Advanced Search
Watergate Hearings, June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean
John Dean. The committee has asked me about concern over leaks. I believe that most anyone who worked at the White House during the past 4 years can attest to the concern that prevailed regarding leaks, any and all leaks. This was a matter of frequent discussions among staff members and in some instances leaks were investigated by Haldeman s office or Mr. Ehrlichman. I have submitted to the committee, exhibit no. 2, some documents evidencing the types of investigations that were made. I began to understand the high degree of concern after I got to know Mr. Jack Caulfield who had been assigned to my staff. I would guess that I had been at the White House almost I year before Mr. Caulfield told me that he had been directed by Mr. Ehrlichman to wiretap a newsman's telephone in pursuit of a leak. Mr. Caulfield told me that the wiretap was on for only a short period of time because he believed the FBI had subsequently taken over. He told me that he had been directed to perform the wiretap when Mr. Hoover was unwilling, but Mr. Ehrlichman wished to proceed. The wiretap was undertaken, as I recall, in late 1969 or early 1970. Caulfield told me that it was performed by Mr. Ulasewicz, Mr. John Regan, and himself. He later repeated the story to me telling me that it had been a rather harrowing experience when he was holding the ladder in a back alley of Georgetown while also trying to keep a look out as another member of the group was working at the top of the ladder. He also told me that he received what he referred to as the "pair numbers" from Mr. John Davies, who was then on the White House staff, but who had previously been employed or had an association with the telephone company before joining the White House staff. I do not know what information, if any, they obtained. Nor do I know any other details other than what I have related above. I have no idea if the reason for the wiretap was related to national security but I believe that Mr. Caulfield told me it was indeed Joseph Kraft's telephone phone that was tapped.
President Carter Speaks on Failed Hostage Rescue Mission
Adult African American female reporter asks President Jimmy Carter "Mr. President, could you explain why you appointed Senator Edmund Muskie to succeed Cyrus Vance, when Senator Muskie has limited foreign policy experience and holds only a secondary position on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Senate?" President Carter responds "Senator Muskie has more than 20 years experience in the Senate. He's been heavily involved in foreign affairs there as a member, as you point out, of the Foreign Relations Committee. He's played an active role in nationwide campaigns throughout this country as a Vice Presidential candidate and also as a Presidential candidate himself. He's familiar with our entire nation. I think he's highly sensitive about the aspirations and ideals of our country that ought to be mirrored in its foreign policy. He's also had a remarkable position in the Senate as the chairman of the Budget Committee, where every single proposal made for the expenditure of federal funds in the foreign affairs field, or the military field or the domestic field has to come before his committee for careful analysis before it goes to the appropriations committees. So, because of that broad range of experience and the esteem with which Ed Muskie is held in this country by Democrats and Republicans and, indeed, because of his international reputation, I consider him to be extremely well qualified to serve as Secretary of State."
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:15:28) I want to say also, in that same vein of trying to make some sense out of what looks like a process that takes an awfully long time, it can look like we're browbeating witnesses. I don't think any of us here have a desire to do that. I know I certainly don't, nor am I prepared, as Chairman, to tolerate the browbeating of witnesses. There are times when witnesses do not give straight answers and if you don't press them again and again you don't get the answers you need as in the illustration that I just mentioned with Senator Sarbanes. There's a fine balance between the degree to which you press a witness and, oftentimes, witnesses will finally say that they don't have a memory of something. If so, then that's their judgment. They can say that. We'll leave it there and try to make a judgment based on other information and evidence that we have. But I should say again, for the record, we took 37 witness depositions. That meant that before those witnesses came in here to testify, they had to first go and sit down with these two attorneys in 798 a room somewhere and, under oath, be subjected to questions and give answers to them in preparation for gathering the facts we could then come here with those deposition documents them further questions to compare the testimony in the statements of one witness against another. That's the process goes on. It takes a lot of time and it's demanding but that's what's required when you are trying to get the facts and sort them out. We reviewed over 10,000 pages of documents Now you think about it, a 10,000 page book, it's a big book. A lot of the documents were handwritten notes or they were things that were hard make sense out of. They came from different people at different times and you not only had to analyze all those, but You had to I cross-relate them one to the other. It takes a long time to do it. We took evidence from several branches