« AnteriorContinuar »
MEMORANDUM OF DAVID E. STEVENS
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
question him about the family reimbursement issue in our June, 1990 interview since, prior
to the interview, we were unaware that Mr. Stevens was the ACC employee most familiar with the travel reimbursement issue as it related to Senator McCain. Additionally, Mr.
Contacted Stevens fully expected to be called as witness by the Senate Ethics Committee (the Committee) sometime following our June, 1990 interview and believed that he would have
a second opportunity to state his view.
When it became clear to Mr. Stevens that he would not be contacted, he considered writing
a letter to the Committee in September, 1990. However, he became aware of newspaper reports of the preliminary findings of the Special Counsel. He believed that if the investigation was concluded as to Senator McCain, then writing a letter as to additional information on Senator McCain's personal flights would not be useful. However, when he became aware that the Committee would hold a hearing on all five Senators, he made the
decision to write his October 26, 1990 letter.
Mr. Stevens stated that he was motivated to write the October 26, 1990 letter because he
had not been contacted by the Committee and that he believed that he had additional
castsoor doubts on information which had not been considered which refuted prior public statements by
Senator McCain relative to his intentions to reimburse ACC for personal use of corporate
aircraft for himself and his family. Mr. Stevens did not talk to anyone other than his wife and a few close friends prior to sending his letter to the Committee. At the end of the
interview, however, I asked Mr. Stevens if he talked to anyone about his letter between ihe MEMORANDUM OF DAVID E. STEVENS
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
date of his letter and the date of the first contact by the Committee. Mr. Stevens stated that he heard no response on his letter in the three to four weeks after mailing it. During
this time, he read newspaper reports of "tension" between Senator McCain and Senator
DeConcini during the hearing. Based upon these factors, he sent a copy of his October 26.
1990 letter to Senator DeConcini along with a "letter of support of Senator De Concini
dated November 16, 1990 (Exhibit 3).
The letter to Senator DeConcini begins, "I am writing to express my support as you undergo
the travesty which is being labeled as a Senate Ethics Committee hearing. I feel that you
have been unfairly singled out and chastised for doing nothing more than what you felt your duty was. I am especially concerned with the uneven treatment given to you and to Senator McCain.” I asked Mr. Stevens if his opinion of Senator DeConcini and his actions relative
10 ACC and Charles Keating was a motivating factor in the preparation of the October 26, 1990 letter. He originally stated that it was not the primary factor, but that he was
influenced to some extent by his opinion of Senator DeConcini. When I pressed Mr.
Stevens to describe the extent by which he was motivated to prepare the October 26, 1990 letter by his opinion of Senator DeConcini and the Senator's actions, he backed off from his earlier comment and said, "My personal opinion about Senator DeConcini had nothing to do with the October 26, 1990 letter." He stated further, "The primary motivation for
preparing this letter was to provide additional information as to Senator McCain and his family's personal use of ACC aircraft,and to "set the record straight." He had no discussions
with either Senator DeConcini or his staff prior 10 writing his October 26, 1990 lerier. He MEMORANDUM OF DAVID E. STEVENS
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
does believe that Senator DeConcini's action was courageous in his support of a major
employer in Arizona and believes that Senator McCain left "at the first sign of trouble." He indicated that he sent a copy of his October 26, 1990 letter to Senator DeConcini because he had not been contacted by the Committee and he believed that there was a
information. greater chance that the Committee would consider his views.
kecome aware of
I asked Mr. Stevens to describe any contacts or discussions he had after sending his “letter
of support" to Senator DeConcini. He stated that he received a call from Senator
DeConcini personally on Monday, November 26, 1990. Mr. Stevens said Senator DeConcini
thanked him for his support and asked Mr. Stevens if he had heard anything from the Committee in response to his October 26, 1990 letter. Mr. Stevens indicated that he had received no response from the Committee. Senator DeConcini then asked Mr. Stevens if he would mind if the Senator's staff brought his October 26, 1990 letter to the attention of
the Committee and Mr. Stevens replied that he didn't mind, and in fact he had hoped that
the Committee would consider his views in that letter. Mr. Stevens explained to me that
his October 26, 1990 letter to Senator Howell Heflin and his November 16, 1990 letter to
Senator DeConcini were both addressed to the United States Senate in Washington, D.C. re the indicated 10 Senator. DeConcini that he found it curious that he received no response
from. de Committee in four weeks yer Senator DeConcini responded to this Hovember 10, 1990 in just over one week. Senator DeConcini stated that the lack of attention paid to Mr.
