Advanced Search
Capitol Journal
WETA "CAPITOL JOURNAL" 12/11/1986 IN 01.00.00-WETA credit/funding credits/title sequence 01.00.31-HOST HODDING CARTER-the diversion of funds from IRANIAN ARMS SALES to the CONTRAS in NICARAGUA looks like it could be the big story into the next year. Co-Host Mark Shields agrees. Carter-intro guests, Rep. TOM FOLEY and Sen. WILLIAM COHEN to comment on IRAN-CONTRA. 01.01.13-C/S Sec. GEORGE SHULTZ testifying about the ARMS SALES to a House committee. SHULTZ says he had no role in diverting funds. V.o.-SHULTZ named OLIVER NORTH as a central figure in the deal. SHULTZ testifying. In response to a question, SHULTZ discusses the chain of command for ambassadors, which was evidently broken by NORTH. V.O.-SHULTZ testifies that he tries to influence REAGAN on foreign policy but if he doesn't win, he stands behind REAGAN'S policy. V.o.-SHULTZ admitted knowing about arms sales to IRAN, but denied knowing the funds were to be given to CONTRAS. SHULTZ testifying: He didn't know about the diversion of funds, and it would be an illegal act. 01.03.57-Shot of Rep. DANTE FASCELL (D-FL) swearing in a witness to the Foreign Affairs Committee. C/S ROBERT MACFARLANE, Shots of FOREIGN AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. C/S JOHN POINDEXTER taking the fifth in committee hearing. Shot of POINDEXTER smoking a pipe [fiendishly?], shot of Rep. MICHAEL BARNES (D-MD) chastising POINDEXTER for taking the fifth, says that if POINDEXTER acted illegally but patriotically, then he would face lenient punishment and should, for the good of the country, tell what he knows. Shot of POINDEXTER'S lawyer, reacts angrily to BARNES' comments. BARNES responds he didn't mean to imply POINDEXTER was guilty. C/S Rep. TOBY ROTH (R-WI) says that POINDEXTER is not cooperating with REAGAN'S wishes [or is he???] by taking the fifth and not testifying. C/S POINDEXTER and counsel, the lawyer says he must defend the client's rights and cooperation will come in due course. V.O.-it is not clear when POINDEXTER will testify. 01.06.53-C/S OLIVER NORTH with counsel in House Committee hearing. NORTH is asked by Rep. LEE HAMILTON (D-IN) if he took funds from the IRAN ARMS SALES to put in a bank account for the CONTRAS. NORTH'S lawyer gets angry, says that everyone knows NORTH is going to take the fifth. Rep. HAMILTON defends his prerogative to ask questions. NORTH'S LAWYER argues. Shot of NORTH taking the fifth amendment. Rep. HAMILTON says he hopes to find a way to get NORTH'S testimony in the future. NORTH says that he does want to tell his story. 01.08.36-CARTER-asks if the IRAN-CONTRA scandal will go far into future. Rep. FOLEY says that the House and Senate are determined to investigate, but not to be preoccupied. Discussion of the role of the media in creating a lot of hype and scandal. FOLEY says that the houses will decide to make select committees so that different committees won't all try to get a piece of the action. Sen. COHEN says the scandal could get wrapped up quickly if key persons would testify promptly. The remaining question is how funds were diverted to the Contras. Shields discusses all of the countries allegedly involved in IRAN-CONTRA, asks if it's plausible that REAGAN was really ignorant of such a massive operation. COHEN says that the alleged structure of the operation kept all information on a need-to-know basis. 01.11.33-Sen. COHEN--A major issue at stake is the increase of "privatization" of foreign policy, cutting out the Secretary of State's influence, the Defense Department, and running policy through small groups and private dealers. The actions in the IRAN ARMS SALES were highly irregular and a dangerous precedent, if the White House is allowed to circumvent Congress and the public's wishes in making foreign policy. COHEN says the sale of arms to IRAN hurts U.S. credibility in the international effort against TERRORISM. FOLEY agrees that other countries are upset that the U.S. is providing weapons to IRAN. Says that Congress isn't out to make criminal cases, but to decide on laws to prevent the abuses. He takes REAGAN at his word that he was innocent until proven otherwise, but nonetheless the possibility that REAGAN and BUSH didn't know about these operations is almost as disturbing as the idea that they were aware of the operation.
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:05:39) Let me turn to Roger Altman. Public office is a high privilege and responsibility, Those who hold the principle offices of state have obligations to be forthright and candid. They must have the courage to act with independent judgment. Roger Altman has fallen far short of this standard. The evidence is overwhelming yet, even at this late date, Mr. Altman continues to temporize, excuse, dodge, and shift blame in a desperate effort to cling to his public office. Mr. Altman's apology rings hollow. He should behave honorably and leave. Of course, we are the legislative branch, we cannot simply remove Mr. Altman. We can say that, from this day forward, we will be unable and unwilling to accept or rely upon any statement, action, or judgment of Roger Altman. Let me conclude by saying, Mr. Chairman, that we did not come to this conclusion lightly. There's a very, very strong feeling that goes beyond the Members of this Committee that Mr. Altman, at this point, will have no credibility and we would find it difficult to rely upon any of his statements, actions, or judgments. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici or Senator Mack, are either of you seeking recognition? I'm going to then--Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. No, Mr. Chairman. I made my statement earlier. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I'm going to just try to make a few wrap-up comments here. It's been a long week, certainly for everyone associated with this effort here on the Committee. If there is anybody left out in television-land who's been following this, it's been a long week for them as well. I just passed a Senator-not on our Committee-in the elevator who said he went to bed with us last night because he was home watching us on television and when he got up this morning we were still there. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I said to Senator Bennett after we broke for lunch, "Tomorrow I guess I'll go through withdrawal, not being here with everybody." He looked and smiled and then said, "I think I can handle it." The CHAIRMAN. I think it's important, too, for people who have followed this from the beginning, to try to understand why it is that, when we go into session on a given day, we stay so long, go until 11 p.m. or 2 a.m. as we did last night. There are important facts as to why that was necessary. I just want to lay them out so people can understand the need to do that. When the Senate passed its Resolution 229 authorizing us to do is investigative effort, in that resolution, which was passed only 6 weeks ago, they told us that we had to start our first bearing on July 29, and that that was our fixed starting date. So, in the space 5 weeks we bad to start from ground zero. We had to go great Independent Counsels and ask them if they would me and do this work. They had to leave their families, come down here, and, literally, go to work and work 7 days a week for 5 solid lid weeks to got ready to start those hearings on time. 796 We did start them on time and, of course, that was the pressure on the front end in getting started. The pressure on the back end is that we start next week with the Health Care Reform legislation on the Senate Floor. That is going to be a full-time task of great importance to the country. We all have our own views thoughts on that, but when that starts we can't be here working on this. We've got to be on the Senate Floor working on Health Care issues debating it, casting votes, and so forth. During this week, while we we've been having these hearings , as people who have been watching could see, we've been interrupted by votes as we were, again, just now. There's a whole pattern of ongoing business in the Senate that requires us to come and go, to deal with it in different ways, not just to vote. Many of us have had legislative items on the floor to have to handle at the same time we've had to keep these hearings in process.
