Advanced Search
The President receives!
A little high contrast not too bad on imagery The President receives! - Mr. And Mrs. Hoover keep cool at their fishing retreat in the blue ridge mountains.
Girls prove best sandpatters!
A little high contrast and imagery Girls prove best sandpatters! - defeat boys to capture playground architectural contest. Sand sculpture, sand castles.
Old Ladies Short, Young Ladies Long, New Fall Coiffures
A little high contrast - not bad Martin, the hairdressing expert, demonstrates the proper styles for the coming season - shows how the 'girls' of 16 to 60 should wear 'em. - Sophisticates must wear 'em straight, is the decree.
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(23:25:30) Would someone have said wait a second, I know you said, well the President appoints the head of the RTC. He serves at the pleas ure of the President, but nevertheless, lie's carrying out certain very sensitive responsibilities. And would someone have said, you know, this head of the RTC ought not to be popping in and out of here at the White House all the time? Why doesn't lie go off and do his job running the RTC? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's right. And people should do their job running their agencies. And people-what I'm having difficulty getting across, as I watch these hearings on television in part, is people don't seem to be, to me, appreciating the notion that a person is obligated to do his duty unless he is legally or ethically required to recuse himself. Now, I think that's a fundamental principle, a significant Administration policy, and I see no problem with the White House mak. ing it clear to people, whether it's Roger Altman or Gene Ludwig who all of a sudden sua sponte decides to recuse himself because he reads a newspaper article. I do not think it is in the President's interest in his capacity as President to have a group of officials who run for cover every time some political opponent criticizes him, sends him a letter or some newspaper writes an article about him. If you have-if you are ethically or legally required to recuse yourself, and there are also rules with respect to that, do so. Do so promptly. But if you are not, you stay in your job and you do your duty and if you do not want to do your duty, you quit. You quit. You leave the Government. Senator SARBANES. Let me ask you, because I see my time is about expired here. I'm interested in Jean Hanson reporting to you on September 29 about the criminal referrals again. This was after the Waco meeting. Was it your understanding or impression that Hanson was bringing this information to you pursuant to a directive or an authorization from Altman, or was it your perception that Hanson was acting on her own in bringing this information to you? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I didn't-my answer to that, Senator Sarbanes, I just didn't think about it at the time. She didn't say she was coming pursuant to a direction from Altman. She did say, as I indicated in my testimony, that she thought Altman had sent me some material with respect to this matter previously, which was this fax that came in March of 1993, but I had no Senator SARBANES. But at the time she told you about the criminal referrals, she also told you that Altman had sent you some material about this matter before; is that correct? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. She did tell me that, which turned out to be this fax. But she didn't tell me and I didn't think whether or not she was coming at the direction of Altman. We didn't discuss it and I had no thought with regard to it at the time. Senator SARBANES. My time is up, The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes. Senator Mack. Senator MACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean no disrespect, but I appreciate what has happened here this week, there has been some-there's some releasing of tensions and I appreciate the way you've handled yourself. I also appreciate 485 the commitment that you have to protecting the Office of the Presidency. I mean, I think that comes through very, very strongly. Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's what I was trying to do. senator MACK. And you clearly did. I really only have one question and it goes to this point: Given your knowledge of the referrals, that is that the referrals were going to be made, and your discussion with Hanson and subsequent discussions with Sloan, why would you let the President of the United States meet with Governor Tucker on October 6th?
