Advanced Search
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(11:50:28) We will find conflicts. They have been referred to by the Members here already. That always happens in any series of dramatic events. I wrote a biography of an abolitionist who was killed by a mob in 1837, Elijah Lovejoy. People who were there at the same spot, saw the same thing, told different stories. We have the same kind of experience with the Lincoln assassination and the Kennedy assassination, and people are still writing stories about a conspiracy in terms of the Lincoln assassination and the Kennedy assassination. I think the basic question is was there a conspiracy to cover up? Since I have been designated to be on this Committee, I have read a great deal more than I anticipated reading about Whitewater. My initial judgment is that mistakes were made, but that there has been no conspiracy to cover up. I could be wrong in that judgment, but I think that's the basic question that we face here, and that's what we ought to approach, and we ought to follow your admonition as you opened it, Mr. Chairman, that we try not to make this a partisan affair. That's not going 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.
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:25:59) The concern was so great that Deputy Chief of Staff Harold Ickes told Chief of Staff Thomas "Mack" McLarty about the difficulties with Altman's testimony the next day. Associate Counsel Neil Eggleston, one of the two White House lawyers who had attended the Senate hearings, called White House Counsel Bernie Nussbaum on vacation in Mexico to alert him to the problem. Now obviously, this thing was not only bubbling, it was boiling. 16 Did any of this ever, in any way during that period between the hearing on February 24th and the last letter on the 21st of the next month, a letter that, by the way, in no way answered the questions that were asked or in no way cleared up things in my humble opinion, did any of this ever, in this boil that was going on at the White House and the Treasury, did any of this ever bubble up to you? Secretary BENTSEN. I do not think it did. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dodd. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR DODD Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, welcome back to the Committee let me just make one observation, at the outset, and I think it is worthy of noting, because I think it does go to some of the difficulties. Secretary BENTSEN. Let me say to you, Senator, that a lot of things happen over there that do not get to me. Senator DODD. Just one observation that I do not think needs to be made about witnesses' testimony, that I think creates, in a sense, some of the problems we face as a hearing panel. Most of the witnesses have appeared already, before a Grand Jury, have been deposed by the Office of Government Ethics in sworn testimony, have been deposed by Counsel for our Committee in sworn testimony, and some have already appeared before the Committee in sworn testimony. One of the problems that emerges in that process is that witnesses become so trapped by their own statements that the fear of perjury and the advice of counsel of showing any willingness to modify a statement in light of whatever else comes along becomes difficult. I would just make that observation as a general proposition. When a person has testified four or five or six times, I think in a sense we then limit the ability of people to recollect better or to respond to questions, I make that as just a general observation. Second, in response to Senator Gramm's question about the issue of whether or not Mr. Altman would have directed Ms. Hanson to meet with Mr. Nussbaum, or not, I appreciate your response. I think it needs to be framed in the context in which the meeting on September 29th occurred at the White House. It has, I think, been stipulated, or should be stipulated, that that meeting at the White House was to meet on the Waco matter, and that it was at the end of that meeting at which Ms. Hanson talked to Mr. Nussbaum. I think that is a different scenario than the notion of just going down specifically for the purpose, and the fact that someone, in the context of another meeting, might raise the question of their own volition. I think that takes on a different meaning. I would quickly point out that there is a memo that was then sent on the 30th, the day after, in which one could certainly read into that memo that there was some direction. So I am not clear in my own mind as to it, but there is enough of an open question. And 1 am not necessarily soliciting a response from you, but just for the purpose of the record. 17 What I would like to ask you, and I commend you for your testimony, and Senator Gramm has sort of alluded to this already in his question or comment to you and that is what ought we to do in this Committee legislatively. I am deeply concerned about the statutory requirements of how you fill the Chief Executive Officer of the Resolution Trust Corporation when a vacancy occurs.
JFK Assassination HSCA Hearings
House Select Committee on Assassinations Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey makes opening statements at hearing on the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, discusses verdict of the Warren Commission and original finding that three shots were fired from the same rifle at the Texas School book depository. Blakey says the Warren Commission findings must be revisited if the time span between shots was too short to have been fired from the same rifle or if one or more of the shots were fired from a different direction; if either of these two situations occurred it must be considered that there may have been a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy. The Warren Commission was persuaded that there were at least two to three shots fired at the most, each fired from the Texas School Book Depository. Blakey’s notes on podium as he continues to speak. The Warren Commission considered a variety of evidence, including medical and ballistics data, as well as witness testimony, and maintained that the time span between the shots was either 4.8 to 5.6 seconds or 7.8 to 7.9 seconds; the difference between these two figures depended on which of the three shots the Warren Commission believed was a miss.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:25:45) There was only one discussion which related to the RTC investigation itself and factors which could affect its outcome. That was the discussion of generic alternatives facing the RTC in regard to the expiring statute of limitations. On February 24, Senator Domenici asked me if there were other contacts beyond the February 2 meeting. My response was, in effect, that I'm not counting bumping into someone in the ball or debating stories in the morning newspapers. This clearly indicated that there may have been other contacts, but that I regarded them as incidental. Had Senator Domenici or any other Member of the Committee then asked me to review any other contacts, I would have done my best, Senator Domenici, to recall them. But those additional contacts after February 2, indeed, were incidental. They could not have bad any bearing whatsoever on the case. They had nothing whatever to do with the RTC investigation. But in the days and weeks following my testimony, it became clear that any contacts which could be remotely tied to the catchall term "Whitewater" could be regarded differently. And as a result, I carefully reviewed my calendar, my telephone calls, and incidental contacts with White House personnel. I wanted to bend over backward to be as complete as possible. I amended the record to include other incidental contacts, although I did not then and I do not today consider them related to the substance of Madison, Initially, there was a brief telephone call to Mr. McLarty a few days after the February 2 meeting to the effect that I was still considering the issue of recusal. Similarly, around the same time, I had a brief discussion with Harold Ickes to tell him essentially the same thing. Those brief conversations on recusal could not, under any circumstances, have bad a bearing on the case. They could not, under any circumstances, have had a bearing on the case. I bad already removed myself from any possible role on the case. I Finally, the record was also amended to advise the Committee that I had a brief discussion with Mr. Ickes the night before my testimony. I told him that I intended to announce during my test' mony that I was stepping down as CEO of the RTC, as I Id, in-deed, announce the next day. Members of the Committee, that bad nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison. Around the same time, I literally ran into Mr. Nussbaum in a corridor of the White House. He told me the Administration would soon be submitting its nominee for permanent RTC head. That had nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison either, but I 414 nevertheless amended the record on a voluntary basis so that there would be no question. Some think that I consciously failed to mention these other inci- dental contacts. That isn't true. When we were here 5 months ago, I believed that I was res ponding properly to the questions. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, in the most heartfelt way, that there was no intent to mislead this Committee. Questions also have been raised as to why the subject of recusal was not included in the February 24 testimony. I was not asked about recusal. There were sever Q's and A's in my briefing book on recusal. A team of 10 or 15 members of Treasury and RTC staff helped to prepare them. Had there been any attempt to intentionally withhold information on the recusal, one surely wouldn't have rehearsed answers on that subject with such a large group. Had I been asked about recusal, I would have responded rightly. Senator DAmato and I had a conversation the night before my testimony. Among other things, he said he was going to ask me about recusal. Neither he nor any other Member WE Committee did ask me about recusal. While I have reservations about Mr. you heard his testimony this Steiner's diary, as you can imagine, morning, it confirms the view that recusal wasn't asked. I did not mention recusal in my testimony because I did not think it was responsive to the question I was asked. Members of the Committee, I may have been wrong in this regard, but I had no intention to mislead or withhold information form this Committee. I believed at the time that the Committee was interested in knowing whether Treasury or the RTC had improperly provided information on the substance of the Madison case.
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:30:26) That was what was in my mind as I heard that question. I was anxious to tell this Committee, as the videotape shows, that I informed the White House only about the generic procedures the RTC would employ in such circumstances and about nothing else relative to the Madison case. Indeed, I remember saying' "that was the whole conversation" and what I meant by that was that was the whole conversation with respect to what I believed was the substance of the case. No one asked me to describe everything that happened at the February 2 meeting . Had they, I would nI Id not and I still do not consider recusal to touch upon the see the Committee my answer. I asthat it was not my intent to mislead or to Indeed, I had with me on February 24 in my briefing book a series of question and answers on recusal which I Weis prepared to give in response to questions about recusal. And I had anticipated being asked directly about recusal, just as Ricki Tigert had been by the Committee a few weeks earlier, but I was asked no such questions. 1 have read news accounts of a battle over my recusal. The total discussions which I had on recusal with White House personnel consumed approximately 10 or 15 minutes. I said that I'd been advised to recuse -myself and I intended to take that advice. I didn't say when. No one asked me not to recuse myself. Mr. Steiner's diary points out that, after the February 2 meeting, everyone knew RTC investigation of Madison. Now, of course, I Members may feel that I was being too precise in sure the Committee with old information 415 that I wasn't going to play any role in this case. Yes, I did waver on timing, but I did execute the recusal 3 weeks later. In closing, I would like to reiterate the key facts. Three separate investigations have concluded that no legal or ethical violations occurred. Three separate investigations. No one interfered in any way with the Madison case nor improperly imparted information on it. I believe that my testimony of February 24 was truthful. I hope that these points and the answers I'll now provide to your questions will satisfy this Committee that my conduct was proper. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Altman. Let me just indicate that a vote has started on the Senate Floor. Mr. Altman's attorney has asked us to permit a viewing of the February 24 testimony before this Committee when these questions were asked to you and your responses, and I think it will be useful for us to see the actual videotape of those exchanges. I think we'll hold off on that until the second bells have started, until we've voted, and then we'll commence with the questioning. I want to say one other thing before starting the question period, and I want to say that in a personal vein, and I know Senator D'Amato may have a personal comment to make, too. We've known each other over a long period of years. We've worked together on other issues in the past. This is not a happy occasion for any of us, Going back to the meeting before this Committee when the questions were asked and the answers were provided, we were left with a very, I think, inadequate situation. So much so that the Special Counsel, Mr. Fiske, decided upon the basis of the responses that day to go ahead and commence an investigation himself which he did by subpoenaing a number of people and taking them before the Grand Jury. Now, we're coming along behind his review in that area in terms of trying to clear up the record for ourselves. So it has been kind of a long and winding road from that hearing, when you were before us, and we'll have the chance to look at the exchanges and then we can go into the questions at that time. We'll do so as soon as we come back. The Committee stands in recess for about 15 minutes. (16:34:52) [Recess.] (16:34:54) Commentary of hearings hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG, they also to talk to SARAH FRITZ of the Los Angeles Times and of STEVE ROBERTS U.S. News and World Report
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(14:00:00) ROGER ALTMAN testifies before the House Banking Committee (14:02:00) Commentary of hearings hosts NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE from tv studio, they also talk to DAVE MCCONNALLY of WTOP Radio Washington, DC (14:18:15) Senate hearing resumes: AFTERNOON SESSION The CHAIRMAN. Committee will come to order, please. Let me invite all those in the room to find seats for themselves, As I indicated earlier this morning, our second witness today would be Mr. Eugene Ludwig, who is here with us now. He is the Comptroller of the Currency. Mr. Ludwig, I understand that you have a statement that you want to deliver and I'm going to ask you to do that. Before I do, let me ask you to stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. TESTIMONY OF EUGENE A. LUDWIG COMPTROLLER OF THE CURRENCY, OFFICE OF THE COMPTROLLER OF THE CUR RENCY Mr. LUDWIG. I do. The CHAIRMAN. Very good, We'll make your full statement a part of the record. Why don't you go ahead and deliver whatever remarks you wish to deliver now. Mr. LUDWIG. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today in connection with your inquiry into communications between officials of the White House, the Treasury Department, and the Resolution Trust Corporation relating to the Whitewater Development Corporation and Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association. Too much of the public discussion of these topics has flowed from rumor, speculation and innuendo. It is time to clear the air and get to the facts. Your hearings will help all of us set the record straight, put these issues behind us, and get back to business. As you are aware, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has no jurisdiction over the Whitewater Development Corporation, nor over Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Association. Neither in my capacity as Comptroller of the Currency, nor in my capacity as a director of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, has anything related to Whitewater or Madison come before me, except for two unsolicited copies of Freedom of Information Act requests from reporters that I will describe more fully in a moment.
