Screened by NARA (RD-·F)07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS16302) DOCID: 70104916 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 1 18-1621-000425 30 303 -1 MWLB Fga?QFOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: MEMORANDUM TO: ALL OIC-DC Attorneys ALL FBI-DC FROM: Brett Kavanaugh RE: Congressional Requests for Documents DATE: May 31, 1995 As you likely know, Congress has requested documents from various agencies on the Foster office issue. Steve Kubiatowski will be our point of contact with the agencies-as they seek guidance from us in responding to the requests. So that we speak with one voice to the agencies, we should ensure that Steve is involved in all substantive discussions with an agency about the congressional document requests. AMF-HICAN PVERSIGH 18-1621-000427 OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Judge Starr Mark Tuohey FROM: Brett Kavanaugh RE: Letter to Senators D' Amato and Sarbanes DATE: April 18, 1995 Bob Giuffra has requested that Ken send a letter to Senators D'Amato·an.d ,_Sarbanes confirming that the Senate Banking Committee's plans to investigate the Foster documents issue would not hinder or impede our investigation. He wants this letter so that he can assure various agencies that they are free to respond to document requests by the Senate. We can handle Giuffra's request in a few different ways. First, we could send a letter to the Senators stating that the Senate Banking Committee's plan to investigate the handling of documents in the office of former Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., after his death on July 20, 1993, would not hinder or impede our continuing criminal investigation into that matter. We could also send a more narrow letter stating that the Senate Banking Committee's plans to request and obtain documents relevant to the handling of documents in the office of former Deputy Counsel Vincent W. Foster, Jr., after his death on July 20, 1993, would not hinder or impede our continuing criminal investigation into that matter. If we choose this option, we presumably would send future letters regarding depositions and hearings. Third, we could tell Giuffra that we do not wish to send a letter, but that he can tell the agencies to contact us if they have any questions about complying with Congress' request for documents. No matter which option we choose, we should make clear to Giuffra that we would like advance notice of all document and interview requests. I suggest we talk about this issue in the next day or two. AMFfllCAN VERSIGH 18-1621-000428 OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 4 MEMORANDUM TO: OIC Attorneys Professor Dash FROM: Brett Kavanaugh RE: 302's to Congress DATE: April 24, 1995 Bob Giuffra, Chief Counsel to the Senate Banking Committee, just called-trie and asked, we would "So when are we getting your 302's from the Foster documents investigation?" I said__ him. to get back Giuffra' s informal "request" suggests that we formulate our 302 policy in the near future. As noted in an earlier memo on this general subject (which I have attached), we obviously should give the Committee the 302's that we must disclose under FOIA -- the number of which could vary depending on our interpretation of FOIA Exemption 7(D). As to the 302's beyond the category that we must disclose under FOIA, we need to determine our position. I have learned from various mid-level persons at DOJ and FBI that these situations usually involve negotiation with Congress, with no bright-line rules as to how to proceed. (Ken and Mark plan to meet soon with JoAnn Harris to obtain her views.) The persons to whom I have talked have stated, however, that Congress is sensitive -- "surprisingly sensitive," as they phrased it -- to the negative effect on law enforcement caused when DOJ or the FBI is required to release or disclose 302's. No matter our substantive position on release of 302's, we should keep one procedural point in mind with respect to the 302's that we do give the Committee. We may want to negotiate a procedure whereby the Committee agrees: (a) that it will allow only certain specified Senators and staff persons to have access to 302' s; and (b) that it will not publicly disseminate or disclose 302's, which includes not quoting them in public hearings or in depositions. The persons to whom I talked at DOJ and FBI said that Congress often is amenable to that kind of · arrangement. AMFfllCAN VERSIGH 18-1621-000429 OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 5 MEMORANDUM TO: OIC-DC Attorneys Professor Dash CC: Bill Duffey FROM: Brett Kavanaugh DATE: March 28, 1995 RE: 302's -- FOIA and Congress -- In recent weeks, witnesses in several investigations in Washington have expressed their concern that their 302's will be available to the public under FOIA or, if not, will be given to Congress by this Office. Our policy on these issues will affect (and has already affected) the willingness of witnesses to be fully forthcoming. (One witness all but said as much.) In any event, we need to have a consistent and coherent policy on 302's. For purposes of discussion at our Friday team meeting, this memorandum will simply outline the basic issues; a lengthier analysis and perhaps a full team discussion will be necessary in the near future. 1. FOIA Exemption 7(D) exempts from disclosure records that "could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source" or "information furnished by a confidential source." The Supreme Court interpreted that provision in Department of Justice v. Landano, 113 S. Ct. 2014 (1993) (9-0). Quoting the legislative history, the Court stated that Exemption 7(D) applies if a witness "provided information under an express assurance of confidentiality or in circumstances from which such an assurance could reasonably be inferred." Id. at 2019. The Court then considered the circumstances under which an assurance of confidentiality could reasonably be inferred. First, the Court stated that an assurance of confidentiality could be inferred even in situations where the witness or the government anticipated or could have anticipated that Brady and applicable procedural rules such as the Jencks Act might ultimately require disclosure of the information. Id. at 2020. The Court reasoned that "an exemption so limited that it covered only sources who reasonably could expect total anonymity would be, as a practical matter, no exemption at all." Id. The Court stated, therefore, that a confidential source is one who "furnished information with the understanding that the FBI would not divulge the communication except to the extent the Bureau thought necessary for law enforcement purposes." Id. The Court then considered the Government's argument that an assurance of confidentiality 1s inherently implicit whenever a source provides information to the FBI in a criminal 1 AMERICAN PVERSIGH FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld : 70104916 Page 6 18-1621-000430 investigation -- an interpretation that would render virtually all 302's automatically exempt from FOIA disclosure. The Court did not go as far as the Government wished; the Court stated: "[W]e have determined that it is unreasonable to infer that all FBI criminal investigative sources are confidential, [but] we expect that the Government can often point to more narrowly defined circumstances that will support the inference.... We agree that the character of the crime at issue may be relevant to determining whether a source cooperated with the FBI with an implied assurance of confidentiality. So too may the source's relation to the crime." Id. at 2023. The Court did not spell out this standard in much greater detail, however. Exemption 7(D) clearly applies when we provide an express assurance of confidentiality to witnesses. (Perhaps we should provide such an assurance as a matter of course in this investigation, albeit with a caveat about the potentially necessary use of a 302 at a subsequent judicial or congressional proceeding.) Absent an express assurance of confidentiality, we still have strong arguments, given the nature and magnitude of this investigation, that many of our witnesses have "furnished information with the understanding that the FBI would ii_otdivulge the communication except to the extent the Bureau thought necessary for law enforcement purposes." Id. at 2020. We have especially strong arguments with respect to information provided by persons "on the inside" who may face reprisals of one form or another if their information becomes public. See Landano, 113 S. Ct. at 2023 (listing such examples). 1 2. Upon request, we should give Congress the 302's from closed investigations that must be disclosed under FOIA. What about 302' s (or portions thereof) from closed investigations that need not be disclosed under FOIA? That is an extremely delicate issue, one of great importance to many witnesses. (In that regard, I note that 11umerouswitnesses have expressed extreme displeasure at the fact that their 302's on the Foster death are now publicly available at the Archives and have become the subject of press articles.) While we will have to consider many issues in resolving this important question (for example, standard DOJ practice, executive privilege, etc.), my initial suggestion is that we treat 302's that are not subject to disclosure under FOIA as sacred unless Congress decides to investigate our investigation under 28 U.S.C. §595(a)(l) (in which case we have no real choice 1 In addition to Exemption 7(D), Exemption 7(C) of FOIA also will apply to names and other identifying information contained in 302's. Exemption 7(C) covers records the release of which "could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," a standard that requires the balancing of privacy concerns against the public interest in disclosure. In Safecard Services v. SEC, 926 F.2d 1197 (D.C. Cir. 1991), the court held that the identities of individuals who appear in law enforcement files need not be disclosed unless "there is compelling evidence that the agency ... is engaged in illegal activity" because disclosure of the information would virtually never be "very probative of an agency's behavior or performance." Under that standard, even with respect to 302's where Exemption 7(D) does not apply, certain identifying information such as names of witnesses and the like can be redacted fro111J02's. 2 AMERICAN PVERSIGH FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld : 70104916 Page 7 18-1621-000431 but to turn over the 302's), as opposed to investigating the underlying facts. I fear that a policy of producing 302's that would not otherwise be disclosed under FOIA will hinder and impede our continuing investigation and cause harm to future investigations: Witnesses no doubt will be quite wary of providing information when they know that the information might someday be disseminated to Congress and the public. In short, Congress has every right to investigate the same subjects we are investigating, but it is not clear to me that Congress has any right to piggy-back on our investigation by using our reports of interviews that have been conducted in circumstances where the witnesses reasonably expected confidentiality. 3 AMFfllCAN VERSIGH 18-1621-000432 OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 8 tliJilU : luti 05--30-95 Ol:14PMFROM SENATE BANKING COMM. TO95148802 1 TNI. ~~. TC., .-.::, fflCt4"-"0 C ,--,E.,8""'.•l"l'"'-MA 01"'Sf0,-J't£f' S IONO . Mt2Jl;OlJt•1 C~ l>llCW MAC~. fLOf'll)A CAIIIClOT :•. N0ffl" CA,OOC.;NA 'T:;.:-;.~ifci~!' '"""" :) . :\""'l•t-,..(::;, , b P002/009 ._...,,...,4.a.•AI C••-At!.fort4(f\ J . 001'0 , CO"'Nt.C11Ctll JoP1f' f . ttl:,.fh . MASS•CHOS(TT~ RIC'A Ji.l14f.J I .... Pmr. N1AS$A<:101~.t 1• ••:'"'I\N NL VI\IM lh(dll.MI) f'..t.llf(l'IN&I,. f:IAq:llA'I'\ u.:, C•411~l(')o1 .. · t• S OVNl°J. ,._,,s-...-. 1a.1,,--.f•:--Gt..01-1- ,.OR In (..._,'()\IN, ,- , • • ENNETT,u f Al• .lffa, ..... NHe.C>TA I\ t ,,:Wl.(l, ·- ''""~· c It• ti! It !, ~oxE.". C~L 1\,,,.tT May 26, 1995 By Facsimile Robert Langston Chief, United States Park Police National Capital Region Headquarters ll00 Ohio Drive, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20242 Dear Chief Langston: On May 17, 1995, the Senate passed Senate Resolution 120, a copy of which is enclosed, establishing a Special Committee administered by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to conduct an investigation involving Whitewater neve1opment Corporation.Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association, Capital Management Services, Inc., the Arkansas DevelopmentFinance Authority, and other related matters. As part of this investigation,and in order to prepare for public hearings, we request that the Park Police produce certain records to the Special Committee. The Park Police may have custody, control, or possession of records, including records of present and former Park Police personnel, that relate to matters specified in the resolution and listed below. We hereby request thal you provide all records, regardless of format, including, bul nol limited to, e-mail, electronic "cfump fiies," memoranda, correspondence, notes, and records in any other medium. including drafts of any of the foregoing, that relate in any manner to the following: (I) investigative a(':tivitiesof the United States Park Police or the Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to the death of Vincent Foster and occurt?ng at the White House or involvine any White House official or officials; or (2) the handling of any and all documents that were in the office of Vincent foster at the time of. or following. his death on July 20. 1993. To the extent that Park Police personnel have gathered records from individuals and locations throughout the your agency, please indicate where and from whom each _of those records was obtained. It would also be helpful if you provided a list of -records that you are submitting so that the Committee and the Park Police have a common list of the records being supplied. If any records are withheld based on the and all a.c;sen·on o;t;anx ~rivilege. please provide a log identifying the date, author. any 18-1621-000437 liOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 13 it .· . . :ow· ·•-· n . _._ lti. . TO95148802 COMM BANKING SENATE 01:14PM FROM 05·-30,-95 l 1· ~r ·q . ''ft! s · t T.ftH P00?/009 privilege recipients, and subject matter of any such records, and the basis for the asserted. n The records should be delivered to Joseph Kolinski, Chief Clerk, 534 Dirkse , but the Senate Office Building. You may submtt copies in response to this rcyuest __~he Committee reserves the right to obtain the original records. As you know, ore, it Theref e. Committee is seeking to complete its work as expeditiously as possibl 5, 1995, is necessary that the Committee receive these documents no later than June and prior to that date, if po~!:iible. If you have any questions concerning this request, please contact Michael request and Davidson, Senate Legal Counsel, at 224-4435 . This request is an initial to may be supplemented by additional ones . We recognize that you may wish to this ·request. designate a Park Police official who will be responsible for responding to this We have consulted with Independent Counsel Kenneth W. Starr with regard the 1995, document request, and, as indicated in the attached kttcr, dated April 22~ the Office of Independent Counsel,s investigation would not be "impeded" by officials Committee's request for records regarding "the way in which White House . handled documents in the office of Vincent Foster at the time of his death., Your cooperation in this matter is greatly appreciated. Sincerely , {jJ)~_ , Paul S. Sarbanes Ranking Member ~2~ Chairman Enclosure AMEnlCAN PVERSIGH 18-1621-000438 BOIA RD 56806 (URTS 163J2) Docld: 70104916 Page 14 P008/009 05··30-9501:14PM FROM SENATE BANKING COMM.TO95148802 t"t4tl.(,,I\.II.MM.l(,"":t • · .:i.'-.•(. 'S.3 4V'\a""'N<"' fhCtu'W C. SM(UIV . lo1,.ArlAMA. (t,11'1ST0ruF.Ft s . UONO . Ml$$0~1 c,,..;,s10Pt • ER J . ~o C'()lfflfE ~. l' JU)"IIO" --... J'AtnCt.Of--t. MOfl'Jt,, C4F-IOLINA • S' 8'NNf'n' . UTA,.. 1.-..:i. M•NflESOTA S. 0£M0ChTIC STAFFOll'IECTO~ tinitrd ~tatr.s ~cnotc COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6075 May 26, 1995 By Facsimile Eljay B. Bowron Director, United States Secret Service Department of Treasury 1800 G Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20223 Dear Mr. Bowron: On May 17, 199S, the Senate passed Senate Resolution 120, a copy of which is enclosed, establishing a Spcci~ Committee administered by the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs to conduct an investigation involving Whitewater Development Corporation, Madison Guaranty Saving.~and Loan Association. Capital Management Services, Inc., the Arkansas Development Finance Authority, and other related matters. As part of this investigation, and in order to prepare for public hearings, we request that the Secret Service produce certain records to the Special Committee. The Secret Service may have custody, control, or possession of records. including records of present and former Secret Service personnel! that relate to matters specified in the resolution and listed below. We hereby request .that you provide all records, regardless of format, including, but not limited to, e-mail, electronic "dump files," memoranda, correspondence, notes, and records in any other medium, including drafts of any of the foregoing, that relate in any manner to the following: ( 1) investigative activities of the United States Park Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation relating to the death of Vincent foster and occurring at the White Ilousc or involving any White House official or officials; or (2) the handling of any and all documents that were in the office of Vincent Foster at the time of, or following, his death on July 20, 1993. Atv V To the extent that Secret Service personnel have gathered records from individuals and locations throughout the agency, please indicate where and from whom each of those records was obtained. It would also be helpful if you provide a list of the records that you are submitting so that the Committee and the Secret Service have a common list of the records being supplied. If any records are withheld based on the · asserti:on , f an): l[rivilege, _please provide a lq_gidentifviq_g_ the dat~, authQr,..any and all 18-1621-000439 ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dacia: 7U10491b Page 15 05~30-95 01:14PMFROM SENATE BANKING COMM. TO95148802 P009/009 ✓ recipicnt:s, anHCI CIMISTOl'Nfll J UODO.C()>jNICTICLJT JOHN F, JIIIIR¥, MA$SACHIJIETTI ~,C'IARD N, SIITAN , fOkVADA CltllllTOt'l-tER S. IONO. Ml$50U~I COHNII MAC!(, "-Olltl)A LAIJCKF&JRC!()TH. NOIIT.. CAROllN:. BAl'IAIIARQ11,11.CALll'OllfllA CAIIOLMOllELfMIIIAUN . IWNOIS PATlV MUfll!INGTON "Ufilfr F. IIUINETT. UTAl• IIUO-. Mllllk[SO'TA 11U. !'RIST, TEN"ICSSIE tinitro~tatts ~tnet£ COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS "°"'"110 4. MENIU , $TAJ< D,MCTOII 1<0111::!f' Giuffra, Jr. Chief Counsel · v AMl HICAN VERSIGH BOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 30 18-1621-000454 TOTALP.03 • u JU.1-30-1995 -~· ....... 202 622 1944 AGCTREASI.RY ""'·~ ._ DEPT ' ""' 13:35 WASHINGTON. O.C. P.01/03 20220 DEPUTHEIIT OF THE ·TRDSURY OFFZCE OP THE ASSXSTA!IT GEHBltAL CO'OIISEL (EIU'ORCEKENT) 15TB, PEDSYLVAJl%A AVBBUB, H.W. n&BDfGTOH, D.C. 20220 DATE: Tl NOKBER OF PAG~S TO FOLLOW: TO: SENDER'S ~~ FAZ: litJKBER: 622-1944 SENDER'S CONFIRMATIONlitJKBER: 622COMMENTS/SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS: ~.? AM HICAN pvERSIGH .IJ; QIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 31 18-1621-000455 • 06/30/95 12:31 '6'202 ~001 OIC 514 8802 ******** ******************* *** ACTIVITYREPORT *** *************************** RECEPTIONOK TX/RX NO. 7157 TEL CONNECTION 202 622 1944 ID CONNECTION STARTTIME 06/30 USAGETIME 01'14 PAGES RESULT 12:30 3 OK AMF-HICAN PVERSIGH 18-1621-000456 ffOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 32 tinittd~tstrs ~matt COMMnTEE ON BANJ d3aNI Page 33 L0L8 TZZ tosQ, 18-1621-000457 --t=st S6/TZ/90 v - · ··-··--···-· CJl:lnitm ~tat[! ~cnatt: COMMITTEE ON BANKING.HOUSING, ANO URBAN AFFAIRS WASHINGTON. OC2051~075 June 21, 1995 Honorable John Adair Inspecto"" Ge:neral Resolution Trust Corporation 80117th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20434 Dear Mr. Adair: In February 1994, the Committee requested a review of the RTC•s Office of Contract Oversight and Surveillancets report regarding the retention of the l\otSe Law Firm in connection with the Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association conservatorship and an audit of legal fees paid to the Rose Law Firm. The Committee .ha.s received a. draft copy of the audit report. I am writing to inquire as to the status of your office's investigation regarding the retention of the Rose Law Firm. I understand the extenuating circumstances presented by the Independent Counsel's concurrent investigation. Nevertheless, the Committee, in furtherance of its oversight responsibility, needs to be apprised of your progress. Please advise the Committee in writing of the status of your inquiry into the retention of the Kose Law Firm. Please forward the requested information to Joseph Kolinski.t the Chief Clerk of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, 534 Dirksen Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 by no later than June 28, 1995. Please note that I will apprise the Independent Counsel's Office of this request. - Thank you in advance f"oryour assistance. cc: Honorable Kenneth Starr Honorable John E. Ryan AMFnlCAN V RSIGH too~ OIA RD 56806 _(URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 34 18-1621-000458 13SNJ10::> d31AWA •~IIO f, &Cl\ltl, to..SS.&Clll./SlTTI -N o,C,.ARO 11.IIIYAN, l04 s. tOND... ,s,e1.1"' ........._ CJanittd~t8tt.s ~matt ,.,_,. ••111ClOT!4. N{)RT)I e.,.AO\JN.A ~" f(NN«"TT, UT-UT•. Wll\JA,.. v, IIOTI<. JII.. Dfl.JO.WA"l ~(Tl v. DON(NICI. N(W .. EXJCO , CAl./fO,.NU, UQAIIA DOltE~ C.. .... (U. COlOIU'AMATO. Mr. Preeident, span~ their own money than you do priorities that sa.y Yrereally believe 1n Wbitewater is a ver7 serious matt.er. !or them. the blir interesr.a here, we really think Some qaestio:m ra.iaed b:, Whit.awa .ter Now th&t sounds alien in Wuhinc-- the big- hitereats n•ed a lot more help iro to the ver:v he&n of our democratic ton. DC, but in Little Rock. AR, people because if we rain on big interests uyst.em or rovernmec.t. We muat deterare be1rhming to th.ink maybe tha.t is somehow 1t will all seep down to the mine whether the public trust haa been the way we ouirht w do things. Uttle folks tha.t a.re trying to send abused. We . muat ucertaui whether Mr, DORGAN. I wonder i! the Sentheir private inr.erest1 have been ator from Arkansas would yield to me? think kids to colleire. That is wh&t I purely hu beeD fozyouen 1n tha equa- pla.ced abov• the pq.bllc crust. The Mr. PRYOR.. I do not ha.•e the floor. tion and this d1ecussi on bet•een the Amerieui people ha.ve a. right to know actually. Mr. GRAMM. 1 have to ro to a. hear• Senator from Texas a.nd the Sena.tor the Ml facta about White,irater and retrom Arkansas. lated ma.tters. ini' on Lera.I Services, w let them Mr. President. I yield the floor. Atter the B&nkintr Committee 's hear; know the bad ue~. inp last year, m.azur The PRESIDING OFFICER. The imporr.a.nr. Quee• tions still remain. The Amer.I.can peoChair would sa.y, the hour of 10:30 havCONCLUSION OP MORNING ple have & ~ht ing arrived, morning buahteea wu to a.nd & need to know the BUSINESS answerB to these queations. closa. The PRESIDI NG OFFICE Congnu R. Morning has the n,apom:ibWey to Mr. PRYOR. Mr. President. seeing- no eerve as the public's watebdoir, We other Sena.tors desiring NcolD,ition, 1 buinua ~ cloeed. Under a. .Previoua order, the Senate would be derelict in oar dut.ies U we did a.eJc un&Dimo'lll consent tha.t the Sennot pursue these Whltewa ator £rom North Dakot.a be allowed to will now proceed to the consideration . ot a. re1olut1011 to be submitted the The Sen.a.tamust proceed.terin questions proceed for 3 minutes. an evenThe PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Senator £rem New York [Mr, D'AM>.-ro]. ha.l1ded. imp&rtia.l, a.Ad thorough man• Mr. PR.YOI\..Mr. Pruident, I sun-eat objection, it is so ordered. ner. We h&ve a. comtitutiona.l respoaMr. DORGAN. Mr. Pre!ident. I wu the a.bawce of a.quonun. eibilit:, to reaolve these IA&uea. Tlle PRESII>ING OFFICER. Tlle cllrio\18 about the Q.uestion aaked by Mr. President, we now ~ before clerk will call the roll. my colleague from Arkansas. the Senar.e a resolution t.hat authorizes The bill clerk proceeded to call the a. IIJleCial committee Our colleagu., Sena.tor GRAMM from adminJstered ·by Te!WI. ea.id that at this tundra.iaer they roll. the :Bankillg' Committee to continue Mr. D"AMAT O. Mr. President , I a.ak were not i:i~ the Whitewa.ter inquiry tha.t ..-aasr.a.rt-anybody anything, I asaume he forgot, probably. tha.t in the unanimowi consent that the o~er !or ed but not completed durtllg the la.et the Q.uorum call be resci.nde d. vote in the House of Representatives Comm,as. The PRESID OFFICER. Without on the Con~t I thank my distineuished colleaeue, With America, -j~t to objection, it. is ING BO ordered. :aam• one little piece or r.h&t, they Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I h&ve Senator SAR3.&.Nlt8, for his bard work elimina.ted the alt.erna.tive minimum a resolution wbioh I Vlill shortly be and cooperation ln the prepara.tlon ot this reeolution. We ha.ve jointly pre,tax for corpor&tions. aendint? to the desk, May I a.ek, wha.t 111 pa:-ed You remember those stories in the the pendinJr a resolution that is balanced and busineae1 old da.ys a.bout a big- corporation tha.t The PRESIDING OFFICER . Tlle !air and th&t will allow the s~lal earned S3 billion in earned income, net pendillS' busi.n•u commitr.ee to search ror the truth. I ie the resolution to be profit. and paid zero in Feder&! income cona1c1ered by the Sena.tor £ram Ne'1" am confident tha.t Sena.tor SA&BANES tax. Well. the Federal Government said York. and I w1ll. conti1:1,uethe Banking- Com• they wa.nted to correct that, so they a.pproa.ch to -the Mr. D'AMATO. I believe we ha.ve mittee ' a bipa,rtuan set up what was called an <ern.a.tive a.greed tha.t there Will be Whitewater matter. :no more than Mr. President, our pursuit of these minimum tax.. so you could never zero 2 hours . le out, talking a.bout the real b1i cor• The PRESIDING OFFICER. Tbs.t is questions muet be and will be fair, str&lghtforwazd, IL!ld re1pc,11Bible. The pora.tions now. correct, from the time you b~ it up. Well, in the House or Representaand deaene a. Mr. D'AMATO. Will the time atart to American people •~t thorough 1:nquuy comm.lilted to the tives, in the taX bill under the con• run as o! no-ri tract, they zero it out and they sa.y, The PRESIDING OFFICER.. It is punuit ot truth. That ie the American "No more alteni&tive rninimwn tax. 1"hen the Senator submit& the resolu- way. .• .I.,qt s~. the Bank:in,r CommitYou bi~ companies . you make S5 bil• tion to the dagk. tee mat: theae vigoroua req'Qirementa. lion, it is &11 riirht it you pay zero in Our ,.v.mtna.f.ion of the Whitewater taxes: • Bu't at same time they do that. A SPECIAL they Ba.y, "But we ca.n give th08e com• ESTABLISHING COM• matter wa.e imJ:l&l"t1al. balauoed. and MITI'EE TO l;NVESTIGATE W'HlTE- thorough. Tha.t is o-qr ~oal in thia Con• pa.nies"-1neic1enta.lly. a.bout 2.000 com• WAT.ER DEVELOPMENT -pa.nfer-"the eciuivalent of S2 million CORP, greas. I am confident tha.t we will meet · these roal•AND OTHER MAT'I'EB.S each in ta.x brea.ka. We can afford to d.o Durinll' last summer's he&rinp. maDY that. but we cannot afford to provide Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I send 6tudent ald. u we used to. so we lV'ill the resolution to tihe desk on behalt ot facts •ere uncovered. We learn.ad that h&ve to ask kids who are ;-o~ to go to myHlf and Senator Dot.Iii-and 1 know aert:.ain top adm1n1s"-t'atioxi omclala colleire who do not have &nY money to others woiud like to Join-&nd I e.sk for ,..ere not ru.lJy call.did and !orthco~ With the Canrress. That ta 8Jl wicm. pay for it. we will make if harder ror its Im.mediate eonsldera.tion. kids to ro to collere because we cannot The PRESIDING OFFICER.. The puted fact. The public haa a. rlght to· eXPe<:t more rrom those 1D.s,oaitiom of afford investing in kids who ro to col~ clerk w1ll. report. trust. We aha learned that ae11ior lere. as we used to. but we do have the The bill clerk read as follows: Tnasury Depar,;ment a.Ad Clinton money to provide the equiva.lent ora r.! A ruol~iion (S. Bal. 1211)est.&bllshing a White Houae officials mishandled con• million tax break !or ea.ch of 2,000 cor- special comm1nee adm1n1at.eNdb:, the Comficlential la.w enforcement iDtonn.auou pcra.tions by saying to those corpora• minee OD B&nldDBou11nr. e-. &Dd Urban Aftioue, You no lonirer h&ve to worry Cl.in to conduot &n 1Jl'"8tip.tion 11:1.volTI.Da'concerning M&dison Gua.nr,nty. That I.a fa.ct. MadfBon is Cori,., Ma.diaoa another undisputed about a little tbinr called the alter- Wbltewater Dnalopma:at Ouanney S&'IUllrl & Loan Aaeoci&t1 on, Ca.1>- now defunct; it ia & de!U.nct s&L at the native mi:nimlU'n tax. You can zero it ital ~•ment Services, Inc.. ~h• Arkui· heart or the White'lllf&ter matter. The out. if you like." .. Developme11,i Flna:ace author1ey, and failure or this Arlcan8&8 S&L eventuI am guessing the Sena.tor from otller related matten1. ally cost American ~ers m01'8 Tex.a.a ju.st forgot about that. The PRESIDI NG OYFICER. b there tha.n $47 million. And there a.re a. dozen more 11ke it, objection Mr. Preaideut, the Amerieao people to cha immediate com.iderlittle old things tha.t I.am sure folks a.tion o( the resolution? h&ve a. right to know the a.nawer.s _to AM~1 '-' ·VERSIGH HOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 45 18-1621-000469 05/18/95 13:22 '6'202 962 7490 DPW-1202 ~003 ···:_:_ S8172 1995 ·-~ Ma.y I1. · iDtarrerenoe oc- Ainley alaima lls did so a:cthe direction IIUOh a CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE a.t M&dteon. It many aerioll8 ciueetions still rematni~ wbY7 o! camll'Jp omclals. The pahllc bu a.bout Whitewa.ter a.nd related matt.ens. curred. •ho authorized it, &!"..J right to kno,r who a.utbortt.ed tbia a.c- · these to a.nawera deaelTN J1Ublic The to oblieation nal We have a. conatitudo t1'11tYud Yby. . a. 41188tion . questlona. aeek tbe &DBWersr.o these th1.e NSOlut1011.will Nr. ~dent, the During laet aummer'a lle&ril1p, That ta wby I am otrerlgg th1a reaoluthe- lpecia1 commltt.ee to u:a.u~ru.a the th&t laarued Committee Bankfns tiou today. iDapector general furniahed &m1JMIthN8 and. i-elated.- matters. We Now I will brietly outline some oJ:the Treuury W11ltake ever:,- l"UIOD&bleat.ep co com,. ma.tters tha.t thia resolution autihorizee the Cllntoa ·White Howse, &t the Wlltt.e pleie ~ inQullT promptly. We hope ta of tr'ILZl8Crip requeet., ocnmael'• Rome t.e. i1l'l'eetiga to committee the el)8C1al that the admiDMr.ntton cooperates deposittoaa. We Will begin with the bandliDC or the the 1mpector pnenl'a u In thia ren,i,d. But we also Inwith tact. undillPlted 1111 18 Th&t pa.i:,en Ln.deputy Whit.e Houe coumel to be thoro111h and ooiQNheiat.end int.o look no• wOl Tli.e committee Vince Foat.er's omce rollowtzir his · ahe. death. Who searched Mr. FoBtei-'1 omoe whether theae depoa:ltion tranacdpta ThU resolution providea '9fi0,CIIOto witon the niirht of h1a dea.tb? Wh.&t were wen Wied to coach admiDistration the special committee through fuDd of ~nt ill 1.-ppeand thay before 11eu• to happened What for'! the:, looking 28, JJl8. 1t a.dd1t1oml money Februa.ry wtoDI'. be woald That e. oommitr.e the l)¶ any Were Mr. Foat.er'& p&pel"B'1 committee wilJ. the aped.al needed. 18 lt l£ bow t.o ~ht & baa p,ibllc The d a.u.thorir.e lost or destroyed? And •ho not lat.er tbaD endatio11 reco:m.r.n & make . bap119ned the tt'ILD&ferof Mi-. Foster's Wllitawa.ter majority and tbe &nd 1996, IS. January d1ab&ve I th&t ma~ these All of file to a. closet ui the Firat Family's oo- mlDority will meet to datermiue the reatdence? Tbe public haa a.rfa'ht to the cQIMCl ae fM involTe nentlll thatPrest· time !or &DJ' vor.e. c1l1'ttd &tter Jmuar,v 1989 •hen anawerB to tbeu question&. to hold pibPrN!dent, we e:1:pe<1t Mr. aleo are There .. omce took Clinton dent enreaolution this Mr. President. lnt.o the bandJtnir 'lf the hearinca ~ic mat eventa ~ Q.uestiiom aerloua coto e commicr.e courq-ee the spec1al of V1Dce Foeter'a omce m lar.e ~n ordinate lta a.ctiivitiea with thoae of the oocv.rrecl In ArkaUU in the 1880'•. when early July. We "1ll continue or June Thia Gowen10r wu Clinton indepeudent counsel, Kenneth Starr. President by nbJeet matter UDtil it iAQlllr7 our sped&l the a.uthoriaee a.nd I have met with reeolutton al80 Senator SAB.11.&NBS ia complet.ed. In dolns 10, we wW. make mattera. thae e:ramine to committee StanJudge counsel. nt indapende the matteta a.re e"'7 etroit not to interlere With the has indicated to us that he baa no ob- Some of these Arbnlu coanael'e criminal mvescommit-- ~nde11t the reqm.re will and com.Ple~ plan Jection to the special committee'• · tlntlOD.. of thoQMl!da ormazu, .re'liew cJ.oae tee•• to inquire into the handJfJ1r qf )lr_ Foe,. people American the , Preaident ~& document SAlUIAlQ:S and I :i:iagaa of ter'a papers. Se»tor We will 1'8'View the operatloiw aDd deeerve to know the full ta.ct.a &boutI to coardin&tiDc the a.re committed Did Wbltewar.er aDd rel&ted ma.~r.cs. i.. n &0ti:vitiea with tbOM or ·rejUla.tiona of 'll4&cUBoGuaran~. committee'• th1I Jamea MoDouP,1. Jll&d.laou'a ch&il'maD said at the outaet. we will conduct the epec1al coumeL inqllll'7 ID a. fa.tr, effnhanded. IUM!.im• llUt-bllSinesa Clint.on,, Govemor alld special the a.uthorm,a resolution Thls 't flmda partial manner. committee to pursue auewen to ocher ner, imlJt'operiy cUYert Mad1IOD Th&t 18 wha~ the Atnade&n people Did ~ o! th1a ciuemolll r&ised. durtnr the BanJdnc: to him8Alt ~d others? mto ezi,ect, and deeerve . I urge the want, White Tll8 WQ 1r.a 1m4 moue7 · Committee's heArUIP Jut year. ortbfa ~lutiou. 'Al &IIJ1N7f .which in lll'OJeot estate real Home We will azplore the scope and impact colleague I IN th&t lllY dl8t:inl'uSahed were or the Jmproper dit!laemmation. or c::o11-McDougal and Governor Cltuton Madimemb!9r, Seuator &ll&nd raAld.DC tl.dential law entorcemen.t inrorma.tion. ~ Dld .,McDoacal mis'llt!le BAMBI,11 here. We ~ve allocat.ed up to concerning MadiaOn GuaraAty. Row eon tunda to coTer aziy loues the Pinter 2 hours, eq~ d1Vlc!ed. Wb1t.e•at. their on sufrered Family .ra.tiou M1mln1sr Clinton the widely did floor. the yield I to f'ieht a bas pu.bllc The t? tn'fefJtmen A.l contldentl thia omctals conut1W11cate Mr. SAll.BA.NES. Mr. Pnaidant, m..,1nformatiou? Did a.ny high-ranking or- kno• the amwem t.o these quationa. I uk •h&t th e time sitution 18? further reeolutton the Preaident. Mr. ficiala inform target1 or crimizaal inveato ez.tig-at!~ns? IC BO, did thi& impa.ct_&nYOD- authorlzee the speal&l.~tt.ee -- 15 millut.ee 11,u already bNll IJ88dro1Di' 1nveat1p~om? 'I'he J)llbllc baa a amine tll• R.oae law flml 1, nSll"GNDm Mr. SAABANES. There la an hour NDand RTC, and Maduon both of tion these to rig1it to know the anawera l"8ffll.1mllg on thla aide! now in11ml, l&w Bole the at partners ior Questions. PB.ESmING OFFICE&. 'I'h&t fa Tba WebCllDton. Rodha.m Larr,ctadiDg The s:oecia.1 committee will also ex· ·correot. The Foster. Vince and Hubbell, amine whether then were &DY im- ster I thuk 1ihe-Cllatt. Mr. s~. whether the proper con.r.acts between the Clinton committee must . uaerta1Jl b&Ddled. Madam l"natdent. it 11 not IQ7' mt.eztthe White House and the Jwstica Depa.rt- Rose law nrm. J:ll'Operly don to QM the en&tre how:. I h.ope-ar; · Madiaon. g concernill. cl&lm8 civ11 RTC ty. CU&r&D. Madiaon r~ rnent &bl• to Did the arm ban a. conmct of 1Jlulr- 110mePolD.t both aide. ml8ht. be We know th&t Pa.Ula Casey, t.he U.S . Yield 'b&ok tlm• aad proceed · ~ 1mlll lose s t&xll&)'er l Amerte&.J did. a.mi est, t.o declined. Rocle, Little in attorney · . consl.deni:fon.oftlle n110lut1011.. referrals mvolviJl.w money in the i:,roceu? pursue criminal la,\" at tlae·out.aet that me Let MuCa.pita! examine al.lo wiU We f&ct. d M.adieon. That iB an lllldiBPUte toda.J', elution we 111'9 couide:illc We also know ths.t Webster Hubbell. agemeut Serrieea and ita president, ooimmtiee sp,cfal & aa.thoriaea w-bich Judge ArkanaaB tanner a who ha.s pleaded guilty to mail :fraud Da'V1d Hale. and Cllnton &ppointee. Bale baa pub- to be &dmimaiered b:, the Cominittee &nd taX evasion, was the No. 3 omcial M• . Ucl:v cha.rgad. that tlul Pnicddent pre&• oD Ban1d11r ·HolJBiDg, and Urban a"iti• tbia at ent I>etJB,l"tm Justice at the f&1n, ill really a. carryizig out oCl"980ln.AdBuin.em Small make i;o h1m sured uudiaputed a.nother ta cal time . This b7 140.o,.sd lut y~ miciatr1.tloD loam that were used co dom r.h&t ,... !act . to important ia it think I boclrt!lia Madison. up prop The committee will ascerwn whethcon~ in·the reaolution thfa comdCler make also Hale Dld happen? this Did er Mr. Hubbell COllt&cted Paula Casey ot Ul.oae r.ol11tlcm&-6Cdona ta.ten. bJ' a.bout Madison. And who else. if a.DY- imlJl'Oper Small Buaineu ~ · .. tllet &:llate last year. Gov. a Ark&zla& OIUNDt to loa.mi tion wlth cont.&ota these abont knew one. '1,l9M. ·a.li~awer.ayear Onl4arch1 · Uckert JimGUYT the !WI public The the U.S. attorney. bJ' Then there 18 tae matt.er of the i:i- .... th$ SenMe &dopted • reeolutioa. rirht to know. of seme T.be .~ 98-0 o! -vo~ a iruberArkailau 1990 the of nanoillgtbie resolution a.uMr. President. ~ :uould .:ile__... tut Senate tbit tll&t Jaio,r DO• We n. thorizea the special committee to e::a:- natori&l camPB,iC held. on all .mattars·ral&tlai' to !tbdlplore whether the Reaolut.f.on- Tru.et the preaident ot- the P«ry- .eouty IO'D. ta WJdteat,er; · all4 to · Capital pilty pleaded, , bu .,\J.nley, Neal° Bank, in omci&la other and on Corpora.ti ·· .. -~. ::··· , Manacecn8111 conneolion lD laWB Federa.l violating to ixnpropWashington tried to i:atertere . at reaolu.ttaa th&t carr:r-aat:to Thea. la!ve-•h certa1Jl of h&DdliJzg the with erly with R'I'C sta!f i:a Ka.neaa City re,-ear. laa~ of ~ ·iJmle ~:ou le&Mt~ . canq,alen · Clinton ~ !ar om sponsible for inves tigating wrongdoing t.ra.ns&cti ~t~r= :e:~!.~~!:4!re tba·n. AMlF VERSIGH , . ...· -. .g~\:}-&18-1621-000470 ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docl.d: 701049+p_.P;e! ~:.:. ... . .:.-r.~?: ~-'::~ :-~ . -:~ ' -- . ·-...; ~ 05/18/95 13: 24 · May 17, 1995 '5"202 962 7 490 ~004 DPW-1202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE the Sanaca agreed to Sena.t.eResolution do iD r;hat regard_ But obviously we molt or it ia str&igb :tforwazd. I Wnk 229, which au'thorise4 hearinp to be Will abide by tbeir dect.ion. Membenl of t'Je Senar.e Ul)OD review:IDI' held. mto certain &NU. Thoae bearings We ha.Te alao provided in the resolu- it will conalud e that 1a the c:ue.· MADY were done laan. BUDmler. We had 6 da.yt tion which iB now before u.e.and of D11bllc hel.l'Ulp. We had ezte?l.liva shortly 1lfill be adopted. for ruleswh1.ch or the provi.e!ona ~ •bat one m!e.ht call boilerJ)la.te [or such &n inQult:r, analyail of documeiata th&t were pro- procadun,a or th1I commil;t;ff 'll'hich 1111d ee- and · track pre'l'ious pro'riai.OD.1 that vided to the fllqUiry committee 111 senttally will be the ralet and prooe- ha.ve 'been used i.D various Sena.ta reeoorder to enable 1t t.o CUT7 out itll re- dt1N8 of the Sen&te. the St.azldin g lut.tona esta.blialdng commi""8 8])0Jllibilities. to Rules of the Senate. ud the rules ot .?Jow,one or the thinp th&t wu au- procedure or the Committee oD Bank· can:, out 1Dc1tmiesor inveat;iptiolla ot the 110rt tbat lll bainC authorimd here . t.horued to be looked mto 'b:, the June iug. Housing, &nd Ur~ Atra1re.. That I Uatened to the elLa.1rmanWitll irreat 21 T'NOlution wa.athe handllntr or the 18, in ef!'act:. the rules framework, i,n,. interest and I '11'8.tlpartical&rl:, IDCO'IJ!'a Fo • tar dooumenta. That wu later d• cedun.l ~aine•ork wttbin which we st.a.tament or ferrad, 111reaponae to a request from Will opera.ta. There a.re iD tha :re1SOlu- a,ed by his ve17 1tr0~ the independent co,msel who contacuid tio11 aection.e that cover aspect • of the the ueed to conduct impLrttal, bal· aml thorough ll.eariJJgB. whiell la the conunitte. and illcllcated th&~ proceu th&t the 1peoial committee will uced enctly what I tb1nk nee41 r.o be done. given the nature ot b18 inqmry, it tollo,r, thae an matters it was dffmed Then aN a lot ot all~ tha.t are 111'ouldbe preferable it the Committee important that we •pell out iD the ruaround and there ue & lot or did DOt ro &head with th&t hearing'. Ac- olutioD ho• they •ere ,ouig to be awirliq qv.eatio n1 tba.t an being ralaecl. We Me cordlllel:, • .,..eheld ott. clealt 'll'f.th. Tboae 1.Dvolve queat1om or atibpoe:na.powen, qu.tlona ot ho• the them from tune to time .ralaed in the No• the di~ cb&ll-man bu preaa and in the med£&. And. of c:oane, heulzip indicated will be cond.ueted-impc,rt&nt that it •ould. be the tint oae c;ould ait a.round all da.7 lOlll' and item which 'Will be coDBidered hJ the questions about immuntty. I •~t to he&riap th&t will now take pla,ce midU'9Core that beeauae tbst ia a. .ma.t- conjure up one qqutf.on artar another. It I.a Dot cUttlcult, 1t hi very eaa::r. It 1a t.er ,wa.h&Tehad t.o addrella before. under the reaolul:1011.we are conaidu!Dr here t.oda.:,. We provtde r.h&t to rra,nt a witaeea not dUDcult .iuat limply to u.y ... Well. nppoae We happened or aulJPOll8 wt So ~• resolution ii in eaect a con- imm.UDity-1 want to read th1II RCtiOD d: or if this or l! tb&t.'" 0£ tinuUion of our earlier work. It au- beeaue it 18 an impott.&Dt matter. The happene coune. ou the purpoa,ea ot theee thoriaea ~ completion o! work speci- special committee bu the :r:,ower:''To he&riJl fied in lut J'e&r'1 reeolution. aa well aa l'l"&Jlt & witneu 1mmunity undlll' UC• anmlD&lrBla.to get a rood. -t.ough•minded tlon of theae T&nOWI allen,a.nd mJ&" or title 18. Uniied matt.en developed durmg and ariaiDe tion 11102 t.f.dne to see U there le anythizil' to Stat.ea Code, '"DrOvided. t'h&t the iDdea out ot the hea.rizJn t.ha.t •~ held laat them . It Deedll to be &por,,dated. ·tha.c summer, and aleo • number ot ma.tr.en pendent co'llll8el baa not iJl!orm.ed the tt 1a "et'7 eaq to 1D8o"ke the &lleltationa. mY colleague hall eD'Qmer&r.edth&t special committee ill. writiJlg that lmWhether the &lleiratfona &re Ul fact mllD.ising the witneu would illter!era cany forth on. the seMe--Of-th.-&m&t.e with the &bil1w of tna indapezad.cmt aabetazi.tiat.ed b:V the ta.eta 18 .: toueh,er oommlwent last year r.o. inTe.at!p.te . CO'IUl8e} 8UCC8l8t'ally t.o proeec:tlto:, queation co determine, and ~bat does all matt.en pn:tatalnc to M&diaon. Z9Quire a.n 1.mpartial. b&luced and crim1na .l viol&tio na." I want to ro Qiuugh aome other &rr We alaa Jll'Ovide far sr.af!lDg of the thoroU8'h haa.ruig-. In tact, the Presipecta at thia resolution, jut 't.0 l&y dent !llmael! ua Mid the beet - wq to them out on the record. The c!la.lrm&n committ.ae. Tllere a power t.o &PPoiDt addr88B theae 11 to look &t the· of the 'Banlcfnr Committee. S&na.tor spec1al committee atAtI including ecm- f&c1a candldly, matten and t.11at 1a what I "9813' from the Senate D' AMATO,ha.a gone tbroueh & number lSUltant•, uaiatance hope and ezpect tkat .thia comirom the ·much or mat~n tha.c bave bee11 :proflded tor lenl couuel, uailltazlee mittee w111 be able.to do. Comptro ller Oenenl. "l'bere 1a .a. pron. iD this resolutioa to be ezammed by I do think laat summer we ·eomluci.ed Ilion •hereby the committee can dn.w the •pecial committee. Tile •pedal committee, adm1:aiatem by the Bank· on othet' Government a,enciee, G.ovenie he&rinp tlaat ,.._. r,,en:eiffd l17 all :u be:lnwtllotOUS'h and tau: aolld:Impartial.. ing Committee, shall comut ot all oC ment p,nmmel, and on other concr-the me:ruben of the Bankins Coznmit- stoD&l ataa. And we hope, through a. W• went u it, in etrect, to find out tee plwi two memben added from the coinbizl&tlon or all of these sourcea, wh&t the f&ete were, t.o ucerta.1n the Judiciary Committee. The cba1rm&n thai we will b&ve a: adeqna.te at.atr to truth. I WDk n ~ tll&t .iasue in a reeolute mt,zmer, and t •ould aspect cai'l'7 out a proper lnQ.a1r:v a.n4 in~ and ranld.lle mem~ of the Commit-- tteatto the apecia.l cogunlttee will do 10 in the D.. · ~ oD tbe Judiciary, or their deeThen ta alao, o! C011r18,epecial pron- cue tha.c ta-;a the i.Dlt,uioe th&,: ls bo1gnees, will join with the memben of lllon tor the pror.ection or coaftdend&l tore ua. · the J3&ok1111rCommit.tee to conettt:a:te These heal'Ull8will make an etron to the special committ.ae which wtll be 1.Dfmmat:!011., amce we will be illteract..&4mill1't.ered by the Bank1DcCommit- !Dg with -~e llldependent coUD.Nl and get, tho ta.eta out rally m4 tmpu1;1ally. othen a.nd we think it 1, impon&Dt to We antloip&t.a tll&t the &dmhda1zatlon tee. So it ia auenti&ll.J:-()r i,rlm&rlly. , will cooperate w.tth th18 aaQC't. They ler; me Bay-a Banlc1v Comrmttee &e• have Kah provielo1U1. Fina.lb' , the .moziey asked for certainly in t.bia h&ve mdicar.ed th&i ii what tivitY. Bince moat of the anaa to be azresolution. Juet under 11 m1Wozi, they iDcend to do. Lui year a.mined clearly -ranllDCler the jQriadicthey made l950,0D O, ta to cover the ul&riea &11d ever:, docwneut &T&1lable tbat waa r.tioD of the Banlcing Cammitt.ee. But we other upeDBeS ot the special commit- queeted. u I recall. I think lam cordid a.dd from the Judiciuy CoDmlltt.ee tee c&1TY1nW out t.hia inquir7, berin- rect in. th&t etaament. Now the last Y•III'-A member came on 1D order DiDB' on the date of the adoption of thie baa OODleto m.oTe forward, to beliD"1IQe to help eazry out the iD~uiry. A21d resolutio our n-I aaaume toda.y--and end- hearinp, to belrin, 1JI effect . t.o eumthere az-esome matters tha.t s.re con- ing Pebruary 29, 1996 . iDe these 'l'Uioua tained ui the resolutio:a, to be eamlUld '11~ It it la judged t!lat additional money tions ad aacertaqueettom lA with. J91)90t iued tb&t, it could well be a.rimed. are 1a needed, ·to tha.t 'ChetAQutry needa t.o ro ea.ch of them wber.ller tb«e 1- qy Wlder the .taradlccion or the Judicia.r,y .factorward ud additioDAl money 1a re- tual lf'OWldiDS'behind tllem Coinmitt.ea. So. to bring wt tol'ethar, DI' whether qaincl in order tuncl it. the special tnq 81mp]1' ra.1a Q11.e11tiona t.bat p,ople we are b~ on two membete from committee will toreoomm nd that. Of can aak. And th&t.. of course, te the'])Ql'the Judietaey Committee, the chair- courae which we.man and r&iik:lng member or theiJ" des- vot.a there w1ll bave to be further poee ot the in.Q1W'J' lldll be tor the pro'1~ of &4clition&l uncl8rt&klDs here with th1a pro-ignee •• They will be deslguting aome- moneys ·ot to the apecial cominitt.ee. • S850,CQ)to·e&rr'7' out :tbia iD~OJI. one elle to band.la th.ls reep:,Dal.bilit:, if Mr. President. let me juat make & 1D. the period between now and; Fel>the:, ohooae to do 110, azi.dI do Dot know .couple of tun.her, more general obaer-- l"CW'1'211.The ~lltf.Oll &t thia point wh&t Cbairma.D HATCH Yatlo.m. llE'OTid r.h&t l h&ve vary quickly gvne the r,pedal comm:tttee llhal2-. M and ratildlw m.eznber BwEN iDU!Dd to throUl'h mab the resolution a.nil I tlwlk eVM:J reuonable eirort to ~•ta;° or a. ' AMrHIGf :VERSIGH OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 47 18-1621-000471 .: ~-·-~-~- > . 05/18/95 S6774 13:25 '6'202 962 7490 ~005 DPW-1202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD~SE;NATE the happaued. when'tt happened. &D.dwho 1llYdid DOt show up at the :ti~ I look 1'orhe we.a1a.ppoaed. to. be there. The knew 1~ when it happen~ lle&rf.Dgahad been »wmed fbr month& wM'd to the Jle&riDP, Mr. D' A.NATO a44NMed. the Ch&lr. Ca.i:,t&ln Hume wu Otlt ot tmrn that Th• PRESIDING OFi'ICER.. Tha Sen• d. be there. OQr da,y. Be wu IIUPPOMto &tor from New York: ts recop..l.lad. l'8Jl]dng member at the ume demanded Mr. D'AMATO. Madam· PnmidaDt, I that they briDI' him back tor eeveral of ray cood 1'riend, SeD&cor know baok. him briJ1e not did they B11t dQ'I. The 'hearlllp adJolU'D8du,d we never FAIBCLO'l'Jl'e concern that thent be hes.rd fk'om him. I do not tbmk thie wu ample 11COpeto· look into all of tu that a.re relevant, &AG I au,e & thoroUl'h a.friDCor the 1-uea, and I maiten I th1nk tb&t thia r.oluthat c~. think we need to do it aca,tA. embodies WI with the Wrly very d.on look• ia Sta.rr Ju. that I undent&Dd to. l'ffPOD~ authoritY-&nd I •ould rerer to pa,ee t. AIJ I ll&id. •• adopted reaolutio:aa la.at inc a.t this aptn. I hope tb&t he will, As ~ triend rai..._ •• did not aiyear addnaal11g tbis matter. Thia. iD giV11D the nwiemble job that Mr. Fiake to epell out eqry lliDgle ana. r.empt l!lTest.lp.tinc. of did rMOlu.thoee on i'onr&rd carrie• effect. liDe U. u.ya: ._ Pace &1ao Congreaa tlle· Pru.idem. Madam of e!fece, iD . tiona. It la & continuation 8u11Nc;dous..To co.nt110,an lD'NBdptlcm 11rodt 1n the that work. But I hope th&t 1f' we apply needs to probe the SlOO.CO, he&ri.Drl11ltoand atudJ' all ma.iow.-&elYH to it over the com!Dg commoditiel market tll.at cam• to Mrs. &Dd:s,abllc , II.D7 i.11de11C7 i:o rH•l the montha, we will be able to work CliDtozr ~ or Red Bond and Jim tal"I llb&c... • • • IKa abo111: iull Tpon of COUDMl reuaral the Bl&ir, ef• 1n a.nd, m&tcen these of &11 throUi'h Tben-... Co throuwh all of the va.riou feet. brmg thia iuu• to closure 1n the Pooda. Tb1II la· llot mentioned 1D tl:ie &rea.s. There an otUr Senators who be. should it and resolution, Sea&Ce tile or sense tbat th• Members to speak, but I belie,re It I.I SOllli' an a tb&t diacovered I reaentlY. Just the and the Amerlca.n.paople lmo'lf that to awnmarize thoee a.nu. 1mport&nt llolwn. B&rbua Cllntom. the various queeeiom h&ve been railed a.nd tdend of h&II. The f&ct 1s tb&t thoroughly ezammed. th&m it h.u been waa confl!lien.t1Y 1D8talled u &CtiDc Senator- ~ •• l!sclude the ability·to look into the done with & great deal of balance aZJ.d head of the CFl'C before the ar.o.ry or boud cantr&cte becw.tn 11Dderwritillg tradeo. commod1~ Clinton·• and unJ)l.rd.&U.t:r. and that Mn. fairneu t Fbl&noe Developmen Arlm.mal the broke. con• a. aa are these are what the rac:ta and all of Co., It Lua.tel' acd Autharlt:r iaauaa. co'DlliB.iDg J:11&1'7 an There BeQuence oC tha.t inveatil'&tion and inNow we 1lDd that Bell BoD4.. who did tAlllM actlvttiu to wldch ~ friend 11&8 quiry. ref.erred. Bu~ tllet'9 mut be a comaectzadiial', who :la inctbe Madam PreaideDt, I yield the floor. is • co1U1ect1on.,well, Praaident, I auggeat the ab- t1cally bankrupt, wu able to JlQ' o4 $7 tlon. ud if there Mada.D:i. lnto·the &rea.,'lllld I looll: W1ll. we 1ilwl. be-montlla 2 jDat tu8S back 1n inU.11on eqU&lly be time Will quorum. a of 011 these UMB in more d• touch will l»11',017 trad:lZJC commodlty the fore charged? on tall befON our tim• ia up. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Only by came. PUbl1c. To me. the e'l'hiencean my tdend'a concam. Thia Bo I~ this la lQ.lt t.oo mucll to -believe tb&t unwmoua conaent. wt1l be thoro'QCb. It w1ll be thougll~ Mr. SARBANES. I uk UD&nimom of r.hia la a.oomcldence. I thia n,ao'bltion And",rben •ubpoenaa &re mued-4zld Madam Pnefdent. couaent to put 1n a quorum call &Dd muet tell you that the apeoiflc 1Dft&ae1r tbat the time be eq_,ally ch&ri'ed to doee not allow 11• t.o probe dte f&tlure ell Loan 1D th&g ho raiMe la t.rou:bling, lh&t ot a ot Fint Amert.cu Sa.~ both aides. witueea who t&tleil to respond to a irabIll1DDla. there Ia OFFICER. The PRESIDING tor ~ especially one who •orb Feater V:inoe ~ beline can you. If orso ia it objection'I' Hea.r1Dg none, not1oe. gi'ftD wu who t, Governmen the the W hiredr ware. Clinton ~dered. Tbe time will be cb&rged to both and. Go•ermnent · to •ua Dan •nd wbO a,a.ve the committ.ee, either- · FedenJ. aides equally. thcf" maJor1cy- or the m1norit7- or '0lll' Laaat.ar. '1'be 111U11&D&ll X.-t.er that The olerk wme&ll the roll. at&ff. no raaaon: to belleYe tb&t 'he The a.ssiatant lerisl&ti-..e clerk pre>- waa a close trie11.dof the Cllntona. That would DOli be there. Th&t- will DOl be la right. Mn. CllnCOD. .... ldnd b~ the ceed.ad to call tl:&eroll. It we rwi tnt.o· • ·iiltdatfOll r.oletated: Dan eo.~ to 1t ConrDJD81 Federal President, Mr. FAIR.CLOTH. Madam ca.n ualUe you, a.nil I know I tut; like. £all1m1 the with connection in Laaa.ter I uk unammous consent tb&t tlie order &bar. tTila mem~ l"azlkiDI' the •that in Lour· a Sa-..tnp American ot 'Pint !or the quorum call be reacinded. to· rewe 'll'Mlt i,eo~ The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without m1not1. Mn. Clinton. p&rtloiPLted,. tn um• concetn;;the .dacia1on to lower the amou.nt or: sponcl Qi aul,Jflenaa. We, will no1i iaao.• objentioll. it ia • o ordered. • them ~fl>loaaly. Che money the Qovemm.Clt would. meG'ftlr' &ddreased F AIRCI..OT!I Mr. tJdu; f.n-DOOJa IDigflt I to milliOZl S1.3 from Luatar D&n from Chair. laRled l>eceDM " OFFICER. Wllo m,,om, and .. clo not )may yet; -.hat not have •Yell hebeen The PRESIDING was irotna r.o be ·Uwie. tut &MWDed. ·uu 'her · io weut that or perconta,p Nortih trom yield.I time to th• Sena.tor tomo:,'a !ff becaUN the reoordll were So it ts 110~·a bad' track record. "DO h&To ' Ca.rollna? respon.cLmcl11.1Ung almost ••~ . Mr. D'AMATO. I Yield 1'D the SeD&tor sealed. bil- even tJioee· who were not nbpoen&ed. The Cover11ment apent O'll'er''SlCI> !roxn North CaroliDa what.ever time he lion to reeolTe the a&V1Dp and lO&Dcrt- Bllt, we will reXD&1n'9'1g1l&Dt JD•eelmlc needs, Madam Prea1den1i. . sis. With crooks like t)u. IAMt.er- in- this k1ndor coopera.t1011:. San• The OFFICER. PRESIDING The Sen&tor Botm ts in tille Chat ..,. I on aotml' Clinton. Mn. Wit.la and volTed ~ia Carolina &tor !rotn North &Ud· he· ta. OD cha Bcnk:J:gg. behalf of tbe tazpayer •, aui.Dg & friend. ~. Mr. FAIRCLOTH. M&d&m Preaident, .. , &Ddwa.a•n internl ~-of Committee l!Jeh. 10 waa coet the wonder no is I "'8.Dt to beein my remarks b;v u.ytng le ti=, to ,nald: I ud ll.e&rinp, 7e&r'• Jut anp111:r'ODC mytlll'AI • &p1Jl to I want lllf)port that I plan to enthllSiutica.lly 1n 10 mlmzC. from my cune:· · por,;.......and I ...,. thia not-~ the Whitewa.t.at resoluti0S1Th~ PaESD>ING OFFICli:B. ~ the ID aae often we u la.nguq-e cbe am I N80lution. Sood a. I think it i1 _.:_:~. _11t'e'OOl'lliMIL· ftom M!B&OwICh&Zldl ment, t.o ue Whir.ewater Committee epotential larlY importu,l.t to me azid have c:ome ctvil olaJma aca,1DSt Madiaon-botb ruol11t1 on which wo'lld llave allowed n-c,m my •~•noe with the f1rat under the Bult adm1rli•t:r&tion aa well the Bankin g Committee to ,tck ui, roui:ad of hea.rinp ad also with the aa the CUnt.ozaadmiQistn.ttou? etory &t tlm pomt, llearin&" back in Febra&rT where we How dlcl the t>ei:iar,ment ot Juatlc:e of the !1:lt referral and foll011' the UWJl u 1r; made it.I 'll'&J' asked the Q.ueatione that b4IP,Zl some or handle the RTC er1m1nal reterrala it re- throucb the Go..,.rnment. and the proceee ln 11nd!D&'out •bat baa ceived.. ecain both then to under the Bu.ah ad· follow the tra1l of the seconreferral goDe on in the 6dm1n1•ir&tion. d min1etr&tion and the Clinton adm!Dis-- &a it waa develop ed throughout 1993, up M moali or the N&don now knows, tra.tion? to and 1Jlcluding the impro,Der contacc Ma,daon Guaraniy wae & Little Rock What wv. tb.e 10vcea of 1'm3d1Zllr and by Tre&wry of!lcta1a with WbJte llouaea ..,v111p and loan which weut belly-u:p lend1gg :i:n.ct1cee of C&Pit&l Manap. 1ta.a. Th.ts of co11!'118 at the coat of nearly S50 million. and ment Servi.cu, and would eDt&ll queehow did the SBA t1omne the BTC offlciala waa OWDed by Jam .. McDougal-the involved, Juraculate &nd IUP9fflM lt. p&rtic'ala,rl.J" tice Depu,qnent oUiciala mvolTed, u bwnness panuer of Clinton.a' Ul the u it rel&r.ed. to loana to SU&Ul well u Tnum7 Whicewater real eet&lie deal. &nd Wbit.e a:oiue · McDougal Madiaon G1JUlllltY wu the claasic Marketiuc. &nd her CODUl&DY,Master staff. Beca.ue •e muat remember tha.t on S&L atory of hwder deallns, 1"8Ckleu Full on the Whitewater• ae day that the Clinton adminlatm-loan polidea and ultim&te failure With MadDOZl hearinp a!rair are need.ad 10 thar; all QOD omctale walked in the door on the U.S. tax1ayen ptcki.D&'up the ta.b. these 11.1ca.nbe ta.trl;J Uked and Jui.11&r It is a pari of the Sl05 billion coat or 8..ll8W~ueet10 7 21, 1998, & cr1miri&l referral on ered.. What the S&t. debacle. uid ln tb&t wa.7 u ,. wha.t bap.r.,ened h&ppeued 1n .Arkaml&s. Madi9on Guaranty WU sitt.i.tlg in tihe 1n the 1992 Clinton c&m• etory repeated ill many communities pa.ip in their efforta to Jceep tihe 114 on Depsrtn:ientof Juttce. I !or one s1iill want to know: around tihe country. about tbe &eti0C.1 in Ar.lcusaa. and Ho• did the De:i,araneut o! Juatice Bur; oue i:-r,, of this case baa made it what h&8 the ailm1nl famom-maJJY of lta borrowera. d!Nc- ma.n&Betihe MA.dis ami.tion . done to handle this referral? on-Wbitew1.ier iuuea Wu the White Eouae iDtormad and It tots. and counsel wen promine1:1.t tie· llince they took office. so •llen and b:,- wllomT ures in Arkamaa PoliQ.ca a.ud so••ruU we a.re to f1Dally get to the bo;tom ment. Who in Jwn::tae wu ~ed to mon• The ~lad .... ed. web of Madison, ,nm of th e story u to .. ha t -.p.r.,en With ltor the Madj10n cue. and what &Cl" McDougal, and the Cllntona baa led to th e cr1m.iml referral a. I belie-we tbat •e d.ona d14 the~ take? 1i'WOsets or cnmiD&l. ni!emLls. ILl1 onso- need And then. as we know now, j~ to at.art with the ft.nit crlm1Aal reing clvil li&billtY in"8tlga.tion by the ferral on Madiao1:1.Guar&ntJ w!dch .-u month.ti&tter t.akiDg omee, a.aecondset RTC. a pote1:1.1iialconnJct or int.e.rast already the Juttce Dei:-nment- or re!errala· wu being dneloped-&nd it ca.se for the Fii'st La.d,y'a !ormu law awaiting in action wheD the Clillton ad.- too wu Milt oft to the Clinton. Jutice tr&t1ontook omce. firm, a conviction or a Little Roe k m1ui11 Department by RTC officials in lCaDaaB Remember M&df.a on Gu&r&nty had judge who im:i:iroperly lOA?l_edSBA !ailed in &nd.bad. been ~ taken Ciey. 1989 I 'lll'&nt to lcDowwhy the RTC decided money to McDoug&l ~d Whitewa.tu, · over bv the FDIC &114then ln Ausust several other recent guilty to •t&Y on the caae. What happened to plea. · 1989 · • menta and &n ongoing mveatip.donac-ree bywhe~ Congress l)Ulled the 8&L nt & series of RTC oflici&l.e re&llairned independent colll18el St.arr. bailout bW tihe n..,J.:v created D.TC &nd ta.ken ofI the case? Ia there & pa,~ Since theee issue, first came to light. took over ~so~ tern. or special ere.tment for J)Oliti. I have said over &Jld over that the The R'l'C a American .r.,eople have a. right to know !ajled ~misaioD waa to close down e&Uy aeJ18lt1ve cu•? And ag&tD. how aell the aaaeTA,'JJll:Yott did tfle Depa,-tment er J\llltice h&ndle what ha.ppened to the millions o! dol- the d•~~ and t~en eeek th• ucoud refel'l"al? lars lost, and '111'8, in Co:ngreu. mu.at ful• nal or eiYil wro:i:igdo1DftJza.t out crtmiI want to kno'II' why did the Clinton may ha•e fill our oblira.ao.11 and K'et lihe racca out· occurnd. U they found orfm1Dal 'lffl:!~• appoillted Little Rock U.S. &ttorne;r 1n1i0the open. . dot.ng-tra.ud., or a.ttamDta to eQrJ.ch. Paula Cuq, &l.o:isgwith Webb Lut year the Senate was e~ed in lihey referred their 11nd1Dcato th• De- dela.y their recuMla Wltil &tterHubbell, & lenrt]ly 11trunle over wha.t Questions p&nme~t of Junlce for .t'llrther a.ctioi:a. Cision not to prosecute M&d.lathe 4e-, a.nd areas the B&Dki~ on wu Committ.ee If they found made'1 I also wut to ·k:n.o• tbe det&i:la would be allowed to addre&S u e::iample, la.• tlrmscivil wrougdo!Dg-for or accoUD 11rma about P&ul& ~y and Webb Hllbbell's \Vhitewater-Madiaou hearings baeiD- who helped inst.ltu1i10DII •t.117~ opeza by phoae cantata d~ !:h6 period When· Untortuna.tely. the Democra.d.c leader• provid.iJlc mislead iDc, incomp Cu.ey lete waa or deciding 111-•b&t to do With the llhi:P at that time did everything in c:orrect ~ormati!,on to regulaton reterral a. atud did. et thet' ona of them or. their power to limit the acope of the die S&.L I board mem'benl-the RTC ha.Ye &117contact with the Wbite Bol288 hearings, ILlld to block our efforts to would ]11U11 Ue thoee oaaea. on the refelT&la at an:,- time? ~ get a.t the truth-pardcUlarlJ' aa it reTh\18 from A\l&UBt 1!119the RTC: bad. And now, jUB1i .in tlle -put weeks we l&tes to what Clinton admini&tration Madison Gua.r&Dt.Yon ita plate. No &0• bave uen re,PET.ed by tlie AMoc1Ated. officials ba.ve done to control or inter- ~on wu t&k~n by the RTC OD poten- Presa that: !ere with tnveatiga.tious. Cial civil cl&UnB,but aeveral crimtnal Pnl~ tor teleV118d Wh!cewat.er ha&l'The Questions we aaked lut -.,eaz re- reterr&ll •ere ma.in as relevant toda,y aa they dld last Jim. MoDoupl developed. In one oue 1-- Ian •wnnutr, Whiw B:oue •tton1871 couulted &ud two others com!dan were d&l CleJll)af.doas aonr & Ma.Y: cused o! t'raud., bllt went acquitted., &o1Jl Treuury -~on 1D u etfoft r.o reoDid Whitewater Development Corp. a.notller cua a board member plead oudl• dlirmacIQOOWlQI ot adm111Jnrat;toa beneftt from taXp&yers 1D.tturing or guilty to !&ls11y1ng doeumenta. omc1&1a •ho wen elloati r.ot.eRl.fJ. MAdison Guan.ncy de:posit.a? Panller "1a1t.eBoue aoamel LloJd CU1er The1:1.came ~h Did any of Madison's t'eder&ll:V in- Yorlr::Times ntporte 199'.lwhen th• New aeaowleclpd this 'ftllk t.has'tb.e 4eJ11011clOD1 d & uries or pot.en- ...,.. ued co 1dandf7 dSacnpmd• sured fand3 go to benefit the Clinton ti&l m.ttdea JII 1:1111 li.np in M&dia on. Cua.rant.Y ~p&1pa? tlou of' preC4011'Gl&l &idea 1.rot'I the and Sl)urred the RTC to take another recoUeo cozzgnaloual: llearll:l8L Were the ba.nk: regulatory · agencies look at the iDetitution. Th1a aecond White · 1loale 1&,ryei:9 woald tll8a opera.tiQI' in 11.D imp&rr.fal and inde- look cau.eed tlnt c:rimln&l ret'erral "c::on=uc;" tile &ld• YlQ lDtaaDUSoll Cllff pendent manner aa they hazldled Madi- to be sent to tbe Justice 1u the fall Im lw1 o1't&lned' ~ Elle .d9P)tdtloDI widlou't son GU&r&zlty? ILlld it wu referr&l wldoh awaited ~ t.lle 101ana. be t.olCIThi- +.oa:JeW Bow did the Resolution Tnat Cor- 11n&la.od.onth1a wheD the Cllntov admlnlf-., JIN& . para.t1on bandle the criminal refernls "If we foud 1Jtmnsfsrcsare11, tra'do.ri ca.me into omce in Jana&lT "9 ~cl p;I) on Madiaon-both under the Bu.eh ad- 1998. tai:k c.oWIile. BWM omd&la. &Dd'10·tl&ck Oftl" twmmou OWT ,...,. ue." C'lltlar U• millilllir&tion as well as the Clint",QQ adI give thil brief hiator,' 111order to pl&mecl . ''Ud TJlaa we would -.-:, 'W'1 llaft mJ.niatra.tlon? put tluZIBBinto pel"Spective. Laat y-.r, 11.e&rdatber reJ:IQftL• •• ,q veRSIGH HOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 49 18-1621-000473 05/18/95 13:27 '6'202 962 7490 S8'176 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA'FE Mr. DODD addraseed. Ille~And now of courae we have diacovOFFICER. Who The PREBmING e.re4 th&t Mr . Cutler aud others u.eed . th1s tntorma.tton not only to &Utst in nelda tim!'1 Mr. SARBANES, Madam Pruaidellt, I or Mr. ClltJer'a.' tead.• the dra!ti~ mony-but to help White .Houe ata1r 7i,el!1 S minutes. to the ~ed. with th• incoll.lriatenoiea in their OW'D Senat.or from Connecticut. The P&ESmING OFFICER. The Benatoriea. I tl.nd tbia entire epiaoda Jllllt a.nother &tor from Connecticut ii z-ecasr,i'Md.tor . lengths 5 m1nuta.. e::s:ample of the ur.raord.tnuy Mr. DODD. Thank J'OU. MadamPreaithe White Houe •u wUU~ to ro to keep the !acts from Con,reas, keep the dent. md I tbank my colltan• ft'am racte from the American people, and M&r:vl&lld. Madam Pnsident. let me bel1Jl1:hne ultlma.t.ely to i::irotect the admtnt1r:n.brief remulm by commeDd1nc our ~tion. All I have Ill.id 011 this D.oor before, lea.pea from Ne• York and MarJiand brea.cbinc the Pllblic trwst ill u aeriowi for ..-U:t 1 think ii a. Vef7 t.&lr ILDdbe.Ia. cr:1.me,or a.need resolution. Obv.i0Ulll7, JDAtt«w an otreDBe u committing foGDd liable for flD&lloill pen- such u this are & source of deep conbe~ &lUea. Government.a in free BOdetiea tToveray a.od ca.ncet out or lwld. The h&ve a tmd&ment&I. pact with the rev- fact tb&t they :bave presented u with a tor the powers and reaoluuon that 18balanced and !&Ir.la a. erned. In azchup reapomtbWtlea which la rinD ~e Gov- CNd!t to both the Sen&tor from Mall'· ermnent, the people expect f&lmeu, la.nd and the Sena.tor from N•• York. .. ht to i-. and ....._ diacuaaioD or tlm eveDha.Ddecl Jmttce, lm.part1allq, -.- on oq ,t t".._ ........ -with an 8ZPNll1onot appreoi&tiOD the 1Jmat.e bell.., they '--ld 0 ~ ...... ..... ~ ~ ~ aeveral .Aa 7ou lr::Dow. o..r to be rooll the pari or all or ua ill w. bod7, :i;m-mo11~ :i: ll&V'econunued m:r etrori.:, to n- in power can be truted tlcularl.T thoae of u •bo will •rve on · 1u11t101111 which Wll:'11 stewardB of their power. i;ol•• OUtltaneli.al and --• Our ronn or democracy relies on th 1 ....,(al ra1l8d durtJsg tha ~ Commluee 1 who w11l be co.--tt.ee mu.ch too keep to balaucee and c~ec.lcs WhlCIW&ter heanJIII. lJl,.ldal.17 I became COD:,ear m e&leDdazthil ddl'111.g •arkillc" one jaa,: iD up endiDc from :power our heariup cerned 'llpon dlllcoH.d.DW ci~ ca.rry ov.t the m&Dd.atee &Del nqldretha"t t.he Treual7 ImJ)9Ctor OeDeral bad pla.ce-a.D.d CoQl't'tM, aa th.a people'• Lloyd cloee11t link to their Government baa me11t11ot th1I resolution. Now I ""11ld tw'lled Ol'lr to the- Wlliw Bo-t like to make a taw brief ob88r'IJ'atlom or all the resi,onlllbili- to keep & .... _ •Cu"tler' • apac:.Uic Nquut.-tn.mcrlpta · &bout the reaolut1011... -1_..,. "" U11 te •UI!IODJ' uken by the inTe1t1ga1;0n a &tluaaa &nd breaches of the·peo- __49 , m:v oolleacuee ll:Do•; Madam out tall •Hk be!on the omoe ot Goftmment tnat. ple'afor Jnh.l~ COGEl repo"' WU mad1 PQbllc, At Ule cnAN.dent. there wu & Tote· by 98 to o ThWI ever,- Member or Co:nr,:eu time we learned. t1111.UV'eral torm,r Inapic.- t.akea a.n 0&th ot omoe. to GhOla tl2e on March 17 or lut nu to look mto amuemeJlt a.t t41s mra General upreaed Clleee matten, &Delwha.t.we anialkmg of about here la a con.tin11at:1.o-nor that uni;incedenr.ed &0tlon. However. no further Comtitut:l.o"D--imd. cert&lnlY put an:. review o! the lnctdent WU ~dert&ken. tha.t duty to be ever watchful" tor prooeu. Tb1a reaolutlon iB llllll'.PlY my iuvut.trauon of thDI clllclosure, abuses or power. ID.tenatiDgly, and not other atep ill & _.....,,.,.., d--ed D1lr1116 to help ........ .--it 11.earlJ"al.ways !alls to l di11COTered "that not olll:, wore the doeu- aurprtslnely, menr.s nileued to tbe Whitt House at the the party out or power to be the more the American public lau)w tb r.acta Whitewater. &bout 1pecitic requSR or WbJw J10111eCoUD11el diligent 1n watchiu" out for abaaea. .... .. Second, I weuld lilr.e to po'-.. LJ.o:,CICUtler. but. in dol.ns" ~. ihe n.&nr7 u.. ..... .., No one diaputea thh. tur111:dover col:llldenttal aTC lntorma"tion t.o But on.a other t&ct &hould aleo be Madam Preaidan~ th&t· the Prtil~ent th1 Whitt BoUM. noted. As i.m.porr.a.ntit is tor the 1911.- baa nilly cooperated 1n thia proceu. We On S&tarda7, JulJ' :D, 199C.tbe Department eral public to believe in and trust. th&t oucht to commend .ldm tor W. allpr'e:C• of the 'n'e&SU?Yfl.VI the White HOUM &ll or their elected lu.dera a.re performing . edented l"'el .ot cooper&tlOD.· · "the •-orn deP'.>ll"tiona or 'n'ff.sur:,. White MaDy of u.e reaall. other Praienta Rollle. and lt1'C peraomi.el. Thne deDOSlt.10111 their Jobll 1n i.n ethical, truthfhl. and.. must -...110,when co:nt.ronted. wit.h aimµar altin Congreu. ma.nner--.., fair were unedited. Accordlng to the RTC. it 1l'U not Ulldl also believe e&t those ill h1ch poR- uationa. have ~loned. up the- covr.a ~ are tell.me as th1a land, flltlclng•evel"Ytbmr along- the · , Jul7 26 or 27 that t!le aTC became &"lt'lln of ttona of reaponslbWty ,;be fact "that RTC depoaltlOH had been pro- the tn1.m. Whe:n we uk que1t1om. or wa;y. Thit adm,t.n1B1:rat1oDbaa not. dalll vided to the Whlie Rouee. bu rnalce inqufrle11we m"Q.Sttruat r.bat 14- tb&t. In ran~ the admmistr&tto:u.. the I.Jlfomia."tion miDilltrationa JulJ' 215.attar nTie,riu ,. . w1ll tell the U"llth, will been endrely Carthcommr. 1.0., LloyO. Clit&er be honest. a.n.dthat when we aet an. anprovlde4 t>y the Treumy m.cuath_. matan. it 11·fmAa 1NI _ tenU!ed betore cile Hollie Bank111C' Commir,. ~• P0rt&nt ~ .m&ke 1t ciar tat:, ·_ nrer. it 11 a mu and complete one. . he. -~- ~ it .PNviOQII mtudcnm .!'here ~ Unfortm1at.el:v, MMam President, Jul7 28 and 29, CowlNl to the !\TC 1n •pcc. Thill or course briaca • DPW-1202 mto pl&y eev- eral oiher iuuee which I uve been !ollowtnr stnce the cloee or tbe ·haanngs la.st Aquat. AA we know now, confldenUal mtormation 1l'U acMn tW'Ded over by Trea.sury to the White Hou1.-tb1s time Ullder the iru:iaeof & Treuury Department iui,ectoi- renerar1 mvesttga.tion. Tl11s call.I into queatioD Dot oDJ.ythe independence or the 10. but alao the ""1111D1Uesaof this admtnlstra.tion to politicize wh&t li supposed to be a.n internal wa.tchdotr. It also calla into queetion the entire teatlmon.y otrered b:, White Houe offlc:lals before the Sena.te B&akmeComthey were rtven &nether mittee---u head.a up in order to belt t.allor their teawnony to help the bou. Lut November I wrote to then Cha.lrmember man Riegle and ranking D'AMA."tO about wh&t I had discovered. In m:vletter I stated: •a-- 0 t.or GeDenLl Patrtoi& Bl&c:k nd&cted all the TNa •ury . RTC . and WhR4 BOUM depositiom Ill o~er to remo,,, mmldentlal RTC tntar- 19 thia staza~ that inevit.ably eome oouat&D~ co~ bitweeu t.fii!· ~- bralio2t &d.ministration om.ci&ls seem 1m&b1• r.o tive bnl.Deh ad the leirte1atl"f'a Ofl.1' docum~ta and teatlmODY, th&t comllrthend.. mation. h:8,5not been the cue be~ Th• adm1D- · In.ete&d ot COOPl!l'tion. a.nd truth!ul11'1t.he41r.ed uimJ'llly 31 tbe OGE re~ e-ver.r docneu we have eeeD evasions, omis81ona, iatn.tton baa oomplled '!Vit.h moll;J. wu pro"1ded to ~ and subse- missta.teme11u. um~t request. &DIWerecl" every CUJM&nd poBBibl:v outright ~uentt:, made public. ~ tt. ~ ti.on 1:b&t baa been nbmitted . liea. Given th&t ue rocusot oar hearinn this to w:Ullnit &114 rad:,cordldent1a am I of abuae pot.end.al of star:, the And pa.st Augusc wu the lmpro.i,er i:n.namit:T.a.lof in th1a lleQObd.•.,_,., of tlie confident.ial in!ormatioll from the RTC to the public U'Ult. the politioi7.&tion ar coo~te . ; . ·· · ~ud inftll~ ~• Whlt.e Ho1ae r'9fU'diDBMa41s~ 0-Wll'- independent •neiea tcr anty and the Cllntoiw, l must tell 1011 I am tions, the ~ of oonlldentUl ma.r.eri&l I thiJlk thaZ. t. an lmJ)ortant -~ Deiar1r I.lie apr,911• 4 tba:t the same 'tnalury make because, a& •• took -~ror l)Olitical niD-it onlJ' seema-to pt ment, &CWII under •pecilic dfnet:lon Q-om worse the deeper you look, · roa.d.. thera ia tha ,P>t.elltlal ·tar "j:j;to- .. Sec:recar,- Benc,en. •owi:I apln provide Ma.dam Prealdent, the uut roeds. er limeed &Ddua.ecy·ooJZtlicfi..lk:tl:8i18·,.t:be nonpa.bllc .LZl!onnad.on .1.bo11t the Ma4laon hea.riDrs will r-o • long way t.oward e:zqoutiveandles(ala.d~ . .. ,-:; GQl\nJlty cue dizwc"tlJ'to Qe Whlte llot11111. cl~ "rhircl.Jladam"Pnatd@~~~ the air, &Del I commend the In &dciltlOZI,1 ColUld it t.z:tnord1Jl&:3' ~t .d•JJtr-.··~Wi!.;'5f:: ·· ..-.~~~~ the W'hlte Hou.ae.•hlch •as 11:Mlt under in- ch&inn&n or the 'Bsnklns Commi~ pven. nonpibllc i:ofor: for brillinc thia D!atler b&ok illto CM wolll4 1111 nalilpelon, ·. , . : · ·. :: !⁢;··~ ·- ... -~ !a~tl,r~ public eye. madon prior to CoZISrft51oDalbe&ri:ap-l&i:• . •i.~-~~;:.;. ticula.rly \llllHI Congreaa it.self WU .DO&ln"1'911 I reeerve the remaiuder or my tune ~gt.-M!I!~ wv· ai~~---1m1on er-~~tbe intorma"tfon. ud I yteld the Qoor. 1.: ;. . ...":. :~..... ~aaa~oUOll,,- ,_ : .~It ·. :_· . · · :..-.:. ..._·• >-~.·"-< 18-1621-000474 ~)#j •:_~; .:_ ~;._.. <_ 01A RD 56806 (URTS 16302} D_ocld: 701~491~ .Page 50 .·_~;t:\~J:.-;.:. 13 . ~~"2 ~~ :~t~-J-; ·~:--" l.~:1~ ·- . -·. . ·.-:.. -·_;,: 05/18/95 13:29 · May 17, 1995 "5'202 962 7490 DPW-1202 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENA ~008 TE Sfl17'1 la.at year th&t there had been no viol&• a.nee d.on 0£ crlmiDal sr&tu~~ or ethical w&:, towith the Presidezit th&t the best The B&ukiD&'Committee apeat about put this matter behind us 11 to U00,000 last standard.II. J'e&r, a.Del thia reeolution s the Cacr.acandidly. a.utho Of course, indivtdWLl Members may addrft S.960,000. But evea Madam President, I uk for 2 addi- tbat rlzea uother &mount 11 only a. &action of wb&t h&ve their own p,.rdcular opinions ou tiona.l mlnut.es. the independent colmMl ia spendJDg. • thoae matters, and oerta.1nly tha.t I.a Mr: their rll'ht . But, aa a. conclusion o! the time BARB.ANES. I yield whatever We are -looking a.t almoat; 110 miWoD the Sena.tor requ:lna. spent <:0mmittee, let me resta.te. Madam the independent coumel and Mr. DODD. I thank my colleague. I that 1sbyJuat President. there were no Violatiom of will wra.p the beetDning et 1t. Th&t thia up. flcure wW ro ~her. '3J9 criminal at&tute or any ethical . Madam Pre11dent. the public ,.ants Ot COW'le. the Federal Goveniment 11ta.ndardll. That W&5 the conclu.slo.Q of \18 to pra88Jlt the !acts im~. muat tut yea.r's hearinp. inVNt lpte seriOllS a.ccuatiO!la ot come to our coacluaiODI ud then move wrougdoi.Dg Now wa aze going to go to & aecond ou. And 1:o ma.mt.am the piblic it bean repu.~ D&' thU atter trust. phase. I ha.ve listened to some who are go1ng But whell it. &ppears there an -throu gh 1uch & proces a laat :,ear, more Federal agents operattnw in Litr IUO'P~ tha.t there must have been the Banking Comm ittee concluded th&t tle Rock some wrongdoing', or, even -.one, they ULere hAd beer&no viol&tlon of cr1m1n&l areu in than there aze in ~b-ING OFFICER. The Senthat much ma.terial and I wet to aa we C8Jl.. tha.nk the st.a.tr tor the work the:, did. a.tor from Pemaylvama halt 10 mmutee. idea of &ppoizltme &D indei:,ene Mr. SPEC'I'PTha.t was & herculean effort. :Botll the entThe Madam PrNidellt. coume l wu to keep politic . out or th&Dk the dfld;tniru!Shed. cba.trman torI . majority and minority ataa ha.d to theae isauea. UQfommately. It 8N1'IW Jielclinlr work extremely lorur ho11r11on this that the ata:tn~ ma,y invite ~ u- reaolutton meandtb1a time . I min,ort ~ ma.tter. Ma.dam President, and they de- peditio commend m. We nud to be very caref1ll and th• ~ member the ch&.1nD&li sarve our &ppreciadou. or the B&Dkabout 1peQdiDs'the ~era doll.an in Obviously, Ma.dam President. the tl1i11 ~Y- Otlierwise we wW h&ve eome mr Comnuti.e for iir-entiDc a l'NO~ Uou which I UDdent.and w111have wlcle ' Sena.te's integrity and oredibWt:, an que11 tionable u:pendituree. I wu told bip&rtiaan 1uppo at 1ea.k:e.The American public has & the other rt. d&¥ that aomeone wa lookI b&lieve ir. 1a important rls:ht to know the fa.ct.a about inr at a. .-itnes to h&v• ua' grade school and con&reasional iDC2Ull7 on thia 1Jl the& Whitewatet' and the Senate has a con- hiirh school traABc riptAI. I hope iha.t re- broad terma whiell are dellcr!bedin stltutio.nal obligation to see that they porr. ia the i.Daeeun.te beca.uae there is juat rMOlution. do. It le with some regret, I no WBJ' to just1fY tha.t k::1.nd oCezpendl- · note, tllat it baa t&k•D tUI more Last yeu, the fact.a Wffl! presented ture. iball a year to pt t.o thia pot.Dt. But Jt fa bel;fully and impartially. Tba.t mw,t be There le the potential for an ind.e- ter lat.e than nevar. our goal this year. The public. 1D my pendent an m,,c... COWl&lelto run wild and we tem wh•re consre and view, is Cad up with the J)IU'tiaanahip need u.fpnal ovendgltl; ta to ca.refw iy monito r tbeae mat- impart.ant. that seema to cloud Her., issue. tera. I caution those who would lib to I reoop1ze the &el111t1rity of' & can• As we go through this :r:irocaes.I urge use 1.ndA lpezad entCOUDllea tor politiaal rraaaional 1Jlqui my colleagues to avoid tb.a.t partisan r7 a matter which ia gain-reprd.1188 or whether it wu & be1- .handled by anonlndepm pitfall. Because ,re are entenD&' a. pre&- previo dat oollD• us adrn1n 1ar.rat ioa or thle &dm:I D.ul, also lcncnrn ae the special :s,roeeouideutial e&ml)ILign c~le, tha.t ma:, be istrauo n-tbat wba.te •er roes a.roun d t.or.· But the tlmctiou are V8l'J', wry· difficult !or some. But we muall all try. comes The President is aa.dly conect, and I vised, aromid. We would be well &d· different •here ;vou have an IDvaettp,. in DlY View, t.o t4,Jce a. b&m. loot tloli which le ba.nd suspect mose of' m:v colleaguea, regard- a.t how led throUlll lnlDd eome of theee opara.ttona a.re JVJ' proceediDl'I leu ot their political penua.aion. would bel~ whia.b.an eecret: a:h4 nm. which. a.re dlftcted. at iDdlotn;aii~. I agree when he sa.~ th&t the politiCI! or or cow-ae, Coqna e.1)8Ddaa irrut know tll&t-11eld with- eom& P8.l'80De.l &ttack are alive a.ad '!"ell. 4eta.n.:h&,r. .., I deal of moaey-011 these inveatln,tloria. ' , ing been & dhstrtct&tt.or!ieJ' ~ -ind meee J. ._ERS.IGH EfOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 701049 .16 Page 51 18-1621-000475 05/18/95 13:30 S8778 ~.._. ..... .• 'Zr202 962 7490 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE jury l.nves~a.tions. ha.vl.ng run ~d That is very, very diaerent from a congrauional. inq:airy where we a.re incrairtng into ma.tten in the :DQblicrecord - for the public to Bee wbat 1a gome on in Government with a View ~ legislative ch&1:1gee. laioo9 DPW-1202 of C&lrnau to all coucerue4- But these are queatioDII which need to be answered, and questions do not imPb' &D answer of any sorr, they l"ILi8e illaUea which ought to be a.nawared. We oggb.t to let the chips fall wheN they may. And in a. Government b&sed on a Con• stitution whlch elevates the MJ)&C'&tion or powera amone the Concreu 1D article L and the uecutive branch 1D article IL and the Judiciary in article m. the consre1111lonalOflrmght flmction ie a very, very important: funcc;ion. Now, nnally, we will be in the conte~ where we Will be able to inquire into these matt.en and to find out •ha.t those an- tf.S. DIPARnmNT OF JIJft'JCZ, OFJ'IClil QF TD lJml:PU?)&lfT CoUll&U.. • LJ.UhAoo\', AR. Jv.lJIZT. 191M HOD, AltLD SPICftR. U.S. SellGte, COfPlfflittsB o,a tM Jvdkiltt1J.IVCIM.fngto,a. DC. DL\B SDATOll. SPSCftR: The Desianment or Justice bu lllllt o.