CNN Today

Clinton Pardons: Former White House Staff Members, Counsel Provide No Evidence; Dozoretz Pleads Fifth

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

NATALIE ALLEN, CNN ANCHOR: There's been a short break in the hearings on Capitol Hill by the House Government Operations and Reform Committee. Many questions asked of former President Clinton's staff members, chief of staff and counsel, about any relation with work on the presidential library and donation to that library and the pardon of Marc Rich and others.

Let's bring in Bob Franken who is covering the story for us from the Hill.

Bob, many questions about Cheryl Mills, someone we remember from another Clinton story, former deputy White House counsel. Tell us more about that.

BOB FRANKEN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Former deputy White House counsel. Also a member, since he left the White House, of the board of trustees of the Clinton Presidential Library.

Several of the Republicans trying to make the point that she was in the White House and participating in conversations about Marc Rich. At a time, they seem to be implying when it might have been favorable to the library because of supporters of Marc Rich making contributions. She was participating in conversations about that.

The people who were the White House officials say that she really did nothing more than ask questions. She did not take a position on that. And they obviously did not feel that there was anything appropriate.

Now, the White House officials all said -- by them, I mean John Podesta, Bruce Lindsey, deputy White House counsel himself and Beth Nolan, White House counsel. All of them said they disagreed and expressed their disagreements with a pardon for Marc Rich. They did not believe it was appropriate.

But as Beth Nolan said, the president is the president. He can decide what he wants to do. And he did.

All of them said they had no evidence whatsoever that there was any quid pro quo, this for that, something for -- in exchange for the pardons. They say, of course, that they did not see any evidence of that. Bruce Lindsey said that he was aware that Denise Rich, who was the ex-wife of Marc Rich and advocating the pardon, was a significant contributor to the presidential library and to the Democratic Party.

And also, Beth Nolan, the White House counsel, said, quote, "I was aware that she was generally supportive." However, Lindsey made the point that, Yes, he was aware that she was contributor. But in spite of that, even though he had connection to the library, in spite of that, he advocated against the pardon.

It's been going back and forth between the members of the committee and these supporters. They're, of course, being -- not supporters, but former members of -- top members of the staff of President Clinton. They are able to speak openly because President Clinton has waived his executive privilege, meaning that they have basis for refusing to answer questions.

Thus far, it has not been conclusive that there was any evidence of wrongdoing, at least as far as these top staff members are concerned -- Natalie.

ALLEN: The one who did waive questions and chose not to answer them, Beth Dozoretz, the first witness called today, Bob. There were questions about why bring her there and knowing that she was going take the Fifth. Why was she there?

FRANKEN: Well, it was interesting. Earlier in the week, her lawyer, Tom Green, had sent a letter saying she would not answer questions out of fear she would express, that it could possibly be incriminating. That, of course, is her constitutional right. And what he asked in this letter was to avoid embarrassment -- my word, not his.

Could she avoid coming and just take this as her statement that she wouldn't answer questions? Committee Chairman Dan Burton shot back and said, No, she would have to come.

So today, in fact, Beth Dozoretz came. She, a close friend of President Clinton, a major Democratic contributor, somebody who, in fact, had promised to raise $1 million -- a million with an "m" dollars -- for the presidential library was brought there. And she had to, in fact, say that she was going to exercise her constitutional right.

This was supposed to be something that happened quickly. But Bob Barr, who has been very aggressive over the years in his battles against President Clinton. Bob Barr, a Republican from Georgia, went after her, suggesting that there was something that she had to hide.

Her attorney had explained in his letter that because of the, quote, "pendency of other investigations" she did not feel that she could take any chances by expressing any of her answers today. And that's why she claimed the Fifth.

So at any rate, that went on for quite a bit. That was the drama of the day. And now, we're getting to the innerworkings of the White House at the very end of the administration and the sometimes heated discussions about which pardons should be granted -- Natalie.

ALLEN: All right. Maybe perhaps in a little while, we can replay that bid between Ms. Dozoretz and Bob Barr, because it was rather dramatic. We thank Bob Franken.

