Advanced Search
Concert - exterior with audience and without audience
Music center models
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(11:35:26) With that in mind, I have examined the depositions and reviewed the documents. I will say, Mr. Chairman, there are some inconsistencies in various recollections of what happened on the night of July 20, 1993 and the next few days. Based on those inconsistencies, I think we can draw one of two broad conclusions from the testimony. One alternative is that within one single hour of finding out that their beloved friend and co-worker had committed suicide, White House staff plotted an elaborate conspiracy which they executed in 45 minutes, a conspiracy which no investigator to date has yet been able to uncover. Or, Mr. Chairman, we can conclude that a grief stricken and distraught collection of very human people made some decisions which we, in hindsight, might question. There is one aspect of the depositions that was especially poignant to me: The number of times witnesses testified to the emotional distress at the Foster family home and the White House. Words kept recurring: "Visibly upset," "distraught ... .. sobbing," "exhausted," "physically spent," "grief stricken," "total shock" and "shaken." One seasoned police official described the scene at the White House as one of "total disbelief and nearly nonfunctional." That is how people react when they lose a loved one. As I read those depositions, I asked myself, how would we react if one of our most trusted and loyal staff members committed suicide? Would we demand that their issue files about the Banking Committee be searched for a suicide note? Would we disregard their family's concerns about the privacy of their loved one's personal papers? We would not do that, Mr., Chairman, Real people in real places with real grief do not behave that way. That is how I approach this unhappy situation. Mr. Chairman, I hope that we can keep some perspective as we go through these hearings and hear the testimony. Lets not add to the chilling thought that, here, ruining people is considered sport, The CHAIRMAN, Thank you, Senator. Senator Bennett. 34 OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT Senator BENNETT Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have enjoyed the opening statements and the scope that we seem to be getting into here. I was interested when Senator Boxer quoted from The New York Times and that stimulated me to go to the editorial that appeared in this morning's Times, and I would like to quote from it because it summarizes my view of the scope of this thing. The Times begins: When the matter now known as Whitewater first arose during the 1992 Presidential campaign, candidate Bill Clinton called it no big deal, hut he and his staff in the campaign, and later at the White House, stonewalled on the details that would have revealed whether he and Mrs. Clinton were telling the truth about their finances. Today's renewed Senate hearings on Whitewater are the bitter- fruit of those original evasions. For reasons known but to them, the Clintons have offered tricky answers that brought confusion rather than clarity to their land deals with the high-rolling Arkansas banker and campaign supporter named Jim McDougal. The editorial goes on to say: For 3 years now, the Clinton team has acted as if anything connected to Whitewater was a can of worms that no one had a right to open. It has denounced as political enemies anyone who expressed reasonable curiosity about who paid what moneys and for what purpose. Some of those in charge of the inquiry are indeed their political enemies, yet they are only seeking what should have been offered- voluntarily. The editorial summarizes this with a single sentence that, in the classic line, I wish I had been able to write myself- One of the enduring mysteries of this Presidency is why Mr. Clinton has been willing to absorb such tremendous political damage rather than authorize a full accounting of the Whitewater deal. Senator Sarbanes summarized it well, however, when he said to-, day's focus is not on this overall aspect that we've heard so much about in the opening statements. Today's focus is on the proper handling of the documents in Vince Foster's office. Some have asked why we need to do that so long after the fact, as the death of Mr. Foster was a personal tragedy of a man who was well respected and well liked.
2 Die 11 Hurt, In Crack-Up Of Coast Airliner
Rolling, light and dull in contrast and imagery The noted explorer and three other persons are fatally injured when an air liner crashes in the mountains near Newhall. Mrs. Johnson and eight other persons are also hurt in the tragic accident.
Nurture Oysters For Future
Jumpy, shaky a little blurry in imagery and contrast The calendar shows that the months with 'R' have flitted by, but the oyster fleet is still busy. As the season for eating bivalves closes, the fishermen dredge the beds, seeking 'seed' oysters to assure plentiful future crops.
100,000 March In Record Labor Demonstration
Jumpy, shaky a little blurry in imagery and contrast Labor unions and athletic organizations put nearly a hundred thousand men and women into the streets for a monster celebration of may day. The huge defile salutes President Lazaro Cardenas as its serried ranks pass his reviewing balcony.
Outdoor Diving Season Opened With A Splash!
Jumpy, shaky a little blurry in imagery and contrast The country's best women divers pit their skill in spectacular leaps from the high board with masculine rivals in a meet that opens the 1937 season in fine style. An eleven-year-old contestant proves that youth will have its day.
