Skip to content

Judicial Watch • OIS Cases FileGate Exhibits 36-03

OIS Cases FileGate Exhibits 36-03

OIS Cases FileGate Exhibits 36-03

Page 1: OIS Cases FileGate Exhibits 36-03

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

Okay. Now, outside, speak outside the July 8th, 1993 time period, because the name comes up, James Baker, let speak for moment the process how the names --how the people are added the active list and taken off the active list and made inactive. 
The names come from the administration. They determine who they want granted pass into the White House complex. They will submit the name along with background investigation. review the investigation solely upon looking for protective concerns. Our only concern would somebody pose threat any our protective concerns. MS. COMSTOCK: And you actually get the summary background files then, the files 
that were turned over the White House? Yes, the summary, yes. review it. have concerns, sign off the file, the individual issued pass, and that point time the information goes into the E-PASS system, and they become active passholders. 
When somebody leaves, deactivate somebody, again, this done the behest the administration, whichever administration is. They will tell one two ways. The individual himself, the passholder his herself, will come our office, say, I'm leaving, will turn their pass, which time will deactivate them. they could just leave, and will not find out until somebody from the administration -typically has been the Office Personnel Security --will tell us, oh, and has left months ago even months ago. Please deactivate their passes. And again, that point time they are deactivated. are -we really serve the administration. issue building 
passes allow people into the complex based upon who they want 
and who they want exclude. And usually there checkout procedure when people leave the 
White House, had there been maybe the prior administration, was 
there checkout procedure that people went through? There checkout procedure place with this administration. 
cannot speak prior administrations because didn't come until 1994. And the current checkout procedure, was that place 1993? No, wasn't. know became more formalized 1994. can't tell you 
7/28/99 11:31 

But now, speak Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker, Mr. Fitzwater, and two other individuals, were not requested deactivate them until August 1993. legitimately, because the administration hadn't told us, and know sounds little funny, because everybody would imagine that Mr. Baker would have left with the previous administration, but are not presumptuous think that not going stay around help out with the transition. That not for determine. legitimately was listed active passholder this July 8th printout, because until that point time, weren't requested remove him from the rolls active passholders. 
Now, August 1993, were requested remove Mr. Baker and Mr. Fitzwater, two other individuals, can't recall their names, from the list active passholders. Okay. Now, the list that have been referring Exhibit Mr. 
Fitzwater does show being inactive January 20th, 1993. That date incorrect. Okay. fact, have been over this list 100 times. was told that these -the dates this list that you have, were given day come with the dates, and there are errors that. the --over the last month have had time through and through and through and, you know, very, very thorough audit. these numbers that are looking the charts are based 
you These numbers are accurate. Okay. And when finished with report submit the Senate, has 
all the dates it, and those dates are 100 percent accurate. These, 
found few errors those dates. wouldn't use that for definitive 
purposes. 
But August 1993, were asked take Mr. Baker from the rolls. did. was listed inactive the E-PASS system, and he, just like 
the other eight individuals had mentioned -that information was lost 
the transfer between the E-PASS system and the WAVES system, 
was carried active passholder erroneously into 1994. fact, think was February March, was early 1994, was 
conversation between Mr. Livingstone and myself where what do, 
provide them with printout active passholders, and the reason 
7/28/9911:31 

provide them with the printout that they can through and 
reconcile their records with our records, because had stated 
previously, put information their request, take information out their request. Consequently, give them our records that they 
can through them and verify that everything correct. 
With Mr. Baker, noticed, said, hey, Mr. Baker left some months ago, how come still here? informed him was problem that was aware since had come this Division 1994, were working correction the problem, and went and the problem was corrected eventually, and Mr. Baker was deleted from the rolls. also important note, though, that was listed active passholder the WAVES system, and that passholder database the WAVES system for our purposes. administrative file. The critical function the system totality comprised three computer systems, access control system, the E-PASS system, and the WAVES system. The critical function performed the access control system, and that operates 100 percent. was immediately deactivated, that Mr. Baker would have shown the gate with this pass and tried come in, wouldn't let him in. after August 26, 1993, could not have gotten into the building? could not have gotten in. think from our perspective, that important point stress, that the printout WAVES, the database that keep WAVES, there for administrative purposes. print out from WAVES because WAVES has high-speed printing capabilities, and simply utilize the WAVES system generate these printouts. And again, give them the administration for them through and find any errors. 
That the whole purpose. traditionally give them printouts, some printouts every Monday, some printouts once month, but that they can through them and make sure that the information accurate. real cooperative effort. has always been cooperative effort between the Office Personnel Security and the White House Division. 
Can answer any questions? Yes. Maybe can into few areas. 1993 when the new administration started -when did you start this position? January 1994. And what were you doing prior that? Prior that was assigned our Technical Security Division. that the White House also? of36 

