eMediaMillWorks
Thursday, March 1, 2001

Following is the transcript of the congressional hearing on former president Bill Clinton's last-minute pardons. Witnesses included: Former Democratic National Committee Finance Chairperson Beth Dozoretz, Marc Rich counsel Jack Quinn, former counsel to former president Clinton Beth Nolan, former Clinton aide Bruce Lindsey, former White House Chief of Staff John Podesta, attorney Robert F. Fink, Chief of Staff to Vice President Cheney, Lewis Libby. Congressional speakers included: Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Rep. Benjamin A Gilman (R-N.Y.), Rep. Constance Morella (I-Md.), Rep. Christopher Shays (R-Conn.), Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), Rep. John McHugh (R-N.Y.), Rep. Steve Horn (R-Calif.), Rep. John L. Mica (R-Fla.), Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.), Rep. Mark E. Souder (R-Ind.), Rep. Joe Scarborough (R-Fla.), Rep. Steven C. Latourette (R-Ohio), Rep. Bob Barr (R-Ga.), Rep. Dan Miller (R-Fla.), Rep. Asa Hutchison (R-Ark.), Rep. Doug Ose (R-Calif.), Rep. Ron Lewis (R-Ky.), Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), Rep. Jo Ann Davis (R-Va.), Rep. Todd Platts (R-Pa.), Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.), Rep. Major R. Owens (D-N.Y.), Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), Rep. Paul E. Kanjorski (D-Pa.), Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii), Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney (D-N.Y.), Del. Eleanor Holms Norton (D-D.C.), Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.), Rep. Elijah E. Cummings (D-Md.), Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-Ohio), Rep. Rod R. Blagojevich (D-Ill.), Rep. Danny K. Davis (D-Ill.), Rep. John F. Tierney (R-Mass.), Rep. Jim Turner (D-Texas), Rep. Thomas H. Allen (D-Maine), Rep. Harold E. Ford Jr. (D-Tenn.), Rep. Janice D. Schakowsky (D-Ill.) and Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.)

BURTON: Good afternoon. A quorum being present, the Committee on Government Reform will come to order.

I ask unanimous consent that all members' and witnesses' written opening statements be included in the record, and without objection, so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that all articles, exhibits and extraneous or tabular material referred to be included in the record, and without objection, so ordered.

I ask unanimous consent that a set of exhibits, which was shared with the minority prior to the hearing, be included in the record, and without objection, so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that questioning in this matter proceed under Clause 2(j)(ii) of House Rule 11 and Committee Rule 14 in which the chairman and ranking minority member allocate time to members of the committee as they deem appropriate for extended questioning not to exceed 60 minutes, equally divided between the majority and minority, and without objection, so ordered.

I also ask unanimous consent that questioning in the matter under consideration proceed under Clause 2(j)(ii) of House Rule 11 and Committee Rule 14 in which the chairman and ranking minority member allocate time to committee counsel as they deem appropriate for extended questioning not to exceed 60 minutes, divided equally between the majority and minority, and without objection, so ordered.

Good morning.

Today we're holding our second hearing regarding the president's last minute pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green. Since our last meeting, there have been a number of new developments, but before I talk about that, let's go back and look at what we've learned in our first hearing.

On February 8, the first thing that we learned was that the normal review process at the Justice Department was completely bypassed. Jack Quinn testified that he delivered the pardon application to the White House on December 11, but it was never delivered to the Justice Department for review. We released an e-mail that showed that Mr. Rich's lawyers were doing their dead-level best to keep the pardon application secret to keep it from getting shot down.

We heard from Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder. Mr. Holder was told by Mr. Quinn in November that Marc Rich's pardon application would be submitted directly to the White House. Mr. Holder didn't tell the pardon attorney. He didn't tell the prosecutors in New York, who were responsible for the case and who had worked on it.

On January 19, Mr. Holder was called by the White House about the pardon. At this point, it was clear that this pardon of an international fugitive was under serious consideration. Again, he didn't contact the pardon attorney and he didn't contact the prosecutors in New York. In that January 19 phone call, White House counsel Beth Nolan asked Mr. Holder what he thought about pardoning Mr. Rich. He told her he was neutral, leaning towards. But he admitted that he never reviewed the case. He never talked to prosecutors about it. The only information he had was former White House counsel Jack Quinn. Now, how could he be "neutral, leaning towards," when the only information he'd seen about the case came from Marc Rich's lawyer?

We released an e-mail that showed that President Clinton called Beth Dozoretz about the pardon. Beth Dozoretz is a former finance chairman of the Democratic National Committee. She also pledged to raise $1 million for the Clinton Library, and she's a close friend of Denise Rich, Marc Rich's ex-wife. Neither one has cooperated with this committee so far.

According to that e-mail, the president wanted to approve the pardon, and he was doing all he could to turn around the White House counsels. Why was the president on such a different wavelength from his staff? Why would the president call a fund-raiser about a pardon, but he wouldn't ask his own Justice Department for an opinion?

Now there's new developments. That was three weeks ago. A lot's happened since then. I have said all along that I don't want to drag this investigation out, and I mean that. At the same time, new information is coming out so fast, it's almost impossible to keep up with it. I want to just mention a few important developments.

First, we've learned that Denise Rich gave $450,000 to the Clinton Library. That's on top of the $1.2 million that she gave to the Democratic campaigns. We need to learn more about that.

Second, we learned that Beth Dozoretz pledged to raise $1 million for the Clinton Library.

Third, we learned that the president's brother-in-law, Hugh Rodham, got more than $430,000 for helping two people get pardons. He received a $200,000 contingency fee from Glenn Braswell, who was convicted of fraud.

At the time of the pardon, Mr. Braswell was still under investigation by the Justice Department for tax evasion. He got another $200,000 to help Carlos Vignali get a pardon. Carlos Vignali was convicted of helping ship 800 pounds of cocaine from Los Angeles to Minneapolis. That's more than $5 million worth of cocaine, and they were going to turn it into crack.

Fourth, we learned that the former first lady's campaign treasurer received $4,000 to help two people who were trying to get pardons.

And fifth, we learned that the president's brother, Roger Clinton, asked for pardons for a number of people. We need to find out if any money was promised to Roger Clinton, and we need to find out exactly what he did on behalf of these people.

We have learned more important details in just the last two days. Today, the New York Times reported that the first lady's older brother, Tony Rodham, helped get a pardon for someone who was paying him as a consultant. The Justice Department opposed this pardon, but it was approved anyway.

We received a new document that shows that the prosecutors in the Marc Rich case offered to drop the RICO charge against Mr. Rich if he would return to the United States to face trial. I believe that was in 1999. Now, Mr. Quinn has been telling us that this RICO sledgehammer was what forced Mr. Rich to flee the country. Well, evidently that wasn't the whole story, and it wasn't quite accurate, because they were going to drop the RICO charge to get him back to stand trial on the other charges, and there were 50 of them.

We learned that Carlos Vignali, the cocaine dealer who paid Hugh Rodham, lied on his pardon application. He lied about his prior offenses and yet he still got a pardon, much to the chagrin of the Justice Department and, I believe, the pardon officials.

We were very surprise to learn this week that Eric Holder wouldn't sign the Justice Department's memo opposing Carlos Vignali's pardon. Apparently, he didn't want to sign any more pardon denials. He was the deputy attorney general, and he didn't want to sign a memo opposing a pardon of a major drug dealer. Why?

We've learned that John Podesta's personal lawyer, Peter Kadzik, was lobbying Mr. Podesta on behalf of Marc Rich. That's one of the reasons we called Mr. Kadzik here today.

Finally, on Tuesday, the pardon attorney from the Justice Department told us that the night the pardon of Marc Rich was granted, his office sent information to the White House stating that Marc Rich was involved in illegal arms trading. That was the night the pardon was granted. Now, it's not clear now that this information is accurate, but nobody at the White House even called back to ask about it. As far as they knew, they were granting a pardon for an arms dealer.

The appearances that have been created here are obvious. If you have friends in high places, you can get around the law. It makes it look like we have one system of justice for the rich and powerful, and another system of justice for all the rest of us.

Were laws broken? We don't know. We don't have all the facts yet. We want to be responsible. We don't want to rush to judgment or make accusations until we have all the facts. But we have an obligation to try to find out what happened and lay the facts before the American people. We want to move expeditiously. In some areas, we're making progress. We asked the president not to claim executive privilege so his aides could testify, and he's done that, and that's a positive step.

We had a problem with the Clinton Library, they didn't want to comply with our subpoena for information on their donors. If you read the editorial pages across the country, I think there is widespread agreement that they shouldn't try to keep that secret. We've made a great deal of progress on this issue in the last two days, and we're very close to resolving it. The lawyers for the library have committed to bringing us more information tomorrow. I had scheduled the library's president, Skip Rutherford, to testify on the first panel today. We've made enough progress that I've excused him. I appreciate the fact that the lawyers for the library have worked with us to resolve this.

We asked Mr. Quinn to provide us with written answers to some questions prior to the hearing, and he's done that, and we appreciate it.

Last night, we received answers to the questions we submitted to Mr. Rodham, and that was helpful. And I ask unanimous consent to place this letter in the record at the conclusion of my remarks, and without objection, so ordered.

On the other hand, we still have some problems. We wrought to Roger Clinton. We asked him to provide us with some basic information about who he tried to help get pardons.

We asked him how much money he received, if any. He has not responded. We wrote to the lawyer for Glenn Braswell. His name is Kendall Coffey. We asked him for some very basic information, like a copy of the material he submitted to the White House. He hasn't responded.

The most serious obstacle we faced is this: We have two key witnesses who are taking the Fifth Amendment against self incrimination. Denise Rich exercised her Fifth Amendment rights three weeks ago. We don't know if she has done anything wrong. We don't anticipate that she has, but we sure wish she would answer our questions.

We want to get to the bottom of this. Now we're told that Beth Dozoretz will also take the Fifth. These are two people who are involved in raising money for the president and lobbying the president for pardons, and we apparently can't talk to either one of them.

Now, Ms. Dozoretz is here with us today. She was called as a witness to this hearing. We've received word through her lawyer that she plans to exercise her Fifth Amendment rights. However, this is a personal privilege that must be exercised by the individual and not through counsel. And that's why we've asked Ms. Dozoretz to be here, and we hope she'll reconsider.

On our second panel, we have several former senior White House officials. We have the president's former chief of staff, John Podesta. We have the former White House counsel, Beth Nolan. We have the former deputy White House counsel, Bruce Lindsey. And we also have Jack Quinn, who represented Mr. Rich as well as having, in the past, worked at the White House with the president. And he, of course, has lobbied for Mr. Rich's pardon.

