Advanced Search
JFK Assassination Hearings - Larry Sturdivan (Conclusion)
Chair recognizes Sturdivan's opportunity to supplement his testimony - Sturdivan tells the committee though he is an Army employee he is not their representative and that opinions expressed are his own, he then thanks the committee.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 29, 1973 (2/2)
[01.31.55-Sen. INOUYE asks DEAN if he knows of any more examples of the ENEMIES LIST being used, citing Chuck COLSON'S (total B.S.) claim in the press that it was simply a social blacklist] Senator INOUYE. Are there an other concrete examples? I am asking you this because. Mr. Colson has gone on the air suggesting that the lists you Submitted were, a social list, that this was a list used by the White House, so that, they would not invite the names listed there for the White House dinners. [01.32.19] Mr. DEAN. I think you will note in there at, some point--first of all, that Mr. Colson, there is a memorandum to him in one of the exhibits where he was to cull out the 20 worst enemies and submit them. This was again because I was receiving- through Mr. Higby and Mr. Strachan a direct request from Mr. Haldeman that he wanted to nail this down as to the 20, or the minimum number that we could do something with. So, we went through this big thing of taking all the lists Mr. Colson had, and Mr. Colson went through and checked off through his lists what he thought were his candidates, He was the only one that I knew that dealt in these areas, I certainly--none of these people were, my enemies. In fact, most of names were unfamiliar to me. As a result of that, I sent a memorandum to Mr. Higby indicating, here are the lists. Don't let it go over 20. and this was sent to Mr. Higby for Mr. Haldeman's final review. It was sent back to me and went back in the file again. [01.33.25] Senator INOUYE. Did you know if anything ever happened to these 20 on the top--hit parade? Mr. DEAN. I cannot answer that because I think I, was realized that my office had less than enthusiasm for dealing with things like this. Senator INOUYE. Are you suggesting that this listing of names was just an exercise? Mr. DEAN. As far as I was concerned, it was an exercise that I had no intention to implement; that is correct, Senator. [01.33.56-INOUYE presses DEAN for hard evidence that the ENEMIES LIST was actually used to take action against people] Senator INOUYE. Are you aware of any person or any agency or any official using these lists to do harm or injury or to assist? Mr. DEAN. They were principally used by Mr. Colson and -Mr. Haldeman and I don't know what they did with them. I know on one occasion I had a call regarding the fact that some of the President's friends--and these are in exhibits and I just think it, would be inappropriate now to mention the individuals' names-were having tax problems, and I was to look into those. I had Mr. Caulfield, who had--who was the person on my staff, who was the Only one, I know had a relationship with the Internal Revenue Service-because I could only deal with the Director. I did deal with one of his assistants from time to time on sensitive cases where they were just brought to our attention -if somebody in the administration was having a normal audit. just to alert the White House to the fact that such an audit was occurring At any rate, as I was saying, I was told that I was to do something about these audits that were being performed on two friends of the President's They felt that they were being harassed and the like. [01.35.13] There is a third instance there this occurred also. -Now, on the--finally, when I got around to checking on it, Mr. Caulfield sent me some information which I think is evidenced in the exhibit and a note went to Mr. Higby. Mr. Higby sent it in to Mr. Haldeman, and Mr. Haldeman wrote a note on the bottom, "'This has already ready been taken care of." So obviously, things were happening that I had no idea on. Now, I would again like to defer from using names in this instance, but there was a request of an audit that was commencing on somebody who was close to the President and several people got involved in this. They said, John, you have got to do something about this, because the President is just going to hit the roof when he finds out about it. Well, I went to the Justice Department because it had already gone from Internal Revenue ---- [01.36.10-TAPE OUT]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.41.44] Mr. EDMISTEN. Do you know the basis of that statement that that was the White House position? Mr. STANS. Pardon me? Mr. EDMISTEN. Do you know of any basis for the apparent House position that there was CIA involvement? Mr. STANS. No, I do not, except as you know, the White House getting the FBI investigation reports, apparently, and- Mr. EDMISTEN. Thank you, Senator ERVIN. Any other question-, On this side? Senator TALMADGE. I have one Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stans, I will ask you to get volume 10 of the testimony and turn to page 1733. Do you have that? Mr. BARKER. Senator, whose testimony is that? Senator TALMADGE. This is Mr. Stans' testimony. Page, 1733. Mr. STANS. We do not have that, sir. Senator TALMADGE. Do you have another copy here? Let me read an inconsistency in the testimony and ask you if can clarify it, please. On page 1733, this morning--I am quoting Senator Inouye. Yesterday and this morning, you testified that you