Advanced Search
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(12:45:17) Secretary BENTSEN. I recall he told me that but not at that time. I don't remember the date, and I know I was relieved when he told me. And, as I have found out additional facts subsequent to that, if I'd have been him-if I would have been in his position, I sure would have recused myself. Senator HATCH. He stated that the first time he decided to recuse himself was February 25th. Would that be consistent with your recollection? Secretary BENTSEN. Well, at that time, yes. If that wasn't the date, it's close to it. Senator HATCH. Were you aware that Treasury General Counsel had recommended to Mr Altman that he recuse himself from Madison matters before that? Secretary BENTSEN. I don't remember being told that. Senator HATCH. OK. Did you at the time have an opinion on whether Mr. Altman should recuse himself-well, you've expressed that. Secretary BENTSEN. Yes. Senator HATCH. You said that if it had been your choice, you would have done it? Secretary BENTSEN. Yes. Senator HATCH. Can you tell us why you, if it had been your choice, you would have done it under those circumstances? Secretary BENTSEN. Well, I think he was put in a position where he was considered a friend of the President and he was being chal- 53 lenged that that friendship would influence his judgment and I think he was right to just get rid of that argument. Senator HATCH. OK. Yesterday, Mr. Altman said something to the effect that you expressed your own surprise or puzzlement to him that he did not recuse himself, that it was in his own self-interest to recuse. Did you offer Mr. Altman any advice on recusal from Madison matters and, if so, what was that advice? Did you, for example, tell Mr. Altman that recusing himself or making a decision to recuse was something he had to do? Secretary BENTSEN. I told him he had to make that decision that was his, his alone-that he had the facts, that I did not. Senator HATCH. Did anyone from the White House ever discuss the matter of Mr. Altman's recusal with you? Secretary BENTSEN. I don't remember anyone in the White House discussing it with me. Senator HATCH. Thank you. That's all I have. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Murray. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR MURRAY Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome Mr. Secretary. Again, I have the privilege of going last and listening to all of the comments before me. We've been here for 31/2 hours and I have to ask you the question I've been asking myself for the last several hours. Why are you here? Secretary BENTSEN. Oh, it is not for me to say. Senator MURRAY. Well, as long as you are here, I really have to ask you a question. You knew Jack Kennedy, you knew Sam Ervin, you knew Howard Baker. You've been here a long time. I'm new to this. If you were sitting on this side of the table listening to all this testimony and hearing everything, what conclusions would you come to? Secretary BENTSEN. Boy, I don't want to tell this Committee what to do, but, Senator, there has been-you've had three investigations and they've been independent investigations. They say no criminal act was committed, no violation of ethical standards, but some troubling things. And 1, as Secretary of the Treasury, assume the responsibility for what happens in Treasury, and I have also told you we're going to try to correct some of those concerns, and we'll be pleased to have the recommendation of this Committee, which has been deeply involved in this issue, and in turn that of the Justice Department and the IG and I sure want to get the Office of Government Ethics involved in it. And we're going to move and try to see that we don't have this kind of problem develop in the future and then I'd arrive at a judgment, but that's yours. Senator MURRAY. Do you think anybody should be removed from their job? Secretary BENTSEN. I think that whatever happened here was not with the intent to harm. I think there were some errors in judgment, but I haven't found anybody that calls them right all the time,
Hullabaloo Show 9 Part 1
