Skip to content

Get Judicial Watch Updates!


Judicial Watch • OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-28-09

OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-28-09

OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-28-09

Page 1: OIS Cases FileGate-Exhibits-28-09

Donate now to keep these documents public!

See Generated Text   ∨

Autogenerated text from PDF

this copy the log that have for the period between March 29, 1994, and September 21, 1994? have idea why. your bel ief that' have incomp version the log? vers ion would that there are pages that are not there, but don't know specifically they were lost aft had left if--I don't know why. you recall whether you made entries into the log between March '94 and September '94? believe did--I know did robably April May. believe probably also did June, but July, 
think, had already started taking myself out of--I had already started limiting role the White House curity Office because was leaving you are then., that there some
confi_dent, portion the log that not included this copy that 
have? 	Yes.  	Have you heard anyone discuss pages being removed 
from 	the log.:.A No. --at any point time? You also have remember I've been --I was out 
the office for years before anything came about. I've not 
507 S1. N.E. Wuhinrton. 2000 that office. And the other thing that think you all migh overlooking, that think you all should this log was set for new background investigations. These 

all background nvestigati ons that had just recent into the White House. That were being checked out? That were being checked out. Could you explain further what you're suggesting? I'm not suggesting I'm stating that these 

people--:if you look all the names that--if you look 
the names the first page, second page, the majority the third pag, few the names, don't remember --all the fourth page--and then don know anyone this 
status? had current background investigation, there have been reason have new investigation done unless his background investigation was expiring because you 5-year--each background investigation has  5-year lifetime, and then you're due for new invetigation., 013142 
.LEI'! 111VORT1Ha. . me. Scrcer, N.E. .lUnrtcrn. 0.C. zooo: that new investigation question had arose, then there would have been follow-up. Okay. But knowledge memory, should say, all the people the first pages that mentioned were new employees these were new investigations, and think compared this list with the log that kept ail background investigations that came in, they going the same names the new backgrounds. Backgrounds new employees? Uh-huh. you personally--do you recall personally logging out background investigations anyone other than new employees? No. you have any knowledge that anyone else had 
done that? No. recall anyone ever entering the Office Personnel ecurity review file and reviewing the file the office? Yes. those instances, would any entry made the 

log? What--not this log, no. 013143 would be--and that was generally the case the CIA reviewing file grant SE! clearance, which that instance Katie--and have say don't remember her last name--frorn the office out Tysons would come the White House, and there woul form that she would have sign that Craig had already signed off on, saying that are allowing this person from the CIA review this file for clearance purposes, and then that would placed into the file itself, the whole file, and she would review the background investigation only, and cannot remember, but believe she would also check the IRS check, and that would the only thing. you remember any other individuals, for example, individuals from the Counsel's Off ice, ever coming the Off ice Personnel Security and reviewing files? Which individual$ you mean? Anyone from the White House Counsel's office. For example, we'll start with Bill Kennedy. could check out the files. don't remember him coming into the office review files, no. Okay. you remember anyone else reviewing files the office-23 No. --other than this Katie individual? No, not recollection. 

Ill.UP. RilKC. CO., INC:, 013141-'
'X' i..ltmran. C.. 2000 Okay. you recall any instance that you're  aware which was removed from the Off ice  Personnel Security without notation being made the log  indicating that removal? The only instance.sI can recall where that would  happen would when Craig would take file Mr.  Kennedy and keep that file with him and then come back with  that file. the investigation--and sometimes did take  the whole file. The background investigation would  
sometimes what took sometimes the whole file, and would take that Mr. Kennedy over Mr. Cutler another member the Counsel's office. you have specific recollection that  happening? happened few times, yes, but the files were  always Craig's custody you happen know whose files they were that  were being taken from the office? I have earthly idea.. remember that they were  
new employees. don't remember that there were any other  instances. you ever remember Mr. Billy Dale's file being  taken out the office? you know who Mr. Billy Dale is? Oh, yes. know who Mr. Billy Dale is. know  
who Mr. Mcsweeney is. know the names.  

llllU..!R llUORTINCl CO., INC. 01314:5 Scra:t. N.E. Wuhinrton. 2000: 
11. .12 
)07 Suett. KE. 
l:'uhincian, 0.C. 20002 
......... ....  know  that  the  files  were  discussed,  but  don't  
know  that  they  were  physically  removed.  you  know  who  discussed  them?  the  phone?  know  Craig  discussed  them,  but  
with  who,  don't  remember.  you  remember  when?  remember  was  after  the  Travel  Office  was  

removed the day that they were removed. you remember any other instances when Mr. Dale's file was discussed other fired, former employees the Travel Off ice? Only the--the only other time can remember them being discussed was the day that Craig had escort Mr. Mcsweeney through his check-out process, and that would it. You said that thse conversations were held Mr. Livingstone the telephone? There was one conversation where the names were mentiond, and The names being the names of? The Travel Office- Employees --employees. Who were dismissed? 
The current--at that time, they were the current