Advanced Search
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(21:35:42) Mr. ALTMAN. I just thought it was an unwise thing to be asking about. Senator HATCH. Basically it would look like pressure. Mr. ALTMAN. It could be interpreted that way, yes. Senator HATCH. And in fact, you said to Mr. Steiner words to the effect that those guys at the White House must be crazy to try and fire Mr. Stephens; right? 489 Mr. ALTMAN. I don't remember my exact words, but I told them I thought it was an unwise thing to have done. Senator HATCH, That pretty well sums it up. Mr. ALTMAN. The essence of what you said is what I felt. Senator HATCH. And you were referring to Mr. Ickes and Mr. Stephanopoulos; isn't that so, when you made that statement? Mr. ALTMAN. Not as human beings, I have the highest regard for them. I thought bringing that subject up Senator HATCH. I'm not trying to get you in trouble. 1 want to get the facts down as far as I can, Were you referring to anyone else besides Ickes and Stephanopoulos. Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir. Senator HATCH. Now, Mr. Altman, could I please ask you to read a page from our diary. It's dated January 1 1, 1994, if you have that handy. We have a blowup here if you could read it from there, I don't know. Why don't you bold that up right here. Can you read it? It's pretty bard to read from there, Mr. ALTMAN. If you put that down, I'll read it right here. I want to point to it so just put it right Senator HATCH. Well, here. If you could, the part I'm asking for is-why don't you give him a copy. Mr. ALTMAN. I think I have the relevant pieces here. Senator HATCH. OK Well, if you'll read it, then Mr. ALTMAN. I have it, Senator. Senator HATCH. If you would read it for me. Mr. ALTMAN. I'm sorry, you want me to read it out loud? Senator HATCH. I don't think you have to read the whole page. .Why don't you just read where 'Maggie told me Hillary Clinton .was 'paralyzed." You don't need to even say that. Go down to Maggie's I strong inference." Mr ALTMAN. "Maggie's strong inference was that the White Ouse was trying to negotiate the scope of an Independent Counsel with Reno and having enormous difficulty." Senator HATCH. President Clinton asked Attorney General Reno appoint a Special Counsel to investigate the Madison/White water matter on January 12, 1994, if you'll recall. Mr. ALTMAN. I don't remember the exact date. Senator HATCH. The day before the President requested a Special Counsel I be named, you made that entry in your diary, basically strong influence was that the White House was trying to negotiate the scope of an Independent Counsel with Reno and have enormous difficulty." ALTMAN. Although, Senator I have since been advised that's true, and I drew the wrong inference. Senator HATCH. But that's what you wrote in your diary at the ALTMAN. That's true, but I do want to emphasize I drew an nee, Senator HATCH. But your source from whom you drew the inference was none other than Maggie Williams? Mr. ALTMAN. That's true, but I did draw the inference. It wasn't direct quote. Senator HATCH. And she was the First Lady's Chief of Staff? ALTMAN. Yes, sir. 490 Senator HATCH. The circumstances under which you developed this information occurred during a meeting you had with Ms. Wil- liams on Health Care, as I recall. Mr. ALTMAN. Well, my best recollection, because I normally interacted with Maggie on Health Care matters was that these comments were one set of asides to me during a Health Care meetin That's what I believe happened. Senator HATCH. But you say that notation in your diary is you believe to be untrue at this point. Mr. ALTMAN. No. I'm just saying Mr. Cutler looked into this matter and in his report he specifically references this, and he says that he found no evidence at all that that indeed was being done, that the White House was trying to negotiate the scope. I just defer to his report. Senator HATCH. On page 144 of your deposition, it says that you make the quote, then, you were asked the question, "What was the source of your information for that entry?" and then your answer was, "I believe it was Maggie Williams." But you're saying Mr. Cutler Mr. ALTMAN. No, the source of this was Maggie Williams. Something she said caused me to draw the inference. I'm simply saying that Mr. Cutler, in recent weeks during his investigation, specifically addressed himself to the question of whether, indeed, there were negotiations on the scope of the Independent Counsel's responsibilities, and he concluded there were not. Senator HATCH. Let me draw your attention to the words "strong inference." Didn't she or Maggie Williams convey to you that the White House was trying to negotiate the scope of the Independent Counsel with Reno and that the White House was having enormous difficulty or tremendous difficulty in doing so? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, that's the inference I drew, yes. I'm just simply saying Senator HATCH. She conveyed that to you. Mr. ALTMAN. That's the inference I drew. I did. I drew that inference. I'm just saying it has since been evaluated, and Mr. Cutler's report is clear on the extent to which it didn't happen,
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(21:40:29) Senator HATCH. And according to--I don't know that Mr. Cutler can say it did or didn't. You're the only one who can. I don't know that he was even there, Mr. ALTMAN. No, I can't say it did or didn't either. I'm just saying that I drew that inference. I have no independent knowledge if, indeed, there were negotiations of that type. I've been told there were not. Senator HATCH. But, still you put the inference in your diary and Lot trying as I understand your testimony in your deposition-I'm not tring to give 0 a rough time I want to get this straightened out. You testified that you put things in your diary that you considered of historical significance. Mr. ALTMAN. To me. Senator HATCH, To you. Well, I think that's pretty good. And you previously testified that you would not put anything in your diary which you believed to be false; right? Mr. ALTMAN. Sure. I didn't intentionally write down anything false. 491 Senator HATCH. You understood at the time the question of whether a Special Counsel would be named was really a front-page story. Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, Senator, I did, Senator HATCH. In fact, you called it "the front-page story" in your deposition. Mr. ALTMAN. Whitewater was, Yes. Senator HATCH. But the question of Special Counsel. And you testified in your deposition that you had already been aware of the First Lady's displeasure with having an Independent Counsel named at all or appointed; right? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, the First Lady has said herself that she was reluctant to see that step taken. She's been very open about that, Senator HATCH. She has. Moving ahead a bit, there came a time on February 4, 1994, when Ms. Hanson made you aware, at least she said she did, that Bernard Nussbaum thought that the Independent Counsel charter could be read to give RTCs civil jurisdiction to Mr. Fiske. Were you aware of that? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't recall that but it may have happened. Senator HATCH. She said she did make you aware of that. Mr. ALTMAN. She may have. Senator HATCH. So you were made aware that the Independent Counsel charter provided Mr. Fiske or, at least, you knew that it provided him jurisdiction over the civil RTC cases as well. Mr. ALTMAN. Well, I believe Ms. Kulka testified, or at some point testified, that wasn't the case. And that in her view it couldn't be ,conveyed to the Independent Counsel. I believe she did. Senator HATCH. Why did you draw that inference? What did she say or do? Mr. ALTMAN. I was responding to your question about Ms. Han',son perhaps telling me on February 4, that it might be possible to convey the RTC's responsibilities to the Independent Counsel, and believe Ms. Kulka has since testified, or at some point, that in deed wasn't true, that they couldn't be conveyed. I had no inde- pendent knowledge of it, Senator. I'm not a lawyer. Senaotr HATCH. Sure. But nevertheless, you weren't unaware as head of RTC that the Independent Counsel would have, as well as criminal jurisdiction, civil jurisdiction in these matters as well? I you surely understood that? ALTMAN. I don't think I understood that the RTC could hand its civil responsibilities to the Independent Counsel. No, I wasn't aware. Senator HATCH. Let me move ahead to February 25, 1994, when You had decided not to recuse yourself and receive the telephone from Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Ickes, They were both upset how you handled the recusal; right? ALTMAN. Yes, sir, about the manner in which they were noti- Senator HATCH. And they were upset in addition about the Stehiring. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator. HATCH. We've heard testimony that soon thereafter, Mr. Steiner suggested to Jean Hanson the General Counsel, that the 492 RTC civil case against Madison be turned over to Independent Counsel. Had you ever heard of Mr. Steiner's suggestion before? Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir. Senator HATCH. That was "no, sir"'? Mr. ALTMAN, No, sir. Senator HATCH. Did Mr. Steiner tell you of his statement to Ms. Hanson? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't believe he did, sir. Senator HATCH. Did you ever discuss with Mr, Steiner the issue of Fiske having RTC civil jurisdiction? issue Mr. ALTMAN. I don't believe I did, sir. Senator HATCH. Well, again, we get back to the day before the President requested.that a Special Counsel be named, that you made this notation in your diary, which you must have thought was of historical significance. "Maggie's strong inference was"-you have a quote there, that "the White House was trying to negotiate the scope of an Independent Counsel with Reno and having enormous difficulty." How did you draw that inference and what did she do to cause you to draw that inference? Mr. ALTMAN. First of all, Senator, if I understand your question, and maybe I don't, I don't think that is related to the other question you asked me about the Steiner/Hanson conversation on convening the civil Senator HATCH. It's not. I'm just asking you Mr. ALTMAN. I drew that inference. which as I say is apparently now incorrect, from something that Ms. Williams said to me. Senator HATCH. What did she say to you that--how could you have drawn the inference? What did she say that would cause you to draw the inference and why should you withdraw it now just because Mr. Cutler says that it's wrong? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I'm not withdrawing it, I wrote it and that was the inference that I drew.
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(21:45:27) Senator HATCH. That was my point. What did she say? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't recall her exact words. She said something to the effect that Senator HATCH. Testify generally. I don't care. Mr. ALTMAN. I just can't recall her exact words, but I wrote down what the inference of those words were as I thought of it. Senator HATCH. What's your best recollection of what she said and we'll draw our own inferences, then? Mr. ALTMAN. I really don't remember the exact words. I honestly don't. This was 6 months ago. Senator HATCH. Did she say anything similar to what you wrote there? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, I drew that inference and that's what I thought the words meant. Senator HATCH. See, I think you ought to stick with your diary rather than what Mr. Cutler says. certainly wasn't there. I mean, you you're re the person who was there. You drew the inference. I won't beat it to death but I just think it's an important part of this overall matter. Let me move on Senator SARBANES. Senator Hatch, I think we ought to go on. Senator HATCH. Maybe they'll come back to me. 493 Senator SARBANES. Well come back another round. Senator Murray. Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always interesting to be last. Everybody ]has gone home. Everybody is bored. Everybody has moved on, but I've had the interesting perspective of sitting here and listening to all of this to and fro'ing for the last 51/2 hours and I have to ask myself, what really happened, and I kind of want to go through this. As my mother would say, were there any mortal sins? [Laughter.] There seems to be a real hangup here on whether you told Jean Hanson to inform the White House, or whether she assumed you had told her, or whether she went on her own. Nevertheless, she went to the White House to talk-and did talk to Nussbaum about criminal referrals. My understanding is that occurred at a meeting about Waco, and she just said that there would be press attention because the Clintons were named as possible witnesses; is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. That's my understanding, Senator. Senator MURRAY. So Mr. Altman, how many organizations, independent or otherwise, have investigated this Hanson/Nussbaum discussion and determined it was not unethical? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, the Office of Government Ethics is the primary organization, I think, which has addressed itself to the ethical issues. Of course, there's been a legal investigation by Mr. Fiske, a very thorough one. There's also been Mr. Cutler's investigation and I know him to be a man of real independence, so I think one should take his conclusions as independent ones. Those three independent investigations have occurred. Senator MURRAY. And they all said there were no unethical discussions that occurred, Mr. ALTMAN. Mr. Fiske addressed himself to the legal issues, and I believe Mr. Cutler and the Office of Government Ethics addressed themselves to the ethical issues. Senator MURRAY. So it doesn't really matter whether you told her to go or whether she went on her own, because there was nothing unethical discussed Mr. ALTMAN. I agree with that. Senator MURRAY. OK We also seem to be hung up on how many contacts you had with the White House on Madison, and you responded at our Committee hearing on February 24, that you had one substantive contact, and it seemed to me when I was watching-the tape that Senator Gramm interrupted you, as you said "one contact." Were you going to add anything else? Mr. ALTMAN. No. I was going to describe the one contact I had, which I thought related to the RTC's investigation of Madison. I 'know there's a great debate about it and I know people disagree With me, but I believe today that I only had one contact that relates to the RTC investigation of Madison. Senator MURRAY. I heard Senator Gramm say earlietacts Do you have an idea what those 40 contacts were? any Mr. ALTMAN. I can't recite it from memory but I believe Mr. Cut- ler's chronology details most, or all, of those. 