The purpose of the second panel is to determine what kind of process they went through at the White House. We know the Justice Department was not consulted in any meaningful way. So who was consulted? What information did they use to evaluate the Marc Rich pardon? Who advised the president? And that's what we want to find out from that panel today.

On the third panel, we have three attorneys who represented Marc Rich. We have Robert Fink. We have Lewis Scooter Libby, and we have Peter Kadzik.

I want to thank all of our witnesses for being here today. I know that members on both sides here don't want to spend the rest of their lives investigating Bill Clinton, and I'm certainly one of them. But I want people to recognize that we're facing some significant obstacles in getting information for the Congress and the American people who deserve to know the facts. We're going to be responsible, and we're going to move forward as rapidly as possible.

I want to work with members on both sides to get this done. Mr. Waxman asked us to call Scooter Libby to testify today. I, personally, didn't think that was necessary. There is no evidence that Mr. Libby was involved in the pardon process at all. But it was important to Mr. Waxman, so I agreed. And I believe, if we work together, we can get this work done very quickly, and we can move on to other important things that need to be done for the country.

That concludes my opening statement. And I now yield to Mr. Waxman for his statement.

WAXMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Three weeks ago at the committee's first hearing on the Marc Rich pardon, I criticized President Clinton's actions. I said, the Rich pardon was bad precedent, an end run around the judicial process and appeared to set a double standard for the wealthy and powerful.

Almost immediately, the phones lit up in my office. Oddly, many of the calls came from anti-Clinton viewers, accusing me of being an apologist for the president. But I also received many calls from Democrats, demanding that I explain why I wasn't supporting President Clinton's actions. That's where I want to start today.

I want particularly to direct my comments to Democrats around the country who are puzzled why congressional Democrats aren't defending President Clinton. Well, if a Republican president has presided over a pardon process that resembled the chaotic mess that seemingly characterized the final days of the Clinton administration, I would be outraged and would criticize it.

Issuing pardons is one of the most profound powers given to the president. At a minimum, the decision-making process must be careful and above reproach. It's clear that President Clinton's efforts were not.

President Clinton had two equally important responsibilities in deciding whether to grant pardons.

First, the president could not grant a pardon in exchange for any personal benefit. A quid pro quo obviously would break the law. And although the president's pardon power is absolute, it is not above the law.

To this point, I've seen no evidence that the president broke any law. I've seen a lot of evidence of bad judgment, but not illegality.

But given the extraordinary circumstances of the Rich pardon, it's important the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York fully, quickly, and impartially investigate this issue. The U.S. attorney is doing that, and its investigation should resolve any questions of illegality for the American people.

President Clinton's second fundamental obligation is just as important as the first. He must protect the American people's trust by exercising sound judgment. This isn't a legal standard, it's a subjective measure, and President Clinton failed to meet it.

The combination of revelations, ranging from the Marc Rich and New Square pardons to the role Hugh Rodham played in the pardon process, are disturbing and they raise serious questions about the president's judgment.

And if anyone should have been sensitive to this, it was the president. He has been subject to a constant barrage of attacks and scrutiny, some unquestionably justified, but most reckless and unfair. He knows that whatever he does will be questioned, even if he didn't actually do it.

During the battle over impeachment, I repeatedly noted a distinction between private conduct and official activities. The president's relationship with a White House intern was a personal failing and a betrayal of his family. Everything that sprang from that scandal, including his false testimony under oath, came from that personal failure.

In this case, however, Mr. Clinton's failure to exercise sound judgment affected one of the most important duties of the presidency. Bad judgment is obviously not impeachable, but the failures in the pardon process should embarrass every Democrat and every American. It's a shameful lapse of judgment that must be acknowledged, because to ignore it would betray a basic principle of justice that Democrats believe in.

I know that many Democrats fear that criticizing President Clinton's actions will somehow negate all of his accomplishments, all the accomplishments of his administration. I disagree. President Clinton's discipline and masterful handling of our economy, and his leadership on a score of international and domestic issues, health and environmental concerns, will not be forgotten.

Democrats, and I hope even some Republicans, should be proud of the progress we made and the immense talents President Clinton brought to the White House. Those truths remain, despite the president's other failings.

But when he makes a serious mistake, as I think he did in this case, Democrats must be willing to say so.

I hope that helps explain to my Democratic callers why I've been so critical of the president's conduct. But I also want to address the anti-Clinton callers, who attack me for being an apologist for the president and the first lady. At the same time that I believed that President Clinton made grave errors, I also believe there's clearly a double standard that's applied to him. Pointing out that there's a double standard isn't an attempt to excuse what's happened, it's just the facts.

One major reason we're holding this hearing is to investigate whether President Clinton pardoned Marc Rich in exchange for contributions. Republicans are saying that an investigation is essential, because of the suspicious circumstances that Marc Rich's former wife gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to the DNC and the Clinton Library.

Well, compare this pardon to that President Bush gave in 1989 to Armand Hammer, the former head of Occidental Petroleum, who plead guilty to making illegal campaign contributions.

NORTON: The public may know about Kemba Smith, the young mother and college student, who was caught up in her boyfriend's conspiracy to sell drugs when she, herself, had committed no overt act of crime, but I don't I don't think that the public knows of the press, which has made great stock of how these poor people have been left with nothing done for them. Shame on them.

I do think it only right for us to know that the president did pardon some such people. Congress has had no mercy, despite the fact that Justice Rehnquist, the Federal judiciary, Barry McCaffrey and the Catholic bishops have called for a change in the laws involving mandatory minimums.

Please let nothing that I have said contradict my view that Marc Rich should not have been pardoned, that pardons should not be granted to the privileged, that the president made a terrible judgment in making these pardons, that he will never set the record straight, because appearances control such matters. And I am afraid, tragically, that the appearances will always control this matter unless the U.S. attorney tells us otherwise.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

BURTON: Thank the gentlelady for her comments.

Mr. Souder?

SOUDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And I want to thank Mr. Waxman for his statement. I don't agree with the latter part of his statement, but I appreciate his acknowledgement in the forward part of his statement.

I also believe that he has attempted to--while defend the position that charges must be proven before they can be made, which at times has made him seem like a defender of the administration--is a fair-minded man.

I had no decision in my public career that was more agonizing or more painful than the impeachment vote. And I have paid a terrible price in my district from hatred of long-time friends, who did not like it that I only voted for one count on impeachment. And that was very difficult because I, too, have been trying to sort out how you separate public and private behavior and how you can establish a truth in this system and how we set precedents.

But sitting on this committee, under Chairman Clinger and Chairman Burton, has been one of the most exasperating experiences in my life. We have had a minimum of 125 people take the Fifth Amendment or flee the country.

If you want to know what is undermining the American people's confidence in our governmental systems, it's that everybody seems to be protecting everybody else, and that money and power seem to influence the ability to make decisions, even for pardons, which our founding fathers meant for those who were hurting, those who didn't get a fair trial.

And it seems like, whether it was in the travel office, whether it was in the files, whether it was in--and I said "seems like" because we haven't been able to get to the truth because there has been community blocking. The Chinese funding, the casino funding, every time we start to pursue something, it's like a whole bunch of people put up a wall. And that's partly why so many members on our side have been so frustrated.

And hopefully, with this investigation, we can move and advance toward truth in other things that have been, in my opinion, at the very least justice obstructed. We don't know what for sure was obstructed, but through this wall of fleeing the country and taking the Fifth, we have not been able to get to the truth.

And I really hope--and I understand there is a court case going on--but I really hope that today's witness will at some time come forward and speak fully to us as well, because the American people have a right to know what has happened in this whole entire process, because public hearings such as this and things that our chairman are conducting are part of the way, in the absence of a clear, norm, standard in our country, we determine our norms of what is acceptable behavior and not.

When Judge Thomas went through his hearing, we, as a community, as a nation, learned more about how sexual harassment can be handled. Whether the charges were true or not, we went through a process. Through Watergate, we went through a process. Through these are how we determine what is allowable behavior in the public arena. And I think this serves a purpose, and I hope today's witness and future witnesses will come forth and speak rather than take the Fifth.

Yield back.

BURTON: Thank you, Mr. Souder. Further discussion?

Mr. LaTourette?

LATOURETTE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll attempt to be brief so we can get on with the panels. But I did want to follow up on the ranking member's observation that this hearing will talk about whether or not there is illegality.

I think that there are other things that this committee is looking at and should be looking at. For instance, one of our colleagues from Massachusetts, Congressman Frank, has introduced a constitutional amendment to indicate that perhaps pardons are not appropriate by lame-duck presidents between the time of the election and when they leave office. And I think that the facts developed at the last hearing and this hearing can illuminate us on that.

I think that this committee can certainly take a look at the revolving-door policy, of when someone who works for the administration or for Congress can come back and lobby. I think that that's an appropriate discussion.

My personal opinion is that Mr. Quinn sort of took the revolving door off the hinges as he spun around and went back into the White House to gain this particular pardon.

While the history lesson with President Bush and his relatives was interesting, I think what's intriguing with Mr. Rodham, the former first lady's brother, is that when Mr. Quinn was before the committee, he indicated that he didn't violate the revolving door policy because he was subject to the judicial exception; that is, he was able to represent Mr. Rich in a criminal matter.

Well, Mr. Rodham has taken a contingency fee in a pardon matter, which is against the ethics code of the bar association of the state of Florida, and his argument is, it's not a criminal matter. So I think perhaps we can legislatively get to the bottom of that as well.

And relative to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, I think some of the press reports I've seen relative to who got in and who got out have to do with Mr. Vignali in California, where it was not only Carlos Vignali, a white drug dealer, 800 pounds, turning it into crack cocaine in Minnesota for distribution on the streets of Minnesota, but he had 30 co-defendants, many of whom had never been in trouble before, and they all still are in prison, with mandatory minimums. In particular, there was a fellow focused on from Minnesota who received a longer prison sentence than Mr. Vignali.

So I think all of those are issues that were before the committee.

And the last comment I want to make. After "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire?" last night, I was watching this Geraldo Rivera, and he was calling the chairman "Dandy Dan Burton," saying that he was going to bring Mrs. Dozoretz in and subject her to Mafia-style treatment before the United States Congress. And all I would say is that, if she chooses to take the Fifth Amendment today, it is a personal privilege, as you pointed out, it can't be sent by letter, it can't be sent by her lawyers, she has to invoke it. And if she feels that there is evidence that she would give that would implicate her in conspiracy or bribery or conduit contributions, and it's her best interest to take the Fifth Amendment, that is her right. But to suggest somehow otherwise, that she is receiving ill-treatment or it's a media spectacle or anything else, I think does a disservice to the chairman and does a disservice to the committee.

And I thank you, and yield back my time.

SANDERS: Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

BURTON: The gentleman is recognized.

