Advanced Search
The Ice WoMan Cometh
A little in contrast but overall not bad imagery The latest in jobs for women! Ice delivering no longer exclusively a male dominated profession. The ice truck bares the name "Peoples Ice".
Auto demons break records!
Wavy some drop out spots in imagery Auto demons break records! - monkey drivers compete in speed classic replete with thrills, spills and chills.
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(22:30:23) The October 14 meeting was attended by Mr. DeVore, Ms. Hanson and Josh Steiner from Treasury, and Mr. Lindsey, Mr. Gearan, myself, Mr. Sloan and Neil Eggleston of my staff. I remember Mr. DeVore explaining at that meeting that Jeff Gerth, a New York Times reporter, was aware of the referrals to the Department of Justice in the Madison Guaranty matter. He was asking why the referrals had been forwarded to Washington, DO from Kansas City instead of directly to the U.S. Attorney's office in Little Rock. Mr. Gerth apparently believed that the forwarding of the referrals to Washington was unusual. It might suggest special treatment. Mr. DeVore said he was going to advise Mr. Gerth, of The New York Times, that the referrals had been sent to the U.S. Attorney's office in Little Rock before Mr. Gerth had called. A question was raised by someone I don't remember who,-whether it was usual for the RTC to confirm criminal referrals. As I recall, Mr. DeVore said that it was not unusual, but it was done in certain circumstances. We were also told at that meeting- The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me. In your printed text, I just want to make sure that you said what you meant, or maybe this is a mistype. It says here, as I recall Mr. DeVore said that it was not usual Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm sorry, as I recall, Mr. DeVore said that it was not usual, not usual, that's correct. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. I just wanted to make sure that's the way you wanted to say it. Mr. NUSSBAUM. That is the way I wanted to say it. It was not usual, but it was done in certain circumstances. Senator KERRY. Would it be easier if you followed your text if you picked it up and put it over the top of the mike? I was just curious, Mr. NUSSBAUM. Thank you, Senator. We were also told that Mr. Gerth was inquiring and would likely ask the White House about the endorsements on four cashier's checks from Madison to the Clinton gubernatorial campaign. In essence, all we were told at this meeting is what The New York Times was saying to Treasury and what Treasury was planning to say to The New York Times. With respect to the referrals mentioned in the September 29 conversation and the October 14 meeting, I never saw a copy Of them. Nor did I ever ask to do so. In early January 1994-I'm now going to the next contact that I recall-in early January 1994, Joel Klein, the new White House 470 Deputy Counsel, told me that at the Renaissance Weekend in South Carolina, which Mr. Klein attended, the President had sought to have a brief conversation with Eugene Ludwig, Comptroller of the Currency. The President asked for advice apparently as to how to deal with the recent flurry of Whitewater stories. Mr. Mein said he told the President and Mr. Ludwig that it would be best if they did not speak about the matter. I told Mr., Mein I agreed and that he had done the right thing. At some later time, in a brief telephone call from Mr. Ludwig, I told him that I; agreed with Mr. Mein. I saw the President shortly thereafter. I told him that I had heard about his brief conversation with Mr. Ludwig. I also said it was my view that he should not speak to Treasury officials about this matter. The President and I agreed that if there were any appropriate discussions to be had, they should be had by Counsel, either White House Counsel if they involved official matters or Private Counsel, if they concerned purely private matters. The next contact I recall occurred on February 2, 1994, that now famous February 2nd meeting. On that day-I believe it was late in the day actually-I received a call from Mr. McLarty's office asking me to attend a meeting that evening in his office. When I arrived, I found Roger Altman, Ms. Hanson, Harold Ickes [the White House Deputy Chief of Staff], and Margaret Williams [the First Lady's Chief of Staff] in the room. When I asked what the meeting would concern, because I had no prior indication what this meeting would concern, I was told that Mr. Altman was going to brief us about the statute of limitations process being followed in the RTC's Madison Guaranty investigation. I then asked one of my staff, Mr. Eggleston, to join us. At the outset of the meeting, Mr. Altman told us that he would be informing us about a process that had been recently discussed with Members of Congress. He then described the RTC Completion Act, explaining that the statute of limitations with respect to civil fraud and intentional misconduct was due to