-er to me a cop,- ot 70ar letter or JlllY as, 1991 ta .A.ttomey CJeul'a1 B.111.0,t.ce9Ulet "1th the index of llocumenu e11cl01ed'ltitJI. lt. It 1a &JJP&"l1t fr'om • l'fti9W o[ tb.e cfocG. menta or. t!l&t llldn that t.h•J n1a.cl to the ot Jmuc:1or a bandl.lng bJ the De,arun111t rer1rn.1 trom the RTC. pan:tcal&r crlm.1.11&1 Bued upon lnl'A!MIIWI .. h&V9lla4 .ii.ti NpreeentatiYM from tht ~ CiQ' Field orQce of th• B.TC. •• are current!:,- acU•el:, inI vNdpthlr" toh1I mauer. A.ccord.lD.Jl7, requetG '21&tYCMl11oz; ro woG14 res~1:tllll:, 1nta 'Chia 111bject Wlt:.11tile AUOme,- O..neral at your he&rtDS tomorro• IIAae to do •o pNjudlce OIII' OJIIOIDS ID.Yatipilion. ~ht CFor Sl.mll&r ruaons we requeac th&t you not ro Ulto the ma.ttc retenuced 1:1,-11.00,mient.11 .Zu4#U.) to bolioh Wt h&v• made & 5.LmJlu nquat Ko~ the Senate ColZUDi=a oa ~. Comm.Jtwe ud t7rtan .a..ff&Lrl ud t!le Bouae and lJ'rtlLJI A1fa1n OD B&llldJ:lc,Ftunce WIUOh. u JOU know, ll'I ID the procea of Both o! concmctlJIS 'Mlltewater harlzip, liohoeeCommluees ha.Ye acr99dnot to ro into thi • 1111bjectwitll we b&Ye coml,lleted our 1D"911Upt1011.:: The thrwJt and rocwi are entirely difgra.nd jury inveatipferent. between• tion conducted by independent counsel and a. concreaaional tnquJn which will Combe handlad through the ~kingmittee. I am irlad to see tha.t the composition of the committee will be expanded to include the chairrn&ll and rankiz11rmember of the Jud.ieiary Comrruti.ee. or their deBicueea. &Wtl'I an. Madam President. the iasuee involved I am con11dent that thue will be a here have lone been a cozicern or manJ' !air, Judtc1oua. Quality inquiry con• to rerer I and Chamber. of ua in this bJ tihe committee, ad t.h1aresducted year lut ata.tementa which I ma.de 1a one which I tbiDk oucht to olution d&ted March 17, June 9, June 16. a.nd 1upport«i broadly by the U.S . SenJune 21. I will not inoorpora.t.e them be- be cause that would unduly burden the ate. I thank tihe Chair aud yield the floor. RECOJW , but & (l'OOd m&AY or my thouchta ware e:icpreued la.at year on EXlml.r?1 tlle matter. \m1CW1r, MNJunaoNTUJ conc,rned about t1.S.8DATB.00 I wu particularly I, .JtJLra, 11111'1 DC, W.a.lllmfOTO! issuea involving the RTC a.ato their in• of the yea.r, and I a:n gl&d. to see th&t the Re&R,osJlectfall7 :JOQl'II, olutioD Trust Corporation ia included. .Ro9Dt B. f'l81CI:.Jr_ S.aator SPSC'J'D. Thmk 7011, Mr. Qlal!'in the scope of the ill(luiry whioh we I know, ma.u..A.ttorn•T Delleral a.no. u ,._ l~tc.sa..l. are about to undertake. t.ba about had h:lten4ed io uk J'OU (lllUUOIII Seiiamr SPIICTD- At tha OUfM'C,,I want to This ma.tter waa one that I roeused ~dlmg cu 1n Just.ice ot by the Depugu111.t _,. ror ille l'l!ICOnl1:h&t 1 do 110t acne witJI. on when we had a.n oversirht beanlll m&.t:fer .lDTol9'1DCIM.914 Hall lJS Clall OYerllu actba deterwnce which the cozi,nu on the Department or Jaatice on July i!le r.o·ccm:r &ble be mu I &114 stg}l.t helll'UII", corded the lndepan4en, c:oimaelbecAN l be28 or lut year, and I uk 1lll&l1.tmou prmdpal DOlllta of m1 lntet'tlt '61thout ll"'• tlla.t Co:agrau baa J.n4ep,a4et R&tul. consent, Ma.dam Preaident, th&t a. num- iindue speoltl.c:atlou. or a, leut unc!u• apac:1- Ul4 at leut equJ se&t.Ua..it not more 11nporber of docwnents be printed in the Dca.tlan tram Your pol.Dt or 'l'i9W. atar.GJ. OIi :m&ttel'II ot 1)1lbl1cpollc:, tll&ll =t RECOR!) which ha.ve not been made a At tJl.e ouuet. I woald like to put Into the tl:le crim1Dal :i:,roeeeuttom. BUt ue S.natoe part 0£ the R!:CoRD heretofore: My let- ~ my letter t.o J'Oll dated Jul7 a, 1991. haa-·11ec14ed othlll'WiN u a poli'lilcal matt£. _ •ma t.ba chro110loo' cctwtDU and 111m7 oplll.lon. qnher 1.er dated July 28, 1994. to Attorney thll obattar of Mr. l'Sab. it As I "'l'i•w.d General Reno; the attachment or & Uat all tho atiacl&me11.t11""'11ah I 1e11t OT8Z' to ,-ou. me t!l&t qu.mlolll abov.i. OYersiellt to in• oscept tor nllDl'llel'I 2> IUld 21. I ma.,- an 1nr.o seamed r.o or documents which I had 1W11.Uted hi.Ye been 1D. on wb,U h&ppmed -nth D&Yld B'ale Ytre 11ot balance qi.a Cll1nk I at. ud 21 bel)l'Oceedinp the o.1lire into d\l.l'1.D4r "Within h1a ohartar. hla cllal'l'M balll8' to IA• record 1D ono form or anothar, ancl fore the Judiciary Committee; the re- Ule matten or ElOIIBil:lleO!'lllWllll or I think thtJ' an appro:pri&te V'Mtlpte biv,n·t th•J' It sponse which wu ma.de by Robert rortlw pqbllc NCOrt. OOII· civil wrcm,do1D&I '.LID lodYiaadllO I.II. tru7" on l:Jlat. and .... ma:, iret into ~t Fisk,, who was then independent counfollowa:) T.o ntarred letter lTh• aomeepaci1Jc1~. sel; a.nd a por-tion of the ua.naoript U.S.BmlAn, So let me euz,; .In &11 ~ r.o Uk "tile dated July 1.8. 1994 before the Senate • COlomTA 01WTO .Jtn>ICWIT, Q.Uwdom ill a 1t11eralu81 wa:,, buc:C&DdfdlJ' Judiciary Comfflittee. Wcul&inoto,i, DC, Jtd1126, 1111M. u th~ anaemfD&Tl4 Jl&la'• :muwr. l mler · The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without Hem. JAlf'ft BZMO, to a memorudnm 1"1!11:a:reIn~ it ill .o ordered. objection, of Jvma, wi:u11,- Je&ll LeW1I to B.lell&rtl Iorio Wlllola qOCAitan&q Gcnenll. ~t (See exhibit 1.) or • .Tuel.ca. tfl#Ctm, DC. the De~ Cdah 'WI~ Mr. SPECTER. I th&Dk the Chair. DJ:AB.ATtORNZT ODD.ll. ltalo: I h&n jua~ wh.loll ta wh7 I Uk you about ill!&: ~omcie.r,t .• Madam Preeident, these docwnenr. - Wt 7ou are solleduledto ~ be- e&lly. 1111.Dami& ReJlllem&II 1n • ~ noted will 11how on th1tir t'&oe coiicerns whioh Lec-1 Co'IIDllll. W1thmlt m&kDla' the J1141oiar7Committee OIi '1'lulndq. fore man SJ)IIO!Qc u to tbt Jr.le macr.er:, my wen on the record. and 111h1chwere ap- July 38, at 2:00 p.m. U Q OY~ht hear!Jllr, 11ue1ttoa ta ,oa u •, .,.aera1 m&ttAr II, UJ' parent t:rom such documenta: that to au QlleRiom Ultel14 I hearl.D&' Wt Ill CGmel IA tQ tu ~ there were considerable isauea to be in- 011 1:be Jllffloe Department'• n,le lll invea- time & n!ernl OCJustice thAt YO"llld m&ke lb l)iqamn,o11i. vest!g&ted ill the R'l"C a.t th&t time. It dp.tlOJIJI of Ma.diaon Guarutr and/or look bad or bu poUC!oal nun111C&t1oaa,Ir. is un!ortuna.te, ill a. sense, that uere 1na1 ··Wb.liewa.ter." Wll.lle I h&.,. not- ?Lad roesto the A=ocDQ' Geua92. Ia~ has been · the long delay, bece.uae we a.11 ta many or the· releftlli dOCllnltllt.11, I ha..-. . Attorney Gelw&l' i1.a(Q. 1- clol."'C aaam alerdns 7011 tlloee doc.- •bethar &DJ' time tom8th1Droommlh to the know , as a. matter of uivestiga.tive pro- se111.a t.nr &114 cedure. th&t lead.a grow cold and "1t,,, umenrawhich will formwate&t leut acmeor De.saraneat Tih&t .WOQld~ Q8 llilp,.rt.. mot look la41t OOIP•~ CMAtt.om~ GeD• nKSas' memories diminish and that the the baaia tor t1J3ci.11esu.o:aa. ' Som• or ~ docllJJlent:aue referred to in eral. best investigation ta a. prompt invn· lmoW, 8ncftR. WeD. lf'J'Oll dml"-C tigation . But the time factor is aome- mY Door atatemeD, 01:1.June at. Other cloc:u.- Senar.otAnam-,, a.a.ni Bellof"->. I m&Y rt!or to an lined. OD th• •raodON. thinr that cannot ~ altered at t1WI menta QI.ItID.du. Oen.al NDIO.I ftllX . ...,._ AitorllQ' time, and at lea.st now we will have a anacuct 1:111.teach one-att;l!a-li,CIIIIP19111&-'lf;IIO:~ Sl.llce"1,. move inq\11.ry which -,rill co~ional ~~llm18r.ldDC~t- ~lll&lm .Y·, .l\li~~ rorward into theae very, vetY impor,, laok tad. I:Olllk IUQi.:.QmaclOII r~i pa,; to Sim.carSP8CTD. l would &190.uR :-.,,: -~ t.&nt ma."8ra.. le. AA 1~~ ~-I~-~ Bollen from a:, ~ ·•iii. VS7 ...,nntnc, ~ ~-~:-· .._.,: I acree with the diatinlruiabed Sen- into tba reooid the f&:lell lotts elated DIA• to llratt· . · p,m1led Mr. -Tfan r·trtal r.onallil·~ ator from Connecticut ..-hen ha talll:B Fiske. IDdepe1141Dt Coumml. : ., : I ·.•a pa•111'111e. 111 ._,. at&"~dimi: a.bout the presumption of tnnoce:a.ce. [ July 27, 19k ~•,.7''•• ·.~.t ~i;..Cld do to =7 to ma.tlau.ct :J ~OWll to mt.erred lett.er l'l'he matter . . .. : think tha.t ia indispenaa.ble a& a ·. . "''II * '° * AM PVERSIG DIA RD 56806 (URTS16302) Dodd: 70104916 Pag_e5.2 :,'~::,.\t _., 18-1621-000476 . .. . 05/18/95 13:31 '5"202 962 7490 DPW-1202 ~010 f t I Ma.y 17, 1996 CONGRESSIONA1. RECORD-SENATE Worff ~ tha'I: 1 could do wowd be to com111<14'1 or: v.tk a'blnlt D1&i;ten t.b&t he ta panul~- I should bo baPW. bec:auee1 b&v• cre&t l"Nl)eCT.for the Seuce and for :,ou. at th• concluaion ot tll• matt.er to cry to re1po11d to ID r.erma or o~ht tor iaen :raar' • budcSeiiat.or et &nd lut :rear' • &etl-: .... It IINIDI to me the commen SPZCTKIL.I am not ~ 70'11.r.o t 011 the 11&1•uw:c.er, I am .. im. SeD&t.ar Would bllve J:llBDtJ tlnle la uk J'OU ll'h.c.har theM q11Hdo11.1 u li: •ollld imi:,aa on ~ Bale matier. J'Oll kno• Ul:Jt}:li:QI &Douti T:1:11 outcome ot the llenator·a u io what tlae Atr.onutY Ge'Dftal l\lllo, 'nul,-i:; woal4 be ~. lnol.ud!q- tJw 1pecU1ca. AtTDrziey Ge12enl lhOllld or 111.oulcha"l.do ln comme:.n:t.11& 111.r. ', &114what I wo\Ud ~ Sen&tor SPirrut. Well, 1 don't ~nk tut 1:l:lafutun. 1Cwe W&Dt to PQnnie ~ la that JOG.s,;.. 1S sumc1eiit, Ati;OrueJ Genanu Be1:10. beeauae Senator 1 thiuk i:hla la a legtttma~ matter tor Judi- respondto SPllC'l'Ell.Well. I •DUJ.4 be glad. T,,o the questions &Dd than lec.'a... whetherlfr. tl:ie c!l&lrm &n. It doea make a. dlf• Fiske ~ that clan Comrnt'l:t1141 wOQJcIn o't'ftlllcht. &nd we don ·t feraia~ u, m,. azia 1t IXl&kesa. l &111'WV dftrarence1',,D ~t.er!are witll · tba Uie7 11.&ve very much ot lt. :e,11: 1D-.Ni11at1011..r am d• I accept your poilit me beoaue uia ill &n Oftrsia'l at hearila4r &nd llcll.t.e4 to &D8Wff 1:bem If tM1 don't ilat.erthat mJ' Q.11.estionwaa '1:00 reueml, so I will tbe requee1 ;to the commltae ch&trnw:i to rere. ti. speeifle. have oventpt on thee matters wu d• Scl&tor 8nm"2R. Woll, The lDTNtiptor, L. Jean Le•J.a. or llTC, cli.Ded. haa been a. chaner which 11 follow the •u ,-ou wo,ild 1 am not roJDc' r.o had m&DY CODHUl,UODS with re11teaentaUke ma r.oJIN)Ceed. a Ju4gmeDt &a to what I th1nll: a. Sell• tl...U of the Depan:ment or Ju.nice. u re- 'Pery, "17 ziarro. bat0n th• Bank1JI&'Com· I ma.lEe llec,;ed bi 'C.henumber or the memoranda ml,:cee, &nel thla does not UIIVOln, r.o my at.or ~hi; to do b7 ....,.. or onnfpi, Uc1 Jt tuowJadp. a. matliff ~ch la "1thln the 7011 havea couoem&bOllt tbat I am prepand •hlcll 1 sent on r.o:,-ou. So lt it la t.oo genaml cha.net' oCMr. '1ska unttl When 1 NDt II lat.- 110dlllClaS It with J'OU. a.a to •hether &.DJ'tlme & referral comes lll ter r.o the Attorne7 Gel:leml. I au448111:,rflDd to 1.&1'1 :,rc,u:r.tJi•trumon bllt 1 &m DOCpres-red Ui&t would m.&Jrethe De:i:anmeut laok 111d or J'Oar ~ a npIY from Mr. Fl.Ike. T!ae Q.ueat:lon tba.t 1 pose on &D ui......i:lnor haa polltle&l ram1n~t1cm it aroe• t.o the l bad WO def.&1184 con•U'l&t10DII with Mr. tton bJ' Mr. Pilke .. 1ndepGde11t Auome7 Geller&!, I would uk 70u, wen 70u Flake. cOWIMl tbrUt ol Whicb-&z:id I would b6 wtilll.D hla chaner to lnveatl perwoullY informed about the rerenai from glad to tbe ra."-crime •• obdatail C2lem-led me to Ute OOAc:1'11.-•~ctSon or Ju:nlce. wtwn tlle Deparmant ttie RTC on the Check ldd.ZII' cue l.nvol\fiM llon tha-c ~fl'B wu uaoluwly no Inter- ot .Jua&lce ill not 10m•'1llnl' •laloh 'bnn OD MadiaoD Gl1&nll~ a sub- lll.FthiDc •1:1.lchcould concelvabl:, lmpUcar.e Att.onie:, General Rmlo . Al l lnd1caud to ferelloe 1Jlth th.e or.lmlml Pl'Ol9C'll.t.lo11. that J ,-..,. bad acme e&pffieDCe wttli.. the IUl4er~ :,ou. Serui.tor . I m&de & determ.lD&t1on •hell 1 Jact t.l.otl on what Dl.914 Ha.le la So wheri I Ukad tile AtcanleJ' Gen.nl a. 40~. appointed ),tr. Flake tb&,::,I ,rould DOT, comqueatton u to when lhe bal knowledge or 11 Ia Ma. Pl.ula ment or make au cammeui. . lie haa ez• eue:,-1 undant&Dd chat au J;JrHNd to you that he would prefer tbai l nfern.1, l can't CODoel•• that lt J.Jlwrtarea le. bQce&11 :,ou con1lrm tor me that she 11 wii;D. u ui.~g&'l:1011, ud Ja ~ I am RUl tu l1nit.e4 Staf.811 atiorn.,-? uot eomment on the ,peeUtc matters. 1 do uldng ai:i oi;perlencecl proaecucor who ill 110• At.tonie:, Cknar.l RD'O.Yea. llir. ahe 11. not want to do a.n:,'thlJ:11'tbai wol114 Im.pair Sen&t.or SPIIC'nlJLIa abe th• subject of a haa ll:ide.PBndence. I do think you have &D tile At1iont8J' Cknenl how oould it- co11ce1vabl.7 lncerfen with a :DeDCllDi' 1.n...eU11"&1iton. c:rlDUul In"8t1gaUon Dy Xr. l"lslef 0V11~ht l\mctlon witb .r:upaci to i:.ha D&AtfA>rDBJ' General lll:lto. ,AJJ es:perienced Attonlo:, O.naral RmrO. You woU14have to iar1m•11t or Jmtl.ce . 11.114 when it would be 11roaecu 1,pproprt&te tor me to ccmmie11.t I would look eom1th!tor, s1nar.or,doeaa'1i oornmalluabout tallrao Kr. Plake. Dg tls&t w d04l!Rl't Senar.or know &boll."- I BPICTBR. :,011 kno• 'Whether or fororard to the op~t7 tiO do IO, 4011'1;11:nowabout the CleC&llaof Mr. F.llllr::e'a no1i alut I.at.ZlenbJect Do of & ortm!n&l in•esc.JnSe:aacor s~ Well. tell me. Attoriiey lnveettg a.Clon. But SC Mr. Plall:e t.lon bJ 4oean't Mr , Fiske? !lave Geneml ~no, ha.a wou14 It lmJ;ll,lr Mr. 11D7 problem \nth It.. w,-t I ,rould ~ A1:tCm.,.. General J.mro. You woQld have to F1ake·1 ID•atlp.tlon or proeecuuon for you to &DSWer & quest10.12 u. to WlU!thsr YOU bad tb&t •• do ls snpan th• cra.eat1om. imbmlt ia!Jt to Mr. ll'isko. Iba•• avoided llM1nc'au• tbem r.oMr. J'lake. If he hu iao objec;doJI. r.o thiDc 1:0 Clowith Mr. J'Jlkl'I fDYWtSga'C.lOllUl personal lmO'l'ledg-8 or & nferral to the l>e~ &UWeftJII' tl:iem. then we wtll tr:r r.oan- wrma or ~ i?:lftlml&Ucm tbat .be m&J' haw putmant or Juauce? th~ bec&usa I honor JOltt ovenlgllt 10 that I 40 noclmpair 11Dlnd•P8DdeDce. An.oruey Oeneral Rmto. I caJ:i"t tell :,rou, ftmction &nel I would Senator WUt "to be &bll tD SPBCTBL WoUlCIyou cont1Due a air. beca.uae I bave trled to do lflr,-th!Dg 1n ope:r:ad.'118' m:, power r.omake sure 'I.hat Mr. Flake' • iu• hDDor tl:l.&t &nd to not iDtertere with Mr. Un1tect Star.ea ~rDeJ' a.ctl•eq If P'lSll:e'a lnveec.tr &tlon. tha,,: l.1Dite4 Sr.&ta UT«nB.Y ware the IUDJect •~1.g&t.1011 1a 1D4ependent &lid I don ' t Imo• Sen&tO r SPBCIR l. at. A~ a CZ1Zl:l1 ~neral Dal invN&lra Beno. cton? what his \D.•eatlpUO'D J.n\'olvas. There!cre. t I did not ~ th&t. Mr. Fbll:e did 'DO't have a. A.1:tetne,- General l'CPO, lt woQlCI d.ellend am no1 roiII&' t.o saJ' ~g l..tl&t coald PoS• problem. He specUlc Oil allJ' the told ci:rcwns me ta.ncea. that he . sl~l7 ln'l:Brfere with hla 1Zl""stir&t1on. t.ha a,ld to be r.ouJI:rleR alone. S.oa.mr Sl"SCTZIL Well, UDdar what 01r• Stll&llOr SP9c'rmt. Wall. my cui.emon co you ,rould 1111:e IS how coul4 It poulbly lllt.erfere wttll. hla 111- Wha.t I aid to J'CIU•u r.bat attc ~ to c:umst:Uloel WO'll.ldJ'Oll cermln&t.e llllCb. &11 a~ YIStiC"atlon to &113Wllt .. (lUNRiOD u to when lli!r. Fl.Ilk,. I ba4 no dOllb't f.lla.1: thCI.UBS- i:oniey? tlona wen &PProJlrl&te. 1Jl my Ju.dcmen~ on Ai:tome:, General 11.BMOIt, •01114 da.DBDd J'OU .11.11.4 11:no•ladge or • retllffl.l ~ tbs 'UDlC- onraigl:: it by the OQ ,:;be cireuma~. J-ad.1ow :, ConmUttee. ~ Yoll f9t into & ~ St.ates Dei:,ucm,nt of J~ca. Let DII uk J'OU sitaat:ioll tbla. or !IY.PDthat:1.oalllld Atmme:,' Oenenl Attorney General RmfO. I don·c. kno1J. au-. la it 11 far better Beno . In Carma ot that the we charter look th&~ &t tl:ie llotUl f.acia, ud I would Mr . Fleke bee&uH I am not roing co T.&kethe cbanca ot haa about. lllfll!UP .tiiae be,ll&P.P 'mallUln Y at l th~(•JJF wl:IJch ma,:, iilt.erferma- with ti;. You would h&ve to ask Oprlate time to do tll&t of the crSm1n&l or ClVU withyOIL Mr. F1Ske beoau,e 1 don', ll'fJlt to do 1.11.7- Involve a 'l'iola.1:10ZI . Ja.w, ill the Seutot lwldlfq s~ by tbe Desarun IVell, Attorae:,- a.nei.1 ~ut ~ &i; thil time -i:;h&t Yould i.iater1ereor of Jut1011 o! D&wtd JJ&Ia'• ma'l:ter ao.caetlwl6 Bona. I ooaJfdar 70qr imi,alr t:ha.t 1nvudg-a.tton. I do not know the nBIID. ..: N J: them, totall:r IIDI&~. 111.:ureor the process o! that ill•estipt:1011 t.h&t flLlll wttbl.11t.bat. cllaner7 ad I com!dar .A.n.orne7 General ltZNO. I !l&ve tz1M r.o, tbam. iotall:, nme'Jl~C J' and lt would be llla.PPE'Opri&cfor t1ea1.11 N I am e me t;0 oom- apiu, ln Mr. P! • cleDne that buec1 OD the 110t ukU!c :,roa ~ &bald: a pell4inl'lDment. bQc I 4o-Cl~ that we 4eacrlbe vutlpt:ioa d 10 tb&t I would llOt . The CBADIMAlr. I am UldDCJ'Oll ' Pu1: Ulotb.er ....,.. Sena.tar. Cllle.tlamJ N to what came r.oJ'O'IU' bo1'J.edl'e· u clle·.a.uorhow would it shed any ~ht 1Dthis •overstgll.t In qy w117lmpa.lr l:iJI lllelapm.dei:aae. . Senator SPBlffllL WelL do :,rou b&.N an:, zi.e:,-General or thl Uni~ . !l ~e Attorriey General &DSweredl..tl&tquB11Stain -~ lln:ereatui. w!ae'tll.e.ra.zi:,- cum,nt emplo7eee or me11; or JWltlce . i;J0.11?Wh&T.the hell dlfference . . 11:make the Depuunmt or JWltlce are IUD~ to aza I am U1r:111you 11091'? 1r QUestlom a.bout w.b&t:,ou 1i:ivestip.tl011 •IIJcll m.ls)I£ De within Mi', tDo• ud about. •l:l.&t your ·po11a:woaJ.1 Sena.tor SPE:C"l'U.Wall. tbe hell dltrerenu , be1'It Flake's • ch&rter tor JIIOlllllbl• c:r1m1ll&1 there were c:b&qw ot cnm1D&l ~. thai; It m&kes DOW 11 OIi 1.D e&rller QUeatfO:Q &.114 1 doD't uk c.11- quad.OU Ill & 'NCllmll •hlch t ukad that .,.henenr cnere 1B a mat-- wrgnadofDp? At~•Y C.neral Rmfc;>. ortarno~l&Sk.QelequaatlaDl1Jl Ye&. . . ter Wlf.h polltical rumllca.tlom that lt roea Se»r.or 8PJ1C'TD,. Well. 1t tlaac. wen ao, the 0011.r.en or11&""1ln11'.11 to r;he Ar;t:orney Genaral-qd U 1r.ed. u bl4.11.lr:J I uked th&c. woald J'OQb&ft on. 1. dntJ aa 1:l:lehad ot ilia :0.- Oft?ligll.t O'D soa,ethhlg W!lla?l_18 llUN'l:tOD I.JI.n.e broadest r.er:ma . outal4e tbl a.nd WU told Pllftm•:at ot Jll8tloe to t.ake aome actloii on cl:ianer or r.he 1DdepenC1111 th&i it •u coo pncal. · coume .t L ao i:.hat ia •hen 1 those m1.1:Urs before 1, loll&' lnv~t.lon The C2A.!lm.Ur. In :,oar opbl:loza. Sell&tar. r.am.e~k ta ill• &lJIIClncqueatJon. waa conclude d? npt, 1, Tb., ~cart'9Ct? Ia :,ovr ODIII.Wl? Let me Uk the quesT.1on AC.tonl • ;r Genar&l IU:NO. It depoada Oil Senator SP&l.U. ~ I ..,. 1a ua the other,,..,. r.othe Sen&tar . Mr . Ftske' • In· wll&t the:, an. llr, . m7 vettip.uon opWon.:. 111thia mattar Ja llkely t0 be cu lld4 CIIU ~ ~ Senator BP2C1ZR.Well. sqppoae tba:, wen I 40A'1i llglll&kYou ~pped for &Ubod:r ~ mJ'98ll, but 1 \lP. Ile hall. been moving elr.Pedl:: 01:Etruct1011.of jmtice? c1o • peak tloW!ly. Does it matter 1na•i,en d8nt1:, ror ~ . T4 Uta SeDator AttonaeY O.nenl BDo. It dependa OD the l iook a look u · ail eDIDlift •bet.tier or DOt ,:;be AttOtlleY ~nsral Sll8&D (tal. of the ra.ou11.11d tbe C1rcUmat&D~ .ru~dence to ~ lSaue taday or l.JJ two· •eekB or & nuan wldoll..Z l1r ., 1uti.m C. DIJl&ft•.. manc; or month, or •henev,r JUaT.fc e ~-~n. It 1a •hen Mr. 1'1Sa IB?r ia .ia.. ~ 'bd Sen&tor S1'11C'l1!& Well, 4o know UIY· iro,:c.eo t.o the '0111-. 81aTJll'&Uonaer11 ~ tlu tb.1a J,ll,rt of h!a uivestigatton7 I don·i. th111gabout tllU 011r.he Ha.le 11'11.t'l: Br? ud rotten t.o-t.Zl8 ~ lcn011r •hen ~ .i.e golnf to settle tb&t, but •of!lce I AtT.on:iey General Bmro. Apl11, Ile, I 'can't. to f.il& .omceof Leo:l CoaDaal, a.oaardbe tZI m11&11 b.e has bee.11moV1114rv,ry n.pidly_ comment on th.II Hals ~ter. · theao docamanr.a.Y211cht aent. u, :,all .. l00ll or "1- nere mt .-.,r ke does I I mt am•~ co ,.Oil .RSIGH HOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 ,-'IOC'D Page 53 18-1621-000477 . :i- ~ ·..·-::-': :!~ 05/18/95 13:32 '6'202 962 7490 ~011 DPW-1202 ...... .. _ CONGRESSIONAL.RECORD-SENAll S1780 ao :,,,a aomeilms :ba~ to do With Cbla.aD4 l!J'OQ Qi.~ ~ woah" '1111 J'OQ ve. ID deep U'III an oppanaml;J' r.o1'9"'111WCIUIID.I rmPQlld.or IIOD.'t IWDOrad. WOll.14 eo ~ &4'1Md CM all&1mlllD.u to wbat 1 UVQble Ul tlae 1mDdl ot •11.oPll' -.nu, T1tWyou u beiDS1n IZ'Dllllle. I WIik 11Nlan 1ntell4ed CO 40 tlac'e ww.14le JlO nrpriael mom. uo •ordl 1a ju.at nae. JO ,,.,, II~ aboUtlt. b tlda otrcmnstiu1e::a, lll'Obr,,blJ & llttJ.e 1.. Tu Olr.\DOLU(. T?l&iia aamlCCm&~ tll&D. the 8eaator ~ Pm:ml:,iuu1&'1, lntt. Benatar Sl'llffllL W1I& I JIIQmle • a ld- arooclJob,CeDAlrlll. Cllll 11114 t.llr' and flnd 111&1'9 a telqllana - fnlm the iJM!IP1udeniOOWllel,I call ldm &114tll.eJl 1 em told tb&t It Ja Wit.lull ldt cbar-II &II bffaltlp1lloD. Which Ja r.ar. ib&t ~-uclerway tor obnruct1011 orJutloe. 1 am Al 1 re'l1e• the tacta of tMt ma~. u l lale• lltl'V.Clt Tith WOD4erm.eJlt ... fD ho1r offlctalt I.II ~ Uldr.cl Stataa &tt.or:lltY"I offlco deolme to han immlUl.lt:, gnzi.ied to D11:riclB&le, lll:ld 1:he111adepqclen.c C011D88lcom• Ill &114 1n a llhori time JIU a cnDt ot Smmmdi.,. 'l'bea omolala ill the trm"8d 8t&t.M uior,. ZIIT• omaein Ll=te BocJr: rec:Q.N ~m • el..... ID. • l&_. maner, aDd J:wonclar how can tba7 recUM tbemaelTIII 1n a. 1&w mamr W1C!lo11t ha'1q t"ICQled aemNlTII In an Mrll.- matter, a•en their ?'lll&ti0Dlh1» to nbJeata ot thtlll\'Nt1r&UOD. u a. 11P011C11tor, I ran a. ?,1,8'omoe ~lt t.ll4 lf I !lad &IQ" raaon to llell_.. &1l1'boq m m:, om.ce bad &ZIJ' lll'Oblem. 1 woaldn'li wal.t It tot.&U7u4 1:harror aubo4:r m c1I do noc bellne oQSll)y &114lmmedateb'. mac 121acbazt.ar TIO ~ 1D4epe:n4elltoouael tak• ... ,. &DJ' ot the &'llth011t:, or-~ r.• porudblllt:, ot tlle Atf«IIQ' Oen--1 110 act dau atrcllJD8t&Dca. I IQ' it 1D.mt bl ffl1' oplni~ 0D1A1on-Qe Q.Ulldom Y!dch I haft Ull:14 UI Q.uardona, and I an tntirlJY 111siro11&1&te bec&llN. 1 stv• aome &44lQo:D&l ~4 think the •- an man.en •'Idell oapt r.o lie J'Oll lllffered. and I Int.end T.o JIQrRI tllem IUl.d 1 don't l.utaad to Yll.lC. Thank:,ou, Mr, Cha1nn&n. TJwllr J'OU.. • • Tha ~. Ceuenl, I think J'OU bPean • weNcl ~ '-PPropiU.rAII:,, 1n m7 opl.n1on. l i.tl1Jl.kW'9?'I J'Oll t.o do Othe?W11e,1zi.Ughi of Mr. P!alu:'8 oommeaca.,.011 'llt'Ould • ezoonaced by' Kr. &D5'0Jl8 el.lie. l suani,.cee :,'Oil, :,'OU Filke &DIS. woold have an art1ole a:,blc eat 7ou have quote. IA ud. tr :,ou -DI; "cleanse<1. •• were ihere a 11te11to ole&IMle. You would be accuaec! or wbitawub.llla' to lDUrfered &V014 Mr. P'18k• ~ .,I able to rlUl:,' look at them • .~r. You an l.lllWermg. 1Dmy oplmo.a., tor.&UJ' I to do. You hue aa.td to eh1I commfttae. 1rithmlt to bl.\18 toni.e big- ab.ow on the floor, ha~ !:bat wheu Mr. Fake ea,n lie h 1!.nlabecl wUll tb.11 Phi.le O[ ~• 1nvest1ptlo.a. YOI.IwsJ1OQftll Q.llNCIODLIt lllemt l:aolr; ud you will _..er , 'tnat r.o me you an be~ tot&llJ' al!Sll'OJX1&te an.cl Ba:DUbthat 18 why uiare ue De~• licaDB. chocolLte 1.11dT&Dlll&. rood Uld.bad. r1rIu; &Dd wronr. cllff'ereac p:,111.ai ot view. Our opUilo'llf are dUrervnL l rea:pectth111 man. lie 4111DOit!Y fflll. Stick to :,our iuna . don't uawer hla quutlom,, lZI rtJYOPlnlOl:l. ap):lt'Opria.tel7, don't k:uo• and 701.1.ha.fl do111 what man.votlien h&,...been~ senator SP«-n:a. I! 1 m!lht have .tU8tone n11te11ce? 1ile CIIAJ:ltJ,(.u(_ Yee. You m&J' han more Chanone 1ente11ce. I don't CbUllr tllll matt.er S..n.ator SP?X:'l'l'JL bu ui:,'thing' r.o do Wltli rood &nd. bad or chocolate Ul4 VLl1111L Well, IC may IIOt han r.o do The C1tA%1utAN. with rood &1111bad. bu.'G ill hu to . 4o wttll What ODI conaldara to be the appro:pri&te way for you t',O respond.. I think :,ou·are res110D4· l ~Ir; J'Oll &r9 Ill 7 I.DI &PPZ'Ollr1&telbecaaM! tb.e uldmata ca.t.ch•Z2 pgaltiou. At the i:eor all or wi ill tht sem.ie. 7ou 11.pq1.1.eat AM _ pol.ufAKl • Rap11bllcaa Damed Pake. Now, ~cell • J'OU. p1Rep1.1.bll0&11-aamed. Fllkl t.o authinl' ha\1lla to 40 wttll don't t1111DO.a.d. tb.18. You are bemg ulr;ed r.o l"IIIIPOD41,0 PVERSIGH 54·-.18-1621-000478 OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dqcld: 70104916 Page ' ' .. .. .· ..:·•:· :· . ..·· ::·~~~_:~:;. ~~:: ·_:-~~ · •• , J• 05/18/95 '6'202 962 7490 13 : 34 DPW-1202 ~012 ··:- · CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE Ma, 17, 1995 ,~ . Prald.dent, thue far, u or A:c~wit SL 199't. the tDdependent counseL Mr. Staff and Mr. Ftsk:e. oqmb1Ded. spent Sl.1179m1llloll- Projected tan~ for the independent oounael for the 1995 f1aca1 year iB S&.3 milllOD. which 1a a. subtotal of •.129 milliOD. az1d a total, adding all me .oaiir- up. Mr. President. for both t.he Sena.te and the independent coUJlllel to tnveatigate 10called Wh!te•&ter, comes to almost SlO nilllloll 1ll tQ11&7er&' dollara. M;r. President. I thiDk there ia someth!DS elae the public bu a rlfht to know. I think th• public baa a rieht to DOW' that th1a WhiT.e House, ~II P?eaidtDt. t1rla Firat La,dy, this adminiatra.t1on. hN 11e"l'erone ttme been aceusad or lack of cooperation. In tact. otJr Preet4ent ha.a pointed out, u 011e of our colle&1r11u 1lall already me11t1011ed. tba~ to 1le C&Ddid anc1truthflll 1r1. th1a :ma.ner iB sou:ir to be the auicll:eet and belt w~ to get to the bottom Of it. ID the ftnt rouud or heannp laat heard from 30 wic.uaaes re:riera.tlq 2,811 Jl&C'N of tutlmollY, depoaf..QC 98 witn81N!ee, genera.tlnf' 'f,cm J:118«88 or ceatlmony. The llillmimnr&tion baa produced 1'Qfflmef'. '-he comm1t'9e thoua&llde or ~ tor o! docume11te Committ.ee rntew. Th1I &dm!matr&tiOD ha.a complied with eTUJ document r&queat. The:, b&ve &DIWered eV9lT qu1111t1011 poaed to it. The &dm1D111tn.t10DS.. rea4:r and "1U1ng to cooperate on Wa aecoDd round Of he&.r'UIP &nd it bun ·~····"i i i I i II ' f!mJ!beala, I think. that a:ter Che long or hea.rinp and paces or doeumente reviewed, ua.t tu B&nkfng Comrm.ttee oonclwled a.c tlle an.clorWa hearing, in J)h&se 1. that there had been ~ DO Yiol&tlOD Of & Cr1mlnal lt&tute &Jld no vio1&t1onor aa ethical 1t.andard. Mr. President, l thtDk. too. SC needa to be added that &t no t.tme dm1Zllrany of" thetle 1DTeeti1r&C10U11 or &117 or these he&rull'B, whether lt be in Little Bock or 'Vlubingt,OD. the Banking Committee or the 8pec1al couzieel, wherever. to the beat or our lCDowlect,,e, not one wttDeal, not one pereon ha.I ti.ken the Mh &J:neDdment. 1 think tbat th1e speak.a loudly I.Ziel clearly about thD Mlm1n11t.P&tlon's :PG11tion, WU1t1DI'to ret 011 _with the im.• .r 1 1 .•,..,. 5 port&nt b111ineu ot oa:r COUllt:ey. Mr. President. let me oompUment OW" friezid, Senator 8ARBA.lm8, for work:l.q out what I tbink-e.Ild gotng !orward wtch-1I & f&irly reuona.ble propoa&l ln trY1ng to attack th18 pro~ lem &Dd to set up iheu hurtna,1. I tbin.lc tba.t there an eome thiD,a, haw• ever, th&t I moat sta.te tbat I do not f'eel &NI f'a.tr. I do not !eel tb&t it 18 ta.Ir f'or one of the membel'I of the commitr.ee,u he did earlier in th1a debate. to come to the Qoor and 111,7 what allould have been wit.h.in the ICOP" of W. hea.rinc &Jld then start t&lJmig &bout th01e i:,anicula.r ieaues u it to condemn Ulem. e,ren tho11gh they are not ~::e acope ot the&& P&rtioular hear-Mr. President. I think tor a Senator to CODle to the !loor • ho 1a a meniber 1VERSIGH OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 55 18-1621-000479 . . ' S8781 : 05/18/95 13:35 '6'202 962 7490 DPW-1202 ~013 - ..:·- . S6782 AMf-1 VERSIGH CONGRES.YONAL RECORD-SENATE 18-1621-000480 05/18/95 14: 16 'Zr202 @002 DPW-1202 962 7490 . ··_,.;-~J~ -:.J Ma.y 17. 1995 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE d:lfferiDBTie1'11about th1a uia.tter. But I tion it wu not. woru havillg a.nother ~, thlllk we ~ able to, in the end. hea.ring a1mP1Jto bring Captain Hu.me •ork out & ratlonal &pproa.ch to tb1B 1D. I me&n it ta a IIZD&ll :ma.t.t.er,but I mqw.ry az1din•eaUratton. which I iD.d1- oDl.Y mention it to lhow that aom&ezam1ne the ca.ted ln a ume bad been conunitted to ttmea when you really !&eta you d18cover that aomethl!lg tut lut year. Ob'riouslY, you &I.ways have to work looked amiu &t Ont has & ver,, eimPle, out e&retlJ]Jy the • oope ciuettiODI, pl&aaible, and reuonable ezi,lam.tion which baa been done in this resolution, tor it. the scopa could be 1Dtlntte, 1D. We expect, u I widerltand It. now to ~use mo•e !orwUll wtth thia. I know that & aeme. il you le&ve it to people'• the ChaU'm&D&Ad !Us aca.ffwill be r.alkJmalriD&,tlon.So there were- oqdidates tor scope that I think went be:,-011.4tbe iDI' With our at&ff to begin. to plan the which I th1.nk will horaon. and they are not included. But ftrlt eet of h~ we h&ve tried to, in effect, PQt & focua prob&blJ, be in tha nezt. mont.ll. or aa. and then we can proceed tram there u here. lD Ca.ct, aome of the queatiom the da- we aohedule other mattem w11ich bave Se:a.ator t.rom Nt'lf York Jmt been stipulated. here ID the reaolution tlDpiahed raised- 1.h&t ha felt emerge4 out of ~ aa being Within the IICOP9of the 111Cl'lil:7 pn,Tioua b.ea.riDl'l--&nd he made ref• which tlda 1pecl&l committee will now erenee to laat year•• m1.nor:tty •r.a.t,e. undertake. But I do an:ln 'WlLDtto underscore ment iD. the Nport,-hava in fa.ct been spelled out hue u matt.era that could the, I think, re&J)OJWble•a:, ill 1fh1ch the cllalnDaa aD4 membeN of the sr.atr be looked into under th:18 reaolutiou. ot h&Te woH:H wtth a. 1n order 1:0 tr7' to other candidates. •ere niere course. that were not included. We lt'ame a resolution which we could ht.Ye tried to be ratioD&l here. We h&Te brine to the fl.oar or the Senat.e today tried to be .reuona.ble. Tile matt.IN which I think carries fonram the l&speoffled b.ereiD b&Te beeQ the our.come sf,tim&te r,,quiremeDta1mPol8Clupc,nm out an 1.n'N&Tip111terma or carr,1q of tbat PfOC8U. Seeond, I W&Dt to aa.ythe N180lut1on uon withauti atra:,1nc beyond what people renru aa reaaoiia.ble llAI been put; r.ogether 1n & --.y t1:l&t moat IJNlnUDe6 that the two B1deaWl11work bounds. Mr. President, with that, I made~ totrether COO])el'&tlflly tn e&n'7Ullrout at.at.ement; I eee the 4lat1DgU!ahedSentihe inquirJ', 1:llat ~ &ta.ml will inter. a.ct ill thAt taahion, that material wm &tor fl'Om Arkama:a, and I would llke . be weneral.ly Lvallable aud 10 0.11..We to :,teld tun• to him. Mr. PreaideDt. ho,r much tune 1a reare tl'Yilw to pt a.n iDClU!rY hare 1n wh1eh e•eryoae la joined in U'J'1n8'to _m&lD1ng1 The PRESWING OFFICER. Ten mln• tlnd euti what the fa.ct.ii are. A lot o! queatiiona are niaed. Uld will be looked utee.. Mr. SARBAJra&. Mr. Praaident. I into. I! :vou did not ra1ee queet1ona, :roll would not !lave an fnqulry, ao I recotr· yield j mfnutee to the SeDai;or fh)m niZe that . .But our Job, I think, ii to Arkam&e. The PBESWING OFFICER The &l.nprobe the tactual matt.er behiDd tll.oae &tor fl'Om Ark&UU . issuee. Mr. B'OKPERS •. Mr. P.reeld.eDti, I I waa int.erested th&t my colleacue thaak tile 4IatlDCU1AhedSena.tor from ea.ruer uaed the word "alleptions," -1 i I i S6'781 ., And. ~ baa beeA eu.tirel:7too m-ach w. c::aa,. or tb&t nrro~ so let me &dmonlah my trf.ellda m the u.&. Sen&t.a, and. apect&Ui on l&WJ"arsand this Spaci&l oammltf.ae, when 70u no:nl&,ryem, to I.Bk ynmult' am ~ or these &l'8 maklq did· you are thr0wl111rout mmee, not tb1a happen. Yh,- cl1d"not that; happea! Well, b.indalp.t la" a wcmd.emll th!D8'-Bu.t uk J"Olll"Nlf when yc,v: air. throwing namea around amWOlldermr that whether or not :,,:>11an datroJtq penon, a pe.rfeetlY lmlOclllt penon for li!e, YOU Mk YOGNalt tlUa question:: "How would ,.ou Wee to be 1n that lhoN and. hear 7our mme 10meb0d3'•a bandied &r0und on the floor v! tba Sei).. at.a which cam.ea with it t1ae GOD.DDt.tion. of •ome wroDl'doillC or saiu •PNCh• wu guilt?"' I hope the Members of th1II boq wfll r1ae above that aori of tll.lns. and when thq- aa;,- aom•thfns and ue 90me or 1D reprd to th1a healUII", th8lie make awf\illy 11111'8they an not .d~ mm• 110me innocent atro~ leaal7 and wron,fully. penou nead- I look !onrard. t.o the :Z,,earll:lga.. J:look &n. oppar,,, forward. to the people ha.~ tlmit;v to _,. •bat they want ·to aa,a.!ld. 11.Dft'er the que&tlom of tl!.e Jilemben of th:18 comm1ccee. But- for Goel'• B&kee do not DNJud8'8 1m1r,11ody tbat le rolD&'t.o be called u a ·w1mesa Wore they get there a:ad ll&va a.D' opporimiJ.ty r.o answ8E' tlle q_oeeuom. .: I yield tb.e noot. Mr. SARB.ANF.S. "Mr. PreetCleDi. I yield 2 ml.D.ute& to tbe SeDMor from Ark&neu The PB&SIDENG OFFICE!l.. The Sanfrom ArKamu. thank .Mr. PRYOR. MZ". PNaldem,-I the dJatiJIS"a;llllad. cb&1rm&n tar :,f.eld-· I b&cl not plazmeli io 1l:lg JD8 2 mi.Dur.ea. Bllt tlle dil~ld apeak · aptn.. made-~nrcb&.lrmaDot the enn~ to three or tour mdiTidllai. •lo and that ii wllat it is until you actu- .llil.&eyla.nd. for rtelditlc. or M,9t been iJlll&Te either pled-nilty Mr. Preeiaent, when I wu & stlldant ally get the fa.eta tbat l5WltaiD it. .ADd tb.&t ls the proceae we an go1.Dg to en• In l&w achool I remember .etuctYiDe dior.od.. et aeten.. I wo\114 lib to. r,alk .... . • ; . pge in. Some thinp, you know, when cr1min&l. l&w •. There Dever bad beEm a. about aome-of tboaa. at.or . com.m1u.ee Neil ~e7 worke4 wtr.h • ~ 111 you flnally exam1ne them, tum out to lAWJ1!1'in Dl7 family. SO 1 knew notihbe wrl:, 1.mlocent. At leut I think. We in&' about azJ.Yk:lDdof law-. But;·I re• PeJ:J:T"'ilh about ~ m11ea tram · LiUle a.bout the second. Book.- He pled su1hV _t;o fogr ~. had thi8 po1ni a.bout C&J;7t&i11 Bume. member ~ prof~r but not one ot t'hoae 001111.ta rel&Cad~ when he WM aup- daY u.ld.. "Remember. the presumption who did not a~ :poeed ~ be a. Wlttlw. b&ppeu~b\'iooaly what Well, there was & BllP-uP, b11i I think that ia Hume •hat it waa, a aJJp--up. C&pt.&1.n was de.POSed.He bad. over :m pq-es or at deposition r.eanmo.n:v. Apparently his deposition he sa.icl he T&B about to take a.,-go on a va.ca.tion. After that the hearing ~te wa.aset. EveI"J'ODe• ort Hume J:ould .be of aasumed th&t Ca.pt.&1.D A subbrought b&ck in tor the h~. poena., I do not think. wu lsaued for him. Mr. D'AMATO. I do not thmk it waa • 1s8ued.. Mr. SAR.BANES. I do not thillle it wu issued tor him eo he did not, a.ati were,. ignore & aubpoeu.. And he went on a huntf.na" and flshlng trip IJld could not be located. 1Swh&t happened. In the end, I think lli wu Judged.that given we bA4 300 pagea worth or deposi• f-HIC of innocence la the halJrnarw o! our 1,st.em of orimfna.i jurisPrUdeDce." It- la . not presumptioD Of:tWlt. I a.aked the question, "Should I defend aomebody it the7 came into my ofneeand told me they were guilty?' He aaid. tli&t w.lll be & pmional call, bnt you bear one tbing ill mind. Tha.t pemon ma.y- 11.ot bow •hether he or lhe ie P111:J' under the lAw_They mB¥ . think they are and are not. I am lrOllll'to vote for tll.is reaolutto.n. I have no objection whateYer to a a fur, Ollell hearing CiVillg ~bocb' cll&Dce to &nBWerthe q_u89tiom of tb1a committ.ee. But I b&•e heard aome namea throwu aroWJd. here this i:qoin- Wbltew.ar.er; not . ,nc cloie · UJ Whlr.ewater. Olla was h1a ao-called. f&ll. ure to me -tth tba InT.enl&l Be.vmae Service. & 111thdn.wal of ouh for QI l9EIOClint.on campaign: .J1othing wll&tlo:ever to do with "11!.tewater. The eecond 1Dd1vJdaal tJLe dilUDrutsbed cba1nn&n numUOlllG II- eh$ Wade. I! I am Dot· mlat&kart. CJai1a Wade WU & i:aal ..ca.te:brolcer I. bellen Home . near • ·tlia MOWitaiD in Whice,,a,t,jar defflopment; area. c:Jml Wade. n.tieeque.nt tci.thme m&DY JIN'I af daaJiDI'with tile lotll at Whit.ewace. npt. related · to ba.alal:l.pt.cr, 1lled WldteW&rM ln 1.D7 ',a,.y. BQt tn·.tu co dtadale ba.Dkl:Ui,tey tw:ac 1:uU.i.Uect 1a. or a.oebC. I do DOC·Jmow either. an--t bat tla!l,_mett.er in cue, like tbia. all all the r..ct.a. ~w~ you h&ve to do i• thtoW oat & na..ma.Of. 1ara1; to~ to ,_. ~l" t.ent.tmee you ha.98 d.estroy911 a pen10n 110 relatlonahip or at lea.at destroyed their repa.t.&;[on. Preatd~~ and Mn. ~U~ ~f.~ ···-;..-- IDI:. Mr. President. ERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 57 18-1621-000481 _,,,. •., ... ·, "< I+ • · 05 / 18/95 '5"202 962 7490 14: 18 lit!OOJ DPW-1202 ; _ .:~ ;~~ _.,..:..• 86784 the CONGRESSIONAL RECORD-SENATE h&B DOW h&d him plead J)l'08eCUtiOD guilty_ The ..iti:y n~1sjs6•. occur without; a.DY mtervenmg action or debar.a. • The PRESlDDlG OJTICl:R. Ia wre obleetlcm? Mr. kOCK&FE1,I ·,ER I do object. The PRESIDING O!'PlCEK. Objec.- third l)eaOD referred to WU Webb Hubbell. We imcnr that caae. Webb Hubbell ha.a ~ed pllty. It 1a a Bad day. He 18 a lf00d friend. But it WU DOth1Jll' th&t relat.ed to Wbitewatar Development Corp., ablolutely notb.iDI' that related to Mad.18oa ttou 1111 beard. Guaranty. nothing wh&t.10ever. Web Hubbell J)led nJlty to O'f'WbJ.llmg h1B clients: nothiDg to do with the RTC. nothins to do With Whitewater: iotally hnlevant . 11'we continue apre.a,dina' ~ drapet out farther. if we go &tter "ffet'J' person tha.t h&a ever had contaot with Bill Clmwa ~Blll&1'70liatonorJamea McDoupl or •ha.iuer. 1f' they ha.ve ever made a phone call to them. It they ha'V'I ner borrowed money or liven them a cam~ -oon.tribu1:10D, Lord only k:ao~ how loDI' th1B tnve1dgat1on 1a gomg to go. It -.ill l'O beycm.d. ~ :vea.r311m. I juat hope t.bat our oolleagnee OD the Bauktne Committee w1.ll :rea11M UL&t •e m~ !ocu.a Ude mvwtlsa,tlon u it relatee to Whit..itwater I.D4 to 1ta oriKiml mJaaion. . · Mr. ·'P'rasi.dent, I thank tlle cllat1n• gulahed 8em.tor, rmi.kf.Dtr member, aDd the d1etlllpiabed cll&lnD&n UJ&' me-obi time. ("'""·~,a tor J'1e14- I y.l.el4the lloor. Mr. SARBAJiiBS. Mr. PNsidens, I am prepared to 71el4 b&ck ume. Mr . !>'AMATO. Mr. Praaidmlt. we yield back the remainder ot our time. The PRESII>;niG OFFICER. :a\11time h&vinsbeen yielded. the ci.ueatlonle on asreeillll' to the reeolutton.. On thD question. the yeas and nasa have been ordered, &nd the clerll: will e&1l the roll. Mr. FORD. I announce th&t the SeDator trom Maaaachuaetta [Mr. XD• )IE))YJ1• neceaa&l'11y a.beeot. The l~tive clerk called the roll. The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. SANTOB.UM). .ANI there a.a;y- other Sen&torB 1u me Chamber who (lea!re ta "Ote? The result naye 3, WU &DJlOWlceG--yeaa aa follO'lll'B: IS, (Rollcall Vote No. 1711.M.l YEAS--B6 Alln.ll.lm. .Uaka •-a; l>ole Domeald B\Clc lwm Bo.114 l"ahdot.li Bo.hr 1-71 .JdGldl ~ re-!tc:nm ~ ~ Dartaa lllff llnldlQ' T91l18VICI ~ FIUIKAtll Ql Bron Fanl FriR Ira.a Bryaa IICUDi.,n OorwR Gnll&lll I.&~ ~ Lifflll Lie..,_,, llania Orama bnl Grulll Campbell Cll&l" Grullef GNft llani'D Bar.ell .Ma\VL S. SAIIBANE&, MAIM.ANO lltCHAII!) C. IHELIIY,AI.A8,\M,\ CHIIISTOPHER J . DODD,CONNECTICUT OtlllSTC)jljjCJI C. 80HO, MISSOUIII .JOHN F.KEMV, MASSACHUSETTS CONHff MAOC.fl0111D4 LAUCHFAUICI.OTH, NORTHCAROi.i~ IIOeEftT'- IE"IN£TT,VTAII . IIOD GftAA!S,MINNESOTA llll flUST.TENNESSEE IIICHAIIDH. IIIIYAN,NEVAM IANIAIIA IOXIER.CAUFOANIA C.U,OL-tLEY-IIIAVN, IUINOIS PATTYMUARAV. WASIIINGTON HOW.y!O A. MENELL, STAfF OIIIECTOII AOBEAT J. GIUfFIIA.Jo, CHIEFCOUNSEL l'HILIPE.9ECIITIL.Dll'lJTYSTAff OIIUC'TOII STEI/ENI. HMIIIIS, DEMOCRATIC STAPFDlfllECTOR tinitro£,tatrs~rnatt COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBANAFFAIRS WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6075 July 5, 1995 VIA FACSIMILE Stephen A. Kubiatowski, Esq. Assistant Independent Counsel Office the Independent Counsel Suite 4,90-North 1001 ~ennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 of Dear Mr. Kubiatowski: As requested, enclosed is a list of the White House employees who have been scheduled for depositions by the Special Committee to Investigate Whitewater and Related Matters. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please call me at (202) 2~4-0558. Best Regards. ;;J,1c;:J"~ Alice S. Fisher AMFnlCAN : VERSIGH · OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 84 18-1621-000508 07~05-95 05:03PM TO95148802 P003/003 List of White House Deponents ✓Bill Btlrton Lisa Caputo ✓ ✓ Thom~ Castleton ✓ Mark Gearan David ~ergen 5 ·v-J vDeborah Gorham ✓ Carolyn Huber ✓ Willia~ Kennedy Evelyn :Lieberman ~ ,J Bruce Lindsey ✓ ✓ Craig Livingstone ✓ Sylvia Matthews Marlen,e McDonald✓ ✓ Thoma~ McLarty ✓ Cheryl ;Mills DeeDee Myers s .,I Roy Ne~l ✓ ✓ Steve Neuwirth v Bernard Nussbaum Howard Paster'?"" ✓ Betsy Pond ✓ Jack Quinn ✓ Cliffordi Sloan / George Stephanopoulos ✓ Patsy Thomasson ./ Linda T;ripp ../ David Watkins / Margaret Williams AMFnlCAN VERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 85 18-1621-000509 07T05-95 05:03PM TO95148802 POO 1/003 SENATE COMivllT'fEE ON BANJ(JNG, . HOUSING, AND tIBBAN AFFAIRS 534 Dirksen Building, Washington, . D.C. 20510 • Main Number (202) 224--7-391 • Fa.x (202) 224-5137 TO: NUMBERFAXED TO: '5} L\- Jje2- FROM: DATE: NUMllER (Including OF PAGES. 3 this cover sheet) M.ii:SSAGE: If you do not receive the specified number of pages, plec:se contact sender at our· main number. Thank . . -vou . AMl HICAN . VERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 86 18-1621-000510 -• •w. 0' ....... TO, ICIW'l"C • I(. OC.IA •" PAUL5, SAIi EB,14.&~YUHO CIIIIIITOl'Hn 0000 , CONtilC,,Cu• JOMHI. unv M.&SC~S IIIOC&JION. BIi l!MIIIARA UICI. MOK ''-TTY MLMl14 AH, NliV.,.O,. II.CAIJPOl\.,IA ..... IIH. llll'"°46 , WA!NIJljG TOJlj ilnitn1~mtts ~rnatr COMMITi~E ON BANKING , HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAJRS WASHINGTON. DC 20510-5075 ..::: .. CL\L.COMMITTEETO INVESTIGATE ITEWATERAND RELATED!YJATTERS !l02)224-0218 (M>.lN TELEPHONE)tr (201) 22/1--l>Ol' (F'ACSIM1Llr) ;, ,,:, FA SIMILETRANSMITTALSHEET Ji.1ly 11 , l 99S DATE: · Kenneth W. Starr, TO: Esquire FAX NUMBER: (SOl ) 221-8707 FROM: Richard Bcn-Ycniste/Mis;:hael CONFIID,1 ARRIVAL: J YES, Please contact u· • NUMBER OF PAGES T Cht:~rtoff 224-0218 me at ______ _ NO NSMITTED. INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: 3 MESSAGE: 18-1621-000511 -- -- - UI ! '41 .J..J VV•vc...1..1.r.1. d trs~rnatr ~m 1!:lnitr COMMITTEEON BANKING.HOUSING,AND UBBAN AFFAIRS "OWaRD.a.. MENEU. Sf.lll"f C~C'TOII IIOMIIT J, OloJFFAA. >-., Ollllr OCH.Ill STAl'·F PtilUI' !, lliCWTD..DE!'1.1TY DC 20510-6075 WASHINC?1TON, STAFFDIRE STEl/iN8, 14AIIM, DEMOCRATIC _.IJOCl411SCOUNSEL July 11, 1995 · BY ACSIMILE AND F T-CLASS MAIL Kenneth W. Starr, Esquir Office of the lndependen Counsel Two Financial Centre 10825 Financial Centre Little Rock, AR 72211 Dear Judge Starr: the Special We are writing o behalf of the Chairman and Ranking Member of Matters to d Relate Committee to Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation and l Committee. All of request that you provide e information described below to the Specia hearings on the ittee's the information we are r questing is important to the Special Comm These hearings are handling of documents · Vincent Foster's office following his death. ts at your earliest reques our scheduled to begin on Ju y 18, 1995, so we ask that you address opportunity. Williams and There is a subst tial conflict in deposition testimony that Margaret not Ms. or r whethe ing regard Henry O'Neill have pro ·ded to the Special ~mmittee el Couns Office suite Williams removed doc ents or other material:::from the White House have been interviewed by on the night of July 20, 993. We understand that both witnesses in connection with the FBI regarding the ha dling of documents in Mr. Foster's office tand that on five or investigations conducted by Mr. Fiske and by you. Indeed. we unders the Independent of more occasions in 1994 d 1995 FBI agents working for the Office July 20, 1993. Counsel interviewed Mr. o•Nei11regarding his observations on the night of witnesses at the We anticipate th · Ms. Williams and Officer O'Neill both wi11 be ittee will need all Special Committee,s h ·ngs this month and that the Special Comm We thus request that you available information to onsider the conflicts in their teslimony. !. and FBI interview notes provide the Special Co mittee with copies of all FD-302 report.c:; · l. from all relevant FBI in rviews of Ms. Williams and Officer O'Neil 18-1621-000512 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 88 r.oorm 'l:l'S NllO'.) n IT • IT f'lt I TT I I I\ • 07/11/95 17:19 tr202 ore 514 8802 14]001 *************************** *** ACTIVITYREPORT *** *************************** RECEPTIONOK TX/RX NO. 7332 CONNECTION TEL 501 221 8707 CONNECTION ID INDEPCOUNSEL STARTTIME 07/11 USAGETIME 01'42 PAGES RESULT 17:17 4 OK AMFnlCAN VERSIGH OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 90 18-1621-000514 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Deputy Attorney General - Washington, DC 20530 12, July Counsel Special Chief Jr., J. Giuffra, Robert Deputy Democratic Lance Cole, Senate States United Housing, on Banking, Committee 20510-6075 D.C. Washington, Giuffra Dear Messrs. during to I am writing the depositions 1995 Counsel and Urban Affairs and Cole: address over certain the last that matters two weeks. have arisen showed him Mr. Chertoff During Roger Adams' deposition, 1. from the New York Times article of a newspaper an excerpt Mr. was any reason there and asked whether Whitewater regarding Foster. to Vincent related Adams had saved such an item in a file was separately the excerpt although at the time, As I suggested in the original production, document in the Department's copied side of a Foster-related the other is merely Mr. Adams' file it does not Accordingly, Bates #F003150. that bears newsclip was question Mr. Chertoff's underlying the assumption that appear correct. produced The FBI notes 2. 1995, were not Bates stamped. such numbers. bearing 3. F000153) documents by the Enclosed on June 23, Department set is a duplicate to #F000152 (Bates notes are the handwritten Enclosed to the typewritten correspond by Mr. Adams that prepared F001707 to F001708. numbered You have asked for the name of the FBI agent who 4. was The analysis note for fingerprints. the Foster analyzed who has performed by Louis Hupp who also is the expert performed and of both Mr. Fiske at the direction of analyses a variety ~:30 at 14, July Friday on available is Hupp Mr. Judge Starr. Mr. with and Ben-Veniste Mr. with Per my conversations a.m. Mr. Hupp's that of OIC, it is my understanding Kubiatowski in July performed he to the analysis be limited will deposition and August of 1993. AM vt PVERSIGH 18-1621-000515 ffOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 91 July, until to work at may return Mr. Margolis Although 5. interviewed be to not him advised has his doctor week in August. the second at least the end of or deposed as part General the Attorney You have asked to interview 6. is interview such a staff Although of your investigation. to is pleased General the Attorney extraordinary, relatively she Accordingly, investigation. with the Committee's cooperate 14 at 3:00 in her on July interview for a staff will be available July 13, who let me know by Thursday, Please room. conference be attending. will of the interview the subject that It is my understanding of knowledge personal General's Attorney the to be limited will any including Foster, Vincent of death the to relating the events Mr. in documents of review the House; White the with contact in that of Justice of the Department the role office; Foster's extent the To note. Foster's Mr. of and the discovery review; any raise will you that to believe you have reason that me in notify please General, with the Attorney matters additional advance. requested taken by Pat Binninger are the notes Enclosed 7. #A000026 to A000028). of July 10, 1995 (Bates in your letter notes these to locate was unable Ms. Binninger Apparently, in an placed they had been inadvertently because earlier file. unrelated 8. witnesses if any, let me know which, please Finally, hearings. at the public to call you expect Please call me if you have any other Department questions. Sincerely, cc: Steve Kubiatowski, Andrea Simonton OIC AMFfllCAN VERSIGH 18-1621-000516 ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 92 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Deputy Attorney General Washington, DC 20530 July 14, -- - 1995 Chief Counsel Jr., J. Giuffra, Robert Counsel Special Democratic Ben-Veniste, Richard Senate States United and Urban Affairs Housing, on Banking, Committee D.C. 20510-6075 Washington, Dear Messrs. Giuffra and Ben-Veniste: which were two documents are the following Enclosed the July and Mr. Corney during by Mr. Ben-Veniste requested of Mr. Louis Hupp of the FBI: deposition 1995, a photo taken on the back (1) identified fingerprint by the FBI latent 1 Hupp; Exhibit as Deposition 14, laboratory and to produced previously copy of documents (2) a more legible FBI00000079, stamp numbers Bates bearing the Committee FBI00000085, FBI00000083, FBI00000082, FBI00000081, FBI00000080, FBI00000086. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me . Sincerely, Char Special Deputy cc: Kubiatowski, Steve Simonton, Andrea Assistant Attorney to the General OIC FBI ... --· ·-~-;: AMF-HICAN PVERSIGH 18-1621-000517 ffOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 93 . Office of the Independent Counsel Twu Financial C4mre lonse chairman well The Office ~ounsel in Little Rock. Arkansas: of Mark D. Fabiani not di ;iclose will anyone. the was issued . by Independent or to disclose bipartisan request. AMLHICAN pvERSIGH flOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104916 Page 94 18-1621-000518 KICOMM. BANNG OJ-17-95 10:58AM FROSE MNATE TO95148802 P00/2002 ~niteb ~tates ~enatc AF~AIFIS COMMITTEEON BANKING. tiOUGING. ANO UflBAN My Dear Senator: At 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 18, Wednesday, July 19, and Thursday, July 20, 199G in Room SH-216, Hart Senate Office Building, the COMMI'ITEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS rationanC20510 Dear Messrs. Chertoff and Ben-Veniste: In connection with the Committee's investigation into the handling of documents of former Deputy Counsel to the President Vincent W. Foster, Jr., you have requested that this Office provide the Committee with reports of interviews of Henry O'Neill and Margaret Williams that were conducted by this Office and by Mr. Fiske's Office. In addition, you have requested a copy of a particular polygraph report, or at least of questions asked during a particular polygraph examination. Finally, you have requested permission to ask an individual employed by the FBI Laboratory questions about the work he has performed for the Independent Counsel. We respectfully decline these requests. As we have informed you on this and previous occasions, we will not disclose to the Congress any investigative work product from this active and ongoing investigation. As you know, we must abide by the strictures of grand jury secrecy contained in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e). In addition, our position that we will not disclose to the Congress any investigative work product from an open investigation represents sound policy that is deeply rooted in the history and tradition of this Nation. See generally Memorandum for Oliver B. Revell Re: Congressional Requests for Information from Inspectors General Concerning Open Criminal Investigations, Op. Off. Legal Counsel, at 5 (March 24, 1989) ("the policy and practice of the executive branch throughout our Nation's history has been to decline, except in extraordinary circumstances, to provide committees of Congress with access to, or copies of, open law enforcement files. No President, to our knowledge, has departed from this position affirming the confidentiality and privileged nature of open law enforcement files") . We will adhere to this deeply rooted tradition, and so we must decline each of the above requests. We note, moreover, that our policy on these issues is not based on whether the~equested information is exculpatory or incriminating, but rather is made in accordance with long-standing Executive prerogatives to protect the internal work of this Office with respect to an active and ongoing investigation and to protect the privacy of individuals. AM HICAN pvERSIGH RDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 104 18-1621-000528 You also had jointly requested on behalf of the Committee the use of Mr. Foster's briefcase. As an accommodation to the Committee's investigative needs, we provided the briefcase to the Committee yesterday. Such pre-existing evidence, which was neither created nor modified by this Office or Mr. Fiske's office, is in our view readily distinguished from investigative work product. Moreover, in circumstances where such evidence cannot be obtained from any other source and where disclosure of it would not hinder or impede our ongoing investigation, we believe it appropriate to disclose such evidence to the Committee upon its joint request. We have adhered to this policy thus far, and do not believe that there has been any inconsistency in our responses to the Committee's joint requests. Thank you for your cooperation. Respectfully yours, k~~~ W- ~ () ~¥' Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel ~{._ ------iJ, / C.C: RAMM. TEXAS R f!DC. SMEllY, AL-MA ~ ISTD~llt S, BONO. Ul$SCUAI 01 CQ!/11111; "'i'C:it. •LO•tca ~I/Ol 1/\l~CI.0TH, IIOGT)I CAROUNA ROqfRT F. arlllNETT. UTAH ~00 GRAt,IS. MIN"ESOT.I tlL~ J~IST, TENl"ESSEE POO Z ~ N PAULS. !,VI AmS. MA~VLAND CMRISTOPHEJ. 0000. CCNNECTIC\JT JOll'0 INCLUDIN C T HIS COVE R S.HEET:__.3,__ MESSAGE: AM 18-1621-000570 Office of the Independent Counsel 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue Ave., NW Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. 20004 (202) 514-8688 Fax (202) 514-8802 September 27, 1995 The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato, Chairman The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes, Ranking Member United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 534 Senate Dirksen Office Building Washington, D. C. 20510-6075 Dear Mr.·Chairman and Senator Sarbanes: At our meeting on September 19, 1995, you raised some concern about my response to the Special Committee's inquiry regarding possible investigations and hearings related to certain subject matters identified in Senate Resolution 120: We have continued to examine this issue since that meeting. Our effort has involved consultations among the entire legal staff of this Office, including our trial teams and our Ethics Counsel Samuel Dash. We are, of course, mindful of the Committee's important responsibilities. However, our duties and responsibilities as prosecutors compel us to conclude that, at this time, investigations and hearings on the following subject matters identified in Senate Resolution 120 would hinder or impede our investigations or prosecutions and might jeopardize the fair administration of justice: (1) the operations, solvency, and regulation of Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association ("Madison Guaranty"); (2) the activities, investments, and tax liability of Whitewater Development Corporation ("Whitewater"); (3) the policies and practices of the RTC and other federal banking agencies regarding the legal representation of such agencies with respect to Madison Guaranty; (4) the handling by the RTC and other federal banking agencies of civil or administrative actions against parties regarding Madison Guaranty; (5) the sources of funding and the lending practices of Capital Management Services, Inc. ("CMS"); and (6) the lending activities of Perry County Bank in connection with the 1990 Arkansas gubernatorial election. These are six of the thirteen subject matters listed in Section l(b) of Senate Resolution 120. We are particularly concerned that investigations and hearings on subject matters relating to Madison Guaranty, Whitewater and CMS would hinder or impede our investigations and prosecutions and might jeopardize the proper and fair administration of et al. Mr. justice in light of the pending indictment in UnitedStatesv. JamesB, McDou~al. McDougal was an owner of Madison Guaranty and the president and chairman of the board of Madison Financial Corporation. The pending indictment charges Mr. McDougal and the other defendants with criminal wrongdoing involving Madison Guaranty and CMS transactions . Likewise, any conceivable Committee investigations or hearings on Madison Guaranty and CMS subject matters would involve inquiries into the activities of Mr. AMLHICA PVERSIGH HOIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 147 18-1621-000571 The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato, Chairman The Honorable Patil S. Sarbanes, Ranking Member September 27, 1995 Page 2 McDougal and the other defendants relating to Madison Guaranty and CMS. Similarly, any Committee inquiry into Whitewater subject matters would involve an exploration of activities and transactions of Mr. McDougal and Madison GWWclllty. Congressional investigations or hearings on these three subjects will necessarily involve taking the testimony of at least some of the witnesses this Office expects to call at trial. That would significantly impede our preparation for trial. It would also risk the disclosure of certain non-public information that is the focus of ongoing criminal investigations. Furthermore, the publicity from Committee investigations and hearings on Madison Guaranty, Whitewater and CMS subject matters could lead to a contention by one or more of the criminal defendants that unbiased juries could not be impaneled or that the defendants otherwise suffered prejudice to their rights to a fair trial. Long-standing Department of Justice policy -- which we are required by statute to follow where possible -leads us to conclude that this Office must express its strong concerns about investigations or hearings on Madison Guaranty, Whitewater and CMS subject matters in these circumstances. The third, fourth and sixth subjects we have listed above (relating to the practices of federal banking agencies in securing representation or pursuing actions with respect to Madison Guaranty and relating to certain activities of Perry County Bank) do not directly et,al, Nonetheless, we affect the pending indictment in UnitedStatesv. JamesB, McDou!i!al believe that Committee investigations and hearings into these subjects, at this time, will hinder or impede our investigation. We are actively pursuing these matters, and expect importan~ investigative steps and crucial judgments in the upcoming weeks. Hearings or contacts with witnesses and others involved in these investigations could substantially disrupt our ongoing efforts. Accordingly, we must respectfully adhere to the concerns we previously have expressed about investigations and hearings into the six subject matters identified above. As prosecutors, we are bound to do no less. At the same time, we confirm our willingness to continue to review proposals from your staff regarding Committee investigations and hearings on some of the other seven subject matters identified in Senate Resolution 120. We have informed the Committee that hearings on these subject matters will not hinder or impede our investigations. AMF-HICAN PVERSIGH RDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 148 18-1621-000572 The Honorable Alfonse M. D'Amato, Chairman The Honorable Paul S. Sarbanes, Ranking Member September 27, 1995 Page 3 might You also have asked when our concerns in any of the six areas discussed above ant et al. is the most signific change. The trial in UnitedStatesv. JamesB, McDou~al, on Madison Guaranty, s hearing upcoming event affecting that issue with respect to it unlikely Whitewater and CMS subjects. Although pending and anticipated motions make will urge that it that the trial will commence on October 10, 1995, as presently scheduled, we discretion of occur as soon as practicable. However, that decision rests ultimately within the s, barring the District Court. The completion of that trial will significantly reduce our concern subject additional relevant developments. The concerns we have expressed on three other ninety days. matters listed in Senate Resolution 120 may well change appreciably in the next is one We recognize that the decision whether to hold hearings at this time ultimately with respect for the Committee to make. We only can provide our perspective as prosecutors g ongoin our on and to the impact of proposed hearings on pending criminal cases investigations, and hope that the Committee will consider our concerns. Respectfully yours, Y~v-~ w,..J'f-"'"vv/J.-~e Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel AMEnlCAN RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 PVERSIGH RDIA Page 149 18-1621-000573 P002/004 COMM.TO95148802 BANKING SENATE 10:54AM FROM IC··.02-95 ftlft. CIIAMM, 1'5Xil -- MISIIOVIII C. SHG.IY, IIICIWl0 90ND. Q4111&TOPH815. R.OIIIOA CONNIE~ I.AUCHfAIIIClOTlt.NOIITH CUOI.INA Ml!Clff f.. NNIICTT.UT~ 1100 QflAMS. MINNESOTA 11U ""5T. TINNOSU ......,CC,MAAVLAlrlD IJ..... •.a\111. J. DOOO.CONNECTIC\IT OfUST~llfl JONN ,. ltEIIIIY, MAS$AC>4USfTTS IIICHAflOH. IIIYAN. N[VAl)A IAIIUIIA 90Xfll. CALIFOfU1tA CIJIOLMOS[LfV,IIWJN.IUJ,-01$ '-'TTV MUNIAV, WASHINGTON -AIIO ,._MENELl. 8'fl>lr DINC1'Qft IIOICIITJ. G1~,IIA.A, CMliFC:OUt,S(l l'HILII'l . lECHl&L.DIPUTYSTAR'OIIIECTOII STAl'FOIIIECTOlt SllVEN II. HANIIS.OEMOCIIATIC tinittd ~rates~rnatr HOUSING, AND COMMITTEE ON BANKING, URBAN AFFAIAS WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6075 ANO C:Hll;FCOUIISEI. October 2, 1995 By U.S. Mail and Facsimile Kenneth W. Starr, Esq. Independent Counsel Office of the IndependentCounsel 1001 PennsylvaniaAvenue, N.W. Suite 490·Nonh Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Judge Starr: We havereviewedyour September2 7, 199 5 letter advisingus of your beliefthat, at this time, your office's investiiationwould be hindered or impeded by the Special Committee's inquiry into the matters specifiedin Sections 1(b)(3)(A), (B), (C), (D), (E) and (G) of Senate Resolution120 (104th Congress). You have raised no specific concerns respectingthe SpecialCommittee'sinvestigationof the other seven matters specified In the Resolution,includingall of those containedin Section 1(b)(2), although in our meeting on September 19, 199 5 you did indicate concerns about the Committee's investigationof the substance of the RTC's criminal referrals relatingto Madison Guaranty Savingsand LoanAssociation. The Senatehas consistentlysoughtto coordinateIts investigationof Whitewater and related matters with the Office of the lndepend@ntCounsel. Last year, in Senate Resolution229 (103rd Congress),the Senate refrained from authorizing the Banking Committeeto Investigatea great majorityof such matters. Moreover, at the requestof then-Special CounselRobert Fiske,the BankingCommitteepostponed in July 1994 its authorized Investigationof the handlingof documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Fosterfollowinghis death. Senate Resolution 120 encourages the Special Committee, to the extent practicable,to coordinate its activitieswith the investigationof the lnd~pendentCounsel. As a result, over the past four months, the Special Committee has delayed its investigationInto the vast bulk of the mattersspecified in Section 1(b) of Senate Resolution 120. We held public hearingsthis past summer Into the handling of documents in Mr. Foster's officefollowinghis death only afteryou indicated that your investigation would not be hindered or impeded by such hearings. AMf-HICt I RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104916 VERSIGHRDIA Page 150 18-1621-000574 TO95148802 COMM. TE KING SENABAN 10:54AMFROM 10~02-95 / 004 P003 The Senate has directed the SpecialCommitteeto makeevery reasonableeffort and public oearingsby February 1, 1996. (S.R. 120 § to complete its Investigation ar, 9(a)(a)(])). Your letter of September 27th asksthe Special Committee to forebe until some unspecifiedtJme, any investigationand public hearingsinto the bulk of the matter:sspecifiedin Senate Resolutlon 120. et Your sttff has indicated that the trial in United States v. James B. McDougal. al. is not likelyto commenceuntil at leastearly 1996 and is expected to last at least two months. Our staffs have discussed the possibility that this trial could he delayed even further by pretrial motionsand by possibleinterlocutoryappeals, depending on certain ue pretrial rulings. Under these circumstances,if the SpecialCommitteewere to contin well to defer its investigationand hearings,it would not be able t~ complete its task until into 1996. Over the past month, we haveinstructedthe Specia•I Committee's counselto work l diligentlywith your staff to find a sorutJonthat appropriately balancesthe prosecutoria al concerns expressed In your September 27th letter and the Senate's constitution should ittee oversight responsibilities. We have now determined that the SpecialComm ution120. Resol not delay its investigationof the remainingmatters specifiedin Senate The Senate has detennined, by a vote of 96-to-3, that a full lnvesti&ationof the mattersraised in Senate Resolution120 should be conducted. The Senate has the well of establishedpower under our Constitutionto inquireinto and to publicizethe actions ·the Departmentof Justice. At the same time, our agenciesof the Government,includlng s inquirymust seek to vindicate,as promptly as practicable,the reputationsof any person who have been unfairlyaccused of improper conduct with regard to Whitewater and related matters. ity We understand that court5 have repeatedly rejected claims that the public impartial resultine from congressionalhearingsprejudicedcriminaldefendants. Fair andpublic ized juries were selected in the Watergate:andIran-Contratrb(s· followlngwidely al congressionalhearings. Even where pretrial publicity resulting from congression hearingshas been found to interfere with the selectionof a fair and lmpanial jury, the sole remedy applied by courts has been to grant a continuanceof the trial. For these reasons, we believethat the concerns expressedin your letter do not gs outweighthe Senate's stronginterest in concludingits Investigationand public hearin the of into the matters specified In Senate Resolution J20 consistent with Section 9 its Resolution. Accordingly, we have determined that the SpecialCommittee will begin s will focus next round of public hearings in late October 1995. This round of hearing primarily on the matters specified in Section 1(b)(2) of Senate Resolution.120. ing Through the remainderof thisyear, the SpecialCommitteewill investigatethe remain AMEnlCAN 2 PVERSIGH RDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 151 18-1621-000575 P004/004 COMM.TO95148802 BANKING SENATE 10-0t-9.510:54AM FROM mattersspecifiedin SenateResolution120 withthe intentionof holdingpublic hearings thereon beginningin January 1996. Having determined that the Senate must now move forward, the Special Committee will, of course, continue to make every effort to coordinate, where practicable, its activitieswith those of your Investigation.-The SpecialCommitteeshas to ittee intend provided your staff with a preliminary list of witnesses that the Comm fonh depose. We standready to take Into account,consistentwith the objectivessetpublic above, your views with regardto the timing of such private depositions and the testimony of particularwitnesses. dant The SpecialCommitteedoes not intend to seekthe testimonyof any defen in a pending action broughtby your office,nor will it seek to expand upon any of the d, grants of immunityprovidedto personsby your office or its predecessors.Indee nize SenateResolution120 expresslyprovidesthat the SpecialCommitteemay not immu a witnessIf the IndependentCounselinformsthe Committeein writingthat Immunizing the witness would Interfere with the Independent Counsel's abilltY"successfullyto prosecute criminalviolations." (§ 5(b)(6)). office prior As you know, the Special Committee has solicited the views of your to making requeru for documents. We will continue to take into account, where practicable,your viewswith regardto the publicdisclosureof particular documents. In sum, it is our consideredJudgmentthat the time.hascome for the Senate toy commenceits investigationand publichearingsinto the remainingmatters of inquir the specified in Senate Resolution120. We pledge to do so in a manner that, to27th greatestextent praetlcableis, sensitiveto the concernsexpressedInyour September letter. Sincerelyyours, ~ ~~:;is Alfo~M. D'Amato Chainnan PaulS. Sarbanes Rankin&Member AMEnlCAN 3 RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 PVERSIGH RDIA Page 152 18-1621-000576 10--02-910:5 5 4AMFROSEN M ATE BANKIN COM G M. TO95148802 POO 1/004 SENATE COivI:\IITfEE ON BANlUNG, . HOUSING, AND ]JRBAN AFFAIRS 534 Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 • lvfain Number (202) 224--7391 • Fax (202) 224-5137 TO : NUMBER FAXED TO: S14-8802 -------- FROM: ChairmanD'Amatoand Ranking MemberSarbanes DATE : October 2, 1995 NUMBER OF PAGES . .:r..4-Cinduding t~is <.;oversheet) MESSAGE: I(you do not receive the specified number of pages, plfase contact sender at our main nu1nber. Thank you. Afv1L1 .11 VERSIGH RDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 153 18-1621-000577 2 U.S.C. 190d, which directs all standing committees of the Congress to engage in continuous legislative oversight of the administration and application of laws within their respective jurisdictions, and "may require a Government agency" to assist in doing so. In 1955, the Attorney General of the United States opined that the authorization required by the Trade Secrets Act was "reaso nably implied" under § 190d. 109 A second source is the rules of each House authorizing committee oversight. C. Accessing Information in Open and Closed Civil and Criminal Cases: The Special Problem of Overseeing the Justice Department Congressional oversight of the conduct of civil and criminal enforc ement matters by agencies, and most particularly the Department of Justice (DOJ), has raised sensitive questions respecting the exercise of prosecutorial discre tion by the executive and interference with protected rights of individuals who may be the subject of such enforcement actions. However, a review of congre ssional investigations that have implicated DOJ or DOJ investigations over the past 70 years, from the Palmer Raids and Teapot Dome to Watergate and throug h IranContra and Rocky Flats, no demonstrates that DOJ has been consis tently obliged to submit to congressional oversight, regardless of whether litigati on is pending, so that Congress is not delayed unduly in investigating misfea sance, malfeasance, or maladministration in DOJ or elsewhere. A numbe r of these inquiries spawned seminal Supreme Court rulings that today provid e the legal foundation for the broad congressional power of inquiry. m All were contentious and involved Executive claims that committee demands for agency documents and testimony were precluded on the basis of constitutiona l or common law privilege or policy. In the majority of instances reviewed, the testimony of subordinate DOJ employees, such as line attorneys and FBI field agents, was taken formally or informally, and included detailed testimony about specific instan ces of the Department's failure to prosecute alleged meritorious cases. In all instances, investigating committees were provided with documents respecting open or 109 41 Op. Atty. Gen. 221 (1955). 110 See Morton Rosenberg, •Legal and Historical Substantiality of Former Attorney General Civilette's Views as to the Scope and Reach of Congress' Authority to Conduct Oversight of the Department of Justice,• CRS, October 15, 1993, reprinted in Hearing, "EPA's Criminal Enforcement Program", before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. 12-41 (1993). For an in-depth description of the most recent investigation of the DOJ, see Staff Report, Damaging Disarray: Organizational Breakdown and Reform in the Justice Department's Environmental Crimes Program, House Subcomm. on Oversight and Investigations, Comm. on Energy and Commerce, 103rd Congre ss., 2d Session (Dec. 1994) (Comm. Print No. 103-T). 111 See notes, 13-20, supra, and accompanying text for a review of McGro in v. Daugherty and Sinclair v. United States. AMr lvr VERSIGH DIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 154 18-1621-000578 CRS-24 da, FBI investigative reports, closed cases that included prosecutorial memoran spondence prepared during summaries of FBI interviews, memoranda and corre ning the procedures or outli the pendency of cases, confidential instructions s and the surveillance and ation oper er rcov guidelines to be followed for unde grand juries not protected from arrests of suspects, and documents presented to inal Procedure, among other disclosure by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Crim similar "sensitive" materials. to provide information The reasons advanced by the Executive for declining avoiding prejudicial pre-trial to Congress about civil proceedings have included parties, protecting the identity publicity, protecting the rights of innocent third e of the government's strategy of confidential informants, preventing disclosur potentially chilling effect on in anticipated or pending judicial proceedings, the attorneys, and precluding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion by DOJ duty to faithfully execute the interference with the President's constitutional laws. 112 Court has repeatedly AB has been recounted previously, the Supreme te the government's to investiga reaffirmed the breadth of Congress' right 118 The courts have also explicitly held conduct of criminal and civil litigation. to agency documents, even in that agencies may not deny Congress access exposure of criminal corruption situations where the inquiry may result in the eme Court has noted, "[B]ut or maladministration of agency officials. The Supr in a legitimate legislative ged surely a congressional committee which is enga onses to its inquiries might resp r neve whe halt a to investigation need not grind in some distinct proceeding ... or when potentially be harmful to a witness· 114 actual pendency of litigation crime or wrongdoing is exposed." Nor does the which have a bearing on that disable Congress from the investigation of facts ed to determine what, if any, litigation, where the information sought is need ills. 116 legislation should be enacted to prevent further gnized that congressional Although several lower court decisions have reco dicial pre-trial publicity, they hearings may have the result of generating preju onal or legal limitations on have not suggested that there are any constituti g the pendency of judicial Congress' right to conduct an investigation durin approaches, such as granting a proceedings. Instead, the cases have suggested ion is found in an opinion of A leading stat.ement of the executive branch posit 45 (1941). Attorney General Robert Jackson. 40 Op. AG. and 13-20, and accompanying 118 See discussion of case law, supra at notes 2-8 text. 112 i I 114 ). Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S. 599, 617 (1962 116 ). Sinclair v. United States, 279 U.S. 263, 294 (1929 Mf-HICAN '.PVE RSIGHADIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 155 18-1621-000579 CRS-25 continuance or a change of venue, to deal with the publicity problem. 116 For example, the court in one of the leading cases, Delaney v. United States, entertained "no doubt that the committ ee acted lawfully, within the constitutional powers of Congress duly dele gated to it" but went on to describe the possible consequences of concurre nt executive and congressional investigations: We think that the United States is put to a choice in this matter: If the United States, through its legislative department, acting conscientiously pursuant to its conception of the public inter est, chooses to hold a public hearing inev itably resulting in such damaging publicity prejudic ial to a person awaiting trial on a pending indictme nt, then the United States must accept the consequences that the judicial department, char ged with the duty of assuring the defendant a fair trial before an impartial jury, may find it necessar y to postpone the trial until by lapse of time the danger of the prejudice may reasonably be thought to have been substantially removed. 117 The Delaney court distinguished the case of a congressional hearing generating publicity relating to an individu al not under indictment at the time (as was Delaney): Such a situation may present important diffe rences from the instant case. In such a situation the investigative function of Congress has its grea test 116 Seee.g., Delaney v. United States, 199 F.2d 107 (1st Cir. 1952); United States v. Mitchell, 372 F.Supp . 1239, 1261 (S.D.N.Y. 1973J. For discussion of ~es in addition to prejudicial publicity that have been raised in regard to concurrent congressional and judicial proceedings, including allegations of violation of due process, see, Contempt of Congress, H.R. Rpt . No. 97-968, 97th Cong., 2d Sees.58 (1982; and the discussion of the potential consequences of congressional gran ts of testimonial immunity on criminal trials, supra, at notes 57-67 and accompanying text. 117 199 F.2d 107, 114 (1st Cir. 1952). The cour t did not fault the committee for holding public hearings, stating that if close d hearings were rejected "because the legislative committee deemed that an open hearing at that time was required by overriding considerations of public interest, then the committee was of course free to go ahead with its hearing, merely accepting the consequence that the trial of Delaney on the pending indictment might have to be delayed." 199 F.2d at 114-5. It reversed Delaney's conviction because the trial court had denied his motion for a continuance until after the publicity generated by the hearing, at which Delaney and other trial witnesses were asked to testify, subsided. See also, Hutcheson v. United States, 369 U.S. 699, 613 (1962)(upholding contempt conviction of person who refused to answer committee questions relating to activities for which he had been indicted by a state grand jury, citing Delaney.) VlFRICAN OVERSIGHRDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 156 18-1621-000580 CRS-26 utility: Congress it is informing itself so that it may take appropriate legislative action; it is informing the Executive so that existing laws may be enforced; and it is informing the public so that democratic processes may be brought to bear to correct any disclosed executive laxity. Also, if as a result of such legislative hearing an indictment is eventually procured against the public official, then in the normal case there would be a much greater lapse of time between the publicity accompanying the public hearing and the trial of the subsequently indicted official than would be the case if the ed is legislative hearing were held while the accus 8 t.U tmen awaiting trial on a pending indic en congressional The absence of indictment and the length of time betwe s rejecting claims that hearing and criminal trial have been factors in court . 119 Finally, in the congressionally generated publicity prejudiced defendants s on occasion have held context of adjudicatory administrative proceedings, court y decisionmakers by 'that pressures emanating from questioning of agenc the impartiality of the Members of Congress may be sufficient to undermine that mere inquiry and proceeding. 120 But the courts have also made clear s that are quasieding oversight of agency actions, including agency proce of political pressure adjudicatory in nature, will not be held to rise to the level would require judicial designed to influence particular proceedings that condemnation. 121 118 199 F.2d at 115. 1,968), cert. denied, See, Silverthorne v. United States, 400 F.2d 627 (9th Cir. se committee becau ed reject ity 400 U.S. 102 (1971)(claim of prejudicial pretrial public 298 F.2d 622 , States d Unite v. J:iearingsoccurred five months prior to indictment); Beck 559 F.2d man, Halde v. States d (9thCir. 1962)(hearingoccurred a year before trial); Unite hman, Ehrlic v. States d Unite ); 31, 63 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, 433 U.S . 933 (1977 v. States d Unite ); (1977 1120 U.S. 429 546 F.2d 910,917 (D.C. Cir. 1976), cert. denied, but g hearin e Senat ment indict (postMitchell, 372 F.Supp. 1239, 1261 (S.D.N.Y. 1973) to avoid questions relating to court held that lapse of time and efforts of committee v. Mesarosh, 223 F .2d 449 States d Unite indictment diminished possibility of prejudice); and occurred after jury trial with cted conne (3rd Cir. 1955)(hearing only incidentally . selected). 119 ' J 120 ). See, e.g., Pillsbury Co. v. FTC, 354 F.2d 952 5th Cir. (1968 F.3d 1522 (D.C. Cir. See e.g., AT~ Inc. v. Department of Transportation 41 1992); Peter Kiewet Sons' v. 1994); State of California v. FERC, 966 F .2d 154 (9th Cir. ; Gulf Oil Corp. v. FPC, 563 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 714 F.2d 163 (D.C. Cir. 1983) ); United States v. Armada F.2d 588 (3d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1062 (1978 Morton R.osenberg and Jack Petroleum Corp., 562 F .Supp 43 (S.D. Tex. 1982). See also, Process: Legal and Ethical tive nistra Maskell, Congressional Intervention in the Admi . 1990) 7, Considerations (CRS Report No 90-440A, Sept. 121 j I ·1 i : F-HICAN OVERSIGH 18-1621-000581 DIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302) Docld: 7.0104Ql6 Page 157 CRS-27 Thus, the courts have recognized the potentially prejudicial effect congressional hearings can have on pending cases. While not questioning the prerogatives of Congress with respect to oversight and investigation, the cases pose a choice for the Congress: congressionally generated publicity may result in harming the prosecutorial effort of the Executive; but access to information under secure conditions can fulfill the congressional power of investigation and at the same time need not be inconsistent with the authority of the Executive to pursue its case. Nonetheless, it remains a choice that is solely within Congress' discretion to make irrespective of the consequences. 