Advanced Search
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(19:45:35) Senator DODD. I don't disagree with that. I'm saying if you're ana question, you've been a witness, I've been a witness, and say let me look at my notes as I answer you, or in a trial you ,tauve the right to look at your notes to refresh your memory. So the fact that you have, you've been over them, the fact that you're re 426 sponding to a question and your lawyer says, guess, do your when we're now down to an important matter in this matter I like to rely on a guess, that's why I went over the distinction between a concluded claim and a protective claim. I appreciate you reading into the record because our witnesses do have an opportunity-we're on a tight schedule but nonetheless, they have a right to come back if they didn't like it and be deposed. The CHAIRMAN. Absolutely. Senator Shelby. Mr. ICKES. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make clear here. I think the statement read by the Senator is a little out of context. If you go to the preceding page, page 86 Senator DODD. Which Senator are you talking about now? Mr. ICKES. Senator Domenici. I think if you read the lead-in that, on line (19:46:38)(tape #10094 ends) 17, page 86. Question: Did anyone keep notes or records of the White House response group meetings? First, let me ask were official records of the White House Whitewater response team kept? Answer: No. Question: Was someone required to take notes? Answer: No, Then the following question. So I think the-the following aspect that was already read. So I think that the notes referred to on page 87 referred to notes that were taken in connection or not taken in connection with the Whitewater response team. In any event, the fact of the matter is I was not permitted by the Senate Counsel to review this one page of notes that I had taken during the--or in connection with the meeting on February 2nd. And those notes make very clear that one of the things that was being discussed, one of the alternatives was to commence litigation to preserve a claim. The CHAIRMAN. Let me just stop you there. Is it my understanding when you use the phrase protective suit-protective claim, you using that as another way of expressing point B on your notes, where it says "or, B, commence litigation to preserve claim"? Mr. ICKES. It is, Senator. It's just a different phrasing. The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to understand your use of the word, and so even though it doesn't say protective claim here, and you've used that, you're using that interchangeably with the words on line B. Mr. ICKES. That's correct, Senator, The CHAIRMAN, Senator Shelby, Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know some of this has been gone over, and I tried to get into it, but I'm going to 90 into it one more time. Mr. Podesta, on the 24th-I believe it was the 24th of February when Mr. Altman testified at the oversight hearing of the Banking Committee, this Committee. You were at the White House that day, were you not? Mr. PODESTA. I was. Senator SHELBY. You did not come up to the Committee hearing. Mr. PODESTA. I did not, Senator SHELBY. Mr. Eggleston, as you well know, testified that he called you at the White House, He ran out of here, ran out of the room-I believe it was the other room but in this building, Dirksen Building, and he knew immediately, although he was seat- 427 ed near the back of the room, that something had gone wrong, in other words, that Mr. Altman was not forthcoming, was not candid and he called like an emergency call, and he said he called you. Do you recall the call? Mr. PODESTA. Senator, I don't believe I received that call. Senator SHELBY. Could it have been someone in your office? Mr. PODESTA. It could have been. Perhaps I could explain. I spent virtually the entire day in meetings with the FBI and later with some phone company representatives on some legislation that is now working its way through Congress to help update the Wiretap Act. I don't believe I was available to receive the call. He could have called my deputy, Mr. Stern. Senator SHELBY. Wasn't that call sort of like an SOS call? It was an emergency call there to the White House. Mr. PODESTA. I was not paged-I don't think-I wouldn't describe it that way. I did say, and I think in my testimony, that I think the next day, Mr. Eggleston was concerned about this, and he came and saw me. Senator SHELBY. What did he say to you? He came to see you Mr. PODESTA. He was concerned that the subject-in Mr. Altman's recounting of the meeting on February 2nd, the subject of recusal was not mentioned in his testimony on the 24th, and he was concerned about that. Senator SHELBY. Did he say that you all were going to have to control this some way? You're going to have to rehabilitate Mr. Altman's or supplement his testimony?
Watergate Hearings - Jack Caulfield & Bernard Barker
(03:41:48) Opens to testimony of JACK S. CAULFIELD, Former White House Aide, who tells the story of how he joined the Nixon administration, it is a detailed history that involves his relationship with them in different employment capacities (03:42:56) Funny audience shot (03:45:22) Skip in footage - Caulfield now is talking about his contact with JAMES McCORD after McCord's arrest for the Watergate break-in, first via the phone, then via a letter from James which says that the White House is determined to make the CIA take the fall for Watergate and this is bad for everyone involved (03:46:23) Shot falls on McCord in the audience who seems uncomfortable (03:47:32) Image flips out, blinks and sounds cuts off (03:47:48) Caulfield gives a long explanation of how the White House offer was conveyed to McCord that if he plead guilty he would recieve clemency, financial support for his family, and rehabilitation in the form of a job once out of the joint (03:50:15) Caulfield gives a detailed explanation of how his meeting with McCord on the George Washington Parkway in Virginia was set up over the phone (03:52:30) Caulfield describes the actual meeting which took place in his car, he gives some good dramatic quotations of McCord who describes himself as independent minded, and that if one person goes to jail he feels all must follow, including people he knows who are involved but haven't been exposed, Caulfield quotes McCord as saying: "I can take care of my family. I don't need any jobs, I want my freedom" (During this testimony the camera closes in on McCord who seems to be in more pain with every word said) (03:54:30) Skip in footage - More Caulfield who then is quickly cut off (03:54:41) Another funny crowd shot (03:54:55) Assistant Chief Counsel JAMES HAMILTON confirms BERNARD BARKER's participation in the Watergate and Dr. ELLSBERG's Psychiatry office break-ins and that these operations were led by E. HOWARD HUNT, Hamilton also confirms that Barker participated with Hunt in the Bay of Pigs invasion (03:56:35) Barker explains why he didn't receive pay for these operations, he tells the committee they were presented to him as issues of national security (03:57:54) Hamilton asks if Barker participated in these operations with the hope of gaining support for his mission to liberate Cuba - Barker answers it was the main motivation of him, Mr. STURGIS, Mr. MARTINEZ, and Mr. GONZALES (03:58:20) Hamilton confirms that it was Barker's job to find documents to photograph and that it was Mr. Martinez's job to photograph them, he then asks what sort of documents they were looking for - Barker responds that they were looking for documents of campaign contributions from Cuba to KENNEDY and MCGOVERN (03:59:45) Hamilton asks Barker about the lawyers that showed up at the cells of Watergate crew after their arrest - Barker tells the committee nobody to his knowledge that was part of the crew called them and he did not know them (04:00:31) Hamilton asks Barker about monies received from Mrs. Hunt - Barker gives dollar totals and dates as to when he received the money and is cut off
Watergate Hearings - John Mitchell and John Dean
(08:11:10) Opens to Campaign Director JOHN MITCHELL describing a phone conversation he had with President NIXON on June 20, 1972 about the botched Watergate break-in in which he says Nixon told him it was ridiculous he didn't have more control over his employees, Mitchell then goes on to list other phone conversations he had with White House associates after the break-in hit the press (08:15:35) Senator HERMAN TALMADGE and Mitchell discuss a discrepancy between Mitchell's testimony and that of JAMES MAGRUDER over whether or not Mitchell requested that the Attorney General be contacted to get Watergate burglar JAMES McCORD out of jail (08:17:12) Skip in footage - Mitchell is asked why Nixon did not waive executive privilidge (08:18:29) Two consecutive skips in footage, back 10 seconds - Talmadge asks Mitchell if he had recommended against Dean's testimony before a grand jury - Mitchell reponds yes, that if Dean had dones so it would have revealed all the White House horrors (08:20:28) Talmadge asks Mitchell if he made the statement, as alleged by witness JOHN DEAN, that the Watergate operation would be at least a few times removed from White House responsibility - Mitchell denies this statement, his denial is cut off by a skip in the footage (08:20:59) Skip in footage - Mitchell and his counsel review court documents (08:21:36) Skip in footage, color intensifies - Testimony of John Dean in which he gives a great description of GORDON LIDDY's sales pitch to him, Magruder, and Mitchell about dirty campaign tactics he could put into action which include mugging and kidnapping squads to eliminate demonstration leaders, prostitutes for information reconaissance and to compromise the opposition, and surveilance and interception of transmitted audio information (08:24:30) Dean decribes Mitchell's reaction to Liddy's presentation, Dean says Mitchell told Liddy his plans were too expensive and over-blown, that he should come back with a revised plan and that Mitchell was most interested in combatting demonstrations - Dean adds that he thought this was the end of any such plan (08:25:55) Dean describes his encounter with a second meeting with G. GORDON LIDDY, Magruder, and Mitchell in which Liddy was presenting his revised intelligence plan, Dean says he told the meeting to disband as it was inappropriate and dangerous that it was being held in the office of the Attorney General (Mitchell) - Dean adds that he does not know who continued to pursue Liddy's plans, he says he himself wanted no part in them (08:27:22) Dean describes a meeting he had with Presidential Advisor H.R. HALDEMAN in which he told him about Liddy's plans and how he rejected them as the wrong way of doing things (08:28:09) Skip in footage - quick seen of Committee Chairman SAMUEL ERVIN being questioned by reporters outside the hearings room (08:28:22) Several skips in footage (08:28:29) Unidentified man confirms Vice Chairman HOWARD BAKER's question that Nixon knew by June 20, 1972 that members of the Committee to Re-elect the President were involved in the Watergate break-in (08:28:42) Skip in footage - above unidentified man speaks of someone's contact with Liddy and the Justice Department after the break-in (08:29:23) Two more skips in footage and tape ends
LAWMAKERS
