Advanced Search
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(16:35:19) Ms. HANSON. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, I "am Jean Hanson, General Counsel of the Treasury Department. I have been privileged to hold that position since June 1993. 1 am testifying to ay pursuant to Senate Resolution 229 exploring communications between Treasury officials, including me, and White House personnel relating to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. 96 Out of respect for this Committee's work and for the investigation that preceded this Committee's work, I have refrained from speaking with reporters about this matter. There have been many recent leaks of my testimony and documents, which include numerous misstatements and mischaracterizations, I welcome this opportunity to testify publicly and to speak for myself. I hope you Will make your judgments based on my testimony today. I have tried my best to recollect everything that occurred about this matter. I have also reflected on the reasons for these conversations. I know that these conversations violated no law, no rule, and no ethical standard. I also know that they were appropriate and that they furthered legitimate governmental interests. Before I turn to Madison, I want to tell you a little about myself. For nearly two decades before coming to Washington, I practiced law in New York and worked on complex corporate transactions., I came to New York from Minnesota, where I was born, and where I was reared to do things in a straightforward, Midwestern style: Honestly and by dint of hard work. I am not a "Beltway Insider," I am not a political person. Prior to coming to Washington, I bad no contact whatsoever with the President or the First Lady. I did not campaign for them, or for any candidate, and I do not owe my Treasury appointment to political activism. I was recruited for my position. My husband is a Republican-until recently. I did not know Secretary Bentsen before I accepted his offer to become Treasury General Counsel. Indeed, I didn't know anyone at Treasury or in the White House. I accepted Secretary Bentsens offer for one reason. I wanted to contribute to the important work of the Government, and give something back to my country. I still do. At the outset, I would like to address my role in RTC matters. As Treasury General Counsel, I am charged with carrying out duties and assignments given to me by Secretary Bentsen and Deputy Secretary Altman. I fulfilled assignments relating to the RTC given to me by Mr. Altman and, at times, Secretary Bentsen, but at no time did I ever hold any position at the RTC nor have I ever acted as RTC General Counsel. To say the least, the RTC is an unusual entity and people often misdescribe it and its functions. For example, it is a corporation, not an agency, except for limited purposes. It is not a regulatory body because it doesn't regulate anything. It is not independent. The RTC CEO serves solely at the President's pleasure, unlike independent agencies such as the SEC and the CFTC. It has a finite life span, scheduled to end next year. Except for its CEO, it has no employees and must carry out its functions by utilizing FDIC and Executive Branch personnel, including Treasury employees. As Interim RTC CEO, Mr. Altman had statutory authority to seek the assistance of Treasury personnel on matters related to RTC functions. And, as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury, he had the authority to grant the assistance of such personnel. Mr. Altman asked me to assist him with policy-related and other matters involving the RTC, and I did so. Mr. Altman undertook to serve two jobs for a limited period. He was entitled to all the assistance he 97 could muster. It was entirely appropriate for me to assist him in an legitimate way he requested.
August 2, 1994 - Part 6
(01:25:30) Senator DODD, I'll ask the Chairman that Mr. Altman be given a copy of this-the final version of the talking points. The final bullet on the final version of the talking points for that meeting does talk about the decision that you'd made to recuse yourself from the decisionmaking process. I want you to come back and respond to my question, and I think a question Senator Gramm asked, that when a question was asked on February 24, was that the sole purpose-I don't have the record right in front of me, but the language was "sole purpose" of that February 2 meeting. Now I understand your argument earlier of the difference between recusal and Madison, but the question from one of my colleagues on the other side did not reference the Madison or recusal, but asked the sole purpose of the February 2 meeting, and this talking point seems to indicate the recusal is on there. I wonder how you'd respond to that? Mr. ALTMAN. May I respond now? The CHAIRMAN. I think you should and then we'll rotate. Mr. ALTMAN. First of all, when I called Mr. McLarty to set up the meeting, I told him the purpose of the meeting was to discuss the generic procedures that the RTC would be following in connection with that statute of limitations situation, same ones that it would follow on any statute of limitations situation. I didn't mention recusal. My recollection is, and I've testified to this effect, I've testified under oath, and I'm testifying under oath here today, that this final point was added by Ms. Hanson of her own volition out of a perfectly well intentioned sense, which was to prod me to do it. But I didn't instruct that this be added to the talking points. She did it. The purpose of the meeting was not-was the generic procedures discussion. Senator DODD. Well , there will be more questions about it, but my time has expired. 438 The CHAIRMAN. I do not think it is fair to leave the inference, however, that the recusal was not discussed tit the meeting. It was discussed at the meeting. Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir, it was. The CHAIRMAN. We'll come back to that. Senator Bond. Senator BOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I made my opening comments here on Friday, I chose my words very carefully because I wanted to make it clear that truthfulness is the coin of the realm around here and when you come up to testify before this Committee or any Committee of Congress, you have to be truthful. We heard some interesting statements yes. terday about why Ms. Hanson felt unable to relay the truth to this Committee after your testimony on February 24, Mr. Altman. First* it related to RTC contacts; second, she couldn't get a transcript of the bearings; and third, her lawyers told her not to do so. We don't have time and I'm not going to revisit those points now, it's just they are very troubling. I want to remind my colleagues that this hearings is not just about whether Administration officials misled this Committee on February 24 along the lines of the questions my colleagues already discussed, It's about a whole, unusual, highly disturbing set of events that we now describe with the word "Whitewater." Just today, for example, we learned from the newspaper that the night of the tragic suicide, the Whitewater files were taken from Mr. Foster's office by the First Lady's Chief of Staff and taken to the White House residence and not turned over to the Clintons' lawyers, as we we've been told, but that they were in the Clintons' residence for 5 days. And it took us 6 months to learn that the Whitewater files were taken from the Foster office, then it took us another 6 months to learn they did n't straight to the lawyer. Notwithstanding the protestations to the contrary, it seems to me that an awful lot of people have gone to extraordinary lengths to try to tell us that Whitewater wasn't such a big deal. Extraordinary measures have been taken by high level folks to keep track of Whitewater developments and be involved in Whitewater-related activities. I begin to wonder, and I think my colleagues should, as to why the White House and their top officials have tried so hard. Mr. Altman, I'd like to go back to your first staff meeting at the RTC. On March 15, 1993, you took over as CEO of the Resolution Trust Corporation; is that correct?
Reverend Jesse Jackson Addresses DNC
U.S. House Representative Geraldine Ferraro (D-NY) asks for questions from platform members; adult Caucasian male seated beside her, adult African American male points out member with question. Adult African American female gives microphone to Pat Delurie, delegate from Iowa. He suggests that something is happening within the black community, which Reverend Jesse Jackson appears to be a symbol of; blacks organizing and voting in ways he has never encountered before. He sees it as a contrast to the events of the late 1960s, when riots were the theme. He asks Rev. Jackson to share his thoughts.
