Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!


Judicial Watch • OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-10-22

OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-10-22

OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-10-22

See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

Third, the statement that Mr. Shapiro notified the White House about the information before the committee was allowed review simply not true. Mr. Shapiro testified the August 1996, hearing, had offered make available the majority, but they had rescheduled: intent was notify roughly simultaneously both the committee and the White House, for whom this information had originally been gathered. Knowing that committee majority staff was due examine the materials that same afternoon, placed call the Justice Department, where advised the Chief Staff the Deputy Attorney General the information and intent advise the White House Counsel's office. then called the Counsel's office, and spoke with Deputy Counsel the President, Kathleen Wallman. Because last minute rescheduling the committee staff which had been unaware, the majority staff did not fact see the information until the following day. way did Mr. Shapiro withhold the information, claimed the majority. 
Fourth, before the FBI took any action with this information, asked the one law enforcement entity which might have interest, the Independent Counsel. Mr. Shapiro testified, the Independent Counsel had problems with Congress reviewing the files, nor did they ask that any conditions placed upon its release, which could have included release the White House. They did not even want review the file. the extent Mr. Nussbaum would have been testifying Grand Jury, the issue would not have been who hired Craig Livingstone. 
Finally, Chairman Clinger's Floor statement criticized two FBI agents for going Agent Sculimbrene's home and telling him that the White House was unhappy with what had written about Mr. Nussbaum's interview. Once again, the question what type investigation did the committee determine the veracity this charge against the two agents before making these public charges. Mr. Shapiro testified that the agents question denied the allegation: time did the agents tell agent Sculim.brene that the White House was unhappy and concerned about this particular interview. such thing occurred. 
Therefore, appears that this may one more case which Agent Sculimbrene's account conversation disputed. 
The concern the FBI that light the denials, Agent Sculimbrene's report may have been inaccurate, was real one. Just recently, FBI Agent Halbert Harlow was convicted falsifying over White House interviews. 
When this committee began its hearings into the FBI files, the minority fully concurred. too wanted get the bottom how and why the files were requested, and what was done with them. However, the committee's investigation increasingly demonstrated that the requests were fact bureaucratic error and not sinister plot, the committee hearings kept shifting their focus. 

The majority has repeatedly disclosed sensitive, internal FBI files, despite the majority's criticism the White House for its handling FBI records. previously discussed, when Chairman Clinger went the House Floor July 25, 1996, divulged certain contents the FBI file Craig Livingstone. The divulging confidential derogatory information found that file exactly the concern that the committee had expressed concerning the White House request FBI files former administration employees. Ironically, the committee has uncovered evidence that the White House ever disseminated the information contained those FBI files. the other hand, the chairman did. 
The disclosure stands stark contrast his comments Ranking Minority Member Collins letter dated July 15, 1996, which wrote: have been extremely reluctant directly review FBI files. the abuse such files the Clinton White House which initiated this congressional investigation." then stated that "would determine what, any, information may shared with the Members this Committee." Instead consulting with any member the committee, the speech was made the House Floor before the C-Span public. 
Even before the chairman went the House Floor, the contents Mr. Livingstone's files were the press. story 4:39 
p.m. July 25, 1996, describes FBI agent's notes alleging that was told Bernard Nussbaum that Mr. Livingstone had been recommended the First Lady and that Mrs. Clinton knew his mother. Before rushing the Floor raise questions about the integrity the First Lady, Mr. Nussbaum, and Mr. Livingstone, the committee might have done least minimal amount investigation. 
Minimum fairness the individuals would have required full disclosure the trustworthiness Special Agent Sculimbrene. Among the documents requested subpoena was memo SSA David Bowie, dated August 1995, who recounted discussion had with Agent Sculimbrene concerning the prosecution Billy Dale (Document FBI-00005437-00005442): became immediately apparent that SCULIMBRENE held extremely intense feelings about the indictment subject BILLY DALE whom described personal and professional friend. became equally apparent that SCULIMBRENE blames the CLINTON WHITE HOUSE and the FBI for the predicament which subject DALE finds himself. During the course sometimes heated conversation between the writer and SCULIMBRENE, became equally apparent that SCULIMBRENE has allowed both his personal and political feelings obscure his judgement relative this entire matter. 

