Mike Kirk: The destruction of the records at Rose Law Firm. How unprecedented is this?

Viet Dinh: I do not know as to the level of precedence as to how widely practiced it is. What I do know, it is out of the ordinary. It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a routine record destruction process. As a matter of fact, what is routine for law firms is record retention, simply because the client files and the attorneys' time sheets, and her work product, is the best defense that she has to charges of impropriety.

Mike Kirk: So, what does it mean that they didn't retain those records?

Viet Dinh: The purge does suggest an effort, if it was done consciously, it does suggest an effort to keep from the public eye, and from subsequent investigation, the extent and nature of the Rose Law Firm's representation of Madison Guaranty, and, specifically, Mrs. Clinton's representation of Madison Guaranty.

Mike Kirk: Is there any evidence that it wasn't done intentionally?

Viet Dinh: We do know that Mrs. Clinton was the one who ordered the destruction of the record, so the specific intent to destroy the record was on Mrs. Clinton's part. We can only make guesses as to why she ordered the destruction of records, certainly under the circumstances of the case--the case was still open, the representation of the client was engaged in civil litigation on the exact same issue. It was certainly not ordinary or routine. As a matter of fact, rather extraordinary that the records were destroyed.

And you know what? This specific destruction of records should not be viewed in isolation. It should be viewed as a larger pattern of records becoming either destroyed or lost or somehow not made available to federal investigators. We start with the 1988 destruction of records related to Madison. We start with the Webb Hubbell's attempt to collect all of the records in 1992, related to Madison, and then absconding with them to Washington, DC. We have the printing out of the billing records in 1992, and deleting the underlying computer records.

And it's a whole pattern of records relating to the Rose Law Firm's representation of Madison Guaranty that is destroyed, concealed or withheld from federal investigators.

Mike Kirk: Why?

Viet Dinh: I think simply because there is a question, and the questions that we still ask today, as to the nature and extent of the involvement, specifically of Mrs. Clinton's involvement in the representation, and questions that we have only started, begun to have the answers to, once we rediscover the billing records in 1996.

Mike Kirk: But do you mean to say that, back then, they were thinking that far ahead? They were destroying records, they were thinking, 'This is going to get bad."' Back in 1988, they were worried about some future presidency by Bill Clinton?

Viet Dinh: In 1988, Mrs. Clinton was not the wife of a candidate for president. She was, however, the wife of the governor of Arkansas. And Madison was a state regulated bank. And it was n the process of being investigated and, indeed, taken over by federal regulators as a failure that would cost federal tax dollars, millions and millions of dollars of money. And her part in one specific transaction concealed the fraudulent scheme of this transaction that ultimately cost taxpayers $4 million. So, at least, at that time, we have this knowledge that something was going to happen here, that may open Mrs. Clinton and her law firm to some liability, but at the very least would have been grist for the political mill, been a source of political embarrassment.

We do know that by 1992 that this specific transaction, the Castle Grande transaction, became of specific interest to at least Vincent Foster. Why? Because one of the few places that Vince Foster had his fingerprints on the billing records was exactly at the entry where Mrs. Clinton billed for a 12 minute phone call on April 7th, 1986, on a telephone conference with Don Denton. The telephone call, that now we know, from Don Denton's testimony, was the one where they discussed the offsetting notes and where he warned Mrs. Clinton of the possible impropriety of this transaction, and where she summarily dismissed his concerns.

And so, at least at that point, Vince Foster had pinpointed on this particular transaction, and this particular entry, as a troublesome one. And, indeed, somebody circled "HRC" as the billing partner, as the person who actually made this phone call. Now recall that in 1992 we didn't know any of this, about Castle Grande. We only know about Castle Grande and the importance and Mrs. Clinton's role in it, really the true extent, nature of the transaction and Mrs. Clinton's involvement after the discovery of the billing records in 1996. And so, this was not in response to any press inquiries or any specific investigation; this was a fact-finding mission and they had already pinpointed that transaction as the one that is of possible relevance.