August 9, 1995 - Part 7
(16:45:39) Mr. NUSSBAUM. One group wanted to read the files Senator GRAMS. They didn't say they wanted to read them. Mr. NUSSBAUM. They wanted to look through the files which mean read at least a portion of each of the files to determine whether-well, they said to determine whether it was a suicide note, but also whether documents were privileged and relevant. They wanted to engage in a substantive search, a substantive examination. I understood that. Patsy Thomasson was not looking to engage in a substantive search or a substantive examination. All she was doing was looking on surfaces, not reading any documents. The others wanted to read documents and there certain obligations weighed on me, which I talked about earlier, the obligations of a lawyer to preserve the confidences of his client. Senator GRAMS. Security officials have testified just the opposite. They said White House officials were afraid that they might see something, you're saying you are afraid that they wanted to look deeper, and that isn't what they were there for. They said they were there just to look for a note or any other material. Mr. NUSSBAUM. If security officials so testified, they testified incorrectly. 1291 Senator GRAMS. Mr. Nussbaum, did you lock up the White I-louse Counsel's suite that night? Mr. NUSSBAUM. My memory is I did, I know there is other testimony perhaps inconsistent with that. But my memory is that, in accordance with my normal habit if I'm the last one leaving, I turn on the alarm and I lock the door. Senator GRAMS. Again, we're going to go back and I know this was a night of sadness, but like I still believe that it doesn't cloud memories, it might cloud decisions. But Ms. Williams testified under oath that you and she left Ms. Thomasson alone in the office. Is that true? When you left? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, that's not my memory. Senator GRAMS. Officer O'Neill says that he is the one who secured the office that night, which the alarm records show from the White House. Mr. NUSSBAUM. It's not, that's not-I gave you my best memory. Senator GRAMS. So either Ms. Williams lied to the Committee or Mr. O'Neill has lied to the Committee? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No. Senator GRAMS. Now, in your opening statement Mr. NUSSBAUM. No. The answer is no. I want to finish that answer. The answer is I don't say-Ms. Williams certainly didn't lie to the Committee. Ms. Williams I know extremely well. Ms. Williams is a truthful person. Senator GRAMS. Maybe Mr. O'Neill. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Officer O'Neill, I do not know, but I don't believe he necessarily lied to the Committee. He's telling what he best remembers. And I am not lying to the Committee. Senator GRAMS. In your opening statement this morning, you said that Ms. Williams and Ms. Thomasson and you were in Mr. Foster's office, you said for about 10 minutes. Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. Senator GRAMS. But the alarm records show that the office was open for an hour that night. Now, Mr. O'Neill testified that he came back several times to check on the office to see whether he should lock it up, and each time in that hour somebody was in Vince Foster's office. So for I hour, there were people in that office with the ability to go through files and look at things that you said they shouldn't be looking at. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm glad you asked that question, Senator, because you now enabled me to clear up a misapprehension and misunderstanding. Vince Foster's office is in the Counsel's suite. Senator GRAMS. That's right. Mr. NUSSBAUM. The alarm-when you shut Vince Foster's office alone, it has nothing to do with shutting the Counsel's suite. The Counsel's suite was open for an hour. Vince Foster's office was not open for an hour. Vince Foster's office was only populated that evening for 10 minutes. But the Counsel's suite, that's what triggers the records and the alarm. The Counsel's suite was open for an hour. There was somebody in the Counsel's suite, the Counsel was there, I was there, and what I was doing there is making phone calls for an hour. What the White House records reflect with respect to the office being open for an hour is the entire suite is open for an hour. Fos 1292 ter's office is only part of that suite. So it's incorrect to say that people were in Foster's office for an hour. People were in Foster's office for only 10 minutes. The only person in the suite for an hour was yours truly. Senator DODD. Could I add, was there a lock on Mr. Foster's separate office, no lock on that door? Mr. NUSSBAUM. There was DO lock on that door that night. We put a lock on the door the following night. Senator GRAMS. Mr. Nussbaum, let me tell you that Officer O'Neill said that when he checked, there were people still in Mr. Foster's office. He said as he closed the door to lock it up, Mg. Lieberman was in the doorway, then Ms. Williams came out of Mr. Foster's off-ice, came out. And then he went in, set the alarm and locked the door and he even rode down the elevator with Ms. Williams and Ms. Lieberman. He is saying for that hour there was somebody opening Vince Foster's office. Senator KERRY. If I could say to the Senator, just to clarify, he couldn't have gone into Mr. Foster's office to set the alarm, because there was no alarm in the office. Senator GRAMS. I thought that's where the switch was. He went into the suite to do it. Mr. NUSSBAUM. The switch, Senator, is in Mr. Foster's office. It's the switch that you turn on the alarm, the switch for the entire suite Senator KERRY. For the entire suite.
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(12:05:21) Mr. STEINER. Senator, I can tell you from my own experience, and I can't speak for Mr. Altman, in my own experience, as I've gone through this process for over 5 months now, one is told new facts in the process of being deposed or in the process of reviewing documents. And things which one had forgotten or maybe even didn't know about are brought to one's attention. And I suspect that's what happened to Mr. Altman as soon as they were brought to his attention, as soon as he was made aware of them, he let this is Committee know as soon as possible. Senator KERRY. I want to thank you. I also want to again say to you that I respect the judgments and the lessons that you drew from this, and simply wish. perhaps, that they might have been applied more generally in this process and I know you wish that too. Mr. STEINER. I do indeed. The CHAIRMAN. Senator D'Amato informs me they're near an end on this side with questions. Depending upon what our demands for time are, and Mr. Altman has arrived and will be ready to go when we're ready for him. We've finished on this side, so let me inquire Senator FAIRCLOTH. A quick question. Senator D'AMATO. Senator Faircloth says two questions. Let me say that the Chairman and I are anxious because we're going to have at least 4 or 5 hours of questions for Mr. Altman, it is now quarter to 12, and we want to avoid a marathon. I'd urge Members 401 on our side, if we could, to hold it down so we could start as quickly as possible. So with that, I yield to Senator Faircloth. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Faircloth, Senator Boxer, and I have one final question and, perhaps, we'll be done here. Senator Faircloth. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I'll be brief and quick. Mr. Steiner, I wanted to get one thing straight before we move on to the next hearing. in my earlier round of questioning, you asked what---I asked what you meant when you wrote about Roger Alt an's gracefully ducking the Committee's question about the extent of White House contacts. You said that what you meant was he was asked a question he did not anticipate. I assume that gives you grounds for ducking. Then Senator D'Amato told you that was not right, that Roger Altman had been told the night before, in advance, what question to expect. Then I asked you a series of questions again, what you meant by ducking, and you said, "Senator, as I said before, I do not believe that Mr. Altman lied to this Committee or attempted to mislead this Committee. I believe he spoke truthfully and to the best of his knowlege, " and you went on to say, and I quote, "Senator, as I have said before. I have no reason to believe, nor do I believe that Mr. Altman lied to the Committee." Finally, you said, "I think he was asked a question he didn't anticipate. " Now, this is about 1 minute after Senator DAmato had just told you he talked to him the night before and said you're going to be asked this question so he did anticipate. Senator DAmato had just finished telling you, did you give the answer which you gave and was not accurate because you had practiced it before you came here today? Before you came with us today, you had practiced that answer so you couldn't reprogram yourself or did you just gracefully duck a question? Which was it? Mr. STEINER, Senator, I have been asked about the matters on discussion four times under oath and have given a number of interviews in addition to that. So this is not the first time I've been asked about that diary entry. Each time that I've been asked about it, I have tried to provide people asking the question with my best recollection of the events that occurred. Senator FAIRCLOTH. All right. Do you think we can see some Tnore graceful ducking from Mr. Altman this evening? Mr . STEINER. I think Mr. Altman will testify to the best of his ability. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Roth, you wanted the remainder of Senator Faircloth's time, I understand. Senator ROTH. Yes, I have two questions, Mr. Foreman. The formal OK you gave to Ms. Hanson at the February 2, 1994, meeting, was based on the talking points she showed you; is that correct? Mr. FOREMAN. Yes, Senator. Senator ROTH. And if you were to learn that nonpublic information about the status of the Madison Guaranty case was discussed at this meeting, such as the fact that the RTC would be unlikely to complete the case before the statute of limitations expired, would change your view? 402 Mr. FOREMAN. Senator, I think I would have bad further questions about the purpose of the meeting and who would be attending and that kind of thing. Senator ROTH. So there would be that possibility? Mr. FOREMAN. That's a possibility, sir. Of course, I'm looking back in hindsight with all that we know, but that's my best-my best judgment on that. Senator ROTH, If the meeting included White House pressure on Mr. Nussbaum to change Mr. Altman's recusal decision, would that change your view on the ethics of that meeting?