Watergate Hearings - Jeb Stuart Magruder (Part II)
(05:51:31) Shot opens with Majority Counsel SAM DASH questioning JEB STUART MAGRUDER of the Committee to Re-elect the President about the second Watergate break in - Magruder describes first hearing about the botched break in over the phone in California from GORDON LIDDY (05:52:48) Skip in footage - Magruder explains why he thought there might have been a double agent in the Watergate break-in crew and how as a result he had files hidden (05:53:26) Skip in footage - Magruder gives more testimony of botched break-in aftermath (05:53:53) Skip in footage - Back to Magruder describing his first hearing about the Watergate crew's arrest, his relaying this information to Mr. LARUE (?) and JOHN MITCHELL (former Attorney General) and how they attempted to get the current Attorney General to let out their Watergate prisoners, he would not do it (05:56:38) Magruder explains why he thought there might have been a double agent in the Watergate break-in crew and how as a result he had files hidden, particularily the file detailing the Watergate break-in plan (05:57:40) Magruder mentions the money that was found on the burglars and gives accounts of the information he relayed to all the people connected with the Committee and the Watergate affair (05:58:47) Magruder tells about his meeting with the Committee members upon returning to D.C. from California: Mr. Liddy, JOHN DEAN, HUGH SLOAN, and Mr. STRAHN (?) (05:59:30) Magruder tells about meeting with the higher officials involved: Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Larue, ROBERT MARDIAN, and Mr. Dean and how at this meeting they decided to destroy the Watergate plan file (06:00:28) Magruder describes Dean's relationship to the Committee and Whitewater affair (06:01:08) Magruder gives an account of what files he had destroyed (06:01:55) Magruder gives a long account of his meetings after the botched break-in with Sloan at which he suggested to Sloan that he might want to commit perjury to protect himself from being held accountable for the money, that he as committee treasurer, had given to Liddy (because there was no original receipt for this money from when the Committee received it as campaign donations), Magruder also says that at these meetings he kept trying and finally succeeded in getting Sloan to tell him how much money Liddy had been given, $200,000, which Magruder says was way too much (06:04:28) Skip in footage - Dash asks why the high ranking officials involved in Watergate decided to try to cut off the chain of command at Liddy and publicly blame him for the break-in - Magruder explains (06:07:00) Dash and Magruder discuss the investigations that followed and Magruder's appearance before two grand juries, they then go on to talk about Mr. Dean's role in possibly coaching Magruder for his grand jury appearances and whether or not Dean was around as a representative of the White House (06:09:45) Magruder gives details of prepping he did for a grand jury appearance in which he, Dean and Mitchell agreed on a story about the meetings in which they discussed and approved the Watergate plan
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE - "Intro"
U.S. Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill (D-MA) at Speaker's platform: "Pursuant to House Resolution 197...."; adult Caucasian male and female clerks seated at rostrum in FG. Host Edwin Newman (VO): "For all its faults, Congress has endured for 200 years. Is the Congress now moving toward the 21st century still resilient and capable of function for the next 100 years, or has it been sapped of its vitality and effectiveness?" U.S. Representative Ron Dellums (D-CA) speaking, gesticulating at lectern. U.S. Representative Silvio Conte (R-MA) angrily gesticulating, speaking at lectern. Three middle-aged adult Caucasian Congressmen at committee hearing; adult Caucasian male and female photographers in FG, taking pictures. In studio, Newman introduces himself, subject matter, and participants: U.S. Representative Dick Cheney (R-WY), U.S. Senator Dale Bumpers (D-AR), Thomas Mann of the American Political Science Association, and series editor Norman Ornstein. Ornstein says Congress was originally devised in the "horse and buggy days" of the 18th century, but Congress is different today. Out of necessity, it is larger and more complex, but it some senses it still bears resemblances to an 18th century institution trying bear the burdens of modern society. How well is it holding up?
Lawmakers 8/04/1983 Congress and Courts
Representative Philip Crane (R Illinois) I understand that this was a duly authorized investigation by the Committee on Aging. And those people, and correct me if I have my facts wrong, those people violated the law in the state of Maryland in the process of performing this investigation. Representative Tom Foley (D Washington) That hasn t been established. Representative Philip Crane (R Illinois) That has not been established. But is the gentleman suggesting that under the Speech and Debate Clause that this body could permit illegal actions to be taken against private citizens? That that is a part of the prerogatives of the House? Representative Tom Foley (D Washington) I m saying that under the Speech and Debate Clause, it would be theatrically possible for a member of Congress to commit what would be outside the House an act of criminal libel or certainly an act of civil libel and be immune from doing so. That s a hard reality of the Speech and Debate Clause. But there is no question that if you are going to give any validity to the Speech and Debate Clause, you have to read the words in the Constitution which says it shall not be called upon to answer in any other place.