122 In the past the executive frequently has made a broader claim that prosecution is an inherently executive function and that congressional access to information related to the exercise of that function is thereby limited. Prosecutorial discretion is seen as off-limits to congressional inquiry and access demands are viewed as interfering with the discretion traditionally enjoyed by the prosecutor with respect to pursuing criminal cases. Initially, it must be noted that the Supreme Court has rejected the notion that prosecutorial discretion in criminal matters is an inherent or core executive function. Rather, the Court noted in Morrison v. Olson, 128 sustaining the validity of the appointment and removal conditions for independent counsels under the Ethics in Government Act, that the independent counsel's prosecutorial powers are executive in that they have "typically" been performed by Executive Branch officials, but held that the exercise of prosecutorial discretion is in no way "central" to the functioning of the Executive Branch. 124 The Court therefore rejected a claim that insulating the independent counsel from at-will presidential removal interfered with the President's duty to "take care" that the laws be faithfully executed. Interestingly, the Morrison Court took the occasion to reiterate the fundamental nature of Congress' oversight function (" . . . receiving reports or other information and oversight of the independent counsel's activities ... [are] functions that we have recognized as generally incidental to the legislative function of Congress," citing McGrain v. Daugherty.) 126 The breadth of Morrison's ruling that the prosecutorial function is not an exclusive function of the Executive was made clear in a recent decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States ex rel Kelly v. The Boeing Co.,126 which upheld, against a broad based separation of powers attack, the 122 See remarks of Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh, supra n.66 and accompanyingtext. 128 487 U.S. 654 (1988). 124 Id. at 691-92. 126 Id. at 694. 126 9 F.3d 743 (9th Cir. 1993). HICAN ERSIGHRDIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 158 18-1621-000582 CRS-28 constitutionality of the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act vesting enforcement functions against agencies by private parties. 127 Prosecution, not being a core or exclusive function of the Executive, cannot claim the constitutional stature of Congress' overs ight prerogative. In the ·absence of a credible claim of encroachment or aggra ndizement by the legislature of essential Executive powers, the Supreme Cour t has held the appropriate judicial test is one that determines whether the challenged legislative action "'prevents the Executive Branch from accomplishing its assigned functions'," 127 Boeing argued, inter alia, that Congress could not vest enforcement functions outside the Executive Branch in private parties . Applying Morrison the appeals court emphatically rejected the contention. Before comparing the qui tam provisions of the FCA to the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act, we must address Boeing's contention that only the Executive Branch has the power to enforce laws, and therefore to prosecute violations of law . It is clear to us that no such absolute rule ensts.Morrison itself indicates otherwise because that decision validated the independent counsel provisions of the Ethics in Government Act even though it recognized that "it is undeniable that the Act reduces the amount of control or supervision that the Attorney General and, through him, the President exercises over the investigation and prosecution of a certain class of alleged criminal activity.• 487 U.S . at 695. The Court also stated in Morrison that "there is no real dispute that the functions performed by the independent counsel are 'executive' in the sense that they are law enforcement functions that typically have been undertaken by officials within the Executive Branch." 487 U.S. at 692 (emphasis added). Use of the world "typically" in that sentence, considered in light of the Court's ultimate conclusion upholding the independent counsel provisions, must mean that prosecutorial functions need not always be undertaken by Executive Branch officials. See Stephanie A.J. Dangel, Note, Is Prosecution a Core Executive Function? Morrison v. Olson and the Framers' Intent, 99 Yale L.J. 1069, 1070 (1990)(Framers intended that prosecution would be undertaken by but not constitutionally assigned to executive officials, and that such officials would typically but not always prosecute). Thus, we reject Boeing's assertion that all prosecutorial power of any kind belongs to the Executive Branch. 9 F.3d at 751 (emphasis supplied). AME.HICAN pvERSIGH RolARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Oocld: 70104916 Page 159 18-1621-000583 CRS-29 and, if so, "'whether that impact is justified by an overriding need to promot e objectives within the constitutional authority of Congress'." 128 Congressional oversight and access to documents and testimony, unlike the action of a court, cannot stop a prosecution or set limits on the management of a particular case. Access to information by itself would not seem to disturb the authority and discretion of the Executive Branch to decide whether to·prosecute a case. The assertion of prosecutorial discretion in the face of a congressional demand for information is arguably akin to the "generalized" claim of confidentiality made in the Watergate executive privilege cases. That general claim -- lacking in specific demonstration of disruption of Executive functions _ - was held to be overcome by the more focused demonstration of need for information by a coordinate branch of government. 129 Given the legitimacy of congressional oversight and investigation of the law enforcement agencies of government, and the need for access to information pursuant to ·such activities, a claim of prosecutorial discretion by itself would not seem to be sufficient to defeat a congressional need for information. The congressional action itself does not and cannot dictate prosecutorial policy or decisions in particular cases. Congress may enact statutes that influen ce prosecutorial policy and information relating to enforcement of the laws would seem necessary to perform that legislative function. Thus, under the standar d enunciated in Morrison v. Olson and Nixon v. _Administrator of Genera l Services, the fact that information is sought on the Executive's enforcement of criminal laws would not in itself seem to preclude congressional inquiry. In light of the Supreme Court's consistent support of the power of legislative inquiry, and in the absence of a countervailing constitutional prerogative of the Executive, it is likely that a court will be "sensitive to the legislative importance of congressional committees on oversight and investigations and recognize that their interest in the objective and efficien t operation of ... agencies serves a legitimate and wholesome function with which we should not lightly interfere." 130 D. Access to Grand Jury Materials Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that members of the grand jury and those who attend the grand jury in its proceEidingsmay· not "disclose matters occurring before the grand jury, except as otherwise 128 Nixon v. Administration of General Services, 433 U.S. 425,433 (1977)· Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Schor, 487 U.S. 833, 851 (1986J; Mo~ v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 693-96 (1988). 129 U.S. v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 705-706, 711-712 (1974). 130 Gulf Oil Corp. v. FPC, 563 F.2d 588,610 (3d Cir. 1977). A /H-=n1CAN VERSIGHRDIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 160 18-1621-000584 03-19-95 07:35PM FROMSENATE BANKIN COMM G T.O95148802 POOl / 019 SENATE COMMITTEE ON·BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS 534 Dirksen Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 • Main Number (202) 224-7391 • Fax (202) 224-5137 TO : ~rent Kavanaugh, ore NUMBERFAXED TO: 202/514-8802 FROM : DATE: _Robert .J, Giuffra 3/20/95 NUMBER OF PAGES : lS (Including tr.is cover sheet) MESSAGE: Here is the correspondence handling his death. of papers we discussed ln Vincent Post:er•s relating to the office following lf you do not receive the specified number of paf,?es, please contact sender a t our main number . Th :-rnk yn11 . AML '-.J pvERSIGH RDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld : 70104916 Page 161 18-1621-000585 03-19-95 07:35PMFROM TO95148802 SENATE BANKING COMM. P002 / 019 CHRONOLOGYOF SENATF.RANKING COMMITTEE CORRESPONDENCE REGARDINGVINCENTFOSTERDOCUMENTS June 22, 1994 Letter from the Senate Banking Committee to Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States. requesting all 00.T records, including all records of the FBI, that relate to, among other subjects, "the way in which White House officials handled documents in the office of Vincent Foster at the time of his death.'' The Committee also requested records relating to the handling of documents from the Treasury Department, the White Hou:;c:, the RTC and the U.S. Park Police. July 1, 1994 Letter from the Senate Banking Committee to Robert 8. Fiske, Jr., Office of the Independent Counsel, requesting all records that relate to, among other l:iubj~cls, "the way in which the White House officials handled documents in the office of Vincent Foster at the time of his death." July I, 1994 Letter from Lloyd N. Cutler, Special Counsel to the President, to the Senate Banking Committee in response to the Committee's document request of June 22, 1994. The White House is producing documents previously gathered in response to subpoenas issued by Mr. Fiske. In accordance with the understanding reached at the June 29, 1994 meeting, \Vhite House staff members to whom the Committee made individual requests do not need to produce separately documents that they previously provided to the Office of White House CoW1selin response to Mr. Fiske's subpoenas. The White House production does not, however, include any personal documents that these individuals may have provided to Mr. Fiske. 1 July I, 1994 Letter from Jeffrey D. Robinson, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, to the Senate Banking Committee in response to the Committee's document request of June 22, 1994. Mr. Fi.ske will directly provide to the Committee DOJ documents generated in his investigation. DOJ will directly provide documents in its possession to the Committee only after Mr. Fiske has reviewed DOJ' s proposed ___. production. ______ _______ _ ________________ - ___ ...__ 6 '· "'t l)J1D Individual requests for documents were made to 12 present and former White House Staff members; only Betsy Pond, Office of the \Vhite House Counsel, ~nrl Patsy L. homasson, Special Assistant to the Presidem. did not provide individual responses. pvERSIGH RDIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 162 18-1621-000586 03-19-95 07:35PMFROM TO95148802 SENAT E BANK INGCOMM. P003 / 019 July 5, 1994 Letter from Timothy S. Elliott, Deputy Associate Solicitor, U.S. Department of Interior, to Michael Davidson, Senate Legal Counsel in response to the Committee's document request of June 22, 1994. Enclosed arc certain U.S. Park Police records . Documents relating to the handling of documents by the White House, however, are not included. "The Park Police advised the Tndependent Counsel they would not release documents that might interfere with any ongoing investigation being conducted by him. We understand Mr. Fiske still has under consideration matters that might implicate the handling of certain documents. We believe the documents in our files may be part of his investigation." July 11, 1994 Letter from Robert B. Fiske, Jr., Independent Counsel, to the Senate Banking Committee in response to the Committee's document request of July 1, 1994. Enclosed are copies of records in t.he possession of the OIC perraining to the completed investigation into the death of Vincent Foster. "I cannot yet release to you records pertaining to the possible mishandling of documents in the office of Vincent Foster because ...the document investigation is ongoing." July 18, l 994 Letter from John C. Keeney, Deputy Assistant attorney General, to the Senate Banking Committee in response to the Committee's doc.urnent request of June 22, 1994. Enclosed are DOJ records relating to the death of Vincent Foster . This response does not include documents solely in the custody and control of Mr. Fiske. DOJ will produce documents relating to the handling of documents in the office of Vincent Foster at the time of his death "as soon as Mr. Fiske determines that disclosure will not interfere with his ongoing investigation." July 27. 1994 AMl-HICAN Letter from John C. Keeney, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, to the Senate Banking Committee regarding the DOJ's refusal to produce FBI documents relating to the handling of documents in the office of Vincent Foster at the time of his death. "As stated prcYiously, the Department will prudm:c:: these documents as soon as Mr. Fiske determines that disclosure will not interfere with his ongoing investigation .'' 2 PVERSIGH RDIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 163 18-1621-000587 . 95148802 COMMTO BANKING AT M E 03-19-95 07:35PMFROSEN OCMAlO \w Alt.G t.! , Jn ., Mlt 11 ti1c,,....,o c . .-:•,1.G• l(.iA.N , 1-.tcAfl( ..,.."'-"" Al fOflil:;E "' !\ AR:lAN(S . WAA"ll,Af'IO ( .Cl'tiSTo r, ,1, u J 0 0 1'0 , COf"iNt:C TICVT J t'-" SA SS EA, T(HN(SSU r , 1.•~ f. • • , ah&MA . .i.ASSACtflJSCTTS JO,. N , a:ta&rr AIC•u .no ,.. aFt,AN , PllfVA.OA 8AAS.:.~ tl OKEfl. (A.t,,lf OflNIA ac,, H•CHTMO..Sf c......u,u .. COL0• ... 00 ,,,WOSELET,(11\AV,OfILLH•O•S r._. TTY t.fUR.AAt'. WA.SM1NGTON P004/019 ! >°AMA,(,) , Nl""' , .;;;< r,,11Gi1,,:.""1fjl,r,,ITl XAS ~ SCc..• i::; CICf\l STOrl ':(rl s (10110 , ""11 CONP111f t.u.c«. h,OA•OA ,..... ("'~o .._ Norr,., H. t:AtnClOT AUCt-1 I t1 nited~rates»cnatc S..491([jf@~~169 03-19-95 07:35PM FROSM ENATE BANK INGCOMMT.O95148802 POl/0019 U.S . Department of Juslin · Office of Legislative Office of chc A» i. 1.int Annrncy (jcncra l W,uhin.t ro11, D. C. Z05]0 July Honorable Chairman w. R~egle, Donald Comroittee on Banking, Urban Affairs United states Senate Washington, o . c. Honorable Alfonse 1, 1994 Jr. Housing, and 20510 M. D'Arnato Ranking Member committee on Banking, Urban Affa irs Housing Affairs and United states Senate Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator O'Amato: This ls in response to your letter of June 22, Attorney General Reno requesting that the Committee documents relatinq to the followinry subjects: (a) communications the Corporation Corporation Association; (b) the Park Vir.cent (c) between Department relating and the Service Foster; the way in which documents in the of his death. the of officials of the 1994 to be provided White House and Treasury or the Resolution Trust to the Whitewater Development Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Poli~e and White office !nvestigation House into officials of Vincent the dedLh of handled Foster at the time Representatives of the Department met today with and minority staff of the Committee and Senate Counsel majority Michael Davidson concerning production of these materials . It was noted that documents generated in the inve stiga tion of these rnattP.rs by Independent Counsel Rubert B . .1-•iske, Jr . would be provided directly to the Committee cy Mr. Fiske. Documents in the possession of Department would be provided by thP Department. AMEHICA 1 VERSIGHRDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 170 18-1621-000594 03-19-95 07:35PMFROM SENAT E BANKING COMM. TO95148802 P0ll/ 019 2 The Department has set July ll·as its goal the documents. Rut as uas noted at the meeting, review our proposed production to assure it will with to the his investigation. target date. for production Mr. Fiske not as closely We hope to adhere of will interfere as possible Sincerely, ' _1 ·7· !c~-.,....,j / ?·/ \_ /,,/ -- ey o: Robinson ty Assistant Attorney - General AM HICAN pvERSIGH RDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 171 18-1621-000595 03-19-95 07:35PMFROM TO95148802 SENATE BANKING COMM. P012 / 019 lJnited Slates [)ep:lrrn1ent of the Interior OFFICE OF Tlff SOI.ICITOR JUL 5 /994 Michael Davidson, Esq. Senate Legal Counsel United States Senate Washington, Dear Mr. Enclosed DC Davidson: with thiD letter, as Maloney I discussed with Ms. Beth O'Neill- on the telep&lOne today, are certain of the records of the United States Park Police. These records are being provided in response to the request from the Committee on Banking of the United States Senate and dated June 22, 1994. We will supply a list of the docu~ents released here~j.~ n0 later than July 6, 1994. As I advised, informcltion 1) we are or ph'Jtocopies types of of the not releasing inf'uLmotiun "handw-i.tten" this at time the following : note 2} records pertaining to the handling of documents by the White House 3) phntngr~phs, or copies thereof, of Vincent Fo~tcr's body at the death scene 4} photographs, or copies thereof, of the body taken during the a•.JLupsy While we are prepared to discuss all of convenience, nos. 1, 3, and 4 above would, in an unwarranted ~~vasion of the personal th~~~ documents at your opinion, result privacy of the Foster family. ""hey have not to ouL knowl~dge been released outsiJe or the Executive Branch. Furthermore I we are protecting thein in pending litigation under the Freedom of Information Act. in our no. 2, we have either removed from the copies being provided to you, or noted on relevant pages thc~c documents as being 7(A). The Park Police advised the Independent Counsel they would not re1.ease documents that might interfere with any ongoing inv~~Ligation being conducted by him. We understand Mr. Fiske still has under consideration matters that might implicate the handlinq df certain document~ . W~ believe the document~ in our files may be part of his investigation; therefore, in keeping with our commitment, we have not included them in this package. As for In addition, at, or Again, the A~ near, while privacy identifying were interview we have deleted the ~ames of =ert~in persons who wer~ Fort Marcy when Mr. Foster's body was discover~~we are prepared to discuss these, we are concerned for of the individuals since neither their names or other informati<";n ed by the hc1ve Park been P~lice made public. and are ThcGc not · VERSIGHRDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 mentioned Page 172 wi. tncsses by name 18-1621-000596 03-19-9507:35PM FROM SENAT TO95148802 E BANK INGCOMM. in the Report We have not These are of the included personal Independent copies items, Counsel. of the contents most and charge card numbers. of Mr. Foster's wallet. listed generically in The only added information such as PIN numbers, shopping of which the Independent Counsel's Report. photocopies would reveal are details habits, P013 / 019 were Finally, we are not producing documents substantively within the purview of another attempting to determine from those agencies object to the release of their document~. As them, we will acvise you and produce copies of appropriate. we belie~2 to hP agency. We are whether they might soon as we hear from their documents, as While we have not deleted the names or other information that might law enforcement officers (whose names were not included in the Independent Counsel's Report), we have put brackets around the information. This is to alert you to the fact thc1t we are prolecting it in the l'"OIA litigatic.,n, in accordance with case law allowing the withholding of such informaLion under FOIA. We would appreciate you understanding of this, and ask that, if you receive a request for the bracketed information, you provide us with the opportunity to respond or advise you of its continued sensitivity. Furthermore, shoald you believe you must release such information, we would like notice in advance of such a release. identify we look forward to our meeting to discuss have sought and how we may further assist further you . the documents Sincerely, ---:- you ~ I~-/. ,;::--:;ny _, ;'-\ ~-~Y Timothy Deputy s. -/,· I ,\- • :.,..A. :·_70J ,.· .. . Elliott Associate Solicitor Enclosure AMLHICAN pvERSIGH ROIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 173 18-1621-000597 03-19-95 07:35PM FROM SEN ATEBANK INGCOM . MTO95148802 /. .~ · P014/ 019 -... .:: ·~/ :t:; . ' ,, ········-- ·-··--\, United St«tes , Senators f 11, w~,_... I' 1994 M. D'Amat.o Member Unit.ed scat.es Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Washington, D.C. 20510 Sen~te Riegle IJ •• I Alfonse Ranking Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Washlngton, D.C. 20510 Dear ··--· ---- ·-- -··-· · .. , • July Jr. --- .... ...· ., ..,· ,'., ; I\ , Donald W. Riegle, Chairman -- -- and D'Amato: Pursuant to your request of July l, 1994, enclosed please find copies of records in the possession of the Offi c-:P of the Indc::pt!ndent: Counsel ( "OIC' 1 ) pertaining to the comp leted investigation(s) into (1) the death of Vincent W. Foster, Jr . , and (2) communications between off.icials of the White House and Lhe Department of the Treasury or Resolution Trust Corporation. As we have discussed, I cannot yet rele~~to you records pertai ning to the pnssible mishandling of docu111E;!nts in che off j.ce of Vincent Foster because, unlike the two aforementioned investigations, the document investigation is ongoing. As you also know . under ~ederal Rule of Cri1n.iual Procedure 6 (e), I cannot produce to you any record pertaining to any of the three investigations if it involves matters presented to the Grand Jury. Much of the material provided to you today is in the form interviews conducted by FBI agents and attorneys on my staff. In an effort to exped ite a production to you and to avoid needless repetition. T am not at this tirn~ producing the "backup'' to these forms - - handwrite.en notes of the agents, memos to file, communications betwe en members of my sta.ff, or other material rhat ,·eflccte th~ deJ.il :> t:LaL.ive process of this Office or is tr2ditionally protected attorn ey work product. l am similarly not producing c:ocu ments t.har. I know are bei:1g produced to you fro rn the.ir urig i!' !al $Ources and docum ent:s such as newspaper articles that are publicly available . of 1 ' FB T 'F'D- 3 02s" - - records of wi tnes::; AMLf~ICAN pvERSIGH RDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld : 70104916 Page 174 18-1621-000598 P015/ 019 INGCOMM. ATEBANK TO95148802 OMSEN 03-19-95 07:35PM FR ~s is as much inf~rmacion co releas~ I have attempted on were interviewed w1cnesses In many instances, today. possible have had interviews of their more than one topic , and che records ei thf:r Grand ,Jury or they reflect to be rerl.::ir.r:ed to 1-.he e:xt .P-nt that to of expediency, In the interest material. investigation ongoing it is of such material, prim~rily consists a record thot the extent withheld being in its entirety at time . this family for the Foster and consideration Out of respect great who came forward despite of the witnesses and in appreciation I have redacted in this investigation, to become involved hesitancy from the FBI FD-302s, Anrl information names and descriptive certain off ice and in Mr. Foster's found note original the withheld I taken on July 20, 1993 at the scene of his death_. photographs as much as I, need for privacy their appreciate am ~ure you will to you today will be released that all materials and I understand to you by as chose produced procedures the same security afforded of the Interior. the Department records storage Finally, responsive facility soma that ~nm~ ~o my attention it ha~ r~~~nt1y be in an FBI might already to your request into chis, and is lc~king My office in Virginia. supplement I will if necco::;.iry, feel free to please questions, If production. this contact me at Respectfully (202) you have any 514-8688. yours, Jr. B. Fiske, Cuunsel Independent.: Robert • of Ft. Marcy Park photographs . ~arge aerial at the ore, should you so desire. fo~ · viewing are available AMFnlCAN PVERSIGH RDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 175 18-1621-000599 P016 / 019 03-19 -95 07:35PMFROM SENATE BANKING COMM. TO95148802 . orJust LS . lkpartmcnt , ... .~.-· .. in · .' ' w,r>11n,troll . D.C 20530 July w. Donald Riegle, Jr., 18, 1994 Chairrnon Alfonse M. D'Amato, Ranking Member United States Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Washington, Dear D. C . 20510 Senators Riegle Enclosed are and D'Amato: D~partment of Justice records responsive to part (b) of your June 22, 1994 request relating to the Park Police investigation into the death of Vincent Foster. Th i s response covers all Department of Justice components, but does not include documents solely in the custody and control of lndP.pendent Counsel Robert B. Fiske, Jr. The enclosed were produced from the Office of the Deputy Attorney copies of the Park understand that you have obtained report anu Interior; additional .c~lc:St.t:!d Pc1rx Poli<.:e The Department of your n:!<.:onJ:;; therefore, the Department copies of those records. request as will soon produce as Mr. r.com the of Justice documents Fiske Oepa.n.rnent. has responsive determines documents Gen~ral. Police that not We of the provided to part (c) disclosurG will not interfere with his ongoing investigation into the handling of documents in Vincent roster's office. The Department has no documents responsive to part (a) of your request. We have requests for and the like, to ongoing not construed your request to seek copies of other documents. Thus, we have not prod~ced FOIA requests departmental responses, or other documents relating FOIA litigation . To the exter.t tnat newsclippings maintained by Department employees could be deemed responsive to the Committee's request, you should be aware that the Department provides a clippings service through the .Office of Public Affairs and back clippings are available through that office . You and We have providPn your staff are welcome to review the clippings. copies of clippings only if they are attached to a responsive document or other~ise contain responsive markings or notes. information, consisti~q mainl y We have redacted very limited of home addresses and telephone numbers , because of the conce~n tor the privacy of persons named . Please feel fr.ee to contact me if you would like to review ~h~ redacted infcrmatio n. By AMERICAN PVERSIGH R DIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 70104916 Page 176 18-1621-000600 COMM. TE KING SENABAN TO95148802 -95 07:35PMFROM 03-19 / 019 POl? 2 producing Justice materials these does not intend pursuant raise If you have to to the to waive Committee, any claims the Department it may other~ise of FOIA. an y gue~tions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, .. " . e-K J 'hn C. Ke~ eput:y Assi:::.tant Attorney Generill Enclosures AMERICAN PVERSIGH RDIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld : 70104916 Page 177 18-1621-000601 INGCOMM. TEBANK SENA TO95148802 03-19-95 07:35PM FROM P018/019 U.S. lkp,1rtmcnc of Justke Crirninal O/fi~e of t>it Assista1't Arrornq D.C. 20JS0 klashi11g1011, Ge11e,al July Honorable Chairman Donald Divi~;ic,n 1994 Jr. W. Riegle, and Housing, committee on Banking, Urban Affairs 27, Senate United States 20510 D.C. Washington, Honorable Ranking Committee Alfonse M. D'Amato Member and H~using, on Banking, Urban Affairs Senate United states 20510 o.c. Washington, Dear Mr. Chairman and Senator D'Arnato: received dated July 19, 1994, of tment Depar the 1994, regarding on July,~, by the Department the of (b) part to in response of documents production Justice's response s tment' Depar The t. reques 1994 June 22, Committee's th~n Other the FBI. inc)uding components, of its all covered all over has turned the Department of documents, duplicates to the Park solely relate that in its possession documents Foster. into the death ot Vincent investigation Police Service This responds to your letter (including nver documents turned of the from the 0ffice from the FBI and documents documents to part (c) of your raquest General) pursuant Deputy Attorney handled Hu1.,:sc o=ficia!::: White ''to the way in Which relating of his time the at Foster t of Vincen in the office documents igation invest g ongoin the of part remains That subject death." your ing receiv After Jr. Fiske, B. Counsel Robert by Independent the FBI. The Depnrtmcnt has not from the documents collected we again reviewed letter, t".hP. of stages early in the l.h~ FBI wa:s involved Al though reports FBI the foster, into the death of Vincent investigation in ents docum the of to the issue of the handling alsb relate ment Depart the previously, As stated office. Foster's Vincent that as Mr. Fiske determines soon as ents docum these will produce . igation with his onqoing invest not interfere vill disclosure AM In response to your question as to i-;here in the Department r.nmpnnAnt.s:; had tho followinry were located, records Po lice Off ice of the Deputy Attorney records: :.>·cs of Par k Police 18-1621-000602 ROIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104916 Page 178 P dL:k. VEoi P019 / 019 03-19-95 07:35PM FR OM SENAT E BANK INGCOMM . TO95148802 2 General; Executive Responsibility; If secretariat OfficR; the Criminal. Division; you have any questions, please Office of and the feel s· cerely, Professional FBI. free to contact me. V 4~e~l~y p ty Assi~vAttorney General AMERICAN PVERSIGH R._ OIARD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 70104916 Page 179 18-1621-000603 --- Screened by NARA (RD-F) 07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) DOCID: 70104918 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104918 Page 1 18-1621-000604 • J Ul1ic interest requires 1995, of 1995 that April 700 requirement. United States District Court for the District of Columhia ATRUEOOPY Cl.ERK ~ lit.MAVER-'NHIT'Tt~G~lt r1{i; By --~- .. .::__:~,-.! · / L IJcp:ily Ci:rl:. '95-11 H -fOIA pvg~'s~G RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104918 Page 2 18-1621-000605 01 / 19 / 96 03:59 JURY OFFICE 273 0495 -a-202 ~003 FILED DEC2 ~· 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA C~~RK MAYER-WHITTINGTON, NANCY COURT u.s.DISTRICT I ) IN THE MATTER OF A SPECIAL GRAND JURY ) ) ) ) ORDER the upon Based General, Crifflinal certifying that of because IT Code, IS in criminal in activity this and the a that 3331, Clerk of special the court of Department states grand a special judgment his HEltEBY ORDERED, pursuant section impaneled, United Division, Attorney Assistant Acting the from . letter jury is justice, necessary district, to Title grand is jury hereby 18, States United be summoned directed to and do so .forthwith. DATED: DEC1~ 1993 93-87 H TOIA pvg'~'s~G RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Doc/d: 70104918 Page 3 18-1621-000606 01 / 19 / 96 04:00 0495 i73 ti'202 JURY • 'flCt:; 0.f:< l(lj004 • FILED ONI:TED STATES DISTRICT COORT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA It that a grand It to the appearing is, jury March in impanlled be the public requires . interest 1994, Therefore, ORDERED, this persons that Court FEB 0 ~ i994 be summoned ___ __ ~ ____ '7 to meet / this day of February 1994 700 that requirelJlent. .- ~~~~~1!!!~~~:..--,G=ARRE-=-=TT----P_ENN District __ Judge 94-05 H TOIA p~~l~'s~G RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104918 Page 4 18-1621-000607 ~VV.L UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR.THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA WASHINGTON, D.C. 20001 OFFICE OF THE JURY FAX (FTS) 273-0495 TEL (FTS) 273-0410 AGENCY: ATIENTION: FROM: DATE&TIME: FAX NUMBER: NO. OF PAGES: INCLUDING COVER l,\~~D g[~. ~J~~rt~~~ ~TlltvMe tv\1~~~ I ,~Ii:oo,~ I 1'1 ~ ~~o ~ {'lo':l)5L~- it RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104918 V~l~'$~GHTOIA AM - Pages - 18-1621-000608 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104918 Page 6 18-1621-000609 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104918 Page 7 18-1621-000610 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104918 Page 8 18-1621-000611 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104918 Page 9 18-1621-000612 H-AL~ Screened by NARA (RD-F) 07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) DOCID: 70104922 ..- ' FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 1 18-1621-000613 > _-_• •···__ • 1•""' • 1 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 2 3 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 4 Plaintiff, 5 No. vs. LR-CR-93-147(1) Monday, March 25, 1996 Little Rock, Arkansas 9:30 a.m. 6 DAVID HALE, 7 Defendant. 8 9 TRANSCRIPT OF SENTENCING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HONORABLESTEPHEN M. REASONER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 APPEARANCES: 12 On Behalf of the Plaintiff: MR. KENNETH w. STARR, Independent Counsel MR. HICKMANEWING, Associate Independent Counsel Office of Independent Counsel Two Financial Center Parkway, Suite 134 Little Rock, Arkansas 72211 13 14 15 16 17 18 On Behalf of the Defendant: MR. RANDY COLEMAN, Attorney at Law; and MR. GEORGE J. BEQUETTE, Attorney at Law & Smith Skokos, Bequette 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 19 20 Also 21 Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. 22 23 Present: Robert B. Fiske, Jr. Rusty Hardin Dennis J. Mcinerney W. Ray Jahn Timothy Mayopoulos Amy J. St. Eve 24 25 prepared Proceedings reported by computer-aided United by machine transcription. Eugenie States stenography; transcript M. Power Court Reporter AMERICAN PVERSIGH FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld : 70104922 Page 2 18-1621-000614 ~ oil _-I. - fjlijlj Wi __ ;, --~""' ""'· ..···,.. ;,_ -..,_~ ..... ,_-•-•••&____ , ..,:w1 ;,.,._ i .... il.., . _)1:..,...- i...........iL .... un,.. ·.···""" ···•'"'• ··•-) ·•-·•t•·-·.__ ..,lil!M! . •---~...- ~ •......,.., _......,......,. _____________________ _ 2 1 THE COURT: Good morning. 2 MR. STARR: Good morning. 3 THE COURT: The matter 4 time s Hale. is the sentencing in The sentencing Mr. Hale 6 7 on September B Independent 9 against the is 1993. Counsel Mr . Hale, case subject was originally 23, the charged in In February, filed and subsequently 11 Superceding 12 charged Mr. Hale 13 States, in violation 14 and one count of mail 15 Code, 1341 and 1342. appeared here in on March 22, 1993, 16 Mr. Hale his 18 to both attorney, 19 25 of one, of the have fraud, charged Mr. to and read of 1994, the in a two-count Code, court Information the United Section 18, with entered MR. EWING: United 371, States Randy Coleman, a plea of guilty Information. the objections to Presentence Report and Presentence we have, Very well. Your Honor, and we have it. THE COURT: the Yes, Report Mr. Coleman, have you read and addendum? MR. COLEMAN: Yes, United I have, Eugenie States Your Honor. M. Power Court Reporter AMLHICAN pvERSIGH L. Indictment defraud of David indictment Superceding in violation this 22, and Guidelines. Office Hale States Superceding you the on March United v. Superceding conspiracy 18, States a four-count The two-count with, date addendum? 23 24 counts Mr. Ewing, 21 22 Counsel Information. Section 17 20 Independent this Sentencing 1994, a four-count Office for of United to 10 of scheduled OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 3 18-1621-000615 no _ _ . (,i,1 • ' ¥!. :·t . .· )"'"•.. ' 3 THE COURT: 1 2 Report and addendum MR. HALE: 4 THE COURT: your 6 sentence? objections, Yes, MR. HALE: 8 THE COURT: given submitted 11 Office of 12 review the 13 the the objections you very at both 18 MR. COLEMAN: relates 21 to 22 put into 23 the Court 24 monies 25 as a product the more to paragraph initial that were Yes, then and have had have been is and to the time to filed by 25. hear you on your in sir. if the 13 of 1.5 Capital your time. THE COURT: 20 resolve was prepared sides we will 17 are impose counsel 13 and MR. COLEMAN: Your Honor objections I will The Court objections 16 19 and Report to paragraphs this today and his Report, Mr. Coleman, Mr. Coleman? much. Presentence Counsel, going Presentence I do. defendant Presentence Therefore, sir, the Your Honor. findings, Thank Independent defendant 14 15 Yes, the to both read Do you understand to understand 10 you them with I have, make factual 7 9 have and discussed 3 5 Mr. Hale, million please nature the United of as Report wish to point money, from the Those in our it relation capitalization that own funds. I think a clarification We merely Eugenie States Court, of original and obtained of Mr. Hale's the Presentence $500,000.00 leveraged of dollars Management. that it against SBA, were were out to which done not M. Power Court Reporter AMLHICAN pvERSIGH OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Pa_ge 4 18-1621-000616 so • 4 1 ill-gotten -THE COURT: 2 3 Are you talking Which about the $500,000.00 Dean Paul 4 MR. COLEMAN: No, 5 THE COURT: 6 MR. COLEMAN: That's 7 THE COURT: 8 MR. COLEMAN: That's 9 mistake 10 in There I'm Presentence are references 11 and maybe Mr. Klingbeil 12 references 13 million 14 capitalizing 15 It 16 monies 17 Management 18 from 19 alleged dollars that correct, 22 to 23 funding the 24 can went Inc. source criminal it not, that in All that loan, are the the to are course of government. Court that those of Capital funds, product the 1.5 the capitalization the and not of any of funds the case. But the $500,000.00 Presentence was obtained generated 1.5 Report in million United was obtained, addressed, Eugenie States if I'm dollars and I think following the M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VERSIGH is relation SBA? more appropriately a catch. original federal to there's But there in Mr. Hale's right. which the the out not this. to from it, Report obtained this MR. COLEMAN: 500,000 that's me with point to I did Presentence help were conduct Dean Paul from the that's If which Report to it. it. defendant intent Services, is not Management THE COURT: 21 following not in originally some other loan? not Report the Capital our about? sir. Presentence that was merely 20 25 the you talking Oh, okay. the in are OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld~ 70104922 Page 5 18-1621-000617 of t I 5 1 scenario 2 Honor. 3 wanted 4 did, 5 collateralize 6 that 7 inflated 8 those correctly, That is in where to point indeed, it paragraph out that to own the the the the monies 10 Presentence time of 11 their 12 inflated 13 that. property. as the that and MR. COLEMAN: That's 15 THE COURT: there's 17 Mr. Coleman. an error 18 in the to point 20 value, was involved 21 That 22 loaned 23 Capital 24 those 25 in out money was placed out, and all of Management are then the correct, the the .course factors Court in the scheme that of making United our Capital wife to & that value was but, still, Loan, some of and it rest I think because that the was was greatly followed from Your Honor. But I don't in that respect, is to that were they we wanted that inflate clarification. lost were to point think regard, Your Honor, Management funds Eugenie States we merely Savings Report the Services Your and his that, Okay. to those Hale scheme Presentence into again, I understood this right. true, Mr. Hale. in any we wanted it that MR. COLEMAN: Well, 19 Mr. out. in 14 16 But, I understand was just is Guaranty of that All that transaction, Well, value, and was utilized Madison monies spells It to that the represented Report Court We recognized THE COURT: 9 from. from had a value. at came property loan 25, property the what had a value. and subsequently to Mr . . Hale not repaid. out to the and And Court · M. Power Court Reporter AMLHICAN pvERSIGH OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 6 18-1621-000618 U11 ··. J 6 THE COURT: 1 2 both of the All right. MR. COLEMAN: Yes, 4 THE COURT: what 6 in 7 Report. Mr. Coleman 9 Therefore, accuracy of the the Court adopts 11 and adopts the 12 just right. Well, stated, but the the extent the set Presentence out in Report in No, Your Honor. 15 THE COURT: All 16 Guidelines 17 a total offense 18 Numeral I; 19 release of not 20 range of 10,000 21 applicable, the 22 and a 23 required, 25 Mr. passed Ewing, of reflect any of that Presentence going to be overruled, Presentence right. and Report entirety. According by Congress, level of imprisonment less 23; than to then, of two, victim being assessment a total right. With let me turn of history 46 to no more $100,000.00. to the in Mr. Hale's criminal range the Small case 57 months; than three we have of Roman supervised years; would Business felony Sentencing category Restitution on each fine be Administration, count would also $100.00. those United guideline to you and ask Eugenie States ranges about in mind, the recommendation M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VERSIGH the objections? MR. EWING: All will its 14 for think of the the MR. COLEMAN: No, Your Honor. 24 care will objections they 13 dollar record I don't are Report, facts the accuracy those Presentence Any further so- take Your Honor. or vitiates to 10 All has any way affects 8 that objections? 3 s Now, does OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 7 18-1621-000619 be . :11 ,· ;._-.,~_ 111::i:b·· ·.i. ·a·r ...·rr , Nriflt• ·rn · . · 1 ·· r ·· · · 7 1 on behalf of Independent MR. EWING: 2 3 downward 4 Guidelines. 5 then 6 Independent departure 7 call government 9 pled guilty, 10 to. But I point 11 Guidelines, 12 Report, 13 matter of 14 states upon 15 stating the 16 the 17 may depart does to the out, for defendant certain 21 evaluation 22 defendant's 23 government's 24 commentary 25 government's has from the the what is of themselves the Hale speak Sentencing Presentence this authorities, of the will recognize and it government, assistance another person, significance assistance, evaluation in the United that is"··· taking into of assistance of Your Honor, the the Eugenie States of consideration Court is should of the up to should be court's the the rendered". weight extent there the and usefulness "Substantial evaluation course, state one of which states: in the substantial of that When Mr. under provided reduction, Guidelines the to Mr. Starr. that government, and original Fiske the a guidelines. considerations, of remarks, motion does for Sentencing Mr. to or prosecution a motion departure. Guidelines the then written that assistance motion the and in our stated Sentencing The appropriate 20 this, a downward has of who was the Your Honor, substantial But the put filed of general was an agreement investigation you. a couple recommend Your Honor 19 5Kl.1 address we have that but Section address Counsel, 8 we have on Mr. Bob Fiske, Your Honor, 18 Your Honor, under I will I will Counsel. be given The to the defendant's M. Power Court Reporter AMFnlCAN VERSIGH FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104922 Page 8 18-1621-000620 8 1 assistance, 2 assistance 3 particularly are difficult Further, 4 completeness, 5 provided 6 defendant's 7 risk 8 timeliness". 9 the to Court is the to injury to the Your Honor, 10 Mr. Fiske 11 of Mr. Hale's any the and Mr. and or his to present MR. FISKE: Good to be back As Your Honor August 17 to a decision 18 States 19 the 20 course, 21 cooperation 22 of Reno as the 5 of that 24 an indictment 25 in this the period Counsel, district, the today the that Special and the like to call on evaluation in by Kenneth of time charging United Mr. Hale Eugenie States Starr United Columbia I held on pursuant following I, Mr. Hale's that of actions the position 1994. Mr. Hale States with 1994. statute. about 5, General of of the of I was appointed, by the January counsel only Rock. by Attorney District up to August obtained Little Division independent be speaking time in Counsel for United was then Attorney's conspiracy under Office to defraud M. Power Court Reporter AMFnlCAN VERSIGH or you again. I was appointed by the of Independent At the or any danger government's see I was replaced of Appeals during Good to Independent year re-enactment 23 knows~ issued Court will the assistance. 13 16 of I would the Okay. Janet this truthfulness, extent family, remarks, THE COURT: 15 of or testimony suffered, 12 14 the information injuries those Starr .. nature defendant so with and value consider"· of any defendant, assistance, extent ascertain". and reliability by the of where FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104922 Page 9 18-1621-000621 in 9 1 the 2 Charles 3 trial 4 February 5 would 6 scheduled. 7 Mr. Matthews 8 June, 9 scheduled SBA of $900,000.00. Matthews on March and Eugene 28, 1994. we obtained be ready for on the time on March 12 office and expressed 13 ongoing two co-defendants, scheduled noted Indictment March 28 date severed which earlier, in and that trial said we already the eventually Mr. Hale's to go to trial of occurred would in go forward as 28. March, Mr. Coleman his were Your Honor that begin, several entered weeks into before plea Mr. Hale's the trial discussions willingness was to with our to cooperate in of the discussions 15 the 16 from 17 questions we had 18 was about to go to trial 19 any criminal conduct 20 aware plea our other by our office, office and agents leading Mr. Hale from under agreed the on any matters, up to the to meet FBI to answer including the that both then-pending Mr. Hale had acceptance with of attorneys any and all the case that indictment engaged and in or was of. Virtually every attorneys from my office, 22 with 23 During 24 criminal 25 In addition, those meetings conduct from he fully day for the which next as well he fully two weeks as admitted agents to he was already admitted United Eugenie States Mr. Hale from the participating under to participating met FBI. in indictment. in criminal M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VERSIGH the investigation. As part 21 Fitzhugh, and Mr. Fitzhugh, 11 with As Your Honor trial At that In early 14 along a Superceding and confirmed 10 He, BOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 10 18-1621-000622 the _.,..._.1u• ··. •--- -1.-~ ·.••-•~""'___________ .,.~~ ~~""' .... __ ___ ________ ___ _____________ 10 1 conduct 2 under 3 in 4 finally, 5 in 6 he had either that went indictment. the crimes which he told corroborated 9 additional which those evidence 11 identified 12 relevant 13 in 14 told 15 brought to our 16 One example of 17 that he provided to us 18 told us Governor Tucker 19 investigation that 20 information ultimately 21 as well 22 and, 23 district. the 24 25 corroborate other process of us about, there Mr. Hale as well Marks is detailed United new matters proffer Eugenie States guilty he tax fraud that in. for tax us with pending over both and in that Tucker loan fraud, this those to the he The two conduct M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VERSIGH he of. of Governor us been was information providing to where that knowledge had participated currently to plead locations that an alleged Haley he matters to an indictment and John that further already matter Mr. Hale's case agreed to that various we had we had no prior and others led as the entirely relating records For example, a new and unknown that this that others but to obtain Although several of he suggested many of followed as William of course, were others and, involved, information. be found. of conduct voluminous be able witnesses then of. we would attention such heard and investigating conduct personally statements, his could the he was participated, he produced potential records Following weeks, or had in which which criminal he was not meetings 10 for us about possible many of his ways crimes he had personally known about to the told us about in During 8 beyond He also in situations 7 far ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 11 18-1621-000623 that _ 11 1 was the subject 2 conduct that 3 that 4 unaware. 5 with our office, 6 with the Independent 7 investigation the cooperation agreed indictment 11 when such 12 to 13 the 14 pursuant 15 to Mr. Hale the the full attention the that at On March that 22, Mr. Hale 18 CMS from 19 to the additional 20 engaged in over 21 having 22 in which 23 individuals and entities 24 and various other 25 the to defraud 1988 through the he caused information the criminal in conduct we had been agreement cooperate connection fully with its into provided and extent of his Counsel's would Office be brought Office to if the date by our office and to Your Honor today, and and that at Your Honor, the commitment we made time. conspiracy engaged nature agreement 17 late we entered And I am here plea to the others. Probation of sentence. to of commenced of he agreed in as including a cooperation Office Independent cooperation for, into to which that as well and of which enter Counsel's that, indictment attention to pursuant with time our agreement did 10 the under and prosecutions The plea 16 to He also Mr. Hale then-pending he was not he had brought 8 9 of to which United to the SBA, as a result early 1989. of And he also that conduct company, he told he pled over to As Your Mr. Hale has pled activities pled guilty a seven-year improperly Honor charged us that CMS, to make loans in order Eugenie States already of his Specifically, a course people. guilty conduct years. his pled is guilty guilty he had to period to various benefit aware, at Count relates himself One of to M. Power Court Reporter AMLHICAN pvERSIGH EfOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 12 18-1621-000624 12 1 the 2 to 3 the charges the on the new information seven-year 4 then-pending After his 5 1994 when I left, 6 lived up to 7 course of 8 responsive 9 was interviewed to of conduct. guilty plea terms next several our 11 Dennis 12 FBI. 13 office 14 already 15 office 16 investigated. He greatly 17 understanding of many of 18 and also 19 transactions 20 old. Mclnerney, In those both detailed under in our cases 23 information 24 and are 25 our assistance that office currently in are was extremely resulted with that in pleas respect to pending. refining United For our today, He Hardin and also many of as other by the our the matters matters that the us, both aspects often in our of our example, investigation, of particular very complex beneficial that overall and quite in bringing as well have as since in providing been it helped of the about indicted greatly criminal M. Power Court Reporter AMFnlCAN VERSIGH and subsequently understanding Eugenie States Rusty regarding of guilty, cases the by lawyers to provide understanding and events fully and documents. of occasions information core of Over continued assisted specific agreement. here as well the August Mr. Hale specifically of whom are of his to he was consistently time, information respect early that interviews Mr . Hale Two relates us with Honor on dozens investigation, as a result 22 for the meetings to cooperation extensively at Count through Your months, requests in my office His tell of his working 21 in March, I could 10 with he provided course the the that indictment. ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 13 18-1621-000625 to 13 1 conduct 2 Fitzhugh, 3 Your Honor 4 middle 5 of his two co-defendants, and, of therefore, knows, that assistance connection with 7 Our office was still 8 corroborate 9 the our in that when Mr. to 13 subjects 14 pled 15 agreeing 16 Counsel 17 investigations. Section 18 5K1, of guilty in Starr provided 20 with 21 the 22 conspiracy 23 Guaranty 24 guilty 25 financial try and that guilty took process Eugene case. As during the criminal over the the the of those with the Office connection with its various Robert to bankruptcy entries institution; Eugenie States Smith, motion of the these the the have them since also and of 1994, office in pleas who pled of Wade, a false Mr. Hale connection to guilty records Chris pursuant Independent cases Palmer, and making Stephen United of led in to matters most our Loan Association; fraud relating other subsequently to make false & to investigating who were and August information individuals: Savings March matters. investigation. individuals with .that us in to in Government's cooperate investigations other of attempting provided charges, between valuable information has from of extremely of numerous investigation substantial following the notes Specifically, 19 to up pleading was also extensive several the to to ended Mr. Hale As Your Honor 12 ability investigation Mr. Hale's many leads 11 both Matthews trial. Mr. Hale's matters in our they 6 10 Charles guilty to Madison who pleaded statement who pleaded by guilty to a to M. Power Court Reporter AMLHICAN pvERSIGH flOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104922 Page 14 18-1621-000626 14 1 conspiracy 2 also 3 CMS. to misapply pleaded 4 guilty Finally, 5 information 6 investigation 7 tried 8 investigating 9 over. 10 to before 11 believe that 12 pursuant to 13 as obviously 14 to your 15 determining to Howard. that Your My office the should the Thank 18 MR. STARR: May it 21 following: 22 punishment 23 full 24 moved, 25 indicated, extent to the that as Mr. of part of the currently being government's all of these that took reasons, the we motion facts Mr. Starr August, in this as well will bring 1994 in matter. Mr. Starr. please the made, he receives criminal has I would committed from Court. and made well, Mr. Fiske, Mr. Hale of his deal Mr. Starr those since you. points predecessor That is of much. THE COURT: distinguished that all sentence 17 20 that time facts appropriate In addition the grant period with funds who was intensively for additional for Thank you very 19 at Kuca, the a great case 5Kl and consider attention the the Honor, Your Honor all provided information Section to misapply in connection relates Judge of CMS; and Larry had also to my office that funds conspiracy Mr. Hale In conclusion, 16 the this crimes, Court activities. We have, has indicated, and with the Court's permission, Eugenie States M. Power Court Reporter and Mr. the and the should Fiske United note by -my reflect however, Ewing has likewise Mr. Ewing will AMl HICAN VERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 15 18-1621-000627 the 15 1 elaborate 2 have 3 because 4 entrusted 5 informed 6 And among those 7 want declined to 8 9 further, moved we do believe to this lift that account relevant factors up and to personal 10 accountability. 11 and he has accepted with humility 12 punished. He might have elected 13 the States 14 test 15 his 16 credit, 17 Your Honor 18 of proving right to his he admitted In my own dealings 19 witnessed his 20 genuinely remorseful 21 impressed with 22 Also significant 23 is 24 Mr. 25 Mr. Mcinerney, Judge humble Hale's Fiske's able they United that has admitted that accepted his guilt, he will his be right very to put time-consuming doubt. instead, It to his committed Your crimes. seen, Honor, past. before serious I have I have that I have was great and he acknowledged Hale, to began today to cooperate with including Mr. their Eugenie States efforts the he is been Court's decision Mr. Fiske Hardin in this and and complex M. Power Court Reporter AMFnlCAN VERSIGH I accepted spirit. collegues, as factors. He has fact But criminal I believe decision Hale a reasonable I believe, of his Mr. and the Judge left today. exercise he had with contrition. his to wrongdoing, that Court openly to do that. court relevant actions. the beyond his in open his expensive guilt as a citizen the the Your Honor, the best two in particular to for We Discretion Your Honor, responsibility He has, of are emphasize in my judgment, is discretion. all departure. recommendation determination sound into a downward sentencing that Court's by taking United for to make a specific First, full we have ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld_: 70104922 Page 16 18-1621-000628 16 1 investigation, a highly complex 2 whether had committed 3 has 4 during 5 tenure, 6 comply 7 agreement. others spoken 8 about also Mr. Hale's Mr. Fiske's Judge to I would has very note 9 Hale's decision 10 States Government, 11 significant 12 including holding 13 President of 14 cooperate with 15 to 16 cost him, Your Honor, 17 this community. His 18 and his 19 seclusion 20 considerable 21 extraordinarily 22 the National Jaycees, United to risks and 24 significant. 25 highly only significant fortitude difficult useful, it It to that the has Judge United came at stature, been of to its cost duties him. friendship It subjected including living shown, throughout has of many in has has his him in I believe, these two Honor, has It been years: his has has Mr. Hale of decision Your Honor, home. I may conclude, not conduct and to hardships, his courage the and the cooperation, terms having Hale's my to considerable Judge in support the Fiske, to prosecute, the agreement during with including States and possibly of cooperate A man of Fiske he continues all by Robert office, of his consideration 1994 to judicial away from 23 of with Mr. Likewise, and Court's sacrifice. the family If the represented personal investigate complied, for in March fully tenure. day and beyond also crimes. fulfillment fully to determine federal distinguished Hale this investigation, been not highly only this United assistance, been Your useful. significant, investigation, Eugenie States begun has it first has been been by M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 17 18-1621-000629 17 1 Mr. Fiske, 2 States 3 investigation. 4 laboring. who in turn Department 5 assistance 7 Office 8 assistance 9 criminal Judge with of of Justice, the solid Hale_has respect to a number charges, 10 for a downward 11 for its foundation, departure. We so move, THE COURT: Okay. 13 MR. EWING: Your Honor, when you are 14 difficult for 15 in your discretion 16 want 17 you've 18 Independent Counsel 19 Mr. Hale's assistance, 20 difficult 22 to talk heard to a court 23 That's 25 will the and in written I thank public motion the Court determine what asked is more. You've from Starr concerning Mr. as to their is to make decisions substantial heard their opinions of when the and assistance. from Mr. Fiske evaluation especially sometimes the value I and as extent the of and extent I want things, Mr. Hale very cooperate, to that important, but say would agreed to some practical it ends cooperate up being Eugenie States things here. be my outline. Your Honor, United because their fully, and he did many people say cooperation is M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VERSIGH are ascertain. four First, 24 of resulted in our I know this a little Your Honor, Really, substantial consideration. 12 21 been substantial have detailed United this investigation which we have the we have including of matters work of Your Honor, overall Counsel, which the had begun provided, the Independent in upon which And on that In short, 6 was building ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 18 18-1621-000630 it. they 18 1 limited 2 when they 3 what you can already 4 will tell 5 tell you about 6 and they 7 people; 8 political 9 them this, 10 he's been 11 and Mr. Y because 12 back 13 on them, 14 That's 15 government, 16 agreed to what get caught prove, what back people but I'm not which had the 19 Fiske's office 20 federal prosecutors, 21 experienced 22 provided 23 and you all 24 anybody 25 You don't meaning of to still it with out Hale the to by people just else. just . Mr. Hale take what United with Eugenie States say at or other "I will tell Mr. X because them about I've got Mr. X to and if come I tell in my community." cooperate with minimal. David the Hale it. assistance Honor, we have veteran, "Oh, well, it." face within had, Mr. seasoned who are and was a criminal, they to says, and cooperation ran going been prosecutors, say, "I they've tell peers said, cooperate community, office, state and acts substantial Your the it this I'm they'll about to and he did Some would took them be very Guidelines. evaluating that allegedly and Mr. Starr's in with, the provided and say in power, to I admit Mr. Hale certain want of people me, on me, and tell "I don't fully, David to friends of people turns to cooperate 18 as my sentence way a lot it". prove A lot caught Some people they're I know I've that's you can going or I serve you The mentality my friend", Second, and been with. on them. "Yes, information they've allies prove say, everything". hold the already will you about after 17 you can very information he said No, it's that just like he violated the value. You start law. M. Power Court Reporter AMFnlCAN VERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 19 18-1621-000631 , , -, i · ·'" ; _,_., -e_.,a ii "tli .r· · _-·_o L ti ,.t:if- __ t .1 ._.--_I!! _:.,__ e:, 11(·.:1 .:11o _,..,t;111h)iil'!i! .>.'J. } ;%) ..it, ..i, ..t ·rs.ldi.J.'.o_,,-,- q A }I Jiii 19 1 digging, 2 For 3 loan, I later 4 Well, do you just 5 and dig, 6 right, you start example, if David found is 9 Dennis a very out his you start "You know, something word? guess Mr. Fiske experienced 10 from 11 an Assistant 12 experience, 13 Mr. 14 years 15 Virginia. 16 experienced 17 U.S. 18 Democrats, 19 same conclusion 20 assistance, 21 and he has been 22 assistance has 23 is 24 today. 25 testified New York, No, you what? finding this out. Steve Smith wrong with that". go in there and "Mr. who is Smith a very said dig you're who has closely been now an A.U.S.A. He had people Assistant Attorney He has before that career David he has been reliable. been Hale but it's got testimony the grand United Eugenie States Republicans, substantial provided he has and taken It's to give jury Honor, I was a has It's ongoing. San Antonio. all The nature massive. of prosecutors, truthful, twice, been a long the he came to extent ongoing in 20 of Justice, from Your over District Department 19 years. Independents, massive, the of He had prosecutor Eastern U. S. Attorneys in Memphis that the who was many years Mr. Hale. a federal in from with prosecutor Mr. Lerman, with who He had federal had Chicago Hardin, Houston. experienced from very Rusty from Mr. Starr Attorney Learned, staff prosecutor and others. U.S. who is had on his state who worked Steve said, there's take Mcinerney, it Hale records, was a crime". Your Honor, 8 at and ultimately, that 7 looking complete, of his time. Not only as we stand future, is the expected here he has to be M. Power Court Reporter AMFnlCAN VERSIGH OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 20 18-1621-000632 , f.,· .: ' h .M 20 1 called 2 occasions 3 upon, not only to give Third, Your 4 very 5 Conspiracies, 6 especially in 7 very, difficult. 8 who otherwise 9 conspirators important the Honor, the David Honor, white close transactions cover 11 it's falsifying, backdating, 12 they are 13 look at 14 insider, 15 long 16 keeps quiet, 17 comes forward 18 illegal 19 progress. 20 in Mr. Hale's transactions the you can't figure as everybody in then the Your Honor, 22 one person departs 23 suffer wrath 24 happening 25 has to Mr. attacked then there until I can tell from of the was no progress inner not only United been by those Eugenie States an somebody and the can make being years circle, still He has made, except in of experience, they it. That's attacked still are going when to what's ferociously. on the inside, He but M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VERSIGH just came forward. you after everybody Hale. unravel you venture But once to eye And as illegal government Mr. Hale naked if happened. be fine. the whether you have or the starts intelligent, or proper, really conspiracy exposed, case, what people the To the And unless conspiracy Your Honor, community, are is with paperwork, kosher will is area dealing they with eye. everybody and get the we're friends, out you conduct, and corruption in the appear naked future. tell criminal misrepresenting. that them with I can joint Because often on other in the value crime are but was an insider. reputations know how to been Hale Why? they the Hale's collar good trial, testimony and other 10 21 and David because have acts pending information Your very in ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 21 18-1621-000633 1 i . a · ! :l -~ 21 1 those 2 that 3 on him, 4 community 5 becomes a war, 6 who will tell that would Mr. Hale is he has defend the making stuff lost because he had 8 22, 9 of Mr. Hale 1994, David truth their 11 government. 12 he knew about 13 were 14 important 15 investigation 16 Hale wrongdoing, one 18 and he was available. 19 because 20 David 21 Hale 22 Presentence 23 available 24 25 been had Report, to talk others very Hale's would himself, not what's some very this and investigate different people and is to have somebody out. his only this different available by some Your Honor, privacy. what's SKl, things. who is to be criticized in our of Eugenie States worked, and he cooperated about United system patronage, value to be concerned only the otherwise hidden not who admitted It's been about because much diminished. Hale he's On March along, with merely inside, a variety crucial are crimes. about very come forward. he was an insider elusive, information of people gone were Da~id David reason them been was because he's and hearts He knew how the on the Your Honor, investigation the It cooperating some are somebody 17 things come forward. has now there but have to As time some of unethical, And lastly, gave first forward, would many in minds and now who are to have lost spinning and who won't. was it. deals, who presume are to the He was an insider. merely Hale courage for was the coming 10 the inside, People and he's Your Honor, the on the up. friends, Now, Mr. Hale 7 ones but in he's David the been When you come in allegations, with it the M. Power Court Reporter AMLHICAN pvERSIGH EfOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 22 18-1621-000634 22 1 right 2 so. I'm 3 very helpful 4 anecdote, s mind-set that going to give that's Your 6 Mr. Hubbell. 7 showed, 8 from clients, 9 were many that investigating 11 back off 12 His lawyer 13 You shouldn't 14 license, not but we were taken this let Your Honor, 17 1984 padding 18 an assistant 19 bills 20 one, 21 Mr. 22 Mr. Hale, 23 files. 24 for mail 25 Mr. Lee had which had. I went Mr. Lee pled fraud, for served the guilty, padding his United have a misdemeanor. his law the to Mr. Judge amount Hubbell's Court of had petitioned Eugenie States M. Power Court Reporter like of what from to the him 20 months $9,000.00. sentence, padded was of Arkansas gave the in He was of his information Eisele bills Rock Wayne Lee. hundredth this us a name of in Little named I think Supreme He gave In 1990 Arkansas AMl HICAN VERSIGH us dispute." lose court accounts his There made to Hubbell federal on getting down to firm, we were him with us a name. one-one Based law a misdemeanor." compared one-fiftieth, his be a civil charge proof billing. was an effort to prosecutor. was $9,000.00, from that to expense the was terrible in who was prosecuted Hubbell, should an investigating by false gave city Mr. is was of Mr. Hale. agencies Mr. Hale a lawyer value do that This of to make Mr. 16 . , and will something $500,000.00 him plead his the 1994, "This "You ought of process There do anything Hubbell the of Hubbell. said, whatever, shows in Hubbell. so just for it government thought Mr. cooperate" SKl motion. approximately from of Mr. "I will in our In November had 10 said you one example Honor, Your Honor, 15 has ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 23 18-1621-000635 23 1 Supreme 2 appointed 3 whether 4 that s in 6 four-year 7 can't have 8 takes money Court to get by the should commission, 9 1990, which his 11 example, 12 available 13 investigation 14 do. 15 to though, to Your Honor, 16 and by the 17 office 18 in a vacuum, 19 the 20 on. 21 substantial 22 the 23 crooked way. 24 corrupt, but, 25 like down here system unless straight that. and about Your Honor, And the fact United then Mr. no, pads bills back again. our David he's Hale Eugenie States has he has a lot just the overall and the do so been a part of that have gone provided always some could chosen to by Ms. Reno He took only an was assigned didn't that. the and We cannot a crook, he wasn't that Hale Lee being and Mr. Starr activities He admitted say Starr who have David Mr. It's us in business. his we had a mandate Fiske about Yes, Some could helped of that of Mr. Hale that cooperate go anywhere. and narrow. that of an opinion middle lawyer. was given knowledge assistance. the law license Mr. people and gave We couldn't Fiske going wrote he ruled an anecdote Division. is in Mr. Hubbell's Counsel Special his information Mr. The Independent Mr. Hubbell on Chairman you when we saw that, with that ruled back. Any lawyer tell deal us license wherein have and a panel panel was right back. never give law Hubbell. scheme, I can back, an ethics his ironically should of ammunition get license Your Honor, license Court, Webster fraudulent 10 law Supreme Mr. Lee late his one stay on the say he's in Arkansas now to enlighten M. Power Court Reporter AMLHICAN pvERSIGH flOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104922 Page 24 18-1621-000636 us 24 1 and give 2 will us this come out 3 information, and Your Honor, 4 depart 5 we will 6 this investigation in summary, down because leave hopefully it Thank you, will we believe of Mr. Hale's to the Court to MR. COLEMAN: Your Honor, 9 with 10 and 11 ago. 12 formal 13 of people 14 It's 15 I had to 16 here today 17 time that 18 most difficult 19 live with 20 you almost live 21 I did Mr. Hale 22 you see 23 strips 24 had. 25 that me today, because I quit that, I'm it in quite the to the law for should assistance, the and amount. him all Eugenie States to it the start as You sit this very materially, the personal for all of his with. be if box over the course of to be the the of law. point beside You that them, courtroom, confession that of a lot I would in the to made a find practice gets times, a year I've over and make a public had and worked United in over proceedings in them. him everything, away from always bear at probably we have and ago can Honor, these with bit since Your I have found would a little good people two years Court that you did life the some months so long, an act if and you But their away from ever Court law a little I wasn't of anything a man take he's the Coleman? struggle as nervous, case somebody to court, (indicating). Strips that Mr. practicing say I practiced with you. had been would not try Thank I may appear presentation -- whoever Your Honor. 8 that about go forward. determine THE COURT: Before truth substantial 7 that's the as and that he's ever achievements life. And it's M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 25 18-1621-000637 25 1 hard 2 can't 3 in to put into possibly that 4 words what do it. somebody I can feels sense it like. when I can't I sit -- beside someone position. So it's 5 this to 6 and soul 7 judgment 8 has 9 privileged always search difficult for words that of one human who has on another. always been to 11 powerfully 12 pike 13 David 14 some of 15 well-educated 16 been 17 years. Some of 18 going on down the 19 and 20 personally 21 that 22 clients. It's 23 world; to defend 24 something 25 happening. in me. Hale the in and and the unenviable like represent your has Some of the the client, issue. United some respects I'm of the ever all most come down the I read ability ever to and hear, lead astray produced. over the In the best they accepted you put And I note Eugenie States and presented community, best of passing intelligent, is what heart circumstance, that on today. I understand of all like the I am to believe locally, Mr. Hale legal in a time touch task one the at and to have community continues the one If sophisticated, that. in out that Hale. some circles, least, difficult possessed hall, at reach to believe this that I understand else I'm highly people demonized trial, if singularly most can human beings state; has me, at I feel I must influential for a very David and hear, this is represent that I read It for 10 in friends are He has last two trial that's that fashion, I have, participating have to do for trial somebody some of in their techniques else, that in or is what's M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VERSIGH I ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 26 18-1621-000638 the 26 1 I read 2 some credit 3 Department 4 counsel 5 earlier, 6 I'll 7 believe 8 are with for having into the I've appointment sort that being of if that than about David in noticed that in his opening statement case 11 the 12 of Esau 13 into 14 between 15 were 16 oldest carried 17 called the 18 rivalry, 19 that birthright 20 led to believe 21 those 22 But Esau 23 satisfy 24 lot Bible by stating to cover a Sunday Esau both it in Esau for of the Jacob the the own needs, happened of all, first in this Esau were born that case, Eugenie States feel in the the . arms this story and Jacob being the commodity sibling Esau with sacrificed it, which considerable the in turn Esau In the went other mean to oldest whereby that to utilize that to Jacob Esau born. sacrificed that spiritual gratification I think United first but things more to the Old Testament being I don't valuable with law, Court I don't Hale you to one event. and all a momentary that's allow being a very bad in David there's that Esau made a deal to but the attorneys of Jacob. than Isaac, birthright days, First of the he would lesson, with Jacob of school of the proceedings. compared voice and Jacob sons his the practice all those one of that as an independent I may come back. I believe given Justice As I told the good, I also 10 Mr. Fiske from I was even Reno and the investigate. retired I'm that Janet of and any more said of amusement manipulated to come down here be damned, 9 25 some degree line of his in a deal we're rights of Abraham. own greed with and Jacob. Your Honor. the Bible to try to M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VERSIGH in ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 27 18-1621-000639 to A 27 1 condemn 2 inappropriate, 3 shortcoming, 4 David Hale, place, now are those 6 critical 7 judgment, 8 trouble, I need 9 and with David moment 10 to do to satisfy 11 against the are presented, is is human fault, making like Esau, to replace bank and say, 11 and that good David, I have what was wrong, who at their help, that the David I'm streets, put 15 But doesn't 16 shouldn't. It 17 and Jacob. And I will 18 individual 19 become 20 there 21 gets 22 relationships 23 personally almost a situation a gun to their ring he took head true to was a two-way with problems", would have in many instances of some reward in that Israel down the trouble they people in this just as it that has identified, been the line because had built tribes for they for the money. and it a number Esau the went of Israel. honor the was with Jacob, somebody that in off room, everyone and David, and made them take street, remind against these anybody whom Mr. Hale nation themselves publicly, where on to So maybe who initially and obey the of years, both and politically. is was earlier, presented years that ago, United Mr. Hale and I don't Eugenie States is the doubt same man now that that. Mr. Hale he is M. Power Court Reporter AMLHICAN pvERSIGH in law. 14 25 book who were knowing request Bible who are financial all that it's It that greed I need the mercy. Dave Hale's and them 13 24 of folks folks their into help, Now matters the story those allowed to walk from forgiveness, second complaints is the confession, 5 that an example because In the 12 or EfOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 28 18-1621-000640 28 1 the 2 campaign 3 everybody went 4 was said about 5 in 6 everybody out. 7 different man until 8 first time 9 with himself 10 his confession 11 look at 12 do. It's 13 to do. 14 at the 15 declined 16 now some of us are 17 to 18 that, 19 attempt 20 He's same man that for 1983 Senate and David 1984 1978. as and 1985, In the in trusted David and eyes -6 and of many, from himself. Court. That's something did crowd public David hard in that's us as same things through the same glasses, in the to had 22 cooperating 23 paradise, 24 story 25 that of many. regain to It's mad because and do it, eyes from been witness that that true. he has been been David ground presented he has he has the of all a good of us to sometimes have looked the and outside has blamed so that had for he could and dignity. because David somehow had a one-way in Canada on a cruise fishing. to to the the is ticket to I heard one Bahamas. Court a But none has described M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VERSIGH face we probably self-respect that Eugenie States take for partially it the up on that. in a statement United for come to to area from did a 1994 when he made this someone David become and how we operate, and David's some measure start also ourselves open a community of us in at strings and hard all a look bad not was forced for Nothing and decided thing of years take same man that purse David a lot to the his when he was helping right something that's is -7, the to do the 1993 when he·went this Hale as he had the he broke to to manage had money problems. long in many years For is in Tucker to when they come in here 21 Governor ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 29 18-1621-000641 of 29 1 what 2 ago last 3 all 4 Mr. Hale 5 two years. 6 people, 7 more unusual 8 shared 9 daughter, his life Friday shapes 10 prison 11 to 12 debt has to, and with 15 many others 16 immunity, 17 sentences. 18 into two years. freedom. There absent what been living has this Two years are prisons Court can with contact it's been in a prison for just himself, family, For and, him, his his him. being though, wife, son, Sue, David, two years tragically, this David his here had has family him. one has who is have order those freedom, like of in one of of Amy, and before his last had deprivation than with the He's by his 14 for lost and Mr. Hale I would 19 David like and descriptions, society, 13 been to has had to today, his his debt paying that also. ask passing the Court sentence involved to in I think look on David, these some misdemeanors, that's at to the entire take landscape note of the fact transactions have received some felonies with probationary something that needs that to be taken account. Your Honor, this 20 not 21 do something 22 it. 23 application 24 I think David 25 in application, an ordinary not just defendant. for I do not that is of his think the Hale It's that this deserves and he's is bureaucratic, an ordinary a defendant community, something Eugenie States case. This who has tried paying a case which rigid on behalf United a price deserves Sentencing far of David, less is to for the Guidelines. than I am not that, ashamed and to M. Power Court Reporter AMLHICAN pvERSIGH be that paying been other A little share been for flOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104922 Page 30 18-1621-000642 30 1 ask 2 Thank this Court to show its to David in its sentencing. you. THE COURT: 3 4 sentencing 5 on your behalf. 6 or what Mr. Coleman Thank memorandum and you. letters Do you have has Mr. Hardin is here that anything just from Mr. Hale, also I've read your have been submitted further to add to that, said? MR. COLEMAN: Your 7 8 mercy Honor, Houston, if and I could just one moment, he was one of the original 9 10 THE COURT: 11 MR. COLEMAN: -- 12 on this, 13 and make a brief 14 present and I remember, I asked that, Mr. people Hardin statement if 16 MR. HARDIN: 17 THE COURT: Welcome 18 MR. HARDIN: Thank briefly. 20 guess, 21 after -- 22 don't feel 23 aware of the 24 New York equivalent 25 comfortable on a daily he would David, Very and contact with come up here we would like today to well. Good morning, basis the like that with Court you, sir. off justice to a turnip Mr. Mcinerney United and Mr. Eugenie States Honor. to Arkansas. Hale I spent over and lawyer, was approached I fell criminal Your back Mr. Mcinerney before that I came into we could. THE COURT: Very that if for 15 19 yes. a turnip system, a plea. truck as I don't would not. be, far And I as being know what but And I could I'm represent M. Power Court Reporter AMl HICAN VER IGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 31 I back about and truck did his two weeks, 18-1621-000643 the IJ O ' ailiL! f .l ·1~1_("'0 "I - ,. .. .. ,ll i:i. . M t .I • 31 1 to the Court 2 properly has 3 that 4 think 5 Court. 