August 4, 1994 - Part 4
(12:45:22) And let's suppose I were talking about something of a personal nature or a governmental nature involving a colleague, and it would be embarrassing, extremely embarrassing to that colleague if this were to be made public. And he comes and says to me, you know, by the way, how could this, you know, this thing become public. My God, I'll tell you something, I would be furious. I would absolutely be furious with that person and the emotions would run-particularly particularly if he mischaracterized my statements and it turned out to be embarrassing. The emotions would be to throttle him, to do something. What were your emotions? What did you-after you said that you did not say these things, what were your emotions when he came to see you, you knowing about the gist of this? MS. WILLIAMS. I was upset. Senator D'AMATO. Just upset? MS. WILLIAMS. Well, boy, that's a broad range. Senator DAMATO. Well, that's what I'd like you to tell us. The CHAIRMAN. I'm going to let you finish, because we're over. going to give Senator DAmato as much time as he needs, but I do want to go to Senator Murray. You want to finish and complete the answer? Senator DAMATO. You were upset but what did you say to him? 328 MS. WILLIAMS. I don't recall everything I said to him because as you know, when you are upset with someone, you're not exactly clear of what you are saying, what comments you are making. Now, I wasn't throwing any chairs so write off that. Senator D'AMATO. That would be a normal reaction under those circumstances. Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, not with White House property. Senator D'AMATO. Well, that's- The CHAIRMAN. We'll come back to that. Senator MURRAY. OPENING COMMENT OF SENATOR MURRAY Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say sitting on this Committee for the last 5 days, I've learned that "seniority" means you speak to empty chairs. Mr. McLarty, we have heard a lot about this recusal issue over the last 5 days and this Committee has attached a lot of significance to that issue. How much do you think the problem here stemmed from the fact that there was not a separate permanent head of the RTC? Mr. McLARTY. Well, I know there's been, or I'm aware there's been a lot of discussion with this Committee which has oversight of the RTC. I think that was a factor in this situation that didn't lend itself to clarity. Senator MURRAY. You sent a nominee over here, Stanley Tate. Mr. McLARTY. We did. Senator MURRAY. A Republican, and he ultimately withdrew? Mr. McLARTY. That's correct, Senator Murray. Senator MURRAY. Would you have sent a nominee like Stanley Tate, a Republican, if your goal was, as some have suggested here, to be comfortable with the head of the RTC, the person who ultimately would be in charge of the Madison investigation? Mr. McLARTY. No--well, I had no involvement in the nomination of Mr. Tate. In all cases the nominee was sent up, thinking he or she would be qualified to serve and would serve in a capable and evenhanded way. Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. McLarty. Ms. Williams, I have to say looking at your resume, I'm impressed. Would you consider yourself pretty much an expert in media relations? MS. WILLIAMS. I hate to say that I was an expert, but I know a fair amount about the subject. Senator MURRAY. Well, you're Chief of Staff to the First Lady. You have a master's degree from the Annenberg School. You've been in the field for a long time. So would you say it's fair to say you understand how to work with the media, to communicate to the American people? Ms. WILLIAMS. I try. Senator MURRAY. Part of your hectic job, I must say, must be listening to the American people; is that true? Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes. Senator MURRAY. So let me ask you this question: In your opinion in February, those few weeks that this Committee has put an 329 intense light on, were the American people more concerned about Health Care or Whitewater? MS. WILLIAMS. I believe they were more concerned about Health Care, which was why I was trying to keep our focus on Health Care. Senator MURRAY. And was the White House more concerned at that time about Health Care or Whitewater? Ms. WILLIAMS. Oh, absolutely they were more concerned about Health Care. Senator MURRAY. In your opinion, today, are people more concerned about Health Care or Whitewater? Ms. WILLIAMS. In my opinion, I believe people are much more concerned about their Health Care. Senator MURRAY. And Ms. Williams, can you explain to me, as a taxpayer, is the First Lady now spending more time working on Health Care reform or Whitewater? Ms. WILLIAMS. She is spending mostly all of her time working on Health Care, Senator MURRAY. Have you ever seen the First Lady paralyzed? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, I have not. Senator MURRAY. I have to say I have not either. Mr. Chairman, let me just comment here. Some of our colleagues have commented on two meetings-meetings that were so brief that no one sat down. No one remembers them. Maybe the fact that they're not remembering these Whitewater meetings or sitting down to talk about them is a sign of the level of importance that this White House attached to those conversations.
August 2, 1994 - Part 6
(01:10:28) Senator GRAMM. Mr. Altman, may I go back. I didn't know you, and I asked you this question, and you said-you made up a question, you didn't answer my question. And then Senator Domenici followed up and asked you the gate closing question, and you said one meeting, and we now know there were 40, or 40 contacts. But I'm asking you now about February 3, using your definition. You pull the Treasury General Counsel out of a lunch. She runs down to the White House to have the meeting, and she's told that it's a good thing only a few people know that she recommended you recuse yourself. What was that meeting about? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, when I answered your question I did my best to answer it. I thought what the Committee was interested in was whether we had imparted, improperly, information to the White House on the RTC investigation of Madison and that's bow 433 I answered the question. The meeting you referred to had nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison. Senator GRAMM. I asked you, my question was, have you or any member of your staff had contact with the White House concerning Whitewater or Madison? Why were you debating recusal? Because in the Congress there was pressure that you do it because of your contacts with the President; is that not right? Mr. ALTMAN. I'm not sure what the question is, Senator. Senator GRAMM. The question is, why all this 22 days of agony, according to your Chief of Staff in his diary, why all this agony about recusal? It seems to me the obvious answer is the conflict of interest between you being a close friend of the President's and you overseeing a criminal investigation which had referred to him. Mr. ALTMAN. First of all, Senator, I bad no role of any kind in this investigation or any other investigation. I bad no such role at any time that I was at the RTC. No role whatsoever in any investigation. I believe Mr. Roelle and Mr. Ryan or others confirmed that in testimony before you. That's first. senator GRAMM. You were not bead of the RTC? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I had no role at any time in any investigation, and I believe they confirmed that. senator GRAMM. Why were you considering recusing yourself? Mr. ALTMAN. I think I did the right thing on recusal. Senator GRAMM. I agree-you should have done it 22 days sooner, but the point is why did you do it? Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Mr. Chairman, the time is up. We've got, to move. The CHAIRMAN. I understand, but we've gone now to the 10-minute time periods and that's run. I think rather than have him squeeze a response in there, you're probably better off having a second round and getting at it. I want to say one thing before I yield to Senator Dodd. You mentioned our speaking, you and 1, speaking to me as Chairman after you appeared before the Committee on the date in question. Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I'm sure you'll recall the fact that I, at the time, offered you an opportunity if you wanted to take it to come back to the Committee in the days immediately following, that I would convene a meeting of the hearing-hearing meeting for the chance for you to go ahead and amplify to whatever extent that you felt you might need to do so. Do you recall that? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir, and as you know, I was seriously considering it. The CHAIRMAN. Right. I just want that on the record that we did have that conversation and I did make that offer to you and Mr. ALTMAN. You did make that offer and if I recall properly and you please correct me if I don't-I think that I said to you that I thought it would be a good idea and I'd like to do it. The CHAIRMAN. And here you are. Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir, here I am. The CHAIRMAN. All right, Senator Dodd. Senator DODD Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. 434 First of all, Mr. Altman, let the record reflect, and I think it should, you have served in two Administrations and done so in view, with great distinction Mr. ALTMAN. Thank you. Senator DODD. -in the past, and have come back to Government, and as pointed out earlier worked on some of the testiest issues that have been before this Congress in the last 20 years, the Chrysler issue and New York. Whatever else we May go into here I think it's important for people who may not know you, for people who have been in Government and have had the opportunity to work with you, my experience is that you've been extremely forthright and an honest public servant and I'd like, at least, from this Senator's perspective to include that in the record. Mr. ALTMAN. Thank you. May I just say this: I don't know if the Committee agrees with me or not, the reason I wanted the tape to be shown I may not have answered in the best fashion, but I don't think that tape shows someone who's up here trying to conceal information.
