Advanced Search
JFK Assassination Hearings - Dr. Michael Baden (Part IV)
(13:30:05) PBS funding credit to the Ford Foundation (13:30:16) Shot opens with view of hearing room from the back of gallery (13:30:21) Hearings' host Sandford Ungar's voice comes in to introduce hearings and shot changes to him, he explains the day's testimony so far (13:31:37) Ungar introduces panel DAVID LIFTON, Warren Commission critic, and JEREMIAH O'LEARY, Washington Star reporter, breif discussion of the testimony thus far and what they look forward to (13:34:07) Committee Chairman LOUIS STOKES calls hearing into session and recognizes Representative RICHARDSON PREYER to question the witness, Dr. MICHAEL BADEN - Preyer wants to inquire about the discrepancy between the bullet's point of entrance into JFK's head on the original autopsy report and the panel's (of forensic pathologists) findings, he introduces a JFK head X-ray exhibit (13:35:40) Baden explains that the panel all agreed that the bullet entered the skull at the same point and illustrates this by pointing out location of the entrance wound on the head X-rays (sound is very faint and then comes on suddenly) - Baden goes on to discount the possibility that there was bullet penetration four inches lower showing that X-rays also do not support this and tells the committee the autopsy panel unanimously agreed they found only one entrance hole in the skull (13:40:30) Baden himself introduces new exhibit of diagram of the brain, an illustration which depicts the bullet damage done to JFK's brain drawn from autopsy photos, and says that had the shot entered where the autopsy designated it did it would have done damage to the lower brain, which from the illustration one can see it didn't
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:05:38) Senator DOMENICI. Let me just ask, Mr. Ryan and Ms. Kulka, there's another premise in securities trading that says insider trading is illegal, even if no money is made. Are you familiar with that? Would that sound right in terms of your understanding of insider trading? ? Ms. KULKA. It doesn't exactly comport with my understanding. Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Ryan? Mr. RYAN. I don't know. Senator DOMENICI. Let me just ask, then, in closing, YOU really have no way of knowing where this insider information has ended up today, do you? Mr. RYAN. That's correct. Senator DOMENICI, Ms. Kulka, do you know where it has ended up? Ms. KULKA. I don't know what it is. I therefore don't know Senator DOMENICI. Any of the insider information we've been discussing here, about the statute of limitations on the criminal refer 81 ral cases and the fact that the case wasn't ready, we don't know who said what to whom after that was divulged to a number of people in the White House, do we? Do you know? Ms. KULKA. No, sir, but I also know that the statute of limitations was discussed in correspondence we exchange with Members of Congress and I deny that we would not be ready. I thought we would try to be ready, and we could be ready to file if we had competent evidence underlying it. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAiRmAN. Senator Kerry. Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my friend from New Mexico, one thing we do know in terms of where it ended up, is that massive amounts of information deemed to be confidential has appeared in the Congressional Record thanks to Congressman Leach who published an enormous amount of it there. There are lots of questions about who knew what, when, and how it got there. I think the key issue before this Committee, and the Senator from New Mexico has touched on it, is the question of whether or not, regardless of whether there was an impact directly on the investigation, some improper judgment and actions may have taken place. The evidence, thus far, appears to be establishing that there was no impact on the case. In fact, to the contrary. &at doesn't exonerate whatever actions or lack of actions might have been taken by somebody and the judgments that attache to those judgments or lack of them, with respect to whether that was good judgment or bad judgment or improper behavior or proper behavior. The Committee is still going to have to make that judgment and obviously can't do so until we've heard from Ms. Hanson or Mr. Altman but those are real questions for us. There's also the question of whether I think you're helping to set the stage for our ability to understand their testimony better. I just want to put that in the context here. Senator DOMENICI. Would the Senator yield on that, just for an observation? Senator KERRY. I've waited 31/2 hours for a second round. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry does not wish to yield at this point, but we'll find a chance to give you the time you need. Senator DOMENIci. Fine. Senator KERRY. I'll be happy to have the colloquy off time if we can. I just want to try to understand a little better what the choice for the Committee is. It was your testimony that in no way did Roger Altman or Jean Hanson impact the course of this case. Is that accurate, Mr. Ryan? Mr. RYAN. I think that's accurate. Yes, sir. Senator KERRY. Ms. Kulka? Ms. KULKA. That's correct. Senator KERRY. Mr. Roelle? Mr. ROELLE. That's correct, sir. Senator KERRY. No positive action that they took, no judgment or directive that they issued, impacted your decisionmaking or your judgment with respect to the investigation of Madison/Whitewater. that correct? Ms. KULKA. That's correct. Mr. RYAN. Correct, 82 Mr. ROELLE. Correct. Senator KERRY. And, indeed, you said earlier that the White House also never impacted you. Ms. KuLKA. That's correct. Mr. RYAN. Correct. Senator KERRY. So the only issue reverting to this Committee',", least on the evidence, you can conjecture, you can surmise, you can fantasize, but on the evidence that's in front of this Committee, we simply know that Roger Altman and Ms. Hanson took certain actions to communicate with the White House but had no impact on the case. We have to make a judgment about the appropriateness of those actions. I'd like to just examine that one step further. Clearly, some people wanted Mr. Altman to not recuse himself, And, clearly, Mr. Altman himself was torn, so something was going on in his head about why he might or might not have stayed on this case. My question to you is, was that presence in any way a chilling effect on the agency, on you individually, or on anyone in, investigating it, Ms. Kulka?
August 3, 1994 - Part 2
(12:00:13) That is in no way meant to indicate that I do not have some serious problems with some of the things, and contacts, and statements that were made. Mr. Secretary, let me ask you this question: The report sent to you from the Office of Government Ethics makes this statement On the basis of our review, we believe that you might-referring to "you" as the Secretary to whom this report is addressed-that you might reasonably conclude that the conduct detailed in the report of officials presently employed by the Department of Treasury did not violate the standards of ethical conduct for employees of the Executive Branch. My question to you, Mr. Secretary, is: Have you yourself reached a conclusion? If so, would you share it with us? Secretary BENTSEN. Oh, yes. I agree with that. I do think that office goes on to state, as I stated in my testimony, that there are some troubling things still there in spite of that, and that they should be addressed. Senator BRYAN. Senator Shelby asked a question about depositions, and I want to get just a little clarification. You indicated as you talked with Mr, Cutler that you wanted to make sure that none of the depositions be released to any of the deponents until after all depositions were taken in conjunction with the Inspector General? I believe that is your testimony, was it not? Secretary BENTSEN. Yes. That is correct. Senator BRYAN. My question to you is, if you know-because Mr. Altman has testified that he had access to his deposition to prepare his own testimony before us-do you know if any of those depositions taken by the Inspector General were released prior to our 40 own Counsel of this Committee taking the depositions of the individuals? Secretary BENTSEN, Oh, to the best of my knowledge, none of them were released until Counsel for this Committee had concluded their depositions. Now I must say to you, as I stated earlier, Senator, this Committee then requested that they be able to hold those and that they not be exchanged among witnesses until they were ready. Now that is an unusual request, I understand, and I was told I had no legal obligation to do that. But as a matter of cooperation with this Committee and trying to help in the oversight that they are doing, I acceded to that and agreed to that. Senator BRYAN. So not only did they not have access to the other depositions before taking their deposition before the IG, they did not have access to those depositions until after our Counsel had concluded taking their depositions for purposes of this Committee? Secretary BENTSEN. That is my understanding. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Chairman, I hope I will not be penalized in the future, but I am going to yield back the balance of my time and hope that our C-SPAN junkies will understand our need to conclude this thing as early as possible. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Senator Roth. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR ROTH Senator ROTH. Mr, Secretary, it is always a pleasure to welcome you. Secretary BENTSEN. Thank you, Senator. Senator ROTH. I have to tell you, I would prefer to be talking about IRA's with you [Laughter.] Senator ROTH [continuing]. Rather than the Secretary BENTSEN. You know, that is funny. I was talking about IRA's yesterday. Senator ROTH. Well, I will be happy to discuss that further with you at your earliest convenience. Let me start out by saying that I do appreciate the sensitivity you have shown in your conduct to avoid conflicts of interest. I only wish that some of your subordinates perhaps had demonstrated the same sensitivity. I was interested in your answer to a question by Senator Sasser a few minutes ago when he asked you about a White House memo limiting contacts with Government agencies. If I understood you properly, I heard you tell Senator Sasser that you had advised Treasury employees not to have contact with White House officials about specific cases. Is that correct? Secretary BENTSEN. About this issue; yes. Senator ROTH. About this particular issue. Secretary BENTSEN. Yes. Senator ROTH. Was that instruction put in writing, or orally? And if so, when? 41 Secretary BENTSEN. Well that was done, as I recall, at approximately the time that I called for the Office of Government Ethic to make their examination, their study. I believe that was done orally. Senator ROTH. It was done when, sir? Secretary BENTSEN. I think it was done approximately the time that I asked for the Office of Government Ethics to make their ex amination. Senator ROTH. And when was that? Secretary BENTSEN. I think that was on March 3rd. Senator ROTH. Has that advice been followed since? Have there been any further contacts on this specific matter with the White House since that time?
