OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-10-03
Number of Pages:6
Date Created:August 16, 1999
Date Uploaded to the Library:July 30, 2013
Autogenerated text from PDF
time. Ms. Sherburne testified that Livingstone was "as confused and puzzled it" she was. The General Accounting Office caused the problem-June 1996 June the White House issued another explanation for the improper possession the FBI files. The White House stated that ''low-level file clerk" was not fact fault; rather, that the General Accounting Office ("GAO") might have "triggered" request for these files the course its investigation the White House Travel Office matter. The GAO immediately denied any involvement request FBI files.10 innocent bureaucratic mistake"-June 1996 The committee soon learned that, addition Mr. Dale's improperly sought FBI file, the White House had obtained least 338 other FBI files prior Republican administration officials.11 One Livingstone's lawyers, David Cohen, who had been conducting his own investigation, telephoned Sherburne, and gave her the "bad news" that the White House had ordered lot other files beyond Dale's. Ms. Sherburne learned that files former Republican administration officials were also ordered.12 White House Counsel and ''Travelgate" spokesman Mark Fabiani, immediately labeled this matter "an innocent bureaucratic mistake." Fabiani told the Associated Press June that Livingstone's attorney's discovery provides. completely innocent explanation." Fabiani also told the New York Times that the "detailee" whom still refused identify "was mistakenly given outdated list White House employees dating back the Reagan Administration," and that "no one the White House ever reviewed the files." Further, Fabiani informed the Associated Press that the ordering numerous other files was proof positive "that Mr. Dale's file was not singled out." Chairman sent letter the White House June requesting all information this matter, including the name the "mystery'' detailee. The Secret Service caused the problem-June June 10, 1996 letter, Sherburne stated that the FBI back.ground files were assembled the White House Office Personnel Security "as result mistaken understanding'' that these prior Republican administration officials "continued have access the White House compound after the start the Clinton Admin Sherburne deposition, 73. The GAO spokesperson stated that "never asked aides for the FBI back ground file fired Travel Office director Billy Dale" generally disclaimed that the GAO ever asked for was allowed review FBI background files. Pete Yost, White House Strug gles E:cplain Why Obtained Dale's Associated Press, June 1996. lLJane Sherburne later testified that the White House learned this information June 1996, Mr. Randy Turk and David Cohen the Washington law firm Cassidy, Sherburne deposition, July 23, 1996, pp. 74-75. 12Sherburne deposition, 85. l3Pete Yost, Dale FBI File Part Larger Effort Recreate White Hause Files, Associated Press, June 1996. 1'[d. l5Neil Lewis, White House Says Requests for FBI Files Was Wider, New York Times, June 1996. Pete Yost, Baker, Fitzwater, Brady Among 330 FBI Files White Hause Got, Associated Press, June 1996. istration." Ms. Sherburne attached her letter sworn statement Anthony Marceca, the detailee who ordered the files. Marceca stated that based his requests the FBI Secret Service lists White House passholders. Contrary Fabiani's statements the New York Times that "no one the White House ever reviewed the files," Mr. Marceca revealed his statement that he, fact, did examine the contents for inconsistencies. Marceca told Livingstone's lawyer that he, fact, read all the files order pass any "derogatory information" Livingstone.19 Sherburne later explained that Livingstone's lawyer met with Mr. Marceca Sunday, June his law firm's offices. Mr. Marceca dictated statement Livingstone's attorney the presence Livingstone.20 The frequently changing early days show that the White House was the blame. engaged public the explanation was discredited. The White House continued cling desperately the explanation blaming the Secret vice, even though it, too, was debunked the committee hearing with the Secret Service. the final analysis, the White House must take full responsibility for this fiasco and stop trying lay blame elsewhere. unconscionable that the White House shifted the blame from its own incompetent appointees those the U.S. Secret Service. The White House mounted stealth consisting mainly statements attributed sources, blame Service. The Secret Service initially refrained from defending itself, following its tradition not making public statements about White House matters. Eventually, Secret Service witnesses were summoned before the committee explain the charges leveled against them. Their testimony, and their extensive audit the White House's systems, showed that single "faulty" Secret Service list could provide justification for how Anthony Marceca obtained hundreds FBI background files former Reagan and Bush officials. The only list from which Marceca could have obtained all the names released the White House date, master E-Pass list, which lists all "A," active and "I," inactive passholders for approximately the past years. Mr. Marceca testified that thought the "I" next the name the list indicated individual was intern.21 Mr. Marceca would have had deliberately order the files people identified "inactive" order have utilized this list. Mr. Marceca would have believe that ordered the FBI background files such notable figures Ken Duberstein, A.B. 17See June 10, 1996 Special Counsel the President Jane Sherburne, letter Chairman Clinger, p.1. tBNeil Lewis, White House Says Request for F.B.I. Files Was Wider, New York Times, June 1996. 