Advanced Search
JFK Assassination Hearings - Dr. James Barger
(02:01:38) Opens to Dr. JAMES BARGER concluding a statement that he helped MARK WEISS and ERNEST ASCHKENASY formulate the analytical approach they applied to his test data to conclude if there was a forth shot from the grassy knoll and that he has reviewed and agreed with their methods of analysis and their findings (02:02:10) Wolf asks Barger to explain the discrepancy between his statement in September testimony that there was a 50/50 chance that there was a forth shot and Aschkenasy and Weiss' testimony that they can be 95% sure there was forth shot - Barger gives a long explanation that because Weiss and Aschkenasy could determine the actual location of motorcycle this dramatically increased their accuracy, he also explains some other technical factors (02:07:47) Committee Vice Chairman RICHARDSON PREYER discusses with Barger his work on the Kent State case - Barger says through accoustical analysis and tests he was able to locate the locations of three of the shooters - Preyer and Representative SAMUEL DEVINE want to know how the jury in the case was told to receive Barger's testimony, as fact or speculation - Barger cannot remember this (02:12:52) Preyer recognizes Delegate WALTER FAUNTROY, Fauntroy and Barger discuss shockwaves, Fauntroy wants to know why all the shots on the police tape soundwave don't have shockwaves and how Barger, Weiss and Aschkenasy can be certain that what they see in the soundwaves is actually a shockwave - at the end of Barger's long response an exibit of the Dallas police tape soundwave is displayed (02:20:33) Preyer recognizes Devine, Devine asks about the temperature during Bargers tests in Dealey Plaza - Barger gives another long response and tells the committee what it was and how Weiss and Aschkenasy factored this into their analysis (02:24:45) Devine and Barger discuss the noise of the motorcycle recorded on the tape, how loud it would have been and if it corresponds approriately to the positioning and movement of McClain's motorcycle (02:30:10) Committee Chairman LOUIS STOKES recognizes Representative CHRISTOPHER DODD, Dodd first confirms his understanding of the correlation coefficient between the Dallas police tape soundwaves and the test soundwaves, Dodd then asks why the first shot identified on the tape does not have a shock wave but the second one does - Barger uses an exhibit of a map of Dealey plaza to explain why, his explanation is cut short by the end of the tape
LAWMAKERS
01.11.10-DUKE v.o., shot of committee panel-There were divisions on the panel, and Senators sometimes openly quarreled. Clip of GURNEY taking issue with ERVIN'S line of questioning, calls it "harassment", ERVIN pretends he didn't hear the word right, GURNEY gets all worked up, tries to spell "harassment", stumbles over whether it's one r or two, audience laughs, ERVIN laughs, makes an indirect jab at GURNEY'S Redneck-J.F.K. persona. Clip of BAKER taking a gentle gibe at ERVIN, says that while ERVIN often calls himself a "country lawyer", he never mentions that he graduated with honors from HARVARD LAW SCHOOL. ERVIN pretends to be mad at BAKER for blowing his cover, audience applauds raucously. ERVIN one-ups BAKER, says that he once was introduced to an audience in North Carolina as a Harvard law grad, but "Thank god no one would ever suspect it." Louder applause. 01.13.20-DUKE v.o.-attempts to wring out instances of wrongdoing. Clip of BAKER forcing former NIXON fundraiser HERBERT PORTER to admit that at some point, he should have probably stopped to ask whether all of the campaign activities were proper or even legal, but he wanted to be a team player in the campaign out of his long loyalty to NIXON. BAKER retorts angrily that his own loyalty to NIXON is long, but BAKER never did any of that stuff. Shot of JEB MAGRUDER (former deputy director of Nixon campaign) testifying, ERVIN telling MAGRUDER that he hopes that he can rebuild his life after the key role in Watergate, recites a poems. DUKE v.o.-it was the longest-running congressional hearing in history. Clip of ERVIN, telling FRED LaRUE (Nixon crony and conspirator) that he can't resist the temptation to "philosophize just a little bit about the Watergate", notes it's ironic that the wealthy and powerful were brought down because they weren't satisfied, and violated the laws of God and man for a very temporary victory. Notes that the COVERUP almost succeeded, except for judge JOHN SIRICA'S efforts to make the truth come out and the efforts of investigative reporters. Cites the belief in North Carolina, like LaRUE'S state of Mississippi, that the "laws of God" are in the King James Bible, cites a "reap what you sow" verse. Loud applause. 01.18.34-DUKE-the 1200 page report made several recommendations, most of which were never adopted. The big irony, three of the Senators later had ethical problems of their own-MONTOYA, TALMADGE, AND GURNEY. Introduces conclusion of "Legislative Yearbook". 01.19.30-DUKE/commentator Norman Ornstein. Overview of survey methods. Mock "Yearbook" opens to page "DEBATE TEAM-HOUSE". Shot of JIM WRIGHT debating, like a preacher, urging colleagues not to "give up NICARAGUA" to the Communists [point of order Jim, they've already GOT Nicaragua]. Shot of Sen. RUSSELL LONG (D-LA), arguing in a funny way that TV CAMERAS should be kept out of the SENATE. Shot of "Yearbook" page "MOST UNDERRATED". Still of Sen. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), Still of Rep. BARBER CONABLE (R-NY). Shot of "Yearbook" page "BRIGHT LIGHTS AND DIM BULBS". Still of Rep. GUS SAVAGE (IL), voted "least informed. Still of Rep. JOHN FARY (D-IL), voted "most lethargic" after being dumped by the Chicago Democratic machine, sealing his fate as lame-duck Congressman. Still of Sen. S.I. HAYAKAWA (R-CA), often ribbed for tendency to fall asleep in hearings. Page for "BEST COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN". Shot of Rep. JOHN DINGELL (D-MI), giving a witness a good chewing out. Shot of Sen. BOB DOLE, telling a witness that he's concerned about why REAGANOMICS isn't working out as well as planned. "Yearbook" page "MOST POPULAR". Stills of Rep. WILLIAM NATCHER (D-KY), Sen. NANCY KASSEBAUM (R-KS), Sen. SPARK MATSUNAGA (D-HI). 01.24.09-DUKE/Ornstein-discussion of the tendency of Capitol Hill to resemble a campus, with frat-like "clubs" etc. 01.24.32-DUKE-intro commentary by Otis PIKE, PIKE talks about 10th anniversary of WATERGATE, says that many people haven't talked about much else since. Says that unlike SAM ERVIN, Watergate vet PETER RODINO has hung around a bit too long in Congress, quotes a very silly speech by RODINO in a recent debate. 01.26.46-DUKE-signs off Closing Credits/transcript order information/WETA credit/sponsor credits/PBS ID 01.28.47--OUT
Waco Hearings - DAY 6
WACO HEARINGS: 3:00 - 4:03PM - Master Number 10969 - INTRODUCTION: The following footage of the Waco Hearings consists of questioning of the thirteenth group of panelists. They are: Peter Smerick; former FBI Special Agent, Jim Cavanaugn; ATF Special Agent who was present at Waco on February 28th and who initially began negotiations with the Davidians, Byron Sage; Supervisor Special Resident Agent In Charge at the Austin office and lead negotiator during the 51-day standoff, Gary Nesner; Supervisor Special Agent at the FBI Academy at Quantico Army Base and Negotiations Supervisor at Waco, Jeffery Jamar; FBI Special Agent in Charge at the San Antonio office and overall FBI Commander at Waco and Mr. Ronald McCarthy; former officer with the Los Angeles Police Department. Questions, and or statements are presented to the panelists from Representatives: Brewster, McCollum and Lantos. 15:00:02 Old footage from Master Number 10968 shows the Sub-Committee Chamber in recess. 15:03:02 New footage shows the Sub-Committee Chamber in recess. 15:28:02 Chairman McCollum brings the Congressional Sub-Committee Chamber back to order. 15:28:23 Congressman Brewster begins his time by asking Agent Jamar the first in a series of question; when was the plan for the second raid was made, and why was April 19th chosen for its' execution date. He replies the plan was designed in late March, and approved on April 17th, but doesn't state why the 19th was selected. Rep. Brewster then asks if the negotiations played an important role during the last days of the siege. Agent Jamar replies yes, because negotiators were still looking for a sign that Koresh would surrender. Congressman Brewster then asks Agent Jamar how much food Koresh had stockpiled. He answers enough to last about 2 or 3 years. Agent Jamar is then asked if the FBI used tapes of rabbits being slaughtered as a pressure tactic. He replies yes, and adds that such tactics began on March 22nd. Congressman Brewster then asks what waiting another 10, 20 or 60 days would have lost. Agent Jamar replies that the FBI wanted to retain control of the situation, and asserts to do that they needed to use gas to prevent a breakout or a mass suicide from occurring. Continuing on, Agent Jamar states that as time passed, Koresh's control over the situation increased, and so did his chances for fulfilling his prophecy. Rep. Brewster then states that the Texas Rangers were not too pleased with the way you (Agent Jamar) treated them. He then asks him if he realized their discontent. Agent Jamar replies by stating that the Texas Rangers had legitimate complaints against him, but asserts that he attempted to reconcile the situation as best he could. 