18th,2119th.22232425There is no precision in terms ofplacing the conversation.MR. TEITELBAUM:Within this timeframe, was there any discussion with Mr.HearingMay 9, 2008661Dopp, and the others who you mentioned, who2were part of this discussion, concerning3monitoring Senator Bruno's use of the4aircraft?56THE WITNESS:Not that I recall,no.7MR. TEITELBAUM:Either by8yourself or being mentioned by the other9people involved, did anyone else mention it?10THE WITNESS:By myself, you mean11whether I would monitor it?12MR. TEITELBAUM:13No, of coursenot.14But whether you yourself --15THE WITNESS:16MR. TEITELBAUM:17181920Mentioned the word.-- mentioned theword "monitor."THE WITNESS:I do not recallusing the word "monitor."MR. TEITELBAUM:Did you hear21anybody else use the word "monitoring" during22this conversation?23THE WITNESS:I have no24recollection of that, but again, as you can25see, this was a brief conversation among fiveHearingMay 9, 2008671hundred that day on other issues.2So I do not know.3MR. TEITELBAUM:Would you agree4with me that a direction coming from yourself5or from somebody else to Mr. Dopp to monitor6Senator Bruno would be an important decision?7THE WITNESS:8I don't mean to be disagreeable,91011No.but first, I do not remember using that word,I do not believe I used that word.But an important decision to keep12an eye on things is almost sort of a13perfunctory response to, you know, Senators14talking about property taxes.15Keep an eye, see what he says.16The word "monitor" is not a word1718I have any recollection of using.MR. TEITELBAUM:When we talk19about the subject, we're talking about20keeping an eye on Senator Bruno's use of the21State aircraft.22In words or substance, did you or23anybody else in your earshot, say to Darren24Dopp, in words or substance, and on a going25forward basis, from that period of time thatHearingMay 9, 2008681we are talking about, mid-May, that he should2be keeping an eye on Senator Bruno's use of3the State aircraft?4THE WITNESS:I do not recall any5such directive, but again, there was an6outstanding media inquiry about it, so7obviously, this was something that continued8to require some attention.9don't know.1011Precisely what, IMR. TEITELBAUM:Did somebodyduring this conversation make that point?12THE WITNESS:I do not recall,13but again, the predicate to the entire14sequence was the media inquiries that were15made in early May, as they had been16throughout the months.17If you back and do a Lexus18search, you will see many inquiries, and many19articles, about this topic.20MR. TEITELBAUM:At this meeting,21did you have any suggestion that Mr. Dopp was22directly or indirectly in communication with23the State Police concerning the movements of24Senator Bruno in connection with the State25aircraft?HearingMay 9, 2008691THE WITNESS:2I have no idea where the3information came from, or how it was4generated.56I have no idea.MR. TEITELBAUM:What informationare you now referring to?7THE WITNESS:Whatever8information there may have been about where9Senator Bruno went.10MR. TEITELBAUM:Did Mr. Dopp11share that information with you during this12time frame?13THE WITNESS:As I said, there14was a general statement that he believed he15was not doing governmental work, but was16doing fund-raising.171819Where that information came from,I do not know.And obviously, fund-raising20events are publicized events.21events that generate media coverage.22232425They're bigHow and where the informationcame from, I do not know.MR. TEITELBAUM:Did he show youan itinerary of Senator Bruno?HearingMay 9, 20087012THE WITNESS:I do not believe Isaw an itinerary.3There was a reference to either4the C.V. Starr or AIG conversation.5beyond that, no.678910111213MR. TEITELBAUM:ButWhat was thereference?THE WITNESS:A reference to hisstopping at, or having a meeting at, one ofthose two offices.MR. TEITELBAUM:What did Mr.Dopp say, as best you can recall?THE WITNESS:It was known that14they are contributors to the Republican15Party, or to Senator Bruno.16MR. TEITELBAUM:17Did you sayanything in response to Mr. Dopp?18THE WITNESS:19could have been discussing insurance20policies," who cares.21I said, "Look, theyMR. TEITELBAUM:Did anybody else22who was a participant in this conversation23say anything in response to Mr. Dopp24conveying that information.25THE WITNESS:I have noHearingMay 9, 2008711recollection.2And again, I don't know if it was3Darren who provided this specific4information.5C.V. Starr is referred to here in6the draft press release.I don't know if it7was C.V. Starr or AIG that was referred to.8Obviously, there is a nexus between the two.9But again, my view is he could10have been doing very legitimate government11work, discussing a multitude of issues.12MR. TEITELBAUM:Were you aware13of that time of Mr. Dopp being in possession14of a Bruno itinerary?15THE WITNESS:No, I was not.16MR. TEITELBAUM:Did you see him17holding any papers in his hand when you had18this conversation?1920THE WITNESS:I have norecollection.21MR. TEITELBAUM:Did he hand any22papers to anybody else who was a participant23in this conversation?2425THE WITNESS:recall.I simply don'tHearingMay 9, 2008721MR. TEITELBAUM:In looking at2Commission's 30, in the second paragraph,3after the colon --45THE WITNESS:The secondparagraph after the colon.6MR. TEITELBAUM:I'm sorry, the7beginning after the colon, the words "the8State plane and helicopter may be used only9for official state business."10THE WITNESS:Yes.11MR. TEITELBAUM:Is that12consistent with what your understanding was13at that time, May 17th, as to how the State14plane and helicopter may be used?15THE WITNESS:16MR. TEITELBAUM:17No.What was yourunderstanding?18THE WITNESS:Well, the rule as19articulated by the Ethics Commission, as I20understood it, was that there needed to be21some mix of purposes, one element of which22would be governmental.23Now, what those proportions were24was, to a certain extent, the crux of the25issue.HearingMay 9, 2008731And hence, as we discussed2earlier, the crafting of the certification as3it was crafted, you can insert the word4"exclusive" -- it was meant to ensure that5there was some governmental purpose.6Mr. BROCHIN:7place for a break?8THE WITNESS:9(Laughter.)1011THE WITNESS:MS. TOOHER:13(Recess had.)15Are we done?That wasn't meantto be funny.1214Is this a goodYes.BY MS. TOOHER:QGovernor, I'm going to show you16what has previously been marked as17Commission's Exhibit 5.1819202122(Witness reviewing document.)QI'll ask you if you've seen thisdocument before.AI'm not aware that I have.Let me put it this way.I23certainly don't recall seeing it in the time24frame of May, June, July.25Whether I have seen itHearingMay 9, 2008741thereafter, as these investigations have2unfolded, I don't know.34QSo you were never provided a copyof Commission's 5 during the May time frame?5AI do not recall seeing it, no.6QWhen was the first time that you7saw this document?89Ait.I'm not sure if I've ever seenBut as I said earlier, there were so10many documents that I saw in the course of11this investigation, I may have, but I don't12know.13QGovernor, I'm showing you what14has previously been marked as Commission's1542.16AYes.17QAnd I ask if you can identify18this document.1920AWell, it appears to be an e-mailthat I sent to Rich Baum.21QAnd the address, the22lawrence@lausp.com, that is your e-mail23address?2425Ayes.That is my Blackberry address,HearingMay 9, 20087512QAnd the subject of the e-mail,"Idea about JB, I want to discuss with you."3AYes.4QDo you know what you were5referring to there?6ANo, I do not.7QThis is May 15th.8This is aroundthe time of the May 17th discussion.9AThat is correct.10QAnd Rich Baum at that time was1112131415serving as your Secretary; is that correct?AAs he did throughout my tenure asGovernor, that's correct.QBut you have no idea what thereference here was concerning JB?16ANone whatsoever.17QAnd JB would have been?18AI assume it's Joe Bruno.19QI'm handing you what has20previously been marked as Commission's21Exhibit 43.2223Could you take a moment to reviewthe document.2425(Witness reviewing document.)QI ask you if you can identifyHearingMay 9, 2008761234this document.AIt appears to be a sequence ofe-mails between me and Rich Baum.QAnd I want to draw your attention5to the top line of the e-mail which6indicates, "I want to punch back at him.7is making personal attacks, and I'm going to8really go after him at some point."9101112Do you know who that refers to?AIn the context here, it wasSenator Bruno, yes.QAnd when you say, "I'm going to13go after him at some point," what are you14referring to?15HeAReveal the hypocrisy of what he16was saying in his personal attacks against me17and my wife.18QAnd Senator Bruno was making19personal attacks against you and your wife20during this time frame?21AThat is correct.22QHow were you aware of this?23AMedia reports, daily.24QI'm sorry, you said "daily"?25AYes.HearingMay 9, 2008771QAnd did you discuss this e-mail2further with Mr. Baum and the concept of3punching back at Senator Bruno?4AWhat I discussed was the issue of5the magnitude of 1199's contributions to the6Republican Party, and the nexus between that7and their welfare policy, as a discussion8that we should have.910QAnd the date on this e-mail isMay 16, 2007; is that correct?11AIt seems to be, yes.12QAnd that is around the same time13you're having the conversations concerning14Senator Bruno's use of the plane with Darren15Dopp?16AAs I said, I don't know if those17conversations were prior to or after the date18of the draft press release.19QThat date being May 17th?20AThat's correct.21QWere there ever conversations22concerning use of the State plane, Senator23Bruno's use of the helicopter, as a means of24punching back at Senator Bruno?25ANot that I recall, no.HearingMay 9, 20087812This, as you can see, from thee-mail chain, relates to 1199.3The sequence here is that -- and4again, I did not, don't want to speculate --5but the idea most likely that I was referring6to on the 15th, if there is any nexus, is to7this issue of highlighting the magnitude of8fund-raising from various unions.9was a topic of conversation.10QAnd thatBut in the conversations that11Darren brought to you about Senator Bruno's12potential improper use of the helicopter, was13it ever discussed as a means of getting back14at Joe Bruno?1516AIn this May time frame, I haveabsolutely no recollection of that.17This conversation was separate18and apart from the conversation relating to19the press release.20MR. TEITELBAUM:Mr. Spitzer,21just so the record is clear, how much would22it have meant, the words that follow subject,23why has the State PTY, the beginning of that24statement.25THE WITNESS:I wanted us toHearingMay 9, 2008791highlight the fact that, having just gone2through, as you may remember, a very3acrimonious budget debate, where 1199 spent4upwards of $10 million advertising against5our effort to get health care reform.6Joe Bruno had been essentially carrying their7water during that time, I wanted it clear8that 1199 and Joe Bruno had this very close9relationship at many levels, and that was the10context in which my effort to get both health11care reform and campaign finance reform was12deemed valid.13AndAnd his attacks, personal and14rather vitriolic attacks against me and15Silda, I thought were beyond the pale of what16was appropriate, and I wanted to respond by17getting this information out, which I thought18was relevant to the topic of health care19reform, and campaign finance reform.2021MR. TEITELBAUM:In terms of thefull list, what does that refer to?22THE WITNESS:Why did the State23party not -- I guess it should have been "put24out."25list that it gave of Bruno fund-raising."The o-u-t is probably "put out a fullHearingMay 9, 2008801I'm typing this on the2Blackberry.3thumbs are too big.4The keys are to small, and myIt referred to a desire to get5out a list of the full magnitude of6contributions from 1199 and others to the7Republican Party during this time frame,8which is the essence of campaign finance9reform.10MR. TEITELBAUM:11response to you, when he says there are12things he's done which we can publicize, what13was your understanding of what Mr. Baum was14referring to?15THE WITNESS:16MR. TEITELBAUM:In Mr. Baum'sI don't know.Did you ever17have a conversation with him with respect to18this?19THE WITNESS:20conversation about that.21I don't recall anyAs you can see, my frustration22was the nature of the personal attacks around23this time, they were rather regular, and24addressed not only to me, which was fine, but25my wife.HearingMay 9, 2008811QDid you ever have a conversation2during the May 17th time frame with Darren3Dopp concerning where he was getting4information on Senator Bruno?5ANo, I didn't.6QDid he ever relate to you that he7was getting information from Bill Howard?8AI do not believe he did.9QAt any time.10AI do not recall his ever11conveying to me or my ever asking where any12of this information came from.13QDid he discuss with you during14the May 17th time frame recommendations he15had gotten from Peter Pope concerning the16information that he had on Senator Bruno?171819AI do not recall ever having thatconversation.QDid he ever relate to you that20Peter Pope made suggestions concerning the IG21and Senator Bruno's use of the IG?22AI have no recollection of that.23I became aware of that only in the subsequent24publication of that information in the course25of these inquiries.HearingMay 9, 2008821QAnd following the May 1st2conversation, did there come a time when3Darren Dopp came back to you concerning4Senator Bruno's use of the plane?56ACame back to me with respect tomedia inquiries.7So again, it's like emphasis, he8did not come back and say we should discuss9Senator Bruno's use of the plane.And this10is a conversation at the very end of June,11where he raised the issue of the media12inquiries relating thereto.13QAnd between the May 17th inquiry14and the end of June, did Mr. Dopp ever relate15to you that there was any activity from the16media concerning Senator Bruno's use of the17plane?18AI do not recall any conversations19between the May conversation, 17, give or20take, and the end of June, on that issue.21That was the period, the22intervening five, six, seven weeks was the23period of the legislative session, during24which we had a sequence of public meetings,25and back and forth on many, many issues.HearingMay 9, 20088312But I do not recall this issueever coming up.3MR. TEITELBAUM:Mr. Spitzer,4there is testimony in the record that Darren5Dopp, on a continual basis, was keeping you6apprised of his activities about Senator7Bruno's use of the State aircraft.8Did that happen?9THE WITNESS:10I have norecollection of that.11This was a period, as I just12said, during the middle of May, the end of13June, during which time we were trying to14negotiate a multitude of bills, and there was15activity on many, many issues.1617And I have no recollection ofthis issue being raised.18MR. TEITELBAUM:Just so we are19clear, the testimony in the record is that he20was conferring with you frequently during21this period.22that happening, or it didn't happen?23THE WITNESS:You have no recollection ofHerb, I'm giving24you my absolute best recollection, which is25that I have no recollection of it happening.HearingMay 9, 20088412MS. HIRSHMAN:something with this document?345MS. TOOHER:QYes.You have been provided a copy ofwhat has been marked Commission's 46.67Do you want to doCan you take a moment and reviewthis document.8(Witness reviewing document.)9AOkay.10QCan you identify this document?11AIt seems to be, again, an e-mail12chain among several parties indicated.13QAnd who is it between?14AWell, various e-mails, but I151617think it speaks for itself.Qchain from the bottom.1819And I'm going to take you up theThere is the original message -AAnd this is not the complete20document.21original message, this is -- you've given us22one page, and a Bates No. 803.23I assume that there are -- theThat header there would indicate24that there is an e-mail that preceded this,25as well.HearingMay 9, 2008851QThe header --2AThe very bottom of the page,3Exhibit 46, there is a header from Laurence4to Darren Dopp, but there's no content there.5I assume that there was some content beneath6this in the e-mail chain.78I want to clarify that this isnot the entirety.9QThe full chain of the e-mail?10ACorrect.111213good.My recollection isThe CN numbers.QAnd the CN numbers being pollnumbers?14AThat's correct.15QGoing up the chain to the second16entry that appears to be from you at the17Laurence e-mail account, to Darren Dopp, Rich18Baum and Christine Anderson, I want to draw19your attention to the last sentence, which20reads, "I also want to discuss a post session21strategy regarding Bruno and travel22generally."23AYes.24QCan you tell me what you're25referring to there.HearingMay 9, 2008861A2Yes.This is on May 27th, and I'm3saying that we need to think ahead to how we4will, in the post June 21, which had been the5date, I believe, that Senator Bruno had said6the Senate would conclude its legislative7activities, how do we deal with Senator Bruno8in terms of outstanding legislative issues,9and what we want to either accomplish10thereafter that remains open.11And the travel references to my12effort, which had begun earlier in the year,13and you can look at the itineraries from post14June 21, to travel around the state,15explaining what we got done, what we didn't16get done, and we need to begin to formulate17that effort.18The uncertainty being we19obviously didn't know what would and wouldn't20get done between then and June 21, but we21needed to be prepared to undertake that22effort.23QSo the post session strategy24regarding Bruno and travel, does that have25anything to do with Senator Bruno's use ofHearingMay 9, 200887123the helicopter?ANothing at all.It was mytravel.4If you look at the itinerary,5after session, you will see there was a6sequence of trips that were the result of our7conversation.8QAnd if we continue up the e-mail9chain to the top entry -- and again, I draw10your attention to the last sentence, -- I'm11sorry, the second to last sentence.1213"I presume the Bruno story runstomorrow."14AYes.15QDo you know what that reference16is to?17A18I have no idea.It was May 27th.I have no idea.19It obviously was something that20was kicking around that people knew of that21we were referring to.22232425QSo when you say, "The Bruno storyruns tomorrow," what do you mean by that?AI just told you, I have no idea.I don't know which story it was.HearingMay 9, 20088812QBut "runs tomorrow" means thatit's going to appear in the press?3AI would assume so, yes.4But you could go to the media on5the 28th or 29th and see what story there6was.I have idea what story.7Often the media asks for input on8stories, so you know what they're working on,9and you know what is going to be run.10QIn looking to the media following11the May 27th exchange, there was a story on12June 3rd concerning Senator Bruno and the13Abruzessee matter.14Are you familiar with that story?15AAm I familiar with the matter?16QYes.17AIn what way?181920212223Only from the newspaper storiesabout it.QAnd you became aware of thestories on June 3rd, on or about June 3rd?AI don't know.I only know of the name24Abruzessee, and those allegations, from the25newspaper stories that have been run.HearingMay 9, 2008891And if June 3rd was the first2story, then that's the first date I knew3about it.4567I know nothing about it beyondwhat's been in the media.QAnd how did you become aware ofit the Abruzessee story?8AThe press.9QI'm going to show you what has10been marked as Commission's Exhibit 47.11a chain of e-mails dated 6/3/2007.It's12AYes.13QCan you identify this document?14AWell, I can identify the last --15well, it purports to be an e-mail chain.161718I am the recipient only of thelast piece of this.Q1920I understand.MS. HIRSHMAN:the bottom, the first.21MS. TOOHER:22A23sent to me.24downloaded it from.25Reading up fromYes.You notice, I received -- it wasI don't know where youI presume I received it and readHearingMay 9, 2008901it.2e-mail I was not a participant of.3But everything above the 9:10 a.m.QAnd the bottom entry, which is4addressed to you from Darren Dopp, to you and5Rich Baum, subject, ATU, do you know what ATU6refers to?7AI presume the Albany Times Union.8QAnd Mr. Dopp writes, "I guess we910know why Bruno's folks have been so jumpy oflate."1112Do you know what he was referringto?1314AWell, do I know as we sit here,no.15A fair inference that there was16an article in the Times Union that morning17that he is referring to, yes.18QAnd if I told you that June 3rd19was the release of the Abruzessee article in20the Times Union, would that refresh your21recollection as to which article he was22referring to?23AIt would permit me to draw the24inference that that's what he is referring25to.HearingMay 9, 20089112Again, as I said, I presume thatthat's what it is.3I don't know as we sit here.4There are other articles, but I presume5that's what it was.6QDid you have discussions with7Darren Dopp about the Abruzessee article in8the Times Union?9AOther than a cursory, "Yeah, it's10a problem for Joe," or something like that,11no.12I know -- as I said I know only13what has been in the papers about it, and I14have not even read most of the articles,15because I don't care about it.1617MS. TOOHER:this as Exhibit 173.1819I ask you to mark(Document marked Commission'sExhibit 173.)20MR. TEITELBAUM:Mr. Spitzer,21referring to Commission's Exhibit 47, were22there discussions around this time period,23June 3rd, concerning the possibility of Dopp24getting out a travel story concerning Senator25Bruno?HearingMay 9, 20089212THE WITNESS:As I said, not thatI'm aware of.3And as I've said, the4conversations in mid-May, which I have5described, was one reference point.6there was no conversation that I recall about7this issue until conversations that I presume8you will talk