Advanced Search
August 3, 1994 - Part 2
(11:35:50) Secretary BENTSEN. No, he did not. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Do you know of any evidence that Robert Fiske investigated to determine whether Roger Altman withheld information from Congress? Secretary BENTSEN. Senator Faircloth, I do not have that detailed information. Senator FAIRCLOTH. So the point being, so when Robert Fiske said evidence does not justify criminal prosecution of any Federal statute, have no reason to believe that he even investigated the possibility of criminal withholding information from Congress. So if he did not talk to you, he did not. That is all. I yield the rest of my time. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. What I am going to do also, I have had a couple of Members ask me, unrelated to you, Senator Faircloth, it would be helpful to them because they get absorbed in a line of questioning, and they do not see the timing clock. If they could receive a note from a staff member as their time has expired, so they will know that so they can then stop in an orderly way themselves, rather than have to be interrupted, and I ,would prefer that as well. So we will endeavor to do that and pass a note to Members as the clock expires so they know that and that they can manage the time accordingly. Senator Kerry. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR KERRY Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr, Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome, and thank you for taking time to be with US. What was the date that the freeze was put into place when you began to collect Secretary BENTSEN. What? Senator KERRY. What was the date that you began to collect the information, a freeze on computers and documents was put in place? Do you recall approximately when that was? Secretary BENTSEN. I would say it was in March. I cannot give you the exact date. Senator KERRY. Early March, I think. I just wanted to take a moment to commend you for that. I think that our colleagues and the country ought to be aware of the meas- 33 ure, the full measure of compliance that has taken place here, even the safeguarding of documents. The reason we have a Josh Steiner diary, the reason we have these contradictory documents from people is because you saw your duty and understood that this was serious and that the Treasury Department was going to be beyond reproach with respect to that. I might say it is in direct contrast to prior experience up here. I think you and the Department are to be commended for that, and the Administration is to be commended. Last night, we received a document that had been previously redacted. The White House gave it to us. Pages of document outside of the scope but they unredacted it and made it available. I just want to commend you for it, Secretary BENTSEN. Thank you, sir. Senator KERRY. I want to ask you a few questions if I can in a couple of areas that I think are very important to the Committee, as we try to struggle to reconcile different recollections here and testimony. I also want to try to understand the standards we are dealing with. You and others have cited the report to you from the Office of Government Ethics and appropriately, you in your opening said, from this report, that there are many contacts that are troubling. You did not gloss over that, you mentioned it. There are also citations about problems between Treasury and RTC and you have mentioned those today. What still disturbs me is, I think it is a good report as far as it goes. I have read the analysis, I agree with most of the analysis, but it is a very strictly legal document, making judgments about the specific worst case scenarios of the Federal law as they apply. Let me give you an example. One of the areas they examined was the principle that employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual. I would assume you would agree that an employee of the Treasury Department should act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any public organization or individual where that individual might be affected by actions. Secretary BENTSEN. I think when you get into a situation that I cited earlier with the White House where, under certain conditions, it would be quite proper to give non-public information in order that their responsibilities can be discharged.
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(01:00:40) Senator MURRAY. Public perception standard, could we find anybody to be in that position? 511 Senator KERRY. If I could supplement the question to Mr. Nussbaum and, look, I don't quarrel with you on any other level, but don't you think Mr. Altman fell into-he's not just a political appointee in the sense-I'm on her time Senator D'AMATO. I don't agree. I'll read the whole thing. Senator DODD. It's important. Senator MURRAY. I don't believe they're arguing with that, Senator Kerry. Senator KERRY. They're talking about something else. Just on the question of Mr. Altman, he ran the war room, he had this extraordinary access to the White House, he was a major player in Health Care. So here you have somebody who's a central part of the President's political agenda in a way many people wouldn't Separate from the rise or fall of the President himself, particularly the campaign, also. I think you have a very different status than just an appointee who goes off to do his job. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator Kerry, you're making it a very strong argument in this respect, and it really is a close case, maybe a closer case than sometimes I make it sound when I get carried away with my position. But you have to understand what he said to me at that meeting, and it sort of subsumed some of the things you said. He comes into me and he says I am not legally or ethically required to recuse myself. I know that legal or ethical recusal standards take into account relationships and appearances, so he's, in effect, saying to me I've gone to somebody. I've discussed these issues. I've laid out all the facts, including, I presume, those kinds of things, and I've gotten this advice. Then that triggers my response. Maybe you're speaking with justification or you're saying with justification that I should have examined it more, come to an independent conclusion about this, and maybe you've reached a different conclusion. Senator MURRAY. Mr. Nussbaum, it's my time that I'm losing here. I think that this is a discussion that this Committee is going to have to have. Fortunately, the RTC is going to go out of exist- ence, I hope in my lifetime, but I do think it's a question that all of us have to as ask ourselves. If we have Presidential appointees, is there an ethic bar so high that no one can jump over it and every- one would have to recuse? Before I lose my time, Mr. Nussbaum, I have to ask you something else and it goes away from this entirely. Having sat here and listened to all kinds of theories about who did what and how awful they were, it seems to me that some people came into this willing to hang somebody before we started and some people are still there. I'm not sure where I am yet, but I have to go back to our very first day of hearings when we discussed Vince Foster's suicide. I know you were not here, but I know that you knew him. And I have to ask you, having left this town, having watched all of this. Vince Foster said something and I would just like to give you an opportunity to comment on it. "Here, ruining people is considered sport." I really would like to hear what you have to say about his observation. Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's a very hard question to ask me, because I really had great affection and great respect for Vince Foster. He was a marvelous person and a great Deputy. I think the course of 512 my life was changed by his suicide. I think, to some extent) he was right. I think in Washington, among some people, ruining people is considered sport. But I don't really believe that exists on every level. I really don't agree with Vince in the final analysis. I think there's a lot of it. There's too much of it, but fundamentally-I said this before the House, to some extent, too--fundamentally, I believe the public service is a high calling. I believe it's a worthy calling. I believe it has certain dangers that go along with it. I believe you should ex- pect those. You should try to deal with those as best you can, it shouldn't discourage people. I don't want Vince's death, I don't want my experience to discourage people from coming to Washington. I really want people to come and to serve.
July 19, 1995 - Part 1
(10:40:16) Mr. HUBBELL. I have to admit my feelings are still clouded by affection and respect for Bernie. I want to say this: I don't know if anybody but the White House Counsel can make the call on executive privilege or attorney-client privilege. I just don't know in. else could do that, and that's the dilemma that Bernie is put in. On one hand he is close. It is personal. He's going to be criticized. On the other hand-and maybe that's what this Committee should 93 look at-who else could have done it, and I don't know the answer to that. To this day, I don't know if anybody but Bernie Nussbaum could make the call on looking at certain documents as to whether the executive privilege attached or not and who should be allowed to see it and in what fashion. On the other hand- and there were time constraints and personal constraints. I just don't know, and I do think it's a legitimate question. I think that what I was trying to tell Bernie is think about this, but I haven't ever talked to him about it, what went on in his mind as he thought about it. He said really, let's talk about it. I would have liked to have had that conversation because he might be able to say Webb, I don't think anybody else could have done it, especially the next day. I mean, I think one of the things we have to look at is it isn't that Bernie could have brought in somebody from the outside very quickly, and the Park Police were wanting to get in the office. I think those are certainly good questions. I just don't know the answer, and I'm going to be interested at what Mr. Nussbaum says. I'm sure you're going to ask him those questions as well. Senator BRYAN. Thank you, Mr. Hubbell. Let me yield my time to Mr. Ben- Veniste. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Thank you, Senator Bryan. Mr. Hubbell, let me follow up finally on Senator Shelby's question about search warrants and if he were Mr. Heymann back in July 1993. Did Mr. Heymann at any point in any discussion you had with him or any discussion that you know about suggest, even remotely, the possibility that the Justice Department would attempt to seek a search warrant for Mr. Foster's office? Mr. HUBBELL. No, he did not. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. In response to your observations about Southern litigators versus Northern litigators-and not to got into any discussion where I might have a vested interest, Mr. Chairman, allying to yours-I take it what you're saying is despite all the privileges that were involved and the weighty issues of executive privilege, attorney-client privilege and the subsidiary issue of the Foster family privacy associated with all of this, it's your view, then, that if Mr. Nussbaum had adopted a more relaxed approach with the Park Police when they first made the request to search for a note or similar evidence of state of mind in Mr. Foster's office, that if Mr. Nussbaum had just said come on in guys, have a cup of coffee. Let's look around. Here are the files on health care, do You want to go through those? I don't think so. Do you want to look at the vetting file for Attorney General Reno or the list of possible Supreme Court nominees? I don't think you want to look in there, and I can't let you look in there, but let's look around and see if there's a note. Do you think that might have resolved the issue right then and there? Mr. HUBBELL. The Park Police would be the ones who would have to answer that question, but it's my impression from talking to Phil that that would have gone a long way toward accommodating the Park Police. 94 Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Now, there's been some discussion about scaled and locked. I'd just like to follow up on that question, Mr. Chairman, if I may. The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. When you thought about the office being locked, you weren't, I take it, talking about some big yellow evidence sticker or a banner being put across the suite of the White House Counsel's Office? Mr. HUBBELL. No, I was not. I can tell you what was on my mind. I don't know if it's proper procedure or not. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Go ahead, sir. Mr. HUBBELL. That would be that the office would be locked and if you had the manpower, then have somebody log in if somebody went in and have somebody log out if they went out,
August 2, 1994 - Part 6
(01:35:36) Mr. ALTMAN. That's not my position, Senator. I may well have faxed this to Mr. Nussbaum. Senator BOND. Once in the evening and once in the morning. Mr. ALTMAN. I doubt I would have faxed it twice, but this is a press clip- ping, this is a press article. For the life of me, I can't un- derstand why someone would think faxing a press article to anybody at any time would be wrong. Senator BOND. Let me just go back to the point I was making, Mr. Roelle said he told you on March 23 about the criminal referrals. What you did that evening at 9:04 p.m., an unusual time to be faxing, and again at 8:58 a.m. the next morning, was to fax two different copies of the same article to Mr. Nussbaum reflecting Whitewater concerns of the President. The article dealt with President Clinton's problems. That is corroborating evidence that Mr. Roelle Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir, it isn't. Senator BOND. I didn't ask you for that judgment, Mr. Altman. I'm just saying that for those of us who are trying to determine whether Mr. Roelle is correct in saying he told you about it, these two activities are very consistent with you having been notified by Mr. Roelle. Now, yesterday, Mr Roelle testified that on or about September 23, he was notified of a second set of Madison criminal referrals which named the Clintons. Could you please tell us what Mr. Roelle told you? Mr. ALTMAN. I'd like to go back for a moment, Senator, and just address briefly the other question you raised. Senator BOND. I didn't ask a question. We're running out of time, Mr. Altman. Mr. ALTMAN. I'd just like an opportunity to respond to what you said. Mr. Nussbaum testified before the House under oath and I believe that Mr. Cutler's chronology also goes into this. Mr. Nussbaum, I'm quite sure, testified that he received no information on the criminal referrals from me in March, and I want to stress that. Now, as to this last question Senator BOND. Let me follow up. He did receive from you two faxes relating to the Clinton Whitewater deal. OK your answer to my question. Mr. ALTMAN. Well, I thought the question implied, that, if Mr. Roelle had said to me in March, information about the criminal referrals, and then, if I had sent the faxes, that somehow I would have imparted improper information which I did not Senator BOND. I did not say that Mr Altman. Would you go back to the question. Do you remember 'what Mr. Roelle told you on September 23? Mr. ALTMAN. As I testified here before this Committee on February 24, 1 thought I testified rather clearly, in the fall Mr. Roelle 441 or Ms. Hanson or both advised me that a criminal referral was working its way through the system. They did not tell me what the prospects for making the referral were, in other words, whether it would likely be made or not be made. Nothing was told to me on that. Senator BOND. But you did. I asked you if he told you and you said he did. I believe that was the short answer, Now, yesterday Ms. Hanson testified that you specifically told her to tell Mr. Nussbaum about these referrals. Can you tell us what you recall you told Ms. Hanson? Mr. ALTMAN. As I said a few moments ago, Senator, I don't recall that and I don't believe I would have asked her to do that. Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, the time is up. We have it very clearly in the deposition and in the testimony of Ms. Hanson. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bond. Senator Sasser, you wish to be recognized? Senator SASSER. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sasser. Senator SASSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Altman, it's clear that there is a discrepancy between your testimony and that of Ms. Hanson, and you testified that you did not request Ms. Hanson to initiate a September 1993 discussion with the White House regarding the referrals that were coming up from the Kansas City office. Did you request Ms. Hanson to have any other discussions with anyone else on the subject of the referrals that were coming from the Kansas City office of the RTC? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I don't recall suggesting Ms. Hanson advise anyone.