of the Government , the Park Police as well as the Department of the Treasury, the RTC., the White House, and the Department of the Interior. I want, to say, again, we got absolute cooperation from the White House; and to their great credit and to the President's great credit, everything we asked for we got in terms of both witnesses, in an unrestrained and unfettered way, as well as access to all of the documents that are within the scope of our resolution. I don't know of any other time in the history of this country when any Chief Executive has released his people, his documents, and their documents and came in here in a setting like this in as full a way. The President deserves credit for that, It's what he should do but it's the first time it's happened in such a full way as that, to my historical knowl- edge. That should be acknowledged and I want to say I appreciate that cooperation. I want to thank the Members also and I want to say, again, particularly with respect to Senator Faircloth, on the scope issue. We were told by the Senate that we could only look at certain things within a certain set of boundaries so that we would not interfere with the outside investigation going on by Special Counsel Robert Fiske, And that was an absolutely appropriate request by him, in my view, and the instruction by the Senate was that we not go over those boundary lines and interfere with his work and perhaps jeopardize future prosecutors and financial recoveries, for example, that he might pursue. It's always a judgment call as to whether something is in or out of the bounds of the scope of our resolution. I will say, with Senator D'Amato, we resolved every single one of those differences, disputes, and questions in a manner that was agreeable to both sides. And for that, I'm very grateful. Senator Faircloth, who had an intense interest of wanting to go as far as he possibly could, did so, but at the point at which I bad to interject to say that we were up against the scope limits, as we call them, he had the grace and cooperative willingness to stop. I want to say, even though he's not here at the moment, that I'm very grateful for that because be could have been contentious about it. I know he has a strong feeling about it. He worked within the process and I appreciate that and want to acknowledge it. We're not here today, at least I don't feel we are, to draw final conclusions and to say exactly, I mean, each Member is free to speak for themselves, but in terms of a Committee statement, and I'm thinking of myself as Chairman now of the Committee, we're 799 obviously not at, a point where we can render sweeping judgments as a Committee. We are charged with generating a report to the Senate, in addition to laying all these facts out in the light of day and, of course, we will do that. We will make recommendations for changes in the law and in administrative practices that we think are necessary.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
James McCord continues reading statement: Among other things, this also smacked of the situation which Hitler's intelligence chiefs found themselves in, in the 1930's & 1940's when they were put in the position of having to tell him what they thought he wanted to hear about, foreign military capabilities and intentions, instead of what they really believed, which ultimately was one of the things which led to Nazi Germany's downfall.[file under "EERIE ALLUSIONS TO NAZI GERMANY"] When linked with what I saw happening to the FBI under Pat Gray-- political control by the White House, it appeared then that the two Government agencies which should be able to prepare their reports and to conduct their business, with complete integrity and honesty in the national interest, were no longer going to be able to do so. That the Nation was in serious trouble has since been confirmed in my opinion by what happened in the case of Gray's leadership of the FBI. E. Howard Hunt has additional information relevant to the above. Hunt stated to me on more than one occasion in the latter part of 1972, that he, Hunt had information in his possession which "would be sufficient to impeach the President.'' In addition, Mrs. E. Howard Hunt, on or about November 30, 1972, in a personal conversation with me, stated that E. Howard Hunt's attorney, William O. Bittman, had read to Kenneth Parkinson, the attorney for the Committee To Re-Elect the President, in which letter, Hunt purportedly threatened "to blow the White House out of the water." Mrs. Hunt at this point in her conversation with me, also repeated the statement which she, too, had made before, which was that E. Howard Hunt had information which could impeach the President. I regret that this memorandum has taken this length to set forth. In view of the nature of the information which I had to furnish, however, it appeared that there was no other way to adequately set this material forth, and to do so in the proper context, without deleting material highly relevant to the events being reported. I shall be glad to appear and answer questions under oath on the material which appears in this memorandum. It has my signature.
Biography: Harry S. Truman - Harry Vaughn
US General Harry Vaughn. Vaughn speaking, "My association with President Truman covers a period of some 30 years. Inquiries from persons having business with various government agencies come to my attention in my capacity as a member of the White House staff. At no time have I taken action as a member of the White House staff in exchange for a gift or other favor." Senate hearing floor filled with people.
