Advanced Search
August 3, 1994 - Part 7
(18:45:34) Senator BOXER. What about the notion of having a private attor- ney deal with a matter that occurred before the President was President? Does that have any merit to you? Can you see where that might be better, to the press talk to the private attorney? Mr. SLOAN. There is absolutely a legitimate role with respect to private attorneys with respect to private legal matters but what was very much the context of these conversations was a govern- mental function, a legitimate governmental function about respond- ing to press inquiries. And that's not Senator BOXER. Because the press inquiry excuse me was dealing with how the agencies were handling this. Is that why you feel it was appropriate? Mr. SLOAN. And because the White House gets questions about the Clintons. If the Clintons were named in a criminal referral, if that was a news story, the White House would get questions about that. And as the Office of Government Ethics report relates, it's well established that that's a legitimate White House function to respond to those questions. So it seems to me for that kind of gov- ernmental function, it is entirely appropriate for White House per- sonnel to be involved. Senator BOXER. I see that my time is up and I will hold for an- other round. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Domenici. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I wonder, Mr. Eggleston, if I could give you the letters of March 2nd and March 3rd, Do you happen to have those? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, I can't remember. I think Senator Mack gave me a letter of March 2nd. I do not have the letter of March 3rd. Senator DOMENICI Could you put the two in front of you. First, let me say to all four of you, I don't think we would be agonizing until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning if we had received answers like you've given us today. I want to tell you that I very much appre- ciate the fact that when you know something, you tell us. When "You don't, you tell us you don't. You've been very, very forthright. Mr. Eggleston, the important subject matter for me-and I'll only take one subject-is my concern about the testimony before this Committee; the way the answers were given by the acting head of the RTC and what he did afterwards. Could I just review with you? I' don't know why you did this, but I'm impressed with the fact that the White House seemed much more aware that we were not get- ting the whole story from Roger Altman than he was. And as I un- derstand it, before either of those letters was mailed, if they were mailed on the dates stated, a meeting occurred in the White House. You were part of that. Mr. Podesta headed that team up. Could you just tell me briefly---I know this is repetitious-but what was the I principal concern about the Roger Altman testimony before us? 134 Mr. EGGLESTON. By that time, we had actually identified three issues, and they are as follows: the first was the failure in response to a question from Senator Bond, actually, to identify the two meetings in the fall of 1993. The second issue was in the questioning from Senator Gramm' describing the February 2nd meeting, the failure to mention that one of the subjects that had been covered was the issue of recusal. The third issue, which I think we never raised with Mr. Altman, the third issue was the issue of how the meeting of February' 2 had gotten set up. He testified the meeting had gotten set up through Mr. Nussbaum. Mr. Nussbaum said it was not set up through him, and that he had, in fact, had only learned of the meeting just before it took place. I think that's an issue that we decided was not of a sufficient level of magnitude. I don't thin that Mr. Podesta raised the third issue with Mr. Altman. I think he raised the first two. Senator DOMENICI. My recollection from somebody's testimony under oath that we have available is that Mr. Podesta also raised the subject of the criminal referrals and that he got a response from Roger Altman indicating that Roger Altman didn't want to talk about that, or it wasn't appropriate that he talk about it then. Do you recall that?
August 4, 1994 - Part 2
(10:55:42) He heard the testimony and he was sufficiently concerned about it. He had enough of those facts in his mind that the first moment that he had, he got up, went out into the hallway, this is his testi- mony, got on his mobile phone to call the White House, to say we have got a problem here, or whatever words he used, that the testi- mony was not complete and therefore presumably would be mis- leading because it was not full and complete. I do not know if you do that all the time or not. That sounds to me like a rather unusual procedure. Does that happen a lot? Mr. McLARTY. You mean in terms of the White House The CHAIRMAN. Having somebody from the Legal Counsel's Office coming to a hearing to listen and, in turn, have an immediate re- sponse capability if a problem of this sort arises? Mr. McLARTY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it would not be un- usual for someone from the White House to be in attendance at a Congressional hearing. That would not be an unusual situation. The CHAIRMAN. Well let me press you on that. I am talking about the Legal Counsel's Office. He was not up there at the table testifying. Ile was not part of Altman's team. They were up in the front row and so forth. He was somewhere back in the audience. Just as a matter of record, does the Legal Counsel's Office in the course of a week or a month of hearings, would they be up here all the time, some of the time, or on rare occasion? Mr. McLARTY. I really, Mr. Chairman, would think on some occa- sions but certainly not all of the time. The CHAIRMAN. It strikes me that it would be unusual for that to happen, It might happen on occasion, but I have to impute from 304 this that there was enough concern and sensitivity about this hearing that somebody from the Counsel's Office was detailed to be here in that hearing as a watchbird and as somebody to listen and be able to get back in a hurry. Isn't that a fair conclusion to draw from this? Mr. McLARTY. Well, Mr. Chairman, I understand your reasoning. This hearing, as I understood it or understand it, was on the RTC matters. I think it is understandable why the White House Counsel's office would be involved in that particular matter. And Mr. Eggleston has already given testimony to your Committee, as Senator Bryan and others have commented. The CHAIRMAN. I guess one of the things we will have to try to pin down is why when the alert went out Mr. Eggleston was here, did his job, and realized the testimony was not sufficient. He went:' out into the hallway. He phoned Mr. Podesta, and that set in motion a whole chain of events. The one event that did not get triggered was somebody coming to us promptly and saying: By the way, you just got something less than full and accurate testimony. So then what happens is that quite a long period of time ensues. We get four clarifying letters that come on different dates thereafter, none of which, as it turns out, are complete and full. In fact, it was not until these hearings took place that we got in a sense a full accounting insofar as one can be reconstructed, of the number of contacts and activities that would fit within the scope of the questions that were asked that day. That is troubling. I think it is troubling as a system, as a work system. I would hope that if an alert goes out like that and goes back to the White House that there would at least be two channels that it then goes down. One channel would be to say that within 24 hours we want that testimony corrected fully in every degree, and we want to make sure that that happens. I want somebody to come back-this is a hypothetical person in charge in the White House saying this, the Chief of Staff or somebody designated by you-and that I want to know that we are not going to leave a situation like that sort of hanging out there for days, or weeks, or in this case as it
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(22:20:15) Mr. Nussbaum, while you're standing, let me administer the oath right now. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? TESTIMONY OF BERNARD W. NUSSBAUM, FORMER COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT; PARTNER---WACHTELL, LIPTON, ROSEN & KATZ, NEW YORK, NY Mr. NUSSBAUM. I do, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I understand you have a statement and we'd like to lead off with that and then we'll go to questions. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I read my statement, I just want to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I've been watching some of these hearings on TV and because of the concerns that have been expressed at this hearing, I want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, that first- I know it's late in the evening, but I will not be throwing any furniture around the room. I want to assure you of that, sir. Two, I will try to read my statement in a tone of voice more subdued than I normally read a luncheon menu. And three, I will make every effort, Mr. Chairman, to keep this boundless excitement that I apparently carry around with me, in the eyes of certain people, I'll try to keep that under control. And let me say, finally, before I start reading my statement, that I've already expressed these feelings and my intentions to Joshua Steiner who will later provide a definitive interpretation of what I meant. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. That was said in sort of an intimidating manner. [Laughter.] 467 And I was thinking of recusing myself. [Laughter.] But I want to sleep on it. [Laughter.] And make a decision tomorrow. [Laughter.] Mr. NUSSBAUM. Mr. Chairman, I've already failed, as I can see, Senator BENNETT. Mr. Chairman, I'm feeling intense pressure. [Laughter.] Senator KERRY. If you can keep this going, you are going to beat Leno and Letterman. [Laughter.] Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, I'm not going to keep it going, Senator Kerry. Now, on more serious matters, because believe me, gentlemen, I do take this hearing very seriously. Mr. Chairman again, Senator DAmato, and Members of the Committee: I was Counsel to the President of the United States from January 20, 1993 until April 5, 1994. I was deeply honored to serve my country. This was an extraor dinarily challenging and rewarding position. I will never forget it, and I will always be grateful for the opportunity to serve. We are here today to talk about issues which have significant consequences for the operation of the Executive Branch. How should the White House Counsel conduct himself or herself when a Federal agency is conducting an investigation that does, or might, involve the President? Can there ever be any contact between that agency and the White House with respect to that investigation? As you will see, I do not believe there is, or can be, any flat prohibition against contacts between the agency and the White House. Issues may arise in the context of such an investigation that implicate broader policy issues or indeed, the proper functioning of the Executive Branch. In these circumstances, categorically to prohibit contacts with the White House would weaken the Presidency and do violence to the President's role in our Constitutional scheme. I am here specifically to discuss with you certain meetings I had with Treasury officials in September and October 1993 and February 1994 relating to the Madison/Whitewater matter. I will describe to you in some detail what happened during those meetings. But I also wish to make it clear at the outset what did not happen. I did not, nor, as far as I am aware, did anyone else at the White House ever seek to direct the outcome of or interfere with that investigation. That would have been manifestly improper. 'That did not happen. In my view-and I hope yours when you understand what occurred-these meetings were proper, They were proper because, in Ways I will describe, they facilitated the proper functioning of the Executive Branch. They enabled the White House to perform its official duties. They furthered legitimate public purposes. I will explain to you what I was thinking as I took the actions I will describe. There are some, some in this room, some outside this room, who looking back disagree with my judgments. But I hope you will come to understand that throughout my term in office, I sought to conduct myself in the highest traditions of public service and of my profession. I believe I did so.