SANDERS: I'll be very brief. Let me just pick up on a point that my friend, Mr. LaTourette, just made a moment ago. I think what he was suggesting is that one of the benefits of this hearing, it educates us about things. And he touched on other manifestations of what we can learn from hearings like this.

But I wonder if he would add to this some other areas that this committee might want to study. I have been concerned that the American people pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs and that millions of elderly people cannot afford prescription drugs. I wonder if he would join me in calling on this committee to study the role of the millions of dollars that the pharmaceutical industry contributes to the Republican Party and to the Democratic Party and why we end up paying the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs.

This country is the only country in the industrialized world that does not have a national health care system guaranteeing health care to all people.

I wonder if he will join me and ask Mr. Burton to conduct a hearing about the role that insurance company monies play in influencing the political process so that millions of Americans don't have health care.

Today on the floor of the House, there's a bankruptcy bill. My understanding is that the credit card companies and those people who will benefit from this bill have contributed millions of dollars to the Republican Party.

There is a tax bill that President Bush has offered that will provide 43 percent of the benefits to the richest 1 percent. I wonder if we will take a hard look at the role of the hundreds of millions of dollars that have come into the political process from the wealthiest people in this country and see, maybe, there might be a correlation that the legislation that come out benefits overwhelmingly the wealthiest people in this country.

So I would agree with what Mr. Waxman said earlier. I think it's important that we have this hearing, that we learn about what Mr. Clinton did, and his terrible lapse in judgment. But if we're going to talk about money in politics, let's talk about money in politics. The influence that money had on Mr. Clinton, the influence the money has on the Republican Party and the Democratic Party and then open up that issue so the American people, once again, can have faith in the political process in this country.

LATOURETTE: Will the gentleman yield to me?

SANDERS: I yield.

LATOURETTE: I'd be delighted to join you in all of those activities. And I think the distinction that I would draw is if any of those activities have a quid pro quo, they're all wrong and the ones that you...

SANDERS: Good, then let's work together.

LATOURETTE: I'd be happy to work with you.

SANDERS: And, Mr. Burton, I hope that you will work with us on those, as well.

BURTON: I'd be happy to look into that with you, Mr. Sanders.

SANDERS: OK.

BURTON: Are there any further opening statements? If not, Ms. Dozoretz, would you rise and raise your right hand, please.

Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

DOZORETZ: I do.

BURTON: Mrs. Dozoretz, do you have any kind of opening statement?

DOZORETZ: No, I don't.

BURTON: Then we will start with 30 minutes on each side. I will yield the first to Mr. Shays.

SHAYS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Mr. Chairman, first let me thank you and ranking member Waxman for two very thoughtful statements, I appreciate it very much.

Good morning, Ms. Dozoretz.

DOZORETZ: Good morning.

SHAYS: Welcome to this hearing on presidential pardons, and thank you very much for being here.

This committee has almost been overwhelmed by what appears to be a number of inexcusable pardons granted by President Clinton in the 11th hour of his presidency.

Many on this committee question why a number of pardons were granted and we questioned the process by which they were granted. On the surface, it seems someone was more likely to get a controversial if they gave to the president's party or to its candidates, gave to the new presidential library, hired White House or Washington insiders, or used the services of family members of the former president and his wife.

We question why some of the pardons were granted, and the process by which they were granted. The fact that 40 weren't vetted with the Justice Department, the fact that some were not properly documented, and the fact that they were granted to a major drug dealer, who was caught shipping 800 pounds of cocaine--to four individuals who defrauded $30 million from government education programs designed to help those most in need, to an individual who practiced medical fraud, and is still under additional investigations.

But of all the pardons, the hardest one for us to understand and justify is the pardon of Marc Rich, an individual who allegedly made $100 million in illegal profits; attempted to hide $48 million in profits; fled the country and became a 17-year fugitive from justice; renounced the U.S. citizenship; and traded with Iran, while our hostages were there, Iraq around the time we had hostilities in the Gulf, Libya, Korea, and the apartheid South African government.

Ms. Dozoretz, we are an investigative committee that tries to root out waste, fraud and abuse in government. And Lord knows, it appears we seem to see all three in this pardon process. I hope these hearings, besides helping to root out fraud, lead to an improvement in the pardon process--not change the Constitution, but the process--help improve the revolving door requirements and public disclosure of money raised by sitting presidents and their libraries.

Your testimony is invaluable to us, and would help us conclude our investigation much more quickly. So with all this in mind, I would like to show you exhibit 63, and to ask for your response. What I'd like to do is just read parts of it.

Do you have a copy of it?

Number 2 says: "DR called from Aspen," and we understand from Jack Quinn, that that is Denise Rich. "Her friend B," we understand from Jack Quinn is you, Beth Dozoretz, "who is with her got a call today from POTUS," who we understand to be the president, "who said he was impressed by JQ's," Jack Quinn, "last letter." And that, "He wants to do it, and is doing all possible to turn around the White House counselors. DR," Denise Rich, "thinks he sounded very positive but," quote, "that we have to keep praying," end of quote.

"There shall be no decision this weekend. And the other candidate, Milek (ph)," which we understand to be Michael Milken, "is not getting it." And then, number three, "I shall meet her and her friends next week. She will provide more details."

Now, what I would like to ask is the following. Exhibit 63 is an e-mail which indicates that on January 10, 2001, President Clinton called you in Aspen, Colorado, where you were staying with Denise Rich. The e-mail indicates that the president discussed the Marc pardon with you before he spoke with the Justice Department. My question is, at any time while you were discussing the Marc Rich pardon with President Clinton, did either you or the president mention Denise Rich's contribution to the Clinton Library or the Democratic National Committee?

DOZORETZ: Upon the advice of my counsel, I respectfully decline to answer that question based on the protection afforded me under the United States Constitution.

SHAYS: Let me ask you this: Will that be your response to all our questions? Or are those that are specific subjects or persons you will not discuss and others you are willing to discuss with us?

DOZORETZ: Sir, that will be my response to all questions.

SHAYS: Thank you, Ms. Dozoretz. I know it hasn't been easy coming here today, and we appreciate your informing the committee personally of your decision to assert your rights under the Fifth Amendment, even though your lawyer had done so earlier. In doing so, you show respect for our responsibility in our process.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back.

BURTON: The gentleman yields back.

Mr. LaTourette, no questions?

BURTON: Mr. Waxman?

Let me just say that since Ms. Dozoretz has exercised her Fifth Amendment rights and has said she wants to continue to do so, we have no further questions, and we will be happy to excuse her. But if you have questions, go ahead.

WAXMAN: Mr. Chairman, I understand that Denise Rich, who also took the Fifth Amendment, but wasn't required to come here today to assert it, has indicated that she is going to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York, which is, of course, the official investigation as to whether any criminal actions took place.

I don't think I could get an answer from Ms. Dozoretz because I think, as I understand the rules, if she answers any questions then she's waived her right not to testify. But I presume and expect and hope that she is also going to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney's Office.

As I understand the matter, witnesses who are being called to testify and cooperate with law enforcement may well feel that they ought to take the Fifth Amendment here, but cooperate there. I, again, regret that she was brought here to assert what the chairman knew she would assert, her constitutional right not to testify.

While people say that it's not for media spectacle purposes, I wish that the TV audience could see all the people here with cameras who were anxious to take her photo as she asserted her rights, which we expected she would do.

I have no questions.

BURTON: Mr. Waxman, I'll retain my time.

Let me just say, why do you assume that she wouldn't take her Fifth Amendment rights before the U.S. attorney?

WAXMAN: I can't answer whether she will or she won't. I could ask her the question, but I presume that that would be...

BURTON: No, I understand, but the comments you made indicated that you assumed...

WAXMAN: The reason I made that statement is that Denise Rich is going to cooperate and is cooperating with the U.S. attorney, and has taken the Fifth Amendment with regard to this committee. I presume and expect and will get a response, I expect, from Ms. Dozoretz and her attorney, if not on the record right now, shortly and publicly, that they would be cooperating with the official law enforcement of this case.

BURTON: Well, Mr. Waxman, perhaps you know something we don't, and I appreciate your sharing your expectations with us. But let me say this about Ms. Rich. I have heard she's a very fine lady, and we certainly didn't want to cause her any undue heartburn as well.

Ms. Rich, we sent a letter, as we have always done, to the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Justice Department to find out if they objected to our granting Ms. Rich or possibly Ms. Dozoretz immunity for testifying, and the U.S. attorney indicated they were opening a criminal investigation, and I believe they've empaneled a grand jury. Whenever the U.S. attorney or the attorney general indicates to this committee that they would request that we not grant immunity because it might interfere with their investigation and might cause a person, who might possibly be convicted of a felony, and our granting immunity would impede that process, then we don't grant immunity, and we always write that letter.

Now, we received response back from the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, who said that they were opening a criminal investigation and asked us not to grant immunity. And since Ms. Rich planned to take the Fifth Amendment and we decided not to try to grant her immunity at the request of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, we decided not to call her. Those are the facts. And that has not been the case with Ms. Dozoretz, and that's why she was asked to be here today.

LATOURETTE: Mr. Chairman, would you just yield to me for a minute?

BURTON: I'd be happy.

LATOURETTE: I think Mr. Waxman's earlier observation is correct, at least my limit understanding of the law is that if Mrs. Dozoretz answers any question she can't pick and choose what questions she answers, so I think he's right about that. But I think, also, she can't pick and choose, nor can Mrs. Rich pick and choose, which forum she chooses to speak in.

And once she violates or says that she is no longer invoking the Fifth Amendment, should that be in the Southern District of New York or some other forum, she no longer retains that right. And I would ask, perhaps, that if she breaks this code of silence and determines that she wants to give testimony and not invoke the Fifth Amendment in another forum, that perhaps the committee send through her lawyers written questions, when she no longer has the privilege available, so that we may have the benefit of those answers that she's giving to others to help us in our probe.

BURTON: Thank you, Mr. Latourette.

Mr. Barr?

BARR: We're getting off on a tangent here that I'm not quite sure is accurate. Any individual has the right with regard to any question put to them to assert an articulable basis for not testifying if it incriminates them. And I'm not quite sure that we're all operating within the bounds of a clear understanding of the law when we say, "Simply because a person may choose to assert the right with regard to question A, that means they have to assert to all or none."

Ms. Dozoretz, I think we can, you know, at least get one issue off the table here. This has nothing to do with the hearing today, but is it your intention to cooperate with any investigation being conducted by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York?

DOZORETZ: I rely on the advice of my counsel, sir.

BARR: In other words, your counsel has instructed you not to cooperate with any probe by the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York?

DOZORETZ: I will rely on the advice of my counsel, sir.