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator TALMADGE. Alright, now Mr. Alch and who else urged you to do that? Mr. McCORD. I believe I've stated in my testimony that stories were circulating earlier stemming out of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President that the committee lawyers themselves had been told as early as July ..... Senator TALMADGE. Let's get specific, now I don't want stories circulating, I want you to name days and names and places, that's evidence, roomers is not. Mr. McCORD. Alright sir. Yes sir. The details as I related them in the memorandum which I read this morning on the topic of the pressure to lay at the feet of the CIA covers the full extent of my knowledge sir, of any pressure upon me. And it came from principally through the Attorney himself, so in so as far as I was personally involved that was the source. Senator TALMADGE. Alright, now you have named Mr. Barker .... Mr. McCORD. (conversing with lawyer) I'm sorry sir .... Senator TALMADGE. ... and you have named Mr. Alch. Mr. McCORD. Yes sir. Senator TALMADGE. Who is your own lawyer. Mr. McCORD. Yes sir. Senator TALMADGE. And I believe in your testimony in chief memorandum you read you also referred to a man by the name of Bitman, did you not? Mr. McCORD. Yes sir. Senator TALMADGE. Now who is Mr. Bitman? Mr. McCORD. Mr. Bitman was the attorney, William O. Bitman Attorney for Mr. E. Howard Hunt, one of the other defendants. Senator TALMADGE. Alright, did he have any connection with the government in any way or any connection with or any connection with the Republican National Committee or the Committee to Re-Elect the President? Mr. McCORD. (takes off glasses) Not to my knowledge sir. Senator TALMADGE. What I'm trying to get at is the source of this pressure that you have contended was brought upon you to blame this on the CIA, thus far you have not connected that either with the committee to re-elect the president or to the White House, or to any other individual to my knowledge, one was your own lawyer, one was engaged in the crime with you, and the third man was the lawyer for Mr. Liddy was it, Bitman? Mr. McCORD. Mr. Hunt. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Hunt. Mr. McCORD. Yes sir. Senator TALMADGE. He was Mr. Hunt's lawyer, and those three individuals were the only ones that urged you to blame this on the CIA, is that a fair statement? Mr. McCORD. (confers with lawyer, Fensterwald) Yes sir, that's essentially correct. Senator TALMADGE. So no one else, anywhere, whatever urged you to blame it on the CIA except these three individuals, is that correct? Mr. McCORD. None that I can recall at this time, no sir.
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(11:10:46) The events that we are going to examine under a microscope were triggered by a personal tragedy, the suicide of a man who was a close friend, a colleague and a mentor to many of the people who will testify before this Committee. Any errors in judgment committed by White House aides after Vince Foster's suicide were the errors of people operating under extreme stress. It doesn't change the fact that there may have been mistakes or errors, but we need to keep in mind they were operating under extreme stress. Every time we dredge all of this UP, we hurt the family of Vince Foster: the wife, the children, the brothers, the sisters, the mothers, the fathers. Added to the stressfulness and pain of the situation is the fact that neither White House Counsel nor the remainder of the White House staff had any procedures in place for dealing with the suicide of a Member of the Counsel's Office. Nor were the Park Police better prepared. While the Park Police-, have loudly criticized the White House-and we will hear more of it, I'm sure, and it is their right to do that and their duty to do that if they think the White House was wrong- each Park Police officer has testified that he or she has never sealed an office that was not a crime scene. Vince Foster's office was not a crime scene. So let's put it together. Extreme stress, one. Painful suicide, two. No procedures, three. Errors in judgment will surely follow. We are human, and we will see these errors in judgment in all their glory come before this Committee. Mr. Chairman, if this is just about embarrassing the President and the First Lady, as Monday's New York Times indicates-and it says here, "GOP hopes to embarrass Clinton, not itself, with two hearings"-if this is what this is about this is a sad situation for everyone involved, including each and every United States Senator. There are far cheaper ways to embarrass each other. Let me explain. We are talking about a $200,000 loan here, however you slice it, and we are spending millions and millions of dollars to track it. If we believe the American people who today 63 percent, say the purpose of these hearings is to hurt Mr. Clinton, and if we believe The New York Times stories, then it is, in fact, a sad time. I want to make one further point, and then I will stop. We have these fancy machines in front of us, and they'll be showing us different documents- I feel that one of the purposes I hope to serve on this Committee is to carefully look at that as other Members will do, and I want to comment on something Senator Mack pointed out. He had on the screen handwritten notes of Mr. Foster. What we see in that is his reasoning and why he recommends to the Clintons that they should treat their Whitewater income or losses in a certain fashion. By the way, he makes a very conservative call on that, and I guess I always believed that accountants and lawyers who were charged with advising their clients on how to deal with these personal matters have a responsibility to advise them in the best possible ion. In this case, being mindful of the politics sur- 27 rounding Whitewater, clearly Mr. Foster advises the Clintons to show the gain rather than show a loss and yes, risk an audit, Now, Senator Mack, perhaps you've never had an accountant tell you be conservative, why risk an audit? Maybe you never have, but I would suggest to you that if we asked all the Americans to step forward who have had that type of advice, it would fill coliseums.
