Advanced Search
Unique Trapeze Act
Unique Trapeze Act - Women swing by teeth. MS inside the big top as women in pink costumes are lifted into air by man in support frame pedaling a cycle contraption, once the momentum is going the women fly around hanging from their teeth, they look like butterflies as they spin & lift the arms of their winged costumes. the wings are eventually shed and the act returns to the ground. MS trapeze act with women in pink costumes spinning by their teeth.
Ext. circus (clowns)
Circus - people - outside tent
Lights on ride -night
March into and in tents - circus
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:10:00)(tape #10103 begins) people who don't have a legitimate Government 497 interest-I should note I don't agree with you that you had a legitimate Government interest. Number two, you can't do anything to destroy evidence or get rid of any evidence, and I don't think anybody here is willing to tell us under oath that documents didn't disappear, that things weren't altered, that files weren't searched on the basis of the nonpublic information which apparently, according to your testimony, not only did the President know, but it also went to Mr. Lyons. It may well have gone to Governor Tucker; it may have gone to others. (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) and keep them out of jail that what Mr. Altman did was proper, but if you wrote an ethics exam in a law school and said that in those circumstances a man in Mr. Alt --- - - position would not have to disqualify himself, I think you would get a failing grade because Mr. Altman was in the same position as Jay Stephens, where it would have been ridiculous and unfair for him to act upon it. Mr. Altman was not trying to duck his job, he was very aggres- sive in his job and he even faxed you information. Finally, I would say that when you talk about the need to tell the President everything because the President is so important, that is probably the most awe- inspiring statement of omnipotence that we have heard since, was it Louis XIV who said, "The state, it is I"-l'etat c'est moi. You have, I believe, contributed to the ethi- cal lapse that the White House suffered from so greatly in the last year.
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:15:18) Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, you know Senator BOND, Consider that. Mr. NUSSBAUM. [continuing]. If you're going to flunk me on an ethics exam then I think you'll have to flunk also the ethics advisors of the Treasury Department who told Mr. Altman that he's not legally or ethically required to recuse himself, you're going to have to flunk the OGE-the Office of the Government Ethics-maybe you, as a professor grading these exams, are correct and I'm wrong, the OGE is wrong, the three ethics opinions of the Treasury Department are wrong. But there's another thing which you are saying which is so interesting because going in here I thought I was taking the Republican position or the position the Republican party has taken in the past with respect to the Special Counsel's statute. Senator Bond, the Republican party has opposed the Independent Counsel's statute, believing that an Attorney General appointed by the President could act, could perform her duty even with respect to cases against the President or high Executive officials. Now Congress has passed an Independent Counsel statute because it doesn't take that position. Most Republicans took that position. I happened to agree with that position. It sounds like maybe you don't agree with that position. Under that position, an appointee of the President would be fully entitled to investigate the President or to investigate other high officials of the Executive Branch. An appointee of the President 499 would be perfectly free and should do his or her duty. I have no doubt that Janet Reno, for example, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, would conduct an appropriate investigation of the President, of me, of you, of anybody, if it was the right thing to do. I didn't think we needed an Independent Counsel statute and man of your colleagues in your party also felt we didn't need an independent Counsel statute, When you tell me that Roger Altman cannot-it's just like Jay Stephens because he was appointed by the President-to me that totally undercuts and undermines the position taken by the Republican party with respect to this issue and the position I happen to agree with. Senator BOND. It's a position taken by Mr. Altman and, finally, he was able to act on it, The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry. Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, Good morning, Mr. Nussbaum. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Good morning, Senator. Senator KERRY. I want to associate myself, first of all, with the questions asked by Senator Sarbanes about the duality of the hat. I want to say to you, sir, that these are serious proceedings. We may joke here and there about being here late or whatever, but we're here and we know why we're here and it's a responsibility for all of us that we care about. I've listened to your full statement, I've listened to my colleagues and I really have to say to you, Mr. Nussbaum, your last page statement, I respect these different views, but let's be clear we're talking about legitimate differences of opinion- We're not talking about differences in ethical standards or standards of propriety. I disagree with you, based on the record. We are talking about a difference in an ethical standard and a standard of propriety. I must say to you, sir, and I say this as kind- ly as I can, but as strongly as I can, too, I find your arguments le- gally, ethically and politically indefensible, They are legally inde- fensible because you violated your own standards. You say on page 6 that we recognized that such contacts were potentially sensitive and as a general proposition they should not occur. It's sensitive enough to have called Mr. Eggleston in, but not sensitive enough to have known immediately that Mr. Ickes and Ms. Williams had no business being there to discuss this legal matter that belonged to you alone. fraud in Second, it is legally, I believe, wrong because there is a your argument. You are suggesting to this Committee that you didn't believe in "de facto or de jure recusal, ' yet Mr. Altman made it as clear as a bell to you in that meeting that it was de facto. You accepted that. You never said a word against it. You knew, according to his own testimony, that he was not going to have anything to do with this. So sworn duty, sworn duty. I mean, come on. He wasn't going out there to do his sworn duty because his sworn duty was not to do a "de facto recusal." But you accepted it was a "de facto recusal." He told you he was doing a "de facto recusal." And witness after witness has come to this Committee and said it didn't make a difference because he wasn't going to make a decision. He was not performing his sworn duty. 500 Mr. NUSSBAUM. I remember him saying--can I-if I'm interrupting Senator KERRY, I want to just finish and then I'm going to give you a chance Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm sorry.
Game Birds - Scaled Quail
TAPE 1 Scaled Quail on brush pile
Game Birds - Bobwhite Quail
TAPE 1 Flock of Bob Whites by Quail feed
Game Birds - Scaled Quail
TAPE 1 Scaled Quail feed and run Scaled Quail run about Scaled Quail in a tree
Game Birds - Ring Necked Pheasant
TAPE 1 Female Ring-Necked Pheasants in cornfield Male and Female Ring-Necked Pheasants in brush and cornfield Male and Female Ring-Necked Pheasants in weeds Male and Female Ring-Necked Pheasants in cornfield running
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:20:23) Senator KERRY. Now, ethically, my other colleagues have talked about some of that, and I point, as they have, to a very, very clear statement in your own standard that you have read to this Con,. mittee tonight, and this morning. The standard you gave us is it will result in an appearance of conflict. Now you cite to us these other groups that have made a finding. I've read every one of their statements. I found them wanting. Because they, like you, stuck with-just stuck to the legalese and this is not a business just about legalese. You know, some Senators refuse PAC money. Some Senators don't take gifts. Some Senators never took honoraria. The law didn't require it, but people perceived what you have cited as a higher standard. I respectfully say to you that not to have been sensitive, ethically, to both the friendship, and no one has mentioned this, but also to the fact that everybody in this town talked about Mr. Altman as potential future Secretary of the Treasury. For him to walk into the White House after everyone he talked to had helped him make up his mind to recuse himself and it was their opinion and his that he should recuse himself, you should have said Roger, fine, it's your decision. But no, you're sitting here saying I kept telling him the bottom line was it was his decision, but a whole bunch of stuff comes in between from his boss, from his White House. So any sensitive employee to the future is going to be saying well, gee, they don't really want me to do this. Now, Senator Shelby said to you it was a mauling. I'm not going to characterize it as a mauling. I don't know what it was. All I know is this public employee had made up his mind to recuse himself. The people who worked for him thought he was going there to do it, He went in there to do it and he told you he was doing it and he came out of there not doing it. That's the bottom line. That's the bottom line. I agree with the Chairman, you should not have done anything. Instead, there was a different opinion. Then, ultimately, this man, after all of this notion of accepting sworn duty, recused himself for The New York Times editorial boy, Howell Rains. Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's right. That's right. Senator KERRY. So this is a serious issue here for this Committee to think about what happened in the context of politics, the ethics, and sort of the legal reasoning that you've given us. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Doesn't that show, Senator, why he recused himself? Senator KERRY. Beg your pardon? Mr. NUSSBAUM. When he recused himself in a conversation with Howell Rains of The New York Times, doesn't that really show Senator KERRY. It shows a lot of things. Mr. NUSSBAUM. It shows that he didn't want the public relations heat that would come from acting in this matter and, Senator Senator KERRY. Mr. Nussbaum, that is where you are ethically failing here because we live with public relations heat every day. It's the bread and butter of our life. 501 Mr. NUSSBAUM. Right, and you should take it. Senator KERRY. And it is a reflection of the public which is what this country is all about. What happened, in this case, is you were dealing with legalese and not a sensitivity to how the public would perceive this, which is ultimately what motivated him to react, which is ultimately what keeps this country straight and true as a democracy. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, you and I have a profound philosophical difference here. Senator KERRY. If you think you could ram down the throats of Americans the notion that there was not somehow an appearance of a problem in his being there given the fact that he had this close relationship, then I think you are just missing the standard by which we're living in this community today. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm missing it, the OGE is missing it, his ethics advisors are missing it Senator KERRY. No, because I'll tell you what, if you read the OGE report, the OGE report specifically said they could not rule as to Mr. Altman's behavior with respect to the September 29th transfer and they only ruled, if you'll read page 2, as to the Treasury employees, not the White House employees. Don't throw that report at me again. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator Senator KERRY. That's what it says. Mr. NUSSBAUM. It says what it says, Senator, Senator KERRY. I'll read it to you. Could I have the report, please? I mean, let's-you know, you want to say it says what it says. Let me read it to you. Page 2, second paragraph: Because your authority as Secretary of the Treasury relates to employees of the Department, the report of the Inspectors General is necessarily focused upon the activities of officials of the Treasury Department. For that reason our analysis is not intended to cover, nor should it in any way reflect upon, the actions of individuals who are employed by the White House. We could put that in the record at this point.
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:25:34) Mr. NUSSBAUM. 1. don't object to that, Senator, but the report also indicates that Mr. Altman had no legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself. That's what Senator KERRY. I agree, it does reflect that. Mr. NUSSBAUM. And that's what Mr. Altman told me. Senator KERRY. But I also read that they took out each of the sort of legal, codified concepts of recusal and frankly, they had to do with a public employee affecting the private sector or a public employee affecting private gain, private decision, but it didn't reflect any applicable notion of ethics with respect to a public employee's impact on another public institution, particularly one that was involved with an investigation. And you yourself were sensitive enough about the investigation to state in your own policy that you shouldn't meet except rarely. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, he came into our off-ices on Yebruary 2nd and he said I'm inclined to recuse myself, but I am not legally or ethically required to do so. I've been told that and I don't believe it. And I respectfully, Senator, disagree with you. Senator KERRY. You're entitled to and I'm not going to lambast you. Mr. NUSSBAUM. When somebody says that to me, I think then you have to do your duty. And if there's political heat, if Howell Rains is going to write editorials against you, if Republicans are going to criticize you, so be it. Senator KERRY. So do you still believe he should not have recused himself? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, sir. Senator KERRY. Well, then, I'm very happy you're not serving as President's Counsel today. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Domenici. Senator DOMENICI. First, let me state for the record, Mr. Chairman, that I agree with you and I might also state that, all things considered, your statement tonight is very courageous and these whole hearings have been a testimony of your fairness. Now we have a testimonial beyond your fairness in conducting matters here, your straightforwardness and integrity, and I thank you very much for it. Mr. Nussbaum, I trust your integrity as much as anyone else's, and I had a lot of difficulty, as I heard you talk about the duty to sit rule. Frankly, you almost remind me of the law professors we have who taught a different kind of law than today, and you might be that kind of lawyer. I'm not at all sure you'd be out there seeking cases like some of them are, which you and I learned was champerty when we went to law school. But, frankly, it bothered me that you carried an analogy of a duty to sit rule to this situation. Now, frankly, there is no longer a duty to sit rule; that rule has been changed by statute. Title 48, section 455 no longer includes the duty to sit rule, but rather says, it obliges judges to recuse where their impartiality, and now I will, quote, "might be reasonably questioned." Now, frankly, I believe" that is exactly-that is exactly carried over to the last sentence of the so-called ethics rule that you read to us in our statement. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I agree with that. I agree it's carried over there--I and I also believe Senator DOMENICI. I'm going to let you answer but I want to fin- ish my thoughts. I'm not at all sure even now, having heard you, my self. But about the total reason for Roger Altman not recusing him I am convinced more than ever, that he shouldn't have asked you,'; if he did, and you should not have told him, if you did. My own conviction is he went there convinced that he was going to recuse himself.
