Advanced Search
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE
16.07.10-Shots of debate on Nuclear Freeze. Rep. JOE MOAKLEY asks for adoption of the Rules Committee's ruling. Rep. TRENT LOTT says that the Rules Committee says that the Rules Committee is trying to screw the opponents of the Nuclear Freeze. Rep. C.V. MONTGOMERY (D-MS) asks for rules changes. V.O.-Nuclear Freeze opponents had plenty of parliamentary tactics to try to defeat the bill. Rep. BOB WALKER (R-PA) in debate, introduces a point of order that there is inadequate quorum for consideration. TIP O'NEILL reads from the rules, a complicated statement, denying the point of order. Rep. STRATTON and Rep. ZABLOCKI spar over parliamentary procedures and allotments of debate time. Shot of STRATTON offering an amendment, pointing to a chart that shows that the Russians have much bigger missiles than the U.S. does. Rep. ZABLOCKI moves to cut off debate on the amendments. A divided voice vote leads to acrimony. V.O.-eventually, the parliamentary tactics of the opponents won out. Rep. JACK KEMP says that attempts to limit debate are inappropriate for such a serious issue [of course, KEMP led the charge to jackboot Reaganomics through the House with severely limited debate in 1981]. 16.13.22-Rep. ZABLOCKI in debate. TIP O'NEILL in debate, attacks the parliamentary tactics of the Nuclear Freeze opponents, says they might as well give up because O'Neill has got the votes. Newman-Nuclear Freeze opponents dragged out debate for 4 weeks. In this way, the rules favor the status quo. Signs off. 16.14.34-closing credits/WETA credit/funding credits/PBS ID 16.15.45--OUT
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
In Studio: Judy Woodruff-Standing by outside the hearing room, Congressman Lee Hamilton -Democratic Course Chairman of the House Select Committee. Congressman Hamilton was it unanimous view among the committee members that Colonel North continue testimony tomorrow? Or did a number of the members want him to finish up tonight? On Location: Congressman Lee Hamilton. After we discussed it, I think it was a strongly held view about members for both panels that we ve gone a long time today. We still have about two and a half hours more we ve estimated in questions. And we thought it would be better to go over till tomorrow morning. In Studio: Judy Woodruff-Alright Congressman Hamilton, we re having some audio, some microphone problems there. If you would just hang in there for a moment with us we are going to try and get those straightened out and we ll come back to you. I will keep an ear out just in case they do fix it and we ll come right back to you. Elizabeth, would it be to North s advantage to wrap it up today and not come back tomorrow? In Studio: Elizabeth Drew-I don t think it makes very much difference in the long run. They will start to complain that the committee is taking too long but when people look at these hearings for what they really are and what they re about. All of these questions of scheduling I think will fade.
JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss, H.B. McClain
U.S. House Representative Christopher Dodd (D-CT): "...you said to me that you did not know of anything else that could create a pattern such as we have seen here other than a rifle." Ernest Aschkenasy states that there testing was focused on locating the source of the sound, though they were satisfied enough with indication that it was a rifle that produced the sound. Rep. Dodd asks if there are test that can be done to indicate whether it was a rifle of not. Aschkenasy says there are and would need some time to come up with tests. Mark Weiss explains the sound and physics of a shockwave. Rep Dodd asks Chief Counsel, Professor Robert Blakey and Deputy Chief Counsel Gary T. Cornwell why an acoustical analysis of what created the sounds wasn't done.
JFK Assassination Hearings - The Weapons Experts Panel (Part II)
(14:29:29) Opens to shot of JOHN S. BATES testifying before the House Select Committee, talking about bullet comparisons, he says that after microscopic examination of the bullets supposedly test fired by the FBI out of the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle, identified as the one used by alleged assassin LEE HARVEY OSWALD, and examination of the bullets fired by this panel out of the same rifle the panel concluded the bullets could not be matched up as being fired from the same weopon, Bates adds this is not a surprise (14:32:30) Bates lists reasons why the above mentioned bullets do not match up (14:34:07) Bates is questioned by Committee Counsel JAMES E. MACDONALD as to the findings of bullet comparisons between the infamous bullet 399 and another bullet test fired by the FBI - Bates reports that these bullets matched up as coming from the same gun (14:36:00) MacDonald introduces a bunch of exhibits, they are all the bullet fragments recoverd from the limosine, JFK and Governor JOHN CONNALLY, MacDonald's questioning then turns to ANDREW M. NEWQUIST (14:37:30) Newquist goes to the exhibit easels to explain the examination of the fragments involved in the assassination, on the easels are blown up photographic images of the fragments, Newquist upon inquiry by MacDonald identifies two of the fragments as being traceable to Oswald's rifle, he explains that he identified them by comparing them to a bullet fired from the rifle by the FBI and matching up under microscopic magnification distinguished scarrings on both bullet and fragment - there are blown up photographic images of the microscopic comparison (14:43:45) New exhibits introduced by MacDonald, these are a blown up photographic image of a bullet fragment and the actual fragment itself of a bullet fired at General EDMUND WALKER, MacDonald explains that it is believed the bullet was fired by Oswald in an assassination attempt in April 1963 - From the fragment Newquist is able to tell the committee the bullet is of the same class as the other bullets fired from the rifle but the panel cannot conclude that it was definately fired from the same rifle (14:48:00) MacDonald introduces exhibits, they are the handgun believed to have been used by Oswald to shoot Officer TIPIT (?) later on the day of JFK's assassination, the cartridges found at the scene of the crime, cartridges the current panel test fired from the same gun, and blown up photographic images of the gun and the cartridges - MONTY C. LUTZ confirms the identity of the all materials and using the photographs explains how the panel concluded that the two sets of cartridges match up as being fired from the same gun, again this involves microscopic images comparing the markings on the different cartridges (14:53:45) DONALD E. CHAMPAGNE is given a new exhibit, the hand gun used by JACK RUBY to kill Oswald - Champagne upon request identifies the gun and describes its particulars (14:56:00) MacDonald asks LUTZ what kind of gun it was that Oswald had used to kill Officer Tipit - Lutz responds that it is a 38 special but that it has been modified to chamber a different type of ammunition (14:56:38) Committee Chairman LOUIS STOKES calls a five minute recess because committee members are participating in a House vote (14:57:02) Hearings