Advanced Search
August 2, 1994 - Part 2
(11:10:36) Mr. STEINER. Senator, I think Mr. Altman sent out a clear direction as to how be wanted this case handled. That's what executives often do. They give clear direction as to how they want something to proceed. senator KERRY. Was there any indication from Mr. Ryan or Ms. Kulka that it would proceed any, way than otherwise? Mr. STEINER. I don't believe so. No, Senator. Senator KERRY. Then what was the concern? Mr. STEINER. The concern, as I mentioned, as mentioned by Mr. Nussbaum. Senator KERRY. I understand the concern expressed by Mr. Nussbaum, and he'll be here, as will others, to explain it. I'm just trying to understand. I think your diary is very refreshing. I think it's very honest. know you, I know yo're honest, and I know the idealism with which you approach this process. I think you have nothing but the highest public motives at stake. You are the kind of person we need involved in public service. You certainly weren't writing the diary for the purposes of being untruthful, were you? Mr. STEINER. Senator, absolutely not. Senator KERRY. I assume you wanted to have the most accurate diary you could have had, don't you? Mr. STEINER. I want to repeat, Senator, if I could, and I'm sure you're getting tired of hearing this, but the purpose was not to write a precise narrative or to give an exact chronology of what took place. Over the past 5 months, I've had to live with this document, and I've had to go and testify under oath about exactly what I knew and exactly what I think occurred. That's what I'm trying to do for 349 you today. Senator KERRY. I appreciate that, but my time is up. I don't want to cut you off at all. My time is up, and I want to stick by the time limits. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Faircloth. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR LAUCH FAIRCLOTH Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll go to Mr. Steiner also. And if you will, pull that microphone real close and speak a little slower. Mr. STEINER. Yes, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. You testified that you believe that Roger Altman was candid with the Committee, yet you wrote in your diary that Altman gracefully ducked the recusal issue. Is it your testimony that being candid and gracefully ducking are consistent? Mr. STEINER. Senator, I don't believe that lie ducked any questions about recusal. I don't believe he was asked any questions about recusal. Senator FAIRCLOTH. What do you mean by gracefully ducking the recusal issue? Mr. STEINER. The illusion here, Senator, is not to the recusal issue. The illusion is to questions concerning the Treasury-White House contacts. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Do you mean to tell me avoiding answering questions on the issue when you say you're ducking, is that what you mean? Mr. STEINER. Senator Senator FAIRCLOTH. Give me your description of ducking a question. Mr. STEINER. Senator, as I said, I think Mr. Altman was truthful in his testimony before you. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Is truthful and ducking consistent in testimony? Mr. STEINER. I think Mr. Altman was asked a question which he did not anticipate, and he answered in a way that allowed him to convey the information in the clearest possible way that be could. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Steiner, if I might, what question are you referring to that he did not anticipate? Mr. STEINER. I believe he was asked about Treasury-White House contacts. Senator D'AMATO. Would it change your mind if you were to know that the evening before, in a conversation with me, that I had advised him that we would be asking him directly what contacts he had, and Treasury bad, with the White House. Were you aware of that phone conversation I had with Mr. Altman? Mr. STEINER. No, I was not, Senator. Senator D'AMATO. Would that change your mind? If I told him, the evening before, we are going to a askwhat contacts you, or Treasury, or your staff, and the staff I at the White House have bad. 350 Senator FAIRCLOTH. And you're telling me that he gracefully ducked the questions. He knew what was going to be asked. Mr. STEINER. Well, Senator Senator FAIRCLOTH. The whole thing is, be knew what he was going to be asked. He wasn't surp rised. And you're saying that he very gracefully ducked. So, in other words, I don't know, make a distinction between ducking and lying? Mr. STEINER. Senator, if I were to describe that testimony today, I would undoubtedly choose different words. Senator FAIRCLOTH. What now? Mr. STEINER. If I were to describe the testimony today Senator FAIRCLOTH. I'm sure of that. I've never doubted that. Lord have mercy. I knew you'd use different words today, But you tell me the difference between ducking and lying? Mr. STEINER. Senator, as I said before, I do not believe that Mr, Altman lied or attempted to mislead this Committee. I believe he spoke truthfully and to the best of his knowledge.
August 2, 1994 - Part 8
(19:10:37) Senator BOXER. OK. Because, Mr. Chairman, I think it's an important point here that should be made that this was a woman in .a very high position, and if she went to the White House, she didn't always have to be under strict instruction from Mr. Altman and, as he said she didn't only report to him. Now I have one question about what we saw on the videotape. I'm not sure it's necessary that we see it again, Mr. Chairman, but ,let me try to because 'we saw it twice, I think everyone will remember. The question is asked were there any other meetings besides the one that you talked about that you know of attended by anyone in the Treasury or the RTC or whatever the exact words are. looked to me like you turned to Ms. Hanson at that point, she looks like she's shaking her head no. Do you remember what you asked her when you made that quick turn to her? Mr. ALTMAN, I believe that I had finished my answer to Senator Bond's question, which was "not to my knowledge" and I believe I leaned back and said, in effect, "tbat's right, isn't it," or perhaps said there were no such meetings, were there, but she confirmed my answer. Senator BOXER. I think that's very important, Mr. Chairman, because when I watched this tape, I believe that Mr. Altman looks 474 to her just at the point of that question, she appears to shake her bead no, and as I understand it, Mr. Altman remembers now that he double-checked that question with her. Now, what happened after that meeting is she says she knew you hadn't given complete testimony and she couldn't do anything about it because she couldn't get the transcript from the Committee, Do you remember anything about her asking you, saying to you "Roger" or 'Mr. Altman" or whatever she-or "boss" or whatever she called you, did she' Mr. ALTMAN. "Roger." Senator BOXER. Did she say to you, "Roger, I'm having trouble getting this transcript from the Committee, and I think it's very important that we make these changes," do you have any recollection of that? Mr. ALTMAN. No, she did not do that, Senator. If I can also say so, if I can also say, nor did anyone else. There were quite a number of Senator BOXER. I don't want to get into other people because she's told this Committee under oath that this was a priority for her. She couldn't understand why she couldn't get this transcript. She also said that when she prepared these notes that said that you never told her to go to the White House, that in fact when she prepared it, that was her recollection then, but then several months later under questioning by Ethics, she suddenly remembers that, in fact, you bad told her so. I thank you for your answers. Mr. ALTMAN. Thank you, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Who is next on your side? Senator Roth. Senator ROTH. Mr. Chairman, first for the purposes of the record, I would like to make reference to the Office of Government Ethics Report, which was issued on Sunday. Mr. Altman, on a number of occasions, has referred to that report as clearing his actions. So I think it is important to see just exactly what the OGE report says. For example, regarding the September 29 meeting-let me quote the report. It says, "it is unclear from the report what Mr. Altman's role in the disclosure of September 29 may have been. He stated that he does not recall having told Ms. Hanson to make the disclo- sure to Mr. Nussbaum, and be does not recall having received Ms. Hanson's memorandum of September 30. "Ms. Hanson's memorandum to him noting the completion of the task she felt he bad directed does not provide assistance in analyzing what his state of mind may have been at the time any direction may have been given." Then it goes on to say, "we feel there is insufficient information to enable us to provide you with any further analysis of Mr. Altman's participation in this disclosure, if any." The point I'm making is that the report does not give the clearcut clearance that Mr. Altman seemed to be claiming.
1973 - Watergate Hearings - James McCord
Camera points at Chief Counsel, Samuel Dash, while U.S. Senator Howard Baker (R-TN) says: "At that point. I take it that that is second hand information." U.S. Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC): "That is, that is testimony he says that his lawyer told him that [William] Bittman has said. Of course, as far as Bittman is concerned and the White House is concerned, it's hearsay, but his own lawyer acknowledges. It's admissible." Sen. Baker: "I entirely agree, Mr. Chairman. The point I'm making is I want to separate the wheat from the chaff. And what his lawyer told him clearly is primary evidence. But his lawyer told him that someone else told him, is clearly hearsay evidence. And once again, while I'm not trying to exclude it, I wish simply to identify it as we go along." James McCord: "I believe I stated it, sir, as it occurred, which was this was a statement of Mr. [Gerald] Alch. My statement was that Mr. Alch finally came back, took me aside, and said that Mr. Bittman..." Video disruption.