BARR: And does that advice include telling you not to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York?

DOZORETZ: I will rely on the advice of my counsel, Mr. Barr.

BARR: Which is to assert your Fifth Amendment rights, even as to that question?

DOZORETZ: It's privileged, sir.

BARR: What is privileged?

DOZORETZ: The advice of my counsel.

BARR: But you keeping citing it, so it's not really privilege, because you keep citing it.

Apparently the witness, Mr. Chairman, will not even state to the American people or to this panel whether it is her intention to cooperate with the Department of Justice. I think that's very unfortunate. That's unfortunate advice, but apparently that's where we are.

BURTON: Well, we're prepared, Mr. Waxman, to release Ms. Dozoretz. Do you have any more comments?

WAXMAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do want to make a further comment. I don't want the chairman or anyone else to think I'm being critical of how you've handled the situation with Ms. Rich in not asking her to come in and give her immunity and force her to testify because there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation.

I must also say that I take a harsh view of people not willing to cooperate with committees of the Congress. And if I had my way, I wish Mrs. Dozoretz would testify, because I think people ought to testify before committees of the Congress.

But I do understand that she is, under the guidance of her lawyers, sorting thorough a legal thicket, where on the one hand you have the committee of the House investigating, committee of the Senate investigating, and the U.S. Attorney's Office investigating.

It has been reported that Denise Rich, who also said she would take the Fifth Amendment before Congress, is, at the present time, talking to the U.S. attorney.

Now, I can't say from my own knowledge whether Ms. Dozoretz is doing the same. But I can say from my own knowledge, knowing her, that she is a responsible person and that she has been very philanthropic. She has been a concerned citizen, and as such, I would expect to hear that she is also going to be cooperating with the U.S. attorney's office.

I just wanted to make that statement and have my views very clearly on the record.

BURTON: If there is no further discussion or questions, Ms. Dozoretz and your counsel, thank you very much for being here. We'll excuse you at this time.

The next panel that we will welcome to the witness table will consist of Jack Quinn, Beth Nolan, Bruce Lindsey and John Podesta.

Mr. Quinn, Ms. Nolan, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Podesta, would you please rise and raise your right hand?

Do you swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

WITNESSES: I do.

BURTON: You may have opening statements. I think we'll just go right down the table.

Mr. Quinn, do you have an opening statement?

QUINN: No, sir, Mr. Chairman.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, I testified before this committee for almost nine hours a few weeks ago, and I, subsequently, testified before a Senate committee. I've submitted to this committee, for inclusion in the record of its hearings, my Senate testimony. And I'll stand on that, and be prepared to answer any questions you may have today.

BURTON: Well, we appreciate your coming back and being with us.

Ms. Nolan, do you have an opening statement?

NOLAN: Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening statement, but I'm prepared to answer your questions.

BURTON: Thank you, Ms. Nolan.

Mr. Lindsey?

LINDSEY: No, sir, I do not have an opening statement, but I'm prepared to answer any questions.

BURTON: OK, thank you.

Mr. Podesta?

PODESTA: Yes, I'd like to make an opening statement.

BURTON: You're recognized.

PODESTA: Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, my name is John Podesta. From November 1998 until January 2001, I served as President Clinton's chief of staff. Between January of 1993 through June of 1995 and between January of 1997 through November of 1998, I held other positions in the Clinton White House.

Between June of 1995 and January of 1997, I was a visiting professor of law at Georgetown University Law Center, and I have recently returned to the law center as a visiting professor.

As the committee requested, in its letter inviting me here today, I will briefly outline my recollections of my discussions concerning the Marc Rich-Pincus Green pardon matter. This matter arose during, as you know, an exceedingly busy period at the White House, as President Clinton's term was drawing to a close.

Because I was involved in a great many issues unrelated to pardons during this time, and I do not have access to records, my ability to reconstruct these discussions has been limited, but I'm prepared to share with committee what I do recall.

My first recollection of this matter is that sometime in mid-December 2000, I returned a call from Mr. Peter Kadzik, who had been a friend of mine since we attended law school together in the mid-1970s. I remember that Mr. Kadzik told me that his firm represented Mr. Rich and Mr. Green in connection with a criminal case, and that Jack Quinn was seeking a presidential pardon for them.

At that point, I was unfamiliar with the Rich-Green case. Mr. Kadzik asked me who would be reviewing pardon matters at the White House. I recalled that I told him the White House counsel's office was reviewing pardon applications. A few days later, Mr. Kadzik sent me a summary of the cases, which I believe I forwarded to the counsel's office.

Shortly after the first of the year, Mr. Kadzik again called and asked that, in light of the pardons that President Clinton had issued around Christmas, whether any more pardons were likely to be considered. I told him that, yes, the president was considering additional pardons and commutations, but it was unlikely that one would be granted under the circumstances he had briefly described, unless the counsel's office, having reviewed the case on the merits, believed that some real injustice had been done.

I thought that a pardon in the Rich-Green case was unlikely, but still knew relatively little about it.

That call from Mr. Kadzik, I believe, prompted me to ask Ms. Nolan about the merits of the case. I believe she or Ms. Cabe or both told me that Rich and Green were fugitives in a major tax fraud case, and that whatever the merits of the underlying case, it was the unanimous view of the counsel's office that the appropriate remedy was not a presidential pardon.

I learned then, or subsequently, that Mr. Lindsey was of the same view. I strongly concurred in that judgment.

A few days later, Mr. Kadzik asked if he could see me for a few minutes. I agreed, and we had a brief meeting in my office. He again raised the Rich-Green pardon case. I told him that I, along with the entire White House counsel's staff, opposed it and that I did not think it would be granted.

At that point, I believed that the pardons would not be granted, in light of the uniform staff recommendation to the contrary, and that little more needed to be done on the matter.

Mr. Kadzik made one more call to me, and I believe we spoke on either January 15 or 16. He told me he had been informed that the president had reviewed the submissions Mr. Quinn had sent in, and was impressed with them and was once again considering the pardons. I told him that I was strongly opposed to the pardons and that I did not believe they would be granted.

On January 15 or 16, I also spoke with former Congressman John Brademas, president-emeritus of New York University. Mr. Brademas, who is a friend of King Juan Carlos of Spain, called to tell me that he had received a message from the king. The message concerned the Rich pardon case. Mr. Brademas told me that he understood Israel's foreign minister, Shlomo Ben Ami, had visited the king to brief him on the Middle East peace process and had raised the Rich case. Mr. Ben Ami evidently had asked the king to call President Clinton to support the Rich pardon application. And Mr. Brademas in turn had been asked if he could make known the king's interest to the White House.

Mr. Brademas did not advocate a pardon. He simply asked me whether the pardon was likely or even possible. I told him that while it was the president's decision, the White House counsel's office and I were firmly opposed, and I did not believe that the pardon would be granted.

Late on January 16, I believe, the staff met with President Clinton on some other pardon matters. And the president brought up the Rich case and told us that he thought Mr. Quinn had made some meritorious points in his submission. He clearly had digested the legal arguments presented by Mr. Quinn, since he made a point of noting the Justice Department had abandoned the legal theory underlying the RICO counts and mentioned the Ginsberg-Wolfman tax analyses.

The staff informed the president that it was our view that the pardon should not be granted.

On Friday afternoon, January 19, the president talked to Prime Minister Barak in a farewell call. While the bulk of that call concerned the situation in the Middle East, Prime Minister Barak raised the Rich matter at the end and asked the president once again to consider the Rich pardon.

That evening, the president had a final meeting with White House counsel to discuss pardon matters. While I was there for part of that meeting, I had to leave for a scheduled television interview and was not present during the discussion of the Rich-Green cases. I was informed of the president's decision to pardon Mr. Rich and Mr. Green by Ms. Nolan on Saturday morning, January 20.

Members of the committee, on February 18, former President Clinton stated in the New York Times his reasons for granting the Rich and Green pardons. One could disagree with his reasoning, as many have. One can say that he did not adequately consult with the Justice Department officials before issuing the pardons, as the president, himself, acknowledged in his statement. But I believe that President Clinton considered the legal merits of the argument for the pardons as he understood them and he rendered his judgment, wise or unwise, on the merits of the case.

Thank you.

BURTON: If there are no further opening statements, we'll now go to the 30 minutes on each side.

And I believe we're going to yield to Mr. LaTourette for the first part of that.

Mr. LaTourette?

LATOURETTE: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

And welcome to all.

Mr. Podesta, I think that your opening statement gets to the first set of questions that I had.

Is it your recollection that January 16 of this year was the first time that you personally discussed the Pincus Green-Marc Rich pardon with the president of the United States?

PODESTA: That's my recollection is it's the first time it came up with the president in my presence.

LATOURETTE: In your presence?

How about you, Mr. Lindsey?

LINDSEY: I certainly don't remember the day. It came up in two, maybe three meetings that we had with the president. Sometime around the middle of January would seem approximately when the first meeting may have occurred.

LATOURETTE: From the last hearing, we know that the pardon application was filed with the White House on December 11. You don't remember any discussions in the month of December?

LINDSEY: With the president?

LATOURETTE: With the president.

LINDSEY: No, sir, I don't

LATOURETTE: Ms. Nolan, how about you?

NOLAN: No, I don't

LATOURETTE: We're you present at this January 16 meeting that Mr. Podesta was talking about?

NOLAN: I believe I was. Yes, I don't have access to my calendars, either. There were several meetings that week.

LATOURETTE: Mr. Lindsey, at the last hearing--if you have the book of exhibits in front of you--at the last hearing, exhibit number 15 in our program is a letter that we talked to Mr. Quinn about at our previous hearing. It's a letter dated December 19, 2000. And it indicates that perhaps while on a trip to Ireland, there was a concern raised--and it looked like it was raised by you--about whether or not Marc Rich and Pincus Green were fugitives from justice.

First of all, do you recall having such a conversation with Mr. Quinn in Ireland?

LINDSEY: Yes, I do.

LATOURETTE: And did you express to him your concern of the White House's concern or somebody's concern that these fellows were fugitives from justice and were on the FBI most wanted list?

LINDSEY: Well, I don't know I was aware that they were on the FBI most wanted list, but Mr. Quinn had asked me if I had gotten his packet of materials on Mr. Rich and Mr. Green. I told him I had. He asked me what I thought. I told him I thought they were fugitives.

LATOURETTE: This letter of December 19, did you receive it from Mr. Quinn?

LINDSEY: Yes, sir, I did.

LATOURETTE: And it addressed the issue of fugitivity, did it not?

LINDSEY: In a technical sense, yes, sir.

LATOURETTE: And, basically, in that letter, Mr. Quinn is advising you that these fellows really aren't fugitives because they left the country before the indictment was issued?