July 18, 1995 - Part 3
******NOTE: FOR THE FIRST 20 MINUTES OR SO OF THIS TAPE THE IMAGE IS BAD - FOR A CLEAR COPY OF THIS FIRST FOOTAGE LOOK TO TAPE # 10109 (11:52:13)(tape #10110 begins) to be easy, but I hope we can do that. If we do, we will serve the American people well, and if we do, I will tell you afterwards I voted wrong when I voted against creating this Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator, thank you for your very thoughtful statement. That is not to mean that all of our other colleagues have not made thoughtful statements. Senator Murkowski. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK H. MURKOWSKI Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and Senator Dole for appointing me to be a Member of this Special Committee. It's my hope that the Committee will provide a service to the public in finally resolving hopefully most, if not all, of the issues relating to Whitewater, and finally putting to rest the questions surrounding the death of White House Counsel Vincent Foster. When the United States Park Service Police discovered the body of Vincent Foster on the Federal park land in Virginia, many questions were raised about the Park Service's handling of the investigation At that time I was the Ranking Member of the Energy Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Park Service. At that time I tried to get the Subcommittee to make some inquiries and potentially hold some hearings relative to the jurisdiction which we had. The Park Service Police declined, saying that the matter was under the Department of Justice and, therefore, was out of their area of jurisdiction. 38 Mr. Chairman, there have been numerous stories in the press as to the events surrounding the death of Vincent Foster, who did what in the White House in the hours and days following his death. What we do know is certain, that the Federal law enforcement personnel, including the Park Service Police, the FBI and the Justice Department, were impeded by the White House in conducting their investigation. Law enforcement officers were denied access to documents In Vince Foster's office. Instead, all the documents in his office were screened by Bernard Nussbaum, many of which were packaged in boxes and sent to the Clintons' personal living quarters. As evidence will show, Bernard Nussbaum and other White House officials visited Foster's office soon after his death in an effort to locate a note that might explain his motive for committing suicide. Law enforcement professionals know that in the vast majority of suicides, a note is left and the absence of such a note could be an indicator of some other motive.
July 29, 1994 - Part 1
(11:12:00) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD C. SHELBY Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not take the responsibilities that the Senate Committee would like. Regardless of the politics or the dy namics that have charged the subject of these hearings, whether they're legitimate or not, whether they're real or not, we have an obligation to this body and to the American people to conduct these hearings fairly and expeditiously and with one purpose in mind: To expose an to examine to the best of our ability the facts about what has come to be known as Whitewater/Madison. It's only by shedding light on the facts of these issues that we can come to some understanding about the truth of the matter and lay it to rest, lift the cloud of suspicion and innuendo that has dogged the Presidency over the. ears. We're committed, under Senate Resolution 229, to discover de facts about several specific matters which relate to Whitewater. It's my hope in discovering the facts here and I will take the broadest possible view of Senate Resolution 229 and this Committee's general oversight authority during these bearings. This Committee does not have the authority to grant immunity to witnesses in order to avoid directly interfering with Special Counsel Fiske's investigation. Short of this, however, I believe we should shine a bright light on these matters and the U.S. Senate should not allow the Special Counsel to dictate what the le gitimate bounds of this Committee's authority are, nor attempt to Met the institutional role this Committee plays in conducting 'hearings on these matters, nor can we or should we use the Special Counsel as an excuse for not looking into matters concerning Whitewater/Madison that may be embarrassing to the White House, The truth is often elusive but we should not hesitate to pursue the truth about Whitewater/Madison. I believe there's absolutely no reason why the documents, for example relating to Whitewater/ Madison, should not now be made available to the public. Publicly disclosing these documents at this point, I believe, would not compromise Special Counsel Fiske's investigation, but it would, Mr. Chairman, allow the American people to judge these matters for themselves, as we're doing right now. Of the several matters we will be looking at in these bearings, I'm most concerned with contacts that occurred between Treasury, RTC, and the White House relating to Whitewater/Madison. Lloyd Cutler, Counsel to the President, has testified that there were more than 30 contacts between White House aides and Federal regulatory officials concerning Whitewater/Madison. 21 I have serious concerns over such an extensive dialog occurring between the White House and regulatory officials responsible for directing and investigating civil and criminal charges. What was the purpose of these meetings? What influence did they have on the regulators, if any? Did they compromise the independent judgment and decision of the regulators or the independence of the agencies themselves? Were these contacts improper and did they violate any Government ethics rules or regulations? I believe that the Executive Branch should not interfere with or influence in any manner civil or criminal investigations conducted by the RTC. That's a matter of public policy. I'm deeply disturbed with evidence that important and necessary policy decisions at the RTC may have been directed by purely personal political damage control considerations. During the time in question, the Department of the Treasury was basically running the RTC with all press, legislative and legal functions, core agency functions being administered by Treasury. We set up the RTC here in Congress as an independent agency for a number of purposes, among which would prevent the politicization of civil and criminal cases that may arise from the failure of a particular savings and loan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Shelby, Senator Faircloth.
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan
U.S. Secretary of the Treasury Donald Regan standing at podium in the White House Briefing Room. Adult male reporter (off camera) asks: "What's the next step? Are you now going to try to put together that coalition, and simply try to push the President's program through the house." Secretary Regan responds: "I would say that the door is open. They promised to come back to us. I hope to meet with Chairman Rostenkowski, after he's met further with members of the Ways and Means Committee. We obviously are going to talk to the Senate, because we have to bring in Senator Dole here to talk about what kind of a bill might come out of the Senate. At the same time, we're looking to see what we can do in the House to put together a majority for the President's proposals." Reporter: "So, the door is open for them to come to you, but you're not gonna go to them?" Secretary Regan: "The President's made it quite clear, that he's come pretty far. After all, he's come down about $18 billion or more in possible tax cuts. He slid the date quite a bit. And he thinks that's where he's going to stand."