August 2, 1994 - Part 2
(11:20:14) Senator FAIRCLOTH. But they wanted to replace Kulka with Fiske? Mr. FOREMAN. Senator, I don't know that. I remember Ms. Hanson making a comment about looking at the scope of Mr. Fiske's responsibilities from the Justice Department, and someone making a comment that it included civil claims. That's all I remember about that. I have no idea what the White House wanted. The CHAIRMAN. Let me just say, the time has expired. If you've got one follow-up, we're about to go and vote; then we're going to recess. If you can ask it quickly, we'll do it, and then recess. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Did you talk with Robert Fiske before he made a decision not to prosecute anybody in this matter? 352 Mr. FOREMAN. No, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee is going to recess briefly. We've got three votes in a row. The last two votes have shortened time periods. Once the voting has finished on the Senate floor, well come back and we'll stay here until approximately 1:15 P.m. That will give everybody guidance as to the length of this recess. Well be back here, I would think, within about 30 minutes. Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Chairman, do you not have a Democratic Caucus at lunch today? The CHAIRMAN. I announced earlier, Senator Domenici, we're going to take a formal recess for the two caucuses from 1:15 p.m. to 2:15 p.m. The Committee stands in recess for the voting period. (11:21:45) [Recess.] (11:21:47) Hearing coverage hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG discuss day's hearing, and talk to AMY BARRET of Business Week, Senator ORRIN HATCH and Minority Counsel MICHAEL CHERTOFF (?)
Watergate Hearings - H.R. Haldeman, Staachan, Gray
(10:31:53) Opens to Presidential Advisor H.R. HALDEMAN being questioned about White House tapes by Senator TALMADGE - Talmadge reads from a statement issued by President NIXON to the committee that says that the tapes contain comments made in casual conversation that would be subject to interpretations other than what the president meant (10:33:21) Black screen followed by test pattern (10:31:31) Return to footage, a couple of seconds back - Talmadge asks Haldeman about $350,000 he authorized to go to the Committee to Re-elect the President, did Haldeman know it was going to support and defend the Watergate criminals (10:36:00) Talmadge gives the hypothetical situation of Haldeman running for elected office and having campaign funds, donated by citizens, given over to the defense of criminals, Talmadge asks if this isn't a violation of the public's trust (10:36:36) Skip in footage - Senator Edward Gurney asks about Haldeman's orders to destroy files (10:37:50) Black screen (10:37:58) Skip in footage, followed by black screen (10:38:23) Skip in footage - Majority Counsel SAM DASH questions Haldeman's assistant STAACHAN about his being ordered to destroy documents and which ones he actually destroyed (10:41:15) Staachan says he listed for Presidential Counsel JOHN DEAN the files/documents he destroyed (10:43:00) Staachan describes his giving word to Haldeman that he had destroyed a certain file (10:43:58) Skip in footage (10:44:30) Skip in footage - Director of the FBI GRAY reading opening statement in which he gives a lengthy description of receiving files from Dean for destruction, Gray says that one of the files contained a transmission linking the KENNEDY Administration to the killing of South Vietnam President DIEM
Speeches of LBJ
MCU U.S. President LYNDON BAINES JOHNSON (LBJ, Lyndon Johnson, Lyndon B. Johnson) continues, "The leaders on the military committees and the leaders in other posts have frequently opposed it. Champ Clark, the Speaker of the House, opposed the draft in Woodrow Wilson's administration. The Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee--with the exception of Senator Vandenberg--almost invariably has found a great deal wrong with the Executive in the field of foreign policy. There is a division there, and there is some frustration there. Those men express it and they have a right to. They have a duty to do it. But it is also the President's duty to look and see what substance they have presented; how much they thought it out; what information they have; how much knowledge they have received from General Westmoreland or Ambassador Bunker, whoever it is; how familiar they are with what is going on; and whether you really think you ought to follow their judgment or follow the judgment of the other people. I do that every day. Some days I have to say to our people: "Let us try this plan that Senator X has suggested." And we do. We are doing that with the United Nations resolution. We have tried several times to get the United Nations to play a part in trying to bring peace in Vietnam. The Senate thinks that this is the way to do it. More than 50 of them have signed a resolution. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee had a big day yesterday. They reported two resolutions in one day. I have my views. I have my views about really what those resolutions will achieve. But I also have an obligation to seriously and carefully consider the judgments of the other branch of the Government. And we are going to do it."
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Joseph Biden (D Delaware). Thank you, Senator. The Senator from Massachusetts indicates he would like to question. Senator Ted Kennedy (D Massachusetts). Just for a moment, Mr. Doggett. When you were at Harvard, did you say you headed the Afro students' organization for student assistance? John Doggett. Senator, what I said was that in the second year I was asked by my co- students to be the chairman of the Education Committee, of what at that time was called the Afro-American Student Union. Senator Ted Kennedy (D Massachusetts). And that was a tutorial program for kids in Cambridge, or what was that? John Doggett. No. Harvard Business School has a program to weed out people that it does not feel deserve a Harvard MBA. It is called hitting the screen. It is one of the most intense academic experiences that they have. The Afro-American Student Union is a membership organization of black American students at Harvard Business School, and those of us who are second-years organized programs to do what we can, not only to prevent first-years from hitting the screen, but to do everything possible to make it possible for them to excel. My fellow students asked me to be the chairperson of this committee and to organize programs for Harvard Business School MBA students in their first year. Senator Ted Kennedy (D Massachusetts). Well, that is fine. I was just interested in whether you were working through the Phyllis Brooks House or community programs. Because the Business School, I believe, has a program. I just wanted to see whether you were associated with it. John Doggett. No, sir. Senator Ted Kennedy (D Massachusetts). Thank you very much.