03.10.55-WETA credit/sponsor credits/title sequence 03.11.47-PAUL DUKE in studio; on program: unfinished business in Congress, effort to curb power of FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, Federal DRUNK DRIVING legislation, Sen. JEREMIAH DENTON (D-Ala.). 03.12.14-Shot of CONGRESSMEN entering HOUSE chamber, Shot of TIP O'NEILL taking place on rostrum, gavelling house to order. Shot of Rep. SYLVIO CONTE arguing for quick passage of an appropriations bill. Shot of Rep. TED WEISS (D-NY), argues that REAGAN'S policies are "theater of the absurd". DUKE v.o.-REAGAN has vetoed a bill that would set caps on government spending for political reasons, to try to blame the BAD ECONOMY on CONGRESS. Shot of Rep. FLOYD FITHIAN (D-IN), says REAGAN wants to use the media to distract people from the country's true problems. Shots of other Congressmen in debate. 03.13.40-Shot of a congressman arguing that REAGAN won't spend money on AMERICANS, but will give billions to foreign governments and RIGHT-WING DICTATORSHIPS. Shot of TIP O'NEILL addressing HOUSE, asks whether the POOR and NEEDY have been hurt enough. Shot of Rep. ANTHONY MOFFETT (D-CT), says that aid for SCHOOL LUNCHES and PREGNANT WOMEN is being sacrificed to aid a DICTATOR in PAKISTAN. Shot of Rep. ROBERT MICHEL. Shots of other Congressmen in debate. 03.14.44-Shot of a REPUBLICAN, says that REAGAN'S ploy of playing "chicken" with CONGRESS on appropriations veto is shameful, it hurts all the government employees who are working at their jobs even though they aren't sure if they are going to get paychecks. Shot of Rep. JOHN ROUSSELOT (R-CA), says REAGAN was right to veto, blames the DEMOCRATS for trying to spend too much. Shot of Rep. BOB WALKER (R-PA), blames "liberals" for spending too much. 03.15.52-Shot of Rep. ED BETHUNE (R-Ark.), says that CONGRESS needs to fix its budget process. Shot of Rep. J.J. PICKLE (D-TX), agreeing that the process needs to be streamlined, Congress needs to have the discipline to get budgets passed. Shot of TIP O'NEILL walking off rostrum. DUKE v.o.-after debate, vote failed to overturn REAGAN'S veto of the appropriations bill. Shot of Rep. ROBERT MICHEL, says he expects CONGRESS to be more productive after the Thanksgiving holiday. 03.07.10-DUKE in studio; intro report on lobbying pressure by ANTI-DRUNK DRIVING groups, action in CONGRESS on DRUNK DRIVING LAWS. 03.17.58-Shot of BOB DOLE in SENATE COMMITTEE meeting, talks about DRUNK DRIVING DEATH statistics, need to make laws against it. Shots of SENATORS, witnesses telling stories about DRUNK DRIVERS killing loved ones. Shot of a Senator wearing a MADD button. Shot of Sen. CLAIBORNE PELL (D-RI), testifying to committee about his interest, having two aides killed by DRUNK DRIVERS. 03.20.22-Shot of Rep. MICHAEL BARNES, arguing that federal government should require states to increase DUI penalties, withhold highway funds from those that don't. DUKE v.o.-issue of STATES RIGHTS a concern. Shot of DOLE, arguing against compelling STATES to act, grounds of FEDERALISM. Shot of REAGAN ADMINISTRATION HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY administrator, arguing REAGAN line of decentralizing power. Shot of MARYLAND STATE TROOPERS testifying that most people don't understand how serious DRUNK DRIVING is. 03.22.26-DUKE-disc. of citizen pressure growing, push by CONGRESS to formulate a comprehensive plan to deal with DRUNK DRIVING.
LAWMAKERS
13.12.39-Shots of hearing of SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE, BOB DOLE presiding. DOLE says Congress doesn't want to deal with the issue, says the committee might reject it. Shot of Sen. PAT MOYNIHAN, conferring with aide. Shot of Sen. DAVID BOREN (D-OK), says that if administration's goal is to fight racial discrimination, why did the TAX EXEMPTIONS come first in policy? Shot of TREASURY OFFICIAL testifying, gives lame response. Shot of Sen. PAT MOYNIHAN (D-NY), confronts witness with a memo that he wrote, says there's not a word to suggest that REAGAN ADMINISTRATION disapproves of SEGREGATED SCHOOLS. WERTHEIMER-revealed documents show a debate, with half of the CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION attorneys dissenting from the ADMINISTRATION. 13.14.40-Shot of HOUSE COMMITTEE. Shot of Prof. LAURENCE TRIBE (HARVARD LAW), says ADMINISTRATION'S position is wrong with respect to the law. Shot of Rep. SAM GIBBONS (D-FL), wonders if CONGRESS needs to enact new laws. TRIBE says no. GIBBONS wonders what REAGAN should do, TRIBE says REAGAN ADMINISTRATION should admit they're on the wrong side of the law. 13.15.42-WERTHEIMER-appears that both houses of CONGRESS are moving away from the REAGAN proposal, hopes that the SUPREME COURT will decide the issue so they don't have to vote on it. 13.16.10-DUKE-intro report on "NEW FEDERALISM" debate-sending lots of SOCIAL PROGRAMS from FEDERAL authority back to the STATE GOVERNMENTS. COKIE ROBERTS reports-DEMOCRATS say that "NEW FEDERALISM" is a smokescreen to distract public from the UNEMPLOYMENT, DEFICITS, caused by REAGANOMICS. 13.16.49-Shot of REAGAN'S BUDGET GURU (and shrewd manipulator of accounting procedures) DAVID STOCKMAN testifying for Committee of Senate. Shot of Sen. TOM EAGLETON (D-MO), says "New Federalism" is a diversion. Shot of Sen. DAVID DURENBERGER (R-MN), says DEMOCRATS who criticize the plan have no better idea to balance the budget, but always complain about the DEFICIT. Shot of JOHN GLENN (D-OH), rips into STOCKMAN for his deceptions to Congress about the prospects of REAGANOMICS [deliberately cooked the books to show that TRICKLE-DOWN would penetrate to lower economic strata when he knew full well that it would not]. Asks STOCKMAN why the Senate should believe him this year. STOCKMAN defends himself. 13.18.49-Shot of committee at bench. Shot of Sen. CARL LEVIN (D-MI), ridicules the prospects propounded by STOCKMAN that the Federal Government will maintain levels of support for States to administer social programs. STOCKMAN defends the proposal. 13.19.59-ROBERTS-says two SENATORS were concerned about FAIRNESS in "NEW FEDERALISM". Shot of Sen. DAVID PRYOR (D-Ark.), of Sen. WILLIAM ROTH (R-DE) interviewed-ROTH says that he's talked to governors and State officials, who all think the idea can work, are happy to have less FEDERAL control. Says that there must be assurances that the States do not renege on providing services and that the Federal Government does not renege on the funding. Sen. PRYOR says that he hopes state officials do not simply accept the REAGAN plan, but work to modify it to improve it. ROTH says that the issue of financing is a concern mostly because the ECON0MY isn't growing, there is no suggestion that "New Federalism" is a ruse to cut spending. PRYOR says that REAGAN'S proposal is based on an assumption that the States can be counted on to raise the same funds as the Federal Government, says that there is no guarantee of this, State and local governments notoriously unwilling to raise taxes or cut programs. ROTH says that local officials want to change the way responsibilities are parceled out in Federalism. PRYOR says that local governments want not only the money but guidelines from the Federal Government on how to run programs. 13.24.51-DUKE-Senate is discussing whether to allow TV CAMERAS in its sessions. Intro commentary. Commentary by Charles McDOWELL, discusses the pretensions of grandeur in the SENATE, suggests it's past due for the Senate to be seen on TV, TV might force the SENATE to be less grandiose and long-winded, thus more efficient. 13.26.57-DUKE-signs off. Closing Credits/transcript order info/WETA credit/sponsor credits/PBS ID 13.28.43-OUT
August 4, 1994 - Part 2
(10:50:52) Mr. McLARTY. It was shortly after Mr. Altman's testimony. I do not recall the specific date, Senator. It was probably a day or two, if not a bit longer. Senator BRYAN. A day or two after the 24th? Mr. McLARTY. That is correct. Senator BRYAN. Now what follow up, if any, did you give, or direction to Mr. Ickes or Mr. Podesta or someone else that you may have detailed to follow up on this? Mr. McLARTY. It was my understanding, even when the matter was brought to me, that Mr. Podesta would be following with Treasury to make an effort to make certain that Mr, Altman's testimony to this Committee was complete, which I certainly endorsed and said that is precisely what we need to do. That was my response when the matter was brought to me. Senator BRYAN. I want to be very clear that I am not suggesting, nor should anybody infer that anybody at the White House was try- to alter that testimony in a way that would be negative to the full disclosure of the truth. 302 What I am trying to get at is clearly we have a problem. Podesta is notified, and I am trying to find out why it was not corrected at a sooner point in time, and you are indicating you found out about it. Did anybody thereafter brief you and say, look, I have taken care of this matter, I have notified Treasury that it needs to be-what was the involvement you had, if any, from that point? Mr. McLARTY. Well, Senator, first, I appreciate your clarification because our efforts were to make certain that that testimony was complete, not to alter it in any way, but to supplement and make certain it was complete, if necessary. Senator BRYAN. I want to say that I believe that to be true, as well. Mr. MCLARTY. I wanted to clarify that point. I think Mr. Podesta and others can speak with more preciseness about what was done. The matter was brought to my attention some days--a couple of days after Mr. Altman's testimony. I believe there was a weekend in between. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Podesta answered a similar question before the House Committee and I think he can respond to you. But when it was brought to my attention, the matter was already underway that Mr. Podesta would follow with Treasury and make certain, to the best of his ability, that Mr. Altman's testimony before this Committee was complete. Senator BRYAN. Did anybody ever report back to you that the mission was accomplished, or give you a follow-on report as to what was done to make sure that your directions were carried out? Mr. McLARTY. I do not recall getting that kind of report, Senator. I may have, but I do not recall it. Senator BRYAN. As the White House is organized, who would have handled that? Mr. Podesta is going to be a witness this afternoon, and I will ask him these questions, Mr. McLarty, but I am trying to get an understanding in terms of the structure of the White House who might have been the one that would have been given that information if you yourself have no recollection of a follow-on. Mr. McLARTY. Again, Senator, testimony before Congress, and of course there is a great deal of that by Cabinet Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries, as you certainly appreciate, is the primary responsibility of the Cabinet agency. Senator BRYAN. Yes. Mr. McLARTY. But the activity would be, our Congressional fairs Office, Mr. Griffin, at this point, would have been the logical contact. Mr. Podesta, because of his Hill experience and generally just a very capable professional was asked to become involved in this particular matter by Mr. Griffin and by me. Senator BRYAN. Did Mr. Podesta report to Mr. Ickes? Was that the chain of command or did Mr. Podesta report to you or somebody else? Mr. McLARTY. Mr. Podesta reported to the Chief of Staff's office as Staff Secretary. When he had special assignments, which from time to time he has undertaken over the past 18 months, and I think discharged them very well, he might report or at least have 303 a very close working relationship with whomever was responsible for a particular activity. In this case, it would have been Mr. Ickes. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Ickes would have been a logical person that he might have reported to? Mr. McLARTY. In this particular case, Senator, let me clarify or add to that, because it was testimony before a Committee, Mr. Grif- fin would have been involved in that from Congressional Affairs. Senator BRYAN. I note my time is up and we have a vote in proc- ess, so I thank the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bryan. Would someone like to continue at this point? There is no one here at this side? [No response.] The CHAIRMAN. All right. I am going to proceed then for a minute myself, if no one else wishes to, and then I will adjourn in just a moment. Mr. McLarty, I want to just follow on with Mr. Bryan's line of questioning for a minute. It seems to me that when Mr. Eggleston, who was here monitor- ing that hearing, our hearing, and he was in a trip wire capacity- this is my phrase now-in the sense that he was there listening for something that might occur, and he just did not pick that hearing to come to that day. There were a lot of hearings. He came here, he was at that hearing for a reason.