15:36:03 Chairman McCollum begins his time by asking Agent Jamar to describe the sanitation conditions inside the compound. He replies by detailing how human waist was disposed of and that there was only one running water tap in the entire compound. Pressing the issue, Congressman McCollum asks if any disease resulted from the conditions. He replies no. Turning then to Agent Sage, Rep. McCollum asks if Koresh's position changed from being god and having to be a martyr to that of only being a messenger from god on, or about, April 14th. He replies yes. Pressing the issue Congressman McCollum asks Agent Sage if he conveyed this development to Mr. Hubbell, or anyone in the Justice Department, prior to April 19th. He replies by detailing the content of his memos drafted for Mr. Hubbell, but fails to directly answer the question. Congressman McCollum repeats the question, and then Agent Sage answers no. Interjecting, Agent Jamar states that the Attorney General was made aware of the offer, and had one of her officers contact a field negotiator about it. Correcting Agent Jamar, Chairman McCollum asserts that the question was, did you personally call Mr. Hubbell, the Attorney General, any at the Justice Department or the White House about the change in Koresh's attitude before the April 19th assault. He replies that he personally never made such a communication. 15:47:16 Congressman Lantos begins his time by stating there have been three primary approaches in these hearings. They are: proving that there is a vast government conspiracy surrounding Waco, identifying the kind and nature of the mistakes that occurred at Waco and connecting Waco to the Jones Town Massacre. He then invites the panelists to comment on the connection Waco has with the Jones Town Massacre. Agent Jamar replies that Waco is another Jones Town, in the sense that, it involved a charismatic leader. Continuing on, he states that Koresh was deeply concerned with having his followers die in his name, but not necessarily he himself dying with them. Mr. Nesner responds that the connection Waco made with Jones Town was often discussed with Koresh during negotiations. Mr. McCarthy replies by telling how a young congressman had flown to Jones Town in an attempt to remedy the situation, and was murdered. Continuing on, he asserts that although that congressman may have provoked the situation, he was not responsible for the deaths that occurred, just like the FBI is not responsible for the deaths that occurred at Waco. Agent Cavanaugn replies by first stating that there are no risk free decisions in negotiations, and then asserts that negotiation strategies need to be strengthened. Continuing on, he states that during the planning of the initial raid, ATF Agents were very concerned about botching the raid and having critics label it another "Jones Town." Mr. Smerick answers by stating that at Waco there was a charismatic leader whose followers were willing to give up their family, children and freedom, therefore, a behavioral parallel connection can be made between Jones Town and Waco. Agent Sage responds by stating he agrees with the other panelists' comments. 15:57:52 Chairman McCollum recesses the Sub-Committee Chamber due to a vote. 15:57:58 The Sub-Committee Chamber is shown in recess. 16:02:08 TIME OUT.
August 2, 1994 - Part 10
(01:35:08) Mr. ALTMAN. I did so, Senator Mack. As you know, I received that call from Mr. Podesta and what happened? That same day, I sent this Committee a letter indicating that I just learned about those meetings. I thought they had to do with press inquiries. The same day. I didn't hesitate at all to put this information in the hands of the Committee as soon as I had it, the very same day. Senator MACK. Mr. Altman, again, I think you could have gone into a little bit more detail about what those meetings were about. Mr. ALTMAN. When Mr. Podesta told me about the meetings, I think he'll confirm that I said to him I never beard of the meetings which is simply the truth. Now, I wasn't then sure whether it was proper for me to get briefed on the meetings, whether I should get some legal advice as to whether I should then get briefed or not get briefed. I did call in Ms. Hanson and Mr. Steiner immediately or at least speak with them. They confirmed the meetings Senator MACK. But you felt no need to provide information to the Committee about what those meetings were about? I mean., I understand that Mr. Podesta may have tried to get you to provide information not only about the meetings, but about the recusals as well. Again, the feeling we had was when he started to talk to you, you just didn't want to have anything to do with this. Mr. ALTMAN. That's just not true, Senator You quoted Mr. Podesta when he asked me, I guess it was about recusal, I said I believed that my answer was responsive to the question or it was accurate. That's what I believed. You may not like that, but that's just what I believed. Now, I just don't accept the notion that at was evasive. I immediately prepared this letter. I called Senator Riegle on the phone, told him about it. I called Senator Bond, reached him at home, 8 p.m. or 9 p.m., told him about it. That's not the pattern of someone who's trying to withhold information. Senator MACK. Let me go back to a concern that was mentioned in the transcript about you having the conversation. What was that about? Why were you all of a sudden having concern about talking with folks at the White House? Mr. ALTMAN. No, no' I just didn't know at that moment whether it was appropriate to get fully briefed on those meetings, whether I should have that information at that point. Senator MACK. Again, what was wrong with being fully briefed and then passing that information on to the Committee? If the purpose was to fully inform the Committee, why wouldn't you do that? That sounds like a fairly reasonable question. Mr. ALTMAN. I just wasn't sure whether it was appropriate, including legally appropriate, for me to immediately It all this information and my first instinct was to be cautious, but Senator Senator MACK. Cautious about what? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, the salient point is I immediately communicated to the Committee. 530 Senator MACK. What you communicated to the Committee was that there were two meetings, nothing about the meetings, nothing about recusal. Again, it seems like you were just going to provide us just enough information and that's the point that I'm making. All through this process, the February 24, the follow-up and frankly your testimony here tonight, you just give us enough but not any more and that's the way it comes across. I'm sorry, but that's the conclusion that I've come to. Mr. ALTMAN. I respectfully disagree. I'm prepared to sit here until hell freezes over to answer every question you want to ask. Senator MACK. Why were you so concerned, in this testimony here in this transcript indicated that you weren't even sure whether you should be having conversations with folks at the White House? Mr. ALTMAN. They told me-Mr. Podesta said the meetings had-he asked me what about the meetings. I said I didn't know anything about them. And I think that confirms that my response I to Senator Bond on February 24 was an honest response. Senator MACK. But you subsequently found out about those meetings. You could have taken the opportunity in these letters to, in fact, fully inform. Taking it from the perspective that you didn't know about the meetings, why couldn't you have just said, again not knowing about the meetings, but here's what we've been able to reconstruct as to what happened at those meetings? Mr. ALTMAN. I tried to use my best judgment, Senator. Senator MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished your time? Senator MACK. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Boxer. Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good morning to everyone, my colleagues, Mr. Altman. I keep telling myself it's only 9:20 p.m. in California so I'm convincing myself I'm not tired. Mr. Altman, it is my very honest view that there's some of those on this Committee who want your head on a platter as some tangible result of these $400,000 hearings. That's my belief. And if I believed for 1 minute, for 1 second that you tried to weaken the investigation of Madison Guaranty or any other S&L because there are tons of others, I'd be right there with them. So far, I believe quite the opposite. Now, 1 didn't know you before when you served in Government. I don't know much about you, but I can tell you that I believe quite the opposite is the case. You hired Ellen Kulka, a tough litigator, to handle the Madison case; is that correct, that you hired her?