LINDSEY: That is correct.

LATOURETTE: Do you agree with that definition of fugitivity?

LINDSEY: Probably, from a legal point of view, yes. From a practical point of view, it made no difference to me whether they left before indictment or after indictment.

LATOURETTE: Did you ever discuss with the president of the United States, either in the meeting on January 16 or any other meeting, the concerns about pardoning people who had been 17-year fugitives from justice?

LINDSEY: Yes, sir.

LATOURETTE: And what was the president's reaction, I guess, to that?

LINDSEY: I believe he believed the fugitive status was a factor to be considered, but not the beginning and the end of the conversation. For me, it was both the beginning and the end of the conversation.

BURTON: Would the gentleman yield real briefly?

LATOURETTE: Certainly.

BURTON: Did anybody in the meeting ask the president if he knew that the study that the president based part of his judgment on was paid for by Mr. Rich and his attorneys?

LINDSEY: I don't think anybody asked him that. I assumed, since it was prepared at their request, that they had paid to have it prepared.

But frankly, I mean, I don't question either of the two professors. I do not believe either of them would say something different than what they believed, just because they were being paid. I don't know them personally, but I accepted their analysis at face value.

BURTON: Did the president know that Mr. Rich paid for that study?

LINDSEY: Again, it was never discussed.

BURTON: Thank you.

LATOURETTE: Ms. Nolan, to you, at our last hearing we had a discussion with Mr. Quinn. He indicates that you, at one point, raised a question about whether the executive order--talking about the revolving door policy, that a member of the administration can't come back within five years and lobby the administration--whether or not his involvement in the Rich pardon created a difficulty with that executive order? Do you remember that conversation?

NOLAN: I do remember raising the issue. I think when I first spoke with Mr. Quinn about the pardon, one of the things that concerned me was, was he eligible to represent someone?

LATOURETTE: And again, according to his testimony, he indicated that he allayed those concerns based upon the judicial exception contained therein, in the policy that he wrote, is that right?

NOLAN: He told me that he had obtained a legal opinion that it was permissible for him to represent someone in a pardon application. I nonetheless asked one of my associate counsels to look at the question independently and got the answer back that it did meet the exception.

LATOURETTE: And the exception that we're talking about is the judicial exception, that if there has been a criminal process commenced, it was your feeling that he could come back within a period of less than five years?

NOLAN: That's correct.

LATOURETTE: The reason that I ask that question is, I heard Mr. Quinn say that at the last hearing, you've also seen, I think, in the news, the indication that Hugh Rodham, who is the former-first lady's brother, accepted a $200,000 contingency fee to represent another individual in a pardon application. According to the Code of Ethics for lawyers in the state of Florida, it is improper to take a contingency fee in a criminal matter. One, are you aware of that fact? Are you aware of ethics codes similar to that?

NOLAN: I'm not aware of the Florida rules, but I'm certainly aware of ethics codes similar to that.

LATOURETTE: It's really not appropriate to take a contingency fee in a criminal case to get a desired result. That's the purpose behind the rule, I suppose. My observation is, in that case, at least, the first lady's brother seems to be indicating that that was OK because it's not a criminal matter. But in this particular case, Mr. Quinn's representation is also OK, because it is a criminal matter. And we seem to be, I think, at perhaps cross-purposes.

Going to the meeting of the 16th with the president of the United States, at that meeting, did he ask you to get more information other than the information that was included in Mr. Quinn's submission on behalf of Marc Rich and Pincus Green? Did he ask you to call the Justice Department?

NOLAN: I had already spoken with Mr. Holder. I don't recall that it was an extensive discussion, however. We were going through a number of pardon applications. And my memory is that it was a fairly brief discussion in which he heard, you know, from all of us, our opposition. I didn't think it was going anywhere.

LATOURETTE: When you say, "he heard"--he, you mean the...

NOLAN: The president.

LATOURETTE: That President Clinton heard your opposition, and you had the feeling at that meeting that it really didn't matter what you said, he was inclined to grant this pardon based upon reasons that he saw in the application and perhaps calls from world leaders? Is that...

NOLAN: No. I don't mean that at all. I did not believe that the pardon was going to go anywhere. He was familiar with it. He was sympathetic to it, and he was familiar with the issues. But I did not have the sense--he said, you know, "We'll come back to this." I did not have the sense at that meeting or until the 19th, that he really was inclined to grant the pardon.

LATOURETTE: And does that comport with your understanding, Mr. Lindsey and yours, Mr. Podesta, that you left that meeting thinking, yes, he's sympathetic, but this isn't going to happen?

LINDSEY: I clearly left the meeting understanding that no decision had been made. I don't know if I knew what was in his mind.

LATOURETTE: Mr. Podesta?

PODESTA: No, I thought he accepted our judgment. And I didn't think that this was a particularly active matter.

LATOURETTE: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you for further...

BURTON: Mr. Barr?

Excuse me.

Mr. Shays?

SHAYS: Good afternoon, gentlemen.

Former deputy White House--and lady, I'm sorry, Ms. Nolan.

NOLAN: Thank you.

SHAYS: Former deputy White House counsel Cheryl Mills left the White House in October 1999. It's reported to us by the pardon attorney that when he called the White House late in January that Ms. Mills answered the phone and responded to his questions in the White House regarding the pardons. And so my first question, was former deputy White House counsel Cheryl Mills assisting the White House or counsel's office at any time during the final weeks of the Clinton administration? And we'll start with you, Ms. Nolan.

NOLAN: Ms. Mills, since she had left the White House, continued to be somebody that we called on for advice. She had been there for seven years. She had a great deal of experience, and people throughout the White House called her. She had been a very close adviser of the president and the president continued to depend on her. I'm not familiar with the particular phone call you're talking about. She was present the several days at the end, because there were events at the White House to which she'd been invited. She is a friend of mine and a former member of the counsel's office and she would come by the counsel's office. She was present the afternoon and evening of the 19th. She'd been invited to an event at the White House the evening of the 19th, and she did participate in discussions with my office and the president about the Marc Rich pardon and some other pardons.

SHAYS: Mr. Lindsey, what would you like to add?

LINDSEY: I don't know if there's anything needed to be added, sir.

SHAYS: Do you have any additional information that you can share with us?

LINDSEY: No, I'm unfamiliar with what Mr. Adams is referring to. Ms. Mills was at the White House on the afternoon and evening of the 19th and did participate in some discussions. But, beyond that, I have no clue as to what Roger Adams is referring to.

SHAYS: Mr. Podesta, was former deputy White House counsel Cheryl Mills assisting the White House or at counsel's office at any time during the final weeks of the Clinton administration, and did you know about it?

PODESTA: Let me take it from the back-end and the front-end. I didn't know that she was assisting the counsel's office in the final weeks of the administration, if she was. I did know that she was present on the 19th during a discussion on some other pardon matters. But, as I said, I didn't participate in the Rich pardon matter discussion, and so I was aware that she was there on the 19th.

SHAYS: So your testimony is that you did not authorize her to be there?

PODESTA: I did not authorize her to be there? I was...

SHAYS: I mean, she wasn't...

PODESTA: ... aware that she was there in the discussion and I knew that, with respect to the other pardon matters that we were discussing, all of which involved cases that had been prosecuted by the independent counsel, that the president was interested in knowing what her views were on those cases.

SHAYS: But our--in fact--correct--she was not an employee of the White House.

PODESTA: I don't believe she...

SHAYS: She had left the White House?

PODESTA: She certainly had left the White House.

SHAYS: So, Ms. Nolan, I want to know who authorized her to be in the White House handling pardon activities.

NOLAN: I'm not sure I would describe her as being in the White House handling pardon activities. She did participate in advising the president. The president had continued to depend on her. She was the person who he had asked to be counsel to the president and she would have been counsel to the president had she accepted. He continued to depend on her throughout that time for advice.

BURTON: Would the gentleman yield just a moment?

SHAYS: Yes.

BURTON: When the pardon attorney called the White House, he said that Ms. Mills answered the phone and started giving him answers regarding the pardons. She was not an employee of the White House, and we were wondering by what authority she was entitled to answer questions to the pardon attorney about some of the pardons.

NOLAN: Mr. Chairman, I'm just not familiar with that phone call. As I mentioned, she not only is a long-time employee of the White House who is very familiar with the office, she is also a friend of mine. And when she was in Washington, she would sometimes come and sit in my office. She might have picked up the phone, I don't know. She wasn't working on pardon matters for the last several weeks, but she was familiar with pardons and she was present the last day and she participated in discussions.

BURTON: Well, there may be some misunderstanding, but when we talked to the pardon attorney, it was our impression, I think, pretty clearly, that she was discussing pardons with him on the phone with a great deal of authority and giving him, you know, answers.

Any how, I yield back to the gentleman.

SHAYS: Thank you.

Ms. Nolan, I'm having a little difficulty with this. I mean, we knew it really bordered on the very questionable lines that Mr. Quinn, who was a former White House employee, was back in the White House lobby. And we can have our disagreements on whether it was a criminal matter or not, there was a dialogue between the two in which he said you acquiesced. I have a problem with that, but I have a question about how someone who is in the private sector under private employment is back working in the White House.

And I'd like to know who invited her to be in the White House? Who authorized her to be involved in the Marc Rich issue? And then I want to ask you, isn't it true that she works for a trustee of the Clinton Library?

First, let me ask you this: Isn't it true that she is a trustee of the Clinton Library?

NOLAN: I believe I heard that a couple of weeks ago, yes.

SHAYS: So the answer is yes?

NOLAN: I believe that's correct. I've only heard it...

SHAYS: So then, now I want to know why this trustee of the Clinton Library was back in the White House, discussing Marc Rich's pardon?

NOLAN: Mr. Shays, I don't know that I'm going to be able to give you an answer that satisfies you more than the one I've given you. She was a long-time trusted adviser of president. She continued to be somebody that we looked to for advice.

SHAYS: So it's your point that the president authorized her to be there or that you authorized her to be there?

NOLAN: I don't know that I can give you answer about who authorized it.

SHAYS: Who invited her to come?

NOLAN: She was invited when she was in Washington to come by.

SHAYS: By whom?

NOLAN: Certainly by me, but many people in the White House. She had many friends.

SHAYS: Why would you have invited her to come and work on the Rich pardon in your office?

NOLAN: I did not invite her specifically to do that. She was present. I don't know whether the president had discussed pardons with her already. He talked with her frequently.

BURTON: Would the gentleman yield?

Was she in any of the meetings when they discussed any of the pardons?

NOLAN: She was in the meeting on January 19, the evening of January 19 with the president.

BURTON: And that was when they discussed the Rich pardon.

NOLAN: Yes.