LAWMAKERS
13.01.45-WETA credit/sponsor credits/title sequence 13.02.35-PAUL DUKE/LINDA WERTHEIMER/COKIE ROBERTS in studio-on program-preview of battles over the BUDGET in 1982 Congress, preview of ELECTION YEAR activities of Congress. First, a Recap of year 1981 in Congress. 13.03.14-Shot of REAGAN (2/18/1981) addressing joint session of Congress, TIP O'NEILL and GEORGE BUSH sit behind REAGAN. REAGAN says his TAX CUTS will increase opportunity and the nation's wealth. Shot of Rep. BENJAMIN ROSENTHAL (D-NY) arguing that REAGANOMICS will fall most heavily on the Poor, and the rich will not pay any costs. Shot of REAGAN giving speech in Congress (State of the Union?), says that government's TAX POWER should not be used to regulate Economy or "bring about social change"---modest applause. Shot of Rep. BARBARA MIKULSKI (D-MD), addressing a meeting with many SENIOR CITIZENS, says that she shares their concern about REAGANOMICS as proposed changes in SOCIAL SECURITY. 13.04.03-Shot of NEWT GINGRICH, says voters gave power in the WHITE HOUSE and the SENATE to the "people who stand for change", but the HOUSE is the same old TAX AND SPEND DEMOCRATS. Shots of political volunteers/staffers? making phone call for a conservative group, soliciting help in organizing pressure on HOUSE on behalf of REAGANOMICS. Clip of a POLITICAL AD attacking Rep. PAUL SARBANES (D-MD). Shot of Rep. SARBANES, says that he doesn't think that expensive ads can manipulate Maryland voters. Shot of a young black "man on the street", says that the commercial did influence him, he thinks SARBANES is wrong to be in such opposition to REAGAN. Shot of a middle-aged white man in baseball cap, says he's not affected by ads attacking SARBANES. Shot of young black woman, says that she's against SARBANES because he won't support lower taxes. 13.05.41-Shot of Rep. CLAUDE PEPPER (D-FL) on campaign trail, shaking hands with some "good ol' boys" outside a cinderblock building. V.O.-PEPPER says he's always wanted to be helpful to other people. Shot of PEPPER chatting with older woman, older man. Shot of TIP O'NEILL seated in speaker's office, says now that DEMOCRATS are the opposition party, and it will be their policy to make REAGAN take responsibility for the BUDGET, for UNEMPLOYMENT, DEFICIT, INFLATION, etc.. Shot of Rep. DAN ROSTENKOWSKI, chairing meeting of HOUSE WAYS AND MEANS COMMITTEE, says that the public will not lose sight of the fact that CONGRESS drafts and structures the BUDGET. Shot of Rep. JACK FIELDS (R-TX) speaking in HOUSE debate, says that "the eyes of Texas" are on Congress to see what they do with the BUDGET. Shot of Rep. BARNEY FRANK (D-MA), says that he doesn't object to the "eyes of Texas", but to the "hands of Texas being in my pockets". 13.06.42-Shot of a Congressman saying that although CONGRESS has just passed REAGANOMICS, there is nothing in the program to reduce INTEREST RATES. Shot of a CONGRESSMAN, says that REAGAN'S promises are "ringing hollow on Wall Street". Shot of financial analyst, says that WALL STREET is reacting to "concerns on Main Street". Shot of DAVID STOCKMAN (REAGAN'S budget guru of 1981), says that "Main Street wants a tax reduction". Shot of Sen. BILL ARMSTRONG (R-CO), excoriating STOCKMAN in a late 1981 committee meeting, says that the effects of REAGANOMICS have been "human tragedy of great proportions". Shot of Sen. DON REIGLE (D-MI), telling committee a hard-luck story of a farmer hurt by REAGANOMICS. Shot of Sen. MARK HATFIELD (R-OR), says that many people in Congress are facing re-election in 1982, and there will be fallout from REAGANOMICS and it's failure, and Congress won't treat REAGAN'S proposals in the same way in 1982. 13.08.49-Shot of Rep. CLAUDE PEPPER speaking to crowd from CAPITOL steps, vows to fight REAGAN'S reforms to SOCIAL SECURITY, says that if SENIOR CITIZENS vote in 1982, they can protect SOCIAL SECURITY.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Well, let me ask you - does anybody else want to ask a question? Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). I just would like to note something for the record, not a question, if I might, Mr. Chairman. And that is that Senator Hatch had referred in just the last few minutes to Anita Hill's handlers somehow, Svengali-like - my term, not his - sending her out to take a polygraph. I would just note for the record, according to her sworn testimony, the first suggestion of a polygraph came when the administration sent the FBI to talk to her. According to what she stated here, she told us that the FBI asked her if she would be willing to take a polygraph and she said, again according to her testimony here, that indeed she would. I have no idea of the qualifications of whoever took it or anything else. I have just heard about it. I don't know whether - it would not be admissible in a court of law. Nobody is required to take a polygraph, but I just wanted to note for the record, the first suggestion of that came not from somebody advising Professor Hill but came from, according to her testimony, from the people the administration sent out on the investigation that was requested by the White House and this committee. Senator Orrin Hatch (R - Utah). If the Senator would yield on that point, as the co-author along with Senator Kennedy of the Polygraph Protection Act, we did a lot of study of this, and there is no question that polygraphs should only be given under certain circumstances, with the approval of both sides, and not unilaterally by one side that may be very biased. You can find a polygraph operator to do anything you want them to do, just like you can find a pollster. Some pollsters in this country, not many, but some will do anything. They will find any conclusion you want, just by changing the questions. Then again, polygraph operators, there are circumstances where people really believe what they are doing. They really believe it. It is totally false, but they believe it. She may very well be in that category, and might even pass a real polygraph examination. So to throw that in the middle of a Supreme Court nomination as though it is real, legitimate evidence is highly offensive, that is my only point, and highly political, and again, too pat, too slick, exactly what a two-bit slick lawyer would try to do in the middle of something as important as this. Now that is the point I was raising. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). Mr. Chairman, the point to be made, it was the FBI, sent by the White House, who first suggested the polygraph. Senator Orrin Hatch (R - Utah). No, that is not true. That is not true. It was this committee, not the White House. It was this committee. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). Is that why the report first goes to the White House? Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Will the Senator withhold? The FBI was asked by the Majority and the Minority to investigate. The White House, the administration, has to authorize that when we request it. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). That's right. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). It was in the FBI - Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). Now here I go. What am I doing? I am referring to the sworn testimony here. Senator Orrin Hatch (R - Utah). It's a terrible thing, I'll tell you. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). The sworn testimony-- Senator Orrin Hatch (R - Utah). You only use it when it benefits her. Senator Patrick Leahy (D - Vermont). The sworn testimony of Professor Hill was that she said that she was prepared to take an FBI polygraph.