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(22:35:36) He told us that the RTC would have to reach a decision by that date about whether there was a prima facie case of fraud or willful misconduct. He said the RTC would have three options: 1, bring a lawsuit if there was a good faith basis for one; 2, do nothing and let the statute of limitations expire; or 3, seek from potential defendants-including possibly the Clintons-tolling agreements extending the statute of limitations, He indicated that the RTC staff would be in a position to act before February 28, 1994. Mr. Altman said that the RTC investigation was headed by Jack Ryan, the RTC's Deputy Chief Executive Officer, and Ellen Kulka, the RTC's General Counsel. He told us that he had confidence in them and would be inclined to rely on their recommendations. He said they had both recently come from the Office of Thrift Supervision, the OTS. I said that I had heard of Ms. Kulka when she worked for the OTS and that she was one of a group of tough OTS litigators. Mr. Altman then turned to a subject that had not been previously identified as a topic for discussion. He said he was considering recusing himself from the Madison Guaranty investigation. He 471 said he had discussed this with Ms. Hanson and Secretary Bent. sen, and they agreed it would be best. Mr. Altman went on to say, almost in the next breath , that he received ethics advice to the effect that he was not--I repeat not-, legally or ethically required to recuse himself. This meant two things to me- First, that Mr. Altman believed he could act impartially in the Madison Guaranty matter; and second, that Mr. Altman and his ethics advisor believed that his acting in the matter would not raise an appearance of partiality within the meaning of the relevant ethical standards. Notwithstanding this ethics advice, Mr. Altman said he was inclined to recuse himself, Mr. Altman added that he did not believe his recusal would have any effect on the RTC's decisionmaking process, since he expected to follow the recommendations of the RTC staff in any event. I felt that what Mr. Altman had said raised an important policy issue for the Executive Branch. I was concerned that Mr. Altman's recusal might set a bad precedent for the Clinton and future AdministrMy experience as a la' lawyer, the world where I come from, has WY taught me that if a judge has a legal or ethical reason for recusing himself or herself from a matter under adjudication, he or she should promptly do so. But if there is no legal or ethical reason for recusal-and Mr. Altman said that there was no such legal or ethical reason-then that individual should do his or her sworn duty Now, this principle was eloquently expressed by Justice Rehnquist in Laird v. Tatum in 1972 when shortly after he was appointed to the Supreme Court, he was asked to recuse himself from a case. After examining the law carefully and finding he was not legally required to recuse himself, he wrote words which I remembered. That "the duty of a Federal judge to sit when not disqualified is equally as strong as the duty to not sit where disqualified." I believe that the same principle applies to the Executive Branch and regulatory agencies. Public officials should not have the option of avoiding their responsibilities simply because they are difficult, or inconvenient, or because the officials find it personally or politically expedient to step aside. When I testified last week before the House Banking Committee, I made the same point, Since then, the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics issued a report which supports this position. The OGE wrote [on page 20 of its report]:
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(22:40:28) The impartiality provisions of the standards of conduct may not be relied upon by an employee as the basis for recusing himself from a matter because he simply does not wish to be involved or to exert the effort required. Under the standards of conduct, employees are expected to per-form their duties fully, unless there is a reason that their participation in a matter will result in an actual conflict, including an inability to act impartially or will result in an appearance of conflict significantly detrimental to the public's legitimate perception of the fairness of the governmental processes involved. What the OGE is saying, in simple language, is that a public official has a duty to do his or her duty. And that official has no right to retreat behind ethics rules- when those rules