BURTON: Did she take a position on the Rich pardon?

NOLAN: I don't remember her having a position on yes or no. I thought that she was pushing everyone in the room to think hard about the issues.

BURTON: There's a significance to this. She's on the library board. We want to find out if she participated in the decision-making process on the Rich pardon. She was in the room with you, and you don't recall. Do any of you recall what Ms. Mills' position was and what she said regarding the Rich pardon?

PODESTA: If you want me to start, I've already said I wasn't in the discussion. She was present in a room when we discussed several matters involving prosecutions by the independent counsel. The president wanted her views about those things. She was quite familiar with the cases. And I think that...

BURTON: But you don't recall on the Rich pardon?

PODESTA: The president did want to know what she thought about individual cases that had been prosecuted by independent counsels. And I think probably amongst all of those in the room, she may have been the most, maybe with deference to Mr. Lindsey, she had been the most familiar with those independent counsel cases, and that's why he was seeking her advice about them. But I was not present during the discussion of the Rich pardon.

BURTON: We're talking not about other cases that were before the independent counsels, but Mr. Rich.

PODESTA: That was, in some extent, in response to Mr. Shays' question.

LINDSEY: In order to understand the context, though, it is important to understand that the purpose of the meeting with the president, on the night of the 19th, was to discuss the independent counsel issues. That was why we were meeting with him. We had deferred those issues until the end.

In that meeting, the president indicated that he had received a call that day from Prime Minister Barak, and re-raised the Rich issue.

But until that time, as Mr. Podesta and Ms. Nolan have indicated, at least they were under the clear impression that the Rich issue was dead.

BURTON: OK, well, let me ask this. I mean, she was in there when they discussed the Rich pardon issue. Do any of you recall what her position was?

LINDSEY: Yes, sir, I don't believe she took a position on the merits of it. She asked whether or not we were discussing several of the assertions that Mr. Quinn made with respect to whether or not these people had been singled out. And she asked several questions as to, do we know whether they were singled out? Do we know if there were other cases similar to this? But beyond asking those questions, I don't believe she took a position.

BURTON: Were there any other things discussed, any financial things, like the library or anything like that?

LINDSEY: No, sir, there were no discussions in that meeting or in any meeting that I attended with the president in which contributions or the library was discussed, at which the DNC contributions were discussed, where contributions to Mrs. Clinton's campaign were discussed...

BURTON: Or the library?

LINDSEY: Or the library, not in that meeting, not in any meeting.

BURTON: And Ms. Mills, at that time, was she on the library board?

LINDSEY: She was a trustee of the board, yes, sir.

BURTON: But it was not mentioned? Nothing was mentioned in relation to that during...

LINDSEY: Nothing was mentioned in relation to the library, period.

BURTON: OK.

Mr. Shays?

SHAYS: Thank you. I'd love to refer to exhibit 152. While that's coming up, I just want to be very clear, Mr. Podesta, did you ask Ms. Mills to come to the White House, in any way, to discuss the Rich issues or any other pardon issues?

PODESTA: Did I ask her to come to the White House? No, I did not.

SHAYS: Ms. Nolan, did you?

QUINN: Can we look at the exhibit that you're referring to before we answer...

SHAYS: No, I was referring to something else and I'll give you...

QUINN: ... before we answer the question?

SHAYS: No, this question is not related to the exhibit directly.

QUINN: Oh, excuse me.

SHAYS: I just want to know--I just want to cover up the past territory. I'm unclear. Did you, in any way, request that Ms. Mills be there? Did you authorize her to be there?

NOLAN: I certainly knew she was coming to town and expected she would come to my office and see me, yes.

SHAYS: OK, did you make an assumption that the president had asked her to be there?

NOLAN: I don't know that I made that assumption, no, but I...

SHAYS: Well, what are we to assume? I mean, this person comes and starts talking about the Rich pardons, sits in on your meetings and she's not even an employee.

NOLAN: Well, I've explained the context in which that wasn't so surprising. I know you don't accept it, but I don't know what else to say.

SHAYS: Well, what I'm still unclear on is who asked her to be there.

Let me just have you make reference to the exhibit. It says, "Here is the letter Jack sent to the White House. As you may notice, it's from Robert Fink, sent to Mike Green." And it says, "Here's the letter Jack sent to the White House. As you may notice, his secretary said that Jack sent copies to Beth Nolan, Bruce Lindsey and Cheryl Mills. April said they have clearance to deliver it to the White House so it will get there this evening, presumably before POTUS leaves for Camp David. To whom Avner, with whom I am not be speaking this afternoon and evening. If you call me at home tomorrow, I can give you an update."

And I just want to know, Mr. Quinn, did you send it to her at the White House?

QUINN: I think not, sir.

SHAYS: OK. Why did you send Ms. Mills a copy? Was it your understanding that she was doing some type of work with the counsel's office in January 2001?

QUINN: I sent it to her, Mr. Shays, because knowing, as Ms. Nolan has testified, that she is a person who after some seven years at the White House was enormously well-regarded and trusted, well might at some point be consulted on this.

I had raised with her the fact that I was pursuing the pardon, as I did with others from time to time, to just bounce ideas off.

But also, I was hopeful, knowing of her relationship with Ms. Nolan and Mr. Lindsey and the president, that, as any good lawyer would, that as this thing progressed, if it were progressing, that I would get some sense of how people were reacting to different arguments in order that I might be in a position to know better what concerns the folks advising the president might have, so that I might address those concerns.

SHAYS: What is very surprising is that you were no longer an employee but you were back in touch with the White House and in the White House. You have Ms. Mills, who was no longer an employee, worked for the library, back in the White House and sitting in on meetings, in which no one knows who asked her to be there, other than that she was a sharp person and new a lot about these issues, and even answers the phone and has a dialogue with the pardon attorney.

Ms. Nolan, why would she have a dialogue with the pardon attorney?

QUINN: I can't answer that question, sir, but I do want to point out that, like Ms. Nolan, I learned of her role in the library only by reading it in the newspapers after this pardon was granted.

SHAYS: But the fact still exists that she...

QUINN: Well, it may, but I want you to know that I wasn't aware of it.

SHAYS: Ms. Nolan, who authorized her to answer phones and have dialogue with the pardon attorney?

NOLAN: Mr. Shays, I'm not familiar with the call, so I can't give you an answer about it.

SHAYS: But under what basis would you allow someone to be in your office answering phone calls from the pardon attorney? In other words, it was more than just seeking advice; she was in the office working. Isn't that true?

NOLAN: Mr. Shays, I'm not familiar with the call.

SHAYS: I just will conclude by just asking: Was she in the office working or did she just happen to stop by and she was only there for a few minutes or so? Tell me, again, how long she was there, how often she was there and, to the best of your knowledge, why she would have participated in conversations with the pardon attorney in the last night in office?

NOLAN: I'm sorry. Do you want the--that was a somewhat compound question.

SHAYS: Go for it.

NOLAN: OK. Ms. Mills left the White House in the fall of 1999. She continued to be a trusted adviser of the president and someone that many people in the White House called for advice, people in the counsel's office, people in other offices. She, but more than anything I think, continued to be somebody that I and others in the counsel's office look to advice and the president did.

In the last several weeks of the administration, she was present in Washington, at the White House, for several events, many of them having to do with staff parties and end-of-the-administration events. She often would come before events or after events and sit in my office. She, on a couple of those occasions, stayed over at my home for a night. She was welcome in my office. And she did, I know, on occasion, if she heard somebody was on the phone she knew, she might pick it up.

I don't recall her ever picking up and doing a business conversation, other than, I think, she did have conversations on the night of the 19th, regarding the Marc Rich pardon.

SHAYS: One last one?

BURTON: Sure.

SHAYS: The bottom line is, Mr. Quinn, you thought she had influence and the ability to persuade the president. And you sent her a letter advocating that Marc Rich be pardoned. Isn't it true that you sent that letter to her?

QUINN: I did send that letter to her. My primary motivation in discussing this matter with Ms. Mills was, as I said, to have a source of information about how people might be reacting.

But, again, as several of us here have said, I knew that she was terrifically well-regarded by the people here on this panel, myself included, and by the president, and I certainly didn't rule out the possibility that they would seek her judgment on this and other matters.

SHAYS: Would you tell me her view on the pardon?

QUINN: I don't actually know her view.

SHAYS: You don't know if she was sympathetic or not to your request that Marc Rich be pardoned?

QUINN: The one substantive, the one meaningful conversation that I think I can point to was one in which she didn't express a point of view but said to me that her view was that, in order for anyone to find the argument compelling, we would have to demonstrate that the prosecution had been unfair.

But she never said to me...

SHAYS: Did she think the prosecutor had been unfair?

QUINN: I'm trying to answer your question, Congressman. She did not adopt that point of view. She did not ever tell me that she agreed with me. She did not ever tell me that she would do what she could to help secure the pardon. You know, I think she was open-minded...

SHAYS: I get your point.

I yield back.

BURTON: We'll be giving you some time in just a minute.

You wrote the letter, I think, around the 5th or 6th of January to Ms. Mills?

QUINN: Yes, sir.

BURTON: When did she first start being involved in the discussions of the Marc Rich pardon? Does anybody recall that?

LINDSEY: Mr. Chairman, let me try. Ms. Mills was invited on the afternoon of January 19 to come to a reception in the White House.

BURTON: I know, but I'm talking...

LINDSEY: Hold on, if I can finish? I'm going to get to your question. I'm trying to put it in context. I don't know if she--I'm sorry, but your question was, was before that?

BURTON: Yes. The question is, the letter was sent on the 5th or 6th by Mr. Quinn to Ms. Mills. When did she first start talking to anyone at the White House, including the president, about the Marc Rich pardon? I know that she was there on the 19th and I know she participated in the meeting. But when was the first time, to any of your knowledge, that she started talking about this?

LINDSEY: The first time I ever had a conversation about Marc Rich with Ms. Mills was on the 19th.

NOLAN: I had one conversation earlier, I don't remember the exact date, but we were doing a staff farewell video for President Clinton. And I had invited Mr. Quinn and Lloyd Cutler and Judge Mikva and Mr. Nussbaum and Cheryl Mills to come back and be part of our video. And she said something to me, I think in Mr. Quinn's presence, that she had told him to stop pestering me about the Marc Rich pardon.

LINDSEY: But If I can go back to Mr. Shays' question, which is the context for the meeting on the 19th.

BURTON: I'll let you answer that question, Mr. Lindsey, in just one moment, but I'm running out of time here, and I want to yield to the minority.

At the meeting on the 19th, was anything of a classified nature discussed, national security or classified nature, in relation to any of the pardons or things that were confidential?

NOLAN: I don't think there was any classified or national security information.