JFK Assassination Hearings - H.B. McClain and Dr. James Barger
Duke introduces to the Committee Vice Chairman Representative RICHARDSON PREYER, Duke, Preyer and O'Leary have a long discussion about the morning's testimony, Preyer says he believes it pretty definitively implicates a second shooter and therefore a conspiracy, but he believes this conspiracy not to be planned by any large political organization, rather he suggests it was a conspiracy of "nuts", Preyer also defends the conclusions of the morning's witnesses, E. ASCHKENASY and MARK WEISS, against attacks O'Leary launches against them saying they made huge assumptions and produced results applicable only to laboratory conditions.
JFK Assassination Hearings - Dr. Vincent P. Guinn (Conclusion)
(17:10:58) Stokes adjourns the hearings (17:11:05) Hearings host SANDFORD UNGAR voices over committee shot to sum up afternoon's testimony of Guinn, shot soon after switches to him and after concluding his summary of the testimony he introduces panel members Professor JACOB COHEN of Brandeis University and DAVID LIFTON Warren Commission critic who give differing opinions about the significance of Guinn's testimony (17:14:10) Ungar closes out the hearing (17:14:33) Shot of almost empty hearing room (17:14:43) PBS funding credit
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator GURNEY. Chairman has reminded me that my time is up, I wonder if I may ask one or two other questions Mr. Chairman on another matter, I don't think it will take very long. Senator Sam ERVIN. (unclear) Senator GURNEY. Thank you. Mr. McCord, how much were you being paid by the Republican National Committee for it's work? Mr. McCORD. Six hundred and twenty five a month as best I recall, $625 to $650 beginning the period of October roughly October 1 through the same period of my employment with the Committee to re-elect the president, the subject of this employment at both locations was discussed with both men who I worked with which included (unclear) and Mr. Odle. Senator GURNEY. This was in addition to the salary of 20,000 a year by the committee to re-elect, plus the 2,000 a month hazardous pay when you entered into the Watergate operation, is that correct? Mr. McCORD. That's correct. Senator GURNEY. Did you receive any pay from anybody else for any activity during this period of time? Mr. McCORD. I don't recall any sir. Senator GURNEY. You did not receive any then? Mr. McCORD. I don't recall any. Senator Ed GURNEY (R-FL). Tell me did you ever participate in any other electronic surveillance activity like this, political surveillance at any time? Mr. James McCORD. No sir. Senator GURNEY. How about in previous years, previous campaigns? Mr. McCORD. No sir. Senator GURNEY. Did you ever discuss with anybody at the committee to re-elect the president or the White House for that matter, aside from Mr. Liddy this business of bugging the Watergate. My understanding was that your conversations were with him at first, that's correct isn't it? Mr. McCORD. Yes sir, the only two people they were discussed with were Mr. Hunt and Mr. Liddy, and I've stated my reasons for so doing. Senator GURNEY. Yes, but you didn't discuss it at anytime with anybody else? Mr. McCORD. No sir. Senator GURNEY. Did you ever suggest to anybody at anytime in 1972 or 1972 that this would be a desirable operation? Mr. McCORD. Did I suggest it? Senator GURNEY. Yes. Mr. McCORD. Absolutely not. Senator GURNEY. The idea came from Mr. Liddy and Mr. Hunt. Mr. McCORD. That is the first time I heard it. Senator GURNEY. Thank you very much.
LAWMAKERS
20.10.33-Shots of 1974 HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING to Impeach RICHARD NIXON, pan to LOTT, insisting that NIXON was innocent. C/S LOTT in office, says he wouldn't switch his vote. C/S LOTT in office, says he realized early in his career that the South was falsely stuck with a Democratic label, so he ran to succeed his retiring predecessor as a REPUBLICAN, not a DEMOCRAT. Still of LOTT campaigning. C/S LOTT in office, discussing past experiences as a DEMOCRATIC aide as a help to his career. Shot of LOTT in RULES COMMITTEE HEARING debating rules. C/S Rep. GILLIS LONG (D-LA) says LOTT knows the House rules inside out. 20.12.50-M/S LOTT with colleague in office, handshake and a joke. C/S LOTT in office, says he believes that legislation must be passed, he will fight for his side, but not derail the process if he can't win. WERTHEIMER v.o.-LOTT does have a PARTISAN reputation and SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS think that LOTT is more REPUBLICAN than SOUTHERNER. C/S Rep. GILLIS LONG, says LOTT is too bound to conservative agenda to represent the needs of the rural poor in the South. C/S LOTT in office, says he's a committed conservative, but he thinks he's flexible. 20.14.01-C/S a CIVIL RIGHTS ADVOCATE, calls LOTT a leader of ANTI-CIVIL RIGHTS lobby in Congress, opposed to almost all CIVIL RIGHTS laws. C/S LOTT, says VOTING RIGHTS ACT is "not fair to our region" [the gall of Washington, forcing the South to let black people vote!!!]. WERTHEIMER v.o.-in the past, such attitudes would have hurt LOTT'S chances for Party leadership, but current REPUBLICANS owe more to the NEW RIGHT. C/S Rep. LONG, says that the RIGHT-WINGERS are taking over the REPUBLICAN PARTY in House, calls it Party Suicide. C/S MICHEL, says LOTT has a chance to be the Republican leader. L/S LOTT walking down Capitol steps. LOTT v.o.-says he'll wait and see, hopes to have the chance to be party leader. 20.15.38-WERTHEIMER-LOTT a certain candidate for MINORITY LEADER, but will have competition from MODERATE REPUBLICANS. Discussion of RIGHTWARD and SOUTHERN shift in REPUBLICAN PARTY, notes that LOTT has had to moderate his positions to be a leader, drawing ire of ULTRACONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN "Raucous Caucus". A big battle shaping up to replace HOWARD BAKER as SENATE MAJORITY LEADER, mostly MODERATE REPUBLICANS in the running.
