Advanced Search
Grape Vineyard
Grapes being picked, shots of vineyards, workers in vineyard.
Picking Grapes & Making Wine
Reels 10-1 thru 10-15 have been combined (in numerical order)Grapes on vine (various colors), grape harvesting, female harvester holding large bunch of grapes for camera. Ext. shots of industrial building. Truck dumping huge amount of grapes at wine factory (?), wine bottles being labeled by machine, "Mission Bell Wine", women and men packing bottles of wine into boxes (pretty interesting). Vineyard being sprayed / dusted with pesticides, bottling machinery, display of 3 Mission Bell Wine bottles. Bottles being filled with grape juice, workers harvesting plums.
Grape Vineyard Irrigation
Vineyard and irrigation
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(20:40:53) In your view, is that an adequate follow up to the question that I asked, which was who told the White I-louse of the criminal referrals? Mr. PODESTA. Senator, I would have written a different letter. I think that you asked very specific questions. We were concerned about that. We wanted, we wanted that record to be corrected. What I said earlier was that I thought in the context of what was going on that the information that you had requested was out there. I assumed it was in this letter, I think if this letter was the only thing that you had received without context or anything else, I think it's, you know The CHAIRMAN. You think what-I'm sorry, what did you say? I didn't hear that last word. Mr. PODESTA. I think that it would-you'd need to connect the dots, going back to your questions and looking at those two meetings, The CHAIRMAN. But that's not what he asked you, he asked you whether the letter senator BOND. Did that letter answer the question I asked at the February 24th hearing? Mr. PODESTA. I think you have to go back to your questions to understand. Senator BOND. My question was, who advised the White House of the criminal referrals? 438 Mr. PODESTA. And in my view, the responsive answer would have been the meeting on the 29th and Senator BOND. The answer should have been Jean Hanson. If you believe Ms. Hanson, it was Jean Hanson at Mr. Altman's direction, If you believe Mr. Altman, it was Jean Hanson on her own. The problem Mr. PODESTA. Yes. Senator BOND [continuing]. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that throughout this we were not able to get a straight answer from Mr. Altman. Mr. Podesta was tasked to make sure this was done. I know Mr. Podesta from having worked with him on the Agriculture Committee. He's very thorough. When he says he's going to follow up he normally does, But I have to tell you, Mr. Podesta, that the failure to answer the simple question which I think would have been devastating had it been properly answered, the failure to follow up on this tells me too much about the attitude of Mr. Altman and perhaps the White House. Mr. PODESTA. Well, Senator, I think I answered earlier with regard to the White House which is that we brought this to Mr. Altman's attention. I understood the next day that a letter had been sent and the Chairman had been called. I did not see the text of the letter. The following day there were newspaper stories that noted Ms. Hanson, noted the criminal referrals. I thought this matter had been taken care of. When I finally saw the letter, which was sometime later-I think, now I take your point. Senator BOND. Mr. Podesta, you're better than that. I've seen you follow up and you do better work than that. Senator KERRY. The Senator may also remember that the entire process was interrupted by the Grand Jury on the 5th of March I think it was. The CHAIRMAN. The record should Senator BOND. The dog ate my homework doesn't get it. The CHAIRMAN. The record should be clear that they got the proper information to The Washington Post, that's been the testimony here today. They just didn't get the proper information to us; isn't that correct, Mr. Podesta? Mr. PODESTA. I think that's a fair statement. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator DODD. I'm prepared to ask a question but I think Senator Kerry The CHAIRMAN. I think Senator Kerry has been waiting and is next in the line of march here. Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to use my time to try and clarify where we were earlier, particularly with respect to my friend from New Mexico, and see if he and I can't get a better understanding here. What disturbs me a little bit is that there's a process where some theories are being propounded, and that's fine. It's all fair game. And questions are being asked to support the theory but the questions and the theory are not based on the evidence, on the full evidence, and so you wind up leaving the impression with the public that there's some line or avenue here that is not in fact documented by where we've been. 439
Men in Tug-o-War Struggle
MS men engaged in tug-of-war game 01:18:53 another game, much more intense, with feet digging holes in the dirt. Several angles on men in this struggle, smiling as if they're having fun
Weightlifter Torsos
MS weightlifter from behind, raising chrome weights on a bar, over his head several times. Good muscle development suggests strength, and the glitzy wall covering he's facing suggests a health club 01:19:31 different man, same angle and pose. He puts the bar down, then raises it again over his head for some slow steady lifting
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(20:45:18) Now, I share with the Senator from New Mexico, and he and I have talked about it, some questions about the recusal questionwhat was going on, what was in somebody's head? But the Senator has asked a question and there was a heated exchange toward the end here based on the notion that somehow Mr. Ickes and his attorneys have cooked up this concept of the notes which with the arrival of my good friend have been usurped over here. I just want to go into that for a minute, because I think you have to look at this in its full context, both on the facts as they are presented with respect to who did what and also on reality, just sort of a commonsense reality that we're called on to apply to it. And we went through this earlier, I may not have been as clear as I should have been, but on this question of Mr. Ickes' testimony and what he knew with respect to the tolling agreement and where things were going to go. The fact is that Mr. Altman has testified differently. A number of other witnesses-let me be very specific here. Ms. Kulka and perhaps she's the most important of all because Ms. Kulka ran the investigation, Ms. Kulka we have all agreed came to us as somebody that we judged was of high integrity, independent, and didn't have any ox in this except wanting to do her job as a professional. Ms. Kulka said to us it was impossible-these are her wordsit was impossible for anybody to understand, for Mr. Altman to transfer information, that we couldn't finish our investigation in time because that was not the fact. Now I know none of you disagree. That was her testimony, So we have her testimony saying it's impossible. We have Mr. Ryan saying impossible, couldn't have done it. Now that's the state of the evidence. But in addition to that state of the evidence, that you could not have transferred this information and, therefore, Mr. Ickes must have been mistaken in whatever he interpreted, you now have contemporaneous notes of Mr. Ickes himself. Now, Mr. Ickes, let me ask you, you are under oath. I mean these notes were made at the same time as the meeting? Mr. ICKES. Are you looking at typewritten transcript, Senator? Senator KERRY. I'm looking at the typewritten transcription, but the handwritten notes dated 2/2/94 were in fact made on 2/2/94? Mr. ICKES. Yes, they were, Senator Kerry. Senator KERRY. Let me suggest, if my friend from New Mexico was indeed concocting up a great conspiracy, you, at least, think ,.the lawyers were smart enough to cover the bases and they would 'Come her here with notes that also mentioned the recusal. But it mention the recusal. At least to this Senator, this lends sort Of some authenticity to the notion that this represented contemnotes at least as to the things that it covers. Now I go one step further than that. Another witness who testified here, Ms. Hanson, specifically said to us, very early on in the process of depositions, that she prepared the talking points for Mr. Altman. Mr. Ickes has testified that those talking points were read and Mr. Altman used them and looked down at his sheet of paper and Ms. Hanson, who was at the meeting specifically said to us he read through the items. At one point I expanded on a piece of the on the statute of limitations but as Mr. Altman was "reading through the talking points. 