Hullabaloo, Show 9 Host: Bobby Vinton (3/9/65)
Hullabaloo Show 9 Part 2
Hullabaloo Show 9 Host: Bobby Vinton (3/9/65)
Hullabaloo Show 7 Part 1
Hullabaloo Show 7. Host Sammy Davis Jr (2/23/65)
Hullabaloo Show 7 Part 2
Hullabaloo Show 7. Host Sammy Davis Jr (2/23/65)
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(12:50:19) Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. 54 Mr. Secretary, there's one other item I want to cover with you and then we may be near finishing, depending upon what Senator D'Amato wants to raise. I want to just quickly review with you the history of this recusal matter with Mr. Altman because it's very important and you were at least involved in aspects of that as it unfolded. Let me tell you what's in our Committee record so that you have a clear frame of reference here. Mr. Altman had a meeting with you and Ms. Hanson on February 1st where he was thinking aloud about what he ought to do and you have expressed the view that that was going to have to be his decision. His testimony-and it's undisputed- is that he had reached the decision, that he was leaning in the direction of recusal, and that that was his state of mind and that he had not made a final decision on that, he was going to sort of weigh that, he was seeking your advice, presumably, and the advice of others. Then he went to the meeting at the White House on the 2nd, the very fateful meeting. He testified last night in the middle of the night that sometime after he left your office and before he got into that meeting at the White House on the 2nd, he actually did make the decision to recuse himself. So he went into the meeting and in the course of the meeting, he declared that intention. Well, now what we have in the way of testimony as to what followed, probably the most useful guidance we have, in addition to what Mr. Altman confirmed last night, are the diary entries of your Chief of Staff, Josh Steiner, because he took- he put notes down based on what he had been told by Mr. Altman after that meeting. Mr. Altman also gave us some of the flavor of that last night. And the bottom line is that Mr. Nussbaum, particularly, didn't like the sound of Mr. Altman's decision to recuse himself, and so, in some manner, he expressed himself forcefully-and you can get the full flavor of it in terms of your Chief of Staff 's diary notes on that and what happened was that it obviously had enough of an impact on Mr. Altman that he decided that he'd better sleep on it, despite the fact that he walked in with the intention of-had made the decision to recuse himself. So he slept on it overnight and the next day decided that he wouldn't recuse himself and apparently on that next day, if my recollection is right, he spoke with you and indicated that he had now reached the judgment that he would not, at least for the time being, recuse himself. Now, that's what the record is. We don't have anybody disputing that chain of events. Now, the feel of that and the look of that, I think, is troubling. Because here you have a fellow going over to the White House, he says he's made up his mind, he goes in, the President's lawyer, in terms of the Institutional Office of the Presidency, his lawyer is there, doesn't like it, really applies some form of pressure-and you should read the words in Josh Steiner's diary in terms of the flavor of what, the intensity of it-and Altman gets turned around here and he changes his mind and then he stays in that status for some period of time. terms of when he decides to Now, there's an end to the story in recuse and how he decides to recuse and so forth. One of the concerns that I have and I think you have to think about as well 55 I mean, I think every senior officer of the Government has to think about this who has any relationship to this and just is a citizen as well-and that's the appropriateness and the propriety of Mr. Nussbaum in that capacity, in effect, trying to strong-arm Mr. Altman out of his decision. Now, I find that troubling. My question to you would be, is that the way things ought to work? Is that a proper action for Mr. Nussbaum to be taking in this situation?