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(01:10:27) It's the standard. Is it right or is it wrong? There have been countless decisions made in the body in which we serve which were terribly unpopular in the hour in which they were made and played a significant and positive role in this country's history. I would hope that as we consider these decisions, it's been said here over and over that too much of what has guided this Administration has been its preoccupation with what the morning headline was going to look like rather than what history might write. And so, Mr. Nussbaum, I feel far closer to your philosophy, if you will, on this regard, than I do with those who would suggest that public perception is important. My God, we all live with it here, as one of my colleagues said. But we have to be far more diligent in following the rule of what's right if we're going to succeed. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Thank you, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry. Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I will be very, very brief. I want to make it clear. I had a note to myself and in the course of 7 minutes we get distracted and in our exchange I got distracted, but in no way in my comment when I said I thought you were legally wrong, did I mean to imply, and I say this to my colleagues, that the question you raise is not a legally valid one. I was saying I thought it was legally invalid here. The two reasons I said, because of the "de facto recusal" and because the standard didn't fit to Mr. Altman. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I understand, Senator. Senator KERRY. But I do believe the question is, in generic form, absolutely legitimate, and I agree with my colleagues when we have to think out. And the second thing I want to say to you is I 514 have enormous respect for the gumption and tenacity with which you've sat here and expressed your opinion. It is very refreshing indeed, wonderful to have somebody who believes something and who sticks with it and doesn't simply sweep away. The final comment is, in no way am I suggesting that we should become-put our finger up and measure where it goes-but there is that other standard above it which you have to measure, which you're going to be tested by. Sometimes we're going to fall on our faces and sometimes we're going to meet it. And I just think it's not an easy one because it's shifting pretty constantly. I have enormous respect for your opinion. We just disagree on that, but thank you. Mr. NUSSBAUM. And I respect you, Senator, and I thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Nussbaum, I think it's my sense and the feeling that's been expressed, in part, by each of the three Senators who just spoke and shared by, I suspect, virtually every Senator here, certainly shared by me in terms of respect for you individually. We have a difference of opinion on this and on these facts, but I would not want that to be misunderstood as something personal, other than a disagreement on case facts and on a circumstance. As I said at the outset, you've given very important service to this country on more than one occasion. You deserve great respect for your ability and for your beliefs, and I would not want my earlier comments, which I hold very strongly, to be interpreted in any other way as it relates to the points I've just made. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, let me say that in the final analysis, everybody is responsible for his or her actions. We're not talking about just one act, an attempt to lay off everything on Bernie. Bernie did it. You know, that would be an easy thing. And so, while there may be a disagreement as it related to your advice, you didn't start the ball rolling. Let's understand. You didn't go out and solicit and say come in. I think the record is quite clear on that. I think no matter how you look at it, the fact is you stated your opinion. Most of us have a disagreement With your opinion on that.