August 9, 1995 - Part 2
(11:15:11) Mr. NUSSBAUM. At this hearing, you've had 4 or 5 people who were present at that meeting testify. You have me now. You had Steve Neuwirth. You had Cliff Sloan. You had Roger Adams. You have Agent Salter-5 people who were present at that meeting. Mrs. Monaco wasn't present and Mr. Heymann wasn't present. Out of those 5 people, Senator, I testified that I don't believe there was an agreement. Mr. Neuwirth has testified he doesn't believe there was an agreement. Mr. Sloan has testified he doesn't believe there was an agreement. Senator HATCH. He pretty much said he didn't know. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I believe Agent Salter testified that he doesn't recall an agreement. Mr. Adams has testified that he does believe there was an agreement. I think each of those people was testifying honestly. Senator HATCH. All right. So basically the three at the White House who served the President did not believe there was an agreement. These others believe there was? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Agent Salter-we all serve the President. Agent Salter serves the President. Roger Adams serves the President and the three of us Senator HATCH. I'm talking about as Counsel to the President, to use your terms. Let me move on. Susan Thomases, a New York attorney, testified before the Committee yesterday. You've told this Committee that you're familiar with her and her role as a close friend and outside advisor to the Clintons; right? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Senator HATCH. Did you talk to Ms. Thomases on July 22? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Senator HATCH. Do you remember how many times and 1220 Mr. NUSSBAUM. I only remember- Senator HATCH. -what times you did talk to her? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I only remember one conversation. Senator HATCH. Would it surprise you to know that you were paged by Ms. Thomases at 8:00 a,m. that morning? And if you remember that, did you return her call right away? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Nothing surprises me anymore, Senator, but I don't remember that. Senator HATCH. When you spoke with her that day, that one time that you do recall, you told this Committee that she said that she had "heard" that there were "discussions" and "disagreements" concerning law enforcement's search of the Foster office. She said that she was concerned that "law enforcement people" would have "unfettered access to the documents" in Foster's office. Is that correct? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Can you repeat that, Senator? Senator HATCH. Sure. The CHAIRMAN. I think, Senator, you might want to refer Mr." Nussbaum to his testimony. I think you have a copy there. Senator HATCH. Yes, I do. The CHAIRMAN. What page is that? Senator HATCH. Let's go to that page. The CHAIRMAN. Is that starting on page Senator HATCH. Page 54-154, I'm sorry. Page 154. Basically what you had said was that she had heard there were discussions and agreements. She was concerned that law enforcement people would have unfettered access to the documents and I think that's consistent with your testimony; right? Mr. NUSSBAUM. You're going a little too fast for me, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Why don't we read it? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I am just trying to figure out the portion of my testimony here in my deposition testimony you're focusing on. Senator SARBANES. Would the Senator tell us what page you are on? The CHAIRMAN. That's what I'm attempting to ascertain. Senator HATCH. I think it's on page 154-140. I'm sorry. Senator KERRY. Pages 139 to 142. to the The CHAIRMAN. Of the deposition given by Mr. Nussbaum Committee? Senator KERRY. Correct. The CHAIRMAN. Let's see if we can't all get on the same page and give Mr. Nussbaum the opportunity to get there, too. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Page 140? The CHAIRMAN. Pages 139 to 142, 1 believe it is. Senator KERRY. Page 139 it starts. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I have it. think it says, Senator HATCH. You have it? I Question: What was the conversation on the 22nd wAnswer: The conversation on the 22nd is she asked me what was going on with to the investigation or the examina- respect to- what was going on with respect to tion-the examination of Mr. Foster's off-ice. She had heard there were discussions in the White House with respect to this issue, which there were on the 22nd-which you'll get to, I presume-was everything OK and what was going on and I said I am having discussions with people. See, I remember this conversation before the search, but it could have been after the search. 1221 That's one of my problems. But I remember saying, Susan, I've been talking to people in the White House, how the search would be conducted, I will determine what the right procedure is or I've determined what the right procedure is and I followed it, depending on if that conversations took place before or after the search. We're going to follow the procedure that I think is right, and that's the way-that's what I'm going to do and that's the kind, I think, that I'm determining is a proper way to act with respect to this matter. You were asked, Question: How long was the conversation? Answer.- A few minutes. Not very long. Question: Did she tell you how she had heard there were discussions concerning the manner in which the review would occur? Answer. The search would occur.
LAWMAKERS
WETA "LAWMAKERS" 4/14/1983 IN 20.00.00-WETA credit/sponsor credits/title seqence. 20.00.55-PAUL DUKE/LINDA WERTHEIMER/COKIE ROBERTS-REAGAN got a victory when Senate approved his nominee, KENNETH ADELMAN, to head ARMS CONTROL and DISARMAMENT AGENCY, but lost in both houses on DEFENSE BUDGET. New push to curb U.S. aid to NICARAGUAN REBELS ["CONTRAS"] and EL SALVADOR. SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE refuses REAGAN'S proposal to cut DOMESTIC SPENDING and almost votes to TERMINATE REAGAN'S TAX CUT PROGRAM. House tribute to deceased Rep. PHIL BURTON (D-CA). Intro report on Congressional doubts about REAGAN'S commitment to ARMS CONTROL and position on DEFENSE. 20.02.32-Clip of REAGAN arguing against NUCLEAR FREEZE, contains "EVIL EMPIRE" quote about SOVIET UNION. Clip of OVAL OFFICE TV ADDRESS, REAGAN begging the public to tell their Congressmen and Senators to vote for MORE DEFENSE SPENDING. Clip of REAGAN speech, says "restoring military balance" is essential to peace. Shots of SENATE BUDGET COMMITTEE meeting, C/S Sen. JAMES EXON (D-NE), attacking REAGAN'S unwillingness to compromise. C/S Sen. PETE DOMENICI (R-NM) agreeing that REAGAN has not compromised one bit. C/S Sen. MARK ANDREWS (R-ND) attacking DEFENSE SECRETARY CASPAR WEINBERGER for the PENTAGON'S refusal to provide the Senate with clear numbers for DEFENSE COSTS. C/S Sen. HOWARD METZENBAUM (D-OH) gleefully announcing that since REPUBLICANS have been criticizing REAGAN, he will withhold his prepared "oratorical gems" until later. C/S DOMENICI joking that he never thought it was possible to get METZENBAUM to forego speaking. C/S Sen. JOHN TOWER (R-TX) arguing that REAGAN is doing his duty to guarantee security to all American citizens. 20.05.30-C/S Sen. DOMENICI, says REAGAN'S position on DEFENSE BUDGET is unreasonable, it is possible to defend the U.S. with less money. C/S TIP O'NEILL on SPEAKER'S platform in House. C/S JIM WRIGHT (MAJORITY LEADER) debating, says the NUCLEAR FREEZE issue is a question of working for peace or continuing to increase risk of NUCLEAR WAR. C/S Rep. NORMAN DICKS (D-WA) questioning REAGAN'S sincerity on the issue of ARMS CONTROL. Rep. JACK KEMP (R-NY) angrily debating, says that the U.S.S.R. is the enemy of all "American ideals", NUCLEAR FREEZE would be a mistake. KEMP gets cheers from some, hoots from others. 20.07.41-C/S Rep. ED MARKEY (D-MA) debating. File footage of MX MISSILE standing in a silo with technicians inspecting it. Shots of a Commission meeting to study deployment of the MX MISSILE. C/S BRENT SCOWCROFT, Commission for Strategic Forces, admitting that the Commission can't find any perfect solution to deploy the MX MISSILE. C/S Herbert Scoville, former deputy director of CIA, says SCOWCROFT COMMISSION report is just a rehash of old MX MISSILE PROPOSALS which were flawed and wasteful, the whole MX PROGRAM is "bankrupt". L/S-zoom Rep. BILL GREEN speaking to press, says SCOWCROFT COMMISSION REPORT proves that the MX MISSILE is a dead horse.