August 10, 1995 - Part 2
(11:35:31) Mr. NUSSBAUM. I decided in the first instance how the search would be conducted, but after the search was conducted, if there was any disagreement, or any feeling that it was inadequate in any way, there was a number of remedies available to the Justice De and other law enforcement agencies. Namely, they could' subpoena things, they could ask for search warrants, which of course there was no basis in this case to ask for. There's a number of things that could have been done by them if they felt that the search was inadequate in any way or correct processes were not being followed. I did not control the law enforcement process. Senator SHELBY. But you controlled the basics of all of it. I want to go on. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I disagree with that, Senator, as you know. Senator SHELBY. I think it's an important question. Did you decide, Mr. Nussbaum, as White House Counsel, to have your associates in the White House Counsel's Office sit in on the interviews conducted by the Park Police and the FBI, did you? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Senator SHELBY. Who decided, then, Mr. Nussbaum, or let me rephrase that. Strike that. Mr. NUSSBAUM. There was no objection, Senator. Senator SHELBY. Who decided when the note that was found would be turned over to the investigators? Did you decide that? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, I did. Senator SHELBY. Who controlled basically the investigation of Mr. Foster's death? Mr. NUSSBAUM. The investigators, not me. Senator SHELBY. Not you? You had nothing to do with it? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I didn't control the investigation. I was responding to inquiries, producing documents, providing interviews, and also turning over the note. We were cooperating with the investigators in an intense but sensible fashion. Senator SHELBY. But going back to the abstract question I asked you, and you answered it in the affirmative when I said basically control of anything is central to the outcome of that particular transaction. I think it would apply to you in this situation. Mr. NUSSBAUM. But I just told you, I didn't control. Senator SHELBY. That was your opinion? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. It's also the truth. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Nussbaum, let me go on with some more questions. You were counsel to the House, the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee during the Watergate investigation in 1974, 1 believe it was. 1339 Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, I was the senior person on the staff, that's correct. Senator SHELBY. Absolutely. Mr. Heymann, was he also working over there? Mr. NUSSBAUM. As Senator Sarbanes pointed out yesterday, he was working for the special prosecutor. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Heymann said that you were not in a position, in his testimony, to be the referee concerning access to Mr. Foster's documents. Why were you the right person to be the referee? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Because, as I said in my statement yesterday, Senator, every single day of the year, tens of thousands of lawyers all over the country act as referees when it comes to reviewing and producing documents. The normal way people get documents, the normal way law enforcement gets documents, the normal way documents are produced in civil litigation, is for a subpoena to be sent or some other process to be sent. Then what happens is the lawyer on the other side acts as a referee. He gathers the documents, he reviews the documents, he decides what's privileged, what's not privileged. He does all those things. He acts as a referee. All I was doing is what lawyers do every day all over the United States, and Mr. Heymann has just sort of a misconception. Senator SHELBY. Lawyers every day don't have the power or the perception of power as Counsel at the White House that you did. Mr. NUSSBAUM. If I can just finish. Senator SHELBY. Go ahead. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Lawyers every day do what I was doing on that day, and Mr. Heymann just sort of misperceives it when he says a lawyer has a stake in the matter and, therefore, cannot act as a referee. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Nussbaum, during the Watergate situation, didn't the White House Counsel at that time want to be the referee over which tapes, the Nixon tapes, would be turned over to the Watergate prosecutor? That was central to the situation. Is that right? Just refresh your memory? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm glad we can talk about that, Senator, because in Watergate Senator SHELBY. I don't want to talk about it. I want you to answer my question.
LAWMAKERS
01.11.22-DUKE/ROBERTS-discussion of REPUBLICANS trying to find TAX INCREASES that can trim the deficit without angering MIDDLE CLASS, DEMOCRATS happy to sit back and watch the REPUBLICANS suffer with REAGAN, but new POLLS showing the PUBLIC doesn't think DEMOCRATS are doing enough to come up with alternatives to REAGANOMICS. DUKE-intro report on Rep. ROBERT MICHEL (R-IL, MINORITY LEADER) and his stance in BUDGET DEBATE. 01.12.29-Shot of Rep. MICHEL standing with JACK KEMP in a Committee meeting, compares the BUDGET DEBATE to a symphony, urges "harmonize". Shot of HOUSE REPUBLICANS applauding MICHEL. Shots of MICHEL in office, his STAFF sings "HAPPY BIRTHDAY" to him, other birthday-type activities, staffer reads a note from REAGAN, all applaud. DUKE v.o.-REAGAN grateful to MICHEL for getting HOUSE REPUBLICANS into united front in 1981 behind REAGANOMICS. Shot of MICHEL speaking to HOUSE, says that history will record "a new way" in government. Shot of Rep. LARRY DeNARDIS (R-CT), discussing MICHEL'S nuts and bolts leadership in keeping discipline in REPUBLICAN ranks in 1981, says this year will be harder. 01.14.36-Shot of Rep. CLAUDINE SCHNEIDER (R-RI) in office. DUKE v.o.-MODERATE REPUBLICANS less likely in 1982 to go along with REAGAN. SCHNEIDER says there's no way she will vote for the whole REAGAN budget. Shots of MICHEL in meetings, shaking hands. Shot of Rep. LYNN MARTIN (R-IL), says she'd like to be a leader like MICHEL some day. Shot of TIP O'NEILL grudgingly admits that MICHEL is an effective leader for REPUBLICANS. Shot of MICHEL meeting voters at a home-district dinner, many wear red, white, blue caps for MICHEL. 01.15.40-Shot from moving car of small houses on suburban street, aerial of vast FARM FIELDS, shot of CATERPILLAR tractor factory, aerial of a fairly dense SUBURBAN area, shot of main street of PEORIA, ILLINOIS. Shot of MICHEL entering a meeting of SENIOR CITIZENS in PEORIA. Many hold signs demanding protection of SOCIAL SECURITY. Casual shot of MICHEL in a living room, discusses his constituents' concerns, insists that a better way to help needy is to tighten the standards of SOCIAL SECURITY to focus only on the "truly needy", says he grew up in the DEPRESSION and always had an "extra job", had three paper routes, etc. *01.17.01-Stills of MICHEL singing in BARBERSHOP QUARTET, in ARMY UNIFORM, with RICHARD NIXON, and with his family. MICHEL v.o. says his most important consideration is the what kind of country he will leave to his kids. Shot of MICHEL putting 8-TRACK tape into CAR RADIO. Shot of MICHEL driving to work humming along to MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR. MICHEL says he wants to someday conduct the choir. Still of MICHEL, SILVIO CONTE, others, in uniform for CONGRESSIONAL BASEBALL GAME. 01.18.22-Shot of MICHEL in heated debate in House. Still of MICHEL, GERALD FORD, TIP O'NEILL and others on GOLF COURSE, O'NEILL wearing funny hat and absurd pants. VERY FUNNY Casual shot of MICHEL and O'NEILL joking around, O'NEILL concedes that MICHEL is a better golfer, a better singer, younger, and "far more handsome", but there's no way that he can beat O'NEILL at GIN [meaning the CARD GAME, I THINK.]. Shot of TIP O'NEILL in office, says that MICHEL does not have much of a hand in crafting WHITE HOUSE POLICY; after Jim Baker and Mike Deaver and Ed Meese dictate the policy, MICHEL falls in behind it. 01.20.02-Shot of Rep. SCHNEIDER in office, says that MICHEL doesn't have much clout with the White House in making policy. Shot of MICHEL in living room, says he tries to lay out the facts with REAGAN to inform him of the mood of CONGRESS. Shots of MICHEL at lunch with REAGAN and TIP O'NEILL, smiling for cameras. Shot of MICHEL getting into his LINCOLN outside CAPITOL, waving to TV cameras, car drives off. Shot of MICHEL in living room, says he always remembers he's in a privileged position, has to uphold trust of people who have put him there. 01.21.45-ROBERTS-intro commentary. Commentary by Otis PIKE on HARRISON WILLIAMS SCANDAL, jokes "A CONSERVATIVE is a LIBERAL that just got mugged, a LIBERAL is a CONSERVATIVE who just got indicted". Notes that some very conservative Senators are just now becoming concerned about FBI ENTRAPMENT since it could affect them personally, while thousands of nameless criminals are in prison after questionable tactics by law enforcement. 01.23.54-DUKE-signs off Closing credits over shots of ROBERT MICHEL getting in car, driving to work, singing along while driving. WETA credit/sponsor credits/PBS ID 01.25.57--OUT
JFK Assassination Hearings - John & Nellie Connally (Part II)
(02:54:05) Cornwell confirms the negative political climate in 1963 concerning JFK's support and asks what did John expect to gain out of JFK's visit - John gives a lengthy answer in which he says that the state of Texas is always a hospitable one, he expected to gain more support of the more liberal, JFK supporting democrats, and that he also expected to gain nothing at all from the visit, or at least this did not motivate his reception of it (02:57:25) Cornwells asks for more details about the preparation for JFK's visit after it was officially decided he was to visit Texas - John gives another lengthy response in which he tells the committee about how he really advised JFK as to how to approach his visit, disuading him from too many fund raising dinners which Texans would see as the "financial rape of the state", he also mentions seeing Johnson after meeting with JFK and he explains that Johnson was upset at not first being consulted (before JFK) about planning the visit - John then talks a little bit about the groups of people JFK was to meet, who he describes as moderates and conservatives, business people, who did not support JFK (03:04:40) John explains at length that JFK's trip to Texas was not about resolving differences within the Democratic party involving Senator YARBOROUGH (?) and Vice President LYNDON JOHNSON and goes on to explain how compromises and shifts in plans were made to accomodate everybody's agendas