494 Senator MURRAY. Were some of them unreturned phone calls? Would those be considered a contact? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't know, Senator. Senator MURRAY. Well, you nevertheless answered the question it seems to me, in terms of substantive contacts. We now know that' there was somewhere between I and 40 depending on who you listened to. Re Regardless, 1 or 40, substantive or nonsubstantive, 1 think the real question is; Was there any information given to the White House that the public didn't have or would not have very soon? Mr. ALTMAN. The Office of Government Ethics addressed itself to that and it concluded that no nonpublic information was imparted. That may have been their conclusion about my meeting. I 'm not sure. But as you know, no ethical re gulations were violated, so in regard to my meeting, they conclude that no nonpublic information was conveyed. As an overall point, they concluded that no ethical regulations had been violated. Senator MURRAY. Essentially, it doesn't matter bow many contacts there were. There was no information imparted in any of those that shouldn't have been imparted? Mr. ALTMAN. That was the conclusion of the Office of Government Ethics. Senator MURRAY. Did the White House use any information from an of those contacts, whether it was one or 40, substantive or not, did they
Bermuda
Jamaica - Bahamas - street scenes, tourists, water skiing, sun bathing, poolside, baby shark out of water, golf, tourism
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE# 210102 Virgin Islands, Puerto rico, Beach, p. office, Alexander Hamilton's house, hotel, ruin of ?? windmill, sailboat, entrance gate ?? house, Morro castle, diving into bay, town, tourism Original detailed scene description found in original can: WEST INDIES NO. 1 - VIRGIN ISLANDS MS Beach scene with young couple walking in water. Caneel Bay St. John MS US Post Office as Christiansted, St. Croix MS Alexander Hamilton House, Christiansted MS Hotel, Chtistianted, St. Croix MS Beach, with boat in foreground and sand (backlight) MS Ruins of old Danish windmill LS Sail boat and Bay near St. John Island PUERTO RICO MS Entrance Gate and trees - governors House, San Juan LS Looking down on Morro Castle - sailboat in sea MS Boys driving off roof in bay for pennies - San Juan harbor LS Town in the interior of island
Nassau - policeman
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(21:50:46) Mr. ALTMAN. No, ma'am the did not. Senator MURRAY. Is the Madison investigation, in fact, still moving forward? Mr. ALTMAN. When I left the RTC on March 30 and I haven't had any contact whatsoever of any kind with it since then so I don't know where it stands today. Senator MURRAY. Did you at any time use your position as head of RTC to improperly notify the White House regarding Madison? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't believe so, Senator MURRAY. And again, I'm curious about this one issue. Did the RTC or Treasury , to your knowledge, provide the same information to Members of Congress or their staff that you discussed at the February 2 meeting. Mr. ALTMAN. In terms of these procedural alternatives that the RTC faced on Madison and any other statute of limitation situation, I believe the answer to that is yes. Senator MURRAY. And to whom was that given? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, I wrote myself-I wrote a letter to Senator D'Amato. I wrote a response to 41 Republican Senators. There were at least 7 contacts between congressional staff and RTC staff, which I'm told involved the same procedural matters. Senator MURRAY. Did it include information on the statute of limitations? Mr. ALTMAN. I'm told that they did. Senator MURRAY. I think one of the other questions we're facing here is whether there was information given at the meeting with the White House that was nonpublic. It seems to me if Congress had it, 1 member or 40 members, it was no longer nonpublic. 495 Mr. ALTMAN. Again, the Office of Government Ethics reached that conclusion. Senator MURRAY. The other controversial issue here seems to be this issue of recusal, specifically whether you were to recuse yourself on February 2 or 24. We have this 3-week period. Did anything horrible occur duirng these 3 weeks that made a difference whether or not you recused yourself on the 2nd or on the 24th? Mr. ALTMAN. It had nothing to do with the investigation of Madison whatsoever. When I testified at the very beginning today, I said I thought recusal was a false issue because it bad nothing to do with the investigation and because, whichever way I decided, yes, to formally recuse or to remain de facto recused, the impact was the same, absolutely the same. Senator MURRAY. No action nothing occurred between February 2 and February 24 that made a difference whether or not you recused yourself at the beginning of the month or the end of the month? Mr. ALTMAN. No, Senator. Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr, Chairman. That concludes my questions. The CHAIRMAN. Let me suggest, we've gone now through and everybody has had one opportunity . You've been at the table a Ion time. Would you like to take a break? What would be your wish? Mr. ALTMAN. I'd appreciate a few minutes. The CHAIRMAN. Why don't we do this: It's now 5 minutes to 10 p.m. Why don't we take a 10-minute break and come back and I'd like to try to finish tonight. I know that if we don't stay with it, we're likely to go on over into tomorrow. So that's something everybody has to weigh. We've got other witnesses coming tomorrow. I know you've been here a long time. I think it's probably better if we can finish tonight. So let's have the Committee stand in recess for 10 minutes, and you have a chance to refresh yourself, and then well resume. (21:53:53) [Recess.) (21:53:55) Commentary of hearing hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBEG from tv studio, they also talk to Senator PHIL GRAMM
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:08:50) Hearing resumes: The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume, and I understand that Senator Hatch is going to go next on this side. Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Altman, continuing on here Senator D'AMATO. Can you speak into the microphone, Senator. Senator Hatch. I'm trying to. OK How's that? Are you aware, Mr. Altman, that White House officials held a meeting on March 1 to discuss your February 24 testimony to the ,Committee? Are you aware of that? Mr ALTMAN. I have--I think I learned that in Mr. Cutler's chronology or sometime right around here. Senator HATCH. Let me read to you Dee Dee Myers' notes of what at the participants in that meeting said 'Senator DODD. Senator, can you speak up a little bit? Senator HATCH. I'm trying. Apparently this isn't up high enough. Let me read Dee Dee Myers' notes. Senator DODD. That's better. Senator HATCH. I think I can read them accurately. "Roger said one substantive contact with White House staff"---what's that say there--yeah, I see---"I initiated it," meaning you. "Jean and I re- 496 quested to describe procedures 2/28 deadline. Explain process RTC, would follow. That was the whole conversation, was asked one question. Had no contact with HRC," Hillary Rodham Clinton, I believe, "BC." no contact with either the First Lady or the President. "RTC had no other contact," which is what you said and then in capital letters, she writes here "not true. White House informed him. Different memory. Assume he'll amend next week."