LAWMAKERS
01.24.34-DUKE-Reagan has introduced a plan for TUITION TAX CREDITS for PRIVATE SCHOOL TUITION. WERTHEIMER-4 1/2 billion dollar plan, REAGAN says that is to help "parents who have to bear the double burden of public and private education". Even proponents are not optimistic, longstanding opposition to past proposals. 01.26.00-Shot of Sen. ERNEST HOLLINGS (D-SC) seated in office, says that TUITION TAX CREDITS FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS are unconscionable, especially since REAGAN'S BUDGET has so many cuts in aid for PUBLIC SCHOOLS and DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN-wrong to aid parents who send kids to PRIVATE SCHOOLS. HOLLINGS says REAGAN has contradicted two of his campaign promises, to CONTROL SPENDING and get government out of "private affairs". WERTHEIMER asks about HOLLINGS' contention that TUITION TAX CREDITS FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS would hurt PUBLIC SCHOOLS. HOLLINGS says that PUBLIC SCHOOLS are not getting enough money-only half of eligible schools and students are getting federal assistance. WERTHEIMER notes issue of CIVIL RIGHTS, that REAGAN'S plan would give TAX BREAKS to parents who send their kids to SEGREGATED SCHOOLS. HOLLINGS says that in the SOUTH, SEGREGATION is a main purpose of private schools-calls them "WHITE FLIGHT" schools. Repeats that the plan of REAGAN is "UNCONSCIONABLE". 01.28.30-WERTHEIMER asks about the simple issue of COST. HOLLINGS says it can't be afforded with a $117 BILLION DEFICIT already. Discussion of negotiations over the BUDGET. WERTHEIMER asks HOLLINGS to "handicap" the battle between REAGAN and Congress. HOLLINGS replies that "THE PRESIDENT IS THE HANDICAP" [HA HA HA HA HA], and isn't really committed to compromising or making a fair budget, says that the SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE should act on its own if REAGAN won't cooperate, but the problem will be getting a budget with a REDUCED DEFICIT through the HOUSE, because HOUSE not as willing to cut spending in an ELECTION YEAR. HOLLINGS jokes that the BUDGET is suffering from "REAGA-MORTIS". 01.30.00-WERTHEIMER/DUKE-discussion of potential of SENATE making a BUDGET without REAGAN, problems with the big changes required in SPENDING and TAX policies. Possible that there might not BE any BUDGET for 1983. DUKE-intro report on TAX CHEATING. **01.30.43-Shot of man entering IRS TAX CENTER, handing forms to a woman at desk. shots of very nervous-looking people standing in line. DUKE v.o.-an alarming 25 percent of taxpayers fail to report all income to the IRS. Shot of SHELDON COHEN, former IRS COMMISSIONER, says that people are willing to steal from the government. Says it's indicative of a lack of respect for the laws. DUKE-v.o.-some say that eliminating TAX CHEATING by private citizens could balance the budget. Shot of BOB DOLE in office, gives some statistics about TAX CHEATING. DOLE wants to toughen reporting laws [for John Q. Public, but not for John Q. Corporation]. Shot of a man, described as a restaurant owner. Shots of waitresses and other workers in restaurant. DOLE proposal would require the RESTAURANT INDUSTRY to fully report all TIPS earned by waitstaff [yep, let's cut the deficit by cracking down on people who wait tables]. Shots of waitstaff interviewed, an older man and young woman, both say it's unfair because WAITSTAFF make so little money to begin with. Shots of work in Restaurant. Shot of Restaurant owner, says that the IRS can't enforce its existing laws well enough, so new laws are unfair. 01.33.59-DUKE v.o., shots of piles of TAX FORMS on a table-DOLE PLAN would also toughen CAPITAL GAINS REPORTING and DIVIDEND REPORTING requirements. Shots of workers in an IRS OFFICE. Shot of former IRS chief, discusses the low number of AUDITS that the IRS can perform due to low budget. DUKE-the unpopularity of the IRS makes the bill unlikely to succeed. Shot of DOLE, says he expects to hear a lot of criticism of the IRS. Shot of ex-IRS chief, says that people hate to be AUDITED, but everyone wants to be reassured that "the other fellow is paying his fair share". 01.35.39-WERTHEIMER-intro commentary. Commentary by Charles McDOWELL on TAXES. McDOWELL bemoans the TAX process. Notes in light of DOLE'S crusade to crack down on TIPS, that only half of all CAPITAL GAINS are reported by the RICH for TAX PURPOSES. Discussion of reasons for the mere 60 percent compliance rate with voluntary reporting of income, at the bottom, the poor and middle class feel that the TAX SYSTEM ISN'T FAIR, and favors the RICH. Notes that one corporation made TWO BILLION DOLLARS PROFIT last year and still managed to get a TAX REFUND, and REAGAN gave the big guys even more breaks. 01.37.46-DUKE-signs off Closing credits/transcript order information/WETA credit/Sponsor Credits/PBS ID 01.39.16--OUT
JFK Assassination Hearings - John & Nellie Connally (Part III)
(03:54:10) Shot open to JOHN and NELLIE CONNOLLY who are asked about their thoughts coming into Dallas and preparing for the motorcade by GARY T. CORNWELL, Deputy Chief Counsel - John sets the seen for the day of the motorcade, describing his expectations and the reception they arrived to at the airport (03:56:03) Cornwell asks them to describe the start of the motorcade - John does so, at various times seeking confirmation from Nellie, he describes a couple of stops the motorcade made at the request of JFK to meet with the crowds (during his testimony a photograph of the presidential limo is shown) (03:58:30) Cornwell asks for a description of the route - John gives it, a map exhibit is shown while he does so as is an aerial photo of Dealey Plaza (03:59:47) Cornwell asks Nellie if she said anything to JFK - Nellie responds that she told him "You can't say Dallas doesn't love you" right before making the turn at the book depository (04:00:30) Cornwell calls for a break to set up a film projector with which they will watch footage of the motorcade, camera pulls back to to the back of the gallery (04:01:30) Hearings host SANDFORD UNGAR voices over to announce that the film about to be shown was compiled from 18 home movies, Ungar then turns to panel JEREMIAH O'LEARY of the Washington Star, and PAUL HOCH of the Assassination Information Bureau, who discuss the Conally's testimony so far, camera then switches to them for a brief minute (04:05:45) Lights out and film begins, Professor BLAKEY narrates the footage, describing the events taking place and the course of the motorcade, the film is primarily different shots of the motorcades trip through the city, the movie ends with the Zapruder film in which one sees the shots hit the car and its passengers (04:10:19) Lights back on and Committee Chairman LOUIS STOKES recognizes Cornwell, who asks Nellie how long after turning the corner the motorcade traveled before she noticed something was wrong - she ends up giving her whole account of what she remembered happening in the moments of assassination, dramatic testimony that includes her claiming she heard three shots and it was the second that struck John Connally (not the first), she also mentions JACKIE KENNEDY's cries of "they have killed my husband, his brains are in my hand", she then goes on to give her perspective of the events at the hospital (04:18:50) John is asked for his his take of the events at the time of the assassination - John gives his take on the events saying he heard two shots from behind his right, but not the one that hit him, he claims he was able to look back over his shoulder at JFK when the shot hit JFK's back and neck before he got shot himself, suggesting that this bullet could not have hit him (contradictory to the single bullet theory) (04:27:12) John: "I don't believe I was hit with the first bullet" (04:28:00) Nellie gives her take on the three shots, first shot the neck of JFK, second shot John, third shot JFK's head (04:29:05) Cornwell confirms that John did not see JFK after the first shot to know whether or not JFK was actually hit by this shot (04:29:35) Cornwell confirms that Nellie heard the shots as coming from the same direction (04:30:14) Chair recognizes Representative SAMUEL L. DEVINE to question the witnesses, Devine reviews Nellie's reaction to each shot being fired, he then asks if she could tell by the sound of the shot whether it was from a rifle or a hand gun - Nellie cannot answer that (04:33:00) Devine reviews and confirms John's shot by shot recollection and confirms John could identify the shots he heard as coming from a rifle, also gets clear definition of when John said "No, no, no...." (04:34:39) Devine asks when John became aware that he was hit in the hand and leg - John says he found out the next day in the hospital (04:35:45) Devine asks about John's position after he was hit (04:36:25) Devine confirms the Connallys heard the shots coming from the same direction and asks if its possible there were more than three shots - Nellie answers it was possible but she didn't hear more than three, John backs this assertion (04:37:47) Devine confirms that John had had a dispute with a Mr. BRUNO, a representative for JFK, about whether or not to have a motorcade (04:39:00) Devine asks if John had any reasons for not wanting the motorcade, along the lines of something bad potentially happening - John answers "None at all", he thought possible there might be some protestors or rude signs but he did not expect violence (04:40:12) Devine confirms that John had considered what had happened to Ambassador ADLAI STEVENSON and General WALKER - John says his main motivation for objecting to the motorcade was avoiding the "wear and tear" it involved on JFK's stamina (04:42:10) John mentions that the Dallas papers published the route of motorcade a few days previous to its happening (04:43:38) Representative RICHARDSON PREYER asks how early on LEE HARVEY OSWALD could have known that JFK was coming to Dallas, siting the fact that he began employment at the book depository in October of '63 - John answers he could have known as early as late September when JFK's visit was made known in the press but would not have known parade's route until the week of the motorcade because it was up in the air until then (04:46:50) Preyer confirms this was a commonly traveled parade route (04:47:45) Representative WALTER FAUNTROY is recognized to question the witnesses, Fauntroy asks varioius questions about the planning of JFK's trip to Texas and who could have been privy to this information and when (04:51:00) Chair recognizes Representative STUART MCKINNEY to question the witnesses, McKinney asks John about the decision to go with the Trade Mart building vs. the Women's building for JFK's speech at the end of the motorcade and how that influenced the motorcade route (04:54:17) Chair recognizes Representative CHRISTOPHER DODD to question the witnesses, he asks Nellie to recount the moments of the actual assassination, going step by step to clearly understand her story in relation to the single bullet theory - their discussion is cut short by the end of the tape
Waco Hearings - DAY 10