LAWMAKERS - LM 057 - "Fiscal Responsibility"
Washington D.C. cocktail party; multiple former Congressmen announce that they now practice law. Robert Giaimo in an informational meeting about tax policy and the deficit. Werthiemer VO - Giaimo formed a group to lobby for smaller deficit, spends lots of time working on it. Giaimo speaking to a breakfast meeting of Congressional Budget Committees. Giaimo, in office, says people know he's lobbying because he thinks responsible budgets are important, not to serve an industry or an interest group. Still of a newspaper editorial written by Giaimo. Wertheimer VO -Giaimo's editorial became part of the budget debate. Rep. Dan Lungren (R-CA) in debate in House, citing Giaimo's piece, arguing for spending cuts. Giaimo in Rep. Jim Jones (D-OK, Budget Committee Chair) office, giving him a letter urging reconsideration of Congress' initial rejection of the budget. Jones (VO) says that Giaimo's article, coming from someone outside of electoral pressures, helped Congress to focus on its responsibility to the country. Giaimo and others entering a hall for a "Budget Summit".
Washington Week Show - WW4521 - "Partisan Fighting"
Show host Gwen Ifill talks about the disagreements between Congress and the White House, and the contrast between U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney and Congressman Jack Murtha (D-PA). Clip from Vice Presidential debate in 2004-- Dick Cheney says, "One of my strongest allies in Congress when I was Secretary of Defense was Jack Murtha, Democrat, who was chairman of the Defense Appropriation Sub-Committee. We used to be able to do more together on a bipartisan basis than seems possible these days." Ifill says that was then. Now Vice-President Cheney was saying about the war: “The President and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory or their backbone. But we're not going to sit by and let them re-write history." Congressman Murtha responds, "I like guys who have never been there (Vietnam) to criticize us who've been there. I like that. I like guys who got five deferments and never been there and send people to war and then don't like to hear suggestions about what need to be done."
Barack Obama Speaks at SAIIA Event
U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) taking questions at South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA) event; SAIIA members Elizabeth Sidiropoulos, Tim Hughes, middle-aged adult Caucasian man named Peter, and Chair of the Parliamentary Defense Committee, Thandi Tobias seated at table on stage. Adult African male stands among fellow adult African and Caucasian males and females, and welcomes Sen. Obama, and hopes he returns many times. Man credits the Congressional Black Caucus for its role helping end apartheid, but since then has consistently seemed lost; citing missteps in Nigeria and Rwanda. Man: "The African American population is larger than the Jewish population, but yet you don't seem to have the same sort of effectiveness. Have you lost your activism in the Congressional Black Caucus? And my second, very short question; Cornel West called Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell as basically servants of empire, and you also had Harry Belafonte describe Colin Powell as a 'house Negro'....I don't know whether you can comment on these two prominent African Americans." Sen. Obama quips: "Where's the easy questions?"
U.S. Congressmen Speak Out Against NCPAC
U.S. Congressmen speak out against the NCPAC (National Conservative Political Action Committee). U.S House Representatives Paul Simon (D-IL), Thomas Downey (D-NY), and Raymond Kogovsek (D-CO) hold briefing; Rep. Simon answers a question from an adult female, off camera, regarding NCPAC advertisement. Simon says he has not heard the radio ad, but the television commercial is full of inaccuracies, starting with the assumption that Democrats want higher taxes for everyone. He, and the people of southern Illinois, want lower interest rates and a balanced budget; things that he does not see the Reagan administration moving towards at all. Rep. Downey concurs with Rep. Simon. It is a false premise that Democrats want to raise taxes, especially since their plan gives tax relief to middle-class Americans. The NCPAC advertisement doesn't acknowledge that there are others proposals to tax relief, pushing only that Democrats want to raise taxes. In fact, the past ten years have seen Congressional Democrats vote to reduce taxes seven times. Rep. Downey intends to fight this lie locally.
U.S. Congressmen Speak Out Against NCPAC
U.S House Representatives Paul Simon (D-IL), Thomas Downey (D-NY), and Raymond Kogovsek (D-CO) speak out against the NCPAC (National Conservative Political Action Committee), and take questions from the press. Adult male, off camera, states that in a Republican press conference it was pointed out that the third year of their tax plan saves the average American family more money than the Democratic plan. Rep. Downey acknowledges that is the case for the third year specifically (1984); the Republican plan is better than the Democratic plan in that respect. The Democratic view is that their two year plan is better overall, especially when taking into account the current deficits, interests rates, and inflation. Downey states that the Democratic Party would be "happy" to provide a third year of tax cuts if interest rates, deficits, and inflation are within the President's targeted goal. Republicans are just ignoring 1982, 1983, when comparing their plan to the Democrat's tax cut plan; camera pans left to a group of seated middle-aged adult Caucasian men, one of which is smoking a pipe.
U.S. Congressmen Speak Out Against NCPAC
U.S. Congressmen speak out against the NCPAC (National Conservative Political Action Committee). A group of seated middle-aged adult Caucasian men, one smoking a pipe; adult Caucasian women seated in the FG. Adult male, off camera, asks whether U.S House Representative Paul Simon (D-IL) will accept any outside political donations. Simon states that he would accept contributions from people outside his district, and he has been endorsed by people outside his district. However, he has not gotten endorsements from anyone based on any one vote. This is the first time he can ever remember a group dictating to Congressman how they need to vote or face opposition. Rep. Thomas Downey (D-NY) adds that the actions of groups on either side of the extreme have poisoned the political atmosphere. Their tactics seem like political blackmail should a targeted Congressman not vote their way. He hopes liberal organizations do not take after the organizations of their conservative colleagues. Downey wants his conservative colleagues to make up their minds, free of intimidation.
Reagan Press Conference : March 18, 1983
U.S. President Ronald Reagan continues his remarks; Reagan: "That was one of the main reasons I asked these Congressmen in this morning, because the Budget Committee in the House, controlled by the liberal wing of the Democratic Party has just come up with a truly dangerous budget proposal. The Jones proposal is a declaration of war against the common sense principles that are now rebuilding America. This is a giant step backward into an economic quagmire. I'm not going to sit still for a proposal that makes a huge increase in taxes, guts our defense program, repeals many of the overdue welfare reforms that we have enacted, and adds an incredible $181 billion in domestic spending to what we've proposed. We've worked very hard over the last two years to reduce the growth of domestic social spending. The Democratic proposal would throw our budget savings out the window and turn the clock back when domestic spending and inflation was soaring out of control and 20 percent interest rates."