host SANDFORD UNGAR voices over a summary of the testimony thus far, shot soon switches to him and his panel Professor JACOB COHEN of Brandeis University and DAVID LIFTON, Warren Commission critic, the two of whom get into a vigorous debate over the conspiracy aspect of the committee's procedings (15:06:43) The committee returns and the hearing is called back into session, acting Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER recognizes Representative EDGAR to question the witnesses, Edgar has Lutz and Champagne come out from behind the table at which their seated in front of the committee so that they can demonstrate the exhibit weopons (15:08:25) Lutz describes the rifle magazine for Edgar using the actual Mannlicher-Carcano rifle to illustrate his description - Edgar confirms that the magazine is not removeable and then asks how the rifle is loaded - Lutz describes this process, again using the actual rifle to illustrate his description (15:11:30) Edgar asks about the functioning of the rifle clip - Lutz explains how it functions in detail (15:12:55) Edgar asks for a desciption of the bolt action with consideration of the fact that three shots were supposedly fired in a brief period of time - Lutz does this, again using the rifle as illustration, shows off some nifty fast bolt action (15:14:25) Edgar confirms that the follower within the rifle magazine will only scar the bottom bullet in a clip - Lutz answers yes - Edgar has several other questions about the magazine and clip which Lutz and Champagne answer (15:17:13) Edgar asks questions about the scope - Lutz answers them again illustrating his answers with the actual rifle (15:19:44) Edgar asks Lutz to demonstrate the rifle, targeting something with the scope and then the iron sites - Lutz crouches down in a firing stance and takes aim at the movie screen - Edgar asks if in conclusion from this demonstration it is likely that when firing quickly one would use the iron sites - Lutz says he would (15:22:15) Edgar asks if guns emit smoke that is discernable to the human eye (witnesses claim they saw smoke coming from the grassy knoll) - Lutz and Bates answer yes, some smoke descriptions are given (15:25:10) Edgar asks for a description of the single and double action firings of the Oswald hand gun - Lutz demonstrates on the actual handgun (15:27:24) Edgar asks if the bullets found in Officer Tipit matched the test fired bullets of the panel - Lutz answers that the class of bullet was the same but they could not exactly match them up as coming from the same gun, Lutz explains why they couldn't match them up exactly (15:29:27) Edgar asks about the two stage trigger on the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle - Lutz explains what it is and that it is common in military issue rifles (15:31:02) Edgar asks about extractor markings on the cartridges found in the Texas book depository - Champagne's answer is cut off
Watergate Hearings - Richard Helms
(11:12:03) Opens to Counsel DAVID DORSEN questioning former CIA Director RICHARD HELMS about HOWARD HUNT's requests upon joining the White House staff - Helm's says Hunt's requests quickly got to be too much and he had the White House contacted to tell them the CIA was no longer going to grant Hunt's requests, Helms explains why the CIA's White House contact was JOHN EHRLICHMAN (11:14:15) Dorsen asks Helms when he first found out about the break-in to Dr. LOUIS FIELDINGS's office and if he knew about CIA equipment being used in this break-in - Helms responds he found out about it in Tehran and that he did not know how CIA equipment could have been used as none was ever given to Hunt (11:16:05) Dorsen asks Helms if the CIA did a psychological profile for the White House of DANIEL ELLSBERG - Helms explains in detail the context of the request and begins to explain the process itself and its history (11:18:18) Skip in footage (11:18:22) Skip in footage - Dorsen asks who at the White House was requesting the profile and if any illegally or improperly obtained materials were submitted for review - Helms answers (11:19:52) Dorsen asks when Helms found out about the Watergate break in and if there was any CIA activity as a result - Helms responds that he thinks he first found out about it through the newspapers, Helms says that his secuirty director then informed him of the people who were involved in the break-in who were former CIA agents (11:22:28) Dorsen asks Helms about his contact with Director of the FBI Gray (11:23:11) Skip in footage, back 2 seconds (11:23:28) Dorsen asks if Helms if in this contact with Gray if he mentioned if the CIA had anything to do with the break-in - Helms shouts in response that he told Gray the CIA had nothing to do with the break-in, and he hopes the press hears him this time (11:24:00) Dorsen asks Helms about his meeting with Presidential advisors H.R. HALDEMAN, Ehrlichman, Gray about the Watergate investigation - Helms gives a very long winded response in which he tells the committee the major concern of the meeting regarding the CIA was that the FBI's investigation might in Mexico turn up information that infringed upon other CIA investigations (11:31:35) Dorsen asks about Deputy CIA Director VERNON WALTERS contact with Presidential Counsel JOHN DEAN - Helms tells the committee that Walters reported to him that Dean was attempting within the meeting to see if the CIA would help the White House beat the Whitewater rap
Watergate Hearings - Robert Mardian
(09:31:19) Senator LOWELL WEICKER reads a statement about why Watergate happened issued by Presidential Counsel JOHN DEAN, he asks witnes ROBERT MARDIAN if he agrees with it - Mardian responds that he does agree with parts of it - Weicker then asks if agrees that there was intelligence gathering done by the White House, lists the alleged incidents of such activity - Mardian agrees (09:34:48) Weicker asks Mardian who asked him to head the Internal Security Division of the Justice Department and if that person instructed him to combat demonstrations- Mardian responds he presumes the Attorney General and no, there was no such request - Mardian goes on to detail the organization of the Division and explain its purpose, which he claims was to provide the President with information about civil insurrection within states so that the President can make a decision of whether to give support to the states to combat this insurrection (09:38:39) Weicker confirms that rather than an intelligence gathering agency the Division was a litigative organization - Mardian agrees - Weicker and Mardian discuss the Division's relations with the FBI's department of domestic intelligence (09:42:36) Skip in footage, back a few seconds (09:43:52) Skip in footage - Weicker and Mardain continue to discuss the Division's relationship with the FBI, Weicker sites statistics that show the growth of the FBI department of domestic surveilance after renewed interest in it by the White House (09:45:30) Skip in footage - Mardian and Senate Committee Member HAMILTON (?) discuss money given to GORDON LIDDY for his operations (09:46:59) Skip in footage - Hamilton and Mardian discuss NIXON's presidential campaign manager JOHN MITCHELL's attempts at cover-up after Watergate (09:48:54) Skip in footage (09:49:01) Skip in footage - Majority Counsel SAM DASH questions STRAACHAN (?) about his responsibilities as assistant to H.R. HALDEMAN, one of which was serving as a liason between Hauderman, the White House, and the Committee to Re-elect the President