President Reagan Speaks at Democratic Breakfast
Adult Caucasian men walking into banquet room. U.S. President Ronald Reagan speaking to predominantly adult Caucasian Democratic congressmen. Reagan: "... I believe we can really solve the problems that face this nation. And your vote on the Gramm-Latta measure, I think, was the principal reason for them feeling that way, and I want to thank you for that. I understand the courage it took for all of you to support that resolution, and I think you have the gratitude of your fellow citizens today. But, the people may be disappointed. Reconciliation, which has a lot of meanings, but the particular one where we're concerned right now, may turn out to be the difference between what you voted for and what the people are actually going to get if the budget committee package goes through. The new Gramm-Latta bipartisan reconciliation bill is true to the principles of the original resolution. It is a compromise accepting the majority of the committee recommendations and I must say, I think that in the majority that most of the committees did do a fine job, and there was no problem at all in accepting what they brought forth. But, there were a few that brought down things that would make us fall more than $20 billion short of what we need over the next 3 years. And what we're talking about, of course, in the sum of Gramm-Latta, is how to correct these, so that those with the majority reports that came out of the committees could be put before the House. I think it deserves to be put before the House for an up-or-down vote. I called the Speaker and asked him if he would permit either a substitute or an amendment containing that package to be added to those, the majority that we would accept. I've had no answer. And apparently I know what the answer is. Another bipartisan effort and I think probably we should mention this morning is the effort representing, again, a compromise between congressional proposals and the administration's original proposal, and that's the Conable-Hance tax reduction bill. I have retreated from 10 - 10 - 10, retroactive to last January 1st, to 5 - 10 - 10, to be effective as of this coming October 1st, but accepted, and very willingly a number of changes, particularly around the business tax and others that were recommended even by some of you, but in the negotiations that have been going on. I believe that proposal will restore the economy, stimulate savings, investment, and increase productivity."
Emerging Technology Exhibition - Part 2
Emerging Technologies in Communications and Information Exhibition "ET/83" sign hanging from yellow curtain behind Klatu. Klatu, the robot, states that it is for the freeze on nuclear armaments and asks if U.S. House Representative Edward Markey (D-MA) is in agreement. Rep. Markey stays off camera, adult Caucasian female reporter states the Congressman is camera shy. Klatu says Rep. Markey was not so camera shy in the committee meeting advocating for the freeze on nuclear armaments, then cracks a joke; Klatu's arm rotates back-to-front. Klatu states that robots are against nuclear weapons too, because they are just as effected by it as biochemical beings. Woman asks what brings Klatu here today and Klatu states ET83 and the technological innovation and education available to all who come and support it, just like Rep. Markey supports it. Klatu asks the woman for her phone number. Woman asks for Klatu's opinion on the show "The Lawmakers". Klatu says it is a poignant and interesting, but it needs Dan Rather. Woman asks what's wrong with the current host, Paul Duke. Klatu says nothing, but that it also applied for the job. Adult Caucasian men standing and watching in BG.
JFK Assassination HSCA Hearings
House Select Committee on Assassinations Chief Counsel G. Robert Blakey continues discussing witness testimony to the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy, including the testimony of Dallas police officer Bobby W. Hargis, who was riding a motorcycle to the left rear of Kennedy’s car and questioned by Warren Commission Counsel Samuel A. Stern. Blakey introduces JFK exhibit F-644, the Warren Commission testimony of Officer Hargis. Hargis said he was next to Jacqueline Kennedy when he heard the first shot, at which time JFK bent over and Texas Governor Connally turned around; Hargis said that when JFK straightened up, a bullet hit his head, and it seemed like JFK’s head exploded and Hargis was splattered with blood and brains. When asked about the direction of the shots, Hargis said at the time of the shooting he felt like the shots could have come from the railroad overpass, but also had a feeling they might have come from the Texas School Book Depository, adding that those two places could have been the primary shooting spot. At the time of the shooting he saw a man fall at the base of “the incline” (of the Grassy Knoll) and cover his child.