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(11:40:19) The reason we need to do that, Mr. Chairman, is because overlaying the tragedy of Vince Foster's suicide is the unique position that he held in the White House. We've heard of his close personal relationship with the Clintons. He not only handled a series of complicated and sensitive matters for the First Family, personal and public, but lie also held the highest level of security clearance with access to the most confidential and privileged communications in the White House. Given Foster's unique position within the White House, I'm not comfortable with the assertion that the appropriate amount of sensitivity was shown in dealing with materials contained in his office, particularly when one considers that some of the senior members of the White House staff at the time had the suspicion that he might have been the subject of an extortion attempt. We now know that is not true, but that existed at the time. Let's go beyond the night of his death. I can be sympathetic to the reaction of people at the time of his death. Here is what happened several days later. On July 22, 1993, Mr. Nussbaum engaged in two important sorting exercises. The first document quick shuffle took place in the presence, but not with the blessing, of independent law enforce 35 ment agencies. The second, more private performance took place later that day with Ms. Maggie Williams in Mr. Foster's office after the Department of Justice and Park Police personnel had left the White House. The personal documents of the Clintons which Mr. Nussbaum sorted later in that day were taken to the Clintons' private residence in the White House where, it's been asserted, they were never reviewed by the Clintons. Now, having an accurate accounting of the documents contained in the Foster office is central to the resolution of many of the questions we are charged with answering. Three different witnesses have given statements regarding the deposition of a portion of the documents which were divided after the investigators from the Department of Justice and the Park Police left the White House on July 22, 1993. This second sorting took place tinder the control of Ms. Maggie Williams, the First Lady's Chief of Staff, and Bernard Nussbaum, the General Counsel of the White House. This Committee's interest in preserving the chain of custody of the documents which came from Mr. Foster's office is to ensure that no documents were either destroyed or tampered with. It's important to establish who had access to them and when and where. In her deposition to the Committee staff, Ms. Williams asserts that she was called by Bernie Nussbaum to pick up a box of the Clintons' personal documents and send them to Mr. Bob Barnett at the law firm of Williams & Connolly. She states that when she found Mr. Nussbaum, he had virtually finished most of the sorting. Ms. Williams then called Hillary Rodham Clinton and told her she, Ms. Williams, would take some personal files that were to go to Williams & Connolly to the Clintons' private residence in the White House although, Ms, Williams maintains, Mrs. Clinton never asked and Ms. Williams never told Mrs. Clinton to which personal files she was referring, Then Ms. Williams took the files, with the help of Tom Castleton, an intern, to the private residence. She has no memory of telling him about the contents of the boxes, other than that they were private papers. Five days later, Ms. Williams arranged to transfer the information to Mr. Barnett without, she says, any prior instructions from either the First Lady or the President. So her version is she took them to the residence without the First Lady asking for them and removed them from the residence without the First Lady or the President having made any comment about them. Now, Mr. Nussbaum has a different recollection of these events. He maintains that he called Ms. Williams and that she helped him for less than half an hour to identify the Clintons' personal files still contained in Vince Foster's office. The documents were to be taken to the private residence of the Clintons so that they could decide to which lawyer these files should be sent. This implies to me, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Nussbaum anticipated a serious Clinton review of the contents of the box. The third version, this portion of our investigation revolves around the statement of the intern, a young man named Thomas Castleton. Mr. Castleton recalls being asked to help Ms. Williams transport a box of documents from Mr. Foster's office to the Clinton's private residence and on the way Ms. Williams tells him that 36 the Clintons will have to review the contents of the box to ascertain what's in it.