Stevens' October 26, 1990 letter by the Committee was just another example how he was
being treated unfairly throughout the investigation, and he went on to describe other MEMORANDUM OF DAVID E. STEVENS
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
examples. I asked Mr. Stevens to recount the examples of unfair treatment that Senator DeConcini mentioned to him. The only example that Mr. Stevens recalled was that Senator DeConcini said that Senator McCain was granted an informal meeting with the committee prior to his deposition by Mr. Robert Bennett and that none of the other Senators were granted the same opportunity. I then asked Mr. Stevens if it was his opinion that the investigation undertaken by Robert Bennett and his staff unfairly treated Senator DeConcini
or any of the other Senators. Mr. Stevens hesitated, refused to answer this question, and
then asked to meet privately with his attorney. Upon returning, I asked Mr. Stevens if he believed that I was being unfair in the handling of the interview with him on June 7, 1990. He said that he did not believe that I was unfair in the handling of this interview. Additionally, when I contacted Mr. Stevens on December 4, 1990 to arrange this interview, Mr. Stevens voluntarily offered that he in no way meant to discredit my efforts in the June 7, 1990 inierview.
Mr. Stevens continued to describe his telephone conversation with Senator DeConcini on November 26, 1990. He stated that Senator DeConcini suggested there were several ways in which Mr. Stevens' October 26, 1990 letter could be brought to the Committee's
attention. Senator DeConcini indicated that one of his staff members would contact Mr.
Stevens to discuss the particulars. Mr. Stevens received a phone call on November 27. 1990 from Gene Karp, Senator DeConcini's aide, who suggested that an affidavit be
prepared and signed by Mr. Stevens 10 which Mr. Stevens agreed. Mr. Karp asked some
specific questions of Mr. Stevens 10 solicit information that would be included in the MEMORANDUM OF DAVID E. STEVENS
ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
affidavit. Mr. Karp then drafted the affidavit dated November 27, 1990 (Exhibit 4) and seni it to Mr. Stevens via Federal Express. Mr. Stevens received the affidavit on November 28, 1990. He made a handwritten change to Item No. 1 deleting the incorrect reference
during the specified time period. that he was the Tax Director of Lincoln Savings initialed the change, then signed the
affidavit and had it notarized. He returned the affidavit to Mr. Karp. Upon receiving the
affidavit, Mr. Karp called Mr. Stevens on November 30, 1990 and said that the affidavit
would be "cleaner" without the line out correction made by Mr. Stevens. He also suggested
adding a comment stating, "As the Tax Director of ACC, I was responsible for IRS audits,
including the 1984-1985 audit of American Continental Corporation." Mr. Karp made those changes and sent the corrected affidavit to Mr. Stevens which he received on Saturday,
decided to wait until Monday to execute December 1, 1999 (Exhibit 5). Mr. Stevens was unable to execute the affidavit on Saturday
the affidavit since there was Notary of work 22 since he could not locate z Notary Public. Before he could execute the corrected affidavit on Monday, December 1990, he was contacted by Houston Fuller, GAO Investigator
assigned to the Committee. Mr. Stevens believed he could not execute the revised affidavit
as he had, in fact, been contacted by the Committee. He called Mr. Karp and explained that the originat affidavit would have to be used that he wouldn't create the revised
I asked Mr. Stevens if he had ever contributed to or worked for Senator DeConcini's
political campaigns, and he said that he had not. He also indicated that until the November 26 46, 1990 phone discussion with Senator DeConcini and the subsequent phone calls with Mr.
Karp, he had no contact with the Senator or his staff at any time.