6 and to the what In over how difficult 8 practice, and none 9 best you your 10 saw firsthand 11 could 12 And I've 13 half 14 media 15 Mr. Ewing has 16 prosecutors 17 we looked 18 long 19 imprimatur 20 the 21 times 22 been on what Court's than 24 known them. 25 prosecuted are there he was saying, today, in the were because United ever because never we would Eugenie States that both considered and a in the known about Presentence worth man told have us before not the have been had a case. As M. Power Court Reporter AM HICAN pvERSIGH a in him. We would he could over our it's Report us. was done, greatly to put this have I as justice I believe never a year spin, what things than testimony. gone for he told better I as professional willing and of we know remorse, and his say, see and we were things the been the mindful that direction, I could to in private 10 times I've And I that I'm own special and delved before say suggest Hale to sentence, I am very to every their have They for from an obligation solely and now that we would the to said I think him now. I saw firsthand And all consideration Many of Court it. time like of David afar listened of assessing and now that Mr. Ewing who have put in presume But assailed who had period 23 do. from and by those and now, significance as he has it I would is things watched Court and we believe of us would should the the as a prosecutor, role the about more worth 15 years and for man then that's 7 what community, some consideration we believed for the OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 32 18-1621-000644 10 -----------• .,,,,..,.,..._..,.....,,,11 . • - tif<1¥l)~- !lll- • -,lll- if!:'ll\l',ili. ± 1 !' . OLhl"' • ·---- ··---••·1,_,,_...,_i ·--~~-~l~ --4-1-·•r• ..n•---• d -l•·-·----••tr--!8------rau. r ·· !i'it!diit T .Y • " .. , 32 1 Mr. Ewing has 2 face 3 and corroborated. 4 helpful 5 large 6 always 7 Mr. Fiske, 8 suggestions 9 with value looked as the 12 everything, 13 very 14 in consideration. is the that things were looked things you for and taken the is not is world over, at into perhaps for when this most at is that on behalf personally what or comfortable he was doing was very us was very truthful first step admitting side knows it or not, We ask that the Court toward , and and I'm to keep that time. MR. COLEMAN: Mr. Hale would like to make just a statement. 19 MR. HALE: 20 short 21 middle of a trial, 22 future trials. 23 the , realizing Court right, Mr. Hale. Your Honor, I will that the and But to that investigation realize I would when I entered I want suffering All apologize they've United the like to keep is my statement continuing, potential very in the of testifying restate what I stated in to my plea. first had to my family to go through Eugenie States for because the hurt of what and I've M. Power Court Reporter AMERICAN pvERSIGH we of make recommendations very both other your that , and we did the he did. THE COURT: 25 These he was telling 18 24 not Hale we b e lieved considers satisfied brief were in mind, hav i ng been whether Thank things and now Mr. Starr, and what Court keep corroboration that 11 these the David without substantial 17 to consider first, 10 16 forward. Court for fact aptly, And one of the as they 15 very and moved to the said ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 33 18-1621-000645 , ... • 33 1 done. 2 friends 3 that 4 Truly 5 friends 6 not 7 unbearable. I'd -- like for their for what sorry. been apologize I've done, And I want THE COURT: of 10 make one statement 11 thought 12 the 13 of proceeding, 14 Mr. Coleman, 15 remarked 16 some people 17 on -- 18 compelled 19 Management 20 operating 21 professional 22 to And I thank the Court the anger that have and this is say the people Mr. Hardin, 23 spent 24 I represented 25 involved 19 years in all quote I don't sorts large of United out ·-- here of has really group state remarks. I eloquent, one in most any kind I'm sure, to but he because shine a light I feel Capital borrowers were businesspeople, most operate. a turnip all truck, either. a bank institutions. the way from regularly, I was a M. Power Court Reporter AMERICAN pvERSIGH of However, way that of financial Eugenie States to in Arkansas I represented things, the "how we operate". the off law. of it compelled otherwise. him exactly, people, fall practicing and been in my court, or think in Arkansas a lot heard and this I didn't has Mr . Coleman's quoting way most them family I announce was extremely come from that it I do feel of some people and Mr. Hale is to ever an exact for me, because Before hearing not to my of Arkansas. my church beside right. I've shown people thank and Court. statement I'm the two years, response that and for the sentenci~g to also family I have and my reasons, in eloquent to stood All Mr. Coleman's of and Your Honor, sentence that steadfastly easy. most to my church disappointment who have 8 9 to BOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 70104922 Page 34 18-1621-000646 I rr-11_ T i l ·. fJit&"IL -·-_-1· - f 11HJ •• t • 34 1 15,000-dollar 2 and five 3 buy farms. 4 understood 5 either 6 interest, 7 believe 8 of 9 I'll loan million 10 dealt beginning to pay back every were what we saw here professional and believe to 11 sophisticated 12 Business 13 well-connected 14 be used 15 Arkansans could 16 obligation to deal with to were almost 19 were the 20 show that 21 and 22 you're while not a veritable the of it were loan, lose with the an aberration to wasn't borrowers that four loans where literally is even of farm. the community in Arkansas, that was a Mr. Hale borrowers. lend of money of; the the out to And I character and Capital the Small Management certain them to few apparently with no that you loans. at being facts, one point used I felt by the I think, people that overwhelmingly you willingly operated this service you may not be the only certainly from certain to which some of you were But it money allowed memorandum, that this obtain to back your fact and out pay saying the pool go dip in to illegally people. Hale, those penny home to agricultural that business Administration Mr. of first that. scheme 18 for one these at people, fault, a victim. 23 MR. HALE: 24 THE COURT: 25 going their and one very that as with they buy issues the We have 17 bond to from or always a couple dollar I never going the for However, the Yes, sir, You're Your anything Independent United Honor. Eugenie States Counsel's but a victim. motion for downward M. Power Court Reporter AMERICAN pvERSIGH OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 35 18-1621-000647 ., 35 1 departure in 2 ever a case 3 stemming from a single 4 anything like this. 5 we've 6 indictments. 7 pariah 8 friends who shun 9 Court, I understand 10 seen had this five case is where the to pleas I also realize, THE COURT: higher 15 think 16 appropriate 17 this 18 the under price that 19 Therefore, of Prisons 22 of supervised 23 case 24 figure 25 that, pvERSIGH approached Mr. Hale's assistance, felony you have acquaintances the it that and and more become supposed troubling family a to have the been you to have I realize than in that that people range live to in ' paid a much do. And I of 50 percent because has to you have most the However, be the judgment be committed a period release. because cognizant, to of 28 months. I will $2,040,000.00. I am fully caused of the is nature come off the of top of bottom. will you'll for has departure United AMi-=nlCAN results even that I've sir. case. of $10,000.00, of old cooperation I do think and not 21 to you and your That your in your Mr. Hale, has Mr. Hale, Worse, Yes, a downward 20 and the two multi-count FBI protection. for offense, range know if threats. 12 14 of help efforts and you now. that I don't related of your MR. HALE: seclusion person's guilty 11 13 amount Directly among certain subjected well-founded. impose I am going However, let Mr. Hale, Eugenie States of the this Court, custody You'll serve a minimum to impose me say at this of in fine the Bureau three years in your a restitution regard time, or to any M. Power Court Reporter HOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 36 18-1621-000648 time - ----------------------,. <,· 36 1 in 2 like 3 payments to be set 4 Office. It 5 you live to be 200 years 6 back. 7 to help the 8 believe some of 9 Presentence the near that. there 11 sure 12 this. 13 recovering 14 then 15 Probation 16 Let 17 finished 18 seats. I want may be that I do want SBA in if loans and not loans and to you, that the in just people in a couple will the 24 I'm going 25 8th, at almost penalty 2:00 let me say SBA in are being made, be set I'm you enforce that, going through. to allow a reporting p.m .. However, United we're so please assessment I am going to set not the will of minutes, to count. that I'm -- to the say but as help audience, THE COURT: 23 long that all on you I read loan, to it I have some of them you have 20 mandatory loans. the and pressure of payments sir. 22 out to pay the these efforts DEPUTY MARSHAL: Yes, I'm you run it and as 19 minute. Probation by the may be deferred. Mr. Marshal, 21 restitution the be able repay recovery schedule with if that making for be recovered. I realize as you're basis you want, could to pay anything schedule some of So I want Office the you won't keep, agreement payment to be able schedule, old, to these those me ask that recovering valid. As long going up on a reasonable Report, that's not therefore, was a side the you're And, But, 10 future, of have $100.00; you to time to date your in just impose each felony same bond. of Monday, of the fact April that M. Power Court Reporter AMLHICAN pvERSIGH a a special for on the I am cognizant Eugenie States here $50.00 remain and keep to be please? be finished I will going HOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 37 18-1621-000649 the ,~w,;,., 1,....-:~-•:t-, ____ ...._... ~ ,... ·:.e....·::,... :~.~ .... Jb... - ,aa,.-...-~ ... )Lt""H -M9 ':;,.._:0!l!ll.fW. T:!o!i "'!!'-.)f... ,... riiiiin:wnxillii.Uil .... lii&..... ..... , .....Ill ....... N'.... ,...c...... . u... - ___ ... ,....._J_ ,..._,-·_,.,. _ U.., 'Jlfi... , ....i""'-.... . ·-- ·1...reu ... -.ill .... :ill ... , ,..,, ---·'@""'-•'*"J""fl'-M.-.· •1.,----··-· J----- 37 1 you may not 2 agreement in 3 Howard's court 4 of 5 will extend at that 8 your in the this time. Counsel Any further matter? with testifying Independent 6 7 be through that obligations trial that's And if that under going I am advised date needs your on in Judge by the Office to be extended, I date. findings that Thank you. Court (Whereupon the hearing 9 the will Court be in needs to make in this recess. concluded at 10:40 a.m.) Court Reporter, C E R T I F I C A T E 10 I, 11 hereby 12 transcript certify Eugenie that M. Power, the of proceedi~gs Official foregoing in the is a true above-entitled do and correct case. 13 14 Eugenie M. Power, Official Reporter 15 Date: 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 United Eugenie States M. Power Court Reporter AMERICAN pvERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 38 18-1621-000650 ·~ .....,.i;"'i;..:..,,~ ·.-. .. ,............ ~,,,._. ..,.,.,,.•,,;.. , """'·"""'"...,. ~ ,.._..-- -- t•u-... -·,____ _ ... •"""··9"'"Jdf""' t - IQ__ ,!ii..., ......,.... ........ ,, i............Mt-·.1-· 't'...,tl,'. .... i ----Oiiil!ill'°"""' ·.J...; -- · .... ·M·· tij• -- - • -,'f!>. •,_.,._ .,...__ ·,. MEMORANDUM TO: Jackie FROM: Kimberly DATE: March RE: I. Bennett Rule Rule 10, Nelson 1997 35 Motion 35 Generally Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides in pertinent part for a reduction of a defendant's sen~nce because of "changed circumstances." Fed. R. Crim. P. 3-o(b). Specifically, the court "may reduce [the] sentence to reflect a defendant's subsequent, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense," in accordance with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The government must file the motion within one year after the imposition of the sentence. Where the defendant's "substantial assistance involves information or evidence not known by the defendant until one year or more after imposition of the sentence," however, the court may consider such a motion one year or more after sentencing. Id. 1 The advisory committee notes to the 1991 amendments indicate that" [i]n deciding whether to consider an untimely motion, the court may, for example, consider whether the assistance was provided as early as possible." II. Timing of a District Court's Ruling on a 35(b) Motion The advisory committee notes further indicate that, under the 1987 amendment, district courts had been required to rule on the government's motion within one year after imposition of sentence. The notes explain why this requirement was changed in 1991: .. This caused problems . in situations where the defendant's assistance could not be fully assessed in time to make its motion to reduce the sentence before one year had elapsed. The amendment requires the government to make its motion to reduce the 1 AML The Rule further provides that "[t]he court's to reduce a sentence under this subsection includes the to reduce such sentence to a level below that established statute as a minimum sentence." Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(b). pVERSIGH authority authority by S:OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 39 18-1621-000651 ___ _ ., sentence before one year has elapsed but does not require the court to rule on the motion within the one year limit. This change should benefit both the government and the defendant and will permit completion of the defendant's anticipated cooperation with the government. Although no specific time limit is set on the court's ruling on the motion to reduce sentence, the burden nonetheless rests on the government to request and justify a delay in the court's ruling. In my brief search, I did not find any case precisely addressing a district court's delay in ruling on a timely 35(b) motion. In United States v. Snipes, 19 F.3d 13, No. 92-5370, 1994 WL 62252 (4th Cir. 1994) (unpublished disposition), however, the defendant argued that the government improperly failed to advise the court at sentencing of his cooperation. The°?Fourth Circuit disagreed, observing that the defendant would suffer no prejudice as a result of the government's decision to delay assessing the value of his assistance and to file instead a Rule 35(b) motion at a later date. The court explained: "it is implausible for [defendant] to argue that a departure would result in a sentence of less than the time he will have to serve prior to the Rule 35(b) motion being made and ruled upon." Id. at *3. Perhaps similar reasoning would bear upon a judge's decision to rule upon a timely 35(b) motion. III. Case Law A. Courts (including the Eighth Circuit) are reluctant to grant 35(b) motions where defendants already received downward departures pursuant to SKl.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines The Eighth Circuit has affirmed a lower court's denial of a 3S(b) motion where the government made SKl.1 motions for downward departure at the sentencing hearings, and the defendants received sentences "significantly below the guideline range and below the statutory ten-year minimum." United States v. Griffin, 17 F.3d 269, 270 (8th Cir. 1994). The district court had "concluded that the 5Kl.1 departures contemplated the cooperation that the government now raises as grounds for further reductions in sentence." Id. at 270 n.3. See also Goff v. United States, 965 F.2d 604, 605 (8th Cir. 1992) (affirming District Judge Reasoner's denial of 35(b) motion on same grounds). B. The factors a court should consider in ruling on a Rule 35(b) motion correspond to those set forth in the Sentencing Guidelines for SKl.1 departures The primary difference between Rule 35(B) and section 5Kl.1 2 AMl HICAN VERSIGH BOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 40 18-1621-000652 of the Sentencing Guidelines is temporal: while the guideline provision was intended to recognize assistance prior to sentencing, Rule 35(b) was designed to reward subsequent cooperation. United States v. Drown, 942 F.2d 55, 59 (1st Cir. 1991); see also United States v. Speed, 53 F.3d 643, 645 (4th Cir. 1995) (downward departure granted pursuant to Rule 35{b) can only apply to substantial assistance that takes place after sentencing). However, courts have "require[d] the extent of a downward departure [pursuant to Rule 35(b)] to be linked to the structure of the Guidelines." United States v. Hayes, 5 F.3d 292, 295 (7th Cir. 1993). Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has stated that "the government makes these motions under identical criteria." United States v. Mullins, Nos. 95-6554, 95-6555, 1997 WL 63149, at *4 (6th Cir. Feb 12, 1997) (unpublished disposition). The court quoted the United States Attorney's 2 Manual on this subject as follows: "Every United States Attorney ... shall maintain documentation of the facts behind and justification for each substantial assistance pleading [under§ 5Kl.1] .... The procedures described above shall also apply to Motions filed pursuant to Rule 35(b), Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, where the sentence of a cooperating defendant is reduced after sentencing on motion of the United States. Such a filing is deemed for sentencing purposes to be the equivalent of a substantial assistance pleading." Id. at *5 Attorney's (quoting Manual§ The Sentencing United States Dep't 9-27.410 (1993)). Guidelines, in of turn, Justice, provide U.S. that [t]he appropriate reduction shall be determined court for reasons stated that may include, but limited to, consideration of the following: (1) the court's evaluation of significance and usefulness of defendant's assistance, taking consideration the government's the assistance rendered; (2) the reliability 2 the copy truthfulness, of any the the into evaluation completeness, information or I quoted this version because kept in the OIC-DC office. it by the are not of and testimony is more current than 3 AMERICAN PVERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 41 18-1621-000653 > • ·:~v, ........._..W ..~,..,,,.,.., .•... ,•.,,. .+.·• ···~· ----· · ·,_,,, ... , - ·-.o:...,ox ..., ......... , M#I....... l!-!'lll ' --- ·-·-~····... ·a•.a.4 ............ , ___ provided by the (3) the nature experience; (4) the assistance. U.S.S.G. timeliness i' 'MI.... .. , .... ... . , ..... ·- ·-· ..... . -!!f--L ............. , - ...H ... "1·-·-"""'"""' ........... Hi .... Hi!l! ... J@·,!-U-·.·.-·.di'-.1~.--~..~~~..!Hlli,l·4-• ..:..-•-··--- defendant; and extent of of defendant's the the defendant's § 5Kl.l. United States v. Shampine, 978 F.2d 1264, No. 92-1763, 1992 WL 311894 (8th Cir. Oct. 30, 1992) {unpublished disposition) sheds some light on the Eighth Circuit's interpretation of "substantial assistance" under 35{b) . 3 In that case, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the defendant's motion to compel the government to file a Rule 35(b) motion. The government had asserted that the defendant "'had not lived up to his end of the agreement,'" that is, "[h]e had not beeIJ' particularly forthcoming" during the trial of a co-defendant, and the government did not credit his claim that he knew nothing about a third individual allegedly involved in the crime. Id. at *1. 3 While I performed a relatively broad search of Eighth Circuit law on the subject, it was not exhaustive; Shampine contains a more substantive discussion of the factors considered than other Eighth Circuit cases I found. 4 AMFnlCAN VERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 42 18-1621-000654 ·- U.S. Departrnen ~ ~-.,' . · Justice Office of the Independent Counsel · Liec:1e Rock.. Arkansas March 19, 1994 Randy Coleman, Esq. Skokos & Coleman, P.A. Suite 3200 425 West Capital Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3439 Re: Dear David L. Hale Mr. Coleman: On the unde+standings specified below, the Office of the Independent . Counsel ("this Office") will accept a guilty plea from David L. Hale to a criminal information charging him with violations of (1) Title 18, United States Code, Section 371, and (2) Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 2. These charges each carry a maximum sentence of five years' imprisonment, a maximum term of three years' supervised release, a maximum fine of the greatest of $250,000, twice the gross gain, or twice the gross loss, and a mandatory $100 special assessment. The total maximum sentence of incarceration on both counts is 10 years' imprisonment. If David L. Hale fully complies with the understandings specified in this Agreement, he will ·not be further prosecuted for any crimes related to his participation in the conduct of the affairs of capital Management services, Inc., Diversified Capital, Inc., and Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan, and any other crimes, to the extent David L. Hale has disclosed such criminal activity to this Office as of the date of this Agreement. The understandings are ' that David L. Hale shall trutnfully disclose all information with respect to the activities of himself and others concerning all matters about which this Office inq~ires of him, shall cooperate fully with this Office, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and any other law enforcement agency so designated by this Office, shall attend all meetings at which his presence is requested with respect to the matters about which this Office inquires of him, and further, shall truthfully testify before the grand jury and/or at any trial or other court proceeding with respect to an matters about GOVERNMENT EXHIBIT AMFRICAN VERSIGH TOOIm · 2 IFOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 43 18-1621-000655 13'SNll0'.) d3CT NI LOL'il TZZ TO~.Q. 97.:s o L6/T7. / CO which this Office may request his testimony. Any assistance David L. Hale may provide to federal criminal investigators shall be pursuant to the specific instructions and control of this Office and those investigators. This obligation of truthful disclosure includes an obligation upon oavid · L. Hale to ·provide to this Office, upon request, any document, record or other tangible evidence re1ating to matters about which this Office or any designated law enforcement agency inquires of him. It is further understood that the sentence to be imposed upon David L. Hale is within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge. This Office cannot and does not make any promise or representation as to what sentence David L. Hale will receive~ However, this Office will inform the sentencing judge and the Probation Department of (1) this Agreement: (2) the nature and extent of David L. Hale's activities with respect to this case; (3) the nature and extent of any and all other activities of David L. Hale which this Office deems relevant to sentencing; and (4) the full nature and extent of David L. Hale's cooperation with this Office and the date when such cooperation commenced. In so doing, this Office will use any and all information it deems relevant, including information and statements provided by David L. Hale both prior to and subsequent to the signing of this Agreement. In addition ·, if it is determined by this Office that David L. Hale has provided substantial assistance in an investigation or prosecution, and if David L. Hale has otherwise complied with the terms of this Agreement, this Office will file a motion, pursuant to section 5Kl.1 of the -sentencing Guidelines, advising the sentencing judge of all relevant facts pertaining to that determination and requesting the Court to sentence David L. Hale in light of the factors set forth in Section 5Kl.l(a)(l)-(5). It is understood that, even if such a motion is filed, the sentence to be imposed on David L. Hale remains within the sole discretion of the sentencing judge. Furthermore, this Office retains the right to present to the sentencing .judge and Probation Department, either orally or in writing, any and all _facts and arguments relevant to sentencing. It is further understood that this Agreement in no way affects or limits this Office's right to respond to and take positions on postsentencing motions or requests for information which relate to reduction or modification of sentence. It is further understood that David L. Hale roust at all tim ·es give complete, truthful, and accurate information and testimony and must not commit any further crimes whatsoever. Should David L. Hale commit any further crimes or should it be determined that he has given false, incomplete, or misleading testimony or information, or should he otherwise violate any provisions of this Agreement, David L. Hale shall thereafter be 2 AMFnlCAN VERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 44 18-1621-000656 T l SNil OJ d3"CTNI LOLS H i 10£ .Q. LZ : 60 L6 /TZl l:O subject to which this prosecution for any federal criminal violation of Office has knowledge, including, but not limited to, perjury and obstruction of justice. A.ny such prosecutions may be premised upon any information and statements provided by David L. Hale both prior to and subsequent to the signing of this agreement. Moreover, any such prosecutions that are not timebarred by the applicable statute of limitations on the date of the signing of this Agreement may be commenced against David L. Hale in accordance with this Agreement, notwithstanding the expiration of the statute of limitations between the signing of this Agreement and the commencement of any such prosecutions. It is the intent of this Agreement to waive any and all defenses based on the statute of limitations with respect to any prosecutions . which are not time-barred on the date this Agreement is signed. Furthermore, it is agreed that in the event that it . is determined that David L. Hale has violated any provision of this Agreement, (i) all statements made by David L. Hale to this Office or other designated law enforcement agents, or any other testimony given by David L. Hale before a grand jury or other tribunal, whether prior to or subsequent to this Agreement, or any leads from such statements or testimony, shall be admissible in evidence in any and all criminal proceedings hereafter brought against David L. Hale and (ii) David L. Hale shall assert no claim under the United States Constitution, any statute, Rule 11 ( e) ( 6) of the Federal Rules o.f Criminal Procedure, Rule 410 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, or any other federal rule, that statements made by him prior to or subsequent to this Agreement, or any leads therefrom, should be suppressed. It is the intent of this Agreement to waive any and all rights in the foregoing respects. It is further understood that this Office agrees to take steps that the Office determines to be appropriate to assist David L. Hale in maintaining his privacy interests. J AMFRICAN OVERSIGH COOIP] IFOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 45 18-1621-000657 T:IS N!1O) d::ICT NI LOLS TZZ 10£ ..Q. LZ : 60 L6 / TZ I CO With respect to this matter, this Agreement supersedes all prior, if any, understandings, promises and/or conditi ons between this Office and David L. Hale. No additional promis es, agreements, and conditions have been entered into other· than those set forth in this letter and none will be entered · into unless in writing &nd signed by all parties. Associate counsel AGREED AND CONSENTED TO: DATE Hale 4 AMrfllCAN VERSIGH t-00~ OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 46 18-1621-000658 lJS NGOJ dJCTNI LOL8 1GG 10S.Q.. L6/ 1GICO 8G=60 03 / 23 / 97 12:34 INDEP COUNSEL 221 8707 '5"501 '41002 FILED IN THE UNITED COURT ST.ATES DISTRICT OF AR.KANSAS EASTERN DISTRICT WESTERN DIVISION U.S. DISTRICTCOURT EAsi-i::p,,~,--- ····- ·- ---.,.,~,. MAR2 5 1996 JAMESIll.'_IV1l;w1.1n,w,n1,i-., l.iLl=HI\ By: -------- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA LR~CR-93 No. v. oep CU :RK - 147(1) DAVID L . HALE MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTURE PURSUANT TO U.S.S.G. FOR DOWNWARD Counsel, Independent this Court Guidelines There no doubt that of responsibility Uniced States. in assistance will of the continue in for Mr. ongoing Hale · has provide like provided Hale , have and Mr. Hale's his cooperation substantial of prosecutions. a significant committed that expects assistance full take also prosecution Mr. substantial investigations _ and crimes The government offenses. to his and who, Court should Hale on Mr. including factors, other investigation persons other federal States of Sentencing the conduct the that the by calculated under criminal Hale's c ·riminal Hale's Mr. imposes Couxt requests States a number acceptance serious Mr. of account of the sentence The serious committed level Office Services Pretrial of Hale. L. David has scope offense Sentencing applicable Hale moves hereby § SKl.l, . G. on Defendant and by the reflected w. Starr, Kenneth the David The nature The United number from is and the downward sentence Guidelines. with U.S.S imposing is account to in conduct full pursuant depart crimes_ take by to federal Probation America, of States The United § SK1.1 to the Mr. Hale United Mr. Hale's AMf-f ICAN PVERSIGH 18-1621-000659 IFOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 70104922 Page 47 03 / 23 / 97 in involved significant and Mr. committed Hale the things, his plea himself to into In entering truthfully disclose activities of fully cooperate by all attend agencies Office; this was presence his which at meetings and requested, other or matters office this about which fully complied, respect with proceeding court and Jury Grand the before truthfully testify trial of Bureau Federal the law enforcement other any him; of Office, the matters all concerning others inquires this with and Investigation, des~gnated and to respect with information Office this which about to ; Hale Mr. all himself Among other cooperacion. required agreement plea States, United the with agreemenc full and risks to home. from away seclusion in living hardships, support the lost family his subjected He has many. of friendship States United He has . sacrifice personal 14]003 the with cooperate to 1994 March decision INDEP COUNSEL 8707 '5"501 221 12:34 may request at any to any his t:.estimony. has Mr_ Hale all of has been the useful S. G. Mr. information and and investigative U.S. of terms § 5Kl. to plea to significant as with assistance Counsel's Independent the efforts, prosecutorial Hale's Mr. agreement. comply, detailed See below. 1 (a) ( 1) - has Hale the to continues and the provided United complete truthful, See States. U.S.S.G. and reliable § SKl . l(a) (2) 2 AM( HICAN PVERSIGH 18-1621-000660 ' OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 48 03 / 23 / 97 Mr. to been investigate and prosecute limitation. of statutes has has made the has Hale Counsel, including resulted in United following States v. is of given testimony testify in U.S.S.G. § 5Kl.l(a) assista .nce the of in assistance Matthews, No. spent cases two (3). respect:. with co Independent which matters and informations criminal Charles sworn to Office the He has Independent expected substantial substantial the has Hale ~ provided investigation overall he and indictment. und .er currently Mr. Jury, Grand the before Mr. investigation. Counsel's enforcement law it. the to Hale Mr. (S). and requested relevant documents revie...,ing many hours applicable 5Kl.l(a) attorneys have Office this with working agents § whenever available himself the . United within crimes U.S.S.G. See [4)004 permitting timely, assistance Hale's States INDEP COUNSEL 221 8707 'a'501 12:35 LR-CR-93 have indictments: - 147(2) : plea and guilty Mr. Hale's following On June 23, 1994, Matthews Charles States, the United with to cooperat8 agreement § 18 U.S.C. of violating counts to two misdemeanor guilty pleaded namely official, company investment business a small 215, bribing Mr. Hale. United States v. Eugene Fitzhugh, No. LR-CR-93-l47{3): and plea guilty Mr. Hale's following On June 23, 1994, Fitzhugh · Eugene States, United the with cooperate to agreement § 18 U.S.C. of violating count to one misdemeanor guilty pleaded namely official, company investment business a small 215, bribing Mr . Hale. United States v. Robert W. Palm§):, No. LR - CR-94-240: guilty pleaded Palmer Robert 5, 1994, On December books the in entries false make to conspiring of count and Loan Association Savings Guaranty of Madison records §§ 371 and 1006. of 18 U.S.C. in violation ("MGS&L"), and Mr. Palmer the United to has agreed expects States cooperate to call the with Mr. Palmer to one and States, United at to testify 3 AMF-HICAN PVERSIGH 18-1621-000661 IFOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 70104922 Page 49 12 : 35 03 / 23 / 97 the trial discussed United in Uruted below. States James B. v. States v, 14]oos INDEP COUNSEL '5"501 221 8707 Christopher V. LR-CR-95-48! No. Wad~, al., et McDougal, to one guilty Wade pleaded l99S ·, Christopher On March 2l, and one 152 § . ~S.C U 18 of in violation fraud of bankruptcy count in institution financial a to statement a false of making count 1014. § . of 18 U.S.C violation States United No. H. Haley, John William Jim Guy Tucker, LR-CR-95-ll7: v, Marks, J. Sr. & a three-count returned Jury the Grand 7, 1995, On June and John H. J. Marks, William Jim Guy Tucker, against indictment to conspired Marks and Tucker (1) Messrs. that alleging Haley, investment business .11 sma Hale's . Mr to statements make false the ("CMS 11 ) , for Inc. Services, Capi t:al Management company, of 18 U . S . C . §§ 371 and CMS, in violation of infJ.uencing purpose for the statement and Marks made a false Tucker (2) Messrs. 1014; of 18 of CMS in violation the actions of influencing purpose conspired Marks and Haley Tucker, U.S . C. § 10l4 ; and (3) Messrs. the of impeding for the purpose States the United to defraud in taxes, of income in the collection Service Revenue Internal § 371. of 18 u.s.C. violation On was dismissed. the indictment 5, 1995, On September the remanded and reversed Appeals of Court the 1996, 15, March to Mr. Hale to call expects The government for trial. case at the tria l . testify United States v. No. A . Smith, Stephen Smith pleaded Stephen 8, l995, On June to misapply of conspiring count misdemeanor CMS, in company, investment business small 371 and 657. §§ LR-CR-95-llB: guilty funds violation the with to cooperate has agreed Mr. Smith Mr. Smith to call expects States and the United et v. Jam~s B. McDougal, in United States trial below. United States v. Larry E. Kuca, No. LR-CR-95 to one of Mr. HQle's of 18 U.S.C. States, CTnited at to testify discussed al., the - 150 : to one guilty Kuca pleaded Larry 13, l995, On July of Mr. Hale's funds to misapply of conspiring count misdemeanor of 18 U . S . C. CMS, in violation company, investment business small 657 . §§ 371 and the Mr. Kuca has States United agreed expects to cooperate Mr. to call with Kuca the United to testify States, at the and 4 AMf-HICAN PVERSIGH 18-1621-000662 ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 50 12:35 03 / 23 / 97 in trial below . INDEP COUNSEL '5"501 221 8707 States United v. James v . James Unit e d States H . McDoug al , No . LR-CR-95-173 Guy Tucker Jim B. McDougal, : discussed al., et McDougal, B. la]006 & Susan a 21-count return~d the Grand Jury 17, 1995, On August H. and Susan Jim Guy Tucker James B. McDougal, against indictment of funds to misapply conspiracy charges The indictment McDougal. of MGS&L, and records in the books entries MGS&L, to make false of CMS, to make fal s e the funds MGS&L, to misapply to defraud of CMS, and to make fa l se and records in the books e ntries ma il fr aud, bank fraud, fraud, as wire to CMS, as well s~atements company, investment business to a small st.atements false in bank entries false and making of bank funds, mi sapplication 1341, 1344, 1343, 2, 371, §§ C. . S . U 18 of violation n i records, and 1 006. 1014 , 657, before expects proceeding States United is currently of the case Trial The Jr. Howard, George Honorable at the trial. Mr. Hale to testify the call to CONCLUSION For al l of to pursuant requests, the from sentence on Defendant : March 22, U.S.S applicable downward Dated reasons foregoing the David that . G . § 5K1.1, c he Court Guidelines Sentencing L. States , th e United in depart imposing Hale . 1996 submitted, Respectfully :_~ . ~~~~~§)_ .l) KENNETH Independent W. STARR Counsel ~ ~~ t-' "'1 Counsel of the Independent Office Parkway Centre 10825 Financial 134 Suite 72211 Arkansas Rock, L i ttle 221-8700 501) ( Tel. : 5 AMf-HICAN PVERSIGH 18-1621-000663 OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 51 E= ~ 03 / 23 / 97 12:36 '6'501 INDEP COUNSEL 8707 221 OF SERVICE CERTIFICATE I certify foregoing that document on March to Esq _ Randy Coleman, Plaza Ten Shackleford Rock, Arkansas Little I caused 1996, 22, be served 14)007 as indicated and (by fax first copy of the below: class mail) 72221 (by fax and by hand) Joe Klingbeil Officer u _s_ Probation Supervising Avenue 600 W. Capitol 72201 Rock, Arkansas Little W. Starr Kenneth Counsel Independent By: 6 AMLHCAN PVERSIGH 18-1621-000664 f OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld : 70104922 Page 52 Page 1 965 F.2d 604 (Cite as: 965 F.2d 604) Ferlin GOFF, Appellant, affirm. v. UNITED ST ATES of America, Appellee. No. 92-1301. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted May 11, 1992. Decided May 26, 1992. A defendant who previously pleaded guilty to a drug charge and firearm charge appealed from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, denying government's motion for further reduction of sentence. The Court of Appeals held that denial of further reduction for substantial governmental assistance was not an abuse of discretion. Affirmed. CRIMINAL LAW@:;:::) 996(1.1) 110k996(1.1) Denial of the government's request for further reduction of sentence based on defendant's postsentencing grand jury testimony was not an abuse of discretion; sentencing court stated that it anticipated defendant's continued cooperation and rewarded him accordingly when it granted a downward departure in imposing original sentence. 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c)(l); Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 35(b), 18 U.S.C.A.; U.S.S.G. § lBl.1 et seq., 18 U.S.C.A.App. *605 Appellant appeared pro se in this appeal. Terry L. Derden, Little Rock, Ark. (Charles A. Banks and Terry L. Derden, on the brief), for appellee. Before JOHN R. GIBSON, FAGG, and HANSEN, Circuit Judges. FNl. The Honorable Stephen M. Reasoner, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. Goff previously pleaded guilty to a drug charge and a firearm charge. The court calculated a Guideline sentencing range on the drug offense of 70 to 87 months; the firearm offense carried a mandatory consecutive five-year sentence. See 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(l). At sentencing in March 1991, the government moved for a downward departure based on Goff's substantial assistance, which the district court granted, sentencing Goff to fifty-seven months imprisonment on the drug offense and four years imprisonment on the firearm offense. Goff did not appeal his sentence. In January 1992, the government moved for a further reduction of Goff's sentence under Rule 35(b), because after sentencing, Goff had appeared before the grand jury to testify in another investigation. The government also reminded the court of a detailed statement Goff had given which was useful. The district court denied the government's motion, stating that when it granted the downward departure in March 1991, it anticipated Goff would continue to cooperate and had rewarded him accordingly. Rule 35(b) states in part: The court, on motion of the Government made within one year after the imposition of the sentence, may reduce a sentence to reflect a defendant's subsequent, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense .... Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) (emphasis added). It lies· within the discretion of the district court to decide whether it will grant or deny such a motion. See, e.g., United States v. Richardson, 939 F.2d 135, 140 (4th Cir.1991), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 987, 112 S.Ct. 599, 116 L.Ed.2d 623 (1991), 502 U.S. 1061, 112 S.Ct. 942, 117 L.Ed.2d 112 (1992); United States v. Emanuel, 734 F.Supp. 877, 878 (S.D.Iowa). We have reviewed the record and find no abuse of discretion here. PERCURIAM. Ferlin Goff appeals from an order of the district court [FN 1] denying a motion filed by the government under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 35(b) to reduce Goff's sentence. We AMERICAN PVERSIGH Goff also argues the district court and the government breached the plea agreement at sentencing. Those matters are not properly before us. Copr. © West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 53 18-1621-000665 965 F.2d 604 (Cite as: 965 F.2d 604, *605) Page2 Accordingly, we affirm. END OF DOCUMENT AM ERiCAN PVERSIGH Copr. © West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works P.OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 54 18-1621-000666 *END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END* 1152256 - NELSON-BROWN,KIM Date and Time Printing Started: 03/23/97 12:42:43 pm (Central) Date and Time Printing Ended: 03/23/97 12:42:46 pm (Central) 00:00:03 Offline Transmission Time: Number of Requests in Group: Number of Lines Charged: 1 77 *END*END*END*END*END* END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END*END* PVERSIGH ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 55 18-1621-000667 -'< L'\"'J,'✓ / VA,< i ( ( V'~ 17 F.3d 269 (Cite as: 17 F.3d 269) UNITED ST ATES of America, Appellee, v. Terrance GRIFFIN, Appellant, UNITED STA TES of America, Appellee, v. Joseph H. DONNELL, Appellant, UNITED STA TES of America, Appellee, v. Kevin COKES, Appellant. Nos. 93-2852, 93-3068 and 93-3069. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 14, 1993. Decided Feb. 28, 1994. Rehearing Denied in Nos. 93-3068, 93-3069 April 8, 1994. Defendants entered guilty pleas in the United States District Court for the W estem District of Missouri, Dean Whipple, J ., to drug conspiracy charges, and they appealed from sentencing. The Court of Appeals, Beam, Circuit Judge, held that district court was not required to grant prosecutor's motions for downward departure for providing substantial assistance and did not abuse its discretion in following magistrate's recommendation that motions be denied absent support for defendant's claim that magistrate judge's report revealed bias against them. Affirmed. Bright, Senior opinion. Circuit Judge, filed dissenting CRIMINAL LAW~ 996(1.1) 110k996(1.1) District court was not required to grant prosecutor's motions under plea agreement for downward departure for providing substantial assistance and did not abuse its discretion in following magistrate judge's recommendation that motions be denied, absent support for defendants' claim that magistrate judge's report revealed bias against them. Fed.Rules Cr.Proc.Rule 35(b), 18 U.S.C.A . . *270 Counsel who represented the appellant in 2852 was John R. Cullom of Kansas City, MO; in 3068 and 3069, Glenn E. Bradford of Kansas City, MO. AM LH ICAN pvERSIGH >'~ !· Counsel who represented the appellee was Peter Ossorio of Kansas City, MO. Before MAGILL, Circuit Judge, BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, and BEAM, Circuit Judge. BEAM, Circuit Judge. Terrance Griffin, Kevin Cokes and Joseph Donnell were arrested for conspiracy to distribute cocaine base. All three entered pleas of guilty and cooperated with the FBI and other drug enforcement authorities in investigations of the drug conspiracy. In exchange for this cooperation, the government made 5Kl .1 motions for downward departure at the sentencing hearings in all three cases. As a result, Griffin, Cokes and Donnell received sentences significantly below the guideline range and below the statutory ten-year mandatory minimum. The government later filed a motion for correction of sentence pursuant to Rule 35(b) [FNl] and requested a further reduction in the sentences for subsequent, substantial assistance. FNl. Rule 35(b) states in part: The court, on motion of the Government made within one year after the imposition of the sentence, may reduce a sentence to reflect a defendant's subsequent, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense.... Fed.R.Crim .P. 35(b) (emphasis added). The same district judge [FN2] who initially sentenced the appellants directed a magistrate judge to conduct hearings and to recommend a disposition for the Rule 35(b) motions. The magistrate judge issued findings of fact and conclusions of law recommending that the Rule 35(b) motions be denied as inappropriate. After an independent review of the record, the district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and denied the motions. Griffin, Cokes, and Donnell appeal contending that the Rule 35(b) motions were an integral part of their plea agreements and that the district court abused its discretion by denying the motions. We affirm. FN2. The Honorable Dean Whipple, United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri. The government filed the Rule 35(b) motions, thereby fulfilling any obligations it may have had under the plea agreement. The appellants concede Copr. © West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt . works EfOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 56 18-1621-000668 Page 2 17 F.3d 269 (Cite as: 17 F.3d 269, *270) that the district court was not bound to grant the Rule 35(b) motions. After a hearing, the magistrate judge concluded that the appellants had not provided subsequent, substantial assistance that would warrant further reductions in their sentences. The district court adopted this conclusion. The decision to grant or deny a Rule 35(b) motion is entirely within the discretion of the district court. Goff v. United States, 965 F.2d 604 (8th Cir.1992) (per curiam). Absent an abuse of that discretion, [FN3] the appellate courts cannot interfere. We find no evidence that the district court *271 abused its discretion in this case. Accordingly, the decision of the district court is affirmed. FN3. The appellants allege that the magistrate judge's report revealed bias against them. We read the magistrate judge• s report differently. The magistrate judge chastised the government for bringing Rule 35(b) motions without adequate grounds. He rejected the government's contention that the willingness of the appellants to testify against co-conspirators constituted subsequent, substantial assistance. Instead, the magistrate judge concluded that this cooperation was part of the assistance contemplated by the 5Kl .1 reduction granted by the district court. He also noted that the Rule 35(b) motion with regard to Griffin was time0 barred. We cannot conclude that these findings constitute an abuse of discretion. While chastising the government, the magistrate judge discussed in detail how he would have managed the plea agreements had he been the Assistant United States Attorney in charge of the case. We are troubled by this digression and by the weight that the magistrate judge seemed to place on an internal Justice Department memo issued by former Attorney General Thornburgh. However, we cannot agree with the appellants' contention that these comments amount to an abuse of discretion. Nothing in the record indicates any bias against these particular defendants, or, indeed, against any defendants. Furthermore, after an independent review of the record, the district court concluded that the 5Kl.1 departures contemplated the cooperation that the government now raises as grounds for further reductions in sentence. The district judge who had responsibility for the initial sentencing is clearly in the best position to determine what kinds of cooperation the 5Kl.1 departures encompassed. BRIGHT, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting. I dissent. AM ERiCAN PVERSIGH The facts are undisputed. [FNl] FNl. The appellee does not contest the facts or the prosecutor's right to move for the reduction in sentence. Appellee's claim of nonappealability fails. United States v. Evidente, 894 F.2d 1000, 1003-04 (8th Cir .1990) (determination that judge lacks power to reduce sentence is appealable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3742). See also Wade v. United States, 504 U.S. 181, ----, 112 S.Ct. 1840, 1843-44, 118 L.Ed.2d 524 (1992) (constitutional due process issue raised by appellant makes case appealable). 1. The federal prosecutor promised the defendantsappellants that he would make the appropriate motions to reduce the heavy drug sentence each faced if defendants assisted in the prosecution of other members of the drug conspiracy. Immediately, the defendants cooperated; the prosecutor made the necessary motions [FN2] to reduce defendants• sentences and the district court recognized and enforced the prosecutor's promises. [FN3] FN2. These motions were brought under both U.S.S.G. § 5Kl.1 and 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). U.S.S.G. § 5Kl.1 provides as follows: Substantial Assistance to Authorities (Policy Statement) Upon motion of the government stating that the defendant has provided substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense, the court may depart from the guidelines. (a) The appropriate reduction shall be determined by the court for reasons stated that may include, but are not limited to, consideration of the following: (1) the court's evaluation of the significance and usefulness of the defendant's assistance, taking into consideration the government's evaluation of the assistance rendered; (2) the truthfulness, completeness, and reliability of any information or testimony provided by the defendant; (3) the nature and extent of the defendant's assistance; (4) any injury suffered, or any danger or risk of injury to the defendant or his family resulting from his assistance; (5) the timeliness of the defendant's assistance. 18 U.S.C. § 3553 provides in pertinent part: (e) Limited authority to impose a sentence below a statutory minimum.--Upon motion of the Government, the court shall have the authority to Copr. © West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 57 18-1621-000669 17 F.3d 269 (Cite as: 17 F.3d 269, *271) Page3 impose a sentence below a level established by statute as minimum sentence so as to reflect a defendant's substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense. Such sentence shall be imposed in accordance with the guidelines and policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994 of title 28, United States Code. FN3. Below are listed the applicable guideline range and the terms of imprisonment the defendants were actually sentenced: Guideline Range Sentence Received 135-168 months 90 months (11 yrs, 3 mos-14 yrs) (7 yrs, 6 mos) Cokes 235-293 months 100 months (19 yrs, 7 mos-24 yrs, 5 mos) (8 yrs, 4 mos) Donnell 151-181 months 70 months (12 yrs, 7 mos-15 yrs, 1 mo) (5 yrs, 10 mos) In each case, the convictions called for a mandatory minimum sentence of no less than ten years imprisonment. The harshness of the sentences under the guidelines rested in principal part on the weight of the crack attributed to each defendant in the conspiracy. Griffin 2. The prosecutor further promised the defendants that if each provided further assistance in pending drug investigations, he would move for a second reduction in their sentences. The defendants gave additional assistance for other pending prosecutions. The prosecutor made the appropriate motions but the magistrate judge hearing the case determined, as a matter of fact and law, that the court could not honor the prosecutor's promises. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's findings and conclusions and denied further sentence reductions. This appeal followed. assistance from these defendants gave the government important new information which benefitted the government in its additional prosecutions. of the FN4. The prosecutor relied on a prov1s1on of Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b), reading in pertinent part: The court may consider a government motion to reduce a sentence made one year or more after imposition of the sentence where the defendant's substantial assistance involves information or evidence not known by the defendant until one year or more after imposition of sentence. The court's authority to reduce a sentence under this subsection includes the authority to reduce such sentence to a level below that established by statute as a minimum sentence. The prosecutor represented to the magistrate judge that defendants Terrance Griffin *272 and Kevin Cokes provided additional and new assistance more than one year after the defendants had been initially sentenced. [FN4] The prosecutor also represented that under the arrangement made with Joseph Donnell, who assisted in getting Cokes to cooperate, Donnell would benefit from Cokes' further cooperation. Additional assistance from these defendants and others led to the preparation of cases against other drug defendants, who then pleaded guilty. Nevertheless, the prosecutor represented that The magistrate judge rejected the defendants' claims for a second reduction, asserting that the additional assistance counted for nothing as a matter of law or fact. The magistrate judge's rationale appeared to rest solely on his own personal experience as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, who in that role, had made all deals "up front." In part, the magistrate judge said: I would suggest, though, that in the future, Mr. Ossorio [Assistant United States Attorney presenting the motion], you might alert your fellow assistant United States attorneys that as was my practice and I know you love to hear this, when I was in that office, I always gave everybody the benefit on the front end, so that it was clear that I In my view, the magistrate judge erred and the district court continued the error. I would therefore reverse and remand for reconsideration motions. I. AM r. vi I pVERSIGH Copr. © West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 58 18-1621-000670 Page4 17 F.3d 269 (Cite as: 17 F.3d 269, *272) anticipated they would testify and they got the benefit for that testimony at the time the [§ 5Kl. l] motion was filed, even though it hadn't been accomplished. Motion Tr. (11/10/92), at 31 (emphasis added). Further, the magistrate judge claimed that the prosecutor's arrangement violated an Attorney General policy. We reject this reasoning, as Fed.R.Crim.P. 35(b) contains no limitation excluding an additional reduction of sentence when that defendant has already received a benefit for prior substantial assistance under§ 5Kl.1 or 18 U.S.C. § 3553(e). Moreover, the asserted violation of the Attorney General's policy appears to be irrelevant and probably wrong. The policy violation of the prosecutor, as here asserted by the magistrate judge, may be a concern of the Department of Justice but is generally not binding on a judge who is limited to matters of fact and law in making sentencing decisions. Cf. United States v. Lorenzo, 995 F.2d 1448, 1453 (9th Cir.1993) (U.S. Attorney's Manual does not create any substantive or procedural right enforceable at law). Moreover, Attorney General Thornburgh's policy in part reads: The most important departure is for substantial assistance by a defendant in the investigation or prosecution of another person. Section 5Kl .1 provides that, upon motion by the government, a court may depart from the guidelines and may impose a non-guideline sentence. This departure provides federal prosecutors with an enormous range of options in the course of plea negotiations. Although this departure, like all others, requires court approval, prosecutors who bargain in good faith and who state reasons for recommending a departure should find that judges are receptive to their recommendations. App. at 55-56. Thus, the policy gives the prosecutor broad discretion in this area. Here, the prosecutor clearly acted in "good faith" and stated reasons for recommending departure. Thus, the alleged "policy" violation appears groundless. The record indicates that the magistrate judge confused his function as a judge with his prior duties as a federal prosecutor. [FN5] This confusion led to his error in failing to *273 consider defendants' AMERICAN PVERSIGH additional assistance before rejecting their pending motions. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's views and persisted in the error, as indicated above. FN5. Toe following colloquy at the hearing on the motions is illustrative: THE COURT: ... If there was a contemplationthat [sic] [defendants pleading guilty under an agreement] would testify, they should've gotten the benefit from that testimony on the front end. That's what they were getting, that's what this whole case was about. Toe 35(b) motion has to do with if somebody is sitting in jail and suddenly they decide, well, I'm going to tell you about General Noriega and all the stuff that was going on in Panama, and I'm going to tell you before the grand jury, suddenly, you know, that's new information. That's not what we have here, though. I mean, not substantially, we don't have it here. This is just-MR. CULLOM [Griffin's attorney]: Well-THE COURT: This is just a poor way of doing business. It just is. MR. CULLOM: With all due respect, I disagree with you on that. I think they have provided substantially [sic] assistance subsequent to the sentence. THE COURT: Well-MR. CULLOM: Those two convictions are proof of it. THE COURT: I think it's still--thejury is still out, though, whether that information was made before they had their first downwarddeparture. MR. CULLOM: But their testimonyhadn't been-THE COURT: That doesn't matter though. I mean, that doesn't matter. Suppose a trial judge is taking these 5(k) motions [referring to U.S.S.G. § 5Kl.1] and reducing the sentence, he doesn't think-that trial judge isn't thinking, John, well, I'm just going to give them the benefit of this information and reduce it as much as they were reduced in this case. And then if they come in and testify, I'm going to give them a further--there's no record of that here. THE COURT: Right. I think I get--1 think I know what everybody was thinking here. Toe problem is I don't know that that's the appropriate tact to take, John. That's the whole issue. Does that rise to the level of subsequent substantial assistance? I don't think it does. And I haven't seen any case law that supports that. Toe fact that there--1 mean, nobody gets in this business and debriefs people and gets them pied and gets them in front of a judge and sentenced and find--does a downward departure, and then says but, you know, but we're not contemplating they're going to testify about Copr. © West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 59 18-1621-000671 17 F.3d 269 (Cite as: 17 F.3d 269, •273) Pages anything. I mean, that's absurd. That's absurd. No one would ever do that, see. But clearly, that apparently was what the U.S. attorney was saying, I think. I think that's what he was saying, that if you guys come in and you puke and you tell us everything you know, and I'm going to file 5(k) motion. And then if you go and you continue and you come to trial and you testify at trial, I'm going to file another motion under 35(b). That is wrong. I don't think that's what the law is. Motion Tr. at 32-33, 35. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand for reconsideration of the motions for reduction of the sentences. I would suggest a referral, if any, by the district judge, be made to a different magistrate judge. II . THE Griffin: Cokes: Donnell: OF MYTH 135 months (11 yrs, 3 235 months (19 yrs, 7 151 months (12 yrs, 7 less mos. less mos. less mos. CONSISTENCY IN In this case these defendants and others had something to sell--information on their former cohorts. [FN7] For that each became entitled to a motion for sentence reduction and •274 initially received sentences well below the guidelines and the mandatory minimums. Further, as disclosed by the letter quoted in footnote 7, some of the conspiracy members had obtained additional sentence reductions. FN7. We excerpt a portion of a letter written by the assistant prosecutor Peter Ossorio to the magistrate judge: Dear [magistrate judge]: The plea tendered by the last defendant, Ronald E. Whitley, in the case of United States of America v. Anthony S. Rashid, et al, No. 90-171-01-CR- W-5, permits bringing to a close a series of prosecutions in this district involving a number of defendants in other cases who agreed to provide substantial assistance in the Rashid investigation and trial. To assist the court in reaching appropriate decisions VERSIGH I take this opportunity to comment on the obvious unfairness of mandatory minimums and guideline sentencing. First, this case graphically punctures a myth that mandatory minimums and guideline sentences in drug cases result in equal treatment for offenders. The promise under federal law that all drug dealers and other drug offenders shall serve long prison terms as a strong deterrent in the socalled war on drugs is also false. As already observed, the defendants received heavy slashes in the guideline mandatory sentences through motions made by the prosecutor, accepted by the sentencing judge. [FN6] FN6. Compared to the applicable m1rumum guideline sentence, the defendants received the following downward departures, by percentage: 45 months = 33.3% less 3 yrs, 9 mos.) 135 months = 57.4% less 11 yrs, 3 mos.) 81 months = 53.6% 6 yrs, less 9 mos.) See also ante, note 3. AM FnlCAN SENTENCES. regarding the pending cases, the following updated information is provided: . . . . [Listing eleven defendants prosecuted in the drug conspiracy, including appellants, who received very substantial reductions in sentences and several who obtained second reductions in sentences for continuing assistance.] All defendants made statements to authorities about their knowledge of the drug trafficking of Anthony S. Rashid and later, Frank H . Fore and Ronald E. Whitley .... App. at 9-10. The letter specifically commented on the assistance rendered by defendants as follows: Griffin: "(Substantial witness regarding Whitley bringing 'crack' to Kevin Cokes; corroborates much of Cokes' information)." Id. at l l. Cokes: "(One of four most important witnesses regarding Whitley. Second most important witness in establishing the scale of the multi-kilogram 'crack' traffic between Houston and Kansas City in 1990-91)." Id. Donnell: "(Useful information linking Terrance Griffin, Kevin Cokes and Ronald Whitley tending to corroborate Griffin and Cokes)." Id. Copr. © West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works OIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 60 18-1621-000672 .· 17 F.3d 269 (Cite as: 17 F.3d 269, *274) Page6 I do not criticize this policy. Its rationales include "giving the prosecutor a powerful law enforcement tool, ... [and] providing a just reward for a cooperative defendant. " United States v. Kelley, 956 F.2d 748, 755 (8th Cir.1992). I must observe, however, that prosecutors, not federal judges, possess this awesome power to initiate reductions of prison sentences below mandatory minimums and below guideline ranges. Some of the defendants in this case may or may not be the most culpable in the conspiracy. I do suggest, however, that at least one defendant bears heavy responsibility for the previously flourishing crack conspiracy. Some sense of fairness, compassion and honesty in sentencing compels the conclusion that other drug offenders may be deserving of a break, particularly first-time offenders, those low on the totem pole of the drug hierarchy with little culpability, people who have no information to sell, and other minor players who are fit subjects for rehabilitation because they have learned the lesson of their wrongful ways. These are persons who can be saved from years and years of imprisonment which benefits neither society nor the offender. Offense Drugs Kidnapping Robbery Arson Racketeering/Extortion Sexual Abuse Assault Firearms Manslaughter What kind of a criminal justice system rewards the drug kingpin or near- kingpin who informs on all the criminal colleagues he or she has recruited, but sends to prison for years and years the least knowledgeable or culpable conspirator, one who knows very little about the conspiracy and is without information for the prosecutors? Imposing heavy sentences on first offenders who play only a minor role in an offense and who do not use any weapon wastes lives. The statistics are striking: l. Low level, non-violent drug offenders account for 21.2 % of the federal prison population. These small-time drug offenders often serve longer prison sentences than robbers, rapists and kidnappers. [FN8] FN8. A news story appearing in U.S.A. Today reported on the Justice Department's report on mandatory minimum sentences (relating to 16,316 prisoners). Data from a table accompanying this story is reproduced below. Crime and punishment Non-violent drug offenders account for 21.2% of the federal prison population. Punishments for firsttime drug offenses, compared with other offenses: Time served 60 months 57 months 51 months 36 months 36 months 27 months 24 months 15 months 12 months Dennis Cauchon, Sentencing study treads cautiously, U.S.A. Today, Feb. 7, 1994, at 4A. Defendants Sentenced under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for Drug Offenses--Fiscal Year 1992. 2. Statistics available from the Sentencing Commission on drug offenses indicate that of the 16,684 offenders sentenced in fiscal year 1992, a great percentage (41.3%) and a total of 6,897 persons had zero criminal *275 history points, used no weapon, and played a non-aggravating role in the offense. [FN9] 3. These same statistics show that of those sentenced under the guidelines subject to mandatory minimum statutes, 34.7% of those sentenced--3,198 persons--had no criminal history points, used no weapon and played no aggravating role in the crime. We know that such offenders received sentences no less than five years, or no less than ten years, or no less than fifteen years and some no less than twenty years imprisonment, as called for by whatever FN9. United AM ERiCAN PVERSIGH States Sentencing Commission, Copr. © West 1997 No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 61 18-1621-000673 Page 7 17 F.3d 269 (Cite as: 17 F.3d 269, *275) mandatory minimum sentences applied in the case (based substantially on weight of drugs). Our sentencing opinions have frequently recited the irrationality of the guidelines in drug sentences. New data demonstrate the frequency and regularity of lengthy sentences for non-violent crimes committed by first-time drug offenders. These heavy sentences seem not to have served as a deterrent. [FNlO] Again, this observer comments: the sentencing system is irrational; it "cries out for change.". See United States v. Smith, 997 F .2d 396, 399 (8th Cir.1993) (Bright, J., dissenting) AM ERiCAN PVERSIGH (citing and quoting Marc Miller & Daniel J. Freed, Suggestions for the President and the 103rd Congress on the Guideline Sentencing System, 5 Fed.Sent.R. 187 (Jan./Feb.1993)). FNlO. Recently, Philip B. Heymann, formerly a very high official in the Justice Department (second in command), as reported by the New York Times, "dismissed mandatory minimum prison sentences for many low-level drug offenders as almost useless in deterring crime." David Johnston, Ex- Official Attacks Crime Bill Backed by Clinton, N.Y. Times, Feb. 16, 1994, at Al. END OF DOCUMENT Copr. © West 1997No claim to orig. U.S. govt. works ltOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104922 Page 62 18-1621-000674 + ttRC... ----- - ~ Screened by NARA (RD-F) 07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) DOCID: 70104928 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104928 Page 1 18-1621-000675 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jury! AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104928 Page 2 18-1621-000676 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6{e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104928 Page 3 18-1621-000677 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jurvl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104928 Page 4 18-1621-000678 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104928 Page 5 18-1621-000679 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104928 Page 6 18-1621-000680 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104928 Page 7 18-1621-000681 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104928 Page 8 18-1621-000682 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104928 Page 9 18-1621-000683 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104928 Page 10 18-1621-000684 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104928 Page 11 18-1621-000685 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104928 Page 12 18-1621-000686 Screened by NARA (RD-F) 07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) DOCID: 70104924 I I FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104924 Page 1 18-1621-000687 U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Deputy Attorney General Washington, DC 20530 June 19, 1995 Honorable James E. Leach Chairman, Committee on Banking and Financial Services United States House of Representatives Washington, DC 20515-6050 Dear Chairman Leach: I am writing in response to the Committee's request to the Attorney General requesting the production of documents regarding Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan and related matters. As you are aware, since receiving that letter, we have had several telephone conversations and one meeting with Jackson R. Sharman III, regarding the scope of the request. Although the substance of those conversations has been the subject of several letters from Mr. Sharman, please accept this letter as the Department's response to that correspondence as well. Read literally, the Committee's request would encompass all Madison related documents in the possession of every component of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As you know, however, many of those documents relate directly to matters under investigation by the Independent Counsel and were created under his direction and supervision; others were created as part of Departmental investigations, the supervision of which was assumed by the Independent Counsel. Accordingly, until the Independent Counsel has had an opportunity to evaluate the full breadth of the Committee's request and the impact of such a production on his investigation, we have limited our production to the seven specific ·categories identified by the Committee. With that caveat we are responding to your request providing copies and an index of the following material the majority and minority staffs of the Committee: ~- by to both 1. Enclosed are all of Webster Hubbell's telephone messages that, on their face, appear to relate to the Committee's inquiry. In addition, the Department is producing all of Mr. Hubbell's 1993 telephone messages from the following entities: the RTC, the FDIC, and the White House. We do so, however, to AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104924 Page 2 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000688 - 2 insure that our production is as complete Department does not represent that these to.the subject matter of the Committee's as possible; the latter messages relate inquiry. Similarly, we have enclosed copies of all of Mr. Hubbell's 1993 calendar entries for meetings with representatives from the we do not_ White House, the RTC, and the FDIC. Once again~ represent that these meetings concerned matters related to the Committee's inquiry. We have also enclosed all of Mr. Hubbell's memoranda, or E-mail messages that were reduced I am advised that Mr. Hubbell's office maintained logs. relevant notes, to written form. no telephone To the extent that the Department maintains electronic telephone records, they are contained in tape form. Because of the volume of telephone calls made by Department employees, we have not attempted to reduce that data to written form. We will attempt to accommodate specific requests for information once the Committee has had the opportunity to review documents. We have, however, enclosed the 1993 bills for Mr. Hubbell's cellular telephone. 2. I am advised that United States Attorney Paula Casey did not maintain a telephone log during 1993, nor did her office maintain message pads for her. We have enclosed bills for Ms. Casey's cellular telephone from August 1993, when Ms. Casey took the oath of office, to December 1993. To the extent that they exist, we also have produced calling card bills for Ms. Casey from that same time period. 3. Enclosed are documents relating to the recusal of United States Attorney Paula Casey. Copies of some or all of these documents were located in several offices within the Justice Department. In order to avoid unnecessary duplication, we have attempted not to provide multiple copies. Nevertheless, we have provided all copies of documents bearing or attached to handwritten notes. 4. documents category this 5. There request. 6. documents determine time. AMERICAN We do not responsive 1 above. believe to this do not appear that the request to Department possesses that are not included be any documents any in responsive The Department is in the process of reviewing and will consult with the Independent Counsel if any responsive material can be produced at to these to this FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104924 Page 3 P VERSIGHT - 18-1621-000689 3 7. transmittal Department of Justice of RTC referrals are documents enclosed. relating to the As I discussed with Mr. Sharman, we have not produced documents such as FOIA requests or responses, Congressional correspondence, or documents relating to ongoing FOIA litigation. To the extent that newspaper clippings maintain~d by Department employees could be deemed responsive to the Committee's request, they have been provided only if they were attached to an otherwise responsive document or themselves contained responsive markings or notes. Needless to say, the Department will continue to with the Committee's requests as fully and expeditiously possible, and we will produce any additional responsive that come to our attention. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. cooperate as records please ishman o the Deputy rney General Enclosures cc: AMFnlCAN Hon. Hon. Henry B. Gonzalez (w/enclosures) Kenneth Starr (w/enclosures) FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104924 Page 4 VE S GHT 18-1621-000690 TO: FILE FROM: Stephen RE: Conversation DATE: June A. Kubiatowski 14, with Jack Sharman on 6/13/95 1995 On Tuesday, June 13, 1995, at approximately 7;05 PM, I spoke with Jack Sharman and Jim Clinger of the House Banking Committee. I indicated that the OIC had received the Committee's press release discussing the Committee's proposed hearings date. I told him that the release raised serious matters which would bear directly on our investigation, and that Judge Starr would want as much detail as possible regarding (1) the subject matters to be covered, (2) the· proposed order of subject matters covered, and (3) the witnesses to be called on each subject matter. Jack told me he needed 15 minutes to jot down some notes so he could be coherent, and got back to me shortly at which point a more substantive conversation ensued. Jack began with two caveats. First, he stated Committee's plans were only a "working plan" which was amendment by Chairman Leach, even at the last minute. stated that the Committee would request, to the extent that any information given the OIC regarding their hearings be "kept in our quarters" alone. that the subject to Second, he possible, proposed According to Jack, Chairman Leach's plan is to cover most of the issues "in one fell swoop" during a two week period in August. The theory would be that, to the extent possible, the Committee would "march through" the issues chronologically beginning with the operation of Madison Guaranty. Jack noted, however, that supplemental hearings in September or October would not be precluded if the Committee did not cover all the ground it wanted to. plan," The following as described I. Operations A. Madison pVERSIGHT One related this segment of Chairman's and Jim: Leach's "working Guaranty Scope: This segment and its relationship Corp. and CMS. (1) AM HICAN of is an outline to me by Jack would with subject is the discuss Madison's the Whitewater operations Development that might be discussed Maple Creek transaction. FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104924 Page 5 - during 18-1621-000691 B. Witnesses: According to Jack, the "stage-setting" witnesses would be Jim Clark, a bank examiner who wrote the 1986 report on Madison, and Charles James, an accountant for the Whitewater Development Corp. until 1985. Other witnesses to be called would be Jim McDougal, Susan McDougal, and "perhaps" David Hale. (1) II. State Regulatory A. III. AMERICAN Lex state Issues Jack did not think that the contracts between the ADFA and would be covered. 1985 Fundraiser/Campaigns bond underwriting · Lasater & Company Generally Scope: This segment would focus primarily on the 1985 fundraiser at Madison, although the gubernatorial campaign may also be discussed. (1) B. calling whom __ ar'i! Witnesses: The principal witness for this segment would be Beverly Bassett Schaffer. Dan Lasater may be called, though Jack indicated that this was a "question mark." April A. contemplates both -of Scope: This segment would generally focus on conflicts issues concerning the Rose Law Firm, including RLF' s representation of Madison with respect to any stock offering plans . (1) B. On Maple Creek, Jack Dobbins and Tom Butler, employees. According to Jack, "any" campaign would be covered in this segment. related April 1990 issues Witnesses: The principal witness would be Betsy Wright, though Jack indicated Bruce Lindsey might be called as well. pVERSIGHT (1) Jack specifically stated that Lindsey, if called, would be the only WHS witnesses who would be called to testify on any subject area. (2) Jack noted on this Committee witnesses indicated that Jim McDougal might need to testify issue, in addition to Wright. The has not contemplated calling any other on this issue at this point, though Jack that could change. FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104924 Page 6 18-1621-000692 IV. Creation/Submission/Handling Referrals A. B. VI. of Criminal Jack indicated that the WHS contacts issue, to the extent it bore on the handling of the referrals, might be covered in this segment. However, he was very clear that the Committee would not "retread" ground on an area which had already been "gone over last year." (2) Jack emphasized that the Committee any formal document request to the might in the future. has not yet made WHS, although it Witnesses: The principal witnesses would be the "K.C. Three": Jean Lewis, Richard Iorio, and Lee Ausen. Jack could not indicate which RTC-Washington D. C. or DOJ witnesses the Committee might call, as the Committee is still in the process of interviewing possible witnesses from those agencies. Jack noted however, that anyone at) is fair game as a witness, Webb Hubbell. Death/Foster Scope: These any degree. Inspector-General A. Sets (1) Foster A. Both Scope: This subject would generally cover the creation, submission, and handling of all the criminal referrals, from September 1992 and onward. The substance -- as well as the handling -- of the referrals would be reviewed. The administrative leave and/or suspension of certain RTC employees would also be covered. (1) V. of Scope: pursuing warrant hearing. at DOJ (or formerly upto and including Documents issues will not be covered by the HBC in Transcripts Jack stated this issue, being discussed that the Committee was still but was unsure whether it would in the forum of a Congressional Following our conversation regarding the above outline, I expressed my concern that the Committee's program may be "ambitious" for a two week period. Jack agreed that such might be the case, but stated that Chairman Leach does not want to "torture every conceivable investigatory issue." Rather, Chairman Leach simply want a "thorough airing" of the issues. AMl HICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104924 Page 7 VERSIGHT _ _ 18-1621-000693 I asked Jack when Chairman Leach's plan would be more than tentative. Jack couldn't say, but suggested that speaking with the ore regarding these issues now, rather than later, would help resolve my question. until need AMl HICAN Jack indicated 2:00 PM, but be. that would he would be willing be in depositions this to meet with us after FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104924 Page 8 VERSIGHT . . morning that, if 18-1621-000694 ~ . AMl S .