n90M2h76

1Unidentified Speaker HEARING OF THE HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE, PANEL II
2
3SUBJECT PARDONS OF MARC RICH AND PINCUS GREEN
4
5CHAIRED BY REPRESENTATIVE DAN BURTON (R-IN) WITNESSES: JACK QUINN, COUNSEL TO MARC RICH, FORMER COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT CLINTON; BETH NOLAN, FORMER COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT CLINTON; BRUCE LINDSEY, FORMER ASSISTANT AND DEPUTY COUNSEL TO PRESIDENT CLINTON; JOHN PODESTA, FORMER WHITE HOUSE CHIEF OF STAFF 
6
7LOCATION 2154 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D.C.
8
9TIME 1 TIME: 1:06 P.M. EST
10
11TIME 1 DATE: THURSDAY, MARCH 1, 2001
12
13REP. BURTON The next panel that we will welcome to the witness table will consist of Jack Quinn, Beth Nolan, Bruce Lindsey and John Podesta.
14
15REP. BURTON Can we have the staff assist the people in the media to move out into the corridor? Would you, as soon as you can, please shut that door so we can proceed with our business? Would everybody please take seats so we can have proper order? 
16
17REP. BURTON (Pause.)
18
19REP. BURTON Mr. Quinn, Ms. Nolan, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Podesta, would you please rise and raise your right hand. (The witnesses are sworn.)
20
21REP. BURTON I think you may have opening statements. I think we'll just go right down the table. Mr. Quinn, do you have an opening statement?
22
23MR. QUINN No, sir, Mr. Chairman.
24
25REP. BURTON Can you pull the mike a little closer, sir?
26
27MR. QUINN As you know, Mr. Chairman, I was here for almost nine hours a few weeks ago and subsequently testified to the Senate.
28
29REP. BURTON Would you repeat what you said? I'm sorry, we did not hear that.
30
31MR. QUINN As you know, 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. 
32
33REP. BURTON Well, we appreciate your coming back and being with us.
34
35REP. BURTON Ms. Nolan, do you have an opening statement?
36
37MS. NOLAN Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening statement, but I'm prepared to answer your questions.
38
39REP. BURTON Thank you, Ms. Nolan.
40
41REP. BURTON Mr. Lindsey?
42
43MR. LINDSEY No, sir, I do not have an opening statement. But I'm also prepared to answer your questions.
44
45REP. BURTON I'm sorry, Mr. Lindsey, could you turn that mike on? Those mikes are kind of funny; you have to push a button on them.
46
47MR. LINDSEY Mr. Chairman, I do not have an opening statement, but I'm prepared to answer any questions.
48
49REP. BURTON Okay, thank you.
50
51REP. BURTON Mr. Podesta?
52
53MR. PODESTA Yes, I'd like to make an opening statement.
54
55REP. BURTON Would you turn the mike on, sir?
56
57MR. PODESTA Is it on?
58
59REP. BURTON Yes, sir.
60
61MR. PODESTA Okay.
62
63REP. BURTON You're recognized.
64
65MR. 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 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. 
66
67MR. PODESTA 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 am prepared to share with the committee what I do recall. 
68
69MR. PODESTA 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. 
70
71MR. PODESTA Mr. Kadzik asked me who would be reviewing pardon matters at the White House. I recall that I told him that 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. 
72
73MR. PODESTA 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. 
74
75MR. PODESTA 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. 
76
77MR. PODESTA A few days later, Mr. Kadzik asked if we 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 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. 
78
79MR. PODESTA Mr. Kadzik made one more call to me, and I believe we spoke on either January 15th or 16th. 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 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. 
80
81MR. PODESTA On January 15th or 16th 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 it known -- if he could make known the king's interest to the White House. 
82
83MR. PODESTA 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. 
84
85MR. PODESTA Late on January 16th, 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 that the Justice Department had abandoned the legal theory underlying the RICO counts, and mentioned the Ginsberg-Wolfman (sp) tax analyses. 
86
87MR. PODESTA The staff informed the president that it was our view that the pardon should not be granted.
88
89MR. PODESTA On Friday afternoon, January 19th, the president talked to Prime Minister Barak in a farewell call. While the bulk of that call concerned the sitting 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. 
90
91MR. PODESTA 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. 
92
93MR. PODESTA I was informed of the president's decision to pardon Mr. Rich and Mr. Green by Ms. Nolan on Saturday morning, January 20th.
94
95MR. PODESTA Members of the committee, on February 18th, 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 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. 
96
97MR. PODESTA Thank you.
98
99REP. 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? 
100
101REP. STEVEN LATOURETTE (R-OH) REP. STEVEN LATOURETTE (R-OH): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And welcome to all.
102
103REP. STEVEN LATOURETTE (R-OH) And Mr. Podesta, I think that your opening statement gets to the first set of questions that I had. And is it your recollection that January the 16th of this year was the first time that you personally discussed the Pincus Green/Marc Rich pardon with the president of the United States? 
104
105MR. PODESTA That's my recollection as the first time it came up with the president in my presence.
106
107REP. LATOURETTE In your presence.
108
109REP. LATOURETTE How about you, Mr. Lindsey?
110
111MR. LINDSEY I certainly don't remember a date. It came up in two, maybe three meetings that we had with the president, and I -- sometime around the middle of January would seem approximately when the first meeting may have occurred. 
112
113REP. LATOURETTE The -- from the last hearing, we know that the pardon application was filed with the White House on December the 11th. You don't remember any discussions in the month of December? 
114
115MR. LINDSEY With the president?
116
117REP. LATOURETTE With the president.
118
119MR. LINDSEY No, sir, I don't.
120
121REP. LATOURETTE Ms. Nolan, how about you?
122
123MS. NOLAN No, I don't.
124
125REP. LATOURETTE Were you present at this January the 16th meeting that Mr. Podesta was talking about?
126
127MS. NOLAN I believe I was, yes. I don't have access to my calendars either. There were several meetings that week.
128
129REP. LATOURETTE Okay.
130
131REP. LATOURETTE Mr. Lindsey, at the last hearing -- and I want to -- 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 the 19th, 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? 
132
133MR. LINDSEY Yes, I do.
134
135REP. LATOURETTE And did you express to him your concern, or the White House's concern, or somebody's concern, that these fellows were fugitives from justice and were on the FBI Most Wanted List? 
136
137MR. LINDSEY Well, I don't know if I was aware that they were on the FBI Most Wanted List, but I -- Mr. Quinn asked me if I had gotten his packet of material on Mr. Rich and Mr. Green and I told him I had. He asked me what I thought and I told him I thought they were fugitives. 
138
139REP. BURTON Would both of you --
140
141REP. LATOURETTE Mr. Chairman --
142
143REP. BURTON Would both of you put your mikes a little bit closer so we can hear? I don't think all the members can hear.
144
145REP. BARR? ?: We cannot hear the questions either, Mr. Chairman.
146
147REP. BURTON Yes. Would you -- Mr. LaTourette, would you hold the mike a little closer to --
148
149REP. LATOURETTE I'll lean in as close as I can; I apologize.
150
151REP. BURTON Thank you.
152
153REP. LATOURETTE This letter of December the 19th, did you receive it from Mr. Quinn?
154
155MR. LINDSEY Yes, sir, I did.
156
157REP. LATOURETTE And it addressed the issue of fugitivity, did it not?
158
159MR. LINDSEY In a technical sense, yes, sir.
160
161REP. 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. 
162
163MR. LINDSEY That's correct.
164
165REP. LATOURETTE Do you agree with that definition of fugitivity?
166
167MR. 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. 
168
169REP. LATOURETTE Did you ever discuss with the president of the United States, either in the meeting on January the 16th or any other meeting, the concerns about pardoning people who had been 17-year fugitives from justice? 
170
171MR. LINDSEY Yes, sir.
172
173REP. LATOURETTE And -- well, what was the president's reaction, I guess, to that?
174
175MR. LINDSEY I believe that 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. 
176
177REP. BURTON Would the gentleman yield real briefly?
178
179REP. LATOURETTE Certainly.
180
181REP. 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? 
182
183MR. 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. 
184
185REP. BURTON No --
186
187MR. LINDSEY And I don't know them personally but I accepted their analysis at face value.
188
189REP. BURTON Did the president know that Mr. Rich paid for that study?
190
191MR. LINDSEY Again, it was never discussed.
192
193REP. BURTON Thank you.
194
195REP. LATOURETTE Ms. Nolan, to you: At our last hearing we had a discussion with Mr. Quinn and he indicates that you, at one point, raised a question about whether the executive order -- I'm talking about the revolving door policy, that is 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? 
196
197MS. NOLAN I do remember raising the issue when I -- 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. 
198
199REP. LATOURETTE And, again, according to his testimony, he indicated that he allayed those concerns based upon the judicial exception contained therein, and in the policy that he wrote. Is that right? 
200
201MS. 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. 
202
203REP. 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 in a period of less than five years? 
204
205MS. NOLAN That's correct.
206
207REP. 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. Are you aware of -- one, are you aware of that fact, are you aware of ethics codes similar to that? 
208
209MS. NOLAN I'm not aware of the Florida rules, but I'm certainly aware of ethics codes similar to that.
210
211REP. LATOURETTE Yeah, 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 okay because it's not a criminal matter. But in this particular case, Mr. Quinn's representation is also okay because it is a criminal matter. And we seem to be, I think, at, perhaps, cross purposes. 
212
213REP. LATOURETTE 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? 
214
215MS. 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, and I didn't think it was going anywhere. 
216
217REP. LATOURETTE When you say "he", you mean --
218
219MS. NOLAN The president. I'm sorry.
220
221REP. 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 -- 
222
223MS. NOLAN No, I don't mean that at all.
224
225REP. LATOURETTE Okay.
226
227MS. NOLAN 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. 
228
229REP. LATOURETTE And does that comport with your understanding, Mr. Lindsey, and yours, Mr. Podesta, that you left that meeting thinking, "Yeah, he's sympathetic, but this isn't going to happen"? 
230
231MR. 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.
232
233REP. LATOURETTE Mr. Podesta.
234
235MR. PODESTA No, I thought he accepted our judgment, and I didn't think that this was a particularly active matter.
236
237REP. LATOURETTE Thank you.
238
239REP. LATOURETTE Mr. Chairman, I yield back to you, sir, for further distribution.
240
241REP. BURTON Mr. Barr? Excuse me. Mr. Shays?
242
243REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (R-CT) REP. CHRISTOPHER SHAYS (R-CT): Good afternoon, gentlemen.
244
245REP. LATOURETTE And lady. (Light laughter.)
246
247REP. SHAYS Former Deputy White House -- and lady. I'm sorry, Ms. Nolan.
248
249MS. NOLAN Thank you.
250
251REP. 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 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. 
252
253MS. 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. The president, she had been a very close advisor of the president and the president continued to depend on her. 
254
255MS. NOLAN She -- I'm not familiar with the particular phone call you're talking about. She was present several days at the end because there were events at the White House to which she had 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 had 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. 
256
257REP. SHAYS Mr. Lindsey?
258
259REP. BURTON Excuse me. Could we pull all the mikes a little closer? I know all the members -- maybe it's because there are so many people in the room we can't hear as well as we'd like. 
260
261REP. SHAYS Mr. Lindsey what would you like to add?
262
263MR. LINDSEY I don't know if there is anything needed to be added, sir.
264
265REP. SHAYS Do you have any additional information that you can share with us?
266
267MR. LINDSEY No. I am 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. 
268
269REP. SHAYS Mr. Podesta, 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 did you know about it? 
270
271MR. 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 of 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. 
272
273REP. SHAYS So your testimony is that you did not authorize her to be there?
274
275MR. PODESTA Did not authorize her to be there? I --
276
277REP. SHAYS I mean, she wasn't an --
278
279MR. PODESTA I was aware that she was there in the discussion and I knew that with respect to the other pardon matters that we were discussing, that most -- 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. 
280
281REP. SHAYS But our statistics and facts are correct. She was not an employee of the White House?
282
283MR. PODESTA I don't believe --
284
285REP. SHAYS She had left the White House?
286
287MR. PODESTA She certainly had left the White House.
288
289REP. SHAYS So Ms. Nolan, I want to know who authorized her to be in the White House handling pardon activities?
290
291MS. 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. 
292
293REP. BURTON Would the gentleman yield just a moment?
294
295REP. SHAYS Yes.
296
297REP. BURTON When the pardon attorney called the White House, he said 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. 
298
299MS. NOLAN Mr. Chairman, I'm just not familiar with that phone call. She -- as I mentioned, she not only is a long-time employee of the White House who was very familiar with the office; she is also a friend of mine, and when she was in Washington, she would sometimes come sit in my office. She might have picked up the phone. I don't know. I just -- 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. 
300
301REP. 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. 
302
303REP. BURTON Anyhow, yield back to the gentleman.
304
305REP. SHAYS Thank you.
306
307REP. SHAYS Ms. Nolan, I'm having a little difficulty with this. I mean, we knew it really bordered on very questionable lines that Mr. Quinn, who was a former White House employee, was back in the White House lobbying. 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. 
308
309REP. SHAYS 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? 
310
311REP. SHAYS First let me ask you this. Isn't it true that she is a trustee of the Clinton Library?
312
313MS. NOLAN I believe I heard that a couple of weeks ago, yes.
314
315REP. SHAYS So the answer is yes.
316
317MS. NOLAN I believe that's correct. I've only heard it --
318
319REP. SHAYS So now I want to know why this trustee of the Clinton Library was back in the White House discussing Marc Rich's pardon.
320
321MS. 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 the president. She continued to be somebody that we looked to for advice. 
322
323REP. SHAYS So it's your point that the president authorized her to be there or that you authorized her to be there?
324
325MS. NOLAN I don't know that I can give you an answer about who authorized it. It --
326
327REP. SHAYS Who invited her to come?
328
329MS. NOLAN She was invited when she was in Washington to come by.
330
331REP. SHAYS By whom?
332
333MS. NOLAN Certainly by me, but by many people in the White House. She had many friends.
334
335REP. SHAYS Why would you have invited her to come and work on the Rich pardon in your office?
336
337MS. NOLAN I did not invite her specifically to do that. She was present. She -- I don't know whether the president had discussed pardons with her already. He talked with her frequently. 
338
339REP. BURTON Would the gentleman yield?
340
341REP. SHAYS Yes.
342
343MR./REP. 
344
345REP. BURTON Was she -- was she in any of the meetings when they discussed any of the pardons?
346
347MS. NOLAN She was in the meeting on January 19th, the evening of January 19th with the president.
348
349REP. BURTON And that was when they discussed the Rich pardon?
350
351MS. NOLAN Yes. Yes, sir.
352
353REP. BURTON Did she take a position on the Rich pardon?
354
355MS. 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.
356
357REP. BURTON Well, 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. 
358
359REP. BURTON Do any of you recall? Do any of you recall what Ms. Mills' position was and what she said regarding the Rich pardon?
360
361MR. PODESTA If you want me to start, I've already said I wasn't in the discussion.
362
363REP. BURTON Okay.
364
365MR. PODESTA She was 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 -- 
366
367REP. BURTON But you don't recall on the Rich pardon --
368
369MR. PODESTA -- that the president -- you know, 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. 
370
371REP. BURTON We're talking not about other cases that were before the independent counsels, but Mr. Richard.
372
373MR. PODESTA I was -- it was also -- that was in some extent in response to Mr. Shays' question.
374
375MR. 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 indicated, at least they were under the clear impression that the Rich issue was dead. So -- 
376
377REP. BURTON Okay. 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?