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(00:10:37) Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, did you see my staff here the other day, the members of my staff who testified? Beth Nolan and Joel Klein and Neal Eggleston. Senator BOND. Yes. Mr. NUSSBAUM. And Cliff Sloan. Senator BOND. Yes, I did. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Did you think they were fairly impressive people? Senator BOND. I think I'm asking the questions, Mr. Nussbaum, but there were people in the White House who looked to you for guidance and you didn't give them the guidance. Mr. Gearan at least was not a lawyer. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I think Senator BOND. Let me ask you a question. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Can I respond to you? Senator BOND. I'm going to have to--are you going to extend the time? The CHAIRMAN. I'll extend your time. I think he ought to have a chance Mr. NUSSBAUM. If I can just respond. I surrounded myself in the White House and the Counsel's Office with excellent people. Some of the other people in the White House, especially Mr. Lindsey, are people of superb character, superb judgment, good lawyers. I don't have to tell them that you shouldn't misuse inside information or nonpublic information you're getting. These people knew their responsibilities, knew their roles. I didn't have to go around telling these people not to do that and indeed, Senator, with all respect, I recognize you feel strongly about this, too. With all respect, Senator, there is not a single shred of evidence that anybody misused this information in any way. Not a single thread of evidence that documents were destroyed, or people tipped off. Those are just, in my view, Senator, irresponsible charges when somebody makes them when there is no evidence for those charges. And the fact that I didn't tell people not to abuse their oath, it ,Wasn't necessary. These people know that as well as I, perhaps even better than 1. Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, if I may resume. would comment on that. I would make the statement that it's I think it's significant you used the term "shred of evidence," and unfortunately, that raises a question because as you and I know if evidence has disappeared, it would be very difficult to prove. That is not the charge that that was done in this case, but the danger of it is the reason that nonpublic information on criminal cases shouldn't be shared. Now, Mr. Lindsey did say that he had a discussion with Mr Lyons. Let me ask you, does the same standard apply to judges? You cited Justice Rehnquist. Had President Clinton appointed Altman and this case, a civil case, come before Mr. Altman, would Altman as a judge have to disqualify himself? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, I don't believe so. Senator BOND. Well, that may be the standard in the Southern District of New York, Mr. Nussbaum, but I've got to tell you just recently, a year ago, I had to file a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri. Some of the judges I had previously appointed to State judgeships. Others, I had voted, as a Senator, to confirm. One of them, our sole contact, said that 22 years ago, he had made a campaign contribution to me. All of them disqualified themselves. Now, as an advocate, you can make a strong case if you are trying to defend somebody (00:14:12)(tape #10097 ends)
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(23:30:07) Mr. NUSSBAUM, I don't believe well, a couple of things. One I don't control-well, let me take that back. I don't control who the President of the United States meets with that's true, but I can offer recommendations and advice to the President and sometimes he will accept my recommendations and advice. I don't believe I was aware, Senator Mack-well, I'm not sure. I didn't hear in September or October about Governor Tucker being an object of the referrals. I read about that in the newspapers at some point in time, but I don't remember any discussions I had in that regard. In any event, I just don't remember that specifically. Senator MACK. Well, let me just comment for a second. I mean, remember now you had the first conversation-let me finish. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm sorry. Senator MACK. You had the first conversations I believe when Ms. Hanson came to the White House. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Correct. Senator MACK. OK. You had a conversation with her, you had asked Sloan to remain outside, you then asked him to come back in. Hanson reiterates the information she's passed on to you. You direct Sloan to be the contact. Sloan has a conversation with her the next day, goes over the details including the Clintons being possible witnesses. He refers that information back to you. Now I find it really difficult to believe that you didn't have that you say you didn't have that information at that time. Mr. NUSSBAUM. My recollection now is that I didn't-I don't remember having it, but I may have. What happened was, when I talked to Hanson on September 29th, Governor Tucker was not mentioned in that conversation. All she said was what I described in my statement. There was no mention in that conversation. I put her in touch with Sloan. Sloan was waiting outside because of the Waco meeting. I had him come back. He became the point of contact and they had conversations thereafter between September 29th and October 14th. I'll give you my recollection. I ported to me because that was me. don't recall, Sloan must have retypical, I'm sure he did report to Senator MACK. And he was the point man. Mr. NUSSBAUM. He was the point man absolutely and it's the way I operate my office, in a normal procedure Sloan would come back and tell me things. I just don't remember Sloan ever telling me about Governor Tucker. Ile may have, he may not have but what he learned in that regard Senator MACK. Mr. Nussbaum, I want to make another point here. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Sure. 486 Senator MACK. When we look at the notes of Mr. Sloan's conversation with Ms. Hanson on the 30th of September, it makes a clear reference to the Governor. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I understand that now, sir. Senator MACK. And I find it unbelievable that Mr. Sloan wouldn't have reported that to you. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Well, I can't dispute that. He may have. And it's logical that he would have. I just don't have any memory of it. But even if I did know it at the time, and I have-you know, it's logical that I did know it at the time if Sloan knew it because Sloan would have a tendency to report to me virtually everything he knew with respect to these things. The fact that the President met with Governor Tucker, one, I don't recall knowing of the meeting at the time. That's number one. And number two, I must say that even if I did know-I'm now sort of engaging in colloquy and speculation- even if I did know, I'm not sure I would have, at least at that point, prevented the President from meeting with him because it's one thing if I learn that somebody, is about to be indicted in some fashion. This is a criminal referral. I have enormous-to put it mildly, I have enormous confidence that the President if he knew about it-I didn't tell him at that point, I understand Mr. Lindsey later told him about the referral. I have enormous confidence that the President would not in any way improperly disclose any information. Senator MACK. Say that last part again. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I have enormous confidence that the President, when he met with Governor Tucker, would not improperly disclose any information. The President wouldn't do that. I know the President very well, He would never do such a thing. Senator MACK. Mr. Nussbaum, I hadn't gotten to that point. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I understand that. Senator MACK. But again what I find really difficult to understand is that one of the primary reasons, we have been told all during this hearing, about why it. was important for the White House to be aware of this information, was to protect the President. Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. Senator MACK. And it is-it's unbelievable to me that a meeting could take place with the Governor of Kentucky Mr. NUSSBAUM. Governor of Arkansas, his home State. Senator MACK. Excuse me, the Governor of Arkansas. It's unbelievable to me that you all would not have stopped that, Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, no, Senator Mack, with all due respect, I really do disagree. Just because somebody is named in a criminal referral, even as a potential target Senator MACK. But think of how it looks. OK go ahead.