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:10:37) So her particular notes indicate that your representation that you had no other contact was just plain not true. Now, were you aware that the White House regarded your testimony that you bad only one substantive contact as not true? Did they tell you that? Mr. ALTMAN. No, I wasn't. Mr. Podesta called me about a week after the testimony and he said-first 'thing he said was, what about the other two meetings, meaning the fall meetings, and I said to him I never beard of them and I believe he affirms that in his deposition. Senator HATCH. Let me get to that. Mr. ALTMAN. If I can just say Senator HATCH. Sure. Mr. ALTMAN. -the second thing he said was-the second thing he says he said and I'm sure he did, was recusal, and my answer, Senator, was I thought I responded properly to the question, and I believe that's what his account is and that's what I'm trying to say today. Senator HATCH. Let me read you Dee Dee Myers' notes of what Bruce Lindsey said at this March 1 meeting. Let's see, "didn't do anything"-OK. I won't read the whole thing. I'll just read what I consider to be the salient portions. It says, "White House officials say they advised him," meaning you, "to look at the legal and ethical obligations and make a decision." Subtext, "If there is no legal obligation, don't" and then exclamation point in brackets. Now, do you understand that the White House believed your failure to mention the recusal discussions when you testified on February 24 was misleading? Mr. ALTMAN. No, I wasn't aware of that, but let me say again, because this is real important, when Mr. Podesta called me, his account, and I assume it's true, is that he first asked about the fall meetings and I said I never beard of them and then be asked about recusal and I said I thought my answer was responsive to the question, Now, I know some people here don't agree with me but what I'm trying to say is that was my state of mind as affirmed by my response to Mr. Podesta. Senator HATCH. But you can see why I'm upset about it-I'm not upset but you can see why I'm raising this because Dee Dee Myers says in her notes when you represent there was only one substantive contact, "not true." And then you have Bruce Lindsey saying look at the legal and ethical obligations. If there's no legal obligation don't." Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I don't know what Dee Dee was referring to, but she could have been obviously referring to the fall meetings on the notion that I should have mentioned them and I didn't. 4 Senator HATCH. I don't think so. I think it was pretty clear she was referring to that but let me go to John Podesta. In Dee Dee Myers' notes again, "John Podesta then talked to Roger and told him that he had misspoken, could be misleading, assumed there was no way to correct record, write letter, et cetera, decided to leave it up to him how to do it." This was on March 1. Now, do you recall discussing your February 24 testimony with John Podesta of the White House on March 1? Mr. ALTMAN. I recall that conversation, yes, sir. Senator HATCH. Do you recall that Mr. Podesta told you that you had given misleading answers? Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir, I don't believe he did, I believe he asked me the two questions I mentioned that he did. Senator HATCH. You and Mr. Podesta did have a conversation on March I when be informed you that the White House was of the view that your failure to mention the recusal discussions, to use his terms, "did not fit within the frame of your characterization of the Meeting being procedural"; right? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I remember two points he raised with me. One was about the fall meetings, as I said, to which I responded that I never heard of them, and the other was about recusal, as I have remembered through his account. And I said that I thought my answer was responsive to the question, Senator HATCH. Well, let me help here a little bit. Let me read from Mr. Podesta's deposition. Question: Did you tell Mr. Altman on March 1 that it was the view of you and others that the White House record needed to be supplemented as to what was discussed at the February 2, 1994, White House meeting, specifically to include or to add the fact that recusal had been discussed? Answer: I think my conversation with him was that we were concerned about it. We thought whether or not it fit within the frame of his characterization as the meeting being procedural, that there would be a reaction to a further disclosure that the subject of recusal came up and that it may be best to supplement the record, My conversation closed without resolution on that point or any direction on my part that he needed to supplement the record with regard to recusal. He was going to consider it. My recollection was it was under consideration would. continue to--we would continue to kind of work as an issue or a problem. Now, do you remember discussing any of that with him?
Thresher Found - Undersea Cameras Pinpoint Submarine
The long search to find the hulk of the atomic submarine "Thresher" is led by the bathyscaph "Trieste" and the specially-equipped "Mizar" in the Atlantic off Boston. Remarkable underwater cameras succeed in locating and photographing the wreckage, solving part of the mystery, just where the "Thresher" rested. Still unanswered: the cause of the disaster. Research ships in the Atlantic Ocean looking for the 'Thresher'. The 'Thresher" Submarine diving in the Atlantic Ocean. Newly developed camera equipment being lowered into the ocean. Underwater shots of the "Thresher" Tail section. Capitan sitting in the cabin, looking at a monitor smoking a pipe.
Notre Dame 34 - Whips Purdue 15
Notre Dame takes on the Boilermakers of Purdue in the first home game of the season for the Irish and they do right handy behind the fine quarterbacking of John Huarte. With a new Coach, Notre Dame is said to have a "new look" this season. It this is IT - let all teams beware. Notre Dame winds up winner - 34 to 15. Notre Dame football stadium packed to the top with football fans. Notre Dame on the field with Purdue. Bob Griese QB throws the football and it is caught by NO 27. Griese carries the ball over the goal line and scores a touchdown. John Huarte passes the ball to NO 42, Joe Farrow. Huarte passes to Jack Snow in the end zone for a touchdown. Purdue goes to punt the ball and it is blocked by Kevin Hardy and Alan Page runs the football to a Notre Dame touchdown. Huarte passes a lateral ball to NO 25 and he scores a touchdown. Huarte passes the ball to No #27 and that wins the game for Notre Dame 34 to Purdue 15.
Queen Begins Canadian Tour
There's a royal welcome on Prince Edward Island as Queen Elizabeth arrives to begin a 9-day tour of Canada. She is greeted by Governor-General Georges Vanier and dedicates the Fathers of Confederation Memorial Center - a monument to Canada's 100th anniversary of the confederation. She attends a Command Performance at the new center before setting sail for Quebec where tight security measures have been taken against separations in that Province. Prince Edward Island and the Queen is greeted by General George Vanier. CU Canadian people waving British flags, many small children in attendance to greet the Queen. A little girl scout presents the Queen with a bouquet of flowers. The Royal yacht, Britannia. MLS - Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip disembarking from Britannia. Queen Elizabeth at the Fathers of Confederation Memorial Center standing at the podium. Queen Elizabeth, "My husband and I have very happy memories of two previous visits to Prince Edward Island, and although it is named after Queen Victoria s father, I feel an even closer connection now that I have a son called, Edward." (Applause) Evening shot - Queen Elizabeth attending a command performance at the New Cultural Center, she's wearing a ball gown and a diamond tiara. At the top of the stairs the Queen stops and waves to the crowd and they wave back. Queen Elizabeth meeting the cast and shaking hands. Queen Elizabeth greeting some of Canada's politicians.
Fashions Parade in Israel and Rome
The first man-made fibers from a new plant in Israel have gone into chic suits that will find world acclaim. Then, it's just a jet hop to Rome where our models make history with new styles against a backdrop of ancient history. Israel Outside view of a synthetic fiber textile plant in Israel. Model is wearing a suit of double knit synthetic fibers, the model takes off the jacket that has some piping down the front to expose an over blouse with an ascot collar, the knitted blend of synthetic fibers on the skirt hits just below the knee. Rome, Italy Models are wearing straight cut skirts with tops that slip over the head with four buttons down the back, one of the tops also has a cowl collar with an accented color white or light tan. The last model has a straight cut skirt and the top has a nautical flavor to it.
Cards Trump Yanks in World Series 1964
Backing up the superb pitching of Bob Gibson, the St. Louis Cardinals take advantage of the fumbling N.Y. Yankees to capture the seventh and deciding game of the World Series. Final score is 7 to 5 to climax a thrilling Fall Classic that is fodder for a flock of hot-stove league meetings this Winter. The final game in St. Louis and the players are on the field. Sport spectators. Tim McCarver at bat, swings and connects and the first Cardinal run is scored. Ken Boyer pitching, the Cardinal's pull off a double steel and McCarver goes streaking home. Baseball fans cheering and applauding. Mickey Mantle at bat for the Yankees, the ball is pitched and he hits it and gives the Yankees the first three homeruns. Ken Boyer at bat and scores making the score 7 to 3 in favor of the Cardinal's. Bob Gibson pitching to Bobby Richardson and he pop's out and the St. Louis Cardinals win The World Series. MOHS - All the Cardinals run out on to the field hugging the pitcher..