do not apply-to avoid doing his or her job. It would be improper to do so. I want to repeat that. What the OGE is saying in simple language is that a public official has a duty to do his or her duty and that official 472 has no right to retreat behind ethics rules when those rules do not apply to avoid doing his or her job. It would be improper. It would be unethical to do so. The public policy issue raised by what Mr. Altman said regarding a possible recusal was not merely an academic one or matter of some high falutin principle. It was then a matter of immediate concern to the Administration. Just a day before this February 2nd meeting, a nominee for the Chair of the FDIC, Ricki Tigert, had been asked by certain Senators on this Committee to agree to commit in advance to recuse herself on any issues connected to Madison or Whitewater. She was asked to do so for the stated reason that she knew the Clintons and was being nominated by the President. Ms. Tigert had taken the position that, if she were confirmed and asked to address Madison./Whitewater-related questions, she would consult the appropriate agency ethics officer and follow his or her advice. The inquiring Senators indicated that Ms. Tigert's response was not sufficient. They told her if she would not agree to recuse herself in advance, regardless of whether she was legally or ethically required to do so, they would block her nomination. At the time of the February 2 meeting, I and others in the White House believed it was important for the Executive Branch to resist efforts to force nominees to agree in advance to recuse themselves in situations where recusal was not legally or ethically required. We felt that those seeking Ms. Tigert's commitment to recuse herself were tampering with the agency adjudicative process. So when Mr. Altman said, sort of out of the blue without any advance notice, that he was inclined to remove himself from the RTC investigation, without a legal or ethical basis for doing so, I felt he might create an unfortunate precedent for our Administration and future Administrations and would make a shambles of our position in the Tigert nomination. As White House Counsel, as an Executive Branch official, I was concerned about what Mr. Altman was considering doing. But I did not tell him to remain in the matter, This is what I said to him. I said that if he was legally or ethically required to recuse himself, he should do so promptly. That's the first thing I said. Obviously, if Mr. Altman had a disqualifying financial interest, or if he believed that he could not decide the matter impartially, or if his continuing to act created an appearance of favoritism within the meaning of the relevant ethics code, any of which was a ground requiring recusal, it would be necessary for him to remove himself. But he had already told me that he received ethics advice that he did not have a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself So I went on to say, that if recusal was not legally or ethically required, he
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(22:40:12)(tape #10097 begins) testified last week before the House Banking Committee, I made the same point, Since then, the nonpartisan Office of Government Ethics issued a report which supports this position. The OGE wrote [on page 20 of its report]: (22:40:28) The impartiality provisions of the standards of conduct may not be relied upon by an employee as the basis for recusing himself from a matter because he simply does not wish to be involved or to exert the effort required. Under the standards of conduct, employees are expected to per-form their duties fully, unless there is a reason that their participation in a matter will result in an actual conflict, including an inability to act impartially or will result in an appearance of conflict significantly detrimental to the public's legitimate perception of the fairness of the governmental processes involved. What the OGE is saying, in simple language, is that a public official has a duty to do his or her duty. And that official has no right to retreat behind ethics rules- when those rules do not apply-to avoid doing his or her job. It would be improper to do so. I want to repeat that. What the OGE is saying in simple language is that a public official has a duty to do his or her duty and that official 472 has no right to retreat behind ethics rules when those rules do not apply to avoid doing his or her job. It would be improper. It would be unethical to do so. The public policy issue raised by what Mr. Altman said regarding a possible recusal was not merely an academic one or matter of some high falutin principle. It was then a matter of immediate concern to the Administration. Just a day before this