Advanced Search
LAWMAKERS, June 28, 1984
21.01.45-DUKE says the PROGRAM is going off the air, hopefully to return in JANUARY. Segment "LAWMAKERS' SCRAPBOOK"-controversies over four years of show's run. 21.02.31-Shots of heated debating in CONGRESS. SYLVIO CONTE (R-MA) going crazy. Shot of SOLDIERS in CENTRAL AMERICA. CONGRESSMAN SOLOMON gets a bit off the deep end in committee about Congress "aiding and abetting Communism". Shot of Sen. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D-CT), calls CONGRESS "gutless" on standing up to REAGAN on FOREIGN POLICY. Shot of ELDERLY MARCHERS at CAPITOL rally to save SOCIAL SECURITY. Shot of Rep. CLAUDE PEPPER (D-FL) expressing solidarity with SENIOR CITIZENS at rally. Shot of two CONGRESSMEN debating in Spanish. Shot of BARNEY FRANK making humorous comment in debate. 21.04.33-CLIP of DUKE interview with TIP O'NEILL, O'NEILL savagely attacking REAGAN. Shot of NEWT GINGRICH attacking O'NEILL'S comments. Shot of BOB DOLE cracking jokes at CONFIRMATION HEARINGS for ELIZABETH DOLE to SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION. 21.05.41-SOME KIND OF SCARY SHOTS OF CONGRESSMEN AND CONGRESSWOMEN WORKING OUT-MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR YOUNGER OR MORE SENSITIVE VIEWERS!!! Shots of CONGRESSMEN in kitchens, driving to work, sailing, playing in CONGRESSIONAL BASEBALL GAME-DEMOCRATS execute successful SUICIDE SQUEEZE BUNT. 21.06.14-Shot of Sen. HOWARD BAKER, discussing being left in suspense by a phone call from his daughter, speculating that she "wanted to get married to somebody I don't like and would probably have to support", only to find out she planned to run for CONGRESS. BAKER remarks he isn't sure whether to be relieved. Sen. PAUL TSONGAS discusses leaving SENATE to spend time with family. 21.07.12-Rep. PATRICIA SCHROEDER discusses low number of WOMEN IN CONGRESS, slow gains for WOMEN, and "boys club" nature of CONGRESS. Shot of CAPITOL Cafeteria workers, pages, and policemen. Shot of Rep. JIM WRIGHT waxing on meltingpot nature of American society. 21.08.44-DUKE says LAWMAKERS was started from belief that TV did a bad job of covering CONGRESS. Intro. Commentary by Charles McDOWELL. 21.08.57-McDOWELL commentary on sparse coverage of CONGRESS on NETWORK TV. For NETWORK NEWS, a few "celebrity" CONGRESSMEN are talking heads for whole body, WHITE HOUSE dominates TV coverage. 21.10.45-DUKE-signs off 21.11.00-Closing Credits/Transcript order information/WETA credit/sponsor credits/PBS ID.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) says he has two questions for former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan, based upon his testimony on conversations being recorded in senior staff offices. Senator Inouye asks Strachan if any meetings held in Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman's office on the collection of political intelligence were recorded. Strachan does not know if they were and does not think Haldeman had tape capability in his office. Senator Inouye quotes Counsel to the President John Dean's opening statement to the committee: "'It was during this period of time, which I believe was mid-February, [Deputy campaign director Jeb Stuart] Magruder had a conversation with Mr. O'Brien in which he told O'Brien that he had received his final authorization for G. Gordon Liddy's activities from Gordon Strachan, and that Strachan had reported that Haldeman had cleared the matter with the President. I reported this to Haldeman who expressed concern over Magruder's statement.'" Senator Inouye asks if Strachan wishes to comment. Strachan: "I think the timing of that version of the facts by Magruder is interesting. I think shortly thereafter in Mr. Dean's testimony, he indicated that the interest in getting Mr. Magruder a government job increased something like ten fold. And it's my opinion that that version of the facts was presented by Mr. Magruder to Mr. O'Brien for that specific purpose." Senator Inouye asks if in Strachan's conversations with Haldeman, did Mr. Haldeman ever indicate he receive those kinds of reports from Dean? Strachan says no, Haldeman told him that Magruder had told given a slightly different version of facts and it was dismissed as Magruder vying for attention. Senator Inouye: "For the record, did you at any time give final authorization for Mr. Liddy's activities?" Strachan: "No, sir, I did not." Inouye: "Were you aware of Mr. Liddy's activities at that time, in mid-February?" Strachan: "No, sir, I was not." Inouye: "It is your view that Mr. Magruder was less than honest in this?" Strachan: "Yes, that is my firm opinion." With no further questions, Senator Inouye thanks Strachan for his cooperation and puts the hearings on recess until 10 A.M. the next day.
Congressional Hearing - Alexander Haig
U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig continues his opening remarks during a Congressional hearing before the House Foreign Affairs Committee regarding East and West relations. Haig says the U.S. response to the Polish crisis has far reaching implications for east-west relations. Haig says if the U.S. does not take serious actions with its concerns, then the Soviet Union will doubt our resolve at other critical points in the world. Haig says the individual national action becomes more meaningful, especially for Moscow, in the context of allied unity. Haig says 15 sovereign nations have never found it easy to act in concert, but this must be the goal. Haig says it would be unfortunate if Poland’s misfortune, becomes the instrument of allied disunity. Haig says U.S. President Ronald Reagan seeks to lead the allies toward unified action. Haig says the process is well underway. Haig says the U.S. has made it clear that it will not do business with either Poland or the Soviet Union while repression in Poland continues. Haig says President Reagan announced sanctions against Poland and the Soviet Union in December. Haig says Reagan said the U.S. would take further measures. Haig says the U.S. will not be deceived by continued repression disguised as moderation. Haig says the U.S. is not alone, we are working closely with our allies on political and economic actions, that will drive home the cost of the repressive regime in Poland. Haig discusses an unprecedented special meeting in which the North Atlantic Council condemned the Soviet Union’s sustained campaign against the Polish people. Haig says the allies have agreed to a number of economic measures, such as holding credits from Poland for future goods besides food. Haig says negotiations will be suspended to reconsider the Polish 1981 official debt. Haig says the allies have pledged not to undercut each other’s actions. Haig says the allies have begun an examination of future economic relations with the Soviet Union. Allies in Europe, as well as Japan, have announced significant economic and political steps against Poland. European leaders have planned restraints on imports from the Soviet Union.
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE
WETA "CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE" IN 08.26.50-WETA credit/funding credits/title sequence Shot of a Representative hurrying to vote as a warning bell rings. Shots of the underground tram car that runs between the Capitol and the various office buildings. Representatives pile off the tram to go vote. Host Ed Newman discusses recorded votes as an indelible mark of a Congressman's performance. The program will discuss Congressional voting. 08.28.49-TIP O'NEILL calls for a vote. V.O.-voting starts long before a rollcall, in committee, in research, and in response to public pressure. Shots of marching Senior Citizens near Capitol demanding Social Security reforms. Rep. CLAUDE PEPPER (D-FL) speaking to Senior Citizens on the Capitol Steps, declaring that he will fight to protect Social Security. Shot of Pepper speaking to groups of Senior Citizens campaigning for other Democrats. Clip of campaign ad for Rep. BRUCE MORRISON (D-CT) attacking opponent Larry DeNardis on his Social Security record. Shots of senior citizens in New Haven. Rep. MORRISON says he has to keep his commitments on Social Security. Shot of Allan Greenspan testifying as member of the Social Security task force. Titles show provisions of Social Security reforms. Rep. PEPPER in office, says that the Social Security reform bill is the best possible that has a chance of passing. V.O.-Morrison wasn't convinced by Pepper's lobbying. 08.31.15-Shots of Morrison meeting with Senior Citizens in New Haven to discuss the Social Security reforms. Some Seniors say that they need to have a Cost of Living increase, which is delayed in the bill. Morrison does some polling about the COLA delay. One senior woman meets Morrison and says that she's going to watch how Morrison votes. Rep. DeNARDIS says that he's going to watch Morrison and if he screws up on Social Security, DeNARDIS will take him to task. Morrison says that DeNardis is going to try to run against him for the next two years, but if Morrison keeps his promises, he won't have to worry. Morrison in press conference announces his opposition to the reform bill. Rep. MORRISON in well of House opposing the rules of the bill. Morrison in office says that Social Security is too important to fiddle with without careful thought. n08.34.26
President Ford's State of the Union Address
President Gerald Ford: "American leadership has helped to stimulate new international efforts to stem the proliferation of nuclear weapons and to shape a comprehensive treaty governing the use of oceans. I am gratified by these accomplishments. They constitute a record of broad success for America and for the peace and prosperity of all mankind. This administration leaves to its successor a world in better condition than we found. We leave, as well, a solid foundation for progress on a range of issues that are vital to the well-being of America. (C/A of Senate Minority Leader HOWARD BAKER) What has been achieved in the field of foreign affairs and what can be accomplished by the new administration demonstrate the genius of Americans working together for the common good. It is this, our remarkable ability to work together, that has made us a unique nation. It is Congress, the President, and the people striving for a better world. I know all patriotic Americans want this Nation's foreign policy to succeed. I urge members of my party in this Congress to give the new President loyal support in this area. (appalsue) (C/A of Sen. BARRY GOLDWATER) I express the hope that this new Congress will reexamine its constitutional role in international affairs. The exclusive right to declare war, the duty to advise and consent on the part of the Senate, the power of the purse on the part of the House are ample authority for the legislative branch and should be jealously guarded. But because we may have been too careless of these powers in the past does not justify congressional intrusion into, or obstruction of, the proper exercise of Presidential responsibilities now or in the future. (applasue) There can be only one Commander in Chief. In these times crises cannot be managed and wars cannot be waged by committee, nor can peace be pursued solely by parliamentary debate. To the ears of the world, the President speaks for the Nation. While he is, of course, ultimately accountable to the Congress, the courts, and the people, he and his emissaries must not be handicapped in advance in their relations with foreign governments as has sometimes happened in the past."