LAWMAKERS
IN 13.00.09 13.00.09-WETA credit/sponsor credits 13.00.35-PAUL DUKE-on program: members of congress forego a recess to ream out DAVID STOCKMAN over the BUDGET. LINDA WERTHEIMER-Congressmen visit EL SALVADOR. COKIE ROBERTS-view on Sen. ORRIN HATCH'S dilemma between CONSERVATIVE IDEOLOGY and pragmatic politics. 13.01.01-title sequence 13.01.28-DUKE-Congress gears up to fight the REAGAN BUDGET PROPOSAL. WERTHEIMER intro report on HOUSE DEMOCRATS resenting 1981 budget outcome, preparing to fight harder in 1982 against REAGANOMICS. 13.02.27-Shot of airliner landing at WASHINGTON NATIONAL AIRPORT, WASHINGTON MONUMENT in background. Shot of Rep. JAMES JONES (D-OK, chair of BUDGET COMMITTEE) entering airport from plane. JONES v.o.-says he found from his constituents that the DEFICIT was a concern, INTEREST RATES were going to stay too high, and generally the BUDGET was unrealistic and unfair. Shot of JONES chairing committee meeting. Shot of DAVID STOCKMAN sitting at witness table. Shot of Rep. JIM WRIGHT (D-TX), says REAGAN got all that he asked for in the 1982 budget, but the ECONOMY still hasn't recovered as promised-HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT SINCE GREAT DEPRESSION, highest rate of BUSINESS FAILURE in 20 years, 13.04.00-Shot of DAVID STOCKMAN testifying, says that the RECESSION was a predicted correction of the economy, but then later says that NO ONE PREDICTED the RECESSION. Shot of Rep. LES ASPIN (D-WI), challenges STOCKMAN and his claims, points out the ABSURDITY and CONTRADICTION in STOCKMAN'S arguments. Shot of Rep. JACK KEMP (R-NY), shot of Rep. BILL FRENZEL (R-MN), praises STOCKMAN for being an intelligent advocate for the budget, but says he doesn't support it fully. Shot of Rep. DELBERT LATTA (R-OH, a chief advocate of REAGANOMICS in 1981), says he's shocked by the size of the DEFICIT in the REAGAN BUDGET. Shot of committee from back of audience. Shots of congressmen on committee panel. Shot of STOCKMAN listening somewhat uneasily (presumably as a Democrat yells and screams at him). Shot of Rep. LEON PANETTA (D-CA), says that anyone who thinks CONGRESS is going to pass the REAGAN budget must be nuts. 13.06.27-Shot of Rep. DICK GEPHARDT. Says REAGAN'S "Put up or shut up" ultimatum to Congress isn't leadership. STOCKMAN gets conciliatory in a hurry, assures GEPHARDT that REAGAN will not be intransigent if DEMOCRATS make a good faith effort to compromise. Shot of Rep. JONES, says that REAGAN doesn't seem as conciliatory as STOCKMAN does, and DEMOCRATS need an assurance that REAGAN won't just veto a compromise BUDGET. 13.07.32-DUKE/WERTHEIMER-discussion of REAGAN seeming to be more intransigent than previously, rumors that REAGAN since his ASSASSINATION ATTEMPT feels that he has been spared for a purpose, i.e. to promote REAGANOMICS. Very unlikely that Congress will go for more cuts in Social spending as long as DEFENSE has such a fat budget. DUKE intro report on EL SALVADOR controversy in Congress, with three groups of Congressmen taking fact-finding trips to EL SALVADOR. 13.08.50-Shot of Rep. JOHN MURTHA (D-PA), says that he relayed the message to the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION loud and clear that EL SALVADOR would not get aid unless HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES by the right-wing government were stopped. Shot of Sen. CLAIBORNE PELL (D-RI), meeting a group of reporters in office, says that his trip to EL SALVADOR convinced him that that country's problems are SOCIAL and ECONOMIC and can't be solved by any MILITARY program. DUKE-LIBERALS have been comparing EL SALVADOR involvement to early stages of VIETNAM policy. Shot of Rep. GERRY STUDDS (D-MA), speaking to a union audience. A very blue-collar man with "bahston" accent steps to microphone, asks STUDDS what he would do if troops were sent to EL SALVADOR. STUDDS says he can't begin to say how AL HAIG'S mind works (draws laughter), but HAIG has avoided giving any assurance that troops would not be sent to EL SALVADOR. Shot of another man asking STUDDS how REAGAN thinks he can get away with involving U.S. in "another Vietnam". 13.11.05-Shot of Rep. STUDDS in office, says that there is no support in the U.S. for REAGAN'S EL SALVADOR policy, people see the same early decisions of VIETNAM being repeated in central America. Stills of STUDDS from 1972 campaign, in meeting with TIP O'NEILL. DUKE-v.o.-STUDDS election in 1972 based largely on his opposition to VIETNAM policies. Shot of STUDDS, calls REAGAN'S view of "black and white, we and they, good guys and bad guys, the Communists and the Free world" hopelessly simplistic. Shot of Rep. JOHN ROUSSELOT (R-CA) says that "leftist-minded" DEMOCRATS [not known to actually exist] are "extreme socialists" who just want to use the issue to embarrass REAGAN. 13.12.39-Shot of STUDDS in debate in HOUSE, says he wants to assure REAGAN that Congress and the Public will not sit by and let him dictate policy on EL SALVADOR. Shot of Rep. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-MD) speaking angrily against REAGAN'S EL SALVADOR policy of "selling guns that will be used to murder archbishops saying mass and nuns teaching children how to read". Shot of Rep. "B-1" BOB DORNAN (R-CA) says that STUDDS was wrong to try to permanently block all aid to EL SALVADOR because that would tell "The Castro people, the enemy in the Caribbean" how far the U.S. is willing to go.
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(16:55:14) Third, no discussion took place regarding the substance of any civil claims. I was not in a position to have such a discussion. Fourth, and most importantly, Mr. Altman viewed the issue of recusal as one of process, and not substance, because, as he repeatedly said to me, to Ellen Kulka, and to others, Mr. Altman intended to follow whatever recommendation be might receive from Ms. Kulka. I believed him then, and I believe him now. In recounting the events of February 1 and 2, 1994, 1 am aware that others' recollections differ from my own. I do not question the good faith of anyone who has a differing recollection. Most importantly, I think these differences in recollection are irrelevant. What matters is that each of these events in which I participated pursued legitimate objectives and were appropriate. Despite differ 101 ences in recollections, no one, to my knowledge, intended to do, or did, anything wrong or unethical. On February 24, 1994, this Committee held RTC oversight hearings. It was the first time, in about a year, that those hearings had been held, and the scope of the topics to be covered was enormous. For over a week, often working around the clock, a team of RTC, oversight board, and Treasury officials prepared testimony, questions and answers, and otherwise researched issues that were thought likely to arise at the hearings. Ultimately, a substantial briefing book was put together for Secretary Bentsen and Mr. Altman. When the day of the hearings came, Secretary Bentsen and Mr. Altman testified on a panel of witnesses, and I was seated in the row behind them, along with other Treasury and RTC officials. The hearings went on for 41/2 hours, without a break. During the hearings, I was aware of a number of responses that Mr. Altman gave that I believed would require further elaboration. I expected and understood that, in the ordinary course, the record would be supplemented and, if necessary, corrected, and that we would have the opportunity to do so in a careful, professional, and thoughtful way, following a review of the transcript. But the events of the next week overtook us. A March 3, 1994, Washington Post article discussed the September and October White House meetings that I described to you this afternoon. Rather than awaiting a complete review of the transcript, piecemeal corrective efforts began. The next day, March 4, 1994, Grand Jury subpoenas were issued by Independent Counsel Fiske. This effectively ended the normal processes that would have occurred to review and supplement the testimony. ~ Two questions that Mr. Altman was asked during his testimony have been the focus of some attention. I have been asked why I did not speak up at the hearings or have Mr. Altman supplement his testimony. I want to address those issues directly. At page 69 of the printed record of the Committee's hearings, the following question was asked and answered: Senator BOND: How was the White House notified of the referral? Mr. ALTmAN: They were not notified by the RTC, to the beat of my knowledge. When this question was posed, I realized that there bad been no consideration of this question in preparing Mr. Altman's briefing materials, and that I had not thought about the fall events relating to the criminal referrals for many months. Although I remembered that I had spoken with Mr, Nussbaum about the referrals, I did not have a clear recollection of the meeting or of the events surround-ing it. Listening to the question in the context of the questions that I came before and after, it appeared that it related to RTC contacts with the White House about the criminal referrals. Moreover, Mr. Altman was asked, and answered, about the extent of his own knowledge. I did not know, sitting there, what he knew or recalled knowing. Without having the ability and opportunity to discuss this matter with Mr. Altman and others at Treasury, I did not be-lieve that I could suggest to Mr. Altman, there, on the spot, that he change his response.