Robert Bauman Interview
Journalist Cokie Roberts, off camera, continues interviewing former U.S. House Representative Robert Bauman (R-MD). Roberts asks about the Congressional Page system, noting that he was a page, and whether those relationships between a legislator and page are special. Bauman agrees that those relationships are special, and in this case was violated. The House Ethics Committee viewed this as a strictly legal matter when everyone was of legal age under the laws of the District of Columbia. The particular criticism Bauman has heard is that Rep. Gerry Studds (D-MA) has not addressed that relationship or shown remorse. Roberts asks if the situation would be somewhat different if Rep. Studds had shown any contrition or remorse. Bauman hasn't spoken with Rep. Studds, but imagines there are a lot of forces "tugging" at him. One of those forces is Rep. Studds' desire to vindicate gay rights; the right to live and act with the same rights as everyone else has. However, those "other rights" are the focus now with the special relationship he has with his page. Ultimately, he does not think it is up to the House to expel Rep. Studds or Dan Crane (R-IL); both of whom happen to be friends of his.
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE
14.47.48-Newman-discusses the battles a party leader faces, party unity complicated by the importance of local politics in Congress. After mass 1981 Democratic defections, the leadership learned painful lessons. Wright in office, says that if every year was like 1981, he'd quit. O'NEILL describes the diversity of interest in the Democratic party and the different caucuses in the party. Rep. WALTER FAUNTROY advocates a Congressional Black Caucus budget in a press conference. Rep. DONALD PEASE (D-OH) proposes a plan different from the Democratic party line. Rep. JIM JONES advocates his plan. Rep. PHIL GRAMM (then a Democrat) in well of House. Still of Gramm in meeting of Conservative Democrats with Reagan. V.O.-GRAMM was a leader of the conservative defectors from the Democrats in 1981. GRAMM in office, says that Conservative Democrats have led the country for most of the 20th Century [ah yes, two waves of the Klan, disfranchisement, lynching, attempting to derail the Civil Rights process, George Wallace, etc. etc., a proud legacy indeed]. Shot of meeting of Conservative Democrats led by GRAMM. V.O.-WRIGHT was p.o.'ed by GRAMM'S advocacy of REAGANOMICS because he helped to get GRAMM an influential position on the Budget Committee in the first place. WRIGHT says he's disappointed in Gramm's actions. Shot of WRIGHT in well of House, angrily arguing that REAGAN is unfairly asking CONGRESS to be overly submissive. 14.51.31-Shot of Wright and Michel, and then REAGAN entering the House chamber for State of the Union address. V.O.-discussion of Michel building a coalition behind REAGANOMICS. Rep. DAN MICA (D-FL) says that the Republicans are responsive to the concerns of Conservative Democrats. Rep. WILLIAM GREEN (R-NY) says that Reagan was receptive to his concerns as a Moderate Republican when they met. Still of REAGAN and MICHEL shaking hands in White House. TIP O'NEILL in House, giving a desultory warning that REAGANOMICS will be disastrous. Shot of MICHEL congratulating Republicans in a meeting. MICHEL in well of House declaring that the GOP is charting a new path in history. O'NEILL in office, speaking on phone to REAGAN, conceding that Reagan is going to have his way on REAGANOMICS Tax Cuts. Brief shot of 1981 Democratic leadership meeting. O'NEILL in office, says that it's impossible to mold the diverse Democratic party into a perfectly unified group, he can't exactly punish defectors. 14.54.10-Shot of PHIL GRAMM leaving a meeting of the Democratic leadership in 1982 after falling from the good graces of the party and being deposed from the Budget Committee. Rep. GILLIS LONG (D-LA) says that the party can't have a member going over to the other team's "huddle" in the Budget Committee. Shot of GRAMM speaking in Texas, says that he answers to the home voters, not the party leaders. The people applaud. V.O.-GRAMM resigned from Congress and ran as a Republican in a special election. Shot of tally board showing vote totals. Shot of Gramm on a podium, taking phone call from REAGAN praising GRAMM'S courage and principles. The crowd cheers. 14.55.58-Newman/Ornstein-discussion of the precarious task party leaders face in enforcing discipline. The difference in the Phil Gramm case was that Gramm served as an example to other renegade Democrats. Discussion of the 1980 landslide for Reagan encouraging Democrats to cross party lines, the 1982 returns were somewhat of a repudiation of Reaganomics and Democratic unity seems to be on the rise. Signs off. 14.57.20-closing credits/WETA credit/funding credits/PBS ID 14.58.34--OUT
JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss, H.B. McClain
U.S. House Representative Christopher Dodd (D-CT) asks whether the construction of the new Hyatt hotel made any difference in their testing. Mark Weiss states it did not. Rep. Louis Stokes (D-OH) recognizes Rep. Robert Edgar (D-PA). Rep. Edgar tries to make some analogies between falsely diagnosed sounds and ships being misdirected by foghorn. Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy are not; laughter in BG. Rep. Edgar then asks if either of them are aware of blips on a radar not being accurate. Weiss responds that he has some knowledge of radar, but asks for further explanation. Aschkenasy clarifies that the "squiggly lines" on the radar scope do not signify supersonic waves, but recorded sound waves.