Lawmakers 1/7/1982
December 14, 1981. House Tax Sub Committee. Senator Sam Nunn (D - Georgia), the withdrawal of IRS from joint law enforcement investigations of organized crime, labor racketeers, and narcotics traffickers has had a severely adverse effect upon law enforcement efforts against these criminal groups the court order and written request requirements have created a catch 22 situation. Since Internal Revenue Service agents are forbidden to tell the other agencies of the criminal evidence they gather it is virtually impossible for these other agencies to even know this information exists, much less to describe that information with such particularity that they can satisfied the requirements for a court order or a written request. Representative Charles Rangel (D New York) chairing subcommittee, if in the course of an investigation, one law enforcement agency believes that you re guilty, but has not sufficient evidence to even indict you, and we can now call upon the agency that has collected information that you have voluntarily given them to see whether or not they could reach that objective.. Senator Sam Nunn (D - Georgia), I think there s more to the right of privacy than a tax return. I think I think it includes some degree of safety in one s person and one s property. So I think the American people have a broader expectation of law enforcement than law enforcement is currently capable of delivering. Jerome Kurtz, former IRS commissioner It seems completely clear to me that these provision would divert some agents from their primary job of verifying a tax payers taxable income to digging around for tidbits of information in a tax payers files to refer to the Department of Justice. John Shattuck, ACLU, We are, let me just repeat, absolutely opposed to imposing a requirement on IRS to conduct regular searches to determine whether there is any evidence to that might relate to crime. Now that is what Senator Nunn s bill and the Administration bill would do right now Representative Charles Rangel (D New York) we just can t have the appearance that agencies are walking away from crime merely because the rights of privacy. You don t want it, I don t want it. We re concerned with abuse of that right.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Mr. MCCORD. I can read the statement if you like. I have previously referred to political pressure which was applied to the seven Watergate defendants. One area of pressure which was applied was that of December 1972, in which intense pressure was applied on some of the defendants to falsely claim for purposes of a defense during the trial in January 1973, that the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. This would have had the effect of clearing the Committee for the Re-Election of the President & the White House of responsibility for the operation. In two separate meetings in December 1972 it was suggested that I use as my defense during the trial the false story that the operation was a CIA operation. I refused to do so. I was subsequently informed by Bernard Barker just before the trial began in Jan 1973, that E. Howard Hunt and other unnamed persons in Miami had brought intense pressure to bear against the Cuban-Americans and by those-- I will digress from the record to read to whom I was referring-and the identities of these persons, came to me in conversations with Mr. Bernard Barker and some of the other individuals involved. Specifically I was referring to Mr. Bernard L. Barker, to Mr. Eugenio R. Martinez, to Mr. Frank A. Sturgis, to Mr. Virgilio R. Gonzales - I will restate the sentence, I was subsequently informed by Bernard Barker just before the trial began in January 1973, that E. Howard Hunt & other unnamed persons in Miami had brought intense pressure to bear against the Cuban-Americans who were defendants to use the same story that it was a CIA operation, as their defense, that my stand taken against it had been the decisive factor, according to Mr. Barker, causing this ploy to be dropped, that Hunt was very bitter about it. Mr. Hunt's bitterness was later revealed early in the trial when the same individuals advised that Hunt had said that "I was responsible for our being in the plight we were in, for not going along with the CIA thing."
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(19:35:17) Ms. HANSON. Sir, as I stated, I don't know the answer to that. After March 4, 1994, when the Grand Jury subpoenas were served, I no longer was working on Madison-anything related to Madison. Senator GRAmm. Let me go back to February 23, 1994. This is the day before the bearing that we're all talking about. From looking at telephone logs, testimonies, and statements that have been made under oath, it must have been a frantic day at the Department of the Treasury, because on that day, we had one, two, three, four contacts. This is the day before the testimony. Everybody knows it's coming. It's obvious that there's great concern about it; There are 54 pages of questions and answers for Mr. Altman about Whitewater, So, obviously, this is a day of intense activity. We know that Mr. Altman called Harold Ickes on that (lay. Remember, this is one day before the hearing. The purpose of this discussion had to do with stepping down from the RTC, Then Harold Ickes calls Mr. Altman and is transferred to Josh Steiner and he 139 discusses recusal as well as the decision to step down. Steiner rela the information to Altman. Then at Altman's request, according to your deposition, you called Nussbaum to inform him that Altman will have no participation in decisions with regard to RTC civil matters. Then, Eggleston calls you and asks what Altman's response will be to a question at the Banking Committee hearing, and you read him the prepared question and answer. Now, it seems to me, at least trying to put all this together-and, of course, you were there. We weren't tbere--but, it seems to me, this -must have been a whole day of activities where there's communication back and forth between the Treasury Department and, therefore, the RTC, because Mr. Altman is Acting Head of the RTC, and the White House all day long. We know of at least four communications, two of which you were directly involved in. Ms. HANSON, Sir-ask your question. Senator GRAmm. Now, one day later Ms. HANSON. Oh, wait. May I respond to that? Senator GRAmm. Sure. Ms. HANSON. It was a hectic day. It was an extreme] hectic day, but not because people were calling back and forth. With respect to Mr. Altman's calls and Mr. Steiner's calls, I don't know anything about them. I was asked to call Mr. Nussbaum and tell him what Mr. Altman's response was going to be with respect to the Vacancy Act. That is that he was-the Vacancy Act appointment would expire. He would not be the CEO after March 31, 1994. That would mean, because the statute of limitations bad been extended at that point, that he would not be involved in the civil investigation. I made that call. And Mr. Eggleston called me, but as I-it wasn't a flurry of activity. These were two short calls. Senator GRAmm. Here's my question. We're trying to ascertainwe weren't there. We don't know-we're trying to ascertain how it could be that Mr. Altman could answer the way he did. When Mr. Altman was asked, "How many contacts have you had with the White House about this whole issue of Madison/Whitewater/RTC?" he answers, "One substantive meeting," and then on follow-up, he says, "Only one contact," and yet, the day before-we're not talking about weeks that people could forget, we're talking about the day before. We've got documentation on four contacts, two of which you, were a part of., and yet, nowhere do we see mention of these lour contacts, even I In of these letters, four letters later. I'm not aware, that any of these contacts, which occurred the day before Mr. Altman testified, were mentioned to us by Mr. Altman. He said there had been one substantive meeting, and that was this February 2, 1994, meeting, but yet, we now know there were four contacts, at least, the day before he was here before the ComMittee. The subject matter of most of those contacts was recusal, and yet, be sits there and never mentions recusal in his answers, and you're sitting behind him. Never does 'he mention the subject matter, which clearly dominated the Treasury Department, or his little Can Piece of it, for that entire day, beforehand. an you explain
August 3, 1994 - Part 7
(18:50:24) Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, sir. When I talked a out the question from Senator Bond, I think that the question was, when did the White House first learn about the criminal referrals or when did the RTC first tell about the criminal referrals? I think Senator Bond's question was tied to the criminal referrals. I was not on the call with Mr. Altman, and my recollection of what Mr. Podesta said to me afterwards is not real strong, but I have some recollection that he said something like that Mr. Altman--I want to be careful because I don't want to mischaracterize it, but that Mr. Altman said that he didn't know about them, didn't want to know about them, and Mr. Podesta had said, well, you should talk to Ms. Hanson about them. That's my recollection. Senator DOMENICI. There is no doubt in your mind that recusal was brought to his attention and that criminal referrals were at least brought to his attention? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, I know that in the meeting right before the call we raised it. I know that Mr. Podesta is an honorable man, and I think that afterwards he told me that he had raised it. So my sense-that's how I think it was raised, but I obviously don't have any personal knowledge of the call between Mr. Podesta and Mr. Altman. Senator DOMENICI. I said a while ago that I was very pleased with the forthright answers you have given, all of you. I'm refer-. ring specifically to yours because you were asked why Mr. Nussbaum was concerned about recusal, and you ticked off a whole bunch of reasons; the politics of the situation, the press was concerned. You see, Mr. Altman-Roger Altman-Roger doesn't even do that. We ask him that question and we can't get an answer. Now, having said that, I wonder if you would just quickly look at both of those letters. I think you looked at the one that was,: given to you dated March 2nd. Would you look at the other one? It's a little longer. Am I correct that neither of these letters tells' 135 the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking that there were two issues, namely recusal and criminal referral, that were not referred to in his testimony as the subject matter of meetings? Mr. EGGLESTON. I think they're not referenced in either of these letters. senator DOMENICI. As you read it, isn't there an effort to tell us there were two meetings? Would you see if you can find it, on the second one in particular? Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, the March 3rd one appears to be about the February 2nd meeting, if I'm reading that correctly. The March 2nd one indicates that there had been meetings between the Treasury staff and the White House staff that relate to the handling of press inquiries. Senator DOMENICI. OK. Now, you're a very forthright person and you could just as well be sitting back here where one of us sitsand maybe going through your mind is that you might do a lot better than some of us. That's probably true. But it seems to me in the March 2nd letter, there's almost an effort to try to tell us that a meeting occurred, but not to tell us what the subject was. It says in my information is that both related to the handling of press inquiries." Now, I just want to ask you, do you think anybody on this Committee or our staff reviewing this because he's correcting the record would know anything about those meetings if he said "handling of press inquiries"? What does that mean to you, "handling of press inquiries"? Would you guess that they were about criminal referrals? I wouldn't think so. Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, I don't see that there's a reference to criminal referral. I do want to say one thing, though, which is that I do think that the October 14th meeting related to the handling of press inquiries regarding the criminal referral-I'm sorry, Senator Domenici, I was talking when-I think that the October 14th meeting that I attended-I did not attend the September 29th meeting, and I don't know, but the October 14th meeting that I attended, my recollection is that it covered the handling of press inquiries related to the criminal referral. The letter still didn't say anything about criminal referral, but the meeting did relate to the handling of press inquiries related to the criminal referral.