378
379MR. 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 do we know whether they were singled out, do we know whether there were other -- were there other cases similar to this. But beyond asking those questions, I don't believe she took a position. 
380
381REP. BURTON Were there any other things discussed, any financial things, like the library or anything like that?
382
383MR. 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, in which DNC contributions were discussed, where contributions to Mrs. Clinton's campaign were discussed. None of that -- 
384
385REP. BURTON Or the library?
386
387MR. LINDSEY Or the library. Not in that meeting, not in any meetings.
388
389REP. BURTON And Ms. Mills, at that time was she on the library board?
390
391MR. LINDSEY She was a trustee of the board, yes, sir.
392
393REP. BURTON But it was not mentioned. Nothing was mentioned in relation to that during the meeting.
394
395MR. LINDSEY Nothing was mentioned in relation to the library, period.
396
397REP. BURTON Okay.
398
399REP. BURTON Mr. Shays?
400
401REP. SHAYS Thank you.
402
403REP. SHAYS I'd like 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? 
404
405MR. PODESTA Did I ask her to come to the White House? No, I did not.
406
407REP. SHAYS Ms. Nolan, did you?
408
409MR. : Could we look at the exhibit that you're referring to before we answer --
410
411REP. SHAYS No, it's in relation to something else, and I'll --
412
413MR. : -- before we answer the questions?
414
415REP. SHAYS No. This question is not related to the exhibit directly.
416
417MR. : Oh, excuse me.
418
419REP. SHAYS I just want to know -- I just want to cover up the past territory. I am unclear: Did you in any way request that Ms. Mills be there? Did you authorize her to be there? 
420
421MS. NOLAN I certainly knew she was coming to town and expected she would come to my office and see me, yes.
422
423REP. SHAYS Okay. Did you make an assumption that the president had asked her to be there?
424
425MS. NOLAN I don't know that I made that assumption, no, but I --
426
427REP. SHAYS Well, what are we to assume? I mean, this person comes and starts talking about the Rich pardon, sits in on your meetings, and she's not even an employee.
428
429MS. 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.
430
431REP. SHAYS Well, what I'm still not clear 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 (sp), sent to Mike Green (sp), and it says, "Here is 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 Abner, with whom I am not -- I am not -- I am not be speaking this afternoon and evening. If you call me at home tomorrow, I can give you an update. 
432
433REP. SHAYS And I just want to know, Mr. Quinn, did you send it to her at the White House?
434
435MR. QUINN I think not, sir.
436
437REP. SHAYS Okay. 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?
438
439MR. 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. 
440
441REP. 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 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 knew 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? 
442
443MR. 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. 
444
445REP. SHAYS But the fact still exists that she --
446
447MR. QUINN Well, it may, but I want you to know that I wasn't aware of it.
448
449REP. SHAYS Ms. Nolan, who authorized her to answer phones and have dialogue with the pardon attorney?
450
451MS. NOLAN Mr. Shays, I'm not familiar with the call, so I couldn't -- I can't give you an answer about it.
452
453REP. SHAYS But under what basis -- 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? 
454
455MS. NOLAN Mr. Shays, I'm not familiar with the call.
456
457REP. SHAYS I just will conclude by just asking, was she in the office working, or was -- she just happened 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 on the last night in office? 
458
459MS. NOLAN I'm sorry, do you want the --
460
461REP. SHAYS Yeah, you go for it.
462
463MS. NOLAN -- that was a somewhat compound question.
464
465REP. SHAYS Go for it.
466
467MS. NOLAN Okay. sa
468
469MS. NOLAN 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 looked to for advice, and the president did. 
470
471MS. NOLAN In the last several weeks of the administration, she was present in Washington at the White House for several events that -- 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. 
472
473REP. BURTON The gentleman --
474
475REP. SHAYS One last point.
476
477REP. BURTON Sure.
478
479REP. 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? 
480
481MR. QUINN I did send that letter to her. My primary motivation in discussing this matter with Ms. Mills was, as I've 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. 
482
483REP. SHAYS Would you tell me her view on the pardon?
484
485MR. QUINN I don't actually know her view.
486
487REP. SHAYS You don't know if she was sympathetic or not to your request that Marc Rich be pardoned?
488
489MR. 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 in order -- that her view was that in order for anyone to find the argument compelling, it would be important -- we would have to demonstrate that the prosecution had been unfair. But she never said to me -- 
490
491REP. SHAYS Did she think the prosecutor had been unfair?
492
493MR. QUINN I'm trying to answer your question, Congressman. She did not express -- 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. She -- you know, I think she was open-minded -- 
494
495REP. SHAYS I get your point.
496
497MR. LINDSEY Mr. Shays, can I have a shot at your question?
498
499REP. BURTON Let me -- let me just --
500
501REP. SHAYS I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
502
503REP. BURTON We'll be giving you some time in just a minute.
504
505REP. BURTON Let me just -- you wrote the letter, I think, around the 5th or 6th of January to Ms. Mills?
506
507MR. QUINN Yes, sir.
508
509REP. BURTON When did she first start being involved in the discussions of the Marc Rich pardon? Does anybody recall that?
510
511MR. LINDSEY Mr. Chairman, let me try. Ms. Mills was invited on the afternoon of January 19th to come to a reception in the White House.
512
513REP. BURTON I know, but I'm talking about --
514
515MR. LINDSEY Hold on. If I could finish --
516
517REP. BURTON I know, but --
518
519MR. LINDSEY I'm going to get to your question. I'm trying to put it in context.
520
521REP. BURTON But before that.
522
523MR. LINDSEY I don't know -- I don't know if she -- I'm sorry, your question was before that?
524
525REP. 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? 
526
527REP. BURTON 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? 
528
529MR. LINDSEY The first time she ever mentioned -- the first time I ever had a conversation about Marc Rich with Ms. Mills was on the 19th.
530
531MS. NOLAN I had one conversation earlier. I don't remember the exact date, but we were doing staff farewell videos 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. 
532
533MR. LINDSEY But if I can go back to Mr. Shays' question which is the context for which -- the meeting on the 19th --
534
535REP. 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.
536
537REP. BURTON 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? 
538
539MS. NOLAN I don't think there was any classified or national security information.
540
541MR. LINDSEY No, sir.
542
543REP. BURTON Okay. No grand jury information was discussed?
544
545MS. 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.
546
547REP. BURTON Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Lindsey, we'll let you conclude.
548
549MR. LINDSEY Ms. Mills had been invited to the White House on the 19th for a reception for Kelly Craighead, an employee of Mrs. Clinton's. 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 Ms. Nolan and I on the evening of the 19th. 
550
551MR. LINDSEY 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. 
552
553MR. LINDSEY The purpose of the meeting that night was on the independent counsel pardons. The president did, in the meeting, raise the conversation he had had earlier in the day about Marc Rich, and 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. 
554
555REP. BURTON Mr. Waxman, you're recognized for 30 minutes.
556
557REP. WAXMAN Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
558
559REP. WAXMAN The president has come in for a lot of criticism on these pardon decisions. And I think, as those who 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. The president -- 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? 
560
561MS. NOLAN The president certainly -- President Clinton certainly has a strong voice in whether executive privilege can be asserted, even after he's left office. He did not do that. 
562
563REP. WAXMAN Well, I commend him for allowing all of you to come before us today. And it's a major step to waive a fundamental constitutional prerogative. His action will be helpful to the committee and to the public. 
564
565REP. WAXMAN But the reason we're all here today is not because President Clinton exercise 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. 
566
567REP. WAXMAN 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?
568
569MR. PODESTA No.
570
571REP. WAXMAN Mr. Lindsey?
572
573MR. LINDSEY No, sir.
574
575REP. WAXMAN Ms. Nolan?
576
577MS. NOLAN I'm sorry, Mr. Waxman. I didn't get the last --
578
579REP. WAXMAN Did you see anything in that pardon process that the president followed that resembled a quid pro quo?
580
581MS. NOLAN No. No, sir.
582
583REP. WAXMAN Mr. Podesta, did you see anything in the pardon process that constituted wrongdoing of any kind?
584
585MR. PODESTA Not -- no, in the context that you're talking about, wrongdoing is different than 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, the -- 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 -- 
586
587REP. WAXMAN The president has an absolute right to make a pardon.
588
589MR. PODESTA He has an absolute right to make a pardon, and he -- I guess, in that context, you know, he can make a decision, right or wrong, based on the merits.
590
591MR. PODESTA 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. 
592
593REP. WAXMAN Well, let me ask, so we can get it on the record -- Mr. Lindsey, did you see any -- anything in the pardon process that constituted wrongdoing, meaning legal wrongdoing, not just bad judgment? 
594
595MR. 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. 
596
597REP. WAXMAN Ms. Nolan, did you see any -- you didn't -- you said you didn't see any quid pro quo. Did you see any legal wrongdoing by the president in exercising this authority? 
598
599MS. NOLAN No, I did not, Mr. Waxman.
600
601REP. WAXMAN Mr. Chairman, we're called to a vote and have --
602
603REP. 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, or we can proceed for another 10 minutes or five minutes. 
604
605REP. WAXMAN Well, let me proceed -- I'm not going to, obviously, complete my 30 minutes, but let me proceed as far as I can get, then.
606
607REP. BURTON Sure.
608
609REP. WAXMAN So none of you observed anything that would have violated the law. Isn't that correct? That's the testimony of all of you?
610
611MR. : (Inaudible.)
612
613REP. WAXMAN And that was also the testimony of Eric Holder and Jack Quinn, who testified 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? 
614
615MR. PODESTA I think that's fair.
616
617MS. NOLAN I think that's right.
618
619REP. WAXMAN Okay. 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? 
620
621MS. 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. 
622
623REP. WAXMAN Did you get a chance to form an opinion as to whether this pardon should have been granted?
624
625MS. NOLAN I formed an opinion very quickly, that the pardon should not be granted.
626
627REP. WAXMAN And did you convey your view to the president?
628
629MS. 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. 
630
631REP. WAXMAN Mr. Podesta, did you form an opinion on whether Marc Rich should receive a pardon?
632
633MR. PODESTA Yes.
634
635REP. WAXMAN And what was your view?
636
637MR. PODESTA I thought he should not receive a pardon, that the -- if there was any problem with his indictment, the proper remedy was to come back and handle it through judicial channels. 
638
639REP. 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?
640
641MR. LINDSEY Maybe technically not a fugitive, but that he was out of the country and had been for 17 years.
642
643REP. WAXMAN Did the president know of your views?
644
645MR. 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 this 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. 
646
647MR. 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. 
648
649MR. LINDSEY Yeah, 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. 
650
651REP. WAXMAN Well 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. 
652
653REP. WAXMAN Ms. Nolan, why do you think the president granted that pardon?
654
655MS. 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. 
656
657REP. WAXMAN Mr. Podesta, do you have a view on why he --
658
659MR. 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 -- 
660
661REP. WAXMAN Let me -- let me interrupt you --
662
663MR. PODESTA -- but he made the decision, I believe, on the merits of the case as he understood it and based on all those factors.
664
665REP. 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? 
666
667MR. PODESTA No, I was not aware of that.
668
669REP. WAXMAN And Mr. Lindsey, were you aware of it?
670
671MR. 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. 
672
673REP. WAXMAN And Ms. Nolan? Were you --
674
675MS. NOLAN I was not aware that --
676
677REP. WAXMAN Or that she had given to any of these campaigns? Were you aware of her financial involvement in politics?
678
679MS. NOLAN No. I think I understood that she was somebody who was generally a supporter, but I wasn't aware of any specific contributions.
680
681REP. 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, the library, to Mrs. Clinton's efforts? To the Democratic National Committee? 
682
683MR. LINDSEY No, sir.
684
685MR. PODESTA No.
686
687MS. NOLAN No, sir.
688
689MS. NOLAN 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, that -- to grant that pardon that I disagreed with, and his staff did. But he was entitled, ultimately, to make the judgment about it. 
690
691REP. WAXMAN Thank you.
692
693REP. WAXMAN 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? 
694
695MR. 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.
696
697REP. WAXMAN And I presume that you had an interest in making sure the library received adequate funding..
698
699MR. LINDSEY Yes, sir. I've been involved with the library since the initial discussions five, six years ago.
700
701REP. 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? 
702
703MR. LINDSEY I'd hate to argue among who -- or, who is the president's closest adviser, but probably with the most regular contact, yes.
704
705REP. WAXMAN And the subject of Ms. Rich's contribution to the library, did it come up in your discussions with the president, about the Rich pardon?
706
707MR. LINDSEY Never.
708
709REP. 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 that -- how this pardon was done to benefit the library if you had that library, concern about the library in mind and you were even advocating to the president not to grant the pardon. 
710
711MR. 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 were 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. But this certainly -- it didn't happen in those cases, and it didn't happen in this case. 
712
713REP. BURTON We have a vote on the floor, and the gentleman from California has 18 minutes on the clock. So we'll resume questioning as soon as we come back from the vote. 
714
715REP. BURTON (Sounds gavel.) We stand in recess at the call of the gavel.
716
717REP. BURTON If we could ask everybody to take their seats. We're going to have another vote in about 15 or 20 minutes, and Mr. Waxman would like to conclude his questioning. 
718
719REP. BURTON (Sounds gavel.) Would everybody please take their seats, please?
720
721REP. BURTON Mr. Waxman, you have 18 minutes and six seconds. You're recognized for the balance of your time.
722
723REP. WAXMAN Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
724
725REP. WAXMAN 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. 
726
727REP. WAXMAN Ms. Nolan, how long did Ms. Mills serve in the White House counsel's office?
728
729MS. NOLAN She was in the White House counsel's office from the first day of the administration in January 1993.
730
731REP. WAXMAN And she had expertise and institutional memory that would be valuable to lawyers in the counsel's office?
732
733MS. NOLAN Absolutely.
734
735REP. WAXMAN And after she left the White House, was she contacted on various occasions for her expertise and institutional memory?
736
737MS. NOLAN Yes.
738
739REP. WAXMAN What types of issues would she be consulted about?
740
741MS. 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 were a number of rules and standards of conduct that she had experience in providing advice on. 
742
743REP. WAXMAN Ever on pardons?
744
745MS. NOLAN She had, in fact, worked on pardons. Yes, sir.
746
747REP. WAXMAN She had. And did she visit the White House after she left the staff, and was she sometimes consulted when she had come back to the White House, if she had? 
748
749MS. NOLAN Yes. And --
750
751REP. WAXMAN Yes, to both. I guess I asked another compound question.
752
753MS. NOLAN (Chuckles.) Yes and yes.
754
755REP. WAXMAN She had come back to the White House and you had consulted with her?
756
757MS. NOLAN She visited, and we consulted. And we -- even when she wasn't present, which, you know, most of the time she was not present in the White House -- the 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. 
758
759REP. WAXMAN Was she paid by the White House after she left the staff?
760
761MS. NOLAN No.
762
763REP. WAXMAN And did she maintain an office or desk at the White House, after she left?
764
765MS. NOLAN No.
766
767REP. WAXMAN When she visited, did she need to be cleared in?
768
769MS. NOLAN Yes.
770
771REP. 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. 
772
773REP. WAXMAN 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? 
774
775MR. 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. 
776
777MR. QUINN And more importantly, again, I thought that based on the long- standing 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. 
778
779REP. WAXMAN Well, I understand your point.
780
781REP. WAXMAN Now let me ask the three of you at the White House, did Cheryl Mills advocate the pardon for Marc Rich?
782
783REP. WAXMAN Ms. Nolan, do you know whether Cheryl Mills was urging that he be pardoned?
784
785MS. NOLAN No, she did not urge that he be pardoned. She did urge that we look seriously at the issues.