Ohio State 26 - Illinois 0
Ohio State takes undisputed lead in the Big Ten as they down Illinois 26 to 0. From their first interception in the first quarter, the Ohio State boys drive relentlessly and when the dust settles the bruised and battered Illinois eleven concede that Ohio State must have fielded a better team. Ohio State kicking off to Illinois. Illinois catches the ball and returns a 10 to 15 feet run. Illinois pass is deflected into the arms of Ohio State. Player rolls out and he is off and he scores a touchdown. Ohio State starts a football drive again the QB passes the ball and takes the ball to the 5 yard line. Ohio State takes the ball and carries the ball over for a touchdown. Ohio gets the ball and carries it over to the 12 yard line and for the fifth time he takes the ball over for a touchdown. College Spectator Football Fans.
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:15:57) Mr. ALTMAN. I don't remember the precise conversation, but I ,think, Senator, it's important for me to note that I immediately amended the record. It was his conversation that told me about the fall meetings. I then went through the process I described earlier today Senator HATCH. The thing that's bothering me is that either Mr. Podesta. is wrong or you're wrong and if be's right, how could you possibly forget a White House accusation to you that what you did was misleading, or wrong, or not true? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I don't believe that the White House called me up and said I was misleading. I don't believe that or, at least, I don't recall it. I remember the two parts of the conversation. Yes, 'Sir, he did ask me about recusal. He said, and my answer was, I -thought that my answer was responsive to the question. Now, I that's important because it shows what I was thinking. I might have-as I said in hindsight, I should have been more ex on at Treasury and that he through what was viewed 498 pansive but it wasn't intentional. I said to him a week after the testimony I thought my answer was responsive to the question. Senator HATCH. But then, if you knew there was a problem with the testimony, why did you wait 3 weeks to correct the record on recusal? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, first of all Senator HATCH. It seems to me there's something wrong here. Mr. ALTMAN. I didn't wait 3 weeks. Senator HATCH. You did. Mr. ALTMAN. No, my letter of March 11 said I was discussing recusal with the White House. Senator HATCH. But that was February 3;. right? Mr. ALTMAN. I'm just saying that I Senator HATCH. That's at the February 3 meeting. Mr. ALTMAN. No. I'm just saying I notified the Committee that I was having a discussion-that there was a discussion with the White House on recusal on March 11. Now, I just didn't think the question called for that answer, and I appreciate that I perhaps should have, but I think the most important point is intent and my response to Podesta a week later shows that I didn't have an intent to withhold that information. Senator KERRY. The letter was on March 11. The recusal discussion was on February 3. Senator HATCH. But see on March 11, they still dont Senator KERRY. I am clarifying for Senator Hatch. Senator HATCH. You're backing me up on this, on the 2nd, rather. This just doesn't compute, and again, I'm not trying to give you a rough time. I just want to get the facts out there because there's a real distinct difference between what Dee Dee Myers says, what Bruce Lindsey says, what John Podesta says, and what you're saying here today. Mr. ALTMAN. But I think Mr. Podesta will affirm that when he asked me about recusal, I said, well, I thought my answer was responsive to the question. I think he'll affirm that. Senator HATCH. But the March 11 letter did not mention the recusal discussion at the February 2 meeting. Mr. ALTMAN. No, but Senator, I said to Mr. Podesta, I believe, my answer was responsive to the question, meaning that I thought I answered the question that I was asked. Senator HATCH. Why, then, didn't the March 11 letter mention the recusal discussion of February 2? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, rightly or wrongly, I didn't reach the conclusion from Mr. Podesta's call that I had answered improperly. I said-in fact, I said in contrast to that, I said to him, I gather, I thought my answer was responsive to the question. In other words, I thought I said John, I thought I answered properly. Senator HATCH. Mr. Altman, I don't mean to beat this to death, but he told you your testimony was misleading. Mr. ALTMAN. No, I don't believe he did tell me that. Senator HATCH. You don't recall that? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't recall that. Senator HATCH. You disagree with Mr. Podesta. 499 Mr. ALTMAN. I don't recall it. I recall him telling me two things and I recall them quite vividly. One was the fall meetings and the other was the recusal and my response to him. Senator HATCH. Regarding your February 1 meeting with Ms. Kulka, didn't Ms. Kulka brief you on the RTC status of its civil investigation of Whitewater? Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir. Senator HATCH. Mr. Nye testified under oath at his deposition as follows: Question: What was and what do you mean when you say the situation that Ellen Kulka was facing? Answer: That she was going to be forced to make a decision how to proceed without perfect information on a politically charged case or potentially charged case. Question: What did Ms. Kulka say about the imperfections of the information at that point? Answer: Just that she wouldn't have enough time between-her feeling was she wouldn't have enough time between then, the date of the meeting and the 28th, the statute of limitations expiration, to make as informed a decision that she would need to make. In her opinon that wouldn't be enough to go through all these mountains of documents and so forth, or for her staff to do so, and that ultimately she would have to be making a decision with the best information possible at that time. So the shortness of questions--so the shortness of time and the inability to develop fully the facts of the case was identified as a problem-as problems in and the answer is, yes. Now, Mr. Nye testified earlier today
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:20:49) The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch, I don't want to break up your question, but we're over the time. Senator HATCH. I'll finish in just two sentences. Mr. Nye testified earlier, again today, that this is what occurred. Was be telling the truth? Mr. ALTMAN. I'm not disputing that account, Senator. I agree with that. I'm just saying I don't think that's a briefing on the status of the investigation. Ms. Kulka testified that she would make her decision by February 28 as best she could. Senator HATCH, But earlier today Mr. Nye testified that Ms. Kulka discussed a tolling agreement. Now, was he telling the truth? Mr. ALTMAN. She did discuss a tolling agreement, Senator, but she didn't provide, as far as I'm concerned, a status report on the investigation, Senator HATCH. But he also said The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch Senator HATCH, I have one sentence and I'll quit for the night. The CHAIRMAN. I understand but you just said a minute ago two sentences. I don't want to be arbitrary but it keeps going back and forth and we're over the time. Senator HATCH. Could I make one last comment an then en quit for the night. Mr. Nye also testified that Ms. Kulka told you that it would be difficult to conclude the investigation by February 28, and that it Mr. be necessary to present a tolling agreement to the Clintons. Did he testify truthfully? ALTMAN I believe be did, Senator, but I just don't think that's telling me what the status of the investigation is. Ms. Kulka's testimony , I think, is the decisive one and she said-she doesn't dispute Mr. Nye's account I don't think-she says I was 500 going to make my decision, and knowing Ellen Kulka as I do, she sure would have. Senator HATCH. My time is Up. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Altman, today in your statement, your opening statement, you were discussing the different story put forward by Ms. Hanson and by you, and you said recollections can differ, of course. There's nothing unusual in that. Now, the thing I'm trying to Puzzle through, and I want to put to you and then get your explanation is, I accept that, but there's a difficulty when your recollection seems to be differing with a whole list of people. Let me just run through that. In fact, in your statement on page 4, you acknowledge a difference with Mr. Roelle concerning a hearing about a possible criminal referral as early as March 1993. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, if I can just say Senator SARBANES. No, let me run through them all and then I'd be happy to have you address them. You say I respect him, but I do not recall it. Then we have the Hanson testimony. Of course, Ms. Hanson was in here for a very long time yesterday and stuck very much to her story about having-you keep wanting to use the word "task" and I'm not quite sure whether you attach a particular significance-I'd like to get off of that word to find out whether you might have, in some other way, suggested to her or indicated to her something that she ought to go over and talk to Nussbaum. In any event, you said you didn't do that. Now, Ms. Hanson on September 30, sent you a memorandum in which she says, "I have spoken with the Secretary and also with Bernie Nussbaum and Cliff Sloan" which are the two people she talked to at that White House meeting after the Waco session. "I have asked Bill Roelle to keep me informed, Is there an thing else you think we should be doing?" That's a memo to you of September 30. Ms. Hanson also called Sloan the next day after the meeting where she saw Nussbaum and Sloan, and tells him to remind Nussbaum about The New York Times fax that you had sent on March 23. She had mentioned to Nussbaum about this material that had come from you, and Nussbaum bad said to her, I didn't get any such material. I don't know what you're