JFK Assassination Hearings - Marina Porter/Oswald (Part II)
(02:43:13) Shot open to MARIANA [MARINA] PORTER, LEE HARVEY OSWALD's wife, being led to the witness seat, she is joined by a man on her right, he is a translator - the camera stays on her for the entire tape, new exhibits are introduced and given to her, the exhibits which soon come into view in blown up form are of two photos of Oswald posing with a rifle and holstered hand gun, Porter says she took the photographs upon Oswald's insistence (02:45:30) The camera used to take the photos is introduced and given to Porter - Porter cannot identify it as hers but has seen it before in court precedings (02:46:00) Porter is asked for the context of the photo - Porter again gives it saying that she made a comment that it was a funny picture to take (of him with his guns) (02:46:51) Porter is asked if she remembers the hand gun, she responds she cannot recall it and that this is possibly the first time she had seen both weapons (02:47:23) Porter is asked if Oswald appeared nervous when she took the photo - Porter responds he was angry with her because she was making fun of him (02:47:38) Several more questions are asked of Porter regarding the photo session: what was Oswald doing before and afterwords, what did she do afterwords, how many photos did she take, did she use a tripod, did Oswald mention assassinating anyone during the session, what time of year was it, what day of the week - all of which she answers with no stunning developments (02:50:06) ****weird skip in the film - time code remains the same but the image blinks for a moment (02:50:07) Another photo of Oswald is introduced, obviously from the same session as the setting is the same and he is again sporting his guns - Porter is asked more questions about this photo which she answers at no gain to the investigation (02:52:48) A new photograph is introduced as an exhibit (02:53:13) ****weird skip in the film - time code remains the same but the image blinks for a moment (02:53:14) Porter is asked if it is her handwriting on the back of this photograph - Porter responds no but the phrase (in Russian and thusfar not translated) sounds like something she would write, she goes on to describe inconsistencies between this writing and her own (02:55:05) ****skip in film - now Porter is describing an incident where Oswald was planning on seeing Nixon pass through town and taking him with him his gun, Porter describes his words as :"Nixon is coming to town and I just want to look", Porter says she argued with him that he didn't need his gun and he ended up staying home (02:55:45) A book is referenced, "Marina & Lee," in which Porter tells the outcome of the above story, she wrestled Oswald into the bathroom and locked him in to prevent him from going out, Porter is asked to describe this incident - she says she cannot remember the details of it but it as she described, she wrestled him into the bathroom and held him in, she adds though that if he really wanted to get out he could have (02:58:10) Representative RICHARDSON PREYER is recognized by Committee Chairman LOUIS STOKES - Preyer asks about a trip Oswald took on April 24, 1963 to New Orleans - Porter tells the committee that Oswald went to New Orleans to look for a job and that he had family there that might have been able to assist him (02:58:58) Preyer asks if the General WALKER shooting had anything to do with his moving to New Orleans - Porter says she does not know but she was glad he got away from Walker - Preyer asks if Oswald ever talked of moving to New Orleans before the Walker shooting - Porter responds that she doesn't remember (02:59:38) *****skip in film - Porter is now talking about Oswald's concern for some woman who had had several miscarriages or baby deaths (02:59:57) Preyer asks if Oswald talked about the Soviet Union during the New Orleans period - Porter answers yes that he said she should return or sometimes that they both should return (03:00:45) Preyer asks if Oswald talked about Cuba at this time - Porter responds that Oswald was engaged in some activities and that she saw him in the street with/distributing (?) a "Fair Play for Cuba Pamphlet" (03:01:04) Preyer asks if Oswald compared Cuba and the Soviet Union - Porter answers that he did and that he expressed his desire to check out Cuba as he had not already done so (03:01:31) Preyer asks if Oswald was ever gone from their New Orlean's apartment for more than a night - Porter responds that he was only gone one night during thier stay, and that night he was in jail (03:02:01) *****skip in film - Porter now says that Oswald was in a revolutionary mood and he expressed a desire to work for FIDEL CASTRO causes (03:02:25) Preyer says he wants to ask about three names, the first is CLAY SHAW - Porter says she did not know Clay Shaw's name until she had to testify for Mr. GARRISON in New Orleans, she adds that she does not know if Oswald knew Shaw - Preyer asks about GUY BANNISTER - Porter does not know him and does not know if Oswald knew him - Preyer asks if Porter knows DAVID FERRIE - Porter responds that the name sounds familiar but is cut off as the tape flies into hyper-speed
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(21:45:27) Senator HATCH. That was my point. What did she say? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't recall her exact words. She said something to the effect that Senator HATCH. Testify generally. I don't care. Mr. ALTMAN. I just can't recall her exact words, but I wrote down what the inference of those words were as I thought of it. Senator HATCH. What's your best recollection of what she said and we'll draw our own inferences, then? Mr. ALTMAN. I really don't remember the exact words. I honestly don't. This was 6 months ago. Senator HATCH. Did she say anything similar to what you wrote there? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, I drew that inference and that's what I thought the words meant. Senator HATCH. See, I think you ought to stick with your diary rather than what Mr. Cutler says. certainly wasn't there. I mean, you you're re the person who was there. You drew the inference. I won't beat it to death but I just think it's an important part of this overall matter. Let me move on Senator SARBANES. Senator Hatch, I think we ought to go on. Senator HATCH. Maybe they'll come back to me. 493 Senator SARBANES. Well come back another round. Senator Murray. Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's always interesting to be last. Everybody ]has gone home. Everybody is bored. Everybody has moved on, but I've had the interesting perspective of sitting here and listening to all of this to and fro'ing for the last 51/2 hours and I have to ask myself, what really happened, and I kind of want to go through this. As my mother would say, were there any mortal sins? [Laughter.] There seems to be a real hangup here on whether you told Jean Hanson to inform the White House, or whether she assumed you had told her, or whether she went on her own. Nevertheless, she went to the White House to talk-and did talk to Nussbaum about criminal referrals. My understanding is that occurred at a meeting about Waco, and she just said that there would be press attention because the Clintons were named as possible witnesses; is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. That's my understanding, Senator. Senator MURRAY. So Mr. Altman, how many organizations, independent or otherwise, have investigated this Hanson/Nussbaum discussion and determined it was not unethical? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, the Office of Government Ethics is the primary organization, I think, which has addressed itself to the ethical issues. Of course, there's been a legal investigation by Mr. Fiske, a very thorough one. There's also been Mr. Cutler's investigation and I know him to be a man of real independence, so I think one should take his conclusions as independent ones. Those three independent investigations have occurred. Senator MURRAY. And they all said there were no unethical discussions that occurred, Mr. ALTMAN. Mr. Fiske addressed himself to the legal issues, and I believe Mr. Cutler and the Office of Government Ethics addressed themselves to the ethical issues. Senator MURRAY. So it doesn't really matter whether you told her to go or whether she went on her own, because there was nothing unethical discussed Mr. ALTMAN. I agree with that. Senator MURRAY. OK We also seem to be hung up on how many contacts you had with the White House on Madison, and you responded at our Committee hearing on February 24, that you had one substantive contact, and it seemed to me when I was watching-the tape that Senator Gramm interrupted you, as you said "one contact." Were you going to add anything else? Mr. ALTMAN. No. I was going to describe the one contact I had, which I thought related to the RTC's investigation of Madison. I 'know there's a great debate about it and I know people disagree With me, but I believe today that I only had one contact that relates to the RTC investigation of Madison. Senator MURRAY. I heard Senator Gramm say earlietacts Do you have an idea what those 40 contacts were? any Mr. ALTMAN. I can't recite it from memory but I believe Mr. Cut- ler's chronology details most, or all, of those. 494 Senator MURRAY. Were some of them unreturned phone calls? Would those be considered a contact? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't know, Senator. Senator MURRAY. Well, you nevertheless answered the question it seems to me, in terms of substantive contacts. We now know that' there was somewhere between I and 40 depending on who you listened to. Re Regardless, 1 or 40, substantive or nonsubstantive, 1 think the real question is; Was there any information given to the White House that the public didn't have or would not have very soon? Mr. ALTMAN. The Office of Government Ethics addressed itself to that and it concluded that no nonpublic information was imparted. That may have been their conclusion about my meeting. I 'm not sure. But as you know, no ethical re gulations were violated, so in regard to my meeting, they conclude that no nonpublic information was conveyed. As an overall point, they concluded that no ethical regulations had been violated. Senator MURRAY. Essentially, it doesn't matter bow many contacts there were. There was no information imparted in any of those that shouldn't have been imparted? Mr. ALTMAN. That was the conclusion of the Office of Government Ethics. Senator MURRAY. Did the White House use any information from an of those contacts, whether it was one or 40, substantive or not, did they