August 10, 1995 - Part 5
(14:30:24) Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm not telling you that. But I had a basic idea, because I had discussed this with Steve Neuwirth, who actually was more of a staff expert on the Presidential Records Act. I had a knowledge of the basic concepts of the Act, but every nuance I didn't know, no. And I still don't know. Mr. CHERTOFF. The expert was Neuwirth? Mr. NUSSBAUM. He was more familiar with it than anybody else. Neuwirth had only been in the White House Counsel's office also for 6 months at that time. 1393 Mr. CHERTOFF. Did you call him in and ask him to kind of take a look at stuff on the 22nd? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I was in contact with Neuwirth all the time. But I don't remember discussing this issue with him. Mr. CHERTOFF. Well, in fact, your answer in your deposition on page 403, line 6-actually, we'll begin with page 402, line 20. Question: Would you agree with me that one of your functions as White House Counsel is to advise on the legal requirements of the Presidential Records Act? Answer: That's correct. And one of my staff members was familiar with the Act. Question: And who was that? Answer. Steve Neuwirth. Question: Did you ask Mr. Neuwirth to come in and give advice concerning wheth- er any of these documents could be moved under the Presidential Records Act'? Answer: No. Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's just what I testified to. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Mr. Chairman, I think we've gone right for the capillary here. The CHAIRMAN. Now that we've found the capillary, I'm going to say that it is my intention to have subpoenas issued-I hope that the Ranking Member would join me in this request, so that we don't have to seek a vote of the Committee- for the telephone logs at the telephone company, for the Rodham residence in Little Rock, Ms. Williams' residence, and for Ms. Thomases on the dates in question. I believe the dates are the 22nd and the 26th; the subpoena, obviously, will be more specific. I hope that we can do this together. One of the reasons I take this step is that there has been contradictory testimony, and hopefully we may be able to get more definitive time as it relates to certain calls that were made between the various parties-Mrs. Clinton, when she received phone calls. And let me tell you what I'm talking about. There have been a number of contradictory, different recollections on rather critical issues. For example, Ms. Williams says that she took the Clintons' personal files to the White House residence. Mr. Nussbaum says that he asked her, he discussed that with her, and she denies this. She has no recollection of that. She said she was too tired to wait. Last week, Mr. Castleton, the younger staffer who actually carried the files to the residence, testified that Ms. Williams told him that the First Lady would review the files. Ms. Williams again, at page 144 in her testimony, denies that, and she says that she wouldn't tell an intern something like that, Then I was amazed that just this past Monday, another significant contradiction-certainly an area that has to be resolved-by the First Lady's Chief of Staff and former Chief of Staff Mack McLarty. He testified that he notified Mrs. Clinton about Mr. Foster's death, calling her in Little Rock after 9:00 p.m. Maggie Williams told this Committee that Mrs. Clinton called her from the airplane before she landed and told Ms. Williams to sit by and to wait for a call back when she landed. The fact is that, after the plane landed at 8:40 Eastern Time, Mrs. Clinton - told Ms. Williams about the Foster death. Now, did indeed Mrs. Clinton make that first call from a land line in Little Rock? Did she call from an airplane? Who did inform Mrs. Clinton, and when did she know? The times just do not and the accounts just do not match up.
LAWMAKERS
WETA "LAWMAKERS" 4/07/1983 IN 20.00.02-WETA credit/sponsor credits/title sequence 20.00.58-PAUL DUKE/LINDA WERTHEIMER/COKIE ROBERTS-on program-SENATE votes against REAGAN to limit DEFENSE SPENDING INCREASES. Other issues entail FOREIGN POLICY. Discussion of public opinion on issues. Sen. PETE DOMENICI (R-NM) a prominent figure in contradicting REAGAN'S budget priorities, reflects the wishes of his constituents. 20.02.15-M/S Sen. DOMENICI meeting constituents in NEW MEXICO. Shots of DOMENICI with SENIOR CITIZENS near Albuquerque, most praise DOMENICI as he shakes their hands, speaking some Spanish. Shots of Spanish-Colonial hotel building, dry desert with Sandia mountains in background, sagebrush. C/S DOMENICI discussing experiences of his father as an Italian immigrant. Stills of DOMENICI from childhood, adolescence, Albuquerque municipal political career. C/S Harry Kinney, Mayor of Albuquerque, discusses having to push DOMENICI to enter Politics. C/S DOMENICI at fundraiser, pullback focus on MARIACHI TRUMPET PLAYER, shots of DOMENICI gladhanding interspersed with shots of MARIACHI BAND. 20.05.10-Shots of DANCERS and DRUMMER in costumes of NAVAJO (?) NATIVE AMERICAN style. C/S of New Mexico DEMOCRATIC chairman, praises DOMENICI for being very involved with the constituency. Clip of "Face the Nation" with DOMENICI. C/S various New Mexico citizens praising DOMENICI'S intelligence and closeness to the people. M/S DOMENICI and colleague on sidewalk near WHITE HOUSE, entering WHITE HOUSE as MARINE GUARD opens door. Still of DOMENICI in meeting in White House with REAGAN and GEORGE BUSH. DOMENICI v.o.-his role in BUDGET DEBATE is to be a constructive critic of REAGAN'S plans. Shots of a SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING with DOMENICI presiding, C/S DOMENICI arguing that REAGAN wants too much DEFENSE SPENDING. C/S DOMENICI in office, says his constituents seem to feel good about the job he's doing in Senate. 20.07.38-M/S SMALL AIRPLANE on runway, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE members rolling out RED CARPET for DOMENICI'S arrival, DOMENICI greeting the Chamber members. WERTHEIMER standing in rural road in NEW MEXICO-says DOMENICI stays popular in a DEMOCRATIC state by getting a lot of projects funneled to the state. Shots of IRRIGATION CANALS, FARM MACHINERY used to maximize IRRIGATION efficiency, DOMENICI riding tractor with farmers. DOMENICI v.o.-he's a moderate, he stays in voter's favor by being mindful of home-state issues. 20.09.46-Shots of UNEMPLOYED MINERS PICKETING against MINERAL IMPORTS, hold signs saying "Imports Create Welfare Lines". Sen. DOMENICI meeting with picketers. C/S an older miner, says he's disappointed with DOMENICI'S performance. Another miner says DOMENICI is fair, but the state needs more liberal leaders. Shots of DOMENICI in meeting of POSTAL WORKERS. A worker expresses concern over PENSION reforms, says they consider DOMENICI as a friend in spite of his REPUBLICAN affiliation. DOMENICI tells workers he tries to do his best for New Mexico regardless of party. C/S DOMENICI in office, says he's concerned about the economy and employment. Shots of DOMENICI with SENIOR CITIZENS and UNEMPLOYED MINERS, other constituents.
