Advanced Search
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:50:46) Senator SASSER. Well I will be pleased to repeat it, Senator Boxer, The question that I propounded to Secretary Bentsen was, Ms. Hanson gave him a handwritten note to prepare for his testimony before the House Appropriations Committee, and Ms. Hanson apparently suggested to Secretary Bentsen that he should say, and I quote: "I now believe that Ms. Hanson and Mr. Altman consulted with me in advance of the White House meeting of February 2nd, 1994, that was the subject of Mr. Altman's February 24 testimony." And I asked the Secretary did Ms. Hanson's suggestion accurately reflect the Secretary's true belief. Secretary BENTSEN. That certainly does not reflect my memory of the situation. It does not. As I have said, they met with me on or about February 1 when Mr, Altman told me he was thinking of 23 recusing himself and they discussed the statute of limitations. However, to the extent that the answer you read suggests that they consulted with me about going to the White House, it is incorrect. Senator SASSER. Now let me ask you Secretary BENTSEN. And at one point, I recall telling her that we had a difference of opinion concerning that issue. Senator SASSER. Now let me ask you, have you had any communications with the President or First Lady about this whole Madison or Whitewater matter? Secretary BENTSEN. No, I have not. I know I was on a plane with the President flying some place and that was after all this was in the papers. And I recall how strange it seemed not to be able to discuss it, and neither of us brought any of this up to discuss with the other. Senator SASSER. Right. So it was on your mind, but you knew Secretary BENTSEN. It sure was. Senator SASSER [continuing]. You knew it would be improper to discuss it with the President? Secretary BENTSEN. That is correct. all? Senator SASSER, And the President did not bring it up to you at Secretary BENTSEN. That is correct. Senator SASSER. Nor has the First Lady? Secretary BENTSEN, That is correct. Senator SASSER, All right. Now Mr. Secretary, according to an entry in Mr. Altman's diary, dated January 4, 1994, he says that you, and I quote: "went over to see George * * " That is George Stephanopoulos "* * * on Whitewater yesterday to argue for lancing the boll." He says "to argue for lancing the boil." Did such a meeting take place? Secretary BENTSEN. Yes, such a meeting took place. Senator SASSER. Tell us what happened in that meeting? Secretary BENTSEN. Well I called George Stephanopoulos and that was at the time when charges were being made that there was stonewalling taking place by the White House, that there was not disclosure. And I went over to talk to him and tell him that whatever the facts were, get it out there. Make a total disclosure. That I had been through one of these deals where I formed a breakfast club one time where I was going to get contributors together for my campaign and have breakfast with them from time to time. Frankly, I tried to take some of the ideas out of the Democratic leadership, the club, and out of I think the Republican's Eagles Club. But I no sooner did it than I decided I had made a mistake. And so I immediately disbanded it, and held a press conference and said that I did not think I made many mistakes, but I did on this one and I thought it was a real doozy. And that was the end of it. Senator SASSER. How did George Stephanopoulos respond to that? secretary BENTSEN. As I recall, he shared that as something that should be done. 24 Senator SASSER. Mr. Chairman, I know my time's not expired, but The CHAIRMAN. Why don't we reserve the remainder of Senator Sasser's time. We have got to recess. We have got a vote underway. Let's reserve your time, Senator Sasser, and you can take it either right when we come back, or at some other convenient point. Senator SASSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee stands in recess for about 10 minutes. (10:54:52) [Recess.] (10:54:54) Commentary of hearing hosts NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE, they also talk to SARAH FRITZ of the Los Angeles Times (11:03:12)(tape #10076 ends)
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(20:35:36) The CHAIRMAN. Let me check and see. I think we have an answer on that, but I want to check with Counsel who is away at the moment and provide that answer. Let's put that issue aside for the moment. Senator BOND. I was going to try, Mr. Podesta, to go back to what we were discussing several days ago when I last talked with you. Mr. PODESTA, It feels like that. Senator BOND. Mr. Todd Stern reports to you at the White House; is that correct? Mr. PODESTA. He does. Senator BOND. We have, in the documents submitted to us, Exhibit X 000075 which was produced by Mr. Stern, Senate Banking Committee hearing "to-do" list. And in this it's pretty clear that, at least, Mr. Stern wanted Mr. Altman to focus and here's just a couple of bullets. I'm just going to read excerpts. Mr. PODESTA. Could I get a copy, Senator? Senator BOND. Yes, there's a set. "Altman's failure to recuse himself, the nature of the RTC's investigation of Madison, is investigation continuing, what is going on, question mark. Criminal referral to Justice, what were circumstances, is RTC going to pursue any civil relief," skipping down, "were Madison resources directed into other business ventures and principals in the Clinton campaign funds." Next bullet, chronology of RTC investigation of Madison, who did what, when, and why were referrals made to Justice, what if anything is going on now, et cetera." It even goes on to give a little political flavor. It said "is Treasury working on questions for committee Dems, line up a Senator or two" and they referenced a couple of Senators "have a page or two of background plus questions for the counterpunches." Do you happen to know those counterpunches? Do you have any of those counterpunches available for us that you might share with us? Seriously, well, I assume if you had counterpunches, you'd show them to us, but do you know, was this matter followed up on by Mr. Stern? Do you know what was done with it, was it used in telephone briefings, oral briefings? Mr. PODESTA. Senator, let me testify first to my knowledge which is that while I saw this document in my deposition, I said that I may have received it. It might have been the kind of thing I got, but I wasn't familiar with it. I would point out that with regard to the bullets you read, it says "prepare witness" says next to that 69 is Mike Levy, the Treasury person." I did not talk to Mr. Levy about any of the items on this list. I did mention to Mr. Levy that Mr. Altman would be-- would need to be prepared to answer ques- 437 tions about recusal. I don't know whether Mr. Stern did, I do not believe he did, but I'm not-I can't testify for him. Senator BOND. This shows that, at least, Mr. Stern believed that Mr. Altman should be prepared to address criminal referral to Justice, what the circumstances were and those other items. So this was something the White House was focusing on and I assume that when Mr. Stern prepares a memo like this, he does something with it. Mr. PODESTA. Well, I senator BOND. Is that logical to assume? Mr. PODESTA. I think it would be logical to assume with regard to the bottom couple of points which were the ones in our office relating to counterpunches. Again, I testified earlier that we wanted to put the hearing in a broader context. I think that's what-it's not my word, but I think that's what he was referring to, to try to put Madison in the context of the overall S&L cleanup and our Administration's Senator BOND. My point is the White House, your associate, Mr. Stern, was focusing on the criminal referrals and you forecast the questions that we were going to ask. I mean, if this had been fully utilized in the briefing, Mr. Altman would have been ready. Now, following up on the questions, Senator Bryan asked some questions, and Senator Gramm did. You said that "we had a duty and he had a duty to correct the record. I was tasked to follow up," You said, "I assumed his letter had been sufficient." I went back and read through these four letters and this was the letter of March 2 and it said in the third paragraph, "but I have learned today of two conversations which did take place between Treasury and White House personnel on this matter. My information is that both related to the handling of press inquiries."
August 9, 1995 - Part 2
(10:40:20) They agreed to my transfer of the personal files to the Foster family lawyer, who, as you all know, was there during the search. I made the transfer right on the spot, right in front of the law enforcement agents. Later, those officials contacted the Foster family lawyer. They asked to see and read all the Foster personal documents, As you have heard at this hearing, after the documents were first reviewed by the Foster family lawyer consistent with his professional obligations, his ethical obligations, the officials, the law enforcement officials were shown every one of the Foster personal documents. The vast majority of the files I reviewed during the office search on July 22 were Mr. Foster's working files, matters that he was working on in his role as Deputy White House Counsel. When the .a gents left, the search was over. I wanted to get on with the work of the office, to reassign Foster's matters to other attorneys. As this Committee has heard, the Justice Department attorneys were aware that Foster's working files would be immediately distributed to other attorneys in the office. I began this process immediately. Now, let me turn to the Clinton personal files. During the office search on July 22, 1 saw a number of files that concerned personal Matters of the Clintons. I identified them to the agents present. I said these were Clinton personal files. I said these involve investments, taxes, other financial matters and the like, Included was a file on the Clintons' Whitewater real estate investment. I knew that Vince had been assisting the First Family in completing financial disclosure statements, filing tax returns, and creating a blind 1210 trust. A President and his family are officially required to perform such acts. As such, it is proper and indeed traditional for the White House Counsel's Office to assist in that official function. Mr. Foster need- ed access to the Clinton personal files for these official purposes. They were, therefore, properly in the White House Counsel's Office. But that did not make them any less personal files. Even though the First Family has to file financial disclosure forms and other similar documents, blind trust and the like, and even though it must use its personal financial files as the basis for that disclosure, it does not follow that every such file becomes a Presidential record. That would be a ludicrous result. Those files had nothing to do with the transaction of Government business, although they were needed to file official forms. They remained personal files. They remained the Clintons' personal files. I knew that the work on the projects for which the personal files were needed had recently been completed. With Vince's death and the work done, the reason for our office possessing these personal files was at an end. Just as I believe the Foster personal files should go to the Foster family lawyers, I believed the Clinton personal files belonged in the hands of the First Family or their personal lawyers. Shortly after the search of Vince's office was completed, I asked Maggie Williams the First Lady's Chief of Staff, to help me transfer these files to the Clintons and to their personal lawyers. I told Maggie that I thought the Clintons would probably want to send the files to Williams & Connolly, a Washington law firm, that had been working with Vince and was representing them per- sonally. I said she should confirm that with the First Family. The Clinton personal files were sent to the White House residence on the evening of July 22. They were sent to the residence because it was late in the day and we were leaving for the funeral in Arkansas early the next morning. While it would have been perfectly proper for them to do so, if they so desired, it was my understanding that neither the President nor the First Lady examined those files while they were in the Foster residence. On Thursday, July 27 after we returned from the funeral, the personal files, the Clinton personal files were delivered to Williams & Connolly. As this Committee has heard, the Justice Department attorneys understood that these Clinton personal files would be going to the President's outside attorneys. It has been suggested that I transferred the Clinton personal files because of some deep concern that I or others had with Whitewater. As I said earlier, that is false. My decision to transfer the Clinton personal files, including the White water file, had absolutely nothing to do with what has come be to called the Whitewater matter.
