August 10, 1995 - Part 1
August 10, 1995 - Part 1
(11:25:30) Now, if you listen to Mr. Heymann, he says, and I'm quoting from his deposition, "I thought that for the White House Counsel's"-wait a second. I have to find the rest of this. "I thought that 1335 for the White House Counsel's Office to make these decisions large- ly by itself as it did was simply not an acceptable way of address- ing them. A player with significant stakes in the matter cannot also be a referee." And he was very clear about his feelings on that point and you have stated you respect his point of view although you disagree with it; is that correct? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct, Senator. Senator BOYER. You don't think that he's being, shall we say, unreasonable to have this point of view? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Well, I understand his point of view. I do respect it and he is a very able and respected person, but I do have a vehement disagreement with his point of view, which I expressed yesterday. Senator, with all due respect to you and to the other Members of this Committee, I think in some ways it's even a dangerous and cynical point of view because what it says is basically, as I said in my statement yesterday, that only Justice Department lawyers can somehow be trusted and other lawyers who have the same ethical obligations, White House lawyers or private lawyers, are not deserving of trust. And while I know Phil doesn't intend to do this, what that does is feed into the very cynicism which sort of pervades a lot of what's going on today. Senator BOXER. I appreciate that view. And then you had Mr. Quinn on the other side, who said, and I quote, "It was my view at the time and it remains my view today that prior to the search of Mr. Foster's office by the Park Police, it was incumbent upon Mr. Nussbaum or some other appropriate person from the Counsel's Office to undertake a preliminary review in order to determine whether there were sensitive, privileged, or classified materials that required protection. As far as I was concerned, these obligations simply were more important than to maintain good appearances." In other words, cutting through that, what Mr. Quinn said is you should have shut the door, gone through every piece of paper in that office, decided what was privileged and then invite everyone in. You rejected that. Can you explain to me why you rejected that? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Your description of Mr. Quinn's position is absolutely correct. Senator BOXER. I read it from his deposition. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Absolutely precise. That's exactly the position he took, and I respected that view. He's a very able lawyer and a very experienced lawyer also. I understood that view. The reason I rejected it is because, frankly, I was Counsel to the President in his official capacity. I was not representing a private individual and, Senator, I was concerned about public perceptions. I was concerned about appearances, and I didn't think it was necessary to bar the door to Mr. Foster's office in order to adequately protect our rights, the right to protect confidentiality and privilege and to preserve the right to protect privilege and law enforcement issues. Senator BOXER. So what you did was, you had the Justice Department and the Park Police there and you basically described each document and put it in the appropriate place. Now, I want to get to this other question that keeps coming back arid I guess we'll have another person after you come and say the same thing, that You had promised Mr. Heymann, you had made a commitment, 1336 signed, sealed, and delivered that you were going to do it a dif- ferent way, that the police would be able to, in fact, look at every document rather than you describe it. Now, when you testified, you said, "I told them I would consider it. I never promised it." And what I'm trying to see if I can have you remember is this: Sometimes I have people come into my office from both sides of an issue because I like to work out disagreements with everyone in the room, rather than meeting one person here, another person another day. Each side presents a view, and I try to be objective and I sit back and they talk about it. Sometimes they have left my office and one party said she's going to be a cosponsor of the bill, and the other party said she opposes the bill and what I basically said in the meeting was not much, except that's interesting. That's a good idea. That's a good point. I'm going to consider it. Thinking back to that moment because that's an important point because Members on the other side are saying you reneged on a promise, and the hint is that someone whispered in your ear and said, Bernie, back out of that deal. Can you tell us, if you can, what you may have said to lead people to think you had already decided on something and it was done? (11:30:56)(tape #10142 ends)