Capitol Journal
WETA "CAPITOL JOURNAL" IN 16.46.20 ROUGH TAPE OF A SYMPOSIUM on the History and Future of Congress for the 200th anniversary of the Constitution. A panel discussion in progress on the nature of Parties and Partisanship in Congress. Rep. BARBER CONABLE speaking in the symposium, discussing past congressional leader Wilbur Mills and his leadership style. Discusses the evolution and power of the Ways and Means Committee to a more partisan and contentious committee making tax policy. Discusses the impact of communication technology-makes Congress more participatory but less efficient. Says that party unity has declined and diversity has increased, making it necessary for leaders in congress to reach different groups. 16.53.29-Next speaker, John White, former Democratic National Chairman. Talks about his relationship with former Speaker Sam Rayburn and the idea of party discipline. While many things have changed, many aspects of Congress are the same-average age of Congressmen, domination by lawyers, businessmen, WASPs, and men. The differences are in how many issues come before Congress and how many staffers are needed, and the way that money and the media have impacted elections and behavior in Congress. 17.02.00-Next speaker, Norm Ornstein, a political scholar. Discusses the legacy of Sam Rayburn and changing styles of Congressional leadership. Says Rayburn's hold on power wasn't as strong as is often portrayed. Says Tip O'Neill has much more power under House Rules than Rayburn had. Disputes that party discipline is in decline, cites party line votes on recent budgets. Basically, the old days were less orderly and the present is less disorderly than generally believed. If Congress seems disorderly, it is because there is not a clear public consensus on many important issues. Says that "party discipline" carried to excess leads to the majority party imposing its will without compromising to reach a consensus position. 17.11.38-Moderator opens discussion segment. Former Rep. John Rhodes (R-AZ) says he disagrees with Ornstein in that Congress isn't working efficiently in spite of party discipline. Blames the budget process established in 1974, says there need to be hard deadlines for getting a budget in place. Discusses some other procedural changes that could make the budget process work better. Rep. TOM FOLEY says that there is an abundance of legislation that is passed without partisanship, including Social Security reform. Concedes that perhaps Democrats are insensitive to the majority party in House and Republicans have an inferiority complex. 17.19.13
LAWMAKERS
01.16.11-Sen. PAUL TSONGAS (D-MA) giving press conference, says that any DEMOCRAT who wants to be president in 1984 will probably work hard to get TED KENNEDY'S support. Exterior of Capitol on foggy day. C/S JOHN GLENN giving press conference, says that it's too early to tell what the effects of KENNEDY'S decision will be. C/S Sen. ALAN CRANSTON (D-CA), says that he's heard many of KENNEDY'S supporters say they will support him if KENNEDY won't run. C/S Sen. ERNEST HOLLINGS (D-SC) giving press conference. C/S Sen. GARY HART (D-CO). C/S Rep. MORRIS UDALL (D-AZ). C/S WALTER MONDALE taking podium to speak for a DEMOCRATIC candidate. 01.18.11-ROBERTS/WERTHEIMER-discussion of the stampede of Congressmen and Senators into the race. Relief by DEMOCRATS that they won't be hit over the head with TED KENNEDY'S alleged moral failings during the campaign and charges of "old liberalism". KENNEDY'S decision on "family obligation" might help his image later on. ROBERTS intro report on ORIENTATION WEEK for new Congressmen. 01.19.45-C/S MARCY KAPTUR at podium, C/S KAPTUR button on a suit lapel, Shots KAPTUR with voters at a campaign meeting. KAPTUR in office, discussing her election experiences, decision to run for office herself. V.o-the bad economy and the REPUBLICAN INCUMBENT'S support of REAGANOMICS were a prime opportunity. KAPTUR says her opponent held on to the end that REAGANOMICS was working and voters didn't buy it. Lists industries with high UNEMPLOYMENT in Toledo area. Shots of KAPTUR victory party. 01.21.53-Shot through window of Airport Terminal, JETLINER taxiing toward gate. M/S Rep. KAPTUR walking out of gate. Shot of KAPTUR and other Rookie Congressmen in a conference. V.o.-discussion of the business of Orientation week-hiring staff, securing office space, and getting committee assignments. KAPTUR in office, discusses her requests for committee assignment, says her background led toward the BANKING COMMITTEE, it's a way to work for JOBS as the voters wanted. Says she will stay in Congress as long as she can be effective. 01.23.35-WERTHEIMER-intro commentary. Commentary by Otis Pike, on "Lame Duck" Congresses. Notes that REAGAN left town on a South America trip, where he'll probably get friendlier reception than from HOUSE DEMOCRATS. 01.25.49-ROBERTS/WERTHEIMER sign off Closing Credits/transcript order information/WETA credit/Sponsor credits/PBS ID 01.27.48-OUT
LAWMAKERS
14.10.44-ROBERTS intro report on the role of FOOD in LOBBYING. 14.11.06-A congressman notes that the quickest way to a Congressman's heart is through the stomach. Shots of trays of food at a buffet. An Agricultural Committee staffer says that food is integral to LOBBYING because it makes lobbyists less annoying to the Congressmen. ROBERTS v.o.-this banquet is to lobby for a resolution that makes CHILI the national food. A CHILI advocate explains the bill. A congressman says (I think only half-jokingly) that he'll give it the most serious consideration. Shots of Congressmen chowing down on Chili. Rep. WES WATKINS (D-OK) says he ran in between votes to scarf down some chili. Shots of LOBBYISTS dishing out grab bags of different chili brands to Congressmen. C/S young staffers, who say they enjoy a break from cafeteria food and aren't shy about sneaking in uninvited. More shots of Congressmen chowing down. The Committee staffer says that good food is key to getting the Congressmen themselves to show up to be lobbied. More shots of Congressmen loading up at the buffet table, this time on the Crab industry ticket. 14.13.43--Sen. TED STEVENS (R-AK) lobbies for the Marine Fisheries industry. Shots of a Barbecue sponsored by Rep. JIM WRIGHT, evidently lobbying for JIM WRIGHT. Lots of shots of Congressmen chowing down on big slabs of meat. A former Congressman marvels at WRIGHT'S ability to schmooze. A Committee staffer says that good food and drink is a great way to promote agreement and civility. Shot of Rep. SILVIO CONTE (R-MA) in chef's outfit, preparing to grate a hunk of parmesan which ROBERT MICHEL sniffs. CONTE discusses his regular Italian luncheon for House leadership, to promote some good fellowship over good food and wine. C/S of Cannoli on the table. CONTE says legislation is like seasoning food. 14.15.38-DUKE-notes that this is the earliest adjournment for Congress since 1965. Commentary by Otis Pike on TV COVERAGE of Congress-TV isn't suited to the unpredictable events in Congress which aren't scheduled. TV can't show ideas like the consequences of war, or "democracy" or "freedom of speech"-people need to keep in mind the big ideas when confronted by the individual examples on TV. 14.17.48-DUKE-gives props to the research and production staff, signs off. Closing credits/transcript information/WETA credit/sponsor credits/PBS ID 14.19.31-OUT
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of John Caulfield. May 23, 1973
Senator Herman Talmadge (D Georgia). Did you call Mr. John Ehrlichman immediately after the break-in of the Watergate on June the 17th? John Caulfield. Yes sir. Senator Herman Talmadge (D Georgia). What did he say? John Caulfield. Well, I received a telephone call in the afternoon of June 17th, which was the date of the break-in about 3 or 4 PM as I recall, from a gentleman that I worked with in the United States Secret Service Mr. Patrick Boggs and he called me and he said do you know Jim McCord? And I said yeah I know Jim McCord and he indicated, he said "Well, we've received a report that there's a break in at the Democratic National Committee, we re concerned because of our protective capabilities or responsibilities rather in that area. We have some agents checking into it, some of the people appear not to have given their correct names and we're getting a report that one of those not giving the correct name is Jim McCord." He said "Now, do you want to call John Ehrlichman or should I call him?" After I had recovered from the shock, I indicated well you go ahead and try and reach him, and I'll try to reach him as well. And I called the White House board and was told that he was on route to his residence. By the time that I did reach him, Mr. Boggs had already contacted him. And I said to Mr. Ehrlichman, I said "John, sounds like there's a disaster of some type, did you speak to Mr. Boggs?" He said "Yeah what's this all about" I said "I don't haven't got the foggiest notion of what it's all about, but they're saying they believe Jim McCord who works for the committee has been arrested in a burglary at the Democratic National Committee." So he said, I forget exactly what he said then, but I said I think it was a long silence as I recall and I said "My God, I can't believe it". He said "Well, I guess I better place a call to John Mitchell" and I said "I think that would be very appropriate". Senator Herman Talmadge (D Georgia). Who said it sounds like a disaster, you or Mr. Ehrlichman? John Caulfield. John J. Caulfield.