Mike Kirk: Why? How? What would make them do that?

Viet Dinh: Of course, Vince Foster was not the lawyer who did direct work on Castle Grande. For all we know, he did not have any specific knowledge as to Castle Grande. And that leads to the question, how did he know to focus in on Castle Grande, and, more specifically, focusing in on this very critical telephone conversation. And my only conjecture, and it is only a conjecture, is, one, that he had talked to Don Denton, which is highly unlikely, and we don't have any evidence suggesting that. Or, that he had discussed the transaction with the First Lady and had gone back in the records in order to ascertain the underlying records.

Peter Boyer: And if that were the case, that means that, at least at that moment, in the context of a political election, when you are defensively looking at your records, and you zero in on this, at this moment, that Hillary Clinton, back then, recognized the potential difficulty with Don Denton and his testimony?

Viet Dinh: Certainly, Vince Foster, we have specific evidence that he was concerned about this April 7th, 1986, phone call. And we have circumstantial, and I would think a very likely inference, that Mrs. Clinton was the one who gave Vince Foster this knowledge as to the relevance of this telephone call, simply because Vince Foster did not have first-hand knowledge of the underlying transactions. So, certainly, as of the time of 1992, we have already pinpointed within the mind, at least, of Vince Foster and very likely Mrs. Clinton, that this is valuable evidence as to the nature and extent of Mrs. Clinton's involvement in Castle Grande, specifically, and Madison Guaranty, generally.

Peter Boyer: So, Mrs. Clinton and Vince Foster, 1992, possibly early 1993, at the beginning of the presidency, recognized the potential danger that these billing records contained, if, for no other reason than in the pinpointing of the Don Denton piece of it. And for all of the rest of that year, and for all of the rest of the following year, 1994, and for two-thirds of the following year, that information wasn't known to the rest of the world. The discovery of the billing records by accident had led to new understanding of Don Denton's importance-- How? Make that connection for me. I don't quite understand that.

Viet Dinh: Well, Don Denton had no recollection of this telephone call at all. As a matter of fact, when he had previously testified to investigators as to the underlying transaction--but this was a 12-minute phone call in a transaction that spanned a year. And so, he did not, and I would say, understandably, he was not specifically questioned about this phone call, because nobody knew the phone call existed. And so, he was not specifically questioned about the phone call, and so he never testified as to that.

But when the billing records surfaced, now we know about the existence of the phone call. And so, the FDIC investigators came back to Don Denton and said, "Look, we have evidence showing this 12-minute phone call with you, with Hillary Clinton," now posing a specific question to Mr. Denton, "Do you remember it?" And, initially, he says, "No, I don't remember it. This was in 1986. This is now 1996. I don't remember a 12-minute phone call in 1986." And he went back home and checked his own notes, checked his own calendar, and discovered that, indeed, he had that phone call, and recomposed the events as to that, and then came forward to the investigators and said, "This is what I recall to be the conversation at that time."

Peter Boyer: And what is the significance of Mr. Denton's testimony in that regard?

Viet Dinh: In several respects: One, it was a telephone call made on the day of the offsetting notes. And so, it is very strong evidence that Mrs. Clinton knew the purpose of the offsetting notes, that is, that it was in order to offset the earlier Madison loan--

Peter Boyer: --The questionable transaction.

Viet Dinh: The questionable transaction. And, second, Mr. Denton, pointing out to Mrs. Clinton that offsetting nature of the notes is actually prohibited by federal and state regulations, that would violate federal and state regulations. And he pointed this out to Mrs. Clinton, and a point which he summarily dismissed and said, "She will take care of the legal matters." So, it suggests, one, that she knew the underlying nature of the transaction, that these notes were actually cross-offsetting, and, two, that she was on specific notice as to the questionable propriety of this, of this transaction, that is, it may violate federal and state regulations, and, therefore, leading to, for us to characterize her conduct with respect to the May 1st option.