July 29, 1994 - Part 1
(10:08:29) Now, it's our duty as Members of this Committee to be faithful to the Committee's and the Senate's instruction to us. As Chairman, it is my responsibility, together with my Ranking Member, Senator D'Amato, to be certain that each of us adheres to the scope of the inquiry by Senate Resolution 229 so we don't jeopardize Mr. Fiske's investigation and I ask for the cooperation of every Member in that regard. As Chairman of the Committee for the past 6 years, I have sought the greatest possible degree of bipartisan cooperation, During this current inquiry, Senator D'Amato and I have worked cooperatively in every step to resolve various differences as they have arisen. Should additional disputes arise, the Committee will act, of course, to resolve them. I will protect the right of each Senator, just as I must, and will protect the integrity of our Committee's work effort. I ask that each Member understand my commitment to see that the time is accorded fairly to both sides and that the individual time allotments are respected and adhered to, it will be my responsibility to see that an or our questions fit within our scope requirements and not move across into the restricted area of Mr. Fiske's ongoing investigation, and I ask each Member to exercise great care in this regard. In my view, the primary function of these public hearings is to get the facts out to the American people so that they may evaluate this matter for themselves. That cannot be accomplished in one day or by an individual witness or by some seeming revelation. We need to weigh all the facts and hear the testimony from all the witnesses. So I would encourage my colleagues and the public to withhold final judgment until all the information has been presented and the bearing record is complete. This will take several days, and will require sorting out and evaluating contradictory accounts by various witnesses. After we have beard and evaluated the evidence, Senate Resolution 229 requires that we consider and determine whether there was improper conduct with respect to contacts between the White House and officials at Treasury and RTC. Now, Mr. Fiske for his part-and this is important-has concentrated on whether there was any criminal conduct. His investigation, and I quote from the statement Mr. Fiske made directly: Focused on whether in the course of any of these contacts any individual ob. structed justice, attempted to obstruct justice, or conspired with others to obstruct justice. Quoting further from Mr. Fiske's report, and this is his conclusion: After review of all the evidence, we have concluded that the evidence is insufficient to establish that anyone within the White House or the Department of Treasury acted with the intent to corruptly influence an RTC investigation. Therefor This is all his quotation and his summary: Therefore the evidence of the events surrounding the contacts between the White House and the Treasury Department does not justify the prosecution of anyone for a violation of 1505, which is the criminal law obstruction of justice provision. We have also concluded that the evidence does not justify a criminal prosecution or violation of any other Federal statute. One more quotation from his summary. Mr. Fiske said: In reaching this conclusion, this office is not determining anything other than that the evidence does not justify a criminal prosecution. We express no opinion on the propriety of these meetings or whether anything that occurred at these meetings constitutes a breach of ethical rules or standards. As Mr. Fiske then restricted his review to only possible violations of criminal law statutes, this Committee has been instructed by the Senate to apply a different standard and to determine whether there was "improper conduct" with respect to any of these contacts which could include such things as the inappropriate sharing of confidential information, preferential treatment, and the appearance of impropriety.