Watergate Hearings - Gray, Walters & Helms
(10:52:24) Opens to Director of the FBI GRAY reading his opening statement in which he talks at length about the aftermath of his destruction of two White House files, his story involves Counsel to the President JOHN DEAN who had ordered the files destroyed and an investigator Mr. PETERSON who was trying to find out the contents of the file (10:55:31) Black screen (10:55:37) Gray continues to read from his opening statement, in this portion he talks about his contact with Presidential Assistant JOHN ERHLICHMAN who made two brief, terse calls to Gray, after it came to his attention that Dean was giving up information, that Gray was to make sure he had destroyed the files given him, Gray then tells the committee that Ehrlichman falsely testified by saying that Gray told him he would deny ever receiving the files (10:58:12) Skip in footage - Senator HERMAN TALMADGE questions General VERNON WALTERS - Walters gives the committee his history as friend and co-worker to NIXON (11:00:00) Talmadge asks Walters if his appointment by Nixon to Deputy Directorship of the CIA was part of Nixon's plan to make the intelligence agency more responsive - Walters responds that he was appointed because Nixon had confidence in his abilities and that no White House influence has ever passed through him to the agency (11:01:30) Talmadge reads from Walters' statement that he, Nixon, and Gray had consulted as to what Nixon should do, and it was unanimously agreed upon that Nixon should get rid of everyone involved (11:04:30) Talmadge confirms that Walters had communications with H.R. HALDEMAN, Ehrlichman, Dean, and Gray after Watergate about cover-up possibilities (11:06:10) Image is very flickery - Talmadge asks why Walters didn't contact Nixon upon being approached by Dean to carry out improper activities - Walters responds he went through the proper channels and told Dean that he would not carry out such actions, he adds that going public with accusations as to the wrong doing of certain people in a cover-up operation would have only intensified skepticism about the operations of the CIA as the White House would deny the accusations (11:09:19) Skips in footage - Counsel DAVID DORSEN questions former CIA director RICHARD HELMS about his background and his knowledge of E. HOWARD HUNT - Helms in response mentions a request made by Hunt upon joining the White House Staff for a camera and tape recorder for an interview he was supposedly conducting
LAWMAKERS, April 5, 1984
[20.21.42] DUKE-REAGAN won first battle in SENATE over aid to EL SALVADOR and NICARAGUAN REBELS. Sen. Joseph BIDEN-he will bet that if REAGAN gets re-elected, then there will be AMERICANS fighting in EL SALVADOR. Sen. Patrick LEAHY (D-VT) thinks it's ridiculous to have AMERICAN TROOPS going to fight in EL SALVADOR. [20.21.46-Salvadorean military maneuvers] DUKE v.o. desc. Upcoming election between D'AUBUISSON and DUARTE, desirable to defeat rebels before election. [20.22.01-SALVADOREAN soldiers jump out of the back of a truck with rifles. Shots of soldiers. Shot of soldiers carrying bundles of BALLOTS into a building] DUKE v.o. says REAGAN contends no plan to send AMERICAN troops, but electoral process must be protected if peace is to be achieved. [Norteamericanos stepping down from Jet Airliner] Sen. David BOREN (D-OK) says that if rebels can disrupt the elections, there might not be any more democracy in EL SALVADOR. The U.S. should give aid. Sen. CHRISTOPHER DODD (D-CT) says it's the same old election year story, CONGRESS is afraid to cross REAGAN in case they get the blame for "losing El Salvador". [20.22.58-external of one wing of CAPITOL and Dome.] DUKE vo-REAGAN divided enough DEMOCRATS to win the issue in the SENATE. [Shots of meeting of ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, Sen. Claiborne PELL] DUKE-attempts to limit or ban US MILITARY involvment in El Salvador defeated. [20.23.20-Sen. BOREN] BOREN concerned that the U.S. might desert EL SALVADOR and leave it defenseless against the godless commies [not a quote]. Sen. DODD says that CONGRESS doesn't want to make a decision of any kind but would rather blame REAGAN after the fact. CONGRESS should take its responsibility under the CONSTITUTION to act. [20.24.02-DUKE] DEMOCRATS are divided in HOUSE as well, with Speaker O'NEILL against aid and Jim WRIGHT for it. Comments it is reminiscent of DEMOCRAT party splits over VIETNAM. [20.24.27-WERTHEIMER] introduces report on CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, which is was questioned by N.O.W. and N.A.A.C.P. leaders in APPROPRIATIONS HEARINGS. Groups argued that the COMMISSION was not independent of the REAGAN administration and called for its funding to be taken away. [20.24.48-Rep. JULIAN DIXON in committee meeting] DIXON-the present CRC is a disgrace to legacy of past CRC, asks for funding to be taken away. Rep. Pat SCHROEDER says with regret that the time has come to end the CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, it's not doing what it is supposed to do. Rep. Don EDWARDS, chair of subcommittee that oversees CRC: EDWARDS says its mind boggling, but women's and minority groups are begging for the cancellation of the CRC budget because they feel the commission is actually working to UNDERMINE progress on Civil Rights. Shots of committee members deliberating and of SCHROEDER testifying. [20.25.51] Rep. Bob GARCIA, chair of HISPANIC CAUCUS, arguing that the REAGAN administration has made the Commission a tool of the administration's policies. It is intended to be independent. Shot of committee chamber [20.26.09-COMMISSION chair Clarence PENDLETON-a BLACK CONSERVATIVE] PENDLETON says charges that the COMMISSION is not independent are discriminatory, LIBERAL DEMOCRATS don't have monopoly on civil rights. WERTHEIMER gives history of COMMISSION and its mandate. 20.26.45-current commissioner of CRC Mary BERRY. BERRY says the original purpose of the COMMISSION was to publish facts on discrimination, which it has done over the years. [20.26.55-short shots of SOUTHERN COPS hassling and turning FIRE HOSES on blacks.] BERRY says now the commission is not fulfilling the information mission. WERTHEIMER summarizes criticism of COMMISSION-it only looks for INDIVIDUAL discrimination instead of patterns, doesn't consider past effects of past discrimination, and requires proof of INTENT to discriminate to make charges. Rep. EDWARDS complains that the COMMISSION has not been investigating complaints as it has done historically, but is only propounding a set of views on CIVIL RIGHTS. 20.28.05-aerial shot of Washington MALL, 1960's CIVIL RIGHTS MARCHERS filling area around reflecting pool and WASHINGTON MONUMENT, WERTHEIMER says critics of CRC say the COMMISSION has stopped taking HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE on CIVIL RIGHTS. Current commissioner PENDLETON and a former staffer express divergent views on need to consider past discrimination in current cases.
