Skip to content

Judicial Watch • OIS Cases FileGate Exhibits 36-04

OIS Cases FileGate Exhibits 36-04

OIS Cases FileGate Exhibits 36-04

Page 1: OIS Cases FileGate Exhibits 36-04

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

committee the House Congress, and therefore, the Privacy Act does not apply these depositions insofar agency may disclose information us. That does not say that may then publicly turn around and disclose that information. only making representation whether information can given that would normally within the Privacy Act within the confines this deposition. understanding and the Chairman's position that this investigation properly under the White House Travel Office matter and that, fact, are authorized under the House Resolution and the committee rule conduct these depositions, and have been proceeding such throughout this investigation the FBI files matter. 
Mr. Goldberg. could just make final statement. The Minority has considered this length, and believe that the Ranking Minority 
Member's own opinion that this not excluded from the Privacy Act, 
and any witness answering questions should proceed their own peril, 
having heard the statement the Majority and the Minority. 
Mr. Clancy. Would convenient break for about minutes? 
Ms. Olson. Let's that. 
[Recess.] 
RPTS STEIN 
DCMN HERZFELD 
[11:1O a.m.] 
Ms. Comstock. Back the record. 
Mr. Clancy. Prior going off the record, had some questions that were going certain area. There was concern the agency that there could potential violation the Privacy Act. that extent had some discussions off the record, and called back office. Upon the conclusion that, want make this statement which making this time. still continue have some concerns, and those concerns would 
when question, the response which would require information that 
perhaps would identify individual, clearly not want that 
this time because have concerns about the Privacy Act. the 
extent the questions would general nature, asking about perhaps 
general perception general problem general situation, something 
that sort, will make responses that regard. have also indicated both counsel, Minority and Majority here, that respectfully request the Chairman make request there further information that needed after this, that they make the request the Secretary the Treasury. will immediately accept copy from our 

individuals here. don't think there will delay there. just propose that for the purpose that the Secretary Treasury the leading individual the Department Treasury. are dealing fairly high level and want everything appropriately. 
With that the record, can proceed. 
Ms. Olson. have memorandum from Chairman Clinger dated today's date that discusses the applicability the Privacy Act Congress. will make part this deposition Exhibit Number 
[Undercoffer Deposition Exhibit No. 
was marked for identification.] 
Ms. Olson. The Chairman states that believes after his consultation that clear that government witness before this committee cannot refuse respond pertinent questions put him the basis the 
Privacy Act. also states that believes that law enforcement officials may 
disclose matters file without person's consent for purposes civil criminal law enforcement. understand that the Minority has raised question whether our questions this deposition are properly before the Chairman this committee. Therefore, what the Chairman intends after the questions are asked, the response not complete because Privacy Act concerns, will address letter the individual witness stating his jurisdiction Chairman this committee and submit those questions that have been asked this deposition along with any others the witness respond Chairman the committee with proper jurisdiction, and that that witness's responses will straight the Chairman. believe that correct stating that Minority also believes that the Chairman does have authority once states his jurisdiction ask the individual witness those questions, and that the individual witness would not violate the Privacy Act they respond those questions the Chairman. 
Mr. Goldberg. Minority staff, believe that appropriate and 
reasonable approach this issue. MS. COMSTOCK: believe the question that had outstanding before broke was your review the files, Mr. Undercoffer, when you received them, did you have any situations where you had --where the Counsel's Office had signed off file and sent the Secret Service where individuals had not paid their taxes?  situation where was apparent from the file that there had been 
unpaid taxes. Yes. you recall how many times that occurred files you reviewed? few. you know other situations outside the ones you reviewed where 

this occurred? Specifically? No, not specifically. Had you heard about this being problem that people hadn't paid their 

taxes number files that came through the Secret Service? would discuss cases amongst ourselves. There were few that 
had heard, yes. Were you aware any situations where individuals were put some 

kind tax payment plan result these issues? 