August 9, 1995 - Part 2
(11:00:21) Mr. NUSSBAUM. Good to see you again, Senator. Senator HATCH. It's nice to see you. I have to ask some of these questions. Let me go through them as quickly as I can and just establish some of the facts and see where we go from there. Now, as I understand it, Mr. Foster, who was the Deputy White House Counsel, was installed in that position actually before you tool over as White House Counsel? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. Senator HATCH. Were you acquainted with Mr. Foster before he became Deputy White House Counsel? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I met Mr. Foster in Arkansas at the end of 1992 and I became acquainted with him at that time. After the President was elected, while he was President-elect, I went to Arkansas to discuss the position with the President of becoming White House Counsel. Senator HATCH. So you just knew him slightly? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. Senator HATCH. Let me direct your attention to July 21, 1993 Other Members of the Committee may dwell on July 20 and the events occurring shortly after you learned of Mr. Foster's death but I would like to focus primarily on events occurring on July 21 and 22, 1993. Now, as White House Counsel, you believed, as I understand it, that you were going to be the principal contact in dealing with the various law enforcement agencies; right? It would be naturally your job? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Senator HATCH. Isn't it true that in your capacity as Counsel to the President, you took it upon yourself to call your old friend Phi Heymann, the Deputy Attorney General and ask whether the De partment would coordinate the investigation into Mr. Foster's death? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, you see, Senator, I realized in the West Wing on July 21 that-after meeting with the Park Police and they asked me to interview members of my staff, look at Foster's office I realized-the FBI was around. The Secret Service was around. I realized there was a potentiality for numerous investigations, and 1215 I understood that. The Secret Service is concerned with Presidential security. They may want to look into it. The FBI is our premier law enforcement agency Senator HATCH. But you called Heymann in this case? Mr. NUSSBAUM. -they were the one looking-I called Heymann because what I wanted to do is to get one agency to coordinate the investigation, so people could be interviewed once, documents could be reviewed once. It's a normal and natural thing to do and that's why I called Phil Heymann, to ask him to do it. Senator HATCH. Then it was your idea to have Justice coordinate the investigation? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. senator HATCH. And you called Heymann. Do you recall the substance of your discussion with Mr. Heymann, other than Mr. NUSSBAUM. Phil-there's going to be-he knew about Vince's death. Obviously there will be investigations and there may be a number of investigations, would you consider coordinating these things under the Department of Justice general supervision. But I didn't say to him who should conduct the investigation. I didn't say the FBI should do it or the Secret Service should do it or the Park Police should do it. That was up to law enforcement to decide how to do it. I said I would just like my people and other people interviewed once, hopefully, by one agency rather than different agencies walking in, and I said also that I would like documents to be examined once Senator HATCH. So that was basically the substance of your conversation with Mr. Heymann at that time? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. Senator HATCH. You also recall meeting with Justice attorneys David Margolis and Roger Adams after that day? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. senator HATCH. You remember, do you not, that the Park Police officers and FBI agents were also present at that meeting? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Senator HATCH. During that meeting, the Department of Justice attorneys made it clear that they wished to review the documents in Mr. Foster's office that might bear upon his frame of mind before he committed suicide; right? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, that's not correct. Senator HATCH. They did not? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, let me tell you what happened, Senator. The Department of Justice attorneys, David Margolis and Roger Adams, as I said on my statement, are good, decent, intelligent ,people. I expressed to them when we started discussing the possibility of searching Foster's office-I said to them, I have some concerns. This is a lawyer's office. There are issues of confidentiality. 'There are issues of privilege. There are issues of executive privilege. I said there are sensitive documents, and they, being the kind people hey are, were sensitive to those concerns. Senator HATCH. I understand, but they were concerned about Whether there was a suicide note or an extortion note? Mr. NUSSBAUM. They were concerned whether there was a suicide note, that's correct. So we had a dialog-good lawyers-at east I hope-they were good lawyers at least-good lawyers were 1216 talking to each other to try to resolve what is a tricky and difficult issue. Good lawyers with sort of different institutional interests and different institutional concerns and that's what was going on, Senator Hatch, in that office. They were trying to see my point of view, and I was trying to see their point of view and in doing so, we were discussing various options. Senator HATCH. And one of the things that you were discussing concerning some of the documents was that; in Mr. Foster's office, that they might be privileged
August 1, 1994 - Part 2
(12:20:30) Senator BENNETT. I understand that you were instructed by Joan Logue-Kinder to call Lisa Caputo at the White House in order to advise her that Susan Schmidt was interested in matters concerning Madison and Hillary Clinton. You believe that call occurred in late October. Is that correct? Mr. KATSANOS. Yes, sir. Senator BENNETT. In addition, you were told by Logue-Kinder that she did not want future editions of the Early Bird to mention Hillary Clinton, and that in mid-February, Howard Schloss of the Treasury also called you to direct you to, quoting from your deposition, "refrain from mentioning Roger Altman in any Early Bird items relating to Madison Guaranty." Is that correct? Mr. KATsANos, That is correct. Senator BENNETT. You said in your deposition that you stood up to Mr. Schloss and told him you would not follow those instructions unless you were given them in writing signed by Mr. Altman. Is that correct? Mr. KATSANOS. That is correct. Senator BENNETT. You also indicated that you did, in fact, make the call to the White House as pressured by Joan Logue-Kinder because you were concerned about your job. You were afraid that there might be reprisals taken against you. Is that a correct interpretation, Mr. KATSANOS. She was in a position that I felt could jeopardize had long- term employment safety Senator BENNETT. Sol you did make the call to the White House even though you had great misgivings about it. Mr. KATSANOS. I did make the call to the White House and I re layed simply the line of questions a reporter was pursuing. Senator BENNETT. But, in the case of Mr. Logue-pardon me-Mr. Schloss, you told him you would not respond to his direction unless you had instructions in writing from Roger Altman? Mr. KATsANos. That is correct, Senator BENNETT. Did you ever receive such instructions? Mr. KATSANOS. No, I did not. 35 senator BENNETT. Thank you. Now,, going back to your testimony, which I recognize is your perception, that Jean Hanson was running the legal department in the RTC. I would like to switch to Mr. Roelle for a moment. The law says that the General Counsel of the RTC shall be an employee of the FDIC. Is that correct? Mr. ROELLE. I'm not sure, sir. I'll accept that. Senator BENNETT. For the record, the citation that's given to me is 12 U.S. Code 1441A(b)(8)G that says "The General Counsel of the RTC shall be an employee of the IC." Was Ms. Hanson ever an employee of the FDIC? Mr. RoELLE. Not that I'm aware of senator BENNETT. Would you like to comment on the perception that Ms. Hanson, In effect, was the General Counsel of the RTC during that period? Mr. ROELLE. In effect, she bad an awful lot to say about RTC policy regarding legal matters. There was a dichotomy at the RTC once the Treasury, through Mr. Altman's appointment, became active. We were allowed internally for things, case-specific in most every instance, to make our own decisions. Most of the policy decisions, however, were vetted through the Treasury people that attended our meetings. Senator BENNETT. Thank you. I'll simply conclude, Mr. Chairman, with the same observation I made in my opening statement on Friday, which is that this Committee, prior to my arrival here, went to great lengths to ensure the independence of the RTC, even changing the law to make sure that the RTC would not, in fact, be an arm of the Treasury. I think what has come out of the depositions that we've taken and the testimony we've heard today is that this Administration has taken steps to move back in the other direction and turn the RTC into a politicized arm of the Treasury Department. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bryan. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR RICHARD H. BRYAN Senator BRYAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I, too, in my opening statement of last Friday raised some concerns about the structural relationship between the Treasury and the RTC and in had view, the untenable position that Mr. Altman was placed in, in effect wearing two hats. in addition to Mr. Katsanos, Mr. Ryan, you made a comment in Your opening statement to us, which indicates that there was certainly confusion in lines of authority, and the organizational structure in the RTC left something to be desired. I'm paraphrasing RYAN. Yes, sir, that's correct. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Roelle, you, too, have made comments with respect to the absence of the independence of the agency, saying 8 something deposition to the effect that the RTC did not in your operate independently of Treasury. Everything we do was cleared by Treasury You made that statement in your deposition.