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(11:45:34) Now, it's essential for this Committee to make its best determination of who had access to the documents from Mr. Foster's office Fee, which documents were involved and at what times. Were any documents removed? If so, who removed them and why? These are legitimate questions, important questions, but they are made even more important by the virtue of who Vince Foster was and what his duties were, separate and apart from his position as personal lawyer to the Clintons. It's my sincere hope that, in this hearing, we will get one set of answers to this varying set of descriptions of what happened several days after the initial impact of the grief had hit these people and they had had time for a little sleep and a little reflection and then went about this particular activity. I thank the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bennett. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Senator Simon. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PAUL SIMON Senator SIMON Thank you, Mr. Chairman I differ from the others here in two respects. One is I'm a Member of the Judiciary Committee, along with Senator Hatch. We were designated to be here. I differ from everyone else in the Committee in that I was one of three to vote against the resolution setting up this Special Committee. Senator John Glenn, Senator Jeff Bingaman and I voted against it, Why did I vote against it? Number one is the money problem that has been mentioned. The Wall Street Journal said on June 7, 1995, $10 million has been spent by the Special Counsels. Newsweek says on July 3, 1995, $11 million. I don't know if that means $1 million a month is being spent. Resolution Trust Corporation is spending another $3-4 million, $3.6 million. I'm not sure the public is going to get $1 million worth out of this additional hearing. I hope my judgment is wrong on that. A second reason for my voting as I did is in your opening remarks, Mr. Chairman. You said this should not be a partisan issue, and I agree completely. I do believe there are some who view this as an opportunity simply to throw mud at the President. Senator Grams, in his remarks, said people are losing faith in Government. I think one of the reasons people lose faith in Government is that we are becoming increasingly partisan. I'm in my 21st year here in Washington. We're more partisan today than we were when I came here. I don't think the public is well served by that. If in this' process we end up throwing some mud at the President, we demonstrate more and more partisanship, and I don't think either political party is going to be well served, nor is our system going to be well served, A third reason for voting against the resolution is I'm concerned about what we're doing, not just in this Committee, but in others, to innocent people. Senator Murray quoted Vince Foster as saying,
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(11:50:28) We will find conflicts. They have been referred to by the Members here already. That always happens in any series of dramatic events. I wrote a biography of an abolitionist who was killed by a mob in 1837, Elijah Lovejoy. People who were there at the same spot, saw the same thing, told different stories. We have the same kind of experience with the Lincoln assassination and the Kennedy assassination, and people are still writing stories about a conspiracy in terms of the Lincoln assassination and the Kennedy assassination. I think the basic question is was there a conspiracy to cover up? Since I have been designated to be on this Committee, I have read a great deal more than I anticipated reading about Whitewater. My initial judgment is that mistakes were made, but that there has been no conspiracy to cover up. I could be wrong in that judgment, but I think that's the basic question that we face here, and that's what we ought to approach, and we ought to follow your admonition as you opened it, Mr. Chairman, that we try not to make this a partisan affair. That's not going to be easy, but I hope we can do that. If we do, we will serve the American people well, and if we do, I will tell you afterwards I voted wrong when I voted against creating this Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator, thank you for your very thoughtful statement. That is not to mean that all of our other colleagues have not made thoughtful statements. Senator Murkowski. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR FRANK H. MURKOWSKI Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and Senator Dole for appointing me to be a Member of this Special Committee. It's my hope that the Committee will provide a service to the public in finally resolving hopefully most, if not all, of the issues relating to Whitewater, and finally putting to rest the questions surrounding the death of White House Counsel Vincent Foster. When the United States Park Service Police discovered the body of Vincent Foster on the Federal park land in Virginia, many questions were raised about the Park Service's handling of the investigation At that time I was the Ranking Member of the Energy Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the Park Service. At that time I tried to get the Subcommittee to make some inquiries and potentially hold some hearings relative to the jurisdiction which we had. The Park Service Police declined, saying that the matter was under the Department of Justice and, therefore, was out of their area of jurisdiction. 38 Mr. Chairman, there have been numerous stories in the press as to the events surrounding the death of Vincent Foster, who did what in the White House in the hours and days following his death. What we do know is certain, that the Federal law enforcement personnel, including the Park Service Police, the FBI and the Justice Department, were impeded by the White House in conducting their investigation. Law enforcement officers were denied access to documents In Vince Foster's office. Instead, all the documents in his office were screened by Bernard Nussbaum, many of which were packaged in boxes and sent to the Clintons' personal living quarters. As evidence will show, Bernard Nussbaum and other White House officials visited Foster's office soon after his death in an effort to locate a note that might explain his motive for committing suicide. Law enforcement professionals know that in the vast majority of suicides, a note is left and the absence of such a note could be an indicator of some other motive.