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:25:27) The following day she called Sloan to tell him that there had been a New York Times fax. The question then was how would Hanson know of the fax if you hadn't spoken to her about it, since it was a fax that came from you at an earlier time. Now, Roelle says that at the October 6 meeting with you about the Madison criminal referrals and I'm now quoting from his deposition: Question: Who else was present for this? Answer: Nobody. There was just me and Mr. Altman and he called Ms. Hanson on the phone. Question: To the best of your memory, who said what to whom during this conversation? Answer. I just told him about this and he said OK and he called Ms. Hanson and told her about it and that was pretty much it," And there's some more questions and answers- Question: Do you recall "who he," Mr. Altman, "told her," Ms. Hanson, "to call"? 501 Answer: Yeah, he said, "call Jack, Bernie, and the Secretary. He named about 10 names." Now, Ickes tells us the purpose of this meeting, and the focus of Altman's discussion, was the relationship at the time that he felt this investigation might be wrapped up. And be said, at least in so many words, that it was his understanding the investigation probably would not be concluded and that a determination could not be made by the RTC's General Counsel as to whether there was a basis for a civil claim until after the expiration of the statute of limitations. That's Ickes. Williams, Maggie Williams, tells us that you called her about coming over for a meeting. Now, you say that it wasn't Maggie Wil- liams, it was Ickes. You said that Ickes was wrong in this comment that he made. You've fairly well repudiated a good part of Steiner's diary. Is there some conspiracy at work here, on the part of a lot of peo- ple, to contradict your versions? I mean, we've got Roelle, Hanson, Ickes, Williams, and Steiner. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, there's no conspiracy. Why don't we go through these one by one. You asked me about March and Bill Roelle. I don't recall him telling me about the criminal referral but he may have. I just don't recollect it. He may have told me. You asked me about this memorandum. I may well have received this. I probably did, but this memorandum does not confirm an discussions at the White House regarding the criminal referral. This memorandum, which I must say, I think, is awfully clear, is attached to a compendium of press stories-excuse me, a compen- dium of stories the press may be working on and the operative one is relating to the Rose Law Firm that The Washington Post and the Associated Press are working on. I just don't be eve that con- firms Ms. Hanson's September meeting. You asked me about Senator SARBANES. When did Ms. Hanson's September meeting with Nussbaum and Sloan take place? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't know which day it was in September. The 29th? I'm not sure. Senator SARBANES. It was September 29. What is the date of this memo saving I have spoken with the Secretary and also with Ber- nie Nussbaum and Cliff Sloan. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, the date is the 30th. Senator SARBANES. The' 30th, the next day. Mr. ALTMAN. Do you know what this is? This is a comprehensive Senator SARBANES. I have it right here. Mr. ALTMAN. But it's a compendium of developing press stories or at least stories that the RTC thinks is developing. Senator SARBANES. That's right, which refers to the first paragraph of the memo. Mr. ALTMAN. I just don't think this confirms that- Senator SARBANES. The first paragraph of the memo is relevant !0 the Early Bird. The second and the third paragraph need not be, I'll my judgment, are not relevant to the Early Bird memo. The first aragraph of this memo says, "Steve Katsanos has talked with Sue Schmidt (see attached RTC Early Bird)." That's this. 502
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:30:30) The next paragraph says, "I have spoken with the Secretary an seems to me with Bernie Nussbaum and Cliff Sloan." Now, it see a the reasonable view of that is that was with respect to the meeting that bad taken place just the day before. Then the next paragraph "I have asked Bill Roelle to keep me informed." Of course, I had just, in effect, informed you all about the referrals 2 , 3 before, as I recall. "Is there anything else you think we should doing." I know how you're trying to parse this memo, but I agree with it. Anyhow, what's next? Mr. ALTMAN. You asked me about Mr. Ickes's comment in his' de deposition. Senator SARBANES. What about the Sloan-tbe Hanson conversation with Sloan about The New York Times fax and bow would Hanson have known that but for talking with you? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't know, Senator, but I don't know what's wrong with sending a fax of a press clipping. Senator SARBANES. No, I didn't say anything was wrong with sending the fax. I didn't see anything wrong--how did-I'm trying to get at Hanson 's credibility given the direct contradiction between her testimony and yours. How would Hanson have known to call Sloan the next day about the fax if she didn't learn about the fax from you because the fax was something you sent to Nussbaum back in March 1993; is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. That's what the fax-yes, that's what the fax suggests, yes. Senator SARBANES. Before Hanson took over as General Counsel at the Treasury? Mr. ALTMAN. I can't remember exactly when Jean arrived, Senator SARBANES. She came in June. Mr. ALTMAN. All right. It could have been. Senator SARBANES. How would she have known to call Sloan about this fax if she hadn't been talking with you? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't know the answer to that, Senator. Senator SARBANES. What about Roelle and the telephone conversation at the October 6 meeting? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't remember that. Senator SARBANES. Ickes's report on the February 2 meeting? Mr. ALTMAN. That one I have a very strong view on, Senator, and that is incorrect. That is not what happened, and I believe Mr. Ickes, when he comes before you, whenever that is tomorrow, Will not say what I gather you have. Senator SARBANES. What makes you believe that? Mr. ALTMAN. Just because it's incorrect. Senator SARBANES. What about Williams? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, I don't think that's very meaningful. I agree that the conversation took place. I just think I called Ickes to set it up and I had it primarily with him. And she thinks I set it up with her, but the conversation took place, I don't dispute that. I think that's a minor issue as to whether I bad it the way I say or she says. It took place. Senator SARBANES. She says that you said-did you say your recollection, specifically, was I want to come over in person and 503 have a meeting to announce this? I don't remember if he said I want to come over in person. I think he said A want to talk to a few people, can you get some people together and I maybe said west wing office or he could have named-why would Maggie Williams say this if it hadn't happened? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, again, the conversation or the essence of it, did happen. I'm not disputing that. I think I happened to call Mr, Ickes and primarily had the conversation with him, but I did have the conversation, so I'm not disputing that. Senator SARBANES. My time has expired. The CHAIRMAN. Senator D'Amato is prepared to yield you 2 additional minutes. Senator SARBANES, No, I'm finished. The CHAIRMAN. Senator D'Amato. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, if I might, this will take us back to the question of that meeting on the 3rd and whether the meeting came up as a result of talking to Maggie Williams and/or Ickes. There was a meeting. Is that not correct, Mr. Altman? Mr. ALTMAN. I'm sorry, Senator. Senator D'AMATO. Whether or not the meeting came about as a result of our conversation, your contact first with Mr. Ickes or with Ms. Williams, there did come a time, right, on or about February 3, the day after your decision where you went home and you meditated about recusal, then you went over to the White House. You had called earlier. You missed Jean Hanson for lunch. She kind of was one step behind. But we know there came a meeting and af that. meeting there were at least Williams, Ickes, and Eggleston. Hanson got there later. Is that not a fact?