about shortly, at the end of9June.10MR. TEITELBAUM:ThenAnd did you11hear, were you told, that there were12conversations among your staff concerning13getting out a travel story about Senator14Bruno at around this time?15THE WITNESS:No.16As I said, the conversation that17I had in mid-May I described, and then18thereafter, there was not a recurrence of19this issue, as best as I can recall, until20the end of June, when it did come back.2122Qas Commission's Exhibit 173.232425Showing you what has been marked(Witness reviewing document.)AI know it's not my job to askquestions, but do you know what day of theHearingMay 9, 2008931week June 3rd was?2Saturday or Sunday?3Q456Was it a weekend,I should, but I don't.I ask you if you can identifythis document.AIt purports to be the bottommost7original e-mail, this is the one that we've8been discussing, and above it is my, what9appears to be my responsive e-mail to Darren1011121314at about 9:12 a.m.Qe-mail concerning Bruno's -- having seen -AThe State Troopers would let medrive my own minivan to town.1718MS. TOOHER:Will you mark thisas Exhibit 174.1920Well, this one I was probablyBlackberrying while I was driving.1516And so your response to Darren'sTHE WITNESS:And that's why Iasked what day of the week it was.21Because I would get the papers at22the apartment, without heading to town if I'm23in the city, or the mansion, if I'm in24Albany.25to drive to the stores to get the paper.If I was at the farm, I would haveHearingMay 9, 2008941QSo the likelihood is at the time2you wrote this e-mail you were not at the3mansion?45AThat's why I asked if it was theweekend.6QOr in Albany?7APerhaps I was at the house in8Columbia County driving.9But not on my cell phone.I'm10not sure if the statute goes to11Blackberrying, or just the cell phone, or how12it defines it, but I may have pulled over.1314MS. TOOHER:as Exhibit 174.1516(Document marked Commission'sExhibit 174.)17181920212223Will you mark thisTHE WITNESS:I may have pulledover and timed myself.QShowing you what has been markedas Commission's Exhibit 174 -AI think June 3rd was a weekend.My sister got married on the 10th.QI'm showing you what has been24marked as Commission's 174, and ask you if25you can identify this document.HearingMay 9, 2008951AAgain, it purports to be an2e-mail -- the original e-mail is the one3we've been discussing, and above it is4another e-mail I sent back to Darren and to h5later that day, later that morning.67QAnd do you have any understandingwhy e-mail chains would break like this?8ANo, I don't.9QAnd be documented on separate10pages?11ANo.12QAnd again, in response to13Mr. Dopp's earlier e-mail, you respond, "Not14a good day for Joe."15mean Joe Bruno?I would take that to16AYes.17Q"This will set off a flurry of18stories.192021We should talk later about this."Did you have conversations laterabout the Abruzessee story?AI have no specific recollection22of our doing so, but it would seem logical23that we did, but I don't recall.2425QYou don't recall havingconversations with either Darren Dopp or RichHearingMay 9, 20089612Baum about -AI do not recall the conversation,3but I would say certainly it's probable that4we did.5Understand that virtually every6day we would talk about what was in the7papers, and that was the nature of the8Communication Director's responsibility, what9Abruzessee is in the papers, what does it10mean, what is the fallout.1112That's what we would talk about.QWhat is your understanding as to13what the Abruzessee story was about Senator14Bruno?15AI know only that there is some16issue about his financial relationship and17business relationship with Abruzessee.181920Beyond that, I don't knownothing.QI really never -Are you aware that there is an21investigation concerning Senator Bruno and22the Abruzessee matter?23AYes, I'm aware of that.24QAre you aware that that25investigation is being conducted by the FBI?HearingMay 9, 2008971AI know the FBI is participating2in investigations of Senator Bruno, whether3that is the focus or not, whether that is it,4I don't know.567I never cared aboutinvestigations.QIt was a fairly important story8concerning Senator Bruno at that time.9that be a fair characterization?10AOne might say so.WouldIt mattered to11me only in terms of the context of the12political dynamic, and what we were trying to13do, what the underlying facts were.1415I never bothered to pursue it.QWhen you say the political16dynamics and what you were trying to do,17you explain that?181920ASure.canAn effort to negotiatelegislation through the end of session.You understand this is June 3rd,21and we have had weekly public meetings at22which I am creating an agenda of substantive23issues, where we are hoping to reach24consensus, from healthy schools to DNA25reform, a range of issues.HearingMay 9, 2008981And we were trying to navigate to2conclusion.3QDuring this time frame, hadn't4you also made public statements concerning5changing the makeup of the Senate from a6Republican majority to a Democrat majority?7A89I don't know.I had been very clear that Iwould support Democratic candidates for the10Senate, intended at some point that we would11be able to take the majority.12democracy is all about.That's what13Senator Bruno knew that as being14somehow violative of the rules of engagement15in Albany, which I found somewhat hard to16understand, even though it may have broken17the Code of Ethics, what they considered the18Code of Ethics was between governance and19legislators in the past.2021I said I will campaign forDemocrats to pursue the agenda.22Now, your question said in this23time frame.I do not know if I had made any24comments about that publicly at any point25relevant, or precedent, or shortlyHearingMay 9, 2008991thereafter.2case.So I don't know if that's the3There had been a special election4in February, where the issue had been framed.5Thereafter, I don't know if there67had been any public commentary about it.QYou mentioned earlier that there8did come a time where you had a subsequent9conversation with Darren Dopp about media10inquiries and Senator Bruno.11AYes.12QCan you tell me how that came13about.14A15Sure.This was at the end of June, at16post session.17was June 21st that the Senate publicly18announced it was done with this legislative19session.20By post session, I believe itSeveral days thereafter, Darren21came into my office and indicated that there22continued to be media inquiries about use of23the plane, Senator Bruno's use of the plane,24and that there had been or there was going to25be a FOIL served.And he said, "Should weHearingMay 9, 20081001give them the information?"2And my response was, "Sure, screw3it, what choice do we have.4information," and I indicated that we should5do so.6It's publicThis was obviously not contrary7to, but a marginal difference from my May8statement, in which I had said, "Who cares."910This was a media request, and Isaid, "Answer the media request.1112131415"Give him permission to do whatwe need to do to answer the FOIL."QHad Dopp told you in May thatthere were media requests?A16Yes.As I've said, the predicate to17the entire conversation was that there were18media requests.1920212223That was back in early May whenthat had come to light.QHad you advised him to respond tothose e-mail requests?AThe conversation in May was,24remember how I described it, it was, "This is25a silly issue, who cares."HearingMay 9, 20081011This is not an area where anybody2will be ultimately found to have violated the3law, because the law is, unfortunately,4improperly porous, but so who cares.567QAnd now in June, the conversationis framed somewhat differently?AMy recollection is it was framed8more in the context of the media is back9asking for it, and hence my response was,10"What choice do we have?11the media."12Q13Screw it.AnswerAnd at this time, were youadvised as to what media this was?14ANo.15QAnd did he indicate to you if16there was more than one media request?17AI do not know.18QAnd did he relay to you that1920there had been a specific FOIL request?AI don't know if he said that21there was going to be a FOIL, that there had22been a FOIL.23serve a FOIL.2425There was a stated intent toBut there was an understandingthat there was going to be a FOIL that wouldHearingMay 9, 20081021be served, or had been served.2MR. TEITELBAUM:Did Mr. Dopp3tell you what information was being sought by4the media?56THE WITNESS:generic information about use of the plane.78No, other than theMR. TEITELBAUM:What do you meanby that?9THE WITNESS:Precisely what I10said, information about use of the plane as11it related to government and political12purposes.1314That was the very issue that hadbeen discussed.1516That was the description given tome.1718MR. TEITELBAUM:Is that what Mr.Dopp said to you?19THE WITNESS:That's my20recollection of the substance of what he21said.22Or he may not have even needed to23say it, because it was implicit in all the24conversations that media requests for the25plane related to, "Are you going to politicalHearingMay 9, 20081031events using the State plane?"2always the inquiry.3MR. TEITELBAUM:That wasDid you4understand the inquiry to mean that they5wanted, "they" being the media, Senator6Bruno's ground itinerary?7THE WITNESS:I don't know if8they wanted that from us, if they already had9that.I don't know.1011They wanted information about useof the plane.1213My schedule -- I don't know whatthe availability of his schedule is.14Now I've learned more about it15through this investigation.16didn't know.171819Back then, IMy schedule was made public everyday.MR. TEITELBAUM:And the time you20had this conversation in the latter part of21June with Mr. Dopp, did Mr. Dopp tell you to22what extent, if any, he had been already23gathering documents?2425THE WITNESS:I do not recallhaving any such conversation.HearingMay 9, 20081041MR. TEITELBAUM:Did he indicate2to you at that time that Bill Howard was in3communication with the State Police to have4them gather documents?5THE WITNESS:No.I never had6that information, or got involved in any7conversation, or had any conversation about8how the documents were being gathered, or9information was being generated.10Now, obviously, because of the11May conversation I knew the reference to C.V.12Starr, I knew there was some information13about where Senator Bruno had been.14never had any conversation about where, about15how that information was gathered, or from16whom.17But IThe conversation with Darren at18the end of June was probably thirty seconds,19at most.2021MR. TEITELBAUM:about that?22THE WITNESS:23yes, at most, yes.24yes.25You are literalThirty seconds?OhThirty seconds, at most,At most thirty seconds.HearingMay 9, 20081051He was walking from the2conference room to my office through to the3adjacent offices.45Very brief.Q6I just want to be clear.Your understanding as to the7media requests at this juncture are8concerning whom?9AMy understanding is that they10relate to all of us, meaning anybody with11access to the plane, which is primarily me,12Senator Bruno.13used the plane.14Chief Judge.15used it.16I don't think Shelly everThe Lieutenant Governor, theI don't know if Judith everIt really was me and Joe,17although this conversation related to Joe.18And I'm distinguishing for you19between the conversation which related to20Joe, and my understanding, which was that the21media inquiries about the plane were about22all of us.23QSo your understanding was that24the media inquiries concerned everyone who25was using the executive plane --HearingMay 9, 20081061AThat's correct.2Q-- and helicopter?3AAnd that goes back to the May4initiation of this.5But in May, when this set of6circumstances began, it was what's the7Governor doing with the plane, et cetera, et8cetera.9QBut this June conversation10between Darren Dopp and yourself concerned11Senator Bruno's use of the plane?1213AThat's what I just distinguishedfor you.14The conversation -- the15conversation, my recollection, it was Darren16saying the media was asking about Joe, should17we turn over that information.18Information about me I presume19was always being turned over, because20everything about me was turned over all the21time.22QSo the conversation was23specifically concerning Senator Bruno's24information?25ACorrect.HearingMay 9, 20081071But your question was my2understanding about the media inquiries, and3that was broader.4QThat's why I'm trying to clarify.5AYes.6QWere you aware of any other7inquiries from the media concerning8information on Joe Bruno that came to the9Executive Chamber?10ANot specifically, no.11QAnd was there ever a discussion12that they should go to someone else to get13this information?14AI'm not sure I understand.A15media inquiry -- I'm not sure I understand16the question.17QWas there ever a discussion that18they should go directly to the State Police19concerning Senator Bruno's use of the20aircraft?212223AI'm not aware of any -- I was nota participant in any such conversation.QWas there ever a discussion that24they should go to Senator Bruno's office25directly to obtain the information?HearingMay 9, 2008108123456AI was not a party to suchconversation.QWere you aware that anyconversations took place?AI'm not aware of suchconversation.7MR. TEITELBAUM:Besides Darren8Dopp, Mr. Spitzer, was anybody else in9communication with you during this time10period at or around May 17th and this June11conversation that we are now talking about12concerning Senator Bruno's use of the13aircraft?1415THE WITNESS:I don't recallhaving other conversations.16I have the vaguest of17recollections that somehow issue of plane use18came up in a conversation with David Nocenti,19but I don't know what context.20if it was related to Senator Bruno or not.21MR. TEITELBAUM:I don't knowAnd during this22time period, did you see anything, any23document, that would indicate to you, that24did indicate to you, that Darren Dopp,25directly or indirectly, was having the StateHearingMay 9, 20081091Police gather documents?2THE WITNESS:As I said earlier,3I have no recollection of ever having a4conversation about how, or whether, or to5what mechanism he was gathering documents, or6from whom.7So, as I've said, public8information about use of the plane and on9what day who uses it.1011MR. TEITELBAUM:You didn't seeanything?12THE WITNESS:13To this day I have not seen what14was turned over pursuant to the FOIL, nor do15I know how it was gathered.16171819QWas anyone else present duringthese conversations with Darren?AThere was one, singular, but notplural.2021No.I don't believe so.QSo there was no one else present22when Darren Dopp discussed with you the media23request for Joe Bruno's use of the plane?2425AAs I said, he was walking from --my recollection is that he was walking fromHearingMay 9, 20081101the conference room.23Do you know the Executive Chamberphysical structure?4He was walking from the5conference room through my office, to the6office where Marlene Turner would sit, and7that it was during that time period when he8was walking through there that we had this9conversation.10And the duration was simply11limited by the length of time that it took to12walk through.13QAnd did he tell you specifically14that he had received a FOIL request at that15time?16AAs I said, I do not recall17whether he said he had received it, he would18receive it, but there was knowledge that19there was going to be a FOIL as the predicate20to turning over the information.21And, as you know, I'm sure, very22often the media will say we'll get you FOIL,23afterwards we want this, that, the other24thing.25how to craft the FOIL.And then they'll figure out preciselyHearingMay 9, 200811112Qmarked as Commission's 66.3456I'm showing you what has been(Witness reviewing document.)QI ask you if can identify thisdocument.AIt purports to be an e-mail from7Jim Odato to Darren, a FOIL request dated8June 27th.91011121314QHave you ever seen this documentbefore?AVery recently, in preparing forthis deposition.QSo the date of the document isJune 27, 2007.15ARight.16QIn and about that time frame, had1718you seen this document?A192021No.I have not seen -- had not seenthis document until very, very recently.QSo did Darren Dopp ever show you22a FOIL request concerning Senator Bruno's use23of the plane?24ANo, not that I'm aware of.25QDid he ever show you a FOILHearingMay 9, 200811212request concerning your own use of the plane?ANo.3As I testified an hour or so ago,4I'm not aware that I ever really saw any FOIL5requests during my tenure as Attorney General6or Governor.7We got many of them, obviously.8I was not on the circulation list for FOIL9requests.10QAnd did you discuss the FOIL11request for use of the plane in the June, the12end of June, with anyone else in the chamber?1314ANo.As I've said, the conversation15was with Darren, and it was a brief16conversation.17He said, "They're back, they want18this information.19going to be a FOIL," whatever it may be.20There is a FOIL, there isI said -- and this was a slight21shift, obviously, from what I had said in22May, when I was completely dismissive of it.232425They said the media's asking,there's a FOIL, there's going to be a FOIL.So I said, basically, "WhatHearingMay 9, 20081131choice do you have?2who cares, screw it."3It's public information,MR. TEITELBAUM:Was he asking4for permission to comply with the FOIL5request during this conversation?6THE WITNESS:I viewed it more as7informational than permission, because it's8not up to me to approve compliance with9FOILS.10And that's why it was more11they're back, they're going to do it.12didn't give it to them in May, they want it,13it's a FOIL.141516WeHere we go.That was the tenor of it, and howI understood it.QAnd did you have any subsequent17conversation with Mr. Dopp concerning the18FOIL or the response?1920AWell, do you want to limit thatin time?21Obviously, once the article came22out, there was an explosion, shall we say, of23allegations.2425Sure, there were subsequentconversations.HearingMay 9, 20081141If you mean between the2conversation I've just described, when I was3in my office, and when the article came out,4I do not recall.5We might have.6He might have said we gave them7the information.8910But I do not recall, I have norecollection of the conversation.QBetween the end of June, say,11approximately June 26th or 27th, when the12FOIL request came out, and July 1st, which is13the date of the Albany Times Union article,14did you have any conversations with Darren15Dopp concerning his response to the FOIL for16information on Joe Bruno and his use of the17helicopter.18A19202122I do not recall thoseconversations.QDid you have conversations withanyone else in the Executive Chamber?AI don't recall conversations.It23may have been an offhand comment by Darren or24somebody else, yes, they're going to run the25story on the travel stuff, but I have noHearingMay 9, 20081151recollection of it.23QAre you aware whether Darrenresponded to the FOIL request?4AI'm aware now that he did.5QWhen did you become aware of7AI have no idea.8QPrior to the article being691011that?written?AInevitably, I knew based upon myconversation with him.12Let me rephrase that.13Can't say I knew.I guess I14presumed he was going to comply with it in15short order.16But as I said earlier, I have not17seen the documents.18seen them, so I don't know when he did so, or19what he turned over.202122To this day I haven'tSo I just presumed that he wasgoing to turn over that information.QSo Mr. Dopp never showed you the23documents that he was providing in response24to the FOIL request?25ANo.HearingMay 9, 20081161MR. TEITELBAUM:You have read2the District Attorney's recent report of3investigation?Have you seen that?4THE WITNESS:Yes, I have.5MR. TEITELBAUM:Did you see that6there was a reference in that report to, I7guess I'm quoting from Dopp, that Dopp showed8you the FOIL materials that were going to be9released?10THE WITNESS:Honestly, I read11the report quickly.12seeing -- if it's in there, I accept your13presentation, obviously.14I don't rememberAs I just said, I to this day15have not seen the information that was turned16over to Jim Odato.1718192021MS. TOOHER:Will you mark thisas Commission Exhibit 175.