August 2, 1994 - Part 8
(19:35:10) Mr. Altman, I know you fairly well and I heard your opening re- marks where you said I've been convicted and sentenced. I want you to know that I don't believe that's the case, at least not from this Senator's standpoint. As a matter of fact, on two different occa- sions in press interviews, one rather major one, I said, Roger Alt. man deserves an opportunity to come and speak to us and tell us his side. Now, Mr. Altman, you've done that and I've got to tell you that I'm searching my mind for some excuses for you. Maybe you bad too much to do. Maybe those two hats were too big. Maybe those two hats plus trying to manage Health Care and go to all those meetings was too much for someone even as competent as you. But I'm going to tell you today that I don't believe you did a' very good job on this. I don't think your short time as acting head of the RTC bodes very well for you in terms of your past performance in Government. I think it's much, much less than normally one ex- pects from you. Now having said that, I want to tell you that there are at least 3 things that bother me very much. Senator DAmato went to great ends to ask his questions to you on that important date when you appeared before our Committee and I could refer to his questions, but I'm going to refer to my own questions. We know tonight about the meeting that took place with Mr. Nussbaum and others from the White House. You went for the Health Care meeting. Where you met with them on February 3. Mr. Altman, I believe that's enough unless you want to claim that your memory totally disappeared, and I don't believe that. I mean you are doing very, very well with meticulous details here. I believe that when I asked you that question, well, I assume we're not arguing there-you are not arguing there that you had-you than one, are you, and your are not suggesting that you had more answer was pretty unequivocal. More than one meeting, correct, and the answer was no. Now, frankly, I don't know that I'm going to give you a lot of time to answer that one, but I just want to tell you that I believe that's very, very close to not telling us the whole truth that day. You may categorize it as something different, and again I'm trying desperately to say, well, maybe Mr. Altman was too busy, maybe he had too much on his plate, But then, Mr. Altman, I understand that literally more than a score of people helped you get ready for that meeting. 481 And it wasn't I day for that hearing. It was over a period of 4 or 5 days, and frankly, I don't believe it's possible. I mean I don't believe you should expect me to believe that you just plumb forgot about the second meeting and I want to tell you precisely why. Because I believe that the other part that you have not yet convinced me of at all is that you had not already made up your mind before you went to the February 2 meeting with the host of White House people headed by Mr. Nussbaum. You have not convinced me at all that you bad not already made up your mind to recuse yourself then and there. The reason I think you should have remembered the next day was because the next day you were going to tell them you agree with them, that even though you went to the previous meeting on the 2nd clearly to re-recuse yourself, you went to the next meeting the very next day with some of the very same people. You said, OK, in my opinion, my humble opinion, using my words, you said, OK I'll go along with you. Now those are pretty, pretty significant situations from my standpoint about the way you were running things. Now, Mr. Altman, you continue to say you didn't affect any decisions; after all, you had told everybody that you weren't even going to make the decision. Now, I almost said Roger, but I'm going to say Mr. Altman, because normally when we're great buddies and shaking hands I call you Roger, but I'm not your buddy right now, I'll tell you. Mr. ALTMAN. I can tell, Senator DOMENICI. You got it. The truth of the matter is--the truth of the matter is that you keep saying you didn't make any decisions of any consequence. Did it ever dawn on you that some people in the White House, including your very good friends in the White House, may not have understood that and wanted you to stay where you were? Frankly, I see that as the absolute situation Mr. ALTMAN. Well, Senator d
July 20, 1995 - Part 2
(11:14:32) Hearing resumes: The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume. As we adjourned, counsel for the Minority was in the process of examining some documents. Mr. Ben-Veniste will return. We had 6 minutes on the clock. Please set it back and make it 10 minutes, because you were interrupted, so you'll have the additional time, If you need more, we will permit it. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Senator, hopefully I'll use less, but thank you Now, I haven't put this report of Detective Markland in front of you, Major Hines, for any purpose other than to establish that, according to Detective Markland's report, it is clear that on the morning of July 21, 1993 Mr. Nussbaum told Detective Markland that he, together with Maggie Williams and Patsy Thomasson , had conducted a brief search of the office to attempt to discover a note, but 167 that that search had proved uneventful. Do you see that in the report? Mr. HINES. Yes, I do. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Do you recognize that as a regular Park Police report of investigation signed by Detective Markland? Mr. HINES Yes, I do. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Had you wished to follow the course of the investigation and be apprised of developments in it, you would have had access to this report? Mr. HINES. I would have, but on Friday, July 23, 1993, 1 went on vacation and was absent the whole next week, so I didn't read any reports. That's why I read it first in the newspaper. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. So that's a pretty good explanation for that. It wasn't because you were being inattentive to the developments in the investigation, you were just not available at that time to receive Detective Markland's report of July 21, 1993. But, clearly, Sergeant Braun and Detective Rolla, you have recognized that this is a report of Detective Markland who took over the investigation the following day; correct? Mr. ROLLA. That's correct. Ms. BRAUN. That's correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE, It is clear from that report that Mr. Nussbaum reported to Detective Markland and Captain Hume on July 21, 1993 that he, together with Patsy Thomasson and Margaret Williams, had conducted a brief search of Mr. Foster's office on the night of July 20, 1993 in the hope of discovering a note; is that correct? Ms. BRAUN. Yes, that's correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Now, there are two inaccuracies there that have been clarified by Detective Markland. Obviously, the first is where he says Mr. Foster, he means Mr. Nussbaum. In the second, where he says that the search took place between 2200 and 2400 hours, he has corrected that in his testimony. So I don't wish to leave a false impression with those who are not familiar with the details of the 60 or so depositions we've taken in the course of preparation for these hearings. In your briefing the morning of July 21, 1993, Major Hines, what did you wish to communicate to the White House? Mr. HINES. The wish that Chief Langston and I wished to--correction. Our purpose was to visit the White House and brief them on what we knew about the suicide of Mr. Foster, to establish some protocol and let them know about what the investigative process we would go through would be. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Did you make any report of that briefing? Mr. HINES. No, I did not. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. To the best of your recollection, did you say that this was an apparent suicide? Mr. HINES. Yes, I did. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Did you provide other details regarding the scene of Mr. Foster's death? Mr. HINES. One person did ask me where he shot himself. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. The Fort Marcy area was not a crime scene, it was the scene of an apparent suicide as far as what you were reporting to the White House that morning? 168 Mr. HINES. I reported that it was the scene of a suicide, but we treat all death investigations like a crime. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. At some point you came to the conclusion---you the Park Police-that, in fact, your initial conclusion was supported by evidence and the case was closed out as a suicide; is that fair to say? Mr. HINES. Yes, it was, Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Now, let's go to the question of the search warrant, which has come up here before. There was no suggestion was there, that any attempt would be made to obtain a search war' rant for Mr. Foster's office? Is that correct, Sergeant? Ms. BRAUN. That's correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Detective? Mr. ROLLA. Yeah, that's correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Major? Mr. HINES. That's correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. A search warrant would not have been appropriate or legally obtainable in your view, would it? Mr. HINES. That's correct, without any evidence of a crime being committed. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Thank you, sir. Now, you talked about the cooperation of individuals in assist ing in your investigation, and you were told by Mr. Nussbaum and others that the White House would indeed cooperate; is that correct?
July 27, 1995 - Part 4
(14:50:27) Mr. ADAMS. By the public matters, you mean Mr. BEN-VENISTE. The officials files? Mr. ADAMS. -the general matters that the White House Counsel was working on, other than things that pertain to the Clintons personally? Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Yes, including the things that pertain to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton personally. Mr. ADAMS. Certainly the President would have had the right, had he so desired, if he wanted to look at anything going on in the White House Counsel's Office. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. It was your understanding, was it not, that, following the review of the files, the personal files relating to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton would be sent by Mr. Nussbaum to the personal attorneys for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton? Mr. ADAMS. That's correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Neither Mr. Margolis nor you voiced any objection to that. Isn't that so? Mr. ADAMS. That's correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Senator Sarbanes, I'd like to cede the balance of my time to Mr. Kravitz. Senator SARBANES. We'll use up this round with Mr. Kravitz for the other witnesses. Mr. KRAVITZ. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes. Agent Flynn, I'd like to begin with you, if I might. You testified previously that you attended a meeting late in the afternoon on July 21, 1993, in Mr. Nussbaum's office; is that correct? Mr. FLYNN. That's correct, sir. Mr. KRAVITZ. I believe you testified you were there in your role as a liaison or a facilitator for the officials from outside agencies? Mr. FLYNN. Correct, sir. Mr. KRAVITZ. You also attended a meeting earlier that day in Mr. Watkins' office at which some Park Police officials briefed the White House staff; correct? Mr. FLYNN. Correct. Mr. KRAVITZ. You were there in your role as a facilitator or liaison for the outside officials? 560 Mr. FLYNN. Correct, sir. Mr. KRAVITZ. Now, at one or both of those meetings, you learned from White House officials that on the night of July 20, 1993, and possibly the early morning of July 21, 1993, Mr. Nussbaum, Patsy Thomasson, Maggie Williams and Betsy Pond all had been in Mr. Foster's office; is that right? Mr. FLYNN. Correct. Mr. KRAVITZ. So it's fair to say that there was no effort made to conceal the fact that those four White House officials had been in Mr. Foster's office? Mr. FLYNN. That's correct, sir. Mr. KRAVITZ. Agent Salter, I'd like to ask you some questions about your testimony relating to the briefcase and what Mr. Nussbaum did with it during the search on July 22, 1993. Just to be clear, you were never able to see inside the briefcase at any time that afternoon; is that right? Mr. SALTER. That's correct. Mr. KRAVITZ. You demonstrated earlier how Mr. Nussbaum went about removing the files from the briefcase and correct me if I'm wrong, but my memory of your demonstration was that the briefcase was down to Mr. Nussbaum's side; is that correct? Mr. SALTER. Yes. Mr. KRAVITZ. Mr. Nussbaum simply reached down and pulled out the files? Mr. SALTER. Yes. Mr. KRAVITZ. Mr. Nussbaum was talking to the people in the room at the time he did that? Mr. SALTER. Yes, he was, Mr. KRAVITZ. He wasn't looking in the briefcase, was he? Mr. SALTER. I don't specifically recall him looking in the briefcase. Mr. KRAVITZ. Now, you also testified earlier about what Mr. Nussbaum did at a later time. I think you testified about Mr. Nussbaum holding up the briefcase. Do you remember that testimony? Mr. SALTER. Yes. Mr. KRAVITZ. I'd like to direct your attention, if I could--do you have your deposition transcript with you? Mr. SALTER. Yes. Mr. KRAVITZ. If you would, I'd like you to open it up to page 193, and I'm going to read into the record some questions and answers from that deposition beginning at line 15 on page 193: Question: Now, did Mr. Nussbaum actually say anything about the briefcase being empty or simply gesture? Answer: I think he said that it was empty. Question: You think he said that. Do you remember that? Answer: Well, yes, I remember him saying-yes, I remember him saying--I don't know the exact words, but words to the effect that there is nothing further in the briefcase. It's empty. And I mean that-I don't mean to say that it was completely empty like it had been vacuumed up and 27 pieces of paper were not in there. I don't mean that. I mean it was empty that there were no further documents still in it. Question: I guess that's an important distinction. Answer: It is. Question: Do you remember Mr. Nussbaum saying the word "empty' or could you remember him saying there are no more files in here or something to that effect? Answer: I don't recall the exact words he used. I just recall that he said something and conveyed to us that there was nothing else in the briefcase to be looked at. 561 Mr. KRAVITZ. Sir, didn't you testify in your deposition that your understanding, based on the meeting on July 21 in Mr. Nussbaum's office, was that the Department of Justice lawyers would play no role whatsoever in reviewing the documents the next day? Mr. SALTER. I think I just testified that I didn't know the specifics of what role the Department of Justice attorneys would take. My understanding is that when it came down to reviewing the documents that would be done by the investigators. As far as whether or not the Department of Justice lawyers would look at the top page--I wasn't aware of those details. Mr. KRAVITZ. Let me read to you from your deposition transcript again, page 54, beginning on line 15. Again, this is your deposition from June 30, 1995, to this Committee. Question: OK. Just, again, in an effort to maybe probe a little deeper, what understanding, if any, did you have about the role of Mr. Margolis and Mr. Adams in the review of the contents of Mr. Foster's oft-lee? Answer: I don't think-my impression was that they would not have a role in actually conducting the review of the items in the office. Their role was to work out With the people at the White House, you know, the procedures on who we would have access to interview, and I don't really-at that time, I don't really think that they would have any role in the review of the office at all, Question: After the time that Mr. Nussbaum took papers out of the briefcase for the second time, did you ever see Mr, Nussbaum actually look inside the briefcase? Answer: No. That was your testimony, sir, under oath in your deposition? Mr. SALTER. Yes. Mr. KRAVITZ. So it's true that Mr. Nussbaum did not look inside the briefcase after he had removed the files from it; correct?
