July 19, 1995 - Part 3
July 19, 1995 - Part 3
(13:05:35) Mr. HUBBELL. My understanding from Phil was that he had sent Dave Margolis and Roger Adams. Mr. CHERTOFF. To do that job? Mr. HUBBELL. Yes. Mr. CHERTOFF. Was it your understanding from Philip Heymann that Mr. Nussbaum did not let them do that job? Mr. HUBBELL. That's my understanding. Mr. CHERTOFF. Finally, let me turn your attention to one issue that was raised, I think, by Mr. Ben-Veniste concerning normal civil litigation when you get a request for documents, and we talked about doing an inventory. In a situation where there's a subpoena in civil litigation, it's customary either to turn the documents over or to make a record of all the documents that you are withholding; correct? Mr. HUBBELL. It's normal that if you're withholding a document- whether there's a subpoena or in just normal discovery, if you're withholding a document, you prepare what is called a privilege log, which gives some description of the document, that doesn't waive the privilege but gives some idea of what the document that is being withheld is, Mr. CHERTOFF. The point of that, is to have a record of every sin- document that is potentially relevant so that there can be no question afterwards whether someone has either turned over documents or has identified documents that are being withheld? Mr. HUBBELL. That's the case in civil litigation, yes. Mr. CHERTOFF. When a log or a record of documents is not maintained it becomes very difficult, if not impossible, after the fact ever 137 to demonstrate an accounting of all the documents in a particular office; correct? Mr. HUBBELL. That is correct. Mr. CHERTOFF. I'm done, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, in the effort of having counsel illuminate this matter, I think Mr. Ben-Veniste ought to have a couple of followup questions. The CHAIRMAN. Certainly. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Just following up on civil litigation, when there is a subpoena, the subpoena calls for some item relevant to the litigation in question, and then there is an issue about whether, within the scope of what's called for there is some privileged material; correct? Mr. HUBBELL. That is correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. In connection with the request made by the police to search Mr. Foster's office, the scope of what they were looking for was a suicide note or related information demonstrating Mr. Foster's state of mind; is that correct, sir? Mr. HUBBELL. I assume, but I don't know that for sure because I wasn't privy to what the scope of the review was going to be. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Now, finally, with respect to what Mr. Chertoff has raised about Mr. Adams-and if there is any confusion on this record, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make sure that it is removed. I was not suggesting that Mr. Adams was called upon to render an opinion about the appropriateness of legal counsel doing work on the private papers of the President in connection with his official duties- What I was referring to was the testimony of' Mr. Adams that It did not offend him at all that Counsel or Deputy Counsel to the President did some work for the President or the First Lady, I hope that clarifies his testimony. The CHAIRMAN, Certainly. It doesn't offend this Senator, understanding the nature of counsel and particular relationships, that, obviously, there is going to be some work overlapping, particularly as it relates to public disclosures, et cetera. 1 mean, when we go beyond, that may be a different matter. But, certainly, in our own experience making out financial disclosures, tell me where and when you should make a differentiation as it relates to personal and public, So I say we want to attempt to be fair and to be clear in this matter. Senator, if there are any other Senator SARBANES, I just have a couple of comments. Mr. Chairman, 1 first want to say to Mr. Hubbell that 1 think he's been a forthcoming witness, and we appreciate that. I particularly appreciate him saying "I just don't know" when he doesn't know. That is important, and he was careful about that. So he gave us the best testimony that he could give us, and in areas where he was asked about other matters and lie didn't know, he said he didn't know. I think, in its own way, that is forthcoming. I also want to make, in that regard, this point about some other questions that are put. I know that the Chairman can't control, none of us can control, the questions that are put, but I do have to observe that some questions that were put contained premises that I think are just off the horizon, so to speak. The witness says I never heard of anything like that or I don't know anything about 138 something like that, but of course the question is put with a certain premise contained to the question.