had no reason to question the integrity or the reliability of such associates 'as Mr. LaRue--you have described him as a good person-Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Kalmbach. When did suspect that something was wrong? Mr. STANS. I did not have any suspicions about an.), of these people until after the disclosures in the press following, I believe it was March 23, when Mr. McCord wrote his letter. Then, on page 1770 of the testimony, on line 20: [quoting] Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Stans, did that not raise suspicions in your mind as to the possible illegal or unethical uses of the money that Mr. Magruder was disbursing? Mr. STANS. No question about that. But those suspicions began to generate earlier than that, particularly on June 28, when Mr. Liddy was discharged for failing to cooperate with the FBI. [end quoted section] Senator TALMADGE. Now, you have stated in response to Senator Inouye's question that you had no suspicions until March 23 this year. You stated in response to the question that I had asked you that your suspicions arose earlier than that., but particularly on June 28. [00.44.48] So when did you first get, suspicious that, something was rotten in Denmark? Mr. STANS. Well, I think I can clear that up very easily. The first quotation you recited was as to men like LaRue and Kalmbach and I was not, suspicious of them until sometime after March 23d. But my suspicions as to Gordon Liddy began to grow shortly after the Watergate affair and that, is the answer I was giving in the second part, so far as I can get it, from your quotation. These were different, people. Senator TALMADGE. So you were suspicious about some individuals earlier than you were suspicious about, others? Mr. STANS. I was suspicious about Gordon Liddy within the week or 10 days that evolved after the, Watergate disclosure, yes. Senator TALMADGE. But your early suspicions were not enough to arouse, more suspicions, is that, correct? Mr. STANS. Not as to the gentlemen you named, particularly as to Mr. LaRue and Mr. Kalmbach, both of whom I held in very high regard. And I do not think there was anything in the public press or anywhere to point any fingers of implication at either of them. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you, Mr. Stans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [00.46.00] Senator MONTOYA. Mr. Chairman, I just have one little clarification. Mr. Stans, you indicated your testimony throughout that Mr. Sloan was in charge of the, money which was collected and the disbursements of the money that, was collected and that, your primary duty was, to go out in the field and collect money and handle fundraiser events. Mr. STANS. That is correct. Senator MONTOYA. Now, were you in California and Iowa on a, similar mission in early July? Mr. STANS, Yes, approximately July 11 and 12, as I recall, yes. Senator MONTOYA. And when had you left for that trip from Washington'? Mr. STANS. Well, I had left for that trip on approximately July 5. Went to Atlanta and several cities in Georgia. I went, to Miami and elsewhere in Florida, spent the weekend in Florida; from there to California, from there to Seattle; from there to Portland; from there to Des Moines and from there to Dayton, Ohio, I returned, I believe, on the night of the 13th, about 2 o'clock in the morning. [00.47.30]
President Reagan Press Conference
U.S. President Ronald Reagan continues to take questions in the White House Briefing Room. Sarah McClendon, from McClendon News Service confirms President Reagan does not want inferior schools for soldiers or their children, before calling his attention to what's happening to schools affected by his aid reduction program, particularly schools near military bases. President Reagan responds by saying this was something added in a House committee that was not a part of his original plan. The President explains the term "impacted aid", then proceeds to state that this added program was inserted precisely because legislators know it will make his aid reduction program untenable in the long term. He hopes this plan will not work, that it will be removed in the final bill, or that different bill will be introduced and sent to the conference committee.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities - Testimony of James McCord.
Mr. James McCORD. .....convey this message to me and he was only doing what he was told to do. He repeated this last statement several times during the course of the meeting we had then, and I might add during subsequent meetings which he and I had. My response was that I would not even discuss Executive clemency or pleading guilty and remaining silent, but I was glad to talk with him, so that there was no misunderstanding on anyone's part about it. (McCord's lawyer whispers to him, "You might explain that the trial was going on...") I might explain that the trial was going on during this period, this was the first week of the trial which began on January 8. Caulfield stated that he was carrying the message of Executive clemency to me "from the very highest levels of the White House." He stated that the President of the United States was in Key Biscayne, Florida, that weekend, referring to the weekend following January 8, or following meeting that we were in then, and that the President had been told of the forthcoming meeting with me and would be immediately told of the results of the meeting.