786
787REP. WAXMAN And, Mr. Lindsey?
788
789MR. LINDSEY Yes, I'm not aware that she advocated for the pardon.
790
791MR. PODESTA I'm certainly not aware of it, but again, I wasn't in the meeting.
792
793REP. 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? 
794
795MS. NOLAN I know she spoke with the president in that meeting. I don't -- I don't believe that she urged that he grant the pardon.
796
797REP. WAXMAN Let me try to find out what the mood of the White House was like at this time.
798
799REP. WAXMAN Mr. Podesta, could you walk us through the final weeks of the Clinton administration? In addition to pardon decisions, what else was going on?
800
801MR. 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 towards the end to make sure that the policies that he had been pursuing were implemented properly. 
802
803MR. PODESTA 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 conditioning standards. I mean, we had -- I recall that during -- 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 taken up with those issues, finishing up the agenda, working diligently to get that done. We had -- 
804
805REP. WAXMAN Two other things --
806
807MR. PODESTA We appointed -- 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 innumerable matters that we were trying to deal with to get done before the end of the term. 
808
809REP. WAXMAN So you weren't just winding down the administration waiting for the new team to take over. You were pretty busy. You had the Middle East you didn't mention. 
810
811MR. PODESTA Right.
812
813REP. WAXMAN And then the other thing that was going on is --
814
815MR. 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. 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. 
816
817REP. WAXMAN And he was also dealing with the fact that he had to come to terms with the independent counsel.
818
819MR. 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 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 19th, the morning of the time that we're talking about these events. 
820
821REP. 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; the final meeting on the pardons? 
822
823MR. PODESTA That's correct.
824
825REP. WAXMAN That was that night he had the meetings on the pardons.
826
827MR. PODESTA I guess the only thing I would quarrel with in what you just said was that I think Mr. Ray recognized then that -- this has 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. 
828
829REP. WAXMAN He might have been feeling a little bit more sensitive about overzealous prosecutors on that day? (Laughter.)
830
831MR. PODESTA I can only speculate, Mr. Waxman.
832
833REP. WAXMAN I can only speculate, but Mr. Quinn was certainly making that argument with regard to Marc Rich, that he was the victim of an overzealous prosecutor. Isn't that right, Mr. Quinn? 
834
835MR. QUINN Yes, sir.
836
837REP. WAXMAN This pardon process, the president has 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? 
838
839MS. 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. 
840
841REP. 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? 
842
843MS. NOLAN That's correct.
844
845REP. WAXMAN And he told you to get those pardons to him.
846
847MS. NOLAN That's correct.
848
849REP. WAXMAN Did you call the Justice Department and tell them to get those pardon reviews to the White House?
850
851MS. NOLAN Yes.
852
853REP. WAXMAN And was it running smoothly, or what was happening?
854
855MS. 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. 
856
857MS. NOLAN We discussed particular standards that were used by the Justice Department, some of which, I think, the deputy attorney general and --
858
859REP. WAXMAN Let me interrupt you, just because we have a limited --
860
861MS. NOLAN Certainly.
862
863REP. WAXMAN Is it fair to say that this process was not moving along as fast as the president would have liked and that you would have liked?
864
865MS. NOLAN That's fair to say. Yes, sir.
866
867REP. WAXMAN And so did you find resistance from the Justice Department pardon department or office or whatever it was?
868
869MS. 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 what's -- you know, that we can move along more pardons." That produced very little. 
870
871MS. NOLAN Sometime, I think, in November or December, I learned that we could expect at most 15 favorable recommendations.
872
873REP. 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 and get the information to the White House? 
874
875MS. NOLAN They told us sometime in the fall. I'm not sure of the exact date.
876
877REP. WAXMAN And so around the time 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? 
878
879MS. 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. 
880
881REP. WAXMAN In December and January, did you feel overwhelmed by the amount of pardon requests that you were asked to process?
882
883MS. NOLAN We were really inundated with pardon requests. And in fact sometime at the -- around Christmas week, I think I spoke with Mr. Podesta and said we really should just -- we have to have a cutoff. We can't possibly finish what we have if we -- if more pardon requests come in, and -- 
884
885REP. WAXMAN And where were they coming from?
886
887MS. NOLAN They were coming from everywhere. Mr. Waxman, we had requests from members of Congress on both sides of the aisle and both houses; we had requests from movie stars, newscasters, former presidents, formers first ladies. There wasn't anybody -- I didn't -- I refused to go to holiday parties because -- (laughs) -- I couldn't stand being -- nobody wanted to know how I was, thank you very much. (Laughs.) They wanted to know about a pardon. So I just didn't go. 
888
889REP. WAXMAN So let me make sure I understand this. The White House was involved in closing up its operations but still trying to issue new regulations and negotiating a Middle East peace agreement. The president was insisting that you consider as many pardon applications as possible, despite the fact that the Justice Department wouldn't take any more applications after October of 2000. And you were being besieged by members of Congress and others to consider an ever-growing number of pardons. And on top of that, I suspect you weren't even aware of some of the pardon activities. Is that a fair statement of what was going on at the White House? 
890
891MS. NOLAN I think that is a very fair statement. I would add that we were also doing this shortened transition period and trying to work with the incoming administration. So that was another -- 
892
893REP. WAXMAN And Mr. Podesta, is that an accurate statement from your point of view?
894
895MR. PODESTA I think that's accurate, yes.
896
897REP. WAXMAN I mean, you were hearing from members of Congress, and I even called you on behalf of a constituent who I thought deserved consideration for a pardon, Mike Milken, and who did not get a pardon. 
898
899MS. NOLAN That's right.
900
901REP. WAXMAN And I understand you got calls from congressmen and senators. Did any of them suggest you not follow the Justice Department guidelines?
902
903MS. NOLAN Yes, certainly, several of them suggested that they knew it was too late really to go through the Department of Justice, but they wanted to send the pardon application directly to the White House. 
904
905REP. WAXMAN How many contacts, if you know, did you get from members of Congress, House and Senate?
906
907MS. NOLAN I don't know, sir. It was -- I had probably 30 or 40 phonecalls, and I think I took less than half of the calls I had. I just couldn't possibly respond to all the calls I had. 
908
909REP. WAXMAN Mr. Podesta, do you have any idea how many calls you --
910
911MR. PODESTA I would guess it's in the high double or in the triple digits.
912
913REP. WAXMAN Were there any examples that stand out in your mind of congressmen or senators asking you to issue pardons and not follow the Justice Department guidelines?
914
915MR. PODESTA Well, let me clarify one thing. I don't think that members of Congress said, "Please issue a pardon, and by the way, don't follow the Justice Department guidelines." I think they basically just didn't care whether we followed the Justice Department guidelines. 
916
917REP. WAXMAN (Laughs.)
918
919MR. PODESTA And for example, I think in one particular case in which we did issue a pardon for Mr. Lake, that was done at the end and, I think, did not go through the Justice Department. I think both the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the chairman of the counterpart committee to your committee in the Senate called on his behalf, or at least made their views known on his behalf. 
920
921SEN. WAXMAN Senator Hatch?
922
923MR. PODESTA Senator Hatch and Senator Thompson. I don't think they really cared whether that had gone through the Justice Department guidelines or not.
924
925SEN. WAXMAN Ms. Nolan, did you know Roger Clinton was seeking pardons from some individuals -- or for some individuals?
926
927MS. NOLAN I'm sorry, sir; the question?
928
929SEN. WAXMAN Did you know that Roger Clinton was seeking pardons for some individuals?
930
931MS. NOLAN I believe I did. I can't think of who those individuals are now, but I think I probably knew that he was interested in certain pardons. I did not know everybody who was interested in every pardon. It was impossible, given the thousands, as Mr. Podesta said, thousands of people who were interested in pardons. 
932
933SEN. WAXMAN Did you know that Hugh Rodham was being paid to obtain pardons for Vignali and Braswell?
934
935MS. NOLAN No.
936
937SEN. WAXMAN Well, I see my time is about up. But I have to say, it doesn't seem to bee a very ideal process for a president exercising such an important responsibility. It just seems absolute chaos at the White House and lack of cooperation from the Justice Department in what the president wanted to do, which was to give more pardons, and at some point it looks like, particularly on the 19th of January, the president sat there and said, "I'm going to go ahead and just issue some of these pardons" that he thought made sense. 
938
939MR. PODESTA Mr. Waxman, I think I want to put that in a little bit more perspective, which is that I think that for the bulk of the 177 pardons and commutations that were processed, you can disagree with them, you can agree with them, most of them were -- at least the Justice Department got to chop on them, give them our recommendations. But I think that they were managed by the White House Counsel's Office through a process in which there was substantive consideration given to them and a judgment was made and a recommendation was made to the president, and he either took it or he didn't take it. 
940
941MR. PODESTA So I think that there's a misperception that this all happened on the last day and this giant batch of pardons and commutations went through on the last day. I think the bulk of them were considered and they were considered on the merits. And as I said, sometimes the Justice -- in many cases the Justice Department agreed and concurred, and in some cases they didn't, but they were considered on the merits. 
942
943REP. WAXMAN But do you think that the process broke down and could have been handled better?
944
945MR. PODESTA I think that -- I want to say two things. One is that I think that there are a couple of what I would describe as sui generis cases. I think the batch of independent counsel cases that we considered at the end were considered sort of sui generis and as a group. And then I think that some of these cases moved through at the very end, as Ms. Nolan testified. She talked to me about stopping the inflow. I discussed that with the staff at a staff meeting in early January, said no more new pardon applications are coming through the system. But I think obviously that there were some that came in late. 
946
947MR. PODESTA And I think that, you know, we bear the responsibility for having a process that we thought was manageable that in the last days I think broke down and let some of these go through. But I don't think -- I don't think it's the whole set of pardons. And I think if you look at those, the bulk of them are -- everyone would agree are meritorious. 
948
949MR. PODESTA Now, some people may think that no pardons should be granted, so -- but I think that the bulk of them are meritorious. I think there are others in which -- that they were considered by the White House, judgment was rendered, you can agree or disagree with it, and there were very few that came up, and I would put Rich as probably the number one example in which the process broke down. I don't think the president got good and full advice on it. He made a judgment -- as I said, I believe he made it on the merits as he understood them, but I think that we didn't serve him very well in terms of providing him with the counterarguments. There's an explanation for that because of the Barak call on the 19th, et cetera, we all thought it wasn't happening. But I don't think we served him very well in that regard. 
950
951REP. BURTON We have a vote in less than two minutes, so we're going to have to sprint to the floor. This will probably be the last interruption, so we won't have to break -- if you need to take a break while we're gone, I wish you would do so. We'll be back in about 10- 15 minutes. 
952
953REP. BURTON (Sounds gavel.) (Recess.)
954
955REP. BURTON (Strikes gavel.) If we could have everyone return -- (off mike) -- five-minute schedule. And now I'll start off with that.
956
957REP. BURTON We're missing a couple of witnesses here. (Aside, to staff.) Hm? Okay. (Audio break.) Did they have pizza or anything back there for you?
958
959MR. : Just coffee.
960
961REP. BURTON You got to talk to those Democrats. They got lots of money over there. They can give you some pizza. (Laughter.)
962
963REP. BURTON Okay, I want to get a little bit more specific, if I can. We have kind of hit and missed on some questions, so I want to try to do this in a little more organized manner so maybe we can expedite this a little quicker. Who among the White House staff supported the pardons of Marc Rich and Pincus Green? Who at the White House staff supported the pardons of Marcus -- or, of Marc Rich and Pincus Green? 
964
965MR. PODESTA Let me speak for the panel. I believe we all opposed it.
966
967REP. BURTON Was there anybody else at the White House that you know of that supported the pardon of those gentlemen?
968
969MR. PODESTA The president reviewed the matters and he decided to grant it.
970
971REP. BURTON So it was the president alone, as far as you know. Okay, who opposed it?
972
973MR. PODESTA Well --
974
975REP. BURTON I know, you start with "The three of us," and was there anyone else that opposed it, that expressed opposition to the president?
976
977MS. NOLAN There were a couple of associate counsels who worked on pardon matters, and they opposed it.
978
979REP. BURTON Okay, who participated in the debate about the pardons on the 19th and any other time? Who participated in the debate on the pardons?
980
981MS. NOLAN I did, Mr. Lindsey, the two associate counsels, the president and Ms. Mills.
982
983REP. BURTON And everyone was opposed to it except, ultimately, the president when he made his decision?
984
985MS. NOLAN I think, as I said before, I don't believe Ms. Mills expressed a view on the bottom line. She didn't support it.
986
987REP. BURTON What did Ms. Mills say?
988
989MS. NOLAN She argued -- or suggested, I think, is a fairer way of saying it -- suggested that we should be looking at the selective prosecution question seriously, had anyone looked at that. But she also had very strong views that normally pardons, or the arguments about selective prosecution, were less available or plausible to rich white people. 
990
991REP. BURTON Was there a formal recommendation from the entire staff to the president? I mean, did you all collectively say, "We think this is -- (inaudible)"? Was there a formal recommendation that he not pardon -- 
992
993MS. NOLAN I'm not sure what you mean by a formal recommendation. I think the president knew that each of us opposed the grant.
994
995REP. BURTON Okay, can you -- besides the three of you, you said there were two others. Who on the White House staff expressed their opposition directly to President Clinton besides the three of you and Ms. Mills -- or, Ms. Mills didn't, but besides the three of you? You said two associate counsels. Who were -- 
996
997MS. NOLAN There were two associate counsels.
998
999REP. BURTON Who were they?
1000
1001MS. NOLAN Meredith Cabe and Eric Angel.
1002
1003REP. BURTON Meredith Cabe. She had contact with the pardon attorneys on occasion, didn't she?
1004
1005MS. NOLAN Yes.
1006
1007REP. BURTON Mm-hmm. (Acknowledgement.) I want you to take a look at Exhibit Number 63. Would you put that on the screen, please? According to this January 10th, 2001 e-mail, President Clinton called DNC Finance Chair Beth Dozoretz and spoke to her about the pardons, saying he, quote, "Wants to do it and is doing all possible to turn around White House counsels." What was the president doing to try to turn you around? 
1008
1009MS. NOLAN I'm not aware that he did anything.
1010
1011REP. BURTON Well, in the memo, as you can see there, it says very clearly, he's -- he was talking to Ms. Dozoretz, and Ms. Rich was with her. He was saying he was having difficulty and he says, "I want you to" -- "I'm doing everything I can to turn them around." I think he also said you should pray about, or she should pray about. 
1012
1013MS. NOLAN Mr. Chairman, I don't know if this accurate or not. All I can tell you is from my end, other than the president did sometime, I think, the last week of his presidency -- it might have been the week before -- raise the pardon; seemed to be familiar with the issues, but I -- 
1014
1015REP. BURTON But he didn't try to turn you around, as has been noted in this?
1016
1017MS. NOLAN I did not experience that.
1018
1019REP. BURTON Mr. Lindsey?
1020
1021MR. LINDSEY No, sir.
1022
1023REP. BURTON There was no -- I mean he discussed it with you, but he wasn't trying to turn you around or anything?
1024
1025MR. LINDSEY No, sir.
1026
1027REP. BURTON Mr. Podesta?
1028
1029MR. PODESTA No. And I think that the president -- I think that this kind -- I don't know where this comes from, this third-hand conversation. I have no reason to believe that it's accurate. But it sort of inverts the authority in the White House. The counsel doesn't -- the president does not report to the counsel, the counsel reports to the president. 
1030
1031REP. BURTON No, I am very well aware of that. That's why it was troubling when I read that.