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(12:55:29) Secretary BENTSEN. Let me say first-the February 1st meeting I have spoken on, I was told by Roger Altman at some later date that he was not recusing himself I don't recall that it was February 3rd. The CHAIRMAN. That's what our records indicate. Secretary BENTSEN. Well, I don't have that recollection. I think an argument can be made, you know, that you have this responsibility and you have to carry it out. The CHAIRMAN. Why is it Mr. Nussbaum's obligation to weigh in on that? What vests him with the authority to step into Mr. Altman's decision on that? Secretary BENTSEN. I assume because he was representing the White House in that situation. The CHAIRMAN. But didn't he have a conflict there because this involved a case that touched the White House? Should he have done that? Secretary BENTSEN. Well, I looked at the Office of Government Ethics report and they say that there was neither criminal-that there was no violation of ethical standards, and they're the experts on that type of thing. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I hear that. Are you comfortable with that? I mean with the situation I've just described. Secretary BENTSEN. Let me tell you, they live and work at that and I'm not going to question their judgment. The CHAIRMAN. I've got to tell you, I'm troubled about it. Secretary BENTSEN, OK The CHAIRMAN. Senator DAmato. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, you went right to the heart of the matter. I know it wasn't easy for you. It's not easy when you have a colleague with as distinguished a reputation as the Senator. Mr. Secretary, did Josh Steiner convey to you the enormity of the pressure that he saw being placed on Mr. Altman as it related to the issue of recusal? Secretary BENTSEN. No, he did not. That, obviously, I got out of what I saw in his diary. Senator DAMATO. Did you feel, when Mr. Altman came to you the first time and thereafter, several days later-and I understand the sequence is redacted- exactly which date is not there, but our information is on the 3rd, after he came back, you knew he had visited the White House, and he told you that he indicated to them that he had decided not to recuse himself. Did he indicate to you that Mr. Nussbaum or others wanted him to stay on? Secretary BENTSEN. I did not know that he had visited the White House and I don't think he told me that Mr. Nussbaum and others '"'anted him to stay on. I thought he'd made up his mind. When lie 56 was in front of me, I think he was troubled and trying to make up his mind. Senator DAMATO. And when he came back and told you that he had changed his mind, did you tell him that? Secretary BENTSEN. I didn't understand that he changed his mind. I understood that he'd made up his mind. Senator D'AMATO. What did you say to him at that point? Secretary BENTSEN. Acceptance and acknowledgment of what he'd done, made up his mind. Senator D'AMATO, Well, Mr. Secretary, Roger Altman was under your jurisdiction. You knew that he had expressed, obviously, his concern that here was a case that affected the Clintons. It could affect them. It was a possibility. That he was a personal friend of the Clintons. In addition, he was in a unique role working with Mrs. Clinton on-the health task force, and that he was the ultimate decisionmaker. When he initially indicated to you that his inclination was to step aside, you said to him Secretary BENTSEN. No, he didn't indicate that to me and I have said that repeatedly. Senator D'AMATO. He never indicated that to you, but when he told you that he made up The CHAIRMAN. You were-let's let the Secretary finish. You were going to say what he said. Secretary BENTSEN. He was asking for counsel and advice the way I read him. Senator D'AMATO. What counsel did you give him? Secretary BENTSEN. I told him it was his decision , that I didn't know the facts in the case, that he had to make that decision,
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(13:00:31) Senator D'AMATO. Well, he didn't talk about the case. He talked about his position of being close to the Clintons and being the ultimate decisionmaker, didn't he? You knew he was close to the Clintons. Secretary BENTSFN. Well, of course I knew he was a friend of the Clintons, obviously so. I don't recall the details of the discussion. Senator D'AMATO. Well, Mr. Secretary, as painful as this may be and I've said it a short time ago, I think you had an obligation then to give him counsel to step aside. I think the matter Secretary BENTSEN. Senator, I don't agree when I didn't know the facts in the case. I am not about to counsel someone Senator D'AMATO. This is not a question, Senator Secretary BENTSEN [continuing]. On something that is as important as that to that person without knowing the facts. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Secretary, we're talking about one case and the question of the facts, excuse me, is irrelevant. secretary BENTSEN. Well, I don't agree. Senator D'AMATO. We're not talking about the merits of the case. We're talking about a person who comes to you who says I have a decision to make, whether I should recuse myself or not in a case that affects the Clintons. You don't need to know more than that because you know that he has a personal relationship and will be the ultimate decisionmaker. Now, that you knew Secretary BENTSEN. Senator, you and I have a difference of opinion on what should be done in that. 57 Senator D'AMATO. Well, then, tell me how you differ from that opinion. Secretary BENTSEN. I just told you. Senator D'AMATO. OK. Secretary BENTSEN. I think that you have to know the facts in the case before you arrive at that kind of a judgment. Senator D'AMATO. Well, I'm suggesting to you that given the facts Secretary BENTSEN. I wasn't given the facts. And frankly, I did not want to get in a position of any intervention on my part. The CHAIRMAN. Well, in fact Senator D'AMATO. Here is what Mr. Altman says The CHAIRMAN. We'll come back to that. If you'll permit me. I think in your role as the oversight person with respect to the Oversight Board, you really couldn't do that even if you wanted to. I mean, it seems to me that, you know Secretary BENTSEN. That's right. The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Your responsibility there was such, because you have to stay removed from these cases, that even if you had a firm and final judgment of advice, you'd have to withhold it because, in a sense, that compromises your own role in this other status. Wouldn't that be true? Secretary BENTSEN. That's true, Mr. Chairman. Senator D'AMATO, Let me suggest to you-here is what Mr. Altman says in his own words when this issue came up. Said the Secretary, "he knew it was optional. He said it was purely a personal decision," which is what you've related, meaning that you could go either way on this. But it's a personal decision" and again that verifies your- there's no doubt about it. Secretary BENTSEN. That's not exactly my words. I've told you what my words were. Senator DAMATO. For the sake of-and for the sake of appearances or something to that effect, you would be better off doing it. Secretary BENTSEN. No, I don't recall saying that. senator D'AMATO. All right. Given the time and whatnot, Mr. Secretary, I'm going to say to you again that if a deputy comes to You and states an obvious situation where there is a very real case-possibility of a case being brought that might involve personal friends and that he is vested with the ultimate decisionmaking, the question of whether or not that person should step aside for that case seems to me to be one in which someone with your seasoning, with all of the years that you have been here, would have said, step aside. Secretary BENTSEN. Senator, if you go back and look at the rules that the Chairman of the Oversight Board operates on, as directed by the Congress, there will not be an intervention in a case-specific, and that could have been interpreted as that Senator D'AMATO. You mean Secretary BENTSEN [continuing]. And I was not about to get into that kind of a compromise. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Secretary, you're trying to interpret the rules at this point to say that if someone comes to you-and we're 'lot-and indicates that he has a personal relationship with a case that will come, and it is before him and there's a very real question 58 as to whether he should step aside, recuse himself from that case, that you're interpreting it to say it would be a violation of rules to suggest step aside? Let me ask you Secretary BENTSEN. Yes, I certainly think it could be interpreted as an intervention into the case, in a case-specific and I wasn't about to get into that position. Senator DAMATO. OK. I can understand that, Mr. Secretary. I just disagree. I think at that point in time you should have said to him, you don't want to embarrass yourself, the Department, the Administration, you should step aside and don't worry about the White House or anybody else. I will say this to you The CHAIRMAN. Could you just yield if you are going to move off that point because this is one area where I think our interpretation is different.
1950s "indian" Footage
Very nice color footage of native Americans, c. 1950s, in full regalia, on horses, talking in sign language, dancing, and generally playing "noble savage". VERY stereotypical, tourist-trap type footage--technicolor feathers, war paint, etc. MS 4 Native American men on horses in traditional costumes - beads, feathers etc. 4 Native Americans in Hollywood-style costumes with technicolor feathers, etc. All speaking rapid sign language. Fits 1950's white america's/hollywood stereotype of 'Indians". VS CU young Native American with war-paint and feather headdress.