440 Now, I say to my friend from New Mexico, you then 90 to the talking points. The talking points say specifically it is not certain the analysis will be completed, but it will be before February 28th. So when my friend offers a question based on the facts, I think it ought to take all the facts into account. Now, you may want to test his memory beyond that and that is certainly fair, but what did Mr. Ickes' notes say, "contemporaneous"? They say that teh--- there's an A, B, C--"A, last date for RTC to reach conclusion, any claim for potential misconduct or fraud re: any other parties, I$ or "B, commence litigation to preserve claim," that is, as it's called, a protective suit, and "C, a tolling agreement." Now that brings us to the political reality issue that I raise. The Senator's been here a long time, he knows the politics of this place better than I do. Senator D'Amato was in the middle of a very visible, well covered and clever countdown. It is
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(20:50:24) Senator DOMENICI. Clever in the good sense of the word. Senator KERRY. I didn't characterize it in any way. You can in- terpret "clever." And if I was being pejorative, I might have found a different New York word for it. The point is that in the political climate with day after day of front- page headlines, with this incred- ible countdown going on, could the Senator or anybody really believe that if Ms. Kulka came and said we're not ready, we've got to file a protective suit or we're going to have we need a tolling agreement, that the White House could conceivably have withstood the political pressure and not have signed a tolling agreement? Now you have to disbelieve Ms. Kulka completely and Mr. Ryan and the independence they asserted here to believe that they would not have filed a protective suit or have asked for the tolling agreement. I respectfully suggest to my colleague that the factual situation he drew is, therefore, number one, incorrect. Number two, it simply could not have happened because of Ms. Kulka. Number three, it Sim ply couldn't have happened because of the politics and 51 the reality of the public scrutiny of any tolling request and the sit- uation. The fourth reality is the President understood this and what did he do, he previously had a pointed a Special Counsel. He. subsequently signed the statute of limitations and effectively ren- dered moot any of these other issues So all I want to do with my friends, you know, we're tired, we 've been here a long time, we've done this I think with mostly the dig- nity that it ought to have and I think we all want to try to continue that. But I would simply say that we've got to deal with the facts and we probably shouldn't even be arguing them now. We should! simply be gathering them and then sit down amongst ourselves and try to deal with them rather than argue the theory first and then chastise the witness because they don't give you the answer you want to fit the theory. Senator SARBANES. Senator Kerry, your time has expired and, Senator D'Amato, we'll go over to your side Senator D'AMATO. Senator Domenici for a moment and then I know Senator Hatch is going to follow up. Senator DOMENICI. Senator Kerry, first of all, I appreciate ever knowledge you have attributed to me about this place tics. But I want to respond by telling you that Mr. Altman's 441 Assistant, Mr. Nye, was also deposed. My point is that Roger Altman remained in a very serious decisionmaking position regardless of what's said about de facto recusal and everything else. And let me tell you that Mr. Nye agrees with that in spite of Ms. Kulka's statements about the case. I'm just going to read two questions and two answers in that regard. Question- What did Ms. Kulka say about the imperfections of the information at that point? Answer: Just that she wouldn't have enough time between-her feeling was that she wouldn't have enough time between then, the date of the meeting, and the 28th, the statute of limitations expiration, to make as informed a decision as she would need to make-in her opinion, that wouldn't be enough time to sort of go through all of these mountains OF documents, and so forth, or for her staff to do so, and that ultimately she would have to be making a decision with the best information possible at the time. Then I want to skip right down one line and say: Question: Did Mr. Altman or Ms. Hanson offer any advice or discuss those issues with Ms. Kulka? Answer: Only-it wasn't so much a response as a sort of informing him. And now "him" is in quotes meaning Roger Altman. So "informing him" of the situation and making him realize that the recommendation would be coming to him. Did you hear the last part, Senator? Senator KERRY. Yes, I did. Senator DOMENICI. The recommendation would be coming to him. On the question of whether or not to file one of these early suits, (20:55:05) Hearing hosts KEN BODE and NINA TOTENBERG close out coverage of hearings from tv studio **** FOOTAGE OF HEARING CONTINUES LATER ON THIS TAPE (20:56:41) WETA logo, PBS funding credits (20:57:01) Black screen
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(21:00:29) Hearing footage resumes: Senator HATCH. grave concern about the fact that Mr. Stephens' firm and we understood they had been retained and we -understood Mr. Stephens in particular was going to be working with the RTC on that." Mr. ICKES. You're reading correctly. Senator HATCH. OK. And that's correct? Mr. ICKES. Yes. Senator HATCH. OK That's all I have. Thank you. Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Senator Hatch. Mr. ICKES. But I just want to clarify, Senator Hatch, that the President never asked me to do anything about it and I never did anything about it. Senator HATCH. I didn't ask you, you know. That's fine. That's a good clarification. Senator SARBANES. Senator Dodd. Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out I can't recall now which of our colleagues inquired of Mr. Ickes about his deposition-I'm referring to page 132 of his deposition, regarding the rationale for Mr. Altman's decision to recuse himself-and went down to part of that Sage, line 14. I thought the question of that should be in clude in the record if we're going to keep a full one, because then the question was did he go on to explain at that time what he thought the reasons for recusing himself were. long that line, "Answer."