Mr. FOLEY: May I take you back to the events of November 25 and I don't want to keep going over old ground but you testified that as an experienced employee of a national security agency you understood the rules of security relating to documents, and the procedures that must always be followed with relation to classified documents in particular.

Ms. HALL: That is correct, sir.

Mr. FOLEY: Without any reference to possible obstruction of justice, which is not the purpose of this committee to determine, did you not know that alteration of existing documents in a major, fundamental way was a violation of the responsibility of those who possess those documents?

Ms. HALL: I agree with you, sir, and at the time, as I stated before, I felt uneasy but sometimes, like I said before, I believed in Colonel North and there was a very solid and very valid reason he must have been doing this and sometimes you have to go above the written law, I believe. I don't know, I felt—I believed in Colonel North. Maybe that is not correct. It is not a fair thing to say. I felt uneasy to begin with and I agree with your assessment basically.

Mr. FOLEY: That unauthorized destruction of documents is a gross violation of security.

Ms. HALL: I don't know that destruction—OK, you are talking about the altered documents.

Mr. FOLEY: The shredding.

Ms. HALL: The shredding. I don't know that it was unauthorized.

Mr. FOLEY: You are not sure whether Colonel North had

Ms. HALL: I don't believe

Mr. FOLEY: You are not sure whether Colonel North did not have superiors' approval to destroy those documents?

Ms. HALL: I have no idea, sir.

Mr. FOLEY: But normally speaking, you would not be engaged in that kind of shredding as a routine daily or routine weekly or monthly activity of your office?

Ms. HALL: Sir, we never shredded to the volume we did. In my eyes, those documents could have been shredded, the PROFs in my office could have been shredded every single day. If I completed a phone log, I could have shredded it that minute. There is no reason why it couldn't have been shredded earlier.

Mr. FOLEY: Do you have any doubt that it was an unusual shredding?

Ms. HALL: It was unusual. I have said that.

Mr. FOLEY: Finally, under any circumstances, the removal of classified documents from the offices to which they were assigned, removal from those offices and from the building was a gross violation of the security of those documents which for any other purpose, any purpose at all, would justify the severest discipline, isn't that true?

Ms. HALL: I agree that it was a gross violation and I honestly, sir, did not know the severity of what I was doing at the time. I wish I could redo it.