LAWMAKERS
IN 01.11.15 01.11.15-WETA credit/sponsor credits/ 01.11.40-COKIE ROBERTS-on program: Budget negotiations with the WHITE HOUSE have broken down, Congress must draft a budget, controversial in an ELECTION YEAR/LINDA WERTHEIMER: report on a PRIMARY campaign in TEXAS/PAUL DUKE: a SENATE REPUBLICAN says REAGAN should make ARMS CONTROL TALKS the top priority. 01.12.06-TITLE SEQUENCE 01.12.34-DUKE: BIPARTISAN NEGOTIATIONS on the BUDGET broke down, over two issues: SOCIAL SECURITY CUTS, and REAGAN'S refusal to abandon TAX CUTS. 01.13.00-Exterior of WHITE HOUSE, shot of REAGAN'S limo leaving driveway. Shot of REAGAN in conference with TIP O'NEILL and HOWARD BAKER. DUKE v.o.-neither O'NEILL nor REAGAN would give up enough to make a compromise. Shot of HOWARD BAKER at press conf., says that the differences between the HOUSE DEMOCRATS and REAGAN were greater than previously thought, there were no new ideas that were mutually agreeable. 01.13.50-Shots of meeting of SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE. DUKE v.o.-the debate is now mired in political considerations, exacerbated by REAGAN'S TELEVISION ADDRESS to argue his side of the debate. 01.14.10-Shot of REAGAN giving TV address from OVAL OFFICE. Title dates address April 29, 1982. REAGAN says the goal is a BALANCED BUDGET. Says there is a "different philosophy", blames DEMOCRATS for requesting too much spending, says that the DEMOCRATS are therefore wrong to blame REAGAN for the DEFICIT. REAGAN says he believes in "less spending, less taxes, and more prosperity". Gives a litany of the economic evils caused by DEMOCRATS policies-recessions, debt, inflation, etc. 01.15.12-DUKE: REAGAN is taking his case to the American people. Introduces Rep. TOM FOLEY. Shot of DUKE and FOLEY seated for an interview. DUKE asks if REAGAN can succeed by taking his case to the people through TV. FOLEY says that even the REPUBLICANS wouldn't dare to vote for the budget that REAGAN proposed. The cuts are too steep and the budget is unrealistic, and the proposed remedies for the DEFICIT are unpalatable to voters. Now CONGRESS will have a chance to make a budget, says that the budget impasse is "not Armageddon". 01.16.24-WERTHEIMER: Says that CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS who voted for REAGAN'S budget in 1981 will be put to the test as the campaign heats up in 1982. Intro report on TEXAS PRIMARY and Rep. PHIL GRAMM (then a DEMOCRAT, but not for long). 01.16.57-Shot of GRAMM in a BUDGET COMMITTEE meeting, saying that cutting spending is the most basic task at hand. Shot of Rep. DELBERT LATTA (R-OH, GRAMM'S co-conspirator in the BUDGET debate of 1981). Shots of CONGRESSMEN walking up CAPITOL STEPS. Shot of rostrum of HOUSE CHAMBER. Shot of GRAMM in debate in well of house. Shot of TIP O'NEILL in well of House debating. Shot of REAGAN giving speech in White House press room, says that DEMOCRATS who wanted to kick GRAMM out of the party are "unamerican". 01.17.52-Shot of field of BLUEBONNETS, WERTHEIMER says that GRAMM may be in for trouble in Central TEXAS. Shots of BLUEBONNET fields. Driveby of cattle grazing. Shot of FARMER digging postholes. Shot of CHAMBER OF COMMERCE hall sign of MIDLOTHIAN, TX., advertising a spring dance. WERTHEIMER v.o.-the small towns of Central TEXAS are going broke, and threatened to be overrun by the SUBURBS of DALLAS/FORT WORTH and HOUSTON. 01.18.50-Shot of GRAMM walking on street in suit, stops to shake hands with two DITCH DIGGERS, asks them to vote for him on Saturday. Shots of elderly residents of MIDLOTHIAN walking on streets. WERTHEIMER v.o.-although DEMOCRATIC, these voters are conservative and opposed to "handouts", which makes GRAMM strong with voters. Shot of GRAMM greeting a female grocery store clerk, asks for her vote, says he'll make sure the government "keeps its hand out of your cash register." Shot of GRAMM walking on street. WERTHEIMER v.o.-GRAMM must get a majority out of 4 candidates to avoid a runoff, all other candidates are running in oppostion to GRAMM'S role in REAGANOMICS. 01.19.50-shot of JACK TEAGUE, DEMOCRATIC challenger in the primary, leaving calling card on door of closed business. Shot of elaborate TEX-MEX/SPANISH exterior of ELLIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE. WERTHEIMER v.o.-the TEAGUE name is a tradition in TEXAS POLITICS. Still of late Rep. OTIS TEAGUE. Shot of JACK TEAGUE in a BARBERSHOP, shaking a hand, says that his politics are like his father's. Shot of a HARDWARE STORE OWNER in his store, says TEAGUE is a "chip off the old block", Shot of TEAGUE and WERTHEIMER standing outside dilapidated FEED STORE. TEAGUE says that GRAMM was a co-author of REAGANOMICS, which is wrecking life for the ELDERLY, WORKING CLASS, MIDDLE CLASS, and FARMERS. 01.21.06-shot of TEAGUE at old RAILROAD STATION, walking with his wife. WERTHEIMER v.o.-TEAGUE can't afford many TV ADS, so he and his wife are campaigning door-to-door in the district. Shots of TEAGUE campaigning in FEED STORE, bags of FEED lying on wooden floor, TEAGUE shaking hands with woman clerk dressed in vaguely cowboy-styled clothes with big hair. TEAGUE enters another store, v.o.-says that GRAMM has mocked the leadership of the DEMOCRATIC PARTY, which should not be done.
