Advanced Search
Tourist's Spots
Flooded Meadows ***
Tourist's Spots
Cathedral Rocks ***
Tourist's Spots
Agathlan ***
Tourist's Spots
Mirror Lake & Pans ***
Tourist's Spots
Mirror Lake Misc.
Tourist's Spots
View thru tunnel
Tourist's Spots
Mirror Lake
Tourist's Spots
Reflections
Tourist's Spots
Three Brothers
Tourist's Spots
Pan up El Capitan
Tourist's Spots
El CapitanSouth side of River
Tourist's Spots
Royal Arches
Tourist's Spots
Cathedral Spires
Tourist's Spots
Reflections of Mirror LakeSwift & current lake
Tuolumne Meadows
Bridges over river ***Horses on bridge
August 3, 1994 - Part 8
(19:45:47) Senator SARBANES. Let me ask you. As you interacted with Ms. Hanson, and I'll extend the question to others at the table, did you perceive her as being Altman's agent or acting on her own? Mr. SLOAN. My only knowledge is with respect to that reference because she made that reference. Senator SARBANES. What's your perception of the Altman/Hanson arrangement or relationship, business relationship? Do you think, Hanson would have come to the White House bringing you information about the criminal referrals if Altman hadn't authorized or tasked or instructed her, indicated to her, directed her to come over with that information? Mr. SLOAN. Senator Sarbanes, I honestly am not in a position to give an informed Judgment on that matter. Senator SARBANES. When you all interacted with Hanson on mat-. ters, did you perceive her to be acting for Altman? Mr. SLOAN. The only thing that I can tell you is that with that reference to Roger Altman in the meeting--I mean, I assumed there had been some prior discussion with Roger Altman but the, sole basis for that assumption was the comment that I related to you. And I should add that in a subsequent telephone conversation with me, she said that no, she had been mistaken, and she made" 153 some reference to a March 1992 New York Times article, and so Senator SARBANES. That's the conversation where she told you she was mistaken in telling Nussbaum that materials had been sent over? Mr. SLOAN. That's correct. Senator SARBANES. And she then the next day called and it said it wasn't materials, it was a faxed article that was sent? Mr. SLOAN, I don't remember her saying that exactly. I remember her calling our attention to the article. I don't remember if she said it had been sent. I have a couple of lines in my notes of September 30th that relate to that discussion, but my independent recollection is that she was calling our attention to the article. Senator SARBANES. That's the article that Altman faxed back in March 1992? Mr. SLOAN. That's what I would now understand it to be. It's a March 1992 New York Times article about the Whitewater matter, is my understanding. Senator SARBANES. It's an article of March 1992, but Altman faxed it over on March 1993? Mr. SLOAN. That's a fact that 1 believe I've learned in the last several weeks-- exactly when it was faxed-in the course of these investigations, but that's my understanding. Senator SARBANES. Of the people at the table, Mr. Eggleston, you're the only one who was in the meeting of February 2nd in which the recusal was discussed. How long did that meeting last entirely? Mr. EGGLESTON. Twenty minutes. 1 really have very little recollection of how long. Senator SARBANES. How much of it was devoted to the recusal discussion? Mr. EGGLESTON, I think it was about half and half, but, Senator Sarbanes. I'm really guessing, Senator SARBANES. And were the principal discussants of the recusal Altman and Nussbaum? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes. Senator SARBANES. Anyone else? Mr. EGGLESTON. I don't specific-I'm not using that coyly, I don't specificall remember anybody else. The CHAIRMAN. Would you yield at that point, Senator Sarbanes, because that is a little different than what I think I heard earlier when of you indicated that there were a number of concerns expressed by people in the room, so that it was not just an expression concern from Nussbaum, but there were others there and that the phalanx of opinion was pretty much on the other side of that issue. Am I not remembering that correctly? Mr. EGGLESTON. No, I think you're accurate. I cannot separate this conversation out by who the speakers were except I have a general recollection that Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Altman were the two people who probably spoke most. I could not say, and I guess have a general sense that others asked questions of Mr. Altman. I don't think I asked any questions, so I'm sorry. I think I have amended my answer, Senator Sarbanes. 154 Senator SARBANES. When the meeting-what set the alarm bells off in the White House? Were you actually watching the hearing and listening to the testimony? Mr. EGGLESTON. The alarm bells were set off by myself. I was in your hearing room in this building. Senator SARBANES. You were here at the hearing? Mr. EGGLESTON. I was here at the hearing. Senator SARBANES, You sat there in the audience and thought to yourself, this is not the right testimony? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, sir, after I heard the responses to the questions from Senator Gramm I had a cellular phone and I went out to the hall to call back to the White House. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is about up and I want to just take the remaining time to just engage Mr. Mein for a moment. I really have no question to put to him.