JFK Assassination Hearings - Robert Groden
"CONTAINS ZAPRUDER FILM CONTENT, REQUIRES PERMISSION* Lights on, Goldsmith introduces exhibits of five frames of Zapruder film. Groden identifies each exhibit and then describes them one by one in relation to the Zapruder film pointing out that it seems that Connally reacts a little later than JFK and actually appears to be turning to look back in reaction to the first shot. Goldsmith asks what the Zapruder film reveals about the direction of the shots - Groden says that JFK's head movement back suggests the possibility that a shot came from in front of the car. At Goldsmith's request Groden tells the committee what to look for as far as JFK's head movement is concerned upon a second viewing of the film.
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(11:40:19) The reason we need to do that, Mr. Chairman, is because overlaying the tragedy of Vince Foster's suicide is the unique position that he held in the White House. We've heard of his close personal relationship with the Clintons. He not only handled a series of complicated and sensitive matters for the First Family, personal and public, but lie also held the highest level of security clearance with access to the most confidential and privileged communications in the White House. Given Foster's unique position within the White House, I'm not comfortable with the assertion that the appropriate amount of sensitivity was shown in dealing with materials contained in his office, particularly when one considers that some of the senior members of the White House staff at the time had the suspicion that he might have been the subject of an extortion attempt. We now know that is not true, but that existed at the time. Let's go beyond the night of his death. I can be sympathetic to the reaction of people at the time of his death. Here is what happened several days later. On July 22, 1993, Mr. Nussbaum engaged in two important sorting exercises. The first document quick shuffle took place in the presence, but not with the blessing, of independent law enforce 35 ment agencies. The second, more private performance took place later that day with Ms. Maggie Williams in Mr. Foster's office after the Department of Justice and Park Police personnel had left the White House. The personal documents of the Clintons which Mr. Nussbaum sorted later in that day were taken to the Clintons' private residence in the White House where, it's been asserted, they were never reviewed by the Clintons. Now, having an accurate accounting of the documents contained in the Foster office is central to the resolution of many of the questions we are charged with answering. Three different witnesses have given statements regarding the deposition of a portion of the documents which were divided after the investigators from the Department of Justice and the Park Police left the White House on July 22, 1993. This second sorting took place tinder the control of Ms. Maggie Williams, the First Lady's Chief of Staff, and Bernard Nussbaum, the General Counsel of the White House. This Committee's interest in preserving the chain of custody of the documents which came from Mr. Foster's office is to ensure that no documents were either destroyed or tampered with. It's important to establish who had access to them and when and where. In her deposition to the Committee staff, Ms. Williams asserts that she was called by Bernie Nussbaum to pick up a box of the Clintons' personal documents and send them to Mr. Bob Barnett at the law firm of Williams & Connolly. She states that when she found Mr. Nussbaum, he had virtually finished most of the sorting. Ms. Williams then called Hillary Rodham Clinton and told her she, Ms. Williams, would take some personal files that were to go to Williams & Connolly to the Clintons' private residence in the White House although, Ms, Williams maintains, Mrs. Clinton never asked and Ms. Williams never told Mrs. Clinton to which personal files she was referring, Then Ms. Williams took the files, with the help of Tom Castleton, an intern, to the private residence. She has no memory of telling him about the contents of the boxes, other than that they were private papers. Five days later, Ms. Williams arranged to transfer the information to Mr. Barnett without, she says, any prior instructions from either the First Lady or the President. So her version is she took them to the residence without the First Lady asking for them and removed them from the residence without the First Lady or the President having made any comment about them. Now, Mr. Nussbaum has a different recollection of these events. He maintains that he called Ms. Williams and that she helped him for less than half an hour to identify the Clintons' personal files still contained in Vince Foster's office. The documents were to be taken to the private residence of the Clintons so that they could decide to which lawyer these files should be sent. This implies to me, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Nussbaum anticipated a serious Clinton review of the contents of the box. The third version, this portion of our investigation revolves around the statement of the intern, a young man named Thomas Castleton. Mr. Castleton recalls being asked to help Ms. Williams transport a box of documents from Mr. Foster's office to the Clinton's private residence and on the way Ms. Williams tells him that 36 the Clintons will have to review the contents of the box to ascertain what's in it.
Capitol Journal - Trade
Hodding Carter. Are there problems in the trade area that the Congress should properly address? Senator John Danforth (R- Missouri) Sure. Anytime you have $150 Billion dollar trade deficit or anything close to it. There are problems that Congress should address. Not only should address, but under the Constitution in a way have to address it. But this is our constitutional responsibility relating to international commerce and we ve got to get with it. Hodding Carter. But is approaching the House bill the way to do it? Senator John Danforth (R- Missouri). No. The House has really gone overboard. The House is has focused on a problem. They have recognized that until very recently the administration has been too passive in addressing the problem. They have decided to legislate but their remedy is very protectionist and really I think defeatist. So there is a real role for the Senate to play now I think in Trade legislation in finding a niche for ourselves which is neither passive nor protectionist. Hodding Carter. Will the Senate find a role and how can it be a little protectionist? Senator John Danforth (R- Missouri). I don t think you can be a little protectionist. I think that you can provide some short term relief for industry s that otherwise would go down the drain. But under our trade activist short term relief and I would distinguish from that, from just giving up the game which is what real protectionism is. Hodding Carter. And will the Senate do it? In this session? Senator John Danforth (R- Missouri). I think so, yes. I think after the finance committee finishes with the tax bill. We will be looking for other things to do. Hodding Carter. That s September though right? Senator John Danforth (R- Missouri). Well I think what we ll do is probably have some hearings in June and hopefully mark up a bill in July. Be ready to report it out and report it out. Then August/ September be in the position of getting it to the floor. We would hope to then go to conference with the House. We re running out of time in this Congress. But Senator Dole has said repeatedly that he would like to do something in trade. I think Bob Hack recognizes that it s a matter of moment certainly. And now that the House has passed a bill, I don t think the Senate can very well say we re not going to do anything. We have a real opportunity here and it s an opportunity to pass some responsible legislation.
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE - "Senator Howard Baker"
Edwin Newman (VO) references interview on "The Lawmakers" where Senator Howard Baker explained the transitions the new Republican majority power in the Senate had to make. Senator Howard Baker (R-TN) recalls, as majority leader, an instance where he needed to instill in his party that they have an obligation to govern, to lead the way in enacting policies, thereby testing their own ability to govern; Paul Duke and Linda Werthiermer conducting interview. Newman (VO) says Senator Baker keeps the idea of positive obligation to govern to marshal the forces needed to pass legislation. Senator Baker in meeting with unidentified Senators and Vice-President George H.W. Bush. Senator Baker discusses how he promotes compromises and tries to keep everyone's points of view in mind. Newman (VO) says Senator Baker's accommodations also includes being on the same page with House Republican leaders and the White House. Senator Baker at an outdoor press conference, surrounding by adult and middle-aged Caucasian male and female members of the press. Senator Baker says he considers himself the President's point man in the Senate and an advocate for President Ronald Reagan's policies as long as he can do so in good conscience.