-Mr. Ickes--"there were questions a both from myself, Mr. Nussbaum and I think others to determine the basis and as I recall, the gist of his basis was that he was-had a long and well-known friendship with the President and that he was considering recusing himself to eliminate any possible conflict 444 or appearance of conflict." It seems to me that is very important if you are going to have a full transcript of what the conversation was at that time, so you get a full picture. Now, Mr. Chairman, a lot has been made of these Steiner diaries and some are relying on them more than others. Mr. Podesta, on the last page of your opening statement, the top paragraph, you say that "in the several days following Mr. Altman's February 24th testimony, I spoke by telephone to Mr. Steiner on three or four occasions." Then you go on to say "on February 25th Mr. Steiner told me that Mr. Altman had recused himself from Madison matters." Disregarding that we have that particular line and considering the Steiner diaries in which Mr. Steiner says gracefully dodged the question or words to that effect. Gracefully ducked the question; much has been made of that. Now you had by your own testimony here in your opening remarks-and, by the way, he wrote that entry on the 27th of February so, it's contemporaneous with your conversations with Mr. Steiner on the 24th and the 25th and possibly beyond that. Now, are you familiar with the Steiner diary description of Mr, Altman's handling of the February 24th testimony? Mr. PODESTA. I know he used that term. Senator DODD. He used that term. Now, in your conversations with Mr. Steiner, I presume you talked about the February 24th testimony? Mr. PODESTA. Senator, to the best of my recollection we had two conversations about recusal Senator SARBANES. Mr. Podesta, if you could pull that mike closer to you. Senator DODD. I'm looking at your opening statement today "in several days following Mr. Altman's February 24th hearing, I spoke by telephone to Mr. Steiner on three or four occasions." Mr. PODESTA. Correct. Senator DODD. Maybe-I'm sorry, I jumped ahead. During those conversations, did Mr. Steiner characterize for you how Mr. Altman handled the testimony before this Committee? Mr. PODESTA. No, Senator, no, he did not. Senator DODD. Did you ask him at any point how he would characterize Mr. Altman's testimony? Mr. PODESTA. I think those conversations were very brief. I don't believe I asked him how he would characterize the testimony. He informed me of the Dennis Foreman conversation on the February-on February 1st. He informed me that Mr. Altman was thinking of recusing himself, that conversation occurred on February 25th followed very shortly by a call that said that he had recused himself. Senator DODD. I'm curious about this Mr. PODESTA. We did not discuss the substance of Mr. Altman's testimony. I had that conversation with Mr. Altman and he never characterized that to me.
Pro Baseball Game Clips
Good view from behind home plate of batter (#11) hitting pitch down third base line and running to first -- shot slightly in slow motion. Runner on third scores 01:25:05 closer view of batter (#7) behind backstop (home plate screen); hits ball straight up the middle off-screen 01:25:10 LS batter (#15) from lower deck; takes a pitch, hits one foul, takes another and then drives one deep -- his jersey reads San Diego (Padres). He rounds first and lopes towards second, but pulls up as it's apparently just a long out (last of the inning) 01:25:32 LS baseball field with batter up, thrown out at first 01:25:41 LS batter and pitcher from high behind home plate; a called strike 01:25:47 LS pitcher windup (#20) and pitch 01:25:53 LS batter from high above home plate; it's a ball 01:25:56 good angle on batter, catcher, umpire; two balls and a double (player has a star on jersey as earlier; his number is 5)
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(21:05:38) Senator DODD. I find that somewhat curious. Now you've received this hot line phone call from Mr. Eggleston outside of the Committee room because in Mr. Eggleston's opinion, Mr. Altman has just made a mistake; is that not true? 445 Mr. PODESTA. I don't believe Senator DODD. Someone in your office did, not you. Mr. PODESTA. I talked to Mr. Eggleston on the 25th. Senator DODD. On the 25th and so there is some concern about this testimony, Mr. PODESTA. Correct. Senator DODD. Mr. Steiner, of course, works for Mr. Altman. Mr. PODESTA. No, he works for Secretary Bentsen, but I think the point is fair. Senator DODD. The point I'm trying to get at is if we're concerned about this and here is someone who can maybe shed some light on what Mr. Altman's testimony was, what it should have been, why wouldn't you have raised the question with Mr. Steiner about the content of Mr. Altman's testimony? Mr. PODESTA. I may have, Senator, but I don't recall that. I think we had, as I said, a series of very brief information telephone calls. Senator DODD. Now, that hearing was televised on C-SPAN I believe, and I presume it was being carried live, but I don't know that. Was it being carried live? You had the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and others, the Secretary of the Treasury. Did you have-were you monitoring the hearing live? Mr. PODESTA. I was not. Senator DODD. Was anyone in the White House monitoring that hearing live? Mr. PODESTA. No, I don't think so. Senator DODD. You don't know. OK. Now, did you agree with Mr. Eggleston when he called and I gather said gee what did he tell you in that phone conversation? When did he call or what do you know that he may have said, not to you but to your office? I'm sorry. Mr. PODESTA. Why don't I testify to what 1 know which is the next day I think. He came to me and said Mr. Altman was asked to describe the meeting on February 2nd. He described it, he did not say that the topic of recusal had come up. He was concerned about that. Senator DODD. Who is this saying this? Mr. PODESTA- Mr. Eggleston said that to me. Senator DODD. Did he tell you that he felt that Mr. Altman had not answered candidly and honestly to this Committee? Mr. PODESTA. He was concerned that that was not-I'm not sure I would use the term "candid and honest," I think he was concerned that the full information was not provided to the Committee. Senator DODD, Had you read the testimony, by the way, the full transcript of the hearing at this point? Mr. PODESTA. No, I had not. Senator DODD. Had Mr. Eggleston read the transcript? Mr. PODESTA. No, he had not. Senator DODD. Had he talked with Mr. Altman? Mr. PODESTA. No, not to the best of my knowledge. Senator DODD. So in a subsequent conversation now with Mr. Altman, confronted with the information that he should have included that, as I understood your testimony a while ago to one of our colleagues here, Mr. Altman challenged that in fact he had not 446 been forthcoming because he interpreted the questions differently than Mr. Eggleston had. Mr. PODESTA. I wouldn't put that gloss on it. I think that Mr. Altman-when I raised the--specifically what I think I was referring to was Senator Bond's question and I read or paraphrased, I think I actually read it to him. He said that's correct, that he had no knowledge of the meetings and I believed him. Senator DODD. All right. My time is up Mr. Chairman, may I ask one clarification question. lt goes back to a moment ago and again comes back to the issue that was raised over the conflicting testimony between Ms. Hanson and Mr. Altman regarding the September 29th meeting. I think the record, if it's going to be consistent, should reflect that it's Ms. Hanson's recollection that she went to that meeting under the direction of Mr. Altman. Mr. Altman's testimony is that that was not the case, that he does not recall sending her there. The statements are being made that there you have a conflict between two people and I think to draw the conclusion that Mr. Altman should have mentioned the 29th meeting when pursuant to his own testimony he doesn't recall that at all and therefore would not have necessarily brought it up on the 24th, if you're to believe him that he did not recall that. I just want to make that point. Senator SARBANES. Fine. Senator Mack. Senator MACK. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Lindsey, I'd like to address a question to you. Mr. LINDSEY, Yes, sir. Senator MAC And it's going to cover a period of time from basi- callv September 30th to October 4th and 7th. Mr. LINDSEY. OR Senator MACK. But before I run through kind of a series of points you had a phone conversation with Jim Lyons on October 4th, I think? Mr. LINDSEY. I believe it was October the 4th, yes, sir. Senator MACK. Do you remember whether you made that call or he did? Mr. LINDSEY. I believe he called the White House. I was in California with the President. The phone call got relayed to me in California and I think I probably returned it.