7/28/99 11:31 All right. you are not familiar then with any meetings 1993 with 
Mr. Livingstone? No, not, no. 1994, were you aware there being large number new White 

House employees who hadn't gotten their White House passes? Yes, was. Were you involved any discussions regarding that? Not --no, not directly. Okay. And how did you become aware it? Well, worked the White House Division. One jobs was 

review backgrounds. And you couldn't help but know it, because was the newspaper. not being facetious, didn't learn from the newspaper, but simply being the office, one knew that this was issue. The particulars the issue was not aware of. You yourself reviewed the FBI files when they came over completed 
from the Counsel's Office? Yes. And you would review them for security concerns? Yes, did. And after you reviewed them, who would you then pass them to? would sign off for them for the special agent charge the Division, 
and there was -if was routine background, there were concerns 
whatsoever, they would from the front office, where the 
individual would informed that they could come and receive their 
pass. the front office, who would the front office? our administrative personnel the White House Division. Who charge that? charge the office Arnold Cole. When you had received those files, who had signed off them 
behalf the Counsel's Office? 

7128/9911:31 Was there particular request form where would was standard request: Attached background investigation so-and-so. request that this type pass issued. Okay. they would --you would get White House employee X's file that says --Greg had memo saying, please provide permanent pass for this employee? Yes. And then attached would that person's FBI summaries, the FBI 
summaries them? Yes. Would have any financial information any other information 
besides the FBI background? Typically, no. And you would then review for security concerns? Yes. And there were any problems, who would you raise those with? there were problems, was anything more than routine, then 
would pass supervisor, Assistant Special Agent Charge 
Arnold Cole. Generally with the files that you reviewed, you recall there being 
problems with individuals who hadn't paid their taxes? not asking for 
any names here, just saying generally files that had been passed you where there were situations that people hadn't paid their taxes. 

Mr. Goldberg. Exclusion congressional proceedings don't believe 
apply this particular provision, and the Privacy Act, think, would 
cover. would wary how you would answer questions. 
Mr. Clancy. Well, think that the Privacy Act goes individuals, 
doesn't groups all, and would advise the witness here not 
answer anything about individuals. But the Privacy Act has nothing 
with groups, from understanding. you have different 
understanding? 
Mr. Goldberg. don't have different understanding, but information 
could put together with that answer identifying somebody, think 
there could problem. 
7/28/99 11:31 

Mr. Clancy. agree that should careful that the information come out not identify individual, but just situation. 
Ms. Comstock. Also, think this copy the Privacy Act here, which believe doesn't apply
Mr. Goldberg. think you read closely, doesn't mention staff depositions. congressional hearings within the jurisdiction the committee. think the committee can get around this different setting than this. 
Ms. Olson. going speak the record since this going come again. would ask that Mr. Goldberg make complete record his understanding the Privacy Act does apply this deposition, and let's get very clear the record because are going deal with this for the next days. 
Mr. Goldberg. Would you like make statement about that now? 
Ms. Olson. Yes. 
Mr. Goldberg. would say that believe that there are two questions that 
would relate the Privacy Act. One, this congressional hearing 
under terms the Privacy Act that would excluded under the general 
exclusion the Privacy Act. Second would be, the question being 
asked within the scope H.R. 369 which authorizes this deposition. think both are very relevant the issue, and think you could raise 
significant questions about both that would lead perhaps someone 
conclude the Privacy Act protections and criminal protections specifically 
would apply. can't give you definitive answer. 
Ms. Olson. Okay. have reviewed the Privacy Act. Our committee 
counsel, Kevin Sabo, has reviewed the Privacy Act, and the Chairman 
signing statement which will made part this record and shared 
with Minority counsel. This deposition started before the statement was 
complete. 
The Privacy Act that quoting from from Title Section 552(a), 
Subsection which says that there are conditions disclosure and, 
quote, 11no agencies shall disclose any record which contained 
system records." 
Then skipping several sentences, and says, unless disclosure 
the record would --and one goes down Subsection either 
House Congress the extent matter within its jurisdiction, any 
committee subcommittee thereof, any joint committee Congress 
subcommittee any such joint committee. understanding through communications with our committee counsel that are subcomittee the House Congress, are staff 

7128/99 11:31



Sign Up for Updates!