Advanced Search
Elegant 'eighties' revived! - society fetes 50th anniversary of noted hotel.
Rolling and high contrast some images Elegant 'eighties' revived! Society fetes 50th anniversary of noted hotel.
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(22:50:31) I suggested to Ms. Hanson that whoever was doing the research might find it useful to speak to Beth Nolan. Ms. Nolan was an Associate White House Counsel on my staff who dealt with ethic issues. She is a former ethics professor at George Washington Law' School and is well known and respected for her expertise. (Ms, Nolan later told me she did in fact have a discussion with the Treasury ethics official, Dennis Foreman.) I also suggested to Ms. Hanson that to the extent there might be ultimately be some concern at the Treasury or the RTC about an appearance of lack of independence of the decisionmakers on the Madison/Whitewater investigation, she might take a look at the civil jurisdiction in the recently appointed Independent Counsel's charter and consider the advisability of the RTC referring these matters to the Independent Counsel. On February 3, or shortly thereafter, I recall running into Mr Altman in the hallway of the West Wing of the White House. Mr. Altman told me in a brief conversation that he had given the recusal issue more thought, and he probably would not recuse him self But I also knew at the same time as I just said, that Treasury Later in February, either Mr. Eggleston or Ms. Hanson told me that Mr. Altman would leave the RTC at the end of March when his term expired and that he either could not or would not seek renewal of his appointment. I also believe that Mr. Altman told me later in February, in another brief conversation, that a Washington lawyer, Larry Simon, was likely to be nominated to head and he hoped Mr. Simon's nomination would be confidence There is also an additional conversation, an internal one the White House not with Treasury or the RTC or anyone the White House-which I believe will help the Committee understand that there was no attempt on our part to influence outcome of the RTC's investigation. In mid-February 1994, one of the lawyers on my staff told that the RTC had retained Jay Stephens to conduct its investigation of Madison. Mr. Stephens, as you know, had expressed bitter political opposition to the President in the past. When he resigned 475 as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia in early 1993, he did so with a political blast at the Administration. In response to this news, when I heard Mr. Stephens was hired by Ms. Kulka and Mr. Ryan, I shook my head in dismay and disbelief I said internally in the White House, the appointment of Mr. Stephens was ridiculous and unfair. I also said there was nothing we should or would do about it. The meetings and contacts I have described have given rise to considerable controversy. In my view, however, they were appropriate. I was acting to facilitate the proper functioning of the Exec- utive Branch and to enable the White House to perform its official duties. I was acting in the pursuit of legitimate public purposes. First, with respect to the September 29 meeting, Ms. Hanson provided the White House with notice of a referral that she predicted--quite correctly-the White House would be required publicly to address in the near future, Treasury understood that neither the President nor the First Lady was a subject of the referral. They were potential witnesses. 'There was obviously a concern that a partial or inaccurate leak might lead the uninformed to believe that because the Clintons were mentioned-or "named"--in the referral, they were somehow ,implicated in some improper conduct. In preparation for these hearings and those in the House, I have been questioned about whether I thought Treasury officials had provided the White House with so-called nonpublic information as if there was something illegitimate about an executive agency sharing nonpublic information With the White House. The White House receives nonpublic information all the time. The real question is whether the information is being properly transmitted and properly used for an official purpose and not for private gain or some other illegitimate purpose.
Pro Baseball Warm-Ups & Action
MS baseball catcher throwing ball back on sidelines of professional stadium; small crowd in stands indicates this is warm-up before game 01:22:22 LS catcher and umpire at the plate, taking warm-up throws from pitcher's mound as batter waits 01:22:28 (CSL 379-21) LS Dodger Stadium with batter up; he hits a single and crowd rises in cheer (reversed film can be corrected in mastering -- it looks odd to see batter run to third base) 01:22:35 LS batter (#26, uniform emblem looks like star on left front of shirt) taking off from plate (film position correct) rounds first to beat the throw to second with a slide; umpire gestures "safe!" dramatically 01:22:46 (CSL 379-22) LS skeet exploding on target range 01:23:06 (CSL 379-13) stealing base runner (#10, home team -- Dodgers?) is thrown out at second, with umpire making the call 01:23:10 MS catcher catching and throwing back warmup pitches 01:23:28 closer view of same 01:23:39 MS catcher in stadium taking warmup pitches as before; more of previous catcher
Cheering Crowd, Sports Fans
CU fans in large crowded stadium man and woman clapping and smiling with large crowd visible behind. Pan to more fans cheering (several takes) -- looks like football stadium 01:24:13 good close view of fans in granstand, cute little girl clapping, everybody smiling -- these could be a baseball or football spectators 01:24:24 CU man smiling as in first shot, pan to fans cheering and pumping fists in the air 01:24:38 CU women in stands yelling, crowd stands
Weeki Wachee
CU camp sign reading "Weeki Wachee" against blue sky; tilt down to two women in identical bathing suits walking to camera 01:26:28 MS woman sitting on deck chair in bathing suit and smiling 01:26:31 upside down shot of waterskiing exhibition (may be corrected in mastering)
Hundreds Homeless As Cloudburst Hits Fames European Spa
Rolling, blurry images Buildings destroyed and flooded with mud and rock washed into the streets by a wall of water, many lives imperiled.