Vietnam's Future: Hawaiian Parley Affirms US Aims
A three-day Summit Meeting between United States and South Vietnam leaders was aimed at bringing a new social and economic perspective to the war in Vietnam. President Johnson flew to Hawaii for the meeting with the leaders from Saigon and at its conclusion came the declaration of Honolulu - an outline of both war and peace aims in Southeast Asia. Later, the President returns to Los Angeles to confer with Vice-President Humphrey before the VP leaves for Saigon to implement the conclusions reached at the conference. Hawaii President Lyndon Baines Johnson meeting with Vietnam emissaries shaking hands on the steps of the building. MS - President Johnson shaking hands with Minister Nauyen Van Thieu and Prime Minister Cao Ky, Secretary of State - Dean Rusk standing in the background, middle. MS - President Johnson, Prime Minister Ky on the left, Minister Nauyen Van Thieu on the right, Dean Rusk off to the left and Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara off to the right. walking in back of President Johnson. MS - As they sit at the conference table, to the right of President Johnson is Secretary of State, Dean Rusk and to the left of President Johnson sits Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara MS - President Johnson and his globetrotting emissaries leaving the building and walking down the steps. MS - Prime Minister Ky and Minister Nauyen Van Thieu engaged in conversation on the steps of the building. Los Angeles, California Mean while at the Los Angeles air port Vice President Hubert Humphrey waits for the arrival of President Johnson's plane. ECU - Vice President Hubert Humphrey. CU - The Presidential plane is rolling down the landing strip, President Johnson on board. CU - President Johnson holds an impromptu press conference, President Johnson steps up to the podium. President Johnson sums up the aims outlined in the Declaration of Honolulu, "... and we shall fight the battle against aggression in Vietnam to a successful conclusion. e shall fight the battle for social construction and throughout the world we shall fight the battle for peace. And to the American people who have given us their strength in every hour of trial, I say to you that we shall fight all of these battles successfully, and we shall prevail."
Rooftop Heliport: Copters Fly From Midtown New York
Like every large city, New York faces the frustrating problem of getting airplane passengers through heavy traffic to outlying airports. Now the problem is being partially solved w/ the opening of a helicopter landing pad atop a mid-town skyscraper. POV Views of New York skyline from cockpit & window seat of passenger jet plane (console & window in respective shots). Nice aerial of skyscrapers, buildings, downtown Manhattan, New York City, Empire State Building rising tallest. Over this shoulder shot of chopper pilot flying over NYC. Aerial shot - Pan Am Building (Pan American Bldg, now occupied by MetLife). Low angle / LS - Dual-rotor helicopter coming in for landing on rooftop helipad of Pan Am building. Over the shoulder MS - Heliport control operator as New York Airways chopper lands. TLSs -people boarding helicopter. TLS - Helicopter lifting off from helipad. Rear view MS passenger looking out window. High angle LSs - Manhattan all aglow at night. MS former Governor of New York NELSON ROCKEFELLER & Mayor of New York ROBERT F. WAGNER JR. chatting with FRANCIS CARDINAL SPELLMAN; Mayor Wagner kisses the Cardinal's hand before departure. MSs - Cardinal Spellman boarding helicopter. TLSs - Pan Am double rotor helicopter taking off from rooftop helipad, night. H/a LS - Nighttime traffic, buildings in downtown NYC (Manhattan).