August 10, 1995 - Part 1
(11:00:15) Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Let me direct your attention to Park Police Exhibit 29, which is Mr. Markland's report of his interview of you of July 21, 1993, and direct your attention to the third paragraph 1327 Would you read that? Can you? I see you don't have a hard copy. Let me read it. This is not an eye test, Mr. Nussbaum. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Mr. Markland said: On July 20, 1993, after Vincent Foster's death became known to him, Mr. NUSSBAUM. responded back to the White House where he went through Mr. Foster's office with Patsy Thomasson and Maggie Williams. I take it you did not use the words, "I responded back to the White House." That's kind of police lingo. Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, I didn't use that language. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. But you went to the White House? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I went to the White I-louse. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Again, here it appears that Detective Markland has simply made an error in confusing your name with that of Mr. Foster, but what I'm sure he meant was "Mr. Nussbaum stated Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. -that they conducted a brief, quick search to see if Mr. Foster may have left a suicide note on his desk;"' correct? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. So it is clear that you did not attempt to keep the fact that you, Ms. Williams, and Ms. Thomasson had been in the office the night before to conduct the search from the police? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That is correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. YOU told them at the first opportunity You had? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That is correct. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Then it goes on to say, "This search lasted from 2200 to 2400 hours." I take it you would not under any circumstances have been using military time, but this indicates that the search lasted 2 hours, between 10:00 and 12:00 p.m. Is that the case, or is that simply an error? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That is an error. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. I believe Mr. Markland, Mr. Chairman, has cleared that up in his deposition and has recognized that that was an error. "Mr. Nussbaum stated no documents were removed from the office." I take it that is something which you did, in fact, tell Detective Markland? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That is true. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. That was true at the time and, I take it from your testimony, is true now? Mr. NUSSBAUM. It was true at the time, and it is true now. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Now, yesterday, a question came up with respect to Mr. Burton's notes, which were identified in documents produced by the White House to this Committee as Z514. Could we put that up, please. Z514 was described by Mr. Burton as a note which he thinks he wrote on or about July 28 or 29. This would have been in the days after the torn-up note was discovered by Mr. Neuwirth and yourself. Yesterday, you were asked some questions about this. Mr- Burton testified that this note is properly interpreted as saying, "far happier if discussed" or "disclosed if someone other than Bernie." Mr. Gergen testified before this Committee in open hearings that there were discussions with the Justice Department once the note 1328 had been discovered and turned over about who and under what circumstances the contents of the note would be disclosed-who would disclose it and under what circumstances. Do you recall that that had occurred? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Mr. Gergen's testimony was that he believed' this reference--since he was one of the participants in this meet- ing-that this reference related to the fact that the Justice Department was concerned that no one other than the Park Police should be the ones who would be in charge of disclosing the contents. Does that comport with your recollection? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, that makes sense to me.
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:40:07) Mr. Chairman, I think the stage has been Set for competent, probative hearings, and I'm confident that Members of the Committee will respect the scope and the intent of these hearings. But it truly remains to be seen from our statements and our actions how the American people will perceive the product of out, labors, and whether or not these hearings will in the end justify - the cost as much for revealing the truth as they will for achieving political objectives. I know, Mr. Chairman, that the truth still outweighs politics in America, and I know the truth that is revealed in these hearings 18 will show the American people that we are not involved in a, constitutional crisis. Nevertheless, there are legitimate questions about the Conduct Of those who are acting on their own in what they deem to be the interest of the President or those associated with the President, and that conduct must be examined and those questions must be answered. Therefore, these hearings are really more about judgment than conspiracy. They are more about personality than criminality. They are more about perceptions than deceptions. Above all, they are more about our maintaining respect for the institutions of Government than someone else's disrespect for the Constitution, As we proceed, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we probe deeply into facts, not rumor, and find the truth, that we find the answers and lay them out in an uncharged atmosphere that avoids heated rhetoric, bizarre allegations and disrespectful characterizations that have more and more become the daily fodder of our political debate. Our obligation is to seek the truth about the handling of documents at the White House, number one; about contacts regarding Madison later; and about alleged interference with the RTC and the general involvement and interaction of public and private individuals on this matter. But, Mr. Chairman, I hope we do not take the resolution that established the scope of these hearings to be a license to disrespect the rights of those who come before us to witch hunt or to grand stand or to misinterpret bad Judgment as something illegal or conspiratorial. We, as representatives of the American people have a solemn responsibility to complete our task without reaching too far or spending too much or hurting innocent people simply to satisfy a political agenda or philosophy. We should ask tough questions, and we will and we have before; and we will determine who did what and when they did it and why. We should do it quickly and thoroughly and, most importantly, in conjunction with the Special Counsel. I know that you, Mr. Chairman, and the Senior Senator from Maryland are committed to coordinating this Committee's activities with Judge Starr. I know that the Chairman himself has stated we are not going to do some multimillion dollar thing, we don't want, to make the hearing so expansive that it becomes unfocused and we're not going to run roughshod over Judge Starr's work. I know the Chairman means what he says. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that we will have the full cooperation of the Administration. The documents which Senator Hatch just showed us, notwithstanding their redactions, were provided by the Administration. Clearly, if they wanted to hide something completely and not titillate you with the mere leaving of a word, the document might better have never appeared. But it did, appear, and the fact of its appearance is a statement about that co operation. I am convinced that we therefore can, fairly and impartially, ultimately evaluate the facts here and once and for all put this issue to rest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Senator Faircloth. 19 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUCH FAIRCLOTH Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The term "Whitewater" has come to describe not only the failed Arkansas land development of the President and Mrs. Clinton, it has also come to describe a web of interconnected scandals involving personal and political friends of both the President and the First Lady. Today, the Banking Committee resumes hearings on the Whitewater scandal with a focus on the events that transpired shortly after the death of Vince Foster. It's important that we note that the death of Mr. Foster marked the first time that one of the highest ranking White House officials committed suicide while serving in their official capacity. By its very nature, suicide is always a tragedy, but the death of Vince Foster is especially so, given his very close and long- time friendship with the President and Mrs. Clinton and the sensitive nature of the work he performed for them as a White House Counsel.
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(10:40:07) Mr. Chairman, I think the stage has been Set for competent, probative hearings, and I'm confident that Members of the Committee will respect the scope and the intent of these hearings. But it truly remains to be seen from our statements and our actions how the American people will perceive the product of out, labors, and whether or not these hearings will in the end justify - the cost as much for revealing the truth as they will for achieving political objectives. I know, Mr. Chairman, that the truth still outweighs politics in America, and I know the truth that is revealed in these hearings 18 will show the American people that we are not involved in a, constitutional crisis. Nevertheless, there are legitimate questions about the Conduct Of those who are acting on their own in what they deem to be the interest of the President or those associated with the President, and that conduct must be examined and those questions must be answered. Therefore, these hearings are really more about judgment than conspiracy. They are more about personality than criminality. They are more about perceptions than deceptions. Above all, they are more about our maintaining respect for the institutions of Government than someone else's disrespect for the Constitution, As we proceed, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we probe deeply into facts, not rumor, and find the truth, that we find the answers and lay them out in an uncharged atmosphere that avoids heated rhetoric, bizarre allegations and disrespectful characterizations that have more and more become the daily fodder of our political debate. Our obligation is to seek the truth about the handling of documents at the White House, number one; about contacts regarding Madison later; and about alleged interference with the RTC and the general involvement and interaction of public and private individuals on this matter. But, Mr. Chairman, I hope we do not take the resolution that established the scope of these hearings to be a license to disrespect the rights of those who come before us to witch hunt or to grand stand or to misinterpret bad Judgment as something illegal or conspiratorial. We, as representatives of the American people have a solemn responsibility to complete our task without reaching too far or spending too much or hurting innocent people simply to satisfy a political agenda or philosophy. We should ask tough questions, and we will and we have before; and we will determine who did what and when they did it and why. We should do it quickly and thoroughly and, most importantly, in conjunction with the Special Counsel. I know that you, Mr. Chairman, and the Senior Senator from Maryland are committed to coordinating this Committee's activities with Judge Starr. I know that the Chairman himself has stated we are not going to do some multimillion dollar thing, we don't want, to make the hearing so expansive that it becomes unfocused and we're not going to run roughshod over Judge Starr's work. I know the Chairman means what he says. My understanding, Mr. Chairman, is that we will have the full cooperation of the Administration. The documents which Senator Hatch just showed us, notwithstanding their redactions, were provided by the Administration. Clearly, if they wanted to hide something completely and not titillate you with the mere leaving of a word, the document might better have never appeared. But it did, appear, and the fact of its appearance is a statement about that co operation. I am convinced that we therefore can, fairly and impartially, ultimately evaluate the facts here and once and for all put this issue to rest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. Senator Faircloth. 19 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAUCH FAIRCLOTH Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The term "Whitewater" has come to describe not only the failed Arkansas land development of the President and Mrs. Clinton, it has also come to describe a web of interconnected scandals involving personal and political friends of both the President and the First Lady. Today, the Banking Committee resumes hearings on the Whitewater scandal with a focus on the events that transpired shortly after the death of Vince Foster. It's important that we note that the death of Mr. Foster marked the first time that one of the highest ranking White House officials committed suicide while serving in their official capacity. By its very nature, suicide is always a tragedy, but the death of Vince Foster is especially so, given his very close and long- time friendship with the President and Mrs. Clinton and the sensitive nature of the work he performed for them as a White House Counsel.