Capitol Journal
17.19.13--Former Rep. BARBER CONABLE (R-NY) says that the Democrats have been in control for too long, from an institutional point of view. A change would allow Democrats to prune out the deadwood of the party and Republicans to learn to compromise and govern. Says that Tip O'Neill is forced to be a partisan in the media because he can't get his party united in advance of meeting with Reagan. Rep. ROBERT MICHEL [minority leader] says that the Republicans are losing experienced legislators because they don't see any hope of being in the majority or becoming committee chairmen. Discusses how he tries to lead in Congress. TOM FOLEY discusses how the Democratic Party makes decisions, not through dictatorial caucuses but through communications. 17.26.09-Ornstein says that the longstanding dominance of one party in the House is to the detriment of both parties and the function of Congress. Says that efforts to take power away from Congress and give it to the President are shortsighted. John White addresses the idea that party turnover is a good thing. Says that experience in being the majority party is also a benefit. A man from audience asks if the rise of partisanship relates to the recent predominance of budgets on Congress' agenda, or to the fact that the Democrats control only the House but not the Senate or White House, effectively meaning that both parties are "the opposition party". 17.33.35-Ornstein says that the strange phenomenon of the "split Congress" is a factor in partisanship. Says that Reagan's intransigence with Congress is also a factor in the partisanship. TOM FOLEY agrees that both parties in the House are acting like the Minority Party. 17.37.55-OUT
LAWMAKERS
WETA "LAWMAKERS" 8/05/1982 IN 01.00.00 01.00.00-WETA credit/sponsor credits 01.00.24-COKIE ROBERTS-on program: report on one-year anniversary of REAGANOMICS. LINDA WERTHEIMER-House waffling on voting for $98 BILLION tax increase. PAUL DUKE-report on a maverick Senate REPUBLICAN. 01.00.48-Title Sequence 01.01.15-DUKE-after a year, the fortunes of REAGANOMICS have changed, with Congress renewing some spending and considering TAX INCREASES to fight the DEFICIT. ROBERTS-REAGAN wants to blame CONGRESS for the lingering RECESSION, saying that Congress didn't give him all that he wanted in the budget. Notes that last year, REAGAN called the passage of his economic package "The dawn of a new era", DEMOCRATS want the public to remember that. 01.02.15-Rep. BILL ALEXANDER (D-LA) speaking in well of House, slamming on Reaganomics. TIP O'NEILL in well of house, points to a chart showing steep rise of UNEMPLOYMENT since REAGANOMICS passed, tells REPUBLICANS to wake up. Shot of Rep. LARRY CRAIG (R-ID) retaliates, says the DEMOCRATS just want to "tax and spend" instead of creating private jobs. ROBERTS v.o.-after the speechmaking was over, REPUBLICANS eagerly endorsed a multi-billion dollar JOB TRAINING PROGRAM. Rep. JOHN ERLENBORN (R-IL) in debate, says the JOBS TRAINING is important legislation. ROBERTS v.o.-members were typically gutless in a vote to cut retirement benefits for federal workers. 01.04.03-Rep. ROBERT MICHEL speaking in well of House, objecting to the DEMOCRATS forcing them to vote publicly, says DEMOCRATS just want to get ammunition to use against Republicans in the campaign [while REPUBLICANS want to do something mean and cheap and not be called to task for it]. ROBERTS v.o.-in the 1981 appropriations bill, all BUDGET CUTS were lumped in one bill. in 1982, DEMOCRATS want all the cuts to be separate so that voters will know who voted against which programs. Rep. DELBERT LATTA (R-OH) in debate, says that if the DEMOCRATS force individual votes, no one will have the courage to make tough choices and cut spending. Rep. JIM WRIGHT retorts it takes more courage to go on the record for each program. Rep. WILLIAM FORD (D-MI) says that REPUBLICANS won't be allowed to "sneak down the alley and knife the widows and children of the deceased veterans". 01.05.48-ROBERTS-REPUBLICANS were convinced to leave RETIREMENT BENEFITS alone. The only thing tougher than CUTTING SPENDING in an ELECTION YEAR is RAISING TAXES. WERTHEIMER in front of Capitol, intro report on $98 BILLION dollar TAX INCREASE approved by SENATE REPUBLICANS. Problems getting HOUSE DEMOCRATS to agree on changes, special interests splitting up the vote, some HOUSE REPUBLICANS unwilling to vote for "Democratic" tax increases, some REAGANOMICS diehards might not vote for any tax increase. HOUSE DEMOCRATS decided not to have a debate in the HOUSE and go to conference with the SENATE on the SENATE REPUBLICANS' bill, so that at the very least, they can blame tax increases on the REPUBLICANS. 01.06.51-Rep. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI in well of House, says as Chairman of WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE has problems with the motion. Rep. JOHN ROUSSELOT, accuses DEMOCRATS of taking cowardly shortcuts to avoid debate on TAX BILL. Rep. JIM SHANNON (D-MA) says REPUBLICANS did the same thing with REAGANOMICS last year, are just covering their asses for the election. Shot of eagle on molding of a House chamber, pan down to Congressmen in a conference. Shots of LOBBYISTS in the chamber to watch proceedings. Shot of DAN ROSTENKOWSKI and BOB DOLE on the panel, ROSTENKOWSKI is pleased to nominate DOLE to chair the conference so that DOLE can take the heat. DOLE votes "no" when the motion is called, everyone laughs. ROSTENKOWSKI hints that DEMOCRATS won't support the bill unless REAGAN gives them a lot of favors. 01.09.15-WERTHEIMER v.o.-SUPPLY-SIDE REPUBLICANS are against TAX HIKE. Shot of Sen. WILLIAM ROTH speaking in committee, says that the bill is not a repudiation of REAGANOMICS, rather a DEFICIT control measure. Shot of DOLE, says he knows REAGAN will support the bill, even though some REPUBLICANS won't, says that the Republicans voted for the REAGAN budget knowing full well that more revenue was needed, tax reform good for both parties.