Daring Drivers Defy Death In Thrilling Alpine Auto Classic
Shaky, rolling images Best european automobilists enter mountain race. Risk necks around steep curves at speed of 72 kilometers an hour. France wins with Germany second.
Break Speed Mark In 4th International Lifeboat Contest
Overexposure some images Norwegian oarsmen win world's championship in battle on the Hudson River under te auspices of the Neptune association. Create new record of 13 minutes, 48 seconds, for 2 mile course.
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(22:55:14) The White House is required to respond to numerous press inquiries that concern both the official acts and past private behavior of the President and the First Family. It is important that the White House be in a position to disseminate accurate information ''to the public to ensure that spurious or inaccurate allegations concerning the President are dealt with promptly and appropriately. That's our job, in part. Otherwise, confidence in the President and in the Presidency could be undermined without justification. The September 29 meeting furthered this public purpose. There have been suggestions at this inquiry that you're conduct ing, that assisting the White House to prepare itself to respond to press inquiries- about an investigation in which the President is ,named only as a potential witness--does not further a necessary "And important public purpose. -What this argument overlooks is the special problems the President faces and the unique responsibilities he has, problems and responsibilities not faced or borne by anyone else. The President, for example, is much more likely than anyone else be the subject of leaks. He is the focus of overwhelming media attention. He is the target of opponents who feel no hesitancy in misusing or distorting leaked information in an effort to discredit And, of course, he is required to continue to act, at the same time, at home and abroad, as the Nation's Chief Executive Officer. 476 In its recent report, the OGE-this report came out after my testimony before the House Banking Committee-the OGE recognizes that "the question of whether Ms. Hanson's disclosure [of the criminal referral] served an official interest raises a unique issue about the nature of the Off-ice of the President." It goes on to say that 44 matters that would be of only personal significance for other Executive Branch officials may take on official significance when the President of the United States is involved. White House staff has long been used in addressing press inquiries regarding essentially personal matters involving the President and the First Lady." And it concludes that dealing with press inquiries regarding the President's and First Lady's personal lives, including any involvement they may have had with Madison, is a proper White House function. I would also commend to you an article in yesterday's Washington Post by Mr. Cutler, my successor, entitled "Heads-Up History." Citing examples from the Administrations of Harry Truman, Dwight Eisenhower, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, he demonstrates how customary it has been for Government agencies with law enforcement responsibilities to inform the White House whenever a criminal investigation is launched that involves high Administration officials or the President himself And one reason for this line of precedent is expressed as follows by Mr. Cutler: "The President is the heart and brain of the Executive Branch. Like a hospital patient undergoing tests, he is monitored by a host of journalists who watch his every move and bombard him with questions. An unanswered question can be a story in itself, especially when it contains a hint of possible scandal. Presidents simply cannot afford to be uninformed or taken off guard," In sum, with respect to this issue, both history as reflected Mr. Cutler's article, and the OGE report of this past week clearly support the position that to inform the White House that the President may be a witness in a criminal referral-a referral almost certain to leak-serves a legitimate public purpose. It is a proper White House function to help the President to prepare himself, to respond accurately and promptly to press inquiries, to defend himself against misinformation and disinformation. Second, regarding the October 14th meeting, Treasury officials advised us of a press inquiry that they had already received and their plans for responding to it. By providing that information, the Treasury officials were assisting the White House In understanding the nature of the press' interest so that the White house could prepare itself to respond to further inquiries. This, as I have stated, is a necessary and important public purpose. There have been suggestions in this hearing that the limited information conveyed at the September 29 and October 14 meetings should not have been conveyed because it could have been put to an improper use. That is true of virtually all the information the White House receives on numerous matters and it is true, of course, of information received from time-to-time by other branches of Government. ` 477
Natives Rejoice as Last French Troops Evacuate Rhineland
High contrast, wavy images Thousands of civilians line the streets as soldiers march away toward the border - celebration that follows equals the riotous joy of the armistice.
New Masts Set In Old Ironsides After 33 Year Retirement
High contrast, wavy images The gallant fighting frigate, constitution, takes to the seas again just as she sailed the bounding main in the good old days of yore - Gov. Frank G. Allen puts a silver dollar under the mainmast as it is set in place.