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(23:35:26) Mr. NUSSBAUM. Just because somebody is named in a criminal referral as a potential target does not mean-this is from my experience from private practice-does not mean that that person will be indicted, something-you know, very few of the criminal referrals result in indictments down the line. If in fact somebody is on the verge of being indicted, then I think it would be incredible to let the President meet with that person, but merely the fact that somebody is mentioned in a criminal referral doesn't mean you say 487 to the President, you shouldn't meet with the Governor of your home State. I don't think that is the right thing to do. In any event, I played no role in that decision at that time. I don't remember it at that time. I didn't know about the meeting really. But I don't think I would have done anything about it even if I did know about the meeting. So I don't want to try to duck by saying I didn't know about the meeting. Senator MACK, Well, again, Mr. Nussbaum, first of all, I'm not an attorney so I'm not going to engage you in a discussion about whether that was something some other attorney would have done, but I must say to you, I really do find it hard to believe, (A) that you didn't have the information; and (B) you were unaware that the President was going to have the meeting. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator Mack, Congressman Rostenkowski was under investigation. Everybody knew it publicly. Do you think the President of the United States shouldn't have met with Congressman Rostenkowski to discuss Health Care and taxes merely because he was under a criminal investigation? You know Senator MACK. Wait just a minute. I think there is a distinction. We're talking about a case that potentially could involve the President with the Governor of Arkansas. Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, I don't think it Senator MACK. There was definitely a suggestion that they might be witnesses, there is a connection there. Mr. NUSSBAUM. The President was-the President was potentially a witness with respect to certain campaign contributions that went from Madison to the President's gubernatorial campaign. I didn't understand any connection between a possible case against Governor Tucker and the President. I think the Rostenkowski analogy is correct. Somebody is under investigation, something may occur, the President has to deal with political figures who may be under investigation. He shouldn't tell them anything about the investigation. He shouldn't discuss it if he knows anything about the investigation, but to say he shouldn't meet with him, Governor of his home State? I don't think that's the correct judgment to make. Senator MACK. Thank you, Mr. Nussbaum. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dodd. Senator DODD. Mr, Nussbaum, let me turn to page 16 of your prepared statement this evening. Let me, first of all, say thank you for being here tonight. It just struck me as you were going through this-am I on the right page? Here I may not be. Let me just ask the question. After the February 2nd meeting I understood you to say that you asked some people, possibly Ms. Hanson, whether or not Ms. Kulka and Mr. Ryan's names had been submitted to the White House for clearance. Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. Senator DODD. The thought that occurred to me when that in your statement was whether or not you expressed to either--I don't know who you had that conversation with, I've forgotten who you said you did. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Ms. Hanson. 488 Senator DODD. Ms. Hanson. Did you raise at the time any suggestion by just even raising the issue that the White House should somehow not consider these people because of Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, no, I didn't. I knew they were appointed. The)-, reason I said it at the time was I was worried about our processes. I thought that, as nominations came through for these kind of positions, the White House Counsel's Office would normally vet them play a role with them, give advice with respect to them. I have- for' example, personal knowledge-I didn't tell it to Ms. Hanson, other than I said I knew Ms. Kulka was a tough OTS litigator. Senator DODD. That's the reason I raised it. Mr. NUSSBAUM. If I would have known Ms. Kulka was being nominated for something I would have said she should to be looked at. You know, I ran into her in a case peripherally, I didn't know her I never met her in my life I don't want to overstate this, but she should be looked at. Our processes didn't seem to be function- ing well because I'd never heard of it and nobody in my office ever heard of it. That's why I asked Ms. Hanson whether or not the names were submitted to the White House.
Children Fight Forest Fire
Contrast is not too bad on imagery Children fight forest fire! Youngsters battle fierce blaze which guts 40-mile are and dooms summer camps.
