Advanced Search
Old fashioned train - Knott's Berry Farm
Nursery rhyme theme park
Knott's Berry Farm
Ice Follies
Ice Follies
Drinks being poured out of focus
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:25:27) We now have in our possession some 2,400 pages of White House documents, and we have reviewed 8,500 more. Twenty-eight present and former White House staff members have appeared voluntarily to provide testimony to Committee staff. Nearly all of these staffers have also been interviewed, some of them multiple times, by other investigators. This is all on top of last year's hearings, during which we heard from 30 witnesses, printed 2,600 pages of testimony and deposed 38 witnesses, It is important, Mr. Chairman, I think, to remember that those hearings found absolutely, absolutely no illegal or unethical activity on the part of anyone at the White House. Throughout our investigation, Mr. Chairman, we've had the complete cooperation of the President, Many of us, of course, can remember instances in times not that long ago when this Congress had to fight tooth and nail to secure a minimum level of cooperation from the Executive Branch. That has not happened in this case at all. Serious questions have been raised, and they have to be answered in a serious way. But we should get the job done and then move on, in my view, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, let me mention to you briefly-and I'm sure my case is not substantially different than other Members of this Committee--I asked my office to go back and review in the past 61/2 months how many inquiries from my constituents I had received about this matter, To date, we have been able to find a total of phone calls and letters in my office on this matter totaling four inquiries in 6 1/2 months. Having said that, I suspect I'll receive dozens of calls and letters here this morning, but I wanted to place it in context of terms of 14 public interest. Now, public interest ought not to be the criteria by which we decide whether or not to pursue a matter that is serious, but I do hope we can get this ' job done and move on to what I know all of my colleagues share are the far more vital, important issues of this Congress, and that is, of course, dealing with our deficit is- sues and the problems of Medicare and Medicaid and the like, all of which deserve our attention. So, Mr. Chairman, I conclude where I began, and that is to commend you for how you set up and planned these hearings and to compliment my colleague from Maryland as well who has represented the Minority side on this issue and planned for our days ahead. But, again, I would hope sincerely, as Senator Sarbanes has said, that we keep in mind the context in which this specific part of our hearings will be conducted, and that is the highly charged emotional tragedy of a human being, an individual who attended kindergarten with the President of the United States and people in the White House, who had known each other, literally, all their lives. As we look at human reactions and human actions in the context of the hours immediately following that event, it is important that that be kept in mind as we examine this issue. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Dodd. We'll now turn to Senator Hatch. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Senator has named me as a Member of this Special Committee for the express purpose of considering matters within the jurisdiction of the Judiciary Committee, Consistent with this mandate, I intend to focus my inquiry to matters related to the Department of Justice's involvement in Whitewater. I also hope to address some of the legal issues surrounding the withholding of information by the President. I would like, first, to thank Chairman D'Amato for giving me this opportunity to attend this hearing. I look forward to working with him and Senator Sarbanes and other Members of the Banking Committee as we exercise our oversight responsibility with regard to this important matter. Before delving into the legal questions that are at the center of this hearing, let me extend my sympathies to the Foster family. We are often tempted to forget in our role as an oversight body that at the center of this investigation is the tragic death of a man who sought to serve his country and his President. There's simply no question that Mr. Foster's death was a tragedy. His family and friends have suffered terribly, and my heart personally goes out to them. We must remember, however, that Mr. Foster's suicide was the first of a high- ranking governmental official in the United States in almost 50 years. He was close to the President. As a Deputy White House Counsel, he was privy to the innermost workings of the White House. His death, therefore, was of great importance to our Nation. It cannot be classified as a routine suicide and, given the scope of the Whitewater investigation, demands congressional oversight. 15 Most troubling are the questions pertaining to whether the White House obstructed the Justice Department's investigation into Mr. Foster's death. It seems clear that certain White House officials entered Mr. Foster's office before law enforcement investigators could examine it and after Associate Attorney General Webster Hubbell and Chief of Staff Mack McLarty had ordered the office sealed for the Park Police investigation.
Masai Giraffe
Male Masai giraffes neck-fight, dominance is in question ON PART ONE
Apple Blossom Festival
Jumpy, shaky a little blurry in imagery and contrast Pippins by the score compete for the honor of reigning as Queen over the 18th Apple Blossom Festival, but Janet foster wins the crown. Queen Janet is crowned amid a riotous profusion of the lovely, delicate blooms.