WACO HEARINGS: 10:45 - 11:57AM Master Number 11007 - INTRODUCTION: The following footage of the Waco Hearings consists of the questioning of panelist Attorney General, Janet Reno. Questions, and or statements are presented to the panelist from the following Representatives: McCollum, Schumer, Zeliff, Collins, Ros-Lehtinen, Conyers, Hyde and Scott. 10:54:18 Old footage from Master Number 11006 shows Attorney General Reno making her opening statement. 10:57:18 Fresh footage shows Attorney General Reno making her opening statement. 11:01:41 Chairman McCollum begins his time by asking Attorney General Reno had she evidence that Koresh was writing his Seven Seals would the raid have proceeded. She replies Koresh repeatedly lied about surrendering, and asserts religious experts concluded the promise to be a delaying technique. Continuing on, Attorney General Reno states that as the siege continued, its' perimeter weakened and the chance for a Davidian breakout heightened. Pressing the issue, Congressman McCollum asks had physical evidence been produced proving Koresh was in fact writing, would the raid have been halted. Attorney General Reno replies yes, and is then asked, after listening to a summation of previous testimony, why she didn't attempt to clear up outstanding questions. She replies by stating she reviewed many reports and spoke with experts and the head negotiator before making, which she still contends was appropriate, the decision to proceed. 11:08:55 Congressman Schumer begins his time by asking Attorney General Reno if the President changed any material aspect of the April 19th plan. She replies no, and is then asked if the President, or any of his representatives, attempted to speed the implementation of the April 19th plan. Attorney General Reno replies no. Congressman Schumer then asks of the President's role in the design and approval of the plan. Attorney General Reno replies she advised the President of it, and upon asking a few questions, stated he would support her decision. Continuing on, Attorney General Reno states that on the morning of the 19th she received a call from the President concerning the plan, and asserts he remained supportive of her decision. Rep. Schumer then asks how was the fact that the Davidians were a religious cult weighed in terms of waiting them out. Attorney General Reno replies by describing how she theoretically placed her mother and grand niece into a situation where they would be exposed to the gas in order to come to terms with her decision. Continuing on, she asserts Doctor Salem addressed her concerns after he consulted with a pediatrician. Attorney General Reno then states she weighed issues such as perimeter security, outside threats, food and water provisions and gas alternatives before approving the gas insertion plan. 11:20:47 Congressman Zeliff begins his time by referencing to a memo from the Chief of Staff to the President, an except of which reads, "[Acting Attorney General Gersen] assured me that no significant action would be taken without White House approval." He then asks Attorney General Reno if having the President's backing is the same as having his approval. She replies by stating the situation was looked at from the perspective of the "law enforcement arena." Pressing the issue, Rep. Zeliff inquires about a memo from Roger Altman to Secretary Bentsen. Attorney General Reno replies by stating the reason the President had asked to be kept informed about the situation was because he did not know the Acting Attorney General and was unsure of his practices. She then states the Congress and President should not have, and did not, interfere with the law enforcement at Waco. Continuing on, Attorney General Reno states that the military equipment that was used at Waco was disarmed, therefore technically not military grade, and served the purpose of protecting FBI Agents. 11:30:38 Congresswoman Collins begins her time by presenting the statement made by the President on April 20th into the record. She then asks Attorney General Reno to what degree should various weapons be used against crimes. She replies by stating tanks were used at Waco due to the kind of ammunition Koresh had at his disposal. Rep. Collins then states that Congressman Zeliff's assertion that "smoking guns" existed at Waco goes against his previous statements made to the press. She then yields her time. 11:35:35 Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen begins her time by stating that it concerns her that the ATF lied about the drug nexus connection. She then asks Attorney General Reno if such misrepresentation undermines law enforcement and Congress's right to control the military's budget. She replies by stating she is very supportive of the Posse Comitatus Act. Rep. Ros-Lehtinen then asks if the ATF's misuse of authority has been investigated. Attorney General Reno replies no, and is then asked if Congress should tighten its' guidelines on this issue of military support to law enforcement via drug connections. Attorneys General Reno answers current laws are fine. 11:40:26 Congressman Conyers begins his time by asking Attorney General Reno if she received attitude about "shouldering" the responsible of Waco by herself because she was a woman. She replies people have always been supportive of her. Rep. Conyers then states to Attorney General Reno that she is in a unique position in history to make long needed reforms, and then asks her about the ATF's loss of surprise. She replies that she hasn't reviewed all the material surrounding March 28th, but asserts the resulting affect was adverse. Rep. Conyers then yields his remaining time. 11:44:55 Congressman Hyde begins his time by reading an excerpt from the Justice Department Report. He then asks Attorney General Reno who convinced her to go ahead with the gas insertion plan, and why wasn't the briefing read. She replies by restating how she was informed by various experts and had weighed their advice. Continuing on, she describes the April 14th meeting, and how a major topic of discussion was the fatigue of field agents. Interjecting, Congressman Hyde asks if it has been learnt that one Hostage Rescue Team (HRT) is not enough. Attorney General Reno replies no team could have replaced the Hostage Rescue Team, but asserts that since Waco FBI swat teams have been strengthen to be able to supplement the HRTs. Continuing on, Attorney General Reno states no one person changed her mind. 11:53:26 Congressman Scott begins his time by asking Attorney General Reno if the President was correct in directing all questions about the siege to her on April 19th. She replies by stating that the President did everything right. 11:56:26 TIME OUT.
Waco Hearings - DAY 10
WACO HEARINGS: 2:09 - 2:59PM - Master Number 11010 - INTRODUCTION: The following footage of the Waco Hearings consists of the questioning of panelist Attorney General, Janet Reno. Questions, and or statements are presented to the panelist from the following Representatives: Condit, Bryant, Brewster, Heineman, Jackson-Lee, Shadegg, Blute and Barr. 14:09:06 Fresh footage immediately begins by showing Chairman McCollum reconvening the hearings. 14:09:21 Congressman Condit begins his time by making general statements concerning law enforcement. He then asks Attorney General Reno if there should be, as Vice President Gore advised, a consolidation of federal law enforcement agencies. She replies by stating that coordination between agencies has improved. Pressing the issue, Rep. Condit asks if any of the 140 federal law enforcement agencies have any been eliminated in accordance with the Vice President's recommendations. Attorney General Reno replies that none of those for which she is responsible have been. 14:14:58 Congressman Bryant begins his time by asking Attorney General Reno had she known that the Davidians were spreading gasoline, would the raid have been called off. She replies yes, and is then asked about the messages heard via the surveillance taps. Attorney General Reno replies that agents were not able to hear the messages due to background noise, and then asserts that measures have been implemented insuring better taps in the future. Rep. Bryant then asks what questions did the President ask when told of the plan. Attorney General Reno answers they concerned the Davidian children, the raid's timing and alternatives to the presented plan. Pressing the issue, Congressman Bryant asks Attorney General Reno what she told the President in reply to his question about timing. She replies by repeating previous testimony. 14:20:28 Congressman Brewster begins his time by asking Attorney General Reno if she knew of the conflicts that were occurring between the negotiators and tactical officers and the pressure tactics that were used against the Davidians. She replies that she was aware of both situations. Rep. Brewster then inquires whether or not changes have been made at the FBI to insure a repeat of Waco does not occur. Attorney General Reno answers that there is now increased training and cooperation between all federal law enforcement agencies. She is then asked if the FBI plans to consult more religious experts in the future if a situation like Waco occurs again. Attorney General Reno replies yes. 14:25:37 Congressman Heineman begins his time by asking Attorney General Reno if all high-ranking officials were in agreement to proceed with the April 19th raid. She replies by stating she directly spoke with Mr. Clarke and Potts, and that both agreed to proceed. Rep. Heineman then asks what was the role of the expert from Syracuse University. Attorney General Reno answers he was consulted on Koresh's Seven Seals letter. Pressing the issue, Rep. Heineman asks if he felt the letter was a "dodge." Attorney General Reno replies yes, and is then asked if he approved of the gas insertion plan. Attorney General Reno states she doesn't know. Rep. Heineman then asks her if she ever spoke with Mr. Smerick. She replies no, but adds his concerns were communicated to her. Attorney General Reno is then asks what changed her mind in approving the raid. She replies multiple factors had. 14:30:45 Congresswoman Jackson-Lee begins her time by making a series of statements concerning the hearings. She then enters the "Wacmur" / Briefing Report document into the record. Rep. Jackson-Lee then references through several sections of the report before asking Attorney General Reno if agents were given enough information to make proper decisions, and secondly, did the President use any communication system to encourage the raid to proceed. Attorney General Reno replies upon reading the report she developed additional questions, which was why the meeting on April 14th was called. Continuing on, she restates previous testimony concerning how she followed up on all questions and how the President took no direct roll in the events at Waco. 14:37:33 Congressman Shadegg begins his time by stating to Attorney General Reno that it impressive him that she is taking responsibility for Waco. He then makes several statements about past testimony. - 14:40:06 A VERY GOOD PICTURE OF THE MOUNT CARMEL COMPOUND BEFORE ITS' DESTRUCTION. Rep. Shadegg then asks Attorney General Reno a series of questions back to back. First, had she considered abandoning her lunch time speech in Baltimore due to the escalation of the gas insertion. Second, did she know that the compound's telephone line had been cut. Third, had she agreed to the crushing of the gym? Attorney General Reno replies the FBI did advise her not to conceal her speech in order to avoid speculation planning had not proceeded as planned. Continuing on, she asserts that the FBI Negotiators had told the Davidians they would get their phone back if they agreed to reestablish talks. Concerning the destruction of the gym, Attorney General Reno replies the action was "inadvertent." Pressing the issue, Congressman Shadegg asks Attorney General Reno had she known the gym was going to be destroyed, would she have allowed it. She replies by stating the plan called for the making of holes in the front and the back of the compound so as to increase the flow of gas into all its' areas. 14:47:34 Congressman Blute begins his time by stating that besides Koresh, the government is also responsible for Waco. He then asks Attorney General Reno to comment on Doctor Stone's assertion that she was misinformed and mislead about the affects of CS-Gas. She replies that Doctor Stone was asked to look at the events at Waco from the perspective of what could have been done differently during negotiations, and asserts that his recommendations concerning CS-Gas were forwarded to actual toxicologists. Rep. Blute then inquires why Mr. Smerick's recommendations where not considered. Attorney General Reno answers she is not familiar with his testimony. Congressman Blute then asks if the White House retracted their request about being kept informed about changes in the negotiations after Acting Attorney General Gershen relinquished control. Attorney General Reno replies by stating she would have kept the President informed under any circumstances. 14:53:26 Congressman Barr begins his time by eventually asking Attorney General Reno how can situations like Waco be avoided, not necessarily dealt with more intelligently. She replies by asserting that a Critical Incident Response Team has been developed which increases the level of coordination between federal law enforcement agencies. Attorney General Reno then discusses how events following Oklahoma City Interjecting, Rep. Barr asserts that he isn't interested in Oklahoma City, but Waco 14:59:28 TIME OUT.