& LE A ( ~ F.l•L, ._._ ,: ,:, l ~ · ; M l()WA ( MAIFlMA1'1 ~ENf:l.,..8 JC ~~ f"l 0 Fl10A J 0h "- ~ .i: .• '"•.,:t. ·:_c a ; • :-Q• 't c°A BA :.;CE ~ , ! ._.: \,jl "- ,: : •• - A : HARLES E ' •i: ••• <,A• BAPNE 'r ;:c.A,.- '-4.l5;;.:.· - .. c;F:· -; 0 A.Ul f .._A, _(. A,S,t .::,1:;'- '• -i , :_ ,A~IA JOSEPH P .:c-..-..E:• llro',l')SAC+-tlJS E ..,.S "4°'A I~[ 'IIC,ult.EMA . ~E IV JEA$E " C,(.,•., C 8EAf 1_;Tf'I "-E9RA $ ,i;_., 1 . -~-e" ::a o ..... NIS C(J ,.,.S; ,.,. s: - ·-~e~ G, ': ,..ARO M 8.&.KEP L OUS1 AN A Q, ( I( :._A,l10 "'-IE\/\' VQAI( U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES '5Pf:'-,(f,. BACHUS ilt Al,A,8AMA •Yh(HAfl. CAS"'."i..E OE.L AhAl'E P£ '!"Efll K i""1G '-,£W vQAti:: ! J WAA(; IIQVCE . CA f..lf C FIN!.a. i:AANtt O '-:.JCAS Qtc;i..AHO MA ,;£fUI"' WE l~ EFI. ll ll ,.,.O tS • Lovo,...,._..,ill"£ -...e ....- :~. <'NEIS• ~F ._.-..E •..u.~ "- "-'-: COMMITTEE ON BANKING ANO FINANCIAL SERVICES '4AXINE ONE HUNDRED FOURTH CONGRESS , 0 HA"W OA"'"H . AR.ZO~A .,ACK M(TC.._,F W\IASHING'"C ""' SO~NY BONO CALJFC:.A1'1tA -.n OHIO Ot)8E"T L EHRLICM .;R .. MARYLAND : .a. .. c : R, 1A ,e _.,,, Y"Qfll( , .:•s ...UC ilL E .AC ..,BA., 4 .__4'- : : .a.-.,F"C,PPonA ':'r,QMAS M a.a.PAEA "S,:C-NS iN ~VOtA M i 'E;.AZ0Lf: '-€..-..""QA'( 4l.SER: ~ t.4.1.~ ... _,,i,,.._O 2129 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING QQ8EQ> "'-A...EDS e,u..Of:l'!"O,.,, w- .. ,.. CAAOl ..,.._. 9 "-4A.t.': "'E • ;..•J•S v G;..'""'E''flC Z l.- N"'-..~ WASHINGTON. DC 20515-6050 CLEO •1E:..:?S :..: w1S. .1,,.1. : ~;i: L:l'•:A 908 8APFI GEOt=tG1A \4E:. 'v1N 1¥4--:--- "i Q P '""- ::,1cl( Cj,,JflVSlER ,woCMIGA1'1 MAURICE "'1:"' C"'"E- ,€ A • :· AK C'IU~IC CREMEANS OHIO .10 '-, FCx PEN~SYl i AM• ::REOERtCK. "'EINEMA""1 . '--10ATH C ARCUN.A .3AA"' A.(l(f:.lr,ll'.l°" ...E>. •: AK 1(£',j ee-.. ; sc, ""£ •,i.S SCE,1ESTOCKMA,_ TEXAS t ct.l"-!K ....: 810NOC NEW JERSEY , C WA T"'"S OKLAHOMA S'-iE .,,_ . l(i:~i.V ~EW VQfl:I( 2021 22S- "502 June The Honorable 1995 Henry B. Gonzalez 2413 Rayburn House Office Washington, DC 20515 Dear 19, Building Henry: I appreciate the concerns August recess. you expressed about hearings during the A number of Members on both sides have also indicated that two of hearings in August decimate prearranged family time and commitments in their districts. In view of these concerns, I have decided to restrict the August hearings to the week of August 7-11. Given the scope of the issues involved, the elimination of the second week of proposed hearings very likely precludes the prospect of concluding Committee consideration of Whitewater in one hearing segment. weeks' Sincerely, J~:. LEACH Chairman JAL:dmd cc: All Members, Committee on Banking The Honorable Abner J. Mikva Office of the Independent Counsel AMl HICAN and Financial Services FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104924 Page 9 ,OVERSIGHT 18-1621-000695 . U.S. Department of Justice • Office of the Deputy Attorney General Washington, D.C. 20530 July III R. Sharman, Mr. Jackson and Investigations Oversight and Financial on Banking Committee Building House Office 212 O'Neill D.C. 20515 Washington, Dear Mr. 20, 1995 Services Sharman: initial made its of Justice On June 19, 1995, the Department Banking on Committee to the House in response production document to Attorney May 15, 1995, request Services's and Financial to pertaining Freeh for documents Reno and FBI Director General Guaranty") ("Madison & Loan Association Savings Madison Guaranty on a number of As we have discussed matters. and related additional to review has continued the Department occasions, any, may be if which, to ascertain in its possession documents documents are additional Enclosed request. to that responsive requests. in your earlier described the categories within ' documents Department we have collected ,In addition, two for the following request to the Committee's pertaining the between (1) communications of documents: categories obtaining about or David Kendall and James Hamilton Department his death; after Office Foster's removed from Vincent the files City Kansas the at November 1993 meeting and (2) Don Mackay's I have know, you As Corporation. Trust of the Resolution office Independent the of with the Office in consultation remained document the Department's that to ensure ("OIC") Counsel by the inquiry with any ongoing does not interfere production soon as as know us let ore. ore has advised us that they will two these producing to our object they will whether possible time. at this of documents categories to cooperate continue will the Department that Be assured as and expeditiously as fully request with the Committee's contact to free fell please If you have any questions, possible. me. pv~l~'S~GH FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104924 Page 10 18-1621-000696 cc: Joe Reilly Hon. Kenneth AMERICAN PVERSIGHT / Starr FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104924 Page 11 18-1621-000697 Screened by NARA (RD-F) 07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302) DOCID: 70104926 ' FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104926 Page 1 18-1621-000698 MEMORANDUM TO: Judge Starr Mark Tuohey FROM: Brett Kavanaugh RE: House Hearings on Travel Office DATE: April 18, 1995 Barbara Comstock of Chairman Clinger's staff contacted me to find out whether we would have any problem if the House Government Reform Committee holds hearings on the Travel Office firings this summer. (They want to hold hearings in June; at this point they do not plan to await completion of the Billy Dale trial.) I told her that I would check with the two of you and get back to her before the end of the week. I propose that we tell Ms. Comstock that hearings on the White House's firing of the Travel Office employees would not hinder or impede our investigation, but that we would like advance notice of their document and interview requests. I suggest we talk about this in the next day or two. Ar\/lERICAN FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104926 Page 2 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000699 J w \-\ AMt-f IC N FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104926 Page 3 VER IGHT 18-1621-000700 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Brett Kavanaugh RE: House Hearings on Travel Office DATE: April 19, 1995 I talked today to Barbara Comstock and told her that this Office had decided that House hearings on the White House firing of Travel Office employees would not hinder or impede our ongoing criminal investigation. Ar\/lERICAN FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld : 70104926 Page 4 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000701 MEMORANDUM TO: Judge Starr CC: Mark Tuohey Hickman Ewing John Bates Steve Kubiatowski FROM: Brett Kavanaugh RE: DOJ QPR Report on Travel Office DATE: May 31, 1995 URGENT Chairman Clinger plans to hold hearings on the Travel Office affair as soon as practicable. He has requested from the Department of Justice the Department's OPR Report on the Travel Office. The Department (Peggy Irving) has contacted me to determine whether we object to release of the QPR report. THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS AN ANSWER IMMEDIATELY. I recommend that we not object to release of the Travel Office report. I see no danger that release of this report would hinder or impede our investigation of Mr. Foster's state of mind. Indeed, I think it possible that congressional inquiry may further illuminate the involvement of Mr. Foster and others , including the First Lady, in the Travel Office affair. Mr. Fiske had objected to release of the OPR report while his investigation of the Foster death was proceeding. I do not believe that should alter our decision, however. Much of the information regarding Mr. Foster in the OPR Travel Office report is now public by means of the Fiske report and other news articles. Therefore, we are not in an identical situation to Mr. Fiske with respect to the OPR report. In addition, even were that not the case, I would still recommend that we adopt a position different from the one adopted by Mr. Fiske. It seems to me that we need to be cautious in dealing with Congress, and resist Congress only when it "really matters." This seems an especially tangential matter over wlrich to incur the wrath of Congress. If we object to congressional inquiry into any matter in which Mr. Foster was involved, we would object to inquiry into the Travel Office, WACO, gays in the military, etc. In my opinion, that is not a posture that we should adopt. RECOMMENDATION: I call Peggy Irving and tell her that we do not object to release of the OPR report on the Travel Office. Please give me an answer today if possible. Arv FnlCAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld : 70104926 Page 5 18-1621-000702 ll t-NbPrLL LE/7£R.- .Sft[CH €.J Screened by NARA (RD-F) 07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) DOCID: 70104930 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 1 18-1621-000703 To: Judge Starr John Bates From: Stephen re: propriety John independent Justice 1/29/97 Bates of speeches asked about counsels. Department public Here's by prosecutors speeches by prosecutors what I've found. and Policy Regulations and the U.S. Attorney's Manual govern federal prosecutors' public comments. The Manual speaks of the need to balance the public's right to know, the individual's right to a fair trial, and the government's ability to enforce the laws effectively. U.S. Attys. Man. § 1-7 . 110. It adds: Likewise, careful weight must be given in each case to. the right of the people in a constitutional democracy to have access to information about the conduct of law enforcement officers, prosecutors and courts, consistent with the individual rights of the accused. Further, recognition should be given to ... the rights of the public to be informed on matters that can affect enactment or enforcement of public laws or the development or change of public policy. Id., § 1-7.112. investigation: One provision governs comments on a current In matters that have already received substantial or about which the community needs to be reassured appropriate law enforcement agency is investigating incident, ... comments about or confirmation of investigation may need to be made. publicity, that the the an ongoing The U.S. Attorney or the responsible Department Division must authorize the release of information" [i]n these unusual circumstances." Id., § 1-7.530; see id., §§ 1-7.111 ("limited confidentiality" is necessary concerning on-going investigations and grand jury matters), 9-2.211 ("no statements should be made concerning the subject matter of a grand jury"). Ethics Rules Rule 3.6(a) of the ABA's Model Rules of Professional_Conduct proscribes public statements that "the lawyer knows or reasonably should know ... will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter." AMLHICAN pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104930 Page 2 18-1621-000704 (The U.S. Attorney's Manual, at sec. 1-7.510, contains a similar prohibition.) The commentary following the rule notes that otherwise-impermissible statements may be permissible to rebut prejudicial statements made by others, which might apply here in light of the President's CNN interview, Susan McDougal's TV appearances, and Carville's activities. "Such responsive statements should be limited to contain only such information as is necessary to mitigate undue prejudice created by the statements made by others." I haven't delved into the literature trial issues, or researched the Arkansas ethics and court rules on this subject. like more. Watergate Special on free press/fair and District of Columbia Let me know if you'd Prosecutors I haven't found evidence that any of the Watergate special prosecutors gave speeches about the investigation. Leon Jaworski gave several speeches during his tenure, but the only one whose text I've found did not concern Watergate. If you wish, I can look for information on his other speeches. Though he apparently gave no speeches, least five news conferences during his tenure, Henry Ruth, held one. Cox also appeared on after his firing. Jaworski, so far as I can conferences, but he did appear on Issues and Meet the Press, among others. Archibald Cox held at and his deputy, the CBS Evening News tell, held no news Answers, Today, and The initial report of the Watergate special prosecutors says that "Cox was mindful of the national concern over Watergate and of the public's right to be kept as fully informed as possible about the work of his office," and that he and Jaworski sought, through their dealings with the press, "to give the public as much information as possible about the Special Prosecutor's office in the early stages of their work." Watergate Special Prosecution Force, Report 227, 229 (1975). According to his press secretary, Cox believed that he had an obligation to keep public opinion on his side, both to reassure the public that justice was being pursued impartially and to help persuade the White House to cooperate. See James Doyle, Not Above the Law 45 (1977). Because of these concerns, Cox asked for and received the authority to "from time to time make public such statements or reports as he deems appropriate." Nomination of Elliot L. Richardson to be Attorney General: Hearings before the Senate Judiciary Comm., 93d Cong., 1st Sess. 146 (1973). 2 AM HICAN pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 3 18-1621-000705 Iran-contra Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh gave a number of speeches about Iran-contra. A 1988 news article in the Wall Street Journal reported that "Mr. Walsh has used strategically timed speeches, status reports and announcements of guilty pleas by lower-level targets to demonstrate progress and emphasize his independence." Among the speeches, according to a database search, were the following: Walsh addressed an ABA prayer breakfast in San Francisco on August 9, 1987. Walsh said that his investigators had interviewed more than a thousand witnesses, and that the grand jury handling the case had met several times each week for more than six months. He outlined his efforts to insulate his staff from the recent congressional hearings. And he stressed, in unspoken reference to Oliver North, that in deciding whether to prosecute, he would pay no attention to the popularity of the potential defendant. On April 20, 1990, Walsh spoke at the University of Oklahoma about Iran-contra. Some in the Reagan administration, he said, had behaved like "simple-minded conspirators" when word of their secret dealings had emerged. "First some lied separately. Then some lied in concert. Then some destroyed documents and notes." At this point in the investigation, the convictions of John Poindexter and Oliver North were still standing. On September 27, 1990, Walsh spoke at Washburn University Topeka, Kansas. In his prepared remarks, Walsh said that his office had recently obtained new evidence and that additional indictments were possible. Before the New York City Bar Association on April 18, he said that the growth of the executive branch had created "fertile ground for politically motivated misconduct." He about the need for independent counsels, with reference to Attorney General Meese's conflicts of interest in Iran-contra. He also spoke of the problems of prosecuting cases related national security, with reference to the North case. This reported to be Walsh's sixth speech since his appointment. in 1991, talked to was On February 9, 1993, after President Bush's pardons, Walsh again addressed the ABA. "It is a disparagement of the rule of law for a president to use his pardon power to prevent the trial of a personal colleague," he said. month Finally, Walsh criticized in a speech at Yale. The Iran-contra additional material me to check. files in on Walsh's the pardon the National speeches. again the following Archives may contain Let me know if you want 3 AMLHICAN pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104930 Page 4 18-1621-000706 [[levin [[this letter/ covers speech some but section/ not all s. issues bates raised draft/ in 4/8/97]] Qs 7, 14, & 15)] You also ask about the speeches I have delivered since my appointment as Independent Counsel. None of them has addressed electoral matters. In most cases, the sponsoring organization has made my travel arrangements or reimbursed out-of-pocket expenses. I have accepted no honoraria for speeches arranged since my appointment. Perhaps it will be helpful for me to outline the two goals that have animated my speeches as Independent Counsel. First, I have sought to inform the public about the Ethics in Government Act, its history, its purpose, and its operation. I have tried to demarcate the narrow category of cases in which the Act requires appointment of an Independent Counsel. I have also tried to dispel widely held misconceptions about the law. For instance, a number of people expect an Independent Counsel to issue a comprehensive final report, one that addresses each and every unsolved mystery laid before his office. In several speeches, I have stressed that the Independent Counsel's principal role is not to provide final answers to all questions of fact, but rather to enforce the criminal law. Second, I have tried to fulfill every official's duty to account for the exercise of governmental power, a duty I consider particularly crucial in the realm of law enforcement. Prior Independent Counsels, especially those investigating Presidents, have recognized and heeded this obligation. Archibald Cox held a number of news conferences during the Watergate investigation. His successor, Leon Jaworski, discussed the investigation on Issues and Answers, Today, Meet the Press, and other news programs. Judge Lawrence Walsh spoke about Iran-contra before an American Bar Association prayer breakfast, a New York City Bar Association meeting, and several university audiences, as well as holding at least ten news conferences and appearing on, among other programs, Nightline, This Week with David Brinkley, Good Morning America, and MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour. Likewise, Attorneys General frequently appear on news programs, hold press conferences, and make speeches. Indeed, Attorney General Reno addressed the Detroit Economic Club a few months before I did so. Unlike some other Independent Counsels and Special Prosecutors, I have chosen to rely principally on speeches to inform the public. I have held only a single scheduled news conference since my appointment. With the exception of a C-SPAN interview focusing on my personal background, I have turned down all requests for on-air television interviews, including an invitation to appear on CBN on the day of my remarks at Regent University. AMLHICAN pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104930 Page 5 18-1621-000707 LAW OFFICES WILLIAMS© - : :~:~t-__ , t. / CONNOLLY II: /) . WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005-5901 ~ tL· EDWARD BENNETT PAUL DAVID E. KENDALL (202) 434-5145 Thank yesterday. ' ·' '-- i,1pr-:;.;-rl I ~I !f)U-~lr;i:: 1L.J" .., ~ •7 t 4, (1920-1968) vr en,:p q :L \..J U i 1 ..; .:,,_.. 1997 The Honorable Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel Office of the Independent Counsel 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. 20004 Judge WILLIAMS BY HAND Starr: you for your response to the letter I sent you I appreciate that there are times when it may be appropriate for you or your staff to speak to the press regarding matters of public record or to correct errors in the media. The complaint I expressed yesterday, which is unrebutted by your letter, concerns commentary by you and your staff about the substance of pending grand jury investigative matters. I am aware of no precedent in "similar past investigations," and you have cited none, for the kind of commentary and speculation on grand jury evidence and witnesses which was contained in the New York Times magazine article. Nor is there a syllable in the independent counsel statute about any general public education function of your office, apart from your statutory reporting obligations. Public confidence in your investigation will ensue not from the speeches you give and the public statements you make but rather by your following the traditional prosecutorial rules and bringing this lengthy, expensive, and burdensome investigation to closure. Because you have mischaracterized my proposal regarding two sets of White House attorney's notes and asserted legal barriers where there are none, I am publicly releasing our exchange on this matter. AM HICAN pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 6 .J ~, C/::!m~ P-r (~2'2-1978) FAX (202) 434-5029 June Dear R. l J1 (202) 434-5000 ' ,~) . ..., 725 TWELFTH STREET, N.W. the 18-1621-000708 LAW OFFICES WILUAM5 '.S CONNOLLY 725 TWELFTH STREET,N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005-5901 H>WAA.D Bl!'N'to"ETT WILLIAMS PAUL (11>20•1988) (1922·1978) (202) 434-5000 DAVIDE. KENDALL (202) 434-5145 FAX (202) 434-5029 April Hon . Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel Office of the Independent 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Judge R.. CONNOLLY 28, 1997 BY HAND Counsel N.W. Starr: As you are aware, on behalf of Mrs. Clinton personally, we intervened to participate in the briefing and argument of the sealed case, In re Grand Jury Subpoena Ouces Tecum, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Before a petition for writ of certiorari is filed seeking review of the Eighth Circuit's decision, I want to assure that every possible avenue has been explored to determine whether there is an outcome that would preserve both the interests identified by you and the vital institutional interests of both the White House and the Executive Branch more generally. Andy Frey emphasized to you at our meeting on April 18 that the White House has challenged the right of the Independent Counsel to obtain the White House Counsel's Office attorney notes at issue not because the White House has any concern about their content but because no government law office (including the White House Counsel's Office) can carry out its professional responsibilities without the protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. We agree with that assessment. I believe that the Supreme House position. This will, of expressed the view recently in the grand jury that assertions completion of your investigation. you may be referencing, but, as AMLHll..i pVERSIGHT Court will endorse the White course, take time. You have your motion to extend the term of of privilege are delaying the I do not know what assertions you know, the district court in FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104930 Page 7 18-1621-000709 WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY Hon. Kenneth W. Starr April 28, 1997 Page 2 this case agreed with the assertions of privilege made and denied your motion to compel. Likewise, Judge Kopf, who dissented from the panel ruling, would have denied your motion to compel. In any event, if your concern here is to secure the two sets of White House attorney notes that you have subpoenaed rather than to seek to establish what appears to me to be an unprecedented and unwise new principle of law, I suggest an alternative solution, which is similar to a mechanism used to resolve a similar dispute with the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1995. As you will recall, that Committee had demanded a set of notes taken by a member of the White House Counsel's Office (Bill Kennedy) at a November 5, 1993, meeting of White House and private attorneys. It was both our belief and that of the White House that an important principle was at stake which we did not want to see waived or dishonored, but it was also our joint view that protecting the notes ID:@ notes was not the critical issue. The White House Counsel's Office and we ultimately arranged with the Senate Committee, and with other interested parties including your Office, to obtain non-waiver agreements, whereby the White House produced the notes but with all parties agreeing that the act of production would not in any way affect any party's legal position. I think you would have to agree that the Kennedy notes at issue contained nothing of substantive value. In a similar fashion, · I would propose to initiate discussions with the White House Counsel's Office with a view toward settling this litigation by providing you with the two sets of notes that are the subject of the motion to compel on the following conditions: (1) the White House is able to obtain nonwaiver agreements from your Office, the Congress, and other interested parties, to the effect that such production would not affect either the White House's or our ability to assert attorney-client privilege or work product protection with respect to other notes and their subject matter in the future; (2) your Office will agree that the White House Counsel's Office continues to have the right to assert the attorney-client privilege and work production protection in the future (as would we), subject, of course, to the factual and legal constraints that would govern the assertion of such protection by any person or entity; and (3) the Court of Appeals is agreeable, on the basis of a joint motion, to withdrawing its opinion. If your purpose in pursuing this litigation is to obtain information that you believe to be important to your investigation, this proposal should enable the matter to be settled and for you speedily to acquire the information. Indeed, if you can devise some other approach that would both meet your AMLHICA pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104930 Page 8 18-1621-000710 WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY Hon. Kenneth W. Starr April 28, 1997 Page 3 investigative needs and allow the White House and us to preserve our position, I would be happy to consider it. If, instead, you wish to continue this litigation in order to establish some new precedent permitting the ongoing invasion of confidential attorney-client communications, then review in the Supreme Court is entirely appropriate. least Given the severe time constraints involved, a preliminary response as soon as possible. I request at Sincerely, Q-11 2_) z:::i. Kendall AMFnlCAN FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104930 Page 9 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000711 Office of the Independent Counsel Redding Bu!ldir.g J 7GJ Centeniew Dm-e. Suite 203 little Rock, Arkansas 72211 (501) 221-8700 Fa:c(501) 221-8707 April 29: 1997 David E. Kendall, Esq. Williams & Connolly 725 Twelfth Street, 1\TW Washington, DC 20005-5901 Dear Mr. Kendall: We received your letter late last evening. You requested a preliminary response as soon as possible. This letter sets forth that respon:s~. The linchpin to your proposal is that the Court of Appeals (or the Supreme Court) would agree. upon motion of th~ parties, to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and \vithdraw the Court's opinion. The fundamental flaw is that the proposed action by the Court, which is the sine qua non of your entire proposal. is not lawfully authorized, regardless of what the parties agree to do. The Supreme Court has held that appellate cow-ts do not possess general authority to vacate judgments upon settlement. As the Court ~ unanimously stated, "Where mootness results from settlemcnt,...the losing party has voluntarily forfeited his legal remedy by the ordinary processes of appeal or certiorari, thereby surrendering his claim to the equitable remedy of vacarur.... In these respectS the case stands no differently than it would if jurisdiction were lacking because the losing party failed to appeal at all." Bancon, MortgageCo.v. Bonner Mall Part;nership.115 S. Ct. 386, 392 (1994). The Court elaborated: Judicial precedents are prcsun1ptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole.... Congress bac;prescribed a primary route ...through which parties may seek relief from the legal consequences of judicial judgments. To allow a party who steps off the starutory path to employ the secondary remedy of vncatur as a refined form of collateral attack on the judgment would - quite apart from any considerations of fairness to the parties -- disturb the orderly operation of lhe foderal judicial system .... [S]ome litigants, at least, may think it worthwhile to roll the dice rather than settle in the district court, or in the court of appeals, if, but only if, an unfavorable outcome can be washed away by a settlem~nl-related vacatur. SN AMf-HICA VER IGH FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104930 Page 10 18-1621-000712 ~---------- ~------ ----------------- David E. Kendall, Esq. April 29, 1997 Page Two lg. at 392-93; ~ also Nahrebeshi y. Cincinnati Milacron Marketing Co., 41 F.3d 1221, 1222 (8th Cir. l 994)(applying Bancom); In re Memorial Hos£ilal. 862 F.2d 1299, 1302 (7th Cir. 1988)(Easterbrook,J.)("Ilistory cannot be rewritten. There is no common law writ ot" erasure .... If parties want to avoid stare dccisis and preclusive effects, they need only settle before the district court renders a decision."). Because the law, as clearly set forth by the Supreme Court, mandate::ithat the judgment and opinion of the Cou.'1:of Appeals cannot be vacated by action of the parties, your proposal does not appear practicable. Kenneth W. Starr h:.depe!l.dentCounsel AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 11 18-1621-000713 LAW OFFICES WILLIAMS ··s CONNOLLY 725 TWELFTHSTREET,N.W. WASHINGTON,0. C. 20005-5901 EDWAJU> PAUL av,n,,ETT W'ILLIAMS It. CONWOLLY (1920•19118) (1922•19711> (202) 434-5000 DAVID E. KENDALL (202) 434-5145 FAX (202) 434-5029 May 5, 1997 VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel Office of the Independent Counsel 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Judge Starr: This letter responds to your letter of April 29, 1997. I explicitly stated my willingness to explore alternatives to my proposal, so I am perplexed by your characterization of the third element of my proposal as the "linchpin'' and the "sine gue non" of any negotiated resolution. In any event, you appear to have misunderstood the governing law. The Supreme Court has not held, as you suggest, that appellate courts are without authority to vacate judgments upon settlement. Indeed, the Supreme Court begins its analysis in Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994), by recognizing the general authority of a federal appellate court to vacate decisions in such circumstances. Id. at 21. Congress has explicitly provided that, "[t]he Supreme Court or any other court of appellate jurisdiction may affirm, modify, vacate, set aside ·· or reverse any judgment, decree, or orde·r of a court lawfully brought before it for review ... n 28 U.S.C. § 2106. The appellee appellant's motion to my proposal where all Supreme.Court's limited that "[w]here mootness party has voluntarily processes of appeal or AMl HICAN in Bancorp, of course, opposed the vacate -- a situation quite different from the parties would support vacatur. The decision was, as you correctly quoted, results from settlement, ... the losing forfeited his legal remedy by the ordinary certiorari, thereby surrendering his claim FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 12 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000714 WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY The Honorable May 5, 1997 Page 2 Kenneth W. Starr ·_ to the equitable remedy of vacatur.n Bancorp Mortgage Co., 513 U.S. at 25 (emphasis added). Federal appellate courts continue to have the authority to vacate decisions according to principles As the of equity even where mootness is caused by settlement. Supreme Court expressly noted in Bancorp, "(t]his is not to say that vacatur can never be granted when mootness is produced [by reason of settlement]." Id. at 29. You have, however, elected rather than resolve it in a way that the notes. Jacta alea est. to litigate the matter would speedily afford you . Kendall • AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 13 18-1621-000715 LAW OFFICES WIWAMS S CONNOLLY 725 TWELFTH STREET, N.W. p • .·-: 1: ·:1 -l -! , • ; I ..,,:~: it WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005-5901 EDWARD PAUL DAVID E. KENDALL (202) 434-5000 FAX (202) 434-5029 GQ~Y- 0920 (t$J!"2-1978> vr-rrv::: ur 4, 1997 The Honorable Kenneth w_ Starr Independent Counsel Office of the Independent Counsel 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Judge R. n- ·)-,.:.,_ '-L~ .) 1 WILLIAMS BY HAND Starr: Thank you for yesterday. your response to the letter I sent you I appreciate that there are times when it may be appropriate for you or your staff to speak to the press regarding matters of public record or to correct errors in the media. The complaint I expressed yesterday, which is unrebutted by your letter, concern s commentary by you and your staff about the substance of pending grand jury investigative matters. I am aware of no precedent in "similar past investigations," and you have cited none, for the kind of commentary and speculation on grand jury evidence and witnesses which was contained in the New York Times magazine article. Nor is there a syllable in the independent counsel statute about any general public education function of your office, apart from your statutory reporting obligations. Public confidence in your investigation will ensue not from the speeches you give and-the public statement~you make but rather by your following the traditional prosecutorial rules and bringing this lengthy, expensive, and burdensome investigation to closure. Because you have mischaracterized my proposal regarding two sets of White House attorney's notes and asserted legal barriers where there are none, I am publicly releasing our exchange on this matter. the . Kendall AMFRICAN pVERSIGH - 1988) ISDEPEi i:CENT CCUtiSEL (202) 434-5145 June &ENNETT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104930 Page 14 18-1621-000716 LAWOFFICES Wll.l1AM5 : e CONNOLLY 725 TWELFTH STREET,N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005-5901 DAVIDE. KENDALL (202) 434-5145 (202) 434-5000 FAX (202) 434-5029 April Hon. Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel Office of the Independent 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 490 - North Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Judge l!D"ll"'AAD al!'NNl!TT Wt~MS (1920-1088> PAUL R.. CONNOLLY (1922-1978> 28, 1997 BY HAND ., €bunsel N.W. Starr: As you are aware, on behalf of Mrs. Clinton personally, we intervened to participate in the briefing and argument of the sealed case, In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Before a petition for writ of certiorari is filed seeking review of the Eighth Circuit's decision, I want to assure that every possible avenue has been explored to determine whether there is an outcome that would preserve both the interests identified by you and the vital institutional interests of both the White House and the Executive Branch more generally. Andy Frey emphasized to you at our meeting on April 18 that the White House has challenged the right of the Independent Counsel to obtain the White House Counsel's Office attorney notes at issue not because the White House has any concern about their · content but because no government law office (including the White House Counsel's Office) can carry out its professional responsibilities without the protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. We agree with that assessment. I believe that the Supreme Court will endorse the White House position. This will, of course, take time. You have expressed the view recently in your motion to extend the term of the grand jury that assertions of privilege are delaying the completion of your investigation. I do not know what assertions you may be referencing, but, as you know, the district court in AMERICAN pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104930 Page 15 18-1621-000717 WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY Hon. Kenneth W. Starr April 28, 1997 Page 2 this case agreed with the assertions of privilege made and denied your motion to compel. Likewise, Judge Kopf, who dissented from the panel ruling, would have denied your motion to compel. In any event, if your concern here is to secure the two sets of White House attorney notes that you have subpoenaed rather than to seek to establish what appears to me to be an unprecedented and unwise new principle of law, I suggest an alternative solution, which is similar to a mechanism used to resolve a similar dispute with the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1995. As you will recall, that Committee had demanded a set of notes taken by a member of the White House Counsel's Office (Bill Kennedy) at a November 5, 1993, meeting of White House and private attorneys. It was ~oth our belief and that of the White House that an important prrnciple was at stake which we did not want to see waived or dishonored, but it was also our joint view that protecting the notes~ notes was not the critical issue. The White House Counsel's Office and we ultimately arranged with the Senate Committee, and with other interested parties including your Office, to obtain non-waiver agreements, whereby the White House produced the notes but with all parties agreeing that the act of production would not in any way affect any party's legal position. I think you would have to agree that the Kennedy notes at issue contained nothing of substantive value . In a similar fashion, · I would propose to initiate discussions with the White House Counsel's Office with a view toward settling this litigation by providing you with the two sets of notes that are the subject of the motion to compel on the following conditions: (1) the White House is able to obtain nonwaiver agreements from your Office, the Congress, and other interested p~rties, to the effect _that such production_would not affect either the White House's or our ability to assert attorney-client privilege or work product protection with respect to other notes and their subject matter in the future; (2) your Office will agree that the White House Counsel's Office continues to have the right to assert the attorney-client privilege and work production protection in the future (as would we), subject, of course, to the factual and legal constraints that would govern the assertion of such protection by any person or entity; and (3) the Court of Appeals is agreeable, on the basis of a joint motion, to withdrawing its opinion. If your purpose in pursuing this litigation is to obtain information that you believe to be important to your investigation, this proposal should enable the matter to be settled and for you speedily to acquire the information. Indeed, if you can devise some other approach that would both meet your AMERICAN pVERSIGH FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 16 18-1621-000718 WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY Hon. Kenneth w. Starr April 28, 1997 Page 3 investigative needs and allow the White House and us to preserve our position, I would be happy to consider it. If, instead, you wish to continue this litigation in order to establish some new precedent permitting the ongoing invasion of confidential attorney-client communications, then review in the Supreme Court is entirely appropriate. least Given the severe time constraints involved, a preliminary response as soon as possible. I request at Sincerely, .... ~ Q-11 f._/4 g:,:; J. Kendall AMLHICAN pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 17 18-1621-000719 ·"~~. . ' ·-~~: Office of the Independent Counsel Redding Btt!ldir.g 1701 Centeniiew Dril-c. Suite 203 l!ttle Rock, Arkansas 722i I (501) 221-8700 Fax (501) 221-8707 April 29, 1997 David E. Kendall, Esq. Williams & Connolly 725 Twelfth Street, 1\TW Washington, DC 20005-5901 Dear Mr. Kendall: We received your letter late lasf evening. You requested a preliminary response as soon as possible. Tnis letter sets forth that resporu;e. The linchpin to your proposal is thaLthe Court of Appeals (or the Supreme Court) would agree, upon motion of th~ panies, to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and """ithdrawthe Court's opinion. The fundamental tlaw is that the proposed action by the Court, which is the sine qua non of your entire proposal, is not la"'fully authorized, regardless of what the parties agree to do. The Supreme Court has held that appellate courts do not possess general authority to vacate judgments upon settle:nent. As the Court has unanimcu)ly stated, "Where mootness results from settlemcnt,...the losing party has voluntarily forfeited his legal remedy by the ordinary processes of appeal or certiorari, thereby surrendering his claim to the equitable remedy of vacarur.... In these respectS the case stands no differentlythan it would if jurisdiction were lacking because the losing party failed to appeal at all." Bancom MortgageCo. v. Bonner Mall Partnership. 115 -· Ct. 386: 392 (1994). Thee.Court elaborated: Judicial precedents are prcsun1ptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole.... Congress ba~prescribed a primary route...through which parties may seek relief from the legal consequences of judicial judgments. To allow a party who steps off the starutory path to employ the secondary remedy of vncatur as a refmed form of collateral attack on the judgment would •· quile apart from any considerations of fairness to the parties -- disturb the orderly operation of lhe federal judicial system.... [S]ome litigants, at least, may think it worthwhile to roll the dice rather than settle in the dist.-ict court, or in the court of appeals, if, but only if, an wuavorable outcome can be washed away by a seltlem~nL-relatedvacatur. AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 18 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000720 ··· .. -· . David E. Kendall, Esq. April 29, 1997 Page Two Milacron Marketing Co., 41 F.3d 1221, Ig. at 392-93; ~ aJso Nahrebeshi v. Cincinnati 1222 (8th Cir. 1994)(applyingBancorp); In re Memorial Hospital. 862 F.2d 1299, 1302 (7th Cir. 1988)(Easterbrook, J.X"llistorycannot be rewritten. There is no common law writ of erasure.... If parties want to avoid stare dccisis and preclusive effects, they need only settle before the district court renders a decision."). Because the law, as clearly set forth by the Supreme Court, mandate::ithat me judgment and opinion of the Cou.'1:of Appeals cannot be vacated by action of the parties, your proposal does nol appear practicable. ·,, .-- .. . .,;7·· Kenneth W. Starr k,depe!ldent Counsel AMFfllCAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 19 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000721 LAW OFFICES WILI1AM5 ··~ CONNOLLY 725 TWELFTHSTREET,N.W. WASHINGTON,D. C. 20005-5901 aDW'AA.D ~ 'WILLIAMS """1. L DAVIDE. KENDAU CONNOLLY U920-&CNMI> aeaa-Ut79) (202) 434-5000 (202) 434-5145 FAX (202) 434-5029 May 5, 1997 VIA RAND DELIVERY The Honorable Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel Office of the Independent Counsel 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, 'N.W. Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Judge Starr: This letter responds to your letter of April 29, 1997. I explicitly stated my willingness to explore alternatives to my proposal, so I am perplexed by your characterization of the third element of my proposal as the "linchpin" and the "sine gue non" of any negotiated resolution. In any event, you appear to have misunderstood the governing law. The Supreme Court has not held, as you suggest, that appellate courts are without authority to vacate judgments upon settlement. Indeed, the Supreme Court begins its analysis in Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994), by recognizing the general authority of a federal appellate court to vacate decisions in such circumstances. Id. at 21. Congress has explicitly provided that, "[t]he Supreme Court or any other court of appellate-jurisdiction may aff~rm, modify, vacate, ~et aside ·· or reverse any judgment;, decree, or orde-r of a court lawfully brought before it for review . .. " 28 U.S.C. § 2106. The appellee appellant's motion to my proposal where all Supreme . Court's limited that "[w]here mootness party has voluntarily processes of appeal or AMERICAN pVERSIGH in Bancorp, of course, opposed the vacate -- a situation quite different from the parties would support vacatur. The decision was, as you correctly quoted, results from settlement, ... the losing forfeited his legal remedy by the ordinary certiorari, thereby surrendering his claim FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 70104930 Page 20 18-1621-000722 WIWAMS S CONNOUY The Honorable May S, 1997 Page 2 Kenneth W. Starr · to the equitable remedy of vacatur." Bancorp Mortgage Co., 513 U.S. at 25 (emphasis added). Federal appellate courts continue to have the authority to vacate decisions according les of equity even where mootness is caused by settlement. to princip As the Supreme Court expressly noted in Bancorp, "(t]his is not to say that vacatur can never be granted when mootness is produc ed (by reason of settlement]." Id. at 29. You have, however, elected rather than resolve it in a way that the notes. Jacta alea est. to litigate the matter would speedily afford you erely, z_U Kendall '· AMi-=nlCAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 21 pVERSIGHT 18-1621-000723 David E. Kendall, Esq. Williams & Connolly 725 Twelfth St., N.W. Washington, DC 20005-5901 Dear Mr. Kendall: I have received immediate response. To begin your etter of this morning, which warrants with, has been the subject of an~ orchestrated and conducted by White campaig House officials es. and surroga (Even today, we have been informed, for example, he White House -- rather that than you as the Clintons' personal lawye -- has been faxing your letter to various news organizations.) T~sm•• campaign is both wellknown and undeniable. (202) 434-5000 (202) 434-5145 FAX (202) 434-5029 April Hon. Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel Office of the Independent 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Judge WILLIAMS R.. COW'NOLLY 28, 1997 ,... .cbunsel BY HAND N.W. Starr: As you are aware, on behalf of Mrs. Clinton personally, we intervened to participate in the briefing and argument of the sealed case, In re Grand Jury Subpoena Duces Tecum, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Before a petition for writ of certiorari is filed seeking review of the Eighth Circuit's decision, I want to assure that every possible avenue has been explored to determine whether there is an outcome that would preserve both the interests identified by you and the vital institutional interests of both the White House and the Executive Branch more generally. Andy Frey emphasized to you at our meeting on April 18 that the White House has challenged the right of the Independent Counsel to obtain the White House Counsel's Office attorney notes at issue not because the White House has any concern about their content but because no government law office (including the White House Counsel's Office) can carry out its professional responsibilities without the protections afforded by the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. We agree with that assessment. I believe that the Supreme Court will endorse the White House position. This will, of course, take time. You have expressed the view recently in your motion to extend the term of the grand jury that assertions of privilege are delaying the completion of your investigation. I do not know what assertions you may be referencing, but, as you know, the district court in AMERICAN pVERSIGH FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 27 18-1621-000729 WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY Hon. Kenneth W. Starr April 28, 1997 Page 2 this case agreed with the assertions of privilege made and denied your motion to compel. Likewise, Judge Kopf, who dissented from the panel ruling, would have denied your motion to compel. In any event, if your concern here is to secure the two sets of White House attorney notes that you have subpoenaed rather than to seek to establish what appears to me to be an unprecedented and unwise new principle of law, I suggest an alternative solution, which is similar to a mechanism used to resolve a similar dispute with the Senate Whitewater Committee in 1995. As you will recall, that Committee had demanded a set of notes taken by a member of the White House Counsel's Office (Bill Kennedy) at a November 5, 199 .3, meeting of White House and private attorneys. It was poth our belief and that of the White House that an important principle was at stake which we did not want to see waived or dishonored, but it was also our joint view that protecting the notes qua notes was not the critical issue. The White House Counsel's Office and we ultimately arranged with the Senate Committee, and with other interested parties including your Office, to obtain non-waiver agreements, whereby the White House produced the notes but with all parties agreeing that the act of production would not in any way affect any party's legal position. I think you would have to agree that the Kennedy notes at issue contained nothing of substantive value. In a similar fashion, · I would propose to initiate discussions with the White House Counsel's Office with a view toward settling this litigation by providing you with the two sets of notes that are the subject of the motion to compel on the following conditions: (1) the White House is able to obtain nonwaiver agreements from your Office, the Congress, and other interested p~rties, to the effect ~hat such production_would not affect either the White House's or our ability to assert attorney-client privilege or work product protection with respect to other notes and their subject matter in the future; (2) your Office will agree that the White House Counsel's Office continues to have the right to assert the attorney-client privilege and work production protection in the future (as would we), subject, of course, to the factual and legal constraints that would govern the assertion of such protection by any person or entity; and (3) the Court of Appeals is agreeable, on the basis of a joint motion, to withdrawing its opinion. If your purpose in pursuing this litigation is to obtain information that you believe to be important to your investigation, this proposal should enable the matter to be settled and for you speedily to acquire the information. Indeed, if you can devise some other approach that would both meet your AM HICAN pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 28 18-1621-000730 WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY Hon. Kenneth w. Starr April 28, 1997 Page 3 investigative needs and allow the White House and us to preserve our position, I would be happy to consider it. If, instead, you wish to continue this litigation in order to establish some new precedent permitting the ongoing invasion of confidential attorney-client communications, then review in the Supreme Court is entirely appropriate. least Given the severe time constraints involved, a preliminary response as soon as possible. I request at Sincerely, ""•'' Q-11 f_) ~::J. Kendall AMFnlCAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 29 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000731 "~~ ., ~---~~ Office of the Independent Counsel Redding Btt!ldir.g 17GJ Centeniie,11Dm-e. Suite 203 l!ttle Rock, Arka,isas ?22il (501) 221-8700 Fa:c ('501) 221-8i07 April 29, t 997 David E. Kendall, Esq. Williams & Connolly 725 Twelfth Streel, 1\rw Washington, DC 20005-5901 Dear :Mr. Kendall: We received your letter late la.sfevening. You requested a preliminary response as soon as possible. TI1isletter sets fo11hthat respo~~The linchpin to your proposal is that the Court of Appeals (or the Supreme Court) would agree. upon motion of tht: parties, to vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and ·withdraw the Court's opinion. The fundamental tlaw is that the proposed action by the Court, which is the sine qua non of your en.tire proposal, is not lawfully authorized, regardless of what the parties agree to do. The Supreme Court has held that appellate courts do not possess general authority to vacate judgments upon settlement. As the Court ~ uoanirocu)ly stated, 11Where mootnes.c; results from settlemcnt,...the losing party has voluntarily forfeited his legal remedy by the ordinary processes of appeal or certiorari, thereby surrendering his claim to the equitable remedy of vacarur.... In these respectS the case stands no differentlythan it would if jwisdiction were lacking because the losing party failed to appeal at all." Bancow MortgageCo. v. Bonner Mall Partnership. 115 ,. Ct. 386. 392 (1994). Thc-£ourt elaborated: Judicial precedents are presumptively correct and valuable to the legal community as a whole.... Congress bac;prescribed a primary route...through which parties may seek relief from the legal consequences of judicial judgments. To allow a party who steps off the starutory path to employ the secondary remedy of vncatur as a refined form of collateral attack on the judgn1ent would - quile apart from any considerations of fairness to the parties -- disturb the orderly operation of lhe !~deral judicial system.... [S]ome litigants, at least, may think it worthwhile to roll the dice rather than settle in the dist.-ictcourt, or in the court of appeals, if, but only if, an unfavorable outcome can be washed away by a seltlemtml•relatedvacatur. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 30 18-1621-000732 David E. Kendall, Esq. April 29, 1997 Page Two lg. at 392-93; s also Nahrebeshi v. Cincinnati MilacronMarketing Co., 41 F.3d 1221, 1222 (8th Cir. 1994)(applying §anco:rp); In re MemorialHospital, 862 F.2d 1299, 1302 (7th Cir. 1988)(Easterbrook,J.)("Ilistorycannot be rewritten. There is no common law writ of erasure.... If parties want to avoid stare dccisis and preclusive effects, they need only settle before the district court renders a decision."). Because the law, as clearly set forth by the Supreme Court, mandal~ that the judgment and opinion of the Cou.'t of Appeals cannot be vacated by action of the parties, your proposal does not appear practicable. Kenneth W. Starr lr.depe!ldent Counsel AMl HICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 31 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000733 LAWOFFICES WILLIAMS ·s CONNOLLY 725 TWELFTHSTREET,N.W. WASHINGTON, 0. C. 20005-5901 DAVID E. KENDALL IDWAJU> 82NNETT WILLI..UO U020°l9aa) PAUL It- CO)'o,INOU.Y Q932•11it78J (202) 434-5000 (202) 434-5145 FAX (202) 434-5029 May 5, 1997 VIA HAND DELIVERY The Honorable Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel Office of the Independent Counsel 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Judge Starr: This letter responds to your letter of April 29, 1997. I explicitly stated my willingness to explore alternatives to my proposal, so I am perplexed by your characterization of the third element of my proposal as the "linchpin" and the "sine gue non" of any negotiated resolution. In any event, you appear to have misunderstood the governing law. The Supreme Court has not held, as you suggest, that appellate courts are without authority to vacate judgments upon settlement. Indeed, the Supreme Court begins its analysis in Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18 (1994), by recognizing the general authority of a federal appellate court to vacate decisions in such circumstances. Id. at 21. Congress has explicitly provided that, "(t]he Supreme Court or any other court of appellate-jurisdiction may aff~rm, modify, vacate,--set aside ·· or reverse any judgment, decree, or order of a court lawfully brought before it for review ... " 28 u.s.c. § 2106. The appellee appellant's motion to my proposal where all Supreme . Court's limited that "[w]here mootness party has voluntarily processes of appeal or AMERICAN pVERSIGH in Bancorp, of course, opposed the vacate -- a situation quite different from the parties would support vacatur. The decision was, as you correctly quoted, results from settlement, ... the losing forfeited his legal remedy by the ordinary certiorari, thereby surrendering his claim FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 32 18-1621-000734 WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY The Honorable May 5, 1997 Page 2 Kenneth W. Starr ·. to the equitable remedy of vacatur." Bancorp Mortgage Co., 513 U.S. at 25 (emphasis added). Federal appellate courts continue to have the authority to vacate decisions according to principles of equity even where mootness is caused by settlement. As the Supreme Court expressly noted in Bancorp, "(t]his is not to say that vacatur can never be granted when mootness is produced (by reason of settlement].• Id. at 29. You have, however, elected rather than resolve it in a way that the notes. Jacta alea est. to litigate the matter would speedily afford you erely, z_U . Kendall --. AMFRICAN pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 33 18-1621-000735 LAW OFFICES WILLIAMS t1 CONNOLLY 725 TWELFTH STREET, N.W. ,·, ·,·!- I'" / i WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 -5901 I "i E D WARD PAUL (202) 434 -5000 DAVID E. KENDALL (2 0 2 ) 434-5145 ,J~ • BE NN R. ! E TT - l-I ID •L: n .)., .:,, ·, W ILLI CP.~ FLr AM S (1 920- v r r-1,__,:.... \.Ji- t '.f'C •..; ~ COi n ;c: -:-L I 1,tJf')i:pr:: U,_ L 11 ._.. ~n l uiL.;L .. FAX (202) 434 -5029 June 4, 1997 The Honorable Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel Office of the Independent Counsel 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Judge Thank yesterday. Starr: you for I appreciate that there are times when it may be appropriate for you or your staff to speak to the press regarding matters of public record or to correct errors in the media. The complaint I expressed yesterday, which is unrebutted by your letter, concerns commentary by you and your staff about the substance of pending grand jury investigative matters . I am aware of no precedent in "similar past investigations," and you have cited none, for the kind of commentary and speculation on grand jury evidence and witnesses which was contained in the New York Times magazine article. Nor is there a syllable in the independent counsel statute about any general public education function of your office, apart from your statutory reporting obligations. Public confidence in your investigation will ensue not from the speeches you give and the public statements you make but rather by your following the traditional prosecutorial rules and bringing this lengthy, expensive, and burdensome investigation to closure. Because you have mischaracterized my proposal regarding two sets of White House attorney's notes and asserted legal barriers where there are none, I am publicly releasing our exchange on this matter. AMrHICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 34 VERSIGHT 1988) (19 22 - 197 8> the 18-1621-000736 LAW OFFICES WILilAMS : ~ CONNOLLY 725 TWELFTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005 - 5901 E.OWAll.D BENNeTT WILLIAMS PAUL R. CONNOLLY DAVID E. KENDALL (202) 434-5145 (202) 434-5000 FAX (202) 434-5029 April Hon. Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel Office of the Independent 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. 20004 Dear Judge U920•11iHl8) WIWAM.S 8 CONNOLLY The Honorable May 5, 1997 Page 2 Kenneth W. Starr ·. to the equitable remedy of vacatur." Bancorp Mortgage Co., 513 U.S. at 25 (emphasis added). Federal appellate courts continue to have the authority to vacate decisions according to principles of equity even where mootness is caused by settlement. As the Supreme Court expressly noted in Bancorp, "[t]his is not to say that vacatur can never be granted when mootness is produced [by reason of settlement]." Id. at 29. You have, however, elected rather than resolve it in a way that the notes. Jacta alea est. to litigate the matter would speedily afford you erely, z_U Kendall AMLHICAN pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 41 18-1621-000743 LAW OFFICES WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY 725 TWELFTH STREET, N.W. WASHINGTON, D. C. 20005-5901 EDWARD PAUL (202) 434-5145 WILLIAMS CONNOLLY (1920-1968) (1922-1978) FAX (202) 434-5029 June The Honorable Kenneth W. Starr Independent Counsel Office of the Independent Counsel 1001 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 490-North Washington, D.C. 20004 Judge R. (202) 434-5000 DAVID E. KENDALL Dear BENNETT 3, 1997 BY HAND Starr: My correspondence with you concerning various issues relating to the so-called "Whitewater" investigation has previously been conducted privately. Your public relations offensive in Sunday's New York Times magazine ("Kenneth Starr, Trapped," by Jeffrey Rosen), however, leaves me no choice but respond publicly. to The course you have chosen is unprecedented and profoundly ill-advised for a number of different but mutually reinforcing reasons. First, the conduct exemplified in the magazine article is wholly inconsistent with your professional obligations as a prosecutor. You have behind you the truly awesome might of the federal government: the power to subpoena evidence and testimony, the power to conduct grand jury investigations anywhere in the United States, an unlimited budget, unrestricted utilization of the full resources of the FBI, the IRS, and other investigative agencies, and (finally) the power to threaten and prosecute criminal charges. This awesome might carries with it the responsibility to conduct grand jury investigations fairly so that the reputations of those investigated but not charged will not be besmirched. To this end, legal and ethical obligations of silence are imposed upon you and your staff. These obligations are set forth in ethical rules (the Rules of Professional Conduct of Arkansas and the District of Columbia, which govern prosecutors the ABA Standards for Criminal Justice in both jurisdictions; Relating to Prosecution Function and Fair Trials; the National AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 42 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000744 WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY The Honorable June 3, 1997 Page 2 Kenneth W. Starr Prosecution Standards, published by the National District Attorneys Association), Department of Justice guidelines, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (particularly Rule 6(e)), and the general prosecutorial traditions of the Department of Justice. Rule 6(e) explicitly prohibits government attorneys from disclosing "matters occurring before the grand jury," and this phrase is construed by the courts very broadly to encompass "events which have already occurred before the grand jury," In re Grand Jury Investigation, 610 F.2d 202, 216-217 (5th Cir. 1980), as well as "matters which will occur," id. at 217, including "the strategy or direction of the investigation," Fund for Constitutional Government v. National Archives & Records Service, 656 F.2d 8546, 869 (D.C. Cir. 1981). Former Watergate Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox has stated the general understanding that "'it would be a good rule'" if independent counsels "did not make statements on a case under investigation before indictments. 'I held two or three press conferences, ' Cox said, -' I don't think I made any speeches or lectures or gave any individual . interviews. And I don't think I ever went out to explain the strength of the case.'" (USA Today, Dec. 3, 1996, p.8A). The comments of you and persons in your office, directly and indirectly quoted in the magazine article, flout all these obligations. Mr. Rosen notes that you "provided background assistance for this article but declined to be quoted directly" (emphasis added). I am hard pressed to discern what this meaningless formal fig leaf really signifies in the context of an article that frequently quotes members of your staff by name, refers authoritatively to your own personal beliefs, emotions and prosecutorial strategy, and attributes statements and explanations to "prosecutors" in your office. Perhaps most troubling are the plain violations of grand jury secrecy. For example, the article discloses the following: "What about Hillary Clinton? When Starr alluded, during the McDougal sentencing, to newly discovered documents and witnesses, 'previously unknown to us [and] known to very fe people,' he was referring, according to prosecutors, to documents from Arkansas that might ca.a~+~'efhtt--u.rrm:T"----~ nd the of esti ators y con rast, on Ap;r~~:;..;:,.::;.w~e~n~~S~t~a~r~r~:a:s~k~e~d~~f~o~r~a:-=~s1i~x~-~m:o::=nth extension of the Whitewater grand jury in Arkansas, he noted that the jury had heard 'extensive evidence of possible obstruction of the administration of justice.' Here, prosecutors say, _ he was referring to events in Washington relating to the · disappearance of Hillary Clinton's billing records." (Emphasis added.) AMFnlCAI FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 43 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000745 WILLIAMS S CONNOLLY The Honorable June 3, 1997 Page 3 Kenneth W. Starr this precisely are aimed at preventing rules Grand jury secrecy you have no You well know that damage. kind of leak-and-smear to do with any had anything that Mrs. Clinton whatsoever evidence yet records, billing of the Madison Guaranty "disappearance" To make on her "truthfulness." chosen to comment publicly you've in "lawyers that reports the article is not missed, sure the slur they that speculation to squelch make no attempt office Starr's the True, her." of indicting the possibility have weighed might have (your staff accusatory is not technically sentence I know), but you, for all of indicting" the possibility "weighed particularly is clear, intimation the derogatory in context, (and in investigation" to Starr's close "a lawyer because states must be!) ominously knows who this the reader context, indicate office from the White House counsel's notes "'If that have countless you could over time, changed story a person's that This jury.'" to the grand statements false of possible issues of the grand jury is musing about the thinking of public sort This Rule leaves to prohibit. what Rule 6(e) is designed exactly have, as you apparently to decide, to a prosecutor no discretion (although public somehow warrants interest the public that or process, deliberative of the grand jury's airing unattributed) about the conduct it may or may not have gathered of the evidence ~=--~ . individual of any particular d to your stated is qu~th Mr . Bates And again, is "the truth": M~l all you want from ~s.an that desire the . added that when Susan McDougal says that "Bates. 'she could be the law, break Lady didn't and the First President the and dodging events' banking to the underlying referring in their lied Clinton and Hillary Bill of whether question 'I'm not sure she has investigators. to Whitewater statements What said Bates." truthfully,' said he testified ever publicly of the IC have to speculate do representatives right conceivable and ethics of prosecutorial breach This is a gross this? like As procedures. of constitutional ignorance an appalling betrays counsels the end, independent "[i]n Cox has written, Archibald to be wounded of a target not as pursuit function must see their with as much concern inquiry but as an impartial or destroyed, of the as for indictment of the 1nnocent exoneration for public The perception Dec; 12, 1996, p.21). (New York Times, guilty." of a target not in pursuit has proceeded your investigation that by might not be shared of the "truth" in search but even-handedly such as Ms. Sarah with it, who have been in contact some of those Ms . Betty Waqe , Mr . Ste~e Smith, Ms. Rosalie Worsham Hawkins, Bransc~m of Mr. H~rbie Mr. Bruce Lin__dsey, the children Tucker, ' both it's In any event, and others. and Mr. Rob Hill, prosecutorial with normal and inconsistent unfair fundamentally AMFfllCAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 44 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000746 WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY The Honorable June 3, 1997 Page 4 practice innuendo. to Kenneth impugn W. Starr a witness by unsupported and insupportable Second, your PR offensive is deceptive. The article's reported suggestion by you that the President and Mrs. Clinton have not cooperated with your investigation is, as you must know, unfounded and false. Their cooperation has been unprecedented. They have each voluntarily given testimony you have requested under oath at the White House three times in the past three years. They have answered written interrogatories from you. Mrs. Clinton appeared before your now-disbanded Washington, D.C., grand jury to give several hours of testimony in January, 1996. The Clintons have produced more than 90,000 pages of documents to you, and on many different occasions we have provided you information informally on the clients' behalf. As you well know, the President and Mrs. Clinton have waived attorney-client, work product, and any accountant's privilege over all documents and testimony with respect to the Whitewater investment and other historical matters which you have been investigating. The suggestion in the article that the present litigation over your demand for two sets of interview notes taken by White House Counsel is an attempt to hide evidence or slow your investigation rather than a serious and good faith disagreement over principle is wholly and demonstrably false. As you know, the claims of attorney-client and work product privilege here do not arise from the underlying transactions you are investigating but rather from legal relationships arising out of and necessitated by this investigation itself. The notes would never have been generated unless there had been a good-faith belief in the existence of the privileges. Two judges have declined to enforce your request for the notes, and two judges on the Court of Appeals panel have ordered the notes produced. The matter is now before the Supreme Court, and it is by no means my intention to argue the matter in this letter. But the "spin" on these events set out in the article is simply wrong. As you well know, this fight is about principle, not the notes. I offered to you to try to work out with the White House a non-disclosure agreement similar to the one your office signed in December, 1995 (with respect to the notes Bill Kennedy took of a 1993 meeting) whereby you would be given the two sets of notes but the parties would agree to maintain their respective legal positions. You rejected that overture, and now the Supreme Court will decide the matter. Finally, a public relations campaign, whether Sunday's magazine article, or more indirect, as in public speeches in controversial forums using code AM HICAN open, ·· as in the making of words, FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 45 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000747 WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY The Honorable June 3, 1997 Page 5 Kenneth W. Starr subverts the very institution you and your office embody. The purpose of creating an "independent" counsel was not only to separate that prosecutor from the Department of Justice but also to insulate the person so appointed from a public perception of partisan involvement. As you know, the first Whitewater independent counsel was removed by the Special Division because (as the Court stated) the Act "contemplates an apparent as well as the actual independence on the part of the Counsel" and Mr. Fiske had been appointed by General Reno. It is truly baffling how you can fail to appreciate the fundamental need to keep your profile low, your public comments discreet, and every appearance nonpartisan. The magazine article portrays you as engaging in considerable hand-wringing over the delays in the investigation, as it crawls into its fourth year. I, of course, completely agree that the interests of the country, your office, and all those who may be under investigation are best served by a comprehensive but prompt investigation. Indeed, Sec. 593(b) (2) of the independent counsel statute provides that the Special Division will only appoint as independent counsel someone who "will conduct the investigation and any prosecution in a prompt, responsible, and cost-effective manner." The law further requires that the individual appointed IC "will serve to the extent necessary to complete the investigation and any prosecution without undue delay." Ibid. Some delay, of course, is inherent in every criminal investigation. (This is hardly the first time privilege has been claimed in response to a grand jury subpoena -- such litigation is a frequent occurrence and a wellestablished check on prosecutorial power.) What is needed is a whole-hearted commitment to winding up this investigation in an appropriate way. This means not chasing every rainbow or every partisan rumor, whether in the hope of wounding or destroying a target, or for any other reason. This investigation will not have been a failure if it does not result in the indictment of particular individuals. Mature, fair, and independent judgment is the very essence of what is called for, and thus it is hardly reassuring to read that "Starr seems to have decided that if a zealous prosecutor is what his critics want, that is what his critics shall have." The present public posturing on your part suggests to me a total loss of perspective: I don't believe that there's ever been a jugular here for you to go for, but in the last several months, you've demonstrated an unerring instinct for the capillary. The magazine article asks whether the "most sympathetic person" in this whole investigation might be you yourself because you cannot "disentangle" yourself from the investigation. With AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 46 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000748 WILLIAMS 8 CONNOLLY The Honorable June 3, 1997 Page 6 Kenneth W. Starr all respect, I don't believe your situation is either intolerable or irremediable. The solution is to abandon your public relations offensive, get on with your investigation in the manner of previous independent counsels, and bring it to a speedy conclusion. Neither the legal process nor the country is well or properly served by Sunday's magazine article. David E. Kendall DEK/bb AMERICAN pVERSIGH FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104930 Page 47 18-1621-000749 Adi/{E Screened by NARA 07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) DOCID: 70104932 FplA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 70104932 Page 2 FD-204 lRev. 3-3-59) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Federal Bureau of Investigation of the Independent counsel Copy to: Office Report of: Date: SA DANA M. GILLIS 11, 1994 July Office: Field Office File #: 29D-LR-35063 Bureau File #: Title: MOZARK; FAG - SBA; FIF; MAJOR CASE 106; LITTLE ROCK 00: Character: GOVERNMENTALFRAUD Synopsis: WMFO Park States of the United to the dissemination In regards (DOJ) Justice of Department FBI, report, (USPP) Police death the complete deny submitting and USPP officials JR., to FOSTER, W. VINCENT regarding report investigation The that evidence no is There officials. White House complete the agencies, these of requested White House report. USPP in that and USPP concurred, advised, DOJ officials requests, (FOIA) Act Information of Freedom to response to Mr. BERNARD NUSSBAUM, White House Counsel's directed regarding for opinion requests two separate -· Office, report. of the USPP investigative of portions disclosure to furnished previously records for was request The first three included the USPP by The White House and the second log Service and a U.S. Secret from the USPP report pages This 7/21/93. on office FOSTER'S Mr. entering of persons of USPP investigation, results did contain request second consultation to Mr. NUSSBAUM after which were submitted Act (FOIPA) and Privacy with the Freedom of Information of USPP's release Mr. NUSSBAUMdenied DOJ. Section, to USPP's second to respond but failed request initial to report it's of portions The USPP provided request. DOJ. FOIPA-, by the White House based on recommendations USPP officials were instructed April, in early that advised to the Solicitor's to furnish 1994, they Office, A~ 18-1621-000751 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 70104932 Page 3 a copy of both the unredacted of the Interior, Department report of the USPP investigative portions and redacted and of White House staffers with interviews dealing by request this assume that USPP officials assistants. FOIA that was to insure of Interior the Department • applied were properly and exemptions exceptions , . 