July 29, 1994 - Part 3
(12:53:54) (Beginning of tape #10053) is of an intense media interest, at the particular time Mr. Foster was going through this depression, the spring and summer of 1993, it was not a media interest and was not according to our investigation, an interest of White House officials. Senator BOXER. But my question was simply do you feel you did a thorough enough investigation of this connection, of this possible connection? Mr. MONROE. Yes, ma'am. Senator BOXER- Or do you think you need to do more of an investigation? Mr. MONROE. No. I believe that we've done a thorough investigation. 49 The CHAIRMAN. Senator D'Amato. Senator D'AMATO, Mr. Monroe, on the day that Vince Foster took his own life, a search warrant obtained for David Hale's office in Arkansas, I believe, was issued; is that correct? Mr. MONROE. That's correct. Senator D'AMATO. Do you know when the paperwork for that search warrant was undertaken and how long it took? Did you interview people in the U.S, Attorney's Office to ascertain how long that took? Mr. MONROE. I'm not familiar with exactly how long it took, Senator. Senator D'AMATO. Did you interview people down there to see if there was any leak as it relates to that information being put out? Mr. MoNTRoE. I don't recall, Senator, how many people we interviewed but we uncovered no evidence to the effect that Mr. Foster was aware of the issuance of that particular search warrant. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Hale's attorney called the White House or called Mr. Foster. There was some talk about that. If you have any information, I'd like to know about it. Mr. MONROE. I do not, Senator. Senator DAMATO, Has that been looked into? Mr. MONROE. Yes, sir. Senator D'AMATO, And we have no information with regard to that call from Mr. Hale's attorney? Mr. MONROE. I have no information in our investigation that there was any contact between Mr. Hale and Mr. Foster, Senator. (12:55:40) Senator DAMATO. Let me ask this.- There's a question about the manner Mr. MONROE. Senator, excuse me. There were two parts to that. Of course, the search warrant was issued, as you know, sir, on July 20, but the warrant was not effected until July 21, which would have been the day after his death, sir. Senator D'AMATO. The question is would that have come to anybody's knowledge? Did he get a phone call from Mr. Hale's lawyer? I don't know. Did the FBI ever attempt The CHAIRMAN. Do you want to answer that question? Mr. MoNRoE. Yes, I would, Senator. We have no information or evidence that Mr. Foster received any telephone call Senator DAMATO. Did any White House personnel get a phone call from Mr. Hale's lawyer. Mr. MONROE. I'm not aware of that, sir, but, of course, we are still continuing the investigation as to the follow-up in the White House after Mr. Foster's death, sir. Senator DAMAT0. You'll let us know, then? Mr. MONROE. Absolutely. Senator DAMATO, I'll leave that an open question. Did the FBI ever attempt to determine what time Mr. Foster de parted the White House and do we know if the Secret Service keeps a vehicle exit log? Mr. MONROE. Sir , of our information right now suggests that Mr. Foster departed the White House on July 20 at approximately 1 p.m. Whether or not that departure time was based on interviews or a log by the Secret Service, I am not aware of that, sir, but we know that he left about that at time. 50 We were unable to do that Senator D'AMATO, Would you be able-I mean, this investigation, as it relates to the circumstances surrounding Mr. Foster's death ' wouldn't you look at the vehicle departure log to determine what time be may have left? Is that a routine thing? Mr. COLOMBELL. Senator, I don't believe the vehicle was logged out of the White House. I don't believe it was parked in an area where it would have been logged out of the White House. We confirmed that be left around 1 to 1:15 p.m. I can assure you that I personally and a number of other agents made every effort to try to determine his activities after that point in time up, until the point in time that his body was discovered at Fort Marcy Park. We had witnesses who possibly might have placed him at the park at an earlier time. (12:58:24)(End of tape #10052) But because of the passage of time we could not confirm through interview of those witnesses that that was, in fact, Mr. Foster's car that was observed going into the park at an earlier point in the day The CHAIRMAN. Could you pull the mike a little closer for any further responses. Thank you. Mr. COLOMBELL. Certainly, Senator. Senator D'AmATO, Although it's not mentioned in the report of the Independent Counsel, a pager was found on Mr. Foster in Fort Marcy Park. The record also shows that the Secret Service arranged to remove the pager from the Park Police custody the night of Oster's death before any analysis of the pager could be done by Park Police investigators to see whether any numbers were retained in the pager's memory. Do you 'know why the pager was recovered so quickly by the White House after the death of Mr. Foster? Could the pager have contained some numbers called in previously? Did you learn if usual Park-was this the usual Park Police---procedures were followed or were they circumvented? Mr. COLOMBELL. Our investigation confirmed that there bad been pages that went out to Mr. Foster from staff members of the White House, and I stand corrected, but I believe it was either Mr. Nussbaum or members of his office that might have attempted to page him. I would like to-rather than provide information that I'm not absolutely sure of-provide ythe Committee with a supplemental follow-up on information that might be pertinent with regard to that question, Senator.
Capitol Journal
WETA "CAPITOL JOURNAL" IN 17.42.25 A symposium discussion on Partisanship and Parties in Congress as part of the bicentennial of Congress. Features Reps. TOM FOLEY, ROBERT MICHEL, and former Rep. BARBER CONABLE. Rep. MICHEL says he's had a good working relationship with Tom Foley despite party differences, and knows Tip O'Neill well enough to tell Tip what Tip is about to tell him. He's not sure how Jim Wright will do as speaker after O'Neill retires. Conable talks about reforming the Seniority System in Congress, says that Republicans led the way to the changes because the Southern Democrats insisted on keeping the system intact. Conable says that true competition between parties keeps the Congress vital. Former DNC chair distinguishes between party loyalty and the role of parties in Congress. Says it's destructive for a party to enforce too rigid discipline to a party line determined outside Congress. Says that true leaders of Congress hold the preservation and prestige of Congress above party loyalty. Tells some Sam Rayburn stories. 17.50.48-host closes out the discussion. Rep. Jerry Lewis, host of the symposium, wraps up the program, credits the staff. TIME CODE JUMPS 17.59.30-in between panel discussions in a symposium on the bicentennial of Congress, held in a Congressional hearing room. Rep. Jerry Lewis reflects on 200 years of Congress, thanks sponsors. Introduces Rep. Lindy Boggs, chair of House bicentennial committee. Rep. Boggs thanks others involved with the symposium, introduces a musical play on the Constitutional Convention called "Four Little Pages". 18.06.10
August 4, 1994 - Part 2
(10:25:48) The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. Senator Kerry. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR KERRY Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope we can all get the time of answers added back to our time too. Mr. Chairman, I think we are getting to the point with this hearing, or these 3 days have narrowed the focus of this that we may well even be getting to the point of beating to death the fairly narrow focus of what this is being reduced to, which is the question of Mr. Altman's testimony and Mr. Altman's recusal. It's certainly not a question of any of the very highfalutin, broad sweeping allegations made over the course of months, and I think it is very important for this hearing to begin to focus on that for the American people. Now, Mr. McLarty, you were Chief of Staff in the White House. You were also, or you are perhaps one of the very best friends of the President of the United States. Is that true? Mr. McLARTY. We have had a long-time relationship beginning when we both were children growing up in Hope, Arkansas. Senator KERRY. You have known each other through almost all campaigns and through all of his life in politics? Mr. McLARTY. We have and we worked closely together when President Clinton was Governor of Arkansas. Senator KERRY. As Chief of Staff in the White House, you certainly have your finger on the button of power, so to speak. You have the ability to contact all the regulatory agencies, the Justice Department. You could certainly put together a White House network for dealing with Whitewater/Madison, could you not? Mr. McLARTY. Well, yes, Senator, I could, and in some of those cases, I would go through White House Counsel to make some of those contacts. Senator KERRY. Appropriately, I understand. What is clear from the record here is, for all of the thousands of pages of documents that we have and all of the hundreds of hours of depositions and all of the testimony that has come before us under oath, there is in fact no evidence that the Chief of Staff of the White House organized, put together, or was involved in a slew of conversations to deal with Whitewater/Madison. Is that accurate? Mr. McLARTY. I think it is accurate, and I reflect that in my opening comments, Senator KERRY. In point of fact, the only thing the White House did with respect to Whitewater/Madison in any organizational way 294 was have a press team put together to try to respond to the myriad of inquiries that were coming in. Is that not accurate? Mr. McLARTY. We tried to manage it in an orderly way, primarily with public inquiry and in many cases, non-factual basis allegations. Senator KERRY. I want to make it clear that I think that Mr. Altman's testimony has presented problems, and I have asked many questions about that and will continue to. And I also want to make it clear that I think some people screwed up here and made some bad judgments. But let's also look at the overall record. On September 29th, it is fair to say the only-this is when it begins-Treasury initiated a contact with the White House, correct? Mr. McLARTY. I have since learned that. Senator KERRY. Which you later learned of? Mr. MCLARTY. That is correct. Senator KERRY. You were not notified of that when that occurred, were you? Mr. McLARTY. No. I have already testified I learned of it after Mr. Altman testified before this Committee on February 24th. Senator KERRY. In fact, a great period of time went by before you even knew of any criminal referrals issue having been relayed to the White House, correct? Mr. McLARTY. I learned of it in November through public press accounts. Senator KERRY. Through the public press, but not through anybody in the White House coming to you in a state of panic, my God, we have got to deal with this, correct? Mr. McLARTY. That is correct, Senator. Senator KERRY. And indeed, on September 29th, there was a Treasury initiated contact at the now famous stay-back post-Waco pre-brief? [Laughter-] Correct? A whole new version. Mr. McLARTY. That is your description, Senator. Senator KERRY. Believe me, it is not my description. That was the description in the record, and it is evidence of why the American people find it so hard to understand what is going on here with graceful ducks and pre-brief post-Waco debriefs and so forth. It leaves me, we do not discuss things here, we vet them. We have a whole new language around here. Let me go on. On October 16th, there is another Treasury-initiated press Meeting in the off-ice at which Ms. Hanson comes in, but Jack DeVore, a press secretary is there, and Mark Geron, press communications is there. Again, you are not present, you are not part of that? Mr. McLARTY. That is correct. Senator KERRY. Did not know about it? Mr. McLARTY. That is correct, not until some time later. Senator KERRY. All right. Now on February 2nd, we go from September, October. Now November passes, nothing, December passes, nothing, January passes, nothing. Nothing on the record. 295 We get to February 2nd and Altman, again, a Treasury-initiated meeting on the question of the statute of limitations because there is an enormous amount of press interest on this. Is that correct? Mr. McLARTY. By that time, there certainly was, Senator. Senator Kerry, On February 3rd, there is a second meeting which raises questions about Mr. Altman's testimony, but again initiated by Treasury?