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(17:57:20) Hearing resumes The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come back to order. Let me again invite those in the room to find seats so that we can begin, Let me now recognize Senator Shelby. Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson, before you came to Washington last year as General Counsel what kind of law practice were you involved in? HANSON. Corporate. Senator SHELBY. Was that office practice, or was that white-collar criminal defense or prosecution or both? Ms Hanson. It was corporate finance and securities. Senator SHELBY. Did you do trial work? MS. HANSON. No, I did not. Senator SHELBY. OK you didn't. You do realize, I know, as an accomplished lawyer, that information is very important to any- 114 thing, to lawyers, to business decisions, or anything. Basic information is an important commodity, is it not? Ms. HANsON. Yes. Senator'SHELBY. OK. Information that's timely is more important. Ms. HANSON. That's right. Senator SHELBY. OK. would you think the White House- would be interested in ' or did you think the White House would In interested in, this information that you were-that bad been given to you, that you talked to Mr. Altman about? Why did you think, when Mr. Altman told you to brief Mr. Nussbaum or call him, or whatever happened, he wanted that done? Did it occur to you why he wanted that done? Ms. HANSON. I knew exactly why he wanted it done. Senator SHELBY. Why, what was that? Ms. HANSON. Because, with press leaks imminent, there were going to be press inquiries that the White House, by definition, would receive. The White House needed to be prepared to respond intelligently to the press inquiries as they came in. Senator SHELBY. Could there have been other motivations, other than press leaks, for which the White House would want this infor- mation, or for which Altman would think they would need this information? Ms. HANSON. The only reason that I communicated with the White House was to put them in the position to be able to respond to press inquieries. Senator SHELBY. Did Mr. Altman use the word "Press leaks" to you? Ms. HANSON. It was my understanding in the Senator SHELBY. No, did he use that word, that phrase? Ms. HANSON. As I've stated, I don't recall the specifies of the conversation but that was the purpose of my task. Senator SHELBY, Did you make some notes about this for your records? Ms. HANSON. No. Senator SHELBY. Did you make some notes about this conversation? Ms. HANSON. With Mr. Altman? Senator SHELBY. Yes. Ms. HANSON. Not to my recollection. Senator SHELBY There is nothing you recollect from your notes about that conversation? Ms. HANSON. No, sir. (18:00:13) Senator SHELBY. I want to ask you this. Did you ever, ever think it was improper, as General Counsel, to brief the White House on something from the RTC that was basically confidential, something of this importance, dealing with a Justice Department-a referral to the Justice Department involving criminal behavior, possible criminal behavior? Ms. HANSON. Sir, I knew Senator SHELBY. I'm not talking about now, but before. (18:00:53)(Tape #10060 ends)
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(11:31:07) This investigation in some way now comes full circle to this Committee. Questions have surfaced about prior testimony before this Committee so it is particularly important for us to be satisfied about those questions. We have a responsibility to make certain that information coming to us from the Executive Branch is true, complete, and accurate. And the Senate has a responsibility to police the information which comes to us because no one else will do it for us. For myself, I join a couple of other colleagues in saying that there is a profoundly sad and even degrading aspect to this opening day subject. The FBI, the Park Police, the Foster family, and the Special Counsel have all concluded that Vince Foster tragically to his own life. The medical examiner, (11:31:54) (end of tape #10051) the FBI laboratory, the DNA analysis of the gun, the medical and forensic experts all agree, but somehow here is the U.S. Senate giving credence to the most insulting, degrading, lurid, and lunatic theories that people can invent, and, in doing of dragging a good person's reputation into the gutter. I think this is wrong, Mr. Chairman, but I understand you didn't ask for it. You don't like it, and that like it or not, some have asked for it and if we, don't do it, we feed the worst speculation and give license to the absurd, so we are here. It just leaps out at me that if some people had really wanted answers to the questions they have raised publicly, particularly in the other body, on the floor of the House of Representatives, and in some counts, they bad only to read and inquire. I am convinced that some were not as interested in the answers as they were in seeing to it that the questions received wide circulation. 26 This Committee has an opportunity to get at the truth. Nothing is more important. The principle that we should live by during these hearings is full disclosure, open Government, and let the chips fall where they may. That's the only way to a guarantee we fulfill our obligations as an independent branch of government. and individual Senators. I might say, though, there is an Alice-in-Wonderland quality to some of the comments we've heard this morning. I think the king of hearts said verdict first, trial afterwards, everything upsidedown, It is very clear that there are serious questions which we must ask, but we don't know anything beyond a reasonable doubt until witnesses have testified. It is important that the White House itself, for instance, undertook to correct Mr. Altman. It is important, obviously, that certain political realities could not have permitted some of the things that have been alleged here this morning. It is for the witnesses to determine that and it is for us to fairly and impartially solicit the answers and give them the opportunity to do so. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Roth.
LAWMAKERS
00.02.39-WETA credit/sponsor credits/title sequence. 00.03.30-Paul DUKE/COKIE ROBERTS/LINDA WERTHEIMER in studio-on program: effort to weaken anti-bribery laws for overseas business, Government's failure to pay its bills on time, Gun lobby hopes for weakening of GUN CONTROL. 00.04.16-ROBERTS intro report on BRIBERY laws, extended to overseas companies after WATERGATE. MULTINATIONAL CORPORATIONS say the laws are hindrance to business. 00.04.45-Shot of Rep. DON BONKER (appropriately named), testifying to Congressional Committee that billions are being lost because BUSINESS is "intimidated" by the laws. ROBERTS v.o.-U.S. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE has allies in Congress, lobbied against the Anti-BRIBERY laws. Shots of Committee hearings. Shot of Rep. DAN MICA (D-FL), argues that repealing the law would not condone BRIBERY. Shot of Rep. TIM WIRTH (D-CO), argues that American businesses should be held to high standards of honesty. Shot of ERNEST JOHNSON, member of STATE DEPARTMENT, denies that the REAGAN-ADMINISTRATION goal is to allow companies to bribe foreign governments, says the law is inefficient and impedes business. Shots of COMMITTEE HEARING. 00.06.56-Shot of WILLIAM BROCK, a Trade Representative, saying that since all businesses are complaining about the laws hurting business, it can't be that they all are part of a conspiracy to legalize bribery. Shot of Rep. WIRTH, says the only documented evidence that Congress has says that businesses are not hurt by the laws. Shot of Rep. JAMES COLLINS (R-TX), starts to mock WIRTH'S concern, WIRTH cuts in, asks COLLINS to keep the discussion to the facts and evidence, says Colorado businesses are far more concerned about the overseas value of the Dollar, other concerns. 00.09.29-DUKE/ROBERTS/WERTHEIMER-discussion of the law, tendency of REAGAN administration toward deregulation, youth of the Congress, conservatism, Post-Watergate anti-corruption laws less strongly supported in Congress. 00.11.01-DUKE intro report on delinquent payment of bills by GOVERNMENT. 00.11.32-Shot of herd of PIGS, n=150, being chased down a chute into a pen, squealing and oinking heard. Shot of a Credit Manager in a meat company, complains about delinquent payment of government contracts. Shot of worker driving hogs into pen. Shots of hogs. Shot of BACON rashers moving on conveyor belt in MEAT PACKING PLANT. Shot of meat company official, says that the Government's delinquency in payment forces his company into extended credit situations. Shot of BUTCHERS in a PACKING PLANT, CARCASSES hang in foreground. Shot of large slabs of BACON loaded into machine to be sliced. 00.13.04-Congressional Hearing Room-witness with chart argues that the Government's slow payment of contracts is routine, DUKE v.o.-legislation being sponsored to force Government to pay interest on late payments of contracts. Witness testifying, wants to dispel myths that Government can't be expected to pay bills on time. Shot of Rep. GLENN ENGLISH (D-OK) testifying, calls for laws to force Government to pay bills on time. Shot of Rep. BOB LAGOMARSINO (R-CA), testifying to committee that the government must be held accountable, statutes should be drawn up. Shot of Rep. JACK BROOKS (D-TX) chairing committee, smoking cigar, criticizes the Office of Management and Budget for being uncooperative and inefficient. 00.15.48-DUKE-SENATE did approve Prompt Payment law, likely HOUSE will do same in 1982.