February 2nd meeting, a nominee for the Chair of the FDIC, Ricki Tigert, had been asked by certain Senators on this Committee to agree to commit in advance to recuse herself on any issues connected to Madison or Whitewater. She was asked to do so for the stated reason that she knew the Clintons and was being nominated by the President. Ms. Tigert had taken the position that, if she were confirmed and asked to address Madison./Whitewater-related questions, she would consult the appropriate agency ethics officer and follow his or her advice. The inquiring Senators indicated that Ms. Tigert's response was not sufficient. They told her if she would not agree to recuse herself in advance, regardless of whether she was legally or ethically required to do so, they would block her nomination. At the time of the February 2 meeting, I and others in the White House believed it was important for the Executive Branch to resist efforts to force nominees to agree in advance to recuse themselves in situations where recusal was not legally or ethically required. We felt that those seeking Ms. Tigert's commitment to recuse herself were tampering with the agency adjudicative process. So when Mr. Altman said, sort of out of the blue without any advance notice, that he was inclined to remove himself from the RTC investigation, without a legal or ethical basis for doing so, I felt he might create an unfortunate precedent for our Administration and future Administrations and would make a shambles of our position in the Tigert nomination. As White House Counsel, as an Executive Branch official, I was concerned about what Mr. Altman was considering doing. But I did not tell him to remain in the matter, This is what I said to him. I said that if he was legally or ethically required to recuse himself, he should do so promptly. That's the first thing I said. Obviously, if Mr. Altman had a disqualifying financial interest, or if he believed that he could not decide the matter impartially, or if his continuing to act created an appearance of favoritism within the meaning of the relevant ethics code, any of which was a ground requiring recusal, it would be necessary for him to remove himself. But he had already told me that he received ethics advice that he did not have a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself So I went on to say, that if recusal was not legally or ethically required, he should consider-he should consider
Little Girl Takes Off Makeup
MS serious-looking little girl with jack-in-the-box. She's putting on mom's cold cream, smearing it all over her face and neck. 00:23:12 MS girl without cold cream, but a nice coating of grime and (apparently) lipstick. She looks sleepy, then goes at the cold cream, looking pretty miserable.
Kids at the Beach
LS toddler on beach in diaper, playing in the sand and surf. He's just big enough to try walking, but plops down and starts to cry. 00:23:50 MS studio shot of toddler posed with book in hand (and mouth), very happy little boy with a cowlick 00:24:03 cute little boy in surf, wearing sun hat and scooping water into a colorful barrel 00:24:11 LS boy and girl playing on beach, digging in sand bucket 00:24:25 another angle, closer, on this boy and his big sister, digging water on the beach 00:24:41 CU little boy, looking at something and smiling 00:24:45 MS same boy scooping sand into a bucket, making a sand castle, shaping sand with his hands (it's too dry) and digging a hole with his finger 00:25:18 MS little boy indoors on rocking horse, wearing a bathrobe
Junior Aces Vie In Horseshoe Pitching Championship Finals
Contrast a little dark, Youngsters all under 15 years of age demonstrate their skill in tossing 'ringers' and in hitting that 'old spike' with startling regularity.
Double Time Review Features Assembly of Crack Vetrans
High contrast and imagery dark Mussolini's men plunge through intricate maneuvers at top speed. Artillery sweeps over rough terrain at break-neck paces.
Middie Gridders In Early Practice For New Pigskin Season
High contrast dark imagery 280 Football chasers wreak vengeance on the tackling dummy. Listen to instructions and then cavort through formations in whriwind fashion.
Philanthropists Aid Ailing Pets In Great Hospital Project
Contrast and imagery a little dark at times Speyer hospital employs the latest scientific equipment solely for the purpose of treating sick animals at the rate of 17,000 a year.
Build wingless plane!
Contrast and imagery a little dark at times Build wingless plane! Secret rotor aircraft seen for first time on floating factory. Inventions.
Flaming oil imperils waterfront!
Contrast and imagery a little dark at times Flaming oil imperils waterfront! - 5 dead, 2 injured, after explosion aboard tanker 'brilliant.'