Peter Boyer: Just one thing: This is knowledge we now have because of the accidental discovery of those billing records in the residence of the White House, in the summer of 1995?

Viet Dinh: No question about it. As I said before, we only know the motive to conceal records only after we discover what they reveal. And this is what they reveal: They reveal the nature and extent of Mrs. Clinton's involvement with Castle Grande and Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan Association. And it also refreshed memory of very key players. The quality of evidence, the usefulness of evidence, is not simply on what they reflect, but also their value in refreshing the memories of the applicable actors.

And I think, here, we've got both. One is that we've got written documentary records of the only one of its kind, because of the pattern of destruction of records in this case, evidencing the true nature and extent of Mrs. Clinton and the Rose Law Firm's involvement in the representation of Madison Guaranty. And, also, we have its value in refreshing the memory of very key players to very, very important questionable transactions.

Mike Kirk: Of all the scenarios that you've heard in the research investigation of this, what is the version you believe about how those documents left the Rose Law Firm.

Peter Boyer: Or which seems likeliest in the face of the evidence.

Viet Dinh: As I look at the evidence, I think there are three possible scenarios. Aside from clerical and administrative persons, we know the three persons who had access to this set of documents were Vince Foster, Hillary Clinton and Webster Hubbell. We know that Mr. Hubbell removed certain files from the Rose Law Firm, transferred them to Washington, and, at some point, turned them over to Mr. Kendall, or the president's personal lawyers.

Peter Boyer: After keeping them in his basement.

Viet Dinh: After keeping them in his basement for a number of years, and actually turning them over to another friend of the President-- prior to turning them over to Mr. Kendall. And so, that is certainly one avenue that these records could have been transported to Washington.

The problem with that scenario, is, how did Webster Hubbell transport them to the White House, because they were outside the White House and, in August of 1995, he is in the process of winding up his affairs in order to report to the federal penitentiary? And so, we do not know whether he had access to the White House, let alone the third floor of the White House residence, a very closely guarded section of the White House, in order to make these available at the time they were discovered.

The other scenario was that Vince Foster could've kept them, transported them to the White House, and kept them either at his home or in his office at the White House counsel's office. Now, he was the deputy White House counsel. And formally that role is the role of a government lawyer, a lawyer representing the President in his official capacity. But as it turns out, Mr. Foster spent a great deal of his time working on Mrs. Clinton's and the President's personal matters, including Whitewater Development Corporation.

And certainly, that would be one avenue that the billing records could have been transported to Washington, and they were subsequently, and kept in the White House after his death, being transported up to the third floor, and subsequently rediscovered in August, 1995. The problem with that scenario, and the question that remains, is simply, we do not know what records were in Mr. Foster's office at the time of his death. We do not know what records were removed from his office at the time of his death. And, more importantly, why were the billing records the ones specifically selected out of--if this were the scenario--selected out of all the other personal files and kept at the White House instead of being transported to the President and Mrs. Clinton's personal lawyers. And also, we do not know who did the selection, if indeed that was the scenario.

The third scenario is that Mr. Foster was the last person who had the last known possession of these billing records, according to Webster Hubbell, who then wrote notes to Mrs. Clinton regarding certain questions raised by the billing records, and then gave it to Mrs. Clinton, and either she or somebody else transported them to Washington, DC.

Those are the possible scenarios involving Mr. Foster and Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Hubbell. The reason why I focus on those three are the, as I said before, they are the three with the motive, the access and the understanding of the underlying transactions, who would have, who would have understood the true nature and importance of these billing records.

Peter Boyer: And of those scenarios, which seems the likeliest?

Viet Dinh: I do think the scenario with Mr. Hubbell, is least likely, simply because the subsequent opportunity to bring them to the White House is not there. And he-- the only person out of these three who actually has testified to these matters-- has said point blank that he had not seen them since the 1992 elections. And absent any evidence to the contrary, that, you know, that is one piece of evidence that we have to consider. So, I think that is the least likely.