1032
1033REP. BURTON Okay, I have one more question, I think we'll be out of time.
1034
1035REP. BURTON If the staff had been in a veto mode, could you guys have prevented the pardon, if you'd been in a veto mode? I mean, you would have -- you would have said you believed it shouldn't have been done? 
1036
1037MR. PODESTA The president understood our views, and ultimately it's his decision to grant or not to grant the pardon.
1038
1039REP. BURTON Well, let me go ahead and yield to Mr. Waxman, or who on your staff.
1040
1041REP. BURTON My time is expired.
1042
1043REP. BURTON Mr. Cummings.
1044
1045MR. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD) MR. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
1046
1047MR. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD) First of all, I want to thank all of you for being here. I must tell you that your testimony has helped me tremendously in feeling a little bit better about this situation. 
1048
1049MR. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD) And I want to just zero-in on one point. It seems as if I think almost all of you -- Ms. Nolan, Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Podesta -- said that there was a certain point where you all felt because of the circumstances of the Rich case that it was basically not going to happen. 
1050
1051MR. ELIJAH CUMMINGS (D-MD) And I think it was you, Mr. Lindsey, who said that on the 19th, apparently a call from Prime Minister Barak and that things began to change. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. But it seems as if things were going in one direction, and then all of a sudden -- it may not have been all of a sudden, but they started going in another direction. Could you help us with that, because it seems to be the president, in his New York Times explanation, said that the Barak call was of some significance. And can you all shed -- can you, or Mr. Podesta, or you, Ms. Nolan, shed some light on that? 
1052
1053MR. LINDSEY Let me start. We had, on at least one occasion prior to the 19th, had a fairly full discussion of the Marc Rich, Pincus Green application. We each expressed our views. And there was no indication at the end of that meeting that the president was going to grant the pardon requests. 
1054
1055REP. CUMMINGS When was that? I'm -- just --
1056
1057MR. LINDSEY Well, Mr. Podesta believes the first one he participated in was the 16th. I don't have access to a calendar, so -- but I wouldn't argue with that. It was sometime three or four or five says prior to the 19th. 
1058
1059REP. CUMMINGS All right.
1060
1061MR. LINDSEY On the 19th, we had put off discussion of pardons for the people involved in various independent counsel investigations. And we had scheduled a meeting with the president for the purposes of discussing those applications and requests. 
1062
1063MR. LINDSEY During that meeting or at some point during that meeting, the president raised with the group -- Mr. Podesta may have been gone at this point -- that Prime Minister Barak had spoken to him that afternoon and had asked him again -- I don't believe it was the first time that the prime minister had raised the Marc Rich pardon -- had asked him again to consider it. 
1064
1065MR. LINDSEY We then had an additional discussion concerning their status, the arguments that Mr. Quinn had been making to the counsel's office at that point. And it was sometime that evening that the president made the decision, after speaking again with Mr. Quinn and getting from Mr. Quinn a commitment that they would waive all civil procedural restrictions -- statute of limitations, so forth -- that the president indicated that he intended to grant the pardons. 
1066
1067REP. CUMMINGS Can you shed any light on that, Ms. Nolan? And then I want to come to you, Mr. Quinn.
1068
1069MS. NOLAN No, I think, again, like Mr. Lindsey, I'm not exactly sure when the first discussion was. But I did not realize until the evening of the 19th that it was live, and the president specifically did mention his conversations with Mr. Barak. 
1070
1071REP. CUMMINGS Now -- did you have something, Mr. Podesta?
1072
1073MR. PODESTA No.
1074
1075REP. CUMMINGS All right.
1076
1077REP. CUMMINGS Mr. Quinn, Mr. Lindsey just referenced the conversation about the waiving of the civil situation. And can you -- do you remember -- I mean, is there a point where things -- in your efforts to represent your client, where things seemed to be going downhill, and then they seemed to turn? I mean, do you think that the -- during that discussion that Mr. Lindsey just referenced -- and I assume that you're familiar with it -- do you remember the president ever mentioning that he had gotten more than one call and had recently gotten a call from Mr. Barak? 
1078
1079MR. QUINN Congressman, I came to the impression, as we approached the end of the term, that he had spoken to Prime Minister Barak more than once. But I quite honestly can't tell you how I came to believe that. I think, in all likelihood, I was hearing that reported back from people associated with Marc Rich in Israel. I'm rather confident that no one in the White House told me of those calls. But I was aware that on the 19th this matter was raised by Prime Minister Barak with the president. 
1080
1081MR. QUINN You know, in retrospect, it strikes me, as I think it does a good many people, that that was a significant development, it was a turning point. And in all honesty, I can't tell you that I ever thought that this was anything other than a tough decision. I thought we had put together a persuasive case and had a meritorious argument, but I was well aware not so much of Mr. Podesta's views, but I was certainly well aware that Mr. Lindsey and Ms. Nolan were, at a minimum, highly skeptical. 
1082
1083REP. CUMMINGS All right. Thank you very much.
1084
1085REP. CUMMINGS Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1086
1087REP. BURTON Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
1088
1089REP. BURTON Mr. Barr?
1090
1091REP. BOB BARR (R-GA) REP. BOB BARR (R-GA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1092
1093REP. BOB BARR (R-GA) Ms. Nolan, you had a number of phone conversations with Eric Holder on January 19th. That's correct, isn't it?
1094
1095MS. NOLAN I think I did. Yes, sir.
1096
1097REP. BARR Okay. What was the subject matter of those phone calls, beginning with your call to Mr. Holder at 9:45 that morning? These are logs found in exhibit 127. 
1098
1099MS. NOLAN I'm sorry, exhibit 127?
1100
1101REP. BARR Yes, ma'am.
1102
1103MS. NOLAN (Long pause.) Found them. I'm not sure I can remember the specifics of each call -- you know, what each call was for. I remember several pardon discussions with him that day. The only one I had with him regarding Marc Rich was late in the evening, about -- it would be the last phone call on the log. 
1104
1105REP. BARR The one where you --
1106
1107MS. NOLAN -- this 6 MS. NOLAN: -- this 6:38.
1108
1109REP. BARR -- call him at 6 REP. BARR: -- call him at 6:38?
1110
1111MS. NOLAN That's correct.
1112
1113REP. BARR And what precipitated that particular phone call about Mr. Rich?
1114
1115MS. NOLAN As I'd said earlier, Ms. Mills was in my office. She -- Jack Quinn had, I believe, called my office and ended up speaking to her. And she told me that he said Mr. Holder favored the pardon, and I called Mr. Holder right away to determine if that was correct. 
1116
1117REP. BARR And did he say to you, "Yes, I favor the pardon"?
1118
1119MS. NOLAN He -- what I -- he -- I had talked with him the first week in January about it, and I did not have the impression that he was in favor of it. So that's what I said. I said, "I'm hearing you're in favor of it. I don't -- I didn't think you were in favor of it." He said that he was neutral, which I think is the language he had used earlier in January about it. He -- and I said, "Well, I'm a little confused because I'm hearing that you're not just neutral. And he said that he -- if he had heard that Mr. Barak was interested, that if that were the case, while he couldn't judge the foreign policy arguments, he would find that very persuasive, and that -- and I finally said, "Well, you know, are you -- I still don't understand what neutral means here." And he described it as neutral, leaning towards or neutral, leaning favorable. I'm not sure the exact words. 
1120
1121REP. BARR So he never really answered the question.
1122
1123MS. NOLAN Well, at the end of the conversation, he said he would consider himself neutral, leaning favorable, which I thought was an answer. it wasn't, you know -- it was an answer. 
1124
1125REP. BARR Did --
1126
1127MS. NOLAN It was a description of a -- and I informed the president of that conversation when I met with him some time fairly soon after that. I think we met around 7:00, 7:30. 
1128
1129REP. BARR And what was the president's reaction?
1130
1131MS. NOLAN I think that was -- I think that was significant to the president. I don't think it was the thing that made his mind up entirely, but I think it was a significant piece of information that the deputy attorney general had said that. 
1132
1133REP. BARR Was that from the standpoint that that would give him something to hang his hat on?
1134
1135MS. NOLAN I didn't understand it that way. It's just he -- Mr. Quinn had made what were to the president very persuasive arguments. Mr. Quinn was somebody he greatly respected. Mr. Barak, who the president respected a great deal, had weighed in in favor several times. 
1136
1137REP. BARR Who made the persuasive --
1138
1139MS. NOLAN And Mr. Holder --
1140
1141REP. BARR -- arguments on the other side, against granting the pardon to this fugitive?
1142
1143MS. NOLAN We argued, Mr. Barr, that the -- if Mr. Rich and Mr. Green had such great legal arguments, there was a place to make them, and it wasn't there, it wasn't in the Oval Office. 
1144
1145REP. BARR And Mr. Clinton apparently disagreed.
1146
1147MS. NOLAN He did disagree. And I think he disagreed because people he -- other people he respected had a different view, and he made a judgment in favor of their view. 
1148
1149REP. BARR Returning to the phone logs, on that final sheet, there are calls to you, there are calls from Roger Adams to Eric Holder, calls from Eric Holder to Roger Adams, calls from Eric Holder to you; but none of those, as far as you know, related to the Rich case? 
1150
1151MS. NOLAN No. I think the only one I spoke with him about was at the end of the day.
1152
1153REP. BARR Did these other calls --
1154
1155MS. NOLAN I mean, I don't know about the Roger Adams calls to Mr. Holder.
1156
1157REP. BARR So these other calls between you and Mr. Holder, they related to other pardon cases?
1158
1159MS. NOLAN They related to other pardon cases, as far as I'm aware. There may have been other matters that weren't pardon cases, because we do deal with other things. I can't -- the only thing I can remember is pardon discussions. 
1160
1161REP. BURTON The gentleman's time has expired. We'll have several more rounds.
1162
1163REP. BURTON Ms. Mink?
1164
1165REP. PATSY MINK (D-HI) REP. PATSY MINK (D-HI): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1166
1167REP. PATSY MINK (D-HI) I, too, want to join my colleagues in commending your presence here today, Ms. Nolan, Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Podesta. And I think that you've added a great deal of light to the testimony and news articles and other things that we have read about the circumstances that some people think led to the decision that the president made with respect to the Marc Rich case. And I think that the fact that there were discussions between the three of you and the president with respect to this pardon is very material to the public's understanding that there was consultation amongst the people that the president trusted the most to give him their honest opinion. Your opinion was not regarded by the president and he went another course, but that's the president's prerogatives in these cases. That's what the Constitution allows. 
1168
1169REP. PATSY MINK (D-HI) The first question I wanted to ask was with reference to executive privilege, which he has waived and allowed you to come to testify. Is it the clear understanding of the law that after the president has left the White House, that this executive privilege continues on with respect to conversations that you had with him that led to some executive decision? 
1170
1171MS. NOLAN Yes.
1172
1173REP. MINK That continues on. So I think, then, that it is of paramount importance that the president has issued this release to allow you to come to testify to give some clarity to what happened. 
1174
1175REP. MINK Now, in terms of your discussions about the Marc Rich case: From what you have said already today, there were discussions on April 19th -- I think the three of you have indicated that -- 
1176
1177MR. LINDSEY January 19th.
1178
1179REP. MINK -- January 19th, and that he had still not made up his mind. Is that a clear conclusion of the status of your discussions; that your impression was, on January 19th when you met with him, he had not yet made up his mind? 
1180
1181MR. LINDSEY I think -- I'll speak for Mr. Podesta and Ms. Nolan -- I think their impression was that the matter had been resolved at an earlier meeting and that he was not going to grant it. When the president re-raised it on the 19th, it was clear once he re-raised it that he was still considering it and that he had not made a decision. 
1182
1183REP. MINK Oh --
1184
1185MR. LINDSEY But it was their clear impression prior to that that he had accepted our recommendation and was not going to grant it.
1186
1187REP. MINK So there was an earlier meeting where the three of you were fairly sure that the president had decided not to grand this pardon? Is that -- is that -- 
1188
1189MR. LINDSEY That was my impression.
1190
1191REP. MINK Is that accurate?
1192
1193MR. PODESTA That was my impression, and that was on January 16th.
1194
1195REP. MINK And Mr. Lindsey, that was your clear understanding?
1196
1197MR. LINDSEY I was not as clear as they are as to what the president's -- when we left that meeting what the president intended or didn't intend to do.
1198
1199REP. MINK Did he specifically articulate it or did you just make that assumption because he didn't have a rebuttal?
1200
1201MR. PODESTA In my case I'd say the latter; that he raised the points that had been made in -- at least some of the points had been raised by Mr. Quinn. We argued that, given his status as a fugitive, if you will -- we can go back and forth on that one, but I think we viewed him as a fugitive in at least the common sense -- that the proper forum to raise those was the -- was before a judicial tribunal. And it was my impression that he accepted that. 
1202
1203REP. MINK So, given your long experience of working with the president, your assumption was, since he didn't give you a clear rebuttal on the other side, that he would be persuaded by the advice that he was getting from people that had worked with him and whom he trusted the most in the White House. Is that it? 
1204
1205MR. PODESTA I think that's --
1206
1207REP. MINK -- a fairly good understanding.
1208
1209REP. MINK Okay, then after that, is it in the factual circumstances of things, where Mr. Barak made a phone call -- was it after that discussion, or somewhere earlier or before? I'm trying to get a feeling as to when things might have changed in his view of this particular pardon. 
1210
1211MR. PODESTA Well, the conversation --
1212
1213REP. MINK When was the Barak --
1214
1215MR. PODESTA The conversation with Prime Minister Barak occurred in the midafternoon I think, on Friday the -- January the 19th. And then --
1216
1217REP. MINK Oh, so it was after --
1218
1219MR. PODESTA No --
1220
1221REP. MINK -- your earlier discussions?
1222
1223MR. PODESTA -- after the conversation on the 16th. Then Prime Minister Barak talked to him one more time on January the 19th, on Friday. And later that evening there was a further discussion, as I said, between my colleagues here -- I wasn't present for that conversation, but it was early -- or I guess late in the evening. It must have been 9:00 or 10:00 on the evening of the 19th; so subsequent to his conversation with Prime Minister Barak. 
1224
1225REP. MINK So, Ms. Nolan and Mr. Lindsey, you can verify that it was likely that the telephone conversation he had with Prime Minister Barak may have had an impact on his prior decision not to grant the pardon? 
1226
1227MR. LINDSEY He actually, I think, indicated that.
1228
1229MS. NOLAN Yes, he did.
1230
1231REP. MINK He specifically said that to both of you.
1232
1233MR. LINDSEY That's correct.
1234
1235MS. NOLAN Yes. I would be clear, though, I wouldn't characterize that he had made -- as Mr. Podesta said, I don't think he had made --
1236
1237REP. MINK But it had an influence on his thinking.
1238
1239MS. NOLAN -- (inaudible) -- but it certainly seemed that he was not going to grant it, and then that Mr. Barak's phone call had been significant.
1240
1241REP. BURTON The time of the gentlelady from Hawaii has expired.
1242
1243REP. BURTON The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Maryland, Ms. Morella, for five minutes.
1244
1245REP. CONSTANCELLA (R-MD) REP. CONSTANCELLA (R-MD): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1246
1247REP. CONSTANCELLA (R-MD) I want to thank -- thank you, Ms. Nolan and gentlemen for your patience. It's awfully hard to be here all afternoon under the grilling, but we do appreciate it and we do feel that it adds further clarification to this very difficult situation. 
1248
1249REP. CONSTANCELLA (R-MD) I guess the kinds of questions I want to ask is, what did you know, when did you know it? What would have you have done about it had you known about it earlier? Just kind of to set the record straight. 