August 4, 1994 - Part 8
(17:05:22) At that time, when I raised it with him, he said to me that-and I don't know whether I read from the transcript or I paraphrased it, but it was pretty specific with regard to your questions, When he answered that he had no knowledge, he said to me that's correct, I have no knowledge. And I said you may have a duty as an agency witness to supplement the record. He agreed to sit with Ms. Hanson, look at the record and to take appropriate action. Senator BOND. Did you at that time know of the September and October meetings? Mr. PODESTA. I had learned about them earlier that afternoon in the March 1st meeting. Senator BOND. Did you have any responsibility, or did you exercise any responsibility to pursue that point, which you raised, the review of the testimony and the correcting of the record, if necessary? Mr. PODESTA. I did take some further action. I said I never talked to anyone further in my opening statement at Treasury. The next day, on March 2, 1 did call to find out whether he had followed up on this point, and I was informed, although I think this was a series of back and forth phone calls, I don't think I ever spoke to anyone at Treasury, but I was informed that evening that Mr. Altman had talked to the Chairman and that a letter had been sent on the point of the fall meetings. I don't believe I knew he talked to you until the course of these hearings. Senator BOND. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bond. Senator Bryan. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm always happy to defer to the-to the heir apparent to the Chair, The CHAIRMAN. He's prepared to have you go next if you're ready. Senator BRYAN. Thank you. Mr. Stephanopoulos, I can understand your reaction to the selection of Mr. Stephens. I think that's understandable. I mean, he was an adversary, a critic, and a partisan who actually contemplated a candidacy for the United States Senate from Virginia on the Republican ticket, so I can understand why you would be concerned. And I think any citizen would be concerned to have his or her conduct judged by an individual who had that kind of bias going into the process. So I can understand that. Whether or not you should have made the phone call or not, I think in retrospect, you would agree that probably that wasn't the prudent course of action. But certainly the emotion that was involved, I believe, was entirely understandable and anybody would have reacted in a similar fashion to you. The thrust of my question goes to the line of questioning between Senator Bond. I am deeply disturbed about Mr. Altman's testimony before this Committee on the 24th and the series of letters that follow. My understanding of the facts are that Mr. Eggleston, prior to the hearing, made a call to Treasury, spoke with Ms. Hanson about this issue and specifically discussed the recusal. Ms. Hanson's briefing notes that Mr. Altman had, preparatory to his testi- 380 mony before this Committee on the 24th, included, among other things, recusal; that immediately after the hearing, I believe the Chair has indicated that he gave Mr. Altman the opportunity not just to supplement the record, but you had called the Committee back into session to give him an opportunity to supplement the record; that during the course of that hearing, I think the instincts by the White House staff were excellent. Mr. Eggleston leaves the hearing, makes the phone call on the cellular, which we've heard testimony on, that you thought that there was a problem, and then you yourself on the 1st of March indicate in a conversation to Mr. Altman that you think that there may be a problem with his testimony. Short of hitting somebody between the eyes with a 2-by-4, I don't know how much more clearly it could be imparted to an individual that there's a problem with the testimony and something ought to be done. I think the followup letters of the 2nd of March and the 3rd of March do not in any way address what I consider forthright and complete testimony of the Committee. Let me ask you again more specifically, you had a meeting on the 1st with, as I understand it, Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. Klein, Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Eggleston and Mr. Sloan where this was the subject of discussion. Am I correct, Mr. Podesta? Mr. PODESTA. That's correct. Senator BRYAN. Again, without going through the entire thing, give me the essence of it and what the consensus was in terms of what should be done. Mr. PODESTA. It was different with regard to the issue of the fall meetings and the issue of recusal. Let me be clear. With regard to recusal, I think we tried to decide whether there was a duty to the Committee and a duty to the public to supplement the record.
August 3, 1994 - Part 7
(18:55:23) Senator DOMENICI. I understand. So what he's telling us is: "it's enough for you to know that they were about press inquiries. You don't have to know what the subject was." That's the way I read it. Now, you don't have to answer that. Mr. Klein, do you know something about these letters and the handling of the responses by Roger Altman? Mr. KLEIN. Only that I've read them, sir. That's all I know. Senator DOMENICI. You've seen both of those letters? Mr. KLEIN. I have. Senator DOMENICI. Would you agree generally, so I won't waste a lot of time, with what I've said here and with what your fellow Counsel said about these letters? Mr. KLEIN. Yes, I would. Senator DOMENICI. If you were preparing a letter, either or both Of You, for somebody in the White House that you were responsible for, and you were attempting to answer Mr. Podesta's concerns 136 about Roger Altman not telling us something, is this the kind of letter you'd write? Mr. KLEIN. Sir, again, I don't want to put myself in Mr. Altman's mind. I didn't speak to him. The information that I had, we tried to make sure that it went to Mr. Altman through Mr. Podesta. Mr. EGGLESTON, Senator Domenici, could I say one thing, sir, in the interest of completeness and 1 just offer this. That is that the letter does reference the question from Senator Bond. My recollection is that the question from Senator Bond was about criminal referrals. I just offer that for the what-it's-worth category. He references in the March 2nd letter the question from Senator Bond. He does not point out in the letter that the question related to criminal referrals, but he does reference a question that did relate to criminal referrals. Senator DOMENICI. That's more reason for him to refer to it, it seems to me, since his answer was "no" when it was asked. Is my time up? The CHAIRMAN. It is, and if you had just one follow-up, I'd certainly entertain that because we did that on this side but otherwise we'll go on to another round. Senator DOMENICI. I would also ask both of you, as competent lawyers who work in this field a lot, do you notice anything, inferential or otherwise, in either of these letters that would indicate to this Committee that more corrections are to come? Do you see anything in there that would indicate to us that you've got to fix the record some more? Mr. KLEIN. I don't see it. Obviously, the letters speak for themselves. You can assess them as well as I can. Senator DOMENICI. Let me ask again, if this Committee, under the Chairmanship of Senator Riegle, were wrapping up that February 24th hearing and got these two letters; is there anything to indicate that maybe he's got some more things to correct? To me, I would think it was over with, that there aren't any more. Mr. KLEIN. Again, I don't know. He said he had conversations with people on the Committee. I can tell you what the letter says but you can read it for yourself. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Campbell. Thank you for your patience Senator CAMPBELL. Also as my friend Senator Boxer has said, I would like to commend this Committee. I think they've tried to answer in a very forthright manner and to the best of their recollections and very openly. I know it's difficult to answer some of the variety of questions that have been asked. Some of them are reflective of the members' former professions of being criminal prosecutors. Some of them are kind of fishing expeditions, I guess, hoping you're going to run into a hook. And I personally liked Senator Dodd's questions; did you do it or didn't you do it, yes or no, And those are the kind of answers I understand very well when they're asked, but I know you have to answer a big variety of them. (18:59:12)(tape #10082 ends)
JFK Assassination Hearings - Dr. Vincent P. Guinn (Conclusion)
(16:36:30) Fithian asks about an article published that said Guinn was not reliable for such testimony as he had participated in the Warren Commission - Guinn responds he never worked for or was consulted by the Warren Commission - Guinn then goes on in response to another Fithian question to tell the committee that the Warren Commission did conduct Neutron Activation Analysis tests but that the results of them were not released for a long time (16:38:45) Fithian asks why the test results were not divulged earlier - Guinn responds that he believes it is because the results were inconclusive, the Warren Commission felt no one needed to know this, he reads from a letter issued by J. EDGAR HOOVER which sums up the results as inconclusive (16:41:57) Guinn gives the story of the FBI's utilization of Neutron Activation Analysis for the Warren Commission in 1964, he believes this is the first time they had ever used it (16:43:54) Guinn says that his review of the raw data from the initial activation tests done in '64 was also inconclusive, then he did the tests he is presenting today and they came out very conclusive so he returned to the initial tests data, now looking back after success Guinn was able to figure out how the measurements in the initial test did work out in the same conclusive way
JFK Assassination Hearings - Dr. Vincent P. Guinn (Conclusion)