19John Harris, White Hause Admits Hauing Background Files, Washington Post, June 8,1996.20Mr. Marceca stated his sworn that met Craig Livingstone earlier that day local flea market and they went Livinstone's house telephoned his lawyer, they both went his lawyer offices where Mr. was questioned and delivered swam statement. Marceca deposition, 114. not know why Mr. Marceca's attorney was not present when his attorney received the copy the sworn statement that was handed the White House the following day. Marceca deposition, 152. Culvahouse and Tony Blankley, without any recognition the names, that they were not "holdover interns." The committee especially skeptical this conclusion given Marceca's vast political experience. Procedural safeguards against "innocent snafus" attempt get the bottom the cause the FBI files issue, the committee held its first hearing June 19, 1996. that hearing, learned how the very sensitive matters confidential background checks and security clearances were handled prior White Houses, both Democrat and Republican.22 the past, the President has appointed only professional, circumspect and highly responsible people put charge these most sensitive matters. this hearing, former Counsels the President and Living White House.23 further learned that for the past years, the White House has engaged careful process performing background checks and grantin rejecting security clearances individuals determine their suitability and stability for working the White House and throughout the executive branch. The clearance and background processes exist protect the President well the national security. The case convicted spy Aldrich Am.es painful reminder the kind problem that can arise when vigilance national security matters lacking. Given the necessity sound procedures guard against breaches security, those who oversee security procedures themselves must carefully selected and always above reproach. Nancy Gemmell, former staff assistant the Security Office since 1981, testified that the beginning the Clinton ad.minis tration Livingstone had numerous teenage interns working inside the security office and even the vault. The interns did not have background investigations, security clearances, proper super vision. They had access all confidential FBI background files and photocopier machine stood nearby. clear that supervision and accountability are imperative oversee security matters such careless fashion. brief review the Clinton 22Security the FBI Files: Hearing before House Committee Government Reform and Over sight, 104th Cong., Sess., June 19, 1996. 23[d. 24Meg Greenfield, The White House Wants, Washington Post, June 24, 1996. ministration's history handling security issues shows other evi dence irresponsibility. March 1994 the problems and delays obtaining White House passes and security clearances came light, when congTessional inquiries delved into why hundreds White House staffers did not yet have background investigations completed. Associate Counsel William Kennedy was assigned responsibility for overseeing security matters, including the issuance oflasses and security clearances. Kennedy was subsequently relieve his responsibilities this area; yet Livingstone, who was directly charge managing security, was not. Later, August 1994, Senator Dennis DeConcini, then Democratic chairman the Subcommittee Treasury, Postal Service, and General Government the Committee Appropriations, which provides funding for the White House, concluded investigation reported Livingstone's office. Chairman DeConcini wrote President suggesting specific changes that were sorely needed the Personnel Security office. Those changes included replacing Livingstone with career professional who had security background. Chairman DeConcini's recommendations were considered but not implemented the White House, and for some reason, Livingstone remained charge.26 clear that security procedures are only effective the professionals who manage them. the committee's first hearing, two points became evident. First, were serious security problems the Clinton White House; second, those respon sible for White House security under the Clinton administration were hardly professional and were stark departure from past administrations. Livingstone and Marceca Among the foremost questions the committee sought investigate regarding how and why the White House obtained these FBI background files, was, "Who Craig Livingstone?" ''Who recommended him?" ''Who hired him?" and given his backgTound, "Why was put charge such sensitive the White House?" These are seemingly simple questions, complete answers them are still not forthcoming. Livingstone did not have the professional necessary perform the sensitive functions the Security Office. Yet was put charge that office, and then managed remain that role the frequent turnover White House Counsels. wisdom would suggest that management turnovers bring staff reorganizations. Instead, over 3-year period, enjoyed percent salary increase touting his record Letter from Chairman DeConcini President Clinton, August 11, 1994. 26Hearing also illuminated other complaints against Livingstone during his tenure the White House. Livingstone was repr manded Evelyn Lieberman, Assistant the Chief Sta.ff for the First Lady, for the details backgroundwith young female staffer. not clear why the staff was the chain command repr mand Craig who reported the Office. also had police report filed against November 19931 when threatened neighborbecause her dog was barking. Livingstone reportedly said would "beat her face in" she did not quiet her dog, Livingstone admitted the police officer that did make the threat. Secu rity the FBI Files: Hearing before the Committee Gouernment Reform and Oversight, 104th Cong., Sess., June 26, 1996. "team player" while keeping bankers' hours.2s Numerous questions still remain about who brought Craig Livingstone into the Clinton inner circle security chief. The committee has yet piece together clear picture