Watergate Hearings - John Ehrlichman (Part II)
(08:30:26) Opens to JOHN EHRLICHMAN, Presidential advisor, answering the questions of Majority Counsel SAM DASH about the HOWARD HUNT and GORDON LIDDY break-in of DANIEL ELLSBERG's psychiatrist's office, Ehrlichman says it happened labor day weekend of 1971 (08:31:38) Dash and Ehrlichman discuss the so-called Sandwich Plan (08:33:15) Dash asks Ehrlichman to confirm that the above activities show the White House to be involved in intelligence gathering activities to preserve internal security (08:35:07) Skip in footage - Dash asks if Ehrlichman was aware of the feeling by the President for the need to improve intelligence agencies for sake of internal security - Ehrlichman responds yes and talks about how the White House formed a small agency which worked in the Judicial branch of government and gathered and shared information from federal and state intelligence and law enforcement agencies, of importance to this group was monitoring demonstrations (08:37:05) Dash asks if Ehrlichman knew about the Houston Plan - Ehrlichman said he was at a meeting with various federal agency heads including J. EDGAR HOOVER which discussed the plan - Dash and Ehrlichman discuss the meeting, why Dash was there and why Hoover did not support the plan (08:40:40) Skip in footage, back 15 seconds - Dash asks if Ehrlichman was ever involved in the set up of an unit in the White House for the purpose of determining if leaks occurred in security areas (08:42:36) Skip in footage - Committee Chairman SAMUEL ERVIN questions Ehrlichman (08:44:09) Skip in footage, 10 seconds back - Ervin questions Ehrlichman about his relationship with a Mr. KALMBACH of the Committee to Re-elect the President and the clandestine funding of the defense of the Watergate burglars (08:48:34) Skip in footage - Ervin and Ehrlichman and Ehrlichman's Counsel discuss the Constitutionality of the break-in of Ellsburg's psychiatrist's office - this picks up on WPA #163
LAWMAKERS
01.14.30-ROBERTS-despite the action in committee, the HOUSE is not meeting very much. One member takes floor to complain about it every day. 01.14.53-shot of rostrum of House chamber, rep BOB WALKER (R-PA) taking podium in well. WALKER sarcastically summarizes the business the House has taken care of that week. Shots of WALKER in different suits, griping about the general sloth and complacency of Congress. ROBERTS v.o.--many of his colleagues view WALKER'S daily tirades as tiresome GRANDSTANDING for the T.V. CAMERAS, but he is so persistent that HOUSE LEADERSHIP had to ask for time to counter his charges. 01.16.14-shot of Rep. TOM FOLEY in well, says the PUBLIC shouldn't be deceived by WALKER'S tirades, discusses the large amounts of work done in committee. Shot of Rep. ROBERT MICHEL says the number of hours on the floor isn't the measure of Congress' work, insinuates that WALKER is strong on GRANDSTANDING but weak on behind the scenes work. Shot of Rep. ED de la GARZA (chair of AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE), says that he doesn't have time to eat a sandwich for all the work his committee does. Shots of Congressmen in debate in House chamber. ROBERTS v.o.-REPUBLICANS want to accuse the DEMOCRATS of being lazy so that the DEMOCRATS will work to put a BUDGET together, so the REPUBLICANS won't have to be tied to support of some of Ronald Reagan's less-than-popular budget priorities at election time. Shot of Rep. DAN COATS (R-Ind.), says that farmers have a hard time understanding why Congress doesn't do anything for them. 01.18.13-Shot of WALKER in debate, ripping DEMOCRATS for not addressing a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT for SCHOOL PRAYER and changes in BUSING laws. Shot of TIP O'NEILL with speaker's gavel. Shot of Rep. THOMAS HARTNETT (R-SC), says that if DEMOCRATS won't put forth a BUDGET for a vote, REPUBLICANS will demand votes on SOCIAL ISSUES [that could hurt DEMOCRATS with voters]. Shot of Rep. JUDD GREGG (R-NH), says that the "liberal leadership" is responsible for "nothing being done in this country". 01.19.31-DUKE/ROBERTS-DEMOCRATS are considering calling the bluff and bringing the REAGAN BUDGET, unchanged, to the floor for a vote to embarrass the REPUBLICANS, discussion of the BUDGET STALEMATE, rumors that REAGAN might start to compromise, since REPUBLICANS are nervous about political consequences. Intro interview of BOB DOLE by WERTHEIMER. 01.20.21-BOB DOLE seated in office for interview. DOLE says it isn't helpful to REPUBLICANS to have the BUDGET on hold, there's a need to establish parameters for the BUDGET. WERTHEIMER asks about the fact that REAGAN has been unwilling to compromise at all on his BUDGET. DOLE says that REAGAN must get involved, and provide leadership toward a compromise, says a STALEMATE on the BUDGET would be disastrous for everyone. WERTHEIMER asks about how DOLE will address REAGAN to get him to cooperate. DOLE says that the Congress has to be direct. Says he can't believe that REAGAN really believes his own public speeches about his BUDGET; REAGAN must know that no one in Congress supports his budget. DOLE doesn't criticize REAGAN'S handling of the BUDGET FIGHT, says it's Congress' fault for not having an alternative plan. Says that if Congress sits by, even the DEMOCRATS will eventually be hurt in November. 01.24.21-DUKE-intro commentary. Commentary by OTIS PIKE, subject of massive frustration in Congress, spilling over into the PANDAS in the NATIONAL ZOO who are having trouble mating successfully. 01.26.16-DUKE-comments to ROBERTS that the room they are sitting in, known as the "Board of Education Room", was where former Speaker SAM RAYBURN and his cronies used to drink bourbon all afternoon. Signs off. Closing Credits/transcript order/WETA credit/sponsor credits/PBS ID h 01.29.08--OUT
LAWMAKERS
00.15.48-DUKE-SENATE did approve Prompt Payment law, likely HOUSE will do same in 1982. WERTHEIMER-intro report on GUN LOBBY agenda for RELAXING GUN CONTROL LAWS. 00.16.23-Clip of NATIONAL RIFLE ASSOCIATION AD, showing stills of "members" of NRA, touting the group's commitment to right to own guns. Shot of GUN CONTROL ad, showing a young girl finding a HANDGUN in her mom's jewelry box, picks it up as ominous music plays. Shot of HANDGUNS on rack in GUN STORE. Shot of NRA headquarters, text of SECOND AMENDMENT engraved on marble wall. Shot of SENATE COMMITTEE session. Shot of Rep. HAROLD VOLKMER (D-MO) testifies to Committee that the 1968 GUN CONTROL law is an infringement of Constitutional rights of "law abiding citizens". Shot of Sen. JAMES McCLURE, arguing that a new law should be focused on Criminals and the use of Guns in Crime. Shot of Sen. CHARLES GRASSLEY (R-IA) chairing committee, WERTHEIMER v.o.-disc. of contributions given to BIDEN, McCLURE, VOLKMER by NRA. Sen. GRASSLEY says that there are many in Congress who support the new bill. WERTHEIMER v.o.