(16:55:52) Fithian asks if anybody at the FBI could have been able to come to the expert conclusions that Guinn has come to in matching the fragments and bullets without a knowledge of Mannlicher-Carcano ammunition - Guinn responds it would have been much more difficult and goes on to explain the unique characteristics of the composition of this ammunition (16:57:50) Fithian asks if in '64 the FBI could have come to Guinn's conclusions - Guinn responds it would have been hard and explains briefly (16:58:27) Fithian confirms all of Guinn's FBI information came from publicly accessible sources (16:59:40) Fithian asks if there are any other tests Guinn would recommend - Guinn responds no and explains (17:00:45) Fithian confirms that Guinn's findings shed no light on whether or not bullet 399 passed through JFK before Connally - Guinn responds that all his findings conclude is that bullet 399 broke Connally's wrist, as the wrist was the only body part to contain a fragment (17:01:53) Fithian confirms Guinns over all findings, that bullet 399 matches the fragment in Connally's wrist, that a fragment removed from JFK's skull matches the two fragments found in the car and that there is evidence of only two bullets (17:02:39) Committee Chairman LOUIS STOKES ask about the number of Neutron Activation Analysis experts '63 and now - Guinn responds giving a history of the test and stating it was first developed in 1937
Watergate Hearings - John Ehrlichman
(08:51:08) Opens to rousing debate between Committee Chairman SAMUEL ERVIN and Presidential Adviser JOHN EHRLICHMAN and his lawyer over a reading of the Constitution on whether or not Nixon is authorized to have obtained information from break-in and wire tapping of DANIEL ELLSBERG's psychiatrist's office, the first stipulation they argue over is whether White House activity fell under the exception of an attack by a foreign power (08:53:27) Ehrlichman asks how Ervin knows that the break-in to the psychiatrist's office was not over an issue of national security being threatened by a foreign power - Ervin responds to ecstatic long lasting applause: "Because I understand the English language as my mother taught me", Ervin then goes on to rebuff other justification attempts by Ehrlichman's lawyer (08:55:30) Ehrlichman mentions the turning over by Ellsburg of signficant documents to the Russian Embassy and claims this justifies Presidential activities - In response to Ervin's siting the protection rights guaranteed by the forth amendment Ehrlichman says that Nixon's bugging operations fall under an exception that allows such activity if it is in support of national security - Ervin reponds that this exception does not allow for burglary, only interception of wire or verbal information (08:58:00) Ervin confirms Ehrlichman's knowledge of the psychiatry office burlary - Ehrlichman tells the committee what he knew of HOWARD HUNT and GORDON LIDDY's involvement and who gave the orders for it (08:59:35) Ervin tries to corner Ehrlichman in to admitting that he knew that the psychiatry office information retreived was illegally done so on the basis of state law and the Hippocratic oath which demand the respect of doctor patient confidentiality - Ehrlichman slithers around this and claims that even though he was a lawyer he did not know this was a law (09:03:00) Committee Vice Chairman HOWARD BAKER takes over questioning and cracks a joke that he didn't have the courage to interupt Ervin who went over his time allotment, and that Ervin can make a phone transcipt sound like the New Testament, Baker asks if Ehrlichman knew of the covert operation to break into Watergate - the response is cut off by a jump in the footage (09:04:35) Jump in footage - Ehrlichman is again trying to justify the procurement of information from Ellsberg's psychiatrist - Senator HERMAN TALMADGE asks him to confirm that he authorized the break-in as long it was not traceable, Ehrlichman confirms this (09:07:00) Talmadge confirms that as a lawyer Ehrlichman must remember studying an old English law that says "that no matter how humble a man's cottage is that even the King of England cannot enter without his consent" - Ehrlicman answers that this has eroded over the years, to which Talmadge responds with much applause "Not in my country" (09:07:30) Ehrlichman again tries to justify the procurement of psychiatric information as dealing with an issue of national security, he goes on at length about how the CIA uses psychiatric profiling to establish motives for individual's actions: spy or kook?, Ehrlichman goes on to claim that the information obtained in the break-in was done so the CIA could conduct such a profile (09:10:50) Talmadge asks Ehrlichman about a hypothetical situation where documents that do indeed jeopardize the national security are stored in a bank vault, would Ehrlichman rob the bank - Ehrlichman claims this doesn't work as a comparison to which Talmadge responds: "ok, burglarize the bank", this gets a laugh
August 4, 1994 - Part 3
(11:55:58) Mr. Cutler first asked me about the diaries, and I gave him my answers about whether or not I knew about them, whether or not anything in them rung true to me, or if I could recall any of those conversations. Senator HATCH. So you discussed the diary entries with Mr. Cutler, then? Ms. WILLIAMS. Mr. Cutler discussed them with me, that is correct. Senator HATCH. Now, I would like to read some of the Altman diary dated January 11th, the day before President Clinton requested that an Independent Counsel be named. He goes on to say, "Maggie's strong inference was that the White House was trying to negotiate the scope of an Independent Counsel with Reno, and having enormous diffliculties." HRC "doesn't want the Counsel poking around in the twenty years of public life in Arkansas." Mr. Altman has testified-you are familiar with that diary entry? 319 MS. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir, I am. Senator HATCH. He has testified both at his deposition, and before the Committee that his reference to Maggie is you. He testified that he only wrote what he thought to be of "historical value," and which he believed to be true. He also testified further that these entries were made after a January 11th Health Care meeting he had with you. Now regarding the entry which discusses the White House negotiations with Attorney General Reno, you testified during your deposition that you "didn't know anything about" the entry. Do you remember that? Ms. WILLIAMS. That is correct. Senator HATCH. You do not recall any communication which took place at a Health Care meeting where you may have mentioned Attorney General Reno or the Independent Counsel. Is that what you are basically saying. Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir, that is my testimony. Senator HATCH, Now you have no knowledge of any White House discussions with the Department of Justice concerning the Independent Counsel either? Ms. WILLIAMS. Absolutely not. Senator HATCH. Do you have any knowledge of any discussions by the Clinton's or their attorneys concerning the scope of the Independent Counsel's charter? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, sir, I do not have any knowledge of that. Senator HATCH. You also testified that you did not have any discussions with the First Lady about the scope of the Independent Counsel charter. Is that correct? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, sir. I would not have. Senator HATCH. You mean that is correct? Ms. WILLIAMS. That is correct, yes, sir. Senator HATCH. Did you have any discussions with anyone in the White House concerning the scope-discussions with anybody in the White House concerning the scope of the Independent Counsel charter? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, sir, not concerning the scope of the Independent Counsel. I will say that there was a lot of debate, both inside the White House and also in the press and public and even on the Hill, every day about should there be an Independent Counsel, should there not be an Independent Counsel, and I am sure that I was involved in conversations about whether or not there should be or should not be. Senator HATCH, OK. So to this day, you have no idea why Mr. Altman may have gotten the idea from you that the White House Was trying to negotiate the scope of the Independent Counsel with the Justice Department. Is that right? Ms. WILLIAMS. That is correct, sir. And let me add additionally, one of the things I recall was that the main thing that people were saying was that whatever the decision, it would be a Justice Department decision. That, whatever 320 you do, do not talk to the Justice Department. Just go on with your work. Senator HATCH. Well, I think that is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hatch. Senator Campbell. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR CAMPBELL Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been in here 4 days now, and about half the time it seems to me, I would describe it as trolling, hoping somebody would run into a hook. So I want to try to keep my questions very to the point and very simple. But I might make one observation. I was listening with interest when Senator Kerry was asking some questions, and he inadvertently made a mistake on one of the meeting times and you were very quick to correct the record, good thinking. As you probably know, if you wait a couple weeks to correct around here, it is pretty risky. [Laughter.] Mr. McLARTY. Thank you, Senator. Senator CAMPBELL. Let me ask you a little bit about this so-, called response team. Is that still in effect? Is there still a response team? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, there is not. Senator CAMPBELL. There is not. It was put together primarily to deal with press concerns? Mr. McLARTY. That is correct. Right after the first of the year, there was quite a bit of interest, press inquiry allegations, many without any kind of factual basis whatsoever about the Whitewater/Madison Guaranty matter, and we simply wanted these coordinated in the White House and that is why I asked Mr. Ickes to take on that responsibility, to assume that responsibility.