As to the other two, I simply do not know. And I think your guess would be as good as mine. Based on the outstanding evidence available, it is simply a matter of inferences and conjecture. And beyond that, we don't have anything else to go on.

Mike Kirk: If you're Hillary Clinton and you're sitting in the third floor residence, or you're in Little Rock, Arkansas, and you hear that the man who has been handling a lot of your personal stuff, and who has seen these billing records and everything else, has died. And a lot of stuff is in his office, or you're Susan Thomases and you're talking to Hillary Clinton about the Castle Grande deal, the option problem, the April 7th call to Don Denton--Is that enough to worry you enough to go in and dig around in his files and capture these records?

Viet Dinh: I do not know the level of consciousness as to where these specific transactions were with respect to the various people affiliated with the White House at the time of Vince Foster's death. I do think that the special committee has uncovered fairly convincing evidence to contradict the White House's claim that Whitewater was, quote, "not on anybody's radar screen at the time". I think, indeed, it was a question of political, of potential political embarrassment for the WhiteHouse.

.....The question that remains, if the documents were in that closet, and they had been somehow removed from Mr. Foster's office, a very likely question that remains, a very obvious question, was, why were they sitting there for two years when they were so hot and they were so important that, one, either they would have been turned over to the federal investigators or, two, they would have been more, more actively or better concealed, if that deliberate effort was indeed made.

Peter Boyer: And they had gotten separated from the rest of the records that had been temporarily stored in that closet and sent to the Clinton's private lawyer.

Viet Dinh: How did they get separated and why still remain in that closet? Those are quite significant questions that raises doubt as to whether the documents, the billing records, were in Vince Foster's office at the time of his death.

Mike Kirk: You mean they were in her possession at the time of his death, already in her possession, all the way from Little Rock?

Viet Dinh: The closet was where the records from Vince Foster's office that were removed to, and that's where they were located. Yes, and, certainly, the questions that I raised before, raises doubt as to whether they were part of those files. Of course, the ... (inaudible) implication is, what other alternative theories are there, and is more likely? And as that, again, I just simply do not know how to judge between the competing theories, as it were, simply because we have not received any evidence in the public, through the special committee, from Mrs. Clinton, as to her knowledge of these billing records, despite the fact that she was asked very specific questions.

And, certainly, these are very, very weighty questions. These are questions that are weighty enough for the first time in our history for a First Lady to be called before a grand jury. You know, that is a momentous moment in our history. And I think these questions are weighty enough to warrant that. And, of course, we do not know what transpired during the grand jury testimony. We do know that she did not give any evidence to the special committee that addressed very specific questions that we requested of her.

Peter Boyer: But Vince, a dead man, can't walk these records--if he'd had them--can't walk these records over to the office. If they were walked over to the residence from his office, they had to have, at some point, been removed from those files consciously, which means there is no alternative to the supposition that their existence inside the White House for those two missing years was known.

Viet Dinh: Right, right. I think, given the character of the evidence and its importance to federal regulators, and certainly the publicity surrounding this issue, up to the point where the public hearings that the special committee held specifically focused on the time records in December of 1995, there could be very little question as to whether they were the subject of a federal subpoena or relevant to a federal investigation, especially to persons like Webster Hubbell, Vince Foster and Hillary Clinton, people who are intimately familiar with the underlying transactions, if not from their recollection of 1986, then certainly of their reconstruction of the events in 1992, and who are familiar also with the progress of the federal investigation.

Mike Kirk: In your heart, after all the time you've spent thinking about this, did Hillary Clinton know they were there?

Viet Dinh: The special committee, of course, concluded that she was the most likely person to have placed them in the book room, or, rather, in the technical language, she was more likely a known person to have placed them in the book room and had knowledge of them during this process.

Peter Boyer: Are you personally comfortable with that conclusion?

Viet Dinh: I think that conclusion was based on very specific evidence, that is, that was very well outlined in the report. There are, of course, dissenting opinions to that conclusion, but I do think that the special committee's conclusion is sound, based on the evidence that was presented to the special committee, and the evidence that was actually presented to the special committee.