(Document marked Commission'sExhibit 175.)MR. TEITELBAUM:On page 12 of22Exhibit 175, there is a reference in the23third full paragraph here, "Dopp stated that24he 'brought the records into the Governor's25conference room,' and he laid them on theHearingMay 9, 200811712table."AI think that was the "maybe" he3is describing in the top half of that4paragraph, if I understand their recitation5of his testimony properly.6wasn't there.7And obviously, IAnd as I've said about that8meeting, I did not look at records, and have9no recollection of what other people did when10I was not there.11about that.12131415Obviously, I don't knowBut if you continue down thatparagraph.And he said another time theGovernor saw the travel records.16As I said, to this day, I do not17know what these travel records look like, or18what form they took when they were turned19over, because I have not seen the materials20that were turned over.21MR. TEITELBAUM:Just so that we22have a crystal clear record, Dopp's statement23that he brought the records into your24conference room and laid them on the table,25did he, to your knowledge, ever show youHearingMay 9, 20081181these travel records, and lay them on the2table?3THE WITNESS:I don't recall4looking at the records, or seeing them5arrayed on the conference table there.6I recall, as I've said to you,7saying that the issue was one that was maybe8material, and who cares, and being9dismissive.10The second meeting, the11conversation, it wasn't a meeting, it was in12my office, not a conference room.13And as I've said, I do not14recall, and to this day have not seen the15documents that were turned over or generated,16produced, whatever the word may be.17MR. TEITELBAUM:It says also in18that paragraph, "When asked if the Governor19ever saw Bruno's itineraries, Dopp said that20he did, because either he or the Governor21commented that they were unremarkable."22AAgain, it's not clear to me23whether this is the May meeting or the24conversation at the end of June.25Either way, I did not look at theHearingMay 9, 20081191itinerary.2As I've said, there is a3reference to a meeting at C.V. Starr or AIG,4I forget how it's referred to, which I said5was irrelevant, because they could have been6discussing insurance policies.7So that's why I didn't look at8records, I was responding in May to the9issue.10And in June I'm not sure if11Darren says I looked documents in June or12not.13MR. TEITELBAUM:What I'm14focusing on now is statements that you saw,15actually saw, these travel records.16THE WITNESS:17not look at these records.18recollection.1920was he turned over in response to FOIL.I don't know if you have a copy22of what was transmitted.23to me.25I have noTo this day, I don't know what2124As I've said, I didYou could show itI do not believe I've ever seenwhat was turned over.HearingMay 9, 20081201MR. TEITELBAUM:It goes further.2It says, "Dopp stated that it was3toward "the time when the records were about4to be released."56At that point Dopp, "another timewhen the Governor saw the travel records."78MS. HIRSHMAN:I think we justneed to clarify something.9Because you're referring to a10series of sentences without the relevant11references to the time frame, at least as12they are contained in the report.131415MR. TEITELBAUM:Let me clarifyit.We're now talking about a time16frame around the time that the records were17about to be released to the media.18THE WITNESS:19MR. TEITELBAUM:20THE WITNESS:21MR. TEITELBAUM:2223End of June.The end of June.Okay.I think it wasthe 28th, actually.THE WITNESS:FOIL was received24on the 27th, and the documents are turned25over thereafter.HearingMay 9, 200812112MS. HIRSHMAN:There's noquestion pending.3THE WITNESS:4MR. TEITELBAUM:5I'm asking you.You have thesequence right.6THE WITNESS:Okay.7MR. TEITELBAUM:So around that8time Dopp stated, apparently to the District9Attorney, in connection with this10investigation, as reflected in 175, that you11saw the records shortly before they were to12be released, which was around the 28th.13THE WITNESS:14MR. TEITELBAUM:15THE WITNESS:1617Okay.Is that true?I have norecollection of that fact.And as I've just said, I don't18believe I have ever seen the records that19were turned over.202122And if you have them, I couldlook at them.But I do not know what records23were turned over, or what form they took,24what they looked like.25MR. TEITELBAUM:It says at thatHearingMay 9, 20081221time you directed him to release the records.2Is that accurate?34That's on page 13, the first fullparagraph.56THE WITNESS:What page, I'msorry, 13?7MR. TEITELBAUM:8THE WITNESS:9MR. TEITELBAUM:10THE WITNESS:Yes.The very top?Yes.No, I don't11believe -- first of all, that is not a12quotation, so I think this is --13MR. TEITELBAUM:14THE WITNESS:That's correct.This is language15that is chosen by whoever drafted this16report.171819And clearly, I do not agree thatI directed him to release the records.And I specifically, when asked by20them whether I directed him to release the21records, I said no, I did not.22not then, and nor do I now, view the23conversation I've recounted to you as being a24direction, or a directive, or a command,25whatever equivalent synonym you might choose,Because I didHearingMay 9, 20081231was as you, I think said earlier, more an2acknowledgment, or permission, or was it3FOIL, you do what you've got to do, which is4separate and apart from a direction.5MR. TEITELBAUM:On page 10 of6Exhibit 175, look at the last paragraph,7beginning with the words "the end of June."8THE WITNESS:Yes.9MR. TEITELBAUM:Did you ever10have a conversation with Dopp and Baum in11which Dopp asked you and Baum what you wanted12him to do in connection with Odato's looking13for aircraft records?141516THE WITNESS:We're parsing thismore carefully than it is possible.I do not recall, as I've said,17the conversation involving three parties,18Darren, Rich and me.19I recall the conversation I told20you, in which it was Darren and me, which is21other than some of the syntax and vulgarity22essentially consistent with his recollection23that I gave him permission, he says.2425The language in here, obviously,I do not recall using, I do not believe IHearingMay 9, 20081241used.2But the second conversation, if3you view this as Darren says, Darren, Rich,4Eliot, and then Darren, Eliot, I do not5recall the Darren, Rich, Eliot conversation6at all.7I do, as I just told you,8obviously, recall the conversation with9Darren in which I said, fine, there's a FOIL,10or whatever, screw it, go ahead.11That was consistent with what his12recitation is here, not it's being a13direction, directive, an order, and not the14language used, and his description of it.15But the first conversation that16is referred to in the bottom of 10, I do not17recall.181920212223QThat's the conversation with Mr.ACorrect, what I refer to as threeBaum?people.QI think -- and again this issomeone else is writing it?24AYes.25QIt appears that there was aHearingMay 9, 20081251separate conversation with Mr. Baum that you2had that he relayed to Darren Dopp.3AI do not recall that.4QYou don't recall a conversation5with Rich Baum concerning the records for6Senator Bruno?7A89No.Your point is you can read thisto be three conversations, Rich, the10Governor, Dopp, Rich, the Governor, me and11Darren.12I recall the one I told you13about, which is me to Darren, in which I said14we have a FOIL, whatever.15MR. TEITELBAUM:Going back to16page 9, the May conversation, it says -- and17this is not a quote -- there's no quotations.18Moving forward, Dopp said the19Governor just wanted to "monitor the20situation" and "see what happens later on."21Now, did you indicate in words or22substance during that May conversation that23we've been talking about earlier on that you24wanted Dopp to monitor the situation?25THE WITNESS:I think I saidHearingMay 9, 20081261earlier I do not recall saying that in sum or2substance, and frankly, the word "monitor" is3not one I use.4That's not a word that I use.5Now, the second, the last two6lines of that paragraph, are consistent with7what I had said.891011MS. HIRSHMAN:Which reads thatthe Governor felt the issue was adistraction.AThat is what I've said, my12recollection of that conversation, where I13said, "Forget it, who cares, move on."14Now, what is not here, this is15essentially one of the two reasons that I16articulated, the primary reason being the17legal conclusion that I would not perhaps18expect Darren to remember or focus on, this19is a murky area of law, one that probably20should be clarified, and to its credit, the21Commission has clarified it after all of this22mess came out.23But at this point in time, there24was no sufficient clarity to make sense out25of this.HearingMay 9, 20081271MR. TEITELBAUM:So that the2record is clear, what I believe you're saying3is that beginning with the word "but," and4ending with the words "legislative session,"5that "in fact you did express."6THE WITNESS:Yes.7That is one of the two reasons8that I remember -- the primary reason -- that9is the secondary reason.10The primary reason was this is11silliness, because there are no sufficient12rules to make sense out of when the use of13the plane is proper or not.14You can go down to meet with C.V.15Starr, and they may get a contribution, but16they may discuss an insurance policy, and so17it's fine, pursuant to the rules as currently18understood.19MR. TEITELBAUM:20THE WITNESS:21thereafter.22232425At that time?At that time, notCorrect.Some good came out of all ofthis.Although I don't think the checksto pay back use of the plane would cover theHearingMay 9, 200812812cost of all this.QFollowing your conversation about3the document in the FOIL request with Darren4Dopp, prior to the Times Union article.5AThe June conversation.6QThe June conversation?7AYes.8QDid you ever contact Darren Dopp,91011or communicate with him on the issue of whenthe article might be coming out?AI don't recall.12I have no recollection of doing13so, but it's certainly not inconceivable once14we were discussing issues in the press, it's15the sort of thing Darren and I would talk16about.17times a day.18what's in the paper, what's happening.19QAs I said, we spoke thirty, fortyEvery morning we would talkSo if Darren indicated that you20had contacted him about when is the article21coming out, that wouldn't be inconsistent22with what you're saying now?23AIt's not inconsistent with my24having no recollection of it, but it is not25something which I do recall, either.HearingMay 9, 200812912But to be very frank, there arereferences in here to phone conversations.3Q"Here" being Commission's 175?4AYes, that is correct, to phone5calls that are recounted by Sandy, Darren's6wife, which I have absolutely no recollection7of.891011QWere there times where you calledDarren at odd hours of the night?AIt depends on what views oddhours of the night.12I viewed it as fair game to call13people starting pretty much at 7:00 a.m.14until 10:30 or 11:00, except for Michelle.15She was twenty-four hours.16QAnd at a certain point in time on17or about July 1st there was an article18concerning Senator Bruno's use of the19aircraft?20AThat is correct.21QWere you advised by Darren Dopp22when the article came out?23AOn the day that it was out?24QYes.25AI think there's some e-mails backHearingMay 9, 20081301and forth, and I believe this also was a2Sunday.3Am I correct?4QYes.5ASo I think I was at also at6Columbia County, at the farm, and so I think7there may have been an e-mail indicating that8it was -- I may be confusing e-mails.910Qbeen marked as Commission's 85.1112131415I'm going to show you what hasI'll give you a moment to reviewthe document?ADo you want me to read thearticle?QNo, but I would just like you to16just flip through the various pages of17Commission's 85.18(Witness complying.)19AOkay.20QAnd have you seen this article2122before?AJust so it's clear, yes, I've23seen the article.24subsequent pages.25QI have not seen any of theThe article comprises the firstHearingMay 9, 20081311two pages of the exhibit.2AThat is correct.3QThe next seven pages are a number4of documents.5AYes.6QThe third page is a flight7891011request for May 3rd and 4th.AThe Xerox is bad.I'll take yourrepresentation.QIf you look closely you candiscern that.12AOkay.13QThe fourth page, the14transportation assignment for Senator Bruno15for May 3rd and 4th?16AYes.17QAnd the page after that, again,18which is a copying issue, is a 33rd annual19spring reception document.20AYes.21QHave you seen those three pages22before?23ANo, I have not.24QFollowing that, again, there is a25flight request, May 17th, May 18th?HearingMay 9, 20081321AYes.2QAnd a document captioned "Trip to3New York City, Thursday, May 17th, and4Friday, May 18th."5AYes, that's correct.6QAnd an invitation to an annual7New York Republican State Committee dinner,8Thursday, May 17, 2007.910Have you seen those documentsbefore?11A12No.I don't mean to be too technical,13but I think one of these was earlier marked14as an exhibit and shown to me about an hour15ago.16Until then, no.17Have I seen them other than that,1819202122232425no.QAnd then, finally we have aflight request for May 24th.AI'm thinking John McCain wasspeaking.QA transportation assignment forSenator Bruno for May 24th.Again, an invitation, May 24,HearingMay 9, 200813312007, for a food industry reception honoring2New York Senator Majority Leader Joe Bruno.34Have you seen these documentsbefore today?5A67I was not invited to theseevents.89I do not believe so, no.Although I was listed in thegreen book in my first year as Attorney10General as a Republican, so I got invited to11the Republican Convention.12it.13QThey correctedI'm showing you what has14previously been marked as Commission's15Exhibit 67.161718(Witness reviewing document.)QA document that leads off, "Forbackground only."19AYes.20QI ask you if you've seen this2122document before.AI don't believe so, no.23Was this produced somewhere?24I don't believe so.25But I want to be careful, as I'veHearingMay 9, 20081341said, I've seen many documents in the past2week or two, just getting ready for this.34567891011I don't think I've seen this oneas part of it.But did I see it during theperiod that I was Governor, no.MS. TOOHER:Will you mark thisas Commission's Exhibit 176.(Document marked Commission'sExhibit 176.)MR. TEITELBAUM:Did you ever12learn from anybody during the period of time13that you were Governor that Darren Dopp had14prepared a background piece for the press15concerning the subject of Senator Bruno's use16of State aircraft?17THE WITNESS:A background piece?18I knew inevitably, as things19unfolded from July 1 on that information had20been gathered.21how, or when or where, other than what was in22multiple reports about this.232425As I've said, I don't knowA background report like this,essentially a primer, no.This is the first I've seen this.HearingMay 9, 20081351MR. TEITELBAUM:You didn't hear2prior to July 1st that Dopp was in the3process of preparing, or had prepared a4background piece?56THE WITNESS:He was gatheringthe information.7Again, to go back to my testimony8to the DA, where I was asked, "Did you direct9the collection of documents?"10And I said no.Obviously, I knew there were11documents being collected.12their release?13going to be a release.14No.Did I directI knew that there wasDid I know he was doing something15like this that was sort of an explanatory16piece?No.17It would make sense that he18would.If he's trying to say to a reporter,19this is what communication directors do.20They say here is why this is important, here21is what this shows, here is why your article22should make this point and that point.23So it doesn't surprise me that he24would do it, and I did not know that he was25doing it.HearingMay 9, 200813612MR. TEITELBAUM:You're referringto 67?3THE WITNESS:That's correct.4MR. TEITELBAUM:When did you5first learn that Darren Dopp was gathering6documents concerning Senator Bruno's use of7the State aircraft?8THE WITNESS:9MR. TEITELBAUM:10I have no idea.When is thefirst time that you learned about it?11THE WITNESS:It must have12been -- not it must have been -- it certainly13could have been sometime after the early May14conversation where there were media15inquiries.16There was a media inquiry about17stuff, somebody is going to gather18information to respond to it.19So that is when it would have20been almost necessary, a logical conclusion21that information was going to be compiled22relating to me, relating to whoever was using23the plane.2425Now, as I said, I didn't see it,or look at it maybe to the end of June.ButHearingMay 9, 20081371necessarily ly it was being aggregated for2the press to respond.3MR. TEITELBAUM:And if you were4gathering documents, starting in the mid-May5period, your testimony is that you didn't6know where he was getting the documents from?7THE WITNESS:Correct.8I had no reason to ask or care.9If he was gathering documents10about my use of the plane, Joe's use of the11plane, whatever.1213QI'm showing you what has beenmarked as Commission's Exhibit 176.14(Witness reviewing document.)15AOkay.16QAnd I ask you if you can identify1718this document.A19202122No.I'm comparing it to 67.It seemsto be similar.QIt's quite similar, except thefirst line of the document is "overview."23ACorrect.24QAs opposed to "for background25only."HearingMay 9, 200813812AThey are very similar documents,but I have not seen it until this morning.3QAnd did you become aware at any4point of anyone in the chamber creating what5I'll call an overview document of the6information on Senator Bruno, and the use of7the plane?8910111213Ano.No.If you're referring to this,These two documents, as I've said, Ihave not seen them before.QBut were you aware that theyexisted?ANo.I was aware that the14documents had been turned over pursuant to15the FOIL.1617But as I said earlier, I have notseen them.1819And the creation of this issomething I was not aware of.202122But it's something that a pressofficer would do to try to push a story.QAnd is it something that would23also be done to turn a matter over to an24investigatory entity, like the IG or the AG?25AI suppose it could be.HearingMay 9, 20081391But are you asking as a matter of2ordinary course would something like this be3produced?4QCorrect.5AI have no idea.I have not been6involved in ever turning anything over to the7IG, so I don't know what form, if there is8one, that would take.9QIn the course of the follow-up to10the July 1 article, were you aware of any11document being created in the Executive12Chamber to provide to either the IG or the AG13as an overview document from the chamber?14ANo.I knew that they were asked15to inquire about several issues that had16arisen post July 1, but I was not aware that17an overview document was created for their18benefit.1920MR. TEITELBAUM:IG, AG?2122THE WITNESS:25That's correct.Orwhoever else along the way.2324"They" being theMS. TOOHER:We'll break now forlunch.(Luncheon recess had.)HearingMay 9, 20081401CONTINUED DIRECT EXAMINATION2BY MS. TOOHER:34QGoing back to the July 1starticle as a time reference.5ASure.6QPrior to that article, had you7had any conversations with anyone on your8staff concerning the collection of documents9from the State Police?10ANo.I have no recollection of11any conversations about what was turned over,12or how anything relating to that issue was13collected from whom, or by whom.14QAnd did you have any15conversations after the article came out as16to where these documents were obtained?1718ANot until it became an issue inthe media.19In other words, there was a point20which we can find it in the articles when the21question was raised about the methodology.22And at that point, inevitably,23the question was how was this stuff done24prior to that note.25QPreston Felton was the actingHearingMay 9, 20081411Superintendent of the State Police during2your administration; is that correct?3AThat's correct.4QAnd what was your relationship567with Superintendent Felton?AIt was very good, cordialrelationship.8I had selected him to be the9acting Superintendent, subject to Senate10confirmation, and spoke to him at ceremonial11events, State Police graduations, funerals.12And when there was a crisis, akin13to what I said about Bill Howard, when there14were events such as what happened in15Margaretville, or shootings, et cetera.16rarely other than that.17QButDid you, prior to July 1, again,18ever have any conversations with19Superintendent Felton concerning Joe Bruno?2021ANo.I'm hesitating only because22certainly not with respect to this issue.23Did Joe Bruno's name come up in the context,24you need to be confirmed by the Senate.25It may not be a bad idea if youHearingMay 9, 20081421reached out to the Senate in that context2totally unrelated to this, perhaps.345But as it related to this, theanswer is no.QWere you aware of anyone in the6Executive Chamber having conversations with7Superintendent Felton concerning Joe Bruno's8travel?9MS. HIRSHMAN:What time frame?10QPrior to July 1.11ANo.12QAnd were you aware of anyone in13the chamber having conversations with anyone14at the State Police concerning Senator15Bruno's travel prior to July 1?16A171819No.Again, I'm trying to be verycareful.There inevitably was interaction20between Marlene and the State Police as it21related to the ordinary course of approving22his use of the chopper, or the fixed plane,23which is on the theory that she would call24and say, are they available, it's the25weather, rudimentary conversations like that.HearingMay 9, 20081431As related to collection of2documents pertaining to this issue, I'm not3aware of any such conversation.4QAnd are you aware of any5conversations between anyone in the chamber6and Bill Howard concerning the collection of7documents from the State Police?89AI have a sense that I knew thatDarren and Bill somehow were -- obviously, I10knew that Darren was the one who received the11media inquiry.12I have a sense that I knew that13Bill had somehow been involved in this issue14in some way, shape or form.15But as I said earlier, I did not16talk to Bill about it, and I don't know if17anybody else did.1819But I knew Bill was involved insome way, shape or form.2021QAnd when you say you had a sense,what do you mean by that?22AI have a sense that I remember23it.24from somebody else, I just don't know.25I don't know if it was from Darren orQWould it be fair to say you hadHearingMay 9, 20081441an understanding of some sort concerning2Darren getting the records from Bill Howard?34AHonestly, that goes beyond whatI'm trying to suggest.5QOkay.6AI don't know if he got the7records from -- as we sit here today, I don't8know if he got the records from Bill Howard,9I don't know if he got them from the State10Police, I don't know where he got them.11So what I knew was that there was12some nexus because of Bill Howard's13relationship with the State Police.14QPrior to July 1, were you aware15of any communication taking place between16Preston Felton, Bill Howard and Darren Dopp17concerning the records of Senator Bruno's18travel?19ANo.20QWere you aware that there were21e-mail communications between Superintendent22Felton and Bill Howard?23ANo.24QWere you aware that there were25e-mail communications between SuperintendentHearingMay 9, 200814512Felton through Howard to Darren Dopp?A34No.MS. HIRSHMAN:mean, communications?5MS. TOOHER:6MS. HIRSHMAN:7Concerning -Through Howard toeDarren Dopp, what do you mean?89What does thatMS. TOOHER:That there weree-mail communications.10MS. HIRSHMAN:So you're not11trying to suggest that there were direct12communications between Dopp and Felton?13MS. TOOHER:14MS. HIRSHMAN:15to interrupt.Correct.Okay.I'm sorryI just wanted to clarify.16MS. TOOHER:That's okay.17MR. TEITELBAUM:When you say18that