August 4, 1994 - Part 1
(09:00:21)(tape #10087 begins) Hearing coverage title screen (09:00:25) Hearings hosts KEN BODE and NINA TOTENBERG introduce day's hearing from tv studio, (09:02:45) President BILL CLINTON gives a lengthy answer to a reporter's question at a press conference about if he'll keep on ROGER ALTMAN in the treasury department (09:04:33) Back in studio Bode and Totenberg speak with Senator CHRISTOPHER BOND (09:12:20) Hearing begins: HEARINGS RELATING TO MADISON GUARANTY S&L AND THE WHITEWATER DEVEL OPMENT CORPORATION-WASHINGTON, DC PHASE THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 1994 U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON BANKING, HOUSING, AND URBAN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. The Committee met at 9:12 a.m., in room 106 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Donald W. Riegle, Jr. (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN RIEGLE The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. Let me welcome all those in attendance this morning, and invite those in the room to find seats so that we can begin. Let me indicate that we are starting today our fifth day of hearings being conducted here by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs on the so-called Madison Guaranty Whitewater matter which was authorized, and instruction to do this provided to us, by Senate Resolution 229. There are three panels that are scheduled to appear before us today. All of the witnesses testifying today are current or former White House personnel. The first panel, now seated before us, and that we will hear from soon, consists of Thomas "Mack" McLarty, who is the Senior Advisor to the President and the former Chief of Staff to the President. Also Margaret Williams, Chief of Staff to the First Lady of the United States. The second panel consists of Harold Ickes, who is the Deputy Chief of Staff to the President. Mr. George Stephanopoulos who is a Senior Advisor to the President. Mr. John Podesta, who is Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. And then finally, in that panel, Mr. Bruce Lindsey, who serves as Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor. The third panel will consist of Bernard Nussbaum, who served as the former Counsel to the President of the United States. I should say, by the way, that the White House has been very cooperative in making witnesses available to us, and we appreciate that. 270 As with our prior hearings, we are looking forward to listening to our witnesses, so that they can help fill out all the information that we need to have regarding events relating to whether or not there was any improper conduct that may have occurred regarding communications between officials of the White House and the Department of the Treasury or the Resolution Trust Corporation relating to the Madison Guaranty issue and related matters. So let me now, having introduced our two witnesses that are here this morning, ask you, if you would please, to stand and raise your right hand while I administer the oath. [Witnesses sworn.] Very good. Thank you. I believe you both have opening statements that you wish to make, and Mr. McLarty, we will start with you, and we would like your statement at this time. Senator BRYAN. Mr- Chairman, if those opening statements are available to the rest of the Committee, may we have them distributed? Thank you. [Pause.] The CHAIRMAN. Let me just say, Senator Bryan, and I appreciate your request, and the statements, we are getting them, but we are getting them, because of the pressure of time, pretty much just before witnesses appear, but it is very, important that Members have them available for reference. Mr. McLarty.
LBJ Inauguration, 1965
Master 1856 - Tape 2 Diss to MS American flag fluttering, billowing in wind, zoom out to Capitol Building. Nice low angle TLS west front of Capitol Bldg. TLS dignitaries, guests descending step onto Inaugural platform. TLS Joint Congressional Inaugural Committee, led by Senator EVERETT JORDAN and House Speaker JOHN MCCORMACK and including JOHN SPARKMAN & CARL ALBERT, walking onto gallery. TLS Johnson Presidential Cabinet, led by Secretary of State DEAN RUSK and Ambassador to the United Nations ADLAI STEVENSON, with Secretary of the Treasury HENRY FOWLER, Secretary of Defense ROBERT MCNAMARA, Attorney General NICHOLAS KATZENBACH, et al in tow, descending steps onto gallery. TLS U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justices descending steps onto gallery. Opening credits.
LAWMAKERS - "Line Item Veto"
Linda Wertheimer of National Public Radio interviewing U.S. Representative Silvio Conte (R-MA), who says that if Presidents were able to get everything their own way, the U.S. would be a dictatorship and there would not be a legislative branch. Wertheimer interviewing U.S. Representative and Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee Jamie Whitten (D-MS), who says the job of Congress is to represent the need of the people as the framers of the U.S. Constitution intended. Rep Conte says there is no way Congress will give President Reagan a line item veto. Rep Whitten says “it is more power than a good man should want and more power than a bad man should have.”
Henry Foster Confirmation Hearings
Henry Foster Confirmation Hearings (Surgeon General Nominee) Dr. Henry Foster speaking to committee members. 11.02.00 Senator Edward Kennedy questions Henry Foster about the physicians and staff, asks what the atmosphere was like at Tuskegee. 11.03.55 Senator Edward Kennedy asks Dr. Henry Foster why he wants to be the Surgeon General, asks what is his "vision"? 11.04.25 Dr. Henry Foster responds "One of the things that I have to do or any Surgeon General must do is to communicate and educate the American public about health promotion disease prevention..." 11.09.36 In studio with Ken Bode and Michel McQueen (Michel Martin), interviews Senator Barbara Mikilski (D) Maryland and later Senator James Jeffords (R) Vermont and White House Communications Director Mark Gearan.