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE
08.08.20-Rep. BONIOR accepts bill as read, entertains amendments. Rep. DAVID OBEY (D-WI) introduces amendment, clerk reads the amendment. Bonior calls vote, the amendment passes. TIP O'NEILL comes back to the rostrum, the "Committee of the Whole House" dissolves back to the House, O'NEILL reports the bill. Shot of the Parliamentarian, says that prior to TV coverage, the Parliamentarian would whisper rules to the Chair, but now the Speaker gets info on printed cards. The clerk proceeds with the third and final required reading of the bill. O'NEILL calls for vote. Rep. CONTE calls for a motion to recommit the bill to the Committee, shot of Rep. WHITTEN opposing this motion, titles show the vote tally, with Conte's motion losing and the bill passing to a final vote. Shot of Dan Glickman as Speaker Pro Tem reading the final vote tally. 08.13.24-Ornstein/Newman-the House wraps up the day with procedural matters and some addresses by the members. Sign off. Shot of Glickman as Speaker pro tem announcing adjournment. Closing credit/WETA credit/funding credits/PBS ID 08.16.22--OUT
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 28, 1973. Testimony of John Dean.
Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). After Mr. Huston left the White House, you had some responsibility in this field, didn t you? John Dean. That is correct. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). Did you ever receive any instruction from anybody to the effect that the President had rescinded these plans recommended by Mr. Huston? John Dean. No. To the contrary, as this document indicates, on September 18, I was asked to see what I could do to get the first step started on the document and this was reflective of that effort. Senator Sam Ervin (D North Carolina). Now, virtually all of these papers were marked "Top Secret," were they not? John Dean. That is correct.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 26, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
Fred Thompson, attorney. Mr. Dean, let me ask you a few questions about your actions after the Watergate incident and by asking questions about your own personal involvement. I hope I am not considered to be badgering you in any way, but I am sure you understand that your actions and motivations are very relevant? John Dean. In fact, if I were still at the White House, I would probably be feeding you the questions to ask the person who is sitting here. Fred Thompson, attorney. And if I were here, as I am, I would have responded as I have responded that I do not need questions to be fed to me from anybody.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean.
On several occasions Magruder told me that he would like to have Fred Fielding, my principal assistant, for this job. Fred Fielding and I discussed it but rejected it for several reasons. First, Fielding was aware of the fact that I was considering leaving the White House at that time. I was actually interviewing for jobs outside of Government. And he knew that I would recommend that he succeed me as counsel. Secondly, if I stayed, I would need his assistance during the months ahead. I might add parenthetically, that as I look back, if I had accepted the job I was interviewing for at that time, I would not be sitting here today.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 14, 1973
[00.57.51] Senator INOUYE. What about the coverup decision? Mr. MAGRUDER, That -was a major decision. Senator INOUYE. Who would make such a decision? ? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, as I have said. I think, that everyoue who was involved without hesitation agreed to that coverup. Senator INOUYE. I would like, to remind you of January 4-5 1973, at which time you participated in a panel of the Harvard faculty club library sponsored by the Niemann fellowship program and the' Kennedy Institute. I will read from the transcript: [quoting] Jeb, you keep you keep saying "we decided." and so forth, I have a fair idea of who were making the decisions in the Muskie campaign or maybe the McGovern campaign, but I am really curious about the "we" in your campaign. How was your decision-making done? How much was the President personally involved', What was Mitchell's role" What was Haldeman's role? What decisions were you yourself making? How was as it all working'! MAGRUDER. I thought we always made it very clear how our decisions were made. There was basically a triad -of senior decision-making decision-makers--the he President, Haldeman, and John Mitchell until July of 1972. They were in constant consultation with each other over major activities. [end quoted section] Senator INOUYE. Would you like, to comment, sir? a Mr. MAGRUDER. I think that is absolutely consistent with what I have said. I said that Mr. Mitchell and other high officials agreed with this coverup and to my knowledge, I never knew and I think I clarified later in that statement at Harvard that I, myself, never had any direct dealings with the President. I did know that on key campaign decisions at times there was input from the President, I have no knowledge of any input from the President on this decision. Senator INOUYE. But you would consider this a key, major policy decision? Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, I think the coverup certainly was a key decision, yes. I think there is an inference there,, Senator, though, that is unfair. to the President. I did not say he had participated in every major decision. I said that Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman were the key conduits from our standpoint and that certainly, obviously, certain decisions the President was involved in. Senator INOUYE. They were in constant consultation with each other over major activities? Mr. MAGRUDER. That is correct. Senator INOUYE. In the intelligence-gathering decision, was the matter of national security involved? Mr. MAGRUDER. NO, sir, not necessarily although I think it should be. clear that in my response to Senator Baker, we. had correctly, I think, put together parts of what I would call the left-wing part of the Democratic Party with each of the anti-war activities and we were concerned about their response to the President's candidacy. Now, I do not recall that national security, but I do think it does relate to some. of the reasons why we did get into an extensive intelligence operation. [01.01.24] Senator INOUYE. Learned commentators have suggested that we have at the present time in the White House, two competing organizations, one headed by Mr. 'Mitchell and the, other, by Mr. Haldeman. Did you have two competing organizations? Mr. MAGRUDER. No; I would disagree with that completely. To my knowledge, in every meeting I ever attended with Mr. Haldeman and Mr. Mitchell, they were on extremely good terms. I never saw, any difficulty in Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Mitchell agreeing. In fact, I think that is one reason Mr. Mitchell agreed to run the, campaign because he, knew Mr. Haldeman would be his chief day-to-day contact at the White House, I disagree with that statement. That has been bandied about, I know. I do not agree with that. Senator INOUYE. Is there a possibility that one group of people, are trying to make another group the scapegoats for this? Mr. MAGRUDER. I cannot--i do not think so. I do not see any evidence of that specific type of activity. Obviously, everyoue now is basically on his own and consequently, it is difficult to say anything is Of coordinated, concerted effort, at this time. I would think most individuals are operating independently of each other at this time- [01.02.48] Senator INOUYE. Several people have been involved in the Watergate and its aftermath, and in most cases, those, involved or identified have Come forth and spoken, either voluntarily or involuntarily. But one, man stands out. He has remained silent. No one seems to be able to move him. Mr. Liddy. Why is he keeping silent, do you know? Mr. MAGRUDER. I have no idea. He is under appeal. I assume he feels he has a better opportunity under appeal than he does by speaking Out now. Senator INOUYE. In your testimony, you discussed Executive, clemency taking care. of the family, paying expenses. Was Mr. Liddy promised anything? Mr. MAGRUDER. My assumption is that he was promised what all the others -were. Senator INOUYE. What were they promised, sir? Mr. MAGRUDER. I do not, know. I only know what I talked about relating to myself Senator INOUYE. What were you promised. sir?, Mr. MAGRUDER. Well, as I indicated before, I talked about, salary, taking care of the family. legal cost. potential Executive clemency, assistance in getting a job, and so on--that type of thing. Senator INOUYE. We have, received testimony that Mr. Strachan was a very important conduit. that. he -was the. liaison---- [01.04.11--TAPE OUT]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 27, 1973
[00.32.09-GURNEY questions DEAN, clearly trying to make DEAN'S role in planning the Watergate seem very significant and central] Senator GURNEY. My reaction was that you testified that you told him that, he was never to discuss this thing again with you, is that correct? Mr. DEAN. That is correct. Senator GURNEY. You told him that if any plan was approved like this that you did not want, to know about., it. Mr. DEAN. That is correct,. Senator GURNEY. At this particular time, Mr. Dean, were you not the counsel for the President? Was that not, your job? Mr. DEAN. That was my title and that was my job. Senator GURNEY. You were not counsel for Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Magruder, were you? Mr. DEAN. No, I was not. 'Senator GURNEY. Why did you not go back to the President and tell him about, this hair-raising scheme? Mr. DEAN. Well, I did go back. But I did not have access to the President as I think I explained. I went to Mr. Haldeman. Senator GURNEY. Did you try to gain access to the President ? [00.32.59] Mr. DEAN. Senator, I did not try-- I had never been in to the President or called by the President before. My reporting channel was through Mr. Haldeman and I went back and told what I thought was the proper reporting channel. I told him what I had seen, told him my reaction to it, told him that I thought it was unwise, unnecessary, and Mr. Haldeman agreed with me. Senator GURNEY. Did you ever discuss after this meeting with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Magruder, whether this plan was going to be