The Cecropia Moth
Photographed, narrated and produced by Murl Deusing. This is a very colorful film following, in great detail, the life cycle of the Cecropia Moth from silkworm to pupa to rebirth. Photography is exquisite, the colors rich and vibrant. The following are some of the shots within: CU of an adult cecropia moth, its intricately patterned wings spread, against a blue BG. CU of an adult cecropia moth, its wings spread, against a map of the United States. Tight LS of a wooded area during the winter, the tress barren, a light snowfall covering everything. CU of a caterpillar in a silk coccoon attached to a branch. Spring arrives: MS of a babbling brook, ECU of flower buds beginning to blossom against a blue sky BG, CU of the moth emerging from the coccoon against a red BG (time lapse shot), followed by another time lapse shot of a moth's wings unfolding. CU of wild strawberries. CU of dozens of eggs hatching caterpillars, then a CU of the caterpillars eating leaves. CU of meadow lillies blooming. ECU of a green caterpillar eating a leaf. CU of a caterpillar on a branch, breaking from, shedding its skin. ECU's and CU's of caterpillars eating. ECU of a caterpillar's spiricles (holes through which they "breathe"). ECU of how a caterpillar climbs, grasps, a branch. CU of two birds crushing a caterpillar by nibbling and passing it between them before giving it to their babies, in a nest, below them, stretching their necks and whining for food. CU of Red Sumac bushes in full bloom as autumn arrives reaches its peak. CU of a 3" caterpillar spinning a silk coccoon (ECU as well) for it to hibernate in during the winter months. All stages are shown, a fascinating account of events, a registery. MS's of winter in the woods, barren trees, snow falling lightly, late afternoon, near dusk.
Paint Your Wagon
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #98039 This is a behind-the-scenes promotional film for the feature length, major motion picture of the same name, a Western musical drama starring Lee Marvin, Clint Eastwood and Jane Seberg, directed by Alan Jay Lerner, all of whom appear in this film but also lend short narrations regarding the production. The following are a few of the shots within: MS's of film crews, grips and electricians and best boys and production assistants and dolly grips (oh my!) setting up equipment in a clearing in the woods during the daytime. Cutaway to MS's of burly male actors singing (yep, singing) like choir boys. Fast editing here, the shoot is in Oregon, the fictional setting is during the gold rush days. Wide shots of the Oregon landscape (thick woods and snowcapped mountains, you know, lumberjack stuff). Looks very much like the High Sierras. MS's of Lerner and male producers in business suits inspecting a scale model of the proposed set to be built in Oregon. They are on a Hollywood soundstage, lighting equipment and ladders and such in the BG. Cutaway to CU's of the building models, then cutaway to tight LS's of the set being built in Oregon, followed by cross-cutting montage of the town being efficently expedited by Hollywood set artists and local Oregon construction workers. MS's of the actors on a Hollywood soundstage during the early stage of rehearsals. Great shots of Clint Eastwood and Lee Marvin wearing street clothes and running through the lines, their scripts in hand. MS of Clint and Lee looking, talking and discusing a scene. On set in Oregon. MS of a moustached and costumed Lee smoking a cigarette while sitting quietly on a pile of logs. MS's of the crew deliberating a shot placement. MS of the actors deliberating their motivation. MS of a Panavision 35mm camera being moved to the next shot, pan left as the PA's and secondaries move the camera. Same with the lights. MS of Clint and Lee in costume on set and rehearsing a fight scene (Clint plays the heel, takes the bumps). CU of a large light being turned on. All of this happens during the daytime. Films cuts off and ends.
Giants Parade To Celebrate Annual Mid-Summer Revels
Giants Parade To Celebrate Annual Mid-Summer Revels Grotesque figures, twenty-five feet tall, caper through the city streets, while great crowds of people march along beside them in holiday festivities.
Boy Flier Breaks Coast To Coast Junior Record
High contrast, rolling, grainy, over exposed images Boy flier breaks coast-to-coast junior record! 18-year-old Edward Schneider sets new mark of 63 hours.
Granny pilots trolley!
Poor contrast, rolling, blurred images Granny pilots trolley! Mrs. Grace Gross, mother of 8 children does a man's job with nary an accident.
Shearers adopt sartorial novelty!
Shearers adopt sartorial novelty! Overcoats for goats protect newly-shorn angoras.
Crowds attend daddy of roller coasters!
Rolling and focusing on imagery Crowds attend daddy of roller coasters! World's biggest hair-raiser roller-coaster gives world's biggest thrill.