LINDSEY: No, sir.

BURTON: No grand jury information was discussed?

NOLAN: I don't think, other than that there had been indictments was discussed, but, no, we didn't have any, you know, grand jury information or 6(e) material.

BURTON: OK. Go ahead, Mr. Lindsey, we'll let you conclude.

LINDSEY: Ms. Mills had been invited to the White House on the 19th for a reception for Kelly Craighead, an employee of Mrs. Clinton. She had also been invited by the president to fly back to New York on the 20th. She was also scheduled to have dinner with Mrs. Nolan and I on the evening of the 19th.

We were in Ms. Nolan's office, waiting to discuss with the president the independent counsel issues. As several people have indicated, there was no indication at that point that Marc Rich would be discussed. We got a call to come to the Oval Office to discuss the independent counsel matters. I invited Ms. Mills to join that conversation, because Ms. Mills had been in the White House at the time of the Espy investigation, at the time of the Cisneros investigation and at the time of the Whitewater investigation. The purpose of the meeting that night was on the independent counsel pardon.

The president did, in the meeting, raise the conversation he had had earlier in the day about Marc Rich, and I began revisiting it. In those conversations, Ms. Mills asked a question or two, but took no position. But there was no way for Ms. Mills to know when she went down to the meeting that the Marc Rich pardon was going to come up, since that was not the purpose of the meeting, and, therefore, the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the independent counsel pardons.

BURTON: Mr. Waxman, you're recognized for 30 minutes.

WAXMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The president has come in for a lot of criticism on these pardon decisions, and I think, those that have heard my opening statement, much of that criticism is justified, but I don't believe all the criticism he's received is justified, because some people have said he's trying to stonewall and cover up this investigation. Yet all of you are here testifying because he's waived the executive privilege.

Ms. Nolan, let me just ask you this question, so we have it on the record. As I understand it, the president could prohibit any of you from speaking today to Congress or to anyone else if he exercised his rights under the executive privilege. Isn't that correct?

NOLAN: President Clinton certainly has a strong voice in whether executive privilege can be asserted even after he's left office, and he did not do that.

WAXMAN: Well, I commend him for allowing all of you to come before us today. It's a major step to waive a fundamental constitutional prerogative. His action will be helpful to the committee and to the public.

But the reason we're all here today is not because President Clinton exercised poor judgment. It's because there's a juicier scandal, a suspicion that something illegal has taken place. So let me be blunt and get to some of these bottom-line questions.

Mr. Podesta, you served as the White House chief of staff. Did you see anything in the pardon process that remotely resembled quid pro quo?

PODESTA: No.

WAXMAN: Mr. Lindsey?

LINDSEY: No, sir.

WAXMAN: Ms. Nolan?

NOLAN: I'm sorry, Mr. Waxman, I didn't get the last part...

WAXMAN: Did you see anything in that pardon process that the president followed that resembled a quid pro quo?

NOLAN: No. No, sir.

WAXMAN: Mr. Podesta, did you see anything in the pardon process that constituted wrongdoing of any kind?

PODESTA: I'm not--no. In the context that you're talking about, wrongdoing is different from making a bad judgment. And I think that there was no wrongdoing, and I think that, in response to your previous question, nothing of that nature. As Mr. Lindsey's indicated, we never discussed any matters having to do with any of the things that have been alleged by his critics. So, no, there was no wrongdoing in that sense.

WAXMAN: The president has an absolute right to make...

PODESTA: He has an absolute right to make...

WAXMAN: ... a pardon.

PODESTA: ... make a pardon. I guess, in that context, you know, he can make a decision, right or wrong, based on the merits. But, as I said in my opening statement, I believe that the president made the decision, even in the Rich case, which I disagreed with, he made it on the merits.

WAXMAN: Well, let me ask so we can get it on the record, Mr. Lindsey, did you see anything in the pardon process that constituted wrongdoing, meaning legal wrongdoing, not bad judgment?

LINDSEY: No, sir. To reinforce what Mr. Podesta said, we had long discussions with the president about many of these pardons. The discussion was on the merits. It was the pros and cons. It was the issues before us. In my judgment, the fact that they were fugitives was the beginning and the end of the discussion. For the president, that was a factor, but not the beginning and the end. I believe he made all of his decisions on the merits, whether you agree or disagree with his judgment.

WAXMAN: Ms. Nolan, did you see any--you said you didn't see any quid pro quo. Did you see any legal wrongdoing by the president in...

NOLAN: No.

WAXMAN: ... exercising this authority?

NOLAN: I did not, Mr. Waxman.

WAXMAN: Mr. Chairman, we're called to a vote and have...

BURTON: There's 12 minutes and 45 seconds on the clock. If you'd like to recess now and come back that would be fine, but we can proceed for another 10 minutes or five minutes.

WAXMAN: Well, let me proceed. I'm not going to, obviously, complete my 10 minutes, but let me proceed as far as I can get then.

BURTON: Sure.

WAXMAN: So none of you observed anything that would have violated the law. Isn't that correct? That's the testimony of all you. And that was also the testimony of Eric Holder and Jack Quinn, who testified us before us last time. If anyone was in a position to detect the existence of a quid pro quo or wrongdoing, it would have been one of you three, isn't that correct?

PODESTA: I think that's fair.

NOLAN: I think that's right.

WAXMAN: OK. Let's go to the Marc Rich pardon, and I want to ask about this pardon.

Ms. Nolan, Mr. Rich's application was received at the White House in December 2000. Is that correct?

NOLAN: I don't really--I remember a discussion about it in December. I don't remember seeing it until somewhere around Christmas, either late December or maybe early January.

WAXMAN: Did you get a chance to form an opinion as to whether this pardon should have been granted?

NOLAN: I formed an opinion very quickly that the pardon should not be granted.

WAXMAN: And did you convey your view to the president?

NOLAN: I think that--I know I had a discussion with John Podesta. I'm not sure when it first came up with the president, but I would have conveyed it the first time it did.

I don't remember talking about it right away.

WAXMAN: Mr. Podesta, did you form an opinion of whether Marc Rich should receive a pardon?

PODESTA: Yes.

WAXMAN: And what was your view?

PODESTA: I thought he should not receive a pardon, that if there was any problem with his indictment, that a proper remedy was to come back and handle it through judicial channels.

WAXMAN: And, Mr. Lindsey, you've already testified you thought the pardon should not have been granted because Mr. Marc Rich was a fugitive. Is that right?

LINDSEY: Maybe technically not a fugitive, but that he was out of the country and had been for 17 years.

WAXMAN: Did the president know of your views?

LINDSEY: In the process, he did. Again, we had scheduled meetings with the president in which we discussed pardons. The first time that the Rich pardon came up in one of those, and Mr. Podesta believes it was on the 16th--I wouldn't argue with that, I don't know that to be a fact--but whenever it came up, yes, he knew my views.

PODESTA: Just to be clear about that, I think that was the first time when I was present, but I was out of the country for a couple of days the previous week, and I don't know whether there were meetings held or not.

LINDSEY: Yes, again, I can't tell you which date or when we first discussed it. We had a series of meetings in late December, early January on pardon matters. Whenever the Rich pardon came up, I think each of us expressed our views.

WAXMAN: You're the three top advisers to the president. And each of you came to the conclusion this pardon shouldn't have been granted, and you communicated that to the president, so he knew it, presumably.

Ms. Nolan, why do you think the president granted that pardon?

NOLAN: The president was the president, sir. And I even had that discussion with him on the 19th, because we were in some heated discussion about one of the pardons, and I said, "Look, my job is to tell you what I think about this and to tell you what my best judgment about it is, but I know who's president and who's not." And he got to exercise the pardon power.

WAXMAN: Mr. Podesta, do you have a view...

PODESTA: Well, I think he laid that out in his op-ed piece. I think that, you know, I'm sure there were a variety of factors. I think that the fact that this happened at the end, on the 19th, I think the fact that he heard from Prime Minister Barak, Shimon Peres and others, didn't mean that we were doing this--that this was a significant U.S.-Israeli issue, but those were men he respected. And they were asking him to look at it.

And I think that he felt obliged, having heard from a number of people who he respected, asking him to take it under serious consideration, that he did that. And I think that, based on that, he looked at it, he bought the arguments. They're arguments that obviously the three of us didn't buy, but he bought them.

I think that, again, the process could have been done better. He could have heard more from the Justice Department, as I think he's acknowledged. But he made the decision, I believe, on the merits of the case as he understood it and based on all those factors.

WAXMAN: Well, did you, during this process of deliberations up to the president making his decision, were you aware, did you become aware of the fact that Denise Rich had made significant contributions to the Clinton Library?

PODESTA: No, I was not aware of that.

WAXMAN: And, Mr. Lindsey, were you aware of it?

LINDSEY: I may have been aware that she was a supporter. I don't know if I had any sense as to whether she had actually given money or what, but, yes, I think I probably was aware that she had indicated that she would be supportive of the library.

WAXMAN: And, Ms. Nolan, did you...

NOLAN: I was not aware.

WAXMAN: Or that she'd given to any of these campaigns? Were you aware of her financial involvement in politics?

NOLAN: No. I think I understood that she was somebody who was generally a supporter, but I wasn't aware of any specific contributions.

WAXMAN: Do any of you have any evidence to suggest that the Rich pardon was part of a quid pro quo for contributions to the campaigns, to the library, to Mrs. Clinton's efforts, to the Democratic National Committee?

LINDSEY: No, sir.

PODESTA: No.

NOLAN: No, sir.

Mr. Waxman, if I can say, too, when I said that the president did it because he was the president, I don't mean to suggest in any way that I think he did it just because he could. I agree with Mr. Podesta that the president believed there were valid reasons to do it, to grant that pardon, that I disagreed with and his staff did, but he was entitled ultimately to make the judgment about it.

WAXMAN: Thank you.

Mr. Lindsey, I'm particularly interested in your role regarding the Rich pardon. As I understand it, you were a consultant to the Clinton Library. In this role, you certainly had an interest in the success of the library, isn't that correct?

LINDSEY: Yes, I wasn't a consultant at the time, I was still in the government.

But since then, I am now a consultant to the Clinton Library.

WAXMAN: And I presume that you had an interest in making sure the library received adequate funding?

LINDSEY: Yes, sir, I've been involved with the library since the initial discussions five or six years ago.

WAXMAN: Is it fair that among those affiliated with the library, you were the president's closest adviser with the most regular contact with him at the White House, at that time?

LINDSEY: I'd hate to argue among who is the president's closest adviser, but probably with the most regular contact, yes.

WAXMAN: And did the subject of Ms. Rich's contribution to the library come up in your discussions with the president about the Rich pardon?

LINDSEY: Never.