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(11:55:04) On July 22, when the White House officials were searching the office, White House Counsel Bernard Nussbaum removed several documents and papers from Mr. Foster's briefcase, but they failed to find a note that day. In fact, according to the testimony I expect we will hear, Nussbaum gave everyone the impression that Foster's briefcase was empty. Yet there is evidence that Nussbaum was told that there were pieces of torn paper in Foster's briefcase, but he did nothing to find out if those pieces of paper were relevant to the investigation. Then, somehow mysteriously, 4 days later, someone looked into the briefcase and found the torn-up note that ultimately provided the motive for the Foster suicide, Mr, Chairman, I have the briefcase in question here. This briefcase is the property of Vincent Foster. It's from the Rose Law Firm Professional Association, Little Rock, Arkansas. Vincent Foster, Jr., Rose Law Firm, 120 East 4th Street, Little Rock, Arkansas with the phone number. As anyone can plainly see, it would be pretty difficult not to see 27 pieces of paper from a legal notebook. Now, here's 27 pieces of paper in this briefcase. They represent, if you will, an 8 1/2 by 11 sheet of paper. If one is looking in here, you're going to find 27 pieces of paper, we've already had testimony that other papers had been removed from the briefcase. So anyone looking in here-it's pretty hard not to observe that there's some pieces of paper in the briefcase in question. Certainly, had the Park Police or the FBI been examining this briefcase, there is no doubt that they would have found the note and provided the President and the American people with the rationale for the Foster act, but the professionals did not handle the investigation. The White House handled the investigation. It's very hard for this Senator to understand why it took 4 days, 4 days to discover this note if it was, in fact, in Foster's briefcase all along. Now, maybe it was an oversight, but that's what happens when you allow the political people to take over an investigation that should be run by professional law enforcement personnel. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to resolving this and the many other issues that will have to be addressed before we can finally close the books on Whitewater and the Vince Foster death. 39 Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire of Senator Murkowski whether he got that briefcase from the Independent Counsel? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, the Independent Counsel did furnish us with Senator MURKOWSKI. I made the request for the briefcase, Senator Sarbanes. senator SARBANES. When was it furnished to us? The CHAIRMAN. Yesterday. Senator SARBANES. Thank you. Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN, Thank you, Senator Murkowski. Senator SARBANES. Was this side advised of the furnishing of the briefcase? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We had left word to the Minority counsel, but I think there was a little problem in some communications. We had made some requests, but counsel did advise or attempted to advise Minority counsel that we had received this yesterday. If I might, just for purposes of clarification, there were at least a half dozen phone calls that were made yesterday by our counsel to Minority counsel to advise him of this and other matters, and during that period of time we were not able to make contact, so I just suggest this was not some kind of slight of hand. Senator Frist. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BILL FRIST Senator FRIST. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Last year, the Banking Committee reviewed the circumstances surrounding the tragic death on July 20, 1993 of Vincent Foster, the Deputy White House Counsel. At the end of the hearings, the Committee determined that Vincent Foster did indeed take his own life in Fort Marcy Park. Over the next several weeks, we will focus on the White House staff's handling of the documents in Mr. Foster's office immediately after his death. We will attempt to determine whether certain White House staff removed documents from Mr. Foster's office to prevent investigators from seeing those documents. The primary facts that we will be reviewing over the next several weeks are as follows: On July 20, 1993, between 5 and 6 p.m., Vincent Foster's body was discovered in Fort Marcy Park. U.S. Park Police then notified Mr. Foster's family and close friends about his death between 8:30 and 9:40 p.m. Later that evening, Park Police requested that Mr. Foster's office be sealed immediately. The office was not sealed. Instead, around 10:30 p.m., Bernard Nussbaum (White House Counsel), Margaret Williams (the First Lady's Chief of Staff) and Patsy Thomasson (Director of White House Office Administration) entered and looked through Mr. Foster's office. Ms. Thomasson had been sent there by David Watkins, Director of White House Management, to search for a suicide note. Finding no note, the three left the office around 11:41 p.m. A Secret Service agent asserts that Ms. Williams exited the office with a box of documents, a claim that Ms. Williams denies. 40 The White House made no effort to seal Mr. Foster's office until July 21, when Mr. Nussbaum posted a Secret Service guard at the office door. Mr. Nussbaum, however, refused to let Park Police search the office or inter-view White House aides. On July 22, investigators from the Department of Justice and the Park Police expected they would finally have the opportunity to search for and review documents in Mr. Foster's office. They were not allowed to do so. Instead, Mr. Nussbaum had the investigators relegated to watching him sort through Mr. Foster's files and briefcase. After emptying various files from Mr. Foster's briefcase, Mr. Nussbaum claimed that there was nothing else in it. On July 26, Steven Neuwirth, a White House lawyer, allegedly discovered a torn-up suicide note in the very same briefcase that Mr. Nussbaum had previously declared empty. Mr. Neuwirth notified Mr. Nussbaum immediately of the existence of the torn-up note. However, it was not until July 27 that either the President or the Park Police investigators were told about the existence of the torn-up note. I hope that during the course of these hearings, we will be able to determine whether certain White House staff removed documents from Mr. Foster's office to prevent investigators from seeing those documents. In particular, I hope that we will get answers to the following questions that I have about the discovery of Mr. Foster's torn-up suicide note: The first question is: When and under what circumstances did the White House discover the torn-up note? This question was discussed at length by