JFK Assassination Hearings - Dr. James Barger & the Zapruder film
(01:01:22) Opens at the end of an explanation by Dr. JAMES BARGER using a map of Dealey Plaza how he can identify soundwaves from a tape of the JFK assassination as belonging to each of four bullets fired (01:01:49) Representative CHRISTOPHER DODD confirms with Barger that in 1963 the same tests could have been conducted reaching the same results, Dodd then asks what evidence there is that the third recorded impulse was a rifle shot - Barger responds that the loudness of the impulse suggest this is what it was and also the interpretation of the soundwave that suggests there was a shockwave which preceded the impulse, as a supersonic rifle shot would produce (01:06:20) Dodd asks about the lack of shock waves preceding the first two impulses - Barger explains the motorcycle microphone at that point would not have been in position to have picked up these shockwaves (01:07:15) Dodd asks how Barger reached his original probability percentage of 50% chance that there was a forth shot - Barger gives a self-defined "long winded" explanation (01:14:20) Chairman LOUIS STOKES recognizes Representative FLOYD FITHIAN, Fithian quotes from Barger's earlier testimony in September that his probability factor of 50% could not be improved with further tests, Fithian wants to know how Barger has come to change his mind - Barger gives a long reponse which summed up was that he had not thought of the analytical method MARK WEISS came up with to work with Barger's data (01:20:15) Fithian asks what would critics find fault with in this conclusion that there was a forth shot - Barger explains that because there is a lack of data certain assumptions have to be made based on probability factors, this he says could be a source of criticism, but that there is no better way to do what he, Weiss and ERNEST ASCHKENASY did (01:24:11) Stokes recognizes Representative ROBERT EDGAR, Edgar asks after bumbling about with various numbers and statistics how Barger could be 95% sure there was a forth shot - Barger gives a long, mathematical explanation of how he came up with this probability percentage (01:30:55) Edgar and Barger further discuss probability rates, first they discuss doing "statistical validation" tests in which gun shots in similar enviroments would be fired and recorded and the soundwave results would be compared to Weiss and Aschkenasy's findings, next they discuss what effect wind and temperature would have had on the 95% probability rate in both Barger's tests and the conclusions of Weiss and Aschkenasy (01:36:04) Stokes recognizes Barger's opportunity to suppliment his testimony - Barger takes the time to thank his research assisstants and Chief Counsel Professor ROBERT BLAKEY for his scientific approach to the hearings (01:39:07) Stokes recognizes Blakey, Blakey gives a long summary/review of the scientific evidence thus far and all the different directions it points, in particular he explains the scientific conclusions regarding where and when the bullets were fired, their trajectories, how they caused the various injuries to the victims in the limosine and how many were responsible for the injuries, Blakey also talks about integrating the various scientific evidence, in particular the acoustic evidence with the Zapruder film, to help the committee reach a conclusion about the possibility of a shot coming from the grassy knoll and hitting JFK (01:52:20) Blakey segues to a showing of the Zapruder film with a recording of Dr. Barger's acoutic tests of gun shots in Dealey Plaza incorporated as a sound track, he explains there will be two versions of the film shown, one that synchs the possible grassy knoll shot to the explosion of JFK's head, and the other which synchs the last book depository shot to the explosion of JFK's head (01:55:35) Blakey warns sensitive viewers to turn away now (01:56:20) Lights out (01:56:45) Film rolls, the image is pretty grainy and dark, there are four takes of the actual assassination, the two different sound track scenarios each get played to both a long shot of the limosine and a close-up - none of the films are very impressive and the image is so poor and film so fast no drama is felt from the actions or gun shot sounds, also the camer shot cuts to the projector in the middle of one take (01:58:18) Lights on, Blakey returns to the podium and gives a summary of other testimony that was supposed to have been heard at the day's hearings but due to time limits now cannot be: first he says that Dr. MICHAEL BADEN speaker for the committee appointed forensic pathology panel would have testified that he stands by his findings that only one bullet hit JFK's head and that it came from behind, second, Blakey says that Michigan state police examined JFK's limosine in the motorcade, that is now in their possession, for bullet holes but they could find nothing, third, Blakey says the committee consulted its expert engineering consultant about whether or not it was possible for the bullet that hit JFK's head to have come from the book depository based on its trajectory, Blakey says the response was no, but his explanation is cut off by the end of the tape
July 19, 1995 - Part 2
(11:40:10) Senator BENNETT. Did I characterize that correctly? All right. Ili the background, then, of those statements, let me read to you from Mr. Nussbaum's deposition what happened that night, You've said, appropriately, you weren't there, you were, as you've indicated to Senator Moseley-Braun, with the family, but this is what happened. there that night, according to Mr. Nussbaum. Picking up on page 33 of his deposition, and I will not read everybit of it, but I believe I've got the essence of it. I decided to go to my office to call members of my staff to try to reach some people to let them know what happened before the news became widespread. I recall walking from the residence directly to my office, The door was open. As I walked into the suite, I noticed a light on in Foster's office, and I turned to walk into Foster's office, seeing the light, and I saw Maggie Williams and Patsy Thomasson. Question: What were they doing? Answer: Maggie was sitting on a sofa crying and Patsy was sitting behind Vince's desk. Question: Doing what? Answer: Looking at the top of the desk. I said, what are you doing here, and Patsy said- Maggie didn't say anything-Patsy said, I'm looking to see if he left a note. I said, that occurred to me also on the way over, which it did. Indeed, I was going to go in and look for a note. I said, well, actually, that occurred to me, too, and Patsy also said-1 said we just arrived. We're looking for a note. We just arrived. I'm looking for a note, I said, well, that occurred to me also, and I went over to stand next to her, and we looked on top of the desk, and we looked around, just sort of eyeballing the room. We opened a number of drawers in the desk. We saw nothing. There were a lot of papers on his desk and it ended. It concluded. That cursory search for the note ended, We were looking for something obvious. At least I was looking for something obvious, a letter on the desk to whom it may concern, designed to be found. We didn't see anything there. We chatted briefly about what a tragedy it was, and we got up and left together. That's Mr. Nussbaum's description of what happened that night. This is an office where there are files of the White House Counsel. Someone of the stature of the White House Counsel is someone you suggest should be the one to be searching, the police should not be allowed to roam willy-nilly through that office, yet Mr. Nussbaum shows up and it never occurs to him to even suggest there's anything wrong with Patsy Thomasson sitting behind Mr. Foster's desk looking at the papers on his desk and ultimately opening the drawers in his desk. Now, the question I have for you in that circumstance, and I think you are qualified to answer it, perhaps better than anybody, is who is Patsy Thomasson? Why would her presence be accepted by the White House Counsel as a normal matter of course in this circumstance that it would never occur to him to even ask Why she's there, other than to accept her statement she's there to look for a note, and he says I'll look with you, and together they go through the drawers of the desk of a man that, in your phrase, has the files of the White House Counsel in it? It's extraordinary to me that the White House Counsel accepted her presence in this fashion, but I don't know who she is. I don't know what her relationship to this thing is. You have the background with her in the cam- 113 paign. You had the background with her in this circumstance. Can you tell the Committee who Patsy Thomasson is? Mr. HUBBELL. I know some parts of Patsy's background. I know she worked in the campaign. I know she was the Chairman of the Arkansas Highway Commission. I know she had worked for several Senators and Governors, and I know she worked in the campaign in the transition and was an Assistant to the President of the United, States and the Chief Deputy to David Watkins, who was in charge of the building itself and getting the light bulbs changed, so to speak, Senator BENNETT. Did she have a White House pass at the time she did this? Obviously she had a White House pass. Did she have a security clearance? Mr. HUBBELL. I do not know. Somebody said she did not. I did not know that. Senator BENNETT. You said she worked in the campaign. What did she do in the campaign? Mr. HUBBELL, I think she worked for David in running the administration of the campaign, but I'm not sure. I did not have any dealings with Patsy during the campaign. I worked with others. Senator BENNETT. So I was wrong in assuming you could shed some light. The Arkansas Highway Department doesn't help a whole lot in this context. Why would she be the logical first person to be in Vince Foster's office? Can you help us at all?