Lawmakers March 15, 1984 Presidential Campaign
Charles Manatt, Democratic National Chairman They ll go to the meetings; they ll go to the convention, obviously with the commitment of their own prestige and their own organization on the lines of the fall campaign. Cokie Roberts What was the result of them not being there? Charles Manatt, Democratic National Chairman It was just the opposite of that. We didn t have the advantage of having the experience of the public officials being involved. Last year Cokie, until we had for last year meaning 1980 we had four sitting members of the House on the Platform Committee out of 160 people. Well, this year I hope to have 15 or 20 a much larger number.
The Indian Sign language-Lecture by General Hugh L. Scott
Title Card Foreword-This film is designed to present graphically the essentials of the inter-tribal sign of all American Indians of the Great Plains. A plan to perpetuate the knowledge of a recognized authority on this dying language, suggested by the Hon. Scott Leavitt, chairman of the Indian Committee of the House of Representatives, was embodies in an Act of Congress (H.R. 4604) authorizing the Secretary of the Interior Ray Lyman Dilbur, through the instrumentality of Major General Hugh L. Scott, to make the motion picture record of this sign language which follows this Act was executed under the immediate supervision of ...Secretary of the Interior. I. Origin and principles of the sign language, outlined by General Scott."
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
Former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan explains why Mr. Lilly, a friend of White House aide Alexander Butterfield, was entrusted with the money and its purpose, but Senator Edward Gurney (R-FL) continues to question how Mr. Lilly was chosen over (approximately) 400 official White House staffers to perform the task of delivering $350,000 in campaign funds. Senator Gurney asks if Mr. Lilly was usually entrusted with custody of holding large sums of money for other people. Strachan does not know and has never met the man. Senator Gurney recounts that Strachan had left the White House when the $350,000 was returned and asks why Strachan had returned the money and not someone who still worked at the White House. Strachan states that it was simply one of the last matters he agreed to tend to before he left and had not done so until after he had officially left. It was a matter of wrapping up all obligations. Sen. Gurney states he has no further questions.
JFK Assassination Hearings - Robert Groden (Conclusion)
Hearings host Sandford Ungar says that it is obvious the questions raised today were not raised with the Warren Commission. He asks Jeremiah O'Leary of the Washington Star whether his belief in the Warren Commission's work is shaken after one day. O'Leary states that it is "salubrious" for this hearing to be out in the open. The Warren Commission operated behind closed doors as did the current committee, at first. That's not a criticism, but a necessity. That being said, this open committee is encouraging to him, and the public will learn a great deal more than before. Ungar asks Paul Hock, of the Assassination Information Bureau, whether Robert Groden accurately represented the criticism of the Warren Commission. Hoch agrees that he did, strictly within the confines of photographic evidence. O'Leary adds that he did it with a neutral tone. Ungar thanks them both and signs off.
LAWMAKERS - LM 086 - "El Salvador Aid"
U.S. House of Representatives committee session; Paul Duke (VO) says Congress is being asked to dramatically increase its commitment to Central America. U.S. Secretary of State George Schultz says there is reason to believe that U.S. President Ronald Reagan’s plans can work to ensure "well-being" of Latin American people as well as U.S. national security. U.S. Rep. Jamie Whitten (D-MS) in committee, says he voted for aid to El Salvador in 1981 to give it a chance to work, but since then the situation has gotten worse. Rep. Silvio Conte (R-MA) says human rights violations have gotten worse, cites the murder of four nuns by the right wing government. Sec. Schultz says that one case is "deeply troubling." Rep. Clarence Long (D-MD) says he will keep his vote undecided to see if he can entice the Reagan administration to give some concessions. Rep. Silvio Conte (R-MA) in his office, says it will be a difficult thing to pass. Rep. Jim Leach (R-IA) says he thinks President Reagan will get El Salvador aid but only after a long fight.