July 19, 1995 - Part 1
(10:45:36) Mr. BEN-VENISTE. In fact, that was done the next day. Did you know that? Mr. HUBBELL. I don't know that. I really don't. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. But, in any event, as far as you were concerned, if the office was locked, that would have taken care of the matter? Mr. HUBBELL. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Again, in the interest of making some kind of sense, when Members or counsel have a line of questioning that they are close to completing, I would hope that we would give deference so that could take place. That has been the case this morning and throughout the hearings. We ran several minutes over, and I intend to even that out. So, Mr. Ben-Veniste, please continue. Mr. BEN-VENISTE, Simply to bring closure to the issue of locked versus sealed, some of the questions have been put to you in terms, of sealing the office. I'm not sure exactly what that means, and perhaps others will shed light on their definition of that term, but as far as you were concerned, if somehow the office was locked, that would have been satisfactory; correct? Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, I would have preferred to have somebody there to log if people went in or out. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Finally, the next day when you had your con-, versation with Mr. Nussbaum, it became clear to you that Mr.' Nussbaum or someone else had looked in the office to see whether there was a suicide note left by Mr. Foster; is that correct? Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Mr, BEN-VENISTE. Did you find that to have been a reasonable and appropriate thing to do? Mr. HUBBELL, Yes. I think everybody was searching for a note, and I think it would be somebody of the stature of White House' Counsel to open the door, walk in and see if there's a note. I think' that is appropriate. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Ben-Veniste. Let me, at this point, point out that yesterday Senator Sarbanes and I and indeed the entire Committee agreed that we would request from Judge Starr on behalf of all the Members of the Com- mittee, reiterate our request for the testimony and notes of Officer O'Neill and Mrs. Williams, Maggie Williams as well as any poly- 95 graph tests that the Independent Counsel might have, We'll release a copy of that request and the letter, the initial letter, which was sent by the Committee or by counsel to the Committee on July 11th. So we have asked, and we just say on behalf of all of the Members of the Special Committee, we reiterate the request that we made on the I 11th. I'd just like to note that and we have undertaken that. Can you put on the clock? Mr. Hubbell, I'd like to take this opportunity, and I know that you are not familiar with all the people who did enter the office and the manner in which the review was taken, certainly not by your own knowledge, and maybe you've gleaned some of this from some of the questions that have been asked of you, some of the stories that have appeared in the press, and you certainly can't make a judgment on the basis of hearsay or what you've heard, but let me ask you this. Should a person without security clearance have been allowed to search Mr. Foster's office? Mr. HUBBELL. Search his office? The CHAIRMAN. In other words, go through his office, go through his documents. If you had a person who did not have security clearance, would that be appropriate? Again, let's remove it from Mr. Foster's office. Given the situation where confidential materials are stored, questions of national security, et cetera, would it be, in your judgment as a former Member of the Justice Department, would you say that is proper?
August 4, 1994 - Part 3
(11:45:15) I believe that it was inappropriate for White House officials to express a view regarding the recusal of Mr. Altman, so I must put that on the table, Ms. Williams and Mr. McLarty, and to all of those who expressed this view, I think it was inappropriate-although, the truth is, Mr. Altman could discuss that issue with anyone that he wanted. That is my understanding of the law. It was perfectly fine. He could discuss it with anyone. But again we are looking at the atmosphere under which this conversation took place, which was described in Mr, Steiner's diary as "Intense pressure." Now I am trying to ask about people who were at the meeting, because we are trying to put ourselves at that meeting. Mr. Steiner was not at the meeting. He keeps being quoted as if he was there. You were there. Mr. Eggleston was there. Mr. Eggleston got complimented by almost everyone. He said he would not characterize it as intense pressure. My recollection from last night-and I think it is pretty sound-is that there were a lot of questions raised, and Mr. Nussbaum was not in a happy mood about it. 315 Is that your recollection of what happened during that period? I know you said you tuned out at a certain point. I think it would be kind of hard to tune out if Mr. Nussbaum had thrown a fit about the situation, but you tuned out. What do you remember, again, concisely? Would you say that you exerted intense pressure on Mr. Altman? MS. WILLIAMS. No, I did not exert pressure on Mr. Altman. I asked him a question. Senator BOXER. Now, Mr. McLarty, you were the Chief of Staff to the President of the United States of America. I have worked with you, and I know that when you wanted to make an opinion known to me you had your way of getting to the point and doing it. Now Mr. Steiner said that Mr. Altman was under intense pressure from the White House. Surely as Chief of Staff of the White House, if anyone represented "the White House," or "the President" in my mind it was you, more so than anybody else. Did you put intense pressure on Mr. Altman to recuse himself? Mr. McLARTY. No, Senator Boxer, I did not. Senator BOXER. What did you say to Mr. Altman when he told you he was thinking about recusing himself? Mr. McLARTY. I told him to make the---my advice to him was to make the judgment he thought was the right one. Senator BOXER. So you said, "Make the judgment you think is the right one," and Mr. Steiner writes that Mr. Altman was under intense pressure from the White House. I have never known you as a man to be dishonest, Do you have any reservation about what you told Mr. Altman? Do you remember it clearly that that is what you said? Mr. McLARTY. Yes, Senator, I remember it clearly. In my mind there was no way that Mr. Altman could have interpreted anything I said as any kind of pressure about his decision. Senator BOXER. And you were Chief of Staff to the President of the United States at that time. Mr. McLARTY. At that time I had the privilege to serve in that position. Senator BOXER. Now do you think Roger Altman, Mr. McLarty, is the type of man who could be easily intimidated? Mr. McLARTY, No, I do not. Senator BOXER. Ms, Williams, is your impression of Mr. Altman that he is kind of a weak-kneed guy who has not been around the block a few times? Or is this a man who has had some experience? Ms. WILLIAMS. That would be my impression of Mr. Altman, Someone who had some experience. Senator BOXER. OK. Well I think it is very important that this Committee, before it hangs someone on the basis of a diary, listen to the people who were involved in the discussion directly. I think that is the least that this Committee can do before we go out and make our pronouncements as to what we think went on. Mr, McLarty, in retrospect do you think it would have been better if all the questions on Whitewater and Madison Guaranty had been handled in a different way? 316 Mr. McLARTY. Oh, I think hindsight is always helpful in any decision, and I think the contacts could have been more clearly channeled through the White House Counsel's Office, in retrospect. Senator BOXER. Or perhaps, in my view, not gone to the White House at all. I mean, that is something Mr. MCLARTY. I think I said that in my opening statement, that in retrospect there were some things that you would have certainly tried to do differently. Senator BOXER. Mr. McLarty, did the President or the First Lady ever ask you to slow down the Whitewater investigation in any way? Mr. MCLARTY. No, they did not. Senator BOXER. Did the President or the First Lady ever ask you to beg Mr. Altman or ask Mr. Altman or exert pressure on Mr. Altman to stay in his position so that Whitewater would go away and not be an issue? Mr. MCLARTY. No, they did not beg me or ask me to do that. Senator BOXER. Ms. Williams, as Assistant to the President, did he ever discuss this matter with you and urge you to do all you could do to convince Mr. Altman not to recuse himself and to go easy on the Whitewater matter?