August 2, 1994 - Part 7
(19:30:37) Now, when you say 'about it,' what did you tell him about? I told him it looked like the criminal referrals were going to become public because one of our investigators had sent an E-mail saying Sue Schmidt was in Little Rock asking a lot of questions about the criminal referral. Question: Did Ms. Hanson add anything to the conversation? Answer: Not that I recall. Then you jump down a little bit. Question: At the conclusion of the conversation, was it discussed as to what should be done? Answer: By Mr. Roelle, yes, Question: About the information you had given to Mr, Altman? Answer: Yes. He told her to call a whole bunch of people. 1-7 Question: Do you recall who he, Mr. Altman, "told-her," Ms. Hanson, "to call"? Answer: Yeah. He said call Jack, Bernie, the Secretary. He named about 10 names, first names, most of whom I don't know and, obviously, the secretary, I assume was the Secretary of Treasury, but he rattled off a bunch of names for her to call and that was the end of the conversation. He then says he understood Let me read later on page 67. Question: How much later did it occur to you that's who Bernie may be-and the name Bernie, did you understand that to be Bernie Nussbaum? Answer: Not at the time. Later it occurred to me. 457 Question: How much later did it occur to you? Answer: I don't know; probably 3 or 4 days later. I was at home and I saw Bernie Nussbaum on television about some different subject all together and I looked over at ray wife and I said jeez, I hope Mr.-I hope when Altman said Bernie, it wasn't this Bernie. And that was the end of it. That was Mr. Roelle's testimony under oath, that you directed Ms. Hanson to call the White House on October 6. Do you remember that? Mr. ALTMAN. No, Senator I don't remember that. Senator KERRY. No memory of that? Mr. ALTMAN. I think it is clear that that is an awfully brief conversation; it occurred 5 or 6 months before I testified here on February 24. 1 don't recall it. Senator KERRY. Do you recall it now? Does this refresh your recollection? Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir, it doesn't. Senator KERRY. It doesn't refresh our recollection Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir. I don't recall having that conversation. Senator KERRY. You have no memory of him telling you that the criminal referrals were about to bit? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, as I think I testified earlier, that sometime in the fall, Mr. Roelle or Ms. Hanson advised me of an impending press leak so at some point Mr. Roelle did advise me of that, I believe. It might have been Ms. Hanson but I think Senator KERRY. I want to get to this. You just have no memory of it. I really want to try to establish it because the Committee is obviously going to have to sit down and we're ping to balance between that. I want to be sure you're given an adequate opportunity to refresh your recollection or simply find that you don't have one. I don't know. Mr. ALTMAN. First of all, Mr. Roelle did advise me, at some point in the fall, that the criminal referrals were in the works. We had the conversation, which I related, in terns of how to handle the case at arm's length, impartial, at the regional office, and so on. I don't happen to recall this conversation. I'm doing my best to plumb my memory. Senator KERRY. Can I ask you this: Is it really believable for this Committee? We've all been around this place a little bit. So have you. It's very bard to believe that the Counsel to the Treasury is going to wind up at the White House at a meeting to discuss anything at all without you, or the Secretary, or somebody directing her to go. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator Kerry, this conversation occurred in October, I believe; is that right? Ms. Hanson had two meetings at the White House, I think, September and October. I was asked a lot of questions about the September meeting, and as I said, I don't recall asking her to do that, and I think I would have remembered if I had. Nobody has suggested that the October meeting occurred at my direction. No one has suggested that. Senator KERRY. I'm not suggesting it I'm merely asking you- In that is not my implication here but, the key, there's a really central Issue here about a young attorney working as counsel who says she was sent over there. Mr. Roelle, who says you directed her to call. Another person who says they remember-Maggie Williams, and YOU have no memory of any of these 3 contacts. 458 Mr. ALTMAN. No, that's not true, Senator The only difference I have with Senator Gramm is not whether the conversation oc- curred. The conversation lie asked me about did occur. It absolutely did occur. l. I just happen to think I had it with Mr. Ickes and I called Mr. Ickes, and Ms. Williams thinks I had it with her. But there's no dispute about the essence of it, I agree. Here I already said I had a conversation with Mr. Roelle about the criminal referral I don't happen to recall this brief conversation. Senator KERRY. I want to come back to this later in the time,, sort of feeds us problems here, but I will come back to it.
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(10:25:49) Mr. FOREMAN. Sir, I'd have to look at that. It certainly raises a number of questions in the area of nonpublic information and the use of information. I don't , to this day, know anything about any of the 9 referrals, much less the 8. All I'm saying is that in terms of a possible press leak about something, and I'm very familiar with the record of the RTC, that may involve the Presidency, I think it is appropriate to notify the White House Counsel about that. Senator GRAMM. Mr. DeVore, let me ask you a couple of questions. Did you know about the September 29 meeting at the White House that Ms. Hanson attended? Mr. DEVORE. I did not. 335 Senator GRAMM. You obviously knew about the October 14 meeting. Who asked you to go to that meeting? Mr. DEVORE. Senator, I don't recall precisely who. It may have been Josh Steiner, it may have been someone else. Senator GRAMM. When you got back from the October 14 meeting, who did you talk to about it? Mr. DEVORE. Jeff Gurth, a reporter for The New York Times. Senator GRAMM. Did you talk to Mr. Altman about it? Mr. DEVORE. I did not. Senator GRAMM. Did you talk to Secretary Bentsen about it? Mr. DEVORE. I did not. Senator GRAMM. To your knowledge, did Secretary Bentsen or did Mr. Altman know about the meeting on the 29th or the meeting on October 14? Mr. DEVORE. I wasn't aware of the meeting on the 29th until the course of this investigation. To my knowledge, neither Mr. Altman nor Secretary Bentsen was aware of the meeting on October 14. In fact, Secretary Bentsen asked me, on March 3, whether I bad advised him of the meeting that took place on October 14, and I assured him I had not. Senator GRAMM. Mr. Steiner, I want to go back to your diary, and I want to make specific reference to your entry that related to the hearing that occurred before this Committee. You write: At the hearing, the recusal amazingly did not come up. The GOP did hammer away at whether Roger Altman had any meetings with the White House. He admitted to having had one to brief them on the statute deadline. They also asked if staff had met, but Roger Altman gracefully ducked the question and did not refer to phone calls he had. Now that was the impression that you had of the bearing. When did you enter that into your diary? Mr. STEINER. On February 27. Senator GRAMM. Did you ever have any discussion with Roger Altman about his testimony? Mr. STEINER. Yes, Senator. Senator GRAMM. Did you talk to him after the hearing about it? Mr. STEINER. Yes, I did, Senator. Senator GRAMM. Did you ever raise any question about whether or not his statement, that he bad only one contact, was accurate? Mr. STEiNER. I don't recall any specific conversation on that, Senator. I recall that some time after the hearing, there were general discussions, prompted either by press inquiries or by the news that Mr. Altman bad received about further contacts. Senator GRAMM. Could you tell us The CHAiRmAN. Senator Gramm, I don't want to cut off your line of questioning, but I do want to stay within the boundaries, and we'll come back to this. We're not going to let this go by. Senator Sasser. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR JIM SASSER Senator SASSER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a question for Mr. Steiner. Mr. Steiner, let me read you another sentence out of your diary. And I quote from the diary: As it turns out, RA's problem-and of course, RA is Roger Altman-RA's problem will Probably pass when the Congress decides to extend the statute once again. 336 You're referring there, of course, to the statute of limitations on RTC civil suits and the issue of Roger Altman's recusal on the Madison question, The President had signed a previous extension of the statute of limitations in December 1993. In signing that extension of the statute of limitations, it subjected Madison to possible civil action through February 28. in other words, it extended the statute up-to February 28.