1250
1251REP. CONSTANCELLA (R-MD) For instance, I would ask the same question of all of the panel, and you can answer as briefly and succinctly as you can. Did you know that Marc Rich or his companies were trading with Qadhafi and Libya? Mr. Quinn? 
1252
1253MR. QUINN I did not know that.
1254
1255REP.LLA You did not know that. Had you known it, would you have done anything about it?
1256
1257MR. QUINN I was representing Marc Rich as a lawyer, trying to persuade the Department of Justice, the Southern District, and ultimately the president that the indictment was wanting. That matter was not addressed in the indictment. And I think it does bear emphasis that if Marc Rich or anyone associated with him broke any laws in that regard, the pardon does not free him from being held accountable for that. 
1258
1259MS.LLA But you really were not even aware of it.
1260
1261MR. QUINN I was not. I had no personal knowledge of that. My assignment had to do with the indictment.
1262
1263MS.LLA Ms. Nolan?
1264
1265MS. NOLAN I did not know that.
1266
1267MS.LLA Would you have done something if you had known?
1268
1269MS. NOLAN Well, it certainly would have been another important factor in an argument I was already making against it.
1270
1271MS.LLA Mr. Lindsey?
1272
1273MR. LINDSEY No. I understood that there were allegations that he had traded with Iran, but not with Libya.
1274
1275MS.LLA How about Mr. Podesta?
1276
1277MR. PODESTA I was unaware of that.
1278
1279MS.LLA You were unaware of it. Okay.
1280
1281MS.LLA Were you aware that Marc Rich or his companies were involved with trading with Iran? Maybe you can just go yes, no, and if you want to add anything about whether it would have made a difference in your actions. Mr. Quinn? 
1282
1283MR. QUINN I think my earlier answer stands. I was asked a question at one point whether he had been involved in arms trading. I responded first that I had heard that that allegation had been made in an article in Playboy magazine, and that I had been informed that he denied that allegation. I took the opportunity then to call Mr. Fink in New York to confirm that my memory was correct, that he maintained that he had not dealt in arms, and I reported that back. 
1284
1285MR. QUINN But again, even with regard to that allegation, I do think it's important to bear in mind that the pardon does not free him from being held accountable for anything unrelated to the indictment, if in fact he broke any other law. 
1286
1287REP.LLA Looking at little technicalities of the law, but in general, this man is asking for a pardon -- but let me go on, just ask the rest of the panel if they knew anything about whether Mr. Rich or his company were trading with Iran. 
1288
1289MS. NOLAN I had the conversation with Mr. Quinn in which I asked him about the arms trading allegation. I did understand that there was a Trading with the Enemy Act issue, but I was concerned about what -- you know, what the arms trading was, and was assured that that was misinformation. 
1290
1291REP.LLA You were assured by whom?
1292
1293MS. NOLAN Mr. Quinn.
1294
1295REP.LLA By Mr. Quinn.
1296
1297REP.LLA Let's go on. Mr. Lindsey?
1298
1299MR. LINDSEY Again, I was aware that there was a Trading with the Enemy count in the indictment. Your question as to whether it would change my mind or I would have done anything differently -- 
1300
1301REP.LLA If you would have done something, yeah.
1302
1303MR. LINDSEY -- you know, I don't know if there's any way to be more against something than I was against this. What -- you know, it would have been an additional basis -- it was an additional basis for my opposition. But I was told that this company was not an American company and therefore the company would not be subject to our laws. There was an article in the Wall Street Journal the other day that suggested that there are a lot of American companies that have foreign subsidiaries who because their foreign subsidiaries are not subject to that are not subject to that. 
1304
1305MR. LINDSEY But, again, I was opposed to that, and for all of the reasons, you know, that we talked about.
1306
1307REP.LLA And Mr. Podesta?
1308
1309REP. BURTON The time of the gentle lady has expired, but certainly Mr. Podesta can finish answering the line of questioning.
1310
1311REP.LLA Mr. Chairman, could I just mention some items just that fall into the same category, Ms. Nolan and gentlemen, the trading grain with the Soviet Union when there was an embargo, the trade with South Africa during apartheid -- the reason I was asking these questions, Mr. Chairman, was simply to point out whether we knew, and if we did know did we do anything about it. And if we didn't know, should we have found out more about it? So I then yield back. 
1312
1313REP. BURTON Okay. Mr. Podesta, you can complete your answer.
1314
1315MR. PODESTA Let me answer the question on Iran. I am not sure precisely when I learned this, whether it was before or after, but I think the underlying -- the underlying indictment was -- involved oil trading, and that involved oil trading that I guess was involved with Iran. But I associate myself with Mr. Lindsey. I was against this. So I don't know whether I would have done -- taken additional steps if I had known -- I suspect that -- and I don't know what the present state of knowledge was either on those issues. 
1316
1317REP. BURTON Thank you. The gentle lady from the District of Columbia is recognized for five minutes.
1318
1319DEL. NORTON Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your willingness to come freely, and I certainly appreciate the president willing to waive his executive privilege at the very least. It certainly speaks to the notion of whether or not he believes things should be hidden from this committee and tends to eliminate the notion that he does want to bring these matters out into the open. I'd like to have your views on the notions of constitutional amendments which are popping up especially as people who have been on the inside of the White House during the pardon process. Ms. Nolan, you indicate that you had so many of these coming down, and then they came late, and then there was a notion like, My goodness, isn't there some cutoff in all of this. As a matter of fact, the Framers reserved the pardon while in part because there might be things that came late. But I certainly can understand the notion that these things galloped with increasing speed as you got near the end. Indeed, as I said earlier this hearing, I called the counsel's office -- it must have been the day before the end of the administration, because it crossed my mind that the so-called Democracy Seven -- people were being tried for the second time for the same offense after having had a hung jury for protesting from the gallery that the Congress takes the budget of the District of Columbia and add things to it. So I called to say, Can we have a pardon for the Democracy Seven? Of course these are misdemeanors, and it would have been a political act of a president who supports voting rights and statehood for the District. But I can certainly understand that people just get the idea in the back of their mind -- and of course I didn't get to speak with Ms. Nolan -- I got to speak with somebody in your office. 
1320
1321MS. NOLAN I apologize -- to every member of Congress -- (laughter) --
1322
1323DEL. NORTON Nor do I believe frankly that you should have come to the phone to hear any member of Congress in those last hectic days, especially after what we heard her today about what you confronted. 
1324
1325DEL. NORTON By the way, I had no idea that there were any -- there were such things as Justice Department guidelines. I am a member of Congress and a lawyer -- I had no idea what the process was. You know? I called the counsel's office the way I think people knowing nothing might well do. 
1326
1327DEL. NORTON We had one constitutional amendment that has kind of been shouted down that would have the pardon power, however, reviewed by two thirds of the Congress; that is to say a pardon could be overturned if two thirds of the Congress -- if anything, that would make it more political. Imagine members of Congress voting to pardon a criminal. So that wouldn't get very far. Now there's another one that says, No pardons after October 1st. I know that would make your -- October 1st of the election year -- I know that would make your lives a lot easier, or maybe not. So I would like your view as to the effect on the pardon power of stopping all pardons October 1st of the election year where the president is going out of office. 
1328
1329MS. NOLAN I think that the Framers had it right when they vested the pardon power in one person, and that person being the president. They did it quite deliberately to ensure that one person was responsible for the decision, one person could take the hits for it, and knowing full well that the kind of mercy that is inherent in the pardon power would not be exercised by committee, in the same way that it would by one person. It -- 
1330
1331DEL. NORTON I'm asking about the timing. I am asking about October 1st.
1332
1333MS. NOLAN I think that that -- I think that I would retain that power, and I would retain it unfettered, and expect that this president and future presidents are fully subject to criticism and public review, if the public disagrees; but that the idea of having one person who can do it, and can do it at any time I think is what the Framers had in mind, and I continue to believe that that's the right way to do it. 
1334
1335DEL. NORTON Mr. Lindsey?
1336
1337MR. LINDSEY Well, I have law professors on both sides of me, so I am not sure I am qualified to answer this. But I agree with Ms. Nolan that I think the power as it exists, for the purpose that it exists, should remain the same. I would just also say I am not sure that the 30th of September would be any different than the 19th of January under that scenario. 
1338
1339DEL. NORTON There'd be the rush then to move that day.
1340
1341MR. LINDSEY Exactly.
1342
1343DEL. NORTON Mr. Podesta?
1344
1345MR. PODESTA Well, I agree with Ms. Nolan. Let me point out one other point though that I think this situation gives rise to, which is it goes back to the beginning of Ms. Nolan's statements about the president's frustration about not getting recommendations for pardons from the pardon office in the beginning of the year 2000, which is I think that if you look back on this, the president granted I think only something less than 200 pardons over the course of his eight years. And I think that was something the president really noticed that he was not getting any applications moving forward out of the system as it currently exists. Partly I think that's the result of a situation in which people are afraid to be criticized for granting pardons or for recommending pardons, et cetera. 
1346
1347MR. PODESTA If you look in contrast to what President Clinton granted, the system produced I guess for President Reagan during his eight years some 400 pardons or more or less. There are people in prison, there are more people coming out of it; therefore, more people who I believe served their sentence and need to lead a good life. 
1348
1349MR. PODESTA So I don't think that the answer to the problems that we encountered is to restrict or to try to suppress or to try to some extent through the exercise of second guessing, reduction of the overall number of pardons and commutations. I think that would be a bad outcome. 
1350
1351REP. BURTON The time of the gentle lady has expired.
1352
1353REP. BURTON The chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. LaTourette, for five minutes.
1354
1355REP. LATOURETTE Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think to Mr. Clinton's delight I'd like to leave the Rich-Pincus Green matter for a moment and talk about another fellow, Carlos Vignali, if I could. And as we note from the news accounts, Carlos Vignali helped finance another group of people that was involved in the distribution of 800 pounds of cocaine shipped to Minnesota, where it was going to be cooked with other chemicals to create crack cocaine for distribution to, among other people, children in the state of Minnesota. And 30 people, it's my understanding, were convicted; and on January 20th only one spins out of jail, and that's Carlos Vignali. 
1356
1357REP. LATOURETTE And there have been a couple of wrinkles since we last got together. One has to do with Hugh Rodham. And, Mr. Lindsey, I'd like to start with you. I think I read in the Los Angeles Times an observation that you recall speaking at least twice with Mr. Rodham about the Vignali pardon. Were you quoted correctly? 
1358
1359MR. LINDSEY That's correct.
1360
1361REP. LATOURETTE And when and where did those conversations take place?
1362
1363MR. LINDSEY I believe the first conversation occurred probably around the middle of December -- Mr. Rodham called, asked me to take a look at a commutation application for Carlos Vignali, indicated that he was a first-time offender, that his application was supported by the sheriff of Los Angeles County, that it was supported by the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles -- 
1364
1365REP. LATOURETTE Were you aware that the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles was not the prosecuting agency during the course of that conversation?
1366
1367MR. LINDSEY Yes, I was -- I don't -- yes, because he also told me it was supported by the trial attorney who actually tried the case in Minnesota. That turned out probably not to be correct. 
1368
1369REP. LATOURETTE Probably not.
1370
1371MR. LINDSEY I don't -- we know the U.S. Attorney opposed it. I don't know whether the trial attorney did or didn't. But be that as it may, I am telling you what he told me -- 
1372
1373REP. LATOURETTE Sure.
1374
1375MR. LINDSEY He told me it was supported by the U.S. Attorney in Los Angeles, the sheriff of Los Angeles County, by the Cardinal Archbishop at the archdiocese in Los Angeles, Cardinal Mahoney -- 
1376
1377REP. LATOURETTE Right, a variety of people --
1378
1379MR. LINDSEY -- by several congressmen, former congressmen, city council people. I indicated to him that it was -- that he served six years approximately. I indicated to Mr. Rodham that that was the kind of application the president actually was interested in looking at. He was interested in looking at first-time drug offenders who did not play major roles in the crime, and that we would take a look at it. 
1380
1381REP. LATOURETTE Did he represent to you that this fellow didn't play a major role in the crime? Eight hundred pounds is a lot where I come from -- I would assume that that's not the type of drug deal that -- 
1382
1383MR. LINDSEY I don't believe that -- I don't think there was a finding. I actually believe that the judge made a specific finding that he was responsible for 5 to 15 kilos, which is I think 11 to 33 pounds. I think the total amount of money that he was involved with was $2,500 -- $25,000, excuse me. So I don't believe that it is correct that he was responsible for 800,000 -- and, in fact, I think there was a specific finding that he was not. There was also I believe a specific finding that he was not an organizer and leader of the conspiracy. 
1384
1385REP. LATOURETTE How about the second time you spoke to Mr. Rodham -- when did that occur?
1386
1387MR. LINDSEY Sometime thereafter. At some point we learned through the pardon attorney's office that the U.S. Attorney in Minnesota did not support the application -- was opposed to the application. In some conversation -- I can't date it for you -- I had told -- one of the facts he had told me at the beginning was that the attorney in Minnesota -- he said the trial attorney, not the U.S. Attorney, but the trial attorney in Minnesota, supported it. I told him that at least as far as the U.S. Attorney Office was concerned in Minnesota that they would not support it. 
1388
1389REP. LATOURETTE And is that the substance of your contact with Mr. Rodham on this matter?
1390
1391MR. LINDSEY As far as I can recall, yes.
1392
1393REP. LATOURETTE Did you inquire of him what his interest was in the convicted drug dealer from Los Angeles?
1394
1395MR. LINDSEY No.
1396
1397REP. LATOURETTE Did you ask him when he had received a fee?
1398
1399MR. LINDSEY No, I didn't ask -- I don't think I ever asked that of any person who has contacted me.
1400
1401REP. LATOURETTE Well, is that your assumption? I mean, did you think he was a family friend? Or I mean he was acting as a lawyer?
1402
1403MR. LINDSEY You know, I don't know. I have -- when anyone contacts me, I have no idea -- I mean, if they're a lawyer they could be there as a lawyer. Oftentimes they have friends or they know someone. I really -- from my analysis it wasn't important why he was calling me. He told me about a person -- the facts seem to follow along the lines of people we were looking at, and I told him I would take a look at it. 
1404
1405REP. LATOURETTE Were you aware -- did the pardon attorney tell you that Mr. Vignali lied upon his pardon application in the section that asked if he had a previous criminal conviction? Were you advised of that by the pardon attorney? 
1406
1407MR. LINDSEY I don't believe so.
1408
1409REP. LATOURETTE Were you advised of that by Mr. Rodham?
1410
1411MR. LINDSEY No, I believe the first time I heard that, frankly, was this morning. He -- if I remember right, he actually indicated he had several prior --
1412
1413REP. LATOURETTE On his pardon application?
1414
1415MR. LINDSEY I thought so.
1416
1417REP. LATOURETTE I don't think that's correct, and I'll be happy to supply the information. That's incorrect.
1418
1419REP. LATOURETTE And just as a last matter, as my time --
1420
1421MR. LINDSEY I was just informed that it is reflected in his pardon application. But, again, we can get the application and see.
1422
1423REP. LATOURETTE It's reflected in his pardon application that he has priors?
1424
1425MR. LINDSEY I believe so.
1426
1427REP. LATOURETTE Okay. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1428
1429REP. BURTON I thank the gentleman from Ohio.
1430
1431REP. BURTON The gentleman from California, Mr. Ose, is recognized for five minutes.
1432
1433REP. OSE Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is directed I believe to former chief of staff Podesta. And that is: What is the procedure by which the White House deals with gifts received during the president's tenure, particularly this president's tenure? 