you have a memory of knowing before July191st that Dopp and Howard were in20communication with one another, was it a21communication concerning --22232425MS. HIRSHMAN:It's a littlestrong.MR. TEITELBAUM:Let me finish myquestion, and then we'll let the witnessHearingMay 9, 20081461answer it.23If it's too strong, I'm surehe'll know how to tell me about it.45Concerning communications withthe State Police.67And if my characterization ofyour testimony is too strong, you'll tell me.8THE WITNESS:Well, I don't9want -- I'm trying to be very careful so as10not to suggest that I had not the slightest11idea that Howard might be involved, and maybe12that Darren mentioned Bill Howard's name at13some point in the context of one of these two14conversations that I recall, the May and the15end of June.16That is why I have some17recollection that Bill would have been18involved.19Preston Felton, not at all.20Communications, what Bill was21doing, I do not know.2223I don't know if that answers yourquestion.24MR. TEITELBAUM:So either in the25mid-May conversation or the end of JuneHearingMay 9, 20081471conversation, your recollection is that2Howard's name came up?34THE WITNESS:I don't believe itwas the end of June.5I don't recall his name coming up6in mid-May.7initial conversation in terms of the media8inquiry.9It may have been at the veryRemember, the whole predicate for10this is the media appears in early May, says11we want all this stuff about a bunch of you12guys.13MR. TEITELBAUM:14THE WITNESS:Yes.At some point I had15a sense, maybe it was just something that I16heard, that Bill was the one who dealt with17the SP.18MR. TEITELBAUM:Did your19inference also contain that the communication20between Dopp and Howard had something to do21with Senator Bruno's use of the aircraft?22THE WITNESS:It was the issue of23the use of the aircraft.24don't know today, other than what I've read25in the reports, what Bill Howard did orI didn't know, andHearingMay 9, 20081481didn't do.23MR. TEITELBAUM:QOkay.Prior to July 1st, did you have4any conversations with Dan Wiese concerning5Senator Bruno?6AEver?7QDuring your administration.8AYes.9Just so it's clear, Iworked with Dan Wiese starting in 1988, from10'88 to '92.11years.12So I've known him for manyI knew him through my years as13Attorney General.14was in charge of executive security, hence15Governor Pataki's security.1617He was the individual whoSo I spoke to Dan every -- twoor three times a year.18Did Senator Bruno's name come up?19Never.20QDid you have a substantive21conversation concerning Senator Bruno with22Dan Wiese prior to July?23AAbout Senator Bruno's use of --24QAbout Senator Bruno, more than25just a passing conversation?Was there aHearingMay 9, 20081491substantive contact with Dan Wiese concerning2that?3AHe may have made some reference4to the fact that Governor Pataki and Senator5Bruno hated each other.6QWas there any discussion7concerning Senator Bruno's activities while8he was in New York with Dan Wiese?910AI don't believe that issue cameup.11Let me restate.12There was a point in time, and13I'm not sure if it was before July 1 or after14July 1, when Dan Wiese said to me, Joe Bruno,15and the SP, and Governor Pataki's office had16a problem about his use of the SP to move17around.1819And that is when I first heardabout the whole issue relating to Mike long.20I do not know when that21conversation occurred.22was before the article or shortly after the23article.2425I don't know if itBut that was the first time I hadheard about that situation, whatever oneHearingMay 9, 20081501234wants to call it.QAnd what was your understandingas to what that situation was?AThat there had been complaints,5perhaps overstates it, but, a better word --6a complaint raised by either Mike Long or his7daughter about Joe Bruno's use of the State8Police to go to an event that I believe Mike9Long hosted as a fund-raiser for Joe Bruno.10And there was some issue about people11thinking that Joe Bruno was showing up with12security or bodyguards.13It was unclear.14But Dan mentioned that this had15become an issue, and had percolated up inside16the SP and the Pataki administration.171819And that's the totality of myknowledge of it.QAnd did he volunteer this20information, or was it in response to an21inquiry?22AHe raised it with him.23But an inquiry from whom?24From me to him?25No.I don'tknow if there was another inquiry, not toHearingMay 9, 20081511him, but an inquiry generally.2inquiry from me to Dan.3QIt was not anWas he in communication with4other members of the Executive Chamber, Dan5Wiese?6AI doubt it.78910MS. HIRSHMAN:QWhat time period?Prior to July 1, during youradministration.AI doubt it.I had worked with11Dan, from, as I said when I was in the DA's12office.So we had a friendship.13And he was the person who14occasionally, if I needed to reach Governor15Pataki quickly, when I was Attorney General,16I would, and did not want ordinary17communications to be seen, I would do it18through Dan.19QAnd were there any conversations20that you had with Dan Wiese concerning21Senator Bruno after July 1?22232425AThis conversation may have beenbefore July 1, it may have been after July 1.Which side of that date line itis, I don't know.HearingMay 9, 20081521Other than this conversation, the2answer is yes, one conversation which related3to this.4There was a New York Times5article about that complaint.6back and forth in the New York Post about7Mike Long, and whether or not there had been8a complaint raised about Joe Bruno's use of9the SP.10There had beenThe New York Times was going to11write an article about it, or somehow they12got interested in the issue, and I asked Dan,13we knew the Times was trying to ferret out14whether or not that story was accurate.15I asked Dan if he would talk to16the New York Times.17to Dan, but I had somebody -- actually, I'm18not sure, I may have, I don't recall whether19I spoke to him, or Christine Anderson spoke20to him, whether he would speak to Danny21Hakim, at the New York Times, to validate22that story about a complaint having been23raised about Joe Bruno's use of the SP.2425I did not talk directlyBut somehow, the genesis of thisentire issue was being challenged, andHearingMay 9, 20081531consequently -- at which this first had2become an issue within the executive at the3SP was material.45Do you follow that?Q6I think so.Were you aware of Dan Wiese's7connection with Troop New York City during8this time frame in your administration?91011AWhat is that?I don't understandthe question.QWere you aware of a relationship12between Dan Wiese and members of Troop New13York City of the State Police, during the14time frame of your administration?1516ANo.I don't understand thequestion.17He's not in the SP anymore, so I18don't know what relationship he has, if any.19QWere you aware of him20communicating with Troop New York City during21that time frame?22ANo.23QBefore moving away from the24production of documents, or the issue of25documents, and the turnover to the TimesHearingMay 9, 20081541Union, during your interview with the2District Attorney's Office, you were asked --3the Albany County District Attorney's4office -- you were asked fairly specifically5concerning your participation in terms of the6release of documents to the Times Union.7Do you recall those questions?8AI do.9QAnd in the DA's report, at page1017, Commission's 175, you were specifically11asked, did you direct the gathering of any12documents concerning Senator Bruno's use of13state transportation at any time.14And your response was no.15ACorrect.16QAnd your response is the same17today; is that correct?18AThat is correct.19QAnd you were further asked, did20you direct the release of any documents at21any time to the media concerning Senator22Bruno's use of state transportation.23your answer again is no.2425AndAnd it goes on fairlyextensively.I'm going to encapsulate thatHearingMay 9, 20081551by saying other than to respond to the media2request.3A4And that is your response today?That is correct.And I know they view this as5attention, but with Mr. Dopp's statement, but6I am very clear that the word "direct" means7to initiate, command, instruct somebody, pick8up the phone and say, "I want you to do9this," rather than his coming in and saying,10"We have a media request, should wait," to11which my response was the media request, what12choice do we have, which is to more13acquiesce, permit, or say, do what we always14do about media requests, which is precisely15why the gathering of documents, as well,16where clearly I knew the documents were being17gathered, I didn't direct it.18So my answer is yes, I did not19direct either collection or release.20something that happened in the course of21responding to the media in the ordinary22course of events subsequent to my late June23conversation with him, where he said, "You're24getting this media request.25QIt wasWhen did you become aware thatHearingMay 9, 20081561Darren Dopp was gathering information in2response to the media request?3AI think you asked this earlier,4and I think I gave the same answer then which5I'm about to give now, which is, in May, when6the initial inquiry was raised, inevitably,7you're going to start gathering information,8how, when, where, from whom, I didn't know, I9don't know, and frankly, didn't care.10And I would hope that the11Governor would not waste his or her time12paying attention to that.13There was a media person who was14going to gather information, so I must have15known as of May as it relates to these16inquiries.17And since there had been18inquiries throughout the year, it was one of19those issues where they're always going to be20gathering the documents.21QSo would it be fair to say that22it was your understanding, following the May23meeting, that Darren Dopp would be gathering24information?25AI'm distinguishing between theHearingMay 9, 20081571very first May conversation where there was2an inquiry.3QYes.4AThat after that inquiry, yes, if5there's an inquiry, we're going to respond to6it.7After the May, mid-May, May 17,818, 19, whatever date, I don't know what it9was, I don't know what he's doing because at10that point I have said, you know, who cares,11this is silly.12And so, I don't know if there is13a stop to this process or not.14attention to it.15I don't payCome the end of June, when Darren16comes back and says, the inquiries are here,17we're getting a FOIL, obviously, when I hear18that, I presume he has gathered, or is19gathering, or has gathered documents.20MR. TEITELBAUM:21THE WITNESS:22In the 175 --I'm sorry, 175 isthe DA report?23MR. TEITELBAUM:24In the back and forth between you25Yes.and Dopp, as reported in 175 -- let meHearingMay 9, 20081581characterize it this way.There's a kind of2passionate response that's alleged in this3report by Dopp.4THE WITNESS:5MR. TEITELBAUM:6THE WITNESS:7Did that happen?To the best of myrecollection, it did not.89Right.Just so it's clear, I, in myprivate conversations, do not always use the10Queen's English.11that.And I make no bones about12In my public commentary, I think13you will see, if you do a complete search of14the entirety of my public comments as15Governor, you would not see me say anything16critical, vulgar, of Senator Bruno.17In my private conversations,18occasionally I was, to use your word,19passionate.202122And that is my nature, and thenature of politics.I do not in this conversation23recall that, because this was not an issue24about which I was passionate then, or now, or25at any point in time.HearingMay 9, 200815912There were other issues aboutwhich I was, but this was not one of them.34MR. TEITELBAUM:That's what I'mtrying to get at.5The conversation that you had6with Dopp at this time, as you seem to be7characterizing it, it was kind of a very8brief conversation.9THE WITNESS:1011MR. TEITELBAUM:THE WITNESS:Yes.I think Isaid less.1415It was less thanthirty seconds.1213Right.MR. TEITELBAUM:Thirty secondsor less.16THE WITNESS:Yes.17MR. TEITELBAUM:And it sounds to18me, as you testified, he was reporting19something to you concerning a FOIL request.20And your testimony is you didn't21direct him.22acknowledged that there's a FOIL request, do23what you have to do.2425Your testimony is you justTHE WITNESS:This is an issuewhich is going to emerge -- in May I said, IHearingMay 9, 20081601said repeatedly, who cares, it's not2material, it's not an area of great3vulnerability for anybody, it's going to4disturb our effort to get work done.5Getting work done was no longer6an issue, the session was over, so who cares7if it comes out now, you got a FOIL request.8Now, on other issues, yes, I was91011passionate in my response about SenatorBruno.MR. TEITELBAUM:The focus of my12question is not colorful language that is13alleged to have been used.14question is that the way in which Dopp15apparently characterized the conversation as16reflected in 175 is at variance, it appears,17as to how you are characterizing it.18THE WITNESS:The focus of myWe are now --19you're asking me under oath to characterize a20DA's report which characterizes something.21MR. TEITELBAUM:22THE WITNESS:No.Certainly there's a23different tenor if one accepts his recitation24of my commentary.25That recitation would be moreHearingMay 9, 20081611appropriate about other conversations I had2about Senator Bruno, where he had acted, and3he was publicly critical of my wife.4As one of the e-mails you showed5me earlier said I want to punch back when he6was publicly critical of my wife.7upset about that.8910When he was using invective todescribe me, as he often did on air, and inprint.1112I was upset.I did not think that was theappropriate way to deal publicly.1314I wasAnd indeed, publicly, I never didcomment about him that way.15In private, as a consequence, I16did, as one might say, vent.17expected those private conversations would18become the subject of multiple public19reports.20conversations with senior staff might, in21fact, remain private.22I neverI thought an executive's privateBut I never said anything23publicly critical of him in that regard, and24do not remember this conversation as one25where the emotion was more -- because thisHearingMay 9, 20081621was not an issue about which I felt that2passionate.3QYou had testified earlier a bit4about conversations that are relayed again in5the DA's report, Commission's 175, with6Darren Dopp following the turnover of7documents on or about June 28th, and prior to8the article, July 1.9Were you calling Darren Dopp on a10daily basis, inquiring about the article11during that time frame?12ANo.I do not have any13recollection of calling him about this14article.1516Was I calling Darren daily?Probably.17Because the routine was that I18would call him mornings, to say what's in the19paper, or if I had already seen it, to20discuss what was in the paper, why.2122That was sort of a morningbriefing that I would have with Darren.23And I would call Rich for other24issues.And I would call Dave Nocenti for25other issues.HearingMay 9, 200816312This was sort of communicationgathering in the morning.34But about this issue, I do notrecall that.567I do not believe, again, that itwas essential to what I cared about.QSo you would not characterize the8issue of the Albany Times Union article that9comes out on July 1st as a priority issue for1011you prior to the issuance of that article?A12That's correct.I'm just curious, the e-mail on13page 17 of your Exhibit 175, the middle of14page 17, what is the e-mail from which that15is extracted?Do we have that?16QNo.17AI'm just curious.18It doesn'tmatter.19QTalk to the DA about that one.20AOkay.21QWe may get to that.22The article comes out on July 1,23and gets a fair amount of attention, both in24the media, and from your office.25Did you participate initially --HearingMay 9, 20081641I'm talking now the July 1, July 2, time2frame, in discussions concerning a response3from the chamber to what was alleged in the4July 1 article?5A67Participate, yes.There were -- July 1 was, again,a Sunday?8QYes.9AJuly 1 was the Sunday.10That next day, I believe -- I'll11have to check the schedules -- I believe that12was the day I went down to New York City, to13tape something with New York One with14Dominick Carter.1516171819Am I right?And then had a meeting with theNew York Times editorial board.So it was inevitable that thatissue was going to arise.So I needed to think through what20the response should be, both for TV, for the21editorial board.22There was also the separate issue23of whether it should be -- this is the issue24that percolated and bounced around in25e-mails, that others had much greaterHearingMay 9, 20081651conversation, I was on some of them.2it should be referred or not, and if so, to3whom.4QWhetherAnd what were the substance of5those conversations concerning the referral6issue?7AI'm not sure that I was involved8beyond the e-mails themselves on the Sunday,9because I was at the farm, and I was copied10on a few of the e-mails.11I think the question was would12anybody have jurisdiction, does this rise to13the level of something that should be sent.14You always, inevitably, when15there's an article alleging impropriety, the16question we are going to receive is, have you17done something about it.1819And either you refer to somebody,you say we're leaving it alone.2021You need to figure out what tosay in response.22And I think that was the tenor of23the conversation to whom, if anybody, why,24what's the logic, what do you do.25QAnd what was the logic?HearingMay 9, 20081661AMy thinking was, if there is2something wrong here, who, if anybody, should3take a look at it.45I don't think it's -- I didn'tknow who had jurisdiction.6So is there somebody who should7look at whether this issue needs to be8pursued.91011QAnd who are you talking to atthis time?AAgain, I'm saying this without a12specific recollection, but I can only imagine13that the participants would have been David14Nocenti -- at most, I'm giving you the large15universe.16conversations.17I don't remember specificDavid Nocenti, Darren is going to18have to deal with the press; Rich, who I19think was in Florida at the time, so I'm not20sure if we were talking telephonically or on21e-mail.22I don't remember anybody else23being involved.I don't remember them24specifically being involved, but that would25have been the ordinary course on an issueHearingMay 9, 20081671like this.2QAnd do you remember, in sum and3substance what the conversations were, as far4as referral?5ANo.6And, in fact, I don't know what7the conclusion was, if there was one.8think there were e-mails.9IThere was a public statement at10some point, but I don't know if it was to the11IG, the DA.12I think there was some question13whether the DA asked for it, whether the DA14didn't ask for it, when.15QDid you participate in the16decision as to who this should be referred17to?18A19too finely.20Participate would be splicing itIf I was involved, I21participated, and I was the Governor, so what22I indicated would have happened, I think what23I did was indicate that they should figure it24out.25was an IG issue, a DA issue, an AG issue, II don't think I had a view, whether itHearingMay 9, 20081681just did not know what, if anything, had2occurred that was wrong.3Remember, go back to my initial4premise, I don't think any of this violates5the law, anyway.67There was commentary back andforth on that.89But I think it ended up going tothe DA, and somehow the AG's office got10involved, I think the IG later, when the11whole thing exploded.12MR. TEITELBAUM:Did you13participate in the decision to refer it, who14to refer it?15THE WITNESS:My recollection is16that I said to them, "You guys figure it17out."18And this isn't a body in the19street, this is using the State plane in a20context where I begin with the premise, okay21maybe it's not right, maybe it's not good,22maybe the rule should be changed, but not, in23my view, violative of what the laws have been24articulated to be, necessarily.25And so I'm not big on the ideaHearingMay 9, 20081691that somebody should be investigated for2something where it's not clear, in my3understanding of the law, they had done4anything wrong.567But I said, "All right, you guysfigure it out."And at the end of the day, I8think the DA either expressed interest,9denied expressing interest, I don't know how1011that happened.Was I involved?I was a12participant in some way, shape or form in13those conversations.14MR. TEITELBAUM:When you say,15"You guys figure it out," are we to infer16from that that, in effect, you are letting17your staff make the decision --18THE WITNESS:19MR. TEITELBAUM:2021Yes.