Eiffel Tower
Color footage of Paris--touristy, some dirty, some home-movie look. Eiffel Tower and more. Looks late 1940s or early 1950s. LS Eiffel Tower in spring - flowers blooming, cyclists in park. CU-MS pan and tilt up to top of tower. Shot from elevator in Eiffel tower looking down to streets - nice. LS Tower on gray cloudy day. No people. Close shot under the tower with pedestrians and traffic. Tilt up to top of tower. LS Eiffel tower in spring. Eiffel tower on gray cloudy days. Base of tower - tilt up to top. LS top of tower, tilt down. LS Tower with another building in f/g. MS lower part of tower. MS around base of tower. People gathered. Extreme canted angle shot from base of tower looking up. MS Looking squarely at base of tower. LS top of tower shrouded in fog. CU details of the decorative work on parts of the tower structure. MS base of tower - 3 servicemen walk by - tilt up from base of tower. LS tilt down from top of tower - afternoon light. Shots from elevator. Nice overhead shot of sculpted greens and streets of Paris from the top of tower. MS tourists looking through telescopes at top of tower. More shots from elevator. Seine River from the tower. Ext. shot of the elevator. Canted angle of the tower from below. MS through the base of the tower.
Grand Canyon and Bryce Canyon
Color scenic travel footage of Grand Canyon, Arizona and a quick shot of Bryce Canyon. Some beautiful. Some with very 1950s women in foreground. WS canyon, 3 men (surveyors?) at work on a ledge of canyon. WS canyon. A woman in a red dress site on a ledge looking out over the canyon - sunset light. Bryce Canyon scenic. Cam pans across orange rock formations, trees in b.g. MS woman in green dress on ledge overlooking grand canyon in sunset light. WS from behind, same woman with a man standing overlooking the canyon. He points at something in the distance. Cuts to a fade up on the woman - sitting in the grass on a ledge overlooking the canyon - looks like morning light. She removes her sunglasses. Darker shot same. WS woman in red dress with man hold hands close to the edge of the canyon. Scenic. Clouds in sky. TLS looking into canyon. Repeat of shot with woman in green dress with man at edge of canyon. Cuts to another woman in f/g looking out over wide landscape with Grand canyon.
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(13:05:43) I would make the point that you were in an inherent conflict situation there yourself. If that question is presented to you and even if you wanted to express an opinion-because you wear two hats, you're there as Treasury Secretary, you're also there in this other duty as the head of the Oversight Board where you're restricted from getting into any of these cases in any manner shape or form, So if somebody comes to you and asks you whether they should take an action that, in effect, is going to relate to one case or another, you're under an injunction, by the very rules of that other assignment to not take that decision. You can't do it and you didn't. Your testimony is you stepped back from that and Secretary BENTSEN. That's the way I interpreted it. The CHAIRMAN. And as you should have. I would argue that if you had, in fact, said something to him as to what he should have have done right then, I think you crossed a line that would violate this other charter you have and I don't think that would have been proper to do, quite frankly. Secretary BENTSEN. I agree with that, Mr. Chair-man. Senator DAMATO. In light of what you know now, do you think that his failure to recuse himself until the day before The New York Times article, and only because The Times called him up and told them they were going to write an article on why he didn't recuse himself, do you think that he comported himself according to the manner in which he should in his position? Secretary BENTSEN. Mr. Chairman--Senator, let me state that with as much as I know about it now, I would recuse myself Senator D'AMATO, OK. That's fair. Secretary BENTSEN. That's it. The CHAIRMAN. His comment was he thought that was fair. He was acknowledging your statement. Senator D'AMATO. I would make an observation as it relates be- cause I detect here an obvious thrust and it doesn't-you have not initiated it but it's one that has been, I think, rather well-orches- trated by Mr. Altman. I made the analogy of Mr. Altman that he seems to me as the kind of guy, if he's on a sinking ship, throws the women and children over and I think he did that with Mrs. Hanson. I think he did that with Josh Steiner. For us to really believe that Mrs. Hanson-and you didn't have these facts and maybe an opportunity to review them-that Mrs. 59 Hanson went over there for the first time to the White House on September 29th shortly after she came on board. This is early on in 1993, this wasn't subsequent, Only been there a short time. She took it upon herself to call up Bernie Nussbaum and go over there in light of the memorandum that she had prepared the following day, a memo to Mr. Altman-you cannot believe it. It just- and this is-I can't believe it. It is just incomprehensible. She's just on the job, she comes in there, she calls up the White House Counsel to go brief him. Now, when we look at that in connection with other activities, there's a pattern. People do things in certain ways. Her story is much more believable when you look at Mr. Roelle, who has nothing to hide, a career civil servant. He's the fellow who initiated the first call on September 29th. When he calls the second time on October 6th, he says he hears and-he's there when Mr. Altman says to Jean Hanson, call Bernie and Jack and the Secretary. Now we've got a whole new situation. We're going to try to have a new scapegoat because he pretends maybe he didn't know what was happening because she shakes her head one way or the other. It is one of the most inventive, creative processes. And of course the letters that he sends on the 2nd and 3rd, well, that's her fault. The fact that the White House, uncontroverted, called him and told him about this, but he insists on responding in this manner with, oh, but that's her fault. And the letter on the 11th which he sends without her, again, I don't know whose fault that is. It is always somebody else's fault. It is always somebody else that has changed the facts and that's what we have with Mr. Altman and those are the depositions and those are the facts and that's how I see it.