Specifically, SCULIMBRENE erroneously stated that had provided memo the writer the White House Travel Office matter allegedly containing the information relevant the inquiry. The writer never received memo from SCULIMBRENE dealing with the above subject matter. fact, the information provided SCULIIv.IBRENE during conversations with the writer merely implies that has very strong political views involving the CLINTON Administration and close personal relationship with the subject this matter, BILLY DALE .... 
The writer very concerned about the overall temperament and demeanor SCULIMBRENE reflected 8/4/ 
95. While the writer not position render Psychological judgements/conclusions about others, the opinion this writer that SCULIMBRENE's conduct/behavior, 8/4/95, clearly outside the norm. The writer notes that SCULIMBRENE was involved, approximately year ago, serious accident which almost cost him his life. noteworthy point out that during the course the 8/4/95, discussions with the writer, SCULIMBRENE commented, while pointing towards his head, that could get away with anything because handicapped". 
SSA BOWIE very concerned that SCULIMBRENE has allowed his personal and political feelings toward the CLINTON White House destroy his objectivity dealing with this issue. equally perplexing understand why any FBI Agent would allow his personal relationships with subject criminal probe become this involved such behavior constitutes, minimum, the appearance conflict interest. The writer persuaded that SCULIMBRENE contemplating either testimony before Congressional Committee and/or plans serve defense witness for subject BILLY DALE. Should decide this, his credibility witness and FBI Agent will destroyed the aftermath. The situation detailed above potentially embarrassing for the FBI and potentially disaster for SCULIMBRENE. highly suggested that WMFO management look the possibility that SCULIMBRENE may need EAP and/or some form emotional support. The writer persuaded that SCULIMBRENE's behavior abnormal and indeed irrational. addition, SCULIMBRENE should made aware the consequences should decide provide erroneous testimony effort help his friend, and C-7 subject, BILLY DALE. 

Instead alerting House Members and the public that the FBI agent whose notes conflict with the testimony Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Livingstone was close personal friend Billy Dale, and whose credibility was challenged another FBI agent, Chairman Clinger was silent, leading average listener assume that Mr. Sculimbrene was ordinary FBI agent. Chairman Clinger might have disclosed that Mr. Sculimbrene was associate Mr. Gary Aldrich, whose credibility White House matters has been, put mildly, called into question.2 also never stated that Agent Sculimbrene was quoted the Wall Street Journal stating that knew the purported relationship between Mr. Livingstone's mother and the First Lady from Mr. Livingstone and Mr. Kennedy (June 25, 1996), and that had told Senate investigators that Mr. Kennedy was the source his information. 
The majority does not merely raise questions when making charges such those made Chairman Clinger's special order. the sole intent was bring this the attention the Independent Counsel, private letter Mr. Starr would have sufficed. 
But this was not the only example the majority's rushing partisan judgment without conducting even minimal amount investigation. June 1996, Chairman Clinger held press conference detailing request for Billy Ray Dale's FBI background file that bore Mr. Nussbaum's typed name. The chairman alleged that "At the very least, there strong implication President Clinton's counsel acted unethically requesting confidential background checks former employee." According article distributed the Associated Press, ''U.S. Rep. William Clinger, R-Pa., suggested the written request might false statement that could prosecuted felony." Subsequent investigation quickly established that Mr. Nussbaum, like his predecessors, never reviewed such requests. Mr. Nussbaum testified the committee's June 26, 1996, hearing: 

So, the basis printed form, Mr. Chairman, you told the country, Mr. Chairman, that, best, was unethical White House Counsel; worst, was felon. But you had member your staff call me, ask simple question-did ever request Billy Dale's FBI files six months after was fired? Was really trying dig dirt Billy Dale when was being investigated the Justice Department? Those notions are absurd their face. They are false. But one called ask. (Emphasis added). 
Mr. Nussbaum then testified under oath that had knowledge that Mr. Dale's any other former White House employee's ironic that the majority's repeated claims stonewalling the administra
tion, Mr. Aldrich answer under oath more than questions asked minority coun
sel statements made his book. Rather than assisting this committee's efforts obtain information regarding the credibility witness, majority staff also
structed the minority's efforts have these questions answered Mr. Aldrich. letter dated August 1996, Ranking Minority Member subsequently requested 
Chairman Clinger instruct Mr. Aldrich respond these questions. date, lias not 