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(21:11:04)(tape #10096 begins) That is to give some information to Mr. Nussbaum about the 9 referrals. Mr. Nussbaum calls Mr. Sloan into that meeting and there is a continuation of a discussion about the referrals. As I understand it, Mr. Nussbaum then says to Mr. Sloan, that he should get in touch with you. Let me run through this and then I'll give you-believe me, you'll have an opportunity to respond. Mr. Sloan does contact you and he believes that that contact is either the same day or it could have been the day after. He then refers or provides you with the information about what had been 447 passed on to him by Ms. Hanson with respect to the referrals. And we have Mr. Sloan's notes of the conversation, of his conversation with Ms. Hanson about the referrals, Now I understand that there also was confusion over a memorandum. A memorandum that I think was dated October 7th, and that memorandum we believe basically underscores that you had in fact met with Mr. Eggleston and Mr. Sloan around the 29th of September. And my whole point in running through that, is that I'm under the impression that as of that October 1st or September 30th, that you've got information about the referrals. Now, we also know that you had made some notes of a conversation and during the deposition you had indicated, when you were reminded by this October 7th memorandum, that, yes, these notes corresponded to that meeting that took place either on the 30th or on the 1st. Now, also in the deposition, to be clear about it, I think you began to back away from that, saying that that was that first conversation. Then you got this phone call from Mr. Lyons when you were with the President on October 4th and I think you also testified that you men had a conversation with the President on that trip, October 4th or 5th. And I believe also that your testimony is something to the effect that, maybe if it hadn't been for Mr. Lyons calling so recently, maybe you wouldn't even have raised it with the President, but you in fact did mention the referrals to the President, on that trip. Now is that a pretty good Mr. LINDSEY. Close, but not quite. Let me go back. I think I testified in my deposition that I remembered having a short conversation with Cliff Sloan in which he informed me that there were referrals, that they expected or that there were leaks and that the Clintons were mentioned but not as targets or subjects. That is the only conversation I remember prior to my conversation with President Clinton. There are notes that Mr. Sloan has of a September 30 conversation he had with Jean Hanson, There are also notes of a October 7th conversation that Cliff Sloan had with Jean Hanson. There are notes that I have which are undated which say "conversation with Neil/Cliff." If you compare my one note with his two notes, it is apparent to me, and I believe to Mr. Sloan,
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(22:10:20) Senator MACK. I can see that. I just want to go back and clarify a point so we don't go away with misconceptions. I want to clarify now that you've had this phone call with Lyons, he does refer the referrals, rumors, press inquiries. At this point, you have baReally got two sets of information. One set is what you get from with respect to the referrals and the other is what you've from Lyons. You go to the President. You tell him of the conversation, and I think a minute ago, you indicated you about the referrals, about the rumors. Mr. LINDSEY. Right. I indicated to him that there were press inhat probably Jim Lyons had received a call that referenced the referrals, that my understanding was there were refer rals, that they did mention him, but that it was my understanding at he was not referenced as a subject or a target. 466 Senator MACK. So you have confirmed to the President, then, of these rumors? Mr. LINDSEY. I don't believe there's anything improper, and I believe that Counsel has indicated that there is absolutely nothing improper in informing the President of that, especially in light of the fact that it was now clear to me that the press was aware of it, and that the press, you know, had the story. Senator MACK. I guess we would probably have some difference of opinion on that. There would be some problem, I think, in you making the claim that there was nothing improper in you passing on nonpublic information. That's not a debate frankly-I mean, you probably disagree with that. And I thank you for your open discussion. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Senator Mack. I think with that, Senator DAmato Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, we have no further questions and we thank the Chair for giving all of us an opportunity to fully explore all the questions we thought we had to raise. The CHAIRMAN. I want to thank the witnesses as well. I think the witnesses were direct in their answers to us. There may be some differences of opinion, but I appreciate the testimony and let me now excuse these witnesses, and we'll in a moment call our final witness. Senator KERRY. Maybe you can send the Marines to liberate us. The CHAIRMAN. Bring them right on in. [Pause in the proceedings]
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(21:15:20)(tape #10095 ends) that he discussed both of his notes with me in one meeting. Senator MACK. All right. Let me- Mr. LINDSEY. That meeting had to take place on or after October 7th because they included his October 7th notes from Jean Hanson. Senator MACK. Let me give you my sense about those notes and about that memorandum. When you compare the two notes, none of the information that Mr. Sloan says he gave to you at a later date shows up in your notes. Mr. LINDSEY. No, sir, that's not correct. Senator MACK. That's the way I Mr. LINDSEY. Again I've only seen Mr. Sloan's notes in the last 2 weeks. At the time of my deposition, I had not seen his notes at all. My understanding is that the reference to the Early Bird is in Mr. Sloan's October 7 note from Jean Hanson. My note clearly references the Early Bird and has a description of what was in the Early Bird. Mr. Sloan says he learned that in his October 7th con 448 versation with Jean Hanson, and it's also referenced in my note.,: That is why I believe my note occurred on or after October 7th. Senator MACK. Well, again, I believe we have a disagreement on this and I think rather than for us to spend the time to go through' the disagreement, I think we can look at those notes and Make some comparison. But, again, the point that I would underscore is, I know there was information that was in fact passed on at the second meeting, that if you had been making the notes at that time would have showed up on your notes. Your notes don't include that information, but again that's something that I think we can take a look at and clear up. My question to you would be though--do you recollect that you had a conversation with Mr. Sloan and he passed on the referral information? Mr. LINDSEY. I