Women workers man fishing factory!
High contrast, shadows on images Women workers man fishing factory! - Females preferred in bloater-packing plant. Industry, packing plant, fishing, fish, processing workers, labor.
Safety Hospitals
A little high contrast, grainy in imagery Shoot the chutes to safety! Hospital installs novel escape way for helpless patients. (evacuation, safety)
Blindfold barbers in shave race!
High contrast, a little dark on the images Blindfold barbers in shave race! - Prize tonsorialist chops by a hair in 1:45 minutes. Mens, hair, beauty culture, barber, shops, shave, contest.
Graduates Of Police School Win Acclaim in Precision Drill
High contrast on imagery Students show how well they have been trained by their instructors, go through gymnastic stunts in perfect unison. Police, gymnastics, law enforcement, calisthenics, physical fitness.
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(23:40:18) Senator DODD. You've been very candid with us and I think most of us like candor. All of us know the feelings when someone has been at cross-hairs with us politically, and all of a sudden we hear they're about to get a position and to be in a position of some influence and how we all react. I think everyone at this table, whether we agreed with what Mr. Stephanopoulos did or not-I'm not certain he does even-could certainly appreciate his reaction to the notion that Jay Stephens was going to be on the case. I don't think there is a Member at this dais who doesn't sympathize with those personal feelings because we've all been there. The question that I'm raising in a sense is you were candid enough to express to us your concern about Ms. Kulka, given the previous history with the law firm that you represented, and the reasons why. I'm asking whether or not that in any way was going to cause you or the White House in some way to interfere with her being Mr. NUSSBAUM. No. Senator DODD [continuing]. Approved for the job of handling the case with the RTC. Mr. NUSSBAUM. No. By the time I learned about Ms. Kulka on February 2nd, she was already hired as was Mr. Ryan and once I learned they were hired, even though I asked about our processes) I took not a single step to try in any way to unhire them. Senator DODD. OK let me go back Mr. NUSSBAUM. I acted with them just the way I acted with re- Spect to Mr. Stephens-when I learned about Mr, Stephens, when I did go a little bit ballistic internally in the White House. Some- body used the term about me so I'll use it about myself Senator DODD. We don't know anyone on this Committee that goes ballistic, I want to tell you, We don't have that problem in the Senate I want you to know. [Laughter.] Mr. NUSSBAUM. Even with respect to Mr. Stephens, I said we would and should not do anything about it. Senator DODD. I don't know which evening it was now that there's been so many of these--but Senator Sarbanes I thought 489 asked a very good line of questioning and I'm trying to recall, maybe it was of Mr. Altman, maybe it was of Mr. Steiner, I can't recall who it was. This is a very important meeting for this Senator anyway, the meeting of September 29th, because it relates to Mr. Altman's testimony before the Committee on the 24th on this conflict we have between what Ms. Hanson remembers as to why she was at the Waco meeting and what her job was to do there in terms of her discussing the matter of the referrals with you. What Senator Sarbanes' line of questioning had to do with is this; is Ms. Hanson or was Ms. Hanson the kind of person that would have initiated that kind of a discussion on her own. Senator Sarbanes can interrupt me if I don't ask this correctly, but given the fact that she was General Counsel there, and obviously had a line of authority but certainly moved around, you said you'd met with her, I think, a number of other times, talked to her a number of times. Is it inconceivable that Ms. Hanson could have had this conversation with you without being directed by Mr. Altman, if she had acquired the information directly from someone else and not Mr. Altman? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's a tough question. I don't Senator DODD. Do you understand the importance of it? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Oh, I understand the importance of it. Sort of a fight I want to stay out of right now. Senator DODD. You'll get a lot of allies. Mr. NUSSBAUM. It's-the answer is I don't know, I have great respect actually for both of them. I have respect for Mr. Altman, I've known him a while, I don't agree with everything he's done, but I have great respect for him. But I also have come to know Ms. Hanson to some extent, and I have great respect for her. I think she's- Senator DODD. Was your relationship The CHAIRMAN. I'm sorry. What were you going to say? You think Mr. NUSSBAUM, I think she's a woman of integrity and forthrightness and she's a good person. I mean I dealt with her a number of occasions when she was General Counsel of the Treasury and I was White House Counsel, so I have great respect for both these people and obviously there is some sort of conflict between them with respect to their recollection. Maybe he doesn't remember and she does remember it, maybe they're both telling the truth. That's what I hope is happening. Senator DODD, Let me ask you one more question. I think you've answered it to the best of your ability. But you knew her well enough that she wouldn't necessarily have been in awe of you and your position at the White House, she would have been comfortable based on previous relationships to bring up a subject matter with without having authority from someone else to raise it with .,;."You? Is that a fair statement? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, I agree with that. I'm not saying that happened here but I agree, yes. She wouldn't have been in awe of me. I didn't find very many people in Government in awe of me.