-REAGAN may have pre-empted CONGRESS, has proposed to dissolve ATF and give its enforcement authority to SECRET SERVICE. 00.19.02-Shot of ATF director, testifying to committee, says that for all the money spent, the 1968 law has not impacted CRIME RATE at all. Shot of PAUL HAYES (GUN DEALER) and wife, testifies that government regulation is killing his business [he should have told his wife not to wear that fur collar if he is looking for sympathy] Shot of a GUN COLLECTOR complaining that his guns were seized. WERTHEIMER v.o.-the witnesses are basically professional witnesses for NRA agenda. 00.20.14--Shot of a GUN CONTROL advocate, says the bill is frivolous and entirely objectionable-WERTHEIMER v.o. descr. of provisions of bill. Shot of a GUN CONTROL advocate, says CONGRESS must pass new laws, not gut existing ones. 00.21.00-DUKE/WERTHEIMER studio-discussion of legislative mood on GUN CONTROL, extraordinary that in a year when the PRESIDENT was shot, there was no move to INCREASE GUN CONTROL, but a move to decrease it. Speculation that moving GUN LAW ENFORCEMENT to SECRET SERVICE from ATF might make the GUN LOBBY'S task more difficult in the long run. DUKE notes an estimated 55 MILLION HANDGUNS in circulation in U.S.A.. 00.22.31-DUKE intro report on the CONGRESSIONAL CHAPLAIN, called on to help members relax after hard battles over the budget. 00.23.01-Shot of House CHAPLAIN JAMES FORD, seated, wearing black with priest's collar, says he steers clear of political matters and advising. Shot of FORD giving PRAYER to open session of HOUSE. Shot of STAINED GLASS WINDOW in CAPITOL PRAYER ROOM, closeup of slogan "THIS NATION UNDER GOD" in window. Shot of rostrum of HOUSE chamber. FORD discussing helping members of Congress with their personal spiritual problems, says that Congressmen have the same kinds of problems as anyone else, in matters where a Congressman has a moral dilemma about how to vote, FORD says he must act only as a counselor to help the member make his/her own decision. FORD says that HOUSE members are very "religious" in terms of observation and practice (church attendance etc.). Says he can't answer the question "is there a 'moral majority' in CONGRESS?", hopes that there is a majority that has moral concerns for justice, mercy, peace. Says that most Congressmen do sincerely want to use their votes to do right, regardless of their opinions on what "right" is. 00.27.17-DUKE-intro commentary. 00.27.26-commentary by OTIS PIKE, discusses what he'd like to give CONGRESS for Christmas-"LOOPHOLES"-discusses CONGRESS' constant desire to find "loopholes" to close, constant practice of making new loopholes. 00.29.23-DUKE signs off, Closing credits roll over shot of MARINE BAND (?) playing "Jingle Bells" on Capitol grounds. Transcript order information/WETA credit/sponsor credits/PBS ID 00.31.24-OUT
August 2, 1994 - Part 7
(19:25:30) I agree with her on the essence of the conversation. I just believe I called Mr. Ickes and she believes I called her. People's recollections can differ. There'snothing unusual about that. Yes, there was the discussion, Senator GRAMM. You didn't recall this at all when you testified on February 24. You didn't recall this meeting at all. The CHAIRMAN. I think we can't continue the exchange here and stay within our time periods and we had another opportunity to do this but you've had a chance to put your statement on the record. Senator Kerry. Senator KERRY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me review in my own mind maybe by way of helping myself if I think out loud a little bit. I think folks might be wondering Core we're going and where we are. I think we're reduced to a couple of questions here in front of the Committee. What's important is not only what we're trying to find out at this point about these two areas of concern, but also what we've already found out. Specifically, many of the earlier allegations and assumptions about Whitewater and the White House in this effort are not being borne out by the evidence. There's no evidence whatsoever by anybody in any statement that we're now referring to that the President of the United States or Mrs. Clinton somehow tried to affect the outcome of this investigation. In fact, to the contrary, the only evidence in front of us is from Ms. Kulka and Mr. Ryan that the investigation intensified. We know that the President, in fact, signed a statute of limitations, against his own interest, to continue the investigation. We know that there is no evidence whatsoever of the White House specifically interfering with the investigation. We're really reduced to two issues in front of this Committee, fundamentally two issues. One is Mr. Altman's testimony and the question of whether or not we find there was reason to believe the testimony wasn't accurate. And no. 2, 1 think this is a very impor- tant area whether-the whole recusal issues, the contacts with the White House. What was the impact of those contacts in the White House? We know that they didn't affect the investigation per se. Some try to allege that because the private attorney, Mr. Kendall, had knowledge and could give it to the President. But because the President signed the statute of limitations, whatever knowledge he had was rendered totally moot. The knowledge, if any, didn't affect it, so again we come back, no impact on the investigation. 456 So the issue is really was there an intent? Was there in the lack of recusal, was there in the meetings, was there in this back-and-forth something improper, notwithstanding the findings of the Committee of the various investigations on ethics, et cetera? I want to try to explore those two areas, which I think are the center of focus and concern and which are considerably different from what many had alleged, I might add. Now, let me just try to clarify this, if I can, Mr. Secretary'. Did you task, or did you ask, or did you instruct, or give any form of order or direction. to Ms. Hanson with respect to contacts with the White House? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I do not recall asking Ms. Hanson to go to the White House in connection with the September meeting. Senator KERRY. To call the White House, to telephone the White House, to inform the White House. Mr. ALTMAN. Is your question in relation to Madison Guaranty or any other Senator KERRY. With respect to any aspect of the Rose Law Firm, Madison Guaranty or Whitewater. Mr. ALTMAN. I don't believe so, but if we can agree Whitewater is a land deal in Arkansas. I don't know anything about that and I don't think Ms. Hanson does either. So the issue here I think is Madison Guaranty, and I believe the answer is I don't think so. I don't think I did. Senator KERRY. Let me ask you, if you could take a look-could we have the Roelle deposition delivered to the witness? I'd ask you to take a look at this deposition, page 65, where Mr. Roelle is testi- fying that he was having a meeting with you on October 6, and this is a sworn deposition under oath to the Committee, and he says: "It was just me and Mr. Altman, and he called Ms. Hanson on the phone." He also says, "To the best of your memory who said what to whom during this conversation. I just told him about it and he said OK and he called Ms. Hanson and told her about it."