Finish $6,000,000. Span Linking New England Directly with West
Shaky, rolling images Fifty thousand attend celebration marking the opening of mid-hudson bridge - monster parades start the traffic over the mile long structure.
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(22:45:12)(tape #10096 ends) whether he should remove himself. I also said that, even if he ultimately determined to rely on his staff recommendation [as he said he would], the fact that his staff knew there would be a review of its recommendations would help to ensure the fairness and professionalism of the process. I was particularly concerned about the numerous leaks which seemed to accompany RTC actions. 473 The next thing and the last thing I said to Mr. Altman-I concluded by saying to Mr. Altman that, in any event, the decision on recusal was for him and him alone to make. He said he would give the matter further thought, The only other discussion I can recall at the February 2nd meeting is Ms. Williams asking if the private lawyers for the parties, including the Clintons' lawyers, would be briefed on the statute of limitations process. Ms. Hanson or perhaps Mr. Altman said that they would consider it. On the way out of the meeting, I asked Ms. Hanson if Mr. Ryan's and Ms. Kulka's nominations had been submitted to the White House for clearance. [We were normally consulted before agency nominations were approved and I could not recall having heard of their nominations.] Ms. Hanson had, in fact, told me they had been submitted to the White House. During questioning by Committee staff, I was asked whether I had negative feelings about Ms. Kulka. I responded that I did. I explained that, while I had never met or dealt with Ms. Kulka personally, when she was at the OTS she had been peripherally involved in a case brought by the OTS against a respected law firm in New York, In private practice, I had represented that law firm. I believed then and I believe now that the OTS acted unfairly and unprofessionally in that matter. It seized all of the assets of the firm at the outset of the litigation, thereby effectively preventing the firm from defending itself. In the period after February 2nd, I expressed some of these views to members of my staff perhaps in vigorous terms, but I did not do so during the meeting on February 2nd. Nor, indeed, did I do so to any Treasury or RTC official or to any other official outside the White House. In this connection, at this time, I want to be fair to Ms. Kulka. I watched some of her testimony before this Committee. It was quite impressive. And on March 30, 1994, she and her colleague, Mr. Ryan, wrote what I consider to be a highly professional, independent, even courageous letter to Congressman Leach. After noting that they were not political appointees, they wrote: "No pressure has been exerted by the Treasury, the White House, or any other source in the Executive Branch concerning the performance of our responsibilities with respect to Madison Guaranty or Whitewater since either of us joined the RTC." Before leaving the February 2 meeting, I want to respond to one claim that was made at the start of this hearing. It was said in an opening statement: That the reason the White House urged Roger Altman to stay on the case was the fear that the RTC General Counsel who would take over the decision would be too "tough" on the Clintons. To the extent that this statement was intended to refer to me, my answer is this: First, I did not urge Roger Altman to st ay on the case. I do not believe it would have been improper if I had urged him to stay on. But I did not do so, I asked him only to consider whether he should remove himself if he had no legal or ethical obligation to do so. I 474 said the decision was his to make. If I wish to urge someone to do something, I am usually not at a loss of words to do so. And second-my second answer to this contention made at the opening of the hearing-the reason I requested Mr. Altman to consider the matter of recusal further was not a fear that the RTC General Counsel would be too tough. I would have made the same statement no matter who was General Counsel of the RTC. I made it because of the principle I previously discussed, that a public offi- cial has a duty to do his or her duty. I also made it because an Altman recusal would undermine our position on the Tigert, nomination. On February 3, Ms. Hanson faxed me a letter Mr. Altman had received from Congressman Leach urging Mr. Altman to consult an ethics officer concerning recusal. She left a message asking me to phone her. When I returned the call that evening, Ms. Hanson told me that Treasury was continuing to research the ethical issues involved in recusal.
Marvin Nelson Wins Ontario Marathon Swim and $10,000
Rolling and some overexposure some images Marvin Nelson wins Ontario marathon. Swim and $10,000.