implemented or whatever happened to it? [00.33.35-a point which the White House disputes DEAN'S testimony] Mr. DEAN. I never heard about the plan again until, as I have testified, Mr. Liddy came into my office some time in February or March, I do not know the precise date and told me that he could not get his plan approved. I reminded him that I was not going to talk with him about it, and he said that he understood and he did not talk about it. And we went on to whatever our business was that day on some other election matter. Senator GURNEY. When was this? Mr. DEAN. I believe it was February, some time in February or March I am not sure of the date. Senator GURNEY. Did you ever report that to the President? Mr. DEAN. NO, I didn't,, sir. [00.34.22-Sen. GURNEY takes another opportunity to take potshots at DEAN'S professional ethics concerns] Senator GURNEY. Let's go now to the break-in at Watergate. But before we do, let's go back and clear up some testimony of yesterday. I have never been entirely clear on this law firm incident. I came in the middle of Senator Talmadge's questioning yesterday. could you go over that? What exactly happened? You were representing a law firm in connection with some television application-is that it? Mr. DEAN. No, sir, I read into the record Yesterday a letter, I don't know if the Senator has had a chance to see the letter. Senator GURNEY. I haven't had a chance to see, it. Mr. DEAN. I might read it to you. Senator GURNEY. No, I don It think you need to read it if you just summarize quickly what happened. Mr. DEAN. All right, I was in a communications law firm and doing very little communications work. I had some connection with summarizing findings of fact and things of that nature that were before the FCC, but I could not, term myself a communications lawyer in any respect. I had been at the, firm a very short while. I was not happy at the firm and was contemplating leaving the firm. One of the men who was at the firm was not a lawyer but an in-house representative of the senior partners in the firm, who had television interests around the, country as a result of their processing applications. This man came to me and began to discuss, he said, John, you are leaving, are you interested in investing any money in a television station? I said, yes, I might be, let's explore it. We had some preliminary discussions about it, with the lawyers who he had selected to represent his application, a, man by the name of Earl Stanley, who is a senior member of the communications bar, and I think a very well respected member of the bar. At that time, I raised with him, was there any conflict for me to become involved in that while, I was still at the firm. He indicated to me so long as I was out of the firm by the time the application was actually filed, which would have taken mechanically months to prepare, and Mr. Stanley and Mr. Fellows, the, man I was referring to in the, firm, were going to prepare the application. I had some--I had accumulated some papers on the matter in my desk and apparently, one night, one of the partners was looking for some other unrelated matters and came across, this. [00.37.00]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973
[00.58.56-THOMPSON interrogating MITCHELL about ordering money to be raised to pay off the defendants as part of the coverup-brief shot of ERVIN looking intently at something] Mr. THOMPSON. Doan testified that after the, President's statement on August, 29 referring to the Dean report he began thinking that he might be being set up in case the whole thing crumbled at a later time. He testified he discussed this with you and others and that you assured him that he need not. worry because you didn't believe anyone in the White House would do that to him. Do you recall such a conversation with Mr. Dean? Mr. MITCHELL. I recall such a conversation. Mr. Thompson. but it, seems to me it, was much later than August -29, Mr. THOMPSON. Do you recall I when? Mr. MITCHELL. No, I don't recall the date but., it was much further. In fact, I think it was into 1973, Mr. THOMPSON. Do you recall the month? Was it, into April, perhaps as late as April? Mr. Mitchell. No, it would be before that. It would be in February or March I would believe. Mr. THOMPSON. Did he state to you the basis of his fears? Mr. MITCHELL. No, I don't believe he did. As a matter of fact, to the best of my recollection I only had, of course. one Conversation with Mr. Dean in April, and a very limited number of them in March so it had to be sometime in early March or February. [01.00.23] Mr. THOMPSON. Dean testified That during the first week Of December you called Dean and said that you would have to use some, of the, $350,000 at the White House to take care of the demands that were being made by Hunt and the others, for money, and that, you asked him to get Haldeman's approval for that. Is that a correct statement? Mr. MITCHELL. No, that is absolutely untrue 'as far as I am concerned. I had no official capacity. I have no control over the money and there, -would be no reason why I should call Dean, or anybody else, With respect to it, and I did not so call Dean. [01.01.00] Mr. THOMPSON. Dean testified that shortly before the trial when the demands for money Were reaching the crescendo point., again you Called Dean and once again asked him to ask Haldeman to make the necessary funds available and that after Dean talked to Haldeman the, decision was made to send the entire $350,000. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, I would respond to that the same way I did to Your last question. [01.01.23-THOMPSON asks MITCHELL about his involvement in giving assurances of EXECUTIVE CLEMENCY to defendants] Mr. THOMPSON. Dean testified that, on January 10 he received a call from O'Brien and you indicating that since Hunt had been given assurances of clemency and that those, assurances were being passed to Hunt and others that Caulfield should give the same assurances to McCord who was becoming an increasing problem and again Dean was told that McCord's lawyer was having problems with him, Is that---- Mr. MITCHELL. I think that Mr. Dean, if he will go back and check his logs will find that I was out, of town in Florida when he started the, McCord dialog, and that there would be no reason in the -world for me to direct Mr. Dean to do anything vis-a-vis Caulfield or McCord, Or anybody else. [01.02.12] Mr. THOMPSON. The, logs indicate, I believe, you were in Key Biscayne from January 1 through January 7. Mr. MITCHELL. I think it was December 20 through January 8, I believe. Mr. THOMPSON. All right, sir. Let me ask you about one, more, piece, of testimony, the meeting on March 22 which you had with Haldeman, Ehrlichman and Dean; I understand you met with them and that afternoon you met With the President. Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, sir. [01.02.47] Mr. THOMPSON. I believe, that Dean testified that Ehrlichman turned to you and asked if Hunt had been taken care, of, or his money situation had been taken care, of, and you assured him that he had been taken care, of, is that correct? Mr. MITCHELL. It is absolutely false as far as I am concerned because, I have never, to my knowledge, discussed any of these, payments 'with John Ehrlichman and any of the specifies of that nature with respect to -any individual, and I wouldn't, have known on the 22d of March whether Mr. Hunt had been taken care of or hadn't been taken care of. [01.03.25-MITCHELL has to be careful not to accuse DEAN of lying, because MITCHELL himself is in a tricky position legally] Mr. THOMPSON. Do you think Mr. Dean could be mistaken about these various points? Mr. MITCHELL. No, I think Mr. Dean may have, in putting together --how long was his statement? You know, it is awfully hard to recollect on what day -what was discussed. Mr. THOMPSON He did not seem to have any trouble at, the time. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, you said it, not, I. Mr. THOMPSON. Are you saying that perhaps Mr. Dean's memory might not have been quite that good ? Mr. MITCHELL. Well, it certainly cannot be with respect to the specifics of the March 22 meeting. I am sure of that. Mr. THOMPSON. Or with these other- points about--well, is that a matter of memory as to whether or not----- [01.04.03-TAPE OUT]
Capitol Journal - "Four Little Pages"
U.S. House Representative Lindy Boggs (D-LA) thanks sponsors, attendees, Rep. Jerry Lewisl mentions she represents the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, head of the Bicentennial Commission, and 23 committee members of the U.S. Commission on the Bicentennial of the Constitution. Rep. Boggs names some Commission members before talking about committee activities honoring the 200 year anniversaries of the Constitution and subsequent anniversary of the formation of the U.S. government and Congress. She thanks both private and public donations, and the help of the National Park Service in facilitating the upcoming celebrations. Adult Caucasian men and women in attendance in FG.
1982 - LAWMAKERS - Illinois Primary
U.S. House Representative Edward Derwinski (R-IL) giving a speech, touting his experience and relationships on Capitol Hill as assets that can help his constituents at home. Rep. Edward O'Brien (R-IL) notes his position on Appropriation Committee, which as a critical role in the formation of the budget and can attract the attention of agencies that need money; adult Caucasian male and female listening. Rep. Derwinski talks about his role on the Foreign Affairs Committee. Rep. O'Brien talk about the importance serving the district, noting it's easy to get swept up in Washington, D.C., making it hard to come home.
Capitol Journal - "Four Little Pages"
U.S. House Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA) standing at dais of Congressional Committee Room, Rep. Lindy Boggs (D-LA) seated next to him. Adult Caucasian man enters, talks with Rep. Lewis. Rep. Lewis introduces musical program honoring bicentennial anniversary of U.S. Constitution, introduces U.S. Rep. Lindy Boggs (D-LA); adult Caucasian men and women sitting in FG.
Summer of Judgment Pt 1 of 2
CU John Dean testifying to Senate Select Committee to Investigate Campaign Practices. MSs White House assistant ALEXANDER BUTTERFIELD testifying, being grilled by Sen. FRED THOMPSON (R-TN), 7/16/73: "Mr. Butterfield, are you aware of the installation of any listening devices in the Oval Office of the President?" "I was aware of listening devices, yes, sir."