who responsible for Livingstone working the White House after the inauguration. Given the information available, did former White House Counsels Bernard Nussbaum, Lloyd Cutler, Abner Mikva and present Counsel the President Jack Quinn really believe that the political advance man and ex-bouncer was the best individual for tliis sensitive position? Mr. Nussbaum testified before this committee that does not know who hired Livingstone. Instead, suggested that the Chief Staff's office may have been involved.29 Mr. Livingstone's supervisor, Rose law firm partner William Kennedy, said all committee depositions, well hearings, that could shed little light who brought Livingstone into the White House. Mr. Livingstone testified the committee does not know who recommended him. gave arguably tortured his journey into the White House Those who previously heaped high praise the President's senior advisor George virtually denied knowing him the press. President and Mrs. Clinton's denials hiring, participating the hiring Craig Livingstone direct conflict with statements from their own senior staff career FBI agents. Both Livingstone and Marceca had extensive histories campaign advance men and operatives. Marceca was handpicked for White House detail through his personal request Marceca then-Associate Counsel Kennedy. Sworn testimony Dennis Casey, former Gary Hart campaign consultant who worked with Livingstone and Marceca the campaign 1984, shed some their motives for gathering information and fired Travel Office workers. Casey testified that both Livingstone and Marceca the past had endorsed the utilization v.ersonal information manipulate support for their political candidate. Documents show that Livingstone worked "counter-events erations" durin the 1992 Clinton-Gore and deployedpartisan "tricks' disrupt Former President campaign for re-election.80 Livingstone's police record shows report filed against him during his tenure the White House where was alleged have physically threatened female neighbor. Annoyed her dog, Livingstone threatened "beat her face in." The Officer questioned Livingstone reported that admitted the threat. Mr. Marceca has had his own brushes with the law previous jobs Texas and Pennsylvania. the committee's second hearing, learned that Marceca left the White House compound with computer disks, which included details the confidential files National Security Council staffers See letter from Livingstone then-Counsel the President Abner k.va, "It would wrong not approve request for tone, but this last try remain part the team." August 28, 1995, White document, CGE 48058. 2BWbite House documents, CGE 47858-47860. Times Livingstone's entry and exit White House comP,lex. Comm1ttee deposit Bernard Nussbaum, July 11, 1996, 21. 30Resume Dav Livingstone, White House document 46320-46234. Montgomery County, Department Police, Event Report, Report mple Assault, November 1993. and other White House employees.32 Documents produced Marceca also indicated that his duties the White House encompassed more than just filling out forms. Marceca's memoranda Livingstone included analyses the backgrounds individuals who could not pass muster security issues.33 Mr. Marceca apbe providing legal advice facilitate the "cleansing'' problems. Although Marceca's detail the White House was not renewed after his background investigation exposed some problems, continued frequent entry both volunteer and visitor with access until June 1996. Documents produced the White House suggest that Marceca played larger role White House security matters than the Clinton administration has admitted the public. Further, late 1993 and 1994, Livingstone was attempting obtain Presidential appointment for Marceca, either Inspector General U.S. Marshal. Even after Marceca's background investigation, completed December 1993, exposed suitabilityproblems, attempts employ Marceca continued. When that endeavor failed, Livingstone again tried detail Marceca the Personnel Security office, contrary Associate Counsel Kennedy's testimony that thought Marceca should just "go back where was."34 Strangely, March 17, 1994, appears Livingstone withdrew his request Secretary Defense Perry for Marceca's detail.35 However, that was not the end Marceca's work for the White House. Phone messages Marceca left for Livingstone and other documents show that Marceca was the White House number advance trips for Clinton and other officials. One message from Marceca stated that had just returned from trip with Secretary Perry, and wanted talk Livingstone about what had observed. Another message asked Livin"stone wanted ''be agent working for Tony." Why were individuals with questionable backgrounds travelling with the President? Was Marceca asked make obsetvations his trip with Secretary Perry? What information was sharing with Livingstone? Such documents raise serious questions about the White House's discretion employing individuals with highly questionable backgrounds for important security positions. addition the dubious backgrounds Livingstone and Marceca, their various sworn statements about the requisitioning the files appear inconsistent both within and between their own statements. Additionally, their statements conflict with sworn testi mony provided the FBI, the Secret Service and former veteran Security Office, Nancy Gemmell. Furthermore, appearance the committee hearing June 26, 1996, has refused provide further testimony the House Representatives the Senate, pleading his fifth amendment right 32Security the FBI Files: Rearing before the Committee Government Reform and Over sight. 104tli Cong., Sess., June 1996. 33Memorandum from Marceca Livingstone, undated, Marceca document Bates Stamp No. 117. 34Kennedy deposition, June 18, 1996, 41. 85Letter from Livingstone Secretary Perry, March 17, 1994, White House document CGE 55749. White House document DBI 54256.