-- without yourapproval one way or the other?THE WITNESS:It was essentially22who, if anybody, would have jurisdiction over23this, and rightly should look at it.2425It's an IG issue in terms of justrules violated.Is it a DA issue in terms ofHearingMay 9, 20081701the criminal jurisdiction.2And at some point, David Nocenti3sent me an e-mail in which he laid out who or4who does not have jurisdiction.5MR. TEITELBAUM:I'm not focusing6now on the issue of to whom to refer it, I'm7asking whether the issue to refer it to8anybody, did you defer to your staff on that9and say, "Well, you know, you guys figure it10out, if you want to refer it out, you do, if11you don't you don't?"12THE WITNESS:13question is, do you defer it at all.14depends on the jurisdiction.15have jurisdiction, that doesn't presume16criminal conduct.1718The predicateThatDoes the IGI don't remember what the syntaxwas on that Sunday the first.19I remember more the e-mails that20you showed me that I was more specifically21involved figuring out how to respond on22Monday to the Times board and to New York23One.2425MR. TEITELBAUM:Did you everlearn who made the decision to refer it outHearingMay 9, 20081711to a law enforcement authority?23THE WITNESS:clear.4By that I mean -- I don't believe5I said, "Refer it to."6not say, "Do this."78speculate -MS. HIRSHMAN:10THE WITNESS:Then don't.I don't know.MR. TEITELBAUM:But yourtestimony is that you didn't?14THE WITNESS:I don't believe15that I said, "Refer it to the DA, IG, AG,16Southern District."17MR. TEITELBAUM:18THE WITNESS:19Or to refer it.Or to refer it atall.20I remember there were21conversations, it was Sunday.22remember ever getting closure on that23decision.2425Idon't know who did it.1213I'm quite sure I didI think there's some -- I hate to911I'm not sure it'sMR. TEITELBAUM:I don'tAnd you learnedeventually that it had been deferred out?HearingMay 9, 20081721THE WITNESS:Correct.Although2I also believe that the record shows there is3some ambiguity about whether it was a4referral or a request.56Again, I don't know the backdropto that, either.7But there's ambiguity about that.8MR. TEITELBAUM:9When you learnedthat law enforcement authorities commenced10investigating Senator Bruno's use of the11State aircraft, did you also learn that there12were conversations with members of your staff13that prompted a decision to investigate?14THE WITNESS:15Conversations internal to my1617181920I'm unclear.staff?MR. TEITELBAUM:No, with membersof your staff.THE WITNESS:Between members ofmy staff and the DA's office?21MR. TEITELBAUM:Any law22enforcement authority, the DA's office.23THE WITNESS:At a certain point24in time, I remember, yes, there were25conversations between the DA's office andHearingMay 9, 20081731members of my staff, yes.23MR. TEITELBAUM:When did youfind that out?4THE WITNESS:That I don't know.5I don't know if it was the 1st, 2nd, 3rd.6That I don't know.7I know that there were, as would8almost necessarily be the case where a9referral is made, there's going to be a10conversation in which somebody says, "This is11what this relates to.12Are you interested?"In the ordinary course of any13referral is you that you don't refer14something over without giving somebody a15heads up, partly as a courtesy.16Somebody will pick up the phone17and say, "You may have seen this article, or18you may not.19not be in the public issue.202122232425Here are the facts."It may"Here are the facts, do you wantthis to refer to?"Sometimes an office will say yes,sometimes they will say no.So there is, almost as a matterof propriety, a conversation between theHearingMay 9, 20081741executive and the DA, or whomever.23MS. TOOHER:as Commission's Exhibit No. 177.45(Document marked Commission'sExhibit 177.)67MS. TOOHER:Will you mark thisas Commission's Exhibit 178.89Will you mark this(Document marked Commission'sExhibit 178.)10MR. TEITELBAUM:Now the11Executive Chairman had oversight12responsibilities with respect to the use of13the State aircraft, correct?14THE WITNESS:Right.15MR. TEITELBAUM:After the July161st article came out, did you participate in,17or are you aware of any conversation in which18there was a suggestion that the Executive19Chairman inquire of Senator Bruno as to the20purposes for which he was using the State21aircraft?22THE WITNESS:23MR. TEITELBAUM:24THE WITNESS:25retrospectively?After July 1?Correct.InquireIn other words, go back toHearingMay 9, 20081751prior uses of the plane, and say, "Why did2you use it on May 1, May 10 and May 15?"3Or prospectively, if he was4intending to ask permission to use the plane5on July 10, we would conduct a further6inquiry?7MR. TEITELBAUM:Retrospectively,8before the matter was the subject of9conversation between Executive Chamber10personnel and law enforcement authorities.11THE WITNESS:I'm not aware of12any discussion about whether we should go to13Senator Bruno's office and ask him for that,14no.15QAt any time, or after July 1?16AFrankly, at any time.17I'm not aware at any time in this18process if there was conversation about that19matter.20MR. TEITELBAUM:Precisely what21was contained in the July 1st article that22raised the question on the part of anybody in23the Executive Chamber that there might be24criminal conduct here?25THE WITNESS:I'm not sure.HearingMay 9, 20081761I can't answer for anybody else.2And that's why I've said numerous3times I wasn't sure why this whole issue was4of such interest, in the first place, because5going back to May, when the issue was6crystallized for the first time, and I said,7this isn't an issue.89The rules are such that there istremendous latitude, elasticity.1011So I'm not sure why there is anissue, in the first place.12Now, the article -- and I've read13it only once, last July 1st.14couldn't care a whit about this, I generally15viewed it as I had more important things to16do.17I said IThe article would suggest that18the plane was used on days on which there was19exclusively political activity, in which20case, the certification arguably might have21been false.22Or the use of the plane could23have been viewed as a larceny in terms of the24value of the property, a misrepresentation, a25violation of the ethics rules, oral or not.HearingMay 9, 20081771There could have been issues2relating to whether other meetings were added3pretextually in order to create an illusion4that there was a schedule, when, indeed, the5only use was political.67There are a raft of theories thatone could come up with.89MR. TEITELBAUM:What facts werepresented in the July 1st article, to your10knowledge, that changed the formulation that11you had in May that the Starr meeting, the12insurance meeting, the legislative business13could have been discussed at that meeting?14What was contained in the July 1st article15that changed your mind?161718THE WITNESS:the article.I'd have to rereadPerhaps nothing.I was the very first one who said19this isn't a big issue.20article of this sort, then there is a21question of what do you do.22If there's anAnd in the ordinary course, you23say, look, let somebody who has the24jurisdiction that subsumes this issue, strong25or weak, take a look at it, see if they wantHearingMay 9, 20081781to do it.2I was not exercised one way or3the other about referring it, because my view4of the law has been reasonably -- has been5constant throughout.6changed, but the law was what it was, and7therefore, not much to do.89The law should beThere was no change in behavioron my part.10Members of the office felt we11should suggest to somebody with jurisdiction12they look at it.13We are not going to cut off somebody's14capacity to look at it.15Fine, let them look at it.MR. TEITELBAUM:I think you said16that the predicate for whether or not17inappropriate, or perhaps illegal conduct,18had been committed was the precise purpose19for which the Senator was using the State20aircraft; is that correct?212223THE WITNESS:Restate thequestion.MR. TEITELBAUM:In other words,24in order to know whether his use of the State25aircraft was proper, you have to know whetherHearingMay 9, 20081791he was doing legislative business.2THE WITNESS:Correct.3MR. TEITELBAUM:And the4Executive Chamber having jurisdiction over5the proper use of the aircraft --6THE WITNESS:Right.7MR. TEITELBAUM:8asked Senator Bruno before referring it9out --10THE WITNESS:11MR. TEITELBAUM:-- could haveWe did.-- as to the12precise purposes for which he was using the13aircraft.1415THE WITNESS:No, wrong, wrong.Flat out wrong.16That was the issue that was17framed in January of 2007, when I have since18learned throughout this that an effort the19was made, as you referred to, to find out20more.21I was not involved, but the22Senate, on behalf of the Legislature, I don't23know if on behalf of the Assembly, as well,24said we don't want to tell you, separation of25powers.HearingMay 9, 20081801And so, the agreement was the2document that was created, which said3"governmental purpose," or words to that4effect.5Beyond that, the Senate did not6want us to inquire, and as a matter of7separation of powers, arguably they are8correct, even though the Governor9theoretically could have said, you don't have10access to the plane.11that.12I said I wouldn't doTherefore, in order to avoid that13separation of powers problem, in order to do14our best to ensure appropriate use of the15plane, we put in a certification when an16article arises, suggesting -- I haven't read17it recently -- suggesting exclusive use, use18of the plane for exclusively political19purposes.20The answer is not for us to21inquire in a context where separation of22power issues would be implicated, and we23argue we don't have to jurisdiction.24say who does, the IG, the AG, somebody else.25Give it to them.But toHearingMay 9, 20081811I'm not the Attorney General2anymore.Move it to somebody else, I have3other things to worry about.45That was the rationale behindwhere the boundary line was created.6My underlying lack of interest in7the issue, and a willingness to let somebody8else look at it.910Qbeen marked as Exhibit 177.11(Witness reviewing document.)1213QA15chain.1620Yes.This is, again, an e-mailInterestingly, the times are alittle off.1819I ask you if you can identifythis document.1417I'm going to show you what hasI'm sure you noticed that.The clock seems to be bizarre inthis.QDid you have e-mail21communications with Darren Dopp concerning22the article coming out in the early hours of23July 1st?2425Aa.m., no.By "early," if you mean 6:22HearingMay 9, 20081821And if you look at the -- I2haven't seen paper yet.3That's my typing.45How does it look?If you read this, it says 3:21a.m., Mountain Standard Time, no.6The 1st was a Sunday morning.I7would be shocked.8that early Sunday morning is if the dogs are9barking and have to go out.1011The only reason I get upAnd I was not sending this e-mailat 3:20 or 6:20 in the morning.12MS. HIRSHMAN:13THE WITNESS:143:20 is the firstone, Mountain Standard Time.15163:20.QThe first one appears to be fromDarren Dopp to you and Richard Baum.17AYes.18QCorrect.19AWhich is something -- I have no20idea what that refers to about Uncle Charles.2122Q25And then your response at somepoint thereafter, perhaps not 3:21 a.m.23243:19 a.m.AIt certainly wasn't 3:21 a.m.,QWas, "Hasn't seen the paper yet.no.HearingMay 9, 200818312How does it look?"A345Right.That was my response, but not at3:21 in the morning.QAnd Mr. Dopp's response to you,6as at least indicated here, at 6:22 a.m.,7was, "Got to see to believe.8to move quickly to refer it to the proper9authorities."I think we need10ARight.11QFrom this e-mail, it appears that12very early on and very quickly Darren, at13least, is interested in moving this out to14the proper authorities.15AYes.16QDid you discuss that with him,171819initially with Darren Dopp?AI just went through that.I can't shed any more light on it20than I just did, saying over the course of21that day, inevitably there were e-mails back22and forth which have been produced, and some23conversations, some of which I may or may not24have been part of.25I don't remember any.The question, who should look atHearingMay 9, 20081841this thing.2QWhat was your response to the3Bruno article, your response, when you read4it?5A6front page.7I'd have to see the rest of theBut I would ordinarily drive into8Stewart's, pick up a bunch of papers, Sunday9morning, whenever I got there, looked at it,10and said okay, fine.11This was not -- as the e-mails12reflect, okay, we're going to have a little13bit of a media pushback on this, but there is14nothing here that is fundamentally15problematic.16arguably, that are deeper than this.17He's got other problems,The airplane had been a media18favorite, because they love the notion that19we fly around in style at taxpayer expense.20It has never been an issue that struck me as21being important politically, legally.22ethics of it should be dealt with.232425QTheI'm going to show you what hasbeen marked as Commission's Exhibit 178.(Witness reviewing document.)HearingMay 9, 200818512I ask you if you can identifythis document.3AYes.It's an e-mail, a sequence4of two e-mails, one from -- there's three5e-mails.6Q7chain.8ARight.9QBetween you and Richard Baum?10ACorrect.11QCorrect?12It appears to be two in thisAnd again, this is themorning of July 1?13ACorrect.14QAnd there appear to be some15description of Bruno article by you.Bruno's16story is very bad for him, I think, really17puts him in a bad spot.18AYes.19QCan't believe it won't have some21AYes.22QWhat do you think?20legs.232425When you say -AI'm not sure if that's me.I think that's Rich.HearingMay 9, 2008186123MS. HIRSHMAN:That's respondingto the e-mail sent by the Governor.A4Yes.And, in fact my e-mail, to Rich,5in which I only type in the subject line,6which is my ordinary course, I said, "How do7you think the story came out?"891011I was more interested in NicholasConfessore.QAnd Mr. Baum is obviously fairlyinterested in the Bruno piece?12AYes.13QAgain, did you have a response to14Mr. Baum's contacting you now on the Times15Union article?1617AI have no idea.Rich was in Florida at the time,18if my recollection is correct.19it was probably an e-mail response, and you20will have it.21I don't remember.So if we did,It doesn't22mean that we didn't have some telephone23conversations that day.2425But he was in Florida onvacation, so I was less likely to haveHearingMay 9, 20081871telephone calls with him.2QThere was a fair amount of e-mail3communication among senior members of your4administration in response to this article.5AOkay.6QWhat is your recollection as to7the general tenor in the staff, in your8chamber, in response to this article?9AThe media is going to ask us what10are doing, to whom are you referring this, if11anybody.12You've got to figure out a13response, and who is the right person to take14a look at this.15The way the article was framed,16even though, as we discussed, I don't see it17as an issue that makes out an offense18necessarily, although one can probe and find19other things out.20The media response is going to be21one of inquiry, and they're expecting us to22do something.23out that proper response is what needed to be24done.25And generating and figuringAnd that was what other peopleHearingMay 9, 20081881were going to do.2QThat's their job.You mentioned a little earlier3the concept of larceny of property, and4Bruno's use of the plane.5ARight.6QWere you aware that that subject7had been explored prior to turning these8documents over to the Times Union?91011AYes.I was aware of it from1988.And as I mentioned, I was a12prosecutor in the Orenstein case, when the13issue of what could or could not be done on14public payroll had captivated and dominated a15year of my life.16And that's why the various17larceny theories that could be conjured was18something I was aware of.19individually skeptical of them, aware that20the courts were deeply skeptical of them.212223I was, if notAnd it's a theory, not one withany judicial traction.That's one of the theories,24that's the theory, the best we could come up25with, false filings and larcenies.HearingMay 9, 20081891QWere you aware that David Nocenti2and Darren Dopp had been communicating on3that subject prior to the turnover of4documents to the Times Union?5A67MR. TEITELBAUM:Is this thefirst you're hearing about that?89No.THE WITNESS:About thatconversation?10MR. TEITELBAUM:11THE WITNESS:Yes.Unless it was in12one of the reports, and I read it, I'm not13aware.14I was not party to it.I know15there's the stuff about Peter saying he could16go on line with the IG website.17People had had various18conversations about what this might or might19not be.202122I don't know specifically if Iwas aware of that.MR. TEITELBAUM:Do you know why23members of your staff would be communicating24about what possible crime might have been25committed by saying to Bruno prior to theHearingMay 9, 20081901article coming out?23THE WITNESS:Do you want me tospeculate?4MR. TEITELBAUM:5THE WITNESS:6No.Then, in whichcase, I have no idea.7QWere you aware that members of8your staff were communicating on what crime9could have been committed by Senator Bruno?10A11No.You would need to be a legal12scholar to figure out what the possibilities13are.1415Qmarked as Commission's 125.1617I want to show you what has beenI ask you to take a look at thedocument.18There are a number of pages.(Witness reviewing document.)19AOkay.20QHave you seen this document21before?22ANo, I'm not aware of it.23QDid David Nocenti discuss with24you prior to the July 1 article that Darren25Dopp had been requesting informationHearingMay 9, 20081911concerning a scheme to defraud the2government?3ANo, I don't believe he had.4It's interesting that this e-mail5chain begins with Darren to David saying he's6curious how this crime is defined.7When you said earlier that there8were people discussing it, it appears to have9been initiated by Darren.10What date was this?11QDarren Dopp is the initial --12AOn the 27th is the day the FOIL13was received.14QCorrect.15AYes.1617Speculating, it could be thatOdato said to him, "What is this?"181920MR. TEITELBAUM:Odato hadn't gotit.THE WITNESS:But the FOIL was21received on the 27th.22of the reporters who's been asking for it,23therefore, he's involved in back and forth24long before he gets the FOIL.25Presumably, he is oneSo presumably, he's saying toHearingMay 9, 20081921Darren, "Okay, what is this?"23Does his article refer to anypotential criminal acts?4QYes, it does.5AAny particular crimes?6QNo.7APresumably, then, he is saying,8"Okay, what is this?"910So he is saying to Darren, "Whatcrime might this be?"111213141516And Darren's saying, "I gotlawyers.QI'll find out."Was that something that Darrendid for newspaper reporters?AI have no idea.His job -- the only thing I'll17say is that a Communication Director's job is18to help reporters understand the context, the19facts, to make a persuasive argument why to20write an article about how we've changed21health care finance, how we've changed22education funding, how we've changed state23ethics by drafting a new ethics law and24created this commission, or how we've shed25light on any one of a hundred issues.HearingMay 9, 20081931And his job is to be responsive2to reporters, in providing them answers to3questions that they ask.4He's in the service business.5So if a reporter says to him,6"Does this constitute a crime," his job is to7try to answer that question.8And maybe he does it by saying to9Steve Krantz, or to David, or to whomever did10this, "What are the elements of this crime?11Help me out."12That's why he called it a favor.13That's the way a Communications14Director gets an article written.151617I've said enough here negativeabout reporters, they are lazy.QOn the subject of reporters and18reactions, there was reactions in the press,19obviously, to the July 1 article.20There was also a response, or a21reaction, that characterized a number of the22activities going on in the Executive Chamber23as an effort to spy on Senator Bruno.24ARight.25QI show you what has been markedHearingMay 9, 20081941as Commission's Exhibit 53.2AYes.3QAnd ask you if you're familiar4with this document?5AFamiliar with it?6QHave you ever seen this?7look at it.8AI've seen the headline.9QAre you aware of the contents of10Take athis article?11ANo.12QAre you aware that Fred Dicker13made allegations in the press that members of14the Executive Chamber had engaged in what I15believe I can quote him as saying spying on16Senator Bruno?171819202122AI'm aware that he made thoseallegations, yes.QAnd was there a response in theExecutive Chamber to those allegations?ASure there was.I called various individuals and23said, "Is this true?"24it's a problem.25Because if it's true,And, in addition, I'm going toHearingMay 9, 20081951be -- I see the press virtually daily,2although this is -- this article was dated3July 5th, and I'm not sure when I next saw4the press.58th; am I correct, that Monday?It may not have been until the6July 4th I think was a Wednesday.7So there was sort of odd days89off.I was in Albany on the 6th.I needed to make sure that when I10saw the press, and I was asked the question,11did the State Police spy on or do12surveillance on Joe Bruno, I needed an13answer, both as a matter of the underlying14substance, and the matter of being entirely15accurate in my response to the media.16So there, as you have no doubt17seen from the e-mail traffic, some statements18that were drafted, I wanted to get the answer19to that, and I inquired and got the answer,20which is that there had been no surveillance,21and that there was nothing asked of the SP,22as I was told then, as related to this, out23of the ordinary standard operating procedure,24which is what I said to the press on the 8th.25And in fact, I believe that everyHearingMay 9, 20081961report thereafter has validated that2statement.345QAnd who did you go to to askthose questions?AAgain, it would have been the6same, David Nocenti, Karen, Rich, when he got7back, that would have been the universe of8people most involved.91011QAnd what was Darren Dopp'sresponse?AI am going to have a hard time12parsing one response, his versus David's13versus Richard's.14But the response that I was15given, and I think in this case everybody16agreed that there was no surveillance, there17was no accuracy or truth to anything that was18alleged here.19QOkay.But Darren Dopp is your20communications guy, he's the one that21provided the information to the Times Union?22AYes.23QPerhaps not the exact words, but24what were your communications with him, in25particular, in sum and substance?HearingMay 9, 20081971AI just gave it to you.2QAnd you don't have any more3particular --4A5this true?"6I had said to all of them, "IsYou have the statements that were7prepared, and you have the e-mails that went8back and forth on this, and you have, in9addition, the statement I made on the 8th,10when I was at the day care center, or11whatever, in Albany, where I was very12particular in my statement that it had been13reviewed by everybody, so I wanted to be14meticulous.15was simply not true.16There was no surveillance.ThisSo it came to Dale Bolker's17self-grandizing comment that he's been the18subject of surveillance.1920QAnd you spoke a little earlierabout the Long incident.21ACorrect.22QAnd discussions with Dan Wiese,23of