do recollect that I had a conversation with Mr. Sloan in which he indicated to me that there were referrals that mentioned the Clintons, yes. Senator MACK. And you think, do you have any dispute as to whether that was the 30th or the 1st? Mr. LINDSEY. No, I assume it was sometime before we went to California. Senator MACK. Now, on this trip to California, you did have a conversation with the President? Mr. LINDSEY. I had a conversation with Jim Lyons in which he also indicated that he had received press inquiries with respect to the referrals or that referenced the referrals. Shortly thereafter, I told the President about my conversation with Jim Lyons and indicated to the President that I understood that there were referrals that mentioned the Clintons but not as subjects or targets. Senator MACK. Here is the significance of the dispute you and I have I think. When we look at the notes that Mr. Sloan has of his conversation with Jean Hanson, which we believe he passed onto you on the 30th, and we believe your notes reflect that meeting having taken place on the 30th or the Ist, in both of those notes there is a reference to the Governor of Arkansas, Governor Tucker. And my question to you is, in passing this information on to the President during this trip, did you pass on the information about Governor Tucker being named as a subject or a target of the investigation? Mr. LINDSEY. Again two responses. One, no. Two, I do not believe I learned that information until after I had my conversation with the President and after the President had a meeting with Governor Tucker, Again, you cannot get around the fact, that since Mr. Sloan says he learned about the Early Bird in a conversation on October 7th and since it's clearly referenced in my note, my note had to occur on or after October 7th. Senator MACK. Again Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, again we're getting loose on the time and it's really- I The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to let Senator Mack finish---- Senator BOXER. I understand and I just wanted to make the point. Senator MACK. We can finish this up. 449 Senator BOXER. It's so late and we have another panel and these witnesses have been here since 3:00 this afternoon. Mr. LINDSEY. Senator Mack, the short answer is no, I did not. Senator MACK. We have a dispute on this and we'll work on it. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Shelby. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Lindsey. Mr. LINDSEY. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. I was looking through your deposition. You might need to make reference to it. On page 74, 75, 76-73, 74, 75, 76, it's our Counsel, the Democratic Counsel, asking you about the meeting and I believe he was referring to the meeting of October 14th? Mr. LINDSEY, As I look at the beginning, it says 'Jack," so I assume that's Jack DeVore.
So You Want to Be a Cheerleader
What's so great about cheerleading, anyway? What does it take to be a high school cheerleader? Do you have the marbles to find out? Produced in cooperation with the National Cheerleader's Association & Bonne Bell Cosmetics.
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(21:20:39) Senator SHELBY. That's right and at that meeting Jean Hanson, the Treasury's General Counsel; Jack DeVore, Assistant Secretary of Treasury for Public Relations at the Treasury-he was then-retired then, he was there; Joshua Steiner, Chief of Staff to the Secretary of the Treasury, Bernard Nussbaum, he was there. Neal Eggleston was there, Associate Counsel to the President. Clifford Sloan, Associate Counsel to the President. You, Mr. Lindsey, the Assistant to the President's Senior Advisors and Mark Gearan; is that correct? Mr. LINDSEY. Correct. Senator SHELBY. You were asked about the referrals, I think someone-was he a writer with The New York Times, Jeff Gerth? Mr. LINDSEY. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY, Are you familiar with this? Mr. LINDSEY. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. I believe he had inquired about some of thehad criminal referrals been made without getting into the substance. Mr. LINDSEY. But he did get into the substance. Senator SHELBY. Sorry? Mr. LINDSEY, He did get into the substance. He clearly indicated that he was aware that there were criminal referrals. He had a question about where the referrals had gone. Senator SHELBY. OK. Mr. LINDSEY. But he also asked about four checks. He said that he was aware that one of the referrals mentioned senator SHELBY. First, about the referrals, was he asking him why the referrals were not made to Little Rock to the U.S. Attorney's office? Mr. LINDSEY. Yes. Senator SHELBY. And what was your response, what was the conversation about there then? I Mr. LINDSEY. Mr. DeVore indicated to us that, in fact, apparently Senator SHELBY. This is a meeting-I don't mean to interrupt you now, but this was a meeting with all these people that I just related the names at the White House to try to get together to deal with this situation; is that right? Mr. LINDSEY. Jack DeVore apparently indicated that he wanted to come to the White House to discuss with us 450 Senator SHELBY. He's the Public Relations Officer with the' Treasury Department-or Assistant Secretary dealing with public' relations. Mr. LINDSEY. Yes, sir. Senator SHE SHELBY. OK. But he didn't come alone then, he brought Ms. Hanson, Mr. Steiner, and then all the lawyers including Mr. Nussbaum, Counsel for the President, all of you-all were there; is that right? Mr. LINDSEY. I was invited to the meeting, I didn't set it up, and I don't know who invited whom. Mr. DeVore indicated that he had',,.. had a phone conversation, I believe the day before, from Jeff Gerth; that Mr. Gerth was aware that there was referrals; that Mr. Gerth understood that those referrals had gone to Washington; and that Mr. Gerth was aware that at least one of the referrals involved four checks. Senator SHELBY. Four cashier's checks. Mr. LINDSEY. That was his understanding. Senator SHELBY, I believe this was yours-your words, if I can read them back to you just to refresh your recollection, "that he," Mr. Gerth, "knew that these particular referrals"-this is on page 74 of your deposition, Mr. Lindsey- "had been referred to Washington, that he understood"--"he" being Mr. Gerth, the writer of The Now York Times-"that the referrals involved or one of the referrals at least involved four cashier's checks, two made payable to Bill Clinton and two made payable to the Clinton for President Committee-Clinton for Governor Committee." These are your words; is that correct? Mr. LINDSEY. That's correct, that's my deposition. Senator SHELBY. OK. Now what transpired after that in this meeting, you- all were trying to decide how to deal with this? Mr. LINDSEY, Mr. DeVore indicated that he wanted to get back to Mr. Gerth. He wanted to indicate to Mr. Gerth that in fact the referrals had come to Washing-ton but that they had been forwarded on to Little Rock prior