August 2, 1994 - Part 6
(00:20:45) Senator GRAMM. I have a simple question that I want to ask most of the members of the panel and let me just read it. Mr. Altman, I want to ask you first, have you or any member of your staff had any communication with the President, the First Lady, or any other representatives, including their legal counsel, or any member of their White House staff, concerning Whitewater or the Madison Savings & Loan? 420 Mr. ALTMAN. I have had one substantive contact with the White House staff and I want to tell you about it, Senator GRAMM. Let me, if I may, just given-that's a yes. I would like to know what the substance of that communication was, when it occurred, who initiated it, and what you were asked to do. Mr. ALTMAN. First of all, I initiated it, it was about 3 weeks ago Jean Hanson, who is Treasury General Counsel, and I requested a meeting with Mr. Nussbaum And you went on to describe that meeting. Now, that is the one meeting that you made reference to; is that correct. Mr. ALTMAN, That's the only substantive contact I had with the White House. Senator D'AMATO. That's not the question that Senator Gramm asked you. He asked you, and I refer you to the record, if you have it there in front of you, "have you or any member of your staff had any communications." He didn't say the question. of substantive or for you to make an evaluation. "Any communications with the President, the First Lady, or any other representative, including their legal counsel or any - member of the White House staff concerning Whitewater or the Madison Savings & Loan"; is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. That's Senator D'AMATO. You said one, and you referred to one meeting-, is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. I immediately said in response to Senator Gramm that I've bad one substantive contact. Senator DAMATO. Correct. Mr. ALTMAN, And I proceeded to describe that one substantive contact. Senator DAMATO. Let me refer you. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator Gramm, as you know, then interrupted me, properly so, and said tell me about the substance of your contact. Senator D'AMATO. Let me ask you about this. Do you recall having a meeting with Maggie Williams, the Chief of Staff for Mrs. Clinton, a member of the White House staff? You know Maggie Williams? Mr. ALTMAN. I certainly do. Senator DAMATO. Did you have a meeting in early January in which you recorded in your diary, and I have the diary notes here, or in slips of paper which you collected and wrote your thoughts. I have one dated January 4, 1994. "Diary" it says at the top of it. It says, "on Whitewater Maggie told me that Hillary Clinton was paralyzed by it. If we don't solve this within the next 2 days, you don't have to worry about her schedule on Health Care." Do YOU recall this? Mr. ALTMAN. To the best of my recollection, Senator, that was an aside to me during a meeting on Health Care. Senator D'AMATO. Then let me give you some more about it. Mr. ALTMAN. I want to emphasize if I may, Senator. Senator D'AMATO. Let me read the rest. Mr. ALTMAN. That has nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison. Senator D'AMATO. We re talking about-there's no comment about investigation here. It "says any contact with the White House, with the President, First Lady, or any of their representa- 421 tives, including their staff concerning Whitwater or the Madison Savings& Loan." Mr. ALTMAN. Senator Senator D'AMATO. Now let me finish. And here is Maggie Williams telling you that on Whitewater, and you start off on Whitewater, then you went on to say that Lloyd Bentsen went over to see George. I take it that George is George Stephanopoulos, Mr. ALTMAN. I believe so. Senator D'AMATO. On Whitewater yesterday to urge "lancing the boil" and I have him quoted here: Maggie strongly indicated that the White House is trying to negotiate the scope of the Independent Counsel with Janet Reno and they were having enormous difficulty. Let me ask you, was that not about Whitewater? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, when I used the term "substantive" Senator DAMATO. Listen, please don't tell me about "substantive." Was that about Whitewater? You are now telling us that the only contacts that you thought that Senator Gramm raised were substantive? He said any contacts with the White House. Let me finish. You went on to say, "'Hillary Clinton doesn't want the Counsel poking into 20 years of public life." I submit to you that's at least one contact that you are aware of and that you certainly didn't tell us. And I have a whole number of these that I'm going to go through with you as time permits, you see, because, I think Mr. ALTMAN, May I respond to that? Senator D'AMAT0. --Given the fact that I told you the night before, given the fact that the night before you spoke to Mr. Ickes on the issue of recusal, and that whole issue centered around Whitewater. For you to suggest to this Committee that recusal bad nothing to do with Whitewater is a-would be a figment of somebody's imagination and would be at the
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:10:17) That is why certain Senators would be here at some times and not at others. They'd have other responsibilities going on at precisely the same time. That's why sometimes the same question would get asked two, three, or four times over. Because one Senator would want the answer to a question that might have been asked earlier by another Senator, but because that Senator was out of the room at the time somebody asked the question, they didn't hear the question asked and they didn't hear the answer, so when they came back they would have to put the question themselves. A lot of it does seem repetitive, and I don't know any way to solve that problem. That's the nature of the situation. But the other side of it was this- When you have witnesses in where there are conflicts in what they're saying, and where there are direct contradictions, you have to examine people very carefully, You don't just examine them with cross-examination as witnesses, but you have to take documents, records, and other things that you can find that establish the truthfulness and completeness of what they're saying. That takes time, especially when you have conflicts. We have a lot of direct conflicts in the testimony here as to what the truth is and if people are being honest in the answers they're giving. It can take a long time to sort that out. And, sometimes, it's never completely sorted out. Finally, you just have to make a judgment at the end as to bow the weight of evidence comes out. I think, in some of these situations, we're going to have differences of opinion around the table as to what we think and how we assess it. It's no different than a jury. This is not a trial as such, it feels partly like it, but it's different in important ways that I won't get into, but it's the same in the sense that we have to make a judgment at the end as to what we believe. We try to do that collectively and we try to do it individually but it's 'very difficult and we're all tired. And, like anybody that works long hours and gets tired, that has an effect on how you think about things, it slows down, at least for me, my processing time a little bit. So, with respect to some of the things we've heard, I want to now weigh very carefully. In fact, I want to go back and read some of the cross-examination again. I want to read, again, what an individual witness said and then perhaps compare it, side by side, with what another witness said to try to make a final judgment as to why there was a difference, why there was a discrepancy, and if 797 somebody there was being less than truthful or less than complete in their answers. In that regard, without getting into specific individuals, but to illustrate the point, we bad one witness here one day who gave an answer to a question by Senator Sarbanes. And the answer to the question that was put by Senator Sarbanes was no, but what had happened was be bad conditioned his answer in such a way as to enable him to give a no answer to the question. Senator Sarbanes, very skillfully, could see what was going on. He took the person's answer and, one by one, asked him to remove the qualifying aspects that he had very skillfully put into his answer. It took Sen- ator Sarbanes about three slices to get the qualifiers out of there. Once he had done that, it turned the no into a yes on the very same question. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, if I might. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator DAMATO. That was absolutely one of the most magnificent pieces of examination that I have ever seen. I just want to commend my colleague. You did it with such art. You sliced away all of the fat and got right to the core. The CHAIRMAN. It was a brilliant job. The bottom line was it was an illustration, if somebody was paying attention, of bow a witness can very skillfully, in my view, give a false answer to a question by the very clever juxtaposition of words. And Senator Sarbanes, who has a keen ear and an even keener mind, shaved that away and got the truthful answer. That doesn't excuse the answer that was given in the first instance. When that happens it shouldn't be lost on people in the Executive Branch of Government, not just in terms of the initiating facts that caused this case to come before us, but also with respect to testimony given by witnesses here. That's just my view. I'm not trying to speak for the Committee in saying that, but I have a very strong feeling about it. That's one of the things that we can't tolerate any longer, so I was very distressed. I thought we had to deal with some of that right in the course of these hearings. It takes a long time to strip away and get down, as close as we can, to what the true facts are so that we can put them there and make decisions.