the State Police, concerning the Long24incident.25AYes.HearingMay 9, 20081981QAnd Darren is quoted in the2article concerning the Long incident, as3well?4AYes.5QAnd I believe the quote was that6in response to that, in the second column,7recalling that incident, the (State Police8made some changes, and yes, keeping basic9records, i.e., logs).1011MS. HIRSHMAN:where you are.1213Can you tell meMS. TOOHER:The second column,one paragraph down.14MS. HIRSHMAN:Okay.15AYes.16QDid Darren Dopp ever discuss the1718Long incident with you?AI don't recall having a19conversation with Darren about it, other than20after some of this began to come out --21remember, I said I don't know when I had the22conversation with Dan Wiese, if it was before23July 1 or after July 1.2425When Dan came to me and said,yes, there had been an issue with Bruno,HearingMay 9, 20081991Long, that whole set of circumstances, I2don't believe I relayed that to Darren, but3it lodged in my mind, and I'm not aware I did4anything about that until the day or two days5before the New York Times article on that6issue came out.7So you can check that date.8So, sometime in early, mid-July.9QBut at the time of this article,10which is July 5th -- and this is, I'm going11to say, a different tenor now being taken on12this story -- you had not discussed the13article?1415161718AI don't know.I don't know whenDan Wiese told me about that.So I don't know how that relatesto this article and that sequence.What I do know is that Dan had19recounted to me the complaint.20what Dan told me.21have fabricated that.22232425I creditedIt's impossible for him toAnd then I had him communicatethat to the New York Times later on.Whether I had told Darren, orRich, or David about this, I don't know.HearingMay 9, 20082001MR. TEITELBAUM:Putting aside2the issue of whether there was surveillance,3"surveillance" is a term of art for somebody4involved in law enforcement.56This headline in 53 uses the word"track."7THE WITNESS:8MR. TEITELBAUM:910Did you inquireas to whether or not anybody in the ExecutiveChamber was using the State Police to track?1112Yes.THE WITNESS:Sure. That's what Idid.13And that's why my statement on14the 8th, which was the subsequent Monday, was15the State Police were not asked to do16anything, and did not do anything, other than17follow their standard operating procedure.18The State Police is the State19Police.20relates to what they do in moving people21around.22We don't deal with them as itMR. TEITELBAUM:So the answers23that you got back from your staff was that24there was no tracking being requested of the25State Police?HearingMay 9, 200820112THE WITNESS:I did not use theword "tracks."3If they're providing somebody --4when they move me around, they have logs that5are maintained, my itinerary, what logs they6keep in the standard, ordinary process of7maintaining their logs they keep.89What I was told is they did onlythat which was their ordinary procedure in10moving Senator Bruno, just as they moved me,11just as they would move anybody else.1213There was no deviation from theirstandard process.1415MR. TEITELBAUM:record-keeping, and so forth?16THE WITNESS:17MR. TEITELBAUM:18In terms ofPrecisely.Who told youthat?19THE WITNESS:That is the answer,20as I said, that was given to me based upon21conversations with -- and you can check the22e-mail traffic -- with Darren, with David,23with Rich.24gotten involved at that point; the press25office, because Darren was so much in the mixThe entire -- Christine may haveHearingMay 9, 20082021as a participant.23I said, "Make sure this isaccurate."4When I go out on the 8th and make5a statement about this, we'd better be6accurate.7MR. TEITELBAUM:Are you unable8to pinpoint the person or persons -- we've9gotten four people.10this to you?1112Did each one of them sayTHE WITNESS:Herb, I have noidea.13When you're the Governor of the14state, and you ask a question, you expect to15get an answer.16expected everybody to get me the right17answer.18I said get me the answer, get it now, get it19right.20When I asked a question, IAnd I didn't ask it of one person.And that is the answer that I got21back on July the 8th, that's the answer I22gave.23As far as I know, as it relates24to surveillance there has never been anything25that suggested that it was not the rightHearingMay 9, 20082031answer.23MR. TEITELBAUM:And you got thisanswer back from the people you just named?4THE WITNESS:I gave the5direction not as opposed to the collection of6documents, I gave a directive, get me the7answer, and I got an answer.89And I think that answer iscorrect.According to the Attorney General,10the DA, the Inspector General, there was no11surveillance, a typical Fred Dicker article.1213QYou have been provided a copy ofwhat has been marked as Commission's 56.14AYes.15QCan you identify this document?16AAn e-mail.17QThis is an e-mail between you and181920Rich Baum on July 6th; is that correct?AWell, there are a couple ofe-mails.21The first one is from Rich to me22on the 6th.The second is from, I gather --23first from Rich to me.24to Rich, in which I say -- a couple of25e-mails, yes.The second is from meOkay, on the 6th..HearingMay 9, 20082041QAnd in the first e-mail and2chain, which is at the bottom of the page,3the e-mail discussion, there is an e-mail4from Darren to Dicker that is reprinted in5the post, "Is a problem, need to figure out6how to explain it away."7AYes.8QAnd your response is, "I missed9the e-mail.What is it?"10ARight.11QAnd he responds, and indicates12it's concerning the Mike Long claim.13ARight.14QDepending on how you read it, an15admission that SP was doing more than we've16been saying.17Read closely, he seems to be18talking about the previous administration,19which I think is the answer.20ARight.21QThis e-mail chain seems to22indicate there is a fair amount of discussion23going on about Darren's explanations as24they're cited in the post.25AWell, actually, I read itHearingMay 9, 20082051differently.2QHow do you read it?3AWell, my response to Rich on the46th, which is the day after this article --5again, I don't think it's at 6:04 a.m.6Mountain Standard Time, putting that aside --7is, "I missed Darren's e-mail.89Which establishes, as I said, Ididn't read Dicker's article, but also would10have seen the e-mail.11don't read Fred's articles.1213e-mail?What is this?"Rich then says, "Reprinted in thePost, not with me now.1617Because as I say, ISo I said to him, "What's in the1415What is it?"But basically, it goes into theMike Long claim.18And then it seems to be this19issue, I think, he's relating to the keeping20of basic records, i.e., logs.212223That's what I take it to meanright now.But beyond that, I don't know.MS. HIRSHMAN:You don't have any24recollection, as you sit here today of that,25you're speculating having looked atHearingMay 9, 20082061Commission's Exhibit 53.2THE WITNESS:3MS. HIRSHMAN:4In conjunctionwith 56.56That's correct.THE WITNESS:QThat's correct.And in the e-mail, Rich Baum7says, "It's an admission that SP was doing8more than we've been saying."9AYes.10QWhat was the position that the11chamber had been saying as far as what SP had12been doing?13AAs I said, they were following14the standard operating procedure, which is15what we had been saying, and in fact, what I16said, this is the 6th, that is precisely what17I said two days later, on the 8th.18Saturday the 6th, Monday is the 8th.192021This isAfter this, on the 8th, I saythey followed standard operating procedure.Rich is concerned that this22e-mail will create the impression that they23were doing something other than that, even24though what he says in the e-mail is, I,25Rich, think what Darren is really saying hereHearingMay 9, 20082071is that in the prior administration they may2have been doing something else, but who3knows.4A critical point here, and this5goes back to the earlier e-mail down at the6bottom, is point number two, in the second7full paragraph, all that happened here is the8SP used documents sent by Bruno's office.9other info was generated or was asked for.10That's one of the critical points11he thinks we need to make, which obviously,12he believes is accurate.1314NoHe's worried that Darren's e-mailwill be misinterpreted.15What he says at the top is, I16think what he really means is that during the17Pataki administration some other stuff was18going on, but we don't know.19This is in the course of what I20said earlier was the effort to determine what21happened, so that on the 8th, when I see the22press, I can be crystal clear and precisely23accurate in my comments.2425MS. HIRSHMAN:something.Let me clarifyHearingMay 9, 20082081I think the 6th is a Friday.2THE WITNESS:3MS. HIRSHMAN:4Okay.The 8th is aSunday.5THE WITNESS:6MS. HIRSHMAN:Okay.So you don't7recall that your visit would have been on a8Sunday?9THE WITNESS:No.10It was the next Monday.11Am I correct?12Monday that I was in Albany.1314It was the nextYou can check that.QNow, you referenced Paragraph 2,15that the SP used the documents sent by16Bruno's office.17AYes.18QWas that your understanding, was19that these documents had been provided by20Senator Bruno's office?21AI have no idea.22QDid you ever discuss with Rich23Baum that these documents were sent by24Senator Bruno's office?25ANo.HearingMay 9, 20082091Which documents do you mean?2QThe documents, I assume the3documents that are the subject of the TU4article, the Post article, and what's causing5all the flurry is the transportation6documents concerning Senator Bruno.7A8910You're presuming.I have I know idea that said whatdocuments were turned however to the TU, howthey were generated, from whom.11I took it, when Rich said to me12one of the points we have to make is that13these were the documents provided by Senator14Bruno's office.15be the case.16that.17I said okay, fine, that mustOtherwise, he wouldn't have putBut I did not inquire, other than18as I said, to say was standard operating19procedure followed.20QWhat was your understanding as to21what the standard operating procedure was at22this time?23AWith respect to what?24QWell, you're saying standard25operating procedure was followed.HearingMay 9, 20082101A2Yes.With respect to how they would3move Senator Bruno when he flew to New York,4or wherever he may have been.5I didn't care what it was, as6long as whatever it was is what they did.7I don't know what the standard8operating procedure was for me.When I9showed up, there was a car, there was an10airplane, a helicopter, whatever it was they11would do, but I never told them to vary it,12or asked them to vary it for him or for me.13That's all I cared about.14Whatever it was was irrelevant to15the issue, which is, did it vary.16only issue I cared about.17QThat's theSo the standard operating18procedure that's referred to here, or by you,19is the standard operating procedure of the20State Police in moving Senator Bruno around?21ARight.22QIt's not standard operating23procedure of the State Police in terms of24keeping documents?25AFor all of it.HearingMay 9, 20082111But the issue was surveillance.2QYes.3AThe issue was surveillance.And4I said, "Did they do anything different, out5of the ordinary?6Get me the answer."The answer that came back was7they followed standard operating procedure.8Which is, I think, if you go to910my statement at the school on Monday, that'swhat I said.1112131415And I don't think there iscontrary evidence.QYou don't think there is contraryevidence to your statement?AWith respect to surveillance,16with respect to the variance from the17standard operating procedure that I asked18about.19Q202122In terms of the record-keepingprocedure?AThat I don't know.In terms of the surveillance,23which is what this was about.24here is tracking his movements.25he surveilled?"The headlineI said, "WasHearingMay 9, 20082121I said, "Let me know if there was2any variance from the standard operating3procedure."4QDid there come a time where you5became aware that the record-keeping6procedure in this circumstance concerning7Senator Bruno was different than the8procedure they had followed in the past?9AI became aware that there were10allegations of that as this issue was then11subsequently investigated by the IG and the12AG.131415QAnd when did you become aware ofAThe very end of July.that?16I'm not sure.17my best recollection.181920After --At some point in late July isI'm not sure when and how thatcame to the surface.MR. TEITELBAUM:Just for a21second, for a logistical issue, in terms of a22car, and whatnot, do you know how far you are23from finishing?24Let's go off the record.25(Recess had.)HearingMay 9, 20082131MR. TEITELBAUM:As to when you2learned about these allegations, was that3after the Attorney General's report came out?4THE WITNESS:I don't know.5There were a sequence of6allegations raised after the article came7out.8910First was surveillance.why we responded to the surveillanceallegation.1112That'sThen there was an allegation of,I gather, the records were not kept properly.13Frankly, I stopped focusing on14this issue, because you may remember there15was actually some people trying to get work16done.17July 16, there was a session.Thereafter we negotiated a deal18on congestion pricing and campaign finance19reform that totally captivated me, and I had20no interest in this issue, and no involvement21in this until the Thursday which would have22been the 20th, the 19th, whatever that23Thursday was, when, after I had a press24conference announcing an agreement on25campaign finance reform and congestionHearingMay 9, 20082141pricing, and I sat down and was given a2briefing on what had been occurring in this3regard.4So I do not know where along that5spectrum the issue of documentation arose, if6at all.78MR. TEITELBAUM:Who gave you thebriefing?9THE WITNESS:That was David10Nocenti.11office.12people were in the room, but I don't recall.1314It was in Rich'sAnd I don't know if one or two otherMR. TEITELBAUM:And that's whenyou found out about the allegation?1516Rich was there.THE WITNESS:That's when Ireengaged with this issue.17I don't know if that's when I18found out that there was an issue relating to19documentation, how they were gathered.20not know.212223I doBut that was the moment when Ithen began to hear again about these issues.MR. TEITELBAUM:Did there come a24time when you learned whether the manner in25which information was conveyed and documentsHearingMay 9, 20082151were accumulated, documents were created,2departed from normal State Police practice?3THE WITNESS:I know it became an4issue.I do not know if it did or did not5depart from -- as we sit here today, I do not6know if it did or did not depart from7ordinary State Police practice, because there8were statements that it was a practice, it9was discontinued, it was started once again.1011I do not know what they did andhow they did it.1213And frankly, I don't care whatthey did.14MR. TEITELBAUM:15time when you learned whether the State16Police were conveying information regarding17Senator Bruno's movements to Howard on a real18time basis.19THE WITNESS:Did there come aThat was made20aware -- I became aware that there was an21issue about that at the end of July, sometime22either at this briefing or thereafter.23MR. TEITELBAUM:Was that looked24into by the Executive Chamber as to whether,25in fact, that was going on?HearingMay 9, 20082161THE WITNESS:At that point,2there was already an Attorney General and an3IG investigation.4So the IG was going to look into5that.At that point the IG was the6appropriate party to look into all of these7issues.And that was their jurisdiction.8910MR. TEITELBAUM:Is that alsotrue with respect to the creation ofdocuments?11THE WITNESS:True, because12certainly nobody within the Executive13Chamber, as you would ordinarily define it,14was going to look into it.15be16Inspector General, or some entity that had17actual jurisdiction over this.18It was going toeither the IG, or the State Police,QI'm going to provide you copies19of what was previously marked as Commission20Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4.21AOkay.22QI ask if you've seen these232425documents before.ANo.Unless they are part of theFOIL response that I saw the first timeHearingMay 9, 20082171today.2Unless you've shown them to me3today, and they were part of that, the answer4is no.5QAnd, for the record --6AAnd one of them actually looks789like -QPortions of these documents werepart of that.10ABeyond that, no.11QThere is evidence in the record12that these documents were created by the13State Police after the transportation had14actually occurred, in response to a request15that was represented to be from the Executive16Chamber.17Were you aware of that request?18ANo.19QAt any time did you become aware20of that request?21ANo.22QIn your briefing on, I believe23you said it was July 19th --24AThursday, whichever.25Q-- did Mr. Nocenti, or anyone whoHearingMay 9, 20082181conducted the briefing, relate to you that2there had been the creation of documents by3the State Police?4A56What they did was go throughtheir preliminary take on what these were.789I don't believe so.QAnd what was that preliminaryAThey had been working with thetake?10Attorney General's office to facilitate their11acquisition of documents.121314Q"Their" being the AttorneyGeneral's office?ARight.Of documents to reach15whatever conclusions they were going to16reach.17QAnd did anyone ever indicate to18you in that briefing that they had reviewed19documents that had been created by the State20Police?21AI don't remember at that point.22That's why the issue of creation of23documents, it's hard for me to place it.2425I don't recall at this point intime if the issue was whether documents wereHearingMay 9, 20082191being created or not, the issue was whether2or not there had been surveillance, whether3or not there had been anything that deviated4from standard operating procedures in other5ways.6QAnd was it relayed to you at the7briefing that members of the Executive8Chamber, specifically Darren Dopp and Bill9Howard, had been advised that they should1011obtain outside counsel?AI don't believe I was told that.12I don't remember that coming up at that13Thursday meeting.14I became aware of it by Sunday15night, because on the eve of when the16Attorney General's report was coming out, and17there was an issue of a statement from18Darren, he had outside counsel.1920212223But I don't remember knowingThursday that he had been told that.QDid there come a time when youwere advised -AWell, as I just said sometime24between then and Sunday night I became aware25of it.HearingMay 9, 200822012When along that seventy-two-hourspectrum I became aware of it, I do not know.3QDo you know who advised you of5ANo.6QWere you told why those478that?individuals should obtain outside counsel?A9No.No, I was not.I'm a former Attorney General.10know what it means when somebody says to get11outside counsel.12QWas it ever discussed with you13who should be obtaining outside counsel in14the Executive Chamber?1516A18Who beyond Bill or Darren,No.It was stated to me as fact thatthey had outside counsel.1920No.whether they should?17II don't remember the conversationactually relating to Bill Howard.21With respect to Darren, it arose22because of the issue of his statement on23Sunday.24QAnd how did it arise?25AJust that he was going to --HearingMay 9, 20082211there was going to be a statement that he2would submit to the Attorney General's3office, but that he had outside counsel who4would prepare it, or craft it.5678910That is Darren's outside counsel.Qhad been suggested to get outside counsel?Ait, or that he had done so independently.And I don't know, as we sit heretoday, which it was.1314I don't know if I was told thathe was told, or it was suggested that he get1112Did you ever ask about why DarrenHe might have determined on hisown to get outside counsel.15I don't know if he got it, he was16told to get it.17outside counsel.18it was, or how he obtained it, or what the19reason was.20QOr who made that decision?21ANo, I did not.22QAnd you mentioned the Sunday23night statement.24referring to?25AI was told that he hadAnd I did not inquire whoWhat statement are youWell, the statement which wasHearingMay 9, 20082221crafted, and Darren submitted by Sunday2night, at some point along the way.3QAnd what was that statement?4AWell, you have the statement, the5statement which he submitted to the Attorney6General's office.78Qthat statement at all?910Did you participate in reviewingAI saw drafts of it.I did notparticipate in editing it.11As you've seen from the e-mails12over the course of the weekend when -- I did13not.14I was not involved in this until15Saturday morning, when the AG's office and16the executive were going back and forth about17the process with releasing their report, or18issuing their report.19The issue of the statement from20Darren was raised.21to see what he said the facts were.22curious as this was unfolding what had23happened.2425I was curious, obviously,I wasSo I said the e-mails as you'veseen, what is the statement, and what does itHearingMay 9, 200822312say.QAnd what was your understanding3as to how that statement came about?4other words, did the AG request it, did the5Executive Chamber offer it?6AI do not know.InI know that there7was a determination made, whether by Darren,8by his lawyers, by others, I do not know,9that he was not going to testify, but that he10would offer a statement in lieu of testimony.11And so I was curious to see what that12statement would be.13QAnd was it your understanding14that anyone else would be giving a statement15to the AG?16AYes, Rich Baum.17QAnd did you review that1819statement, as well?AI did not review it as an editor.20You can see from the e-mails, I said, "What21are the statements?"22facts are.23I'm curious what theseUnderstand, as I've said, this24was an issue, this entire set of issues had25completely fallen off my radar screen duringHearingMay 9, 20082241the week-and-a-half prior to that