to Mr. Gerth's call. So there would be no suggestion that they were being bottled up or that somehow Mr. Gerth's call had caused them to be Senator SHELBY. Mr. Lindsey, just for the record here tonight, who was the U.S. Attorney in Little Rock, Arkansas? Mr. LINDSEY. At this point, I assume Paula Casey. Senator SHELBY. And what happened? Did she recuse herself from those cases? Mr. LINDSEY. She did, yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. And that's why they were referred back to Washington? Mr. LINDSEY. No, as I understand it. Senator SHELBY. Or was 1 getting ahead? Mr. LINDSEY. I think you're ahead. Again, I don't know this. MY understanding is that before they went to the U.S. Attorney's office in Little Rock, they came to Washington-for what reason I have no idea, but that they had gone on to the U.S. Attorney. He wanted to tell Mr. Gerth this so that Mr. Gerth wouldn't write that they were somehow being bottled up in Washington. He also wanted to confirm that there were referrals. Senator SHELBY. Did you suggest after-this is Mr. DeVore? 451 Mr. LINDSEY. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. He wanted to confirm to Jeff Gerth of The New York Times, that there had been, in fact, referrals? Mr. LINDSEY. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. Criminal referrals. Why did you suggest that he not do that, but you did; is that right? Mr. LINDSEY. I did because I believed that referrals were confidential documents and that we should not be confirming the fact of referrals to reporters. He indicated to me
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(21:25:33) Senator SHELBY. "He" being Mr. DeVore. Mr. LINDSEY. "He" being Mr. DeVore, sorry. Mr. Devore indicated to me that it was RTC policy to confirm referrals. That turns out not to be correct, but that is what he told us. Senator SHELBY. What could you, what was your recommendation that Mr. LINDSEY. My recommendation Senator SHELBY. No comment or Mr. LINDSEY. My recommendation was Senator SHELBY. You weren't going to deny it, though, were you? Mr. LINDSEY. No. If he felt strongly that we should respond, then I suggested that he should indicate to Mr. Gerth that whatever had come to Washington had been sent on to Little Rock, but that he should not in any way confirm to Mr. Gerth that there were, in fact, referrals because it just didn't seem to be proper. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Gerth is that? Mr. LINDSEY. Gerth, G-e-r-t-h. Senator SHELBY. Did he characterize in his inquiry if these were criminal referrals or did he know that, or do you recall? Mr. LINDSEY. I don't recall. My memorandum says "criminal referrals," but I don't have any recollection that these words were used. I could look at my contemporaneous notes. Senator SHELBY. Do you want to go look at your notes? [Witness reviewed the document.] Mr. LINDSEY. The word "referral" does not appear in my handwritten notes so I do not know what Mr. Gerth understood. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Lindsey, have you ever seen copies of those four cashier's checks? Mr. LINDSEY. Well, there weren't four cashier's checks, but yes, I've seen copies of the checks. Senator SHELBY. You've said there were four, reading your deposition. Mr. LINDSEY. That's what Mr. Gerth said. Senator SHELBY. OK In fact these were your words, let me-you be right here. I'll correct that, "he understood," this is you, "he" being Gerth, "that the referrals involved" or one of them, at least, involved- he said that? Mr. LINDSEY. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. How many checks were there, in fact? Mr. LINDSEY. There were three cashier's checks and one personal check. Senator SHELBY. Three cashier's checks and who were these checks made to? Mr. LINDSEY. I'll have to look at my note. I don't know wheth- 452 Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, are we getting into a scope issue, The CHAIRMAN. No. Senator SHELBY. I was advised by Counsel that I could proceed on this. Mr. LINDSEY. They were either to Bill Clinton or the Clinton for Governor campaign. Apparently he indicated two were to Bill Clinton, two were to the Clinton for Governor campaign. Senator SHELBY. Were they written on Madison Savings & Loan? Mr. LINDSEY. I believe so, yes. Senator SHELBY. What were the dates of them? Mr. LINDSEY. Again, I'm not sure. He indicated October [April] 4th or 5th and I think that was correct. Senator SHELBY. I just saw it in your deposition. Mr. LINDSEY. I believe Mr. Gerth indicated October [April] 4th or 5th and I believe that was correct. Senator SHELBY. Did anyone else-I know my time is up on this round, but did anyone else Senator D'AMATO. Let me suggest, if I might, Mr. Chairman, why don't you start the clock and we'll yield a Senator SHELBY. A couple of minutes? Senator DAMATO. Absolutely, take your time. Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a procedural question? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator MURRAY. It's 9:30 p.m. and these panels have been here for 61/2 hours. We have another panel to go yet tonight and we have your commitment to get that panel tonight. What is your intention from here? The CHAIRMAN. My intention is to get to that final witness as quickly as possible and as soon as Senators are to the point where they are not seeking to ask additional questions to these witnesses then Senator MURRAY. I just wanted to raise the humanity issue. We have had dinner, they haven't. The CHAIRMAN. I should say now that there's been, you know, an interruption for this purpose that-and I'll come right back to you, Senator Shelby- that my indication is that except for brief comment right now Senator BRYAN. Mr. Chairman, I'm so eager to get to Mr. Nussbaum the same day that this hearing began that I'm happy to yield back any of my time. The CHAIRMAN. I have no other requests on my side at this point unless something detonates Senator D'AMATO. We have several other Senator SHELBY, If the Senator from New York would yield 2 minutes to me, I will try not to use the whole 2 minutes. Senator DAMATO. No, I will not. I will give you what time we have allocated and you can use whatever portion you want to finish your inquiry. Senator SHELBY. I thank the Senator. At the meeting, Mr. Lindsey; Ms. Hanson, Treasury General Counsel, just to set the record straight-again, Jack DeVore; Joshua Steiner, Chief of Staff to the Secretary of the Treasury; Bernard 453 Nussbaum; Mr. Neal Eggleston; Clifford Sloan; Bruce Lindsey yourself and Mark Gearan. Mr. LINDSEY. I don't believe that Mr. Steiner was the Chief of Staff to the Secretary Senator SHELBY. Right. But he was in this meeting, was he not, on October. Mr. LINDSEY. I don't believe he was Chief of Staff to the Secretary at that time. Senator SHELBY. But he was at the meeting in whatever capacity, he was over from Treasury? Mr. LINDSEY. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. Whatever, he'd been promoted after that? Mr. LINDSEY. I think that's correct.