2 AMFfllCAN VERSIGHT 18-1621-000752 FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104932 Page 4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ROBERT LANGSTON, Chief, 2. ALBERT JEZ, 3. DAVID MARGOLIS, Associate Deputy Attorney U.S. Department of Justice {DOJ) 4. RICHARD HUFF, DOJ 5. PATRICK FORAN, Inspector, (FBI) 6. JANE ERICKSON, Supervisory 7. STEVE IRONS, Supervisory Investigator, U.S. Park Police {USPP) USPP Federal Special Special Bureau Agent, Agent, General, of Investigation FBI FBI I. I AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 18-1621-000753 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104932 Page 5 FD-302 (Rev. 3-10-82) - 1FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 4/6/94 Date of transcription E. Colombell William Agents Special On May 30, 1994, U.S. Park Chief, Langston, Monroe met with Robert and Lawrence Police Park at USPP, Major, H. Hines, and Robert (USPP), Police SA 20242. D.C. S.W.,Washington, 1100 Ohio Drive, Headquarters, of a list could provide Langston if Chief inquired Colombell a copy of the who were given agencies and/or individuals those of White House the death regarding report USPP investigative the original that advised Langston Chief Foster. Vincent counsel file. investigative in the USPP criminal is maint~~ned report by his are also maintained of the report Three copies one with Major Robert One with USPP FOIPA Section, department. and a copy that Branch Investigative Commander Criminal Hines, in his office. maintains Langston Chief the - Mr. Margolis of Justice 1 - Dept. FOIPA Section of Justice 1 - Dept. of Professional Office of Justice 1 - Dept. Responsibility Division Investigative 1 - FBI - Criminal (OPR Investigation) FBIHQ (subsequently 1 - SA Jane Erickson, of Independent Office Mr. Rod Lankler, provide Secretary Investigationon by report of the copies USPP has provided In addition, agencies: federal and/or individuals below-listed ,. advised Langston Chief to of the report copies of the Interior. his that the White to to given Counsel) department House or to did not the 3/30/94 SA William SA Lawrence E. Colo Monroe Date dictated 4/3 /94 18-1621-000754 it and its contents are not to be distributed outside your age ncy. ... • > FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104932 Page 6 FD-302 (Rev. 3-10-82) - l - FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 6/24/94 30175401.wec Sergeant ALBERT JEZ, Investigator, U.S. Park Police (USPP), Internal Affairs Office, Annocostia Operations Facility, Washington, D.C. (telephone number 690-5050) was advised of the identity of Special Agent WILLIAM E. COLOMBELL of the FBI. Sergeant JEZ provided the following information regarding his -handling of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests received by the USPP concerning the death investigation of VINC?_NT FOSTER_. The only USPP records relating death investigation that he provided to White House Legal Counsel Office, related requests received by the USPP beginning to the VINCENT FOSTER Mr. BERNARD NUSSBAUM, to a number of FOIA in August of 1993. By cover letter dated 9/3/93 (attachment #1), Mr. NUSSBAUM was provided with four pages of records previously as follows: provided to the USPP by the White House descr¾bed calendar (two pages); FOSTER'S per~6nal FOSTER'S phone log (one page), and a note left by FOSTER {one page}. The USPP cover letter explained that the above documents were considered White House documents. The USPP requested White House recommendations as to the releasability under FOIA of these specific documents. By letter dated 11/8/93 (attachment #2}, Mr. NUSSBAUM resP.onded, stating that in the opinion of The White House Legal Co~sel Office, the above four pages of records should not be disclosed. Mr. NUSSBAUM's letter also~_included legal justifications under FOIA for withholding release of such documents. The USPP sent a second letter to The White House Legal Counsel Office dated 12/13/93 (attachment #3), adding that this second letter also related to USPP efforts to respond to these pending FOIA requests. Sergeant JEZ stated that this letter was sent after consultation between Sergeant JEZ and Ms. PEGGY IRVI~G, FOIA Section, Department of Justice (DOJ). Additional USPP-FOSTER death report documents were sent to The White House as enclosures to this second letter, including three pages from the USPP investigative report (marked as items 36, 50 and 52) and Investigation on _6=-<--/=2~4~/~9~4~ ___ M Washington, D.C. File# 29D-LR-35063 6/24/94 18-1621-000755 This document contains neither ·recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; Cf FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104932 Page 7 FD-302a (Rev. 11-15-83) 29D-LR-35063 Continuation of FD-302 of ALBERT JEZ 6/24/94 ______________________ a U.S. Secret Service on 7/21/93 (marked as .on _______ log of persons item 87). entering Mr. . Page---- FOSTER'S office Items 36, 50 and 52 are not White House documents but result of USPP investigative rather the writcen· efforts. Items 50 and 52 reflect the USPP follow-up investigation generated from a review of the FOSTER phone log. Items 36 reflects USPP investigation generated from a review of U.S. Secret Sezyice log of persons entering FOSTER' s office on 7 /21/93. It was··the USPP · position, after consultation with the FOIA section of tne DOJ, ·"that these items, although not White House documents, related to the previously described White House documents and thus White· House views and legal opinion were necessary prior to any release under FOIA. To his knowledge, Counsel's office, never did letter dated i:•2/13/93. Mr. NUSSBAUM, White House Legal send a response back to the USPP ,' With the appointment of Mr. ROBERT FISKE as Independent Counsel in Whitewater related matters, all pending FOIA requests re the FOSTER death investigation were denied based on exemption 7A (pending investigation). report to dep~ktment The decision to send the above portions of The White House was based on recommendations made by Ms. PEGGY IRVING, FOIPA, DOJ. the to USPP his Normally, if he has legal issues to resolve re handling of FOIA requests, he checks with the Solicitor's Office for the U.S. Department of Interior (Attorneys RICK ROBBINS or RANDY MYERS). In this case, he was told by his superior, Commander HINES, to work with Department of Justice, FOIA section re all FOIA requests received by USPP relating to FOSTER's death. It was his understanding that this decision was based on a letter, dated August 20, 1994 from Ms. PEGGY IRVING, Department of Justice, (attachment #4) citing the need for coordination and consultation between the various federal entities that had received FOIA requests re FOSTER's death. AMEr- He had also discussed with Ms. IRVING, those portions of the USPP FOSTER death report dealing with interviews of White House staff persons and assistants, specifically the issue of referring those parts of the report to The White House Legal Counsel Office for their input prior to any FOIA release. It was pVERSIGHT 18-1621-000756 2 .. FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104932 Page 8 J FD-302a (Rev. 11-15-83) 29D-LR-35063 Continuation of FD-302 of ALBERT JEZ _____________________ 6/24/94 ,On _______ • Page ___ his understanding that the Department of Justice, FOIA section would handle this matter and that prior to any release, the Department of Justice would make those portions of the report (interviews of White House staff) available to The White House Legal Counsel's Office for its legal opinion regarding release of this material under FOIA. He has no knowledge whether the FOIA section, Department of Justice, subsequently provided these portions of the USPP report to The White House or not .. _· Sergeant JEZ concluded by stating that in ear~y April, 1994, he was contacted by Mr. RICHARD ROBBINS, an attorney with the Solicitor's Office, Department of Interior, adding that ~ ROBBINS instructed him to make a copy of both the unredacted and redacted portions of the USPP FOSTER investigation de~ling with and assistants. Sergeant JEZ interview of White House staffers assumed that Mr. ROBBINS wanted to review those sections of the report to ensure that FOIA exemptions and exceptions were properly appried. On April 7, 1994, he provi6ed Mr. ROBBINS with both clear and redacted copies of those portions of the report dealing with interviews of all White House staffers and assistants (attachment #5). Sergeant JEZ stated that the above information represents the totality of his knowledge concerning who was proy~ded portions of the USPP FOSTER death investigation by the FOI~. unit of the USPP. _, AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 18-1621-000757 3 _ 1/7( .. ~;t. FOIA RD 56806 (URTS-16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 9 United States Depart1nent TAXl.Mia • of the Interior ~DEIH ~= 14 If &;.au NATIO!'JAL PARK SER\·lCE IS 1:1:l'LYP.t:rER TO: 181311 Headquarters, l 1nited States Park Police 1100 Ohio Drive, S. W. Washington, D. C. 20242 P36(NCR-FOIA) DRAFT a ¥IBM 5¥&!1 RII i wee,eu cc:acu;,a .f!/!:11/E'1aa 11:Cl -/J~l'7.l ,~~~--~ ~t1, a K 1h Mr. Bernard Nussbaum Chief Counsel to the President West Wing, 2nd Floor White House Washington, O.C. 20500 Dear Mr. Nussbaum: While processing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request from . Neuman,received on August 11, 1993, the United States Park Police Mr. \ifilliam documents containing information furnished by White House Staff. locat~d four your review of the documents, making any deletions or recommendationsWe request regarding withholding a document in entirety. Weask that the documents be returned to us. Please cite the FOIA exemptions regarding deletions or withholding recommendations you have made. If there should be any other justific for withholding this information from public disclosure, please provide ation suppor ting documentation. · I ., We have enclosed the following: 1. a copy of Mr. Neuman's FOIA request; 2. copies of the documents you provided us; If you should have any questions concerning Sergeant Albert Jez on 202-690-5103. this referral, please contact Sincerely, . Robert H. Hines, Major Commander,Office of Inspectional Services Enclosures bee: USPPFOIASurname Cmdr., ors_ Crndr., IAU FOIAfile 93-026 AMi-=nlCAN pVERSIGHT a 18-1621-000758 .. FOIA RQ 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70101932 Page 10 · July 1993 Vincent W. Foster SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY 1 SATURDAY 2 i 19:00am SulT 1:15pm Askew, 3 i 19:00am Staff 7:30pm Olevy Clase CC ·~, - Writh D 1317 F, S 1.e 7:3 4~ Soci J· Crewi 5 6 Holidzy I 8:00ani I HX)pm 8 7 9 Deputies 10 t 1s:00am Sr. swr t I 8:00un Sr. Staff k 18:00am . Sl'. Su.ff I 9:00am Staff ..:::.- ~ 9:00am SutT . · · · 11:OOa:mScoool Sr. Staff 9:00am. Staff : -- 11:00am G~ Aldrich• ~o.. .... 12: ISpm PincusHay Adam.a Mtg 2:00-2:45pm Liu Nevans-HOPE STAR 11 12 13 I 8;00mn Sr. Staff I 9:00am Staff :- 19:00am _Staff . 14 15 j I 9:00am Staff '·=-i : · i 9:CX>= i 16 SU[( : -·: i I 9:00am Staff · . · 17 k 14:00pm Deputies ) 14:00pm Deputies , , . 19 20 21 22 NAFTA Brief Due Mcinhold Brief Due I 9:00am Staff · Ginsburg Hrg Begins j 9:00am . S\.aff 19:00am Staff. .·,. t 9:00am 18 • . I 4:00pm Deputies • k , . i i 23 Staff .: ,•• 1: 15pm Sharon luocb i 24 : 9:00am St.If( · . . 4:00pm · Deputies t . .. ; -· 25 26 . 28 27 I 9:00am Staff . •.• j 9:00am ~f . j 4:00pm Deputies ~ 29 i j 9:00am Staff ::: .,·,i I 9:00am Staff: .. . - . 30 ,• .·. i 31 1::::;~t 7:30pm Edlcman Pmy 3208 Newark 662-3506 - s 6 13 AMERICJ' 20 27 June M w T F s 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 22 23 24 25 25 28 29 30 pVERSIGHT ' T s A ugust w T F s 1 2 3 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 25 27 28 29 30 31 M T 7/ 8/1993 18-1621-000759 . FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld : 70104 ~32 Page 11 1 -' 1 July 1993 Vincent W. Foster SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY 1 FRIDAY 2 I ~ 9;00am SU!T 7:30pm O.cvy 19:~-n Staff 1:15pm Askew, Anthony 3 ' - Chuc CC . 5 4 6 7 I 8:00a.m St. Staff I 8:00am I •:OOpm Dcputica [ 9:00am Staff Holid~y 8 t Sr. Staff ~ .. 9 l 1::::-tr~ .. Mtg 2:00-2:45pm Lisa New.ns-HOPE STAR 12 13 : 8:00cm St. Staff t '. 9:00am . Staff ,: .. · : 10:45am Mli w/ Watl:ina_re ,utr 12:00pm Beth&. Oiff 14:00pm Deputies. ~ . 18 14 . k I 9:00am 19:00a.m Staff 11:00am Gary Aldrich 12:15pm Pincus 5:00pm Intcma ' 16 17 . 20 Ginsburg Hearing ,, k 19 :00a.m S1.aff_,--,,·., ::::t 21 I 9:00Wt Staff .-:, ~ 22 I9:00= Suff ..:.· ~ 10:00am Judicial Sclectioa 1:15pm Shuoo lun:b (4) :OOpm ,. -- - '1:::~·:::t S:aff , 19 9:00am 15 k I9:00am . NAFTA Brief Due Meinhold Brief Due l'.• . Staff ,·. ,.. 10 swr t 8:00un Sr. 9:00un Staff . -' 11:00&m S<:hool 11 SATURDAY ; 23 24 30 31 l:::.::::. ,-s.:.!¥tR!had a brief conversation ~ith Foster that was characterized as norm al, _noth ing unusual.Brant .«ine:10 • c e: § _ ___ e_ .Lx e:~.e FteJt Lb, .. Lm .:.riii ~:;:;, -3,h.b<•;..;;!:111111.--zwao1:..;o\,;as a.·::n: -,1 f L M J, «a½y a• ,1 ·M 971@1• [The phone me~sage log indicated a call from J"! ..1 b. Y 5e,. pt 11: 11 a. m. with only a phone number left, ~ 680 ':GO~J Lyons is from the .~ ... ftf3 i.t I contacted cs z, ,_by telephone on August 2nd. He had known Foster since the late 1980's. He met him through Hilla ry Rodham Clinton and the Rose Law Firm. They had ""orked together on the Campaign. oJ: ··c:--3 \..'as going to be in "-" .ashing ton on i-.~ednesday, July 21st. He had called and spoken ..;i th Foster Sunday July 18th bet~een 8: 009: 00 p. m.. eastern time and they had agreed to meet for dinner wednesda:,t,. c<»5•e:tNhad ~ told Foster he "-"0\1ld call hi:n and ~culd leave Denver and arrive in Washington. for -the phone message on the morning of July let him know "-'hen he This is the reason 29, 1993 •. ~c- _.:___ xAl:~ Ge phor.e oessage log indicated at 2:14 p.r.i. and left his phone was noted by the administrative did not know specifics>7 .RRA,;TtS) that a "t"'_.._,~ert .. a-t(.e4=1 called Foster number, ~S;,i 2 7 1 4'f43a,, ..and a message assistant "nersonal matter (secv . ' 10 10 TECH N0TIFIE:l ns j 12 ! NO 18-1621-000769 f J. ': E 1 c;: 2 f '-C.L'. STA , CL~(OtY: E~RTl'C.(110 ....... CATE 0 ARREST f., ..oa~;, l O0:CUT&0N f", i TS: I,,,,.,,_"' ··-,.,,., ·-t FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 701 04~ _32 Page 21 . ,e ...,~,: tv ~ ...... ,~ -4,,,t.r"""''~c .,1 vr ,,.,c , . ., . L..-- v · ,/ r-;ATIONAL PAF\I( SERVICE SUPPLt:.MENTAL CRIMINAL INCIDENT RcCORD J ."~c•" .~iced .. 'V./...~-.;RE Death States ?ark :)•~ IT :x:: ..;,;> ?olice er: ;t.;c1:;tNT •.•:, 0 :.:.v ; 2 0 I JUV[NII E Ct.SE "re\ 9· 3 9 3 • - 3 0 ) CJ 1- l~vestigatio~ · 7 J;(SULTS Of IN\'(STICI.TIOI< 1T[l,I "Review Vincent of Documents f?:"om Foster's Off ice·· On Thursday, July 22, 1993, in the afternoon the follo~ing persons met in the office of Vincent Foster to attem pt to deter mine if he left a suicide note or if there were any other infor mati cn that might have led him to take his o"·n life.T he very , _ limit ed examination · of the documents and notes \..·ere done b:-,· the · -Ci! id~ i}• Mde' '.iaJ_'..,..!'t..=;ti. 1 i1Ao&ta The following people ;..·ere also ·prese:.t du r i ~ ~ this meeting : '-i+ 1.:. .:._ .,! -0 w 1-t . ? :JJ'_ L. G 1. .:. t .: ..... f ~ ~ &1-"2 : ""'_ ~ •tLt ·Les.:..:_5?¥t, C!.:.iffo.ei ·;J..re-n and e~ecc .. !ictt a.~i:h; ?ass ci.c tn ,...01·-c·J-ns, Lc53,! y:ahrel ,..re.~.L'c-.d: Attorne~• :::-epresenting the Foster faroilr, Captain-€lr __ 7_s :!a..R: and Detecti'\·e Pe~c l!E-klt.fd; l:.s. : Park ?olice, Special Agents SaFi,it~ Sal~r and .e@c .. 1 • .:.s @u .. de.1; Federal Bureau of Investigation, .T"la-:i 2 Hu_1!;1li.;, Deputy Assistant Atto rney General Criminal Division; and 7 !•n 'd- ~ Department ' of Justi '"' ce .~tto • ~ r-:-:e)', 1.. -'. P&-:, ..rns.a1..se an d '"':::r '-'us ~, r~-· 1'-•. • O '· S ~ -ecre t S ervice.· 1 T Originally, we had responded to the White House on Wednesday morning, July 21, to examine his office. As scon as we arrived rr:et \.."ith Inspec ,tor §c ........s .,a,. and ...l¾ of the U.S. Secret Serv ice Unif orm Division, ~e had requested a guard be posted at the door of the office to prevent anyone from removing anyt hing from the offic e. As the day progressed we were not permitted to examine the ro.Q We departed .m. the White House sometime around 1830 - 1900 hours. LnU.S. -S~cret :e Service log of persons entering the offic e after 1100 hours ~ednesday, July 21, showed Bernard ~ussbaum entering office t~e at 1110 hours to remove a smal 1 photo and Cliff Sloa entering n at 1334 hours same day to replace_ a bag of t:-as preYiously h re!IloYed from ~!r. Foster's trash ca:1.J At 1315 hours, Thursday, July 22, all 13 of us e~tered the office of Vi:.cent Foster. -ee1. .e. • 1:al'bie•w.."-:l took a seat at Fost er's ~.._as desk, surrounded by-maM '4. o ___ sc.:._tcs, ;-, __ F r;d ,·ca.:·_~ i-:ith .Zar ,.,0'!r near ~ side a1i<..!'4"?flf:!f~ ! ..... d:Dat the end of the desk. ·en 1 4 _J _J 10 10 : ECH NOT If 1(0 11 INV[S TIGJ. iO R NOT If IEO 18-1621-000770 12 PAGE 13 ~T 1T 1 - . 1 Of 2 f,<.GlS FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 22 I 1' ✓ / ./ • I I r;;- A'• •;N · . -- 11) COMMUNICATION . RECORD / p,.n,c.•,t -iR ",3A5 ·56 - :<. 'r' " ~~ ~i~r J =~~ 'I. , _:,;.,. •!..,::-...:.:._"I.: · ~-'.• &~~ ) ~j~~ ·%' ~ ~ ts..:.tu. C'; A " ~- .' . f ::i ,'J" ~;~k ;ie:~.. ~t ~'L.T- ~~ ~ ,u - I - /; /..cl"':cf M/<,-..•<: ~ ~,.., ..~ r'! / , fi_:,,;,:: /J//. c- ~r,;,., v -- '":"- ~ 1 J l~~ . -~ t -~~ll~--~~ - .. 1: ..,..~ ~;c.;s::, -;;,..... ~ ~ ~ .,.._,. . .. ~ . ..,. .-- - ~:"!~_, _.::::,~ .... ~~ ·- - ~r: -. t""'C: -~ ... """· _.c._ . ---·~3'1-.,,.-( , ~ ---~~~ ~.;,; .:- 0 ·- · ~ ~~ ~....... . -- I. /__ .,,.;,,~~ /..l//4,,.,,./,✓◄ -· . ~ .... ~r--- .. - . ~~--~--~" ...,.., ~ --' . ,, :·~- . -·- =«= -~ ~ -~ • ~- f ~ - --~---w . ... .:>." -. -· ... ,.. +'.:."'\"••,~ -..::.:.,_... ,___....__,:?Z .J~-;...,. ·_..;,.· -- - A'-.•:-"'-~*4~ "'~~~1.~;:-?.· r l .\ /9'93 0 ' ' j I I ,.,,..i //v.,.-~i,,c..;,.., ,t;:?, /ilR /J-/(;I; 111,l'JJ \/2,,e.., t.: ?t/~ / ~.,../~,., ro ~ _,(;e ., / p,/ // <"- ,t: <' / ;;,,..,. _ /?',~re...,...} ,;,1,,..--- I, I 7 Tl' ,e,:J. /":..,,,,,,/,~ l..1 7 0 /;_ -~,I.: . !.:er 1c:nP ,,., ,;-.,,, /Ir ~ ff"¥', hCT!Yf -t .. /,..re.rt..,;'/~,. .. \ J, /),,,,,/.: (7 / • I /?. /, ,.,,, -r,-, ,£>/,e,... 1-t:::'/eek 7'(,, _;_-<- , 0.-- -1~r. ..~ . h,r,-ri I ' .. ./:. j 'g"·cu ~ }(',.,.. / . la Ii 1,,IP <:::'/,,,_,.,,.A,tl , p ..,- ___ _,.,.._.'(.,_ ..:,,I ....:0:::..,,... ' -;7:..,.: i'-:-::'2"::-:-:0':-;L.......:.9...L; _;;;3_.__._I -=-9_ 1=3__,_1_· '._-___.!--=3~!....;0::.....L...;s=--c._0.=. I 010 IT .i;; st z t es par k~P~o-::.:.1~1~· C::..:e:::__ __________ -./jt,ir I JUVENILE INCIDENT Re.CORD that the approximately again 0700office entered lady had e~ptied ::r. and returned to the u.s.s.s. secure 1015 hours. the office continues. 10 10 7ECH NOTIFIEO , 12 II INVESTIGATOR NOTIFIED ' ES ,o PJ..GE CLOSED 6Y: 0 J..RREST 0 EXCEPTION 0 UNFOUN D ED 1 O F 1 PI.GES 18-1621-000775 e.AOGE/ID DATE FO!_A~D. 56.80.6 iuRTS _lfi302.) .Do.cl.d:70104932 Page· 27 \ ·· J AVICE NA Tl0!1;AL PARK$[ :• / SUPPLt:.MENTAL CRIMINAL INCIDENT Rf:CORD 'lWH(N I O•O IT r Park Police OCCUR' ; I MO •. ! OAV • i lJU\'ENILECASE O :7 I 2 : 0 9 : 3 F;[CL.<.SSor IC"-T1Qt,; Of INCIO(>;T ,'.i;TS r Of INV(STIGATIO,. I and ~arkland Pete Detective 1993, 22, August On Thursday, Agents to meet with Special house to the white responded interviews. conduct to FBI the of Condon and Dennis Salter Scott hours final the t reconstruc to were s of the interview The purpose life. Foster's of Vincent L. Pond; Ms. Betsy intervie;.;ed Condon Agent and Special Myself ~bite the for Counsel Chief , Nussbaum to Bernard Assistant Staff d unoccupie was that office an in took place The interview House. interview entire the during room in the Present for the .day. .. and to Nussbaum, counsel associate Sloan; "·ere Clifford of ice Off Charge, in Agent Special assistant Imbordino; Paul took Sloan Clifford Service. Secret U.S. Operation, Protective Bernard interview the During intervie;.;. the throughout notes all everything tlis room and demanded the into burst ~ussbaum right?" Ms. Pond got 0900 hours. at approximately the interview We started Usually 20th. July on Tuesday, 0900 hours in to work at around to 0945 0~00 from office of the counsel's meetjng is a staff there assumed She attend. would Foster Vincent that hours each morning see him when she arrived as she didn't meeting staff he was at the in the Rose Garden. him outside seeing recalled She first at work. as the ceremony the at Judge Freeh was nominating The President of the FBI. new director on Tuesday. any visitors having Foster Vincent recall She doesn't around. lunch she had with him was about conversation The first a ordered He desk. he would eat at his He said hours~ 1200-1230 and She and coke. fries french rned·ium rare ··cheeseburger, She :::~::et'.:?::-::.2. z.:::: -:::-'=::::-e-:i !-!i;;: :!.·..::::-::~. ,,.-ent to the Linda Tripp because food the with · tray M & M's on the were there recalled in his office. He sat on his sofa and ate lunch Linda wanted them. "I' 11 be and stated he came out of the office At around 1300 hours that recalled Pond Ms. in my office". are M & M's left back, there if sure wasn't She left. he when she and Linda were in the office college young a is Castleton Tom or not. Tom \\as in the office about unusual was nothing There in the office. working graduate did she weeks several over the last In fact, state. his emotional She ly. emotional or physically either any changes, not notice any him taking of She .,,.-as unaware lost. no \..·eight noticed be she would here asked I any doctors. or seeing :uedication id a s She a psych ia tr is t. out he was s e eing if I found surprised no had She problems. of any depression She i.·as not a,,·are yes. apons. e ... any o"·ned he ;..·hether information 1010-:'ECH l;O T IFIE:> 11 IN\'ESTIGATOR , 12 . N:>T IFIE:> :s PAGE 0 EXCEPTION AT MOC(/10 CATE 16 su r ERVISOR 3a 0 UNFOUNDED 1 OF 2 r '- GCS 18-1621-000776 tAOCE/10 DATE 0 . ', . .. FOIA Rlh56806 ·{H·R-TS16302\ Dode: =70~04S32 Page 28 .,- , NATIOt-..AL p;.J;,C SERVICE . I -:_· -, 0 SUPPlc ~tes MENTAL CRIMINAL INCIDENT RECORD Park ?ol_i_c_e ________ ;J"-'t1("4 · 010 al t .__0. lom,P.> I O i _ '6 R[CL'-SS1f1CAl•O"- i :--c;_:tigation . ' ~f /~ : ! ~.t.Y j 1 JUV(I\/ILE C_ASE 0 YR . 7 i 2 . 0 '9 ' 3 9 3 /-- ;3 l O '5 :0 I~ Of 11<(;1O("T IINlSTIGATIC, .. }~s . Pond s a i d she 1 e ft work at approximate 1 y 1 8 4 5 - 1 8 5 0 ho u rs on Tuesday; but, before she left at around 1820 or so, Maggie Williams (!1rs. Clinton's Chief of Staff) called for Vincent. She paged Vincent and left the White House number for him to call. She recalled no other phone messages for Vincent. She learned about Vincent's death from messages on her horr.e answering machine around 0500-0600 hours on Wednesday, July 21. She came into work at 0700 hours and was the first person in. The door to Vincent's office was closed when she arrived at work. She believed that Tom Castleton or Bernard ~ussbaum were the last persons out of the complex on Tuesday and one of them would have closed the door to Vincent's office. She ..,ent into his off ice 'ahd "5.quashed" the papers together that were on his desk. She reali •zed that she shouldn't have touched the papers as soon as she did it but probably did it out of habit. ~hen I questioned her if she had been told how to .respond to ~ur questions, she stated that Clifford Sloan (who was present during our interview) and Steve Neuwirth, both associate counselors, had called them all together on Wednesday eYening and toJ,d them they 7 would be questioned by the police and for them to te11 the truth. ~.t..NT(S) 10 10 TECH NOTIFIED 5( 11 INVESTIGATOR NOTIFIED 12 ' ES ,o PAGE 0 EXCEPTION 16 SUPERVISOR 0 UNF0UN0E0 2 OF 2 PAGES 18-1621-000777 MOGE/10 DATE 1 •. 1 JUVE.NILE CASE. 0 Park Police , 6 RE CLASS If 1CAT1Q"I Of ,NCID(Nl I Interview: Gorham Deborah was assigned that Assistant Deborah Gorham is the Executive common area the in d Her desk is locate \·l. Foster. to Vincent House White the of in the West Hing between the two offices . tively respec , Foster Nussbaum and Mr. by Mr. Bernard occupied Pond Betsy are space co~mon office this occupying Other persons utive (Exec Tripp Linda to Mr. Nussbaum), Assistant (Executive McDonald and Marlene ant), Assist (Staff ton Castle Tom Assistant), (Volunteer). at approximat,ely in a l"lest l'ling office took place The interview S/A Salter ), (USP? by Det. Markland and was attended 0900 hours irth. Neuw Steven :fouse Counsel l·lhite {?BI), and Assistant she before she did not know !-1r. Foster that Ms. Gorham stated with nship relatio o~ March S, 1993 and had no social was hired she On 7/20/93 . family his of er memb any or Hr. Foster either last the is which 1130 hours, at approximately the offi~e left not she,did that stated She a~ive. ti~e she saw Mr. ~oster dat. on that by Mr. Foster behavior note any unusual on Thursday, with Hr. Foster a conversation l~s. Gorham recalled for a law in working the differences when he discussed 7/15/93 icance signif no She placed for the government. firm and lJorking still it at the time and, in retrospect, on the conversation co~parison. seemed to be a normal to would have any reason if l"-ir. Foster l'~s. Gorh·am · was asked to due basis on a professional directly · ceal with physicians un~er Care Reform proposals the Eealth with his involvement was no reason there that stated ~ Ms. Gorha consideration. professionally. to deal with physicians for Mr. Foster whatsoever asked when Mr. Neuwirth to be terminated was about The interview to speak and took ~s. Gorharn out of the room to us to remain and Ms. Gorha~ stated they returned later time A very short her. she that ~ay be important she thought was one thing that there her had called Mrs. Foster 7/15/93, On Thursday, recalled~ she that ning explai ule, sched pay and asked for Mr. Foster's Union The Credit was overdrawn. account checking their believed they would work with ttrs. that stated and they was contacted that After basis. of a biweekly, instead on a weekly, Foster pick to Foster Mr. by Ms. Gorham was authorized conversation Ms. Gorham did for ½rs. Foster. Friday every up a statement on icance signif any or place problem as a real not see this 1010 ";"ECHNOTIFIED TIS l W.<..RR.<..N 0 0 , 11 INVESllGATOR 12 NOTIFIED PAGE . / YES O • ARREST 0 EXCEPTION 16 SUPERVISOR , REPORTING Of flClR DATE · .S2-- 0 OF h.<.GES 18-1621-000778 UNFOUNDED l'ADGE/IO DATE ;> I S..16302.}.Do.cld:70.10fl932 Page 30 P ~§?.QC~(V.R FOl~B_. .' • . - ./ NATIOr-.ALPAAKSERV1CE ' . 1 JUVENILE CASE 0 SUPPLcMENTAL CRIMINAL INCIDENT Rt:CORD ;3" ·,,tN i , MU O"-Y 1 .4 Y(l,,,Ft 'rR.. 12;3 !9 '.7 i 2~0 ?r !o!, I~~~ -l'-"'-~~~~- Police .. o[~ ;,o;;:;'N!,;O-;-F ,;;:;.,?tc,n'. {~- .~oLEN~l!J;j;~:_;L_uj!.IJS.JJ.LJ...u;.~-----------,i76-;;-P.E"C:;--L-;:.AS7S,:.F,;';-C,._;;l: _;_' / initial 1'11uM~lA 3!0 ls 1 ol2 J 13'.-;-\ ~'--;'."--"~~~~___, .......... I h In-vest1g2tion This (.8...S,( -&t~C1J[t,.l interview was at concluded 0930 approximately hours. the inventory after immediately 1450 hours, At approximately report (reference by White House Counsel Office of Mr. Foster's and Hume), Det. l-1arkland number by Capt. case file uncer this Mr. into and were ushered were asked to remain S/A Salter in brought was Gorham Ms. h. Neuwirt Mr. by office ITussbaum's so~e conversations remembered she had just that and she stated Within tion. investiga our to t importan were she thought that Mr. from calls received had Gorham two weeks Ms. the last . Vincent about inquiring son and Mrs. Foster eldest Foster's . ·,· coi:1g, was ":ie" how asked lly specifica They mood. Foster's • . concerned and seemed genuinely not how the work was going, Investigation continues • , ,.' . ,J.. RRJ..t-:T(S) 11 INVESTIGJ..TOR NOllflEO 10 ID lECH NOTIFIED 12 PJ..GE 0 EXCEPTION 0 ARREST BJ..DGE/10 ti I /7 D"-Y ~,,..p 16 sur[R\'ISOR 2-0F £/pJ..GES . 0 UNFOUNDED 18-1621-000779 &A.OGE/ID OAlE 70ll.04,932 Page 31 iTiA1@ Q.2~eOocld.: FOIA ~~ 568Qti{.\M T £NTAL CRIMINAL INCIDEN Rl::L'~}lo SUPPLt. : __ )wo,(N I o,o Park j IT ! OCCUJ\1 Police , 6 R[CL..,SSlf Q ! :,s.Y "'0 ' t ] : 0 tJUV(NIL[CASE ~R 9 .3 2 '. Q 1(1. 110N Of ll.:\'ES"!"tG<.T0R NOTIFIED office desk, with 12 PAGE CLOSED BY : 0 ARREST 2 0 EXCE.PTION 116 SUPERVISOR 0 UNFOUNDED 1 OF 2 PAGES 18-1621-000781 eADGl/10 DATE : ·~~ 5680 6"(l9~ 3A16:ffl ~f E[)ocld: 7-0104932 Page 33 F01.~ SUPPLc,.-iENTAL CRIMINAL I iJWHlN MO i OAY I YR . • V('-R .. l l1£N 1 .. D. i c .:.v j HI . ,, Yl"-R C."-S(11NC1DLNl Ct.SE 0 NuMflR : ~~~~. 1 a; 1 12: o 1 9: 3 1_ I 9 1 3H o131o I s I o12 '. .. p ENT · 6 R ECL'-SS1F 1CA.01DN OF INCIO("'T • .· I th Investigation On 7-27-93 at approx. 2115 hours I met with Mr. Bernard Nussbaum in the Chief of Staff,s .Office in the West Wing of the white House. Also present were a representative from Department of Justice; Hr. Phillip Heymann, as well as Asst. Chief of Staff Bill Burton, also Hr. Gergen and Mr. McLarty. Hr. Nussbaum had before him on the table small pieces of yellow lined note paper "·hich he was assembling into a whole page. The assembled pieces revealed a note, identified to be in the handwriting of the deceased Vincent Fost~r. Mr. Nussbaum read the contents of the notes to the undersigned of which I took notes. He then placed the pieces back into a white legal White House envelope and handed them over to me. The notes appeared to be'on 3 hole yellow lined paper of approx. 2/3 page length. According to Mr. Nussbaum, on Monday 7-:26-93 he directed one of his assistants, Mr. Steven Neuwirth enter .Mr. Foster's Office and take a detailed inventory of -the files and material in there. In a brief case, known to be in the office and thought to be empty, he found the torn pieces of a hand written page. The scraps were dumped out and then, taken to Hr. Nussbaum' s Office ;-·d'lere they were assembled and Mr. Nussbaum ~as notified. Mr. Nussbaum then went through notification procedure, to Bill Burton, to the Chief of Staff, and finally to the President today 7-27-93 at about 1700 hours when he returned to Washington, D.C. and at about 1800 hours today's date to the family of Mr. Foster ~hen they returned to the city. Also present outside the· meeting, but who did speak to rae about the notes "·as Hr. Jim Hamil ton, the attorney for the Foster Fami 1 v. They are v~ry concerned about the confidential nature of the no~e ~nd other news leaks attributed to the U.S. Park Police. According to Mr. Bill Burton be available for an interview will be available. Cleared R"-~T(S) ' ES ,o at 202-456-6798 on 7-28-93. Mr. Steven Neuwirth ~ill Also handwriting samples 2200. 110 10 -:"ECHNOTlflEO •g - 11 INV ESTICAlDR NOTIFIED 0 LATE,-:TS • PHOTOS PACE CLO S ED BY : 15 INVESTICATOR _//?I.; ~1 0 ,<..J;R EST 0 EXCEFTIDN OF PACES 0 UNF OUNDE D 18-1621-000783 CASE O 1 JUVENILE . J WH( I States i N o,o tT IO! 7 ; OCCUR! Park Police : >R . i9 2: 0 : 9 : 3 j 3 i·I - I 3 iO i 5 0 2 Neuwirth Steven Interview: O.<.> MQ and the White House Counsel is ari Assistant Steven Neuwirth by written to have found the note presumably person reported ~egby J. L. ive over to Detect that was turned Foster Vincent~during ·overed by !·1r. !\euwirth disc been had note The 0:1 7 /27 /93. 3. 7/26/9 on effects personal of Mr. Foster's the packaging was rth ~euwi Steven hours, 1130 y imatel at approx On 7/29/93 Peter by Detective office in Bernard Nussbaurn's interviewed i\ussbau;:i uas also Mr. . Hume s Charle n W. Markland and Captai of the interview. and became a subject present reg-arding were posed to the bm gentlemen questions The foll9wing the note in question: the search during How could this note have avoided detection by Mr. Nussbaum and ot~er rne~bers of office of Mr. Poster's on 7/22/93? in our presence office the 11hite House Counsel's not why were the police If the note was found on 7/26/93 on 8:00 P.M. approximately until existence of it's notified . 7/27/93? ,. I I that he re1:ioved it was his recollectio;1 Nussbaum stated and on the floor, ed remain hich , \· from the briefcase, materials He then went throuoh of him. olaced them on the desk in front he had miss~d of this that because He inferred the materials. in re::nained of yellow paper that obviously the small scraps I that aura !iuss:O 1-:r. ed inform I t.l1e bottom of the briefcase. from and facing across was se~ted o~ the small couch directly when he removed se briefca t~e of view hi!!t an~ that I had a clear were removed I could the contents also that after contents, it's inspected and visually see t~at he spread open t~e briefcase Nussbaum ~r. . empty , inde~d was, it that it as if to confirra Eurne stated Captain doing what I described. did not recall a t~ird se briefca the d handle au~ Kussb Mr. that that he observed order in him the wall behind it back towards time when he slid with agreed aum Nussb Mr. r. drawe file to access the desk's the case to the rear. of sliding Captain Hume's recollection l·lr. were people the following that :-:r. Nus-sbaur:1 then related could ination determ a before to view the document contacted : Police Park it to the U. s. be made to disclose (Deputy Chief of Staff) Bill Burton Thomas F. McLarty (Chief of Staff) Foster) (wife of Vincent Lisa Foster General) ey P.eymann (Deputy Attorn Phillip General) Reno (Attorney Janet 8 Wt.RRJ..liT (SI g I 11 INVESTIGATOR NOTlflEJ lO ID 7ECH NOTIFIED 0 YES 12 PAGE o,,ro 0 ARREST 13 TOR 16 SUPERVtSOR eAO(;E/1O " I 0 E,cCEPTION / / Of AGES 2----; E:l 0 UNFOUNO18-1621-000784 ll-AOGE/1O DATE FOIA ~~.: ~w8~~~. ~(~w~~~"~~- ~~~~ n~?.: ~~- :_, 701~)493 • 2 Page 36 . . . . \ . ·. . NATIONAL ' - PAF.I( ~.Rv,ce SUPPLa:MENTAL CRIMINAL \ INCIDENT RtCORD : :::~--~' j o ! Park Police President docu!llent. document. ,,o I ::---l'< YR . :)AY 7 i 2: 0 I 1 ,•Y£t..R Ct..~(.'11;(1~(1,;lN~"' I 9; 3 . . 9 j 3 J.I- ! the the of was made aware cf the existence Clinton led and ~'..r. ~~ussbaum hand Only l-~r. Neuwirth JUVENILE 3l O I CASE O -l:lR 5j ci2 j -· of the discovery his recollection then related Mr. Neuwirth of was in the process that~~ He stated of the document. for affects personal Mr • . Foste='s and packaging gathering sideways case brief the d tu=ne when he to the family delivery damage to a causing a box wittout it into in order to fit Laura. daughter, with y.,..._ Foster's of the President photograph out of ~the fell scraps ;,aper some torn yellow Uhen he did this retrieved He then on the~. handwrit~ng and he noticed briefcase of the cas ·e ::::rom the bottom scraps similar a number of other he where office in M~. ~ussbaum's and took them to the table to over turned which was, ultimately, the document assembled Megby. Detective on the two·entries if he coult_clarify Mr. Nussbaum was asked "KA.KI" refers lady; to · t:ie first "HRC" refers riote. handuritten by Mrs. Clinton., ,. employe~ decorator to an interior work or four" we:-e only "three there that Mr. 1-~ussbaum stated uter. comp on Mr. Foster's documents related the were made regarding Inquiries hat they that stated Mr. Neuwirth us. them and contact will review The iriierview Wt..R RANT(S I ·9 concluded at at phone logs kept and bled assem ~een INVESTIGATOR 111 10 10 TECH NOTIFIED 12 NOTIFIED 0 YES L.-OF L18-1621-000785 PAGE O NO OSED BY: • Rf PORTING OH1C[R office. they hours. 1230 appt'oxi~ately the that 0 EXCEPTION D AF' 0 EST BADyE/1:. / J 16 SUPERVtSOA 0 UNFOUNDED 6.._0GE/ID DATE PAGES .. · 6 F.ECLJ.SS1F1C,_r,o:- ,o~ 1•,CoO("T . .. I. After negotiations between t!"le \;hite P.ouse Counsel• s Off ice and the Depart~ent of Justice ~ere cowpleted at approximately 1700 · hours on 7/21/93, S/A-P:-::O:,w, S/A c:;:··c:.:~ Captain~: ::.,i:.:, ana ·. Detecti v"', to make arrangements for interviews and a · search of l•!r. Foster's office on 7/22/93. :4.Ti .... s--· :i IP»· r ~'!...: e.f •· 1. ·~ 1.· · s1A~•1. a ·ote .,c:::c::.:._....,.. ·· ·-__ ,.Q-- 00·t ained ~---C.X · ....&.,_ z !! -t :::e:e--oo:-r:.:v. -ca,.:;:,;¢s!::'0an the following . infor;:nation from • L i u ___:..,_:,.:>as a result of that rr,eeting: _·.· · ~, ~"···-er-, •, had deter:nined that · !•1r. F05ter had left~ office after lunch at 1310 hours on 7/20/93~ Mr. Foster had: not exhibited any unusual b.ehavior on that day. c:11.:.2. ;· ,1:n:: :.ca.~ tried to page Mr. Foster at approximately 1830 hours. After waiting a brief period of time without receiving a respohse, · · <. __ ~ '.7o;t;,:z.,c.;,:;istleft and oroceeded to G::» domicile, arriving at · approximately 1900 hou~s. · & -~~ 1 . -On. 7 /20/93 after Vi~cent Foster's death becam~ kn~,-;n t/ back to the \-ihite House wherE.Aagai; entered -i lady had 2;;:;itied :~r. and returned to the u.s.s.s. secure 1015 hours. t~e ........ ~ J" office continues. i 11 1" VES,1!:;.._70 12 R NOT 1F1EO · 18-1621-000786 0 u• ; FO'..n,D ED 0.&-F;R(ST ,..,":"'"i: _..--. , , ~! ,...,..P \• - . -i A . FOlf Rf ~.~~~~ (URTS 1?.3.9_2)Doc!d: 7Q101 932 Page 38 ·· INCIDENT Rt:CL,,D SUPPltMENTALCRIMINAL _ 4o,1:J )l'\ ... l"lf. o,o,r .t :..t.Y O , 7 l 2 '. 0: 9 1 occ::r.! j .,(Cl"-!!,f•CJ.11:'< C,J ,.,c,::p, T '" · • 3i - • ,c,.,, c,~t i;vvu.aLE c.~c ,,,.c,:.L,t ,. ..,..,u". 9 I 3:•j - : 3 • o: s; o, i • ~· J •) • -.· J .' 1 -. i •) 7 : ·, Thursday, 1 r~: to responced ~=~~~and Dei:ecti:ve 1993, 22, August Agents ~ Specia ~ith ~eet to house the ~hite · t l. n -1.. er ' t -31 th UC a n < CO O . e r - " :=:.: - - . : - - ·.i ~ t ~~ an d .f .inal the were to reconstn:ct of the intervie.;s · life. Foster's Vince~t tz~,~'.l~~ .1·;•~-<'ik~ of I V · s , le~ hours ; l ±-n ;r \ ~\°.Agent-c: ·- -,.J...,,,? intervie"'ed eh~ ·~ ,.; ·Ps? ~·i f8Wt },o tJ..:ia:s :a:,t. .4®. ,:.-eftfc e??! t )-,f;:..?ll ., Js t=_::::;s:;=,., ' . f """ ;- • ": _..~ < ~ - ..:...-as unoccu::>ied that in a;i office place took ew ;,k;··s,...,. The intervi intervi;w rocra duri.l 5 the entire in the Present the day. for ca:::_e:"":.- ---.,!?:.. -- -'"'"'"'..,"'-"""'''and Office '-·ere - €.0:.::___: .s::_./'; of .. in Charge, ..;gent Special assistant ..._._~; ;;: tcok .; : .: .: : .L d s 5.:w-~ · Service. Secret U.S. Operation, Protective ~ c : ... _~ interview the During interview. the throughout notes _a~l g ev _erythin ''is cemanded and rootil the into ____, burst ~~_._ ( -• right?.. :!:,;self and Special 9""' :-d:.-Cl got -d~c, 0900 hours. at approximately the interview "n"e started Usual,,. 20th. July on Tuesday, 0900 hours in to '-Ork at around to 0945 0900 frcw office l's of the counse r.eetini is a staff there sur.:ed as .' ~ : tend. at -..ould Foster that 'Vincent each morning hours arrived --:'::":! ..,·hen~ him see didn't as~ meeting staff he "'·as at the in the ?.ose Garden. hi;a outside seeing d recalle first ~ at ..,.erk. as the cerencny the at Juc 5 e ?reeh ~as nominating The ?resident of tbe F3I. ne~ directer o:i Tuesday. 1 any visitors havi~g Foster Vincent dces:1 t r~call around lunch about hi~ -..as ~ith ~ had The first _ con~ersaticn a ordered ?.e cesk. r.e ~ould eat at his He said ~ou~s. 1200-1230 a:-id ~ coke. and fries f renc:i ;;:edh:.ra rare cn'eese b; ..irger, ~ lunch. his orc:ered and ia cafeter the to -ent • ..,; '--:::: ,_:"' e becaus food the tray yit!l en the •.-ere H &. H's there recalled office. hisi:i _lu::ch ate tne.'.!l. ::e sat on his sofa and .. - : .. .:_~,anted ~ "I' 11 ::;e and stated cut of the office he ca::e / At arc'.l::d 1300 hours e d t;; at 11 a rec • ..: •• L • ; _ , : c . ·• the :re are !1 &. ~ ' s 1 e f t in n y o f f i c e back, if 1 sure t ' -...·asn 2.!.s left. ,,~en ~e .. .:.;_1-..,-ere in the office ~~d,:::~s: ·.•;1'-:::;~ ;-:;: · i:Z a ';:>is __ :.;: 1 :-0-.:._: or not... office ~ ~as in the abc~t unusual ;,· as nothing There office. tr:e in ~-orki;:ig did ;.;eeks~ several over the last In fact, state. his e::iotic::al ~ . :;all~,r or e~otio: physically either any changes, ..:ct notice any . hir:i taking of re ur:a.:2. i:as ~ lost. no ,,eight ;;oticed t:e ~ ~ :;ould asked I any ccctors. or seeing ;;-,e dicaticn said ~ a psychiatrist. out he "' as seeing if I found sur?rised had ::o ~ s. • proble ion cepress any of ~....._ ,,·as not ah·are yes. any ~ea~o~s. he o~ned ~hether i~for~2.tion 3o~0 I -~, :11h·vLS7,:;,<,7CI\H::;,,f1f:> IACE cr~o tY : 0 A>.f;(5T l CF 2 fA c, E_ 18-1621-000787 t.A,E < : . .· J.~~~ag~ ~9 2?.clf:J0~?4 ,;~~0.P~ ~T~ ?!.~t~t~,_ Rc.COfiLJ · ·· · SU PPlcMENTAL CRIMINAL. iNCIDENT • J't\rl"i i o,o If ! ; C,:C:;<,) ;-:'lf""l~~•CUI:>,. _: 1/ . . . . .· ,_ .~OIAl R~J 1 ·? . : '. ·, .,.... ....: . .,\ \ 'JL:vt..,,itc :;A.Y . v:.) • ,ll, O, 7 j 2 : 0 i 9 : 3 . 4V{J."- I I 9 ;3 , C'-~(•...,C•:.t,t" C~( ..\..'-"ll" :• i - , 3 : 0 5 . 0 j -: •) I on hours 1845-1850 •.-ork a·t ap;,rpxi.:2.tely · said ~ leit ,' · ':-,~ 1320 or so, ~::St:=:·:·' at. arour.d ~ leit but, ceiore • fuesday; i ) c a 11 e d for Vi r. cent • ~ pa g e d ~ r:. ~ t '.?::'\ ,...-..,: ., :: ';::;:.,.....:,l---$-. ,..., {&re ~~-;-e for him to call. r.u:nter tr.e White • House and leit Vincent Vincent. for ~essiges phor.e no other recalled en· ·r.'e"t- hor::e fror:1 ~essages. ceath Vincent's about learned 21. July , ~ednesday on hours 0500-0600 around machine ans~ering The in. person first and ...-as the into "·ork at 0700 hours ~ ca~e at -:,.-ork. ~e ·..-hen ~ arrived -..as closed office door to Vincent's last the '-·ere ..:!-:?.l. __ :; or ?-.z____-a..._: ... L_~:.c:::a:,n that~ believed have -.;ould and one of the~ on Tuesday out of the complex persons a:r.d -..-ent into his office ~ office. Vincent's to door the closed ~ realized ;.;ere on his cesk. that tc 5 ether the p~pers "squashed'' it ~ did as soon as papers the touched have t shculdn' that~ ~ ? did it out of habit. but probably f l ~ :-:- had been told ·hew ~ if ~~he :::i 1· ~uestioned __ _: ::.z..::a;1_(;;ho ::::..:: that stated questions,~ bot!i .- - - e e: _z:ah, : HS:': -~ ... s and our interview) evening y Wednesda o~ togethe~ thera all called the~ for and ?olice by the ~ould be questioned "I ;-• to our curing " ::tG-G>·: ,o, had - ... - q _ thev th~c and told -th~ trut~: to tell to respond ;.;as present -.=-~-3 ;-::----:-::-=-;:-;-:-;:;::-:-:=-;-; -~---~~:-:-:==------.-:,,,-v rs-;-1cJ..,011 HOT1F1i:> , ::, ,o ac .,•n , :i-;-1f1E:> 11 , ,2 l ''-CE 0 ~R[•f C (:XCC:U,IO'i --- -~ . 1n-, ~.-____.....__,,1, I~\ 2 ::.F 2 r,.CE 18-1621-000788 .. FOIA ~ ~~? ~?~6.,!~~ ~~--~~?~.~ L ~?~I~: _?019~32 . S_UPPLt:MENTAL CRIMINAL ,..:=-...::...;--'---- : o:c:.i~r • •.t:). i O '. 7 ; ., " · :.:.1' • 2; 0 ! 9 ·3 •,c,i ,.,c1::£,.T 6 .,£cu-ss,r,c,1.1,o . ·--u,T I JU\'(~ll INCIDENT RECORD J.a....(t,f :>•O 1T ?c.r t~ ? clice q _Pa~e 4_ • t,;Af1C,I-O • l FJ..RK !;(RVICE E C~I . ( • [Al\ l 9 ,· 3-· ·,·!· -i3. ·0 I 5101 .t I,westt°gat . ~ .:-;-,-----::-------------.:.:.:.===:..:..:.:.-----~--:':/~e.::... ion / . . IJL:S _Of 11,\'U~IG"-llClc 1 • • 1 Int2rvi2w: cL ~.:s;;::, :1~ ' -- --- . - -----"- ~-:.._:?t),•·.::o ... ~---:..--~. ,; in a . t·:est !·:ing or:::ice at a!_)proximatei tock place The interview 4 .t.~;; S/A'G3c..J (US??), by Det. "':@~ and was attended 0900 hours ~ • . ,c:.,,;,, ,:::.p_l ~ ·• • ,., •• .,_ • ....::..::i " _. _ _-·· ..,u e:2:~:J..:_~ -r-s::iaa -~%9~~'a•-~:--:. "' { ""'3I) = , an d .~_ 5 t ~ before did not know !-!r. Fester that~ ::;;;:; :a- stated ~. t:i '.:Ji ip relationsh social :10 ?1ad and ?3 5 ~ ~as ,i.1.l "'_: ,.d .,..,._ c:'i"''::,, ~ 7/20/93 On family. his of ;r.ember any or :-~r. Foster either which is the last 1~30 hours, at approximately the office left not ~ rl'id th.:J.t ~stated · alive. ti:ne ~ saw i•-~r. Fdster dat. that on Foster M~. .by behavior note any unusual « on '?:lursday, · ,.,ith !·~r. Foster a conversation -=x~ecalled for a law working in s the difference when he discussed 7/15/93 ica;:ce signif no ~laced for the government. and working firn still it , retrospect in at the time and, on the conversation co~parison. seemed tq be a nor~al ··= to would ~ave any reason asked if 1-1r. :roster to due basis al on a profession directly ~eal wit~ p~ysicians u~~er pro?osals Reform Care t~e ~~alth ~it~ -- ~is involve~ent that th.ere was no reasc:1 ':-:'3. ___ '.. ..:;:n stated consiceration. professionally. with physicians to eeal for ~r. roster whatsoever -~."'. ] J __ : . .:s:i ,,as asked when ..c>: , ·•- ··· -~t""~ to be ter:::1inated ;.;as about ':f·:1e intervie:w to spe2k to roo;:i tr:e us to re::-:ain ar.d took L .. ~- · ~-~:. -~ out of r- "-a.;:. stated and...;·t::ey returned ti:::e later .:\ very short ~. that .:.:-.-a t i:-::portan i,;;ay ;)e ~thought t:1at there ,-:as one thing called~ c::: :-::3! -~ had 7/15/93, - On 'I'hursaay, recalled. I that~ explaining , sc:1edule pay s Foster :1r. for 2.nd asked Union Credit Tte n. over~raw was account c~ecking their believed ~. it:, : ,,-.'ork culd : ,they that stated they and ,-;as contacted t2at After basis. of a bh.•eekly, inste2d on a ,·.'ee}:ly, ~---4'. p·ick to Foster :-~r. ';)y authorized .. 2.~ ,.·as ~.:...:. conversation~-. ,;:,..;::;;..t;.cu. ,' .<,:: -~· . ·..,,:-4did for.;;r:. every Friday up a statement on any significance ?lace or proble~ as a real not see this 0 18-1621-000789 . f _F91~-RD 5~806 (~R~?- 6302) Docl_d: 7010~3 j Page 41 __ .•• :..:..... ••-- ·• ·-·••V•--••· · .. --•••••••••• -•· - . . -- .. CA.!.C/ot--£~e:s asked how 11?1e11 was co1ng, They specifically mood. Foster's concerned. and seemed genuinely not how the work was going, Investigation continues. , . . , I T~ : ,, . . 1010 -:CO< ,,:;-;-of 1E:> O LA7th"7S 0h ~ thnt lunch worJ:ed on 7 /20/93 and re:ne:nbers t~e office, alt::oush ~ could not '-.Ut ·: : ..,:,Q.d -'.:2> ,:~s ?res-=nt '.::1'2!1 :-:r • .:o::t -::r l-2::t. eating lunch and said "so !,ong 11 • :~r. ?ester · and see;.ied to !$_ • .._esa=.:..:._~t.o be "In :1is own disturbed. at~ at t~ :a,•·:4:-~stated -,..our.. .; .::, • ~ t~d e:::& that~ began~ ·~.,orkc.ay o!1 7/20/93 at 0800 ';:"os""er'c~-,....,e-,-o r -t: • ~-e..:ed t.. .,:, -or,,.,::i1 t: : ,, '-o -~ J ~t '°'O''ev ;.; :.! .-L I ..;. . ••• - r I ::o ;;erso:1.:il . cealings wit:i hir:i on that day. ,,. "r . ·.; • C..i.i ~~ ,..,_/-:::!?!Dakes it a ~2.bit · to notice taking with them whe!1 they leave 0 wnat the staff ;;:e,:i::,ers the office in order to . cl'.:tt.:::::-~i~efor.:.-.--:::;:,~ hc'. ·1 long~ rnav c~~::,ect t:ie::i to be awav .. orr .1ce. , · , s: ,,._..._~ . - - certain . t:ia. t :•!r. · -"· :rro::1 ~ne was ansolutely Foster did not carry anything in the way of a briefcase, ~ag, u::n!)rella, etc. ·•• out of the office. are - --· . I ct~[:, 'S 1:V l SToGA101\ . LJe C t XC!.f'7 10'i t Y: r • .t .. :>C.~J•:> • t . ~ ........... .;:uc.:~ - C,._TE ~ r6 P . , - , ___z ." c.. •• """' .. ~a ; - •~ ;..;ith :::"1_.._.a.1.,,f ._ 2s-t the end of the desk. i.. _...; J '.01:) Y[S , l<"'-!.lk ·J1(l SUPPlcMENTAL ?ark .. . .. : I ... .· , CRIMINAL INCIDENT RECORD J '°'...,lt4 O•O 1T XCt..:F.• ?olice , ~! vQ o • 7 ·2 · o , ct.:.ss;r .:.:.;,o,. or i:,c:~l'- r '" 9: 3 1 . 1 JU\r[NILE , •lA.R C"-!.t,,,,c 1:..l,t C~E Nuvttn- i 9 ; 3 :• • - • 3 ; o , s l oi : I .. 4 . l 1 1 1 ) -· I The eight law enforce~ent " officers;;.;ere gathered on the opposite side of the desk and roo~ in a ?Osition ~here 'l.'e couldn,t exa~fne any docuu:ents. E\·ent.ual 1 y al 1 1 aw enforcement 'I.ere seated, e i t:1e r on the sofa or in chairs provide by the U.S. Secret Service. During the process 0,,£- •L;;::'!' left the office · on at least t'-·o occasicns and returned. ..,_ • :s :d diz._~ did the actual review of the dccuruents in a very hu"°rried and casual fashion. There was so:ne conversation bet\..·een ~::""'A e .~ and -ci!a....::,- : : _ as ;.;hat constituted privileged communication. .~!.;:;}.-~ carried ~ interpretation of -:..·hat ;.·as considered privileged to the extre!::ie; one exarnpl e '-·as \.hen~ -picked U? a xeroxed cop)· of a ne;.;spaper article and declared that it -:.as privileged communication eve!1 though it h'ad been in t!'le r.e\."spapers. •· ., ·.., c.!f "·ould rao\"e papers about declari ng ;.:hat r.iig~t be of interest to the poi ice anj -...:hat ;.;as stric1:,ly Khi te House business. ~=- - ~ Also,~cecidea ;.;hat ~as·Foster's ; personal papers and put those in a separate pile for the family attorney. - Occasionally, Detective c;:•;.: ·., ~ or~;;:] =g, would ask~ to place a certain note or document in a pile for possible police examinatiq!1. At one point, ~ pulled some p ·apers out of 'a .leathe r valise/briefcase that ·"as sit ting en the floor behind the desk. ~put them on the desk and •,,ent through them. ~ then looked in t!le valise/briefcase again, but did not take anything out of it. A little later~oved the valise/briefcase a;.;ay fro;n the desk and placed it on the floor adjacent to the exterior \.all directly behind ~and the desk. At r:o tine ch:ring the approxi:na te one hour and 35 minutes "e -...-ere in Foster's office \.here 'h·e allo\..·e d ·to exa:nine any docume::1ts. At .one . point Special Agent .-: s- . : 1 - ,. , ,. -,;: got . up to stretch and 6:.:: :-c=:.atr" .:;.,,:'.t _;f' challenged him and asked hi;:i if · r.e '-"as standing up in an at tempt to get a look at t::e d-0cu.:.e:1ts. T:1e coc:.:::ents that-.;42_2;_2 • *-~ had separated out "ere left in t:1e office with the exception of the pile containing ...;hat~fr "~----\. s.ceter::iir.ed to ~e personal papers of Foster. It t..·as agre'ed bett..·e en ~-:::(Q¢¾ and ~;___ :.,_.,;? that the fa:nily la\.Oyer . could take t!:ose ?apers ar:d after getti:.g approval frc:::--¼-:-::----sr~ the police could examine them. The telephone togs ~ere ~ot turned over to us. ~e c2.e2.:-ed the · -office at ap~,roxi;;:ately 1450 r:o'Jrs. }.:::; -• , _ ;.: . ., . d-..'-~ . cz.u t 1cr:e · ~m a:i d '~ starr ~ ~ not to re:r.;:;ve anyt, h.1ng f rem the o ff i c e . ~-1 ;_ ~ stated ~ c o u l d :: o t 1 e c.'"e the o f f i c e sec u re d 2.;, y longer. The leek remained on the door that had teen installed by t r.e l: . S • S e c r e t S e r v i c e o n \,·e d ;-i e s d a :,;, 2. ;; d '"':i s_ " ':: 6>'Cl>Q ·~· a s g i Y e n t ~e key after ~e cleared the office en Thursday at 1~~9 hours. ,s ,,11-~.------T· - ::_;;_,:r'·, ,;;;-,-;:,~;-c=-,:,;EC::; ,;:::;~T7r,F :u;-;:1 "•c-E~:;---------i-;-;-;;:;:;;-;:::;;:-:~;-;-;:~~-------,,--:v ., n •,; ----3 111 l'IV(STIGATOF. h:T 1F:E:> ., 7-3- .J 12 2 OF 2 f,1-C[.S 18-1621-000794 FACE 0ARR[ST 6"-06£/•0 0 0:C[TTIO"I l_ / c....7E · i 16 s urt RV fS..."') A . • , ' . FOIA RD SM 06 (~RTS 1630 _?).D~c _ ld_:, 70~0493 3t ~~~:~6 ., • AL. l.f'IIVlll-.'.Ml. ::iu ........ Lcf\ .. llll~IUCI~ J""l'i ; : ~·~~:.! I nC.\.JV ...o. o.7 ,.'FICLA.S!1l1CA.l•~" C,I :,.-, o~ , ,,.c,;;(-.T .. "' · 9: 3 - " ·1. ,,1.._11 .. ...,., · -. .-·· • CJ..:t1 , 1,C1C.t1,1u1.11,1tt11 I 9 I 3 '.•;o 1 3 : o : s 1 0j I .,t . t , ., : • T • . . . . .. '. .... '~ ·, ·, : , • 0;. 7-27-93 'l 11 • l rs ·-r at approx. •• . _-.;1t.'l . • ::_, :.. ::i .'"lou 'l ? · s.et !...---. • __ !"!";"2T~---=-= ~~ in the Chief of Staff's Office in th~ \..~es't Wing of the \..'hite P.cuse. Also present ~ere a representative from De?art=ent of Justi ce, !'!~-r :-:,ill!~ !!~., ...2..:':'\,, as ,.;ell as.!. also !"!':.-+ : __ :;,::;.,"and ~._, '{e-:. __ '../-: ::,;:,~. c:..:._: ...5 ....c..!£ $111.'-=±:"".L'-"'/:•, • .;.:_. ~-~"""', had before ~ on the table s~all pieces of yellow lined note paper ;.;hich~· ..;as asse:r,blir.g into a -..·hole page. The assembled ?ieces revealed a note, identified to be i:1 the hanc-..·riting of the deceased Vincent Foster. ~!•. ~•-·=="... l!l:ni read the contents of the notes to the undersigned of '-hich I took notes _·. ~then placed the ?ieces back into a ...,..h ite legal · \..'hite P.ouse enveloce and hanced them over to ~e. The notes appe ared tote en 3 hole.yellow lined paper of approi. · 2/3 page length. According to ~""'. y .. --'-.s.1;;.::., c:i !-!cnday i-26-93 .!;a directed one !of"!~ assistants, !~.Skue\=e!I .::J -..·as notified. (L, .&;.·--'-,- ·· ;a then -;.;ent t~rough notification procedure, tc2:,3 ~, to the Chief of Staff, _and finally to the President today 7-27 -93 at about 1700 hours -..·he;. he returned to Washington, D.C. a:;d at abou t 1800 hours today's date to the family· of :!r. Fester ;.:hen they returned to the city. · Also present outside the meeti~g, but -...ho did speak to r.:e about notes the ···s "~ • ,._--•5;:: .-.c. :,L_~ ~% -.¢-.c,.,_ c·s1 -A?:¢ L\.e ·t ...or"e'· : .g;:,, .:-,__ ...'-e Foster \..,,. c. F aw1·1 :_:. · They are very ccncer~ed about the ccnfi~ential natur e of t~e note and cthe~ news leaks attributed to the U.S. ?ark ?olice . . According to'-';.-:i~,1;:;---~---21"1"~ef :-:-:3 ~:-, ft~--::n ~·cr.-:._:.:r -...·ill ce availa::ile for: an intervie·..; 0:1 7-23-93. .-Hso hand .....-r i tin€ samp les ~ill be available. L,. Cleared at ,, ., -"-• ...,,., 2200. =-~----,-,-~~:-------r==-:::-::-:-=;:-;::------,---'---i3 TCSI ·t I ·10 1O-:-ECHN:: ,1 f1fD \ltli\"U,ICAT O U7ili.S Cl'"><:;-:-~ OIIN C7 1f 1ED -Jl 1•2 ' f .._CE CLC::[D £Y: CF f .._Cl! 18-1621-000795 .,. • , ', '''.-1•'"'"1 _ / FOIA RD 5~~06 (URTS1630 2) Docld: 7010493 ~ ~age 47 1/-· ·· ,.·_:_ SUPPlc:MENTALCRIMINALIN CIDENTRtCORu :....:__~---------. f- ____ ::-:-=----=----=-:-=----::-:----:--:: , ....~ l Oj :JoO If ?,irk ?ol ice .,, .f ,.,..! -T:'...!:..!:~~~_!,_":,_..!...~: ....::..::::,_ I'I') • 1· ., •: J -{ '. , . • :: J . ~, Interview: I ·._ ·.· I JUVl"ill[ (LS(m,c,:;(',T CA!£ 9: ....l.l ... H" :• • 1 3 1 • 3 10 5 I OI 2 ----.,.;=;•=--:-::---=:._:_.:.:::. ..:.~ rs cf 11<\·u1,c .. 1,::,11 : ~- • •( .. " : .. • occi:r-, 1 . 1 I . ,~ :--, · -~'-:-=------:-----v --:-"' ..:) 0 ' 7 : 2· 0 ! ~,;-:J;-;(7.CL-:-~-;-;,~--;,r 3 ' 19 --;,c,:7.',._;-: ,::'.,-T,::: ,.-::::-~-:,,~~ ;(;l..:,.~T----- ________ .·' ·,.·rn,·estigat:0:1 I • -· -• : . :;J.:i:;~rnsz-..;:;'==- ~ ~-:S"'5::-cr..,;.:C-¥: -z:--~ lS a:i c..:; e person reported \..'-'-••-~ ana l..'1e to have found the not :,vu:,e e presumably Vincent H. Foster written by that ;;as turned over to Detective--=:,.::o:i 7/27/93. The note had been dis •; '.':-f.Z\ covered by..-;,, the packaging .. s·· · ·.: _,.al.duri:-1g of Mr. ?ester's personal effects On 7 /29 /93 at ap?roxi,na on 7/26/93. tely 113 0 hours, -81-h interviewed f4,: ~w:z -:be;;~ Lic:.S in Bernard Kussbaura' s office Cb -d'.½"!~:&:13and Cc..pt by De tec tive ai;i <-· •.. : :c..::..../::z'=::. a: -, ··,., a..$~:t:1,Q \-}US ulso ?resent and beca~e a subject of t~e interview. =· ~ 11 · .:: .::e ro owing ques ~L:l· ons were pose d .. · ,._ t o l.O i: •• e ".-:. '"€t"F?.-'~ ~ the note in question: Q_!"'! =egarding ;:ow could this note have avoided of !-~r. ?ester's curi.1g the~ search off ice by ?-~r. ~ussba~'" detection 'l and other t~e ~~ite House Counsel's n:e :nb er _ s or 1 : in our ?resence ·rf the note was found office on 7/2 2/9 3i on . 7/26/93 wh y ver notified e the pol of it's ice not existence until aoo 7/27/93? 8:00 ?~~- on - -roxi~ately ('.L •• • • .. • C ::: • _ ::: - .. - ( •• / , ...... . ' -- ' ... ~< :;;;•~ fo . ~ ,. ' ~ -. ·?-:..-S:s-..,?S.1stated it was ~ recollection materials tha~ · rei:ioved fro~ the briefcase, which remained on the placed the:.1 on the des fleer, and k in front of ~ ~ then went the materials. thr ouc ~ inf erred :i t:lat because of this~ t~e srnall scraps ~ad miss~d of yellow pap ~r that obviously t:1e botto:n of the briefc rem ain i~ ase. I informed ,o: ,z:;-;;;.;;s ed was seated~on s.-:,-2, :1 tha ~he small t r cou ch directly across ~ .... :t' and t~a.t frora and facing I had a clear view of t::e briefc Ca pta t~at -P.'?'observed inci·• ·-,, st2.~ed that :,:r. c:,;·«::;.,;t~ ;;andled t~e briefcase tiJ:ie \-;ne:-i ~ slid it back t0\;2.rds t:1 e ~,·all behind ~i"'-:i i~ a t!1ird to acc~ss the desk's orc:er file dra wer. ~:z•: :s:s",u·:e:, Ca~tain;;J -e::-:-;:nc:--:.~ ____ T.;:-;:;;l~,_, )~·~;-:; __-·~ __ 11lli\ 1 ·f5:1':,J.., :, A l~ :_;_.,_ : - .· t.AT•O"iAI.PAAl(RV•CE J Stctes ?ark ··: · .. . ·. ;, CRIMINAL iNCIDENT Rf:CORD . ?olice "'"l-. vo O•O ,t . ;.:. ... '_II .. • "l'-" xc:.:r;• : 0 7 : 2 Q; 9 : 3 , 9 3 6 AlClJ..SS1f•C .. ~:c,;of .. ,c,~l',f I . . t ?resident COC'.1 :!lent. cocur.1ent. Cli~ton Only was rnade awar~ <-7 -..:::pz:;.;i;.:;:::;:iand of'the .<·i .. 3 O • 5. O -· existen~e of - o handled t~e , ·, CuQ:~, t':i~ 1 ... :, : . ,,:..--::-a then related ;.....__ .:_recollection of t;ie aiscovery of the document. ~stated that~ was in the process of ;athering and packaging ½r. Foster's pers onal affects for delivery to the family when~ turned the briefcase sice'.•:ays in cr~er to fit it i~to a box with out caus i~g dam · age to a p.:10 t ograpn . or:- '-h "'"' c.. ,e .t'resi . d en t wi. th, · · :.J-e ~ ,.;,:; . • >, e 2c' .. •#,!-; . ,_ · . ,p-:: a"'-ii, . 1ihen he did this so.ne torn yellow paper scraps fell out of ;:,riefcasa the and 11a ~oticcd hz..ndwriting on the:-:i. ~ t~en retrieved a number of other si;nilar scraos from the bottom of the case and took them to the table in ;:r. rJussba~;n' s office -.,ihere ~ asse:nbled the docu:::ent which was, ulti:nate ly, turn ed over.to Detective ~9:;;:;;~:, ( ,2· =·~ ;· c-·:~-::t -··~-.e .;-,:k&s-11. •;as as}~ed if ~ coul . The purpose of the c:eeting "'·as to examine the telephone message log of Vincent Foster during the month of July and in particular to attempt to determine if he had gotten a call just prior to his departure on July 20, 1993. We learn ed that the phone logs were just a message log of calls he received when he was absent or unable to take the call. The administr~ti-.:e assistants would type time, person's :1am e, phon e number; · and messages if one was left. The log ~as no assistance in determl~ing if anyone had called him just prior to J1=300 hours on July 20, i 993, if the call had been put through. LTte re "'·as one notation interest of on July 19, 1993. A Jilt 1· ..., __ s_ had called at 1047 hours and left his phone number •f9ll €Ci 0-·2. There were no messages. Prior to 1300 hours on July 20, he had received se-.:eral phone messages. Some of the messages "·ere f:-om his staff . Ther e Kere two calls made from Arkansas from the same person and one call from Colorado.· Attempts ~ill be made to contact thdse people and see if either reached Vincent prior to 1300 hours] Qi. i ~c J 53 o • requested if any infor::1ation about the phone logs is contemplated being released, ~ ,,ould like to have counsel's the office notified at the White ~ouse prior to any relea se. I told~ that I •.-ould put his request in my report. This caused ~some • concern because~ didn't want spec ial or unus ual attentic~ drawn to his request. ,,.-- So j l 1 IH VESTIGAT O R NOTIFIED 12 18-1621-000798 1PAGE 1 OF 1 PAGES • ..,.... • . '\ - :.: ·- -· ;>,~. .. ?ark " l ?olice I :'\o t •• - · -·3 · 0 - S :o ?·· -J •• The phone t!essage log indicated -&: N,c, wma:;lt called 10:55 a.m. and left for Foster only his ph . on e indicated number .i~l he called J?i1 €5L:@. again The log at 11:11 a.rn. and left number. the same phone a.tu On August 2, I cal led .ow€•~ office .:· fut. and spoke jc: ... _ t lhll. to his ac:; \-.·as en "·aca secretary, tio n. return She said ~ did call from Foster on July get _ a 19th, from his cesk. but-Z.-t!~ had stepped Foster ret urn a~ay ed the call central ti::e to 3'.lck at 11: 17 (12:17 a.; ;i. eas a. ter hi. n conversation time). l.i..~ with Foster ha d a tha bri t ef wa s characterized unusual.iris: ... ? · '· b I as normal, _nothing rtrsn :n a· ::.. ...l_ .. 61...l i' r :1c __ :._:: ?.! \, .-.its ._.:: in& see ..,__ L The - ~.1 { . phone message log indicated a call with from-~ only a phone 'rs-- at, 111:11 a.m. number left, •!._, :: __ ......_:_=> §:@ g.e g ~~:ii'.). __ :___ ;: . .,..pc:.,@_;; :..,::s1ais from _____ ::! :a·eAa,11 the I contacted:. in. -c .. :c1 • by telephone.on G: Js2d 3s August since the late 2nd. ~e had known Foste 1980's. Ee ~et him through r and the ?.ose Law Hi lla ry Rociham Clinton They had ~orked c. _...> ,,:as going toFirm. together on the Campaign. be in ~ashir.g ton He had called on Kednescay, and spoken ~ith July 21st. Foster 9: 00 p. rn. eastern Sunday July 18th be tim t~e e en an d they 8:00Kednesda:-·. had agreed to meet for dinner i NO,lf that a G number,clC: assistant ..:a.. ~--L:a,u :?:. :t.:8», "personal called Foster and a message matter (secy 1E:> 11 IN V(571GA 10 R NC'!l f l EO 112 cto:;{0 EY: 0 I FACE ARREST C lr. c:Zz .. • I JUV(l-ill[ '\.,):-r_,,, 18-1621-000799 1 01' 2 tACt! FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 51 FD-302 (Rev. 3-10 -82) - 1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 6/9/94 DAVID MARGOLIS, Associate Deputy Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), telephone (202) 514-4945 (work), (703) 264-0483 (home), was interviewed at the Office of the Independent Counsel, Washington, D.C. MARGOLIS was advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and of the purpose of the interview, which was a follow-up to his original interview with the Office of the Independent Counsel on April 11, 1994. CARL STICH, Assistant to Independent Counsel, ROBERT B. FISKE,.JR., assisted in this interview. MARGOLIS provided the following information: In connection with the search of VINCENT FOSTER's office on July 22, 1993, following FOSTER's death, MARGOLIS and ROGER ADAMS represented the DOJ during the U.S. Park Police (USPP) investigation. When asked what understanding the Park Police may have had concerning the procedure for the search of FOSTER's office, MARGOLIS answered that the original plan was that he and ROGER ADAMS would look at the first page of any documents located in FOSTER'S office . It was MARGOLIS' sense that BERNARD NUSSBAUM, Chief Counsel at the White House, and PHIL HEYMANof the DOJ, had discussed this procedure. When MARGOLIS met with NUSSBAUM, there was an "unequivocal" agreement that this procedure would be followed . MARGOLIS could not recall if Captain CHARLES HUME, USPP, was in on this original meeting with NUSSBAUM or not. MARGOLIS said that the room where they met was small and there were people in the hallway. MARGOLIS was not sure if HUME was one of these individuals or not. MARGOLIS be two roles: (a) search and thereafter located in FOSTER'S speaking on behalf understood his function at the White House to solidify the agreement with NUSSBAUM for the he and ROGER ADAMS look at documents office for privilege concerns, and (b) of the Attorney General of the United States. MARGOLIS felt there was a clear understanding with Captain_HUME and the USPP that the Park Police would defer to the DOJ. MARGOLIS said that the Captain was glad that DOJ was there and wanted DOJ involvement. It was MARGOLIS' understanding that Investigation on by _6~/_8~/~9_4 ____ SA Willi a m T . Guyton at Washington, WTG:deg D.C. File# Date dictated 29D-LR-35063 -'6"--'/'-9"'--'-/=9-=4'-------18-1621-000800 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 52 FD-302a (Rev. 11-15-83) 29D-LR-35063 DAVID MARGOLIS continuation ofFD-302 of , On __ HUME had talked with PHIL HEYMANregarding the NUSSBAUMmay also have been making this request. 6_/_a_/_9_4 ___ . Page __ 2__ DOJ participation. The USPP looked to MARGOLIS for guidance. MARGOLIS described the first meeting on July 21, 1993 with NUSSBAUM as going as "smooth as glass." The next day, the USPP were caught by surprise. NUSSBAUM announced new rules for the search of FOSTER'S office too late for anyone to object. It was a fait accompli. The original procedure agreed to was that the USPP would spend the morning of July 22, 1993 conducting interviews of White House personnel and, at the same time, ADAMS and MARGOLIS would review FOSTER documents with NUSSBAUM. MARGOLIS believed this "pre-review" was okay with law enforcement. MARGOLIS said that he himself tossed and turned the night before the search regarding his involvement with making "calls" of privilege. The ground rules he would look at the "first page agreed to were that or so" of documents to determine privilege and r~levance. MARGOLIS was concerned with the problem of "buried" relevant information within those documents. MARGOLIS said it was not much of an oversimplification to say that during the search of VINCE FOSTER'S office, they were looking for a "smoking gun." He elaborated by saying they were looking for pictures or a suicide note or anything else that would ,help explain FOSTER's death . . . One of NUSSBAUM's errors in judgment concerning the search was that NUSSBAUM considered the investigators "gumshoes" who would be trampling through every detail of First Family records found in FOSTER'S office. MARGOLIS said that this was not the case. They were not there for a full analysis of documents in FOSTER's office. They were "evidence casting" for the reason for FOSTER's death, like a note regarding a planned meeting he had for Fort Marcy Park on July 20, 1993, or something of thi.s. nature. search let's of get The USPP reaction to the change in July 22, 1993 was one of puzzlement it done. procedure for the and an attitude of AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 18-1621-000801 FD-302a (Rev . 11-15-83) FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 53 29D-LR-35063 Continuation of FD-302 of DAVID MARGOLIS _____________________ 6/8/94 • on _______ , page ___ may have been someone there MARGOLIS speculated comment in for NUSSBAUM. He made this the shots calling for the search. NUSSBAUM's change of plans explaining 1:30 p.m. or 2:00 p.m. on July At either he was time, MARGOLIS could not remember the exact in ground change" we have a "slight NUSSBAUM that at was to begin the search point, At that search. had been MARGOLIS was not sure if the Park Police change or not. of this report status with a current else 22, 1993, by advised for the rules 2:00 p.m. kept adyised "I that NUSSBAUM announced of the search, At the start if privilege and decide look at the documents (NUSSBAUM) will with in connection or lawyer/client, Presidential either exists, Concerning you can look at." stuff or other documents personal As an such items. NUSSBAUMdid locate category, the latter of an As an example a calendar. MARGOLIS cited example, mentioned MARGOLIS again issue, to the privilege overreaction it in a and placing article a newspaper NUSSBAUM locati~g article, at this from looking that saying pile, privilege and, therefore, agenda" an "executive could tell investigators The pile. in the privilege be placed should article this by NUSSBAUM. test" was given a "very stringent issue privilege (a) Presidential resulted: of documents four piles Essentially, (c) HAMILTON stuff documents; (b) CLINTON family material; innocuous and (d) total documentation); (FOSTER personal pile. or a "you can see this" documents where was an occasion MARGOLIS was asked if there after in documents an interest would express investigators this that MARGOLIS answered the papers. NUSSBAUM described an would express the Park Police Sometimes worked both ways. an item located NUSSBAUMwould say that and sometimes interest telling MARGOLIS recalled may be relevant. that was something to read more of the document. of times" NUSSBAUM "a couple as being one where he thought his concern MARGOLIS explained too he was being because NUSSBAUMwould miss some information as this MARGOLIS described or too much in a hurry. careless cops" were suspicious MARGOLIS said "cops being BERNIE." "being they did MARGOLIS said from the "get go." of NUSSBAUM's motives body their than through other concerns, these not articulate at some of NUSSBAUM's jokes. and groans language AMFfllCAN VERSIGHT 18-1621-000802 3 _ FD-302a (Rev. 11-15-83) FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Dodd: 70104932 Page 54 29D-LR-35063 ContinuationofFD-302of DAVID MARGOLIS , On __ __ 6_/_8_/_9_4 . Page __ MARGOLIS was of FOSTER'S office, the search Following of a as part him for a fool" NUSSBAUMhad "played that worried and HEYMAN this MARGOLIS spoke with HEYMANregarding "coverup." with something charge this NUSSBAUM. NUSSBAUManswered called "PHIL, how could you ask that?" like, where the Park MARGOLIS could not remember an instance get. they didn't that the search asked for an item during Police could have gone to JI~ There may have been some items that in, but MARGOLIS which they had expressed HAMILTON for a decision in HAMILTON's documents reviewed later investigators understood possession. FOSTER'S briefcase NUSSBAUMsearching MARGOLIS recalled to see if position a in was NUSSBAUM said He on July 22, 1993. NUSSBAUM's through satisfied was MARGOLIS it was empty. it, to discard and his (NUSSBAUM's} decision and "eyes" "motions" in note up torn a miss to said He empty. was the briefc~se that recalled MARGOLIS humiliating. was best, at the briefcase, it up for the and holding into the briefcase NUSSBAUM looking group as empty "in BERNIE style." he "would at the time of the search, MARGOLIS said that would Madison or of Whitewater the mention that to think" like hearing or seeing recall MARGOLIS doesn't me." have "triggered the search or Madison during Whitewater regarding any statements with Madison as his familiarity He explained on Jul¥ 22, 1993. concerning USA declination with a previous involvement being.his Madison. of the USPP report MARGOLIS was asked how many copies by the DOJ. received were investigation of the FOSTER death of two, copies maybe one, received the DOJ that MARGOLIS answered for one and MARGOLIS for one been have would There the report. could have been PHIL HEYMAN. He said copies the Deputy, he He believes at his or HEYMAN's direction. reproduced of Professional for the FBI and DOJ Office copies authori.zed he gave a copy to the FBI, MARGOLIS believed Responsibility. from the a copy directly received the FBI may have also although at assistants MARGOLIS said that ADAMS or special Park Police. said MARGOLIS of the report. copies DOJ would have used existing does not have a system to sign for such items or the Department to the press prior that MARGOLIS also recalled copies. numbered CARL STERN had that on the FOSTER investigation, conference AMFfllCAN VERSIGHT 18-1621-000803 4__ FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 55 FD-302a (Rev. l l-15-83) 29D-LR-35063 Continuation of FD-302 of ____________ __ G_O_L_I_S _D_A_V_I_D_MAR , on __ __ , Page 6_/_8_/_9_4 at the press report of this wanted to give out copies do so . not upon him to MARGOLIS was able to prevail __ conference. , . AMF-HICAN PVERSIGHT 18-1621-000804 S__ FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 56 FD-302 (Rev. 3-10-82) - 1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 6/20/94 RICHARD HUFF, of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Information and Privacy, telephone number 202-514-4233, was interviewed regarding his knowledge related to the dissemination of the United States Park Police (USPP) report concerning the death investigation related to VINCENT W. FOSTER, JR. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the purpose of the interview, HUFF thereafter provided the following information: · · HUFF advised that the DOJ Office of Information and Privacy did not disclose the Park Police report to The White House nor did other divisions within DOJ disclose the USPP report to The White House. HUFF was aware that the DOJ Office of Information and Privacy was in the process of responding to Freedom of Information Act requests related to the USPP report regarding FOSTER's death, circa September - November, 1993. HUFF believes that the USPP may have shared part of the report with The White House in order to determine what could be disseminated pursuant to FOIA requests at DOJ. HUFF recalls the USPP informing DOJ of disclosing to The White House, information from the FOSTER report in order to comply with incoming FOIA requests. No further ; information of investigative value was provided. Investigation on _6~/~2~0~/~9~4c.___ at (telephonically) Washington, D.C. AMf pv File# 29D-LR-35063 6/20/94 18-1621-000805 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; : ... --..l :.-.,.. _,__,....,_..__ .....,,.., ......... +..-. h.., ,.1;,. • ...;1-.•• +n.,.I ..... + .. :,-1,,.. ... ,.. •• _ ................... . FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 57 FD-302 (Rev. 3-10-82) - 1- FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 6/8/94 Inspector PATRICK J. FORAN Federal Bureau of Investigation, was interviewed regarding his recollection of the number of United States Park Police (USPP) investigative reports received by the FBI regarding the investigation into the death of VINCENT W. FOSTER, JR. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, FORAN the following information: thereafter provided FORAN recalls reviewing one copy of the USPP report related to the investigation of the death of FOSTER. FORAN did not make any copies of the Park Police report. He was not aware of whether or not anyone else within the FBI made a copy of the Park Police report. After FORAN reviewed the Park Police report, it was then sent to FBI Headquarters investigative files. FORAN thought that DAVID MARGOLIS, of the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), might be a point 'of contact of the USPP report that was regarding the number of copies provided to DOJ. Another individual who may be able to provide information regarding the number of USPP reports provided to DOJ might be ROGER ADAMS. ADAMS serves as an assistant to MARGOLIS. No further information of investigative value was proyided. Investigation on AMf pv _6-/~6~/~9~4 ____ m Washington, D.C. (telephonically) r-....; ...,u.----..,.,.._. ___.G .... I.... L .... L_I_S'--"; ..... D,.._M....,G..,.J_/ s....... l...,a.__ ________ File# Date dictated 29D-LR-35063 6/6/94 18-1621-000806 This document contains neithe.r recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 58 FD-302 (Rev. 3-10-82) - 1FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 6/9/94 Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) JANE ERICKSON, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was interviewed regarding her recollection of the number of United States Park Police (USPP) investigative reports received by the FBI, related to the investigation into the death of VINCENT W. FOSTER, Jr. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing agent and the nature of the interview, ERICKSON thereafter provided ~he following inf~rmation: a copy of the USPP report from ERICKSON received Captain CHARLES HUME, USPP, on February 3, 1994. ERICKSON provided a copy of that report to Special Prosecutor ROBERT FISKE, Deputy Special Prosecutor RODERICK LANKLER, FBI Special Agent DANA M. GILLIS, and FBI SSA STEVE IRONS. ERICKSON still has custody of one copy of the USPP report. Her report is maintained in a locked file cabinet with limited access . ' , . No further information of investigative value was provided. Investigation on PJE' ' ---'6=--/._8.._._/=-9=3 ____ at (telephonically) Washington, D. C. SA fillNA M, GILLIS/DMG: sla File# 29D-LR-35063 ""'"""""' _6.,._,,__/...._9.,__/...,.9__.4~----18-1621-000807 This document contains neither recommendations nor conclusions of the FBI. It is the property of the FBI and is loaned to your agency; FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 59 FD-302 (Rev. 3-10-82) - 1FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION Date of transcription 7/12/94 Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) STEVE IRONS, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), was interviewed regarding his receipt of a copy of the United States Park Police (USPP) investigative report related to the death of VINCENT W. FOSTER, Jr. After being advised of the identity of the interviewing Agent and the purpose t the interview, IRONS thereafter provided the following information: IRONS received one copy of the USPP report from SSA JANE ERICKSON, FBI Headquarters, on February 8, 1994. Upon receipt of the report, IRONS placed it in a safe located in his office within the Little Rock Division of the FBI. No copies of the report were made by IRONS or any other Little Rock Division personnel. The report continues to be maintained in the aforementioned safe in IRONS' office. No further information of investigative provided. Investigation on _7~/=1=2~L-9~4~--~ (telephonically) Washington, D.C. File# ~ value was 29D-LR-35063 18-1621-000808 FD-302 (Rev. 3-10-82) FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 60 - 1FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION 7/20/94 Date of transcription PHILIP HEYMAN, former Deputy Attorney General, currently teaching at Harvard Law School, telephone 617-495-3137 was interviewed telephonically by writer on July 20, 1994. Being acquainted with the interviewing agent and the nature and purpose of the interview, HEYMANprovided the following information: HEYMAN said that he recalls receiving a c'opy M the·· report on the death of VINCENT FOSTER, JR. in U.S. Park Police August, 1993. He said that he got his copy from DAVID MARGOLIS who had received it the Friday or Saturday before the press conference, which was held with the Park Police and ROBERT "BEAR" BRYANT of the Washington Metropolitan Field Office of the FBI on Tuesday, August 10, 1993. HEYMAN explained that at that stage there was only one copy in The Department of Justice and that was the one that he and DAVID MARGOLIS shared. HEYMAN said he wanted to read the report over the weekend before the press conference. HEYMAN advised that the report was not released to the public at the time of the press conference. At the conference they said that any inquiries would have to go through the Department of Justice and they had to have time for their Freedom of Information Act experts to redact from the report that material which was inappropriate for public dissemination. HEYMAN said that that process could take as long as six weeks but he actually has no idea whether the report was ever released. HEYMAN believes that four copies existed in the Department in all. One was the original that he shared with MARGOLIS, a second was given to the FOIA office at DOJ, a third one was given to DOJ's criminal division with instructions from HEYMAN to follow-up on one of the items found in FOSTER'S note found on July 26, 1993 in which he listed things that were bothering him, and the fourth was given to DOJ's OPR office in order to follow-up on another item listed in the same note by FOSTER. Police Investigation on by _ HEYMAN advised that report, no photographs at the time accompanied (telephonically) _7.:.../'--'2"'--"'--0L../=9-=-4 ___ at Washington, _,_S,..,S,..,,_A....______,H....._. __.::.A...,L,,..,E.,..X...._I......,S __,_S,.,,U.,_,,G.,_,G..,__S..,_ ____________ D. C. he received the report. File# Date dictated the Park Moreover, 29D-LR-35063 7/20/94 18-1621-000809 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104932 Page 61 FD-302a (Rev. 11-15-83) 29D-LR-35063 Continuation of FD-302 of PHILIP HEYMAN _____________________ there were no xeroxes accompanying it. the 7 /20/94 , On _______ of photographs contained During a previous interview following personal information: Date of Birth: Place of Birth: Social Security HEYMANis School where he can 495-1110. PHILIP in currently be reached I report _ or 1932 Pen~sylvaaia ~--- -- -- -- - -IFOIA(b)(6 ·)1 on the faculty of Harvard Law at 617-495-3137, fax number 617- AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 2 HEYMANhad provided October 30, Pittsburgh, Number: the , Page ___ 18-1621-000810 o7 ; 19 ; 94 ""\I -· . QI• INDEP COUNSEL _2~! _8707 16: 45 __ ~5~! ore DC ••• '"..f ,,;, .;i•1tt -', 141002/ 002 ... ',U:•j,l.lj,,. 1httilft'10RT::>lb,jOL) Docld: 7u104932 Page 62 l:J..Jr-v,A::rsQ 1,1,l. t1,-,M;:1,.~-;_;" 11;11;1,1,1>1-,.,.i;.I 1\1;"1.'" C.QHOIIUS TWII\O ONCHUHDMO s tht tinittd·~iatts ~ongrtsof 1\oultof'luprtJtntatfi&MAR24 A9 :s7 <:. ,•.•.-· unot•~Ls EEGOVERNMENT019lM COMMITTON .1t.. ... !,t t \[CUT·~ ,. ,,., :, I•• 2 Ui7 RlYtUIIN H0UII O"1CI 8Ull,DINO WAIMIM;TOH,DC2011M1'1 March 23, 1994 Honorable Janet R• ino Att.orn•;,r General U.S. Department o:~ Justic• anc1 i:onstitution Tenth street 20530 o.c. n, in9to Wash Daa.r Attorney Gen,tral Avenu•, N.W. Rano: coU:rt in New York earlier a haa.ring in federa .1 district oppoa·ed i t>ov Jonaa' month, Justi:::e oapartinant a1;torneya the regarding In thi. release of th• various reports motion requaating r. (See DowJones, co,. death of White Ho~se aide Vincent Foste ABC'a ~World only daya later, . ~t ~l. Ye DQJ, 94 Civ. 0527 (SS)) s and ment the sa»e docu News Tonight" reported it had reviewed qripping hand even aired a photograph purportedly of Mr. Foster'• a handgun. B. Counsel Robert me that at a time when Special It troubles tila• r Foste of the release that public is ar~uinq Jr. Fiske, · Department i• your when and on, tigati would impede his inves same the of to prevent the release • pending taxpa.yex · dollars ia handing oopie.~ the Administration that ar it would appe report, Such action • news organizations. tc> friendly of this report ing to intluance public suggest that the Ad.l:niniatration is aeektant into matter and calls through 1:he press on thi• bipor opinion . Fiske ot Mr. to support the eftorts your viJ.lingness question I ask that ?OU conduct o~ thi• a thorough review Foster investigative report•. who re'.leased the the cttice my to de provi review, :c ask that you of that asion po••• with n and their•organi~atio every individual and reports and autopsy to the U. ;; • Park Police accesa photoqraphs. determine Thank you r~r your illllDediat• to attention to As part :matter names of ot or mattor. this Sincerely, ./1 if/;~ .