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(11:55:04) On July 22, when the White House officials were searching the office, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum removed several documents and papers from Mr. Foster's briefcase, but they failed to find a note that day. In fact, according to the testimony I expect we will hear, Nussbaum gave everyone the impression that Foster's briefcase was empty. Yet there is evidence that Nussbaum was told that there were pieces of torn paper in Foster's briefcase, but he did nothing to find out if those pieces of paper were relevant to the investigation. Then, somehow mysteriously, 4 days later, someone looked into the briefcase and found the torn-up note that ultimately provided the motive for the Foster suicide, Mr, Chairman, I have the briefcase in question here. This briefcase is the property of Vincent Foster. It's from the Rose Law Firm Professional Association, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vincent Foster, Jr., Rose Law Firm, 120 East 4th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas with the phone number. As anyone can plainly see, it would be pretty difficult not to see 27 pieces of paper from a legal notebook. Now, here's 27 pieces of paper in this briefcase. They represent, if you will, an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper. If one is looking in here, you're going to find 27 pieces of paper, we've already had testimony that other papers had been removed from the briefcase. So anyone looking in here-it's pretty hard not to observe that there's some pieces of paper in the briefcase in question. Certainly, had the Park Police or the FBI been examining this briefcase, there is no doubt that they would have found the note and provided the President and the American people with the rationale for the Foster act, but the professionals did not handle the investigation. The White House handled the investigation. It's very hard for this Senator to understand why it took 4 days, 4 days to discover this note if it was, in fact, in Foster's briefcase all along. Now, maybe it was an oversight, but that's what happens when you allow the political people to take over an investigation that should be run by professional law enforcement personnel. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to resolving this and the many other issues that will have to be addressed before we can finally close the books on Whitewater and the Vince Foster death. 39 Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of Senator Murkowski whether he got that briefcase from the Independent Counsel? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, the Independent Counsel did furnish us with Senator MURKOWSKI. I made the request for the briefcase, Senator Sarbanes. senator SARBANES. When was it furnished to us? The CHAIRMAN. Yesterday. Senator SARBANES. Thank you. Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN, Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Senator SARBANES. Was this side advised of the furnishing of the briefcase? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We had left word to the Minority counsel, but I think there was a little problem in some communications. We had made some requests, but counsel did advise or attempted to advise Minority counsel that we had received this yesterday. If I might, just for purposes of clarification, there were at least a half dozen phone calls that were made yesterday by our counsel to Minority counsel to advise him of this and other matters, and during that period of time we were not able to make contact, so I just suggest this was not some kind of slight of hand. Senator Frist. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL FRIST Senator FRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last year, the Banking Committee reviewed the circumstances surrounding the tragic death on July 20, 1993 of Vincent Foster, the Deputy White House Counsel. At the end of the hearings, the Committee determined that Vincent Foster did indeed take his own life in Fort Marcy Park. Over the next several weeks, we will focus on the White House staff's handling of the documents in Mr. Foster's office immediately after his death. We will attempt to determine whether certain White House staff removed documents from Mr. Foster's office to prevent investigators from seeing those documents. The primary facts that we will be reviewing over the next several weeks are as follows: On July 20, 1993, between 5 and 6 p.m., Vincent Foster's body was discovered in Fort Marcy Park. U.S. Park Police then notified Mr. Foster's family and close friends about his death between 8:30 and 9:40 p.m. Later that evening, Park Police requested that Mr. Foster's office be sealed immediately. The office was not sealed. Instead, around 10:30 p.m., Bernard Nussbaum (White House Counsel), Margaret Williams (the First Lady's Chief of Staff) and Patsy Thomasson (Director of White House Office Administration) entered and looked through Mr. Foster's office. Ms. Thomasson had been sent there by David Watkins, Director of White House Management, to search for a suicide note. Finding no note, the three left the office around 11:41 p.m. A Secret Service agent asserts that Ms. Williams exited the office with a box of documents, a claim that Ms. Williams denies. 40 The White House made no effort to seal Mr. Foster's office until July 21, when Mr. Nussbaum posted a Secret Service guard at the office door. Mr. Nussbaum, however, refused to let Park Police search the office or inter-view White House aides. On July 22, investigators from the Department of Justice and the Park Police expected they would finally have the opportunity to search for and review documents in Mr. Foster's office. They were not allowed to do so. Instead, Mr. Nussbaum had the investigators relegated to watching him sort through Mr. Foster's files and briefcase. After emptying various files from Mr. Foster's briefcase, Mr. Nussbaum claimed that there was nothing else in it. On July 26, Steven Neuwirth, a White House lawyer, allegedly discovered a torn-up suicide note in the very same briefcase that Mr. Nussbaum had previously declared empty. Mr. Neuwirth notified Mr. Nussbaum immediately of the existence of the torn-up note. However, it was not until July 27 that either the President or the Park Police investigators were told about the existence of the torn-up note. I hope that during the course of these hearings, we will be able to determine whether certain White House staff removed documents from Mr. Foster's office to prevent investigators from seeing those documents. In particular, I hope that we will get answers to the following questions that I have about the discovery of Mr. Foster's torn-up suicide note: The first question is: When and under what circumstances did the White House discover the torn-up note? This question was discussed at length by
July 18, 1995 - Part 3
(11:55:04) On July 22, when the White House officials were searching the office, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum removed several documents and papers from Mr. Foster's briefcase, but they failed to find a note that day. In fact, according to the testimony I expect we will hear, Nussbaum gave everyone the impression that Foster's briefcase was empty. Yet there is evidence that Nussbaum was told that there were pieces of torn paper in Foster's briefcase, but he did nothing to find out if those pieces of paper were relevant to the investigation. Then, somehow mysteriously, 4 days later, someone looked into the briefcase and found the torn-up note that ultimately provided the motive for the Foster suicide, Mr, Chairman, I have the briefcase in question here. This briefcase is the property of Vincent Foster. It's from the Rose Law Firm Professional Association, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vincent Foster, Jr., Rose Law Firm, 120 East 4th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas with the phone number. As anyone can plainly see, it would be pretty difficult not to see 27 pieces of paper from a legal notebook. Now, here's 27 pieces of paper in this briefcase. They represent, if you will, an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper. If one is looking in here, you're going to find 27 pieces of paper, we've already had testimony that other papers had been removed from the briefcase. So anyone looking in here-it's pretty hard not to observe that there's some pieces of paper in the briefcase in question. Certainly, had the Park Police or the FBI been examining this briefcase, there is no doubt that they would have found the note and provided the President and the American people with the rationale for the Foster act, but the professionals did not handle the investigation. The White House handled the investigation. It's very hard for this Senator to understand why it took 4 days, 4 days to discover this note if it was, in fact, in Foster's briefcase all along. Now, maybe it was an oversight, but that's what happens when you allow the political people to take over an investigation that should be run by professional law enforcement personnel. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to resolving this and the many other issues that will have to be addressed before we can finally close the books on Whitewater and the Vince Foster death. 