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:25:35) Senator GRAmm, Let me, first of all, clarify things. As I always tell my children, don't argue about facts; argue about theory. So, let me just clear up the facts. In the deposition of Clifford Sloan, he says that the White House had a rough copy of the transcript by Monday, February 28, 1994. We know that they bad the complete transcript by March 1, 1994, because Mr. Podesta put the copy of the transcript in a memorandum to the file. We know that, in fact, Mr. Podesta called Mr. Altman on March 1, 1994, and we know, from Mr. Cutler's testimony, that he said to him, that be expressed concern "with Mr. Altman's omission of the fall meetings and his possible recusal as a subject of discussion on the February 2, 1994, meeting." We know that Mr. Altman was called on March 1, 1994. We know there were at least two different copies of the transcript before March 1, 1994 and we know that you watched the tape on March 1, 1994, We know that, by February 28, 1994, Josh Steiner, who was the Chief of Staff at the Treasury Department, wrote the following in his diary. He wrote "At the hearing, the recusal, in amazingly, did not come up. The GOP did hammer away at whether Roger Altman had had any meetings with the White House. He admitted to having had one to brief them on the statute deadline. They also asked if staff had had meetings, but Roger Altman gracefully ducked the question and did not refer to the phone calls he had had." Now, the Chief of Staff knew that Robert Altman had gracefully ducked the question Ms. HANSON. Roger Altman. Senator GRAmm. Roger Altman. Please forgive me. I'm sorry I gracefully ducked the question. Two copies that Roger Altman had of the transcript were available. You had watched the tape, and yet, when the letter was written to us, nowhere-if I could have 137 the letter just one second-nowhere in this letter is there any ref. erence to the fact that you hadn't bad a chance to look at the transcript or look at the tape. In fact, not only are there two copies available, not only have you looked at the tape, but Mr. Podesta, from the White House called and said to Altman in a direct conversation, "We think, on two issues, that you didn't tell the Committee the truth: One ' you, didn't mention the two meetings"-and this language suggests that he, at least, believed that Altman knew about those meetings-"and you didn't mention one of the subject matters you talked about." And yet, Mr. Altman sends us a letter on March 2, 1994, where he never, ever mentions the issue of recusal. In fact, by what you said today, on the recusal issue as discussed on February 2, 1994, Mr. Altman had said that he wanted to recuse himself. It was discussed. You say he wasn't under pressure, but yet, 22 days later, when be appeared before this Committee, he hadn't done it and he didn't do it until we asked him the question. I guess what I'm getting back to is this: You're the Legal Counsel of the Treasury Department. As I understand it, your job is seeing that people comply with the law. I can't understand this letterI don't understand the testimony-I don't see how somebody could be asked, point-blank about contacts, and they say, definitively, there's only one, though now we know about dozens of them. I don't know how someone could say, three times, that he talked only about one subject, and that subject was the statute of limitations, when, in fact, tremendous amounts of discussion had gone on about recusal. I don't understand that, there is no explanation for this March 2, 1994, letter. At least I'd like to give you an opportunity again, now that nobody is confused about the fact that there are transcripts out there. You have seen the tape. Roger Altman received a telephone call from the White House warning him that he had not told the Committee the truth. Why this letter.
JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss (Part IV)
(02:02:40) Opens to discussion between E. ASCHKENASY, MARK WEISS, and Representative FLOYD FITHIAN about the acoustic tests and evidence used in these tests (02:03:48) Committee Chairman LOUIS STOKES recognizes Representative ROBERT EDGAR, Edgar says that his questions will be of a more technical nature as he is representing his and the questions of various scientists and legal experts who have all reviewed earlier testimony and reports of Weiss and Aschkenasy, Edgar's first question is how much of a factor was temperature in the experiments of Weiss and Aschkenasy - Weiss explains how they took it into account in their analysis (02:07:56) Edgar asks if the temperature during the assassination would have effected the speed at which the sound waves traveled - Asckenasy responds that its effect would have been insignificant because of the short distance and time in which the sound waves traveled and echoed (02:12:30) Stokes asks whether Weiss and Aschkenasy can determine the trajectory of the bullet - Weiss responds that the data they analyzed provides no more information on this other than the fact that the microphone picked up a shock wave meaning the gun fired from the knoll would have been in the general direction of the motorcade (02:15:06) Stokes recognizes Representative RICHARDSON PREYER, Preyer asks how Weiss and Aschkenasy accounted for the fact that the police tape of the assassination was recorded at a 5% slower speed than it happened in real-life - Weiss explains how they factored this into their analysis (02:19:35) Preyer asks about the use of new technologies to eliminate from the tape low level noises - Weiss says that they did not do this in their analysis (02:20:49) Stokes recognizes Representative SAMUEL DEVINE, Devine confirms that in sinking the tape to the Zapruder film one would have to take into account the fact that the shot was traveling at a super sonic speed and therefore would have likely hit its target before the sound was heard, he then asks Weiss if different experts can interpret facts differently - Weiss responds that this is true only if there is room within the facts for different interpretations (02:23:16) Stokes recognizes Delegate WALTER FAUNTROY, Fauntroy cofirms new technology or methods that have not undergone scientific scrutiny were not used in reaching Weiss and Aschkenasy's conclusions, Fauntroy then asks the Committee where they got their temperature figure for that day in Dallas (02:24:10) Blakey gives the committee the source of the temperature, Blakey then asks if one knows all the factors that the committee has come to about the three other shots fired by Oswald, their velocity, trajectory and points of impact could one then determine the temperature from this - Weiss seems disturbed by the proposition, he says it is possible to do but would involve a lot of new calculations and take some time (02:26:38) Fauntroy confirms that Aschkenasy and Weiss could calculate the temperature from the above given information - Weiss says they could do it but goes on to stress the relative insignificance of the temperature in their calculations (02:28:54) Edgar jumps in with another temperature question which Weiss and Asckenasy fend off (02:30:47) Stokes recognizes Representative CHRISTOPHER DODD who asks first about discrepancies between the map used in the men's calculations, Dodd then asks if a recreation with a motorcycle, gun shot and microphone would help substantiate things - Weiss responds that such a recreation would only give you a very similar echo structure to the one Weiss and Aschkenasy produced - Dodd then asks about the effect of moving the concluded location of the grassy knoll shooter - Weiss' response is cut short by the end of the tape
John Block Confirmation Hearing
U.S. Senators Charles Percy (R-IL), Alan Dixon (D-IL) and House Representatives Ed Madigan (R-IL) and Robert Lundley (R-IL) seated with Secretary of Agriculture nominee John Block during hearing; adult Caucasian men seated and standing in BG. Rep. Ed Madigan speaking briefly on the little-known fact that Illinois is a major producer of horseradish.