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:10:38) I think that is why it took as long as it did to attempt to get the record to even reflect the events that transpired. Was there an additional meeting that we should have been told about? Were there additional contacts that we should have been told about, given the questions that were asked by the various Members to Mr. Altman on the 24th? I think that it was painful to finally get him to the point where he admitted that there was a meeting on February 3rd. Yes, the issue of recusal was something that was discussed and was at least of some significance even though, at times, Mr. Altman did not want to admit that recusal had any relevance to the Whitewater matter. I mean, I still find that troubling, perplexing, and interesting, that you could maintain, or that he attempted to maintain, and does, that the issue of recusal had nothing to do with Whitewater. Well, what was it about? Of course, it was about his relationship with the Clintons and whether or not that placed him in an untenable position. Clearly it did. Having said that, the contradictions that I will allude to and will send to you in some detail, are Mrs. Hanson's contradiction as it relates to her instructions to brief White House officials. 12 Question. Would she go on her own to brief Bernie Nussbaum? We have her version, which I believe is substantiated. Mr. Altman does not believe he did that. He says he did not do it. Mr. Roelle testifies and this is the second contradiction that Altman told Hanson, he told her to brief Bernie on October 6th, and two that Roelle notified Altman about these referrals. Then we have a third contradiction. Mr. Ickes about details of the meeting. I am not going to ask you to respond to these, so do not worry about that, nor to keep all of them. That is why I said I would then send them to you with some detail. We have a fourth, and 1 will try to summarize them quickly, Fourth, as a conflict, Mr. Steiner's diaries and again, I think the Members of the Committee have great regard and compassion for Mr. Steiner. Because I believe that those diaries were the best evidence of what took place. And he was pained. He was pained and talks about the lessons of it, and I think he found himself in an awkward and an embarrassing position and I wish his counsel had been more concerned. I do not know who his lawyer is, I have to tell you. I would like to find out, but his attorney, what he allowed that young man, in my opinion, to do to himself should disqualify him for, I mean, that, that was incredible. That was incredible. But there is the diary of Josh Steiner. Mrs. Williams, she contradicts Mr. Altman concerning the February 3rd meeting. Mr. Podesta contradicts, I believe, in his affidavits, Mr, Altman as it would be necessary to correct the record of March 1st and supplement, and he talks about the issue of recusal. Finally, another Treasury employee, Ben Nye, he testifies that Kulka briefed Mr. Altman. In any event, we will enumerate these, and send them to you for review. The Inspector General, as I have indicated, has not covered this issue of the veracity or the truthfulness or the completeness of the answers of the hearing of the 24th.
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:10:46) This is but the first step. I quoted the particular relevant section, and then there are other sections that deal with various matters which this Committee will look into on behalf of the Senate on the basis of the charge that has been given to us by the Senate. Again, we've been given significant resources and counsel has been taken on both sides. I'm encouraged by the degree of cooperation that I perceive has taken place between counsel on both sides in an effort to move forward, as the Chairman said, with a fair inquiry, an impartial inquiry and a thorough inquiry. Let me just make a couple of comments about the hearings that are now before us. We have an extended set of hearings next week, the following week, and possibly into the week after that with the objective of completing the examination of the Foster papers issue before the August break, as I understand it. I think it's important to bear a few things in mind as we hear the witnesses that are going to come before us over the next few days. First, I think it's important to withhold judgment until all information is received. We need to get the facts out to the public. We need to weigh the facts carefully. We need to hear the testimony carefully. I think people will obviously have differing recollections about events. There will be conflicting testimony. I don't find that unusual or extraordinary, given that we're talking about events that happened more than a couple of years ago. In some respects, it would be extraordinary if everyone had exactly the same story. So, in a sense, we will have to sort out these differing views of what took place and what the implications are of those differences. Second, we have to clearly recognize that many allegations have been made, but allegations are not facts, and allegations need to be subject to a fair, tough- minded evaluation. Our job, I think, here, is to find the truth, to determine what the facts are, and, in the course of these hearings, to lay that out to the public so judgements can be made about what took place. Third, I think it's very important to bear in mind, as we look at people's conduct in the aftermath of Vince Foster's suicide, and to realize that this was an extraordinary, traumatic situation in which people found themselves. For the Foster family and friends and his colleagues and associates in the White House, this was an extraordinarily stressful time. Psychiatrists will tell you that one of the most traumatic experiences, one of the most stressful experiences, people can go through is a suicide of someone to whom they felt close, and it's very clear from some of the depositions we've already received that this had an enormous emotional impact upon people. Grown men and women broke down emotionally. Foster was extremely popular with his working colleagues, and so I simply lay that out because I think it's important, as one looks at how people behaved, to understand the emotional shock that they had experienced. I mean, that comes through at different places that we'll be looking at, just how people were reacting in a very emotional way from what had transpired.
LAWMAKERS
WETA "LAWMAKERS" 9/15/1983 IN 19.57.50-WETA credit/sponsor credits/title sequence. 19.58.43-PAUL DUKE/LINDA WERTHEIMER/COKIE ROBERTS-On program-new FOREIGN POLICY problems in Congress, many due to the KOREAN AIRLINER incident-distrust of SOVIET UNION translates into stronger support for REAGAN on MX MISSILE. Rep. LARRY McDONALD (D-GA) was killed in the incident, now a Conservative hero. LEBANON unrest of concern for U.S. MARINES in LEBANON. The point of contention between Congress and REAGAN is the validity of WAR POWERS ACT, which branch has authority to sent troops to combat. 20.00.05-C/S Rep. GERALD SOLOMON (R-NY) says that FOREIGN POLICY is REAGAN'S job, trots out "535 cooks" argument [that's right, jerry, just excuse yourself from thinking and follow ronnie]. C/S Rep. STEPHEN SOLARZ, argues that the important powers of WAR belong to the Congress according to the Constitution. Exterior of White House, Exterior of Capitol. ROBERTS v.o.-the lines between "foreign policy" and "war" are hazy [especially with REAGAN in office!!!]. Shots of military compound in BEIRUT, with artillery shells exploding nearby. V.o.-discussion of regualtions of WAR POWERS ACT. Shot of an ARMORED VEHICLE driving down a road around BEIRUT. C/S a MARINE field commander, discusses causalties to his unit in BEIRUT. More shots of the military compound, C/S MARINES in combat fatigues/helmets. 20.01.21-C/S Sen. CHARLES MATHIAS (R-MD) says the WAR POWERS ACT provisions do apply. Rep. SOLOMON says there is no hostility in BEIRUT (a condition of WAR POWERS ACT), so the question is moot. Rep. LEE HAMILTON (D-IN) in office, says that if the WAR POWERS ACT doesn't apply to BEIRUT, then it could never apply anywhere, mentions steady CASUALTIES of U.S. MARINES. REAGAN shouldn't be allowed to get away with violating the act. Sen. MATHIAS says the end of Vietnam was tumultuous, and Congress felt strongly that it should be able to prevent a similar fiasco. ROBERTS v.o.-all presidents since NIXON have objected to the WAR POWERS ACT. C/U page with text of WAR POWERS ACT. 20.03.06-C/S Sen. CHARLES PERCY (R-IL) in office, says the law restores the balance of power to Congress, since modern wars have been prosecuted without formal declarations of war. C/S Rep. SOLARZ, says that the LEBANON situation is a textbook case of applying the War Powers Act. Rep. HAMILTON says that no one in Congress doubts the War Powers Act applies, but some fear crossing REAGAN. Shots of Senators in Senate Halls. C/S Sen. BENNETT JOHNSTON (D-LA), says he would like to see U.S. MARINES remain in LEBANON, but to affirm the validity of the WAR POWERS ACT. Shot of DAVIS ROBINSON, legal advisor to State Department testifying to Senate Foreign Relations Committee, says that REAGAN wants to work with Congress. Sen. PAUL SARBANES (D-MD) challenges this. Robinson assures that the administration doesn't want to put the troops in harms way. SARBANES angrily says that Congress is as concerned, if not more. The issue is whether REAGAN ADMINISTRATION will follow the LAW. 20.06.31-Rep. SOLOMON, says for REAGAN to admit that the War Powers Act is valid would be a bad precedent. C/S Rep. SOLARZ, says that War Powers Act can be the key to peace, should be protected.