JFK Assassination Hearings - E. Aschkenasy & Mark Weiss (Part III)
(01:34:20) Stokes recognizes Representative SAMUEL DEVINE , Devine asks about the differences between Bargers test and conclusions and those of Weiss and Aschkenasy - Weiss explains how their conclusions were merely a progression from Barger's (01:37:00) Devine asks about the different sounds of gun shot blips on a version of the tape of the JFK assassination and then asks whether or not Weiss could know the trajectory or target of the bullet - Weiss responds he has not heard the tape that Devine references nor can he tell the committee where the knoll shot would have been aimed (01:39:15) Weiss answers a local paper's editorial charge that acoustics is an arcane science (01:39:49) Stokes recognizes Delegate WALTER FAUNTROY who confirms with Weiss that the noise he identified as coming from the grassy knoll could not have been an engine back-fire, Stokes then asks Weiss if he could say if the shot fired from the knoll came from a pistol - Weiss responds that all he knows is that the shot was super-sonic and that as far as he knows pistols do not fire at such high velocities (01:42:25) Fauntroy asks the committee itself, what information they have about a person who supposedly was on the grassy knoll, claimed he was a secret service agent and flashed identification - Blakey responds that a police officer on the knoll encountered such a person but that the person was not identified and no more information was available about him (01:44:08) Stokes recognizes Representative CHRISTOPHER DODD, Dodd asks if any of the techniques used by Aschkenasy and Weiss and Barger were not available 15 years ago - Weiss responds no other than an inconsequential test of Barger's (01:45:50) Dodd and Weiss discuss and discount the possibilities of what other noises could have caused the sound wave pattern that has been identified as the knoll gun shot (01:47:38) Dodd, Weiss and Aschkenasy have a long discussion about the sound of a bell which is heard on the police tape - Weiss and Aschkenasy say it most likely came from another radio at another location sharing the transmission band, the two men then go on though to explain why this still does not allow for the possibility that the sound waves they identified as gun shots could have come from anywhere other than Dealey Plaza (01:55:06) Representative FLOYD FITHIAN confirms with Weiss and Aschkenasy that they entered their analysis without preconceptions about what they would find and that they had no outside influences pushing them in any particular direction, Fithian then asks the two men about the use of acoustical analysis in criminal cases - they both say that the use of the science in criminal cases is new but the science itself is old and always abides by the same rules regardless of the context of its application (02:01:40) Fithian wants to differentiate between Barger's tests and those of Aschkenasy and Weiss - Aschkenasy's response is cut short by the end of the tape
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:45:30) Ms. HANSON. That's what I understood the comment to mean. Senator DAMATO. You understood that to mean Mr. Altman's recounting of the original statement he made as to his decision to recuse himself, and the Secretary says, "That's not exactly the way I recalled it," because the Secretary recalled that Mr. Altman said he was going to recuse himself prior to that meeting at the White House? 201 Ms. HANSON. I don't know, exactly, what the Secretary recalled. That's what I understood the comment to mean. Senator DAMATO. That's what you understood the comment to mean. Did you agree with Secretary Bentsen's recollection that Mr. Altman had decided to recuse himself before he went to the White House? Ms. HANSON. As I stated, I don't know what the Secretary we've called, or really meant, by that statement, but I had recalled that Mr. Altman had made the decision before he had gone. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. The CHAIRMAN. I've just been trying to evaluate whether we should start at 9:30 a.m., or maybe make it a little bit later, because we've run so late tonight. Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, may I make one comment? Ms. Hanson, let me make it clear, my comments about those three clusters of issues and their handling went beyond just your involvement. I wasn't speaking, specifically, of your involvement, but just, enerally, my assessment of how those issues were generally anled. You responded in terms of your own involvement, or your noninvolvement, in those particular incidents. I respect that answer but, nonetheless, Mr. Chairman, my conclusions have to do with more than Ms. Hanson's participation. Ms. HANSON. I just wanted to make clear what my involvement was. The CHAIRMAN. Let the record reflect that. I think we'll start tomorrow morning at 10 a.m. Do we still have time to notify the witnesses of that? I We've invited them to be here at 9:30 a.m. Senator DODD. What time are we going to start? They won't be disappointed to start a little late. If you tell them we're re coming a little earlier The CHAIRMAN. I'm seeking a little judgment on that, because we're going to have our lunches tomorrow, and we're going to have to break for an hour or so Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, I can see another night The CHAIRMAN. I think you're right. I think we'd better stay with our original schedule. The witnesses are planning to be here at 9:30 a.m. We can't inform them now, so the Committee will resume at 9:30 a.m. As we adjourn, I want to thank you, Ms. Hanson, just for your durability there. You've spent a long time in the witness chair. I know this is not a pleasant experience, such as it is, but I appreciate your being here and I appreciate your staying and answer the questions. MS. ANSON. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee stands in recess. (23:48:26) [Whereupon, at 11:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m., on Tuesday, August 1, 1994. [Prepared statements, response to written questions, and additional material supplied for the record follow:] (23:48:28) From tv studio NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE close out coverage (23:49:33) WETA logo, PBS funding credits
August 3, 1994 - Part 2
(11:00:02)(tape #10077 begins) (11:03:12)(tape #10076 ends) (11:11:42) Hearing resumes: The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume. I want to say for the record that Senator Sasser was in the middle of his time period-well he has just returned. Let me just give Senator Sasser a minute to get seated and get his materials ready. If the timing clerk would restore the remainder of Senator Sasser's time after he has caught his breath here, we will go ahead and finish with Senator Sasser and then we will rotate over to the Republican side. Senator Sasser. Senator SASSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I am fascinated by the statement that you made to George Stephanopoulos arguing in favor of "lancing this boil." Some of the things you learn just by living, and I think sometimes if you are a smart person and have an open mind you will acquire wisdom over the years. This may have been a very wise suggestion that you made to George Stephanopoulos. I think it was. But my question comes: How would you lance this boil? I was talking to a very prominent constituent of mine last evening who unfortunately for him is a C-SPAN junkie. He watches everything we do on television here, and he was making the point. He says, this reminds me of "The Dance of the Seven Veils." After the last-the veils are taken off one after another, and finally to our chagrin we find when the last veil falls there is nothing there. Now my question to you is: How do you lance this boil here that has been pestering this White House, and has been in and out of the news now for 2 years? The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will resume. I want to say for the record that Senator Sasser was in the middle of his time period-well he has just returned. Let me just give Senator Sasser a minute to get seated and get his materials ready. If the timing clerk would restore the remainder of Senator Sasser's time after he has caught his breath here, we will go ahead and finish with Senator Sasser and then we will rotate over to the Republican side. Senator Sasser. Senator SASSER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I am fascinated by the statement that you made to George Stephanopoulos arguing in favor of "lancing this boil." Some of the things you learn just by living, and I think sometimes if you are a smart person and have an open mind you will acquire wisdom over the years. This may have been a very wise suggestion that you made to George Stephanopoulos. I think it was. But my question comes: How would you lance this boil? I was talking to a very prominent constituent of mine last evening who unfortunately for him is a C-SPAN junkie. He watches everything we do on television here, and he was making the point. He says, this reminds me of "The Dance of the Seven Veils." After the last-the veils are taken off one after another, and finally to our chagrin we find when the last veil falls there is nothing there. Now my question to you is: How do you lance this boil here that has been pestering this White House, and has been in and out of the news now for 2 years?
Waco Hearings - DAY 1
WACO HEARINGS: 7:00-8:03 PM - Master Number 10910 - INTRODUCTION; The following footage from the Waco Hearings consists of questioning of the third group of panelists. Questions were presented from Representative Schumer and Ehrlich, and were directed to the following men: David Aguilera; ATF Special Agent, Chuck Saraben; former ATF Special Agent In Charge from Huston, Texas, Earl Dunagan; former ATF Special Agent In Charge from Houston, Texas, Bill Johnston; Assistant US Attorney in Waco, Texas, Ed Owen; ATF Firearms Expert and Dr. Bruce Perry; Associate Professor of Psychiatry and Behavior Sciences at Baylor University Medical College in Waco, Texas. 19:00:00 - 19:14:50 The Sub-Committee Chamber is shown in recess. 19:14:51 Chairman Zeliff calls the Chamber to order. 19:15:06 Congressman Schumer begins his 15-minute line of questioning by making a statement about the search warrant. He states that in recent House votes the Republican Party voted in favor of the Good Faith Rule, but are now contradicting their position by fussing over David Koresh's warrant not being perfect. Rep. Schumer then poses a question to Mr. Aguilleria by asking him to estimate how many warrants he has issued during his career, and if any have been dismissed. Mr. Aguilera states around 30 warrants, and that none of them have ever been questioned. Rep. Schumer then asks what provoked him to become involved with the Branch Davidians. Mr. Aguilera states that he was prompted by a call from the local Waco Sheriff's Department. Congressman Schumer then asks him if it is normal for people to order grenades and explosive chemicals. He stakes that it is not normal. Continuing on, Congressman Schumer asks Mr. Aguilera what else confirmed his suspicions about illegal armaments. He states that he interviewed former BD members, and the neighbor, a Mr. Schvinka, who had heard machine gunfire. Rep. Schumer turns then to Mr. Johnston, and asks him how many search warrants he has reviewed during his career. He states several hundred. Rep. Schumer then asks him if Mr. Aguilera's investigation was creditable. Mr. Johnston states it was sufficient enough for him to write the warrant that also included the findings of DCFS Agent, Ms. Sparks. Continuing on, Rep. Schumer asks Mr. Johnston about other evidence the search uncovered. Mr. Johnston shows several books that detail how to manufacture weapons. Rep. Schumer then turns to Mr. Owen, and asks him if he is an expert on firearms. Mr. Owen agrees that he is an expert. Congressman Schumer then asks him to describe his role in identifying the weapons seized from the compound. Mr. Owen replies he assisted the FBI and the Texas Rangers in the collection of evidence several days after the fire. Congressman Schumer asks one of the Texas Rangers sitting in the Chamber to show examples the converted weapons seized from Mount Carmel. Mr. Owen identifies the weapons, and details their conversion to rapid fire. Rep. Schumer then turns to Dr. Perry, and asks him about the 21 children who were released from the compound during the siege, and to specifically tell of the conditions they were exposed to, and if they understood who their families were. Dr. Perry states that he, and other experts, lived with the children for the two months after they were released to determine their condition. He details that children were groomed begin at the age of 4 to become sex objects. He goes on to state the children were also overtly physically abused, and that the statements made by Carrie Jewel paralleled his team's conclusions about the BD's belief system and ideas on suicide. Continuing on, Doctor Perry states that Mr. Thibideaux's testimony concerning the children is not accurate, because BD men were often isolated away from them. He also describes his team's testing of the childrens' heart rates, and discovered them to be abnormally high which signifies server anxiety and distress. 19:31:01 Congressman Ehrlich begins his questioning by asking Mr. Johnston about the details surrounding the ATF's use of a "dynamic entry." Mr. Johnston states he was not involved in the actually planning of the raid, only in the issuing of the search warrant. Rep. Ehrlich then asks Mr. Owen if the weapons used by the ATF in the raid were of military grade. Mr. Owen states the weapons were not of military grade. Mr. Sarabyn interjects to state that in an early request by the ATF to the National Guard, several Bradley Fighting Vehicles were asked for. Rep. Ehrlich then asks any of the panelists to comment on the loss of secrecy prior to the start of the raid. Mr. Dunagan replies by presenting a formula of event involving local Waco news outlets and the ATF. A culmination of negotiations between local papers and the ATF lead reporters from one newspaper to inform David Jones, a BD member and the Mount Carmel area mailman, who, in turn, tipped off David Koresh about the raid. Mr. Dunagan then poses the question as to what point was the element of surprise actually lost. Congressman Ehrlich presses Mr. Dunagan about how was it possible to have not known the element of surprise was lost when the media was on the scene prior to start of the raid. Mr. Dunagan states the ATF didn't recognize the fact the media was actually there. 19:45:50 Chairman Zeliff recesses the Chamber for two votes. 19:46:00 The Sub-Committee Chamber is shown in recess. 20:02:30 TAPE OUT.