1434
1435MR. PODESTA I think that Ms. Nolan can answer that more directly --
1436
1437REP. OSE I might ask her, but we'll start with you -- okay?
1438
1439MR. PODESTA Well, I think that the -- if the president received a gift, it is logged into the gift unit. The gift unit then creates a running log of those. The president has the right to accept and take gifts that are presented to him, if he chooses to do so. If he does not choose to do so, I believe they become the property of the National Archives, and I think that's set up by statute, but I couldn't quote the statutory citation. 
1440
1441REP. OSE Is there a procedure outlined at the White House for what qualifies as a gift to the president, or one that is supposed to go to the Archives?
1442
1443MR. PODESTA Sure.
1444
1445REP. OSE When was that policy established?
1446
1447MR. PODESTA I think it's been in existence since probably prior to the Clinton administration.
1448
1449REP. OSE Could we -- do we have a copy of that particular policy as it applies to the Clinton administration?
1450
1451MR. PODESTA I think this is regulated by statute.
1452
1453REP. OSE Mr. Quinn, is Mr. Rich a United States citizen, or is he not?
1454
1455MR. QUINN It is my understanding now that he believes he is not a United States citizen. I understand that our State Department disputes that.
1456
1457REP. OSE Ms. Nolan, is your recollection of the manner in which gifts received by the White House consistent with Mr. Podesta's?
1458
1459MS. NOLAN Yes. Yes, it is.
1460
1461REP. OSE If a gift comes to the White House, what happens? Just take me through just a brief synopsis. Let's say I send a gift to the president valued at $275, and it's a portrait. What happens? What are the questions that are asked? 
1462
1463MS. NOLAN The gift, as I understand it, is sent to the gift unit in the White House for valuation, and the gift unit identifies the person on the list who the donor is, what the value is, and the president makes a determination whether to accept the gift or not. 
1464
1465REP. OSE The president makes the determination whether to accept the gift personally, or as a representative of the federal government, or --
1466
1467MS. NOLAN Well, it depends on whether the gift -- if the gift is given to the White House, as I understand it, the gift unit records reflect gifts given to the president personally. 
1468
1469REP. OSE What happens to the gifts given to the White House?
1470
1471MS. NOLAN I believe that the residence office keeps a record of those. But I haven't seen such records. I don't know.
1472
1473REP. OSE How would we go about establishing what those records contain?
1474
1475MS. NOLAN I am not -- I have to say I am not quite clear --
1476
1477REP. OSE Well, where are those records?
1478
1479MS. NOLAN I assume that they are with the archives now as part of the president's records. But I am not sure.
1480
1481REP. OSE Okay. And my final question, Mr. Chairman -- I see I am almost out -- I was here for the testimony about the relative lack of knowledge about Mr. Rich's past behavior in terms of his activities overseas. Relative to Mr. Vignali and the behavior that he engaged in in transporting the 800 pounds, you are all aware of Plan Colombia, the official United States government policy? 
1482
1483MR. PODESTA I certainly am.
1484
1485REP. OSE Okay. Do you have any observations about the conflict that might be perceived between the president pardoning somebody transporting 800 pounds of coke and our efforts in Colombia to ameliorate or eliminate production? 
1486
1487MR. PODESTA I think that Mr. Lindsey has already corrected the record. He knows more about the case than I do with regard to the specific facts. But I think that what you suggest -- 
1488
1489REP. OSE My time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
1490
1491MR. PODESTA -- I think what you are suggesting is that no one who is involved in a drug case should ever receive a commutation or ever receive a pardon. And I think that's -- I understand that you may believe that, but I think that's a harsh standard. 
1492
1493REP. OSE That's not the suggestion I'm making, Mr. Podesta.
1494
1495MR. LINDSEY If I may correct the record again, the judge made a specific finding in the Vignali case that he was responsible for 5 to 15 kilos, which I understand translates to 11 to 33 pounds -- not 800. 
1496
1497REP. BURTON I think we have established the ratio between pounds and kilos sufficiently.
1498
1499REP. BURTON The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis, for five minutes.
1500
1501REP. DAVIS Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me also thank each one of you for appearing this afternoon.
1502
1503REP. DAVIS Mr. Podesta, in your opening statement you indicated that the staff had recommended against pardoning Mr. Rich. Did you have any further individual conversations with the president about the matter? 
1504
1505MR. PODESTA No, not beyond the night of the 16th of January. As I said, I was not present at the night of the 19th to have that discussion. Did you have any further individual conversation with the president about the matter? 
1506
1507MR. PODESTA No, not beyond the night of the 16th of January. As I said, I was not present on the night of the 19th when they had that discussion.
1508
1509REP. DAVIS And that was part of a group discussion, or group interaction?
1510
1511MR. PODESTA On the 16th?
1512
1513REP. DAVIS Yes.
1514
1515MR. PODESTA Yes.
1516
1517REP. DAVIS Yes. Mr. Lindsey, how long have you known the president?
1518
1519MR. LINDSEY Over 32 years.
1520
1521REP. DAVIS And how would you characterize your relationship?
1522
1523MR. LINDSEY Well, up until a month ago I was an employee for eight years. Before that, he and I, for a short period of time, were both in the same law firm. We've been friends for a number of years. We both worked for Bill Fulbright in the late '60s, which is where I first met him. 
1524
1525REP. DAVIS And so you'd say that, you know, the two of you were very comfortable with each other, I guess?
1526
1527MR. LINDSEY Yes, sir.
1528
1529REP. DAVIS Did you have any individual conversation with the president about the Rich case?
1530
1531MR. LINDSEY I don't believe so. I can't recall any conversation with him.
1532
1533REP. DAVIS So any interaction you would have had would have been part of the group activity where someone else was present other than just the two of you?
1534
1535MR. LINDSEY I think that's correct. I do recall one conversation that was not part of the meeting in which I indicated to him that he should consider Mr. Quinn in this to be an advocate on one side and not his advisor, and that Jack had a client. And I don't believe that was in a group meeting. I think that was the night of the 19th, at some point. 
1536
1537REP. DAVIS Ms. Nolan, were your discussions with the president individual, or part of a group discussion or where other people were present?
1538
1539MS. NOLAN Yes. My conversations with the president were part of a group discussion. I did talk to him on the telephone late on the night of the 19th, morning of the 20th, for a few minutes. There were people in my office, but I talked with him on the phone. 
1540
1541REP. DAVIS And so for the most part, it seems to me that all three of us are saying that our conversations were part of the normal interaction that one would have expected to take place, given the roles that each one of you played. 
1542
1543WITNESSES That's correct.
1544
1545REP. DAVIS At any time -- or, any other time, did you ever get the impression that there was anything to be considered other than the legal determinations in terms of trying to make a rational decision about the situation? 
1546
1547MS. NOLAN I did not. I disagreed with the president's judgment, but I believed he had his reasons for doing it that involved his view of the merits of the case and the advice or recommendation of people he respected. 
1548
1549MR. PODESTA I agree with that.
1550
1551MR. LINDSEY Yes, same answer.
1552
1553REP. DANNY DAVIS Thank you very much. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
1554
1555REP. BURTON Ms. Davis?
1556
1557REP. JO ANN DAVIS (R-VA) REP. JO ANN DAVIS (R-VA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1558
1559REP. JO ANN DAVIS (R-VA) I'd sort of like to go back to the process under which a pardon application comes in. And I guess this is directed to Ms. Nolan, Mr. Lindsey, and Mr. Podesta. 
1560
1561REP. JO ANN DAVIS (R-VA) It's my understanding you-all knew about the pardon application sometime in December. Correct?
1562
1563MS. NOLAN I think that's right, yes.
1564
1565REP. JO ANN DAVIS At any time did you-all -- any of you -- discuss it with the prosecuting attorneys or the U.S. attorney, or get any input from them, or notify them?
1566
1567MS. NOLAN I discussed it with Mr. Holder sometime early in January, which was right after I first took a look at it. It had come in sometime in December, but I don't think I took a look at it till early January. I discussed it with Mr. Holder, the deputy attorney general. 
1568
1569REP. JO ANN DAVIS I'm talking about the prosecuting attorneys.
1570
1571MS. NOLAN Well, he --
1572
1573REP. JO ANN DAVIS Would he be the one that would have contacted them?
1574
1575MS. NOLAN I normally would talk to the Justice -- right, I normally would talk to main Justice and to the deputy's office, or my office would, more commonly, and we wouldn't normally reach out individually. We did on some occasions, but rarely. It usually went through the Justice Department. 
1576
1577MS. NOLAN He represented to me at that time that he was, you know, clear what the U.S. attorney's office would think about the matter, but that he did not think we would hear any objection from main Justice. 
1578
1579REP. JO ANN DAVIS Is it normal procedure that the prosecuting attorneys would get to weigh in on a case, especially one of this magnitude?
1580
1581MS. NOLAN Yes, normally they would.
1582
1583REP. JO ANN DAVIS Mr. Podesta or Mr. Lindsey, did either one of you-all think to tell the president or anyone that "we need to talk to the prosecuting attorneys"?
1584
1585MR. LINDSEY The president has indicated -- and I think we did indicate -- that the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District was opposed to it. We knew that as a fact. We -- 
1586
1587REP. JO ANN DAVIS How did you know that as a fact --
1588
1589MR. LINDSEY Well, we --
1590
1591REP. JO ANN DAVIS -- if they had not had the opportunity to weigh in on it?
1592
1593MR. LINDSEY Because we knew that there had been discussions prior to this application to sit down -- for the U.S. attorney's office to sit down with representative attorneys for Mr. Rich to discuss the matter, and that their position is that until they came back, there would be no discussions. So again, their position was that as long as they remained fugitives, there was -- there would be no discussion of any of these matters. And I just assumed that that would clearly be their position with respect to a pardon application. 
1594
1595MR. PODESTA My --
1596
1597REP. JO ANN DAVIS Did you relay that to the president?
1598
1599MR. LINDSEY Yeah, I -- you know, can I recall specifically? I believe the president was aware of all of that, that there had been attempts -- I think Mr. Quinn may have mentioned it in letters -- that there had been attempts to talk with the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District, and that they refused to have those conversations. 
1600
1601REP. JO ANN DAVIS I'll let Mr. Podesta weigh in and then I'm going to yield some time to --
1602
1603MR. PODESTA Yeah. I think that the proper channel for soliciting the U.S. Attorney's views in this case was through main Justice, through Mr. Holder, or through the pardon attorney. And I think it was a mistake not to have done that. I think that it's -- that from the perspective of the three people sitting up here, and I think -- with respect to Mr. Holder, I think the reason that that wasn't done was because no one thought this was going to happen and no one supported it. And I think it wasn't until the evening of the 19th that that proposition was put to Mr. Holder. And I think that it would clearly have been better to have solicited the views of the U.S. Attorney in New York and -- in the Southern District of New York -- and to have that in front of the president before he made a final decision on this matter. 
1604
1605MR. PODESTA And I think, as I said earlier in my testimony, I think we bear some responsibility for not having had that done. But I think it's explained by the course of conduct we were all engaged in which was we were busy, we were working on every -- we were working on a lot of things, we didn't think this was going anywhere, we didn't think it was a live option on Tuesday night. But obviously, I think the president made a decision -- I think it's fair to say what Mr. Lindsey said, which was the president understood that the U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York would not support this. But I think, in due regard to her equities, that he at least should have been able to hear what her views were. 
1606
1607MR. PODESTA I would add something else, which is that I don't think that the president, in all these matters -- and I think I heard him say this on several occasions -- wanted to not know what the Justice Department thought; I think he always wanted to know what the Justice Department thought. But he didn't want them to have, in essence, a de facto veto power by not giving them the applications or the -- what their views were. 
1608
1609MR. PODESTA So, I think that he was perfectly happy to get recommendations not to grant a pardon, which he then could consider and then decide to do or not do. But in this case I think that, from that perspective, the system didn't work well and we bear some of the responsibility for that. 
1610
1611REP. LATOURETTE Would you yield to me for just --
1612
1613REP. J. DAVIS I'd like to yield to Mr. LaTourette.
1614
1615REP. LATOURETTE Mr. Lindsey, I just heard what you said in response to the question, and I -- Mr. Quinn said that at the last hearing, but I think in the next round I'd invite to you to look at Exhibit 135 and the observation that the Southern District of New York would not sit down and negotiate this case is not right. They agreed to dismiss the RICO case, they agreed to bail, they agreed to sit down with the lawyers that prepared the report that Mr. Rich paid for. And despite all -- did you know all of that? 
1616
1617MR. LINDSEY No, sir. I was told that the -- I was told that the U.S. Attorney's office had indicated that they -- as long as they were fugitives that they would not negotiate with them. 
1618
1619REP. LATOURETTE Okay. I would just invite you to look at Exhibit 135 and then maybe you and I can talk about it when I get more time. Thanks.
1620
1621REP. PUTNAM Where do we stand on time? Am I next?
1622
1623REP. BURTON Mr. Putnam.
1624
1625REP. PUTNAM Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1626
1627REP. PUTNAM Mr. Podesta, you have testified that your opinion on this case was that the facts did not support a recommendation to the president for a pardon. Is that correct? 
1628
1629MR. PODESTA That's correct.
1630
1631REP. PUTNAM And that you stated the same, Mr. Lindsey. Is that correct?
1632
1633MR. LINDSEY I'm sorry, I was reading Exhibit 135. What was your question? (Laughter.)
1634
1635REP. PUTNAM You stated that from the beginning it was your opinion that the facts did not support a recommendation to the president for a pardon.
1636
1637MR. LINDSEY That is absolutely correct.
1638
1639REP. PUTNAM And you did the same, Ms. Nolan?
1640
1641MS. NOLAN I'm sorry sir?
1642
1643REP. PUTNAM That the facts did not support --
1644
1645MS. NOLAN That's correct.
1646
1647REP. PUTNAM The conclusion that I draw from that is that Mr. Quinn has an uncanny ability for persuasive writing that -- based on the advice of every attorney in the White House who has responsibility for reviewing these matters, it was your memo to the president that convinced him, based on the merits of the case, that the pardon was, in fact, justified? Is that essentially what it was, that you -- everyone else in the entire White House Counsel's Office, according to Mr. Podesta, unanimously was against the pardon, so this one memo to the president was so persuasive, so convincing that he made his decision to pursue the pardon? 
1648
1649MR. LINDSEY If I may respond to that, I think there were a number of issues. I think Jack did make persuasive arguments, at least to the president. In addition, we talked about the prime minister of Israel weighing in. In addition, the president, at the time he made the decision, had been advised that the deputy attorney general was neutral, leaning favorable. So, you know, I cannot tell you, if any one of those three factors had not been present, whether the decision would have been the same; but to sort of focus only on one of those factors, I think, is not -- is not correct. 
1650
1651REP. PUTNAM A moment ago Ms. Nolan testified that the president made the decision based on the merits of the case and advice of those whom he trusted. Who else did he seek out for advice besides those of you here, who were on the White House or Justice Department staff? 
1652
1653MS. NOLAN The people I had mentioned before were the advice of Mr. Quinn, the recommendation of Mr. Barak, and the recommendation, such as it was, of Mr. Holder. That's what I was referring to. 
1654
1655REP. PUTNAM And is it common in your review of the other pardon applications -- how many other -- you know, we've got the king of Spain, Barak. How often does it come up that foreign heads of state weigh in on pardon applications? 
1656
1657MS. NOLAN It came up, I would guess, a handful of times in this past season.
1658
1659REP. PUTNAM Mr. Podesta --
1660
1661MR. PODESTA Just to give you some example, I just read that, for example, Margaret Thatcher and Prime Minister Gorbachev at the time weighed in on behalf of Armand Hammer's pardon application shortly after he had contributed $100,000 to the Bush-Quayle campaign and the RNC campaign. And those may have been factors in granting that pardon, as well. 