uly--do-not-r-ecall-a.s-to-howJ:be-Situations were 
resolved. Were there situations where people hadn't paid taxes for numerous 
years? can't --I not being evasive. know that there was that situation, but can't recall -when you read background investigations, they have tendency run together after time, and can't recall can't recall need --I trying frame specific instances mind that 
can answer your question general way, and having difficulty 
doing that. Can you ask the question again? Did you have situations where any files that you reviewed were people 

who hadn't paid their taxes for number years? you recall any 
instance where someone hadn't paid their taxes for more than one year? More than one, yes, there were some. Prior those files being sent over the Secret Service, were there
were these tax issues resolved some way? believe most had been, yes. Would Craig Livingstone others the Counsel's Office discuss 

these issues with you prior sending the files over? They would just send the files the Secret Service, and you would review some them? From point view, the files came in, they were assigned me, reviewed them. reviewing the files, did you have instances where you had levels drug use that went beyond college age, experimental use? Yes. Can you --of the files you reviewed, can you put percentage
any general number what was beyond college-age experimental drug use? There were more than few. Were there dozens? There were probably --this very sensitive question, trying accurate can be. don't want --there were trying not subjective, because when one reviews background investigations, you are glimpsing into somebody's personal life, and 
---------------samething1 take-ver:y-Seriously..-and l,-0ther-tban_s_omehodyJn_my immediate work environment that does the same thing, don't discuss with anybody. Number one, this not something accustomed doing; and two, trying wholly accurate can because realize the subjecttive opinions people will form from the information giving. trying accurate can and totally objective the same time. 
There were --you know, have reviewed literally hundreds background investigations. would say more than 30, more than 40, perhaps, had drug usage. And that would beyond the college-age experimental type use? not stalling. Sometimes some individuals went college well Into 
their thirties. They worked masters and Ph.D.s. the files you reviewed, did you have situations where the drug use was very recent? There was some where the drug use was recent. Can you estimate roughly how many files you reviewed were would say few dozens. Did there come time when the Secret Service instituted particular of36 7/28/9911:31AM Yes, there was. And could you describe what that program was? only know because whenever would review file this nature, was something did not want sign off on, forwarded supervisors. 
They did initiate procedure that was caHed the "drug letter.'' and there 
were don't know the exact parameters the procedure. not 
familiar with how the procedure was developed other than knew its 
existence. you know when this started? Sometime '84. believe was 1984. 
Mr. Goldberg. '84 '94? 
The Witness. sorry, '94. Excuse me. MS. COMSTOCK: 
_program because their recent use? No. The drug letter was letter between the administration and the Secret Service. have seen them. have never sat and read one, but there various conditions that are agreed upon and then acknowledged the individual question. And the individual question has sign that agreement? Yes. For those individuals, the White House previously provided information back '94 that there were approximately about --10, 11, people the program '94. you recall that? That sounds about accurate. believe '95 they said the number was around so? don't know for sure. Those situations, can you generally tell what kind drug use w.e are talking about, what kind --if you can generally give picture the extent and recentness th.at 
drug use? have seen cocaine usage. have seen hallucinogenic usages, crack And were those, the people who were this program, was generally fairly recent use? Yes, was. terms whether not someone had drug letter went into this particular program, were there any considerations given; they had more senior level position not, were there considerations given what individual's duties were? don't know. Were these situations usually ones that you would flag and send your supervisor? Yes, they were. you know who Mr. Cole would then have speak with about this? Typically things work the chain command, and --Mr. Cole 
could probably best answer that question. 
----'Q-Just-to-t-l:!e-extent-you-kr:10w, 

How many other people besides yourself reviewed these files? When? You started '94; correct? Yes. While you were there '94? '94, myself and another agent. Who would that be? Rich Stribling. you know '93 who else would have been reviewing the files? wasn't there '93. you know Mr. Stribling was there '93. Mr. Stribling got there November '93. Mr. Wilfred testified from the Senate Intelligence Committee testified



Sign Up for Updates!