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(21:30:25) Senator SHELBY. What do you recall was the recommendation of these other people here as far as confirming this criminal referral, yours was that you said don't do it and Jack DeVore obviously says do it and what was Mr. Nussbaum's? Mr. LINDSEY. I think Mr. Nussbaum also raised a question about whether we should be confirming senator SHELBY. In other words, don't do it. What about Mr. Eggleston? Mr. LINDSEY. I don't remember whether he had an opinion. senator SHELBY. What about Mr. Sloan? Mr. LINDSEY. I don't remember that he expressed an opinion. Senator SHELBY. What about Jean Hanson? Mr. LINDSEY. I don't remember in this conversation that she expressed an opinion on this point. Senator SHELBY. She didn't say a word on this? Mr. LINDSEY. She has indicated, I think, that she had begun some sort of check with Treasury to find out-because she had been told the same thing I understood by Mr. DeVore whether or not that was, in fact, Treasury policy but I don't remember that she indicated that in the meeting. Senator SHELBY. OK I thank the Senator from New York for his time. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Faircloth. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lindsey. Mr. LINDSEY. Yes, sir. senator FAIRCLOTH. I understand that you corrected your earlier testimony that you first heard of Madison Guaranty in 1989, not 1979. Mr. LINDSEY. No--well, the issue was not when I first heard Senator FAIRCLOTH. The investigation. Mr. LINDSEY. That's correct. Senator FAIRCLOTH. When was the first time you learned that the Clintons were named in criminal referrals? Mr. LINDSEY. September 30th or October 1st. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Of? Mr. LINDSEY. Of 1993. Senator FAIRCLOTH. You earlier testified that at times you handled press inquiries relating to matters in Arkansas involving President Clinton, Mr. LINDSEY. Correct. 454 Senator FAIRCLOTH. Do you know the current Governor of Arkan- sas, Jim Guy Tucker? Mr. LINDSEY. Yes, I do. Senator FAIRCLOTH. flow long have you known him, Jim Guy Tucker? Mr. LINDSEY. Oh, since the 1960's. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Are you aware that Jim Guy Tucker came to Washington to meet with President Clinton on October 1993? Mr. LINDSEY. Yes, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Were you present at the meeting? Mr. LINDSEY. No, sir, I was not. I understand Keith Mason of the Intergovernmental Affairs Office at the White House was present at the meeting. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Who was at the meeting? Mr. LINDSEY. I understand the President, Jim Guy Tucker and Mr. Mason. The CHAIRMAN, Let me just say--excuse me, Senator Faircloth, that you've been very willing to let me express a concern and I appreciate that. I think, I don't know where the line of questioning is going, but I think this brings into focus another scope issue and I know you want to get as close to the line as you can without going over it so I just want to raise that concern. Senator FAIRCLOTH. All right. Well, we'll see where I am with this one. Did President Clinton discuss his meeting with Jim Guy Tucker with you? Mr. LINDSEY. No, sir-beforehand? Senator FAIRCLOTH. After or before either one. Mr. LINDSEY. Well, not beforehand. Afterwards I was asked by the press whether or not Madison or Whitewater came up. I asked the President that question and he indicated to me it had not come up. To that extent I discussed the meeting with the President after the fact. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Mr. Lindsey, did you receive any press inqueries into the possible relationship between the meeting of Bill Clinton and Jim Guy Tucker and the RTC criminal referrals? Mr. LINDSEY. No, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. You did not? Mr. LINDSEY. I had a general inquiry from the press as to whether or not Whitewater/Madison, the David Hale matter, whether any of those issues came up during their meeting. Senator FAIRCLOTH. This is an important question so take your time and think. Mr. LINDSEY. I asked the President that question. There was no The CHAIRMAN. Let me just interject here. I think it's fair to say because I know that Mr. Hale in whatever testimony he may be giving in cooperation with the Special Prosecutor now in an active investigation, I don't think we ought to in a sense go on into that area. It would be my view that that raises the scope question here and it would also be my view that we ought not to pursue discussion in that area at this time. There will be a chance to do that later on down the line when the Special Counsel clears this item for us to review, but I think at this point that would not be within our scope, our proper scope. 455 Mr. LINDSEY. Mr. Chairman, may I? There is a letter that Mr. Cutler wrote to the Chairman on the House side outlining the meeting with the President and a memo from Marcia Hale to the President with respect to that meeting. Could I ask that it be included in the record?