1662
1663REP. PUTNAM And you had indicated that your concern about this pardon was not great because, quote, "no one thought it was going to happen; it was not a live option." Have you had an opportunity to review Exhibit 67, the e-mail that indicates that, as we previously indicated, the staff were not supportive, were not (in detail ?) mode, but that according to you, Mr. Podesta, the efforts with the president are being felt, it sounds like you're making headway, you should keep at it as long as you can. That was sent on the 16th. 
1664
1665MR. PODESTA I don't know what -- I mean, again, my recollection of that conversation was that I said to Mr. Kadzik that I was opposed to it, that the counsel was opposed to it, and that we would recommend to the president that he not grant it. 
1666
1667REP. PUTNAM Mr. Quinn, do you have any idea why Mr. Fink would have thought that based on Podesta's remarks, you were making headway and your presence was being felt? 
1668
1669MR. QUINN No. And you'll notice that Mr. Fink is not reporting on a conversation he had with me. But I know that Mr. Kadzik and Mr. Fink will both be before the committee today. 
1670
1671REP. PUTNAM And just one final question for you, Mr. Quinn. According to Exhibit 72, there was an e-mail that indicates from Robert Fink to Mr. Azelay (sp): "I have been asked to lobby the president on behalf of Marc and Pinky (sp) and said it may be private and therefore did not immediately respond. Who should I say?" Why would there be any reason for embarrassment or shame or reluctance to disclose who had advocated this supposedly meritorious pardon application? 
1672
1673MR. QUINN Again, sir, that's not my e-mail. So I can't speak to what was in his mind. I do know that there are -- there's at least one other document that indicates that Mr. Azelay (sp) was sensitive to public opinion in Israel, but beyond that I can't comment. 
1674
1675REP. PUTNAM Thank you.
1676
1677REP. BURTON The gentleman's's time has expired.
1678
1679REP. BURTON Mr. Schrock? Mr. Schrock, would you yield to me, please?
1680
1681REP. SCHROCK Yes.
1682
1683REP. BURTON Thank you.
1684
1685REP. BURTON I hope I'm not redundant. I was gone for a little bit. I had to leave. But there's a few questions I'd like to ask. I know that when Mr. Quinn presented his application to the president, he presented the best case possible. And when you met with the president, the three of you, and talked to him about the Rich pardon, did you talk to him about Mr. Rich breaking embargoes, like trading with Mr. Muammar Qadhafi of Libya, or trading with Iran when our hostages were being held in violation of the embargo, or that he traded with Iraq when we were involved in problems with Iraq and the embargoed oil, or the grain embargo on the Soviet Union when we had the grain embargo? Did he -- was the president aware of that? Was he aware that Mr. Rich was violating the embargo of South Africa or that he was trading with Cuba during the Cuba embargo? Did you tell the president any of that? 
1686
1687MS. NOLAN Mr. Burton, I don't think I knew or know any of that. I don't accept -- I did know that part of the indictment was a Trading with the Enemies Act violation, and the president knew that. 
1688
1689REP. BURTON Did you call --
1690
1691MS. NOLAN I told the president late in the evening that there was an allegation of arms trading, that I had spoken with Mr. Quinn several times to try to determine what that allegation was and if that was something different from trading with the enemy. I -- 
1692
1693REP. BURTON I want to get to that in just a moment. But did you or any of you talk to him about any of these violations of embargoes that was in violation of the law, any of them? And there was one, two, three, four, five, six that we know of. Did you talk to -- 
1694
1695MS. NOLAN Other than the thing I just referred to, Trading with the Enemies Act, and the allegation of arms trading, no, I don't believe so.
1696
1697REP. BURTON Well, when --
1698
1699MS. NOLAN I don't think I knew about it.
1700
1701REP. BURTON Did you ask for an intelligence briefing? Did you talk to anybody at the Justice Department about any other violations that may have taken place by Mr. Rich so you could convey them to the president? 
1702
1703MS. NOLAN No. I agree with Mr. Podesta's description and want to make clear that until 8:00 or 9:00 or later in the evening of January 19th, I did not know this pardon was going forward. I -- 
1704
1705REP. BURTON But you knew it was being considered earlier, did you not? I mean, you knew --
1706
1707MS. NOLAN I thought that it was not going forward. I knew it had been considered, but I left a meeting sometime earlier in that week with the clear impression that it would not go forward. 
1708
1709REP. BURTON Well, what I can't understand is even if something of this significance is being considered and you knew that this was one of the most wanted fugitives in the world by the United States, if you thought it was even being remotely considered and you knew Mr. Quinn was pushing for it, you knew there was calls coming in from people, leaders around the world, why didn't you ask for an intelligence briefing? Why didn't you ask if there were other laws and embargoes and things like that that had been broken so that the three of you could have at least explained to the president, you know, what was going on? The Justice Department knew about these things. 
1710
1711MS. NOLAN Sir, I did not know until that evening that it was a live issue. We were -- for all the kinds of matters Mr. Podesta described, we were extremely busy and we weren't spending time on pardon applications that looked like they weren't going anywhere. And that was simply a matter of trying to manage the best we could with an extremely heavy load. I didn't have the time and wasn't inclined to do work on matters that I thought weren't live matters. Once we had the president's determination, we did ask the Justice Department for an NCIC check. 
1712
1713REP. BURTON Well, you reached out to Mr. Quinn about some of the issues, did you not? I mean, you talked to him.
1714
1715MS. NOLAN On the 19th. And I --
1716
1717REP. BURTON If you talked to Mr. Quinn, why didn't you call over to the Justice Department and say, "Hey, this thing is a hot item; I want a complete -- as quickly as you can get it, I want a complete rundown on" -- 
1718
1719MS. NOLAN I spoke with Mr. Holder, sir. I spoke with the deputy attorney general.
1720
1721REP. BURTON What did Mr. Holder say?
1722
1723MS. NOLAN He said he was neutral, leaning toward favorable.
1724
1725REP. BURTON No, no, no. Did you ask him about specific things like "Tell me what was going on with Mr. Rich. Tell me where he violated the law. Tell me what was going on so I can tell the president clearly what the problems are with this pardon." Did you ask him that? 
1726
1727MS. NOLAN If the deputy attorney general gives me a view on a pardon, I don't normally get all the underlying facts of it, sir.
1728
1729REP. BURTON So you didn't say -- he says, "Well, I'm neutral, leaning yes." But the fact of the matter is you knew this was a very, very wanted fugitive and you didn't pursue it any more than -- (inaudible). 
1730
1731MS. NOLAN My view was, as clearly expressed to the president, was that this should not be done, because he was a wanted fugitive.
1732
1733REP. BURTON But the problem is, on what basis?
1734
1735MS. NOLAN You know, my view was, if Mr. Quinn's arguments were all correct, if Mr. Rich and Mr. Green had been selectively prosecuted, it didn't matter. They should come back -- 
1736
1737REP. BURTON I think I'm next. Do you want to take your time? Well, I'd like to go on and continue the questioning, if you would let me take my time. But I'll yield to you if you'd like. Go ahead. Go ahead. I'll come back next. 
1738
1739REP. WAXMAN It just appears to me this whole pardon process broke down, because ideally the president should have had all this information. He should have known what the prosecutors had to say about it. He should have known all this background about Mr. Rich, which he apparently did not have at his disposal. So this whole pardon process broke down, and we're trying to understand how the president could make this decision. He made it contrary to his top advisers, who worked for him at the White House. 
1740
1741REP. WAXMAN Sometimes when we step back and try to figure out what's going on, we miss the obvious. And two things are going through my mind as I recollect that period of time; the failure of the Middle East peace process. It must have been a tremendous blow to the president. And here Prime Minister Barak was calling him and asking for a favor. The president must have known at that point that Mr. Barak was likely to be out of office fairly soon. 
1742
1743REP. WAXMAN The second thing was that that was the day that the president had to come to terms with the independent counsel and make a public statement of his statements not being completely accurate, if I could just be mild in my way of putting it. But the president nevertheless had to come forward and make a public statement about his testimony he had given. These were two things on his mind. 
1744
1745REP. WAXMAN Mr. Podesta, no one can quite know what was going on in his head, but his concern about overzealous prosecutors, a request from the prime minister of Israel, probably his exhaustion, a failure to get all the information -- how much of this was contributing to the president's decision-making? 
1746
1747MR. PODESTA Mr. Waxman, I don't want to -- I am loathe to kind of psychoanalyze the president and try to figure out exactly what factors went to what. But I do know that Mr. Barak, as I think Mr. Lindsey said, had raised it a couple of times. I think that was, as you properly point out, was an emotional time. The peace process obviously wasn't coming to fruition. He had enormous respect for Mr. Barak. I think Mr. Barak had asked him for several things, if you will, that were intended to show support for the state of Israel; not so much for Mr. Barak but for the state of Israel, including, for example, the pardon of Jonathan Pollard. This was one of the things -- 
1748
1749REP. WAXMAN The president was not going to give that pardon to Jonathan Pollard.
1750
1751MR. PODESTA That's correct. Let me add that I think this was one thing that he was seeking. I think, in my own view, I think that meant that he felt like he really had to go back and look at it hard. And at that point it was, I think, too late to do what you're suggesting we should have done and that I have suggested that we should have done, which is to provide him a more complete portfolio (with the thing?). But it was on the evening of January 19th, I think, as a result of that, he wanted to take a hard look at it. He did. Again, I wasn't present for the conversation, so I can't go into what I thought was in his head. But that, I think, gives some fuller explanation of what the situation was at that time. 
1752
1753REP. WAXMAN I want to touch on another issue. I want to clarify something that received a lot of attention earlier, and that was a conversation that Cheryl Mills had with Roger Adams. Roger Adams is the pardon person over at the Justice Department. One, this was a conversation on January 20th. Ms. Nolan, I assume -- tell me if I'm not correct -- that all the pardon decisions had been decided by January 19th. 
1754
1755MS. NOLAN All the pardon decisions except, I believe, Mr. Deutch were decided on the 19th.
1756
1757REP. WAXMAN Mr. Rich was decided earlier.
1758
1759MS. NOLAN Yes.
1760
1761REP. WAXMAN Cheryl Mills, her position was she never called Roger Adams on January 20th or any other day and that Roger Adams called the White House counsel's office. She picked up the phone because everybody was so frantic and so busy; this was the last day of the president's term. And he had a question about paperwork, something about warrants that had to go back over to the Justice Department. 
1762
1763REP. WAXMAN She tried to assist him in answering that question on the paperwork. And then I do want to make the point that she maintained, and as far as I know it's true, that she had no knowledge about Denise Rich's contributions to the library or the campaign or anything else. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? 
1764
1765MS. NOLAN None whatsoever.
1766
1767REP. WAXMAN Now, the last thing I want to ask Mr. Podesta. There's been some concern in the press about this Hasidic group in New York and the appearance, because they all voted so overwhelmingly for Mrs. Clinton for Senate. Do you have any information that you can share with us about this group? Is it surprising that they voted so overwhelming? And is there anything else you want to tell us about that? 
1768
1769MR. PODESTA Well, I think that, again, I think that much has been made in the press about the fact that the group voted overwhelmingly for Mrs. Clinton and suggested that there was some quid pro quo, which I reject. But I went back and looked at the voting in New Square, and it's interesting that in 1998 they voted 1132 for Governor Pataki, eight for Peter Vallone, who was running for governor. In 1996 they voted 1110 for President Clinton, 31 for Senator Dole. In the Senate race in 1992, the vote was 664 for Al D'Amato, three for Mr. Abrams. 
1770
1771MR. PODESTA So I don't know much about this community, but I do know they vote as a bloc. And I don't think you can take much out of the fact that they, in fact, voted as a bloc, because they seem to do it for Republicans and they seem to do it for Democrats. 
1772
1773MR. PODESTA I think the president concluded in that particular case that no purpose was served in these gentlemen staying in jail, that all served a couple of years, and he thought that -- he did not, by the way, pardon the gentlemen, as he was requested to do by their community leaders. He did commute their sentence to time served -- not time served; I think he commuted it to two years. I'm not -- 
1774
1775MR. : Thirty months with respect to three, 24 months with respect to one.
1776
1777MR. PODESTA Because he thought that they all had children at home, and it made more sense at that point to reduce their jail terms, let them go home, and to begin to work and pay off the restitution fines that they had, which he left in place. I think it was -- again, one could disagree with it, but I think it was a decision made on the merits. We heard from people outside the community as well on that particular case, and I think it was a justifiable decision based on the fact that they had all served significant jail terms, and it made more sense to have them home with their kids and earning money to pay their restitution back. 
1778
1779REP. WAXMAN Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
1780
1781REP. BURTON I understand that there's a need for a brief break, so we'll take about a five- or 10-minute break and then we'll go to the next round. We stand in recess for 10 minutes. 
1782
1783REP. BURTON (Recess.)
1784
1785REP. BURTON The committee will return to order. I'll now -- we'll start the second round. I'll start with my five minutes.
1786
1787REP. BURTON Ms. Nolan, you received word that Mr. Rich had been involved in arms trading. And as I understand it -- correct me if I'm wrong -- you asked Mr. Quinn about that. Is that correct? 
1788
1789MS. NOLAN That's correct.
1790
1791REP. BURTON Did you ask anybody at the Justice Department about it?
1792
1793MS. NOLAN No, this was --
1794
1795REP. BURTON Turn your mike on. Would you please?
1796
1797MS. NOLAN Sorry. This was at 2 MS. NOLAN: Sorry. This was at 2:00 or 2:30 in the morning.
1798
1799REP. BURTON But --
1800
1801MS. NOLAN I did not.
1802
1803REP. BURTON You did not. Well, the thing is, when somebody who's an international fugitive is about to be pardoned and somebody tells you from one of the, I guess, intelligence agencies that the man was involved in international arms trading, which may or may not have been the case -- it may have been under that category -- it looks like red lights would go all over the place and you would say, "My gosh, we've got to check this out very thoroughly. 
1804
1805REP. BURTON Now, I cited earlier six or seven violations of embargoes, Trading with the Enemy of the United States -- Iran, Iraq, the Soviet Union during the grain embargo, Cuba, South Africa during the embargo; all of those things -- Libya, Muammar Qhadafi, whom he bombed because of the things he was doing. And it seems like if a red light went off like that, you'd say, "Hold it. We've got until tomorrow at noon. Let's double-check this thing. 
1806
1807REP. BURTON What I want to understand is, why would you go to the man who's advocating a pardon, Mr. Quinn, and ask him about it and not get people out of bed at the Justice Department? I just don't understand it. It doesn't make any sense to me. 
1808
1809MS. NOLAN That's what I did. I asked Mr. Quinn the information, then I talked to the president. I told him that we had this information. I remember the words I used because I said, "All we have is Jack Quinn's word that this is not -- that the arms trading is not, in fact, an issue for Mr. Rich. 
1810
1811REP. BURTON Let me interrupt. All you had was Jack Quinn's word.
1812
1813MS. NOLAN That's correct.
1814
1815REP. BURTON An intelligence agency tells you that there was arms trading, a violation of law, and all these other things had taken place which had not yet been revealed or checked, and you take the man's word or the president takes his word on a pardon of one of the most wanted fugitives in the world, who renounced his citizenship and all the other things we've talked about. You took his word when Mr. Quinn was representing him. 