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(11:30:42) Mr. STEINER. "The White House may feel defenseless prior to the appointment of a new CEO." Senator D'AMATO. "The White House may feel defenseless." I'd SU gest to you that that dovetails exactly with what Senator Shelby has been talking about. You stated that the first reason for Altman to stay on the case was so that the White House wouldn't feel defenseless. Was it your view that the White House wanted Altman to stay on as a defender Of the President? 390 Mr. STEINER. No, it was not. Senator DAMATO. Isn't that what that indicates, that the White House would feel "defenseless?" Mr. STEINER. Senator, I believe that refers to a comment made by Mr. Nussbaum to the effect Senator DAMATO. That's a comment-that the White House would feel "defenseless." Think about that. Mr. STEINER. Senator, if I might- Senator D'AMATO. No, I don't want anymore. You're going into a filibuster. Mr. STEINER. You've asked me a question, Senator, and I'd like to answer it. Senator DAMATO. I'll take your answer. I took it. In your,, discussion Mr. STEINER. Thank you. Senator, I wasn't complete-I'd like to complete it, if I might. Senator DAMATO. I only have 7 minutes and I'm going to control. my 7 minutes. Mr. STEINER. It makes it difficult to answer questions if I can't complete them. Senator DAMATO. Your instructions with Secretary Altman The CHAIRMAN. Let me-are you appealing to be able to respond to that particular point? If you're directing an appeal to me Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I make that as an observation and not as a question, OK I'm going to state that given the manner in which you have continued to come up with answers that obfuscate the truth, then I don't even want you to respond to that. Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. There's plenty of time here and I appreciate passions can run high, but this witness, as all witnesses in my view, deserve an opportunity to respond when a statement is made that they disagree with. Senator D'AMATO. If you could attempt to respond in an expeditious manner, I'd appreciate it. Mr. STEINER. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Altman, when he returned from the February 2 meeting, relayed to me the fact that, I have said to you before, that Mr. Nussbaum was concerned that in Mr. Altman's absence, the RTC, which had a reputation for being a partisan institution might carry out this investigation in a partisan fashion. This reference was to that conversation. At no time did Mr. Nussbaum say to me or, to the best of my knowledge, did he'., say to Mr. Altman that he wanted Mr. Altman to defend anyone. Senator D'AMATO. OK I note your words and they're your words, "the White House may feel defenseless prior to the appointment or a new CEO." That's in the record and I note that for the record. Let me ask you one other question: In your discussions with Secretary Altman and Treasury officials, wasn't concern expressed about the awkwardness of filing suits against the Clintons? Mr. STEINER. I believe it was, yes. Senator DAMATO. Now, let me go to this question of the diary, second page. You wrote this 2 days after the event took place: Harold and George then called to say that BC was furious. They also asked Jay Stephens, the former U.S. Attorney, had been hired to be Outside Counsel On the case. Simply outrageous that the RTC had hired him. But even more amazing, when George then suggested to me that we needed to find a way to get rid of him 391 That's a very clear, precise message. It's not a message that he simply complained. "We needed to find a way to get rid of him." "Even more amazing," you say. Words have meaning, Mr. Steiner, don't come here now and say that was just an impression. And let me suggest this, that that's backed up by the testimony that was given by Jean Hanson. Let me tell you what she says. She says about recalling a conversation with you, you said do you believe that the they want to see if they can get rid of Jay Stephens, everyone agreed and understood that that was ridiculous. Let me suggest that your diary comports exact] with the testimony of independent witnesses, over and over and over. again and yet, you would have us believe now that your diary is inaccurate. That article that appeared in today's Washington Post, someone had some real insight into your restructuring of your testimony, unfortunately, The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dodd. Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We can go back to the diary, back and forth in different people's interpretations of what it means. That's the purpose in having this hearing. I view our role up here not as prosecutors and defense attorneys but as a Committee, required, under a resolution passed by the U.S. Senate, to try and determine whether or not there were any acts of impropriety or illegality in the relationship dealing with contacts and the unfortunate suicide of Mr. Foster.
LAWMAKERS
WETA "LAWMAKERS" 7/22/1982 IN 01.00.00 01.00.00-WETA credit/sponsor credits 01.00.23-PAUL DUKE-on program: interview with REAGAN. COKIE ROBERTS-REAGAN visits CAPITOL HILL to push for BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT. 01.00.44-Title Sequence 01.01.11-DUKE-REAGAN returned to Capitol Hill to do what he does best, sell Congress on his plans; has proved "a master salesman" since taking office. In 1982, using his veto to pressure CONGRESS to adopt his spending goals. 01.01.44-DUKE with REAGAN in WHITE HOUSE LIBRARY for interview. DUKE asks REAGAN about his "mastery" of the legislative branch. REAGAN acts humble and "aw shucks", says his experience in California in dealing with opposition legislatures was helpful, touts the success of his reforms in California, gives lip service to "coequal branches" theory of government, says he meets often with the leaders in House and Senate, more than most other Presidents have. DUKE asks if REAGAN'S ACTING is a good skill in dealing with Congress. REAGAN acts humble, dodges the question, thanks the Republican leaders in House and Senate, says that there is a large WHITE HOUSE STAFF for CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS, that "makes Congress aware" of Reagan's positions. REAGAN makes it sound like mutual consultation [others might call it intimidation, coercion, etc.]. 01.05.22-DUKE tries to get past the "aw shucks" front, asks if REAGAN uses "politics of affability" as a tool. REAGAN refuses to be pressed, says he just likes people, etc. Says he's elected to represent "all the people", and he tries to convince the legislators to go for the good of the whole country. DUKE tries to bait REAGAN into saying something controversial by mentioning the "hypocrisy" in Congress of members who are willing to cut any program except one in their district. REAGAN has a chuckle at this, but still portrays himself as a positive consensus builder rather than a hardball politician. 01.08.22-DUKE asks if it's a question of give and take on part of REAGAN and the Congress. REAGAN agrees. DUKE says that the press was surprised by REAGAN'S skill as a politician and his competitiveness in the "warfare between Capitol Hill and the White House". REAGAN ("aw, shucks") denies that there is "warfare" with Congress, says he just tries to convince his opponents that he's right. DUKE presses, REAGAN stonewalls. DUKE asks about the knack of timing in calling in favors with Congress. REAGAN says that he can't be on top of everything, his staff handles the details of committee votes and floor votes etc. [Here REAGAN actually manages to make his disregard for the "dirty work" aspect of politics seem like a virtue-no one sees Deaver and Meese cutting deals behind the scenes]. Acknowledges that his experiences as Governor of California helped, goes into vague generalities about knowing when to call in favors, but on the level of "common sense", rather than describing how he might find a particular congressman's weakness and exploit it to win a vote [Deaver's job, REAGAN allowed to keep his hands clean]. 01.11.02-DUKE continues to try to break REAGAN'S "aw shucks" act, without success. REAGAN gives very short answers to long questions. DUKE confronts REAGAN with criticisms by his opponents-i.e. that he's WEAK on matters of SUBSTANCE, doesn't WORK hard, and has very SIMPLISTIC views of the issues. REAGAN takes these comments in stride, says he doesn't think the criticisms are justified, says that his constant use of ANECDOTES to explain his positions saves time [and thinking, too], switches the subject to say that he recently had a meeting with leaders of Congress to explain his position on possibly sending TROOPS to the MIDDLE EAST, trying to suggest that he's not trying to pull any fast ones on Congress. 01.13.49-DUKE presses REAGAN further, mentions the criticism that REAGAN sees only a simplistic "big picture" of issues. REAGAN says he does know the importance of details, but he has to sell the big picture to Congress. DUKE challenges REAGAN with charges that his staff are arrogant and dictatorial in dealing with Congress. REAGAN says the criticisms are unwarranted, says that opponents always want to believe in a "palace guard" [NANCY REAGAN and MIKE DEAVER] operating without the President's knowledge, but he always wants to stay on top of the actions of his staff. Says that he hasn't delegated too much authority. 01.16.35-DUKE asks about the balance between Congress and the White House, notes that the WHITE HOUSE often undermines the deals that REPUBLICANS make with DEMOCRATS in Congress. REAGAN says it's just part of the process, and the President belongs in that process, cites the BUDGET as an example. DUKE asks if more VETOS are on the way, REAGAN says he will veto any APPROPRIATIONS bill that is a "BUDGET BUSTER". DUKE asks whether REAGAN'S policies are going to hurt REPUBLICANS in elections. REAGAN plays off the danger, says that the President's party always loses seats in an off-year election. DUKE asks REAGAN to comment on his relationship with TIP O'NEILL. REAGAN says their battles are not personal, or even "political", but a question of philosophy about the role of government, and "come 6 o'clock, we're friends". DUKE thanks REAGAN.