I want to underline this again: The First Lady had an opportunity to present evidence that would have raised questions as to the special committee's conclusion. She took that opportunity and did nothing with it.

Mike Kirk: But she believes this is a Republican witch hunt. This is completely one-sided. And this is just political combat.

Viet Dinh: The underlying investigations by the federal agencies, and by the Department of Justice, and by the independent prosecutor, by the special counsel, has very little to do with the Senate investigation itself. Those investigations were carried out by career investigators, public servants, and career prosecutors. Certainly, there has been allegations as to the political nature of both the Senate's investigation and also Judge Starr's independent investigation. To what, I do not know to attribute that to.

But what I do know is that the subpoenas that were issued in the name of the investigations, the federal investigations, were federal subpoenas. And the integrity of a process requires one to obey the command of the federal government. Whatever, however one may want to question the motives of the investigation, that does not provide a carte blanche for non-compliance with the law.

Now, of course, the special committee was I think, very cognizant of the political nature of the investigation. And that is why I think the special committee requested specific evidence from Mrs. Clinton that may have contradicted, raised doubt on, and, and led the special committee to reevaluate its conclusions. And this opportunity was specifically given to Mrs. Clinton in the form of very specific interrogatories that were not answered by Mrs. Clinton. And, in fact, the only response we had from her lawyer, not from Mrs. Clinton under oath, as we requested, but from her lawyer, was an answer to a question that nobody had asked.

Peter Boyer: And that tells you what?

Viet Dinh: That tells us that Mrs. Clinton had the opportunity and did not take that opportunity, for whatever reason. And absent that contradictory evidence from the First Lady, I think the special committee's conclusion is based on very sound evidence.

Mike Kirk: How much time have you spent personally looking at this?

Viet Dinh: I actually served on a committee as one of its investigators for the year that the committee was in existence, from July, 1995, until June, 1996.

Peter Boyer: And was that a full-time job?

Viet Dinh: That was a full-time job, yes.

Peter Boyer: And you got deeply into it?

Viet Dinh: We all did. It was a very small committee. There were seven lawyers and five paralegals, and there were many late nights and a lot of camaraderie. But all of us, I think, had worked very hard to find out the facts and to bring them to the attention of the special committee, as it was our jobs to do.

Mike Kirk: But look at all the big questions you're left with.

Viet Dinh: There are very weighty unknowns, but they are the kind of unknowns, I think, that we would, no matter how much time we throw into it, there may not be an answer, until we get definitive answers from the parties involved. And so, and that cooperation was not forthcoming at the time, and I think that special committee did a very, very admirable job of finding out the facts as they existed, given the constraints of both time, money and also cooperation that we received.

Peter Boyer: Based on what you know, if an indictment were forthcoming, if an indictment were sought, based on your knowledge of the evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, would you be surprised?

Viet Dinh: I would not be surprised. I think it is within the providence of, for Judge Starr. But I think there is significant evidence, at least sufficient for the special committee to conclude that Mrs. Clinton was more likely than any one known person to have placed the records in the book room, or at least to have knowledge of how they came to be there. And I think that conclusion was based on sound evidence. And, again, it's a matter of discretion and judgment for Judge Starr and his team. But there is significant evidence that supports the special committee's conclusion.

Peter Boyer: In that area of discretion and judgment, Professor, how important a dynamic is politics? In other words, could the evidence be there, but, "Oh, my God, do we dare indict the First Lady?" And how big a role will that question, that aspect, play?

Viet Dinh: Not having ever made a similar decision in my life, I do not know, I do not know the specific answer to that question. But I think a reasonable question for anybody to ask is the likelihood of success. And I think that is all part of the factors that go into the decision whether or not to exercise the prosecutory discretion to indict or not to indict. And the likelihood of the success, of course, depends on the ability of not only the evidence, but the ability of the prosecutors to convince 12 members of a jury. And 12 members of a jury of peers that necessarily aren't affected by the feelings of the times.