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:30:05) Now, there's a lot of testimony to that, and I know you don't agree with it but there's a lot of testimony that he went there al- ready committed in his mind to recuse himself, The Legal Counsel for that agency, Ms. Kulka, she even said, "I can't understand why he isn't resigning." The Legal Counsel for the Department of the, Treasury, which has more of a relationship to him and a relation-, ship more unburdened by other things, she told him that he should recuse himself. Secretary Bentsen indicates he should recuse him- self so the one person that changes this, as I see it, is You, al- though I would think that perhaps Harold Ickes was agreeing With you. I would assume that some of the other people in that room might have been agreeing with you, if not verbally, clearly they weren't 503 taking his side of this. But let me tell you, you've got to understand what bothers us, and it's not just your duty to serve notion. I mean, this man was working with the First Lady on Health Care. He knew that she was very burdened by this Whitewater matter. He was close to the President, although perhaps not as close as some people may have been saying. But now he is going to be impressed because you speak for the White House and everything that it stands for. And essentially, I'm not prepared to conclude tonight that you are the sole reason for his changing his mind and thus putting us in this predicament where for days we're trying to find out what happened, what's behind all this. Maybe we might conclude tonight that it was your advice to him that's behind this and he never even bothered to be as simple as that, that you convinced him as a representative of the President. Frankly, from everything I can glean here, you are a significant part of why he didn't do what in hindsight it seems very, very much the case that he really should have done. It would have been in the interest of the President and the Presidency, which you are so concerned about protecting. I don't have any quibble with your deep concern about duty; I think that's an admirable quality. We don't hear it enough in the United States anymore. But I don't think that's the sole reason why he should recuse himself. Legal duty isn't the only reason. Ethical duty might not be the only reason. But, frankly, I think it was not ethical for you to tell him that, in fact, he should stay on when there are many other concepts that should have been considered. Now you can respond and use as much time as I have left. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, obviously I respect your view. I don't agree with you. I profoundly disagree with your view. It seems I disagree with views on both sides of the aisle. There's an evenhandedness about this. Senator, he told me he was not legally or ethically required to recuse himself He told me he had an opinion to that effect from an ethics advisor. That opinion was then confirmed later in February with two other opinions. Senator, when that happens, when that comes into play, once you make that assumption-maybe you don't want to make that assumption-you don't really want to make the assumption that he wasn't legally or ethically required to recuse himself, but just make it with me for a moment because that's what he told me and that's what his ethics advisor told him. Once you've made that assumption, then your duty to do your duty comes into play and now, the OGE, the Office of Government Ethics, a nonpartisan group headed by a person-respected person appointed by President Bush agrees with me and doesn't agree, with all due respect, with a number of the Senators here tonight. What it says, and what I quote on page 13, in effect, is that if a person-it says this: That if a person has no legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself, then that person has to act, has to do their duty. That is how I look at it. That's how the OGE looks at it. That's how the ethics advisors, I think, to Deputy Secretary Altman looked at it. It's not how you look at it. It's not how Mr, Cutler looks at it. It's not how Secretary Bentsen looks at it. Maybe I 504 think I'm right. You think you're right. History will determine who is right.
Game Birds - Willow Ptarmigan
TAPE 2 Male Willow Ptarmigan and young sit on roadside Male Willow Ptarmigan and young feed Male Willow Ptarmigan CU Bill, feed on willow
Prairie Dog
TAPE 1 Prairie Dog give alarm call
Grey Squirrel
TAPE 1 06:45:28 Grey Squirrel with white tail tip
Muskrat
TAPE 1 Muskrat feed and groom
Gray Squirrel
TAPE 1 08:36:13-08:37:21 Gray Squirrel at pond edge 05:58:38-06:02:38 Gray Squirrel at ponds edge drinking Gray Squirrel at pond with perfect reflection
Muskrat
TAPE 1 Muskrat on log, deposit scat, dive Muskrat on log scratch Muskrat on log scratch Muskrat on log, deposit scat, scratch, dive
Woodchuck
TAPE 1 Woodchuck and farm buildings - feeding Woodchuck feed Woodchuck feed Woodchuck comes out of burrow and feed
Muskrat
TAPE 1 Muskrat swim
Prairie Dog
TAPE 1 Prairie Dog Feeding Prairie Dog in burrow CU Prairie Dog tail jerk