Capitol Journal - Immigration #2
(01:00:00) WETA logo, PBS funding credits (01:00:13) Opens to the comments of construction worker in cowboy hat about using illegal immigrant workers or "exchange students", Colorado Governor RICHARD LAMM calls in flow of immigrants "a social time bomb" - footage of both these men's comments contained within a window on the screen under which runs a Capitol Journal banner (01:00:32) Guest host COKIE ROBERTS introduces show, Capitol Journal title credit and animation (01:00:52) Roberts explains that immigration is currently an issue in Congress and segues to footage of San Antonio Texas on the 4th of July - racially mixed crowds watch and participate in 4th of July street parade, listen and play Mexican and American music, watch fire works, comments of local Immigration and Naturalization director, RICHARD CASILLAS, comments of the mayor of San Antonio, HENRY CISNEROS, brief footage of INS raid on restaraunt, shots of the kichen of a Mexican restaurant where food is being prepared, on screen text listing the immigration reforms of legislation passed in the Senate, footage of illegal immigrants creeping along and entering chain link fences along the Mexican-U.S. border, comments of an AFL-CIO representative - ARTHUR CHASKIN, comments of cowboy hat wearing construction worker from show's beginning - footage of him out recruiting workers, two restaurant managers who explain why they higher illegals (01:08:54) Roberts standing outside the Capital Building segues to footage of House hearings on immigration, Colorado Governor RICHARD LAMM testifies before House Sub-Committee about why illegal immigrants are bad for the economy and social services (01:12:00) Back in studio Roberts segues to interview she conducted earlier in a Congressional office with Representatives ROBERT GARCIA and DANIEL LUNGREN - they discuss immigration bill currently on the floor of the House (01:18:03) Back in the studio Roberts introduces discussion panel: STEVEN ROBERTS of the New York Times, WILLIAM GHOYKE of the Dallas Morning News, DONALD LAMBRO of United Features Syndicate, they talk about the different facets of the new immigration bill and who supports and is against it (01:25:35) Roberts thanks guests and closes out show segueing to concluding footage of Senator JOHN GLENN joking with the Senate about how to have a nice appearance during the first tv broadcast of the Senate floor, Glenn applies powder to his bald spot to take off the glare and brushes his hair with his hands - credits roll over much of this footage (01:27:30) PBS funding credits
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(15:47:10) Hearing host NINA TOTENBERG segues back to Senate Hearings: Do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God. The WITNESSES. I do. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that Mr. Klein is the senior person at the table that you have a statement that you want to make 86 and then some of the others-I gather some of the others may have as well. Mr. Eggleston, do you have one? Mr. EGGLESTON. I do. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sloan? Mr. SLOAN. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Nolan? Ms. NOLAN. I do. The CHAIRMAN. You all have statements, so we'll start with you, Mr. Klein, and we'll come down the table. TESTIMONY OF JOEL 1. KLEIN, DEPUTY COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT Mr. KLEIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Joel Klein and since December 1, 1993, 1 have served as Deputy Counsel to the President- first under Bernard Nussbaum and then under Lloyd Cutler. My only direct involvement in any of the socalled White House-Treasury contacts relates to the matter that Mr. Ludwig just testified about. In late December of last year, my family and I were attending a Renaissance Weekend in Hilton Head, South Carolina, at which the President was also in attendance. At about 4:00 p.m, on December 30th, I received a call' from Associate White House Counsel, Neil Eggleston, who stated that Eugene Ludwig, the Comptroller of the Currency, had called Cliff Sloan, also an Associate White House Counsel, and requested information concerning the Whitewater/ Madison Guaranty matter, indicating that the President had asked to speak to him about it. Mr. Eggleston said he and Mr. Sloan thought that even though Mr. Ludwig was not involved in the matter, it would be better that the President not talk to Mr.Ludwig, given his position as Comptroller. I agreed and told Mr. Eggleston that I would take care of it. I then went to see the President who was at the time at a Renaissance session and after the session I took him aside and I said that my office had been called and had indicated to me that Mr. Ludwig had requested information so that he could talk to the President about Whitewater. The President responded to me that Mr. Ludwig must have misunderstood him because he had only wanted to ask for the names of people knowledgeable in banking I and real estate who might be able to explain Whitewater to the public in simple terms.
JFK Assassination Hearings - Robert Groden
Goldsmith asks aside from the positioning of the men what else does the Zapruder film reveal that is inconsistent with the single bullet theory - Groden answers that the men's reactions are not synced, JFK grabs his neck a good time before Connally reacts. Goldsmith asks how relative to the Zapruder film the Warren Commission came to the conclusion it did - Groden answers that the time elapsed between when JFK was possibly shot (on the film it is obscured by a road sign) in the neck and when Connally shows a response is too short a time for another shot to have been fired by the same gun. Goldsmith introduces the Zapruder film that is about to be shown to the committee - Groden explains that the first take will be the original film and the second will be one that has been slowed down and subjected to rotoscoping which he explains is a process by which the image has been centered on JFK and Connally and steadied. Groden explains what to look for in the film, particularly the reactions of both men and when they occur. Goldsmith gives the name of the copyright holder for the film and warns sensitive viewers to turn away.
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(12:00:50) Mr. STEINER. That's correct, Senator. Senator KERRY. And in private. Mr. STEINER. That's correct, Senator. Senator KERRY. Did you personally view the lack of that completeness in his testimony, at least as to the contacts alone to be a problem? Mr. STEINER. Yes, Senator. Senator KERRY. Did you see the letter that he sent to the Committee, I think it was March 2, as his first correction? Mr. STEINER. I believe I did, Senator. Senator KERRY. Did you view the lack of his addressing the incompleteness, that you say you were aware of, as a problem at that point in time? In other words, when he wrote a letter to correct the record, you still, in viewing that letter, understood that it did not correct the record fully? Mr. STEINER. I can't recall my reaction to the letter, Senator. I can tell you that I was reassured by the fact that Mr. Altman was trying to correct his record but I can't tell you exactly my reaction to the letter. Senator KERRY. Well, I think in your deposition, you said that it was your understanding that the letter was intended to serve the purpose of clarifying Mr. Altman's memory. To the extent this was Mr. Altman's memory, it was appropriate to be sent, but it would be inappropriate for you or other people to introduce additional information unless it was specifically requested of you. Do you remember that? Mr. STEINER. I believe that's what I was told by the attorneys at the time, yes, sir. Senator KERRY. So it was attorneys. Other attorneys were part of that review? Mr. STEINER. I believe Ms. Hanson was a part of that review, yes, sir. Senator KERRY. Ms. Hanson suggested to you that it would have been inappropriate for you to correct this further even though you knew as Chief of Staff that it was not a complete correction to the Committee? Mr. STEINER. Senator, I want to be clear on this. As I understand it, there were a series of letters that went forward and events do become compressed. At some point shortly thereafter, Mr. Altman also took on private counsel, I want to be clear that I can't recall whether it was private counsel who made that comment or Ms. Hanson. Senator KERRY. Do you recall which letter it was? I'm talking about the first letter. I'm talking about the March 2 letter in which Mr. Altman first contacted the Committee to correct the record. You reviewed that letter? Mr. STEINER. I believe I did, yes, sir. Senator KERRY. And you knew that letter; at that time, did not accurately reflect your own memory with respect to what happened in terms of contacts? 400 Mr. STEINER. I believe Mr. Altman was correcting his comment about substantive meetings, and I believe, to the extent that was his correction, that was accurate. Senator KERRY. Did you raise the issue with him? Did you say to him, Mr. Secretary, this is not a full correction? Mr. STEINER. I believe I mentioned to him the fact that I had a meeting with Mr. Stephanopoulos, on February 16 or thereabouts. Senator KERRY. Well, if you're reading this letter "when Senator Bond asked me'- this March 2 letter- when Senator Bond asked me, at that hearing, were there any other communications that had taken place between the RTC and the White House, my response was not to my knowledge I still have no knowledge that any such discussions occurred. I mean, that is a very strong denial of contacts which you were then aware of. Am I wrong in that or am I confused? Mr. STEINER. Senator, I want to be as precise as I can. I can't recall exactly my comments on that letter. Senator KERRY. Fair enough. Do you have a-my time is almost up. Do you have a sense-do you know what prompted Mr. Altman to amplify the record not just on the 2nd, but again on the 3rd,, and then again on le 11th, I think it is? Do you know what prompted that? Mr. STEINER. I believe Mr. Altman wanted to be as forthcoming as he could be to this Committee and as he gathered additional information, he wanted to provide it to the Committee as quickly as possible. Senator KERRY. Why would he not say then in his letter on the 2nd, I'm checking out further information or I'm trying to find out if this is fully accurate rather than just I want to correct the record, here it is, and it was blatantly incorrect in its correcting?