August 4, 1994 - Part 6
(14:10:46) I'm trying to think about why he would perhaps have imputed more meaning to the extent that he felt, quote, "whatever the pressure was that caused him to change his thinking," if he might have imputed to your comment, which was an offhand comment as you describe. it, a meaning beyond what you intended but what he might in his mind have attached to it. Do you understand what I'm saying? MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir, and Senator Riegle, I really believe that you are trying to understand this, and I really want to help you understand this, but I have to tell you, I do not know what was in Mr. Altman's mind. The CHAIRMAN. No, I understand. No, I'm not asking you to try to guess at that. I'm trying to, in my own mind, think about how two people with good intentions in the same meeting could have events unfold and come away with perhaps very different feelings about it. Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You see what I'm saying? Ms. WILLIAMS. I absolutely see what you're saying. The CHAIRMAN. Committee stands in recess until 3:15. (14:11:57) [Recess.] (14:12:00) Hearing hosts KEN BODE and NINA TOTENBERG talk to Representative PETER KING of the House Banking Committee and close out morning's coverage (14:24:01) WETA logo, PBS funding credits
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Arlen Specter (R - Pennsylvania). In the afternoon session, I asked Professor Hill - Page 203 - to begin, if you could, and proceed from there to account who called you and what those conversations consisted of as it led to your coming forward to the committee. Then, on a long answer inserted at the end, which was not responsive, because I wasn't asking about the USA Today article any more, she says - and this appears at the bottom of 203 - "It even included something to the effect that the information might be presented to the candidate and to the White House, there was some indication that the candidate - excuse me - the nominee might not wish to continue the process." Then, on the following page, 204, continuing in the middle of the page: "Senator Specter: So, Mr. Brudney did tell you that Judge Thomas might not wish to continue to go forward with his nomination, if you came forward? Ms. Hill: Yes." Now, Judge Thomas, what do you make of that change of testimony? Judge Clarence Thomas. Senator, I think that the individuals such as Jim Brudney, Senator Metzenbaum's staffer on the Education and Labor Committee, should be brought to hearings like this to confront the people in this country for this kind of effort, and I think that they should at some point have to confront my family.
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(11:44:54) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few things about myself No. 1, my name is Robert Bennett, but I am not the President's lawyer. No. 2, 1 will be happy to stipulate that Vincent Foster committed suicide. There was a time when the rumors in the press led me to believe there was some credence to an additional theory. I find no possible justification for that now. I am one Senator who is willing to say that this bearing should not be about whether or not Vincent Foster committed suicide. He committed suicide. I will so stipulate. I will not stipulate that the investigation of that suicide was handled in a proper fashion. I think that's a legitimate thing for us to go into. Now, I see some of my colleagues in the other body saying we shouldn't even be having these kinds of hearings. What a terrible thing. What a waste of time. Why are we here? I agree with some of my colleagues who mention why we're here. We're here because the U.S. Senate by a unanimous vote told us to be here to investigate this. That is not a frivolous reason for the Committee to meet. Why is it in this Committee? I think it's very appropriately in this Committee because this is the Committee that has oversight and a long history of involvement with the RTC. This Committee by public law last year went to lengths to amend the original RTC Act to make sure the RTC would be as independent as possible, that it would not be a politicized arm of any Cabinet level department. And the reason we're here is that we have evidence coming from the deposition that suggests that in this Administration, there has been an attempt to create that circumstance where the RTC would be politicized and run as if it were an arm of the Treasury Department. 30 The eye of that storm, as has been identified, is clearly Mr. Altman, We have two or more versions of what Mr. Altman may or may not have done. Top level officials in the Treasury Department have come and given sworn depositions. We need to find out which version is true. If indeed one version of events is true, then The New York Times is correct in calling for Mr. Altman's resignation or dismissal. I'm not prepared to do that yet. I won't rush to judgment as quickly as The New York Times has because I want to bear Mr. Altman and hear him defend big version of events. But if his version of events does prove to be true, then there are some other people in the Treasury Department who should be dismissed because there's a wide divergence, and we need to find out which one of those is true. If the position of the other officials is true, then I will join with The New York Times and suggest that it's time for Mr. Altman to join Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. Hubbell, Mr. Watkins, and others in pursuing private activities. That's really why this is in this Committee because at bottom, the result we want to have come out of this from a Committee point of view is a reestablishment of the principle that the RTC should be independent, that it should not be meddled with by political appointees in a Cabinet level department and that those representatives of the RTC who appear before this Committee in future circumstances can be depended upon to be frank, candid, and honest with the Committee. Those are legitimate issues. I'm grateful to my friend from Massachusetts who has stipulated that this is a legitimate inquiry because somehow they seem to have lost sight of that on the House side. I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, in the way you have put this together to make sure that we do not lose sight of the legitimate nature of this inquiry on this side. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bennett. Senator Boxer,