LAWMAKERS
WETA "LAWMAKERS" 8/12/1982 IN 01.00.00 01.00.00-WETA credit/sponsor credits 01.00.29-LINDA WERTHEIMER-on program-report on the nation's governors. 01.00.37-title sequence 01.01.03-Shot from hillside of a LAKE with WOODS. WERTHEIMER v.o.-the nations governors are convening here in N.E. OKLAHOMA at GRAND LAKE OF THE CHEROKEES. GOVERNORS are meeting to find solutions to new laws imposed by REAGAN'S NEW FEDERALISM programs and the BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT proposal. Discussion of DEVELOPMENT in OKLAHOMA. 01.02.24-Shot of twin-prop SMALL PLANE taxiing on airstrip. V.o.-44 GOVERNORS came to conference, most like to bring their families. Shot of Gov. JOHN Y. BROWN (KY) and wife PHYLLIS GEORGE and kids getting off plane, shots of other GOVERNORS exiting small plane. Gov. TED SCHWINDEN (D-MT) says that the place looks beautiful. Surface level shot of LAKE from boat, shots of large new houses on shore, shot of WATERSKIER. Shot of CLUBHOUSE and GOLF COURSE on lake shore. 01.03.24-Shot of OKLAHOMA Gov. GEORGE NIGH wearing goofy colorful visor, schmoozing with other Governors. Shots of woman in "Little House on the Prairie" dress dancing a jig while a man and woman play guitar and fiddle. Shot of COWBOY on HORSEBACK, with resort employee I.D. visible on his vest, shots of NATIVE AMERICAN dancers in full "tribal" costumes. Shot of Gov. NIGH and wife, Mrs. Nigh rings a big metal triangle for Chow Time. Shot of a ROAST BEEF, carvers hands cut off a big BLOODY HUNK OF MEAT. Shots of governors and families loading up on grub. Shots of a couple in cowboy jeans, boots and hats dancing two-step, pan to C+W band playing. 01.04.26-More shots of festivities, food, music, man doing LASSO tricks, Gov. NYE v.o. describes the setup and events including a "Hoedown". Nigh says that it's important for the Governors to relax. WERTHEIMER-the Governors also "danced" around the issue of how to handle "NEW FEDERALISM". Shot of Gov. RICHARD SNELLING (R-VT) speaking at conference, says that NEW FEDERALISM" is a big issue, and the GOVERNORS negotiations with the WHITE HOUSE in the past five months produced no acceptable plan for helping the states to take on government functions. Says that he and many of his colleagues believe that the CONSTITUTION requires the Federal Government to do certain things to ensure equity between states, but the WHITE HOUSE is willing to allow the States to cut corners on social services. WERTHEIMER-v.o.-discussion of the conflicts between states and federal gov't. over particular social services. 01.06.16-Shot of SNELLING at committee table, says the GOVERNORS should develop a plan that is balanced and sound and send it to the WHITE HOUSE and the CAPITOL. Shots of executive session of the conference. Shot of Gov. BRUCE BABBITT (D-AZ), says the REAGAN ADMINISTRATION and DAVID STOCKMAN have "tunnel vision" about the BUDGET and the BOTTOM LINE, but want to pass too many costs on to States. WERTHEIMER v.o.-the FEDERAL BUDGET was an issue in almost all discussions. Shot of Rep. JAMES JONES (D-OK, chair of HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE) speaking to conference, says REAGAN'S support of BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT is disingenuous attempt to distract attention from his own deficit policies, calls REAGANOMICS the "ECONOMIC WATERGATE". 01.08.47-Shot of REAGAN ADMINISTRATION spokesman Rich Williamson defending the BALANCED BUDGET amendment, says that CONGRESS is the party responsible for the Deficits, they don't have the will to cut SPENDING. Shot of Gov. LEE DREYFUS (R-WI) telling Rep. JONES that he holds Jones personally responsible for the BUDGET FIASCO of the past years, says the people are tired of this and want an end to deficit spending.
CONGRESS: WE THE PEOPLE - "Senator Lowell Weicker"
U.S. Senator Lowell Weicker (R-CT) says the consequence of being a "maverick" is that he's not on the White House's social calendar too often, but he's satisfied that he can raise hell in the Senate when necessary. Edwin Newman and Norman Ornstein discuss the different kinds of leadership in Congress, both formal and informal. Ornstein notes that informal leaders have more pitfalls, but Newman says the goals are the same: to shape Congressional opinions as the chambers strain to reach consensus and pass legislation. Newman signs off.
Watergate Hearings - John Dean (Part II)
(00:03:01) Opens to the testimony of JOHN DEAN, former Presidential Counsel, who is detailing a meeting he had with President NIXON around the time of the botched Watergate break-in, Dean explains how Nixon wanted to keep an eye on the hearings involving the break-in, and how Nixon said they would use the power of tax audit to intimidate enemies in the press (00:05:15) Dean gives more detail about the auditing process and how he had used it before - Dean goes on to say he told Nixon in 1972 that the IRS was a democratically authorized agency and that it could not be used as such by the White House, to which Nixon responded that next term he was going to make dramatic changes in various agencies to put them more at the beckon of the White House (00:10:15) Vice Chairman HOWARD BAKER at length confirms that Dean has nothing further to say or conclude about Nixon's knowledge of Watergate or his desire to cover it up that was revealed to Dean during a meeting with Nixon in 1972 - Dean responds with a summary of his testimony thus far about Nixon's involvement and states that he does not wish to interpret these facts - Baker responds that Dean's testimony will be held in comparison to that of H.R. HALDEMAN, also present at this meeting, and some statement of Nixon's concerning the meeting (00:14:00) Dean begins to tell the story of the next meeting, at Lacoste (?) he had with Nixon - he is interupted by a skip in the tape (00:14:44) Screen goes black, followed by a test pattern (00:15:18) Image returns to Dean testifying about the meeting with Nixon at Lacoste, this testimony is then side tracked by a discussion with Baker about Baker's discussion with a White House aide, Mr. TIMMINS (?) about getting White House staff to testify before the Senate Committee (00:18:50) Baker calls a recess for a Senate vote (00:18:57) Voice over of CBS correspondent, shot switches to TV studio where two correspondents sit at desk with monitor behind them displaying shot of Senate Hearings room, correspondents sum up the testimony of Dean as being very lengthy, cut to break (00:19:40) "The Watergate hearings" logo (00:19:43) Tiny excerpt of comercial for Clariol hair dyes
August 4, 1994 - Part 5
(13:55:30) What I can say is there is no evidence to suggest that anyone in the White House has done anything to influence the RTC's decision process and I think career RTC people have said the same thing under testimony-under oath. The CHAIRMAN, Thank you. Senator Dodd. Senator DODD . Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This will be very, very brief. I know we need to move on. Just a couple of observations. One, our colleague from Delaware, Senator Roth, in talking about "de facto recusal" and de jure, I guess, recusal I think tried to use your recusal, Mr. McLarty, as an example where your former employment with ARCO and your status there and then the company's involvement with some issues to be forwarded compared that to Mr. Altman's decision to recuse as if somehow they were on some sort of equal footing. I think the record needs to reflect that Mr. Altman, whatever other complaints people may have, had no financial interest in Madison Guaranty or any of the interests that were going to come before the RTC. His decision to recuse, ultimately I guess, was based more on what he felt may have been a personal relationship with the President and Mrs. Clinton than anything else. I just didn't want those two examples to be left out there as comparables. That's more of a statement than a question. But, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a couple of observations, if I could, because I think the record ought to reflect this. We've seen a strong indication of this Administration's willingness to be coop- erative. I know of no other example on inquiries by the U.S. Senate where the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States and the Chief of Staff of the First Lady have come before a Senate Committee-now there are historians around here who may correct me but as far as I know that is unprecedented-voluntarily to come forward and to talk about these matters. The normal course is to fight that every step of the way. We've seen that experience in the past and for many people who may be watching these procedures or listening to them who may not be familiar of the historical context, the fact that Mr, McLarty and MS. Williams are here today voluntarily to answer questions, and I think very directly and very candidly of this Committee, is some- thing I hope the Committee will take note of as an unprecedented step. And secondly The CHAIRMAN. Well, Senator Dodd, shouldn't it be noted, too, they're here because the President told them to come up here and, respond to these questions? Senator DODD. Which as well the President deserves credit for He asked them to come here rather than fighting it all the way and hiring six law firms to try to come up with Constitutional arguments why you don't have to appear here. We've seen that in past. 349 Secondly, Mr. McLarty, I want to pay a particular compliment to you as a former Chief of Staff. This group of people we had before us yesterday was about as fine a group and I'd say the same for Ms. Williams as well, but and I think you heard that from almost every Member here. They answered directly, and honestly took steps of their own volition in a number of instances in which others, I think, would be the first to tell you today they wish they had in a couple of other instances. I think that's a compliment to you in putting together a first- class team of people. These are people's faces the American public never get to see. They probably don't remember their names today, who they were, but they're down there every day working very hard. I think they reflected well on the President and on the people around him who put that staff together and I want the record to reflect that as well. Last, and it's a question for you. In his testimony before the House of Representatives, Lloyd Cutler noted that while various Treasury-White House contacts violated no ethical standards in his judgment, it would have been better if some of the contacts had never occurred. He noted- and in fact-I didn't know he used these words and I used them because my colleague from Utah has repeated them but-when I consider I used the word "sloppy"--there were too many meetings, too many people milling around, that created some of these difficulties. So instead of going back over that, I wonder if you might share with this Committee what steps have been taken at the White House within this Administration as a result of what's happened here, to minimize this from happening again? Just from an administrative standpoint, that would avoid the kind of proliferation of meetings and people being involved in something beyond their scope of responsibility, if you will.