•. Clh.nger, ~ 0 Republica;~· UJ~~~{'·Ck ~ICAN AME=f PVERSIGHT I William /}/} F. Ranking on Government ,:otnl!li ttee ,. ().,.t_ Operations - 18-1621-000811 creened by NARA 07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) DOCID: Mc.DOV&-AL NoilS }ou\SLE ~£afARi"Y -- ~ ~ ~~ l7J?Q4 ----- ---- - F-~ed-- 1-sos-o ~-- -& --------+- 6 • M ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ (s ~ ) _ ~~ ~ ~ ~ -(s--~ ~] ----- --+----- -----,f-------- - - -- - - - - -- --- - - - - ---- - ------ FOIA RB 56806-(-l:JRTS1630z) Docld: 70104934 Page 2 ______.__,._._._T - - - -- - - - -- 18-1621-000813 - Screened by NARA (RD-F) 07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) DOCID: 70104936 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104936 Page 1 18-1621-000814 _, _ __________________________ , MEMORANDUM Kavanaugh Bates cc: Brett John From: Craig Re: Section 594(h) Date: January 24, To: The Ethics Lerner in (2) of the Ethics in Government Act 1997 Government (Act) Act provides: the to the Congress, may release of the court The division report a of portions such person, or any appropriate public, of the court as the division subsection made under this make shall court the of division The appropriate. considers any of rights the protect to as are appropriate such orders undue prevent to and named in such report individual of . The division prosecution with any pending interference under filed report final a of portion any may make the court named in such to any individual (1) (B) 1 available paragraph set time limit a within receiving of for the purposes report factual or comments any court the of by the division Such comments may submit. such individual that information in the may, part, in or whole in information, and factual as an included be court, the of of the division discretion report. to such final appendix 28 U.S.C. 594 (h) (2). § Background to section 594{h} {2} a duty The Act imposes ~ 28 U.S.C. report. final the independent distinguishes has Division As the Special to file counsels independent on all duty This . (B) (1) § 594(h) prosecutors from all other counsel observed, a of their with the power and responsibility [c]onsistent do not they and reports, issue not do prosecutors office, been not have who crimes of guilty persons pronounce by of reports The filing and convicted. tried, indicted, the from departure complete "a is Counsels Independent counsel an independent that l(B) provides Paragraph report final a "file office, his of termination the before shall, and fully forth setting of the court, with the division counsel, of the work of the independent a description completely brought." cases of all the disposition including 1 1 AMF-f{ICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104936 .Page 2 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000815 . of authority the practice and is "contrary Attorney" States a United investigations." jury grand in federal to Spec. 16 F.3d 1234, 1238 (D.C. cir. (Omnibus Order), In re North 1369-70 1367, F.2d 880 Motion, Sealed In re (quoting Div. 1994) a number of In the Omnibus Order, Spec. Div. 1989)). (D.C. Cir. report. final Walsh's of tone accusatory the to objected parties was report Walsh's that acknowledged division While the special [u]nfortunately that" held it guilt," of with accusations "rife [Act] the of fairness, for the tradition and perhaps for movants, .I.d. report." a file Counsel the Independent that does require 514 F.2d 794, 801 (5th Cir. v. Briggs, States Compare with United a federal permitting authority is "no substantial (there 1975) of persons private named accusing a report grand jury to issue conduct"). criminal the Act, versions earlier that, however, It is worth noting, to counsel independent the required under which Walsh operated, not for reasons "the as well as of his work, give a description of jurisdiction the prosecutorial within any matter prosecuting requirement the dropped Act 1994 The counsel." such independent not to his decision explain counsel the independent that amendment, this proposed who had Dole, Senator prosecute. scope of the permissible narrows "amendment this that explained 18 (Nov. S15972 S15971-04, 139 Cong.Rec. report." the final 1993) . Analysis section of 594 (h} (2} in (h) (2) is couched of section sentence The first 1. to release may court the of division "The terms: discretionary of portions such person, appropriate any or the public, Congress, appropriate." considers of the court as the division ... a report in its discretion exercise division the special How should report? special !C's the to disclose whether determining and a number of report, his final Walsh 2 had prepared After the special moved individuals several comments, had filed parties or to toto, in report the of release the withhold to division grand jury materials. contained that parts those withhold had some clearly The court 16 F.3d at 1235-36. Omnibus Order, report. final tone of Walsh's about the accusatory misgivings who movants of those See id. at 1240 ("we find the objections weighty"). of the Report the release seek to have us rescind though release, to the report's consented the court Nonetheless, .I.d. upon it." no imprimatur "the Court places that it emphasized of the Act for the Walsh section The relevant That section § 595(b) (3) (1982). was 28 U.S.C. investigation 594(h) (2). form as section in its present recodified later 16 F.3d at 1235 & n.l. Omnibus Order, 2 was ~ 2 AMF-f{ICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104936 Page 3 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000816 under our supervision does not operate Counsel "The Independent do not bear of the Report, the writing including and his acts, 487 U.S. v. Olson, See also Morrison .I.d. at 1239. our aegis." with been invested division (had the special (1988) 654, 680-84 the Act would counsel, powers over the independent supervisory In re North (Walsh Show suspect); have been constitutionally Spec. Div. 1993) 10 F.3d 831, 836 (D.C. Cir. Cause Order), powers very limited ("The Act confers dissenting) J., (Butzner, Adherence Counsel. to the Independent with respect on the court the to preserve is essential limitations to these Cf. In re Charge of Judicial of the Act."). constitutionality (en 1996) 85 F . 3d 135, 138 (D.C. Cir. or Disability. Misconduct of the merits does not "adjudicat[e] division (the special bane) But cf, id. at 140 parties"). opposing between a controversy impropriety for judicial (the opportunity concurring) J., (Tatel, the special "because exists Division of the Special on the part of discretion"). some degree exercises panel In deciding sought division which stated: the special the Walsh report, to release report, 1987 Senate from an unenacted guidance it is filings, court to release whether In considering of of the subjects the right balance the court that intended about publicity form [sic] to be shielded the investigation of the public with the right allegations or unfair unfounded In balancing Act. under this about prosecutions to inquire as [1) weigh such factors should the court concerns, these have already of the investigations the subjects whether do not the subjects [2] whether to the public; disclosed [3] to the public; released being to the filings object which is already information contain the filings whether of legal consist the filings known; and [4] whether publicly be publicly in a case which should rulings or factual or and precedents rules the court's to understand available matter. in a particular the developments to follow reprinted in 21 (1987), 1st Sess. No. 123, 100th Cong., S.Rep. in Omnibus Order, 16 F.3d at 2150, 2170, quoted 1987 U.S.C.C.A.N. the that noted division the special In the Omnibus Order. 1237. as well as much of the of the Walsh investigation, subjects known, 16 F.3d publicly were already in the report, information of either "do not consist filings the court at 1240; and that While the court i.d. at 1241. rulings," or factual legal its opposed in the report mentioned some people that acknowledged one way or another, no opinion expressed persons other release, . .I.d. at 1240. release the report's supported others and still the the ~, can be drawn from that to the lessons There may be limits all of "given that emphasized for the court Omnibus Order, unique in this as they now prevail and circumstances facts added). l..d. at 1241 (emphasis release." order we will 3 AMF-f{ICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104936 Page 4 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000817 two at least the Omnibus Order articulates Nevertheless, report the final (1) disclosing principles: applicable generally of the Independent the accountability' "to 'ensure is essential (quoting id. and the public," to the government Counsel and (2) the special 70-71), 2d Sess. 170, 95th Cong., S.Rep.No. power over the a "supervisory is wary of exercising division by the independent performed" functions executive essentially 487 U.S. at 681 ("The Act id. at 1239; cf. Morrison, counsel, the the power to 'supervise' does not give the Division simply of his or her investigative in the exercise counsel independent the special is that The upshot authority.") or prosecutorial of the the release order in most instances, will, division report. counsel's independent that, of the 1994 Act makes clear history The legislative had with Walsh and his blistering Congress misgivings whatever to decision division's of the special it approved report, final to section an amendment The House proposed report. that release the to release the court encouraging language 594(h) (2) to "add[] it would determines if the court material and associated report with maximizing and would be consistent interest be in the public of the independent explanation a full ensuring disclosure, public the and facilitating and decisionmaking, activities counsel's had counsel which the independent of information release (May 19 1994), H.Rep. No. 103-511 to be disclosed." determined 6, (August No. 103-224 See also H.Rep. 1994 WL 200711 at *20. 1993 WL 302057 at *20-21. 1993), of the language of the 1994 Act tracked version The Senate bill the Senate followed The conference the 1987 version. as redundant. House language the proposed it regarded because law on 1987 the in standards the that agree "The conferees overly not are public the to report final a releasing to decision court's by the special as evidenced restrictive, despite matter Contra Iran the in report final the release [sic] to repress named in the report by persons motions numerous have the conferees reason, For this of it, all or portions encouraging language statutory additional that determined 1994 WL 200711 H.Rep. No. 103-511, is unnecessary." disclosure added). at *20 (emphasis 2. special protect prevent (h) (2) provides of section sentence The second as are appropriate make such orders "shall division named in such report of any individual the rights prosecution." with any pending undue interference the to and to that to appealed a number of individuals indicated, As already of the Walsh final the release to withhold division the special to section appealed specifically Those individuals report. to "make such orders division the special (h) (2), which empowers of any individuals the rights to protect as are appropriate The 16 F.3d at 1235. Order, Omnibus report. final the in named" 4 AMF-f{ICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104936 Page 5 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000818 "it that, stating motions, these rejected division special national extended of matter this that interest the public as possible." a conclusion as full be afforded controversy at 1245. is in .I.d. "the that (h) (2) provides of section sentence The third 3. ... report final a of portion any may make of the court division purposes the for report such in named to any individual available of the set by the division a time limit within receiving of individual such that information any comments or factual court a copy of (a) who receives arise: Three questions may submit." in mentioned persons any or subjects -- only putative the report final entire the receive (b) do the individuals the report, for (c) what is the time limit portion, or only a relevant report comments? a. Who receives a copy? a copy of are to receive which individuals In determining discretionary in couched is the Act for comment, report the final ... may make any portion of the court "the division terms: The report." final named in the to any individual available Iran/Contra the of portions submitted originally division special given "[s]ome in it except mentioned to all individuals report 1236 at F.3d 16 Omnibus Order, mention." only minor or passing to "endeavored division the special Soon thereafter, n.2. . .. for comment even as to those and access notice provide one of comments had been closed, the filing After individuals. he that Court the notified in a footnote, mentioned individual, to necessary it deem not The Court does notice. had not received .l.d. the comment period." reopen will division the special To judge from the Walsh report, discussed are who individuals all nearly try to notify presumably to and may also endeavor report, in the final in some detail allow comments even from minor players. b. the receive Do individuals portion? entire report or only a only a "portion" that of the Act provides language The plain for their individuals to available made is report of the final the interpreted has division special the how is This comments. individual named "[e)ach investigation, In the Iran/Contra Act. to the access received for such named individual counsel and/or two In person. that naming Report the of or portions portion that pervasively so discussed was named an individual instances, the and individual the to was provided Report the full 16 F.3d at 1236. Omnibus Order, counsel." individual's c. What is the time limit for comments? 5 SN AMf-HICA FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104936 Page 6 VER IGHT 18-1621-000819 Omnibus 5, 1993. on August report his final granted originally division The special 1236. and comments, 3, 1993, to provide October until named individuals re In 1993. 3, December until the deadline extended it later Journalists) of Professional Motion of society (Emergency North Spec. Div. 1993). *1 (D.C. Cir. 1993 WL 560094, (not reported) It is worth comment period. was a four-month there In short, In re and complex," was "lengthy the Walsh report that noting 53 F.3d 1305, 1308 Fee Applications), and Gruner (Shields North division the special accordingly, Spec. Div. 1995); (D.C. Cir. reports. final for other comment period a shorter may allow Walsh filed Order, 16 F.3d at that (h) (2) provides of section sentence The fourth 4. may, in in whole or in part, information, and factual "comments as an be included of the court, of the division the discretion of the preparation Who oversees report." to such final appendix such an appendix? independent "[t]he that has stated division The special report a final ends when he or she files investigation counsel's of the work of a description and completely fully forth 'setting (Reagan Fee Application), In re North counsel.'" the independent 28 U.S.C. (quoting Spec. Div. 1996) 94 F.3d 685, 689 (D.C. Cir. the files counsel the independent Even after § 594(h) (1) (B)). he has the that has recognized division the special report, final of comments by consisting an appendix duty of compiling residual 10 F . 3d at 833. Walsh Show Cause Order, named persons. duty. with this Walsh was charged Apparently, Related issues requiring reporting Does the Act's 1. 6(e)? imposed by Fed.R.Crim.P. requirements negate the secrecy made Division In its Omnibus Order, the Special No. requirement the secrecy held "that it had "nowhere" that 16 F.3d at Counsels." to Independent 6(e) does not apply reporting the Act's held that further Division The Special of by implication" a "repealer did not effect requirement See id. ("we are not of Rule 6(e). requirements secrecy by implication so as to work a repealer statutes construe (quotation conflict") are in irreconcilable the statutes omitted). clear of Rule 1243. the to unless may "courts concluded nonetheless division The special Rule." the under the terms of [of secrecy] bonds those loosen Fed.R.Crim.P. then quoted division The special l.d. at 1244. otherwise "[d]isclosure that 6(e) (3) (C), which provides the grand before occurring of matters rule by this prohibited by a court jury may also be made -- (i) when so directed proceeding." with a judicial to or in connection preliminarily the in overseeing actions its held that division The special 6 AMF-f{ICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104936 Page 7 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000820 • proceeding," a judicial "constitute report of a final release to the secrecy the above exception implicating thereby The court by Rule 6(e) . .Id. imposed otherwise requirements 11 have should Counsel the Independent [a]rguably, added that the fining before to us for a Rule 6(e) (3) (C) exception applied .IJ;i. the grand jury material." containing Report to justify division by the special mentioned reason Another much of that is that of the grand jury material the release its had "lost and therefore been made public had already material that however, cautioned, The court .Id. character." protected once a leak of Rule that a rule to formulate "[w]e do not intend to are free attorneys government has occurred, 6(e) material .I.d. at 1245. bond of secrecy." the pre-existing ignore 2. persons Can the named in independent the final counsel report? respond to by filed comments counsel the independent that concluded panel A divided No. named in the by persons submitted to comments respond cannot reasoned for the majority, writing Judge Sentelle, report. final counsel's 594(h) (1) (B), the independent to Section pursuant that, Walsh Show report. of a final upon the filing terminates office the independent that It is true 10 F.3d at 833. Cause Order, consisting an appendix duty of compiling has the residual counsel Judge Sentelle Nonetheless, . .I.d. of comments by named persons do not duties residual counsel's the independent that emphasized to his prior or additions the making of revisions "include .I.d. at 834. report." 11 Special [t]he that observed Judge Butzner A dissenting as a method not use the power of termination should ... Division Counsel . .Id. at 837 (quotation the Independent of supervising over and supervision "to assume control He added that omitted). to report, of his duties in the discharge Counsel the Independent his report he has completed before the office and to terminate of the Act that in the application issues constitutional raise See also Morrison, 487 U.S. at .Id. at 838. be avoided." should with supervisory been invested division (had the special 680-84 over the IC, the Act would have been constitutionally powers suspect). Attachments In re North Div. 1994). In re Spec. (Omnibus (Walsh North Div. 1993). Order), 16 F.3d Show cause Order), 1234 Cir. (D.C. 10 F.3d 831 Spec. (D.C. Cir. 7 AMF-f{ICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104936 Page 8 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000821 I - - - --- • _..._ --~- ___ __,__ Screened by NARA (RD-F) 07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) DOCID: 70104938 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 1 18-1621-000822 IFOIA(b)(7) - (C)I AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104938 Page 2 18-1621-000823 IFOIA(b)(7) - (C)I AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104938 Page 3 18-1621-000824 IFOIA(b)(7) - (C)I AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 4 18-1621-000825 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104938 Page 5 18-1621-000826 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104938 Page 6 18-1621-000827 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104938 Page 7 18-1621-000828 4 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 8 18-1621-000829 APR 17 '94 09!07PM P.1 Memorandum Office of the Independent Counsel To All Prom Jackie M. Bennett, Jr. Timothy J. Mayopoulos Subjcct: Status OIC Attorneys Daio S/15/95 of CTR investigation for your review is a memorandum describing the Attached status of our investigation into currency transactions by the 1990 Clinton for Governor campaign at the Perry County Bank in May and November 1990. We are May 17, at 1130 scheduled to discuss Central time. this matter on Wednesday, p.m. ( AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302) Docld : 70104938 Page 9 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000830 APR 17 '94 P.2 09:07PM HIGHLYCONFIDENTIAL CONTAIN$ RULE6le) MATERIAL MEMORANDUM To: DRAFTVERSION Kenneth w. Starr Independent Counsel All OIC Attorneys From: Jackie M. Bennett, Jr. Timothy J. Mayopouloa Associate Counsel Date: May 15, 1995 Re: Status of investigation of currency transactions·by 1990 Clinton for Governor at the Perry County Bank . ~. the - -. · INTRODUCTION Thi• memorandum summarizes the status of our investigation of criminal activity in connection with currency transactions by the 1990 Clinton for Governor campaign at the Perry County Bank in Perryville, Arkansas. Neal T. Ainley, the former President-of the Perry ·county Bank, was indicted by the Grand Jury in Little Rock on February 28, 1995 on five felony charges relating to his failure to prepare and file currency transaction reports of two cash withdrawals by the 1990 Clinton for Governor campaign in May and November 1990. Approximately two weeks ago, Ainley pled guilty to reduced charges, and is currently cooperating with our investigation. Apart from Ainley, the other principal actors in the May and November 1990 currency transactions were Bruce R. Lindsey, then treasurer of the Clinton for Governor campaign and now a senior advisor to President Clinton; Robert M. Hill, an accountant in Perryville and a sot owner of the Perry County Bank; and Herby Branscum, Jr., a lawyer and.well-known Democratic party figure in Arkansas, and the other Sot owner of the Perry County Bank. ~~~~~~/ IFOIA(b)(7) - (C)I AM ERIC FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 10 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000831 APR 17 '94 A. P.3 09=09PM caee surnrna;o!: On May 25, 1990, four days before the Arkansaa primary of the 1990 Clinton for Bruce Lindsey, treasurer election, Governor campaign, went to the Perry County Bank (PCB) and account using four withdrew $30,000 in oash from the campaign's then Ainley, Neal $7,500. of amount the in checks, each the four Although transaction. the handled PCB, of president triggering for threshold $10,000 the over well aggregated checks at Report, Transaction currency a of filing and preparation the Robert Hill, Ainley superior, the request of Lindsey and Ainley•s Revenue did not prepare or file such a report with the Internal The Clinton campaign used the cash by law. Service as required 11 11Get Out the Vote" or "GOTV . withdrawn from PCB to make so-called to turn out the black and activists payments to black leaders day. vote on election On November 2, 1990, this time four days bef~;e tpe Arkansas Lindsey arranged for the Clinton for Governor general election, campaign to withdraw $22,500 in cash from its account at PCB, ·. -: among day GOTVefforts election again for use in the campaign's a CTR, prepared PCB personnel On this occasion, black voters. and Ainley left a photocopy of the document in the bank's files at However, Ainley, by bank examiners. scrutiny for eventual outgoing bank's the CTR from removed the original urging, Hill's to the would not be reported mail so that the transaction Service. Revenue Internal stated on a FDIC bank On February 20, 1991, Ainley falsely that PCB had filed a CTR for all questionnaire examiner•• Ainley did so because he such a report. requiring transactions that PCB had not filed CTRa for all knew that if he indicated them, the examiners would review the requiring transactions that CTRs had not been and discover bank's currency transactions Ainley by the 1990 Clinton campaign. filed for the withdrawals did not consult with Lindsey, Hill or Branscum with regard to his to the bank examiners. false statement B. Proiecucjon of Neal Ainley of PCB from June 1989 Neal T. Ainley served as president of PCB, Ainley Before becoming president through March 28, 1994. State Arkansas the for supervisor served as a bank examiner and a state a As 1989. June through 1983 June from Banking Department with, among other bank examiner, Ainley reviewed bank.~ompliance CTR regulations. things, Ainley on five felony On February 28, 1995, we indicted to the May and November 1990 currency counts relating of the violations substantive conspiracy, including transactions, statements. and entries false causing and statute, CTR reporting memorandum, that prosecution As we stated in our previous 2 AM Ff {ICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 11 VERSIGHT -- 18-1621-000832 APR 17 '94 P.4 09: 11PM prosecution was designed to charge appropriately Ainley•• criminal misconduct and to set the stage for potential cooperation by him in a prosecution of Lindsey and others. At the time, we hoped that we would obtain a speedy trial which would -permit us to convict Ainley before we lost the ability to charge Lindsey and others with regard to the May 25, 1990 currency transaction. We also hoped that, in the absence of an early trial, Ainley would agree to plead to at lea ·st one felony count and cooperate with the investigation. When the initial trial date of April 10 was pushed back to July S, and Ainley•s counsel expressed a willingness to accept a misdemeanor plea but refused to ever consider a felony resolution, we had to choose between proceeding with our case against . Ainley alone-" and losing our best potential count against Lindsey and others -- or agreeing to a mis~~meanor _ disposition which would keep alive the possibility of pringing an additional case before May 25. We opted for the latter alternative. ~ µ On May 2, 1995, Neal Ainley pled guilty to two misdemeanor counts charging that he delivered and caused to be delivered to µ;J the Secretary of the Treasury or his delegate a document known ~ t . false and fraudulent as to a material matter in violation of 26 u.s.c. S 7207. In exchange for the reduced charges, Ainley - .t? \ agreed to cooperate with the investigation. In entering his L,VV'M plea, Ainley admitted to the same underlying conduct with which p--1!( he had been charged in the felony indictment. The parties made ' ~ no agreements whatsoever with respect to Ainley's sentence. ~ L~ndsey is an attorney and was~\ partner in Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, a prominent Little Rock l\aw firm founded by his father. Described in recent press ac~ounts as "perhaps Clinton's closest political confidant," Lindsey is a longtime friend and supporter who served as treasurer of the 1990 Clinton for Governor campaign. He also served as a'key strategist and operative in a number of Clinton campai~s, including the 1992 presidential race. For years he has bee~ a member of Clinton's select inner circle of advisers. 3 MERICAN pVERSIGHT 'IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jury! FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302} Docld: 70104938 Page 12 18-1621-000833 1 · , - APR 17 '94 P.S 09=13PM Lindsey has been a sanior advisor to the President from the beginning of the Clinton &dministration, and currently holds the position of Deputy White House Counsel. Recent press accounts have commented on Lindsey's role as President Clinton's traveling companion -- Ha signal of presidential ubiquitous confidence no other staffer comes close to receiving" -- and have portrayed Lindsey as the last survivor among the Arkansas political insiders who came to Washington to be part of the administration. Hill is a certified public accountant and a sot shareholder of Perry County Bancshares, a bank holding company that owns the Perry Co.Unty Bank. Active in .Democratic party politics, Hill has served as chairman of the Perry County Democratic Party for the pa .st 10 years. Hill has made numerous political contributions to Clinton campaigns. Branscum, is an attorney practice·.i~ P~rryvflle.' in private He served as the Arkansas State -Democratic Party Chairman from 197.6 to 1982. Like · Hill, he is a sot shareholder in Perry County Bancshares. Also like Hill, Branscum consistently has made political contributions to Clinton gubernatorial campaigns. Lindsey is represented by Washington attorneys Allen R. Snyder and William D. Nussbaum of Hogan & Hartson, and by Little Rock attorney Winslow Drummond of the McMath Law Firm. (While he has not surfaced in any dealings with us, a senior partner in the McMath firm, Sandy McMath, is considered the most highly regarded trial lawyer in Arkansas, and would probably represent Lindsey at a trial.) Hill is represented by Little Rook attorney Jack Lassiter, a highly respected member of the Arkansas defense bar. Branscum is represented by Dallas attorney Dan C. Guthrie. FACTS A. The 1990 clintpn_for Governor campaign ---..:.- In the spring of 1990, then Governor Clinton began putting together a team for his campaign for re-election. Gloria Cabe, a former Arkansas legislator and Clinton loyalist who had worked on all of Clinton's gubernatorial campaigns since 1980, was selected to be manager ot the 1990 campaign. As previously noted, Lindsey aeted as treasurer of the 1990 campaign. A third key member of the campaign team was carol D. Willia. Willis had worked on every campaign that Clinton had conducted since 1974, his principal responsibility having been to manage the GOTV initiatives in black communities outside Pulaski County (the county in which Little Rock is located). Willis is now Senior Advisor to the Chairman of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, D.C. 4 AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 13 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000834 APR 17 '94 B. P.6 09=15PM The Percy Coynty Bank campaign account Although Clinton's earlier gubernatorial campaigns had maintained their bank accounts at the Banko£ Cherry Valley, for unknown reasons the 1990 Clinton for Governor campaign departed from that practice and opened a checking account on March 9, Arkansas. Both 1990, at the Perry County Bank in Perryville, Hill and Branscum claim that PCB did not seek the campaign's business. Bruce Lindsey and Gloria Cabe were the authorized signatories on the campaign checking account at PCB. listed on the opening account document as the contact the account. Neal Ainley functioned as the campaign's contact at PCB, and Robert Hill served as the contact was unavailable. (Hill and Branscum were not officers bank, and did not maintain offices at the bank.) . ,. Lindsey was person on principal when Ainley of the PCB's banking relationship with the campaign commenced with · origination of an unsecured campaign loan to the Clintons •in- the amount of $50,000, which was eventually repaid. Neal Ainley and documenting the loan. was responsible for originating the c. lbe Clinton campaign's currency transactions The Arkansas Democratic and Republican primary elections were held on May 29, 1990 . The general election was held on November 6, 1990. In both the primary and general elections, the Clinton campaign made cash withdrawals from its account at PCB; and used those funds in connection with C~rol Willis' black GOTV program. Gloria Cabe has stated that, as treasurer, Lindsey would have been aware of all cash withdrawals from the campaign•s account at PCB. 1. The Ma~2s. 1990 transaction Ainley has told us on several occasions that hie first on May 25, 1990 regarding the $30,000 withdrawal was from Branscum, who advised him that Lindsey would be in touch with him and that he should help Lindsey. Ainley said that Branscum told him in very general terms to do what Lindsey wanted. 1 (Long contact 1 In questioning Ainley, we have precise as he can be about the specific Branscum on May 25. After thoroughly of the evidence point, our assessment confident that Branscum knew full well the Clinton campaign's desire to keep the actual words Branscum used in his pressed him to be as conversation he had with questioning him on this is that, although Ainley is about the CTR issue and the cash withdrawal secret, conversation with Ainley on 5 AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 14 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000835 APR 17 '94 P.7 09:17PM that Branscum could toll records corroborate telephone distance The telephone l. withdrawa the about Lindsey with spoken have very short calls were made from the show that several records to Branscurn•s home and law office Clinton campaign headquarters between 8:00 a.rn. and 9:00 a.m. on May 25. At 9:08 a.m., a call to the Clinton headquarters; was made from Branscurn•s law office 12 minutes.) the call lasted •\ speaking with Branscum ·, Ainley called Lindsey, after Shortly ~ , they and which), sure not or Lindsey called Ainley (Ainley is ~ that in his Ainley has stated spoke about the withdrawal. 0 ---::1 --. . . .... the whether asked dsey .,_ . call with Li telephone ~ as ITiiI'ey interpreted c had to be II reported transaction IRS, the to n transactio rency l:'el,J~~ a as meaning reported ~~- A~n1~ that is ma~e of currency since that is the only kind of report to Lindsey that ~; Ainley has stated that he explained withdrawals. jVV\Q_~ · .. asked Lindsey that and reported, be to had the transaction w ether there was any way around the rules. to Lindsey ·· -· he suggested in response, Ainley told us that, view, Ainley•s in could, pa th which by two avenues nt. requireme CTR the voiding · awfull whil cash the withdraw or the campaign to withdraw e Ainley One suggestion of weeks. per week over a series of dollars thousands several · he would consider while it was a fine line, Ainley said that, could he that a CTR. Lindsey said that legal and not requiring Ainley said that he not do that as he needed the money that day. go to a variety could to Lindsey that the campaign also suggested explained (Ainley of local banks and cash a check at each bank. the for check a Rock banks would probably cash that Little an maintain not did campaign, even if the campaign Governor's do to want not did he that Lindsey said account at that bank.) that. ma ; ~ !f!:r ~g llnifj ~thiner I after Lindsey~· that, Ainley has stated continued. a J1.t..~~~ions I the conversation ~~ ijif z that the $30,000 be wit suggested Lindse that the suggested y specificall he Ainley claima ~ ~~~o,ooo. the in fourth a and $9,900 of ls withdrawa three aign make Lindsey $30,000. to l withdrawa total the bring to amount needed responded that he did not want to use $9,900 amounts, stating wanted to divide the $30,000 amount by four, and that he instead that Ainley has also stated thus write four check8 for $7,500. bills. that he wanted the cash in $100 Lindsey indicated ~ call the telephone We have not been able to corroborate show a records toll While telephone between Ainley and Lindsey. 9:33 at call from PCB to Wright, Lindsey & Jennings telephone Branscum would vague that a case against .May 25 were sufficiently alone. ony testi of Ainley's on the strength not be viable 6 GH pvg1~'$~ FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld : 70104938 Page 15 r,~J~J. ~~Kvv 18-1621-000836 .A..K APR 17 '94 P.8 09:20PM IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim . Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl ' J I a.m. on May 25 (just a 13 minutes after the call between Branscum•s office and the Cli~ton campaign ended), the records indicate that the call lasted ,only one minute. It seems unlikely ~~ that the conversation that Ainley has described could have taken , place in just one minute. We 1"1avenot been able to identify a') \ - . · · {\ return call from Lindsey to Ai~ley at PCB. / Lc.O..SL_~, Following his initial co~~ersation with Lindsey, Ainley -~~ determined that PCB was approximately $23,000 short of having ~~-"'~ sufficient cash on hand to accommodate Lindeey 1 s withdrawal ~o •A# request. Ac::co~dingly, someone 1at PCB contacted the First µ-ou-YYY National Bank in Morrilton to ~sk to purchase cash -to conduct the transaction requested by Lindsey. Long distance telephone toll AruJ 0 records show a four-minute telelphone call from PCB to the r ~ , Morrilton bank at 9:48 a.m. ' 'Yv'-j t·, I After determining that cas~ could be obtained,!rom Firat National, Ainley claims he called Lindsey to tell him that.the $30,000 he requested was availa~le. Long distance telephone . records do not show such a call: . I According to Ainley, Robe~ Hill's daughter, Tracy Hill, who was then a Perry County Bank employee, was dispatched to First National to obtain ·the addition 1 cash necessa to accommodate Lindse •s re ested withdrawal. To obtain the cash, Tracy Hill apparently took with her a cashier's check dated May 25, 1990, in the amount of $23,000, made payable to First National. The check was signed by Ainley and indicated Perry County Bank as the remitter. The check had on it a notation which read: "For currency, $20M -100 & 3M - 50" indicating that the amount requested was $20,000 in hundreds and $3,000 in fifties. First National'• "Cash Out Credit" docum~nt that First National paid $23,000 in "Big Bills to Perry evidences Co Bank." . Later on May 25, 1990, Lindsey traveled to PCB's office in Perryville. Prior to Lindsey's arrival, Ainley spoke with Robert was before or Hill. It is not clear whether this conversation initial conversation with Lindsey. According to after Ainley•s Ainley, Hill was concerned about the· currency reporting requirement. Ainley claims that Hill asked if a transaction over $10,000 had to be reported, and that he responded in the affirmative. Ainley stated that Hill mentioned that Marty prepared and filed Satterfield, the person at PCa who ordinarily CTRs, was on vacation. Hill &aid that since Satterfield was not on the'premises, if Ainley took care of the transaction, it would 7 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 16 18-1621-000837 APR 17 '94 P.9 09:22PM ii] not be reported. 2 Satterfield has confirmed that he was out of town on May 25. He has also acknowledged that the $30,000 withdrawal was suspicious and that he would have required a CTR to be filed. According to Ainley, Lindsey arrived at PCB shortly before or shortly after Tracy Hill returned from First National with the cash. Ainley and Lindsey waited in Ainley•s office where another bank employee, PCB vice president Helen Brandon, delivered and counted out the $30,000 cash in their presence. At this time, according to Ainley, Lindsey gave Ainley four checks in the amount of $7,500 each. Each check is in the amount of $7,500, · and was signed by both Lindsey and Gloria Cabe. (Cabe does not deny signing the checks, but claims that she has no recollection about them whatsoever.) Both the amounts of the checks and the payees ~re in Lindsey's handwriting. Check no. 326 is made payable to .· Committee to Re-elect Governor Clinton; no. ·327 is made payable to Clinton for Governor Campaign Committee; no. 328 ie made · -. payable to Clinton for Governor Committee; and no. 329 is made payable to Clinton for Governor Committee. However, the check stubs indicate that each check is written to the Clinton for Governor Committee. Ainley believes that Lindsey endorsed the checks while they were in the office. After Brandon delivered· the cash, Lindsey stayed another twenty minutes or so and thendeparted. Ainley has stated that a CTR was not prepared for this transaction because, during the conversation between Ainley and Lindsey when the withdrawal was first requested, they specifically agreed to break down the transaction into amounts ~ less than $10,000 so that no CTR would be filed. Ainley stated ~ that Lindsey made the ultimate decision on how this transaction -n...A 1 would be conducted. Ainley said that no one at the campaign, n~;::~Q including Lindsey, had ever expressed concern regarding the ~D processing of checks, and noted that checks drawn on PCB accounts are processed in-house. 1 Ainley stated that he informed both Robert Hill and Bruce Lindsey that no CTR had been filed. 2 Since a call between Hill's office or residence and PCB is a local call, it is not possible to corroborate a telephone call between Ainley and Hill by reference to terephone toll records. · 3 See discussion processing below. of Lindsey's concern about check 8 AM HICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 17 VERSIGHT . 18-1621-000838 APR 17 '94 2. P.10 09=24PM The November 2, J990 transact1on As with the primary election that had been held in May, the Clinton campaign spent a substantial amount of cash to fund its GOTV initiative for the November 6, 1990 general election. As before, the campaign sought the cash four days in advance of the election. Ainley has stated that his first contact with regard to the November 2 withdrawal was with Robert Hill. Ainley believes that this call occurred the morning of November 2. According to Ainley, Hill informed him that the Clinton campaign needed to make a cash withdrawal, and several times asked whether it needed to be reported. Ainley stated that he replied that such currency Ainley claims that, at transactions did have to be reported. Hill's prompting, he asked Marty Satterfield whether it was Satterfield•• view that the transaction would need ~o be reported. Satterfield agreed that it did. Ainley said that after he spoke with Hill, he spoke with· . Lindsey. Ainley claims that Lindsey eaid 'that the campaign needed to withdraw cash, and expressly asked whether the withdrawal would have to be reported. Ainley said that he told Lindsey it did, and that Satterfield was going to be handling the transaction. · Long distance telephone records do not indicate any telephone calls between PCB and the Clinton campaign or Wright, The records Lindsey & Jennings during the morning of November 2. for November 1 show a one-minute telephone call from PCB to Wright, Lindsey & Jennings. Perhaps that was when Ainley and Lindsey spoke. The records for November 2 show a call from PCB to the Clinton campaign headquarters at 3:33 p.m., but that is hours after the transaction occurred. Ainley said he proceeded Ainley said that had a sufficient inventory of $22,500. Satter~ield checked sufficient cash funds to honor amount. by Lindsey. to process the withdrawal requested Satterfield whether'PC-B cash for the campaign to withdraw and reported that PCB had the withdrawal request in that he asked On November 2, 1990, campaign manager Gloria Cabe approached at the campaign offices, and Glenda Cooper, a campaign volunteer asked her to drive to PCB in Perryvtlle to pick up a package. Cooper has testified that Cabe gave her the name of a man at PCB (Cooper cannot remember the name) and told her that this man would give her something to bring back to the campaign office. Cooper assumed that the items she was to pick up were campaign related articles, such as signs. Cooper left campaign headquarters at approximately 10:00 a.m. and arrived at the bank at approximately 11:00 a.m. 9 AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 18 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000839 ·· APR 17 '94 09:26PM P . 11 and ~as herself at PCB, Cooper identified Upon her arrival and met with a female bank representative to an office escorted whose names she cannot remember. and a male bank representative,· in the room asked Cooper to provide a One of the bank personnel check or checks so that they could give her cash for the learned that the purpose Cooper first At this point, campaign. cash. of her trip to the bank was to obtain that Cabe Cooper said that she advised the bank personnel the male and documents, or checks any with her provided not had the campaign and said that he would telephone representative to provide Cooper with the cash attempt to obtain authorization then left the office; The male representative to be withdrawn. the a short time later and advised Cooper that he returned had been resolved. 4 The male mechanics of the cash withdrawal to the female representative then instructed representative Coope~ to complete the withdrawal. obtain the cash necessary left the room and late~ said that the female representative with the · cash. returned at some point Ainley that, recalled Marty Satterfield from the vault him and asked him to withdraw $22,500 contacted went to Satterfield office. and to bring the money to Ainley•s and fifties in $6,000 hundreds, in $14,000 obtained the vault, vauit·on the from withdrawal the recorded He $2,000 in twenties. was withdrawn from the Five hundred dollars a "Cash OUt" ticket. to $22,500. withdrawal total the bringing drawer, thus teller•• Cooper Glenda office. Ainley's to cash took the Satterfield in $22,500 the out counting representative female the recalled Cooper bag. bank plastic a into put was cash The her presence. said that she put the cash in a secret compartment of her Volvo She returned wagon and left the bank at about ll:30 a.m. station 12:30 approximately at cash the with headquarters campaign the to p.m. back at the According to Cooper, when she arrived gave Ca~e went to Cabe's office, she immediately headquarters, bag of cash, told Cabe that she had been the plastic picking up such a large amount of cash, and stated uncomfortable cooper that she never again wanted to be put in that position. she that Cooper approached her and advised said that Cabe later unhappy was Lindsey that Cabe stated had spoken with Lindsey. that Cooper had been sent to PCB to pick up the currency on . behalf of the campaign. According to Cooper, Cabe informed her that Lindsey had her in Cabe to tell Cooper that the IRS might contact instructed 4 Telephone the Clinton toll campaign records do not show a call between PCB and during the morning of November headquarters 2. 10 fOIA '~'S~GH VE AM RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 70104938 Page 19 .::: 18-1621-000840 APR 17 '94 P.12 09:29PM IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6{e) - Grand Juryl I the future regarding · this cur~ercy withdrawal. Cooper said that to file a form with the Cabe informed her that banks are required !RS reporting cash transactions 1over $10,000. Cooper said that to her that-Lindsey had stated Cabe had recounted that, should the IRS contact cooper regardins this transaction, he would take about the care of it and that she should not be concerned 1 possibility of being contacted *Y the IRS. Bank record8 confirm that $22,500 was disburse4. on Nov~rnbe~ 2, 1990, pursuant to a request by Lindsey made by telephone to Ainley, and that the funds were received by ··cooper at · 11: 08 a. m. Satterfield recalls that he prepared a CTR for this transaction. ~ Be signed the document, obtained Ainley•s signature on it and placed it in the stack of mail to be delivered to the Post Office. A copy of the CTR was placed in PCB's files. the November 2 According to Ainley, a short time after transaction, Hill called him and asked him if he could "get his hands on" the CTR. Ainley said that he understood that Hill was referring to the CTR report prepared covering the November 2 withdrawal. Telephone toll records show a telephone call between Branscum•s office and the Clinton campaign headquarters at approximately 11:18 a.m. the aware that neither Lindsey nor Bill wanted Ainley aaid that, filed, he went through PCB's outgoing mail and retrieved CTR Cooper aaid that a short time after November 2, shE! ---questioned her neighbor, Tom Holland, a oertified public aooountant, concerning bank reporting requirements of cash Cooper said that Holland advised her that banks transactions. are required to file a form with the IRS which reports cash in excess of $10,000. Cooper said that she did not transactions specifically discuss the $22,500 transaction with Holland. Holland said in an interview that, ~hile he could not deny that Cooper had discussed CTR requirements with him, he had no recollection of that conversations. 1 Cooper has advised us that, due to her concern _that of cash by the 1990 Clinton campaign could be analogized Watergate conspiracy, and that she might be described as lady," she has not discussed with anyone her involvement cash withdrawal. PJ~ ~'$~ G Hf 1 the use to the a "bag in the 11 IA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 20 18-1621-000841 APR 17 '94 09:30PM the Ainley CTR. conversation that P.13 eaid that he he had pulled later told the CTR. Hill in a telephone Ainley maintains that, on a following Friday morning, he gave the CTR to Hill before a meeting they both were attending. Branscum waa also present. Ainley said he delivered the CTR to Hill stating •you may want this." The CTR was still in the original envelope addressed to the IRS. According to Ainley, Hill accepted the envelope, folded it, and put it into his pocket. Ainley left the copy •of the CTR in PCB's files in the event that bank examiners reviewed the file. 3. Branscum and. Hi-ll's appointments Five weeks after Governor Clinton won re-election, Bruce Lindsey called Clinton 1 s scheduler and asked for an appointment· for Robert Hill and Kent Dollar (a friend of Hill ts ,. and the _ outside auditor of PCB) to meet with Clinton to give him $5;000 to $6,000, and to "put in a word for Herby Branscum to be appointed• to the State Highway Commission.' Gloria Cabe testified that she had no knowledge about this meeting, but that it was unusual for Lindsey to get involved in commission appointments. Hill and Dollar met with Governor Clinton on December 14 at the Governor'a Office. Dollar testified that the meeting lasted about 15 minutes. He said that he delivered about $4,000 in contributions from other persons to the Governor. He did not know how muoh Hill delivered, but campaign records indicate that Hill and Branscum and persons related to them gave approximately $10,000 in contributions on December 14. Dollar said that Clinton asked him whether Bra~scum would make a good Highway Commissioner, and Dollar indicated that he would. Dollar said that Clinton did not discuss the issue with Hill at the meeting. On January 23, 1991, Clinton officially appointed Branscum to the Highway Commission. __ At the end of 1991, Clinton also re-appointed Hill to the State Banking Board. (Clinton had initially appointed Hill to the Banking Board in 1987.) Cabe said that she had one passing conversation about Hill's 1991 re-appointment with Craig Smith, Clinton' • ataffer in charge of making appointment recommendations. She testified that Smith mentioned to her that Hill waa going to be appointed, and _~hat "we might as well appoint our friends.ft Cabe testified that she did not know why ' The Arkansas State H~ghway Commission is one of the most powerful governmental agencies in the State. The Commission is one of only two commissions constitutionally independent of the Governor. An appointment to the Highway Commission is for 10 years. 12 AM nlCAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 21 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000842 APR 17 '94 09:33PM P.14 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6{e) - Grand Juryl I Clinton would consider Hill to be a "friend," as she had never Hill in political or banking circles. Smith does not recall any of the specifics of the appointments of Hill or Branscum. I heard of I I Apart from the timing of the appointments {especially Branscum•s), we have not been able to corroborate that the appointments were rewards to Branscum and Hill for their efforts in avoiding the filing of CTRs for the currency withdrawals. Branscum and Hill will presumab4y be able to call witnesses to establish legitimate reasons, s~ch as party loyalty and expertise, for Clinton to have appointed them to their respective positions. I 13 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 22 18-1621-000843 APR 17 '94 P.15 09:35PM IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jurvl I b. Preee reporte cf Lindsey's explanations - -4:...- In connection with news accounts disclosing Lindsay 1 a target status, Lindsey's principal counsel, Allen Snyder, has indicated the allegations made by that Lindsey will deny in all particulars Neal Ainley concerning their conversations about CTR reporting requirements. In an Associated Press article-published May 9, 1995, Snyder "offered the explanation for a transaction that Whitewater prosecutor• have called an •overt act' of a criminal conspiracy in which an Arkansas banker already has pleaded guilty." According to Sny~er, Lindsey ueed four checks of $7,500 each not to avoid filing a CTR for a $30,000 transaction, but instead "to 14 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 23 18-1621-000844 APR 17 '94 09:37PM avoid creating somehow exploit P.16 an issue for political an •unusually large opponents, transaction.'"' who might Through the press reports, Snyder also has amplified Lindsey's alleged concern that bank check processors might leak to the press that the Clinton campaign had withdrawn large sums of cash. Press account, Snyder According to the Associated stated that people who stamp checks at banks during weekends "An often come from outside firms or are temporary employees.• article might appear on a Monday or Tuesday when.there wasn 1 t even time for the campaign to respond to whatever kind of allegation might be made," Snyder is quoted to have said. s. Hill and Erenacum•s account Hill and Branscum have twice stated in interviews with us that they had no knowledge at or about the time of -=~hec1;1rre_ncy transactiona that the transactions had even occurred .. Hill and· Branscum have both claimed that they first l~arned that the· Clinton campaign had withdrawn cash from its account in late 1991 or early 1992 when Ainley mentioned in passing to them and Charles Roland (a director of PCB) that the Clinton campaign had withdrawn cash during the 1990 gubernatorial campaign for "the brothers in east Arkansas." admits While he doee not recall the specific conversation, that it sounds like something he would say. I Ainley I There are no documents which indicate that Hill or Branscum 1 were involved in the cash withdrawals. A case against Hill. ·::; depends entirely on Ainley's testimony~ In our view, there is no case to be charged against Branscum on the current record. 1 IFOIA{b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6{e) - Grand Juryl 1 When interviewed on April 22, 1995, at the White House, President Clinton did not refer to the $30,000 transaction as being "unusually large," Instead, the President stated that because the sum of cash was only a "modest" amount, there would be no need he could think of to have to hide the transaction from anyone. • Ainley has told us that PCB did not use temporary employees during this time period. 15 AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 24 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000845 APR 17 '94 09:39PM P.17 D. The campaign's explanation of the the ]990 Get out the Vote Initiative withdrawals -- As discussed above, the Clinton campaign conducted a Get Out tha Vote program during the primary and gene ral elect ions in 1990. Carol Willia was responsible for the GOTV program outside of Pulaski County. According·to Cabe GOTVgenerally consisted of small payments of an average of $40, made out of a small petty cash fund of $200. GOTV monies from the fund were given to persons to drive voters to the polls, purchase gasoline and to buy lunchea for campaign workers. Cabe described the prog race-neutral terms. Cabe acknowledged that Arkansas law ram in prohibits cash disbursements by a campaign in excess of $50. Cabe was responsible for deciding what would be allocated for the GOTV program and specifically cash what receive to conduct the GOTV programs in areas outs~4e Willis would of P~~a County. The campaign trusted Willis to spend his GOTV.monies s~i · properly. Willis believes that he was the only person in the campaign to receive cash. - -. . Willis explained the GOTV program differently than Cabe. He stated that Clinton's campaign strategy relie d heav ily.o n winn ing the black vote. According to Willis, the white vote in Arkansas is split about evenly between the Democratic and Republican candidates. Accordingly, for Clinton to win he needed to capture the support of the black community. (Cabe confirmed this as well.) According to Willis, GOTV was primarily a black voter initiative. Willis recalls requesting $30-34,000 for the 1990 primary for his use in getting out the black vote. He believes he may only have received $25,000. He believes that he aske d for $50,000 for the general election but believes he received only about $30,000. Willis claimed that he recei ved his cash fund ing in envelopes in installments of about $7,000. He bega n recei ving installments about a week before the applicable election. ·The largest installment he recalls receiving was abou t $10,0 00. He received his funding in installments beca use the camp aign did have sufficient sums to give him all that he wanted in a lump not sum.' Willis would divide the money, place it into other envelopes which would be delivered to coun ty coor dinat ors. He claims that he ordinarily requested his GOTVcash in $20 bills because large bill• were hard to br~ak and the payments he made generally were in small amounts. • As noted above, the May 25 and November 2 withdrawals were made on the Friday befor~ the election, or only four days before the electorate voted. 16 AM f ICAN pVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 25 18-1621-000846 APR 17 '94 09=41PM P.18 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Gran d Jurvl I one of the GOTVprograms Willis dev eloped was entitled "preventative maintenance." Wil lis clai med that this program had not been used in any previous cam paig n. "Pre tative maintenance" included cash payments to blacks ven whi ch, according Willia, to was for them to give speeches in sup port of Clin ton, against his opponent, or to be neutral in the elect;ion .· Prior to the general election, Willis prepared a memorandum · addressed to Cabe and Clinton in which he outl ined GO TVprograms~ he proposed. The memorandum was prepared three or four weeks before the November 1990 general elec tion . In the mem oran dum "preventative maintenance" was desc ribe d as foll ows : "In every campaign there are persons that can not do muc h for you but stifle can your efforts with their personal prestige. Something has to be budgeted to mediate that at." Included in the memorandum was a list of people thre to whom he proposed to make "preventative maintenance" payments. This memorandum, which lists eighteen separate individuals in a county-by-county breakdown, budgets payments ranging from $200 to · ssoo. 10 While Willis sometimes made projections or esti mat es of proposed GOTV expenditures, Willis did not keep records of his actual GO'l'V expenditures . Rather he kept the records "in his head." Willis acknowledged that directly or indirectly made cash payments at or near the amountshe indi cated to a large number of . --:;;.10 Willis said that he gave the memorandum to Cabe, but does not know if Governor Clin ton or Lin dsey rece ived it. admitted that both she and Clinton Cabe received copies of the memorandum, but said that neit her she Clinton read it in any detail. Cabe said that she knows that nor Clinton did not read it because the two of them discussed during the campaign that they had not read it. Cabe said that Wil~±s was the only person at the campaign who used the phrase "pre ventative maintenance." Lindsey said that he had never seen recently, and that he did not know whether theWilmemorandum until lis had conducted a preventative maintenance program similar to what is described the memorandum. Still in othe paign representatives hav ever hearing of "preventative r cam e den ied maintenance." 17 AMFR CAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 701 04938 Page 26 VERSIGHT . 18-1621-000847 APR 17 '94 P.19 09:43PM payment maintenance" as "preventative the people listed 11 and preachers. ware teachers These generally recipienta. payments maintenance" said that "preventative Willis Initially, to the However, after being referred were in the $50 range. in the memorandum, he amounts listed maintenance" "preventative payments he made maintenance" "preventative that the acknowledged on page than $50 and were close to those listed were far greater received He noted that one person probably 6 of his memorandum. claims that he was unaware of the $50 limit on cash Willis $500. by a campaign. expenditures E. post~guilty Ainley•s misapplication plea allegations of PCBfunds by of Bt:anscumand Hill Ainley, plea, ~e began to debrief Within a day of his guilty · to the Clinton contributions and when we touched upon Ainley•s in,Afnley 1 s . . . campaign in 1990, his lawyer gave us·a proffer Branscum and Hill in a pos~ible. Ainley, that implicated presence ,_ ~- . Jay Bequette, Ainley•s · counsel, of bank funds. misapplication ~~ contributions~ made all Hill Branscum and advised us that Ainley, ~o--!Z t, campaigns, and 1992 presidential 1990 gubernatorial to Clinton's ~ ' those of reimbursement received and sought them of each and that ~A~('.,vV' ~ direction, Hill's at that, said Bequette PCB. from contributions J' ' to expenses" "miscellaneous for PCB to claims submitted Ainley -A~J, made wife his and Ainley contributions in $1,000 than more cover 11 1 0¥~ V/v said that Ainley knew that Branscum and Bequette to Clinton. of to PCB for reimbursement made applications Hill likewise they made. contributiona because in these allegations interested We were particularly they would give us leverage if they were true, that, we believed Hill and Branscum to come clean on the to persuade in attempting The day with the investigation. and cooperate CTR transactions we issued a subpoena to PCB for bank the allegations we received and and travel of miscellaneous reimbursement regarding records Hill and Branscum during the expenses to Ainley, entertainment most·of- ~--the May 11, we received On Friday, time period. relevant proffer. Bequette's They do not corroborate subpoenaed records. of our subpoena and of the results Bequette see whether Ainley to immediately Ainley with confer to asked him his allegations. to substantiate information has any further and by information, us with additional Today Bequette provided whether PCB did in fact Wednesday we hope to be able to determine and if so, how. At this reimburse Ainley for his contributiorts, time we time, however, we cannot be sure that with additional We have advised 11 identified A number of the individuals and have acknowledged have been interviewed, near the amounts listed. in the recetving memorandum suma at or 18 AMF-r{ICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 27 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000848 IFOIA(b)(7) - (C)I AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 28 18-1621-000849 APR 17 '94 P.21 09:48PM IFOIA(b)(7)- (C)I \ c. Other Substantive charges and limitations gerlods In addition to the CTR offenses and possible conspiracy charges, the facts would support charging one or both of the following substantive offenses, on the theory that were "reasonably foreseeable" acts by a co-conspirator (Ainley) in above. Under Pinkerton furtherance of the conspiracies discussed Y, IInited States., 3.28 U.S. 640, 647-48 (1946), each member of a conspiracy is liable for each substantive offense committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of the .. conspiracy, provided that the substantive offense could.be "reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement." 14 16 The issues of whether an act (a) was in furtherance of a conspiracy and (b) was reasonably fore8eeable to the coconspirators are factual determinations for the jury. Here, 20 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 29 18-1621-000850 IFOIA(b)(7)- (C)I Fire~;,there is Ainley's O.S.C. S l~0l when he 20, 1991 t~at'~CB had in excess o# $1-0,000. violation is fi~ years here would take ua to false statement in violation of 18 to the FDIC on February falsely certified filed a CTR for The limitations from the February date 1996. every currency transaction period for a Section 1001 of the statement, which \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ There appears to be\a valid argument that Ainley committed a Section 1005 violation when he failed to prepare a CTR for the · May transaction and failed to retain a copy in the bank's files. The regulations under Titl~ 31 not only required Ainley to prepare and file a CTR wit~ the IRS, but also required him to retain in the bank's files, copy of each CTR filed. 31 C.F.R. § 103.~7(a) (3). We would conbend that the failure to place a copy of a CTR in the bank's files\had the tendency to deceive bank examiners into believing that,no currency transaction had occurred for which a CTR was warranted.is \ - - Note that this is superficially inconsistent with our . charge against Ainley that his causing a copy of the CTR of the to be maintained in the files of the November 1990 transaction bank was a false entry on the theory that the copy of the CTR represented something that was not true, .i......c:L_,that a CTR had been filed with respect to that transaction. But we believe that the two false entry charges are reconcilable: the failure to place a CTR of the May withdrawal in the bank 1 a files was a false 15 21 PJ~ ~'$~ G Hf 1 IA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 30 -- 18-1621-000851 IFOIA(b)(7) - (C)i \ The proposed theory would appear to fall within the ac~epted principle that an omission where an honest generally entry would otherwise be made can be a false entry for Section 1005 purposes.\ Pn1ted States v. Copple, 827 F.2d 1182, 1187 (8th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 u.s. 1073 (1988). The law is wellsettled that, where there is a duty to accurately record a transaction, a fatlure entry. Eighth Circuit 6.18.1005. \ constitutes a false Madel Jury Inetructione, Instruction No. to make such a record However, we have\ not found any case in which a court has to retain a CTR in the bank's considered whether the failure files (where no origin~l CTR was sent to the IRS) constitutes a Section 1005 violation., Note that, if a court were to accept convert every failure this theory, it would es~entially to file a CTR into a false entry vi~lation. That may make the theory unpalatable to some courts,, and we need to recogni~~ that tqer~ is an unquantifiable risk ~hat this Section 1005 charg~ may be · declared legally invalid. \ µ ~ ~ ff '-------------------------,, ,51-'111,.n:JvJ_~ IHE DEFENSE STRATEGY ANDOTHERPROBLEM$ ~~ \ \ because it misled bank examiners'into believing that no currency transaction had occ\irred, while placing reportable a copy of a CTR of the November transacti011 in the bank's files was a false entry because misled the examiners into believing that the November withdrawal had been reporte~ to the IRS. In both cases, the bank's records failed to refle~t accurate information regarding the underlying transactions. '=-____,,.,......,....,.--,---,----------,---,----~ entry 22 AMERICAN FOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jury FOIA(b)(7) - (C) FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 31 P VERSIGHT , .- 18-1621-000852 IFOIA(b)(7) - (C)I "\'' ' \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ A, A1nley•e motive to co~mit tbe crime \ . The beet argument we have is that Ainley had no personal · motive to violate the CTR re~irements, unless instructed to d~ ~ ao, as he otherwiae had nothiµg to gain. B. Ainley'e demeanor Ainley is a youthful and,clean-cut "All American" sort He has a wife Arkansas. a prominent family in northeastern good initial two small children, and will probably make a impression on a jury. Ainley visibly from and However, even with extensive preparation, we can expect to be very nervous if called upon to testify. He wa~_shaking during his guilty plea. Moreover, Ainley•s recollection is sometimes faint, and he cannot always recall with specificity what was aaid in critical conversations. He often does not speak clearly, and frequently recounts the same conversation in ways that are significantly different from one recitation to the next. Ainley is not / 23 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim . Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jury( p~~I~'$~ G Hf DIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 70104938 Page 32 18-1621-000853 bright, especially able to fend well examination. c. Specific and is not for himself cross-examination who will of witness the sort crossd extende an under be attacks in on Ainley's·credibility strong attacks We can anticipate ing follow the to lines of attack as including cross-examination, areas: by White House described Ainley•s plea agreement, 1. in which five felony counts Counsel Abner Mikva as "fabulous," were reduced to two incarceration years exposing Ainley to thirty The t. onmen misdemeanors with a maximum of two years impris provid a e to defense will contend that Ainley has agreed version of the facts in accord with what the particular • 1. want to hear. prosecutora Discrepancies investigators to Ainley 302s: forth in 2. made by ·in stateme~ts and inconsistencies ·as sec 1994, 5, July and on June 21, 1994 on June 21, Ainley interview In his first CTR had been filed for the a told the agents that initially in the later confronted when Only November 2 transaction. filed. been not had CTR did he admit that a interview Ainley stated that he withdrew the CTR that Marty b. from the prepared for the November 2 transaction Satterfield stated Ainley 5th July On it. outgoing mail and destroyed yed destro not had he that and that he gave the CTR to Hill it as he claimed earlier. a. Ainley stated several . times during his June 21 c. that the campaign conducted only one cash interview At the than $10,000. for an amount greater transaction May n ction-i transa second a was there time, Ainley knew that and the . -:.1990, but he did not admit to this transaction ew. intervi 5 July the to file a CTR until failure On June 21 Ainley stated that the bank did not d. cash to accommodate the $22,500 withdrawal have sufficient by Lindsey in November and the bank had to requested However, the bank institution. cash from another purchase It was the May withdrawal cash in November. had sufficient where cash had to be purchased : that Lindsey had asked On June 21 Ainley recalled e. requirement. whether there was any way around the reporting checks of less Ainley said that he suggested consecutive Ainley days. over consecutive than $10,000 negotiated cash that the needed he that ded respon claims that Lindsey 24 fOIA J~'~;1GH AM RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 33 18-1621-000854 IFOIA(b)(7)- (C)I \ day. It appe~ra that on consecutive\days May transaction'rather November. ' this discussion of checks negotiated in connection with the the one that transpired in may have occurred than \ 3. Ainley•s pro\estations of innocence, as articulated by his lawyera and family ~embers, at the time of his arraignment on five felony counts, .contrasted admissions in op 7n with Ainley•s plea to two misdemeanor counts, in wh~ch court during his guilty he agreed that he had engaged in misconduct identical to that for had be~n indicted. which he originally 6. That Ainley has an axe to grind against PCB because PCB accused Ainley•s friend and business partner, Jeff Glenn, of check forgery, the event that·led to Ainley•s resignation from the bank. This charge so infuriated Glenn that two months ago he filed a defamation suit against PCB• 17 ·· 7. That Ainley is biaaed against Clinton, and therefore against Lindsey. Ainley voted against Clinton in every election except the 1990 gubernatorial then race; he voted for Clinton • only because Clinton was a PCB customer. of the above-described Not all areas of potential crossconcern. For example, we can establish that the so-called audit of Ainley•s activities after his departure from PCB was expressly "commissioned" by Robert Hill to discredit Ainley after federal investigators began to make inquiries about the Clinton campaign's transactions at PCB. Nor are we overly concerned with criticism about Ainley's examination give us significant 11 In addition, if we are unable to substantiate Ainley•s allegations that Hill and Branscum obtained reimbursement of their contributions to the 1990 and 1992 Clinton campaigns, the defense will also contend that Ainley•s allegations were lies. 25 AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 34 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000855 plea bargain favorable in criminal be expected for some of potential to find D. its are typical -- such criticisms is there Nonetheless, cases. cross-examination expected this and are to certainly of Ainley mark. Lindsey character testimony credibility, on Neal Ainley's attacks to hostile and Lindsey ate incrimin to lie to motives of his and suggestions r characte of parade virtual a e Hill, we should anticipat Hill. extent, in support of Lindsey and, to a lesser witnesses of number a with hips relations nding Lindsey has long-sta of his independent figures prominent Arkansas political such expect can we and Clinton, Bill with relationship good 's Lindsey about testify to called be to individuals States United s• Arkansa of both expect would We character. groµp. _ this among:. be to Pryor, David and s Bumper Dale Senators, In addition Moreover, in view of a recent news account discussing we can even for the cash withdrawals, explanation Lindsey's to Lindsey from the person who favorable expect to hear testimony Clinton's arguably was one of the victims of the GOTVeffort, In a McRae. Tom opponent in the Democratic primary, principal 12, May on front page story in the Arkansas Democrat Gazette benign Lindsey's as "accepting" 1995, McRae is described than one rather for cashing four $7,500 checks explanation that if concern check, that is, that "Bruce had a mild $30,000 the at checks check, somebody processing there were a $30,000 to · "go and partisan" anti-Clinton bank might be a very hostile the press" on the eve of the election. E. 0tber · "environmental" faQtors facts of the case, Apart from the particular problems: additional to face the following we can expect nature of the the "technical" The defense will stress the Clinton that fact the The jury will hear much about crime. account, own its from cash campaign had every right to withdraw file a to failure bank's and that this case is merely a.bout the will defense The nt. governme form with the federal one-page need governmental there may be a legitimate whil~ that, str~ss or ng trafficki drug detect to y for CTRe where it is necessar the of all with even here, ion prosecut the money laundering, of the OIC, cannot prove that the funde were used for resources purpose. an illegal 1. crime The defense will contend ·that this technical 2. were not ts defendan the of one if ed prosecut been would not have The jury will be told that to the President. a senior advisor to embarrass local boys effort d motivate this is a politically and to reinforce s, Arkansa e denigrat to who have made good, 2.6 -~GHf OIA PJ1~'$~ RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 35 18-1621-000856 negative public perceptions "Arkansas mores." (by "Northerners" or "Easterners") of 3. We are outsiders, to both the jury and the judges. In the past few weeks we have had occasion to appear before district judges on matters including Neal Ainley•s guilty plea and several in camera hearings on motions to quash grand jury subpoenas. The judges presiding over those matters have made comments that make us worry whether the OIC will be treated impartially in a highly publicized and politically-charged proceeding. In one episode, occurring in Judge Susan Webber Wright's chambers following the Ainley plea, Judge Wright commented that she had read in news accounts that several sentencings had been put off to permit time for the defendants to cooperate with the • OIC, and that this office's practice of asking for pelays i~ sentencings had been the subject of some criticism in the community (which we understood to mean within the federal . courthouse). Judge Wright expressed hope that Ainley•s · sentencing would not be delayed, and stated that a request for a delay would be looked upon with disfavor (although she indicated that she would probably grant such a motion to postpone sentencing if asked to do so). Another episode involved Chief Judge Reasoner, who in the last week entertained three separate motions to quash subpoenas for documents, including a motion filed by Lindsey. In the course of the hearings on these motions, Judge Reasoner referred to Bruce Lindsey's good reputation in the local legal community, and questioned us about news accounts he had read in which Lindsey's attorneys had claimed that Lindsey had no motive to hide the transactions because the campaign made a public reporting of GOTVexpenditures only a short time after the elections. Also, in discussing our arguments, Judge Reasoner essentially reformulated our burden in the hearing such that we were required to show that the Clinton campaign was so worried that Bruce Lindsey wou~d be about the risk of losing the election tempted to do something that he would never otherwise do -violate the law. IFOIA(b)(7) - (C)I ..... ..... CONCLUSION 27 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104938 Page 36 18-1621-000857 IFOIA(b)(7) - (C)I AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Dodd: 70104938 Page 37 18-1621-000858 Screened by NARA (RD-F) 07-25-2018 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) DOCID: 70104942 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 1 18-1621-000859 (REVIS~0 MA~ 31, 1995, SUPERSEDES APRIL 6 MEMO) Prosecution (Confidential--Contains To: ore From: Stephen Re: James Date: May 31, Memo Grand Jury , Attorneys P. l Information) Learned B. McDougal 1995 1 I. Introduction II. The Approach Taken III. The Indictment IV. Lisa Aunspaugh A. B. The Events Of 1984 ..... The Formation Of Designers Construction .. The Maple Creek Home And The $64,000 Nominee Loan (Counts 1-4) ...... . The Acquisition Of 1308 Main St. And The October 1985 Loan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Relationship Between Jim, Susan, and Lisa . The Sale Of 1308 Main To Bill Henley Lisa's Mother, Bessie Aunspaugh. McDougals' Use of Designers Construction Funds The Indirect $25,000 Payment To McDougal And The California Trip . The Events Of 1986 .... Proposed C. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. V. The A. B. C. VI. $18,000 I Seth To A Prosecution And The Statutes And Designers Rent Payment Henley (Counts (Counts Henley Takes An Investment Tax Credit The $18,000 Payment To Henley .. Ward And The Piper Beminole (Count 7 . Construction To Bill 3 Of McDougal 1-4) 8-9) 10 10 11 12 17 19 21 24 26 31 33 36 36 37 41 I 5) 43 \ A. B. C. _ \ The May 5th Letter: Ward Agrees To Buy The Airplane . .