JFK Assassination Hearings - Dr. Charles S. Petty and Larry Sturdivan
Establishing shot of hearing room, House committee assembling and audience congregating, host (SAMFORD UNGAR) introduces hearing, it is the third day of the hearings (I 09:00:18 - O 09:00:39) Shot changes to that of host and panel,JACOB COHEN - Professor of American Studies, Brandeis University & DAVID LIFTON - "writer and long time critic of Warren Comission" (David Lifton speaks about how he disagrees with all the panel's findings, he contends that everything is a mere continuation of a the cover-up conspiracy - he appears in several tapes of the JFK Assassination Hearings. They summarize and discuss yesteday's hearing which they see as challenge to Warren Comission's finding and single bullet theory (I 09:00:39 - O 09:10:10) Shot changes to that of committee (09:10:11) Chair recognizes Professor ROBERT BLAKEY - chief counsel - who introduces CHARLES S. PETTY - forensic pathologist - and lists his extensive credentials (09:10:31) Petty sworn in by committee chair (MR. BLAKE) and chair recognizes Rep. RICHARDSON BREYER to question Petty (09:11:24) Breyer asks Petty if he has ever expressed any opinion about injuries or results of JFK autopsy in any way, Petty responds he has never uttered a single word about it and had not himself formed an opinion about it (09:13:50) Breyer asks if Petty beleives in the single bullet theory, Petty answers yes (09:15:30) Petty summarizes flight of bullet through JFK and then Governor JOHN CONNALLY and its physical effects - answers DR. CYRIL H. WECHT's objections (previous day of hearings) to what Wecht thought was an impossible path for one bullet, explains that bullet only slightly deformed upon entry into Connally's thigh (I 09:16:20 - O 09:24:28) Petty: "This is the behaviour of a full metal jacket bullet" - explains nothing odd about its path as military ammunition designed with strong casing to penetrate bodies straight through (09:24:38) Petty answers why Conally did not drop Stetson hat upon having wrist shot - "There is great variation in how individuals react to receiving wounds" (09:28:17) Petty discounts Dr. Wecht's suggestion that a frangible bullet was fired from the right side into JFK's head by saying no fragments of such ammunition were found (09:28:56) Petty, sarcastically: "Does that answer your question?" - the last 7 minutes of testimony have all been Petty answering if he beleived in the single gun theory (09:32:33) Breyer asks if bullet went through wrist bone - Petty answers no - it did not directly penetrate it (09:32:47) Breyer asks if from the evidence there is the possibility of a second shot from the president's right-front - Petty responds that there were only wounds from the back, one in the shoulder and one in the back of the head (09:34:40) Chair extends opportunity to Petty (as obligated) for five minutes of closing statements to supplement his testimony - Petty uses it to thank committee and pat their back - (09:36:17) Petty dismissed and Professor Blakey begins summary of what testimony and witnesses are to follow and what questions are currently on the board: was it a single bullet, why did Kennedy's head move in opposite direction of bullet, what is able to be determined about rifle found in book depositry? (09:37:28) Blakey explains science of wounds ballistics - the Warren Commission ordered tests that were conducted in sixties by Wounds Ballistics Branch of the U.S. Army Chemical Research and Development Labratory at the Edgewood Arsenal in Maryland in which aneasthisized goats were shot at different distances and bullet velocities - Warren Commission claimed tests substantiated single bullet theory - Blakey goes on to say that H.P. White Labratory of Belair (?) Maryland was solicited by House Select Committee to do same sort of experiments - company turned down offer saying tests were too theoretical - cannot recreate situation (09:41:05) Blakey: "The experiment could only yeild a statement about probabilities" - could only prove that the incident "could" have occurred not that it "did" (09:45:17) Professor Blakey introduces LARRY M. STURDIVAN and lists credentials - physical scientist with wounds ballistic branch of Aberdine Proving Grounds Vulnerability Labratory - part of tests conducted at request of Warren Commission Warning issued that during the following testimony films of goat executions will be shown which could offend sensitive viewers, Army also wants it stated to public that it no longer does such tests (09:47:15) Committee calls and swears in Sturdivan (09:48:02) Chair recognizes Council CHARLES MATTHEWS (09:48:25) Sturdivan explains background and job at Aberdine Proving Grounds - applies mathematics to wounds, produces predictive models for behaviour of bullets (I 09:48:28 - O 09:53:20) Matthews asks abouts test conducted with Oswald's rifle - Sturdivan describes tests (00:53:25) Woman brings to Sturdivan large models of bullet and cartridge (09:54:45) Sturdivan gives the physics of a fired bullet, how it moves through and out the gun and in the air - demonstrating with one of the models (I 09:55:10 - O 09:57:45) Matthews asks if the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle has a stable path - Sturdivan answers yes, very stable - perhaps most stable of any rifle he's tested (09:58:40) Sturdivan explains how experiments are done to determine characteristics of bullet's flight - exhibit used - photo of bullet in flight (09:58:40) Matthews asks if human cadavers are used in tests conducted at the Abedine Proving Grounds - Sturdivan answers "not as a matter of course" (10:01:03)
U.S. Congressmen Speak Out Against NCPAC
U.S. House Representatives Tom Downey (D-NY), Paul Simon (D-IL), Ray Kogovsek (D-CO) speak out against the NCPAC (National Conservative Political Action Committee). Rep. Tom Downey (D-NY) proceeds to answer a previous question where he states that he wishes to get out their own newspaper and radio advertisements clarifying not only the tax bill that the Democrats are proposing, but also calling various groups, such as NCPAC and the Moral Majority, for poisoning the political landscape for all Americans. Downey states their credo preaches intolerance, but, in his view, Americans by nature, are not intolerant people. Adult female, off camera, asks how they plan to get Republicans to switch over and support their tax plan. She notes that there's a "war room" with "charts on the wall", and asks what Rep. Downey's sales pitch will look like. Downey jokes that they've got to the House stationary store and purchased all the cufflinks they could, and they will be distributing them to all Republicans, free of charge, who vote for their tax plan.
1982 - LAWMAKERS - Shirley Chisholm Interview
U.S House Representative Shirley Chisholm, speaking to Paul Duke at her office, reflecting on 23 year career in politics, and the need to have a private life, spend more time with family. Duke states that if she stayed in office, she could become the head of the powerful House Rules Committee, to which she replies that would require "sitting back and waiting patiently" for many more years, she won't do it; wait for power to come to her. Duke asks whether to many burdens or responsibilities are placed on members of Congress today. Rep. Chisholm thinks there's no question about it. The public expects a lot from members of Congress, but it's part of the job. Duke asks whether she gets more complaints from her constituents about the economy. Rep. Chisholm says that is the main concern and that nine out of ten times she's asked if she can find someone a job. Duke asks Rep. Chisholm how she wants to be remembered. She wants to be remembered as someone who really tried hard, helped people.
1973 - Watergate Hearings - James McCord
James McCord, former Security Director for the Nixon Re-election Committee, reads from a statement: "The sentence which follows the last sentence, which I read from the memorandum, reads The dates of the telephone call set forth below are the current dates, and that word is mistyped. It should be correct dates to the best of my recollection. The second paragraph is: on the afternoon of January 8th, 1973, the first first day of the Watergate trial, Gerald Alch, my attorney, told me that William O. Bittman, attorney for E. Howard Hunt, wanted to meet me at Bittman's office that afternoon. When I asked why, Alch stated that Bittman wanted to talk with me about 'Whose word I would trust regarding a White House offer of executive clemency.' Alch added that Bittman wanted to talk with both Bernard Barker and me that afternoon. I had no intention of accepting executive clemency, but I did want to find out what was going on and by whom and exactly what the White House was doing now."