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(14:20:36) Even so, earlier this year I recused myself both as Comptroller of the Currency, and as a director of the FDIC from any matter involving the President or Mrs. Clinton in a personal capacity, including Whitewater and Madison, Beyond what any American can read in the newspapers, I have no knowledge of Whitewater or Madison. Despite my lack of involvement in these matters, I have had contacts with the White House or the Treasury relating to Whitewater or Madison on three occasions. I described all three in my memorandum to Mr. Edward Knight, Executive Secretary to the Sec(61) 62 retary of the Treasury, dated March 11, 1994. 1 prepared that memorandum in response to the Grand Jury subpoena to the Treasury Department from the Off- ice of Independent Counsel, Mr. Fiske. Treasury Department has provided a copy of it to the the Committee I am happy to go through these events again with you here today. The first of the three occasions I described in my memorandum involved two Freedom of Information Act requests relating to Madison or Whitewater. Reporters at The Washington Post and The Baltimore Sun submitted these requests to the FDIC. Somebody at the FDIC sent copies of the requests to me. I'm uncertain about who sent them. I think it may have been the Acting Chairman of the FDIC, Skip Hove. These were public documents. Upon receiving copies of the inquiries, I faxed copies to Under secretary of the Treasury, Frank Newman, Treasury, Chief of Staff Josh Steiner, and Bruce Lindsey and David Dreyer in the White House press office, on December 2, 1993. To the best of my recollection, I did this because I thought they might want to know about press interest in these matters. I knew no more than I had read in the newspapers about the matters referred to in the FOIA requests. I never asked anybody to send this material to me. Nobody at the Treasury Department or the White House asked me to send it to them. I never asked about these matters. And, to the best of my recollection, I never discussed these FOIA requests with anybody at the White House or the Treasury, either before or after I sent out the copies. The second occasion occurred during the week between Christmas and New Year's 1993, at the Renaissance Weekend conference. The Renaissance Weekend is a series of symposia and presentations on topics ranging from international relations, economics and business to the arts, Hundreds of people attend. I was sitting in a large seminar listening to a presentation; I think it had something to do with international relations. The President entered the room and sat down near me at the table. Because I know that what happened next is of interest to this Committee, I've tried hard to remember it as accurately as I can. As I recall, the President was reading a newspaper, and we were commenting to each other on and off about the seminar. At one point, the President said something to the effect that he could not understand all the fuss about Whitewater. He expressed the belief he had done nothing wrong, and he indicated he had lost money on the transaction. He then asked me whether I thought I could advise him. I do not recall responding specifically. Our conversation moved on and shortly thereafter, the President left the room. I assumed we would touch base with regard to his question later during the Renaissance Weekend. Our entire exchange relating to Whitewater lasted perhaps 30 seconds.
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:45:35) Secretary BENTSEN. Well then let me get into that further with you, Senator. The other thing was, first I think Mr. Cutler is a man of integrity, an excellent lawyer. He served at least a Republican and a 21 Democratic President with distinction. I think he is an expert on the question of ethics, But I also said to him, I want to be sure that this is not shared with the witnesses, that this is for your office and your staff. And he assured me that is the way it would be handled. Senator BOND. But, Mr. Chairman, if I just may follow up. These were shared with Mr. Altman. Secretary BENTSEN. That is right, after the completion of the report, afterward. Senator BOND. Well, there is a question of whether it was before they were made public and before he testified. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sasser. Senator SARBANES. Well would the Senator yield to me? Senator SASSER, Pleased to yield to Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. I think it is important to clarify this. As I understand, from what the Secretary has said, the depositions taken at the Treasury were made available to Mr. Cutler, who is doing a report, with the understanding that they would be held by him and his staff, and that other witnesses would not see those depositions. That is what you have testified to? Secretary BENTSEN. That is correct. Up to that point. Now after the IG had completed his report and after this Committee had completed its depositions, then they were subject to being shared. Senator SARBANES. That is right, and that is the next stage after the IG completed his report, then they were made more generally available. Is that correct? Secretary BENTSEN. That is correct. Senator DAMATO. Mr, Chairman, if I might make a point. I have to tell you, I understand sending the depositions over to Mr. Cutler. I think that is a closed question. But I think reasonable people could say, well you know he is conducting an investigation of his own, et cetera, so should he not have that information? But I have to tell you, for him to release that information so that Mr. Ickes' deposition falls into the possession or into the hands of Mr. Altman before he is examined here, I think is inexcusable, and certainly a lapse of good judgment, And that does not reflect on you, Mr. Secretary. I just think that falls into the area of making it possible to tailor testimony. We are asking Mr.-and we only found out about this because we are asking Mr. Altman questions, and the next thing you know he says, oh, that is not what Mr. Ickes said. How do you know that? Oh, I read his deposition. He's got his deposition there. Secretary BENTSEN. Well let me say, the sharing of the depositions was only done insofar as witnesses after all depositions were taken, including that from this Committee. Now the depositions for this Committee, because you requested it, as I understand, you have those, and I do not think those have been shared. 22 The CHAIRMAN. And they are held in a confidential status as between the witnesses until we actually use the material here in the Committee. Secretary BENTSEN. That is my understanding. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes. Oh, Senator Sasser. Excuse me. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR SASSER Senator SASSER. Well thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I want to welcome you this morning before the Committee. I know you are delighted to be here this morning. [Laughter.] To be talking about this particular subject. But as you are probably aware, the General Counsel of the Treasury Department, Jean Hanson, wrote a note saying that you had heard about the substance of the meetings that took place in the Autumn of 1993 dealing with the information regarding the criminal referrals. Was she in error in that note? Secretary BENTSEN. I certainly think she was. Senator SASSER. Now in a handwritten answer that the same Ms. Hanson wrote to prepare you for your testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, Ms. Hanson apparently suggested that you would say, and I quote: "I now believe that Ms. Hanson and Mr. Altman consulted with me * * *" that is, consulted with you, " * * in advance of the White House meeting of February 2nd, 1994, that was the subject of Mr. Altman's February 24 testimony." Now did Ms. Hanson's suggestion accurately reflect your true belief that they did consult with you? Secretary BENTSEN. Certainly not. I do not agree with that. I do not remember it that way at all. Senator SASSER. Have you had communications about this whole Madison Senator BOXER. Mr, Chairman, could I ask Senator Sasser to repeat his question? I think it is important that the Chairman hear that. Could you possibly repeat the question to the Treasury Secretary because I think that is a very important, crucial point.