Garage, from plaza roofl-s and drive out.
Garage, from plaza roofl-s and drive out.
San Francisco Fair NUDES on Gayway
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #98167A San Francisco Fair NUDES on Gayway
Crab Pots
Crab Pots
Ferries from Pier(hair)
Ferries from Pier(hair)
Embarcadero from Teleo Hill
Embarcadero from Teleo Hill
San Francisco
San Francisco
San Francisco: Cable Cars & Conductors...
On Preview Cassette 210995. San Francisco: Cable Cars & Conductors ***push cars. Very last shot is upside down skunk in grass.
Alcatraz
Alcatraz in the distance. A boat Freighter passes the island.
San Francisco from Telegraph HillLook...
PREVIEW TAPE# 220388 San Francisco from Telegraph HillLook West+Apartments on hillLook North+Alcatraz & ships.
San Francisco docks
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE 210438 San Francisco docks
Monterey: Seventeen mile drive ***Midway Point
preview cassette # 214753 Monterey: Seventeen mile drive ***Midway Point
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(13:10:33) And he didn't have the courage and the guts to stand up to Bernie Nussbaum and say to him, I am recusing myself. That meant taking himself out, keeping himself from one case because he wanted tole part of that power structure. And, Mr. Secretary, you look at the record, it's undeniable, he runs over to the White House. Whether he did it through Ickes or Maggie Williams or runs over the next day to say, I'm on the team, boys, don't worry, here I am, I'm part of the team. And that fact is indisputable. Then 3 weeks later, he'd have you think we should pat him on the back because he finally came to the decision on February 25th, and of course he announced it first to The New York Times because an editor called him up and told him, we're going to beat the heck out of you and he said, well, I want you to know that I'm recusing myself. And then all heck breaks loose. Then we get the White House sending around memorandums, doing detailed memos, Mr. Secretary-and you're not aware of this-ascertaining who will now control, since he has recused himself, who will now control and be the decisionmaker as it relates to Whitewater. And that's why I think Members on this, in this Committee, Democrats and Republicans, share a very real concern for the manner in which lie discharged his responsibilities and for the manner in which he testified and failed to testify. And let me tell you, we've had people who have been indicted for far less for withholding-Elliott Abrams-for withholding information, let alone answering untruthfully. 60 If you read that record, you can only come to one conclusion. He withheld information, information that he had, lie withheld it even when he had an opportunity, was advised to correct the record and thereafter he, in addition, answered untruthfully. I thank the Chairman and I thank the Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Secretary, thank you for your appearance today. And you've answered our questions directly and I think fully and we appreciate that. You've been asked by some Members to review some things and I trust you'll do that in due course. Secretary BENTSEN. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Committee stands in recess. We'll reconvene. The Committee will reconvene at approximately 2:00. We're set, 2:00 p.m. is our start time. I know there is a vote in the meantime. The Committee tstands in recess. (13:12:59) [Recess.]