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE
10.13.20-Shots of UDALL speaking to a political convention. UDALL in office, says that his voters might think some of his votes are too liberal, but they trust him, they know where he stands, and they know that he works for the district. V.O.-one risk UDALL took was almost disastrous. Clips of 1976 film of Rep. UDALL campaigning for Democratic presidential nomination. Shots of UDALL greeting voters. V.O.-the national race made UDALL'S liberal positions more visible and vulnerable to his opponents, so his re-election in 1976 was narrow. Shots of ANTI-ABORTION and ANTI-UDALL protesters with signs. Shot of Reporter in front of Arizona State House, says that UDALL'S Presidential campaign made UDALL out to be "One of Them". Political scientist discusses risks of "getting out in front" of the district. Long shot of downtown Tucson, AZ. 10.15.48-Shot of UDALL speaking to Tucson audience. Tucson man says that the issue came up whether UDALL was still the local Congressman or trying to serve some national agenda, voters were disenchanted. V.O.-contrary to expectation, after 1976 voters did not return en masse to Udall's side, and the 1978 election was the closest ever for Udall. Shots of UDALL on campaign trail. Tucson reporter says UDALL panicked in 1978. Clips of UDALL doing local campaigning. UDALL in office, says that he realized he had to hit the road and campaign through the district. Clip of UDALL campaign ad. Shot of UDALL and Mrs. Udall entering a campaign event. Shot of UDALLS at campaign headquarters. Shot of workers in UDALL campaign offices for 1980 election. 10.18.27-a woman on the street says she opposes UDALL'S views on Abortion. Other people at the scene of an ANTI-UDALL march list the policies of Udall's which they oppose. Udall says he has to accept that people will criticize him. A government administrator says that UDALL perhaps expected more appreciation for services he delivered to the district. Graphic shows a major IRRIGATION PROJECT in Arizona. Aerial of suburban area, shot of irrigation canal cutting through the desert. AERIAL of a Horseshoe dam. V.O.-UDALL'S committee assignment was instrumental in securing the project to get Colorado River water to Phoenix. A government administrator says that UDALL can get repairs and improvements for the district. Shot of UDALL outside his campaign headquarters delivering a victory speech. V.O.-1980, UDALL took 58 percent of the vote. 10.20.22-Shots of UDALL in offices with colleagues. Graphics show changes made in Arizona's Congressional District boundaries, V.O.-the changes gave UDALL a much more strongly Democratic base of support. Shot of UDALL saying that he welcomes the change to a more solid district. Newspaper editor says that UDALL took the path of least resistance from running in the more hotly contested district, implies that UDALL is lazy about serving the district. A Tucson man says UDALL'S entitled to an easy race now and again. Shot of UDALL speaking to supporters, in fundraising dinner. UDALL says that the true test of a Congressman is to lead the district, not just to follow. 10.22.50-Host Newman. Wraps up by discussing the importance of trust between home voters and Congressmen. Signs off. Closing Credits/WETA credit/funding credits/PBS ID 10.24.50--OUT
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:05:12) Ms. HANSON. I spoke with the Deputy General Counsel, who is the Treasury designated agency ethics officer for his Senator SHELBY. What advice did you get, if any? Ms. HANsON. He said he didn't have an objection to the meeting. Senator SHELBY. No objection to the meeting. OK I believe you were asked earlier about when Mr. Altman testified before this same Banking Committee back in February-I forget the exact date--and you were in the audience. You were Counsel and seated right behind him, if I recall. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. I recall you using the phrase, and I quote, you thought that it "would require further elaboration" on some of his answers. Are those your words? Ms. HANSON. Those are my words. Senator SHELBY. Did you ever, while he was testifying, hand him a note or something to refresh his recollection about these questions that were being asked of him? Ms. HANSON. I recall handing him notes from time to time. Senator SHELBY. Do you recall if these were to correct some of his answers, and if he ignored the notes, or what? Ms. HANSON. I don't recall, sir. I recall that Ms. Kulka and I drafted a response to a question we anticipated during the hearing and gave it to him for him to look over, but I don't recall exactly what else. Senator SHELBY. What did he do with it, if anything? Ms. HANSON. He kept that one to use for an answer. It was a question that we didn't have a specific answer to, but drafted one during the course of the bearing. I passed him some other notes as well. don't recall what they were. 117 Senator SHELBY. Were some of those notes, and this will be-my time is up, but my last part of this suggestion--were some of the notes that you all would pass to him then, would they be to help him further elaborate on his answers, like we all do? Ms. HANsON. I don't recall that any-tbat there were any notes of that type. Senator SHELBY. OK My time is up. The CHAIRMAN. I want to yield to Senator Mack, who is going to continue on their side. I've spoken to Senator DAMATO. an I want to just take a minute myself, I'll elaborate on this more at a later point. I think for your reference, and the reference of any other person who comes before a Senate or House Committee in a situation such as the meeting we're referring to, if information is asked for by a Senator-let's keep it on the Senate side-and an incomplete answer is given, to get the information later is not the same thing as giving a full and responsive answer at the time, particularly if there are follow-up questions. If there is a pattern of questions that make it clear that Senators are trying to understand something, and there are incomplete answers one after the other, if you're there in the room and possess the knowledge, you should not allow that to go on. I think you have some obligation, you and anybody else in that situation, to respond in real time. That's why we have hearings. Yes, you put stuff in the record that you may not have the information on at the time. If you've got to go find something to put it in the record, that's one thing. If you are sitting there and you have the information and it's being withheld, that's another. That, in my view, is not proper, Whether you're the person doing the testifying or somebody you directly report to is sitting there doing the testifying and you or they are giving answers, not once, but more than once, that are incomplete and you recognize them to be incomplete I think there is an obligation to respond in real time. If you can write a note, as you say you just did with Ms. Kulka, on something else, you can certainly write a note in that area-and I say that not only to you, but everybody else who might be in an equivalent situation. A later response down the line, for the record, is not the same thing as a true and accurate response in real time. Do you understand what I'm saying? Ms. HANsON. I do understand what you're saying, sir. If I might, as I stated, Mr. Altman was testifying. He had questions and answers in front of him, and I had every reason to believe that he 'was testifying"-he was making decisions as he testified. The issues before us now have assumed much more importance and significance than they had at that particular time. As I stated, I expectfully expected that we would respond in an orderly way, and would respond fully and completely to every question. There was no intention on my_part, sir, not to do that. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, could I have 10 seconds on this follow-up because it relates? The CHAIRMAN. Of course. Senator SHELBY. Ms. Hanson, you say that Mr. Altman had the questions and answers before him. Were these a lot of the quesitons that were anticipated, like in the preparation for the overought hearing, and some of the answers that you all had prepared 118 and that he bad prepared himself to answer accordingly? Is that what you were referring to?
August 3, 1994 - Part 2
(11:30:27) Secretary BENTSEN. Well I am going to try to get better lines drawn insofar as what can and what cannot be done, what authority is in each of these two different institutions, Treasury and the Resolution Trust. I think that the Office of Government Ethics makes some good points in that regard, and what I get is a feeling in the Senate Committee that those things should be done. Senator MACK. I guess what I was really referring to in dealing with the specific issue, though, of the very different opinions and recollections of Mr. Altman, Ms. Hanson, Mr. Steiner, and Mr. Roelle? Secretary BENTSEN. Well let me say, Senator, if the question is, you know how do you get them to work together and the rest of it, and I look at you folks here and I think of my own time in the Senate, and I think of the times I was on the Senate Floor arguing with one or the other of you on the different side of an issue and really going at it, and the next day, we would find we were on the same side of a different issue. So I think they will be able to work together. Senator MACK. Well Mr. Secretary, I have a different point of view. I do not have any more time to pursue it at this time. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, for being with us this morning. And I have a few brief questions and not really concerning you. But my concern is the lack of aggressiveness on the part of Mr. Fiske that I feel in pursuing the Whitewater and his many, multiple ties to the various members of the Administration. I feel very strongly that he maybe represents more the problem than the solution to clearing up the Whitewater problem and getting to the bottom of it. 31 And that is what I feel, and so I had one or two questions con cerning him. Had you ever met Robert Fiske prior to his appointment by Ms. Reno as Special Counsel? Secretary BENTSEN. Not to my knowledge. You know I am like you. I have met an awful lot of folks. But I do not ever remember having met him, and if I did, I apologize to him. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Are you aware that, you know of course you do know that Ms. Reno is the person that appointed him as a Special Counsel? Secretary BENTSEN. That is right. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Are you aware that Bernard Nussbaum recommended Mr. Fiske for a job with the Iran-Contra prosecutor, Lawrence Walsh? Secretary BENTSEN. No, I am not aware of that. I do know that various Members of this Committee and on both sides of the aisle, made some very commendatory statements about Mr. Fiske at the time he was chosen, and I understand he is a Republican, Senator FAIRCLOTH. I am aware of that too, and I thought more highly of him before he started the investigation than I do after he has been in it awhile. Are you aware that the Robert Fiske law firm represented the company that sold the land to the Whitewater Partnership? Secretary BENTSEN. That what? Senator FAIRCLOTH. That the Robert Fiske law firm represented the company that sold the land to Whitewater Partnership? Secretary BENTSEN. No, no. I do not know that, did not know that. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Were you aware that Nussbaum served on the same side of at least two legal cases with Robert Fiske? Secretary BENTSEN. No, I do not know that. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Were you aware that Nussbaum consulted with Robert Fiske on at least two high level appointments to the Clinton Administration? Secretary BENTSEN. No, I did not know that. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Were you aware that Robert Fiske worked with Robert Bennett, President Clinton's current lawyer on his Paula Jones problems, in a case involving the First American and BCCI? That they worked together, Bennett and Fiske? Secretary BENTSEN. Senator, you know a lot more about that than I do. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, there is no reason why the Secretary should be aware of these things. I know Senator Faircloth wants to put it in the record, and he maybe should go ahead and read it, but I do not know why he should keep dragging the Secretary, I mean, the Secretary had nothing to do with pickling. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Senator Sarbanes, if I need you to critique my questions, I will ask you to. Secretary Bentsen, this morning on the CBS morning news, Senator Bob Dole said that after watching the hearings yesterday, two things were obvious. 32 First, somebody is not telling the truth. And second, it is obvious that Robert Fiske did not do a very thorough job. Secretary Bentsen, did Robert Fiske talk with you specifically about the accuracy of Robert Altman's testimony at the January 24th RTC Oversight Hearings? Secretary BENTSEN. No, he did not. Senator FAIRCLOTH. So Robert Fiske did not talk with you about the discrepancies between the number of White House RTC contacts that he found and the number that Robert Altman reported at the hearing?
August 2, 1994 - Part 13
(01:50:16) I have to tell you something else, I think that a number of questions that I raised after having advised him the night before that I was going to raise them, the issue of recusal, the issue of contacts, that he should have been in a position to give us more responsive answers than came and if not on the 24th. certainly earlier than they eventually did and that's my point. And last but not least let me say this, I regret any personalization with my friend, the Senator from Connecticut. We do get heated up. He's got the same kind of passion and blood running through his veins that I don and so I apologize if, in my response, I went further than I should have and I hope you'll accept that because I think we both have jobs to do. We both have our beliefs and I think that the Chair has done an outstanding job in giving all of us and preserving all of our rights. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, what time is the meeting in the morning? The CHAIRMAN. We are starting tomorrow morning-we 're scheduled to start at 9:30 a.m. Earlier I mentioned the recording clerks that have been so steadfast, there are two of them, Patty Zuber and Julie Baker. And I acknowledged one, but not the other, and I want to acknowledge both. I think we've had a full discussion. I 558 know everybody here wants the last word. Do we really need an" other last word here or can we bring this hearing to a conclusion? Senator GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, I'm willing to forgo some sub. stantive questions, but I would like to make a statement. The CHAIRMAN. You certainly have that right. I would hope that Senator GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, let me first say that I'd intended to ask a question about what I believe were four substantive contacts. The day before Mr. Altman testified on the 23rd he called Harold Ickes at the White House. That was clearly a contact. Harold Ickes called Mr. Altman and was transferred to Josh Steiner. That clearly was a contact. At Mr. Altman's request, Ms. Hanson called Bernie Nussbaum. That was clearly a contact. And Mr. Eggleston called Ms. Hanson to ask a question, about what Mr. Altman was going to say in the testimony, which was clearly a contact. There were 4 contacts the day before the testimony, and three times at the bearing the question was asked about contacts, and these four weren't mentioned. I could go on to try to clarify whether Ms. Hanson on her own volition would have ever called up Bernie Nussbaum and set up a meeting of the nature she did last September. I would recount ter testimony and question the logic that she could have or would have done it on her own. I'm not going to do that, given the late hour. But I want to conclude by simply asking Mr. Altman if he will submit in writing, based on everything that is now known, he knows or he can find, the answers to the questions that were asked on the February 24 bearing. One final letter where you go back, your staff goes back, reads the questions and answers the question in writing to complete this testimony. Are you willing to do that? Mr. ALTMAN. Sure. Senator KERRY. Which question? Senator GRAMM. All the questions that were asked that were not fully answered there. Mr. ALTMAN. You mean on February 24? Senator GRAMM. That's right. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me say Senator Dodd raised the issue about Mr. Altman. I want to make my comments. To some extent, when you are doing these things you are talking about human beings, and I want to say how I feel and what I think the issue is here. First of all, there is no better or brighter person in the Clinton Administration, in my opinion, than Roger Altman, He brought to this town a lot of ability and in terms of his service in the functions where he has been a policymaker, I have no complaint with what he has done nor have I had any intention here to do anything other than to focus in basically on one issue. And the issue is, as Members of this Committee, do we have a right to expect people who testify before our Committee to answer our questions fully and honestly. Now I believe and we all have our own beliefs-great thing about living in America-but I believe that objective people who have watched this whole hearing, who have looked at all the facts are going to conclude that Roger Altman may be brilliant, he may be accomplished, and he may be a very important member of the Clinton Administration and my guess, Mr. Altman is if you're not in the Clinton Administration in the future, they're going to have a 559 hard time finding somebody as good as you are. But I believe that an objective observer will conclude that Mr. Altman has not told us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth,