LAWMAKERS
20.15.28-DUKE-publicity has led the Senate to seek a compromise, wherein the FTC can continue to investigate MEDICAL PROFESSIONS, but AMA still vows to fight for total exemption from FTC OVERSIGHT. ROBERTS-ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY having problems with CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT too. LINDA WERTHEIMER-The director of EPA is regarded in CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS by two different subcommittees for refusing to surrender files on the EPA'S efforts to enforce TOXIC WASTE CLEANUP by companies. REAGAN ordered EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE claim. 20.17.04-ANNE GORSUCH, EPA administrator in committee hearing. Asserts "executive privilege" claim, says Congress is overstepping its bounds. WERTHEIMER v.o.-Congress is not convinced that the EPA is actively enforcing laws on TOXIC WASTE, prosecutions for TOXIC WASTE infractions are dramatically down under GORSUCH'S administration of EPA. Rep. W.J. TAUZIN (D-LA) in committee hearing, tells GORSUCH that his constituents are worried about TOXIC WASTE and deserve to know what the EPA is doing about it. Rep. AL GORE says he can't accept the EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE claim. Points to a "sensitive" document that turns out to be an invitation for CORPORATIONS accused of TOXIC WASTE violations to attend a secret meeting. GORSUCH denies that the document was withheld, blah blah blah. 20.20.19-Rep. TAUZIN notes that the EPA uses "Kelly Girls" as office staff, allowing outsiders to see these "sensitive" documents but won't let Congress look. GORSUCH defends against the charge, asserts that the issue is REAGAN'S right to keep control of the EPA in the Executive Branch. WERTHEIMER v.o.-CONGRESS doesn't buy that explanation. Rep. BOB WHITAKER (R-KS) demands that EPA documents be given to Congress. Rep. RICHARD SHELBY (D-Ala.) says he's bothered by the EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE claim, Congress is responsible for overseeing the EPA and needs the information. 20.23.03-WERTHEIMER-GORSUCH was cited for CONTEMPT OF CONGRESS, but it's expected that an accommodation will be made. DUKE-notes that new SENATE OFFICE BUILDING is being called "Taj Mahal" of Capitol Hill, named for late Sen. PHIL HART. Commentary by Otis Pike on the new building. Note how far over budget the building went in construction--wood paneling, new gymnasium 16 foot ceilings, rooftop restaurant proposed until HOUSE imposed a ceiling on spending. After all the extravagances removed, no Senators want to work in the Hart building. Jokes that the "side doors for Senators to slip out when Taxpayers come in the front door" must have been cut out of the plans, too. 20.25.57-DUKE-signs off. Closing credits/transcript order information/WETA credit/sponsor credits/PBS ID 20.27.48--OUT
Watergate Hearings - testimony of James McCord (Jim McCord) May 22, 1973
Senator Howard BAKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, Mr. McCord, I am very grateful, I think you supplied a great deal of additional information & it raises a great number of new questions & I am sure my colleagues on the committee will want to pursue that or other questions, so I will not detain you long in this first series of questions. I think that your further elaboration & extension of your state of mind or motives in the several operations & especially the Watergate operation now appears more clear, at least to me. Let me try to paraphrase the essence of your motivation, if I may, & if I am wrong for goodness sakes tell me so, but I want to know if this is the general message that you are giving us. One, you had a long background of experience w/ Government agencies, the FBI & the CIA. You had become accustomed to activities related to sensitive matters, security matters, and to taking direction & accepting at face value the representations of the orders or the purported orders of very high officials in the Government, particularly the Justice Department & the White House. That for a variety of reasons, when you were called on to enter the Democratic National headquarters in Washington at the Watergate complex for a variety of reasons, inc your general knowledge of threats against the CRP, threats against General Mitchell & his family, threats against others, pipe bombings, fire bombings, threats of violence & the like, coupled w/ your concern for national security matters, if that is the proper way to characterize it, that you decided on the assumption that your authority was complete, that you no longer need to concern yourself with the legality of it, that based on this information that you had, & based on the assurances which were forthcoming, that it seemed appropriate that you undertake that entry. Is that a fair statement of your general motivation at the time? Mr. McCORD. I would think so, yes, sir. Senator BAKER. Mr. McCord, did you have any motivation to enter the Democratic National Committee for political purposes as distinguished from security purposes? It is not important in terms of the facts and the proof but it is important in terms of your state of mind. Mr. MCCORD. Let me answer it in a couple of sentences, if I may. I was fully aware that others had such motivations. My own motivations I have stated here. I had a role to play in the sense of an electronic component of the team and I played that role.
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(12:05:20) An act of Congress extended this deadline and, incidentally, that was done by you, I say to our Ranking Member, with the assistance of Senator Metzenbaum. This heads up is but one of the troubling aspects of this affair. Some in this city attempt to minimize these hearings, but I would simply point out that we have a serious oversight respon 35 sibility to unearth the truth and ensure proper procedures are followed , I would like to point out that we would not know what we know today had it not been for this Committee's hearing in February when Mr- Altman first revealed under questioning his contact with the White House. So I think we have a lot to get under our belt in a few days and I intend to be part of conducting this bearing with the highest dignity lilt and respect. But that does not mean that because we are doing is as Republicans on this side, it does not mean that we have any motives other than the right motives for the American people, They deserve the truth, whether it's this President or any President and their White House staff. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Campbell. (12:06:45) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL Senator CAMPBELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I along with my colleagues want to congratulate you and the staff for all the effort you've gone through to put these hearings in place. I have to say I've watched some of the bearings in the other body on the other side of the Hill as most other people have and it looks to me like they're getting vitriolic, long on posturing, long on accusations, and short on information. To my way of thinking, it's made great theatre for the American people but I'm not sure it's going to improve policy. If our bearings do lead to some policy changes, then we certainly will have done our job. These bearings begin with the investigation of Vincent Foster's suicide and that should turn the stomach of any caring American. I really believe we should drop that whole issue and it's obvious we're not going to but we should for the sake of Vince Foster and his family. That was their specific wish. The Independent Counsel, Mr. Fiske, concluded that this was a suicide, the family is satisfied with the Fiske investigation. It seem to me that rather than flogging the issue, we should be ashamed of ourselves and let the man's family live at peace and let him rest in peace. The Park Police, the FBI, the medical examiners, the Independent Counsel, they're all professionals and they did their job and concluded that Vince Foster did indeed commit suicide. It's sad and tragic, but we should let his family celebrate his many accomplishments and not dwell on the circumstances of his death. And I agree with Senator Dodd, that it does indeed, border on macabre. In the statement of the Vince Foster family they said themselves there's pow no justification for painful repetition or examination of these issues. The principle advocates for doing this appear chiefly motivated by mean-spirited partisanship. They certainly did not care at all for the feelings of Vince's family, particularly for his children, who suffered have greatly, And, with your permission, I would like to introduce into the record that whole statement by the family. As far as the rest of the bearing goes, we're supposed to discuss whether there were any improper contacts between the White House and Treasury or RTC officials. The Independent Counsel, Mr. Fiske, a man we have all] praised who has great credentials. who enjoy glowing praises of most of the 36 people on this Committee on both sides of the aisle, has said the contacts weren't illegal, I believe him. I also believe what Senator Domenici has said, maybe there are new things that have come up, if I can paraphrase him, that we need to look at and we shouldn't minimize the effects of the new things we may find out. In addition, the White House Counsel has said that White House officials did not break any Government ethics rule. That's said by a man whose reputation is as solid as a rock. His credentials and integrity are impeccable. I question why anyone would want to second guess his efforts now after giving him such glowing reports in the beginning. We've been here over 2 hours now and I don't want to repeat some of the questions that Members have said that we need to ask. I certainly want to be open- minded, but from everything I've seen" so far, there is no evidence that anybody violated any law or any ethics guidelines. It sounds like there were some cases of bad judgment. But if bad judgment was a crime, I venture to say a number of U.S. Senators would probably be in jail. It sounds like there's confusion about the chain of events and it sounds like there's disagreement over what the ethics guidelines allow and what they do not. We should look at those disagreements and make recommenda tions as to how the Administration could make those rules better. If we're really serious about finding the problems with the ethics rules here and with making recommendations, we should be out of here very quickly.