Watergate Hearings, June 25, 1973 - Testimony of John Dean
John Dean. The Interagency Evaluation Committee, the IEC as it was referred to, was created, as I recall, in early 1971. I requested Mr. Jack Caulfield, who had been assigned to my office, to serve as the White House liaison to the IEC. And when Mr. Caulfield left the White House, Mr. David Wilson of my staff served as liaison. I am unaware of the IEC ever having engaged in any illegal activities or assignments and certainly no such assignment was ever requested by my office. The reports from the IEC, or summaries of the reports, were forwarded to Mr. Haldeman and sometimes Ehrlichman. In addition to the intelligence reports from the IEC, my office also received regular intelligence reports ports regarding demonstrators and radical groups from the FBI and on some occasions from the CIA. A member of my staff would review the material to determine if it should be forwarded to Mr. Haldeman, that is for bringing to the President's attention, or sent to another member of the staff who might have an interest in the contents of the report.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Strom Thurmond (R - South Carolina). Senator Specter, do you want to proceed? Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). We ll set the clock at 30 minutes again, Senator. Will we need that much time? Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Mr. Chairman, I hope to conclude in less time than that. I would want to finish the chronology if I may. Professor Hill, when my time expired we were up to the contact you had with Mr. Brudney on September 9th. If you could proceed from there to recount who called you and what those conversations consisted of as it led to your coming forward to the committee? Professor Anita Hill. Well, we discussed a number of different issues. We discussed one, what he knew about the law on sexual harassment. We discussed what he knew about the process for bringing information forward to the committee. And in the course of our conversations Mr. Brudney asked me what were specifics about what it was that I had experienced. In addition, we talked about the process for going forward. What might happen if I did bring information to the committee. That included that an investigation might take place, that I might be questioned by the committee in closed session. It even included something to the effect that the information might be presented to the candidate or to the White House. There was some indication that the candidate or, excuse me, the nominee might not wish to continue the process. Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). Mr. Brudney said to you that the nominee, Judge Thomas, might not wish to continue the process if you came forward with a statement on the factors which you have testified about? Professor Anita Hill. Well, I am not sure that that is exactly what he said. I think what he said was, depending on an investigation, a Senate, whether the Senate went into closed session and so forth, it might be that he might not wish to continue the process.
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:25:27) We now have in our possession some 2,400 pages of White House documents, and we have reviewed 8,500 more. Twenty-eight present and former White House staff members have appeared voluntarily to provide testimony to Committee staff. Nearly all of these staffers have also been interviewed, some of them multiple times, by other investigators. This is all on top of last year's hearings, during which we heard from 30 witnesses, printed 2,600 pages of testimony and deposed 38 witnesses, It is important, Mr. Chairman, I think, to remember that those hearings found absolutely, absolutely no illegal or unethical activity on the part of anyone at the White House. Throughout our investigation, Mr. Chairman, we've had the complete cooperation of the President, Many of us, of course, can remember instances in times not that long ago when this Congress had to fight tooth and nail to secure a minimum level of cooperation from the Executive Branch. That has not happened in this case at all. Serious questions have been raised, and they have to be answered in a serious way. But we should get the job done and then move on, in my view, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me mention to you briefly-and I'm sure my case is not substantially different than other Members of this Committee--I asked my office to go back and review in the past 61/2 months how many inquiries from my constituents I had received about this matter, To date, we have been able to find a total of phone calls and letters in my office on this matter totaling four inquiries in 6 1/2 months. Having said that, I suspect I'll receive dozens of calls and letters here this morning, but I wanted to place it in context of terms of 14 public interest. Now, public interest ought not to be the criteria by which we decide whether or not to pursue a matter that is serious, but I do hope we can get this ' job done and move on to what I know all of my colleagues share are the far more vital, important issues of this Congress, and that is, of course, dealing with our deficit is- sues and the problems of Medicare and Medicaid and the like, all of which deserve our attention. So, Mr. Chairman, I conclude where I began, and that is to commend you for how you set up and planned these hearings and to compliment my colleague from Maryland as well who has represented the Minority side on this issue and planned for our days ahead. But, again, I would hope sincerely, as Senator Sarbanes has said, that we keep in mind the context in which this specific part of our hearings will be conducted, and that is the highly charged emotional tragedy of a human being, an individual who attended kindergarten with the President of the United States and people in the White House, who had known each other, literally, all their lives. As we look at human reactions and human actions in the context of the hours immediately following that event, it is important that that be kept in mind as we examine this issue. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Dodd. We'll now turn to Senator Hatch. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Senator has named me as a Member of this Special Committee for the express purpose of considering matters within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, Consistent with this mandate, I intend to focus my inquiry to matters related to the Department of Justice's involvement in Whitewater. I also hope to address some of the legal issues surrounding the withholding of information by the President. I would like, first, to thank Chairman D'Amato for giving me this opportunity to attend this hearing. I look forward to working with him and Senator Sarbanes and other Members of the Banking Committee as we exercise our oversight responsibility with regard to this important matter. Before delving into the legal questions that are at the center of this hearing, let me extend my sympathies to the Foster family. We are often tempted to forget in our role as an oversight body that at the center of this investigation is the tragic death of a man who sought to serve his country and his President. There's simply no question that Mr. Foster's death was a tragedy. His family and friends have suffered terribly, and my heart personally goes out to them. We must remember, however, that Mr. Foster's suicide was the first of a high- ranking governmental official in the United States in almost 50 years. He was close to the President. As a Deputy White House Counsel, he was privy to the innermost workings of the White House. His death, therefore, was of great importance to our Nation. It cannot be classified as a routine suicide and, given the scope of the Whitewater investigation, demands congressional oversight. 15 Most troubling are the questions pertaining to whether the White House obstructed the Justice Department's investigation into Mr. Foster's death. It seems clear that certain White House officials entered Mr. Foster's office before law enforcement investigators could examine it and after Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell and Chief of Staff Mack McLarty had ordered the office sealed for the Park Police investigation.
Speeches of Richard Nixon
August 22nd, 1973 Excerpt of President RICHARD NIXON News Conference, answering questions pertaining to Watergate investigation at outdoor press conference, 1973 (from 2" video) : Mr. Nixon says Mr. MacGregor conducted a thorough investigation, though Jeb Magruder slipped through the cracks. Press Mr. President can you tell us who you personally talked to, in directing that investigations be made both in June of 1972, shortly after the Watergate incident, and last March 21, when you got new evidence, and ordered a more intensive investigation? President Nixon, Certainly. In June I first talked to Mr. MacGregor, first of all, who was the new chairmen of the committee. And he told me he would conduct a thorough investigation as far as his committee staff was concerned. Apparently that investigation was very effective except for Mr. Magruder, who stayed on, but Mr. McGregor does not have to assume responsibility for that. I say not responsibility for it, because basically, what happened there, he believed Mr. Magruder, and many others believed him too. He proved however to be wrong. In the White House the investigation s responsibility were given to Mr. Ehrlichman at the highest level, and in turn, he delegated them, to Mr. Dean, the White House Counsel. Something of which I was aware, and of which I approved. Mr. Dean as White House Counsel therefore sat in, on the FBI interrogation of the members of the White House staff, because of what I wanted to know, if any member of the White House staff, was in anyway involved. If he was involved, he would be fired. And the, when we met on September the 15th, and again throughout our discussions in the month of March, Mr. Dean insisted that the, there was not, I use his words, A scintilla of evidence, indicating if anyone in the White House was involved, of the planning of the Watergate break-in. Now, in terms of, after March 21st, Mr. Dean first, was given the responsibility to write his own report, but I did not rest it there, I also had a contact made with the Attorney General, himself. The Attorney General told him, this was on the 27th of March, to report to me directly, anything that he found in this particular area, and I gave the responsibility for Mr. Ehrlichman on the 29th of March, to continue the investigation that Mr. Dean was unable to conclude, having spent a week at Camp David unable to finish the report. Mr. Ehrlichman questioned a number of people, in that period at my direction, including Mr. Mitchell and I should also point out that as far as my own activities were concerned I was not leaving it just to them. I met at great length with Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Halderman, Mr. Dean, Mr. Mitchell on the 22nd. I discussed the whole matter with them. I discussed, I kept pressing for the view that I had throughout. If we must get this story out, get the truth out; whatever and whoever it s going to hurt. And it was there that Mr. Mitchell suggested that all the individuals involved in the White House appear in an executive session before the urban committee. We never got that far, but at least that s the indication of the extent of my own investigation. I think we ll go to Mr. Lisadore now. Press, Mr. President, you have said repeatedly that you tried to get all the facts, and just now you mentioned the March 22nd meeting, yet the former Attorney John Mitchell said that, if you ever asked him at any time about the Watergate matter, he would have told you the whole story, chapter and verse. Was Mr. Mitchell not speaking the truth, when he said that before the committee? President Nixon, Mr. Lisador, I m not going to question Mr. Mitchell s veracity, and I will only say that throughout I had competence in Mr. Mitchell. Mr. Mitchell in a telephone call that I had with him immediately after it occurred, expressed great chagrin that he had not run a tight enough shop, and that some of the boys, as he called them, got involved, in this kind of activity which he knew could be very, very embarrassing, apart from its legality, to the campaign, throughout, I would have expected Mr. Mitchell to tell me, in the event that he was involved, or that anybody else was. He did not tell me. I don t blame him for not telling me. He s given his reasons for not telling me. I regret that he did not, because he s exactly right. Had he told me, I would have blown my stack. Just as I did at Zibler, the other day. Press, I wonder sir, how much personal blame you accept, for the climate in the White House and in the re-election committee for the abuses of Watergate. Nixon, I accept it all. Press, Mr. President, I want to state this question, with due respect for your office, but also as directly President Nixon cuts in, smiling, That would be unusual. Everyone is laughing. Reporter, I would like to think not.