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(21:35:46) The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me take it and I want to make sure it's within our scope because sometimes things can be made public but we can't, in effect, officialize them through this if they're not within our scope, but if it is and there's no objection, I'll make it part of the record. Go ahead, Senator. Senator FAIRCLOTH. May I ask the question and if it's not in scope, we'll drop right there. The CHAIRMAN. Yes, thank you. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Clifford Sloan's notes from his September 29th meeting with Jean Hanson talk about a lot of things. They say that the RTC referrals contained allegations about Jim Guy Tucker and that the 1984 Clinton for Governor campaign was being examined as a possible co-conspirator. Can he answer that? The CHAIRMAN. What was Mr. LINDSEY. I think I have answered that to Senator Mack. Let me repeat. I have one set of notes. Mr. Sloan has two sets of notes. His notes are dated September 30th and October 7th. My one note is undated, but it contains information that is included in both his September 30th and his October 7 notes. So it is clear to me from that that I had that discussion with Mr. Sloan after October 7th-- or after October 7th. So I do not believe I knew that information prior to the meeting. Senator FAIRCLOTH. All right. This. one, if it's out of order, I'll stop it. Did you handle any press inquiries about whether there was any connection between Jim Guy Tucker being named in those RTC referrals and the fact that he had received 1.-$1.1 million in Government-backed loans that were supposed to go to minority or disadvantaged borrowers? The CHAIRMAN. Senator Faircloth--- Senator FAIRCLOTH. That one out? The CHAIRMAN. I would say it is. Senator FAIRCLOTH. All right. My next question. The CHAIRMAN. May I just say, without taking any of your time to do so, I appreciate very much your cooperation on this issue. I thank you for that. Senator FAIRCLOTH. I will go on to the new witness. Thank you for the fair way you've conducted the hearing. Mr. Stephanopoulos, this past Tuesday evening during Roger Altman's testing, I saw one of your friends from the Clinton campaign who is currently serving as a political consultant and damage control specialist for President Clinton, Paul Negala. He was sitting in the back of the room at around 12:45 watching Mr. Altman's performance before the Committee. My question is, prior to your appearance before us today, have You had any communication with an outside political consultant concerning your testimony here today? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No, sir. 456 Senator FAIRCLOTH. You have not been prompted by a political consultant? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No, sir, not at all. I've come here to swer your questions just as I have answered them before other Committee-- Senator FAIRCLOTH. Other than your attorney who, if one, cussed your testimony with prior to your appearance here Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Say that again, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Other than your attorney, with whom have you discussed your appearance here today? I mean your testimony. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Nothing substantive, sir. I would say that everything I've said here today, I have said dozens of times both in sworn testimony to the Independent Counsel, the Office of Government Ethics. I've also had to speak to it publicly, sir, because there were many leaks not only from the Grand Jury but from other areas about the scope of my testimony. I would ask if that's in the scope of this hearing but I'm happy to answer it. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Faircloth. I don't see any requests at this time on my side, so Mr. LINDSEY. Mr. Chairman, again we're very good at correcting the record. Mr. Podesta says I indicated The CHAIRMAN. That's what this hearing is all about is getting the record corrected. We'll take any and all corrections. I just want to make sure that we've got all of them. Mr. LINDSEY. Mr. Podesta says that I said in response to a question from Mr. Shelby that the checks were dated October 4 or 5, it was April 4 or 5. Again, it was The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennett. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to tell one quick story. We did a conference on the House side on a committee bill that went very late at night-this is with reference to Mr. Nussbaum who is coming next-and at about 3:00 in the morning Senator Bryan who is not a conferee arrived having gone home and slept and gotten up and showered and came in and he wanted to be allowed to participate in the conference.
Choppers vie for title!
Rolling and light in contrast-images Choppers vie for title! William Stratford gains championship crown in fast axe-men's competition.
Italians fete St. Anthony! - throngs view monster image drawn through streets to honor patron of labor.
Rolling, light in contrast - images Italians fete St. Anthony! Throngs view monster image drawn through streets to honor patron of labor.
Folk Dancers League
Rolling, light in contrast - images Fancy steppers meet! Novel 'hoofing' features 10th anniversary of folk dancers league.
Sophs win flag rush!
Light in contrast, a little shaky - images Sophmores win flag rush! St. Ignatius freshmen humbled in annual college 'brawl.'
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(21:40:28) Of course, he was absolutely fresh and the rest of us were somewhat on the ropes and I want to tell you that he completely dominated the conference at that time. And I just sort of think this story is somewhat relevant as we think of the fact that we have yet another witness coming who, I assume, has somewhat like Senator Bryan been resting himself and preparing for this Senator BOXER. Plus he's very excited anyway. [Laughter.] Senator KERRY. So let's get him on. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennett, did you have Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I do. At the end of my last exchange with Mr. Stephanopoulos I had a number of very powerful questions that I could hardly wait to ask that have now gone stale as have I. And I will save them for my summation on the Floor or whenever and we won't have that exchange because of the hour. 457 But I would like just for the sake of helping me understand some things and not to score any points off anybody or anything else, go back once again to the fateful day when, according to Mr. Steiner's diary, Mr. Stephanopoulos and Mr. Ickes called to say that Bill Clinton was furious. They also asked how Jay Stephens the former attorney had been hired and so on and so forth. And we've been over the words of his diary so many times I won't bother to repeat them. I've been looking at your statements here. You, Mr. Stephanopoulos, in your opening statement do not mention-well, I'll get it exactly. Other than a sentence that I find highly ironic in this circumstance, "Mr. Steiner was my regular point of contact at Treasury for obtaining information that affected Administration policy." Given the things that have been said back and forth today I'm not sure that will still be the case. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. It still is the case. Senator BENNETT. You talk about blowing off steam with respect to Mr. Stephens, you've had your conversation with Senator Hatch about that and then you say "I believe later that day I had a conversation with Harold Ickes and Roger Altman during which the subject of his recusal was discussed." This says a "conversation." Was that a phone call? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Yes, sir. Senator BENNETT. Because that's the context that everyone puts it in. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Yes. senator BENNETT. Now, from the diary, one can draw the inference, it isn't stated specifically but one could draw the inference, that the conversation about Jay Stephens and the conversation about the recusal were the same phone call. Do you have any memory, either one of you, because presumably, Mr. Ickes, you were in on this phone call, indeed, you say in your opening statement, Mr. Stephanopoulos and I called Mr. Altman immediately to confirm that was true. Were the two subjects brought up at the same Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. There were two separate phone calls, Senator. Let me go over it again as I did in my opening statement. Senator BENNETT. That's all I need. Was Mr. Ickes in on the first phone call? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No, sir. Senator BENNETT. So the first phone call vis-a-vis Jay Stephens was strictly you? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS, Yes, sir. Senator BENNETT. And to whom was it placed? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Again, I don't know who placed the phone I was having a conversation with Mr. Steiner that be an dis- cussing the issue of Mr. Altman's recusal to The New York Times. Senator BENNETT, OK, that helps clear it, So that the phone call ill which the exchange regarding Mr. Stephens was between you and Mr. Steiner? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Yes, sir. Senator BENNETT. And the phone call regarding the recusal in which Mr. Ickes joined was with Mr. Altman? 458 Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Yes, sir, but the issue of the recusal Was also discussed in the conversation with Mr. Steiner. Senator BENNETT. That would explain why his diary Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I can't explain his diary, Senator, I can just tell you what happened.