JFK Assassination Hearings - John & Nellie Connally (Part IV)
(05:01:43) Shot opens with recognition by Chairman LOUIS STOKES of Representative CHRISTOPHER DODD to question former Texas Governor JOHN CONNALLY and his wife NELLIE CONNALLY, Dodd asks Nellie to recollect the few moments of the actual shooting, what direction she turned, when she heard the second shot, when JFK's reaction was, etc, then asks if Nellie heard a third shot (05:03:55) Nellie: "I did hear a third shot" (05:04:30) Dodd asks for John's recollection of the same moment - John says he heard one shot and not the second, but rather felt a bullet penetrate him, then heard a second shot which he identifies as what Nellie heard as the third shot (05:06:10) John states he remained conscious after being shot and that he remembers hearing JAQUELINE KENNEDY say "They have killed my husband" and then, "in an incredulous voice" : "I've got his brains in my hand" and then he remembers hearing ROY KELLERMAN (?) tell the car driver "get out of hear fast" (05:06:51) Dodd asks John how much time elapsed between his feeling he was shot and his hearing the first shot - John originally says it was a matter of seconds, then says 6,8, 10 seconds but tells Dodd it wasn't instantaneous and couldn't have been a second and Nellie agrees (05:08:11) Chair recognized FLOYD J. FITHIAN to question witnesses, he asks John if the two shots he heard sounded exactly alike - John says yes - Fithian asks if he heard an impact noise anywhere from the first shot - John says no (05:09:14) Fithian confirms Nellie's account that three shots fired, first through JFK's neck, second through John, third explodes JFK's head all over car (05:10:00) Fithian asks if John can differentiate between rifle and gun shot - John humorously responds that he could and gives his interpretation of the way the two different shots sound - John then further describes the shots he heard for Fithian (05:11:36) Representative SAWYER confirms that John is familiar with rifles as an experienced hunters and goes on to deduct that a bullet traveling from a Mannlicher-Carcano, at twice the speed of sound would hit John before he heard the shot - John agrees and says this is how he knows he wasn't hit by the first shot because he heard it fired, he then recollects hearing what have been the third shot and seeing the results - John goes on to give convincing speech that he and Ms. Connally may not be able to give exact times to the events but the particulars, like how many shots were fired, are indellibly etched in their minds, he goes on to make the analagy of their strong memories to those held by any American who he claims will always be able to give you details of what they are doing when they heard JFK had been assassinated (05:15:50) Sawyer radiantly thanks Connallys for their testimony (05:16:20) Representative ROBERT W. EDGAR asks questions of comparison between the on-goings and security of a motorcade in Houston that the Connallys and JFK participated in the day before the assassination and the infamous motorcade in Dallas - John compares the two (05:20:00) Edgar asks if there are any recurring problems associated with the John's injuries - John gives a description of the injuries to his chest and wrist and explains his recovery from them which was essentially full with no lingering complications - Nellie interjects a joke about his wrist (05:22:22) Edgar confirms that John believes all his injuries are from one bullet - John in confirming this explains how he thinks it is that his wrist lined up with the shot traveling through his chest (05:24:05) Representative WALTER FAUNTROY recognized to question witnesses, asks if the first shot they both agreed upon hearing was the one that caused JFK's neck injury - John answers that he only knows the first shot did not hit him and he answers for Nellie and says that she believes that the first shot she heard was the one that hit JFK's neck, Nellie adds that the medical analysis later determined that the shot that hit JFK's in the neck would not have killed him and explains his movement she witnessed at the time (05:26:10) Representative FLOYD FITHIAN asks if Nellie remembers seeing John when she first saw JFK get hit - She answers no (05:26:35) The Connallys have the opportunity to suppliment their testimony - John puts his hand over the microphone to have a semi-private consultation with Nellie over what to talk about but decide have nothing further to say so John thanks committee and voices hope they can clear up the conspiracy aspect of the assassination but ultimately believes there will always be unanswered questions - John adds that he thinks a determined assassin will always stand the chance to get the job done, that the secret service was not lacking in their protection of JFK (05:32:17) Stokes thanks the Connallys (05:33:00) Hearings recess until later in the afternoon (05:33:10) Enters the voice of SANDFORD UNGAR and shot changes from hearing room to him, he sums up testimony of the Connallys and introduces panel JEREMIAH O'LEARY of the Washington Star and PAUL HOCH of the Assassination Information Bureau - discuss/debate the signficance of the Connallys' testimony, its relation to the single bullet theory and a cover up conspiracy (05:47:27) Ungar closes out coverage (05:47:35) PBS credit to Ford Foundation (05:48:05) Off air shot of Ungar and then camera crew and court house crew with background noise of the set up (05:50:11) Black screen with crew talking in background (05:52:00) Woman correspondent, DENISE BAKER COLEMAN, does botched introduction (05:52:24) Retake of correspondent's introduction to house commmittee hearings - again it is botched (05:53:15) Third take goes further but is again botched (05:54:10) Forth take botched (05:55:00) Take five - botched (05:55:35) Take six - botched (05:56:39) Final take is aced - short summary report for news show of what the house committee's mission is in the hearings (00:57:10) Black screen
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(12:10:30) But you know, as I do, Mr. Chairman, there's blood in the water and we know what happens when there's blood in the water, and in this case Bill Clinton is paddling along there, trying to be the leader of the country, and certainly the First Lady is in there too. I don't doubt, in my mind, that if he were to step down tomorrow. all of these accusations would miraculously disappear the day after. There are some who say Whitewater is about the abuse of power., It may be in more than one way. Certainly what about the abuse of power in using television, radio and the print media? It's kind:" of a bully pulpit, those who have sought simply bring down President. I think to use those media entities to discredit the Presi dent is also an abuse of power. This hearing with all of the unfounded allegations parroted in:,' , the talk shows and newspaper articles, says more about what's wrong with politics than any real estate deal that went sour 16 years ago. And I fear this, if anything, is going to deepen the American people's distrust of Congress when they realize we're spending $400,000 of their money with this hearing. Many Americans think that these hearings are politically moti. vated. Silly Americans, I don't know how they can believe that about any U.S. Senator, but make no mistake about it, that is what many people do believe. The people in my State are, I think, more concerned about the wildfires that have been creeping up near their homes, about the tragedy in Rwanda, about what we're going to do with the Crime bill and the Health Care bill than they are 37 about this hearing. I'm hopeful we'll clear this issue up once and for all and get back to the Work of the people that sent us here. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch. (12:12:15) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the Senate has named me as a Special Member of the Whitewater Committee for the express purpose of considering matters within the jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary of which I am the Ranking Member. Consistent with this mandate, I intend to focus most of my inquiry on matters related to the Department of Justice's involvement in Whitewater. Let me emphasize at the outset that the scope of these bearings has been very narrowly defined by the Majority side. We are permitted to explore only matters relating to the death of Vincent Foster or to communications between the White House and the Department of Treasury or the Resolution Trust Corporation that involve Whitewater or Madison Guaranty, In other words whole areas of inquiry such as bow the Department of Justice handled the Madison Guaranty criminal referral from the RTC, that named President and Mrs. Clinton as potential beneficiaries of criminal misconduct, and whether there was any improper influence exercised by the White House or other Administration officials on DOJ's Department of Justice's, handling of criminal referrals regarding Madison Guaranty and Whitewater may have to wait for another day to have a full airing. Nevertheless, there are numerous Justice Department matters that bear directly on communications between the White House and the Treasury Department or the RTC with respect to Whitewater and Madison Guaranty. These matters include but are not limited to the following: On March 23, 1993, shortly after Roger Altman had been informed of a pending Whitewater criminal referral that the RTC made to the Department of Justice, President Clinton took the extraordinary step of dismissing all sitting U.S. Attorneys, including the U.S. Attorney in Little Rock to whom the Whitewater criminal referral had already been sent, I believe, and I believe history will show, that this was an unprecedented action, and I can remember being shocked at the time this happened because it did happen. Again, in late September 1993, the RTC leaked to the White House the fact that the RTC was forwarding nine additional criminal referrals concerning Whitewater to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Little Rock. A few weeks later, in late October, Paula Casey, President Clinton's appointee as U.S. Attorney in Little Rock and a former campaign worker of his, informed the RTC that her office would not prosecute the initial Whitewater criminal referral. In early November, then-Associate Attorney General Webster .Hubbell and Ms, Casey announced their recusal from participation in Whitewater matters. Around early January 1994, according to an entry in Roger Altman's diary, the White House was trying to negotiated the scope 38 of its Independent Counsel with Attorney General-let me give you the quote according to the diary, the White House quote was: trying to negotiate the scope of its Independent Counsel with Attorney General Reno and was having enormous difficulty.
Capitol Journal
WETA "CAPITOL JOURNAL" IN 10.14.49 Rough footage of a Republican-sponsored panel on Congress and the Budget Process. Former Congressman Robert Giaimo discusses the budget process. Former Rep. Richard Bolling says that there needs to be a balance between reorganizing Congress and revamping the budget process. Says that macroeconomic looks at the budget are sacrificed to politics in some cases. 10.17.48-Economist discusses the balancing of imperatives that Congress must do in the budget. Policy Scholar Alan Schick discusses the disfunction in the relationship between President and Congress. An audience member asks whether the panel has ideas about how partisan politics figure into the process. BOLLING says that politics is the chief reason why the House budget committee doesn't do as well to make a budget as the Senate committee does. Another panelist addresses the role of politics, says that the purpose of the budget process is to prevent politics from creating gridlock in the government. 10.25.44-Another audience member poses a question, says that "politics" shouldn't be a dirty word, it's just democracy in action. Rep. BARBER CONABLE (R-NY) discusses the subject of politics in the budget [not on camera], says the budget is a statement of the priorities of each party, and it shouldn't be banished from the budget process. 10.30.25-an economist on panel discusses the politics of making a budget. GIAIMO discusses the issue. 10.33.25-OUT 10.38.28-Return to Rep. GIAIMO concluding, Schick closes the panel. **TIME CODE JUMPS** 10.50.46-Second panel discussion introduced, on relations of Congress and the Press. Moderator Paul Duke of PBS, discusses his experience covering the Congress, says that gripes between Congress and the Press are a two-way street. Discusses Congress' role as the national whipping boy and most despised branch of the government. DUKE introduces the panelists, Cokie Roberts, NEWT GINGRICH, Rep. CHARLES ROSE (D-NC), Journalist Charles Gibson, and an American Enterprise Institute scholar. 10.56.35-Roberts starts the discussion, says covering the Congress is great, but one is never sure how much play the story will get. Access is easy, and Congressmen are always [over]eager to get on camera. Coverage of Congress can therefore be more informed and more balanced than coverage of the Presidency or the Pentagon. Biggest changes in covering the Congress is television, altering the course of business in Congress to lead to more "media events", exposure on TV a boon to protecting incumbents in Congress. 11.01.35-NEWT GINGRICH speaks, says that the complexity of the legislative process is not adequately addressed in the media. Discusses the history of satirizing elected officials and the conflict between the expectations the public has of their leaders and the human failings of those leaders. Notes the 20th century phenomenon of the powerful presidency overshadowing Congress in the media. 11.06.07-Rep. CHARLIE ROSE comments on the media, compares the coverage of Washington-area sports to the coverage of Congress in the news media, exacerbated by REAGAN'S aggressive manipulation of TV and radio. Discusses the decision to put TV cameras in the House chamber. Jokes that the Senate will be much more boring when it finally goes on TV. Argues that Congress needs to create its own media exposure. 11.11.55-Charles Gibson discusses network news coverage of Congress. Says that the impact of profit imperatives in the news media is great. Gibson, evidently not remembering his Adorno, seems to assert that the networks can't contradict the "will" of "the people" or "the consumer" by offering in-depth or intelligent coverage. Says that stories about Congress don't hold the audience. Discussion of the flaws of the commercial media to explain complex ideas, which favors coverage of an "elected king" like Reagan. 11.19.17-Mike Robinson of American Enterprise Institute speaks, discusses certain myths about the news media. Says that REAGAN doesn't get better treatment from the press than other TV era presidents did [in terms of time], and that the media doesn't have a "liberal bias". Discusses the complaint of the House leadership that the media cover "whackos" and mavericks most often and make the job of party leaders more difficult. Discusses the media's tendency to gravitate toward spectacle, i.e. "pornographic rock lyrics" hearing. Denies that the media impedes Congress in its work. 11.24.56-Duke turns discussion toward the dynamics of coverage of House and Senate. Gibson discusses the issue, says that the House is an important subject of coverage now because it opposes the Reagan Senate. Discusses the problems of covering Congress on TV. ROBERTS says that the Senate was led to adopt TV coverage out of fear that the House was becoming more important. Discussion of the need for members of Congress to "use" TV well. Rep. Rose discusses the fear of Congress becoming a platform for grandstanding on TV.