Waco Hearings - DAY 8
WACO HEARINGS: 8:30AM - - Master Number 10983 - INTRODUCTION: The following footage of the Waco Hearings consists of Day #8 opening statements from Congressman McCollum, Zeliff and Schumer and Congresswoman Thurman, in addition to, the introduction and subsequent questioning of the sixteenth group of panelists. They are: Judge William Sessions; former Director of the FBI, Floyd Clark; former Deputy Director of the FBI, Webster Hubbell; Associate Attorney General, Marc Richard; Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the FBI's Criminal Division, Larry Potts; Former Assistant Director of the FBI's Criminal Investigation Division and Doctor Harry Salem; Chief Scientists for Life Sciences at the US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command. Questions, and or statements are presented to the panelists from Representatives: Bryant, Thurman, Chabot and Scott. 08:29:05 Fresh footage shows the Sub-Committee Chamber in recess. 08:48:20 Chairman McCollum reconvenes the hearings beginning Day 8. 08:48:50 Chairman McCollum begins his opening statement. 08:52:07 Chairwoman Thurman asks that her opening statement be entered into the record. 08:52:25 Congressman Zeliff begins his opening statement. 08:56:52 Congressman Schumer begins his opening statement. 0903:25 Chairman McCollum introduces the sixteenth group of panelists. They are: Judge William Sessions; former Director of the FBI, Floyd Clark; former Deputy Director of the FBI, Webster Hubbell; Associate Attorney General, Marc Richard; Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the FBI's Criminal Division, Larry Potts; Former Assistant Director of the FBI's Criminal Investigation Division and Doctor Harry Salem; Chief Scientists for Life Sciences at the US Army Chemical and Biological Defense Command. Chairman McCollum swears the panelists in. 09:04:41 Congressman Bryant begins his time by making several statements concerning the FBI's monitoring of the surveillance tapes, and the fact that agents were not able to determine the Davidians were preparing to set a fire. Rep. Bryant then asks Doctor Salem if CS-Gas would have debilitated the Davidian children, thus, preventing their escape from the compound. He replies there is no difference in the types of affects CS-Gas has on adults as opposed to children, and then states CS-Gas does not affect cognitive skills. Turning then to Mr. Hubbell and Judge Sessions, Congressman Bryant asks what convinced the Attorney General to reconsider the gas insertion plan. Judge Sessions replies that a meeting took place in Mr. Hubbell's office where he was informed that the Attorney General struck down the plan. Continuing on, Judge Sessions asserts that he appealed the decision fearing there was a political motive behind it. He then tells how the Attorney General joined the meeting to discuses the matter. Mr. Hubbell confirms Judge Sessions's comments. 09:11:25 Congresswoman Thurman begins her time by asking Doctor Salem if he would like to comment on the claim made by Congressman McCollum that he has not been published on the issue of CS-Gas. He replies by restating previous testimony concerning his credentials, and is then asked if any misinformation has been presented during the hearings. Doctor Salem responds that he would need time to think about the question. Rep. Thurman then asks Judge Sessions if the April 14th surrender letter was in fact such a letter, if it was forwarded to experts and or if the White House was told of it. He replies he doesn't recall any such letter. Turning then to Mr. Potts, Rep. Thurman asks him to explain. He replies the letter wasn't an actual "surrender letter," rather a claim that a manuscript would be written. He adds that Judge Sessions never received the document, rather it was presented to the FBI Command Center in Washington. Judge Sessions interjects to state that he knew the letter existed at the Command Center, but never knew it as an offer of surrender. Turning then to Mr. Clark, Rep. Thurman asks him to detail his meeting with Agent Jamar on April 7th and 8th in Waco. He replies by describing how he wanted to gain a personal perspective on the types of stresses occurring at Waco. 09:20:07 Congressman Chabot begins his time by responding to Congressman Schumer's opening statement concerning the politicization of the hearings. He then yields his remaining time. 09:20:42 Congressman Bryant begins his time by asking Mr. Hubbell of his association with the President concerning Waco. He replies no such relationship existed until April 19th. He adds that before April 19th contact with the President was made via Stuart Gresham, and after the Attorney General's appointment via White House Council appointees. Continuing on, Mr. Hubbell states that the President was briefed by the Attorney General the Sunday prior to the April 19th raid. Pressing the issue, Congressman Bryant asks Mr. Hubbell if Waco was ever brought up in personal conversations with the President. He replies no. Judge Sessions is then asked about the report that alleges agents were growing tired near the end of the siege. He replies that fatigue had been a factor in determining the timing of the second raid, but stresses not a deciding one. 09:27:50 Congressman Scott begins his time by asking Judge Sessions if the Exclusionary Rule should be "watered down." He replies law enforcement openingly accepts their role of applying the law, and then asserts that the Exclusionary Rule is needed. Rep. Scott then . . . 09:30:52 TIME OUT.
August 2, 1994 - Part 8
(18:29:15)(tape #10072 begins) Senator DODD. I don't think any of our colleagues are afraid of asking embarrassing questions. Senator D'AMATO. If I could The CHAIRMAN. Let's do this Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Chairman 467 Senator DAMATO. Fine;. Let me say this. My colleagues have been very patient. We will return to this question. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Good. Senator DAMATO. I thank them for their patience, but I'd like the question answered eventually. Senator BOXER. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee now will take a 10-minute recess and when we resume, Senator Bryan will be recognized. The Committee stands in recess. (18:29:45) [Recess.] (18:29:47) Commentary hearing hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG from tv studio, they also talk to J. WILLIAM CORDINHA (?) Majority Counsel (18:49:11) Hearing resumes: The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume. Let me invite everyone to find a seat and we'll begin with Senator Bryan of Nevada. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me make an observation or two before I get into my line of questions. This is our third day. It's late in the evening, and what strikes me, in retrospect, is how avoidable all of this was. It's clear from the evidence before us that neither the President nor anyone in the White House or this Administration in any way tried to interfere with the course of the investigation or referral process that relates to the RTC. The Office of Government Ethics has opined that there was no violation of any ethical standards, and I must say what I find particularly regrettable, in my view, is in my dealings with this Administration that the Treasury Department was and is really one of the shining stars. I think its focus in terms of reexamining some of the burdens that we've placed on business, its receptiveness to new approaches, its responsiveness has been something that I've found most gratifying, So being left with this very difficult situation that we deal with this evening, I think, is particularly unfortunate. Mr. Altman, I think you were placed, as I said in my opening statement last Friday night, in an untenable position. You were asked to wear two hats, you were dancing back and forth across this line which a lot of us felt was perhaps more carefully crafted from a legislative perspective, that is to keep the RTC separate and apart from the Treasury Department. So I acknowledge that you were in a very difficult situation. I guess at this juncture we're really here to-much as a jury to ascertain what the facts are. Let me tell you some of the things that trouble me. You go back to March 23, 1993, and Mr. Roelle indicates that he talked with you and informed you about the Madison referrals. You've indicated that you have no recollection, but I must say that circumstantially I find it more than just a bit curious that on that day and the following day two articles from The New York Times are faxed to Mr. Nussbaum. Let me be clear, I don't think there is any violation in terms of sending those articles to anyone, but I do find that there is at least some probative value, some circumstantial evidence, that would tend to bear out Mr. Roelle. Then we get down to the September 29 meeting at the White House. Ms. Hanson says that you're the one that asked her to set that up and you say that you did not do so, that you do not know how she may have reached that conclusion in a colloquy with initially Senator SARBANES. and later with other Members, concede 468 that there may have been some inference that she may have drawn, but you do not really understand how she could have reached that conclusion. Then on October 6, Mr. Roelle testifies that, indeed, he was privy to a conversation that you requested Hanson to set up a meeting at the White House on the 14th of October and you indicate that you do not have a recollection of that conversation. Senator Kerry probed you on that. I must say in trying to determine who is the most credible among those who are testifying to what I understand are many, many different dates, and many conversations and fact patterns, I'm beginning to see a pattern here that's troublesome. Then we move to the question of the testimony before this Committee on the 24th and I must say, Mr. Altman, I don't think that you were very forthright on that. Then we deal with the question of recusal, and I must say that was not in my judgment one of your finest hours. So let me focus for a bit here on the recusal process, and what you yourself were thinking as you were trying to make your decision ultimately made on the 25th of February. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, may I take 30 seconds? Senator BRYAN. You may, indeed. Mr. ALTMAN. I want to try to express myself better. I don't recall the March 1993, discussion with Mr. Roelle, but it may have happened. I'm not trying to say categorically it didn't. I just don't recall it. I think the salient point is no one has suggested that I imparted improper information to anyone. Senator BRYAN. And that is not at issue. Mr. ALTMAN. But, Senator Bryan, it may have happened. Now, I don't recall the other two you asked me about. And the one thing I feel strongly about, if I bad tasked Ms. Hanson to go there I think I would have remembered it. But seriously, it [the March 1993 discussion] may have happened. I'm not trying to suggest categorically it didn't. So I just wanted to clarify that in that respect. senator BRYAN. You understand that we who are trying to reconstruct what occurred obviously have to look at the totality of circumstances. I'm trying to be very candid with you, Mr. Altman. I mean I'm looking at this is cumulative evidence that comes and trying to determine who is being more truthful. I have to tell you that those are some concerns. Let me give you a chance to talk about the recusal process. If you can give me a time frame when did you first begin to, in your own mind, entertain the possibility that, look, maybe I ought to recuse myself? I'm asking you just a rough time frame, you may not recall the exact day but give me Mr. ALTMAN. It was right around the end of January when the question was beginning to be raised about Ricki Tigert's nomination, and the recusal issues related to her,
Reverend Jesse Jackson Addresses DNC
U.S. House Representative Geraldine Ferraro and District of Columbia Mayor Marion Barry seated, listening to Reverend Jesse Jackson say that justice cannot be ignored in the course of Democratic Party unity. Rev. Jackson states it is not enough for liberal people to have a wish list when it comes to voting rights. Fighting for the Equal Rights Amendment, jobs, health care, and justice is admirable, but secondary to the fight for voting rights. Citizens impeded from voting are disenfranchised and do not have their voices heard. Rev. Jackson continues talking about injustices in drugs and illegal immigration; noting that immigrants are not a drain on the economy, rather, they are subsidizing it. VS of adult Caucasian and African American males and females seated around banquet tables at DNC event, listening to Rev. Jackson speaking; adult African American man and Caucasian man standing on either side of Rev. Jackson.
