August 9, 1995 - Part 1
August 9, 1995 - Part 1
(10:10:30) This Committee is looking into the following question: Did improper conduct occur regarding the way in which White House officials handled documents in Mr. Foster's office following his death? I have an answer to that question, Mr. Chairman. It is a categorical no. There was nothing improper in the way White House officials handled documents in Vince Foster's office following his death. As this Committee has heard, there were differences of opinion with the Justice Department as to how a search of Vince's off ice for a suicide note or similar such documents should be conducted. That office contained numerous confidential files, as well as sensitive documents, such as briefing reports on Supreme Court nominees and other high Administration officials. Before any review by me of the documents in that office, Justice Department officials wanted to read a part of each document. They wanted to decide if a document was privileged or relevant to their search, That is perhaps understandable from their institutional point of view, which Philip Heymann defined here as maintaining the credibility of Federal law enforcement." As White House Counsel, I was also concerned with maintaining the credibility of Federal law enforcement, but I was bound to act in accordance with my obligations as a lawyer, and I did not believe that doing so, that acting accordance with my obligations as a lawyer would undermine the credibility of Federal law enforcement. It was my ethical duty as a lawyer and as White House Counsel to protect a client's information and confidences and not to disclose them without a prior review by me. It was my duty to preserve the right of the White House of this President and future Presidents to assert executive privilege, attorney-client privilege, and work product privilege. It was my duty to do nothing that could result in an inadvertent waiver of these privileges. It was my duty to protect the confidentiality of other 1203 matters as well, including sensitive Government documents in that office. These were solemn professional obligations that I was sworn as a lawyer to uphold, The fact that law enforcement agents wanted to see if there was a suicide note in Vince's office before I could review the documents in that office did not give me the right to ignore these obligations and throw open the door to that office. It did not give me the right to permit others, including Justice Department officials, to read the documents in Foster's office or even a part of them without a prior review by me. I believe that each of you-and each of you, like the President, is a major public figure-would want your counsel to respond in the same way to a request by the Justice Department or anyone to examine your confidential documents in your counsel's office. You would not want the door to your counsel's office thrown open to even a first-page examination of your confidential files without a prior review by you or your counsel. You might waive and I'm sure you would waive-whatever confidences and privileges you had, and you might cooperate- and I'm sure each of you would cooperate fully with investigators, but you and each of you would want your documents in your counsel's office reviewed first before you would let anyone take a look at them. You would want-and I know you would want-any decision to waive confidentiality and privilege respecting your documents to be reached carefully and deliberately. The President of the United States was entitled to at least the same protection, to at least the same right regarding documents in his Deputy Counsel's office after that lawyer, Vince Foster, died in July 1993. As I said, I did not believe in July 1993 that my acting in accordance with my obligations as a lawyer would undermine the credibility of Federal law enforcement. I still do not believe it after hear ing Mr. Heymann's testimony before this Committee.