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:35:40) Mr. ALTMAN. I had the discussion, as I said, Senator, that I recall having with Mr. Ickes, a couple minutes before another meeting we were both scheduled to attend. Senator DAMATO. Wasn't Mr. Eggleston there? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't recall whether he was there. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Eggleston says be was there in his deposition. Maggie Williams says she was there. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator I'll give you my best recollection. Senator D'AMATO. Well, your best recollection is that-and I can read you Maggie statement where she talks about you calling and getting together in the West Wing. Senator Sarbanes just went over that with you and you said could you get some peo- ple together. But there did come a time when you went over to the White House and you talked and you informed Mr. Ickes and you don't recall if Ms. Williams was there and Eggleston, that you were not going to withdraw, that you were going to continue on the case, and that you would not recuse yourself. Isn't that right? Mr. ALTMAN. I said I was not going to recuse myself for the time being. Senator D'AMATO. Good. OK. So that took place on February 3; Is that not correct? ALTMAN. Around February 3, yes. Senator D'AMATO. Let's go back to the conversation we had when asked you about meetings. Now, remember the night before I told you, we were going to ask you about this, about contacts that you had or that the White House had, et cetera, and I refer you, and 504 I think you have a copy of the transcript of the bearing on February 24 to page 63. Do you have it in front of you? Mr. ALTMAN, Yes, sir. Senator D'AMATO. If you count up 10 lines from the bottom, it says, "Senator D'Amato." That refers to a question I asked. Will you read with me? I said "did anyone"--and I'm asking You now about the meeting of February 2. I'm asking you bow this came about. I said "did anyone request this meeting?" You responded -I requested the meeting." I then went on, Un,, there any other meeting that may have been requested?" You then responded, "No." Now, Mr. Altman, is that statement incorrect? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator- Senator D'AMATO, Do you read that-you see it in front of you? Mr. ALTMAN. I do, Senator. Senator D'AMATO. Now, is that statement-you said no. Is that incorrect or not? Mr. ALTMAN. I interpreted your question to mean were there any other meetings that the White House requested and I said no to that question Senator D'AMATO. Excuse me. The question of the White Houseexcuse me. The question of the White House did not come up until were there any other to which you said no. after you answered that question. I said meet ings that may have been requested, After that I then propounded a series of questions to ascertain the people from the White House may have put forth these. You cannot now tell me that you're answering a question that you didn't know I was going to even ask at that time. I ask you again; is that not correct? Were there any other meet- "that may have been requested. You said no. Mr. Altman, is that correct.? Is that correct? Mr, ALTMAN. That's bow I interpreted your question. Senator DAMATO. But is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. I think the context of your question before Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Altman, the context of my question before was as it related to who set up the meeting of February 2--of February 2, quite clear. There's no reference to any-wbo set it up. You went on to say, and I'm paraphrasing, that you did, you requested the meeting. I said, "Was there any other meeting that may have been requested?" You said, "No." Now, Mr. Altman, you were not aware of that meeting in which you rushed over to the White House to inform them of your decision to not recuse yourself at that time? Mr. ALTMAN. First of all, Senator Senator D'AMATO. I mean, you forgot that? Senator SASSER. Mr. Chairman, for goodness sake, can't this witness answer a question? I mean, I've never seen such badgering of a witness in my life here. Senator D'AMATO. Was it correct, Mr. Altman? Mr. ALTMAN. I answered the question that I thought you asked and I answered the question that you asked to the best of my ability. I think there's a reasonable basis to have interpreted it the way I did because you immediately said, you mean there were no other meetings requested by the White House? Senator GRAMM. He didn't know 505 Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, now we've got two-- Senator DODD. He can answer. You made your point and I'd like to hear an answer. We've been over this matter but I'd like to hear an answer. Senator KERRY. I have no objection, I'm sure nobody has any objection to tough questions being asked but when two people start jumping in asking questions and the witness doesn't have an opportunity to answer, none of us are well served. I'll go for as long as we want but this witness has had a long, grueling night,
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:40:31) Senator DAMATO. Let me say this to you Senator KERRY. I think we should get the answer. I'm not saying we shouldn't but lees do it in an orderly fashion. senator D'AMATO. Mr. Altman, when I asked you, were there any other meetings that may have been requested, you answered no. In light of what you know now, in light of what you have beard testified to, that you called at least two people to set up a meeting on the 3rd that 's what Maggie Williams says, that's what Ms. Hanson. says, Mr. Ickes verifies the meeting, and Mr. Eggleston verifies the meeting. Is it not true that that answer was not responsive and not accurate? Mr. ALTMAN. No, Senator, it isn't. That question was responsive to the question as I understood it. Senator D'AMATO. Let me tell you, the question as you understood it, that you make reference to, didn't take place until after you answered. I then pursued that when you said no, I then asked you about other contacts. Mr. ALTMAN. But I think it's a reasonable thing to see how I might have come to that conclusion because you say you mean there were no other meetings requested by the White House? You were explaining your own question. Senator D'AMATO. I only raised the question after you said precisely no to the question as to were there any other meetings? You said no. I have to tell you, it is hard for this Senator to see how "You could have forgotten the meeting of February 3. 1 then went -further to say: Dig other people possibly set them up? Did the White House set it up, et cetera. I nave to tell you, are you saying :,now that because maybe Ms. Williams set it up or because Ms. Hanson set it up that there was no meeting? Mr. ALTMAN. No, Senator, I believe I called Mr. Ickes. Senator D'AMATO. So the difference is because you called Mr. Ickes that it means you didn't have to tell us about the meeting February 3? ALTMAN. No, Senator. I'd like to try to make one thing as clear as I can. I Senator D'AMATO. Yes, please. Mr. ALTMAN. I've testified the same way I've always tried to tes- when I come before the Congress, and I've had the privilege of doing that many times, and there are some Members on this Committee known me for some time, and they think of me do, but I just want to assure this Committee that I up here on February 24 as a different person, as a dif- ferent person than I've been every other time. Senator Riegle-Sen- ator Riegle knows me very well. I thought he always had a high regard for me. I hope that's true. 506 Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, I don't mean to. Mr. Altman, YOU re now not being responsive to the question and I understand your answer. I don't accept it, but reasonable people may disagree. Let me move on to something else, Mr. Ickes testifies about the meeting in his deposition on July 24. Among other things he was asked, are a number of questions about the details of the statute of limitations and the progress of the inquiry being conducted. He goes on and he says: What he discussed was whether there was an inquiry underway and that, in his View based an information from his sources--I don 't think he delineated them, but I assumed one of them was the General Counsel of the RTC-that investigation was going to take a longer period of time to conclude and that it might not conclude until after the expiration of the statute of limitations Now, that's Mr. Ickes, a trained lawyer, Deputy Chief of the White House. That's his recollection. Let me go on to page 122. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, that is false. Senator DAMATO. He says the purpose of the meeting Mr. ALTMAN. That is false, Senator DAMATO. OK You disagree with him. Mr. ALTMAN. Not only do I disagree with him, but the facts disagree with him. The facts disagree with him, and I can tell you in the strongest terms that that is false. Senator D'AMATO. Let me continue. Mr. Ickes says the purpose of this meeting and the focus of his discussion, and I think this goes to the essence of being responsive to the Committee, was the relationship of the time that he felt this investigation might be wrapped up, and be said, at least in so many words, that it was his understanding that the investigation probably would not be concluded and that Et a determination could not be made by the RTC's General Counsel as to whether there was a basis for a civil claim until after the expiration of the statute of limitations had ap- lied to this particular investigation. And I'll note that, thereafter, he says that be informed both Mrs. Clinton and the President of the gist of this conversation. Now, would Mr. Ickes go to the President and to the First Lady and inform them of this, if it didn't happen? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator it is false. The Office of Government Ethics, the independent Office of Government Ethics evaluated that. That's not a Clinton body. That's an independent Office of Government Ethics, and it concluded that no nonpublic information was provided. Senator DAMATO. Let me say Mr. ALTMAN. Just a moment, Senator. Senator D'AMATO. I don't want to hear about the Office of Government Ethics-that's not a responsive question, to have him come