Watergate Hearings - James McCord & Jack Caulfield
(03:22:01) Opens with testimony of JAMES McCORD reading from a statement he prepared for the committee in which he relays the facts about telephone call he recieved from JACK CAULFIELD at phone booth on Route 355 (03:23:30) Skip in footage - McCord still reading from a prepared statement about further phone conversations with Caulfield and his associates, and finally a meeting with him in Virginia on the George Washington Parkway (03:26:12) McCord gets a loud, unintended laugh from the press when he says Caulfield arrived claiming he had come from a Law Enforcement meeting in San Clemente CA - McCord says he was straight forward from the beginning of the meeting in telling Caulfield he was not going to seek executive clemency or give a guilty plea, which Caulfield had indeed come to offer, Caulfield said he was requested "from the very highest levels of the White House" to ask McCord to to accept clemency, McCord says he was informed that the results of this meeting were to be delivered to President Nixon, McCord adds that this was all during his trial (03:29:03) Two consecutive skips in footage - Chief Majority Counsel SAM DASH has McCord demonstrate on a phone how he bugs phones and asks him to identify a portable microphone taken as evidence upon McCord's arrest - McCord cracks a joke that he wants to make sure he won't be charged further for bugging this phone in court (03:31:16) McCord identifies the evidence as a radio transmitter which could be put in a phone, he goes ahead and does so with the phone Dash introduced exposing the phone's innards, he then explains that a receiver is all that is needed to pick up the transmission, and attention is turned to the receiver Dash has also entered as evidence and McCord identifies it as the one that was used to pick up the phone bugs' transmissions (03:34:00) McCord gives the specifics of the receiver - McCord and Dash discuss for the committee the method of picking up the transmission and specifics about its sensitivity and interaction with the phone (03:37:44) Skip in footage - JACK CAULFIELD giving background, he was a New York Police officer who ascended the ranks to the Bureau of Special Services where his duties consisted of monitoring the activities of terrorist organizations and protective services for VIPs, groups he investigated: Communist Party, Cuban nationalists, Leftist revolutonary groups, etc - Caulfield goes on to list the awards he won during his police service, all for actions against international terrorists, during this list he painfully cracks a joke that no one finds funny, he then begins to list his protective service assignments but is cut off by the tape's end
LAWMAKERS
16.12.49-M/S WRIGHT at outdoor press conference, jokes that he will welcome back all prodigal DEMOCRATS who voted for REAGANOMICS. C/S PHIL GRAMM on BUDGET COMMITTEE panel, C/S JACK KEMP. ROBERTS v.o.-GRAMM'S defection to the REAGANOMICS side hurt WRIGHT, because GRAMM won his committee assignment with WRIGHT'S assistance, maybe hurt WRIGHT'S chances to become SPEAKER. Split screen of TIP O'NEILL swearing in PHIL GRAMM to Congress after GRAMM won a special election as a REPUBLICAN. C/S former Rep. RICHARD BOLLING in office, says GRAMM'S defection hurts WRIGHT. Rep. MICHEL says that WRIGHT did his best with a difficult situation with GRAMM. C/S WRIGHT in office, says he may have used poor judgement in sponsoring such a CONSERVATIVE as GRAMM to a place of PARTY LEADERSHIP. Shots of WRIGHT greeting supporters in Texas, speaking at Campaign rally in Texas. Aerial of downtown FORT WORTH, showing new skyscrapers. 16.15.26-Shots of GENERAL DYNAMICS assembly plant, workers building airframes of F-16 fighters. ROBERTS v.o.-WRIGHT'S district gets as much DEFENSE CONTRACTING as any in the nation, and no TEXAS congressman can work against the OIL INDUSTRY for long. Shots of WRIGHT shaking hands with supporters. ROBERTS v.o.-most agree that WRIGHT does well at staying in touch with the people of the district. C/S RICHARD BOLLING in office, says WRIGHT has done a good job, especially since TEXAS politics are generally so much more CONSERVATIVE than the rest of the country. C/S Rep. CHARLES STENHOLM (D-TX) in office, says WRIGHT is not popular in STENHOLM'S district. C/S Rep. MICKEY LELAND (D-TX) says WRIGHT is well-liked in LELAND'S district. WRIGHT in office, says DEMOCRATIC PARTY in TEXAS is home to all political outlooks, from LELAND on the left to STENHOLM on the right. 16.17.28-Clip of 1976 "MacNeill Report" show, with DEMOCRATIC leadership contenders for position of MAJORITY LEADER. JIM LEHRER moderating the discussion asks WRIGHT what his leadership strategy will be, WRIGHT says he will lead by example and hard work. C/S WRIGHT in debate in Well of House, makes a procedural point, draws applause from DEMOCRATS. C/S ROBERT MICHEL, says WRIGHT'S debating style is somewhat theatrical. WRIGHT in debate, makes some grand gestures to the public. C/S LELAND says that in spite of his dramatic tendencies, WRIGHT always speaks sincerely in debate. C/S of WRIGHT in debate, quoting long verse of Kipling. C/S WRIGHT in office, says his father led him to a love of poetry. Stills of WRIGHT from childhood, adolescence, and as a WWII pilot with medals, with wife, with LBJ. Still of former SPEAKER SAM RAYBURN.