39 Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of Senator Murkowski whether he got that briefcase from the Independent Counsel? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, the Independent Counsel did furnish us with Senator MURKOWSKI. I made the request for the briefcase, Senator Sarbanes. senator SARBANES. When was it furnished to us? The CHAIRMAN. Yesterday. Senator SARBANES. Thank you. Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN, Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Senator SARBANES. Was this side advised of the furnishing of the briefcase? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We had left word to the Minority counsel, but I think there was a little problem in some communications. We had made some requests, but counsel did advise or attempted to advise Minority counsel that we had received this yesterday. If I might, just for purposes of clarification, there were at least a half dozen phone calls that were made yesterday by our counsel to Minority counsel to advise him of this and other matters, and during that period of time we were not able to make contact, so I just suggest this was not some kind of slight of hand. Senator Frist. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL FRIST Senator FRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last year, the Banking Committee reviewed the circumstances surrounding the tragic death on July 20, 1993 of Vincent Foster, the Deputy White House Counsel. At the end of the hearings, the Committee determined that Vincent Foster did indeed take his own life in Fort Marcy Park. Over the next several weeks, we will focus on the White House staff's handling of the documents in Mr. Foster's office immediately after his death. We will attempt to determine whether certain White House staff removed documents from Mr. Foster's office to prevent investigators from seeing those documents. The primary facts that we will be reviewing over the next several weeks are as follows: On July 20, 1993, between 5 and 6 p.m., Vincent Foster's body was discovered in Fort Marcy Park. U.S. Park Police then notified Mr. Foster's family and close friends about his death between 8:30 and 9:40 p.m. Later that evening, Park Police requested that Mr. Foster's office be sealed immediately. The office was not sealed. Instead, around 10:30 p.m., Bernard Nussbaum (White House Counsel), Margaret Williams (the First Lady's Chief of Staff) and Patsy Thomasson (Director of White House Office Administration) entered and looked through Mr. Foster's office. Ms. Thomasson had been sent there by David Watkins, Director of White House Management, to search for a suicide note. Finding no note, the three left the office around 11:41 p.m. A Secret Service agent asserts that Ms. Williams exited the office with a box of documents, a claim that Ms. Williams denies. 40 The White House made no effort to seal Mr. Foster's office until July 21, when Mr. Nussbaum posted a Secret Service guard at the office door. Mr. Nussbaum, however, refused to let Park Police search the office or inter-view White House aides. On July 22, investigators from the Department of Justice and the Park Police expected they would finally have the opportunity to search for and review documents in Mr. Foster's office. They were not allowed to do so. Instead, Mr. Nussbaum had the investigators relegated to watching him sort through Mr. Foster's files and briefcase. After emptying various files from Mr. Foster's briefcase, Mr. Nussbaum claimed that there was nothing else in it. On July 26, Steven Neuwirth, a White House lawyer, allegedly discovered a torn-up suicide note in the very same briefcase that Mr. Nussbaum had previously declared empty. Mr. Neuwirth notified Mr. Nussbaum immediately of the existence of the torn-up note. However, it was not until July 27 that either the President or the Park Police investigators were told about the existence of the torn-up note. I hope that during the course of these hearings, we will be able to determine whether certain White House staff removed documents from Mr. Foster's office to prevent investigators from seeing those documents. In particular, I hope that we will get answers to the following questions that I have about the discovery of Mr. Foster's torn-up suicide note: The first question is: When and under what circumstances did the White House discover the torn-up note? This question was discussed at length by
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:40:04) Hearing resumes: Senator BOXER. We'll come back to order. When Senator Riegle comes in, be will take the Chair. In the meantime-what well do IS continue, and when Senator Gramm comes in, we'll go back to 'his time. If there's no objection, I can take my 7 minutes at this time. When Senator Gramm comes back, we'll go right back to him. Ms. Hanson, I want to talk to you about this who le issue of press leaks. I want to start off where my colleague, Senator Bennett, was going with his questions because I'm trying to understand all of this and I really don't understand it. You seemed very proud that You had, in fact, briefed Mr. Nussbaum before the press leaks actually occurred. You said I was right. lit. Am I correct in the way I'm Ms. HANSON. I think what I did was appropriate, absolutely. 124 Senator BoxER. You think it's correct. Is it in your job description to head off press leaks, to advise people at the White House that there are going to be press leaks? Is this something that you, you ever discussed, that your job was supposed to include that? Ms. HANsON. I never discussed it specifically, to my recollection Senator BOXER. Yet you said it was for a governmental purpose Could you elaborate on that? How is advising the White House a press-what you fear is going to be leaked to the press, how that really benefit our country, our Nation? Ms. HANsoN. To the extent that the White House or the President dent-because the President could be asked a question-to the tent that he is asked a question that mischaracterizes the info tion, or otherwise would put the Presidency, the President, the office of the Presidency, the Administration, and the whole Go ment in a bad light, it is important that the person to whom inquiry is going to come has the information in order to pre deal with the inquiries as they come. Senator BoXER. If I just might say to you, and I really you and believe that you function from goodwill and good purpose that if all we were worried about was what's going to put us in a' bad light, nothing would ever get done. I venture to say, it's my feeling that with everybody's ' heightened concern about all this, I don't think it really served anyone very well because I agree with Senator Bennett. If there's a press leak, a question, and it has to do with something that happened 12 years ago, and there's a private attorney that's been hired to handle that situation, why not give the advice to those who would be concerned about it as follows'? In other words, have the RTC press office just inform the White House press office that these questions were coming, and they have to do with something that happened a long time ago, and your advice is to refer it all to private counsel. Ms. HANsON. It's not my understanding that there was private counsel hired at that time, but the White House also had a policy in place that, to the extent that information was going to be discussed with White House officials that related to ongoing investigations, the contact point was Counsel to the President. So, according to the White House guidance, as I understood it, as it existed at that time and as I believe it still exists, the White House Counsel was the appropriate contact point Senator BOXER. But you didn't work with the White House. Let me talk to you about Mr. Altman's testimony because it's troubling to me that you sat behind him and there were questions by my colleagues--Senator Gramm, Senator Bond, and I may be reiterating what my Chairman said-- but it seemed to me that when you were testifying before a Senate Committee or a House Committee, and questions were asked, you bad an obligation to respond in full, not to give a tortured or incomplete answer. Now, you were there, and in your mind, you made a mental note, "We've got to go back." What does that mean, "We've got to go back"? How many days were you going to take? You knew that you bad informed Mr. Nussbaum about the referrals. Is that correct? You sat there knowing that, Ms. HANsON. As I stated, at that time, as I sat there, I realized that I had not thought-we had not prepared Mr. Altman. The en 125 tire preparation focus was on the civil investigation that was underway at that time, the statute of limitations issue, the Vacancy Act issue, as it related to Mr. Altman. Senator BOXER. I'm going to interrupt you here, if I might, for just a minute, because I think that is a tortured answer. When Senator Gramm asked his question, he didn't make a distinction. He just asked Mr. Altman if he, or any member of his staff, had discussed anything to do with Whitewater, but, yet in your mind, you only heard civil investigation. I don't understand how a reasonable person would interpret the question in that fashion.