LAWMAKERS
WETA "LAWMAKERS" 4/07/1983 IN 20.00.02-WETA credit/sponsor credits/title sequence 20.00.58-PAUL DUKE/LINDA WERTHEIMER/COKIE ROBERTS-on program-SENATE votes against REAGAN to limit DEFENSE SPENDING INCREASES. Other issues entail FOREIGN POLICY. Discussion of public opinion on issues. Sen. PETE DOMENICI (R-NM) a prominent figure in contradicting REAGAN'S budget priorities, reflects the wishes of his constituents. 20.02.15-M/S Sen. DOMENICI meeting constituents in NEW MEXICO. Shots of DOMENICI with SENIOR CITIZENS near Albuquerque, most praise DOMENICI as he shakes their hands, speaking some Spanish. Shots of Spanish-Colonial hotel building, dry desert with Sandia mountains in background, sagebrush. C/S DOMENICI discussing experiences of his father as an Italian immigrant. Stills of DOMENICI from childhood, adolescence, Albuquerque municipal political career. C/S Harry Kinney, Mayor of Albuquerque, discusses having to push DOMENICI to enter Politics. C/S DOMENICI at fundraiser, pullback focus on MARIACHI TRUMPET PLAYER, shots of DOMENICI gladhanding interspersed with shots of MARIACHI BAND. 20.05.10-Shots of DANCERS and DRUMMER in costumes of NAVAJO (?) NATIVE AMERICAN style. C/S of New Mexico DEMOCRATIC chairman, praises DOMENICI for being very involved with the constituency. Clip of "Face the Nation" with DOMENICI. C/S various New Mexico citizens praising DOMENICI'S intelligence and closeness to the people. M/S DOMENICI and colleague on sidewalk near WHITE HOUSE, entering WHITE HOUSE as MARINE GUARD opens door. Still of DOMENICI in meeting in White House with REAGAN and GEORGE BUSH. DOMENICI v.o.-his role in BUDGET DEBATE is to be a constructive critic of REAGAN'S plans. Shots of a SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE MEETING with DOMENICI presiding, C/S DOMENICI arguing that REAGAN wants too much DEFENSE SPENDING. C/S DOMENICI in office, says his constituents seem to feel good about the job he's doing in Senate. 20.07.38-M/S SMALL AIRPLANE on runway, CHAMBER OF COMMERCE members rolling out RED CARPET for DOMENICI'S arrival, DOMENICI greeting the Chamber members. WERTHEIMER standing in rural road in NEW MEXICO-says DOMENICI stays popular in a DEMOCRATIC state by getting a lot of projects funneled to the state. Shots of IRRIGATION CANALS, FARM MACHINERY used to maximize IRRIGATION efficiency, DOMENICI riding tractor with farmers. DOMENICI v.o.-he's a moderate, he stays in voter's favor by being mindful of home-state issues. 20.09.46-Shots of UNEMPLOYED MINERS PICKETING against MINERAL IMPORTS, hold signs saying "Imports Create Welfare Lines". Sen. DOMENICI meeting with picketers. C/S an older miner, says he's disappointed with DOMENICI'S performance. Another miner says DOMENICI is fair, but the state needs more liberal leaders. Shots of DOMENICI in meeting of POSTAL WORKERS. A worker expresses concern over PENSION reforms, says they consider DOMENICI as a friend in spite of his REPUBLICAN affiliation. DOMENICI tells workers he tries to do his best for New Mexico regardless of party. C/S DOMENICI in office, says he's concerned about the economy and employment. Shots of DOMENICI with SENIOR CITIZENS and UNEMPLOYED MINERS, other constituents.
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan taking questions in White House Briefing Room; adult male reporter (off camera): "Do you have any plans for any further meetings this week with Rostenkowski or Dole? Do expect them to come back with some kind of further offer?" Regan: "I'll be meeting with Senator Dole. I don't think Senator Dole will be coming back with anything new, because Senator Dole knows what we want. Chairman Rostenkowski has left the door wide open to come back again, but he wants to check again with the Democratic members of the Ways and Means Committee." Reporter: "What's your own expectation for a further meeting with Rostenkowski?" Regan: "Well, that'll have to be surmised, but I would daresay that I'd be hearing from him the next forty-eight or seventy-two hours." Adult male reporter (off camera): "Mr. Secretary, the Southern Democrats are meeting tomorrow in a Caucus, the Boll Weevil group. Are you going to give them the go ahead to proceed with their bill?" Reagan: "We have no control over them. What the CDF'ers might do is up to them. We certainly will probably be talking to them within the next forty-eight or seventy-two hours." Reporter: "Are you going to encourage them to go ahead, sir?" Regan: "I would like to see exactly what their bill is to see how close it is to our proposals to see if we have anything. You had a question over here?" Adult female journalist (off camera): "Yes, sir. What about the inheritance tax and the marriage tax?" Regan: "The President indicated prior to this, to both Senator Dole and Representative Rostenkowski, that we could be accommodating in the first bill on something that President campaigned on; that is reducing taxes on estates and also reducing the marriage tax penalty. Adult male reporter (off camera) asks: "Is it your impression that Mr. Rostenkowski might be more willing to reach an accommodation? That he's being held back by some members on Ways and Means?" Regan: "Oh, I don't think I'd want to characterize that." Adult female reporter (off camera): "What do you think he's going to come back with? You keep waiting. You say the door is open for him to come back with...what are you thinking of? In what terms?" Regan: "I don't know. I honestly don't know what he's going to come back with." Reporter: "You think he'll give on on the multi-year?" Regan: "I would certainly hope so, because the indication is that this administration wants a multi-year bill, and the President thinks that he has to have that, and he's sticking on that principle." Adult male journalist (off camera) asks: "But if you have to go forward without all the Democrats, are you convinced that you have the votes in the House to win?" Regan: "Oh, I believe so. I think that there is a majority in the House, and definitely in the Senate for the President's proposals.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Ted Kennedy (D Massachusetts). Ms. Jenkins? Anna Jenkins. Chairman Biden, Senator Thurmond and other members of the committee, my name is Anna Jenkins, and I reside in Silver Spring, Maryland. I am a staff assistant in the Office of Policy Development at the White House. I was not asked by the White House to give a statement. I went to them and asked if it was okay for me to give a statement. I have been a Federal employee since December 1965 and worked for the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from May 1970 to September 1989, with intermittent details to the White House under the Carter and Reagan administrations. I was employed as a secretary in the EEOC's Office of the Chairman in the Executive Secretariat as a staff specialist. During my tenure with the Office of the Chairman, I served under five chairpersons, William Brown, John Powell, Lowell Perry, Eleanor Holmes Norton and Clarence Thomas. In September 1989, I left the EEOC to join the Bush administration, Office of Policy Development. When President Reagan appointed Clarence Thomas as Chairman of the EEOC, I was the only employee left in the Chairman's Office from the previous administration. Upon Judge Thomas' arrival at the agency, I worked directly for him as his secretary until his confidential assistant Diane Holt and legal assistant Anita Hill came on-board. He brought them from the Department of Education. Prior to Anita Hill joining the staff, she appeared quite anxious to work for the EEOC. In fact, she called Judge Thomas several times to inquire about the status of her appointment. I recall the first day Ms. Hill reported to work at EEOC. She was very pleased and excited about being able to select an office with a big picture window overlooking the Watergate Hotel and the Potomac River. I had daily contact with Anita Hill and Judge Thomas. We shared a suite of offices consisting of a reception area, conference room, kitchen, and five offices. Judge Thomas' conduct around me, Anita Hill, and other staffers was always proper and professional. I have never witnessed Judge Thomas say anything or do anything that could be construed as sexual harassment. I never witnessed him making sexual advances toward any female, nor have I witnessed him engaging in sexually oriented conversations with women. I have witnessed Judge Thomas and Anita Hill interact in the office. At no time did the relationship appear strained nor Anita appear uncomfortable with the relationship. I understand that at Anita's press conference she denied knowing Phyllis Berry. I was confused by her denial, since Phyllis Berry often visited the office while Anita worked there. I have seen them exchange greetings. In closing, I wish to emphasize that I have the highest regard and respect for Judge Thomas. In light of my experience with him and the way I have seen him conduct himself around other females, I find this harassment allegation unbelievable.