August 4, 1994 - Part 3
(11:30:24) Ms. WILLIAMS. Well Senator Shelby--- 310 Senator SHELBY [continuing]. Not thinking it would ever be coming up before the Senate Banking Committee? Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, Senator Shelby, I cannot speak to what it was that Mr. Altman was doing, but I can speak to what I was saying, what I was doing, what I normally would not do. That is what I can speak to, my recollections, and I can speak to only my recollections. Senator SHELBY. Yes, ma'am, but you did say a few minutes ago that you had met and conferred with Mr. Altman on as many as 10, 15 occasions, mainly dealing in the Health Care area? Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. So if he is recording this in his diary describing what was going on at the White House with Mrs. Clinton from what he perceived or what he picked up from you, and it was in the subject area of Health Care, it would be in keeping with his meetings with you, would it not-the subject of Health Care? Ms. WILLIAMS. The subject of Health Care? Senator SHELBY. Sure. Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. Senator SHELBY. In other words, this was in the context of Health Care. "On Whitewater, Maggie told me that Hillary Rodham Clinton was paralyzed by it. If we don't solve this within the next two days, you don't have to worry about her schedule on Health Care" and so forth. In other words, the context of your conversation generally with him was Health Care. Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. And how it would affect, or how other things could affect the campaign for it. MS. WILLIAMS. Sir, I understand your question. I understand the logic of it. But that does not change my testimony with respect to my recollection of what took place. Senator SHELBY. Do you ever recall--or if you don't recall, is this phrase here, this sentence in keeping with something you may have said, that "HRC," Hillary Rodham Clinton, "doesn't want the Counsel poking into 20 years of public life in Arkansas"? Have you ever said, if not that, something like that? Ms. WILLIAMS. What I have said Senator SHELBY. Something he could interpret like that? Ms. WILLIAMS. What I have said, as I said before the House Committee, was that I have said that I believed that 17 years of Arkansas history was irrelevant to the President's agenda. That is what I have said. Senator SHELBY. So that he could have picked that up from what you said and written what he had in the diary. Ms. WILLIAMS. Sir, I am sorry; I really refuse to speculate as to how Mr. Altman arrived at that. Senator SHELBY. Well I will leave it up to the Committee. I mean, what you said referred to 17 years of Arkansas politics. We understand that. Then if he says HRC does not want Counsel poking into 20 years of public life, that is not far off. The sentences are not far off My time is up. 311 The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Roth. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR ROTH Senator ROTH. Mr. McLarty, yesterday I tried to ask a number of the members of the White House Counsel's staff about a telephone call that George Stephanopoulos made to Josh Steiner in the Treasury Department on February 25, 1994, and whether it violated White House Ethics Guidelines prohibiting contact by White House staff with investigative agencies on pending cases. I was not successful in getting anyone to answer my question, so I would like to pose the same question to you. First, do you agree that the Nussbaum memorandum of February 22, 1993, prohibited White House staff contacts with investigative agencies, including Treasury, about pending investigations on specific cases? Mr. McLARTY. I think the memoranda that you are referring to, Senator, outlines written or oral communications concerning pending investigations must be directed through the Counsel's Office. Senator ROTH. Yes. And there is no exception in that guideline, is there, on that matter? Mr. McLARTY. Without reading it closely, I am not aware of any exception. I think it speaks for itself here.
JFK Assassination Hearings - H.B. McClain
H.B. McClain says he can identify himself by the way he is sitting on the motorcycle. U.S. House Representative Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Washington D.C. Delegate Walter Fauntroy (D) joke playfully with McClain about how he sits that he can distinguish himself 15 years later in a photograph and Fauntroy asked him to describe the manner in which McClain is sitting.
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
Senator David Boren. (D-Oklahoma)-So we have to have covert actions. We have to have accountability. And we also have to have a sharing of information between at least the leaders of the Congress and the White House if we are going to rebuild this kind of bipartisan unified approach. Now I would just like to ask you, as we consider how we conduct foreign policy especially covert operations that have to be kept secret. How do we do that while preserving the Democratic values and institutions that we hold so dear? And do you think we are on the right track to develop this relationship of absolute candor and trust between the executive branch and the intelligence committees of both the House and Senate? Colonel Oliver North-Well as you have described them Senator Boren, I agree with the noble objectives. I think I have testified there too during my five and a half days here before you. I continue to be concerned at the size of the committees. I think the larger the group of the people involved, the larger the staffs, the more likely it is that we will end up with a compromise. And it certainly while the provisions of the law only allow the big eight to be notified, it would be by my opinion appropriate. We ve got experience in working with the Congress and the executive branch of a joint committee and you know the one I m referring to. A very small, a very professional staff and a small committee who worked very closely with the administration on carrying out policy on nuclear matters. And my sense is that is an idea whose time has come. There is no doubt that we can do it better. And there is no doubt that there must be the ability to confer and to obtain the money that are necessary to conduct these activities.