WAXMAN: The major theory of wrongdoing that we're investigating, is that President Clinton issued the Rich pardon in order to get funds for the library. Even the suggestions about Cheryl Mills seem to give us a hint that, because she was on the board of the library, maybe she was trying to influence the president's decision. It's hard to see how this pardon was done to benefit the library, if you had that concern about the library in mind and you were even advocating to the president not to grant the pardon.

LINDSEY: Well, that's correct. And also, if you look, you know, there were other people who were probably more significantly involved in the library, who are advocating on behalf of other pardons--Michael Milken, Leonard Peltier--that we did not grant. So if you were to accept that as a premise, there were better cases, if you will, for that. It didn't happen in those cases, and it didn't happen in this case.

BURTON: We have a vote on the floor. And the gentleman from California has 18 minutes on the clock. So we will resume questioning as soon as we come back from the vote.

We stand in recess.

(RECESS)

BURTON: We're going to have another vote in about 15 or 20 minutes, and Mr. Waxman would like to conclude his questioning.

Would everybody please take their seats, please?

Mr. Waxman, you have 18 minutes and six seconds. So you're recognized for the balance of your time.

WAXMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The issue of Ms. Mills' attendance at the January 19 meeting has been raised by several members, and I want to ask you all the same question so that I can understand why she was at the White House.

Ms. Nolan, how long did Ms. Mills serve in the White House counsel?

NOLAN: She was in the White House counsel's office from the first day of the administration in January 1993.

WAXMAN: And she had expertise and institutional memory that would be valuable to lawyers in the counsel's office?

NOLAN: Absolutely.

WAXMAN: And after she left the White House, was she contacted on various occasions for her expertise and institutional memory?

NOLAN: Yes.

WAXMAN: What types of issues would she be consulted about?

NOLAN: She was consulted about a range of matters that she had knowledge about or expertise. She had served as the alternate designated agency ethics official in the White House, so there are a number of rules and standards of conduct that she had experience in providing advice on.

WAXMAN: Ever on pardons?

NOLAN: She had, in fact, worked on pardons, yes, sir.

WAXMAN: And did she visit the White House after she left the staff? And was she sometimes consulted when she would come back to the White House, if she had?

NOLAN: Yes, and...

WAXMAN: Yes, to both, I guess I asked you a compound, but she had come back to the White House, and you had consulted with her when she...

NOLAN: She visited and we consulted. Even when she wasn't present, which you know, most of the time she was not present, in the White House, a vast majority of the time, but when she did stop by and visit, we might talk to her about issues. And it wasn't uncommon for us to talk about such issues with other former White House officials as well.

WAXMAN: Was she paid by the White House after she left the staff?

NOLAN: No.

WAXMAN: And did she maintain an office or desk at the White House after she left?

NOLAN: No.

WAXMAN: When she visited, did she need to be cleared in?

NOLAN: Yes.

WAXMAN: I have to say, from my own knowledge, my own experience, I've had former staffers of mine come in and talk to me about matters that are on my mind because I trust their judgment, and particularly if it relates to a matter that they were involved in when they had worked for me. So I don't find it all that significant.

But, Mr. Quinn, you were trying to influence her because you knew she had some ability to communicate and maybe even have an impact on those who were going to make the decision on this pardon. Is that right?

QUINN: Again, Mr. Waxman, I thought it was conceivable that she could be helpful. I didn't anticipate that she would be a decision-maker. I didn't anticipate that she would be one of the people, who along with the other folks here on this panel, would necessarily be asked for a recommendation, but I thought it was conceivable. And more importantly, again, I thought that, based on the longstanding relationship I had with her, that I could get a feel for where I stood and perhaps be in a position to better tailor my arguments, know what the substantive concerns were and address them at an appropriate point.

WAXMAN: Well, I understand your point.

Now, let me ask the three of you, at the White House, did Cheryl Mills advocate the pardon for Marc Rich?

Ms. Nolan, do you know whether Cheryl Mills was urging that he be pardoned?

NOLAN: No, she did not urge that he be pardoned. She did urge that we look seriously at the issues.

WAXMAN: Mr. Lindsey?

LINDSEY: Yes, I'm not aware that she advocated for the pardon.

PODESTA: I'm certainly not aware of it, but again, I wasn't in this meeting.

WAXMAN: So the three of you would be the natural people that would know whether she was advancing Mr. Rich's pardon to the president, urging him to grant that pardon? So it's your testimony from the three of you, you don't believe she--you don't know whether she did.

And the question is, do you believe that she talked to the president in favor of this pardon? Do you know whether she did or did not?

NOLAN: I know she spoke with the president in that meeting. I don't believe that she urged that he grant the pardon.

WAXMAN: Let me try to find out what the mood of the White House was like at this time.

Mr. Podesta, could you walk us through the final weeks of the Clinton administration. In addition to pardon decisions, what else was going on?

PODESTA: Well, I think, as you know, Mr. Waxman, there were a number of issues before the president at the end of the administration, and we were trying to work diligently up and through, toward the end, to make sure that the policies that he had been pursuing were implemented properly. We were working on issues like protecting the privacy of medical records, providing a patients' bill of rights for Medicaid patients. We were dealing with the California energy crisis. We issued a new rule on air conditioner standards. I mean, we had--I recall that during the--on Wednesday of that week, for example, we did a major event with Secretary Babbitt, where we designated a number of new monuments.

And so we were--the bulk of at least my time and I think the president's time were take up with those issues, finishing up the agenda, working diligently to get that done. We had...

WAXMAN: Two other things.

PODESTA: We appointed--made a recess appointment of a fine trial attorney in Virginia to the Fourth Circuit, to integrate the Fourth Circuit for the first time. We were putting forward federal judges. We had just enumerable matters that we were trying to deal with to get done before the end of the term.

WAXMAN: So you weren't just winding down the administration for the new team to take over. You were pretty busy. You had the Middle East, you didn't mention. And then the other thing that was going on is the...

PODESTA: We had the Middle East. He was talking to--as you refresh my recollection, he was dealing with that right up until the end. He was dealing with Prime Minister Blair and Bertie Ahern on the Northern Ireland issues.

And so, I mean, I think that there was plenty on both the foreign policy side as well as on the domestic policy side that we were dealing with. He also traveled and made a number of speeches in the last week, talking about what he thought the right direction for the country was, including a trip to Arkansas on Wednesday of that week.

WAXMAN: And he was also dealing with the fact that he had to come to terms with the independent counsel.

PODESTA: Yes, he was. And that, you know, that was a significant issue that really kind of, I think, arose--I don't remember precisely, maybe Ms. Nolan would--but it arose at the beginning of January and worked its way through the process right up until the end, and I think it's fair to say, at Mr. Ray's insistence, the agreement that he struck with Mr. Ray, the independent counsel, was entered on January 19, the morning of the time that we're talking about these events.

WAXMAN: So that was the same day that he came to terms with Mr. Ray and had to make his admission publicly about the Monica Lewinsky and all of that, his statements before the grand jury and all of that, that was the same day he had to do that, that he also had the meetings on the pardons.

PODESTA: That's correct.

WAXMAN: That meeting on the pardons--that was that night he had the meetings on the pardons.

PODESTA: Right. I guess the only thing I would quarrel with in what you just said was that I think Mr. Ray recognized--and it's sort of been lost in history, and maybe we shouldn't keep fighting it--but Mr. Ray recognized that there was no problem with his grand jury testimony and there is no statement on the grand jury testimony.

WAXMAN: He might have been feeling a little bit more sensitive about overzealous prosecutors on that day?

(LAUGHTER)

PODESTA: I can only speculate, Mr. Waxman.

WAXMAN: I can only speculate, but Mr. Quinn was certainly making that argument with regard to Marc Rich, that he was a victim of an overzealous prosecutor. Isn't that right, Mr. Quinn?

QUINN: Yes, sir.

WAXMAN: This pardon process, the president's been criticized for not getting the input from the Justice Department.

Ms. Nolan, you've been with the president in the White House counsel's office in 1999, all the way to the end.

After you began this position, did the president give you instructions as to how he wanted to handle the pardon process, how he wanted to proceed?

NOLAN: Sometime fairly soon after I began as counsel, which was in September of 1999, certainly by the beginning of the year 2000, we had had a discussion in which he said that he wanted to exercise the pardon power more than he had in the past, that he felt that he hadn't exercised it fully, and he wanted to be sure that we had a process in place to be sure that pardons were moved quickly through the process.

WAXMAN: And so the president was saying, he wanted to exercise his pardon authority more frequently than he had in the past. He wanted more pardons to be presented to him. Is that a fair statement?

NOLAN: That is correct.

WAXMAN: And he told you to get those pardons to him. Did you call the Justice Department and tell them to get those pardon reviews to the White House?

NOLAN: Yes.

WAXMAN: And was it running smoothly? Or what was happening?

NOLAN: Well, I actually had several meetings. I think the first meeting was sometime in early 2000--I'm not sure of the exact date--with the deputy attorney general and the pardon attorney and, I think, one or two other people from the deputy or pardon attorney's office, which we talked about the standards that the Justice Department was using in reviewing pardons and expressed the president's view that, with respect to pardons, he generally believed that restoration of civil rights was important, that if people had served their time and led a good life since then, he would be in favor of receiving pardons.

We discussed particular standards that were used by the Justice Department, some of which, I think, the deputy attorney general and...

WAXMAN: Let me interrupt you because we have a limited amount of time.

NOLAN: Certainly.

WAXMAN: Is it fair to say that this process was not moving along as fast as the president would have like and that you would have liked?

NOLAN: That's fair to say. Yes, sir.

WAXMAN: And so, did you find resistance from the Justice Department pardon department or office or whatever it was?

NOLAN: I found no movement. I don't quite know how to describe what was happening. It was very hard for me to see inside the Justice Department. But sometime in August, I said to Eric Holder, we have to have another meeting because we're coming up to the end and we need to know that, you know, we can move along more pardons.

That produced very little. Sometime, I think in November or December, I learned that we could expect, at most, 15 favorable recommendations.

WAXMAN: Did the pardon attorney's office tell the White House in September or October of 2000 that they couldn't take any more pardon applications and that they weren't going to be able to review them or get the information to the White House?

NOLAN: They told us that sometime in the fall, I'm not sure of the exact date.

WAXMAN: And so around the time that the pardon attorney's office at the Justice Department was telling the White House that it would process no more pardon applications, the president was seeking out more applications and there was also an increase in pardon requests. Isn't that right?

NOLAN: Right, there had been in fact a great increase all through the year in applications, so the pardon attorney's office had more applications and hadn't been able to move them in any significant, faster rate.

WAXMAN: In December and January, did you feel overwhelmed by the amount of pardon requests that yo