Thursday.2That Thursday afternoon, I go in,3I'm exhausted, because we were working4literally around the clock on substantive5issues.6I go to Columbia County Thursday7night, leave early to go to New York City8Friday morning.9And Friday afternoon I get calls10that this is likely to happen over the11weekend, Monday.12talk to these folks about it again.1314Saturday morning begin toSo I'm curious what all this hasamounted to, and what the issue is.15MR. TEITELBAUM:16Executive Chamber take a position as to17whether or not Dopp should submit to18testimony?1920212223THE WITNESS:Did theI don't know whatyou mean by the Executive Chamber.MR. TEITELBAUM:Members of theExecutive Chamber.THE WITNESS:I don't know.24would have to -- I don't know if David25Nocenti took a position.I don't know ifYouHearingMay 9, 20082251Peter Pope would.2Who knows.There were people involved.I3don't know if they collectively took a view,4or independently took a view.5I know that there was a6conclusion that he was not going to testify.7Whether that was his conclusion, his lawyer's8conclusion, or somebody else's, I don't know.9MR. TEITELBAUM:Was there any10discussion that you were aware of among11members of your staff to persuade Dopp not to12give testimony to the Attorney General?13THE WITNESS:I do not know.14I know, I think it was Friday15afternoon, I was in the city, I was leaving16New York City, I believe being told that he17was not going to testify, and that the18Attorney General had concluded its19investigation.20What had been told to people,21whoever was dealing with the AG's office,22they were done, and Darren was not going to23testify, and that there would be a statement24instead.25MR. TEITELBAUM:With regard toHearingMay 9, 20082261Mr. Baum, did you ever learn that Mr. Baum2wanted to give testimony to the Attorney3General?45THE WITNESS:Ever learn that?Yes.6MR. TEITELBAUM:Did you ever7learn that Mr. Dopp wanted to give testimony8to the Attorney General?9THE WITNESS:1011I'm not sure I everheard that.Because I don't think I've spoken12to Darren since early July.13MR. TEITELBAUM:When did you14learn that Mr. Baum wanted to give testimony15to the Attorney General?16THE WITNESS:After the AG's17report was issued, I believe at some point,18and the issue of why Darren and Rich had not19testified was being raised, I believe Rich at20some point, either orally or in writing,21said, "I want to testify."22Now, I don't know if he was23persuaded not to by the Executive Chamber24lawyers, his lawyer, I don't know.25MR. TEITELBAUM:The first timeHearingMay 9, 20082271you found out that he wanted to testify was2after the AG's report?34THE WITNESS:QYes, I believe so.What was your understanding of5the amount of input that the Executive6Chamber staff had in the AG's report?7A89Minimal.I know there were conversations.And I know that there was back and forth with10the AG's office.11it, so I can't quantify it, or give you a12sense of texture.13I was not party to any ofAnd I certainly don't know what14the report looked like before the input, what15it looked like after.1617So I don't know if it had anyinput at all, or affect on the final outcome.18I do know that the Attorney19General's office wanted to get from us a20statement, a statement that we would issue21after their report was issued, prior to our22having seen their report.232425And for whatever misguidedreason, they were willing to do that.QWhen you say "whatever misguidedHearingMay 9, 20082281reason," what do you mean by that?2AJust that when I look back,3agreed to craft a statement, and show it to4the AG's office ahead of time, saying, "Here5is what we will say about your report."6And, in retrospect, we knew that7that report was, at a minimum, terribly8incomplete, and based upon an incomplete9record.10QAnd were you apprised of the11conversations that were occurring between12members of the Executive Chamber staff and13the AG's staff?14AI knew there were conversations,15but I did not know the substance of each of16them, or even more than the general tenor of17them, in the sense that on Saturday and then18Sunday they said, "Look, we have had19conversations with the AG's office, here is20what we think their report will generally21say."22And this was part of the back and23the forth.The Attorney General wanted to24know what our statement would be upon25issuance of his report.HearingMay 9, 2008229123QAnd who were you having thoseconversations with?APrimarily, Darren -- excuse me,4not Darren, primarily Peter Lloyd and two --5I'm not sure if Rich was part of that.6Lloyd and maybe David.7QPeterAnd were you aware of the extent8to which the content of the AG's report was9being discussed with staff members?1011Did theyadvise you of that?AI think on Saturday morning --12and you can see this in the e-mails -- Peter13and/or Lloyd or David was given a general14sense of what the report would be.15Now, beyond that, I do not know.16I think there were major pieces17181920that they were not told about.QWhen you say "general sense," asrelayed to you, what does that mean?AIt means that they were told that21there would be a conclusion that there was no22violation of law, and that there had perhaps23been missteps taken, but there was no24violation of law.25QAnd how detailed was thatHearingMay 9, 2008230123information?AI don't know how detailed it wasin its presentation to them.4I know that in the presentation5to me from either Peter or -- I believe Peter6is the one who then recounted it to me, what7he had been told by the AG's office.8910He relayed to me the entirety ofwhat he knew, or what he told me, in probablya minute.111213So it was not, in its recitationto me, a lengthy report.QWas it your understanding that14Peter was involved in fairly extensive15discussions concerning content with the AG's16office?17AI have no idea.18QDid Peter ever relay to you that19they were reading to him large portions of20the report in advance of its issuance?212223AI don't think he characterized itthat way.He told me what the conclusions24were going to be, but I don't recall being25told they had read him significant portionsHearingMay 9, 20082311of it.2QAnd did he identify to you areas3in which the chamber staff was in4disagreement with the AG in the report?56AI don't recall back then if wefocused on the areas of disagreement.7QWhat were you focused on?8AOn what their conclusions were.9QAnd did he relay to you10concerning their conclusions on the creation11of documents by the State Police at that12time?131415AI don't remember if he focused onQAnd did he discuss with you thethat.16e-mails that the chamber was providing to the17AG that appeared to implicate members of your18top staff to the AG?19AHe at one point referred to some,20and told me that there were some e-mails that21indicated that e-mails that were in the22report that indicated that there was interest23in this issue of Bruno's use of the plane at24the senior levels, but he did not25characterize it much beyond that.HearingMay 9, 2008232123QAnd did he discuss with you whothose e-mails involved?ASure, we discussed e-mails.4was in the report.5Bill Howard.6involved, Darren.789ItIt was Darren, it wasAgain, it was Bill Howard wasOne or two involved Rich.And I think that was it.QAnd was there any conversationwith anyone at that time concerning the10response from the Executive Chamber to the AG11report?1213AYes.They were crafting astatement that the AG's office wanted to see.14Q15clear.16I'm sorry, I should be moreIn terms of a response for those17individuals who were employed by the18Executive Chamber.19AWell, later on the issue of what20sanctions would be appropriate was a topic of21conversation, as you know from the e-mails.22QWhen you say "later on," when?23AI think that was more a Sunday.24You have the chronology.I think it was25Sunday afternoon, Sunday evening.HearingMay 9, 20082331I went to Albany, and I said,2"This is something we've got to talk through.3And the appropriate sanctions, based upon the4AG's report have to be resolved if we want to5address this Monday morning in a forthright6way."78910So that's what we focused on.Qdiscussed with the Attorney General's office?A1112And was the issue of sanctionsI don't know.I'm not sure.We had internal conversationsabout that.13Whether or not -- I'm not sure.14I'm not sure if they were ever apprised of15what we intended to do on the issue of16sanctions.17QAnd you were not communicating18directly with the Attorney General's19office --20ANo, absolutely not.21QPrior to the issuance of the22report?23AAbsolutely not.24QAnd were you ever aware of25specific areas, or content in the report thatHearingMay 9, 20082341the Executive Chamber was requesting from the2Attorney General's office?3A4Peter.5Well, I was aware of what I toldI told Peter at some point, and6there's an e-mail to this effect, I think it7was a question.8include Dopp's and Baum's statements?"9Because I thought they were important.10I said, "Are they going toSo to that extent, if Peter11carried that request back to the AG's office,12I was aware of that.13I asked Peter whether it was14going to be a report that examined both15aspects of the inquiry, which was the issue16of -- what I viewed as the issue of17surveillance.18initially framed, and the issue of propriety19abuse of the aircraft.20That's how the issue had beenAnd I was told it would address21both.Conclude there was no illegality,22conclude there was no surveillance.23there were going to be other conclusions,24which, frankly, I did not focus upon as much25until later on.And thenHearingMay 9, 20082351The issue of document creation,2and the issue of whether or not their claim3that this is pretext, which I think is a4complete misreading of the record.5what they concluded in that report.6QThat'sAnd were there discussions7between you and other members of the8Executive Chamber staff concerning the9inclusion of the Chamber's cooperation in the1011Attorney General report?AI imagine so.12That would be an ordinary thing13for Peter, or whomever, to have raised, and14say, "Look, you should make it clear we15cooperated."16QAnd did you ever discuss ways in17which you could try and ensure -- and perhaps18that's too strong a word -- the inclusion of19that in the report?20A212223Did I?I have no recollection.But I'm sure that that was anissue.This was essentially a24discussion/negotiation with the Attorney25General's office, was were trying to extractHearingMay 9, 20082361from the executive an affirmative statement2about its report.3And the lawyers for the chamber4were saying, "Fine, we're happy to do this,5but you've also got to be clear that we6cooperated."7It was a very standard8conversation that goes on between or among9parties who are releasing a document that10concludes, was intended to conclude, at least11part of an investigation.12QWere there ever conversations13concerning the inclusion or exclusion of14particular members of the Executive Chamber15in the report?16A17181920Not that I'm aware of.In other words, make it moredefinite, whom.QWell, obviously Mr. Dopp wasidentified in the report?21AYes.22QAnd Mr. Howard was identified in23the report?24AYes.25QWere there ever conversationsHearingMay 9, 20082371concerning the extent to which Mr. Baum would2be included in the report?3A4Not that I'm aware of.That was not something that I was5either party to, raised, or had any6conversations with anybody about.7QAnd in terms of discipline, were8there ever conversations concerning Mr.9Baum's -- any potential discipline for Mr.1011Baum?APrior to issuance of the report,12I don't believe so, because it wasn't until13we saw the report Monday morning that we14understood who they suggested had acted15improperly, after the report.16But I don't believe that they17suggested that Rich Baum acted in violation18of any of his statutory or ethical19obligations.20Whereas with respect to Darren,21Preston Felton, and Bill Howard, they reached22a contrary conclusion, which is why the23conversation of sanctions relating to those24three -- and we knew that they were going to25be involved in the report -- was somethingHearingMay 9, 200823812that we participated in.QAnd Preston Felton, concerning3inclusion of any sanction against Preston4Felton, was that discussed with you?5ABy who?6QWith members of your staff as7they were discussing it with the Attorney8General's office?9ASeparated out.As I said, I10don't know if the issue of sanctions was11discussed at all with the Attorney General's12office.13Conversations with respect to14sanctions I had were internal.15decision.16of those on my staff, and then I would make17the final determination about it.18That was myAnd I wanted to garner the adviceThe issue of sanctions was not19something that I felt the AG's office should20be part of.21QWere you aware that the issue of22sanctions was being discussed with the23Attorney General's office?2425AAs I just said, I'm not aware ifit was or it wasn't.My concern was what IHearingMay 9, 20082391believed the appropriate sanction was for2each of those three.3QIn the statement that you were4providing to the Attorney General's office5prior to the issuance of the report, or the6proposed statement that was being provided,7did it include the discussion of sanctions?8910AWe have to look at it.As I sithere today, I don't know.QAnd are you aware of11conversations concerning that statement and12sanctions between the AG's office and members13of your staff?14AI answered that.I've already15told you.I don't know if that statement16referred to sanctions.17sanctions was discussed with the AG's office.I don't know if18When it came to sanctions, I19viewed it as my determination, and I was20going to impose the sanctions that I21believed, based on the record, should be22imposed.23I don't know if the AG's office24was or was not part of that, and I don't know25if it was in the statement.HearingMay 9, 200824012Do you have the statement here?Does it, in fact, refer to sanctions?3QYes.4AAnd they saw it.56And what did I say aboutsanctions.78Qsanctions as to --910MS. HIRSHMAN:AI'm not going to play a guessinggame.1314MS. HIRSHMAN:He said he doesn'tremember.15So if we have the document, we16can show it to him.17move on.18Why don't we lookat the document.1112You discussed the individualI can read it, or we canBut we are not going to have as19the record evidence the questioner's20recollection of what the statement says.21Fair enough?22MS. TOOHER:I was just23responding to a question.24MS. HIRSHMAN:25And I'll ask you, Mr. Spitzer,Understood.HearingMay 9, 20082411not the ask the questioner questions.2Could we take a break?3MS. TOOHER:4(Recess had.)5QYes.You've been provided copies of6what has been marked as Commission's Exhibits7144, 145 and 146.8documents?9ACan you identify theseThey appear to be sequential10drafts of the statement I was going to11issue.12QAnd is this the statement that13you were going to issue in response to the14Attorney General report?15AIt would appear to be, yes.16QAnd have you seen these17statements before?18AYes.19QI'm sorry?20AYes.21QAnd are you aware as to whether22or not these statements, or these drafts,23were provided to the Attorney General's24office?25AI do not know specifically ifHearingMay 9, 20082421these drafts were provided to the AG's2office.3weekend, various drafts were discussed, and I4believe provided to the AG's office.567I know that over the course of theI do not know if these precisedrafts were provided.QAnd who was responsible for8having those conversations with the AG's9office, do you know?10A11No.Again, I've mentioned what I12believe to be the universe of people involved13Peter, David, maybe Lloyd, but I'm not14positive, but certainly Peter and David.15QAnd if I told you that there was16evidence in the record that copies of these17statements had been provided to the Attorney18General's office, would you have any reason19to dispute that?20ANo.21QAnd in the statement, look at22146, which is the latest statement.23AYes.24QIf you look to the second page.25AYes.HearingMay 9, 20082431QIt discusses personnel actions --2AYes.3Q-- concerning Darren Dopp,4William Howard, and in italics, Preston5Felton.6AYes.7QWhy are the discussions8concerning Preston Felton in italics; do you9know?10AWell, at the end, I did not11sanction Preston Felton, and I know over the12course of the weekend, although it was based13upon our understanding of what the14conclusions of the report would be, it seemed15clear that there would be some sanction16imposed upon Darren and Bill Howard.17I was, to say the least,18ambivalent about imposing sanctions on19Preston Felton.202122And the intent here may have beento indicate that it was an uncertainty.QAnd you indicated it became clear23that there were going to be sanctions against24Darren Dopp and William Howard.25AWhy is that?Based upon our acceptance of theHearingMay 9, 20082441conclusions of the Attorney General's report,2although we now believed that they were based3upon significantly incomplete and inaccurate4factual records.5accepting those statements as accurate, it6seemed the appropriate thing to do.7QNonetheless, at that time,The first sentence in that first8full paragraph on page 2, "I" -- meaning you,9"have decided to take two personnel actions10based upon the clear lapses in judgment that11occurred."12What were those lapses in13judgment that you're referring to at that14juncture?15AWell, again, based upon the16Attorney General's report as we understood17it, it was the failure to pursue FOIL18processes as would have been dictated by19ordinary procedure, magnified by the reality20of this involved a political environment,21where people could impute improper motives to22what was being done, and the issues relating23to how information was gathered that was also24referred to in the AG's report.25Now, I don't know if at this timeHearingMay 9, 20082451we were aware of what really was the2essential argument in the Attorney General's3report, which was that the entire claim of a4media request was a pretext.5I do not know -- and there may be6something which can shed light on that -- I7don't know if that was part of our8understanding of the AG's report.9It may or may not have been.10And that is the piece that I11think has now been, as I understand the12record, significantly altered by a more13complete factual inquiry, which goes back14earlier to the mid-May and the early May15period.16QBut as of July 22, 2007, and the17information that you had at that time, the18lapses in judgment you are referring to are19the avoidance of the FOIL protocol, if I can20use that word?212223AI just answered several others,as well.QAnd in terms of Preston Felton at24that time, what was your impression as to his25involvement?HearingMay 9, 20082461AAgain, I had not read the report.2Obviously, we didn't see it until Monday3morning.4recitation to me of what was told to either5Peter or David, whoever it may have been, of6what was going to be in the report.7I was relying upon an abbreviatedBut my sense was that I was8dealing here with somebody who had spent9thirty years in uniform, an extraordinarily10honorable career, who had been asked to11gather, or provide, certain information by12the second floor.13And I did not feel that he should14be made a fall guy or scape goat -- and those15are not necessarily the precise terms -- for16having responded to the requests for17information that were made to him by his,18technically, his superiors in the State19government, somebody I respected, and I had20respect for his three decades of service.21QAnd when did you become aware22that Preston Felton had received these23requests from the Executive Chamber or his24superiors?25AThis is over the course ofHearingMay 9, 20082471Saturday, Sunday, that we were trying to2parse through what the appropriate sanctions3would be, dealing with an incomplete4understanding of what was going to be in the5report that we hadn't read.6to, basically, feel our way in the dark,7saying, okay, what is the appropriate8sanction to impose.910QWe were tryingAnd if I can take you to page 1,again, of Exhibit 146.11AYes.12QAnd the third paragraph up from13the bottom.14Concerning the, if you will,15collection of information concerning a16political opponent.17And about halfway through that18paragraph, "Every effort should have been19made to follow proper procedures, and thus20reduce any perceived conflict."21AYes.22QWhat would have been the proper232425procedures in this case?AI suppose when a FOIL wasreceived, simply send it to the FOIL office.HearingMay 9, 200824812345QAnd if an oral inquiry were made,what would be the proper procedure?AFrankly, that's why this is suchan ambiguous area.We had been providing information6about use of the airplane, as had prior7administrations, I presume, for years.891011The media says, "We wantinformation about the use of the airplane,"you gather it, turn it over to them.If it had not been for the12screaming and shouting, and Darren, or if13somebody else had simply said here are the14manifests, here are the documents that were15signed off by Senator Bruno's office,16requesting use of the plane, I don't think17anybody would have complained.18And then, frankly, it would be19hard to know how anybody could have.20all public information about a public plane,21and it should be, and should continue to be22public information.23This isI think the problem was, that as24we believed at this point in time, based upon25what we were told about the AG's report,HearingMay 9, 20082491Darren arguably had gone directly to the2State Police and said, "We want other3documents to turn over."4And that process of gathering the5documents was not the ordinary course of6responding to a FOIL or a media request.7you're dealing with the State Police records8relating to somebody in a political context,9where, as I say, you have to be10extraordinarily careful.11But as I also say in this12sentence, it is clear that there was no13illegality.14Q1516SoAnd