1816
1817REP. BURTON And Mr. Quinn has said in previous testimony, the last time he was here, "My job wasn't to tell all the facts that were against the pardon. My job was to point out all the reasons why there should be a pardon." And you know, as an attorney, that's what you do. You try to make the best case for your client. 
1818
1819REP. BURTON Now, why in the world would you go to Mr. Quinn when there was a question of illegal activity and say, "Hey, what about this?" You know darn well he's going to say, "Oh, that's nothing. That's just a minor thing. That was probably not arms trading. It was probably oil trading or something else." Why would you take his word for it? And why would the president take his word for it and then go ahead and grant that pardon? I just don't understand it. It eludes me. Could you explain that to me? 
1820
1821MS. NOLAN Mr. Chairman, I will try to explain it to you. I don't know that you and I will see eye to eye on what the situation was then.
1822
1823REP. BURTON I'm worried about the American people and what they think about it.
1824
1825MS. NOLAN Well, I would like to try to explain it.
1826
1827REP. BURTON Okay.
1828
1829MS. NOLAN This was 2 MS. NOLAN: This was 2:30 in the morning. My eyes were officially stuck together by then. I'd had my contact lenses in since 7:00 or 6:00 in the morning before. I'd been going on a couple of hours of sleep most nights that week, as had the president. And I think, frankly, as Mr. Podesta said, because this came up so late, we did not do the kind of checks that we would have done if we had more time. 
1830
1831REP. BURTON Ms. Nolan --
1832
1833MS. NOLAN The president and Mr. -- if I may finish, Mr. Chairman, since you asked this question.
1834
1835REP. BURTON Sure. Sure.
1836
1837MS. NOLAN As Mr. Lindsey indicated, he had indicated that he had said to the president that, you know, "Understand Mr. Quinn is not your adviser. He's an advocate." But I do think that the president viewed Mr. Quinn as somebody who he truly did trust to give him correct information. And as far as we know, that information was correct, not incorrect. 
1838
1839REP. BURTON Let me just -- I'm running out of time here. Was Mr. Quinn at the White House?
1840
1841MS. NOLAN No.
1842
1843REP. BURTON Okay, so you had the ability, with your eyes stuck together, to get hold of Mr. Quinn, but you didn't try to contact the Justice Department to ask them about it -- 
1844
1845MS. NOLAN I --
1846
1847REP. BURTON -- because it was 2 REP. BURTON: -- because it was 2:30 in the morning. Let me -- it's 2:30 in the morning and you can get hold of the man who's an advocate for pardoning one of the most wanted fugitives in the world but you don't call the Justice Department and the intelligence agencies at 2:30 in the morning because your eyes are stuck together. I just don't understand that. 
1848
1849MS. NOLAN Sir --
1850
1851REP. BURTON Why would you call Mr. Quinn and not call the Justice Department to find out about that?
1852
1853MS. NOLAN I was trying to determine if Mr. Quinn understood or had an explanation for why it was there. I agree, although, as I said, it may very well be -- it appears that it is correct -- that Mr. Quinn was correct about the description of the NCIC. So I'm not sure, in retrospect, that was an incorrect decision. But I agree, had there been more time, had I been operating on more sleep, had the president been operating on more sleep, if the Constitution didn't say that at 12:00 noon this was done, there would have been more calls made. I have no question about that. I completely agree with that. I can only tell you what happened. 
1854
1855REP. BURTON Well, let me just end by saying this. It was 2:30 in the morning. The president didn't leave office till noon the next day. This was a very, very serious thing. It should have sent up red flags all over the place. And to ask the defense attorney for his counsel on this and not ask the Justice Department, when you're going to be pardoning one of the most wanted fugitives in the world, whom everybody in Justice and Democrats and Republicans alike said shouldn't be pardoned, just doesn't make sense. It just doesn't pass muster. 
1856
1857REP. BURTON Who's next? Who's next? Mr. Cummings.
1858
1859REP. CUMMINGS Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm so glad you started asking those questions, Mr. Chairman. It's just amazing. That's exactly where I wanted to go. I wanted to talk about Mr. Quinn for a moment. And I'll just ask a few questions. 
1860
1861REP. CUMMINGS Ms. Nolan, you seem to have a lot of confidence in Mr. Quinn. Is that right?
1862
1863MS. NOLAN Yes.
1864
1865REP. CUMMINGS And I take it that you believe that the president did also.
1866
1867MS. NOLAN That's correct.
1868
1869REP. CUMMINGS Now, the chairman asked you a question -- and I'm going to get to you, Mr. Quinn in a moment -- but the chairman asked you a question, and it seems to boil down to this. You have a trusted friend of the president, someone who's represented the president, who is now an advocate for his client. And we lawyers, we advocate for our clients. That's our job. We're sworn to do that. 
1870
1871REP. CUMMINGS And at the same time, as one who has a loyalty to the president, I mean, has some -- because he has been a significant part of his life, I mean, did you take that into consideration? Did you feel that there was some kind of not official conflict but perhaps a conflict with his advocacy for his client and, at the same time, his friendship for the president? And do you think Mr. Quinn would have put the president in a situation -- would have, say, given the president some advice that may have done harm to the president and would have benefited his client? And I'm going to ask you the same question, Mr. Quinn. 
1872
1873MS. NOLAN I did not believe and do not believe that Mr. Quinn would put the president in harm's way or intended to in any way. And Mr. Quinn had, in fact, said that he believed in this case. He said, "I'm an advocate, but I believe in this with my whole heart and soul. I completely believe in this case. 
1874
1875REP. CUMMINGS You remember those words or similar words?
1876
1877MS. NOLAN Yes.
1878
1879REP. CUMMINGS And you believe that? You felt that he really meant that when he said it?
1880
1881MS. NOLAN I thought he meant it. It didn't change my mind. I thought his heart and soul had taken him in the wrong place. But I believe that he believed it, yes, sir. 
1882
1883REP. CUMMINGS Mr. Quinn, you understand my question, right?
1884
1885MR. QUINN Yes, sir.
1886
1887REP. CUMMINGS You were advocating for your client, but at the same time, you got a president who you represented -- and what happens so often, because lawyers are our clients, we get to know them so well and we want the best for them, too. So we've got two situations. I guess somebody who's a non-lawyer may be looking at this, and there's been some implications coming from up here that maybe there was some kind of, again, unofficial conflict. 
1888
1889REP. CUMMINGS I just -- I want you to comment on that. And the reason why I'm getting to that is because I think that there is -- sometimes things can be implied. And I'd rather for you to let us know exactly where you stood with regard to the president, who you felt was your former client, and at the same time Mr. Rich, who was your present client. 
1890
1891MR. QUINN Sure. Well, let me say several things, if I may, Congressman. First of all, Ms. Nolan's absolutely correct. I would never have consciously put the president in harm's way or any of the people sitting next to me. I would imagine you can appreciate that I did not think my advocacy here would lead to us being in this room today. I acknowledge that. 
1892
1893MR. QUINN I did believe in the merits of the case I made. I still do. I don't expect to convince anyone of that after all the publicity we've seen and all the questions that have been raised. But I believed in it and I do today. And I would not have misrepresented the facts either to the people sitting alongside me or to the president. When Ms. Nolan called me about this matter, I told her what my understanding of the allegation was. I told her that I wanted to confirm my understanding with the person who had led me to that understanding, one of my co-counsel, and I did so. 
1894
1895MR. QUINN And I would point out that with respect to these matters of arms dealing that had been alleged, not only were these people never indicted for anything like that. To my knowledge, there's not any criminal investigation of it. And again, I will repeat, if they violated any law for activities outside the scope of this indictment, of which the chairman has complained, they can be held legally accountable. 
1896
1897REP. CUMMINGS I just want to take a moment again to thank you all for your service to the country. One of the things that has always concerned me about this committee is that so often we drag people before the committee and then their reputations are tarnished. And like somebody said, "How do I get my reputation back?" And I really do appreciate what you all have done to try to lift up all Americans. And so I just want to take that moment to speak on behalf of Elijah Cummings and the people that I represent, to say thank you. 
1898
1899MR. QUINN Thank you, sir.
1900
1901MS. NOLAN Thank you.
1902
1903MR. LINDSEY (?) (?): Thank you, Congressman.
1904
1905REP. BARR The time of the gentleman has expired. Ms. Nolan, Mr. Lindsey or Mr. Podesta, are any of you all familiar with the Braswell case?
1906
1907MS. NOLAN Yes, sir.
1908
1909MR. LINDSEY Yes, sir.
1910
1911REP. BARR Mr. Podesta?
1912
1913MR. PODESTA I was not familiar with it while I was at the White House, but I've become familiar with it from reading press accounts later.
1914
1915REP. BARR Did any of you all see the petition filed by Mr. Braswell?
1916
1917MR. LINDSEY Yes, sir.
1918
1919MS. NOLAN I believe I did, yes, sir.
1920
1921REP. BARR It's very interesting. According to the Department of Justice, there was no petition filed.
1922
1923MS. NOLAN We certainly received something, and I think it was in the form of a pardon petition.
1924
1925REP. BARR Oh, really?
1926
1927MS. NOLAN I think so.
1928
1929REP. BARR This is very interesting, because according to the Department of Justice, he was one of 44 individuals pardoned on the president's last day in office who did not file clemency applications with the Department of Justice prior to January 20th, so how could you all have seen a petition -- 
1930
1931MS. NOLAN Well, I think, as in the case with Mr. Rich, he filed a pardon petition. It was filed with the White House, not with the Justice Department.
1932
1933REP. BARR And apparently a very fine one. Well, this is the pardon petition for Mr. Rich. Did any of you all see that one?
1934
1935MS. NOLAN Yes, sir.
1936
1937REP. BARR Okay. Well, that one really does exist. I'm really intrigued that you all could have seen a petition that the Department of Justice says didn't exist.
1938
1939MS. NOLAN Sir, all I can tell you is, the fact that the Department of Justice didn't receive a pardon petition doesn't mean that a pardon petition wasn't filled out and sent to the White House. And I believe I saw one. I certainly saw some application. I think it was a pardon petition. 
1940
1941REP. BARR That's very interesting. Was it Mr. Rodham that filed it?
1942
1943MS. NOLAN I don't know who filed it. I believe that it was sent to the White House through Mr. Rodham, yes.
1944
1945REP. BARR Is that the petition that you might have seen, Mr. Lindsey, a petition filed by Mr. Rodham?
1946
1947MR. LINDSEY I did not know Mr. Rodham was involved at all. I believe what I saw was filed by Mr. Kendall Coffey.
1948
1949REP. BARR Which one did you say was --
1950
1951MR. LINDSEY "Filed" may not be the right word.
1952
1953MS. NOLAN Yeah, I'm not sure -- Right.
1954
1955MR. LINDSEY I mean, "filed" is not the right word because, again, as Ms. Nolan said, you know --
1956
1957REP. BARR Well, I'm not splitting hairs. Apparently, the two of you all saw some document on behalf of Mr. Braswell.
1958
1959MR. LINDSEY Yes, sir, I actually --
1960
1961MS. NOLAN That's correct.
1962
1963MR. LINDSEY And I believe it was a pardon application, because I think I read it.
1964
1965REP. BARR Okay. Did you bring that with you, Mr. Lindsey?
1966
1967MR. LINDSEY It would be in the White House files that would be at the Archives.
1968
1969REP. BARR Okay. Ms. Nolan, did you bring anything you saw with you?
1970
1971MS. NOLAN I don't have it.
1972
1973REP. BARR And which one did you see, Mr. Podesta?
1974
1975MR. PODESTA I didn't see any petition for Mr. Braswell.
1976
1977REP. BARR You haven't seen that?
1978
1979MR. PODESTA The first time I heard about Mr. Braswell is when I read about him in the New York Times.
1980
1981REP. BARR Okay. Do you recall exactly what was in that petition, Ms. Nolan? To your recollection, the one filed by Mr. Rodham?
1982
1983MS. NOLAN May I be clear, I don't -- I would not use the word "filed" and I don't know that it was sent to the White House by Mr. Rodham. I thought it was, but I don't know for sure. It could be the same one Mr. Lindsey's talking about. I just want to be clear. 
1984
1985REP. BARR Well, that's not very clear.
1986
1987MS. NOLAN Well, it's as clear as I can be, sir.
1988
1989REP. BARR For a person --
1990
1991MS. NOLAN I'm just -- I want to be clear about the lack of clarity of my memory.
1992
1993REP. BARR No, I think -- I think -- I think -- That's clear, that you're trying to be clear about the lack of clarity. Now, I think that's accurate.
1994
1995MS. NOLAN I don't want to -- I don't want to overstate what I remember.
1996
1997REP. BARR I don't think there's any doubt that any of us harbor any illusions that you do. I think -- I think you're deliberately unclear.
1998
1999MS. NOLAN Sir?
2000
2001REP. BARR Yes, ma'am.
2002
2003MS. NOLAN I have not been deliberately unclear.
2004
2005REP. BARR Well then, perhaps you might rethink whether the petition that you saw, the documentation that you saw on behalf of Mr. Braswell came from Mr. Rodham.
2006
2007MS. NOLAN Are you asking me to testify to facts I don't remember?
2008
2009REP. BARR Why would I do that?
2010
2011MS. NOLAN Well, sir, you seem to be objecting to the level of my memory. All I can do is tell you what I remember.
2012
2013REP. BARR Oh, that -- that -- that is true. I do object to the level of your memory.
2014
2015MS. NOLAN Really? Well --
2016
2017REP. BARR It's apparently pretty low.
2018
2019MS. NOLAN I don't think that's correct, sir, and I don't think that's a fair characterization of my testimony.
2020
2021REP. BARR Well, you can't remember where the petition came from, yet you take great exception to the fact that I used the word "filed," which is not a legal term that I'm using. Apparently there was documentation that was somehow delivered to the White House or got in the hands of people at the White House, namely yourself. First you say that you think it was there by -- sent by Mr. Rodham, or he had something to do with it. Then as soon as we hear from Mr. Lindsey that he saw something filed, perhaps, or delivered by somebody else, all of a sudden your memory becomes even fuzzier, and you're not sure that it was from Mr. Rodham. This one might be the same one that Mr. Lindsey filed -- 
2022
2023MS. NOLAN I think I testified right to begin with -- that I thought it was from Mr. Rodham. I just wanted to clarify that I had so testified.
2024
2025MS. NOLAN But maybe we can just move on, because I don't know that we'll come to -- we'll see eye-to-eye on --
2026
2027REP. BARR Well, thank you very much for your direction to the committee.
2028
2029MS. NOLAN You're welcome, sir.
2030
2031REP. BARR We'll -- we will come back to that.
2032
2033REP. BARR The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Hawaii for --
2034
2035REP. MINK Thank you.
2036
2037REP. WAXMAN Will you yield to me?
2038
2039REP. MINK Yes, I'll be happy to yield to Mr. Waxman.
2040
2041REP. WAXMAN I just want to say that I thought that the last questioning that you had of you was insulting. And Ms. Nolan has been before this committee on many occasions. She's always been as helpful and as cooperative as she can be. No one can testify about things they don't know, and she's testifying after many, many hours, to the best of her recollection. And I thank her for being here, and I don't think any witness should be treated in a shabby way, as I thought you just were. 
2042
2043MS. NOLAN Thank you.
2044
2045REP. MINK I yield to my colleague Mr. Cummings.
2046
2047REP. CUMMINGS I want to thank the gentlelady for yielding.
2048
2049REP. CUMMINGS I want to just take a moment to associate myself with the words of Mr. Waxman. You know, since I've been on this committee, for the last almost five years, I've heard a lot of people testify. END OF TODAY'S COVERAGE COVERAGE WILL RESUME ON FRIDAY, MARCH 2 END