Whitewater Hearings August 1, 1994 - Part 1
(11:50:38) Senator SHELBY. Mr. Ryan, when did you first learn of the Feb ruary 2 1994, meeting between the White House and Mr. Altman? 24 Mr. RYAN. I learned about that meeting in the meetings the RTC staff held with Mr. Altman to help prepare him for the oversight hearings before this Committee. Senator SHELBY. What was your reaction to that meeting when you learned about it? Mr. RYAN. I was surprised that meeting , had occurred. Senator SHELBY. During your tenure of dealing with a regulation like this, have you ever known of any other disclosures like that? Mr. RYAN. No, sir. Senator SHELBY. Isn't it very important to the RTC to keep this kind of information very confidential within the RTC? Mr. RYAN. I think it is, yes, sir. It is a responsibility of- Senator SHELBY, And why is it important? Mr. RYAN. It is important because information concerning such matters could compromise the RTC's ability to bring a case, if that is warranted. Senator SHELBY. Is this especially true if people who might be targets of this investigation Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. -knew what was going on on the inside of RTC? Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. Was that why you were surprised that this information had been disseminated to the White House? Mr. RYAN. I'm not making a judgment as to- Senator SHELBY, Just tell me what you thought at the time. Mr. RYAN. I thought that it was a surprising revelation. Senator SHELBY. And highly unusual, wasn't it? Mr. RYAN. And highly unusual, yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. This was confidential information, was it not? Mr. RYAN. That's the problem, I think, Senator, the RTC does leak. I think someone said Senator SHELBY. Was it supposed to he confidential information? Mr. RYAN. It was supposed to be confidential, and the RTC has a responsibility to keep that information confidential as well. The RTC breached that responsibility. Senator SHELBY. Who breached it? Mr. RYAN. I don't know. Senator SHELBY. Have you done an internal investigation to see? Mr. RYAN. Not yet. Senator SHELBY. Were you aware, at any time, of a request made by Mr. Altman that the General Counsel of the RTC, Ms. Kulka, brief the President's private attorney on this? Mr. RYAN. Was I aware? Senator SHELBY. Yes. Mr. RYAN, If she did. Senator SHELBY. No. About the request. Mr. RYAN. I was aware of the request, yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. What was your reaction on learning about that request, that the General Counsel of RTC brief the President of the United States' private attorney-I believe it was Mr, Kendall. Mr. RYAN. Yes, that's correct. Senator SHELBY. What was your reaction? 25 Mr. RYAN. I was surprised at the request and discussed it with the General Counsel. Senator SHELBY. Would asking the General Counsel of the RTC to brief a private attorney of a possible subject in a civil suit, or any other suit, be inconsistent with the regulations that you went by in running the RTC? Mr. RYAN. I assumed all along that at some point in time, a meeting between our lawyer and Mr. Kendall would take place if an action was contemplated. I thought it was premature, as Ms. Kulka has indicated. Senator SHELBY. And highly unusual? Mr. RYAN. Highly unusual. Senator SHELBY. Mrs. Kulka, did Roger Altman or Jean Hanson ever ask you to brief David Kendall on the RTC's investigation of Madison/White water? Ms. KULKA. I received a call from Ms. Hanson where she told me that Roger Altman had requested that I call Mr. Kendall. Senator SHELBY. Do you recall the date of this, briefly? ? Can you refer to your notes, or would you furnish it for the record? Ms. KuLKA. I believe that it was around February 3, 1994. Senator SHELBY. OK Go ahead. Ms. KULKA. She asked me to advise him of the relationship between our potential asking for tolling agreements and the running of the statute of limitations on February 28, 1994, on the Madison matters. Senator SHELBY. Did you brief David Kendall, the President's attorney? Ms. KuLKA. No. Senator SHELBY. Why? Ms. KULKA. I told Ms. Hanson that I didn't think this was the appropriate time to do it because we had formed no conclusions about who might eventually be asked to execute tolling agreements or who might be defendants. Senator SHELBY. Absolutely, Ms. KULKA. And that I thought, at the appropriate time, we would certainly enter into those discussions with attorneys for any possible defendants. Senator SHELBY. What did Mrs. Hanson say to that? Ms. KuLKA. She said, fine, I'll tell Roger. Senator SHELBY. That was the end of it? Did you have a convesation with Mr. Altman, Mr. Roger Altman, regarding this? Ms. KuLKA. I don't believe I did. Senator SHELBY, Mr. Roelle, did you talk with Mr. Roger Altman about this same subject?
August 2, 1994 - Part 3
(00:05:11) Senator SARBANES. Now, that's a different answer than the path I seem to be taking, was led down when I was being told there was no specific conversation. Mr. STEINER. Well, Senator Senator SARBANES. See, it's interesting because Mr. Altman did the same thing when he was before our Committee, and we have to parse your words very carefully here. Now, you do, as I understand it, recall conversations in which Mr. Altman expressed the view on this question; is that correct? Mr. STEINER. It's conceivable-I can't recall any conversations directly that Senator SARBANES Strike the word "directly." 375 Mr. STEINER. I believe Mr. Altman has said that it is not surprising that our recollections differ and they do differ. Senator SARBANES. Why isn't it surprising? Mr. STEINER. We're speaking about events that took place many months ago, Senator. Senator SARBANES. Do you think Ms. Hanson, of her own volition, would go to Nussbaum in the White House to give him this information? Mr. STEINER. I think she might, yes. Senator SARBANES. You do. She said yesterday that it was not conceivable to her that she would do this. Mr. STEINER. I did not listen to her testimony, Senator. Senator SARBANES. That's what she said. Do you disagree with that? Mr. STEINER. She certainly has a better sense of her own responsibilities and course of action than I do. Senator SARBANES. Would it be your evaluation that she might go do it on her own? What's your evaluation of that? You know her. You know Altman. You know how it works. You know the interaction between them. Mr. STEINER. As I said, Senator, I think it's possible that she would do it under her own direction, Senator SARBANES. Mr. Nye, what do you think about that? Mr. NYE. My understanding of those events, and at the time I was not aware of them, was that she actually informed Bernie Nussbaum at the end of a meeting that they were having already on the subject of a Waco, Texas report involving the AFT--that's my understanding recently gained. To the extent that she would have, at the end of the meeting, pulled him aside and informed him of that does not seem incredulous to me. Senator SARBANES. Do you think she did it because she had been directed to do so by Mr. Altman? Mr. NYE. That I have no knowledge of Senator SARBANES. You've never heard any discussions by either Altman or Hanson on this point? Mr. NYE. At what time? Senator SARBANES, Any time. Mr. NYE. In the very Senator SARBANES. I am asking questions in the most general fashion to elicit the most responsive and broadest answers. I want to establish that as a premise. And therefore, I don't want an answer that says, well, now, if specifically-and then you exclude it out. So I'm asking you at any time Mr. NYE. Right. And what I'd like to, respond Senator SARBANES. -directly or indirectly. Mr. NYE. What I'd like to respond to you and that's why I was asking your time frame, was that I have had one conversation with Roger Altman in response to a press article recently on the question of the difference of recollection. It was the Sue Schmidt article, I forget the date, but it was a Sunday article recently, the past cople weeks. In it-and his response to this was simply that it was an honest difference of recollection, and given the event happened approximately a year ago or so, I took that to be the case. 376 Senator DODD. Senator Sarbanes, though, asked-you know this person. You know Jean Hanson, don't you? Mr. NYE. Yes, I do. Senator DODD. Tell us about her demeanor. This is almost a demeanor question, a stylistic question. A lawyer with a major law firm, an independent person, obviously a successful individual. Did she strike you as the kind of person who on her own direction her" own volition would decide to go down and see the Chief Legal Counsel for the Presidency at the White House? Mr. NYE. That's what I was just trying to explain. I believeagain, this is all recently. I wasn't aware of this at the time, but I believe that she attended a meeting on another subject all together, and then pulled him aside at the end Senator DODD. You're not being responsive to the question. I'm' not trying to hold you to some rigid standard here. I'm asking you an opinion about somebody. We don't know her you do. Mr. NYE, My response to the Senator was simply that I didn't think it was inconceivable. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up. Could I just put a couple questions to Mr. Foreman? Mr. Foreman, bow long have you been the Deputy General Counsel for the Treasury? Mr. FOREMAN. January 1991, Senator. Senator SARBANES. And how long have you been the Chief Legal Officer there? Mr. FOREMAN. I'm sorry. I've been the Chief Ethics Officer for the same period of time.
August 2, 1994 - Part 7
(18:55:32) Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir, that doesn't give me any information about the outlook for the case. Senator FAIRCLOTH. You testified in your deposition that you had no knowledge of the substance of the Madison Guaranty case, However, Harold Ickes testified that you told him about the inquiry, that the investigation was going to take longer to conclude, and that it might not conclude until after the statute of limitations expired. Ickes testified, and I quote: '?be general information from Mr. Altman was based on what he knew." How could you advise Harold Ickes if you knew nothing? Mr. ALTMAN. I did not so advise him. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Was be lying? Mi. ALTMAN. I did not so advise him, Senator. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Are you saying that Harold Ickes was lying in his testimony? Mr. ALTMAN. I did not so advise him. Senator FAIRCLOTH. You said in your deposition that you were never involved with any case. Mr. ALTMAN. I said I was never involved in decisions on any case. 446 Senator FAIRCLOTH. Jean Hanson testified that you instructed her to try to get Ellen Kulka, the RTC lawyer, to brief President Clinton's private lawyer, Dave Kendall, on the Madison case. If you had never got involved, why would you be asking anybody to brief an ybody about anything on the case? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, at the conclusion of the substantive part of the February 2 meeting, I was asked whether the same procedural information on the generic alternatives facing the RTC would be provided to the private attorneys. I'm not a lawyer. I think I said I guess so. We returned to the Treasury. Jean Hanson checked with Ms. Kulka. Ms. Kulka said something to the affected of not now or in due course. I said fine. That's what happened. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Again, you testified you were never involved in any case whatsoever. On Madison, specifically, you testified you knew nothing of the case whatsoever. In other words, nobody told ou anything about the case. Jean Hanson testified here that you ad an understanding about this type of information. She said it is standard practice to notify you if there will be issues involving Congressmen, Senators, people of national prominence, or an issue of national attention. How can you be notified if no one tells you anything? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, my policy in that regard related to press. I simply requested that before the RTC released any action which could have major press potential or leak potential, that I be advised after the decision was reached, not before, not to have any role in the decision. I wanted to know simply so that I'd be prepared for whatever inquiries could ensue. And I think if one checked, although I haven't, if one checked with like agencies, one would find they had similar policies on press. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Mr. Altman, you did not recuse yourself until after Robert Fiske was brought in on the case by Janet Reno. At the March 2 White House meeting, Bernard Nussbaum wanted to know if there was any way to take the RTC civil case away from Ellen Kulka, who he thought was too tough, and give them to Robert Fiske. Jean Hanson testified that she didn't get an ethics opinion about telling Robert Nussbaum about the criminal referral because it assisted in achieving a governmental purpose. How does meeting with Nussbaum, who then tried to get the civil case out of the hands of a lawyer that he thought was too tough and into the hands of Robert Fiske serve a governmental purpose? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator FAIRCLOTH. I don't believe there was any discussion on February 2 about moving the case to Mr. Fiske. I don't believe there was any such discussion. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Mr. Altman, did you ever walk on water? Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. I yield my time to Senator D'Amato. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman., are you ready? Senator BENNETT. I'm ready, but I want my full 10 minutes. Senator D'AMATO. I'll start with Mr. Bennett and give him the time. Senator SHELBY. If the Senator would yield to me, I'd take it. Senator DAMATO. I'll yield to the Senator. Senator BENNETT. I think that's the proper order'. 447 Senator DAMATO. Go ahead. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shelby, there is little time left but they're yielding, so you go ahead. Senator SHELBY. I'll try to save it for them. I just want my time, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Altman, you've been prepared on various occasions during your career to testify before various Committees in the House an perhaps the Senate, have you not? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir, many times. Senator SHELBY. And some of it started back when you were in the Carter Administration; is that Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. Would you characterize an appearance before the Senate Banking Committee acting in its oversight capacity on RTC, etcetera, as a serious undertaking?