Watergate Hearings, June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean
John Dean. Political intelligence often came from unexpected sources. For example, during this last spring of 1972, a top man at the Secret Service brought me information regarding Senator McGovern. I asked Mr. Colson if he were interested. He was very interested and had the information published. The persons on the White House staff who were most interested in Political intelligence were Ehrlichman, Haldeman, and Colson. As the reelection Campaign drew closer, I would have to say that it was principally Colson and sometimes Haldeman who sought information from my office that had political implications to it. While I have been unable to make a complete review of my office files to document the many types of inquiries, I do have some documents that evidence a fair sampling of the type of requests that were frequently made of me and how they were handled my office. The documents are extremely sensitive and could he injurious to innocent people, whose names are mentioned in them. Accordingly, I have submitted them for the committee's use, exhibit no. 5, and prepared to answer any questions the committee may have regarding these documents.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator TALMADGE. Now, did Mr. Hunt or Mrs. Hunt ever give you information that they were in touch with the committee to re-elect the president, or the White House, about money or executive clemency? Mr. McCORD. That they were in touch with them? Senator TALMADGE. Yes. Mr. McCORD. Yes sir. Senator TALMADGE. Would you relate that? Mr. McCORD. Yes sir, during the meetings, personal meetings and telephone meetings beginning in July 1972 concerning money and beginning in about October 1972 concerning executive clemency. The term executive clemency I first heard I believe from Mr. Hunt in early October, late September early October when I would see him at the courtroom, or when he would call me by telephone thereafter he subsequently mentioned it almost every call, his wife referred to it, referred to executive that in effect that in substance what they were saying was that the defendants were being promised executive clemency if they went off to prison and had to serve time. And this was sometimes, the word executive clemency would be followed or accompanied by statements about financial support and rehabilitation. Senator TALMADGE. Did Mrs. Hunt state who gave her authority to make such a promise? Mr. McCORD. My recollections of her conversations were that she was saying that she was transmitting this word to me from her husband, she did not specifically mention that I can recall now, who gave it to him. I can draw only one conclusion as to where it came from, because ... Senator TALMADGE. She didn't state the source of her authority to make that promise then? Mr. McCORD. I can't recall such statements on her part. Senator TALMADGE. Who did she say she was in communication with? Mr. McCORD. With the committee to re-elect the president, the attorney's for the committee specifically. Senator TALMADGE. Who specifically? There's more than one individual involved in the committee, I want you to name specific names if you know. Mr. McCORD. I can tell you what she stated sir, if this is what you want. Senator TALMADGE. Tell me what she stated, that's the question I asked you. Mr. McCORD. Alright sir, she stated that she herself was in touch with Mr. Kenneth Parkinson, one of the attorney's for the committee for the re-election of the president, she stated that her husband Mr. Hunt had been in touch in July with Mr. Paul O'Brien also an attorney with Mr. Parkinson for the committee to re-elect the president.
Watergate Hearings - John Dean: Opening Statement (Part II)
(07:10:53) Opens to JOHN DEAN, former Presidential Counsel, in the midst of his opening statement, he is discussing Nixon's desire to give a counter-offensive speech siting reports from government intelligence agencies which show that demonstrations held during the 1972 campaign were the product of Democratic attempts to damage Nixon's campaign, the reports however that were recieved could show no Democratic influence in these demonstrations (07:11:45) Dean talks about how leaks were a source of paranoia and illegal operations for the White House, Dean tells about how one of his fellow staffers, JACK CAULFIELD, bugged the phone of newsman it was feared was going to release some unfavorable information about the White House (07:14:00) Dean goes on to say that paranoia over leaks increased ten fold when the Pentagon Papers began to be published in the New York Times in 1971, he tells another story of a Caulfield operation, this time it was a request that Caulfield burglarize and fire bomb the Brookings Institute which it was believed had leaked White House documents and which was planning on publishing a book on the Vietnam War, Dean got this mission cancelled as he and Caulfield both agreed it was "insane" (07:16:44) Dean tells about the after-math after Time Magazine informed the White House that they were going to run a story on how the White House had been tapping the phones of newsman, Dean says that there was a phone log of the tapped information that everyone was rushing to keep hidden (07:19:38) Dean discusses the so-called "Plumber's Unit" which was a sensor system and scrambler phone used to detect leaks (07:21:50) Dean mentions a meeting Nixon called at the White House to curtail all leaks out which came a project to scope out leak sources, Dean says it produced not one (07:22:45) Dean turns to discussing political intelligence (07:23:10) Backwards skip 10 seconds - Dean mentions his first information reconaissance mission dealing with the FBI (07:24:30) Dean discusses dirt digging on TED KENNEDY, he says that within 6 hours of the accident at Chappaquidit (?) the White House had their own investigators on the scene, he goes on to give more details on surveilance of Kennedy (07:25:55) Skip in footage, color tones down - Different day of the Hearings, Dean is being question by Senator Montoya about Nixon's request that he keep a list during the 1972 Presidential campaign of those members of the press who seemed to work against his re-election so that they can be subject to IRS audits after the election, Dean says he told Nixon the IRS was not in the control of the White House and that this couldn't be done (07:27:55) Dean discusses phone conversations the with IRS head Mr. WALTERS (07:28:50) Committee Chairman SAMUEL ERVIN mentions how he too was a target of White House investigation for his participation in this Senate Investigative Committee and that attempts to find dirt on him were useless because of his pristene record and great popularity - he reads from a newspaper article stating these things and gets a hearty laugh from the whole hearing room