MLK Assassination Hearings - Nov. 27, 1978
Louis Stokes (D-Ohio). You re not testifying from your own knowledge. Cartha DeLoach, Former Assistant to FBI Director. I will testify to my own knowledge, Mr. Chairman. I don t know whether frankly in my own opinion where Dr. King could be classified as a member of the communist party or not. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio). And with reference to your statement about someone high in the party exerting influence over him, do you have any knowledge of that? Cartha DeLoach, Former Assistant to FBI Director. I recall to the best of my recollection there was such a man, Mr. Chairman. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio). And you tell the committee than how you know this man had influence over Dr. King? Cartha DeLoach, Former Assistant to FBI Director. I was told Mr. Chairman and again I m testifying from facts 10, 11, 12 years ago even beyond that Mr. Chairman. That this man wrote speeches for Dr. King. That this man gave financial advice to Dr. King. That this man made policy decisions for Dr. King and consequently having been told that there certainly would have been some association between this individual and Dr. King. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio). You familiar at all with Dr. King s intellectual and educational attainments? Cartha DeLoach, Former Assistant to FBI Director. I have read some of Dr. King s sermons, Mr. Chairman. From the standpoint of my own knowledge I know that he was a symbol of leadership of the civil rights movement. I have not gone into depth as to Dr. King s intellectual education. No Sir. Louis Stokes (D-Ohio). Well maybe it would help if I said to you Dr. King graduated from Morehouse College with honors. Graduated at the top of his class from Crozer Theological Seminary. And acquired a Doctorate of Philosophy from Boston University. And about what did they do to stop the infiltration of the civil rights movement by the communist party? Cartha DeLoach, Former Assistant to FBI Director. Well I think FBI communications both to the Attorney General and to the White House on occasion caused the Department of Justice to brief civil rights members as to the dangers involved. And to the best of my recollection and I m not clear on this Mr. Chairman, I think that FBI communications to the White House caused White House officials on occasion to brief civil rights leaders to the dangers involved. And in my opinion even on this late date it certainly would have assisted civil rights leaders in knowing who was trying to undermine them, infiltrate them and to cause them to be wearily. I think Mr. Hoover s meeting with Dr. King where Mr. Hoover indicated he should be very careful in his association with certain people assisted Dr. King from then on in being weary of such associations.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:53:00) Hearing resumes: The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume. Let me give an indication of where we are in terms of our situation on the Senate Floor. We've completed one roll call vote. We'll have another one shortly and we'll have to excuse ourselves for that purpose. I'm going to bold off until all or most of the Members have had a chance to return in order to play the videotape. I think we should wait until we've got a more complete attendance, as we before. I think what I will now do is begin some of the questions that .1 have. We may get interrupted here quite soon for this second vote and we'll go from there. asked the staff to give you in the interim if you didn't have it, the diary pages from Mr. Steiner. Had you bad a chance to see those beforehand? Mr. ALTMAN. These were shown to me, Mr. Chairman in connec- ti6h with my deposition, which was the first time I'd seen them. 416 The CHAIRMAN. But the point is you have them. I'm not going to into them no; I just want to make sure you have them there now: for a reference when I do go into them. Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In listening to your statement and the time we spent with Ms. Hanson yesterday, there's obviously a direct contradiction with respect to these meetings that took place in 1993 at the White House. When she went over there, she says at your instruction, to brief Mr. Nussbaum about this pending criminal referral issue--she was very explicit yesterday. I don't know if you happened to see her testimony but we cross-examined her at some length on that-she was very Arm in her recollection that you specifically had given her that instruction. Now, I want to bear your side. Mr. ALTMAN. Mr. Chairman, before I answer, may I just make one point in response to the one you made just before the break. I'm advised that Mr. Fiske commenced his investigation on account of the February 2 meeting other which I disclosed here on February 24, not as a result of any other aspects of my testimony. That's just how I'm advised. Be that as it may, I have no recollection of asking Ms. Hanson to go to the White House
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:55:10) There are, however, a few parameters which should guide our deliberation during the Whitewater hearings. First, we should attempt to ascertain all of the facts in an impartial manner without prejudging the outcome. I think the colloquy that we've just engaged in, in terms of the request for the polygraph or lie detector results of Maggie Williams, is an example of that, It's my understanding, as the Chairman and the Ranking, Member have indicated, that both have joined in a request for those results and to dispute any notion that there is a withholding on the part of the Administration or Ms. Williams. We've been informed orally, as I understand it, by Special Counsel that that information is not 22 going to be provided to us at this time. I think that's illustrative of the thing we should try to avoid in these proceedings. Let's hear the facts, get them all out on the table and then reach the conclusions as we will. Second, a guiding principle is we ought not to jeopardize or compromise the investigation of the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, There will be a proper time and place for all the facts to come to light, and we should not do anything in the course of this hearing that would in any way compromise that investigation. Let me conclude that the stage of the hearings we are in at this time is not only clearly defined, but quite narrow and specific. The Committee is charged with, according to the resolution, "whether improper conduct occurred by White House officials in the handling of documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster." That is the issue before us at this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment you and the Ranking Member, Senator Sarbanes. I must say that I approach the hearings with an auspicious sense that we can conduct these hearings as you, as the Ranking Member, and our Chairman last year, Senator Riegle, did in developing the facts, Then we can reach the conclusions based upon the record that's developed, ' not upon some of the wild theories and gossip that have been spread around concerning this circumstance. Finally, let me compliment the Administration for their cooperation in turning over documents and assisting the hearing. (10:57:40)(tape #10108 ends)
LAWMAKERS
20.04.55-DUKE/ROBERTS/WERTHEIMER-discussion of IMMIGRATION REFORM legislative process, potential pitfalls. The HISPANIC CAUCUS has taken a defeat as the bill moves toward a vote. DUKE-intro report on WEAPONS SHIPMENT to PERSIAN GULF. 20.07.47-Shots of ARTILLERY (I think it's a howitzer), SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES, and a TANK in operation in a rocky desert. Shots of soldiers with machine guns and mortar shells. Shot of ANTIAIRCRAFT MISSILE being fired. DUKE v.o.-controversy over shipments of AIR DEFENSES to SAUDI ARABIA to prevent bombing related to the IRAN-IRAQ WAR. Shot of the missile destroying an airplane. Shots of STINGER (ANTIAIRCRAFT) missile station with soldiers fitting missiles onto launcher. Shots of a House Committee Hearing. Rep. TOM LANTOS (D-CA) criticizes the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION for making the shipments over Memorial Day when Congress was not in town to object. C/S Rep. LEE HAMILTON(D-IN) argues that the proportion of U.S. oil supplies that comes from the PERSIAN GULF is small. The Assistant Secretary of State argues that a cutoff in any part of OPEC would affect the U.S.. HAMILTON is not convinced. 20.09.41-DUKE-mostly, the Congress was angry that NATIONAL SECURITY was being invoked to protect FOREIGN POLICY from Congressional scrutiny. WERTHEIMER-report on ACADEMIA lobbying Congress for funding for projects. 20.10.22-C/S Rev. William Byron, President of Catholic University, talks about lobbying Congress for funds. C/S Rep. BOB WALKER (R-PA) says that the established peer review procedures are better than politicizing grants by voting them on the House floor. Shots of Campus of Catholic University. Shots of Campus of Georgetown University. C/S a Florida Congressman, argues that funding a facility at Florida State University was not simple pork because the Government decided that such a facility would be good for the national interest. C/S the head of American Association of Universities, says it's not good for Congress to make "political" decisions about grants and funding. Says that traditional Federal sources of funds have dried up in past 15 years, so universities have been lobbying Congress directly. 20.12.46-c/s Rep. DON FUQUA (D-FL) argues that it is the right of Universities to petition the government for their wishes. C/S Rev. Byron, says that lobbying Congress is effective.
Capitol Journal
WETA "CAPITOL JOURNAL" 10/09/1986 ***NOTE: Burn on tape indicates WPA master #10133 IN: 01.00.00-WETA credit/funding credits/title sequence 01.00.35-Hosts Hodding Carter and Mark Shields. CARTER and SHIELDS discuss the progress of the 99th Congress-in spite of continuous logjams and hassles, the Congress has gotten a lot done. Graphic shows the legislative achievements, CARTER v.o. describes achievements in TAX REFORM, TOXIC WASTE CLEANUP [SUPERFUND], DRUG ABUSE, FARM POLICY, SANCTIONS AGAINST SOUTH AFRICA, IMMIGRATION REFORM, and a Continuing Resolution to fund the government. CARTER and SHIELDS-the omnibus Continuing Resolution is extremely controversial, as House Democrats and Reagan disagreeing over ARMS CONTROL. 01.02.23-Shot of Reagan giving address in White House press room, CARTER says REAGAN has been consistent in bashing the Soviet Union from day one. In speech [dated January 29, 1981], REAGAN rails against those dirty, devious Commies. Shot of another address, [May 27, 1991] REAGAN says that Soviet Citizens have as little to say about the operation of their government as a prison inmate has to the Warden [since Reagan's drug and crime policies are sending so many Americans to prison, this is highly ironic]. Shot of ICBM LAUNCH, Shields v.o.-REAGAN administration has overseen the LARGEST PEACETIME MILITARY BUILDUP IN HISTORY. Shot of soldiers training with machine guns, shot of row of PARATROOPERS jumping in turn out door of a plane. Shot of REAGAN giving Sept. 1986 address, announcing a SUMMIT MEETING with GORBACHEV. 01.03.15-Shot of meeting of Congressmen. SHIELDS v.o.-the timing of the Summit announcement was intriguing, as Congress was embroiled in debating a continuing resolution which contradicts REAGAN'S policy on NUCLEAR ARMS. Shots of Senate committee meeting. Titles show provisions of the continuing resolution: NUCLEAR TEST BAN, SALT II Compliance by U.S., Satellite Weapons restrictions, CHEMICAL WEAPONS BANS, and a freeze on funding for SDI ["STAR WARS"]. C/S Rep. TOM DOWNEY (D-NY), says that the way to national security is through ARMS CONTROL, not building more weapons. REAGAN just wants to build more weapons. C/S Rep. JIM COURTER (R-NJ), says the Democrat positions on Arms Control are almost exactly like Gorbachev's. SHIELDS asks COURTER whether REAGAN has given too much ground to the Soviets. COURTER says that REAGAN needs to be aware of conservative opinion.
Watergate Hearings, June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean
John Dean. I became directly and personally aware of the President's own interest in my reports regarding demonstrations when he called me during a demonstration of the Vietnam Veterans Against the War which occurred on the Mall in front of the Capitol. This was the occasion in May 1971, and I believe that s the date, when the Government first sought to enjoin the demonstration and later backed down. The President called me for a first-hand report during the demonstration and expressed his concern that I keep him abreast of what was occurring. Accordingly, we prepared hourly status reports and sent them to the President. I was made aware of the President's strong feelings about even the smallest of demonstrations during the late winter of 1971, when the President happened to look out the windows of the residence of the White House and saw a lone man with a large 10-foot sign stretched out in front of Lafayette Park. Mr. Higby called me to his office to tell me of the President's displeasure with the sign in the park and told me that Mr. Haldeman had said the sign had to come down. When I came out of Mr. Higby's office, I ran into Dwight Chapin who said that he was going to get some "thugs" to remove that man from Lafayette Park. He said it would take him a few hours to get them, but they could do the job. [general uproar in audience] Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). The audience are here by the consent of the committee. And I am going to request the audience to refrain from giving expression of their feelings, by laugher or otherwise. I hope the audience will restrain themselves in that respect. I told him I didn't believe that was necessary I then called the Secret Service and net with Mr. Louis Sims. Mr. Sims said that he felt that the Park Police could work it out. I went out with Mr. Sims, surveyed the situation, and Mr. Sims talked with the Park Police. Within 30 minutes the man had been convinced that he should move to the back of Lafayette Park. There the sign was out of sight from the White House. I reported back to Mr. Haldeman and after a personal look see, he was delighted. I told Mr. Chapin he could call off the troops.