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(13:10:33) And he didn't have the courage and the guts to stand up to Bernie Nussbaum and say to him, I am recusing myself. That meant taking himself out, keeping himself from one case because he wanted tole part of that power structure. And, Mr. Secretary, you look at the record, it's undeniable, he runs over to the White House. Whether he did it through Ickes or Maggie Williams or runs over the next day to say, I'm on the team, boys, don't worry, here I am, I'm part of the team. And that fact is indisputable. Then 3 weeks later, he'd have you think we should pat him on the back because he finally came to the decision on February 25th, and of course he announced it first to The New York Times because an editor called him up and told him, we're going to beat the heck out of you and he said, well, I want you to know that I'm recusing myself. And then all heck breaks loose. Then we get the White House sending around memorandums, doing detailed memos, Mr. Secretary-and you're not aware of this-ascertaining who will now control, since he has recused himself, who will now control and be the decisionmaker as it relates to Whitewater. And that's why I think Members on this, in this Committee, Democrats and Republicans, share a very real concern for the manner in which lie discharged his responsibilities and for the manner in which he testified and failed to testify. And let me tell you, we've had people who have been indicted for far less for withholding-Elliott Abrams-for withholding information, let alone answering untruthfully. 60 If you read that record, you can only come to one conclusion. He withheld information, information that he had, lie withheld it even when he had an opportunity, was advised to correct the record and thereafter he, in addition, answered untruthfully. I thank the Chairman and I thank the Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your appearance today. And you've answered our questions directly and I think fully and we appreciate that. You've been asked by some Members to review some things and I trust you'll do that in due course. Secretary BENTSEN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Committee stands in recess. We'll reconvene. The Committee will reconvene at approximately 2:00. We're set, 2:00 p.m. is our start time. I know there is a vote in the meantime. The Committee tstands in recess. (13:12:59) [Recess.]
LAWMAKERS
20.09.21-DUKE-DEMOCRATS also stripped fellow DEMOCRAT PHIL GRAMM of his BUDGET COMMITTEE seat, charging GRAMM was in league with REPUBLICANS on the REAGANOMICS debate. Discussion with ROBERTS over this development. C/S Rep. GILLIS LONG, chair of HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS in office, says GRAMM had been given special privileges by the PARTY, and abused them. C/S GRAMM, says he's being punished for practicing what he preaches. ROBERTS-other CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS voted for REAGANOMICS, but only GRAMM did so from a position of DEMOCRATIC PARTY AUTHORITY [the others probably didn't also flunk three grades in high school like GRAMM did]. C/S Rep. DELBERT LATTA (R-OH), GRAMM'S co-conspirator in REAGANOMICS. C/S GRAMM in committee meeting. M/S TIP O'NEILL in well of House. 20.10.52-Clip of REAGAN [***title credits to CNN***] speaking at podium, says many people support GRAMM'S ideas, and as a former DEMOCRAT, tells GRAMM "the water's fine" on the REPUBLICAN side. Rep. LONG says GRAMM'S actions were like having one of the Dallas Cowboys go to the Washington Redskins' huddle and tell them the play. M/S GRAMM at desk, in response to "spy" charges says everyone always knew he was a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE, so they shouldn't be surprised by what he did on committee. Rep. LONG says GRAMM'S grandstanding was excessive. Shots of GRAMM in an airport terminal surrounded by TV CAMERAS. Shot of GRAMM walking toward gate, airplane taking off. ROBERTS v.o.-GRAMM returned to TEXAS to announce his resignation and call for a special election in which he will run as a REPUBLICAN. Shots of traffic on a TEXAS street. Driveby of Central Texas stripmalls and gas stations, L/S of train passing RR Crossing, people in street. 20.13.40-Shots of GRAMM political meeting from 1982 primary campaign, GRAMM speaking, says he has never been elected to go to Washington and take orders from JIM WRIGHT and TIP O'NEILL. Shots of voters from that election saying they like GRAMM regardless of his party affiliation, GRAMM meeting voters. ROBERTS v.o.-GRAMM got 90 percent in general election. C/S GRAMM in office, describing his constituents telling him they don't care about party affiliation. 20.15.48-DUKE/ROBERTS-discussion of GRAMM'S "purge" from the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. DEMOCRATS looking to solidify their leadership along less conservative lines. REPUBLICANS happy to have GRAMM. Discussion with WERTHEIMER over Committee Assignments-many new DEMOCRATS want to be on ARMED SERVICES and JUDICIARY committees to address DEFENSE and CRIME and COMMERCE AND ENERGY to pick up CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS. Discussion of battle between SENATE REPUBLICANS and REAGAN brewing for 1983.