August 3, 1994 - Part 6
(17:29:52) Hearings hosts NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE comment on hearings from tv studio and segue back to Senate Banking Committee hearings (17:31:25) Senate hearings resume: If you go to the deposition on page 30 it says did the conversations you had- this is the deposition of you Mr. Mein. Did the conversations you had with Mr. Nussbaum in which Mr. Nussbaum told you of his opinion of Ellen Kulka come up in the context of Mr. Nussbaum telling you that he preferred, he would prefer it if Mr 119 Altman did 'not recuse himself? And your answer is the question "did Mr. Nussbaum say you prefer he not recuse," that Mr. Altman not recuse-and you went on a little more and then you said "I think two facts are in my mind clear. He did not think Altman should capitulate to pressure and he was concerned about the fact that if Altman did not, if Altman did recuse that Ellen Kulka would then be in charge." "Question: So it was clear to you based on your conversations with Mr. Nussbaum that Mr. Nussbaum preferred to have Roger Altman making the decisions at the RTC in the Madison case as opposed to Ellen Kulka?" Your answer, "that's correct," Now then you turn to another deposition and this is the deposition of you, Mr. Eggleston, page 136. And the question was "did Mr. Ickes tell Ms. Hanson that it would be better if that information did not get out?" This is the information about Ms. Hanson saying that there should be a recusal but the conversation incidentally in Ms. Williams's office to the effect that he was not going to recuse himself. And your answer in this, Mr. Eggleston, was "I don't remember him saying that, but I think that was the import of his question. I don't actually remember him saying that but I think that's what he meant by the question." I "Question: In other words you interpreted what Mr. Ickes said to mean that he thought it would be better if nobody knew that Ms. Hanson had recommended recusal?" You answered that the concern Was a leak and so forth and you went back and forth. Now, when you add these up and then add them still further to another area in your deposition, Mr. Eggleston, on page 74 you said that the concern in the White House was whether or not Altman should recuse himself, a consideration and whenever that started .0 get raised on the Hill it got raised in the White House. There seems to be a sense left with us and I want you to have plenty of time to answer it that that there was political judgment being exercised here. Maybe the best thing to do is kind of explain if it was clumsy, if it was not the best judgment then we can really understand this better, but I sense that that's what's happening here. Now, the biggest dilemma is this, and I've asked you two questions on that biggest dilemma. If indeed there was to use this new term, a de facto recusal and I've seen it throughout the record here, Altman himself saying in talking points prepared by Ms. Hanson, Mr. Altman saying it to us and Ms. Hanson saying it to us, I'm not going to make a decision. I'm not involved." Now, if he wasn't going to make a decision and was not involved, there's a real dilemma in understanding why Mr. Nussbaum would feel more comfortable with him there than Ellen Kulka and how it is that he could be then viewed in the White House as being the one to make the decisions instead of Ellen Kulka while at the same time truly not being involved. And this may be the nub of this whole thing, that there was somehow a presence there, a perception of a chilling effect or something that might go away. Obviously it would go away on March 30th because on March 30th he was anyway. Can you explain all of that?
August 4, 1994 - Part 5
(13:30:40) Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me explain to the Committee my absence the last 2 hours or so, My other responsibilities didn't stop when I took on this one, and I had an appropriations conference for matters very important to my State, and I've been absent, but I will nonetheless go very quickly on my questions, I think you all have covered most things. I would like to make one observation. I still have a great deal of difficulty understanding this whole business of recusal. It seems to me that on the one hand, there is ample evidence that it wasn't very important that Mr. Altman even stay on because he had de facto, somebody says, recused himself. On the other hand, there seems to be a huge amount of concern among a number of White House people as to why he would even consider recusing himself. And then people like yourself, Mack, say it's all up to him. Frankly, I wonder very much what that's all about. I don't know that I'm going to get the answer, but clearly before I'm finished, I hope I understand what that's all about. I do know that on February 2nd, there were still some very im- portant issues that could be decided by the head of the RTC. Clearly the White House has referred to that position as the decisionmaker with reference to the Whitewater situation, the statute of limitations and whether tolling agreements would be sought. He may even have been the decisionmaker on whether or not a suit would be filed; some say there was ample evidence, some say there wasn't enough evidence. So he was in a decisionmaking position. Now, having said that, I then find that there's interest in the White House as to who knew that he was going to recuse himself, and I want to ask Ms. Williams a question. On February 3rd, Ms. Hanson testified that she arrived at the meeting at your office shortly after, Mr. Altman left. Ms. Hanson testified that she spoke with Mr. Ickes at that point in your office. Ms. Hanson testified that she was asked by Ickes how many people knew that she had recommended recusal. She answered just a few people and Ickes said good. Now, according to Hanson, Ickes then said it would be good if he did not disclose to others that she had recommended he recuse himself, "she" being Hanson. Now, Mr. Eggleston conferred and agreed that this is what occurred. Ms. WILLIAMS. I'm sorry, sir. I didn't hear the last. Senator DOMENICI. He agrees that this is what occurred, what I've just described. Now in your deposition, you do not recollect these events which occurred at your office in your presence. Does the testimony of Mr. Eggleston who now confirms that that took place, and of Ms. Hanson, who also says it took place, does that refresh your recollection? Ms. WILLIAMS. Sir, it does not. Let me ask you, if I may, did Mrs. Hanson say-I'm sorry. Did Mrs. Hanson say that she was talking to me? Senator DOMENICI. No, it was in your office. Ms. WILLIAMS. OK, Senator DOMENICI. And I believe the testimony is that you were there. 342 MS. WILLIAMS. OK Senator DOMENICI. So I'm not saying they were talking to you, but it was in your office and in your presence. This discussion of how many people know and it's good that nobody else finds out, don't tell anyone, you don't recall that, as I understand it. MS. WILLIAMS. No, sir, If I had recalled it, I would have said so in my deposition. Senator DOMENICI. So you stand by your testimony that you don't recollect that incident? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, sir, I do not. Senator DOMENICI. One last one. You testified earlier that on February 2nd, Mr. Altman described-and I'll quote you, this Is your quote- described "the process by which President and Mrs. Clinton could be asked to waive the statute of limitations."
July 25, 1995 - Part 2
(10:55:40) Senator BOND, Your assumptions were that they were not even concerned about looking for a note, They had told you they had not found a note, so you just assumed that they weren't really interested in finding out if there was a note in the office? Mr. WATKINS. No, sir, They did not express much concern about the office. I had known on the way over to the house-they mentioned that there was not a note at the scene, and sometime during the course of the evening, we discovered there was not a note at the house. I don't mean to say they were not interested in a note. They just didn't talk about the office. Senator BOND. Sergeant Braun, in her deposition and later in testimony before this Committee, at page 35 of her deposition said, "prior to my leaving, I asked that David Watkins have the office sealed." It's your testimony that she did not say that to you? Mr. WATKINS. It is my testimony that I do not recall such a request. Senator BOND. Mr. Webster Hubbell, when he testified before us, said that he heard the request, a request to seal the office made, and you're telling us that we should believe that Sergeant Braun was incorrect when she testified that she asked you? Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, could Senator Bond phrase that question again. I don't recall that Hubbell testimony, if I understood his question. Senator BOND. Mr. Hubbell stated that he overheard a request to seal the office. I'm now asking Mr. Watkins if he contends that she did not ask that question? Mr. WATKINS. When I was here last week, Senator, waiting to testify, I watched on television some of Mr. Hubbell's testimony. I do not believe that he said that. I think what he said was that his wife and some other-a friend told him they thought he said something about the office should be locked and conveyed that to someone. Senator BOND. Either you or Mack? Mr. WATKINS. Either me or Mack McLarty, yes, Senator BOND. All right. Mr. McLarty. Going back to the testimony of Sergeant Braun, can you give us any reason why she would have fabricated this request or otherwise not told the truth about the request she made to you? Mr. WATKINS. No, Senator. I'm not saying that, but, again, I think that her partner, Detective Rolla, said that lie didn't hear her say that. If she said that, if she made that request, I didn't hoar her make that request. It was not in her reports following her re- ports of the scene--I mean of the investigation reports. It was not in Detective Rolla's investigation reports. So I do not recall her making such a request of me. Had she made a request, because it was my job to be a facilitator as part of Administration and Management, part of my functions, I think I would have done one of three things: One, I would have conveyed that, referred that to Mr. McLarty, the request, who was there at the house; or 1 would have asked someone in the Counsel's Office about that request; or I would have mentioned it to the Se- cret Service. Senator BOND. Mr. Watkins, we will have to draw our own infer- ences from the other testimony. We know, in the other testimony, 259 that Detective Rolla reported later that she related to him that she had requested. But you knew at the time that Mr. Foster had been engaged with you in the matter of Travelgate, for instance, which was a very upsetting question to you and Mr. Foster. Did you know if any of the files or the petty cash or the ledgers from the Travelgate investigations may have been in Mr. Foster's off-ice? Mr. WATKINS. No, sir, I did not know that. Senator BOND. You did not know whether any other information on Travelgate may have been in that office? Mr. WATKINS. No, sir, I did not.