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(23:00:31) The question, I submit, is not whether the information is subject to possible misuse. Of course it is. The question is whether it was, in fact, misused. Did anyone in the White House violate his or her oath by using this information for a purpose other than to prepare the White House to respond to press inquiries? There is not a shred, to my knowledge, a single shred of evidence, that anyone in the White House did that. What did happen is that the criminal referrals proceeded on their normal course. They were not stopped, they were not changed, they were not adversely affected in any way. And as of this time, they have been referred to the Independent Counsel for whatever action he ultimately determines to be appropriate. Finally, with regard to the February 2 meeting, the information regarding the statute of limitations process was no different from that already provided to a number of Members of Congress. In any event, there was no information provided in the February 2 meeting related to RTC procedures on the statute of limitations that White House lawyers did not already know and would not have been obvious to any experienced litigator. I already explained at some great length the significant public policy concerns with Mr. Altman's statement, that he was consider- ing recusal. It was appropriate to ask Mr. Altman-and that's all I did-to consider carefully whether he should recuse himself in a case involving the President where Mr. Altman was neither ethi- Cally nor legally obligated to do so. In Mr. Altman's case, it was all the more important to urge careful deliberation since he and oth- ers, such as Ms. Tigert, were being pressed by the President's polit- ical opponents to recuse themselves. As I have stated, I believed then, and I firmly believe now that Executive Branch officials and agency heads should not remove themselves from sensitive matters simply because of political advantage or expediency or for their own personal convenience, They should do their duty. Now, I feel strongly about the importance of the policy issues that were raised by these meetings. Others, I know, feel less strongly about these policies, They believe that there are other overriding considerations, particularly political ones. Mr. Cutler has a different view than I have. I respect these different views. But let us be clear. We are talking about legitimate differences of opinion. We are not talking about differences in ethical standards or standards of propriety. At the same time, as I as reach the end of this statement I want that you to understand that I agree that not everything we did in the White House or that I did as Whit HouseCounsel was perfect. We could, and should, have done better. I agree with Lloyd Cutler that there were too nany contacts, by too many people, about too many subjects--particularly in February 1994. I feel responsible for some of the lack of discipline reflected in some of those contacts. And I support Mr. Cutler's proposals for changes in White House procedures. All future contacts of the sort I have described should be lawyer to lawyer. We may have our differences today. But position I want you to understand that every moment I held the position of Counsel to the President, I sought , as I said in the beginning, to conduct myself 478 in the highest traditions of public service and of my profession. And as I've said earlier, I believe I did so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for suffering through this lengthy statement with me. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nussbaum. Let me be clear oil a couple of things, and then I want to make a couple of very direct points to you. When you were Counsel to the President, who did you report to in the White House? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I reported to the President and to Mr. McLarty, The CHAIRMAN. You reported to the President and to Mr. McLarty. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, The CHAIRMAN. So it would be fair to say when you spoke to any body, they might assume you were speaking for the President because you reported to him, certainly as a direct agent of his. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. I was a direct agent of his. I don't want to make it sound that I was the person in the White House who was closest to the President. The CHAIRMAN. No, I'm not saying that. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Or saw the President more than anybody else. The CHAIRMAN. You were the top lawyer. You were the legal voice for the President reporting directly to the President. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I was the legal voice to the President reporting directly to the President at times, yes. The CHAIRMAN. To my knowledge, we've never met or if we have we've never had the chance before now to get acquainted, and Mr. NUSSBAUM. We may have talked on the phone, Mr. Chairman, but I don't remember meeting you.
Gunnery Centennial Celebrated
High contrast and rolling images warefare on the ocean from the period of bows and arrows of the fourteenth century up to the big guns of today.
Hail King Christian At 1,000th Birthday of Arctic Domain
High contrast, shaky, grainy images Royalty of Denmark and the crown prince of sweden present at ceremonies attending the opening of parliament-unusual scenes show the law-making body of the year 930 in contrast with the solons of today.
Women's Tennis Title Won For 4th Year by Hellen Willis Moody
Film is jumpy with some distortion in imagery Women's Tennis Title Won For 4th Year by Hellen Willis Moody. She is welcomed home to america after taking fast and furious singles championship match across the water.
Use Floating Island As Landing Field For Passenger Planes
High contrast, rolling images Amphibian air craft swoop down and then taxi to the float, climbing right out of the water onto it by their own power. - 'The button,' as it is called, is 500 feet wide and is moored by anchors and heavy cables. A plane takes off from the water.