Waco Hearings- DAY 4
WACO HEARINGS: 1:00 - 1:19PM - Master Number 10945 - INTRODUCTION: The following footage from the Waco Hearings consists of the questioning of the ninth group of panelists. They are: Robert Rodriguez; ATF Special Agent, Chuck Sarabyn; former ATF Assistant Special Agent In Charge of the Houston Office and also Tactical Commander for the Mount Carmel raid, Phillip Chojnacki; former ATF Special Agent In Charge of the Houston Office and Overall Incident Commander at Waco, Sharon Wheeler; ATF Special Agent and Public Informations Officer on the day of the raid, Dan Hartnett; former ATF Deputy Director for Enforcement, Daniel Black; ATF Personal Office Official, Louis Merletti ; Assistant Project Director of the Treasury Department Review Team, James Cadigan; FBI Special Agent and an expert in firearms, William Buford; ATF Resident Agent In Charge at the Little Rock Office and Commander of one of the Special Response Teams during the raid, Roger Altman; former Deputy Director of the Treasury Department, Roland Alisterous; former ATF Agent and John Williams; ATF Agent. The following Representatives present questions, and or statements to the panelists: Bryant, Blute and Schiff. 12:59:46 Old footage from Master Number 10945 shows Mr. Buford answering a question from Congressman Bryant. 13:03:46 Fresh footage shows Congressman Blute asking Agent Rodriguez what his undercover name was. He replies Robert Garcia. Agent Rodriguez is then asked how he gained the trust of the Branch Davidians. He replies that he first meet Koresh when he and another agent drove to the compound to ask Koresh if they wished to sell the horse walker that was in the front yard. Keeping with Agent Rodriguez, Congressman Blute then inquires if he ever felt that Koresh knew of his true identity. He replies that at the beginning of the undercover operation there were problems associated with Koresh attempting to find information out about him. Rep. Blute then asks about the cover of being a technical school student. Agent Rodriguez answers that he joined the undercover team after it was already up and running, and adds that from the start of his assignment he recognized that the team had problems. Pressing the issue, Congressman Blute asks Agent Rodriguez if he told his superiors about the problems. He states that he informed Case Agent Aguilera. Referencing from a report, Rep. Blute next asks Agent Aguilera about the ATF's use of non-agents in their undercover work. He answers that agents presented themselves as technical school students, but doesn't necessarily answer the question. Interrupting, Congressman Blute asserts that one undercover agent told a Davidian that his major was philosophy. Agent Rodriguez states that was a false report, and that the question was presented to him, and that he told Koresh that his major was photography. Continuing further with Agent Rodriguez, Congressman Blute then asks about alcohol use at the undercover house. He replies that agents invited woman agents over to the house to make it appear that a party was going on as part of their cover. Turing then to Mr. Sarabyn, Congressman Blute asks him if he had recognized the concerns felt by Agent Rodriguez. Mr. Sarabyn replies that there was a supervisory agent who was ordered to take care of the undercover agents' needs. Pressing the issue, Mr. Sarabyn is asked if correcting problems after the fact allowed agents' cover to be blown. He answers that the ATF used a neighbor of the Davidians as an informant to identify such concerns. Continuing on, Mr. Sarabyn asserts that this informant initially reported Koresh was nervous about the house, but that he later grew more relaxed. Keeping with Mr. Sarabyn, Rep. Blute inquires why the 24-hour surveillance of the compound was discontinued. He replies that for two weeks there was little activity at night, and so when agents requested monitoring be limited from 6:00AM - 12:00 AM, he allowed it. Mr. Sarabyn is then asked about the pit, and replies that the pit was being dug for a foundation by the Davidian men after their morning Bible study, and that such information was used to help schedule the time of the raid. 13:10:29 Congressman Schiff begins his time by asking Mr. Altman if he was the number 2 person at the Treasury when he wrote the April 15th memorandum to Secretary Bentsen. He answers that he was. Rep. Schiff then inquires if Mr. Altman wrote the phrase, "The risk of a tragedy are there." He answers that he did, and is then asked if Secretary Bentsen ever acted upon the memo. Mr. Altman replies that he never discussed the memo with the Secretary. Congressman Schiff then inquires what motivated him to use such terminology. Mr. Altman answers back that he was reflecting upon an instinct based around the elements that were coming into play at Waco Congressman Schiff then inquires why the memo was sent to Secretary Bentsen if it was of no concern to him. Mr. Altman replies that such memo writing occurs on a very regular practice for all sorts of matters. Keeping with Mr. Altman, Congressman Schiff then asks if the memo was ever sent to the Justice Department. He replies, "Of course not. Like the memo says, this is the Attorney Generals decision." Pressing the issue, Congressman Schiff asks Mr. Altman if he thought that the opinions of Treasury officials would have been of some value to the Attorney General since the case originated there. Mr. Altman answers, "Not mine. I have no background in these issues" Pressing the issue, Rep. Schiff questionably concludes that the memo was not worth anything then. Mr. Altman responds that his thoughts were not qualified enough to be of value to the Justice Department. Keeping with Mr. Altman, Congressman Schiff states that they were qualified enough to send to Secretary Bentsen. Mr. Altman answers yes, but that was the relationship he had with Secretary Bentsen. Congressman Schiff then makes a series of statements concerning the Minorities tendency to dramatize the hearings with testimony concerning child abuse reports from the compound. He asserts that, although such accounts are tragic, the approved ATF raid was for firearms violations, and that if the ATF was truly concern for the compound's children that the ATF would have then consulted more thoroughly with Texas Childcare Caseworker, Ms. Sparks. 13:16:50 Chairman McCollum makes a series of statements concerning parliamentary procedure. 13:18:40 Chairman McCollum recesses the Sub-Committee Chamber for lunch 13:18:49 The Sub-Committee Chamber is shown in recess. 13:19:18 TIME OUT.
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(10:55:10) There are, however, a few parameters which should guide our deliberation during the Whitewater hearings. First, we should attempt to ascertain all of the facts in an impartial manner without prejudging the outcome. I think the colloquy that we've just engaged in, in terms of the request for the polygraph or lie detector results of Maggie Williams, is an example of that, It's my understanding, as the Chairman and the Ranking, Member have indicated, that both have joined in a request for those results and to dispute any notion that there is a withholding on the part of the Administration or Ms. Williams. We've been informed orally, as I understand it, by Special Counsel that that information is not 22 going to be provided to us at this time. I think that's illustrative of the thing we should try to avoid in these proceedings. Let's hear the facts, get them all out on the table and then reach the conclusions as we will. Second, a guiding principle is we ought not to jeopardize or compromise the investigation of the Independent Counsel, Mr. Starr, There will be a proper time and place for all the facts to come to light, and we should not do anything in the course of this hearing that would in any way compromise that investigation. Let me conclude that the stage of the hearings we are in at this time is not only clearly defined, but quite narrow and specific. The Committee is charged with, according to the resolution, "whether improper conduct occurred by White House officials in the handling of documents in the office of White House Deputy Counsel Vincent Foster." That is the issue before us at this time. Mr. Chairman, I would like to compliment you and the Ranking Member, Senator Sarbanes. I must say that I approach the hearings with an auspicious sense that we can conduct these hearings as you, as the Ranking Member, and our Chairman last year, Senator Riegle, did in developing the facts, Then we can reach the conclusions based upon the record that's developed, ' not upon some of the wild theories and gossip that have been spread around concerning this circumstance. Finally, let me compliment the Administration for their cooperation in turning over documents and assisting the hearing. (10:57:40)(tape #10108 ends) I look forward to hearing from our witnesses and getting on with our investigation, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bryan. We'll turn to Senator Bond. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. As we continue our effort to get the facts of the so-called Whitewater affair out on the table, some people ask me why are we continuing to do this. People want to know whether there is a smoking gun, are there 17 minutes of erased tape, are there plumbers, or was there money diverted to pay for foreign wars? That is not the point. But many people to date have thought that Whitewater is too many people and too many phrases like criminal referrals, redactions and recusals. Today we are going to focus on, and in the following days we are going to focus on, the activities around a very tragic and very regrettable event, the suicide of Vincent Foster. This suicide triggered late-night searches, documents disappearing and a laundry list of conflicting stories as to who took what, when, and why. This clearly, as has been indicated, was an emotional and heart-wrenching time for the people involved-they have our sympathies, as does the family. But over the next several weeks, this Committee is going to be faced with a choice of believing accounts of career law enforcement officials or the stories of White House officials and the propriety or the impropriety of activities that were undertaken. I think everyone should understand that what has been the current of Whitewater since the beginning is showing up here once again. 23 Contrary to what my good friends from Connecticut and Nevada have said about this being a case of complete cooperation and open and full disclosure by the White House, it has not been such. The initial stories of the Administration at nearly every step of the way, and in some instances in which I was directly involved before this very Committee, have proven to be incomplete, inaccurate or just plain untrue. It seems to be that only after pressure from Congress and the media-and I commend them for their efforts--does the truth slowly but surely trickle out. That is why we have to continue to have these hearings because we have not gotten the full story, and we still need to get that story.