\ . . $25,'~oo For An Airplane McDougal Receives In Need Of Repair . . . . . . ., . . . . . Ward Settles With Madis©n Financial . --y ~J.A AMERICAN PVERSIGH ffi~ o~ 45 47 49 \ '1FOIA(b)(3)- Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e)-Grand s 16302) Docld· 70104942 . Page 2 Jurvl 18-1621-000860 0 VII. Eric Sorensen A. B. C. D. E. The The The The The A. B. C. X. A. 0 56 Homes ... 58 61 61 63 (Count 10) . Fee Invoice The Consulting (Count 11) Questionnaire The Management McDougal And In Charge Confronts The Examiner . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Latham . to McDougal The Law As Applied In A Capacity" "Connected A. To Such Institution" "Belonging B. The Law Of Misapplication--Intent C. And Fraudulent Entries False D. ............... 1006 Section The 52 54 54 and The Palmer, Robert ... 10-11) (Counts The 1986 Examination, Questionnaire Management VIII. IX. Two Maple Creek Homes .... Need To Borrow $27,000 Invoices Two 1984 Inflated Maple Creek Sale Of Sorensen's Invoice 1985 Inflated December 51 6-7) (Counts Invoices Inflated And The Lisa 1-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . Defense Construction . . ..... . . . . . . ....... To Defraud Under Participation And Designers Aunspaugh . And McDougal's McDougal Against Case . 64 . 70 71 . 73 . 74 (Counts 74 . 74 Loan Restrictions Insider An Is The Sale And Loan A Sham Or Just . ....... Accommodation? Loan the False Did McDougal Create 3. . ............ Application? And Aunspaugh With Relationship McDougal's 4. • • • • • • • • • • • • • O O 0 , O 6 $ The Inconsistent Prior Aunspaugh's Lisa 5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Statements Construction of the Designers Use McDougal's 6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funds (Count 5) Seminole Seth Ward And The Piper . ....... 6-7) (Counts Sorensen Eric 8-9) (Counts Henley Payment To Bill The $18,000 Questionnaire Palmer And The Management Robert . .... . . . . . . . . . . 10-11) (Counts 1. 2. B. C. D. E. Appendix: Fee Invoice In A Case Against John Latham And The Consulting Questionnaire The Management 1. 2. Using Bank Board McDougal . . . _O Regulations 68 68 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 80 83 85 89 92 97 103 105 . . 106 108 109 ii SNG AMVFfllCA FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 3 ER I HT 18-1621-000861 0 Introduction I. of indictment count the from received a wholly 0 1986 cost Eric a 21 year Sorensen, Henley, the formerly Susan Henley, of Madison Guaranty Susan from Oc~ober 1984 and national McDougal's sister; married Bill the Henley, its The proposed in losses. Lisa from at .1 $100,000 individuals: decorator interior a Danish in in ending removal approximately five specific commenced Bank Board encompassed involves old stem in McDougal's and . McDougal Home Loan institution indictment The proposed Aunspaugh, below outlined abuse indictment wife, his resulted which examination insider and in Federal when the 1986, savings against charges Loan and Savings insured ab~beginning of EESr March stock the of cent memo. April Corporation, Financial federally and McDougal memo our in Guaranty of Madison ·- recent indictment. proposed Madison of chairman comments this was stated 6 April our as possible our chartered, association. The proposed acts more to revisions a state 77 per and discusses of what subsidiary owned account comprehensive all, not was the Association, owned draft April discusses McDougal into a multi- of supersedes It The memo takes but most, also loan McDougal. To be as information. It James subject. memo on the repeats the support in evidence forth memo sets This the Rock; Little time to a former Paula state 1 0 i ) over removed from any influence McDougal was effectively under when the Bank Board, Financial and Madison Madison Guaranty to sign an all encompassing Madison forced of a lawsuit, threat in the summer of 1986 which dramatically order and desist cease . operations Madison's changed 1 AMFfllCAN O FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302) Docld : 70104942 Page 4 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000862 ~ w "I >fc,)-i A~ 0 counts misapplication three the In a nutshell October and at his until wife and provided 0 in mentioned Also started at Madison. Officer of Madison became the Chief Latham are different officer, resigned Latham was appointed subsidiary. Financial Despite 0 this conceal to Bank Board, Home Loan material an loan, lease. a bogus of Madison two officers Both were young when they the Executive Chief was 29. when he was Officer Financial members a nominee when Latham Guaranty family made Latham McDougal Young Greg Young and 25. personalities. who had been McDougal, Madison 9 andE E3am Guaranty, other documents, memo are this himself Federal and sale, estate real acc~mmodation enriched to statement, from that, McDougal In order misleading and financial a false omissions, statement false one alleges funds the from false created McDougal James 1986, unearned self-dealing of pattern indictment one · false Sorensen, and proposed institution. the of Eric Aunspaugh, February 1984 expense the involving to respect with run Ward. Seth involving count already Lisa involving count statement has limitations of statute year ten The appraisals. Guaranty Madison backdating to guilty pleaded ~- who appraiser Rock a Little Palmer, Robert and businessman; µ; C,,:,AR~J( Arkansas a wealthy Ward, Seth of Susan; and brother senator \cV1~· from Madison Guaranty's Board But McDougal remained Madison CEO. Corporation, this the in 1984 as the and Latham when CEO of owned wholly institution's McDougal change, executive chief Guaranty's never 2 AMFfllCAN FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302) Docld : 70104942 Page 5 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000863 - 0 half upper his office Pat with Latham II. the where cashiers to be his door his with Taken The proposed indictment estoppel collateral any conceivable appeal to an interlocutory give rise 431 U.S. 651 {1977). v. Abney. Avoid might States In the Guaranty Strauss transaction of The thrust to entitled Financial had from profit ten the and the (2) the case government's per cent fraudulently sale of of the Developers Master was that net annual enriched two portions himself of the defrauding with (1) two transactions: to respect with Madison basic that argument under United was charged McDougal indictment, 1989 four the follow to attempts below: forth set Of McDougal To A Prosecution The Approach 2 office. Latham's from and his the with worked Heritage Pat while to messages carried and closed in remained Latham orders. take to morning met Heritage assistant. executive Latham In 1985 checks. processed the near and customers from away kept Latham area. entrance foyer split back, every principles 0 in Heritage hired staff Madison's area operations office of the in office prominent the kept McDougal offices. switched who was of Madison by booking 145th Levi transaction. McDougal, profit the Street artificial property 2 0 He count. entry to one false guilty In 1989 Latham pleaded (from "nonthe terms on a note he had changed that admitted a loan that loan, on the Davis Fitzhugh to "recourse") recourse" Latham McDougal trial. in the first covered was prominently the examiners to deceive unilaterally he did this that admitted he that of Latham) is typical (and this as well but claimed note were terms of the Davis Fitzhugh the original that thought he had Although he made to the note. with the change consistent as .a he testified with the government, a plea agreement signed 1990 trial. in McDougal's witness defense 3 AMFfllCAN FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302) Docld : 70104942 Page 6 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000864 0 that Madison property Financial later became known was artificial, according sales in were Madison question Guaranty commissions with paid to arguably financial in ------3 case. ad hoc cent There investment to undisclosed book notes. served 1989 estate is by pointing annual net motivated out profit to that of artificially because as the were two financed by arranged the purchasers' Developers, indictment there resembles of Castle ten Grande, per imposed were does not profit the the but government Madison a ten Financial inflate or a nominee the six The allows it Madison and an Madison involves Guaranty. sought to tarnish per cent bonus and therefore Financial's per Aunspaugh. McDougal or documents, Madison notes, loan Lisa it because of 1989-90 Financial. because expense he received bonus, involving fraudulent at cent involve this nonrecourse on Madison transaction artificial case The profit statements. self-dealing the The Estates. Hastily Highlight those instances in which members, through deception or false the expense of the institution. In 1985. The sales of Master however, real Grande sales. McDougal's transaction Financial case October government, purchasers limitation accommodation this "sham" no mention indictment, in Castle the proposed commissions, proposed But the is to the In the false as nonrecourse downpayments. Nothing 0 had purchased family gain at McDougal on the was profit. 3 0 Sam Heuer, McDougal's lawyer, succinctly summarized the 1989-90 case in his Rule 29 argument when he told the Judge: "Their whole case is based on the theory that a 6% limitation was imposed on the savings and loan's investment and they had to.shed assets an,_d that created these two sham transactions." (T. 708). AMERICAN 4 FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104942 Page 7 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000865 0 There are two weaknesses bonus was a normal McDougal's of the his is, Financial's Madison the real declining of resulted the in Board estate real prices" which McDougal net or personally regardless of any focuses family gained economic member, at the the 1989 role of the examiners With the bank case, fraud was on McDougal's the intent the {ii) gain term by term·· only what of Since a large these investments if happened. Madison portion of or classified other a large down of Madison's the "declining assets on discrete through real transactions deception expense of the in and false institution government misapplication to defraud to practically intent to ignored deceive statutes, Madison. 4 deceive the But the them. entire this 4 0 the short value and motivation and McDougal's and is and to long cent scenario. Emphasize McDougal's intent the Bank Board examiners. In the Bank Board write eliminates It some documents, the tied the This to per worth. indictment defense. in ten compensation in down" tied The severe a negative estate "wrote estate, loans. The proposed crash. the least, gains loses were of at investments. loans Arkansas portion institution Bank Guaranty's term McDougal or {i) basis short stabilize the approach: disclosed on the prices 1986 this While bonus, estate In early o fully institution. taking real gain to focus presented There are two counts in the 1989 indictment which charge violation of 18 U.S.C. 1014 (submitting false financial statements). These counts allege among other things that the false financial statements were submitted "for the purpose of influencing the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. 11 But the ... indictment fails to explain how they might have influenced the AMERICAN a 5 FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104942 Page 8 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000866 0 problems and for injure the the prosecution. institution McDougal's lawyer that, McDougal's his with wife's McDougal the entire Guaranty. fraudulently cent it for to owned? and the from transaction to explain extent of his sense for Madison came defraud At trial, who attempted bonus profit the wife made no economic book counter which corporation. and regulated. for defrauding that Financial from indictment shareholder. But indictment charge defrauding the of examiners this were an institution eight of McDougal Bank Board dual indeed in and when Madison victim approach defrauded) is McDougal owns that to the counts federal strictly the institution, its shifts an institution with majority of the (both it to an any McDougal deceiving (by deceiving just are loss he is eleven with not fashion by the charge which the to activities show economic an institution is insured its does is Madison are reason we will defense that liabilities Since proposed McDougal's emphasizes Its government benefit his want 5 indictment the 10 per financing he and McDougal a CPA witness ownership, One way to Q that produced stock to Why would the proposed examiners or examiners). Madison the and focus that The the away from the public Bank Board. In fact, the 1989 indictment never alleges that McDougal intended to deceive the bank examiners. Moreover, there was no testimony at trial from an examiner who might have explained the examination function and the materiality of various false statements. 5 0 The testimony of defense witness Milton difficult to follow and may not be correct. was unable to counter it. AMERICAN Halford But the at trial government is 6 FOIA RD 56806 {URTS 16302} Docld: 70104942 Page 9 P VERSIGHT . 18-1621-000867 0 in. on McDougal was placed that on the fact Capitalize Agreement. with the 1984 Supervisory notice in surfaced signed 1990 the a cease and Trust, in Bank and bank which and agreement by making the Bank Board being the other), (Madison Guaranty by 1985 McDougal III. 0 be able of bank examiners Indictment And The Statutes The proposed indictment utilizes and (misapplication) jury, to defraud Madison of section 1006 examiners. to intent defraud 657 only used only when we allege We have used the is the he that and Bank § 657 provides Whoever, connected corporation an officer, being in any capacity or association the an in pertinent the and an intent false entry intent to Madison its for simple matter clause deceive clause participation (by deceiving Board 18 U.S.C. defraud of clauses the fraudulent to an intent 18 U.S.C. statutes: when we allege In contrast, Guaranty. both we allege where To keep section used we have the that prove to entryylause the €~e on clause. participat fraudulent two Two different 1006. namely, -----0._6.._a_r=e-::u=sed, ........ ::,__. the we will The Proposed §§657 two victims the them. deceive to was motivated aware was acutely of one 1984 the By highlighting controlled. he also (FDIC insured) a small Arkansas, Kingston, Madison regarding 1983 in order consent desist McDougal that disclosed Nor was it trial. never by McDougal, signed Agreement, Supervisory 1984 The 0 a stake have jury) the of members and depositors the (including Guaranty and an examiners). part: or employee agent with ... any savings of ... the accounts of or and loan which are 7 AMFfllCAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) VERSIGHT - bocld:70104942 Page 10 18-1621-000868 and Loan Insurance Savings by the Federal insured or purloins abstracts, ... embezzles, Corporation credits, funds, any moneys, misapplies willfully to belonging of value things or other securities of an offense]. be [guilty ... shall institution 0 of or ·· or employee agent an officer, being Whoever, and loan with ... any savings in any capacity connected of which are ... the accounts or association corporation and Loan Insurance Savings by the Federal insured ... Corporation clause] entry [false or any any such institution to defraud ... with intent or any or corporate, body politic company, other auditor, any officer, or to deceive individual, or of of any such institution or agent examiner makes any States, or agency of the United department of or to or statement report in any book, entry false ... or ... any such institution, clause] participation [fraudulent or any States the United to defraud ... with intent or institution, or any corporation, thereof, agency participates section, to in this referred association any or indirectly directly in or receives or shares any through or benefits property, money, profit, or any other commission ·, contract, loan, transaction, or institution, act of any such corporation, of an offense]. be [guilty shall association, 0 The (i) Sorensen; and (iii) Henley as Bill The In each only an intent follows: the of use AMF-f{ICAN clause of section 1006 the false entry statute to deceive the examiners. 1985 December payment of months covering the the (i) Eric in $18,000 which building. the entry false 1986 February payment, a lease to funds Financial Madison McDougal's owned never Henley of payment 1985 McDougal's (ii) Aunspaugh; Lisa to loan nominee $64,000 the times: three statute misapplication the uses indictment December to 0 part: pertinent in provides §1006 18 U.S.C. such June entry 1985 in Lisa the Aunspaugh books of is used five alleges indictment The loan Madison five times. uses application; are as (ii) Financial 8 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 11 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000869 0 regarding a payment Financial lease consulting fee 1986 the to submitted Questionnaire Management 1986; March in Palmer by Robert submitted invoice the (iv) Henley; Bill from Main Madison backdated the (iii) Sorensen; Eric on 1308 March the (v) and to examiners. The times. three 0 In our be below, status 1985 [an account the receipt of amount to McDougal, interest for expose in proceeds our lost that factors charges relating the order through his upon other and more discussed to the account. Construction account loan Based of specific for an account funds, status. the still 1985 July McDougal charging Designers the from airplane. Construction any to $25,000 the the and (ii) 1985; of recommend Aunspaugh the 3, overdraft Construction Designers received in we will Nonetheless, the always directly traced we do not overdraft Designers calculation conservative could of use was almost that on July of the to proceeds memo we proposed April free interest the for $25,000 the of receipt July in Construction Designers as loan (ii) owed money], McDougal which account Construction Designers are 1985 June the of receipt the (i) follows: essentially is uses The three prohibition. used is 1006 section clause participation fraudulent interest of a conflict of clause participation fraudulent The McDougal's jury to the show that use of he account. 9 AMFfllCAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 12 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000870 0 IV. Lisa Aunspaugh A. The Events Except for wallpaper, home with her mother, her favorite Christian 1984 Lisa and All 0 After did Susan not told assist furniture trust her that builders Madison Central to and accessories Lisa Robertson's she spent for then the to main office at Main Maple Creek Farms 1501 or at Walls Madison Susan offered someone the In seeking in needed a year College. at store confided Susan to One of Career the lived According was working gone 6 Pat school had contacts, employer. at South when Lisa Susan of Madison's the at She trusting. is) high or naive. Datsun. and still After Lisa numerous Lisa renovation help that Lisa with St. other a job. the and to development 7 sites. Lisa for Susan had just started placed so much trust without turned working irregular. 7 Maple Creek Financial AMERICAN in Susan that she what her compensation 20 and was too shy to Susan She recalls Lisa told orders Madison knowing for 6 various 0 store. advice, 1-4) carpeting, and a 1981 (and decorating Design offices. was met fixtures, religious, Network. McDougal decorating she was sincere, interior (Counts inexperienced and drove TV channels Susan colors, was parents Broadcast studying paint Aunspaugh her Construction Of 1984 choosing Lisa at And Designers in that Susan that were placed. February she her raise 1984. had worked employer was agreed would the be. topic. Her pay for to Susan cheating work She She was for Madison when Farms was a 1300 acre development owned by. approximately 20 minutes from Little Rock. 10 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 13 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000871 0 approximately you?" three Lisa said no. Throughout It the supervision. rest She worked interior and exterior She also did miscellaneous Marketing, and space for Mercedes. financing. signed loan one of note B. told and her continue Susan her was going into the give since was necessary. the full work loan. in decorating the going one to cent Datsun and she The never had in one to made payments According was due year to the with only 0.5. Construction called Lisa consolidate company work car application. She only Ex. time a new 100 per her attractive her were her a loan Jim McDougal advertizing She sold Of Designers Madison wanted submitting payment. run fixtures. she would amount and if offer. more selecting Financial. her told 1985 came up with asked 8 paid. Susan's purchased and Madison the it under Susan car they renovation owned which Madison we paid finally wallpaper helping Madison "Have and builders, carpeting, chores the The Formation that she contractors without interest In January worked 1984 on the note, semi-annual of that payments the was accepted when Jim McDougal terms and Lisa that was all make periodic Susan Jim McDougal and a $20,000 Mercedes was mid-May Guaranty 1985 Lisa her, Susan Madison business asked with He explained leasing before colors, a company In January 0 months through name Designers and that this to all she office. the construction was going company. Construction. his He to Either Jim or Jim McDougal 8 0 She was paid $3000 in the form of two identical $1500 checks. It appears from her 1984 tax return that Lisa received $7500 in payments over the eleven month time period. AMERICAN 11 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 14 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000872 0 told her to company. It was not reluctant to ask McDougal explained customer whatever cases the used to to pay Lisa time payment Steve costs plus be Madison in or early per 1985, Jim bill the cent. In· most or markup was she was but individuals cent the would eight per and would collected the periodically and who should come to 1985 Lisa and Jim McDougal say know of any Directors to pick companies could bills tell then be that when they her be paid. when it was Occasionally, Jim issued Lisa had and that 9 papers. for that up papers. incorporation stock told a corporation office standard a approved Designers he was making she should The papers Ex. 1. But Construction go to she Lisa or picked does any not Board meetings. The Maple Creek (Counts 1-4) In approximately Kingston role Construction were checkbook Construction and her some point The eight bills Cuffman's office what for account an invoice. up were C. Lisa At would the the In April Designers to Designers its would of a bank Lisa. pay contractor of that Jim McDougal to open clear Madison. kept arrived. and questions. customer connected 0 go downstairs told that her they Home And The $64,000 March that were 1985 he and unable McDougal Susan to sell. had Nominee called Loan Lisa a modular He told her to his home in that they 9 0 Steve Cuffman recalls that somebody at Madison (he does not recall who) asked him to incorporate Designers Construction .. Thereafter he had no further dealings. AMERICAN 12 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 15 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000873 0 planned to He told her wanted move the that to use signed which does going recall on April Promissory $7200 0 to the 5, 1985, an $800 check the lot. Ex. Jim check account.u The $7200 statement. 20, 1985. shy to Ex. her later signed had told she lot At the for her the a closing, downpayment that she it recall reading) a $1000 in read attending (without deposited (Lot She does and her by Susan} questions. it. own account name and She never 3-4. it. no further an $8000 Office Exs. sell their gave 2. signed then in ask signed Quapaw Title she it for 10 actually where and sell and Acceptance McDougal (apparently lot McDougal was too from A few days Ex. not and Mortgage. wrote Farms turn, when she Note 5. could Creek Typically, March she reimbursed. Susan an Offer downstairs closing in was dated not a Maple name. Lisa, Lisa and he and Lisa's explanation. 747) home to would on be Flowerwood personal 6. Promissory Typed in the Note space contains a material designated for the false purpose of the jFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6{e) - Grand Jury) 10 Pat Harris signed the Offer and ~cceptance on behalf of was ~elling Maple Creek lots Madison Financial. In 1985 Harris on commission. As a recent college gra uate, Harris had worked on McDou al's 1982 con ressional race. arris is current ya pu 1c an was a 1993 graduate of the University In a bizarre twist of events, Harris, who part to cooperate with the investigation, Susan McDougal. I 1 1 I efender in Nashville of Michigan Law School.' continues for the most is currently engaged 1 1 tp I 0 uFlowerwood Farms was a company owned exclusively by the by "S MGDougc!-1," McDougals. Although the $1000 check was signed Lisa could not be sure that Susan signed the check. AMERICAN 13 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 16 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000874 IFOIA(b)(3} - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e} - Grand Jurvl I I 0 loan is the Lisa to had Maple she These funds to Like 0 this she to stated Jim the not a $64,000 (the and earlier be her was committed loan. to for personal moving the residence." house from 12 know when it papers June 1985. Note and Mortgage. in Promissory purpose Susan's lot tot do with additional signed "buy" to and does signing 1985, "purchase nothing Creek remember used statement loan She never a monthly of the modular for happened. loan payment Lisa that of She does On June 28, Ex. "personal") 7-8. were 13 home. $7200, noticed was Kingston never considered by signing $658. It the loan was an 12 Sue Strayhorn, McDougal's secretary, routinely screened McDougal's calls. She recalls talking to individuals involved in moving Jim and Susan's home from Kingston to Maple Creek. The individuals had questions directed to McDougal. Only after Jim and Susan were removed from the bank did Strayhorn learn of Lisa's involvement with the house. 13 0 According to Robert Palmer, his partner Bennie Beard did a legitimate appraisal on lot 747 (without the house) dated April 1, 1985. The value of the lot was $8000. Palmer himself actually signed the appraisal. Later in July, according to Palmer, Beard did a second appraisal of the lot (with the house attached). Beard valued the lot at $69,250. Palmer can not say that there is anything wrong with this appraisal. However, Beard dated the second appraisal March 1, 1985. Palmer believes from other documents in the file, i.e., the certification sheet signed by Mariann Richards (using Palmer's name) dated 7-1-85 that Beard's 3-1-85 date is a typographical error and should have been 7-1-85. Beard's photographs show leaves on the trees which would not have been possible on 3-1-85. Exs. 9-10. · · AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 14 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 17 18-1621-000875 0 obligation that attention the to Jim the Mercedes would details. loan of the lot loan. Ex. Title paid Lisa funds into the o which of this telephoned her days he handed later Other than no input and her in the it Ex. overstates McDougal told her the loan card states that but her did is her that deducted, to not Quapaw deposit which that credit these she did. "Residential read. Her only Jim McDougal card application information, balances. and Lisa she i::laims A few signed it. have had income side to application. a number (Attached) income The application that shows by an undated application for 12. cent. no earlier--$7200 were account signed contains her she costs her The application statements. Lisa loan Lisa's closing asked loan off accompanied loan credit paid recognized $64,000 Construction is so Lisa clearly the to pay the Designers Application" recollection used After loan and Lisa for $56,087.79. The $64,000 Loan were 11. her loan. statement proceeds for Whereas was her The settlement part handle For ($3,682 lists receives example, a month) her $682 of material on the by more monthly a month false salary in than as 50 per $3000 and rent. Her bank account indicates that in 1985 she was receiving regularly $1000 I a month from Madison Marketing. There is also some ~dditional I deposits to her (approximately tax return $4000) (prepared from that almost Madison appear Marketing to a year be after in income. the 198~ Her ~985 $64,000 income loan) I 0 AMERICAN account 15 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Cri~. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 18 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000876 0 indicates that Designers Construction with a net $15,000 she profit contract total income of 1984. Her total income. worth. 0 the application, of her purported the time the building's grossly on her net in Ex. in 1985 13. return also profit her This from expenses return leaving also 1985 less her listed 1040 was a big reported contains out a net worth listed a jump -from than $10,000 be hers. of high worth of school, in 15 Nor did at also $16,000--a statement Lisa, $101,000. a building The application property a misleading was attributable 1308 Main, to value. Contrast financial $24,445 Her years had personal gross 14. understand inflated. 14 14 tax three equity in As a result application to and other income Just "$135,500" fees. Ex. The loan had $11,380. $26,508. 1984 $35,825 but of in net received a listed that Lisa she have lists figure according Three to fourths did any her Lisa of not idea at of furniture claims is 16 the $26,508 statement. with the $44,184 (12 x $3682) listed 15 According to the documents, Lisa assumed Jim Guy Tucker's $47,000 mortgage on 1308 Main--a building Lisa remembers as Sues Barbershop--on March 22, 1985. On March 25, 1985, at McDougal's direction she wrote and delivered a $12,000 check to Jim Guy Tucker. Sometime later Tucker deeded 1308 Main to Lisa. Although she signed various documents, Lisa never understood that her name was being used on this property until Jim had her borrow $125,000 on 1308 Main to finance its renovation. Unlike her Mercedes, 1308 Main was something she understood she was holding for either Jim or Madison. In any event, Lisa had only "paid" $59,000 ($47,000 assumption and $12,000 in cash) for 1308 Main only three months earlier. 16 A month or two earlier, Lisa had moved out of her parents' home and moved into West Side Creek Apartments. According to Lisa's mother, Bessie Aunspaugh, Lisa had taken some of her 16 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 19 18-1621-000877 The Acquisition Loan D. 0 In early two story "Sues the 1117 deliver $45,000 it mortgage that she a deed of is dated actually the the Tucker. in which she building. 22, it to 1985, McDougal personally on that date. is dated to Lisa to account had Lisa as and sign an Tucker's The Assumption• Lisa 18 times told assumed 16. although also down Madison Construction Ex. that at from McDougal 1985 a run to $45,000 1985, Lisa Main St, referred Designers 15. signed property 25, Ex. March 1308 had borrowed from on the And The October and McDougal Tucker check to owned On March Agreement Agreement Lisa building. a $12,000 Assumption 0 both Barbershop. write Jim Guy Tucker building purchase to 1985 Of 1308 Main St. does Tucker not also March 22, know executed 1985. 19 furniture from home. She bought a sofa and a bed. The bed was purchased, according to Lisa, at a garage sale. Lisa's parents bought her a TV. According to Bessie, Lisa never had any personal property, including clothing and jewelry, that could have been valued at $16,000. 17 Sues Barbershop at one time had been a tenant but recalls that in 1985, before renovation began, homeless were living in 1308 Main St. 18 properly Lisa does recall dated (March that the 25, 1985). $12,000 check to Tucker Lisa people was 19 Although the Deed is ostensibly executed March 22, 1985, we know that it was executed in October 1985. We have a letter dated October 9, 1985, from McDougal to Tucker in which McDougal tells Tucker that he "should execute the enclosed Warranty Deed to complete the assumption of the 1308 Main St property." The letter goes on to say that if Tucker "will just return it to me, I will take care of having it notarized and recorded." Ex. 16.5. Sue Strayhorn has told us that she sent the letter and deed to Tucker in October 1985 and that she later notarized it in accordance with McDougal's instructions. In the lower left corner of the deed is the statement "prepared by John Latham, attorney at law." This statement, according to Strayhorn, was placed on nearly every deed utilized by Madison and it does not 17 AMFnlCAN VERSIGH FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 20 18-1621-000878 0 Ex. 17. Main the Accordingly, for $12,000 other hand, Tucker check 1308 that (in October used in o her needed her that loan was closed to The file purpose of the her mind the "ownership" of told building. Only later understand for that Like loan had was used October a $125,000 her the loan name was being Maple something to loan Creek she has it. name was being a promissory note no loan pay Ex. Tucker's 21. loan that they papers to The $125,000 Company on October and mortgage. 20 investment." off her used. application. "business assumed. 1308 Main and When he gave and·Title to came up when McDougal renovate Abstract contains were Lisa for Beach signed 18-19. that on had not documents as Lisa, in her her 1308 McDougal the 1308 Main going pay that at Lisa Main hold Lisa mortgage. with house, building. the were realized proceeds that they she loan she considered funds 1985. Creek sold connected Agreement signed the his never name to did Tucker Jim or Madison. sign 15, Maple with remembers the she when Lisa Lisa Lisa told the 1308 Main, for of Assumption connection holding assumption the 1985) transaction, least, that he was using renovate at recalls Unlike her to and her and Main. on paper Exs. The stated $49,000 Madison loan of the on 1308 The remainder, mean that John Latham, Madison Guaranty's actually prepared the deed or ever saw it. 30 year old CEO, Latham confirms this. 20 0 There is a Robert Palmer appraisal, dated October 2, 1985, with a value of $247,000. This is not an "as is" appraisal. Instead it appraised the value of 1308 Main contingent upon a host of renovation plans which specifically included increasing the square footage (rental space) of the building. Ex. 20. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 18 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 21 18-1621-000879 0 approximately $74,000, Construction at a month before monthly payment. the obligation that E. Susan Like October loan Maple Creek the $125,000 loan Jim would 1985, to Designers handle for earning roughly obligated house be her felt it, including Jim seemed to and he put pressure this fact, her arrangements her mother, her loan, her in to $2,000 a $1,286 Lisa obligation, never but rather some manner expected them of that and going to her an or to this was share with "play and her with him but she had about at bank. Jim the Pat with Harris Despite in Jim never had games around. room with Jim no one in own room but a single Jim mental told was not California with First, interested when Susan Lisa relationship who was working Susan have and her. seemed p go to to end Susan, bothered Bessie, to Jim, about on Lisa agreed for risks to be aware she She to uncomfortable - 1985. wanted Two things advances She Between Lisa McDougal. made sexual knew the the The Relationship By late of recalls the 21 fashion. 0 when Lisa a time taxes, considered her." into account. In short, and was deposited the had twin been summer made beds. She to 21 0 Lisa is corroborated by her mother, Bessie Aunspaugh, who worked as a Madison receptionist in 1985-1986. Bessie Aunspaugh was shocked when we showed her the loan application which listed Lisa's net worth in June 1985 at $101,000. According to Bessie, Lisa was so trusting of Jim and Susan that she would sign anything they placed in front of her. Bessie has told us that Lisa never told her that she was buying a Maple Creek house or that she owned 1308 Main--a building that Bessie knew was being renovated two blocks from the Madison Guaranty office. But as we discuss below in our section on Bessie Aunspaugh, Lisa did not keep her mother informed on some important matters. AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 19 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 22 18-1621-000880 -., 0 California of and wanted Lisa, Jim's had we pressed advances to from Lisa about to most or she us that, with her for and not despite recent ever the interview succumbed pressure, Susan Fort regarding in Lisa materials whereby Worth Lisa saw this would enable point Lisa more franchise her told Dallas provided to she to Jim that and flew Madison she of the was purchasing 1985, know that with them Lisa Susan Pat to Aruba. solicitation tapes, and training corporations sessions. impressed and not had leadership solicit training a new line always a telephone selling would and was as leave did to was·· who In March books, and once Susan Jim responded seminars than Harris. whereabouts. a franchisee leadership Fort Pat a company The company for Susan lying: a vacation. 1986, Worth of (Susan's) In January franchises. 0 told was tired Aruba met Lisa conduct At our on whether preoccupied Jim Lisa Harris she it. 22 not. romantically took see her and Secondly, lie to to She visited by the promoters. work--something McDougals. this that At some franchise. 22 John Latham, who was married, also made at least one unwelcome advance to her. Lisa, on the other hand, was interested in Larry Kuca. But Kuca already had a girlfriend. Both Kuca and Denton recall Lisa dressing, on occasions, like Susan (i.e. with the low cut blouse}. Kuca found this somewhat out of character for Lisa. Denton, who had very little to do with Lisa, recalls that she simply followed Susan around serving no "economic purpose to Madison." Kuca recalls that Lisa "had no business sense." Sue Strayhorn, McDougal's secretary, has described Lisa and Susan as two "peas in a pod" who often dressed alike. Strayhorn has described Lisa as nice but "immature." 20 AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 23 P VERSIGHT , 18-1621-000881 F. 0 The Sale A review periodic it of work to Lisa. however, not began approximately other Sometime o in sell acquainted played with to borrowed the told Greg the Designers the proceeds recalls building McDougal $60,000 work, in to to sale Lisa's particularly her to account personal and told to pay her for her 1308 Main $190,000 her conveying the Ex. 24. McDougal proceeds a few days that into $60,000 25-26. Designers renovation. sales Henley remaining after Lisa 23. Exs. office he was Ex. loan the to work the a deed Guaranty. his on the was casually of account. returned 23 in. Lisa 1986. and Vernon brother. of Henley's in that executed account 1985 when Lisa he was Susan's $130,000 of moved told 15, conveyed expenditures, Fitzhugh, Henley. Madison Tucker that was complete Davis Lisa shows months and was unaware from when she her five employees on January put before renovation Bill because Construction called This request, $190,000 that, last 1986 McDougal Henley into the January the account Construction Financial in Young Designers 1986 when she, Henley Bill the earnest. At McDougal's building Construction Madison the no role price. of made until in Henley on 1308 Main even January and to Designers The bulk renovation ready the was done were Dutton Of 1308 Main To Bill of Lisa off, Jim he had placed Construction He told her as 23 Lisa can estimate the time when renovation was complete based upon some of the checks written to various contractors. For example, Lisa recalls that the Designers Construction check to "Business Communications of Arkansas," dated January 7, 1986, paid for the installation of the telephone system. Ex. 22. 0 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 21 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 24 18-1621-000882 0 well that she had pay off her Mercedes loan which she promptly did. A review of on vacation writing she Designers time away we assume Lisa shows sold and the that this of the the told off her check Network. bank about to told that planning to 21, mother's she off her Bessie and account loan. 29, Lisa that before she wanted McDougal 15, spent sites and 1986, 1308 Main was 15, and Saturday, her account January 19, to Luther in January she wrote amount holiday. On of that check she was Management the her a Broadcast personal explained Leadership ask her a fundraising a $15,000 has 18, and ordered King the of account. Christian transfer could Lisa 15, personal from and 1986. her Lisa us that 27 interview responded to days development wrote Aunspaugh. told around April Martin car day our a check a franchise several Robertson's she wrote January purchase Incorporated us Pat she into in On Sunday Monday was the pay mother, money to On Wednesday her the every her, January and was not She was We know that January $10,000 January to various was deposited Lisa account. for On January of Tuesday, at records loan. on CBN. to bank car telecast bank around Wednesday, She has $21,337.39 working that virtually out the occurred the her bank away on vacation. $60,000 McDougal her checks from following. between hit however, was pointed away from Sometime personal $60,000 had been A review shows, Construction being she pay records When this recalled thought to bank when the mid January. o to money to to return-some her of -o·-_ \I ... 22 AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 25 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000883 0 the $60,000 the money to for Lisa's fear that proved to $20,000 of funds because McDougal the Designers to sign to Lisa to and (for a total personal 31, to 3, Lisa this the of Designers she leadership had Two weeks take to enable way of namely, she $15,000 her undoing to use 0 the Lisa to the returned close authorized in the her not Lisa to out her mother amount of her of the car mother's $60,000 did not to like $60,000 February of the account. to cost But buy the her $18,000. back, Lisa decided account franchise. do only her January $10,000 funds McDougal's the in on Friday, would her account funds Construction the $10,000 mother's enough had of the on Monday, her leadership With off account realized Designers of pay payment in behind McDougal $21,000 personal have she the herself. As a result parked remainder some of money check $20,000 . to $20,000 the of account was insufficient her acting the remainder 31, the transfer there purchase what returning to personal temporary which from retrieve the Construction. would later, to Lisa overextended back Construction--something planned account. temporarily that use Construction he needed Construction franchise to that cover transferred meant her $46,000), to to January Designers Robertson, $15,000 account $15,000 the already Pat try On Friday Designers had contribution loan, to would name on Lisa's payable But McDougal be valid. told or purpose. Construction Lisa's $20,000 Construction some other $60,000 the 0 Designers in This a few days order was her earlier, Designers doing to since buy she the had franchise. 23 AMFnlCAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 26 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000884 0 Lisa had her sign check payable Construction deposited into return to Lisa's Lisa's transferred to her check needed mother her in and Fort make Worth that (which did G. Sometime in at Lisa home, at odd jobs Madison office late or 1501 the the mother Lisa Lisa to had write She Construction bank since franchise. Lisa was She needed would from that in the also her clear Timex while she work telephone She as at 1985, came to office who worked $15,000 franchise. check off early the Main. her her to account Aunspaugh laid mother Bessie Marketing had Designers deposits Bessie was answering also enabled leadership $18,000 then original This buy was 20). Mother, her the Designers which Lisa $15,000 18 to Aunspaugh and Randolph the on February told of the personal 1984 Aunspaugh account. necessary Madison. at $3,000 sign a $15,000 account. purchase to Lisa's Bessie help to her Lisa personal mother's the name to to on February make sure it Lisa's account an $18,000 check Q mother and Susan of Susan the needed a receptionist time and Madison temporarily relieved at the in 1983. was still on a part for back Lisa job living part time basis, Lisa doing in the Guaranty Kirby bank's main the check entrance. Susan for Jim and also gave Susan's private Tucker-Smith-McDougal, Development Co.). one to account Bessie and According another and the job of accounts, Pembrook to such Manor Bessie, Bessie keeping would as (but Flowerwood not Jim would prepare White register Farms, Water move money a check-. for from Jim 24 AMERICAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 27 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000885 0 to sign. Bessie reconcile to the and accounts also signed when location out checks the in the monthly to the that register but statements the Bessie did were not delivered directed her checks. Bessie Bessie Designers because never write which Jim and Bessie $15,000 into her January 29, 1986, February franchise. the to writing 18, 1986, Indeed, leadership the sizeable but of the was not involvement could not remember her husband's) and that Lisa account which Bessie franchise. had Designers enabled has sure as concerned the Lisa's over does back of Jim it company although account. had parked account least $13,000 Nor could check the of not the She checking buy Susan's company. Lisa at or about the that no recollection Bessie Jim in Construction to be decorating a few weeks. Lisa the that interior returned within to Construction with as some in overdrafts authority a $15,000 0 AMERICAN and Lisa's most signatory (Bessie is Construction Construction had She Lisa Construction office check. did at t.-hat a check Designers some Designers account Susan's Lisa Amazingly, recall of Designers knew that funds least want Marketing the Lisa Construction of Madison work would the Designers was aware regarded those at regarded through work. she to Lisa checks explained decorating or write Construction Bessie Since the would Designer doing Susan, in of checks. some contractor. was kept company the office Jim, checkbook bank, a number name to of and written wrote Lisa's was often of the her. Bessie 0 recorded to Lisa on of she on leadership Lisa's purchase contradict-Lisa. 25 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 28 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000886 0 She corroborates Lisa signature checks and either Lisa, the on the direction remember also the to It the she and Susan that Lisa that and not not she the the why the at can checks. of who appeared reason . her checks She simply wrote question the wrote or Jim. that Lisa did originally not Bessie to overdrafts mother had made advances even that in she her with told run never in Lisa Lisa her . mother recently told with Bessie Jim told with Jim had made a trip Bessie about her was unhappy to Jim. her confide relationship know that a trip not thought. her have McDougals' improvement did matters of done Use of Designers Construction Madison Guaranty a number that According submitted would 0 Construction directed the of properties say and to that might us Lisa have approve owned by Pat to their Lisa, payment to and those For example, Harris, after bills Funds renovation besides or Madison Financial. on properties Kuca. McDougal she acknowledges (Bessie). Designers contractors Bessie that Susan, to be happy did would her Larry Jim much less H. work told that Bessie upset and we had appeared probably agrees on the however, never California, that be a problem. degree Susan. 0 Lisa appears, us that extent in which Construction appeared the circumstances corroborates Designers to of to the owned by it ordered Jim Henley, work Designers Lisa or home would and was done, the Construction. write the Jim necessary 26 AMFnlCAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 29 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000887 - 0 24 With then bill checks. would Guaranty owners an eight the owners and Madison were Designers slow per cent of markup, the Financial) to pay Construction properties for Designers account Designers the Construction (including Madison work performed. Construction. was almost But As a result always in the the an overdraft status. For example, negative balance for negative balance of account was in negative balance average negative Jim 0 the its for Construction six for 417 days, of McDougal for months, on May 31, 363 days. balance account first $146,000 existence and Susan Construction Designers Over reaching 25 1985. during those $36,123. Ex. were using their account also own renovation Ex. which 363 days, had a a high 28. it The had a it had an 30. the Designers work. On February 24 We have a memo, dated June 3, 1985, typed by Sue Strayhorn, in which McDougal tells Pat Harris to "pay Designers" and "list lot 747." Ex. 29. The memo is significant because it shows McDougal's direct involvement in the business of Designers Construction and the fact that he is trying to sell his modular home in Maple Creek (lot 747) that Lisa was about to "purchase" from Jim and Susan with the June $64,000 loan. Harris has no memory of the memo. But Harris does remember that Lisa and Susan had spent substantial funds from Designers Construction renovating his house in the Quapaw quarter in Little Rock. When shown the memo, Harris concluded that he was probably late paying Designers Construction and Jim McDougal wanted him to pay up. Bank records confirm this. On the same date as the memo, Designers Construction records show a $66,350 deposit from Pat Harris. 27 ' '.---,.,...,...,......,..-----,------,......,..-----,----, IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim . Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jurvl Af\i • CAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 30 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000888 0 22, 1985, Jim purchase and supported and would direction of renovation Palmer be done Jim and 1985. summer months the January 1986. $150,792 1985, work At times Lisa done account his thereby aggravating example, on June But of his by this over $40,000 June turned out Bettswood into (June), for the 28th $64,000 to be the renovation. largest These began during as late in the as of 27 to to 1985, the Designers compensate overdraft for lagged these behind status McDougal Designers of the the deposited Construction Construction account. had already spent McDougal turned 28. expenditures, funds with made payments the source Bettswood architect was done always loan the occurred payments Ex. major At the in the was that contractors payments Designers nominee 32. Construction the Bettswood assumed expenditures 21, on #4 Bettswood. To pay the McDougal's own funds time to own money expenditures, $10,000 Payments was making But For the to The loan involved on #4 Bettswood. of 31. Ex. some work expenditures. account. 26 and the $360,000 which became architect of Ex. house. Designers McDougal Construction the although In all, for Madison appraisal funds. The bulk of to Susan, Construction February from #4 Bettswood. by paying Designers borrowed "renovate" by a Robert renovation 0 Susan to of Lisa funds amounted Aunspaugh. to to pay This for the a deposit of to money #4 26 Not all of the loan proceeds were used, however, for the renovation. Nearly $100,000 of the loan proceeds were used to pay off five other loans that Jim or Susan or both had. 27 0 AMERICAN We have this figure from Lisa's ledger. Ex. 28.5. 28 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 31 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000889 0 $56,087--a deposit Construction account a temporary had versus just loan proceeds spent to the had that in and had Susan Construction February to close McDougal 1986, approximately negative on, account 26, Campobello Co. $56,087 Construction account, once nominee amount of out had what McDougal ordered $6,983,03. 29 28 Jim two weeks 26, more put Susan than it Designers and 1986, the day the the before account, Designers account. By Construction balance itself stood to write a refund McDougal then Lisa But Card. from into had and 33. Construction owed Designers The account McDougal for they Susan was deposited Ex. Express Designers received account on #4 Bettswood February the or proceeds) Within American nominee the from $25,000. $24,000 the in Jim more created In other $56,087 loan also from either the of until than $30,917. $31,026. contributed received personal point Lisa McDougals. an additional on McDougal's McDougal the than Designers It to had by the 28 coming But form the amount was temporary. spent From that Jim the took status. on Bettswood account surplus Construction 0 Designers on Bettswood $25,000 $4,701 going account. the (albeit spent amount more the account, McDougal the the it overdraft Jim McDougal $30,000 to of that vis~a-vis the before contributed to out surplus McDougals words, so substantial at a check borrowed Not all of the $64,000 was available since it necessary to retire Lisa's April loan which purchased the first place. was lot 747 in 29 0 According to Lisa, Campobello had made a prepayment to Designers Construction of $10,200 for renovation work, -not all which was needed. Her final payment to Campobello of $6,983.03 AMERICAN of 29 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 32 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000890 $40,000 0 from Madison Construction. This $39.31 {from as account's the more he deposited $9,400 Construction McDougal's have 0 home) we no longer payments were was a return of the account--$9,400 the for Maple the Creek McDougal's issue. assume the remainder that the McDougals' of those deposit, that 747 with Lisa's) benefit. Lot memo, Jim account But this Designers {Lot a more he April more. $16,367 {not Taking 30 Construction lot account Designers namely, into that the In our Designers was for this into the assumed 1986. received. opposite, Designers $39.31. to $38,000 from on the reconsidered position, loan figure spent more the received 27, $7,000 to a negative credited minute he and Susan McDougal to last what calculated $38,000 on February approximately we had earlier account was then of McDougal's than what the entry however, than and deposited Guaranty) final up paying Construction brought Madison As a result ended Guaranty 31 We conservative 747 improvements and benefit. proceeds. 30 We have a memo signed by Bessie Aunspaugh {Lisa's mother) on Designers Construction letterhead addressed to Madison Guaranty telling Madison to close the account "when all my checks are in." Bessie does not remember this memo. We have been unable to determine from bank microfilm who signed off on the debit memo that transferred the $39.31 needed to zero out the account. The Madison Guaranty general ledger shows on the date in question that its overdraft income account was debited $39.31. 31 0. According to Lisa, McDougal directed Lisa to make two payments on her $64,000 loan from the Designers Construction account. These payments add up to $3,649. The remainder of the $16,367 was spent on improvements to the property, such as landscaping and septic and interior decorating improvements that Jim had Lisa order. AMFnlCAN · 30 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 33 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000891 The Indirect California I. 0 On July made, Jim from the 26, $25,000 check Construction namely, This brought the also had from account Ex. write meant than what All to to told to of payment account) herself her write this from was to him a was done Designers an affiliated party, 34-35. payment either and 32 deposit check He then a direct Exs. And The $56,087 a $25,000 account. balance that the account Construction received to McDougal account by July 26, directly they had or put on July to an $11,000 1985, Jim indirectly into 26, the and 1985, negative Susan $28,744 more account. 33. And so it for after personal indirect To McDougal account. examiners Designers It to personal McDougal. McDougal the her the $25,000 balance. 0 her (a negative James weeks Lisa into from from Payment Construction funds disguise three told Designers the to 1985, McDougal deposit $25,000 Trip other benefits made a deposit. Construction 32 At $51,000) Bettswood. McDougal Guaranty 33 account The to McDougal Clark, the the source McDougal's 33 went. examiners in their examiner of these Kingston More payments to But Jim their always McDougal. deposits lagged were made on #4 Bettswood Occasionally into behind the what Jim or or Susan Designers they were eventually discovered this $25,000 payment 1986 examination. But according to Jim in charge, the examiners never realized that funds came from the $64,000 loan to "buy" Jim house. times Susan or Jim used Madison Marketing funds {over to pay Designers Construction for its expenditures on #4 Madison Marketing was a sole proprietorship of Susan through which she ordered advertising for Madison or Madison Financial. 31 AMFnlCAN VERSIGH FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 34 18-1621-000892 · FOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jury FOIA(b)(6) 0 receiving from free since loan status. the This account $38,000 1985, effectively borrowed 34 $18,000. into This affiliated is the for them always in an interest an overdraft when Designers Construction until 1986, February Designers interest account, free for an undisclosed use when McDougal the a year first McDougals an average of Madison's of assets by an party. There gained were from other the use Jim McDougal California. had never Diego created was almost money on #4 Bettswood, deposited 0 account. From February spent 1985 the four or her Lisa days. to Jim McDougal Construction take he wanted California five in which of Designers asked He told seen ways and agreed a trip to look personally money. with at to go. IA month In June him to properties. They were She in San I '------------------------- later McDougal 34 We have been able to calculate that, by failing to make timely payments to Designers Construction, McDougal caused an interest lost to Madison of $2,282. The overall interest lost to Madison from the Designers Construction overdraft status was $4,481. We have calculated this interest loss by assuming that Designers Construction had a 12.5 per cent line of credit with the bank. Overdrafts under this theory were treated as extensions of credit. We used the 12.5 per cent figure since this is the rate McDougal paid on his own commercial loan with Madison Guaranty that he obtained in May 1985. The $18,000 figure is arrived at by backing in the principle value of a loan for a year at 12.5 per cent interest that cost the borrower in interest $2,282. 35 0 Sue Strayhorn recalls that she discovered the trip when the airlines had called about the reservations. Strayhorn thought that the trip was to Atlanta not California. Strayhorn recalls that Lisa was embarrassed and told her "You weren't supposed to know about that." According to Strayhorn, Jim and AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 32 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 35 18-1621-000893 0 told Lisa that his American Express for the California trip. At his check to American had to pay out a Designers $4701.91. check Construction She gave McDougal wrote In February Designers for some decorating Campobello o Sorensen. to return Designers Susan's 37 to expenditure. at Lisa went the Two months Little She gave told account arrived and direction the Lisa and and the island to later, invoices the that lodge that she Express he wrote for memo portion 36 of the Ex. 36. card number. that he was closing and a spread records she would ·· with was needed Lisa sheet and Kuca and and told to gather returned itemizing Susan on Larry her out be needed office called checks. to she sales Susan Rock because prepared Campobello. in Express McDougal work Construction direction and American Construction Island. check had Of 1986 1986, the her his The Events J. Paula him the bill and the at each returned to FOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jury FOIA(b)(6) Susan had respect were not compatible for each other but with each other. had different friends and I 36 American Express no longer has records of the statement in question. But we do have copies of checks Jim or Susan wrote to American Express which reference the same American Express card number. These checks were written out of Jim and Susan's "424" personal account. Exs. 37-38. 37 0 Paula Sorensen was Susan's sister and Eric Sorensen's wife. She was separated from Eric at the time and eventually divorced him. AMERICAN 33 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 36 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000894 0 Lisa sensed time and the at know it to together Q Henley. Bill Lisa loan, told "$12,000 a year that to say her When asked Gerrish income," to that 1308 Main, before could gave the of to According Gerrish. to act it renovated carry get Construction. made a number $64,000 the to them two of Maple it had purchased she how she Lisa the about and her appeared Lisa not who met with Lisa say, did Bored Designers about to Lisa of the a telling someone Gerrish Jim wanted statements "bought" When asked investment. by Susan her from was Jeff lawyer the to 38 return. by a lawyer. be interviewed do. should she documents 1985 a call received Lisa was now tax It Construction Lisa's and around no longer what see to Lisa later, Madison. at Susan memorandum, when she initiative told misleading interview Gerrish's to Susan or inaccurate what decide on what Based told Susan interview. but time were Designers was contacted Lisa Huggins. to needed she that her and Susan who prepared 1986, In December a month for and various accountant Rock Little completed changed had looking went Lisa took Susan things that Lisa Jim Rock. Little to returned work decorating the With as sold and Creek it home an on a so much debt misleading own on her response that 38 0 as a Schedule Construction Designers lists The 1985 return of $35,825. receipts with gross of Lisa Aunspaugh C business a Designers Lisa reported and depreciation, deductions After to the In addition of only $11,380. net profit Construction fees." in "contract $15,000 an additional she reported $11,380, 1985 of her irregular consisted the $15,000 to Lisa, According from Madison. "pay checks" 34 AMFfllCAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 37 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000895 0 she had other that she customers gave these In November air received "her" the sales some bad Maple 40 contacted listed. foreclosure $34,500. the to Lisa 1985. it had her for sale May 1990 the RTC bought 39 Technically to Madison Lisa to Maple $81,000. the that with Jim Lisa's the the she responded belonged FDIC. against Ex. at thereafter and husband Creek The property was entered in had met be located. by the Susan. by Sue Strayhorn listed. was sued of an industrial Shortly and house still explained behest whom she could which have the was in default. loan has Mike Thompson, late Susan Realty In May 1989 judgment loan nor He continued sold. tied Jim at specialist, in Lisa She was notified both McDaniel married office 39 responses heating house that Neither Lisa news. Creek statement Susan. 0 and Faircrest Madison. misleading 1986 conditioning Lake besides house never In March 1990 Ex. In a 39. house a for 40. Lisa did have other and Jim McDougal. clients but they were all 40 0 Sue Strayhorn recalls calling Lisa and telling her that her loan was due. According to Strayhorn, Lisa said that Jim had given her the house. Lisa claims that Strayhorn is mistaken about her response. She recalls telling Strayhorn that the loan belonged to Jim and Susan. Under either interpretation, Lisa never told Strayhorn that she purchased the house and that the loan was hers--which is what any examiner would assume from a review of the documents. In other words, if you believe Strayhorn's version of the conversation, Lisa did not tell Strayhorn, yes, I know, I need to pay it off, how can I .. arrange payments, etc. 35 AMFnlCAN · FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 38 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000896 0 V. The $18,000 Rent A. Takes Henley We have prepared recalled that any, Henley's 1985 late McDougal credit building) and that in Lisa's name. there were between described was that tax was to "liable" us as for the credit. Young's building was placed price was $60,000 figures, claimed a deed notes in service Henley's 1308 early him that owned tax not in building even though arrangements, if McDougal, who Young Young that investment told renovations. the With return in 1986, Lisa which Henley tax Young that 1985, to that the purchase these Henley 41 credit. St. while-- he was an McDougal 1985 Young (renovating the in August return. was going assured that McDougal's Henley know what satisfy on January Main 8-9) at 1986, the and Lisa. indicate Young prepared conveying told to $130,000 show that tax "ultimate.boss," with Records income or Henley building an investment Young, on 1308 Main Henley (Counts Greg 1985 Young did his Henley Tax Credit discovered in office, To Bill An Investment an investment historic it Bill sometime McDougal's take 0 recently request, in Payment 15, to Bill Henley. Aunspaugh Ex. 23. signed Records \ 0 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT IFOIA(b)(7)- (C)I 36 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 39 18-1621-000897 0 also show that Madison Guaranty. directions officer on the $130,000 of placed in the Lisa's October B. $18,000 0 Young knew at for building, Financial. rent the some time, and that Acting at Young had deposited Henley's into 18, financial placed Designers in .. Lisa show that the $130,000 was used Exs. 1986, (at $3000 time that to pay off 41-43. property McDougal a month) was being an $18,000 Ex. leased issued 44. Young Bill under a tax credit for to Madison and without check account. Greg had been was taking direction told was owed to 1308 Main Henley McDougal's any documents, under To Henley that the the loan. from Financial, account renovation 1986, chief $60,000 Records on February back the into $190,000 15, and Madison remaining Payment months' renovation the later Young, Construction $125,000 A month the borrowed January proceeds account. Designers The Henley. loan and personal Greg Guaranty Henley account Aunspaugh's six Madison the Henley same date, Jim McDougal, both Construction that On the from for same date, to reviewing Henley and I I On the Young same day, transferred Construction 0 $12,840 account. $12,840 was Henley's Shortly thereafter, 1, 1985, February with 18, from Ex. payment 45. Henley's at for told renovations seeing and Henley's McDougal's account McDougal Young recalls McDougal's 1986, to Young at the signatures. direction the Designers that the 1308 Main. lease dated Ex. August 46. T_he --~~-----,-------.---,----,----, 37 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl Af'v1cr11 .1t-\l PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 40 18-1621-000898 0 lease provides four years lease that will lease periodic Lisa time had a document that present. at his heard Lisa backdated. payment the to tax and Henley, in lease owns the could not sooner than January to Henley? The $18,000 have payment purpose. McDougal Designers Construction balance. He had had Greg of Financial. The department McDougal' in to s office early believes money the document for McDougal's which McDougal Henley about needed --about 1986. that something lease was also having to to pay his was that was statement justified is that an $18,000 substantiated Henley's is false it property the 1986. of August property Why did to Henley told Lisa account Young because as which draw to claim for that the he wanted $12,840 had from It makes sense that Henley would need 1985 taxes. Madison Financial records show was paid at least $198,000 in commissions. 1985. Madison served still states 1, McDougal also that 42 0 in Henley leased 15, Madison a period an 1985. 1985 Henley say further for Henley. she explanation credit The August and 1985 and property know what August Henley investment windfall not to the because The only to being McDougal does he backdated lessor, desk Main accounting payments bought a document 42 taxes. building remembers Henley 1308 Madison's lease Lisa backdate in Aunspaugh the owns the was maintained justify 0 Henley But Financial give this $18,000 McDougal's to close out the a negative Henley's account to worry about his that in 1985 . Henley 38 AMFnlCAN FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 41 VERSIGHT 18-1621-000899 0 and deposit it brought the Designers $44,856 balance McDougal to to a negative borrowed $40,000 the coupled with a few more account brought last into activity the account commenced to Lisa 1308 Main until time the Construction were doing Lisa Properties moved 43 arrived We have at. been same the date explained 1308 Main time unable that to fi The account paid not 1986 She can certain Larry a separate Madison ure did January the Bank move within a estimate Designers contractors who 1308 Main. that as of had 28. Financial property. of Construction Ex. early later deposit one week before the she renovation into the upon which also Designers Madison or days This balance. 1986, 1985 Eight and deposited examination. bought with Aunspaugh approximately their move based final a zero 27, December checks the to 28. account. the This a negative Guaranty from Aunspaugh, of when Henley of Madison payments from Ex. Construction on February examiners few weeks from 43 account. account $32,016. Designers the According Construction Construction into Board 0 Designers $38,000 its 0 the out Kuca and tenant Financial how the Campobello at moved in. The 12 840 was Ater t e Tucker mor gage an is accrue interest wasp id off out of Lisa's $125,000 October loan, $74,677 was left'over. This $74,677 was deposited into Designers Construction, 4ccording to Lisa, to pay for the 1308 renovation. But by Februafy 1986 Designers Construction spent $88,608 on 1308 renovation. Ex. 28. This is a difference of $13,931. McDougal thenlhad Henley pay $12,840 of this amount. This left an extra $1000 ~hat had to be paid by somebody. When McDougal closed out the ,account, he deposited $38,000 of his own funds. This $38,0001covered not only what McDougal owed personally to Designers Construction but also the extra $1000 needed to cover 1308 Main. I AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 39 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim . Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jurvl FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 42 18-1621-000900 0 earliest in rent check February rent because not to Henley rent supervisory the August to delayed. that and to back Properties and the is From this he was entitled it proposal McDougal back to alone, to receive subsidiary) on his 1988, of was asked not that own the he negotiated property and when he did explained decision that to Financial. and drew rent had why he was 1985 purchase Henley back he Henley the his Madison the without $190,000 note he did Henley with fact He could its to August 1986, but Guaranty. When asked back January it admitted sale Aunspaugh. until lease the stop disallowed on the that Henley for to Main Street. 24, fact 1986. Financial defaulted on 1308 payments Henley's then rent he discussed to (or on February Lisa rental of Madison institution McDougal do with Madison When he was sued January building building Campobello The examiners Henley lease with 1985 agreed the loan. August to own the to deposition until entitled from ordered 44 Henley. for exclusively nothing Bill Guaranty In his o examiners approval. property has was a stockholder counterclaimed about the property Madison Henley 1986. In mid-1986 paying Bill the even buy not in the McDougal lease got feeble though conclusion he did not 44 0 The loan to Henley and the lease back to Madison Financial was a highly suspect transaction. McDougal negotiated a lease which enabled Henley to receive $3,000 a month from Madison Financial. But Henley's monthly payment on his $190,000 loan to buy the building was only $1,900. As a result, with no down payment, Henley walked into a transaction which guaranteed him a positive cash flow of $1,100 per month for the life of the four year lease. -- · AMERICAN PVERSIGHT 40 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 43 18-1621-000901 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jurvl. I 0 buy the not spent building until Janyary, any money on it I ~ntil had not that made a deposit, and had time. 0 0 AMERICAN 41 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 44 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000902 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 45 18-1621-000903 IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 6(e) - Grand Juryl I 0 ._ _____ I Henley received at be in least $198,000 a position investment other the hand, in payment helped Sorensen to use VI. Seth a hearing cane, the ground AMERICAN investigation on his he is PVERSIGHT ... He had He wanted claim for documents used to a 1985 to physically on the negative The $18,000 as and prove the on the Seminole from slow, second from mentally and slowly in be alert relies with story on a window 1989. a ledge He was hospitalized he is Young and we will eye house when he slipped of 5} one the Eric payment. Ward walks Hubbell's) a gutter. witness, with at $18,000 testimony {Count witness contradicts $18,000 mostly a fall Webster the a defense dignified, from back down the a government and advantage and McDougal, bring as We can Ward sees (and a downspout 0 Seth recovered to Although the is Erect daughter's attach to Henley aid. his his account. Henley the our to use from old at 1985. a few days, to Ward And The Piper having in taxes and McDougal. below). him to 74 year in funds Henley hostile misapplication able his document Construction reluctant If or coming Designers (discussed Aunspaugh. about commissions additional both He is in substantiate examiners the We are worried credit. wanted balance trial. to tax With 0 was clearly _. He fell trying for with to months. an 43 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 46 18-1621-000904 0 unfailing memory, unhappy experiences Ward earned when with McDougal his While a student, After Pearl Harbor spent most war After of he flew the flying the war, war warehouse, Ward went sales Corporation, and Ward then he sold the parking company in 1975 After in club when Don Denton years when Denton National officer. Bank. Denton 0 AMERICAN had Denton saga. been the end of and Okinawa. eventually with $50 to National Ward had chief Ward to Steel five years. meter the him. as newly work for After company Little It the the Rock opening for officer hired in was a fateful known Denton lending $60 million he transferred rummy at to for man. for 1989 to business was doing in was Madison's encouraged and supply a parking refers the Corps returned fabricating approached Ward always McDougal and a wealthy injured gin unhappy Corps, dealership Ward was playing that Marine 16 years dusters. Toward Philippines merged In 1985 one Marine fabricating he purchased to the crop the he retired, he was RTC. flying reserves company a Datsun his Korea. metal son. meeting, company the his country his His recalling 1936 when he was in a metal his the time of the 1970's dealership meter in the to instructor. out for into owned Russellville. part missions working a year. or in a flight Ward joined After in as combat By the comes he was commissioned Arkansas. himself. he worked Ward remained Korea, it license some missions numerous After Jim pilot's old. the 0 particularly episode of a number of at senior Madison Union loan Fir1ancia_l. 44 FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 47 P VERSIGHT 18-1621-000905 Denton 0 told him that properties for agreed to going work "to commission and A. for development. Ward had a real estate for Ward told Madison. a clock" in told responded per McDougal told airplane but early himself to waving a red airplane knew that Ward "that might McDougal he had he was very airplane to attract the the Ward was a pilot. for Ward had the of paid the too as it. to have an or would be like owning an an IRS agent." taken ·ward much for company it an 47 for company the same just to he purchased. Seminole. he thought attention agreed~. had not for regulators, cent some property reluctant because he was not he had purchased had like and Ward agreed a Piper swapped he would that airplane he had purchased that license a 10 per after of locate To Buy The Airplane Ward that kind help McDougal shortly told him what that own the salary. Ward Agrees McDougal said flag year McDougal he wanted May 1985, he hoped that that Letter: him that that McDougal and $25,000 Ward asked McDougal 0 to McDougal, airplane. it. somebody The May 5th Sometime work wanted punch McDougal McDougal McDougal to 47 0 In April 1985, McDougal came to Chris Wade and told him that he was "tired of messing with Whitewater ... [and wanted] to get rid of the rest of the lots." Wade and his friend Dr. Russell Webb agreed to buy the rest of the lots in exchange for the assumption of a $35,000 portion of a $100,000 Whitewater loan. As an additional payment, they also transferred to Whitewater a Piper Seminole that they valued at nearly $35,000. They wanted to et rid of the air lane and McDou al a reed t take it. a e oug t tat ey were conveying t e aircraft to Whitewa er Development. Wade flew the aircraft to Central Flying sei;vice and personally gave McDougal a blank bill of sale signed by, Russell Webb. McDougal told Wade to fill in McDougal's name on the bill of sale which Wade did. Ex. 4 7 . ... . . IFOIA(b)(3) - Fed. R. Crim :..Pro. 6(e) - Grand Jurvl 45 AMERICAN PVERSIGHT FOIA RD 56806 (URTS 16302) Docld: 70104942 Page 48 18-1621-000906 Camden 0 and El Dorado Ward what that he should he would think The next day prohibiting again his replied the loss and would the the if go to the to it from sales Ex. would 1985, airplane provides agreed Service the for all sale profit indirect that or and should the less sell Ward in turn same price. to Madison. McDougal delivered Central They sets upon. in $25,000 the forth a one the The letter to $50,000 price Conspicuously absent from May 5 letter the Ward was going AMFnlCAN an buy Flying agreed that be $25,000. agreed an affiliated to aircraft purchase McDougal, could . for Ward's that McDougal McDougal Service of by McDougal's and Financial fact attention sold, that Madison guarantee that later that and But McDougal the To make the selling The letter had him was no law attract was Flying of to be covered airplane Flying idea there Ward was directed company. would 48. McDougal letter the that McDougal Ward was working price On May 5, a small told costs Central the asked Ward told an airplane. want that Central because Ward. all McDougal Seminole. owning he didn't stating that liked Service from Ward and McDougal buy McDougal