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE
WETA "CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE" IN 09.13.40-WETA credit/funding credits/title sequence-"Who Serves In Congress" 09.14.24-Shot of former Congressman Ken Holland says that he hoped to be a career Congressman. Shot of former Congressman Bill Brodhead, says he was happy to leave Congress. Former Rep. Floyd Fithian says he happily found there's life after Congress. Shots of interior of Rep. SILVIO CONTE'S spacious office, Host Ed Newman v.o.-a measure of a Congressman's career is how much territory he gets for himself. Conte is one of only a handful of Reps to get an office in the Capitol itself. Newman says that increasingly, members of Congress don't want careers in Congress. 09.16.12-Rep. CONTE (R-MA) in office, discussing the old Seniority system, how getting on the appropriations committee early on helped him to build a base. Shot of Conte in the Appropriations Committee. CONTE talks about his power base as a person who has lots of influence on the budget and can use his clout to get things he wants in deals with other committees. Shots of a town center in Conte's district, voters going to the polls. Conte says that politics has been a career for him. Photos of mid-19th Century Capitol. Portraits of 19th c. Congressmen. V.o.-in the days when Washington was neither comfortable nor convenient to live, it was not unusual for seats in Congress to turn over at a rate of 50% vacancy every election year. Portrait of early 1900's Speaker Joseph Cannon, still of House floor from 1910. 09.18.56-Congressional Researcher discusses the 1910 advent of the Seniority System, which allowed members to build careers on long service. Stills of 20th c. Congressmen. V.O.-Seniority reduced annual turnover to less than 20%. Stills of Sam Rayburn and Carl Smith. CONTE says that the system meant that members would become experts in specific areas and the other members would defer to their judgements. Conte says he has learned the nuts and bolts of government, but is learning every day. CONTE says that the old system had a spirit of camaraderie that is lacking today. Shots of meetings of Congressmen. CONTE jokes that if Moses were going to write the Ten Commandments today, every rookie Congressmen would stop him on the way to the mountain and try to add an amendment. 09.21.20-B/W Conte family pictures. CONTE says his family life has suffered because he has to go back to the District so often, and it's a tough choice for Congressmen to make. V.O.-this pressure, competition from other members, and the workload have taken a toll on career Congressmen. CONTE says he's not ready to quit, when the time comes, he'll step down, but it hasn't happened yet. 09.23.02
August 1, 1994 - Part 3
(14:05:36) Senator BOND. Could you give us, for the record, the names of the individuals involved in the meetings? Mr. ROELLE. It was in one of our normal meetings. Senator BOND. Which would include Mr. ROELLE. Let's see. Whoever-probably Rick Aboussie, who was our Acting General Counsel at the time, Lainar Kelly, who was the Senior Vice President, myself, who is a Senior Vice President, and maybe two or three other staff people from the RTC. I just don't recall who it may have been. Senator BOND aNY HIGHER LEVEL? 68 Mr. ROELLE. Ms. Johnnie Booker, who was our EEO and Minor-ity Officer. It would have included some Treasury people. I don't know-I can only tell you who attended those meetings. I just don't recall who was there at the meetings, but it could have been Mr. Newman, Mr. Steiner, Ms. Hanson, or Mr. Altman. Some Treasury staffers usually accompanied these people. At any one of our meetings it would not be unusual to have anywhere from five to seven , eight Treasury people and maybe five to seven or eight RTC peo ple. You could have 16 people at a meeting. Senator BOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I see my time is UP. The CHAiRmAN. Thank you, Senator Bond. Let me indicate that roll call is now taking place on the Senate floor Senator MACK. Mr. Chairman, I only have one question. We should be able to get it finished. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Mack, let me just take a minute. We've got about 6 minutes to get to the floor from right now. Senator MACK. This is directed to Mr. Katsanos. I understand you had a number of conversations with Jack DeVore, former Spokesman for Secretary Bentsen, about the Madison referrals in the fall of 1993. Drawing your attention to the second and third conversations you had with him, I understand that you knew of the October 14, 1993, meeting with Ms. Hanson and several White House officials. What was your, understanding of why this meeting, was taking place? Mr. KATSANOS. My knowledge of the meeting is really not very extensive. Jack DeVore had called me tip, He was preparing to exit the Treasury Department. I had spoken with him earlier in the month to alert him to the fact that some reporters were calling us concerning Madison Guaranty, the Rose Law Firm, and a number of issues relating to them, I bad told him the staff was having some disagreements on potential criminal referrals, and I thought this story could appear. He called me and told me he was getting ready to go over to the White House for a meeting and all he wanted to know was whether the referrals bad been sent and I acknowledged they bad been. Senator MACK, Did you get any sense about whether this was a press meeting or Mr. KATSANOS. It was my impression that he was going to meet with Mr. Gearan at the White House. I believe be's the Communications Director, and that was the only person he had mentioned would be at the meeting. Senator MACK. Didn't you think you should have been at that meeting? Mr. KATSANos. The White House is not my territory, sir. The CHAIRMAN, Thank you, Senator Mack, We're going to take a brief recess. I want to finish this panel so you can be done for the day. We can take a break after that, and bring Ms. Hanson on. I'm going to recess us now and we'll reconvene no later than 2:30 p.m. to try to finish up. So, if you can be ready to go at 2:30 p.m., we'll resume at that time. The Committee stands in recess. (14:09:27) [Recess.] (14:09:30) Commentary of NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE from tv studio, they also interview former Inspector General SHARMON FUNK (?) and Senator RICHARD SHELBY
August 9, 1995 - Part 2
(10:55:27) This appearance of impropriety standard, which is so much in vogue, today places the ultimate emphasis on how things look, or again more precisely, how they can be made to look, not whether they are right or wrong. Fear of appearing to do wrong prevents too many, in my view, from doing what is right. That is a prescription for weakness and paralysis. That is not the way I choose to live. I believe that no lawyer, no counsel, let alone a Counsel to the President, should shrink from his duty, from his professional obligations in order to protect his own image or standing. A lawyer should not-indeed ethically he cannot turn his back on his client because the political or media heat will be turned up because someone with an axe to grind or newspapers to sell may attempt to make totally proper conduct appear improper. But what about political judgment? Isn't the President a political figure? Shouldn't the President's Counsel be worried about the political impact, the public relations impact, the appearances of his advice and conduct? Of course he must. Of course he must exercise political judgment. Of course he must be concerned about appearances and public perceptions. And, as I said earlier, I too was concerned about appearances in July of 1993 when I disagreed with some of my senior fellow White House aides. But let me say something more fundamental. Let me say what I believed before I went to Washington and what I still believe after leaving Washington: When you are privileged, as I was, to hold high public office, ultimately-for me at least-the best public relations, the best political judgment requires adhering to the following principles. Do the right thing. Do the right thing. Realize that at times, your actions will be misunderstood, that you will be involved in conflict, that you will get bad press, very bad pressacknowledge your mistakes when they occur. Acknowledge your mistakes when they occur. No one is perfect, and mistakes do happen But if you acted correctly, defend yourself, defend yourself publicly and defend those around you in an open, honest and forthright manner. Be principled, be consistent and strong. Most important, when you get to the White House, as White House Counsel, worry less about tomorrow's headlines and more about the judgment of history. These tenets, these principles which we in the legal profession whether we're from New York, California or Florida or Washington or Arkansas or Illinois or Maryland or Massachusetts or Connecticut or Alabama or North Carolina or Utah or Alaska or Illinois or Washington-I said Illinois- and California, I said California The CHAIRMAN. You didn't miss anybody, Bernie. Mr. CHERTOFF. You left out New Jersey. Mr. NUSSBAUM. These principles, which we in the legal profession strive to obtain when we're at our best, are too often missing in Public life. They need to be retrieved and revived, and I believe--I fundamentally believe that in the long term, even the intermediate term, maybe not the short term-but even the inter 1214 mediate term, they not only make for good Government, they make for good politics. What it comes down to is that the President of the United States, above all, is entitled to have a lawyer in the White House who will be and act unafraid. Such a counsel will serve his client and his country far better than one who is overwhelmed by a concern for appearances or protecting his own image. That is the counsel I tried to be. And that is why I look back without regrets. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Members of the Commit tee. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nussbaum. We are now going to turn to Senator Hatch. Senator Hatch. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nussbaum, welcome to the Committee. We're happy you tool time to come today.
JFK Assassination Hearings - Dr. Michael Baden (Part IV)
(13:43:00) Preyers asks what happened to the metal fragments found in JFK's skull - Baden answers some were removed and eventually passed on to the National Archives (13:43:30) Preyer asks Baden about discrepancies between the Ramsey-Clark panel report and the Rockefeller report (both previous re-examinations of the JFK case) with the current panel's findings, in particular he asks about the Rockefeller report claim that a piece of metal was found in JFK's neck - Baden discounts this using JFK chest X-ray exhibits and giving a lenghthy explanation of their misguided interpretation of the X-rays to come to that conclusion (13:48:05) Preyer asks if bullet 399 could have nicked JFK's vertebrae and left such a neat exit wound in JFK's throat - Baden answers yes and explains (13:49:42) Preyer asks about a discrepancy between the Ramsey-Clark report and the current committee's findings with where they identified the location of the bullet's exit wound out JFK's neck - Baden discounts this discrepancy with the introduction of exhibits of images of the neck injuries as a mistake by the Ramsey-Clark forensic pathologists in transferring data from evidence to a report (13:51:45) Preyer asks if the panel conducted any experiments, particularly to find out if bullet 399, "the pristene bullet", was possible - Baden gives a long explanation as to why the panel agreed, with the exception of Dr. CYRIL H. WECHT, not to conduct any experiments, the crux of which is what Baden claims as the impossibility of recreating a one time event that has limitless factors in determining its unique outcome, bullets' paths he says are never exactly the same and can be changed by the slightest of influences
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of John Caulfield. May 23, 1973
Mr. Sam DASH. Mr. Caulfield, because your statement was a lengthy one and there was a recess over the evening, let me seek to briefly summarize the essential highlights of your statement that you gave to the committee and please correct me if anything I say is not consistent with your understanding of your statement. In December of 1972 you received an unsigned note which you understood came from Mr. McCord, which complained of a White House effort to blame CIA for the Watergate and threatened that "all the trees in the forest will fall" if this effort continued. In early January 1972 while you were in California, you received a telephone call from John Dean from Washington asking you to deliver the following message to Mr. Dean (Mr. McCord) 1) A year is a long time, 2) your wife and family will be taken care of, 3) you will be rehabilitated with employment when this is over. You did not want to deliver the message, but you thought that it could be delivered through Mr. Tony Ulasewicz and Mr. Dean agreed to do it that way. Mr. John CAULFIELD. Mr. Dash, can I interrupt a second? Mr. DASH. Yes. Mr. CAULFIELD. The correct pronunciation is Ulasewicz. Mr. DASH. Ulasewicz. Mr. CAULFIELD. Yes sir. Mr. DASH. Alright. You did call Mr. Ulasewicz and you asked him to deliver this message and although he himself at first was reluctant, he did agree to deliver the message and he did call Mr. McCord and reported back to you that Mr. McCord appeared satisfied and you reported this to Mr. Dean. The following day you received another call from Mr. Dean informing you that McCord wanted to see you when you returned to Washington. You had Ulasewicz arrange the meeting which was set for Friday January 12th at the second overlook on the George Washington Parkway. In substance you emphasized that you were only a messenger, that the offer you were conveying of executive clemency was from the highest levels of the White House and that it was a sincere offer. McCord s response in substance was that he wanted his complete freedom and even suggested a plan which involved proving that the government had wire-tapped his telephone calls, that he had made two telephone calls to foreign embassy's whose phones he'd believed were wire-tapped. You do not recall saying anything about the president to Mr. McCord, but you did transmit an offer of executive clemency to Mr. McCord which you told him came from the highest levels of the White House. You reported this meeting to Mr. Dean on the telephone. The following day you met with Mr. Dean and he told you to go back to Mr. McCord and impress upon him as fully as you could that the offer of executive clemency was a sincere offer. And when you asked if you should mention any names, such as the president he said "no", but told you that you should say that the offer came "from way up top".