MLK Assassination Hearings - Nov 9, 1978
Thomas N. Downing (D- Virginia). The Chair recognizes Staff Council Alan Hausman, Attorney. Alan Hausman, Attorney. Thank you Mr. Chairman. First, I want to thank you for taking the time to come to Washington to testify today. We hope that his testimony today can clarify some of the questions raised when Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector London Metropolitan Police Force s statement taken on August 4th 1978 by committee investigators was read into the committee s record as MLK exhibit F-92 during the committee s August 18th public hearing. Alan Hausman, Attorney. What is your current address? Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. The Green Man Public House, 6 Mile Bottom Cambridge England. Alan Hausman, Attorney. What is your date of birth? Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. March 26th 1929 Alan Hausman, Attorney. What is your current occupation? Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. I m a licensing Republican. Alan Hausman, Attorney. Of the Green Man Public Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. Yes sir. Alan Hausman, Attorney. Can you please explain to the committee what a licensee is? Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. Well I m licensed by police authorities to supply liquor at Public House. Alan Hausman, Attorney. And what do you license by the police? Must you pass high character standards and have a clean record? Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. Very much so yes sir. Alan Hausman, Attorney. Prior to becoming the licensee of a pub in England, what was your occupation? Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. I served for 28 years for the metropolitan police in England. Alan Hausman, Attorney. And what rank did you reach while serving for the metropolitan police? Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. Chief Inspector. Alan Hausman, Attorney. What were your duties as Chief Inspector? Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. Well I was with various squads. I was with what is known as the firing squad, the robbery squad. I was in charge of a regional crime squad. Alan Hausman, Attorney. What was your last operational assignment before retiring? Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. I was in charge of three police stations. That is from the CID point of view. Alan Hausman, Attorney. And were you charged with a large number of men at that time? Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. Yes I was. Yes Alan Hausman, Attorney. Approximately how many do you recall? Alexander Eist, Retired Chief Inspector. At any one time it could have been up to a hundred.
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:05:48) To conduct an investigation and public hearing into and study of whether improper conduct occurred regarding the way in which White House officials handled documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster following his death. That resolution goes on to specify some other matters which will be looked into, but the Committee is not at this point examining those other matters. Those are to be done later this year in the fall, and today's focus is on the proper handling of the documents in Foster's office. That's the charge we're dealing with here today and in the days to come, Actually, in the many days to come since we have hearings now scheduled for the next 3 and perhaps the next 4 weeks, which I take it would complete this part of our examination of the matters that we've been charged with with respect to the documents. As I understand it, it's our intention to complete this part of the inquiry during this period of time prior to the August recess. The resolution we're operating under authorizes the Committee to expend $950,000, almost $1 million, between now and the end of next February, and it calls on the Committee to "make every reasonable effort to complete, not later than February 1, 1996, the investigation, study, and hearings that are authorized" in this hearing. So that's the framework in which we are operating. In other words, we've been given by the Senate almost $1 million for this inquiry. We've been given a time frame within which we are working. The money is until the end of next February, and we've been charged: The Special Committee shall make every reasonable effort to complete, not later than February 1, 1996, the investigation, study, and hearings authorized by section 1. Section 1 includes the matters that are within the scope of our inquiry, the first of which, as I indicated, relates to the handling of the papers in Vincent Foster's office. Mr. Starr, now the Independent Counsel, has indicated to us that his inquiry would not be impeded by our proceeding to examine the way in which the documents were handled. He first sent us a letter on April 22 with respect to looking at documents and a further letter on January 6 with respect to interviewing and deposing witnesses, whereas Mr. Fiske, last summer, said I don't want you to proceed to look at that matter because we're still conducting an inquiry. Mr. Starr, in effect, indicated to us that his work was such that their inquiry would not be affected or impeded by the Committee moving forward, as we are doing today, in order to examine the Foster papers. 10 Now, having said this, by way of setting the framework in which we find ourselves, there are a number of matters listed in the resolution for examination by the Committee. Those matters were carefully worked out in extended consultations with the Chairman, Actually, these are the so-called scope questions and one can let their imagination run wild, as some have done. There are all kinds of rumors swirling around, There were candidates to be listed for inquiry that I think were clearly beyond the horizon and were not included. We tried to determine the matters that were relevant and appropriate for this inquiry and that's been spelled out in this resolution, and that, in a sense, guides us in our inquiry over the coming weeks and months.
Voting Rights Act Extension
U.S. House Representative and Chairman Richard Bolling (D-MO) atop the House rostrum, on the Speaker's platform says: "The gentleman from California has five minutes." U.S. House Representative Don Edwards (D-CA) states: "I rise in opposition to the amendment. I yield to the gentleman from Colorado for unanimous consent request." U.S. House Representative Tim Wirth (D-CO) states: "I rise in opposition of the McClory Amendment and for unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks." Chairman Bolling: "Without objection, so ordered." Rep. Edwards: "I yield to the gentleman from Ohio for one minute." House Representative Dennis Eckart (D-OH) speaks: "Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. You know, I was intrigued to listen to the parade of speakers come down to the well and condemn their very own actions. You know, I really don't think that our actions speak as loud as our bilingual words have, particularly in the past year. How many of us did not take out ads in newspapers in Spanish, German, Hungarian, Polish? How many of us didn't put out campaign literature in foreign languages, or put radio ads on in foreign languages? Why, even the Republican National Committee bragged about the fact that they printed campaign literature in dozens of nationality languages. And now that it comes time to put their money where their mouth is, they refuse to do it. How many of us have stuffed ourselves with pierogi, tortillas, kielbasa, lasagna, matzo ball soup, particularly this last week? Why do we not put our votes where our stomachs have been and where our campaigns have been?" Rep. Edwards: "I thank the gentleman. To close debate on this amendment, I yield to the distinguished Majority Leader, the gentleman from Texas."
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
Senator David Boren. (D-Oklahoma)-I happen to believe very strongly that we have to have covert operations sometimes. We have to be able to operate in secret. We have to be able to keep those secrets. And I think you ve expressed appropriate concern as a witness that those secrets must be kept. We have instituted new procedures in the intelligence committee to make sure those secrets are kept. We lock up the documents and don t let them out of the room. We don t even let members take their notes out anymore. Senator Coren and I have gone to the leadership in the Senate. Both Democratic and Republic and received a commitment; that if a single member of our committee leaks classified information there resignation as a member of that committee will be demanded. And of course there are procedures in place for the President under current law. If the President does not want to tell the entire intelligence committees of both the House and Senate. As you know the President can only notify eight people: The Speaker of the House, the Majority Leader of the Senate, the Minority leaders of both houses and the Chairman and Vice Chairman of two committees. And we re working very very hard to reestablish the kind of mutual trust that is going to be necessary for us to be able to start policies and sustain policies and speak to the rest of the world with a unified voice. So I want to make clear that I don t disagree with you that we have to have covert operations, secret actions. Secrecy must be maintained but we must also have accountability. We need to have accountability to make sure the money is spent appropriately as was intended. In this case you as one person said You couldn t possibly keep up with all the funds for example in this operation. If you d been able to do this through regular channels, through the CIA with the proper accountability, we would know where all the money is and how it was spent. We have to have accountability also to make sure the President signed off on it, that the objectives are being properly carried out. In so we are working very very hard. We have been in conversations with Mr. [Frank] Carlucci and others at the White House between the intelligence committees in the last several days, to try and come up with a positive new approach.