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(09:55:34) We went through hundreds of thousands of documents with investigators to find the ones they needed. We used extra warehouse space to hold back our trash. I brought in professional investigators from the IRS to go through the top offices of the Treasury, mine included. We removed computers from the offices of those involved, including those used by the support staff, had experts go through them to find anything that would be useful. They worked around the clock quite literally. We searched offices nationwide to see what could be found, and my staff was always promptly available to Mr. Fiske, the IG and the Congressional investigators to answer questions. Now when Mr. Fiske completed his report on this phase of the examination, and concluded that no criminal laws were broken, I asked the Office of Government Ethics to complete its examination of the contacts and report back to me. Over the past weekend, I received the Office of Government Ethics' report. I released it to the public. And then I sent it to the President's Counsel. I also sent it to every Member of this Committee and the House Banking Committee, The Office of Government Ethics, after a careful analysis of the independently gathered facts, says I can conclude that those working at the Treasury did not, repeat, did not violate any of the standards of ethical conduct for employees of the Executive Branch of Government. I heard a Senator say something the other day that stuck with me. He said that, in this town, an allegation is synonymous with conviction without benefit of a trial or a hearing. Clearly, in retrospect, it might have been better if some of these meetings or contacts had not taken place, or had occurred in a dif- 8 ferent context. But when you boil it down, no criminal law was broken, and the people who work at Treasury did not violate the ethical standards. And no one at Treasury intervened in any way or interfered in any RTC action. The Office of Government Ethics report did say it was troubled by some of the contacts. And it raised important issues that I believe should be addressed. The Office of Government Ethics said it appeared that there were misconceptions by Treasury officials that may have contributed to the contacts. Those include a possible lack of appreciation of the difference between a Treasury function and one belonging to the Resolution Trust Corporation and what rules apply. They also include a misconception about the standard on the use of nonpublic information, and a misconception about the function of a recusal. Those are very good points. I would point out the unique situation in which these contacts occurred no longer exists. Mr. Altman is no longer Acting CEO of the RTC. And there no longer are lines of responsibility here that could give rise to misconceptions about job functions and the rules that apply. So the possibility for the jumbling of roles and a confusion about the rules has been greatly lessened. I have only had this report for -a few days. I am not going to make any knee- jerk reaction to what clearly are complex issues involving management of Treasury functions. I want to reserve judgment on that. I am not going to make my decisions in the heat of debate. I will study this information, and any thoughts the Committee might have, and take whatever steps I consider appropriate. Now before I conclude my testimony, I want to remind the Committee of one important point. The Treasury Department has a law enforcement role, as do a number of other Government agencies. It is critical that the Department be able to communicate with other agencies and the White House when necessary, Let me give you some examples.
August 3, 1994 - Part 2
(11:40:31) But I do not think the lines are clear enough on that. And I think the Office of Government Ethics makes a good point on that, and I think we ought to do a better job in defining that. And I think that is true not just for the law enforcement at Treasury, but also for every other Department. Senator KE RRY. The reason I ask it, Mr. Secretary is that at a later page of the report, page 10, it says, as a final note on the appearance issue, we should add that we recognize that having a public purpose for a disclosure does not preclude an employee from also having, as a purpose, the furtherance of a private interest. And as to Ms. Hanson, they found that she did not do anything with respect to a private interest. 34 But they also say in this report that it is unclear from the report what Mr. Altman's role in. the disclosure of September 29th may have been. And here we go to his memory about Ms. Hanson 7 and they specifically say that Ms. Hanson's memorandum-excuse me--we feel there is insufficient information to enable us to provide you with any further analysis of Mr. Altman's participation in this disclosure. Now that is why a very essential question for us here is Mr. Altman's relationship to Ms. Hanson, and Ms. Hanson's visit to the White House. And I just want to come back to it for a moment, if I can, so that we can analyze this other part of the report. You have talked earlier in your testimony about your office and the way you ran it. I recollect that you run a very tight ship, and I respect that. I think we all do. It is hard for me to imagine that your lawyer, the Counsel to the Treasury, would spontaneously contact the White House without some authorization from somebody or some notice to somebody, that she would just take it upon herself to go to the White House with a very unusual happening, a reference of a criminal referral mentioning the name of the President or Mrs. Clinton as a possible witness. I want to emphasize that. The word keeps getting thrown around here, criminal referral, Witness. And most Americans are not drawing that distinction. Can you help us with that, because we have really got to make some choice up here. Would she have gone, I mean, was she authorized, I do not want to ask your opinion, but was she authorized to contact the White House on her own in that kind of a situation? Secretary BENTSEN. Let me state that I have a better understanding of it just from what I have heard here this morning, because my understanding, I believe as Senator Dodd testified, that she went over for some other reason. And she was at the White House, and the occasion came up where she decided she could divulge that. Now that is what I was told. I did not know that before, and that makes it more easily understood. Senator KERRY. The evidence before the Committee, Mr. Secretary, is that she was directed. Well, there is conflicting evidence, but several people have indicated she was directed to call. She telephoned. The telephone logs indeed show that there was a call. They did not connect. And then she happened to be there a subsequent day and took advantage of that to relay the information she had intended to relay in the telephone call. But that she states she was doing this upon the specific instruction of Mr. Altman. Now the Committee's got to wrestle with this question. Would the lawyer for the Treasury have taken upon herself, this independent, or was she authorized to do this, or was this an unauthorized contact? Secretary BENTSEN. Let me say, Senator, that top officials in Treasury were often, often at the White House working with staff 35 at the White House and developed a relationship there. That it was not unusual for them to be there. I do not know any prohibition that would have been in place for her not to have done that. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry, if you want to pursue that, 1 will yield you 2 minutes off my next round. Senator D'Amato's in agreement with doing that if you want to take a couple of minutes to finish this line of discussion.