Tuolumne Meadows
Tenaya Lake, ECO ***
Tuolumne Meadows
Tenaya Lake, new & old ***
Tuolumne Meadows
A boy & his guitar on the river ***
August 3, 1994 - Part 8
(19:50:38) I do want to underscore that I think this issue about recusal generally is a very important question, and I think you've raised some considerations today that deserve very serious attention. I mean, carried to its extreme, you could end up in a situation where the fact that you had been appointed to a position is in it. self-people will then assert that's a sufficient basis that you should recuse yourself. Then you depart from that position and you say well, not only were you appointed, but you knew the President who appointed you, you had met him, and then you had met him three times, six times and so forth and so on. It was instructive to be here today with Mr. Ludwig. I thought the point you made, the judges don't disqualify themselves in cases, even though the lawyers representing the litigants appear before them. They have a social relationship with the judge. They've known one another. They may, in fact, have gone to college together. They may have gone to law school together. And it seems. to me it's a tough issue. I recognize that, and I don't think there's an easy answer to it, but I think there is a danger in drifting down this road and particularly when it's used as the extracting price for getting a confimation and suggesting that a person can't make an independent" and objective judgment, even though they may have a personal acquaintanceship or a friendship with an appointing authority, so I think it's a matter that's worth a lot of very careful thought, I appreciate your raising the issue here today, and, I thought, in a very forthright and perceptive way. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes. Let me announce a plan now, we've discussed it and I think we have an agreement on it, that what we will do is we'll finish with this panel tonight. We've got a fair amount of requests here for people who have additional questions. So we'll stay and we'll finish with this panel tonight. Once we are finished we will adjourn for the evening. We will start with the panel of Mr. McLarty and Williams that we were planning to do tonight at 9:00 tomorrow morning. So we'll get an earlier start tomorrow with the understanding that we will go all day tomorrow and into the evening as late as. we need to finish up with the witnesses that we have on the schedule for tomorrow, including the two that we'll be carrying over 155 from our schedule for today. We will also target our efforts to be finished in terms of this entire effort by late in the afternoon on Friday and that will be our operating plan. Everybody can attempt to plan accordingly including the witnesses that will be appearing here tomorrow. So with that, let me now yield to Senator D'Amato. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Eggleston, you went to the meeting on February 24th, you were there and heard the testimony Mr. EGGLESTON. The hearing, yes, sir, I did. Senator DAMATO. And prior to that, as a matter of fact, the day before you had a conversation with Mrs. Hanson on the telephone and the gist of it was, was Mr. Altman prepared, was he prepared to answer the various questions as it related to the meeting that took lace on the 2nd, and Mrs. Hanson then read to you the propsal answers including answers from the following meeting of February 3rd. Mr. EGGLESTON. That's not my recollection. I don't know Senator D'AMATO. Well, did you have a conversation with Mrs. Hanson the day before February 23rd Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, sir. Senator DAMATO [continuing]. As it related to Mrs. Hanson's testimony? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, I did. Senator D'AMATO. Excuse me, Mr. Altman's testimony? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, I did. Senator D'AMATO. And didn't she go into some of these things that he would be prepared to speak to, and read them to you? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, what I was objecting to, you made a reference that she made to the meeting on February 3rd. She did not go into the meeting on February 3rd. I'm sorry, that's what I was contesting in what you said. Senator DAMATO. So she did say, as it related to the areas of discussion, that basically it would touch on the February 28th deadline, that the handling of civil claims-I'm trying to go through this in general. Finally, if the RTC were to determine any claims existed, the RTC would have to determine whether they seek a tolling agreement. Basically to outline the three procedures that we've talked to before.
Pro football (White Red Black)
Thoroughbred Horse - 3 Ring Stable
Thoroughbred Horse - 3 Ring Stable
San Francisco World's Fair
San Francisco World's Fair - Golden Gate International Exposition - Treasure Island (1939-1940)
Bay Bridge & Ferry
Bay Bridge & Ferry