August 9, 1995 - Part 3
(11:30:00)(tape #10137 begins) Senator HATCH. .assistant or office manager, is that a fair characterization? Mr. NUSSBAUM. She was one of my senior secretaries is the more accurate way of Senator HATCH. She's testified before the Committee that she remembers you receiving a phone call from the First Lady during this time, and that's on page 23 of the transcript from her appearance before the Committee. Maybe we could place that up on the Elmo and let me just read the following from that. Question: What about the First Lady, do you have a recollection of her having a telephone conversation with Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. TRIPP. I don't have a clear recollection of the First Lady speaking to him during that time frame. Question: Do you have some kind of a recollection of it? 1225 Ms. TRIPP. I know at one point there was a telephone conversation between Mr. Nussbaum and Mrs. Clinton. I don't recall when that was. (11:30:44) Question: Do you recall that it occurred during this period of time in the day or two after Mr. Foster's death? Ms. TRIPP, I thought so, yes. Do you have any reason to question Ms. Tripp's recollection? Mr. NUSSBAUM. All I can do, Senator, is give you my recollection. Senator HATCH. But you don't recall? Mr. NUSSBAUM. In my recollections, I don't recall such a conversation. I would note that even with respect to these questions, she first indicates that she doesn't have a clear recollection. Then two questions later or three questions later she says she thinks it was in that time frame. But whatever she said , all I can give you is my recollection and I don't have a recollection of such a conversation. Senator HATCH. My time is up' but I thank you for your answers. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR PAUL S. SARBANES Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I just want to put on the record what I think are facts. There are tough, experienced, and even combative lawyers outside of places like New York, elsewhere in the country, who are also very capable. I think it's important to just add that dimension. Mr. Nussbaum, I first want to complete the record on the questioning that Senator Hatch put to you from your deposition (11:32:06)(tape #10136 ends) because the next question, on page 143, if you have it there? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, Senator. Senator SARBANES. The question put to you was: Did she say people were concerned about giving unfettered access to the law enforcement people to the documents? And your attorney said those words, and Mr. Chertoff said, in substance, that they had that particular concern. The Witness: No, no. What I remember, it was not a concern about giving people access to documents. There was a sense of this notion of people's privacy shouldn't be invaded, that kind of sense, that people were concerned that any procedure that's followed is done with appropriate regard for people 's privacy interests. Now, I want to ask you a bit about this concern about people's privacy. You and Vince Foster became close friends, I take it. Is that correct? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, Senator. Senator SARBANES. Had you known one another before you went to work in the White House Counsel's Office? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, as I said to Senator Hatch, we met in December 1992. We sort of interviewed each other for the job, although he had the job before I had the job. While we are a different kind of people we, over the months, became quite close, even surprisedly so. I don't know, maybe he was an Arkansas litigator, a tough Arkansas litigator. I was a New York litigator as now the whole world knows. In the crucible of the White House, which we had to make fast decisions, a lot of times every day, trying to do our best, it sort of was like, I don't know, like combat maybe, like being in a foxhole together. Sometimes that tears people apart, but it didn't do that to us. We formed a very close professional relationship which got stronger and stronger as time went on, Senator SARBANES. Now, did you speak at a meeting of all of the White House staff about Vince on the I guess it was the day after his death? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, it was the day after his death. It was July 21. Senator SARBANES. Do you recall what you said? Mr. NUSSBAUM. It was a very emotional time. I think I told a story which I've been telling now to this Committee about how the President of the United States was wise enough to first retain a Deputy Counsel before he retained a White House Counsel because he'd retained a great Deputy Counsel. I talked about that. I talked about our first meeting and maybe how we interviewed each other for the job, the kind of thing I just said to you.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
U.S. Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI) asks former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan if the documents were shredded because they showed criminal activity. Strachan replies the documents were not shredded for that reason, but because he was instructed to do so and they would be political embarrassing if made public. Senator Inouye asks if Strachan was aware of the paper's contents discussing intelligence operations and, in his opinion, was there anything referring to criminal activity in them. Strachan knows the contents of the papers, but denies there being anything criminal in content; only politically embarrassing. Sen. Inouye sends the questioning to U.S. Senator Edward Gurney (D-NC).
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(12:25:27) 41 Essentially, Mr. Chairman, we have three levels of inquiry: The first, whether or not any laws were broken, The second, whether there were appropriate ethics policies and procedures in place, and were any of those policies or procedures violated. And third, putting everything else aside, in the opinion of the average common sense person, were these matters handled appropriately. As to the first level of inquiry, we already know from the Committee's review so far-I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I will file the rest of my remark for the record. I would just like to conclude by saying I was sitting here listening to my colleagues. I come from a State that had Paul Douglas as its U.S. Senator and I happen to sit at Paul Douglas' desk on the Floor. I pulled out his "Book of Ethics in Government," to review while I was sitting here. It is amazing to me, Mr. Chairman, how this book, written many years ago, has such relevance to the bearings before us. I think the most important point that Paul Douglas made is how important it is that we, who are in public life, have an obligation to give citizens a sense that their Government is an honest one, and that their Government officials are treated appropriately with the public trust. I believe that is what you are trying to do with these bearings. I am sure that is what all wellmeaning Members of this Committee would like to do, I suggest that we move expeditiously but carefully to the conclusion of these hearings because we have yet to handle and address a number of huge issues before the Congress, not the least of which is Health Care. I'd like to get on with the business of the Committee and get this matter resolved. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Moseley-Braun, Senator Murray. (12:27:07) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's not easy going last,but you know, I don't mind my seat on this Committee. I'm all the way down here by the people I and I think it gives me a good perspective. As I went through I (the depositions and documents, I kept asking myself a few questions in search for the answers. Did the White House or the Treasury Department try to obstruct justice? Did anyone in the Administration try to influence any criminal or civil investigations? Was there any improper conduct? Those are the questions that we all must focus on. I am aware of the conclusions of the Fiske Report, and I have great faith in the integrity of his investigation. This Committee Covers the same ground. We're going to hear reconstructions of conversations and thoughts. Some of them occurred a year ago. Some of them were no more than scribbles on a page or a casual chat." A few of them were fairly substantial meetings. All of them took lace as this Administration and Congress were hammering out landmark legislation that really matters to the American people. But again, as we bear the testimony before this Committee, I will be asking myself the ultimate questions. Was information misused? Were investigations hampered? Was justice obstructed? And again, I have great faith in the Fiske investigation and his report to us. I have spent. an enormous amount of time on this issue, as 42 have all of my colleagues. It's made my long days longer and as I sit here down by the people and we begin the testimony today on the Vince Foster suicide, I have to wonder what kind of place is this, our Nation's capital? I came to Washington, DC, the same time Vincent Foster came here, and I know now what he meant when be wrote `%ere ruining people is considered sport." I agree with my colleagues who have said the Foster family has endured enough. Mr. Chairman, these days, with the media frenzy over even the most minor incidents, I wonder who will follow us in public service. What kind of a lesson is this for our kids? Let us all remember what integrity really means. Let us all remember about personal responsibility, all of us, those at the witness table, those in the audience, those who are listening, and of course, those around this dais. All of us should keep in mind our own personal responsibility for words we say and actions we take during this bearing. The stakes here are greater than an S&L in Arkansas. It is greater than this Administration or my tenure as a U.S. Senator. It is integrity and personal responsibility. And sometimes we lose that perspective and when we do, the victims are this great republic and the future leadership of this Nation. It is my hope that this hearing will allow us to la the facts on the table in a civil manner, to assess them rationally and determine their impact on the conduct of this Nation's business. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:00:09) The White House may need to know that the Secret Service is investigating a crime in which a visiting dignitary is involved. Or the ATF might have an arms export case involving high officials of this Government, or of a foreign country. Clearly, there is a legitimate need to discuss matters in the proper forums with the proper individuals, There must be a mechanism in which public officials can communicate with one another without fear that they are stepping over the line. We have seen how grey areas can be-where there is one set of rules at the RTC, another at Treasury. And we have seen how there sometimes is no bright, white line that gives public officials the guidance they need. I intend to work with the Attorney General or Inspector General, the Office of Government Ethics, and what ever this Committee might suggest insofar as remedies that would offer our employees better guidance. And it should be clear for our officials how to handle the issue of confidential information as it regards press inquiries. 9 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, two quick points in closing. First, I have been in public service for nearly 30 years. I have seen everything from McCarthy hearings to Watergate, IranContra, the Church Committee, all of it. What you have here is a unique confluence of circumstances that, when you strip away all the rhetoric, resulted in actions that broke no criminal law, did not violate the Ethics Rules, and did not in any way affect the Madison case. I think that when Congress concludes these hearings, Congress and Americans who have followed this matter will conclude the same. And finally, I am proud that throughout it all, the Treasury Department has continued to operate at 100 percent and done a good job. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Secretary, You mentioned, I think, a document along the way for inclusion in the record, and without objection, we will include it in the record. I want to start with the testimony before this Committee at the Oversight Hearing on February 24th. You mentioned today that at a certain point, you left that hearing, and I recall it clearly because you had another engagement and you asked to be excused. After you left, this exchange occurred with Mr. Altman that really has triggered not just these hearings, but also a complete effort by Mr. Fiske, who moved to subpoena a number of people and take them before the Grand Jury. So it was a very serious matter. We spent a long time yesterday discussing it, I think, in one way or another, every Member of this Committee found that testimony that day troubling to one degree or another. We spent a lot of time going over it. And because you were not here at the time, I think it is very important that you go over it, and perhaps you have done so. So my first question is, to you, have you had a chance to review the testimony that has kicked this off and the completeness or lack of completeness of Mr. Altman's answers that day? Secretary BENTSEN. Yes, I have. The CHAIRMAN. And do you have a comment about it or reaction to it? Secretary BENTSEN. Well that is the first I had heard of such a meeting, and frankly, it concerned me. And then very shortly thereafter, I read, I guess it was probably March 3rd, about a couple of additional meetings. And that is when I immediately called for a full investigation by the Off-ice of Government Ethics to get to the bottom of it and see what had happened. The CHAIRMAN. I think, as we listened yesterday, and I think if you, this went on until 2:00 in the morning, so I do not expect that you necessarily saw it, and there certainly is not a transcript available yet to read. But in the course of the hours of discussion with Mr. Altman, I think it is fair to say that he acknowledged that his answers, in many cases, were not as complete as they should have been, or that there was a serious difference of interpretation as to what an in 10 tended question meant and the way he chose to receive the question and respond to it. Secretary BENTSEN. That is apparently the case. The CHAIRMAN. I think that is a problem we cannot have again from anybody in the Treasury Department, whether it is Mr. Altman, Mr. Steiner, or anybody else that comes before this Committee. I frankly do not think there was an acceptable excuse for it having happened on the 24th. We have hashed that out here last night. And every Senator and the public can make their own judgments. But I must just tell you very directly, and I want to say it publicly, and not just say it to you in a private way.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
Former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan states that Chief of Staff H. R. Haldeman received memoranda from him, Deputy Chief of the Committee to Re-Elect the President Fred Malek, and Counsel to the President John Dean regarding the leaks project. U.S. Senator Lowell P. Weicker (R-CT) asks if Haldeman was head of the project, in the words of Strachan, "the lord high executioner," in terms of finding leaks. Strachan says that is correct and that was the statement Haldeman used in the original meeting with Mr. Dean, Mr. Malek, Haldeman's assistant Lawrence Higby, Special Counsel to the President Charles Colson, and himself. Senator Weicker states that Haldeman played more than just a general role; Strachan says that is correct. Senator Weicker: "In the course of that testimony, it was indicated that he did not know whether you, Gordon Strachan, subsequent to June 16th, destroyed any materials pertaining to the investigation of case etc. Is that true or not?" Strachan: "Well, he told me to make sure the files were clean. I went and destroyed them. I told John Dean, and I reminded him on July 1." Senator Weicker: "In other words, you did tell him that you had destroyed these materials, is that correct? That that took place on Air Force One? Strachan: "That is correct."