The Lawmakers April 12, 1984
Activities on the House floor. Wyche Fowler (D - Georgia) As you know, the other gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Jenkins and I, have had the privilege of working on the Ways And Means Committee with you on this legislation. And as you also know, we were concerned on the approach used in title 1 as it relates to service contracts.
Lawmakers - February 11, 1982 - Federal Reserve
Representative Fernand St. Germain (D - Rhode Island) in hearing of House Banking Committee, On Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, the Federal Reserve can do nothing right in the eyes of the administration. On Tuesdays and Thursdays the spokesmen trot out with olive branches and pronounce the Federal Reserve a full-fledged card carrying member of the supply-side squad.
Lawmakers April 28 1983
Representative Bob Livingston (R - Louisiana), House Appropriations Committee, if we make the wrong decision here today we are risking the collapse of the government in El Salvador and we are thereby risking the security of every man, woman and child in this country. I think that we should fulfill the President s complete request for $60 million.
Lawmakers October 20 1983
Cokie Roberts concludes segment. She comments more evidence is the House Ways and Means Committee voting out a substantially lower revenue bill than recommended by the budget. Spending seems similarly unlikely to be cut. Linda Wertheimer comments that Democrats have moved to block covert aid to Nicaraguan Contras, a move also popular with voters concerned about war.
World War II: Prologue U.S.A.
September 21, 1939. President Franklin D Roosevelt (FDR) addressing Congress in extraordinary session changes in neutrality law. I have asked the Congress to reassemble in extraordinary session in order that it may consider and act on changes in our neutrality law. Capitol Dome. Legislators in House and in committee, deciding on Cash and Carry basis for war materials.
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE
Press conference were Senator John Tower (R-TX) announces his retirement, says he's choosing to focus on other endeavors and retiring, denies that it's because he fears losing an election, it's just that time. Press conference were Senator Howard Baker announces his retirement, says he's served long enough. Shots of meeting of the House Rules Committee.
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(09:45:25) Between 5 and 6 P.M. on July 20, 1993, Vincent Foster was discovered in Fort Marcy Park in Virginia. After 8:30 p.m. that same night, White House officials first began to receive word of Vincent Foster's death. As of 9:15 that night, the White House Counsel's Office was empty. In keeping with routine normal security procedures, the office's door was locked and the alarm was set. What happened in the office of Vincent Foster in the following hours and days will be the subject of these hearings. Because of Vincent Foster's high office and important responsibility, the implications of his suicide reach beyond the personal and private tragedy of his family and friends. There was both a national interest and a law enforcement interest in examining why Vincent Foster took his life. The facts that I've just outlined are not in dispute, but many of the events that took place at the White House after Vincent Foster's death are in dispute-and sometimes these facts are in sharp conflict. I will now briefly outline the three major areas the Committee will look at during this round of Whitewater hearings. First, what happened in Vincent Foster's office on the night of July 20, 1993. The Committee will hear conflicting testimony about whether the police asked the White House to safeguard Mr. Foster's office so that investigators could later examine its contents. We do know, however, that Vincent Foster's office was unlocked and remained open between the hours of 10:45 and 11:45 on the night of his death. The White House undertook no special effort to secure Mr. Foster's office until the next morning. The Committee staff has established that at least three people entered Vincent Foster's office at some time between 10:45 and 11:45 p.m. on July 20, 1993: Bernard Nussbaum, the Counsel to the President and Mr. Foster's senior colleague; Margaret Williams, Chief of Staff to the First Lady; and Patsy Thomasson, then Special Assistant to the President and a long time friend of the First Family from Arkansas. The Committee will want to ask why wasn't Mr. Foster's office sealed? Who entered the office and when? What were they looking for? Were they looking for the Whitewater documents? Was anything removed or destroyed? The Committee will have to resolve differing accounts by various White House officials concerning their movements in Mr. Foster's office on the night of his death. The next major episode to which this round of hearings will turn occurred on Thursday, July 22, 2 days after Vincent Foster's death. That morning, top Justice Department prosecutors, FBI agents and Park Police arrived at the White House. These law enforcement officers expected to search and review the documents in Vince Foster's office. There is a dramatic contradiction among the witnesses about the events relating to that search. On the one hand, there is testimony of the White House officials; on the other hand, the testimony of career Justice Department prosecutors, FBI agents and police. 5 What we do know is that the Justice Department officials were not allowed by the White House to review the contents of Vincent Foster's office. Instead, Bernard Nussbaum, the President's top lawyer, insisted that the Justice Department officials, FBI agents and police sit by as lie and his own staff examined the Foster papers. After the law enforcement agents left the White House, Nussbaum and the First Lady's Chief of Staff, Margaret Williams, returned to Vincent Foster's office. They searched the office and selected files relating to Whitewater and the First Family's finances to be removed to the White House residence. These files remained there for 5 days before being sent to the First Family's personal attorney at Williams & Connolly. The Committee will want to ask why did the prosecutors, including the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, the number two Justice Department official, believe that it was important that the career Justice Department attorneys review the files in Vincent Foster's office? Why did the White House reject their request? Why were the documents moved from Mr. Foster's office to the residence? Who made the decision about the White House? Who would handle the documents and the investigation?