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(12:00:43) The second question relates to the July 26 discovery by Mr. Neuwirth of the presence of the torn-up note in Mr. Foster's briefcase. Mr. Neuwirth reportedly blanched upon discovering it, and immediately told Mr. Nussbaum about the note's existence. So here, at long last, was the note that everybody had been looking for. A note from a highly-placed official who worked closely with the President on sensitive, nationally important matters. Why did Mr. Nussbaum wait 26 hours before telling President Clinton about the discovery of the note? Why did Mr. Nussbaum wait a total of 30 hours before telling the appropriate law enforcement officials about the discovery of the note? My concerns about Mr. Nussbaum's delay are justified, Mr. Chairman, as the Department of Justice itself has conducted an obstruction of justice investigation on these very questions. It is, therefore, my hope that these hearings will yield answers to the troubling questions that my colleagues and I have raised here this morning, and provide some resolution to the circurmstances surrounding the sad and tragic death of Mr. Foster. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator. It was my intent to continue to move forward, as some of my colleagues have urged, with a degree of speed but not unduly, but I don't think we would be doing our job if we did not attempt to examine Mr, Hubbell and even see if we could finish with the questioning. So I'm now going to ask that Mr. Hubbell step forward for the purpose of being sworn in. [Witness sworn in.] 41 Mr. Hubbell, let me first, if I might, ask if you would identify the person sitting with you. SWORN TESTIMONY OF WEBSTER HUBBELL FORMER ASSOCIATE ATTORNEY GENERAL U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, Sitting with me is Laura Shores, who is an attorney with the law firm of Howrey & Simon, who represented me be ore the Independent Counsel. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hubbell, first, I would like to welcome you to the hearing, but I also think it's fair to say that we want to thank you for your cooperation, for not only appearing here voluntarily, but for voluntarily appearing in 2 days of depositions before the Committee staff, the professional staff of the Committee on both sides, to give your testimony and to give your depositions. My sense of your testimony in the depositions is that you have tried to be fair, candid, cooperative and forthcoming, and I believe that needs to be said publicly. We are particularly appreciative of your appearance during a very difficult period in your own life, and we are appreciative, once again, of your cooperation. Mr. HUBBELL, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes, if you would like to make any statement Senator SARBANES. I have nothing. The CHAIRMAN. -if not, 1 would ask Mr. Chertoff, Counsel to the Majority, if he would conduct his part of the review. Mr. CHERTOFF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hubbell, welcome. Good morning. I think we're still in the morning, or actually the afternoon now. If you need me to clarify any question or you want an opportunity to talk to your attorney, let me know, we'll give you that opportunity, all right? Mr. HUBBELL. I will do so. Mr. CHERTOFF. Mr. Hubbell, would you briefly describe to the Committee your professional background and experience up until the time you came to Washington with the President in 1993. Mr. HUBBELL. OK. I graduated from the University of Arkansas School of Law in 1973 and, upon doing so, joined the Rose Law Firm, where I practiced in the litigation section of that firm until I left the firm briefly to serve as the Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1984. After I left the Supreme Court, I returned to the Rose Law Firm and stayed there until I came to Washington on January 20, 1993, primarily practicing in the litigation section for all of my career.
July 18, 1995 - Part 2
(12:10:36) Mr. CHERTOFF. Now, in the beginning of 1993, a number of you from the Rose Law Finn went to Washington, Can you tell us, other than the obvious fact that Mrs. Clinton went to Washington, who left the firm to take various positions with the Clinton Administration? Mr. HUBBELL. Vince left the firm to become Deputy White House Counsel. I left to become an Assistant to the Attorney General in the Justice Department, Within a month, Bill Kennedy came to be an Associate Counsel in the White House. Mr. CHERTOFF. Let's turn, first, to your career at the Department of Justice. I'd like to focus your attention really on the period 1993, from the time you arrived in Washington up through June or July of 1993. How did you come to be appointed to a position within the Department? Mr. HUBBELL. I had been asked by the President whether I was willing to come to Washington and be a part of the Administration. He initially asked me to visit with Zoe Baird to see if there was a fit. I interviewed with Zoe Baird in early January, and she asked that I join the Department of Justice with her and be available on January 20, Mr. CHERTOFF. Now, we all know that ultimately Zoe Baird didn't become the Attorney General. At the point in time that Janet Reno became Attorney General, did you assume a position in the hierarchy of the Department of Justice? 44 (12:12:06)(tape #10109 ends)
Boat and ship coming and going
Small boat and garage
Boat in lake in Arizona
Man buying boat
Painting a boat
Reel #1 Ocian - cat. (boat) - crew
Reel #1 Ocean - cat. (boat) - crew (80 Ft.) Reel #2 Power boat/ocean/U.S. Flagman in water (55 Ft.)
Night - motorboat
Men working on small boat
Small boat - harbor
Man pulling raft