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(22:55:14) The White House is required to respond to numerous press inquiries that concern both the official acts and past private behavior of the President and the First Family. It is important that the White House be in a position to disseminate accurate information ''to the public to ensure that spurious or inaccurate allegations concerning the President are dealt with promptly and appropriately. That's our job, in part. Otherwise, confidence in the President and in the Presidency could be undermined without justification. The September 29 meeting furthered this public purpose. There have been suggestions at this inquiry that you're conduct ing, that assisting the White House to prepare itself to respond to press inquiries- about an investigation in which the President is ,named only as a potential witness--does not further a necessary "And important public purpose. -What this argument overlooks is the special problems the President faces and the unique responsibilities he has, problems and responsibilities not faced or borne by anyone else. The President, for example, is much more likely than anyone else be the subject of leaks. He is the focus of overwhelming media attention. He is the target of opponents who feel no hesitancy in misusing or distorting leaked information in an effort to discredit And, of course, he is required to continue to act, at the same time, at home and abroad, as the Nation's Chief Executive Officer. 476 In its recent report, the OGE-this report came out after my testimony before the House Banking Committee-the OGE recognizes that "the question of whether Ms. Hanson's disclosure [of the criminal referral] served an official interest raises a unique issue about the nature of the Off-ice of the President." It goes on to say that 44 matters that would be of only personal significance for other Executive Branch officials may take on official significance when the President of the United States is involved. White House staff has long been used in addressing press inquiries regarding essentially personal matters involving the President and the First Lady." And it concludes that dealing with press inquiries regarding the President's and First Lady's personal lives, including any involvement they may have had with Madison, is a proper White House function. I would also commend to you an article in yesterday's Washington Post by Mr. Cutler, my successor, entitled "Heads-Up History." Citing examples from the Administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, he demonstrates how customary it has been for Government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities to inform the White House whenever a criminal investigation is launched that involves high Administration officials or the President himself And one reason for this line of precedent is expressed as follows by Mr. Cutler: "The President is the heart and brain of the Executive Branch. Like a hospital patient undergoing tests, he is monitored by a host of journalists who watch his every move and bombard him with questions. An unanswered question can be a story in itself, especially when it contains a hint of possible scandal. Presidents simply cannot afford to be uninformed or taken off guard," In sum, with respect to this issue, both history as reflected Mr. Cutler's article, and the OGE report of this past week clearly support the position that to inform the White House that the President may be a witness in a criminal referral-a referral almost certain to leak-serves a legitimate public purpose. It is a proper White House function to help the President to prepare himself, to respond accurately and promptly to press inquiries, to defend himself against misinformation and disinformation. Second, regarding the October 14th meeting, Treasury officials advised us of a press inquiry that they had already received and their plans for responding to it. By providing that information, the Treasury officials were assisting the White House In understanding the nature of the press' interest so that the White house could prepare itself to respond to further inquiries. This, as I have stated, is a necessary and important public purpose. There have been suggestions in this hearing that the limited information conveyed at the September 29 and October 14 meetings should not have been conveyed because it could have been put to an improper use. That is true of virtually all the information the White House receives on numerous matters and it is true, of course, of information received from time-to-time by other branches of Government. ` 477
August 2, 1994 - Part 10
(00:20:17) Senator SARBANES. To respond very specifically to your question - because I have here now the two volumes from the OGE. Apparently they did take depositions of a number of the White House people including Eggleston, Gearan, Ickes, Lindsey, McLarty, Nuss- baum, Sloan, Stephanopoulos and Williams, so they're in these volumes and they did take their depositions. Senator DOMENICI. I was misinformed, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm. GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to spend any time ask a question on it, but since it's been raised I want read two statements from this so- called ethics report. One is Senator DODD. What do you mean, "so- called ethics report"? Senator GRAMM. Well, if you wish, this ethics report. OK Let me read the statements. "We believe that you could conclude that the Senator DAMATO. How come you get to be so outraged all the time? 512 Senator GRAMM. Let me just read two statements. I'll get my questions. "We believe that you could conclude that the appearance ciple was not violated by Ms. Hanson's disclosure." That is est standard that you could set. You could conclude that it violated. They don't conclude it wasn't violated. They just say could conclude. Second, they say "we feel there is insufficient information to en- able us to provide you with any further analysis of Mr. Altman's participation in this disclosure if any." If this is a fig leaf, it's mighty small fig leaf. Now, let me go back to Mr. D'Amato's point and make several quick points that are important. If the issue of whether or not Mr Altman told this Committee something that was not true is not rel- evant, I wonder what is. Whether you are a Democrat or Repub- lican, no matter who your I loyalties are to, it is a relevant issue here as to whether a witness before this Committee tells the truth. We have established here at several different points that, in fact, the truth was not told to this Committee, Since Mr. D'Amato speaks in a strange dialect that some of us have trouble understanding, maybe it wasn't clear what be was saying, but for the rest of the country, let me translate. What he was saying is this: He asked a question. Did anyone request this meeting to which Mr. Altman referred? Mr. Altman is on the record saying, and I quote, "I requested the meeting." Then Mr. D'Amato says, "was there any other meeting that may have been requested?" To which Mr. Altman says, "no." Now, it is true that Mr. D'Amato's next statement, which Mr. D'Amato said in a question, was, "there was no other meeting that you were aware of that the White House Counsel requested?" The point is, that Mr. D'Amato never uttered that word about the White House until you first-had said, "no." So unless you have the a ability to look into Mr. D'Amato's mind you could never have known that he was going to say anything about the White House, which is your change in the question. That could not have been known by you in advance. But even if it could have been known, even if your mental Powers allowed you to look into Mr. D'Amato's mind, then Mr. Domenici subsequently it asked you directly, when you kept using this evasive term about substantive contact"-and we're not talking about meetings here, we're talking about contacts. And Senator Domenici says you're not suggesting there were any other contacts. He's not saying anything about the White House setting them up or who- ever was setting them up. And you say, "no." That is why Mr. D'Amato's statement is very, very important. submit that we are wasting our time, and we're wasting the air waves of the Nation, if it is not relevant when a witness tells us something that is not so. Now 2 hours ago when I had the floor Mr. ALTMAN. May I respond to that? Senator GRAMM, If you would do it very briefly. Senator DODD. If my colleague would yield just on the one point, I never said it wasn't relevant. My point simply was that I thought two people could draw different conclusions. 513 Senator GRAMM. They couldn't on three occasions, though, Chris. On three occasions, there was a point blank question. But I don't yield. I've got some things that I want to develop in the short time I have. I'm sorry, I love my colleagues. If, Mr. Altman, you could give me a short answer.
Watergate Hearings - Statement of John J Caulfield May 22, 1973
John Caulfield. In the spring of 1971 I began to notice that for some reason the amount of investigative work handled by Mr. Ulasewicz through me had diminished. Much of the talk around the White House was beginning to censor more and more on the 1972 Presidential Election and I began to examine ways in my mind in which I might become involved. Since I had performed security duties in the 1968 election campaign and realizing some of the security demands of a presidential campaign, I wished to become involved in the security area of the campaign. Toward that end I composed a memorandum suggesting that an outside security capability be formed to handle the demands of the 1972 campaign. Such an organization would have the capability to perform various security functions to ensure the security of the traveling staff, the committee to re-elect the president headquarters, the convention site and would employ various guards and security people. In short, I was suggesting the formation of a capability to cover the security needs of a presidential campaign. The name I gave to this suggested operation was "Sandwedge". I further suggested that I leave the White House staff and set up this security entity if it were approved and suggested a budget of approximately three hundred to four hundred thousand dollars. I gave the memorandum to Mr. Dean. I got the strong impression from him that it went to higher levels, but I have knowledge of who saw it.