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, July 10, 1973 (1/2)
[00.36.02-GURNEY questioning MITCHELL] Senator GURNEY. You mentioned just now that you, of course, had talked to the President on a number of occasions and perhaps this is the proper time to turn to these, The logs from the President's office show a number of times that you did have conversations with the President. I think the very first one has already been discussed in the exchange you had with Senator Talmadge, that is the June, 20 one and we do not have to go over that one again. There was a, meeting on June 30 in the President's Executive Office Building with Haldeman present. I presume that means that the present. Do you recall that the President and Haldeman and you were present. Do you recall that meeting? Mr. MITCHELL. I recall it very well. Senator GURNEY. What was discussed? Mr. MITCHELL. It was a luncheon meeting at which my resignation was discussed and finally accepted and in which we discussed a successor. Senator GURNEY. And that was the only subject at that meeting? Mr. MITCHELL. That was the only subject of that meeting, to my knowledge. Senator GURNEY, On July 1, there was a phone call from the President from San Clemente to you in Washington. Could you give us the substance, of that phone call? [00.37.16] Mr. MITCHELL. July 1 was the date upon which the announcement was made of my resignation, and -we had agreed that certain people Would be called by certain people. For instance, I would call Governor Rockefeller, Governor Reagan and so forth. on down the line. This meeting, as you know, lasted for quite a while because on the day Of the announcement and the President spent quite a period of time, as I recall, talking with my wife on the telephone trying to pep her up a bit and tell her the world had not ended. Senator GURNEY. Yes. that was a 23-minute talk, as I see here. Was Watergate discussed at all and I--- Mr. MITCHELL. Not to my recollection, Senator and I am. quite sure that, it would not have been.' Senator GURNEY. On July 11, there was a very short call here, it says 12:48 to 12:49. Mr. MITCHELL. 12:43 to 49, as I understand it, Senator. Senator GURNEY. What is that? Mr. MITCHELL. 12:43 to 12:49. Senator GURNEY. This sheet says 12:48 but I will take your advice. Mr. MITCHELL. Well, Of course, mine came from the White House so it could quite possibly be screwed up. [Laughter.] Senator GURNEY. Touche. Mr. MITCHELL. As I matter of fact, I think the covering letter was signed by Mr. Buzhardt. Senator- GURNEY,. Anyway, it, says that the President called San Clemente to Mitchell In Washington. What was that about? Mr. MITCHELL. We talking about the July 11 conversation? Senator GURNEY. That is right. Mr. MITCHELL. To the best of my recollection it was a conversation we had concerning when the President would do something concretely about the Vice President. You remember this was just before, as I recall the Democratic National Convention that thereafter and the President had, I believe according to the conversation that I remember pretty well come to the conclusion about two things. No. 1. that he was being Shot at from the Javitses and Percy's and so forth about the Vice President--maybe not Percy. but some of the people in the party were shooting at him about continuing the Vice President. and yet at the same time that it did not look like it would be a feasible thing to announce his is preference for the Vice Presidency right, on the eve of the Democratic -National Committee, and this is the Conversation that I remember took place In that time frame. And it, brings to mind the fact that at the next meeting that is shown there shown with the Vice President, Mr. Haldeman in the President's office Where the announcement had previously, I think been made or was about to be made and there was quite a discussion of the part that the President was to play in the campaign. Senator GURNEY. This is the July 27 meeting you tire talking about: with Haldeman and Harlow? Mr. MITCHELL. No: it is the July 21 meeting. Senator GURNEY. I mean the July 21 meeting, and the Vice President came in during that meeting. is that correct Mr. MITCHELL. Yes, Sir. Senator GURNEY. But at neither of, these in July 11 Or July 21, was Watergate discussed, is that correct? Mr. MITCHELL. Absolutely sir. [00.41.00]