FBI files had been requested, and that certainly did not order copies FBI files. 
The chairman responded saying that the "documents speak for themselves," and dismissed Mr. Nussbaum's demand for apology suggesting that was attempting "demonize" him. believe this wholly inadequate response. The chairman very publicly-and wrongly-accused Mr. Nussbaum possible criminal behavior, without conducting even minimal amount investigation. Whether those accusations were innocent intentional, the record clearly demonstrates that they were false. 
When the minority requested, letter dated June 28, 1996, that the chairman take the fair and decent course admitting that overreached and apologizing Mr. Nussbaum, once again refused. Instead, replied: 
... (A)s you will see, never made reference Mr. Nussbaum "felon," has alleged. fact when was specifically asked, ''How much trouble Mr. Nussbaum in?" stated, "Well, think it's premature say whether, you know, whether he's any trouble." 
However, the transcript that press conference, provided the chairman himself his reply, confirms that the chairman did make those statements about Mr. Nussbaum the press: the very least, there strong implication President Clinton's counsel acted unethically requesting confidential background checks former employee. the very worst, the request may have violated the Privacy Act 
The chairman has yet admit his error apologize Mr. Nussbaum. Nor has apologized Presidential Advisor George Stephanopoulos for partisan leaks suggesting that Mr. Stephanopoulos was somehow responsible for Mr. Livingstone's position Director the Personnel Security Office without releasing other information the committee's possession demonstrating that that was not the case. 
The majority obsessed with determining who hired Craig Livingstone, that startling mystery was the key unraveling their entire conspiracy theory. However, the records provided the committee, the majority would take the time read them, reveal exactly how Mr. Livingstone was hired. The answer much less exciting than the majority would have believe. 
The resume David Craig Livingstone lists his current job "Presidential Inaugural Committee, Director Security" from November 1992 present. Prior that lists his occupation "President-Elect Clinton and Vice-President-Elect Gore, Lead and Site Lead Advance" November 1992. Prior that his job listed "Senior Consultant Counter-Event Operations, Clinton/ Gore '92" from October, 1991 November 1992. the top the resume handwritten notation stating "Spon
sored Eli Segal." Mr. Segal, who was campaign manager 
the Clinton Campaign also the first reference Mr. Living

stone's resume, and listed "Chief Financial Officer, ClintonGore Presidential Transition Team." February 1993, Mr. Livingstone signs ''Declaration Appointee", which form used determining fitness for employment. 
The job Director the Office Personnel Security vised the Office White House Counsel. from David Watkins, Assistant the President for Management, Bernard Nussbaum, Assistant the President and Counsel, and Vincent Foster, Deputy Assistant the President and Deputy Counsel, dated February 16, 1993, Watkins lays out the budget and full-time employees, which are proposed for the Counsel's Office budget. appears from the memo that Watkins had authorized slots $1,100,000. The Counsel's Office had responded with budget slots $1,100,000 along with proposal shift the three employees the Security Office, other than its head, the Personnel account. Watkins responds that the slots are shifted, the Office White House Counsel must reduce its budget $85,000. February 17, 1993, Craig Livingstone sends memo William Kennedy, Associate Counsel the President, describing the functions the Security Office. February 18, 1993, Kennedy sends memo Vincent Foster attaching Livingstone's memo. writes, "The resu all these functions that the Office moves much paper. need discuss this subject with you when you have time." February 23, 1993 Kennedy sends memo Nussbaum describing the major functions the White House Security Office,
parently based upon memo. February 24, 1993, and Foster (now also joined William Kennedy, Associate Counsel the President) respond the Watkins memo taking issue with their allocation. They note that they spend $91,000 the three assistants (compared $121,000 the Bush administration) and just $45,000 the head the office (compared with $67,000 for the incumbent), that they shou not have their budget $85,000 their savings. March 1993, David Watkins sent memo Bernard Nussbaum stating, understand from your budget that you believe the position currently held Jane Dannenhauer, Assistant the Counsel the President for Security, should part your budget and should compensated rate $42,000 per year. Please let know when you have identified the new staffer fill Ms. Dannenhauer's position. the moment, her salary $70,255 counting against your budget. But this amount will reduced when you replace Ms. Dannenhauer." Watkins also consents giving the Counsel the full $1,100,000 for slots. March 1993, memo David Watkins from Bernard 
Nussbaum and Vincent Foster, they state that "Craig Livingstone 
was hired February Assistant Counsel the President for 
Security with salary $45,000, not $42,000 originally budg
eted." March 10, 1993, William Kennedy sends memo David 
Watkins. states "This request that the start date the