August 4, 1994 - Part 2
(10:45:13) Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, Senator, first of all, let me say that I do not actually recall saying that, but it would not be inconsistent for me to say to anyone that there are matters that belong appropriately so I believe to the personal Counsel of the Clinton's. 300 I was trying to make sure, in my own mind, making a distinction between what rightfully belonged with the personal lawyer and what was an institutional matter. So I believed if we were talking about waiving of the statute that was not my business, that was the business of Mr. Kendall' Senator FAIRCLOTH. In your everyday course of duties as Chief of Staff to the First Lady, did you have contacts with Mr. Kendall, the Clinton's personal lawyer? Ms. WILLIAMS. Not in my everyday work. There would be sometimes, however, when Mrs. Clinton could not remember a fact about Whitewater that she would say, either call Mr. Kendall or I will call Mr. Kendall and try and get an an- swer. Senator FAIRCLOTH. What was the reaction of the other White House officials at the meeting, to your suggestion that President Clinton's personal lawyer be briefed on the operation of the statute of limitations in the Madison case? What did they think when you said that? Ms. WILLIAMS. Once again, sir, it is difficult for me to talk about their reactions since I do not even remember saying that. What I have tried to do is to volunteer to you that it would not be inconsistent of me to have said that. I was not paying any attention to any reaction because I do not recall myself saying that specifically. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Kendall, the Private Counsel to the President, concerning the possibility of obtaining a briefing by the RTC on the operation of the statute of limitations in the pending Madison case? Ms. WILLIAMS. No, sir, to the best of my recollection, I did not. Senator FAIRCLOTH. That is all, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Bryan. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR BRYAN Senator BRYAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McLarty, Ms. Williams, it is nice to have you with us this morning. Mr. McLarty, I want to focus attention in my line of questions dealing with the testimony of Mr. Altman on the 24th, before this Committee. I continue to be very, very troubled by that testimony and yesterday we had testimony before this Committee by two gentlemen that I think are extremely able, whose instincts and judgments think were sound, and who I think were highly credible. Mr. Eggleston told us that on the day before the hearing, he was sufficiently concerned about how Mr. Altman's testimony was to be presented that he actually called Ms. Hanson to discuss, you know) the recusal issue there which had been the subject of the meeting on the 2nd of February. Mr. Eggleston further told us that he was assigned to be in attendance at the time of the hearing, and that after Mr. Altman testified in response to a line of questions from Senator Gramm, Senator Bond and Senator Domenici, that he was sufficiently concerned that he left the hearing, as I understood it, placed a cellular 301 call to the White House to in effect say I am concerned about that testimony, I am led to believe that thereafter, either he or others made contact with Mr. Podesta who was then in chain of command. For whatever reason, and this is the question that I want to ask you in a moment, that was not addressed properly, in my judgment, there were a series of letters, as you know, that flowed from, I think, March 2nd to March 3rd to March 11th and there was one other letter. Share with me what the organizational structure was in the White House because you had two fine gentlemen who I think immediately saw the problem, attempted, to the best of their ability, to alert the White House that this needed to be addressed, and I guess, to use a football metaphor, somebody fumbled the ball. Mr. MCLARTY. Senator Bryan, I think your assessment of Mr. Eggleston and Mr. Podesta and others is a correct one. The matter was brought to the White House's attention to Mr. Podesta and I believe Mr. Ickes, who made me aware of it sometime shortly after Mr. Altman's testimony. And my direction was that we should work with Treasury to make certain that Deputy Secretary Altman's testimony was complete, I would say, Senator, that Treasury testimony, Mr. Altman's testimony per se, he and his staff should take the lead in terms of that testimony. Mr. Podesta had worked with the Treasury Department regarding this particular hearing, at the request of Mr. Griffin, who is responsible for our legislative affairs, and me. This hearing was a regularly scheduled hearing, as I understood it, and covered a very wide scope in its meeting. Senator BRYAN. Mr. McLarty, when did you first become aware that there was, quote, "a potential problem," those are my words, I do not think that is the testimony precisely, but that clearly is the import of the testimony by Mr. Eggleston and Mr. Klein, when did you first become aware that there may be a problem with that testimony?
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(00:05:28) What I fail to understand, with all due respect to the Senators here because I do have great respect for this Committee and this body, is why people-why I cannot seem to convince anybody or enough people, of the importance of the concept of doing your duty if there is no legal or ethical obligation to recuse yourself. That's what I'm not getting across and I feel so strongly about it, I feel it's the correct policy both in the judicial branch as well as for the Administration and I believe this Committee should support that position, but apparently Im Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator Senator SHELBY. I want to ask you one last question because my time is running. In this same diary entry and I asked Mr. Eggle- ston---- Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Senator SHELBY [continuing]. One of your associates, at one time, what did he mean by this and he said this is what he meant: Once again they, they the White House, were very concerned about him, Roger, turning the RTC over to people that you didn't know; in other words, you didn't have a relationship with. That's what Mr. Eggleston said right here at this meeting. Do you agree with that? In other words, why not let him recuse himself if you weren't conferenced about who was running the RTC? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No. Senator SHELBY. Somebody that would run down to the White Ouse and clear everything with you? NUSSBAUM. No, no. Senator SHELBY. That's what you were interested in. Senator SHELBY. I disagree with you, but I want to say this: You are an advocate, you're---I might hire you if I needed you as a lawyer, but I sure wouldn't hire you to Bennett won't 496 Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, it wasn't. Senator SHELBY. And it got Mr. Altman and yourself in deep trouble. Mr. NUSSBAUM. For better or worse, Mr. Altman was running RTC at that time. It may have been a mistake in retrospect him have these two hats for so long, I can see that, but for or worse he had the job then and he had no right in my under the policies I've talked about, to duck doing his job unless there was a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself. Senator SHELBY. There was an ethical obligation and you mauled him and you know it. Mr. NUSSBAUM. There was no ethical obligation because even the OGE found he had no ethical obligation to recuse himself. He had three ethics opinions that he had no legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself Senator SHELBY. You are trying to bolster his confidence or bolster your position with him when he knew inside that he should step down and instead of you walking away from it and saying do what you think is best, basically, you beat up on him and you know you did. You did and you know it, I'm sure you did. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bond. Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Nussbaum, we had an opportunity last year, I believe, to meet under pleasanter circumstances and I trust we may have an opportunity again. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I hope so. Senator BOND. Count me in, though, as one who wholeheartedly endorses the position announced by the Chairman. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I lost another vote. Senator BOND. That's true. Mr. Nussbaum, you're Counsel to the White House, you received information on the nine criminal referrals. Also receiving them were other people in the White House. As Counsel, what directions did you give them about that information and how they should act on it? Mr. NUSSBAUM. What directions did I give other people at the White House? Senator BOND. Yes, you got hot stuff. Criminal referrals, nonpublic information. What did you tell them? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I told them that we received this information, there's going to be a leak. We should prepare ourselves to respond to that leak, that's what I told them. Senator BOND. That's the sum and substance? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That is the sum and substance, yes, sir. Senator BOND. You didn't have any concern that you ought to tell them not to share it with anybody, you ought to tell them that they should not destroy documents? Mr. Lindsey said he talked to Mr. Lyons, a political ally of the President, and they discussed the criminal referral. You know what Mr. Roelle said when he was before us, Mr. Roelle said that he warned Ms. Hanson not to tell the White House because that's where it would leak. When you got that nonpublic information, any Counsel worth his salt would tell the people that you got nonpublic information. Number one, you can't share it with people who don't have a legitimate Government 497 interest-I should note I don't agree with you that you had a legitimate Government interest. Number two, you can't do anything to destroy evidence or get rid of any evidence, and I don't think anybody here is willing to tell us under oath that documents didn't disappear, that things weren't altered, that files weren't searched on the basis of the nonpublic information which apparently, according to your testimony, not only did the President know, but it also went to Mr. Lyons. It may well have gone to Governor Tucker; it may have gone to others.
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:50:59) Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator DODD. -and asked if I would support him, a Republican, I know him, Now, in whose interest is it to appoint a Republican to head up the RTC if you're worried about this? The people watching this and listening to this may not understand all of these debates between Committees but there's a backdrop here. When you have the overall demeanor, all of these other questions, set up something we ought to be cognizant of and aware of. We're trying to draw the conclusion of whether or not the Department of the Treasury, Mr. Altman in his capacity as the head of the RTC, the White House and others were trying to derail these criminal referrals and the civil suits. That's the issue we're driving at, did someone at the White House try and derail this whole operation? If you're looking at a state of mind, if you will, taking a look at the overall attitudes that are being reflected by decisions being made in the office, I don't see as a backdrop of this evidence, that kind of demeanor. Now, as to your state of mind in the February 2 meeting. I think that's important. I also think it's important to know what the state of mind was at the White House, Senator Domenici's questions. We're going to have Mr. Nussbaum here. We're going to have all the White House people here to ask them whether or not they were pressuring. You said you didn't take it as pressure. Clearly, they wear a different hat than you do in their particular setting. I'm satisfied with Your answer, that you didn't-you wish you made the decision to recuse yourself earlier. Tomorrow and the next day well hear from the White House people and that will be a legitimate question. While. 509 to insist that this witness understand what Mr. Nussbaum was thinking is a legitimate question, at some point you've got to let up on it. Its not his responsibility to know what the state of mind was of Mr. Nussbaum. I say that because I've listened to you for almost 40 hours, over the last 3 or 4 days, tantamount to what would be 10 days of hearings here. I think we need to remind ourselves of what we're driving at here, what the issue was as a result of the resolution being adopted, that caused this Committee to convene and discuss these issues. That is whether or not this White House, these high-ranking officials, did anything to derail, disrupt, to throw off the criminal and civil matters affecting the Madison Guaranty company. I'd like to get back on track with those questions, if we could , instead of going off ad nauseam, in areas where honest people can disagree what the intent was, what the intent behind the question was. I say that and let me ask one question that comes down to the whole issue that has to do with the statutory authority because at some point we're going to make, I hope, some legislative rec- ommendations as well. I think we can stipulate here that most of us agree that this idea of wearing two hats which by law either you I oil or Secretary Bentsen had to do, created a lot of the situation that we're in tonight. I wonder if you would comment as to whether or not you have any suggestions or ideas as to bow in the future we can avoid this in some other Administration so we're not meeting again to discuss what someone said at a hearing, what someone intended by a question, what someone intended by an answer, and avoid the kind of problems that, I think, this legislative Catch-22 has caused us to be in. Mr. ALTMAN. Well, Senator, our intentions were honorable in try ing to take up responsibility for the RTC and trying to make some improvements in it, and I believe that we did, But I agree with the rust of your question. I think it would be better in the future if a brighter line or some wall between the institution which is independent of another institution. I agree. I think these hearings alone demonstrate that all kinds of appearances issues raised and controversies arise that would not happen if there were a wall. Senator DODD. Who should have taken that job? How should we deal with that? Should it be some independent person that has not been confirmed by the Congress or the Senate. That was one of the requirements, that the person who took the job had to have been confirmed by the Senate