the perceived conflict here,what is the perceived conflict?AJoe Bruno, who is the head of the17Republican Party in the state, and I'm the18Governor, and the head of the Democratic19Party, so there is a perception, as you can20certainly have seen in the prior three weeks21of press that this was not tea and crumpets22that we are playing out in front of the23Capitol.2425QAnd the creation of an appearancethat the State Police were being usedHearingMay 9, 20082501inappropriately, what was that inappropriate2use?3AThe report insinuated, and as I4just said, I think improperly, and didn't5insinuate, said overtly, that this had been6pretextual, that there, in fact, had not been7media inquiries.8And hence, the inappropriate use9of the State Police to gather documents that10were not, in fact, responsive to a legitimate11inquiry, but were merely designed to generate12a story that would paint Senator Bruno in a13negative light, using the plane for political14purposes.15Now, the alternative view is,16there were, in fact, media inquiries, the17information was all public, it was accurate18information, and it framed an issue that19deserved to be focused upon, and arguably had20the appropriate result of changing the State21ethics rules.22QIf the first interpretation that23you voiced, which is what is somewhat24reflected in the AG report, that the State25Police were being utilized to gatherHearingMay 9, 20082511information concerning Senator Bruno, to, in2effect, create a bad article, would that be3an inappropriate use of the State Police?4AIt would be inappropriate for5somebody to involve a law enforcement6organization in an effort to create a7political story.8That is my personal view, which9is why I have always tried to be incredibly10careful when you are anywhere near law11enforcement.12And I said this this Monday13morning, when I spoke to the press, I think,14if you have a transcript of what I said, it15was responsive to a question, not a16statement.17I said, "The problem here is you18cannot break that law between law enforcement19and politics."20But if, in fact, that's what21happened, that would be, in my view,22something -- it would be a lapse in judgment23that I referred to two or three paragraphs24below, that would deserve the sanction.25Now, whether that was, in fact,HearingMay 9, 20082521the case, because I now believe that there2was -- and I think the record is overwhelming3on this point, and nobody has challenged it,4I don't believe -- there were, in fact, media5inquiries, and so forth, not a pretext.6Now, whether every step along the7way was proper, that's a separate issue.But8there was, in fact, a media inquiry, as there9had been for many months and years on this10issue, and so, it frames the issue marginally11ly different than you just did, but still12raises this tension between law enforcement13and politics which one must be conscious of.14MR. TEITELBAUM:Mr. Spitzer, did15you ever learn as to why these statements16were being submitted to the Attorney General?17THE WITNESS:I think it's fair18to say the Attorney General was saying, "We19want to know what you're going to say."20I think the Attorney General's21office was very fearful that we would come22out and blast their report.23MR. TEITELBAUM:2425Did you knowwhat that fear was based on?THE WITNESS:I don't want toHearingMay 9, 20082531speculate now, but now, I think it's2certainly interesting as we now look back on3it, that we know the report was certainly4substantially incomplete as it related to5many significant factors here.6I don't know that they knew that7at the time.But I think, with anybody who8is issuing a report, they were perhaps more9expressly with this Attorney General's10office, they were very conscious of what the11response would be.12This was very much, as I13understand it, very much at their14instigation.15statement."161718They said, "We want to see yourIn hindsight I wish I had said,"Forget it."QAnd at a certain point in time,19the Attorney General's report did come out,20and I think you have pretty much encapsulated21it, made a determination that no criminality22had occurred, but that there were ethical23lapses, if you, will, as they described it.2425AOkay.Did he say no criminalityor no violation of law?HearingMay 9, 20082541QNo violation of law.2AOkay.3But potentially ethicalviolations, hence your jurisdiction.4QWere you in communication with5the DA's office at the time that the Attorney6General was preparing their report, or was7the Executive Chamber in communication with8the DA's office?9AI don't know.I personally was10not.Whether members of the Executive11Chamber were, I do not know.12down the road they obviously were.13began, I do not know.14began its inquiry.16to that.18QI don't know the answerI want to show you what haspreviously been marked as Commission's 157.1920When thatI don't know when the DA's office1517At some point(Witness reviewing document.)QAnd these appear to be a series21of e-mails between members of the Executive22Chamber in response to a request from the23Albany County DA's office to review a24statement by that office.25Were you aware of theseHearingMay 9, 20082551communications?23AI'm looking, and I'm trying toread it quickly.4QTake a moment.5ADid I receive any, I don't6believe I did.7Q89But were you aware of them?Were you aware of thecommunications between members of the10Executive Chamber and the Albany County DA's11office?12MR. TEITELBAUM:Take your time.13QThere's no hurry.14AI don't recall being aware of1516this.And the reason I wanted to check17the recipients, the to and the from, was just18to see if I had received it, which obviously19was irrelevant.20I don't believe I was aware -- in21fact, I don't remember the -- I don't22remember this back and forth in terms of -- I23think David's observation, at the very top,24which is why are we commenting on their press25release, is neither here nor there.HearingMay 9, 20082561QWere you aware of the DA's office2turning to your office for comment on press3releases in the past?45Adealt with that office.67Now, I'm trying to think when weThe answer is no.QAnd you did not become aware of8this statement being commented on by your9office?10A11No.They initiated it, at least I12gather from the e-mail chain, it was13initiated by Richard Arthur, whose title I'm14not -- press person.15title.16Q1718A232425Right.MS. TOOHER:Will you mark thisas Commission's Exhibit 179.2122Now, it was clearly initiated bythe District Attorney's Office?1920I gather that was his(Document marked Commission'sExhibit 179.)QShowing you what has been markedas Commission's Exhibit 179.(Witness reviewing document.)HearingMay 9, 20082571QI have provided you with a copy2of what's been marked as Commission's Exhibit3179, and ask you if you've ever seen this4document before.5AIf I have, only in the course of6the past few days or weeks since this7investigation proceeded.8Christine did not copy me on the9e-mail, in which she said she didn't think I10did well in answering the questions.11QAnd the e-mail is dated 7/23,12which is contemporaneous with, or soon after,13the release of the Attorney General report?1415Abefore.16MS. HIRSHMAN:1718No, no, no, I actually think it'sAIt's before.This is late Sunday night.Ithink, if I read this, it's 7:23 at 1:18 a.m.19And what had happened was that I20had gone to Albany Sunday evening, and we had21a meeting to discuss what the response should22be.23We had done some Q and A in24response to this.And the reason she didn't25and others didn't think I did well wasHearingMay 9, 20082581because I actually thought there were2different approaches.3matter.45And hindsight doesn'tBut I wish I had stuck with myposition.6But this e-mail chain was7circulated prior to the press conference on8Monday morning.9QAnd the bottom paragraph on the10first page, David Nocenti is writing to Rich11Baum and Christine Anderson, and the e-mail12says, the bottom line, it says the OAG report13does not even mention the Governor.14If we have a press conference,15then he'll have to say that he knew about the16impending release of information to the ATU,17which could be spun as his condoning a18political dirty truck.19What is he referring to when he20says, "You'll have to say you knew about the21impending release of information to the ATU?22Do you know?23AI think because, as I said, I had24the conversation with Darren in which I said,25yeah, answer the question, publicHearingMay 9, 20082591information.2In other words, it was3inevitable, and I have never tried to avoid,4I tried to ask the critically important fact5that at the end of June Darren came and said,6"We have a media request.7said, "Answer them."89passionate and more timely said than mine.But the point is, my answer was,"Answer the question."1213The report painted it as apolitical trick based upon a pretext.1415IHis recollection is more vivid,1011What do we do?"I wish that we had said thereport is fundamentally wrong.16And I think the record now makes17it clear it was wrong, certainly as it18related to that element.19pretext.It wasn't aThere were questions.20There may have been issues, there21may still be questions about the gathering of22the documents, creation, whatever, of23documents.2425But David was rightly concernedthat if I, in any way, was shown to haveHearingMay 9, 20082601known about the release, as would inevitably2become clear, should become clear, people3would misunderstand that I had said, "Yeah,4you answer media questions, that's it."56MS. TOOHER:as Commission's Exhibit 180.78Will you mark this(Document marked Commission'sExhibit 180.)9(Witness reviewing document.)10QYou have been provided with a11copy of what has been marked as Commission's12180.Can you identify this document?13AAn e-mail chain.14QAnd at the bottom, the e-mail15starts, I believe, from you to David Nocenti.16This is now July 26th.17"I gather the Attorney General18didn't say anything publicly about Rich19today."2021Who is Rich, as we are referringto here?22AThat's Rich Baum.23QAnd David's response, "As far as2425I know, he has not."Were you anticipating a publicHearingMay 9, 20082611statement from the Attorney General2concerning Rich Baum?3A4I have no idea.There must have been a predicate5to my sending an e-mail to David, but I do6not know what it was.7There was a fair bit of press8inquiry about why Rich and Darren had not9testified.And so, maybe there had been a10call, or some indication from the AG's11office, that they were going to make some12statement.13QAnd so, the continuation of the14e-mail up the line, "Should maintain contact15with him tomorrow, to make sure that he stays16the case"?17AYes.18QAre you aware that David Nocenti19was in touch with the Attorney General20concerning Rich Baum at this time frame?21ADavid was in contact with the22AG's office, and with the Attorney General,23over this time frame.24QConcerning Rich Baum?25AConcerning a multitude of issues,HearingMay 9, 20082621I guess.23Qe-mail --45I understand that, but theAIt would suggest that one of theissues was Rich, sure.6QAnd was there anything that you7were aware of that made you believe the8Attorney General was going to make a public9statement concerning Rich Baum?10AI just answered that.I don't11know.12presume that that was the predicate for the13first e-mail.1415But it would certainly be logical toQBut you can't recall anythingspecifically at this time?16ANo.17QWere there other issues besides18what was going on with the Attorney General's19report that involved Rich Baum and the20Attorney General's office at this time?21A22Not that I'm aware of.MS. TOOHER:I think if we can23take a short break, we can probably tell you24that we are about fifteen minutes from being25done.HearingMay 9, 20082631(Recess had.)2MR. TEITELBAUM:Mr. Spitzer, the3Commission has information that after the4Attorney General's report was issued,5sometime in the latter part of July, e-mails6of Richard Baum, Bill Harris and Darren Dopp7were reviewed through June 17th.8aware of that?910THE WITNESS:Are youI just want to makesure I understand the question.11The answer is no.12Sometime at the end of July, the13e-mails of Rich, Darren and Bill Howard were14reviewed through June 17th.15MR. TEITELBAUM:16THE WITNESS:17By whom and forwhat?18MR. TEITELBAUM:19MS. HIRSHMAN:20(Recess had.)21MR. TEITELBAUM:2223Right.Can we talk?Yes.Let me withdrawthe last question.Mr. Spitzer, did there come a24time after the AG's report was issued that25you asked someone on your staff to reviewHearingMay 9, 20082641your e-mails.2THE WITNESS:3MR. TEITELBAUM:4And who did youask?56Yes.THE WITNESS:Lloyd ended updoing it.7I'm not sure if I asked Lloyd to8do it specifically, or if I said I wanted9somebody to review the e-mails, just to make10sure that my recollections were correct, and11I understood fully what my involvement was,12if any.13MR. TEITELBAUM:And this14occurred in the latter part of July, this15review?1617THE WITNESS:I think it wasearlier.18I'm not sure.19At some point I asked that we20check my e-mails, just to be clear about what21the record was.22it was.232425I'm not sure precisely whenMR. TEITELBAUM:What record areyou referring to now?THE WITNESS:My involvement inHearingMay 9, 20082651this entire situation.2Because I was firmly convinced3then, as I am now, that what had been done --4put aside the issue of how Darren collected5the documents perhaps was not only proper,6but is mandated by law in terms of releasing7public information, so we were correct on8that.9But always to be careful after10the fact about how you describe what11decisions were made, and I wanted to make12sure that what I stated was consistent with13what the record was, as best we could14reconstruct it.15MR. TEITELBAUM:16took place after the report was issued?1718THE WITNESS:And this reviewThat's where I'mhesitating.19We can establish that fact,20because I think in one of the pieces of paper21I gave you it refers to the fact -- when22was -- I know I'm not supposed to ask23questions.24was when the Empire State meeting opened at25Westchester, and I went there that night?Can we establish what the dateIHearingMay 9, 20082661believe that was the day that some of this2review was ongoing.34So it may have been the week thatthe report came out.5We can check my schedule.6MS. HIRSHMAN:7that?89Do you want to doTHE WITNESS:My lawyer isgetting very upset with me.10I'm thinking out loud.So I'm11quite convinced that it was the middle of the12week that the report came out when we've seen13this recitation of facts, and I'm saying to14myself, this is not my what understanding was15of what my understanding was in terms of16pretext, and other issues.17there is.181920212223Let's see whatAnd that is why that week, Istarted to check my e-mails.QSo this is following the AG'sreport?AYes.MS. HIRSHMAN:I think there's24evidence in the record that that was on the2525th of July.HearingMay 9, 20082671THE WITNESS:Okay.2MR. TEITELBAUM:And so if I3understand you correctly, this is kind of a4post hoc review, to see if your e-mails don't5contain any information that would be6inconsistent with the AG's report?7THE WITNESS:Transport yourself8back to where I am, and what I'm focusing on9at that point in time.10The article comes out, there is a11fair bit of screaming and shouting about12surveillance.13surveillance."I say very clearly, "No14I think these issues are pretty15much put to rest, and that you know my view16of the overarching issue, the Attorney17General is doing his report.18We go off and have several weeks19of legislative back and forth, and announce20the agreements on that Thursday.2122That weekend, the report comesout, the whole issue reemerges.23And I say, "I'd better dig into24this.This is something that appears to be25taking on a different context that than I hadHearingMay 9, 20082681believed.I want to make sure that what I'm2saying is precisely correct, because this is3something to be careful with.45MR. TEITELBAUM:e-mails between yourself and Darren Dopp?6THE WITNESS:7MR. TEITELBAUM:891011And these areAny e-mails.This includesall e-mails?THE WITNESS:Not e-mails betweenme and my wife or my kids.But I mean, any relevant e-mails12that could shed light on what, if any13involvement, that I had.14MR. TEITELBAUM:And did they15constantly review all of the e-mails, or just16e-mails between you and particular people?17THE WITNESS:18MR. TEITELBAUM:1920I do not know.And what was theresult of that review?THE WITNESS:That the factual21record, as I began to understand it then, and22as has been stated by me, is what emerged.232425MR. TEITELBAUM:e-mails deleted?THE WITNESS:No.And were anyHearingMay 9, 20082691MS. HIRSHMAN:2THE WITNESS:3Do you know?Not that I'm awareof.4And I'm firmly of the view that5you can never really delete e-mails.They6exist somewhere out there, somewhere in7cyberspace on some server.8You can't really eliminate it.9MR. TEITELBAUM:10But you have noknowledge of any deletions having occurred?11THE WITNESS:No, absolutely not.12MR. TEITELBAUM:Do you have any13knowledge of any documents being destroyed in14connection with this Commission's15investigation on members of the executive16staff.17THE WITNESS:18None, no behavior like that would1920None whatsoever.have been tolerated.QYou were shown earlier21Commission's 1 through 5, which I'm going to22call the itineraries of Joseph Bruno.23AI thought it was 4.24QYou were shown 1 through 4 and 525earlier.HearingMay 9, 20082701AOkay.2QAnd there was a commentary in the3Attorney General's report that in speaking4with the former Superintendent of the State5Police, they had concerns about these6documents as presenting security risks in7their release.89Are you aware of that within thereport?10AOkay.11QYes?12AYes.13QAnd as you look at these14documents, it is my understanding that you15provide your own schedules, or did provide16your own schedules on a fairly regular basis17for public consumption.18AThat is correct.19QAnd are these schedules20dramatically different than the ones that you21provide?22AYes.23QAnd how so?24AMuch shorter.25QWhen you say "much shorter"?HearingMay 9, 200827112AI had more meetings on myschedule.3In terms of telling the public4where I am, or when I'm going to be there,5from a security perspective, no, they do not6differ.7And my schedule was, when I was8Governor, provided, I believe, in its9entirety.10QWhen you came into office as11Governor, did anyone from your staff12communicate with the State Police concerning13the release of your schedules to the public?141516AI do not know for certain, but Ican imagine -- I imagine somebody must have.QDid you ever become aware of any17communications between Darren Dopp,18requesting of the State Police, "Are there19any security concerns with us releasing his20schedule"?21A22I do not.But let me say this.The State23Police, I believe, was aware that my schedule24was released publicly.25QDid anyone at the State PoliceHearingMay 9, 20082721ever voice to you concerns over the openness2of your schedules and itineraries with3members of the public?4ANo.5QAnd you are not aware of them6communicating with the Chamber staff on that7issue?8A910I'm not aware of any suchcommunication.QAre you aware of any documents11that exist pertinent to this investigation12that we have not received?13AI'm not aware of any documents14anywhere that you haven't received, pertinent15or not.16MS. TOOHER:17MS. HIRSHMAN:I think we're done.Can I ask just one18question, to clarify, or can I ask you to ask19a question to clarify?2021MS. TOOHER:question.2223You can ask aMS. HIRSHMAN:Let's go off therecord.24(Recess had.)25MS. HIRSHMAN:Can we go back onHearingMay 9, 20082731the record.2MR. TEITELBAUM:Mr. Spitzer, you3wanted to add something with respect to4Exhibits 4, 5 and 6?5THE WITNESS:Sure.6Merely that my schedules that7were released publicly are slightly different8in form, in the sense that they have dates,9times, locations of meetings, and often, the10participants in the meetings.11These schedule Exhibits 1 through125 talk about transportation from one location13to another, whereas my schedules are more14akin to traditional schedules that actually,15with greater specificity, indicate where and16when I will be at a particular location.17BY MS. TOOHER:1819Qfollow-up on that issue.2021And I'm sorry, this is just aYou indicated you had never seenthese documents before?22MR. TEITELBAUM:23MS. TOOHER:24MR. TEITELBAUM:25A4, 5 and 6?1 through 5.That is correct.1 through 5.HearingMay 9, 20082741QAnd that you were not provided2the documents to review prior to the release3to the Times Union?4AThat is correct.As I said5earlier, to the extent that these were the6documents provided responsive to the FOIL, I7did not see those, the materials turned over8to the TU before they were turned over, have9not seen them until today, when you provided10them to me, was never shown the materials11that were gathered, nor asked to review them12prior to their review.13QDid you ever ask if the documents14that were being released were public15documents?16AIn those words, no.My17statements to Darren were, "This is public18information," not as a question, but as it19related to the general subject, use of the20plane is always something the public hears21about, knows about, knows who flies it, when22and where.232425This is not information that iskept from the public.MS. TOOHER:We are done at thisHearingMay 9, 20082751time.2Thank you for coming in.3(Time noted:456789101112131415161718192021222324254:30 o'clock p.m.)HearingMay 9, 2008276123C E R T I F I C A T I O N45I, STEVEN KLEIN, a Certified6Shorthand Reporter and Notary Public, within and7for the State of New York, do hereby certify that8I reported the proceedings in the within-entitled9matter, on May 9, 2008, at 123 William Street,10New York, New York, and that this is an accurate11transcription of these proceedings.12IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto13set my hand this142008.day of1516171819202122232425STEVEN KLEIN,