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator MONTOYA. Now, you mentioned also that in December, some of you or all the defendants got together somewhere for a strategy meeting with respect to the trial, is that correct? Mr. James McCORD. I can't recall that testimony, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Did you get together at any time in December or before the trial with respect to a trial strategy? Mr. JIM McCORD. I think I know what you're referring to, yes sir I did. Senator MONTOYA. With the other defendants? Mr. McCORD. No sir, only a general discussion with Mr. Barker a day or two before the trial. Senator MONTOYA. And did you discuss anything there with respect to the offer of clemency or any help from the individuals at the White House or in Government or at the CRP (Committee to Re-Elect the President). Mr. McCORD. I can recall some conversations that took place at this meeting, in which Mr. Barker was talking about pleading guilty or not to plead guilty. I can't be sure whether Executive clemency was mentioned at that point in time. I think now it was. Senator MONTOYA. By whom? Mr. McCORD. By Mr. Barker, stating that Executive clemency had-- he understood it had been mentioned by Hunt or promised by Hunt. Senator MONTOYA. And were you in constant touch with Mr. Hunt during the course of the trial? Mr. McCORD. Not contact as such. I saw him during the first week of the trial, before be pled guilty. I did not see him thereafter. Senator MONTOYA. Now, there was an article, a statement by Mr. Caulfield on Saturday, and I'll read this statement quoting him. It was a press statement: "I have briefly reviewed Mr. McCord's statement before the Senate Select Committee, and while it does not fully reflect my best recollection of the events which took place between he and I during January of this year, it is true that I met with Mr. McCord on three occasions in January and conveyed to him certain messages from a high White House official." Now, do you have any dispute with that statement? Mr. McCORD. Do I have any what, sir? Senator Mr. MONTOYA. Dispute with that statement? Do you question the accuracy' of that statement? Mr. McCORD. He apparently has a separate recollection than I do, sir, from his statement, so there must be some differences of opinion as to what was said. I don't know what he might mean at this point in time. Senator MONTOYA. But in view of his statement, you still state that what you said to this committee was correct as far as you knew and as far as you recall? Mr. McCORD. It is accurate and correct to the best of my recollection, yes sir. Senator MONTOYA. Why did you turn down the overtures toward Executive clemency? Mr. McCORD. Well, there are a number of reasons. In the first place, I intended to plead not guilty. I intended to fight the case through the courts of appeal, I never had any intention of taking Executive clemency or pleading guilty, either; both of which were usually connected together when the terms were used. In other words, if you plead guilty, there will be Executive clemency offered to you. My basic position was essentially that I wouldn't even discuss it, either one. Senator MONTOYA. That is all, Mr. Chairman. [Senator Baker recesses the committee in Senator Ervin's absence--wide shot of front of committee table shows photographers in action, senators getting up to leave]
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:20:28) I raised some issues with Mr. Cutler, who is still here, in my opening statement today. I'm going to insert in the record a legal brief we have that makes it clear to us that the RTC is an inde- pendent agency. I just want to make it clear that I hope, whether the Executive Branch agrees with that or not, they'll act in a manner that respects our view so that we're not back in here again on some matter that challenges that question. I don't foresee a problem in that area, but I want to make it clear that that's our feeling on it. Let me say just a couple of other things, and I apologize for the length of this time, but there are several wrap-up things that I think need to be said. I think, with respect to the first day of our bearings, the tragic death of Mr. Vincent Foster, that the record is now complete in that area. It's just a terrible loss in terms of the circumstances that attach to that situation. But, I think that we were charged with reviewing those facts, and we've done so. I think that issue is clearly examined and settled and should be seen as so. I would hope that it could be left there so this family can deal with the grief they feel. Anybody that has a hard time thinking about it ought to think about how they would feel if it happened in their immediate family, and how you try to pick up the pieces and go on from there. It's been said by many that Fiske, Mr. Fiske, the Special Counsel, has already came back and said, with respect to the areas in which we've done our review, that there was no basis for criminal action that he saw. His finding was clear on that. That was an important finding by him. We found, at least in my view-I don't see anything that obviates that, but I'm not speaking for the Committee and to the extent that there is anything in our record that is in addition to what be may have, then, obviously, we, in effect, are automatically conveying that to the Justice Department and to him, so that be can add that to his body of information. I want to just finish now by saying two things. I want to, again, thank the staff. When I was paying a tribute to you for the extraordinary effort you made you were out of the room, but I can't thank you enough. We'd never met 6 weeks ago and we made this climb together to get this job done. I'm deeply appreciative to you. I thank your family for the sacrifice. And the same with the staff here. We've got exceptional people at work here. They work 7 days a week. They don't complain about it and they do fine work for the country. That's the way our system works and thank goodness we have people who are willing to do the work. In terms of individuals in this situation, I set forth, in my opening statement, a test that I was going to apply with respect to statements by witnesses before this Committee, both depositions and direct testimony. I said that people are going to have to be ac- curate, complete, and fully responsive to the questions, and I meant by that, not on the third try, the 10th try, the 15th try, 10 800 days later, 20 days later, or 50 days later, but at the time the ques tion was posed. We've got some problems in that area, and I think the record is there to establish that. I'm troubled about that. I'm troubled about the fact that in the instances of some, I thought that was still a factor we were having to deal with right here this room. My view is that, I'm going to express some of my personal judgments in that regard directly, and to people who are in positions to receive that information. We don't have any power to hire or fire anybody. I mean, that's not our job, nor should it be, although we can have strong feelings about the performance of individuals. In terms of my personal views, my first instinct is to want to convey I that in a direct, personal way, as opposed to a public way, but I think there are issues outstanding in that area that are important I think it's absolutely critical and should be clearly understood because I made this point as directly as I could to the Treasury Secretary when he was here and to Mr. Cutler, when he was a witness and he is still here in the room, that we can't have a situation in the future where anybody in the Executive Branch comes before this Committee or any Committee of the Congress and evasive answer, an incomplete answer, or a less than the answer whatever the circumstances. And then, not at the earliest moment, if it's done by inadvertence, repair that fully. There are times when people can omit something from an answer because there's a misinterpretation or something doesn't come to mind or something can happen and that's understandable. We make an al- lowance for that.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