Lawmakers 8/04/1983 Congress and Courts
Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R Wisconsin) I would say if there was a conspiracy on part of the employees of the Committee on Ageing to violate the Maryland eavesdropping statute that is a relevant issue that ought to come out in court. And a determination on whether there was that violation of that state statute be made by the relevant court. Representative Tom Foley (D Washington) That goes to the very heart of the Speech and Debate Clause. Because if all that one needed to allege was that there was a conspiracy on the part of a member, or an officer, or an employee of the House, to violate some right of some individual, the Constitutional prerogative of the Speech and Debate Clause wouldn t be worth a snap of the fingers the very essence of Constitutional protection is that it must apply in difficult cases. If it applies only in easy cases where members could prove the action or the speech, or the debate, or the sentiment, or the investigation, or the conduct of the individual office, employee, or member, there d be no great reason to have the privilege because as in the case of protection of the freedom of speech and the press and other Constitutional guarantees, their proof is in difficult cases. Not in easy cases, in difficult cases.
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(11:34:02) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR. Senator ROTH. Mr. Chairman, there are two important points that Id like to make in my opening remarks. First, that these hearings are appropriate, and they are important. It is the responsibility of Congress to be concerned about the oversight of Government agencies. It is the responsibility of Congress to see that these agencies, including the Treasury Department and the Resolution Trust Corporation, are operating accord in public the laws passed by Congress and in the best interest of the lie, It is the responsibility of the Congress to see that they maintain high standards of ethics and that they avoid conflicts of interest. The second point is that we are here to determine whether our code of ethics and our laws are adequate to guide men and women in public office. I'd like to make it clear that our intent is not to judge criminal wrongdoing. That is not a function of these hearings. In addition, we had been restricted by the Majority to keep the scope of these bearings very narrow. Nevertheless, what we must concern ourselves with here is the question of ethics and the possibility of con . flicts of interest in Government agencies that we ereate Most, if not all, of the questions I will be asking are based on common sense. questions like if an investigation is being made of the personal conduct of the President, should an individual who is appointed by the President, an individual who is a personal friend, be resp onsible in any way in the investigation, or as a general rule should the remove himself from the investigation. (11:36:13) Questions like when a preliminary investigation is underway in volving his own personal contact, should the President be given information concerning that investig ation that the man on the street would not be given if be were in the same situation. I know the Administration states it is entitled to be provided with such sensitive nonpublic information so it can respond to 27 press inquiries. But is this reason enough to extend privileges to the President that the common man does Dot have? On this point, it is interesting to note that The New York Times today states while White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler said in a colloquy that giving the President information concerning the investigation was necessary for the Administration to respond to press queries, the fact is, according to the Times, and I quote, "The Administration's answers to media inquiries at the time were generally 'no comment."' Another more specific question is whether White House personnel violated the White House's own ethical guidelines in this case. For example, White House staffer George Stephanopoulos called Treasury Chief of Staff, Mr. Steiner, to complain about the hiring of Jay Stephens by the RTC for the Madison Guaranty civil case. In the words of Mr. Steiner's own diary which I quote: George suggested to me that we needed to rind a way to get rid of him. Now, this communication from Mr. Stephanopoulos came in spite of an official memorandum from Presidential Counsel Nussbaum on the prohibition of White House staff contacts with independent agencies, which was issued on February 22, 1993, a copy of which is displayed behind me. Mr. Nussbaum's memorandum states, and I quote: There is generally no justification for any White House involvement in particular adjudicative . . . proceedings at any agency. Therefore, as .9 general rule, no member of the staff should contact any agency in regard to any adjudicative matter pending before that agency. This is exactly what George Stephanopoulos appears to have done. Was not this a violation of the White House's own published ethical standards? As I say, we are not here to determine the criminal liability of any particular individual; that is the task of the Special Counsel and the courts if it comes to that. As far as I am concerned, we are here to get the facts. That is bow I shall proceed and I hope it is bow the Committee will proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAiRmAN. Thank you, Senator Roth.
LAWMAKERS
IN 01.00.00 01.00.00-WETA credit/sponsor credits 01.00.23-COKIE ROBERTS-on program: REPUBLICAN primaries in major states nominate moderate candidates who have a good chance of defeating DEMOCRATS in november. LINDA WERTHEIMER-The HOUSE finally passes a BUDGET. PAUL DUKE-report on Congress' poll of its own best members. 01.00.46-Title Sequence 01.01.12-DUKE-November elections five months away, some PRIMARIES give the clue that MODERATES in both parties can look for success. Some strong CONSERVATIVES and supporters of REAGANOMICS were defeated in primaries. ROBERTS-MODERATE REPUBLICANS won primaries in OHIO, NEW JERSEY, and CALIFORNIA. PETE WILSON won in California, MILLICENT FENWICK will run in NEW JERSEY. DUKE-both parties have strong stake in the 1982 elections, and generally the party in control of WHITE HOUSE loses seats in off-year elections. Introduces commentary by Reps. TONY COELHO (D-CA) and NEWT GINGRICH. 01.03.56-DUKE asks for comment based on the primary results. COELHO confident that DEMOCRATS will pick up at least 10 seats in HOUSE, maybe more. GINGRICH says there is a turn away from the "liberal welfare state" and REPUBLICANS will do well. Discussion of REPUBLICAN MODERATES winning primaries, asks if they will abandon REAGAN in NOVEMBER. GINGRICH tries to spin the results of the primaries to say that the moderates are all for REAGAN. COELHO dissents. DUKE asks if the polls show that people aren't confident in the DEMOCRATS, either. COELHO says that the elections in the fall will basically be LOCAL affairs, and REAGAN and TIP O'NEILL won't be such important factors. Says that people clearly want a change in REAGANOMICS, even though they generally like REAGAN like a GRANDFATHER figure. NEWT whiningly asks to claim "at least partial equal time here", blames DEMOCRATS for everything. ROBERTS asks NEWT how he can translate his ideological beliefs into a real-life plan to win the elections when REAGANOMICS is so unpopular. NEWT says REPUBLICANS will do well if voters think in national terms and feel that REPUBLICANS stand for less bureaucracy and lower taxes. ROBERTS presses GINGRICH on the issue of the IMMENSE CAMPAIGN FUNDING enjoyed by REPUBLICANS. NEWT describes people giving "an average of 23 dollars each" to the GOP, disguising the real sources of all that money. Compares the "average American" base of GOP to labor union/minority/female (presumably un-American in Newt's view?) base of the Democrats. COELHO points out that before the GOP could start its "grassroots" fundraising, it had to get mammoth donations from corporate America. Democrats don't have the funding of the corporate oligarchy. Discussion of the impact of the PRIMARIES on votes taken in CONGRESS between now and the elections in November. 01.12.37-DUKE-introduces report on fallout from PRIMARIES on HOUSE FLOOR VOTING. WERTHEIMER with report on the BUDGET. Says that DEMOCRATS were divided about whether to compromise with MODERATE REPUBLICANS or fight and lose with liberal budget and take the results to the ballots in November, REPUBLICANS undecided about sticking with REAGAN or moving to moderate ground, but eventually, after the first round of debates failed to produce a budget, the choices became simple. 01.13.17-Shot of Rep. DELBERT LATTA (R-OH) in well of House, says that there were too many amendments to the first budgets, it's time to stop messing around and make up a budget for the people's sake. Shots of Congressmen in debate. WERTHEIMER v.o.-this round, the house limited debate to three choices-BUDGETS written by Rep. JIM JONES (BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIR), a group of Conservatives, and the original budget proposed by REAGAN. Shot of LATTA in debate, rails about "tax and spend" DEMOCRATS, says they are responsible for ruining the country. Shot of Rep. JIM JONES in debate-says the major problem is the HIGHEST LEVEL OF UNEMPLOYMENT SINCE THE DEPRESSION. Shot of Rep. RONALD DELLUMS (D-CA), says even the DEMOCRATIC proposal isn't good enough, the ethical thing to do is to reject both the budgets.