LAWMAKERS
WETA "LAWMAKERS" 3/01/1984 IN 19.57.53-WETA credit/sponsor credits/title sequence 19.58.42-PAUL DUKE/COKIE ROBERTS/LINDA WERTHEIMER-on program: Senate hearings on ED MEESE nomination to Attorney General, House hearings on ELECTION COVERAGE and POLLING as an influence on elections. 19.59.35-Still of MEESE and REAGAN from California days. B/W film clips of sit-ins and STUDENT UNREST. REAGAN liked MEESE as a "law and order" type who "dealt" with unrest [rather harshly]. Still of MEESE and REAGAN from 1980's. L/S of WASHINGTON MONUMENT from National Mall. Shot of MEESE walking through airport. Shots of MEESE in a meeting of REAGAN ADVISORS. C/S MEESE. DUKE v.o.-lists some controversial aspects of MEESE'S policies, including TAX EXEMPTIONS FOR SEGREGATED PRIVATE SCHOOLS and attempts to weaken CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS, his statement that hunger is not a problem in America, and doubts about his financial dealings. Shots of students in a large auditorium, all reading Bibles. Shot of mostly African-American men entering a SOUP KITCHEN. Shot of MEESE in casual conversation with REAGAN. 20.01.02-Shots of SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING to confirm MEESE for ATTORNEY GENERAL position. C/S Sen. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), tells MEESE that he had better be "the people's lawyer" and not REAGAN'S lawyer. C/S HOWARD METZENBAUM (D-OH) says that MEESE'S loyalty to REAGAN is a liability to Attorney General's duties. C/S MEESE at witness table, says he will uphold the traditions of service, independence, and integrity as attorney general. C/S Sen. ALAN SIMPSON (R-WY), warning MEESE that DEMOCRATS are going to try to attack him, proceeds to praise MEESE. 20.03.00-C/S Sen. CHARLES MATHIAS (R-MD) expressing reservations about MEESE'S lack of commitment to CIVIL RIGHTS. MEESE says that there are "legitimate differences" about how to best bring about civil rights.
Citizens Lobby for a U.S./Soviet Nuclear Weapons Freeze Rally
Citizens Lobby for a U.S./Soviet Nuclear Weapons Freeze rally on the U.S. Capitol Building stairs, unidentified adult Caucasian male on stage, stepping to podium to make an announcement; American flag banner as the stage backdrop: "Let me just begin by saying that ten minutes ago, the House Foreign Affairs Committee voted 27-9 in favor of the nuclear freeze." Loud cheers erupt at the news. Speaker continues: "Someone once observed that war is too important a business to be left exclusively to generals. By your presence today, and by actions of the American people around the country, it's very clear that the message to Washington is that arms control that is survival is too important a concern to be left to a few politicians. Probably the most mischievous notion in modern politics is that somehow we're in an inferior position with the Soviet Union. That there's a window of vulnerability out there that jeopardizes the lives and the safety of American citizens. As Charles Dickens would have said, 'This is humbug.' When you have the capacity to destroy the world many, many times over, there's no such notion as inferiority. A human being can only die once. Finally, let me just stress that the nuclear freeze movement is not intended to undercut any President's negotiating position. Instead, its intended to bolster the notion that any President of the United States will not have a political liability for being for arms control, for restraint, for a future for all Americans, all Russians, and all living citizens on the face of the Earth. Thank you very much." Speaker leaves stage as another man makes his way back to podium. Crowd of adult and young adult Caucasian men and women standing behind wooden barricade; general announcements are made off-camera; middle-aged adult Caucasian man holding up sign representing the state of Tennessee.
Watergate Hearings - Statement of John J Caulfield May 22, 1973
Ultimately, on the first of March 1972 I went to the re-election committee to commence my duties there. It soon became clear to me that Mr. Mitchell regarded me only as a bodyguard, which was not what I had in mind at all. During March, I took two trips with Mr. Mitchell outside of Washington, one brief trip to New York City and the other to Key Biscayne, Florida. Since Mr. Mitchell regarded me as his personal bodyguard, I carried a revolver in my briefcase. By the time the trip to Florida occurred in late March, I was already in touch with a friend of mine at the Treasury Department about possible employment there. After being in Florida for approximately 2 to 3 days, I received word that my house in Fairfax, Virginia had been burglarized and so I flew home to attend to my wife and family. Mr. Fred LaRue had joined us in Florida after our arrival, and upon my departure he asked that I leave my revolver in his possession since Mrs. Mitchell would feel better if there were a revolver on the premises. I gave my revolver to him and ultimately received it back in May of 1972 after LaRue had given it to Mr. James McCord for safe keeping upon Mr. LaRue's return from Florida. Once I returned from Florida, I performed no more duties of any kind for Mr. Mitchell and had formally decided to seek employment at the Treasury Department, which I ultimately obtained. On April 28 I started working for the Treasury Department and then became a staff assistant to the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for enforcement. And on July 1, 1972 I became acting assistant director for enforcement Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
August 2, 1994 - Part 7
(19:40:26) Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir, but let me illustrate, Senator Bennett, one of the things that interests me just simply illustrates differing .recollections. You've taken testimony under oath from several participants in the February 2 meeting. Senator BENNETT. No, I don't want to get off on this. Mr. ALTMAN. If I could just say this one point. Some of them say the meeting occurred in Mr. McLarty's office and some of them say the meeting occurred in Mr. Nussbaum's office. Senator BENNETT, But that's different. Mr. ALTMAN. But that's a fairly significant thing, 5 people testifying Senator under oath and they have differing recollections. BENNETT. It's different when somebody says I talked to him and you say no, I didn't talk to her, I talked to somebody else, and somehow she's mistaken. Let me get to the point, however, by taking you to the testimony before this Committee subsequent to that, whichever day it was, 460 and whether you called Maggie Williams or Mr. Ickes to request a meeting. Senator DAMAT0. Did anyone request this meeting? Mr. ALTMAN. I requested the meeting. senator D'AMATO. Was there any other meeting that may have been requested? Mr. ALTMAN. No. Senator D'AMATO. There was no other meeting that you were aware of that the White House Counsel requested? Mr. ALTMAN. No. Senator D'AMATO. Or anyone else from the White House? Mr. ALTMAN. No. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Ickes? Mr. ALTMAN. I had no subsequent-pause-I received no subsequent request for meetings. You did, indeed, have a subsequent meeting with Mr. Ickes which you requested which you did not disclose to Senator DAmato when he asked you and specifically named Mr. Ickes. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I did not receive any subsequent requests for meetings. That's an accurate statement. Senator BENNETT. That's not his question. Mr. ALTMAN. Let me go on then and respond. I thought Senator D'Amato's question related to the question of whether I had been asked by the White House for any additional meetings, and he clarified his observe question. He said, in effect, you mean there weren't any other meetings requested by the White House? That's simply how I took his question and I answered it truthfully. Senator BENNETT. Well, I will leave that as the record stands. Senator Kerry tried to summarize this into two issues. Last night as we were winding down, Senator Dodd summarized it into three, and I found myself agreeing with him in his summary. He says there are really three basic issues here. The first one has to do with the independence of the RTC and whether this was subverted in this Administration. He said, I find that issue troubling, if I'm remembering correctly. Senator correct me if I have my memory wrong. I also find that issue troubling. I find your testimony troubling on this issue because it contra dicts testimony we received from both Mr. Roelle and Mr. Katsanos. Senator Dodd said the next issue is the question of being complete in your testimony before Congress, and the word Senator Dodd used, talking to Ms. Hanson, referring to the total performance of your Department was inexcusable. He said I find this inexcusable. Then be said the third issue has to do with the number of contacts and meetings with the White House, and I find that sloppy. I find my self gravitating toward these three adjectives, troubling on the First issue, inexcusable on the second, and sloppy on the third. As we bear your explanation in all of these three areas, in every case, in order to believe you, we must disbelieve other people who have sworn under oath. Specifically Mr. ALTMAN. Senator Bennett, I don't think that's true. Senator BENNETT. I'm sorry, Mr. Altman. Your version of what happened at the White House is in direct conflict with the version we have from Mr. Steiner and Ms. Hanson. Now,' we learn from Senator Gramm that your testimony is in direct conflict with 461 Maggie Williams. I cannot reconcile your description of what happened with theirs. I can reconcile theirs. Ms. Hanson's version is very easily reconciled with what Mr. Steiner told us you told him about it. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator Bennett, I respectfully Senator DODD. Just for purposes of clarification, since! my definitions are being used, the inexcusable part, if I may-and it's not much of a distinction here--was I found Ms. Hanson's waiting so long to get back, we now know, apparently, with the availability of the full tape to look at, exactly what occurred. The fact that we didn't get a more responsive answer back from her, prior to that time,, was what I found inexcusable, but basically Senator BENNETT. I'll adopt the inexcusable for the whole performance. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, if I could respond. Senator BENNETT. Yes.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
U.S. Senator Edward Gurney (R-FL) asks former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan if there was any wiretapping or bugging discussed at the meetings. Strachan says no. Senator Gurney wants to know what was discussed and how political intelligence was being obtained. Strachan says nothing was decided at the meetings, there were only discussions. The only specifics he could recall was hearing former FBI agent G. Gordon Liddy's name for the first time. Senator Gurney remarks that there surely must have been discussions on the ways and means to obtain political intelligence and asks for details on those discussions. Strachan can only recall, specifically, the discussion of surveillance on U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy. Senator Gurney asks how that would have been done. Strachan says, based upon his discussion with former Counsel to the President John Dean, that placing a 24-hour "tail" on Senator Kennedy was an option. However, Dean later scaled back then abandoned the idea. Senator Gurney asks where this meeting took place. Strachan says it was conducted in the Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman's office. Strachan says no further political intelligence matters were discussed at the meeting.