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(14:35:55) These three occasions-the faxes, some brief discussions at RenaissaDee Weekend, and a short phone call to Margaret Williamsare the sum andsubstance of my contacts with the Treasury Department and the White House relating to Whitewater and Madison Guaranty. I have done my best to recall them as accurately and completely as I can. I hope my recollections are useful to you. I will be pleased to answer any questions you might have. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Mr. Ludwig. I want to take up the first item in your statement, these FOIA items that somebody sent you unsolicited. When would that have happened? I don't see a date as to when you got that. You sent them over to the White House Mr. LUDWIG. Late in November---early December, I think it was early December. 65 The CHAIRMAN. And so you got them and then you-you do know you sent them over on December 2nd so Mr. LUDWIG. They would have been received then the same day it was December 2nd, December 1st or December 2nd. The CHAIRMAN. Now, what were these FOIA items? Mr. LUDWIG. These were two press inquiries, Freedom of Infor mation Act requests, sent to the FDIC. As I said in my statement they were public documents. I even checked with our Chief Coun sel, as best I remember, to make certain they were, in fact, public documents. The CHAIRMAN. OK. Now I've got them in front of me and you provided them to the Committee. Actually, the White House provided these to us for our work here. One is a letter from Susan Bear of The Baltimore Sun going to a Doyle Robinson at the FDIC, and the other is a letter on the letterhead of The Washington Post by Susan Schmidt to a Mr. Jack Smith, Deputy Counsel, General Counsel of the FDIC. Now, how often would it have been your practice to get FOIA items and send them on to the White House? Mr. LUDWIG. This was unusual, The CHAIRMAN. Is it the only time it ever happened? Mr. LUDWIG. This is the only time it ever happened. The CHAIRMAN. So this was a unique event? Mr. LUDWIG. This was a unique event. The CHAIRMAN. Why did you feel compelled to do this? Mr. LUDWIG, Well, as I said, Senator, I determined these were public documents. I had nothing to do with Whitewater or Madison. It had never come up The CHAIRMAN. Right.Mr. LUDWIG [continuing], At the board, it had never come up at had nothing to do with them, but they were public documents, it seemed to me that it was appropriate to send them along to people who might have something to do with them. I certainly didn't. So I sent them on. The CHAIRMAN. I guess I'm still curious as to why, in the normal course of events, if there is some reason for these people to have these documents, and I guess we ought to talk about-just describe briefly what these documents cover. Don't read them verbatim, but what are the thrust of these two items? Do you remember? Mr. LUDWIG. I don't have them in front of me, but they're inquiries relating to Madison and Whitewater. The CHAIRMAN. Well, they cover a lot of things, do they not, related to Madison Guaranty, the Rose Law Firm, the FDIC's lawsuit, various other things that's in The Baltimore Sun letter. I guess when I look at this in the context of this general inquiry that we've been assigned to do here, I'm wondering why, when this is not your normal practice, you would take these two documents and send them out to four different individuals. You send one to the Treasury Undersecretary, you send one to the Chief of Staff, so Mr. Newman, Josh Steiner, then Bruce Lindsey and David Dryer in the White House press office. You fanned this out in four directions and I'm just wondering what-you say this was not a common practice. What was your purpose in doing that?
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(09:40:26) Moving to matters in Arkansas, we will examine whether James McDougal improperly diverted Madison funds to Whitewater or to Governor Clinton's campaign. We will also examine Judge Hale's charges that Governor Clinton asked him to make an improper loan to Mrs. McDougal to prop up Whitewater. The American people have a right to know the truth about these matters. As we turn to the subject of these hearings, the handling of the papers in Mr, Foster's office, I will briefly outline some of the relevant facts developed by the Committee's highly professional staff These facts fall into two categories: Facts that are known and undisputed, and facts that are subject to sharp and vigorous dispute. Let me begin with some facts that are known and undisputed. Vincent Foster was born in Hope, Arkansas in 1945. He was in the same kindergarten class as President Clinton and former White 3 House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty. Vincent Foster was first in his class at the University of Arkansas Law School. He received the highest score on the Arkansas Bar the year that he took that examination. In 1971 Vincent Foster joined the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock. He became a partner in 1973, just 2 years later, From what we know, Vincent Foster was well liked and well respected. Evidently, he placed high value on his professional reputation. His coworkers have described him as careful and precise. At the Rose Law Firm, Vincent Foster formed friendships and professional relationships that profoundly affected his career and future. His partners included Webster Hubbell and Hillary Rodham Clinton. He was a close personal friend of both the President and Mrs. Clinton. After Bill Clinton was elected President, one of the first things he did was to name Vincent Foster to the critical position of Deputy Counsel to the President. Vincent Foster came to Washington. At the White House, Vincent Foster joined a small group of lawyers who worked for the White House. He had an office in the West Wing, not far from the Oval Off-ice. Let's turn to how Whitewater fits into Vincent Foster's story. Although now is not the time to develop the full Whitewater picture, which will be the subject of future Senate hearings, we now know that Vincent Foster played an important role in advising the Clintons about Whitewater. In March 1992, during the Presidential campaign, stories first appeared in the national press raising serious questions about the Clintons' investment in the Whitewater real estate development. The press reported that the Clintons owned 50 percent of Whitewater but that most of their financial losses were covered for by their partner Jim McDougal, who also ran the Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. The press raised questions about whether then Governor Clinton gave preferential treatment to McDougal's savings and loan. The Clinton campaign responded to these news stories. Vincent Foster, along with others whose testimony you will hear in the coming days, helped gather Whitewater-related documents. Mr. Foster helped to prepare the campaign's response to press inquiries. Another close friend of the Clintons who responded to the Whitewater reports for the campaign was New York lawyer Susan Thomases. But Vincent Foster's involvement with Whitewater did not end with the campaign; it followed right into the White House. At the end of 1992, the Clintons decided to end their investment in Whitewater. Mr. Foster assisted the Clintons in selling their Whitewater investment to James McDougal. Once Vincent Foster became Deputy White House Counsel, he devoted energy and effort to advising the President and the First Lady about how to deal with Whitewater transactions on their 1992 tax returns and mandatory public financial disclosure statements, Mr. Foster spent a lot of time working on the personal financial matters of the Clintons. More was at stake in Whitewater than simple routine tax preparations. Mr. Foster was confronted with some of the difficult and tangled legal arid factual questions that lay at the heart of Whitewater. As you will learn during these 4 hearings, at the time of his death, there were a large number of documents in Vince Foster's office relating to Whitewater and the Clintons' personal finances.
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:30:40) We need to ascertain whether the subsequent removal of documents in the search of the off-ice was politically motivated, improper or illegal or, as some media accounts have suggested, simply the sign of panic and poor judgment. It is in the best interest of the United States and the Clinton Presidency that these questions be answered. Despite President Clinton's initial promises to deal openly with Special Prosecutor Ken Starr and the Committee, there appears to have been some reluctance to turn over all of the documents related to the Whitewater investigation. The President's personal lawyers have, for example, released a number of documents removed from Mr. Foster's office that are relevant to the Whitewater investigation. But this has been openness in word only, not in deed. The President, exercising executive or attorney-client privilege, has refused to divulge the contents of those documents and instead provided records comprised mostly of total redactions concealing, perhaps, important evidence. For example, this first document appearing on the video screen, number 87, cryptically states in longhand "get out of Whitewater." But the rest of the information contained on the page has been deleted or redacted, A second document, number 182 and 183, appears to be an official memorandum, but most of this information has been redacted. Interestingly, the document states that "unlike the $1,000 honorarium mentioned above, however, it seems worthwhile to omit Whitewater even if doing so raises a few questions." Questions have been raised, and what we want are the answers. Yet another document, number 93, in the possession of the President's lawyers, has a handwritten reference to "Whitewater." But the remainder of the document has been left out or redacted. Similarly, I might add a final document. Number 229 states 'Whitewater," but it's followed by a whole section that is missing with an "options" agenda at the bottom of the document. There are many other documents with redactions that have been provided by President Clinton's lawyers and the White House. This is in the opinion of many hardly the kind of compliance that we hoped for and is certainly not the openness promised by the President. The existence of these documents is troubling and raises several questions that we hope to answer during the course of these hearings. First, why did Mr. Foster, the Deputy White House Counsel, an employee of the United States, have a substantial number of documents relating to the President's allegedly private business affairs? I am interested and concerned that an official paid by the taxpayers would be working on private matters, particularly private matters that would set up a conflict between the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. If, in fact, Mr. Fos- 16 ter was working on Whitewater for the President, a clear conflict of interest may have been present. Second, why would the President claim an executive privilege over documents transferred out of the White House to the President's private law firm? We know that at least six of the documents controlled by the President's private lawyers have been withheld because of the claim of executive privilege. Executive privilege, as the Supreme Court defined in the United States v, Nixon, is limited to Government documents controlled by the President. In other words, the President can invoke the executive privilege to withhold State documents, such as those relating to military se- crets or those involving internal deliberations of the Executive Branch, but not to conceal his own legal difficulties from a govern- mental investigation. Why, then, is a claim of executive privilege made for certain documents in the possession of the President's pri- vate lawyers? If those documents are related to the Office of the President, then they should remain in control of the United States. The President cannot allow Presidential documents to be transferred into private hands, even those of his personal lawyer. In the wake of another White House scandal, Watergate, Congress adopted a statute to prevent the President from disposing of documents or transferring documents from the control of the United States. The statute, known, as the Presidential Records Act, requires that any documentary materials created by the President or his staff remain under the ownership and control of the United States.