[close-up of Jim McCORD and counsel] Mr. James McCORD. Alch went on to mention testimony, or a statement, made to Federal authorities by Gary Bittenbender, a Metropolitan Police Department undercover police officer, whom I had seen at the courthouse, on June 17, 1972, when the five of us who were arrested were arraigned, in which Bittenbender purportedly claimed that I had told him that day that the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. I advised Alch that if Bittenbender had made such a statement under oath that he had perjured himself, and that I had not made such a claim. Bittenbender can be interviewed to determine the circumstances under which he had made such a statement, and whether his statement was in fact an honest error of impressions based on events which occurred in court on that day, which could have misled him. Those were that some of us were identified in the hearing in court as formerly Connected with CIA. Alch went on to mention the name of Victor Marchetti whom he was considering calling to describe CIA training in which its employees were trained to deny CIA sponsorship of an operation if anything went wrong and its participants were arrested. He also requested that I meet with him in Boston on December 26, 1972, which I did. There he opened the discussion by showing me a written statement of an interview with Bittenbender, in which Bittenbender, claimed that on June 17, 1972, I had told him that the Watergate operation was a CIA operation. I repeated to Alch my earlier statement, that Bittenbender had either perjured himself, or had made a false statement to Federal authorities. I told Alch that I could not use as my defense the story that the operation was a CIA operation because it was not true. In addition, I told him that even if it meant my freedom, I would not turn on the organization that had employed me for 19 years, and wrongly deal such a damaging blow that it would take years for it to recover from it, [cut wide shot of committee table, with reporters in foreground) and finally that I believed the organization to be one of the finest organizations of its kind in the world and would not let anyone wrongly lay the operation at the feet of CIA. By now, I was completely convinced that the White House was behind the idea and ploy which had been presented, and that the White House was turning ruthless, in my opinion, and would do whatever was politically expedient at any one particular point in time to accomplish its own ends. In addition, I earlier had determined to tell the true story. of the Watergate operation, and it was now only a matter of a propitious time to do so.
Summer of Judgment Pt 2 of 2
TLSs House Judiciary in session. MSs Rep. WILLIAM COHEN (R-MD) debating to Judiciary: "Specifically, the President, who bears the ultimate responsibility for the enforcement of our laws, did not report this to the Attorney General or to the Director of the FBI." MS Rep. WILLIAM HUNGATE (D-MO): "We sit through these hearings day after day. I tell you, if a guy brought an elephant through that door & one of us said that's an elephant, some of the doubters would say that could be a mouse w/ a glandular condition." TLSs Committee, crowd laughing. Rep. Charles Wiggins (R-CA): "Each in turn, yesterday & the day before, we paid triubute to the Constitution. Well, now is the time to put up or shut up b/c we're talking about the Constitution. We're talking about the 5th Amendment."
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Herbert Porter, June 7, 1973.
David Dorsen, attorney. You are now recounting what, Mr. Magruder told you. Herbert Porter, CRP aide. Yes, sir. David Dorsen, attorney. Please continue. Herbert Porter, CRP aide. He said that I believe at that time Mr. Liddy had been fired from the campaign. He said it was apparent" was the word he used, that Mr. Liddy and others had on their own, illegally participated in the break in of the Watergate Democratic National Committee and Mr. Magruder swore to me that neither he nor anybody higher than Mr. Liddy in the campaign organization or at the White House had any involvement whatsoever in Watergate, at the Watergate break-in. And reinforced that by saying, "Doesn't that sound like something stupid that Gordon would do?" and you have to know Mr. Liddy, I agreed with that. [Laughter]
JFK Assassination Hearings - Dr. Cyril H. Wecht (Part III)
Chairman STOKES begins the operation of the five minute rule, and himself questions Wecht, he asks, since Wecht was only one of nine forensic pathologists on the committee appointed panel to disagree with the panel's findings what basis other than scientific might these eight other panel members be making their decision - Wecht responds that Stokes would have to ask them but suggests the panel's finding could have been career motivated, saying that two of the panelists have served on other government appointed panels - Wecht can only speculate.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
Former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan testifying about statements made about potentially illegal political activities. He says he would not perjure himself to protect a colleague and that testimony given by former White House Counsel John Dean is incorrect, that Mr. Dean did not have a grasp of the discussion's context. U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) regrets not having more time to ask questions, but has to adjourn for a vote taking place. The panel will re-convene when the chairman returns.
JFK Assassination Hearings - Dr. Michael Baden (Part II)
Shot opens to Dr. MICHAEL BADEN, forensic pathologist, confirming for committee chairman LOUIS STOKES that he has seen autopsy photographs (09:58:04) Chairman Stokes explains that everyone on and involved with committee has seen autopsy photographs but that they will not be used in the case because it would reflect poor taste (09:58:11) Counsel KENNETH KLEIN recognized to question Baden, Klein asks Baden to describes his position and define the terms autopsy, forensic, and pathology in the context of his work (09:59:09) Exhibit is entered into record and passed to Baden which is a list of medical documents and materials panel was privy to during investigation - Baden gives a long explanation of what these documents and materials were and thier access to them, many of them are from the National Archive (10:01:14) Klein verifies the authority of the forensic pathology panel to come to expert conclusions - In Baden's response he says that over 100,000 autopsies have been performed by the panel members combined (10:05:05) Baden explains how the panel dealt with materials that could not be secured by the committee, namely JFK's brain and responds that even without these materials the panel could come to definitive conclusions (10:06:15) Klein asks if any members disagreed with the conclusions of the panel - Baden says its finding unanimous with the exception of Dr. CYRIL H. WECHT (10:07:35) Klein asks "what the cause of death of President John F. Kennedy?" - Baden responds JFK died as the result of two bullet wounds to the head and back (10:08:10) Exhibit of autopsy illustration entered into record, it is a very detailed drawing of JFK's back with a little bullet whole in it and a ruler across it, beneath the drawing is another smaller one, a blow up of the bullet hole (10:08:30)