Capitol Journal
WETA "CAPITOL JOURNAL" 5/19/1986 ROUGH FOOTAGE OF REPUBLICAN-SPONSORED HEARINGS TO DISCUSS THE CONGRESS' ROLE IN THE GOVERNMENT at the bicentennial of the Constitution. IN 09.05.49-Shots of Congressmen on committee bench before start of a hearing, longer shot of the panel, Congressmen confer with aides. Rep. JERRY LEWIS (R-CA) opens a hearing on the observance of the 100th Congress under the 1787 Constitution. Discusses Congress' power under the Constitution. A speaker from Georgetown University's Center for Strategic Relations discusses reforms in government. 9.14.05-Professor Alan Schick speaks on the role of Congress, with the slant [naturally, since he's a fellow of the American Enterprise Institute] that there is too much government. Discusses the problems Congress has in dealing with fiscal matters and the centrality of the budget in Congress' business. 09.18.03-Rep. ROBERT GIAIMO, former Congressman, discusses the budget process and the role of Congress. Discusses the DEFICIT. Argues Congress needs to exercise restraint to avoid pork and keep the deficit down, even if it angers the voters-both parties must agree not to manipulate the budgetary process for political gain. 09.26.18-Former Rep. RICHARD BOLLING (D-MO) discusses the BUDGET PROCESS, says that the poor discipline of Congress is to blame for budget confusion, says GRAMM-RUDMAN and BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENTS are not the answer. Says that Congress is at fault for not explaining to the public how the budget process works. 09.31.00-An economist talks about the BUDGET PROCESS, says that the option of Congress voting on the budget as a whole sum is a positive development, and Congress is learning to set limits and priorities in the budget. Says that the DEFICIT is the result of the "major policy mistake" of SUPPLY SIDE REAGANOMICS. Calls for simplifying the BUDGET PROCESS. 09.36.20-Economist John Ellwood discusses the Budget Process-the history of power in the Congressional committees that make the budget. Critical of "entitlements" and "back-door spending". 09.44.44-Economist Lou Fischer discusses Congress' relationship to the President. Says that now, the President is no longer responsible for the budget he submits to Congress. Reform should return some accountability to the President. 09.51.14-Schick discusses the BUDGET PROCESS, says it's unstable because the rules of packaging spending are undefined, 10.00.44-Discussion, BOLLING discusses reforms in the budget process, argues that even though the House has been controlled by Democrats since the New Deal, in reality most of the time a conservative coalition has been in command of the House. GIAIMO discusses budget processes, institutional dynamics of Congress. 10.07.14--OUT
LAWMAKERS
20.26.59-DUKE-series of brief reports: Federal Reserve Chairman PAUL VOLCKER testified that DEFICIT REDUCTION is key to ECONOMIC SECURITY. C/S VOLCKER testifying, says the DEFICIT is going to keep INTEREST RATES HIGH. C/S Jim Wright and other Congressmen entering a meeting with REAGAN on DEFICIT REDUCTION, WRIGHT tells reporters he's hopeful compromises can be reached. DUKE-House Commerce Committee propose national DRINKING AGE of 21. Bill passes to bar UTILITY COMPANIES from passing costs of NEW POWER PLANTS on to CONSUMERS. Rep. BARBER CONABLE (R-NY) announces he won't seek re-election. C/S CONABLE, says he will be totally absorbed in Congress if he stays too long. C/S Rep. ROBERT MICHEL making plea in well of House to fellow Republicans to take the commitment to public service seriously and not retire for personal reasons. 20.29.03-DUKE-Senate took up issue of ACID RAIN. WERTHEIMER-intro report: Discussion of conflict between Industry, Downwind states, and the public on issue. 20.29.31-Clip of Canadian government film: C/S worker firing BLAST FURNACE in STEEL MILL, holds heavy shield over face while opening door. Aerial of a STEEL MILL complex. A v.o. describes the benefits (economic) and consequences (environmental) of coal and oil-burning industry. L/S SMOKESTACK billowing smoke, audio is a bad cover of "Who'll Stop the Rain" by Credence Clearwater Revival. Shot of a lake surrounded by mountains and forests with rain splashing surface. C/S MAPLE LEAVES during rainfall. Graphic map of U.S. shows 34 states affected by ACID RAIN. C/U anit-ACID RAIN pamphlets. C/S Sen. ROBERT STAFFORD (R-VT) says there is growing support for doing something about ACID RAIN problem. ECU REAGAN during State of the Union, proposes "research" into ACID RAIN. 20.30.59-Shots of a committee meeting on Acid Rain. C/S Sen. JOHN CHAFEE (R-RI) interrogating EPA chief WILLIAM RUCKELSHAUS, says the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY needs to get off the stick and act. RUCKELSHAUS says there is always a need to collect data, asserts that the evidence might point to "opposite conclusion" in five years. C/S Sen. GEORGE MITCHELL (D-ME), says that the EPA has not assisted in implementing an ACID RAIN POLICY. Graphic shows the central issue: Should the whole country or just states who pollute pay for reduction efforts. C/S Sen. STAFFORD discusses the regional conflict of RUSTBELT STATES with the EAST COAST. C/S Sen. JOHN DANFORTH (R-MO) says the states pay plan would hurt his state and not help the national problem. C/S Gov. RUDY PERPICH (D-MN) says that his state's tourism and forestry industries are hurt by ACID RAIN that comes from other states. 20.33.17-Clip of film of COAL MINING, shot of a foreman on bullhorn, wide shot of a STRIP MINE as DYNAMITE explodes, close shot of flying dirt and rubble. C/S a MINER driving a bulldozer. WERTHEIMER v.o.-COAL MINING STATES fear that the ACID RAIN LEGISLATION will cost jobs in their states. C/S Sen. STAFFORD, fears that the ELECTION will hurt chances for positive compromise bill. 20.33.49-DUKE/WERTHEIMER/ROBERTS-discussion of political constraints on ACID RAIN LEGISLATION, but it will still be a Campaign issue. Commentary by Charles McDowell on the BUDGET. Visual aid of huge stacks of blue-bound volumes of the Budget. Demonstrates the excessive share of the BUDGET taken up by DEFENSE SPENDING by showing the DEFENSE section of the BUDGET bound with a paper clip. Contrasts this to the concern of all of REAGAN'S economic advisers about the DEFICIT. All in all, a very low-key but potent indictment of REAGAN ECONOMIC POLICY. 20.37.22-DUKE-signs off Closing credits/transcript information/WETA credit/sponsor credits/PBS ID 20.39.06--OUT