August 4, 1994 - Part 9
(18:20:23) Senator MURRAY. Mr. Lindsey, do you know her? 399 Mr. LINDSEY. No, ma'am. Senator MURRAY. Mr. Podesta? Mr. PODESTA. No. Senator MURRAY. Mr. Ickes? Mr. ICKES. No, I do not. Senator MURRAY. Did any of you try to pressure Roger Altman not to recuse himself because you thought he would be more lenient toward the Madison case than Ellen Kulka would be? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No. Mr. PODESTA. No. Mr. LINDSEY. No. Mr. ICKES. I did not and I repeat what I've said before at this hearing and elsewhere that it was my clear recollection that Mr. Altman said in the February 2nd meeting that he was basically going to follow the recommendations of the staff attorneys. Senator MURRAY. And let me get to the final questions which I really think are the most critical questions we can ask and I want each one of you to answer this. Have you ever done anything, anything whatsoever, to impede or derail an investigation at the RTC or the Department of Justice? Mr. PODESTA. Absolutely not. Mr. LINDSEY. No. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No. Mr. ICKES. No. Senator MURRAY. Are any of you aware of anybody who is responsible for derailing or impeding a investigation into Madison? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No. Mr. PODESTA. No. Mr. LINDSEY. No. Mr. ICKES. No. Senator MURRAY. And do any of you know of anybody or have you yourself ever seen the criminal referrals? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No. Mr. PODESTA. No. Mr. LINDSEY, No. Mr. ICKES. No. Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. Senator Hatch. Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stephanopoulos, let me approach this with you. Some have tried to explain the events which occurred on February 25th as a minor political gaffe, "political gaffe." However, given the testimony this Committee has heard this week Senator DODD. What date is that you are talking about? I'm sorry. Senator HATCH. February 25th. If you take the testimony that this Committee has been given this week, I believe it would be irresponsible Senator KERRY. I'm sorry, I didn't follow that February 24th was the testimony; right? Senator HATCH. I'm talking about the events which occurred on February 25th. Senator KERRY. OK. 400 Senator HATCH. I personally believe it would be irresponsible for the Congress to dump that position absent significant additional inquiry. In his testimony before this Committee, Mr. Altman confirmed that you wanted the RTC to try and get rid of or fire Mr. Stephens. Now that's the Altman hearing testimony. In addition we have Jean Hanson's testimony, both in her deposition and in this hearing, that Mr. Steiner told her after his discussions with you and Mr. Altman that the White House wanted to get rid of Mr. Stephens. Now, Ms. Hanson also testified that, following this conversation with you or following his conversation with you, Josh Steiner suggested that Ms. Kulka be fired and that the RTC case be given to the Independent Counsel. As well, we have Mr. Steiner's testimony in his diary, all of which indicate this is more than just a political gaffe situation. Now, as Mr. Steiner testified, you Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Senator, if I may. Senator HATCH. Let me ask the question first. As Mr. Steiner testified, you called him after the White House learned that Altman had recused himself; right? That's when that call occurred? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Again, I would say, first of all, that I'm not sure who called who, whether he called me to inform me but we had a conversation. Senator HATCH. That conversation occurred after Mr. Altman Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. After Mr. Altman had had a conversation with The New York Times. Senator HATCH. And said he would recuse himself. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Yes. Senator HATCH. Mr. Ickes-as Mr. Ickes testified in his deposition, when you learned of Mr. Altman's recusal on the 25th you expressed surprise. Now, that's true, isn't it? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Oh, certainly, sir. I was surprised by the manner in which he recused himself, yes. Senator HATCH. I understand. Mr. Steiner testified that your telephone conversation occurred first, prior to the call with Mr. Altman. Indeed you testified that your phone call with Mr. Steiner was prior to the Altman/Ickes conference and I think you affirm this in your opening statement. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I believe that's true, sir, yeah. Senator HATCH. OK. Mr. Steiner also testified that after his call from you, he was present in Mr. Altman's office later in the day, in that particular day and that you and Mr. Ickes called Mr. Altman. It's correct that you and Mr. Ickes called Mr. Altman later in that day? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Yes, sir, it is. Senator HATCH. OK. I just want to get these facts straight because I think some of them are hard to follow. Returning to the first call, the one either from Mr. Steiner to you or from you to Mr. Steiner, Mr. Steiner has testified clearly that your voice was raised in that but you've kind of indicated Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Oh, I grant that, sir. Senator HATCH. OK. Mr. Steiner's testimony, in his deposition, Mr. Steiner testified that you called him but you're not sure of that. 401 Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I'm not certain. Senator HATCH. It could have been that? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. it could have been either way, I just don't know. Senator HATCH. In your deposition, you testified that the reason you asked about Mr. Stephens' hiring was that you were "anticipating questions from the press." Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Certainly, sir, I was expecting given such a surprising choice I would expect that Anne Devereaux of The Washington Post or Doug Joel of The New York Times would ask. Senator HATCH. I understand, You admitted in your deposition that at the time of your phone call with Mr. Steiner there had been no press inquiries to you concerning the hiring of Mr. Stephens; that's right, isn't it?
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:30:40) Mr. ROELLE. Yes, sir. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Katsanos? Mr. KATSANOS. Yes, sir. Senator D'AMATO. If someone called you and said, "John Jones, we understand, is a witness or to be named as a target or a possible defendant," what do you say? Mr. KATsANOS. I would say I wouldn't confirm nor deny it. Senator D'AMATO. That's right, and that's the standard that should have been employed. I thank the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. I want to just inquire of Members on both sides," because I want to be able to give adequate notice to Ms. Hanson, who's due up here next, and to allow at least a brief period for peo. ple to have a late lunch who haven't yet had one, so let me go right around the table- how many people seek an opportunity Senator MosELEY-BRAUN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question. 89 The CHAIRMAN. I'll come to you next, then, if I may do that. Let me inquire Anybody so I can see how many people still wish to be recognized. Anybody else on this side? I don't see any indication. Do you want to be recognized? Senator BOXER. I reserve my right to ask a question. I don't have an at this moment. Senator KERRY. No. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry does. Senator Shelby does. Senator Moseley-Braun, you're next. Senator MosELEY-BRAuN. Again, I've refrained from asking questions of this panel in the interest of moving along with this hearing. I have a point of clarification with Ms. Kulka. I think it's important for the record to be clarified. In your conversation with Senator Shelby about the impact of Rule 11 on your decisionmaking, it was my understanding that as of the February 1, 1994, meeting, no decision had yet been made on whether there was even a case to be made or whether to sue Madison. Is that correct? Ms. KULKA. That's correct. Senator MosELEY-BRAuN. The impression was not just a matter of whether the case should be filed or was in shape for filing or comported with the technical requirements of the rule, you hadn't even reached the question of if there was a case to be made. Ms. KULKA. That's correct. Senator MosELEY-BRAuN. I think it's important that, for the record, that clarification be made. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Thank you, The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Senator Kerry, you're the only other Member that I know of that seeks recognition now. Senator Boxer is reserving her right. Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will try not to try my colleague's patience or go too long. This panel, particularly, is important for a number of reasons to this committee, generically, and I want to cover a couple of bases if we can. I would like to just explain to the Senator from New York and others precisely why I think it's so important. I am not diminishing one iota what I think the Senator from New York has accurately raised as aver significant issue here. very I do not accept the notion that because there is perhaps a foul, there is automatically no harm. I don't accept that, and I think the Committee as I've said previously, is going to have to come to grips with the judgment and actions that ensued with respect to communications between Treasury and White House, and the terrible problem of the double hat that Roger Altman wore, one that I think many of us felt all along was great trouble for the RTC as well as, otentially, for Treasury. The reason I raised these other issues is because I don't think you can understand Whitewater and put this entire thing in its proper perspective, if we don't ask questions about the early part and understand how we got here. I'm simply raising these questions for my colleagues to be sure that we in the second round, as we go further, are sure to cover those bases. What I'm anxious to get from colleagues is a consensus on the Committee that we ought to ask questions about this early part in order to properly tell the story to the American people. It troubles 90 me that a Democratic U.S. Attorney behaves one way. It trouble me that a Republican might behave one way. I'm sure my co leagues agree with me. When I read that during the middle of an election, at the same time you had the passportgate issue that gr eatly embarrassed the Administration because of the leaks about the investigation that was constructed, you simultaneously pressure on U.S. Attorneys with respect to the criminal re that came out of a New York Times article, that came out of then had smell test begins to react and say something is here. That is all I'm suggesting, and I it say very respectfully to col-leagues we should understand that.
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(21:35:46) The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me take it and I want to make sure it's within our scope because sometimes things can be made public but we can't, in effect, officialize them through this if they're not within our scope, but if it is and there's no objection, I'll make it part of the record. Go ahead, Senator. Senator FAIRCLOTH. May I ask the question and if it's not in scope, we'll drop right there. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, thank you. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Clifford Sloan's notes from his September 29th meeting with Jean Hanson talk about a lot of things. They say that the RTC referrals contained allegations about Jim Guy Tucker and that the 1984 Clinton for Governor campaign was being examined as a possible co-conspirator. Can he answer that? The CHAIRMAN. What was Mr. LINDSEY. I think I have answered that to Senator Mack. Let me repeat. I have one set of notes. Mr. Sloan has two sets of notes. His notes are dated September 30th and October 7th. My one note is undated, but it contains information that is included in both his September 30th and his October 7 notes. So it is clear to me from that that I had that discussion with Mr. Sloan after October 7th-- or after October 7th. So I do not believe I knew that information prior to the meeting. Senator FAIRCLOTH. All right. This. one, if it's out of order, I'll stop it. Did you handle any press inquiries about whether there was any connection between Jim Guy Tucker being named in those RTC referrals and the fact that he had received 1.-$1.1 million in Government-backed loans that were supposed to go to minority or disadvantaged borrowers? The CHAIRMAN. Senator Faircloth--- Senator FAIRCLOTH. That one out? The CHAIRMAN. I would say it is. Senator FAIRCLOTH. All right. My next question. The CHAIRMAN. May I just say, without taking any of your time to do so, I appreciate very much your cooperation on this issue. I thank you for that. Senator FAIRCLOTH. I will go on to the new witness. Thank you for the fair way you've conducted the hearing. Mr. Stephanopoulos, this past Tuesday evening during Roger Altman's testing, I saw one of your friends from the Clinton campaign who is currently serving as a political consultant and damage control specialist for President Clinton, Paul Negala. He was sitting in the back of the room at around 12:45 watching Mr. Altman's performance before the Committee. My question is, prior to your appearance before us today, have You had any communication with an outside political consultant concerning your testimony here today? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No, sir. 456 Senator FAIRCLOTH. You have not been prompted by a political consultant? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No, sir, not at all. I've come here to swer your questions just as I have answered them before other Committee-- Senator FAIRCLOTH. Other than your attorney who, if one, cussed your testimony with prior to your appearance here Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Say that again, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Other than your attorney, with whom have you discussed your appearance here today? I mean your testimony. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Nothing substantive, sir. I would say that everything I've said here today, I have said dozens of times both in sworn testimony to the Independent Counsel, the Office of Government Ethics. I've also had to speak to it publicly, sir, because there were many leaks not only from the Grand Jury but from other areas about the scope of my testimony. I would ask if that's in the scope of this hearing but I'm happy to answer it. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Faircloth. I don't see any requests at this time on my side, so Mr. LINDSEY. Mr. Chairman, again we're very good at correcting the record. Mr. Podesta says I indicated The CHAIRMAN. That's what this hearing is all about is getting the record corrected. We'll take any and all corrections. I just want to make sure that we've got all of them. Mr. LINDSEY. Mr. Podesta says that I said in response to a question from Mr. Shelby that the checks were dated October 4 or 5, it was April 4 or 5. Again, it was The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennett. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to tell one quick story. We did a conference on the House side on a committee bill that went very late at night-this is with reference to Mr. Nussbaum who is coming next-and at about 3:00 in the morning Senator Bryan who is not a conferee arrived having gone home and slept and gotten up and showered and came in and he wanted to be allowed to participate in the conference.