August 2, 1994 - Part 1
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(10:40:50) Maybe we could come at it the other way, Mr. Foreman. 339 In your job as Ethics Officer, can you conceive of nonpublic infor- mation coming to the attention of an official for whom you serve as the Designated Ethics Officer, where it would not be appropriate to tell the White House Counsel that there was some very embar- rassing news about the President or the First Family that might be coming out? Is there a circumstance that you could conceive of.? Mr. FOREMAN. Sure. Senator BOND. Tell me about it. Mr. FOREMAN. Yes, sir, if I may. I'm thinking of your question. Certainly, there might be circumstances in which it would not be appropriate to tell the White House. When I mentioned no sur- prises, I didn't mention no surprises that such a person might be mentioned. What I mentioned was for the White House Counsel to be aware that there may well be news stories about a subject in- volving the White House. Sir ~ if I may say, but I'm sure there would be circumstances where I think you said I may have nonpublic information that con- cerns the President and the First Family that should not be passed onto the White House. Senator BOND. That might be the subject of a press leak? Mr. FOREMAN. I believe I could probably conceive of such situa- tions. Senator BOND. Under the standards you've set, I would be bard pressed, and I would be anxious to hear you come up with one. Mr. FOREMAN. Senator, as I understand, I have to regret again, I have so little knowledge of what happened last fall, I've looked at the Office of Government Ethics Report. I think one has to be very, very careful about what kind of nonpublic information, if any, is passed on to the White House Counsel. I do not know exactly what was passed on in that situation. I think that it probably was appropriate to mention some things, and it might not have been appropriate to mention more details. As I see in the press reports, and only that, the President, him- self, and the First Lady, were not targets of this, They were men- tioned. I think that's a different circumstance. I think, in my own personal opinion, if people had been targeted, I think it changes the situation dramatically. But, again, I'm only speaking from press reports. Senator BOND. They are mentioned in a criminal referral as pos- sible beneficiaries. It's appropriate to tell the President's, the White House Counsel in that instance, if they were a target? That's the distinction? Mr. FOREMAN. That's a distinction that one could draw, sir. All I can do is go by the hypotheticals that you propose because I am not able to sit here and say that there is no situation involving 5 press stories, which I think is a legitimate Government purpose, in which the White House Counsel cannot be told anything about a possible criminal referral. Senator BOND. Do Vol] think it is likely, in this day and age, that if you tell the President's Counsel about a criminal referral, that the President's Counsel will keep that information from the Presi- dent? Mr. FOREMAN. I think that's a decision for the Counsel to make, sir. I noted that Mr. Cutler, when he took the position, made it 340 very clear that be was Counsel to the Office of the Presidency, and not Counsel for the President. I think that all of this is going to bring this much more to all of our attention for next year, and perhaps we would have been more thoughtful, all of us, last year if something like this had occurred. But in the future, I think we've learned something from all of this. Senator BOND. I am very much concerned about the low standards which have been a plied. It is possible, as you know. that a witness in a criminal referral could become a target, and I think that is a distinction without a difference. You have put great stock in the report of the Office of Government Ethics. You have said it's justified because of the press leak. Yesterday, as we got a bold of this report of the Office of Government Ethics, on page 6, the OGE states very clearly the fact that information has been leaked would not cause an agency to consider the information to have lost its nonpublic character.