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:30:40) We need to ascertain whether the subsequent removal of documents in the search of the off-ice was politically motivated, improper or illegal or, as some media accounts have suggested, simply the sign of panic and poor judgment. It is in the best interest of the United States and the Clinton Presidency that these questions be answered. Despite President Clinton's initial promises to deal openly with Special Prosecutor Ken Starr and the Committee, there appears to have been some reluctance to turn over all of the documents related to the Whitewater investigation. The President's personal lawyers have, for example, released a number of documents removed from Mr. Foster's office that are relevant to the Whitewater investigation. But this has been openness in word only, not in deed. The President, exercising executive or attorney-client privilege, has refused to divulge the contents of those documents and instead provided records comprised mostly of total redactions concealing, perhaps, important evidence. For example, this first document appearing on the video screen, number 87, cryptically states in longhand "get out of Whitewater." But the rest of the information contained on the page has been deleted or redacted, A second document, number 182 and 183, appears to be an official memorandum, but most of this information has been redacted. Interestingly, the document states that "unlike the $1,000 honorarium mentioned above, however, it seems worthwhile to omit Whitewater even if doing so raises a few questions." Questions have been raised, and what we want are the answers. Yet another document, number 93, in the possession of the President's lawyers, has a handwritten reference to "Whitewater." But the remainder of the document has been left out or redacted. Similarly, I might add a final document. Number 229 states 'Whitewater," but it's followed by a whole section that is missing with an "options" agenda at the bottom of the document. There are many other documents with redactions that have been provided by President Clinton's lawyers and the White House. This is in the opinion of many hardly the kind of compliance that we hoped for and is certainly not the openness promised by the President. The existence of these documents is troubling and raises several questions that we hope to answer during the course of these hearings. First, why did Mr. Foster, the Deputy White House Counsel, an employee of the United States, have a substantial number of documents relating to the President's allegedly private business affairs? I am interested and concerned that an official paid by the taxpayers would be working on private matters, particularly private matters that would set up a conflict between the White House Counsel's Office and the Department of Justice. If, in fact, Mr. Fos- 16 ter was working on Whitewater for the President, a clear conflict of interest may have been present. Second, why would the President claim an executive privilege over documents transferred out of the White House to the President's private law firm? We know that at least six of the documents controlled by the President's private lawyers have been withheld because of the claim of executive privilege. Executive privilege, as the Supreme Court defined in the United States v, Nixon, is limited to Government documents controlled by the President. In other words, the President can invoke the executive privilege to withhold State documents, such as those relating to military se- crets or those involving internal deliberations of the Executive Branch, but not to conceal his own legal difficulties from a govern- mental investigation. Why, then, is a claim of executive privilege made for certain documents in the possession of the President's pri- vate lawyers? If those documents are related to the Office of the President, then they should remain in control of the United States. The President cannot allow Presidential documents to be transferred into private hands, even those of his personal lawyer. In the wake of another White House scandal, Watergate, Congress adopted a statute to prevent the President from disposing of documents or transferring documents from the control of the United States. The statute, known, as the Presidential Records Act, requires that any documentary materials created by the President or his staff remain under the ownership and control of the United States.
Curious Gadgets Demonstrated At Inventor's Show
Shaky, dull in contrast and imagery The guys who can invent time and labor savers-not to mention a goofy gadget or so-are in session at the Hotel Edison. This time, they've got a machine that produces dimples, a one-man submarine and a few other unbelievable contraptions.
July 18, 1995 - Part 1
(10:35:29) We must ask whether the transfer of the documents to the President's Private Counsel violates the requirements that the documents remain in the custody and control of the United States. At least one court has plainly held that the Presidential Records Act "leaves no room for any governmental official to enter into agreements conferring ownership or control of Presidential records to any person or entity other than the United States." That's American Historical Association v. Peterson, and that was a 1995 case. Third, the President, through his lawyers, refused to release several of the documents retained by the White House on the basis of attorney-client privilege. Why? Why should the President claim attorney-client privilege over State documents ostensibly worked on by Mr. Foster? Perhaps an even more important consideration must also be raised, In light of the fact that the President released a number of the documents in his possession and in the possession of his private lawyers to the news media, has he not, in effect, waived any right to assert a privilege of any type? The entire Whitewater investigation has been plagued by Presidential declarations that everything relevant to Whitewater had been released, only to be followed by the discovery of additional unreleased documents. Finally, as documents trickled out of the White House, they have in large part been redacted. I question whether this is the type of openness the President promised the American people, and I look forward to ascertaining the answers to these troubling questions over the next few weeks. 17 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes, we have some more time, but let's keep it moving back and forth, so we'll yield to you. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY Senator KERRY. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes, Mr. Chairman. Almost a year ago today we began these hearings and, at that time, we examined the death of Vince Foster and determined in our wisdom, as each inquiry before us had, that his untimely and tragic death was indeed a suicide. Now, after millions of dollars, thousands of hours of Special Prosecutor interrogation, and thousands of hours of FBI inquiries and hundreds of FBI agents, hundreds of news stories and investigations, we are about to examine a second phase of events, the handling of documents. Clearly, the first round of hearings titillated and provided opportunity for the political joke and rumor mill. Conspiratorial lists were served up a full plate of fare for every paranoid theory imaginable to take flight, but the bottom line is- and the record shows-that no evidence came before this Committee to alter the sad conclusion regarding Vince Foster's death and none have yet surfaced, though still one inquiry continues. I have no doubt that the next days will serve as more grist for the mill. There will be embarrassments, and there will be contradictions, contradictions of memory, There will certainly be additional speculation and considerable questioning of how some in high positions made some of the judgments or acted the way they did. In the end, though, it is my hope that we, and much more, importantly the American people, will fairly judge these actions and this record in the light of the very difficult human moment the witnesses found themselves in, which both Senator Sarbanes and Senator Dodd have described. I believe that this Committee acquitted itself well in the first round of hearings chaired by Senator Riegle. Our fellow citizens don't want these hearings to be a partisan circus. They don't want us wasting money on a political witch hunt or creating theories out of whole cloth, They want a fair and politically neutral search for the truth, and all of us who are spending so much time rhetorically dealing with Government waste certainly don't want to spend taxpayers' dollars scoring points against each other. That's not what the hearing process is supposed to be about, it's not what the United States Senate is supposed to be about, and it's certainly not what the American people want. They want and they deserve the truth.
Mfg. Turpentine from pine Trees
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE # 210686A Manufacturing of turpentine from pine trees
Manufacturing of turpentine
Men moving ice blocks
Int. factory - (making tires)
Temperature guage
Int. auto mfg. plant
Automotive industry
Int. motor company factory
Exterior views of different types of plants
Jet motor
Auto plant
Making car tires