And we've just been told that the committee will reconvene in about 10 minutes.

For now, we'll go over to Lou.

LOU WATERS, CNN ANCHOR: And CNN legal analyst Roger Cossack joins us.

What was the purpose of that push by Bob Barr with Beth Dozoretz, even though she had repeatedly said she wasn't going to answer any questions?

ROGER COSSACK, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Lou, I think that was more for the television cameras than for anything else.

Bob Barr, a former prosecutor, knows, as well as any of us, that in fact the Fifth Amendment applies that Beth Dozoretz has an absolute right under the Fifth Amendment. It's part of our constitutional process not to answer questions. It's something that I'm sure that if you ask Congressman Barr, he would agree with, that the fifth Amendment should be there.

It was a little of staging by Congressman Barr. If I was her lawyer, I would have advised her the same thing. Any lawyer would advice her the same thing. In light of the fact that there is a criminal investigation that has been opened in New York.

Whether or not she chooses to, at some time in the future, work with that criminal investigation, that's up to her. She never said she wouldn't. She just said she'd follow the advice of her counsel.

But in the short, Lou, I think this was really more Congressman Barr posing some questions for the television cameramen rather than having any really legal effect.

WATERS: Could he -- could he have tripped her up if she had answered yes or no? Would that have caused something to happen?

COSSACK: Conceivably, Lou. You know, there's an argument that if she would have somehow waived one question under her Fifth Amendment rights, that in fact she would have waived all questions under her Fifth Amendment rights.

It just wasn't going to happen. If there's one thing lawyers know when they get out of law school, they know about how to tell their clients not to answer any questions and how to invoke the Fifth Amendment, until there's some form of protection in place for them. And that's what good lawyers do. That's what any lawyer would do.

I would suggest to you that if Congressman Barr was sitting in the same spot as Ms. Dozoretz, he too would have invoked the Fifth Amendment. That doesn't mean: a, that you are not going to say -- sometime in the future say what you have to say; or b, that you have anything to hide. It's just that's the way law is. And that's the right every citizen in the country is given under the Fifth Amendment.

WATERS: There was some suggesting that if Beth Dozoretz or Denise Rich were to being answering questions posed by Mary Jo White's team up there in the southern district of New York, that somehow the committee could subpoena those answers and bring it back before the committee.

COSSACK: I would -- well, that's probably true. But the question is, is: Under what way Ms. Dozoretz answer those questions? I mean, one of the things her lawyers will be exploring with U.S. Attorney White will be how and if she answers the question. She has the same Fifth Amendment right in front of the U.S. attorney and the grand jury, as she does right here. It's the same Fifth Amendment.

Now, the U.S. attorney may choose to grant her some form of immunity, which would say, Anything you say will not be held against you, and therefore if you answer these questions, we will not prosecute you. And then, the Fifth Amendment no longer applies, because she is no longer in jeopardy anymore, because she's been promised immunity.

So under those circumstances, she could answer questions. Or she may just choose to go ahead and answer the questions without immunity.

WATERS: Both Denise Rich and Beth Dozoretz refusing to answer questions. To those folks not following it this closely, we know that they both declined to answer questions.

What questions does the committee want to know? What do they want to know from these two women?

COSSACK: Well, Lou, I mean, what they really want to know is, What were the -- what circumstances did you play in getting this pardon granted?

I mean, for example, if you're going to talk to Denise Rich, you know that Denise Rich was a -- was a person who gave a great deal of money to Democrats. Where did you get the money? Whose money was it? What reason did you give that money? And did you have any conversation with anybody about what you would get for the money?

Ms. Dozoretz is Ms. Rich's friend. She, too, is a supporter of Democratic causes. She, too, is a person that is a strong supporter and funds Democratic causes. I'm sure the same questions are ad propo to her, or appropriate to her. Why did you give the money? Did you -- were you promised anything in return for that money? Did you champion any causes? Was there a quid pro quo? Those are the kinds of questions.

WATERS: OK, Roger Cossack, legal adviser in Washington.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com