August 4, 1994 - Part 8
(17:15:57) The CHAIRMAN. I've just asked Senator DAmato if I could ask one clarifying question here on your point. Maybe I didn't get this right, but do I understand that the information on the meetings or. the criminal referrals, that you got that information, and it was given by the White House to The Washing-ton Post? Is that how they got it, or did I misunderstand? Mr. PODESTA. Excuse me? No, I think the details of the meeting-I don't think The Post knew about the meeting on the 29th, They were pursuing this meeting issue, and I think we The CHAIRMAN. See Mr. PODESTA. We raised-we gave them that information that there was a meeting on the 29th between Nussbaum, Hanson and The CHAIRMAN. But you realize that puts us in a position where it was given to The Washington Post before it was given to this Committee which had asked for it. Mr. PODESTA. Senator-Mr. Chairman, I actually thought that the reverse sequence had happened, That was my understanding. The CHAIRMAN. You thought it had been. Mr. PODESTA. I raised it with Mr. Altman. Mr. Altman was pursuing the matter. I was informed that you had been sent the letter. I assumed you knew all this, frankly. The CHAIRMAN. But you now know that was not the case. It was in the other sequence. Senator Bennett. Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Podesta, I have a copy of some handwritten notes from the White House attributed to Dee Dee Myers. She says "John, Neil, Cliff, met to review Roger's testimony and make sure we're accurate. John P. then talked to Roger, told him that he had misspoken. Could be misleading." Do you remember talking to Roger Altman about that? Mr. PODESTA- I described my conversation with Mr. Altman. Senator BENNETT. Is that the conversation she's referring to? Mr. PODESTA. Yes. I think she's referring to my conversation on March 1st between myself and Mr. Altman. Senator BENNETT. Did you tell him what you thought could be misleading? Mr. PODESTA. I have-go back at it one more time. I think the thing we thought was misleading--could be misleading-I don't know that I used that word with Dee Dee and I don't think I used it with Mr. Altman, but I'll describe the conversation. I had a conversation about the fall meetings, I think the answers, not to my knowledge, could be fairly viewed by this Committee as misleading, and we wanted to correct it. Senator BENNETT. And of course, "misleading" is a very serious verb. You say you don't think you used it with her but it showed up in her notes. 383 Mr. PODESTA. I'm just saying I have no recollection of using that with Ms. Myers. There were six people in the meeting, so someone else could have conceivably characterized it that way. Senator BENNETT. We may return to that. Let me go to-just a moment. Well, I'll perhaps return to that on another round, Did any of you watch this thing until we closed last night? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No, sir. Senator BENNETT. So you missed the Chairman's closing speech. I'd like to refer to the Chairman's closing speech because it goes to an issue that you were discussing with Senator Gramm. Senator Gramm sometimes puts things in very colorful language and he talked about this being like the St. Valentine's Day Massacre and nobody can remember a shot being fired. But the key point that the Chairman emphasized last night is that it happened. That is, that Roger Altman went into the White House, determined to recuse himself, having been instructed-not instructed, having been advised to recuse himself by the General Counsel of his Department, having talked with the Secretary of his Department, his boss who himself now cannot remember the advice, but others testified that Secretary Bentsen advised him to recuse himself. And Secretary Bentsen said he can't contradict that, he just doesn't recall, went into the White House with that kind of background, came out of the White House saying that he would consider it, and in less than 24 hours went back to the White House with a formal meeting, called at his request so he can report to senior officials of the White House that he has changed his mind. Something happened. Maybe no one can remember, but something happened.
JFK Assassination Hearings - The Weapons Experts Panel (Part I)
(13:29:53) PBS funding logo appears (13:30:17) Shot opens of hearing room from the back of the essentially empty gallery, hearings host SANDFORD UNGAR voices over an introduction to the afternoon's hearings and shot soon shifts to him, he introduces his panel Professor JACOB COHEN of Brandeis and DAVID LIFTON, Warren Commision critic, they discuss earlier day's testimony of LARRY STURDIVAN, ballistics expert, and debate the implications of the testimony thus far (13:37:33) Hearing called to order by Committee Chairman LOUIS STOKES and he recognizes Professor G. ROBERT BLAKEY, Chief Counsel, who introduces the afternoon's testimony about ballistics (13:38:07) Blakey gives a detailed history of the events on assassination day that had to do with fire arms and ammunition connected to LEE HARVEY OSWALD and how these connections were made by FBI analysis of the evidence, he also mentions the later critique of the findings of the Warren Commission and the contradictions they raise (13:43:35) Blakey explains the objectives of the new scientific panel formed upon by the House Committee: to identify the character and characteristics of the evidence, to resolve whether or not a Mannlicher-Carcano rifle could be mistaken for a different gun, to determine if all the rifle bullet evidence can be matched to the same gun, and to resolve any nagging Warren Commission criticisms - Blakey goes on to list the panel members names and give their credentials: JOHN S. BATES JR, DONALD E. CHAMPAGNE, DR. VINCENT P. GUINN, MONTY C. LUTZ, ANDREW M. NEWQUIST (13:47:00) The panel as a whole is called forward and sworn in (13:48:04) Chair recognizes Committee Counsel JAMES E. MACDONALD, who asks if the panel has formed a report and gets it entered into the record, he then has the panel introduce itself (13:50:00) The infamous Mannlicher-Carcano rifle is introduced (13:51:25) MacDonald questions Lutz about his experience with the actual rifle (13:53:14) Lutz gives the characteristics of the rifle standing up with the rifle in hand (13:54:11) Lutz is asked if the Mannlicher-Carcano could easily be mistaken for a German Mauser, he answers this utilizing an exhibit chart of illustrations of several different rifles, in giving a detailed description of the similarities of different guns he reveals another chart under the first with each of the guns identified (as if to illustrate the question could you have picked the right one?) (13:58:30) MacDonald asks if you can determine the calliber of a rifle merely by looking at it - Lutz says no and explains why and agrees when asked by MacDonald if the confusion of the guns would be an easy mistake (14:00:10) MacDonald asks Lutz to identify and describe the scope on the infamous Mannlicher - Lutz does so and in doing says that the scope is a cheap and unreliable one, and the gun itself is not intended to have a scope, its mounting is a customized addition, Lutz also tells the committee that the scope is neither left or right handed (14:02:20) MacDonald asks Lutz about the iron sites on the gun - Lutz does so and confirms that an average marksman firing at an average distance could get the same degree of accuracy from this site as from the telescopic one (14:04:00) MacDonald asks if the rifle has a hair trigger - Lutz gives the panel's definition of a hair trigger and says that this rifle does not have a hair trigger (14:05:18) MacDonald begins to question Champagne and introduces new exhibits which Champagne identifies as the three cartridges found in the Texas book depository (14:08:30) Champagne matches one of the cartridges with blown up images of it from different angles (14:10:40) Lutz demonstrates with the rifle how a cartridge is ejected and why it could come out slightly deformed as a result, he gives several dramatic demonstrations of pulling back the bolt, once very rapidly back and forth (14:12:27) Champagne identifies various exhibits and illustrations of cartridges (14:14:30) Champagne gives a detailed explanation of how the cartridges the panel test fired match those found on the floor of the Texas book depository - he uses microscopic photographs to explain which show the similarities in scarring of the cartridges by the rifle's firing pin and ejector mechanism (14:19:40) MacDonald introduces exhibit of unfired cartridge found in the rifle and panel test cartridge, as well as photographic images of the cartridges, Champagne uses these exhibits to verify that the bullet found in the gun matched up with gun, again Champagne does this by showing similar scarring to the cartridge, this time done by the magazine follower (14:24:40) MacDonald introduces new exhibits, among them the infamous "pristene bullet" 399 and begins to question Bates - Bates defines the term "pristine bullet" and says that bullet 399 does not qualify as such (14:27:00) Bates explains what is not pristene about bullet 399 using an image of different photographed angles of the bullet (14:28:22) Tape cuts off at the end of Bate's explanation of bullet 399's deformities