Fishing: Man standing in Row boat fishing
(On Preview Cassette #98001) Fishing: Man standing in Row boat fishing
Fishing: Men throw fish in river Fishing:...
Fishing: Men throw fish in river Fishing: Woman fishing
Fishing: Men throw fish in river
Fishing: Men throw fish in river
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(23:45:12) Senator DODD. I guess I don't have to ask about the February 2nd meeting, now do I? Let me run down there, This is a-the dates, September 29th, October 14th, February 2nd, February 3rd, 490 the 24th, March 1st, these are all the dates we've been hearing about now for the last 5 or 6 days. It's obviously the brackets here in time. We've heard a lot of people talk about where they clearly felt significant mistakes and bad judgment calls occurred. My own view is that the contacts, there were so many and too many people, were sloppy, The March 1st and 3rd ones, I thought, were irresponsible, to put it mildly, in terms of not getting back when there was clearly debate over what was said, and what was not said at this Committee's hearing on the 24th. I think that the whole notion of two hats, as Senator Sarbanes just said, invited its own set of problems. I'd like you quickly-because I see the light on here-but quickly to go back down here and identify where you think the principal mistakes were made. If you could redo this thing, where were the major mistakes made, where should we as a Committee be looking to say here are the things that should have been done differently? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Let me tell you there are two areas. One, as I said in my statement, we made mistakes in the White House. Mr. Cutler's report indicates some of those mistakes. There were too many meetings, too many people. I wrote a series of memos designed to prevent contacts between people in the White House and other agencies-regulatory, independent, Department of Justice, Department of the Treasury-with respect to investigative matters. I didn't want people from the White House communicating with any other agencies with respect to those matters unless the Counsel's Office was involved so we could make sure that it was an official, proper, public purpose. That system, I believed, worked well, by and large, from January 20, 1993, until about February 2, 1994. It broke down. It broke down, to some extent, in February 1994 when too many people in the White House were having too many conversations with people over at Treasury and RTC, with respect to this matter, without Counsel present. I should have been more vigilant and more alert and I take some of the responsibility, maybe most of the responsibility, for that. It broke down, Mr. Cutler's proposed rules with respect to all conversations shall just be Counsel to Counsel on these issues and no one else is involved, when there are issues with regard to investigations or adjudication, is a good rule. It means, now, even if Counsel is present you can't have such a conversation. The conversation has to be only Counsel to Counsel because if you have other people in on the meetings, then they think they can go out and talk on their own. So Mr. Cutler's suggestion is a good suggestion. That's where we made one mistake, which I'm sorry about, which Mr. Cutler and others in the White House I'm sure will correct as they should correct. There is one other area I must throw out to you that this Committee should exercise oversight and it would be hard to do things, and that is these enormous leaks that come out of these agencies, the RTC particularly, which are under your oversight supervision. Something must be done with respect to that issue. This is a serious problem in the United States, these leaks that come out of RTC and come out of other agencies, Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney's offices around the country from time to time., This is a serious 491 problem in our society and part of the reason we had these meetings was basically to defend ourselves against this kind of thing. This doesn't justify doing everything or anything because somebody is leaking but nonetheless, this is a serious problem. When you get a good man like Louie Freeh to head the FBI and he announces a policy that there shall be no leaks, anybody who is ,caught leaking will be fired-that's what I believe Director Freeh has said-I think he's going to take control over the Bureau in that sense and prevent leaks. That can be done by him. I I think Janet Reno is trying to make efforts in the Department of Justice, too. But there are too many agencies with investigative responsibilities such as the RTC, which do leak. Too many innocent people are hurt. And that is something this Committee, I think, with all due respect should consider. senator DODD, Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Dodd. senator Bennett. Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're quite a refreshing personality, Mr. Nussbaum.
Mountains: Olympic mountain
Mountains: Olympic mountain
Roads: Mountain Roads, P.O.V. inside car
Roads: Mountain Roads, P.O.V. inside car
Alaska: Snowy mountain
Alaska: Snowy mountain
Alaska: Lake
Alaska: Lake
Cactus: Wildflower
Cactus: Wildflower
Desert: Shrubby trees in
Desert: Shrubby trees in
Cactus: Blooming
Cactus: Blooming