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE
01.20.39-Graphic shows map of Illinois, with 8th Congressional District and City of Chicago highlighted. V.O.-the Senator's constituency is much broader. Shots of Percy on the campaign trail, getting off a small plane, on a talk radio program, speaking to a small group of citizens. Percy talks to a reporter suggesting foreign policy moves. Shot of Percy speaking to a small auditorium of citizens, saying he supported the amendment for voting age change from 21 to 18. Percy v.o.-sometimes he envies Congressmen who can be more personal with their constituents, but as a Senator he has some unique powers to help people. 01.22.08-Newman/Ornstein-discussion of the way the House and Senate have gotten closer togetehr. Shot of Sen. Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), says the idea of the Legislative Branch having certain prerogatives has drawn House and Senate closer together. V.O.-discussion of the system of checks and balances that can pit Executive against Legislative branches. Series of newspaper headlines from the Nixon Impeachment hearings. Shot of armored vehicle in LEBANON. V.O.-the House and Senate share the power to declare War and have worked together to try to check the power of the President to send troops overseas in non-declared wars. Shot of Rep. JIM WRIGHT advocating a bill to reduce the President's power to commit troops as a question of protecting Congress' powers. Shot of RONALD REAGAN signing a bill. 01.23.53-Shot of Sen. BOB DOLE (R-KS) chairing a Conference Committee on the tax bill. C/S Sen. SARBANES, says that the 17th Amendment creation of popular election for the Senate took away the biggest difference between House and Senate, made the Senate less elitist. Clip of a Sarbanes campaign ad. Shot of Tip O'Neill leading a meeting. Sarbanes says that the most important thing in the future is not the differences between House and Senate but the way they work together. 01.25.51-Newman-concludes by saying that the bicameral system has held up pretty well for 200 years. Closing credits/WETA credit/funding credits/PBS ID 01.27.47--OUT
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of John J Caulfield May 22, 1973
Senator Howard BAKER (R-TN). Mr. Witness, would you suspend for just a moment? The signal system indicates there is now 5 minutes before the end of the roll call. Might I ask the committee if there is any objection to the witness continuing to read this statement in the presence of counsel, even though Senator Weicker and I as the only two members of the committee remaining have to go out now to vote. If there is any objection on behalf of the committee or on behalf of the witness or his attorney, of course we'll suspend. But inasmuch as your statement is 26 pages long and each member has a copy of it, if you have no objection, I'd suggest that we proceed with that portion for the record in the presence of the two counsels. Mr. SEARS. We have no objection. [cut to wide shot of committee table as Sen. BAKER and Sen. WEICKER get up to leave, evidently happy to miss this portion of the testimony] Mr. CAULFIELD. May I proceed? Mr. DASH. Yes sir, proceed on behalf of the committee. Mr. CAULFIELD. In May of 1968, I received a letter from Mr. Sherwood indicating that there was a possible position in the upcoming Nixon campaign for the Presidency for a person to serve in the security area. I telephoned Mr. Sherwood & substantiated what he had said in the letter & he told me that Mr. H. R. Haldeman would interview me if I were interested. Mr. Sherwood arranged an appointment for me w/ Mr. Haldeman at 450 Park Avenue in New York, which was the campaign headquarters and I was hired. With the assassination of Robert Kennedy in early June, my duties changed and ultimately, starting with the end of the 1968 convention, I became responsible to Mr. John Ehrlichman for being sure that the staff quarters and working areas of the Nixon campaign traveling staff were secure as we moved from city to city during the campaign. Mr. Ehrlichman was pleased with my work during this time and on election night in 1968 he told me that in view of my work he would be happy to recommend me if I had any interest in obtaining a position with the Federal Government in Washington. A few days after the election I called Mr. Ehrlichman in Key Biscayne, Florida, and told him I wished to be considered for the position of Chief U.S. Marshal. He told me that be would speak to Mr. Haldeman about this and get back to me. Subsequently a meeting was arranged with John Mitchell at the Pierre Hotel in New York at which Mr. Mitchell told me that while my work was highly thought of, there had been a decision made to the "semi militarize" the U.S. Marshal's Office and therefore they were considering a retiring high military official for this post. Between Dec 1968 and April of 1969, I was interviewed for and pursued a variety of possible appointive jobs in Washington. In late March 1969, I received a telephone call from Mr. Ehrlichman who asked me if I would visit him in his office a day or two later. I did so and at that meeting he asked if I would be willing to set up a private security entity in Washington, D.C., for purposes of providing investigative support for the White House. I told him that I would think this over but by the time I had returned home that evening, I had decided that I did not wish to do this. I called him the next day with a counterproposal, namely, that I join the White House staff under Mr. Ehrlichman and besides providing liaison functions with various law enforcement agencies, thereby be available to process any investigative requests from the White House. I mentioned to him that if he agreed with my proposal, I would intend to use the services of one Mr. Anthony Ulasewicz who was a detective with the New York City Police Department nearing retirement. He said he would think about it and get back to me. [cut to a shot of several very casually dressed young men and women lounging against the wall of the room observing, including policeman. There are several LONGHAIRS among them & their expressions evidence disdain for CAULFIELD, who resembles the archetype of the authoritarian policeman] A few days later I received a call from his office asking if I would come to Washington to discuss the matter and that meeting resulted in my appointment to the WH staff April 8, 1969. My duties at that time consisted of being a White House liaison with a variety of law enforcement agencies in the Federal Government, through arrangements worked out with Mr. Ehrlichman, Herbert Kalmbach, and Mr. Anthony Ulasewicz. Mr. Ulasewicz retired from the NYPD and was paid on a monthly basis by the Kalmbach law firm that employment commencing on July 9, 1969. During the next 3 years, first on orders from Mr. Ehrlichman and later in some instances, on orders from John Dean, Mr. Ulasewicz, under my supervision, performed a variety of investigative functions, reporting the results of his findings to the White House through me. I do not fully recall all of the investigations performed in this fashion, but have available a list of those which I do recall if the committee wishes to examine it. In July 1970 John Dean became counsel to the President and Mr. Ehrlichman was named to the position of Presidential Assistant for Domestic Affairs. Thereafter I worked directly for Mr. Dean, but on occasion ...