August 4, 1994 - Part 4
(12:35:25) Hearing resumes: Senator D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Williams, let me ask you as it relates to the diary of Mr. Alt man, did you ever see Altman's diary page? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, I've not seen the diary page. Senator D'AMATO. You have never seen the diary page? MS. WILLIAMS. I have not read it. Senator D'AMATO. Well, have you seen it? MS. WILLIAMS. I have seen it in the hands of my attorney, the page, but I have not read it. It appeared to be a clump of handwriting, but I did not avail myself of an opportunity to read it. Senator D'AMATO. Your attorney did not avail you the opportunity to read it? MS. WILLIAMS. Oh, he gave me the opportunity. I said I was not interested in reading it. Senator D'AMATO. OK Did you ever speak to Roger Altman about his recordings, his diary or the page? Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. I did speak with Mr. Altman about his recordings. Senator D'AMATO. How did that occasion take place, if you can recall? MS. WILLIAMS, Mr. Altman called me and said that he wanted to see me. Senator D'AMATO. He called you and said he wanted to speak to you? MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, he did. Senator D'AMATO. And he wanted to speak to you in person? 325 MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, he did. Senator DAMATO. And was that sometime in July, the second week of July? Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. That seems about right. Senator D'AMATO. And so he came to see you at the White House? Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. That's correct. Senator DAMATO. And what did he say to you? Ms. WILLIAMS. He said that-I'll give you the gist, I don't know exactly, but I'll give you the gist of what he said. Senator DAMATO. All right. Ms. WILLIAMS. Was that I have written some things and I want to tell you about them. Senator D'AMATO. And what did he say? MS, WILLIAMS. And he told me about them. Senator D'AMATO. What did he say, if you can recall? I mean, now this is-he feels-he's embarrassed. Is that a fair characterization? Did he say he wanted to apologize to you? Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, 1 don't want to characterize. I don't remember him saying "apologize," I have to say I was caught up in my own bad attitude. Senator DAMATO. OK. What did he say to you and what did you say to him? MS. WILLIAMS. I believe what he said to me was I want to tell you about some writings that I have written that have your name in them, and I probably said OK And I was alerted-1 mean, 1 wasn't totally unaware of this because I'd had a previous conversation with Mr. Cutler who had asked me about them. So I wasn't totally unaware of what he said. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Cutler had, in reviewing of the matters that had taken place, gone over this and informed you what the writings were about? Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. He did tell me what the writings were about, and he asked me questions about them. Senator DAMATO, So now what did Roger say to you? Ms. WILLIAMS. At that point he said I want to tell you about them, and then he essentially told me what each of the writings or entries had said. Senator D'AMATO. What the entries were about? Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, that's correct. Senator D'AMATO. The paralysis? What did you say to him? Ms. WILLIAMS. I said something on the order of Roger, where is this coming from? 1 don't remember any conversations that I had with you about this. Senator D'AMATO. And what did he say in response to that? Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, I believe he was kind of-I believe that he Was quiet, quite frankly, about it. As I said before and as I testified before the House Committee, I was having quite a bad attitude about this entire matter, and I was more or less caught up Senator DAMATO. You mean about the diary? Ms. WILLIAMS. The fact that what had been written about me, to the best of my recollection, there were conversations that never had taken place which would be reflected in his writings. So I was, I was upset, 326 Senator D'AMATO. At the time of the discussion, did you know that fie was scheduled to testify before the Senate? Did he indicate anything to you about that? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, I don't believe he indicated anything to me about that, but everybody knew he was going to testify before the Senate. Senator DAMATO. Let me ask you, didn't he say to you that I brought a copy of this and didn't he in fact bring a copy of the diary, the yellow page diary?
August 4, 1994 - Part 5
(13:05:44) Ms. WILLIAMS. In my opinion, she was spending time with Counsel that should have been spent on Health Care. Senator KERRY. Well, is it fair to say she was distracted from the rest of the agenda? Ms. WILLIAMS. She was not distracted, but I believe that we could have been much more proactive if the time that she was spending on answering questions, press inquiries and on being talked to by her personal lawyer were spent proactively on Health Care. Senator KERRY. Well, I understand that. But look, it seems to me that if she's spending a lot of hours on something that she didn't want to spend time on, she's distracted. Ms. WILLIAMS. That would be a fair characterization. Senator KERRY. I mean the President himself announced, and here is The Wall Street Journal article saying the President is backing down in an effort to protect the rest of his agenda. I mean, he was aware that this was invading the time and energy of the White House and he needed to deal with it. And dealing with it is precisely what was mentioned in Mr. Altman's diary where he says, "If we don't solve this within the next two days you don't have to worry about her schedule on Health Care"; correct? 334 Ms. WILLIAMS. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that, please? Senator KERRY. "If we don't solve this"-this is reading from Roger Altman's diary--"If we don't solve this within the next two days, you don't have to worry about her schedule on Health Care." Ms. WILLIAMS. And the question is, sir? Senator KERRY. The question is wasn't this in fact solved within the next 2 days when the President appointed a Special Counsel and turned all the documents over to the Justice Department? Ms, WILLIAMS. Yes, I guess to some degree it was. Senator KERRY. So I mean this, it seems to me, is sort of an accurate reflection of the state of affairs at the time and nothing inconsistent with what you have testified of what was in fact happening at that point in time. Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, sir, if I can just make a brief point here. The question with respect to the diary was whether or not I had had these conversations with Mr. Altman, and 1 felt in responding to the questions I had to say in all honesty that, to the best of my recollection, I did not have these conversations with him. With respect to what the mood of the White House was or whether or not his diary actually reflects the mood, I won't-I won't speak to that, but I will say that the questions were did you have these conversations with Mr. Altman, and I must say that to the best of my recollection, I did not. That is not to say that Mr. Altman could have been reading the newspapers, looking at what was in the public domain and coming to these things himself. I am saying that I did not have these conversations with Mr. Altman, to the best of my recollection. Senator KERRY. At this meeting on Health Care, you made no comment to him at all about the degree to which Hillary Clinton was wrapped up in this or involved in it or couldn't be involved in the Health Care schedule? Ms. WILLIAMS. What I said and excuse me, what I said was, to the best of my recollection, I did not have these specific conversations with Mr. Altman as reflected by his words and his writings, but what I also did volunteer to this Committee was that I had been saying to anyone who would listen that I believed Whitewater was a distraction from the President's agenda and I did not understand how 17 years of Arkansas history was related to feeding people, clothing people, giving people Health Care. I was outspoken. I said that. I said it over and over. Senator KERRY. And you might have said it to Mr. Altman? Ms. WILLIAMS, It is possible he could have heard me say that. Senator KERRY. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Kerry. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator D'Amato, I want to just also indicate Senator Moseley-Braun has not yet had a chance and will want to take one. Senator D'AMATO. Same thing with Senator Domenici. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici, you've not had a round yet either, have you? We have two Members that need to do that. Senator D'Amato. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to yield. I want to, make an observation. 335 I think Senator Kerry has done us a great service in putting forth the fact that all of those things were in the public domain. And the matters
July 19, 1995 - Part 1
(09:50:47) Senator SHELBY. Were you made aware at that time of any other concerns or problems being raised by other law enforcement officials other than the Department of Justice? In other words, did he 78 tell you anything about how the Park Police, Mr. Hubbell, viewed the White House Counsel's conduct under this? Didn't Mr. Heymann tell you about a conversation he had with Tom Collier, the Chief of Staff of the Secretary of the Interior, about the White House's conduct in the investigation? Mr. HUBBELL. Yes. Specifically, the conversation was brought on by the fact that Mr. Collier had called him to say that the Park Police had concerns. Senator SHELBY. My time is up on this round. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes, we will attempt to keep as close as we can. I will give some latitude to either side as it relates to finishing a question or a particular line, and hopefully we can work that out so we have a continuity. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES Senator SARBANES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure that some of our Members will probably run over their time in the questioning, but we will make an effort to hold to the allotted time. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dodd. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hubbell, let me join Senator D'Amato in thanking you for being here and being as forthright and candid and open as you've been. We appreciate it immensely here on the Committee. I'm going to ask you a few very direct questions, and then I'm going to turn whatever time, Mr. Chairman, I have remaining of my slot over to Mr. Ben-Veniste to continue with his line of questioning. First of all, I think, just to review the bidding a bit here, what we're talking about here is a police inquiry into a suicide on July 20, 21, 22, 1993, and thereafter. This was not a police inquiry into Whitewater, Madison Guaranty, or anything else of the kind. This was a police inquiry, a Park Police inquiry into the office of a person who has tragically taken his life to determine, I would suspect, whether or not there's any suicide note or any evidence which would shed any light as to the rationale or reason why that individual had taken that action. So, as we discuss the events around July 20, 21, 22, 1993, and thereafter, I think it's very important to keep in mind exactly what we're talking about here, what the interests of the policing authorities were, and that was to inquire as to whether or not there was any evidence as it relates to the tragic suicide of Mr. Foster. That's what this is all about. So, to the extent, all of a sudden, there was some reluctance to virtually open up the file drawers and every file cabinet in Mr. Foster's office to allow the Park Police or others to go through it to determine whether or not there was any evidence there is, I think, stretching the case a little bit. But let me come back to the particular series of questions, and, Mr. Chairman, my intention would be to ask all of our relevant witnesses these same questions, and they go to the very heart, Mr. Hubbell, of what we're about in this session, in this series of hearings- the second part of these hearings on the Whitewater matter. 79 Mr. Hubbell, on or after July 20, 1993, the date, obviously,. of Vincent Foster's suicide, did anyone ask you or instruct you to destroy any documents from Vincent Foster's office? Mr. HUBBELL. No, Senator. Senator DODD. Did you destroy any documents on or after July 20, 1993 in Vincent Foster's office? Mr. HUBBELL. No, I did not. Senator DODD. On or after July 20, 1993, did anyone ask you or instruct you to conceal from any law enforcement agency documents from Vincent Foster's office? Mr. HUBBELL. No, they did not. Senator DODD. Mr. Hubbell did I anyone at any time ask you or instruct you to take any action to impede, obstruct, or otherwise interfere with any policing investigation regarding Vincent Foster's suicide? Mr. HUBBELL. No, they did not. Senator DODD. I thank you. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Mr. Hubbell, I'd like to follow up briefly on questions Senator Shelby raised just a few moments ago. When Mr. Heymann told you, in words or substance, that Mr. Nussbaum had put on his New York litigator hat, what did that mean to you? Mr. HUBBELL. I don't know if we want to get into a debate of Southern litigators versus New York litigators, but Southern litigators I think, try to charm their opponents and New York litigators try to play a little harder ball, and that's the view I had.