August 4, 1994 - Part 8
(17:10:34) Senator BRYAN. Are we talking about a legal duty? Mr. PODESTA. A legal duty. Senator BRYAN. We're at a legal standard now. Mr. PODESTA. A legal duty and we tried to decide what the best course of action was. I think with regard to recusal, we thought that from a legal perspective, and I was sitting with four members of the White House Counsel's staff-this is the best of my recollection-that the context of recusal with regard to it being approached in the tolling agreement could be fairly described in his testimony. But that the better course of action was to have disclosed that as his talking points with regard to the answer had done-I'm sorry. That it would have been better to just stick to the talking points and to have said recusal, so I think we all regretted that he didn't do it. But I think we thought at that point it was a judgment call about whether he should-whether he needed to do it, and that was best left with him. That it was his judgment. He was the witness. With regard to the fall meetings and Specifically with regard to the questions Senator Bond posed, how did the White House learn of the criminal referrals, we thought we had a duty, and that he had a duty to supplement the record on that point, a legal duty. Senator BRYAN. I must say I think the good judgment that was apparent immediately concurrent with the testimony on the 24th 381 deserted you because it seems to me there was, in fact, an obligation to correct the record. Now, did you yourself follow up or designate someone? As I understood your testimony in response to Senator Bond, you indicated, or perhaps in response to Senator Kerry, some period of time before you actually saw the March 2nd and the March 3rd letters sent by Mr. Altman to the Chairman. Mr. PODESTA, I believe I saw the March 3rd letter, which was faxed over to the White House from Treasury sometime probably over the following weekend, 4th or the 5th. I never saw the March 2nd letter until sometime quite a bit down the road into the future. Senator BRYAN. What was your reaction to the March 3rd letter? Mr. PODESTA. The March 3rd letter I viewed as largely putting on the record the point that the Deputy Counsel, the Ethics Officer, whose name is now escaping me, who testified before the Committee, had been Senator BRYAN. Ms. Nolan, I believe. Mr. PODESTA. Foreman. Senator BRYAN. Oh, Mr. Foreman, Mr. PODESTA. Had been consulted in advance of the February 2nd meeting and had essentially cleared it. I think that's the import of that letter. Senator BRYAN. I think what I find a bit surprising here, that we have all of these initial reactions which I think are absolutely right on. There's a high level staff meeting in which some of the superstars in the White House are gathering to strategize and it seems to me that the ball was dropped. Was there anybody charged with following up to see what was going to be done or did you view at that point that everything had been done? Mr. PODESTA. No. I think in the normal course of events, he would have continued to follow up. I think this wasn't a normal week. I called Mr. Altman on Tuesday. On Wednesday, we called back, I was informed that a letter had been sent. On Thursday, The Washington Post reported in detail on the two meetings, specifically with regard to Senator Bond's question, that the two meetings had occurred in the fall, that the criminal referrals had been mentioned, that the people who were at the meetings were identified. That's all information the White House provided. I thought that matter had been taken care of. I assumed his letter went through those details, and that the letter had been-as I say, I've been told that the Chairman had received the letter. On Friday, Mr. Fiske issued subpoenas to the White House and to a number of individuals in the White House. I'll take one step backwards. On Thursday, at that point, Mr. McLarty went to the lengths of issuing a memo putting up a Chinese Wall between the White House and Treasury. There was tremendous criticism of any contact between Treasury and the White House. Under those circumstances, and especially after Friday, when Mr. Fiske had issued the subpoena, I don't think we wanted to do anything to further complicate the record or that could be essentially criticized for our trying to intervene in testimony that was now being looked into by Mr. Fiske. senator BRYAN. Let me just say in fairness--and my time is up understand we have the benefit of hindsight. I must say, I find 382 it somewhat extraordinary after one attempt is made to correct the record, and then a decision is made to send a second letter, that there wouldn't be the sense, hey, let's get it right the second time
August 2, 1994 - Part 7
(19:15:50) That call takes place--Ms. Hanson believes that you have tasked her to go to the White House. At her meeting at the White House she informs the White House of the referrals. She comes back and writes a memorandum to you that in essence says, I've done that, is there anything more we can do. There's also a meeting on October 6 with another person saying that you had I knowledge of these things. He informs you about a pre leak and you call Ms. Hanson, get her on the phone, and say, call Jack, Bernie, and the Secretary. So all I'm saying is that this really calls into question how I can believe the point you're making as opposed to these other two individuals. Mr. ALTMAN. First of all, Senator, this memo we've been discussing, at least in my view, does not confirm that Ms. Hanson went to the White House and talked about criminal referrals in September. It doesn't have anything to do with that. That's what you just said, Senator. You said it confirmed it. Second of all, Senator-if I may say, none of the participants in this second meeting, the October meeting, and you said this was an October reference. Senator MACK. October 6 in your office. Mr. ALTMAN. None of the participants in the second meeting have said they bad their meeting at the White House, I believe it was October 14, at my request. Not one person has said that. Senator MACK. All I'm trying to establish is that there's another person out there that says that you're more involved in this than you are admitting to. I mean, we have Jean Hanson, she went on at quite some length explaining the situation. Now, you have said that she, in essence, doesn't now what she's talking about; in other words, she's kind of freelancing. But there's another conversation that takes place on October 6, at which point you have gotten information from Mr. Roelle, you then pick up the phone and call Ms. Hanson, and you say to her, call Jack, Bernie, and the Secretary. Do you not recall that. Mr. ALTMAN. First of all, Senator Mack Senator MACK. Do you recall that? Mr. ALTMAN. -The questions that I was asked earlier in regard to this differing recollection with Ms. Hanson, my answer was and my answer is I don't recollect that. I think if I tasked her to do it, I would have remembered it. 453 Senator MACK. Remember, we're now talking about the October 6 meeting. This is a separate meeting. This has nothing to do with the issue of tasking. I'm just asking you the question, Mr. Altman. Do you Mr. ALTMAN. I don't recollect that. Senator MACK. You do not remember that? Mr. ALTMAN. I do not recollect that, no. Senator MACK. At this point we have two people, Ms. Hanson and Mr. Roelle, that have testified under oath that they know of your involvements in these things and you say that you haven't. At that point, I'll just let it go. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I believe they have testified that they made me aware of an impending press leak. Senator MACK. Mr. Altman, I asked you the question, do you recall this incident in your office where you picked up the phone and called Ms. Hanson? Mr. ALTMAN. No, Senator, I don't. Senator MACK. To speak to Jack, Bernie, and the Secretary? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't recall that. Senator SARBANES. Senator Mack, you still have some time. Senator DAMATO. Yield to Senator Gramm? Senator MACK, Certainly, If be wishes to, I'd be glad to. Senator GRAMM. I appreciate Senator Mack yielding. Let me go back, Mr. Nussbaum, to this Steiney diary very briefly. He writes in his diary that you bad orginally decided to recuse yourself but under intense pressure from the White House, you bad decided to delay a final decision. And then he says that at a fateful White House meeting, which we know is the February 2 meeting with Nussbaum, Ickes, and Williams, however, the White House told Roger Altman that his recusal was unacceptable. IWe have a deposition from Maggie Williams about the February 3 meeting, the meeting which was apparent] too unimportant to disclose to this Committee, and here's what she says: "Well, Roger called me and be said to me, I have decided not to recuse and I want to tell some people-I wanted to tell some people in the White House that and then he said I'm on my way to this meeting, but I would like to get a few people together and tell them, and I thought OK And he said, could you grab a few people or call a few people, le, and I said OK" Now, who is this Maggie Williams? Mr. ALTMAN. Margaret Williams is the First Lady's Chief of Staff. Senator GRAMM. You called the Chief of Staff of the First Lady of the United States to ask her to get a few people together at the White House so you could tell them you weren't going to recuse Yourself. Why?
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
U.S. Senator Herman E. Talmadge (D-GA): "Mr. Strachan, in so far I know, there's nothing in the record to date as to the time the President of the United States first had knowledge of break-in of the psychiatrist for Mr. Daniel Ellsberg. Do you know?" Former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan: "No, sir, I do not." Senator Talmadge states there has been a good deal of speculation and testimony that Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman and Assistant to the President John Ehrlichman ran a "tight ship" at the White House. Given the closeness Strachan had with those two men, would he agree with that statement? Strachan agrees. Senator Talmadge: "They were the President's closest advisers and confidantes, were they not?" Strachan: 'On domestic matters, yes." Senator Talmadge asks which of the two knew more about political matters. Strachan thought Ehrlichman from an issues standpoint, Haldeman from a polling or personality standpoint. Talmadge asks which made decisions on political matters. Strachan says he cannot speak to what decisions Ehrlichman made and he is aware only of the decisions Haldeman made on political matters. Talmadge asks in matters important to the campaign, such as memoranda sent from the Director of the Committee to Re-Elect the President and former Attorney General John Mitchell, were those then brought to President Nixon? Strachan says he cannot remember ever seeing a memorandum from Mr. Mitchell to Mr. Haldeman. Primary communication was done in meetings. There were maybe a half dozen memoranda from Haldeman to Mitchell that he saw. Senator Talmadge asks if Haldeman brought matters he considered important to the President's attention. Strachan can only assume that he did. Senator Talmadge: "Would it be a reasonable assumption on your part that as soon as Mr. Haldeman had knowledge of the Watergate break-in he'd bring it to the attention of the President?" Strachan: "You're asking for my opinion?" Senator Talmadge: "Yes." Strachan: "That would be my opinion. Yes, sir."
President Carter's 2nd News Conference
CIA DISCLOSURES Bob Schieffer: Mr. President, the other day, getting back to the Hussein thing, when that story broke, your Press Secretary, when he issued what amounted to a no comment by the White House, someone asked him if this story had broken back during the campaign when you were running for President would you have given a similar response. And he said, "Well, I don't know." So, can I ask you, what would have been your response? Would it have been the same? Carter: I don't know. [Laughter] Press: Mr. President, on the same subject, you said earlier that your review of CIA activities had found nothing illegal or improper, and you later said that these activities are legitimate and proper. Isn't that a value judgment that the American public might like to share, but how can they if you refuse to give them any idea of what you have discovered during this review about payments, including ones made in secret. Carter: That is a value judgment. It's made by the independent Intelligence Oversight Board which was established and appointed by President Ford. This Board has made itself available to the Inspector General and to any employee within the CIA or within the defense intelligence agencies or any other to receive even rumors of impropriety. They have assessed these operations. They made their inquiries in the past, which is in accordance with the Executive order issued by President Ford, to the Attorney General of the United States, and also to the President. I have read that correspondence. It's quite voluminous. And I think that it's accurate to say that Senator Inouye's committee in the Senate and the appropriate committees in the House have also received this information in the past. I have talked to Senator Inouye and he confirms what I've just told you. And I think he would also confirm that the impropriety or the illegality does not exist on any ongoing CIA operation.