1 o 13 2.o J. 1 THE WIT ESS: Uh-huh. MR. SCHAZER: To your knowledge, was that done ;LO. 11 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, ye s.

Transcription

1 10 1 THE WIT ESS: Uh-huh..2 MR. SCHZER: nd there was some sort of attempt 3 to segregate out of all.these files that had been requested, 4 all the backgrounds that had been requested? Was there 5 effort to segregate out from 'the NSC people, peopl e who no longer were there? THE WITNESS: Yes. MR. SCHZER: To your knowledge, was that done 9 where it was weeded out, who was no longer t4ere, and you ;LO pulled those files and put them in a separa e place? 11 THE WITNESS: To my knowledge, ye s. 12 MR. SCHZER: nd was the intention that those J..3 files would be archiv d? 14 THE WITNESS: Yes. They would then be turned over 15 to Records and Management Office. 1 MR. SCHZER: D9 you know if that occurred? 1 THE WITNESS: I don't have a specific emery - of 1 saying these people re going over to that off ice saying we 19 have these people. I have a memory of having a fi!e that 20 had about 50 files in it of people who were no longer there.. 21 HIRSHLD: 22. When you say you had, what do you mean by that? 23 I mean that I personally have a memory that there 24 were about 50 files that we' had slated to be archived, but :. when we archived, we archived by the box. We coulan't just 111&.U CO IHC. 5< c Se. N... w. o.c. :zoooz 1 o 13 2.o J

2 109 1 simply say here are three or four files, you know, archived, 2 because the Records Management had such a huge Right. --load that they were archiving that my. 5 understanding was for us to archive, wait until we had a box so they could put all White House Personnel Security in one place, so that if we do have to g9 back to it, we could.go back to it. 9 nd we had a separate file drawer set up just to 10 hold those people who were no longer at the White House who ll. were slated to be archived. l.2 13 MR. SCHZER: Was that done for each s t of employees, NSC, GS, T&T? 14 THE WITNESS: It was a general--general file 15 drawer for everybod who was slated to be archiv.ed who was 1 no longer at the White Hou e. 1 HIRSHL: 1 So, hypothetically, this batch of files to be 19 archived would have co tained people from different offices, :20 who at one point had been in different offices, but were 21 presently inactive? 22 Yes. To the best of my recollection, that is the 23 way it was done CO., INC. :M C Sattt, N.E. an, O.C Do you recall Mr. Livingstone ever looking through these files? '

3 110 1 s far as going into the vault and looking through 2 them? 3 t any point in the-- 4 ny time a background investigation came in to our 5 office, Craig reviewed it. Okay. How about once they were identified as--for simplicity sake, we'll.say to be archived. I think we all. understand what that means. 9 He would have already reviewed it by that point. Do you recall whether he ever went to the ault 11 and looked at the files that had been identified to be 12 archived? 13 I don ' t have a specific recollection of it. l Okay. Do you recall whether anyone else ever qid? 15 Not to my knowledge.. 1 Do you know why- I believe you stated that Mr. 1 Marceca was told to go through the. list and identify people who kind of jumped out as not current ad inistration passholders. 20 Uh-huh. nd you suggested that certain people jumped off 22 the list to you, certainly. 3 Uh-huh. 24 Do you know why individuals such as James Baker or Marlin Fitzwater's files would have been actually ordered lt l'rr CO IHC, 50 C Sa, N.E 'Wuhiittoa. O.C ""\\ Ut.,U.1! '

4 111 l from the FBI? 2 MR. SRERE: First of all, do you have an 3 understanding of whether--while you were there at the 4 office, do you hav an understanding whether James Baker's 5 file was requested? TH WITNSS: Not to my knowledge. I never saw it. - HIRSHLD: 9 Well, in fact, it was, and it seemed a little bit.j..o odd that Mr. Marceca would not have recognized those two 11 individuals as examples. 12 Two? 13 James Baker and Marlin Fitzwater. 14 Oh. Was Marlin Fitzwa.ter' s reqtested?.. 15 Yes. 1 Oh. J.. Do you have any explanation for why Mr. Maree ca.1 after having gone through a check of who appeared to be 19 turned and I cannot speak for Tony. I don ' t know why. 21 Okay. Do you recall Mr. Livingst ne and Mr. 22 Marceca ever dis cu ssing the contents of the files, of any of 23 the files of inactive prior administration employees? 24 I recall them discussing some of the backgr0und investigations that came back in, but at tha time, I IU co.. lffc. I 1 C 5=, N.E Wuhiran, t>.c: "n1 'lloli;;

5 112 l don't-- 2 MR. SCRZER: Came back in What do you mean? 3 THE WITNESS: When--after the request was made, 4 when they came back into the White House Personnel Security 5 Office. I don't recall that at that time that they.knew they were no longer there. I know that they discussed c ertai files. MR. SCHZER: re you. talk.ing about,.like, new 9 mployees or part of the update proj e c t or-- ;LO THE WITNESS: Part of the update proj ect, but I l.3 don't recall that they knew they had already previou s y left.. the White House, and hey, mean±ng raig and Tony, I don't think that they knew. I don ' t remember that they knew. 14 HIRSHL: l.9 Okay, but your recollectiop is that they were discussing the contents of.the files of prior administration officials who eithe were carryovers o were-- MR. SRERE: The people on the Project Update list, which may be people who were still there and may not be..20 HIRSHL: 21 But you--how did you know that the.people they 22 were talking about weren't new employe es? 23 Because Tony did not read the investigations of 24 the new employees as part of his j ob. s part of his j ob,. he reviewed the old--the background investigations that came lrhg ;o., IN CSa=. N.. 'lluhlcto11, D.C l

6 t 1 in, and if there was an issue or if he thought that there was an issue, he would then go to Craig and say, Craig, I 3 4 think we may have an is initiated. issue here, when the new investigation 5 9 correct? But he did do SF 's for new employees; is that Uh-huh. MR. SRERE: When you say he, Tony Marceca? THE WITNESS: Tony Marceca. When the SF- would 10 come in filled out, he would review it and then send it off to the FBI. update proj ect; MR. SCHZER: That was separate or apart from his 1.4 THE WITNESS: Yeah, which was completely.separate 15 and apart. 1. HIRSHL; 1 But you're fairly certain that he had no involvement in any part of the process for new employees that would--after the employees'.bi's would come back tq the Office qf Personnel Security? I'm not sure what you're asking me Okay. It wasn ' t very clear question. Tony Marceca was involved in the processing of 24 SF-' s for new employees. Yes , ft co IN S0 C Suti..N.E. Wuhinrion, O.C