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(23:05:27) The CHAIRMAN. You're obviously a man of charm and intellect and from everything I know about your record in public service in the past and more recently, I think you brought the best of intentions and motives to the job. Let me just state that and stipulate that at the outset, I think you had no right whatsoever to inject yourself in any way, shape or form in Roger Altman's consideration of whether he should recuse himself. I think to say one word to him about it was improper on its face on two grounds. I want to tell you what they are, and I feel very strongly about it. Mr. NUSSBAUM. So do 1, Mr. Chair-man, The CHAIRMAN. He came to the White House that day on February 2nd in his capacity as the acting head of the RTC. The RTC is an independent agency. They don't report to you, and you have no authority as the lawyer for the President or as a person with strong personal opinions, and you obviously have them, to in effect cut into the activity or the decisionmaking of somebody heading that agency on any question, large or small. You just have no right to do that, in my opinion. You don't have that right. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I disagree with you, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I know you do, and you'll have a chance to re spond when I finish. I feel very strongly that you don't have that right, and I think to take it upon yourself to do that and to cross that line and to, in effect, interfere with the judgment or the think ing of someone who's heading an independent agency of that kind is not a proper function of the President's Legal Counsel. I think 479 on the first ground, you crossed a line that you yourself should not have crossed. Number two, I think you crossed it in an area where there was a case under consideration that, in fact, directly involved the President, and you were a representative of the President, for the President, in your role as his Legal Counsel. I think that was the second reason, as hard as it might have been for you to do it because you had very strong feelings, I understand that, I respect the fact that you have strong feelings because I have strong feelings, too. But that was one time when you should have bit your tongue, if you had to bite it in half, and not stick your nose into that decision. I think you had no right to do it on either ground. I would further add, I don't think Mr. Altman should have come over there, in a sense, putting the idea out there and allowing him to be in a situation where he could be subjected to responses by you, and I think clearly pressure by you-you may not have thought of it as pressure Mr. NUSSBAUM. I don't think it The CHAIRMAN. In my mind, it isn't important whether you thought it was pressure. It's important whether he thought it was pressure and he felt pressure and I'm convinced that he did. I think his behavior shows that. We've got other evidence that shows it. I think in a situation like this, because of your role reporting for the President-reporting to the President, being his chief lawyer, when you inject yourself into that process, it injects pressure, whether that is your intention or not, I think he felt pressure, and I think he responded to that pressure. Now, I don't think he should have-if he was going to come over and say that, he should have taken the action to recuse himself first, he should have written a letter, filed a letter and if he wanted to then inform you that it had been done, I think that's an entirely different matter. But to come over and announce so I think that was a mistake on his part, but to announce the intention and then to have you just barge right into that decision as if you had some right to weigh in on it is a misjudgment on your part. I don't think you had that right. Now, I understand you have a different opinion. I'm giving you ,my opinion because we spent a lot of time examining this, just as you have. We've heard a lot of witnesses. I think that a central part of the problem that we have here is the fact that there was an interference with that recusal decision. Mr. Altman had reached the decision. He testified before us, sitting right where you are now, that he had reached a decision to recuse himself. It was in .his briefing notes. After you ventilated your opinion, obviously strongly, and you make a reference here to it, when you have an opinion, you tend Ito give it strongly, and I felt that tonight just as you read your testimony. I think when you expressed that view as the President's lawyer and other people in that room reinforced expressing reservations about him doing it, I think he felt pressure. He behaved in a manner that demonstrates that because within 24 hours, he not only changed his mind and decided not to recuse himself, but he felt the need to come back to the White House and report that decision in a meeting and to ask for a meeting to do it. He should 480 not have done that either. Now, I know you don't see it, and that's part of what bothers me, is that you don't even see it yet. Mr. NUSSBAUM. What bothers me is you don't see important things too. The CHAIRMAN. I listened to you. I listened to you for 27 pages.
Belles & Dogs
LS stage with dancers doing odd little piece, women in crinoline hoop skirts swirling about with dogs on leash; the latter are actually actors in costume 00:06:00 WS stage with male dancer spinning and taking a bow; lights go off
Smoking Chimp and Sherlock
CU glum-faced chimpanzee with sucker in his mouth which looks like a cigarette 00:06:20 CU hand of human takes sucker from chimp 00:06:24 MS chimp wearing Sherlock Holmes cap seated in car, looks at self in mirror, and throws it off-screen (several takes) 00:07:12 MS two chimps in human clothes, one of them in Holmes hat may be arresting the other 00:07:22 MS detective chimp with large magnifying glass, walking to camera 00:07:36 MS two chimps in human clothes walking hand in hand
Cleopatra's Jewels
CU golden goblet and jewel chest, Egyptian style painting behind it. Woman's hands come in and open the box, which is filled with gold bracelets and the like. She takes out several interesting jewelry pieces and replaces them, then closes the box.
Dragonfly
(Tape 1) 02:11:56 Various shots of dragonflies 02:14:15 Dragon Fly C.U.
Tiger Swallowtail Butterfly
(Tape 1) Tiger Swallowtail Butterfly
Liquid Eye Treatment
MS woman in studio pours liquid from bottle into small glass, then raises it to her eye (several takes).
Grasshopper
(Tape 1) 02:17:17 Dew drops on leaf 02:17:54 Grasshopper crawling around leaves