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:00:03) Ms. NOLAN. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Beth Nolan. Since February 1993, 1 have been Associate Counsel to the President. I also serve as the Alternate Designated Agency Ethics Official for the White House; the Counsel to the President serves as the Designated Agency Ethics Official. While serving in the White House, I am on leave from my position as a law professor at The National Law Center, George Washington University, where I have taught courses in legal ethics, Government ethics, and constitutional law. Before I began teaching, I served for 4 years, from 1981 to 1985, as a staff attorney in the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of Justice. As alternate ethics official, my responsibilities include matters arising under the conflict of interest laws and the standards of conduct, as well as other matters concerning Administration ethics Policy. My job involves frequent consultation with ethics officials throughout the Executive Branch. My only contacts with a Treasury official on this matter fell into this area of consultation. I had several telephone conversations with Dennis Foreman, the Designated Agency Ethics Official of the Department of the Treasury. I spoke with Mr. Foreman initially at the request of Bernard Nussbaum, then Counsel to the President, regarding the recusal standards applicable to Presidential appointees as they affected Roger Altman, Deputy Secretary of the Treasury and Interim CEO of the Resolution Trust Corporation. 90 Mr. Foreman and I discussed the general standards, and he told me that he intended to contact Art Kusinski, the Designated Agency Ethics Official of the RTC, and Steven Potts, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics, to evaluate the recusal issue. This made clear to me that a decision process was in place in which the recusal decision would receive serious consideration by the appropriate officials. It is my recollection that I had a brief phone call with Mr. Nussbaum in which I reported these matters to him, and that I received no follow-up instructions to do anything further. Mr. Foreman later advised me he had been in contact with both the RTC and OGE and that a legal memorandum had been prepared and forwarded to Mr. Altman setting forth the standards applicable to his recusal. These phone calls are the total of my contacts with the Treasury on this matter. My conversations with Mr. Foreman were fully consistent with the duties of a White House ethics lawyer, and, indeed, the Director of the Office of Government Ethics has determined that they were "similar to the types of discussions that take place daily between Executive Branch ethics officials and the White House ethics expert on matters involving Presidential appointees." I will be happy to answer your questions. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Eggleston, let me start with you. On March 1, 1993, you were serving as Associate Counsel to the President and as I understand it, you reported to Bernie Nussbaum, who was at that time Counsel to the President; is that right? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, it was March 1, 1994. 1 didn't start in the White House until September 1993. The CHAIRMAN, Let the record make that correction, 1994. At that time in 1994, March 1, you would have been reporting to Bernie Nussbaum, Counsel to the President; is that right? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Did you also report to Harold Ickes, who was Deputy Chief of Staff to the White House? Mr. EGGLESTON. I did not report directly to Mr. Ickes. On an asneeded basis, I provided legal advice or support to him. He was not MY direct support-- excuse me, direct report. The CHAIRMAN. Did Mr. Ickes assign you a task of writing a memo concerning the Rose Law Firm? Mr. EGGLESTON. He did. The CHAIRMAN. Tell me what you were specifically assigned to do in that memo. Mr. EGGLESTON. I believe that that assignment came sometime. certainly after the February 24th hearing, which took place before. this Committee. I don't recall whether it was Friday, Saturday or Sunday. It was before the date of the memo--the date of my memo is actually February 28th. I think I wrote this sometime over the: weekend. Mr. Ickes essentially asked me if I would prepare a memo on where things stand now. A number of things had occurred sort of at the hearing that I think changed between the hearing and the following day that changed where things stood- 91 The CHAIRMAN. Let me stop you. You say "where things stand." What "things" are we talking about? Mr. EGGLESTON. Probably the easiest way for me to do it, I do not have a real clear recollection of exactly what he asked me to do, but I'm fairly confident that my memorandum responded to whatever it was that he asked me to do. I think that he asked me, as I recall, generally to set forth where the matter stood with regard to the Rose Law Firm, which had frankly, Mr. Chairman, been the matter that had dominated, as I recall, 75 percent of the hearing that took place here on February Keith.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Were you going to her in the expectation or hope that there might still be recourse that could be taken? Were you thinking of going back and advising - Joel Paul. No, Senator, no. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). Now, you say, well, I am still curious. If you were not doing it for that reason, to see if there was still a cause of action to go back and try to convince Professor Hill to do something, did it surprise you that she - I mean why - what was the motivation of going to your fellow colleague? Joel Paul. My motivation was to try to understand better the position that women may be in, in that situation. It was simply a matter of academic - Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). What were you told - Joel Paul. --curiosity. Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). What were you told? Joel Paul. I am sorry? Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). What were you told by your colleague as to why women stay in that situation, or did she volunteer anything? Joel Paul. Ms. Dunham said - and this is all that I really can say that I recall on my own - is that she said that this was a case of the fox guarding the hen-house. That portion of the conversation I can recall on my own. I believe Ms. Dunham has had a conversation with the Judiciary Committee staff, but I don't recall.
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
Henry Hyde-Every time something comes up in excess of the budget we pay no attention to it. The public law 95435 which was passed some years ago says that we can t spend any more money then we take in. That is as ignored as the tenth amendment of the constitution. And someday I hope the legal scholars on this committee will find time to do a paper on the tenth amendment and why it is atrophy and ignored. Now if we can t ignore the law or exempt ourselves from it, we play games with the process. Do you know how we got our pay raise? Now the Senators voted no, terrific. And by the way thank god we got the pay raise. I m happy I need the money. I earned the money. But you know what we did in the house, we waited under the guidance of the stage director over there, the Speaker, till 30 days had elapsed and it was vested. It could not be unvested and then we got a vote on it. We waited until it was locked in and then we voted on it. And we could all tell our constitutes, I didn t vote for that pay raise, that s the way we do things. So there s much to be learned from watching us. Now let me, and they don t watch us close enough.
Iran-Contra Hearings - Testimony of Colonel Oliver North.
Senator Howell Heflin-And then in another exhibit, exhibit 8 which has already been mentioned which is a memorandum that you have prepared along with Mr. Bercout that went to Admiral Poindexter and then was to be used with another National Security planning group. You state there in the beginning the resistance itself is increasingly desperate as available supplies have depleted as of May 1. No further medical supplies or clothing are available. By mid-June, the outside support the resistance has received will be consumed and no further support appears readily available. Now in that memo it was for the purpose of bringing to the National Security Planning group various options including the options of trying to convince congress that you might take 15 million from the appropriations, the DOD and give it to the CIA for the humanitarian assistance to the resistance group. And on page two it states that an immediate reprogram of 15 million from DOD to the CIA for the humanitarian assistance to the DRF funds would reduce our subsequent request from one hundred million to eighty five million. This action would require approval in the House, Senate Central Intelligence committee, armed service committees and defense appropriations sub committees. We can make a good case that this humanitarian assistance and in (5 million per month) through August of 1986 is essential to maintain the option of BRRF pressure and so on.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator MONTOYA. Now, you mentioned that you received a note in your box from Mr. Caulfield which was signed "Jack". You also mentioned a letter that you wrote to Mr. Caulfield which you addressed "Dear Jack". Now, were you on a first-name basis with Jack Caulfield? Mr. McCORD. Yes, Sir. Senator MONTOYA. How long have you known him? Mr. McCORD. I first met him when he contacted me about the job at Commitee to Re-elect the President in September, that was my first meeting with him, first time I'd met him. Senator MONTOYA. Was he the only one connected either with the White House or the committee to ask you to come to work? Mr. McCORD. No sir, the first person that contacted me conveyed a message to me that - the first person was an individual in the Secret Service that I had known & he said that there was a possibility of a position open in campaign security work during 1972 campaign and did I have any interest. My answer was, this gentleman called me by phone in Sept 1972, in about a 1-2-minute conversation, my answer was I would have liked to have heard more about it. He said, well, you may be getting a call. I shortly did receive a call from Mr. Caulfield. Senator MONTOYA. Who was that person in the Secret Service? Mr. McCORD. Mr. Alfred Wong.
Watergate Hearings - Testimony of Gordon C. Strachan, July 23, 1973
U.S. Senator Edward Gurney (R-FL) asks former White House aide Gordon C. Strachan if he had ever been instructed to shred files before Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman asked him to do so. Strachan says no, that that was the first time. However, he had shredded files or copies of files before, in maintaining order relating to campaign matters. Senator Gurney asks Strachan to reiterate if he attended any meetings discussing any possibility of a cover-up or if he knew of any meetings taking place on that matter. Strachan denies being at any meetings or knowledge of any meetings that discussed cover-up. Senator Gurney asks for more information about intelligence meetings held by Haldeman. Strachan gives names and dates of meetings.