July 20, 1995 - Part 3
(12:00:08) The CHAIRMAN. Yes , you will be. There is nothing that I am aware of that would preclude that. As a matter of fact, it may now be necessary since we will not receive the test-I mentioned it today at the opening along with Senator Sarbanes-to enter into the record the letter of request and the Special Counsel's reasons for the denial of our request. This was the second formal communication in addition Senator BOXER. I was here for that. I just wanted to make sure that that doesn't preclude us from asking questions to get verifica- tion. The CHAIRMAN. No, this Committee will not be precluded from asking questions and it might even require us to go further Senator BOXER. Oh, OK. The CHAIRMAN. We try to save that time. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, if the gentle lady will be glad to yield just for a moment. Senator BOXER. I'd be glad to, yes. Senator SARBANES. I would also like to make the observation that Senator Faircloth asked the question of Detective Rolla based, on the 302 report written by the FBI after their interview with Detective Rolla, that's what the question was about earlier. We asked the Independent Counsel for the 302 reports on Margaret Williams and Agent O'Neill and were denied those reports. Of course, again, I want to emphasize as I did at the outset that I think it would have been very helpful to us to have those 302 reports along with the results of the polygraph test which the Senator from California has just mentioned. Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. Then I'm going to pursue that line of questioning at the appropriate time. I'd like to ask you, Ms. Braun, as a matter of fact each of you to answer this. You were at the home, as you 've testified, the night 183 of the suicide. Was it your sense as you saw many people in the house, and you were there until 11:10, that there were meetings going on, that there was some kind of undertone or buzz going on about what to do about papers and documents, or would you say that this was a home where people were gathered because they had heard about this man who they cared about and wanted to pay their respects to the widow and perhaps console each other? Ms. BRAUN. I would have to say it was probably the latter. Senator BOYER. Mr. Rolla? Mr. ROLLA. I would say, obviously, they were close friends and they were there to console and heard news, and I don't have any idea who they talked to or what those conversations were about while they were on the phone. Certain people were on the phone the entire time they were there. Senator BOXER. I didn't ask you if they were on the phone. I asked you if you saw, as you looked around the room, groups meeting and people discussing business matters, meeting in private rooms out of your sight, perhaps, or where they were doing anything other than discussing their grief or talking about the suicide. Mr. ROLLA. People were meeting out of my earshot, talking on the phone and discussing things. I don't know what they were discussing. Senator BOXER. OK. So you can't answer the question of whether you thought it was-as Ms. Braun can. To you, you're not sure if it was more condolence calls or business meetings or meetings about papers? Mr. ROLLA. I think it's obvious there was condolence calls because-that was obvious, but it was also obvious-a businesslike atmosphere. Senator BOXER. Mr. Hines? Mr. HINES. I was not there that night, Senator. Senator BOXER. OK. It's now been 2 years-actually, I think it is tomorrow. Mr. ROLLA. Today. Senator BOXER. It is today-since Vince Foster's death. I would ask each of you to answer, i's there anything that has come to your attention, either professionally, personally, through reading the press in any way, that leads you to change your mind that this was anything but a suicide? Ms. Braun? Ms. BRAUN. No, Senator. Senator BOXER. Mr. Rolla? Mr. ROLLA. No. Senator BOXER. Mr. Hines? Mr. HINES. Nothing. Senator BOXER. I want to get back to the sealing of the office or the securing of the office or the locking of the office or the closing of the office and try to clarify in my mind what happened. I'm going to ask each of you to tell me if I'm incorrect. Ms. Braun, on your way out of the door, literally, you said to Mr. Watkins something to the effect of Vince Foster's office at the White House should be secure? Ms. BRAUN. Yes. Senator BOXER. You don't recall exactly what he said, but you think you remember him agreeing with you; is that correct? 184
July 25, 1995 - Part 4
(14:35:42) Senator HATCH. OK. Did it occur to you that this bag might contain some of Mr. Foster's papers or information from his office? MS. MATHEWS. When I first sought to get the bag, yes, sir, it did But after the time at which I learned that he didn't have one in his office, one, and then it turns out that there wasn't-it wasn't ever dumped. So at the time when I learned it wasn't in the office, that's the point at which I thought my question wasn't quite so rel- evant, I I Senator HATCH. But it was Mr. Nussbaum-and maybe I've got this wrong, and correct me if I'm wrong-it was Mr. Nussbaum that told you to burn the burn bag, right? Ms. MATHEWS. Yes, sir. What he told me was to process it appropriately. He told me two things: One, that there was not a burn bag in Vincent Foster's office and, two, that the materials, the commingled materials that I had, should be processed as they normally are processed. Senator HATCH. Did you know exactly where the burn bag came from or is that unclear? Ms. MATHEWS. The commingled bag that I received came from the uniformed division of the Secret Service. Senator HATCH. OK. Now, let me just ask you this question: Did Mr. Nussbaum tell you or anyone else if anyone had wanted the burn bag destroyed? MS. MATHEWS. No, sir, he told me to process it as it's normally processed and it is my understanding, though I've never seen it actually happen, that that's what the Secret Service does, Senator HATCH. I see. Did he tell you if he or anyone else had ordered Mr. Foster's office searched? Ms. MATHEWS. No, sir, he did not mention that to me. Senator HATCH. Were you aware of anybody being in Mr. Foster's office or searching it? MS. MATHEWS. No, sir, I was not aware of that, Senator HATCH. OK, Mr. Gearan, on December 23, 1993, you stated, and I quote, "the President today has instructed his personal attorney"-I assume that's Mr. Kendall-"to provide appropriate law enforcement authorities at the Department of Justice with all the documents relating to the Whitewater Development Corporation"-could I just finish this question-"including those in the files of Vincent Foster which were turned over to their personal attorney after Mr. Foster's death." That was in The New York Times. Now, I want to make sure that this Committee and the American people know about all of the documents relating to Whitewater. So, Mr. Gearan, can you state for the record that the documents in the hands of David Kendall and the documents still in the hands of the White House are all of the documents relative to the Whitewater investigation? Mr. GEARAN, Based on my understanding, yes, sir, the Statement we issued in December is correct. 295 Senator HATCH. When you made that statement that was reported in The New York Times, were you referring to all of the documents we've become aware of so far? Mr. GEARAN. Senator, I'm not sure of all the documents that you have become aware of, but based on my understanding in December-and there is no distinction today as I testify before you. My understanding is that that includes all of the documents. Senator HATCH. OK. I assume this group of documents included those that the Presidential campaign had collected and those transferred from the White House to Mr. Kendall's office. Do you know? Mr. GEARAN. Senator, what I know is that the documents were in Mr. Kendall's office. The chain of custody from the campaign, I am uncertain about. Senator HATCH. OK. Thanks. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. I'm going to yield to Senator Simon, but I want to just be clear of one thing with Ms. Mathews because I'm a little concerned by some of the line of questioning that's been put to her and some of the reports that were in the press which seem to me to actually be very much at variance with what she did, and I want to be clear about this. At the time that they proceeded to process the burn bag in the normal course, I take it that it was your view there were no documents in the burn bag from Vince Foster's office; is that correct? Ms. MATHEWS. Yes, sir, I understood there to be no documents from Vincent Foster's office in that bag. Senator SARBANES. So you weren't proceeding to process the burn bag and the burning of those documents on the basis that there were documents in there from Foster's office? In fact, just to the contrary, you'd been told or led to understand that there were no documents in the burn bag from Foster's office; is that correct? MS. MATHEWS. That's correct.
July 27, 1995 - Part 3
(13:50:18) Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have any further questions. The CHAIRMAN. I yield back the balance of our time. Senator SARBANES. Senator Dodd. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER J. DODD Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, this may have been gone over and if it has, then interrupt me. But just to tie this down a bit because we're going to get into a parallel line of questions, I presume, with later witnesses, let me see, Mr. Spafford, if I can't try to deal with at least the implications that some are making that there was some sort of sinister cabal going on here even involving you. At least some of the implications are-I guess when we ask your party affiliation, there's some implication here that that was a major consideration. At any rate, you were the counsel for the Foster family and as such, you have a duty to protect that family's privacy. As the attorney for that family, that's one of your responsibilities; is that correct? Mr. SPAFFORD. Yes, sir. Senator DODD. You were reluctant to allow law enforcement officials to rummage through Vincent Foster's personal files; is that not correct? Mr. SPAFFORD. Yes, sir, at least until I had had an opportunity to look through them myself and talk to the family about them. Senator DODD. That's the point I'm trying to make, In fact, Mr. Margolis even talked about a subpoena, if necessary, to get those personal family files; is that not correct? Mr. SPAFFORD. He raised the issue of a subpoena, yes. Senator DODD. But it was your concern, in exercising your responsibility as an attorney, as a professional, to protect the privacy of that family; is that not correct? Mr. SPAFFORD. That's correct. Senator DODD. So you did not get into some discussion with Mr. Nussbaum or other people at the White House to stonewall regarding documents that might have been in there that would have been embarrassing to someone'? Mr. SPAFFORD. No. 541 Senator DODD. Your sole motivation was to protect the privacy of your clients, the Foster family? Mr. SPAFFORD. Yes, and to cooperate with the investigators to the best that I could because, obviously, the family has an interest in seeing that the investigation go forward. Senator DODD. But there were no other discussions that went on involving the Travel Office, Whitewater, all of these other words that you've heard mentioned in conjunction with this? Mr. SPAFFORD. No, I did not discuss those with Mr, Nussbaum or anyone in the White House Counsel's Office. Those never came up. Senator DODD. So you were exercising your responsibility as attorney to that family? Mr. SPAFFORD. That's correct. Senator DODD. That's your sole motivation? Mr. SPAFFORD. Yes. Senator DODD. That's enough, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. If that concludes all of the Senator SARBANES. I have a couple of questions, The CHAIRMAN. Certainly, Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Senator Ben-Veniste. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Thank you, Mr. Mr. SPAFFORD. You've been promoted. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. That's an elected position and not one to which I can be promoted. Thank you. With respect to the briefcase, finally, to bring closure to this point, the briefcase was Mr. Foster's personal briefcase; correct? Mr. SPAFFORD. That's correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Is it correct, sir, that at the conclusion of the search on the 22nd, at that time you did not take that briefcase with you? Mr. SPAFFORD. No, I did not. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. The question of these scraps of paper had not piqued your interest to the extent that you wished to look in the briefcase or to take that briefcase with you? Mr. SPAFFORD. No. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. I have nothing further. Senator SARBANES. Let me ask you this question, Mr. Spafford, because we're going to have another panel here: When Mr. Sloan made this comment to Agent Salter, I take it Mr. Nussbaum put down Mr. Sloan right on the spot? Mr. SPAFFORD. He basically cut him off and defused the situation and said let's move on, and it became a non-event. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Nussbaum indicated they were to cooperate? Mr. SPAFFORD. Yes, he did. Senator SARBANES. He, in effect, cut that right off; is that correct? Mr. SPAFFORD. That's correct. Senator SARBANES. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. If there's no one else, we'll go to the second panel. Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, just a couple of questions. 542 The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY Senator KERRY. Mr. Spafford, you took extensive notes, as the Committee has seen. I believe they're the most extensive notes of anybody who was present. Do you know that now to be a fact? Mr. SPAFFORD. I don't know. I did take notes and made a conscious decision to take detailed notes. Senator FERRY. When you went back to your law firm, You typed up those notes?