Ike Says Adams Imprudent But Essential
The explosive disclosure that the number one Assistant to President Eisenhower, Sherman Adams, accepted lavish gifts from a Boston industrialist, whose nefarious business practices is under government investigation, brings a statement of solid confidence from the Chief Executive who extols the value of his right hand man. The White House press room filled to the brim with reporters. CUS - Sheman Adams. MCUS - Sheman Adams speaks on his own behalf: "I can only say to this committee with a clear conscious that in the 5 1/2 years that I have been at my post, I have never committed to any personal relationship to effect in any way any actions of mine in matters of mine leading in the conduct in my office. But if on the contrary, I have in any way so conducted myself to cast any semblance of doubt on such conduct. I can only say that the error was one of judgment not of intent." Eisenhower makes a statement on the situation. At his next press conference Ike anticipated reporters questions where they prepared statements which he admitted Adams had been imprudent but added in his defense. President Eisenhower: "I believe that the presentation made by Governor Adams to the Congressional Committee yesterday. Truthfully represents the pertinent facts. I personally like Governor Adams. I admire his abilities. I respect him because of his personal and official integrities. I need him."
President Carter : "Crisis on Confidence" Speech - July 15, 1979
Host Paul Duke asks U.S. House Representative Morris Udall (D-AZ) about environmental concerns being sacrificed for higher domestic energy production, given that he has been a leader in pushing for higher environmental standards. Udall discusses recent committee meeting where energy industry leaders testified the need to fast track certain projects and cut "red tape." Environmental groups testified next and held no objections. Udall rejects the notion that every energy project has an environmental group trying to thwart it. It is possible to keep the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, prevent coal strip mining, and still cut unnecessary bureaucracy; Millicent Fenwick (R-NJ) and Robert Novak seated with Udall. Duke asks Udall if he's worried that environmental legislation will be rolled back. Udall knows there are those who see this as a chance to do so, but he doesn't believe U.S. President Jimmy Carter will yield.
Reverend Jesse Jackson Addresses DNC
Reverend Jesse Jackson continues speaking to Democratic National Committee members on his vision of a peaceful foreign policy that focuses on demilitarization, human rights, and development. Rev. Jackson believes that diplomacy, trade polices, and cultural understandings should be the primary tactics. He believes in a nuclear freeze and would cut defense spending by twenty percent that would see reductions in wasteful spending by the Pentagon and troop reductions in Europe. Rev. Jackson would also re-negotiate military obligations with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and Japan, and take a second look at no-bid defense contracts. Rev. Jackson's foreign policy centers around human rights, and he takes a strong stand against South Africa, but would use non-interventionist, economic tactics against them. He concludes his speech to applause; U.S. House Representative Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) thanks Jackson; adult Caucasian males seated around her.
Health Insurace For All Americans
Dull in contrast and imagery In our nations capital and expert in the field of health and medical insurance, Director of Insurance for Universal Picture Company, Benjamin Logger lays before the house committee on interstate and foreign comers a comprehensive and far reaching program of health insurance and medical services for all Americans. Mr. Logger: "In conclusion may I suggest that within the wonderful framework of free enterprise, our government must embark upon a great educational program, and if necessary provide the required subsidies in all areas of medical care in order to assist the operation of such hospitals and medical educational facilities. With the intelligent and active cooperation of industry and labor, along with the whole hearted participation of the insurance industry and the medical profession. All the American people may reap the benefits of the highest level of medical care. Thank you Mr. Wilbur".
Biography: Jackie Robinson
Jackie Robinson and wife Rachel Isum Robinson in Washington, entering federal building. Jackie testifying before the House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC) about statements made by Paul Robeson about blacks refusing to fight in a war against Russia. I ve been asked to express my views on Paul Robeson s statements in Paris to the effect that American Negroes would refuse to fight in any war against Russia because we love Russia so much. I haven t any comment to make except that any event of war with Russia, Negroes, and Italians, and Irish, and Jews, and Swedes, and Slavs, and other Americans would act just as all these groups did in the last war. They d do their best to keep their country out of war, if unsuccessful, then do their best to help their country win the war against Russia or any other enemy that threatened us.
Speeches of LBJ
MCU U.S. President LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON (LBJ, Lyndon Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson) continues, "We want very much to have a tax bill just as quickly as we can get it. We think the sound, prudent, fiscal policy requires it. We are going to do everything that the President and the administration can do to get that tax bill.1 (1 The Revenue and Expenditure Control Act of 1968 was approved by the President on June 28, 1968 (Public Law 90-364, 82 Stat. 251). I would be less than frank if I didn't tell you that I have no indication whatever that Mr. Mills or Mr. Byrnes 2 or the Ways and Means Committee is likely to report a tax bill before they adjourn. (2 Representative Wilbur D. Mills of Arkansas, Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, and Representative John W. Byrnes of Wisconsin, ranking Republican member of the Committee.) I feel that one of our failures in the administration has been our inability to convince the Congress of the wisdom of fiscal responsibility and the necessity of passing a tax bill not only for the effect it will have on the inflationary developments, but the effect it will have on the huge deficit that we are running. I think one of the great mistakes that the Congress will make is that Mr. Ford 3 and Mr. Mills have taken this position that they cannot have any tax bill now. They will live to rue the day when they made that decision. Because it is a dangerous decision. It is an unwise decision. (3 Representative Gerald R. Ford of Michigan. House Minority Leader.) I think that the people of America--none of whom want to pay taxes--any pollster can walk out and say, "Do you want to pay more tax?" Of course you will say, "No, I don't want to pay tax." But if you ask him: "Do you want inflation; do you want prices to increase 5 or 6 percent; do you want a deficit of $30 or $35 billion; do you want to spend $35 billion more than you are taking in?" I think the average citizen would say, "No." Here at the height of our prosperity when our gross national product is going to run at $850 billion, when we look at the precedents of what we have done in past wars-in Korea when President Truman asked for a tax increase, people supported it."