July 27, 1995 - Part 4
(15:00:38) Mr. SALTER. That's correct. Mr. KRAVITZ. Now, you participated in the drafting and the issuance of a formal report that was given to higher-up officials at the FBI following that investigation; correct? Mr. SALTER. That's correct. Mr. KRAVITZ. That report concluded a number of things. First, it concluded that there was no evidence to contradict the report by Steve Neuwirth that he found the torn-up note in the bottom of Mr. Foster's briefcase on July 26, 1993; correct? Mr. SALTER. Correct. Mr. KRAVITZ. You also found and concluded in your report that there was no evidence to suggest that the torn-up note was somewhere other than the bottom of Mr. Foster's briefcase at the time of the search of the office on July 22, 1993; correct? Mr. SALTER. That's correct. Mr. KRAVITZ. Perhaps most important, you found and concluded in your report that there was no evidence to suggest that any White House official attempted or intended to conceal the torn-up note or its contents from law enforcement officials; is that right? Mr. SALTER, That's correct. Mr. KRAVITZ. Indeed, you concluded and you reported that the explanations for the delay in turning over the note to law enforcement officials between July 26 and July 27 were truthful and consistent? Mr. SALTER. Yes, they were. 563 Mr. KRAVITZ. Now, just on the subject of your understanding on July 21 versus what Mr. Adams' understanding may have been that same day as to the procedures for the next day, you're certainly aware that there may have been discussions that Mr. Adams might have had with White House officials outside of your presence; is that correct? Mr. SALTER. Yes, there were a number of discussions that I was not there for. Mr. KRAVITZ. So the testimony you gave before was your understanding based on conversations you participated in? Mr. SALTER. Yes. Mr. KRAVITZ. As part of the FBI's investigation into the handling of the note, you interviewed Maggie Williams; correct? Mr. SALTER. Yes, I did. Mr. KRAVITZ. During that interview, Ms. Williams told you that she removed nothing from Mr. Foster's office on the night of July 20, 1993; correct? Mr. SALTER. That's correct. Mr. KRAVITZ. The night of Mr. Foster's suicide? Mr. SALTER. Yes. Mr. KRAVITZ. Now, you found Ms. Williams to be a truthful witness; isn't that right? Mr. SALTER. Yes, I believe she was truthful. Mr. KRAVITZ. Specifically, you found her truthful when she told you that she did not remove anything from Mr. Foster's office on the night of Mr. Foster's suicide? Mr. SALTER. Yes. Mr. KRAVITZ. You base that on your observations of Ms. Williams' demeanor during the interview; correct? Mr. SALTER. Her demeanor during the interview and the information I got from other interviews. Mr. KRAVITZ. In other words, the information that Ms. Williams gave you in her interview was consistent with information you learned from other witnesses you spoke with? Mr. SALTER. Yes, it was. Mr. KRAVITZ. I think that's all I have. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome all of you here and I appreciate your testimony. Mr. Adams, I appreciate your willingness to testify. I understand your birthday is on the 28th. I hope we can finish in time for you to be able to celebrate it. Mr. ADAMS. I concur, Senator. Senator HATCH. Frankly, I'm heartened by the White House decision this week to finally start down the road of cooperation with the Committee's investigation by releasing the papers that Mr. Kendall has, but that's only part of the papers. Now that they realize an attorney-client privilege doesn't apply, I really hope they realize that executive privilege doesn't either in this particular case, and I think the White House should move quickly to make available the other Whitewater documents in their possession because, as I understand it, the agreement does not cover documents found 564 in Vince Foster's office that were not transferred to the law firm of Williams & Connolly, but were instead kept by the White House, and these may include-in fact, they would include documents Mr. Hubbell maintained as well. So I hope that they'll consider that as well.
July 25, 1995 - Part 3
(11:45:41) Senator BOXER. Because of my schedule, I wanted to know how much longer the Senator was going to pursue, just in fairness. 276 The CHAIRMAN. The Senator has indicated he'll be several more minutes, so with your-with the indulgence of everyone, I'd ask that we give him several more minutes to finish, Senator BOXER. Several means 7? Senator SHELBY. I will try to do it in 5 or 6, but then Senator BOXER. That's fine. No problem. The CHAIRMAN. I want to commend all the Members of the Committee, We're trying to do this in an orderly manner and I think it takes the back-and- forth to accomplish it. Senator, go ahead. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Gearan, let's go back to where we were, and you identified some of your handwriting as DG, PH notes on the left; right? Mr. GEARAN. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. It says "we will not release note on recommendation of Department of Justice. It will be done by the Park Police." This is David Gergen Mr. GEARAN, Correct. Senator SHELBY. I guess he's telling you and Philip Heymann that? Mr. GEARAN. I think that's the conclusion of the conversation, that we are affirming to the Department of Justice that we sought his guidance on how we should talk about that note, and we were indicating to him what the White House would do. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Heymann says in your notes "I'm entirely happy with that." In other words, what you're going to do? Mr. GEARAN. Yes. Senator SHELBY. "And it's better that you"--"if you avoid any statements other than you turn them over," in other words, the note, is that what you're saying there or do you want to interpret your writing? Mr. GEARAN. Yes. I would interpret it Senator SHELBY. I think you'll do it better than I would. Mr. GEARAN. Mr. Heymann says "I'm entirely happy with that," meaning what Mr. Gergen had concluded. "It's better if you avoid any statements other than you turn them over to the Attorney General at 7:00, then the Park Police at 9:00 p.m.," and "them" being the individual pieces of paper of the note. Reno at Senator SHELBY. What is "AG"? Does that mean Janet 7:00 at the White House? Mr. GEARAN. Yes, Senator. I would interpret that as-my understanding is that they met with the Attorney General the night be fore. Senator SHELBY. At the White House? Mr. GEARAN. Correct. Senator SHELBY, Regarding all this? Mr. GEARAN. That's my understanding. Senator SHELBY. Then, "the Park Police at 9-00 p.m., what do you mean by this? Did they suggest you give it to the Park Police? Mr. GEARAN. My understanding, Senator, is that when it was initially turned over to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General, they then asked for the Park Police investigators to come over to the White House, which apparently happened at 9 p.m. I was not there, but that's my understanding. 277 Senator SHELBY. Your next note says "do finding, questions to investigators." What do you mean by that? Mr, GEARAN. I suspect it's his guidance that we should refer questions on the finding of the note to the investigators. Senator SHELBY. I want to go to the last page I have here. This is, again, a conversation with Heymann and Gergen and yourself. "I learned that FBI"-insert field office-"was informed of document," in other words, "note." What do you mean there? Is this Mr. Heymann telling you this? Mr. GEARAN. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. "I learned"-"Heymann learned that the FBI field office was informed of the document," and that is the finding of the note? Mr. GEARAN. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. Would there be anything wrong with the FBI field office knowing about this note? Mr. GEARAN. No, Senator. I think that the context of the discussion was that there would be a fairly high likelihood that given the attention that was brought upon this matter, and given the considerable press interest in this note Senator SHELBY. Considerable would be somewhat of an understatement, wouldn't it? Mr. GEARAN. It very well may be, Senator. But, regardless, that there would be a great deal of interest in the release of the contents of this note, and I think he was pointing out the fairly wide distribution of the contents of the note. Senator SHELBY. They already had it? Mr. GEARAN. They? Senator SHELBY. The FBI already had the note? Mr. GEARAN. That's my understanding. Senator SHELBY. Going down again, DG is David Gergen. PH on your notes in your left margin is Phil Heymann. David Gergen says "We need"--I assume-to know it when Park Police releases notification for a response. In other words, how you would respond to the release of the contents of the note from a communications perspective at the White House. Is that a fair reading? Mr. GEARAN. Yes, Senator. All of this was in the context of preparing for the inevitable press questions that the White House would receive. Senator SHELBY. PH, Phil Heymann says "absolutely, I'll set it up." Mr. GEARAN. Meaning the notification to the White House before the Park Police releases the contents of the note, Senator SHELBY. Under your next entry, "when people come over to ask questions, do so private and whatever they want." Does that mean when people, meaning investigators, come over to the White House to ask questions, do so private and whatever they want, in other words, it should be done in private? What do you mean by that?