Advanced Search
Religion - Baptism
Jewish ???? misc.
Jewish temple in Tula
St. Thomas - bones
Divine literagy
CATHOLIC MASS
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE# 210732 Catholic mass
St. Paul's - London
Chinese bibles in class
Statue - diff. religions
July 19, 1995 - Part 2
(11:00:01)(tape #10113 ends) OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR ORRIN G. HATCH Senator HATCH. I apologize for being late. I'm managing the Regulatory Reform Bill and had to leave for a few minutes. Good to see you again, Mr. Hubbell. Mr. Hubbell, you've had extensive experience as a litigator in private practice. You've been a State Supreme Court Justice and you've been a high-level official in the Justice Department. I want': to ask a few questions about attorney-client privilege and I hope you can be of assistance. Isn't the attorney-client privilege, as generally defined, a privilege only that, number one, protects commu- 99 nication and, number two, protects communication between a client and his or her attorney? (11:00:42) Mr. HUBBELL. I believe that's correct, Senator. Senator HATCH. Isn't the privilege normally asserted in anticipation of litigation? Mr. HUBBELL. I believe that's correct. That's my experience. Senator HATCH. Wouldn't you agree that a document can be deemed to be protected by the attorney-client privilege only if it meets those basic requirements? Mr. HUBBELL. I'm going to only be able to give you the opinion based on Arkansas law, which I don't think is applicable here, but I believe you're essentially correct, Senator. Senator HATCH. It may have some applicability. Wouldn't you agree that a client-go ahead. Mr. HUBBELL, No, I'm fine. Senator HATCH. Wouldn't you agree that a client can waive the privilege either by intentionally waiving the communication or by disclosing it to a third party? Mr. HUBBELL. In Arkansas, you can have even an inadvertent waiver of the privilege, that's correct. Senator HATCH. That's probably true in a lot of other places, Mr. HUBBELL. Right. Senator HATCH. Let's examine the case of the Whitewater documents that the President has chosen to withhold based upon a claim of executive privilege. Now, Vincent Foster was a Government employee; right? (11:02:03)(tape #10012 ends) Mr. HUBBELL. That is correct. Senator HATCH. Therefore, while acting as Deputy White House Counsel, Mr. Foster could not or at least should not have acted as President Clinton's personal attorney'; isn't that right? Mr. HUBBELL. I don't know, Senator, whether there were restrictions on White House Counsel doing personal work for the President or not. It would seem to me that they are it's almost impossible not to have the White House Counsel at least involved in doing personal work because of all the disclosure laws and things of that sort. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch, I do not mean to interrupt this line of questioning, but I think you're going to need a little more time to develop it, so why don't we stop at this point and we'll return to you. Senator MURRAY. Mr. Chairman, can I ask a process question? I'm just a little confused. The CHAIRMAN. Sure. Senator MURRAY. I'm trying to figure out, going back and forth here, who's yielding time. It was my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, that somebody has to be here to yield time. The CHAIRMAN. I yielded my time to Senator Shelby. If you note, I took about 2 minutes and then the balance of my time went to Senator Shelby, The next person, Senator Shelby, had about a minute which he gave to Senator Hatch. So I see that Senator Hatch is pursuing a line of questioning that will take some time. That's why I suggested that rather than go further, because we understand a minute or 2 minutes over, but more than that we 100 should wait until we return back to this side. He will be the next person who we recognize. Senator MURRAY. I appreciate that. It's difficult to tell from down here whose time is being used so that we know--- The CHAIRMAN. It was on my time that Senator Shelby undertook the further questioning of Mr. Hubbell. Senator MURRAY. Am I correct that our rules state we have to be here to yield our time? The CHAIRMAN. That's correct, I was here. Senator MURRAY. Thank you. Senator SARBANES. I say to the Senator from the State of Washington the Chairman and I have discussed that prior to you putting the question, although it's a very good question. The way the rules are written at the outset, as happened, the Chairman gets a half hour, then the Ranking Member gets a half hour. Then it alternates, 10 minutes in each direction. If a Member gets his 10 minutes and doesn't want to use all of it, he can yield, assuming he's here, the balance of his time to another Member or to counsel to ask questions. Then it moves back and forth, Now, it appeared to get out of that framework, but I think we'll be back in that framework, and that's what was very specifically worked out in the resolution. Senator MURRAY. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Senator Boxer. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. I just have an observation before I get to my questions of Mr. Hubbell, and that is that we haven't used this video arcade at all today, and I understand that it's expensive to have it here. I hope that we can reassess that, maybe, because I think it's a question we ought to look at.
Hollywood & Vine
Hollywood & Vine - Good source for Hollywood nostalgia.
July 19, 1995 - Part 2
(11:05:16) The CHAIRMAN. If I might, with respect to addressing that Senator BOXER. With respect to the rest of my time I'll yield to my friend. The CHAIRMAN. Why don't you continue and I'll respond later. Senator BOXER. Thank you. Mr. Hubbell, I want to take you back to what you described as one of the worst, if not the worst, nights of your life because I think it's important for me to understand what people were focused on that night and I think I do understand it, but I think the American people should understand it. You were one of the closest friends of the Foster family; is that correct? Mr. HUBBELL. That is correct. Senator BOXER. Your wife as well; is that correct? Mr. HUBBELL. That is correct. Senator BOXER. You knew his family, his sisters; is that correct? Mr. HUBBELL. I worked with Sheila. Sharon lived down the street from me in Little Rock. I've been close to the family for a long time. Senator BOXER. It seemed to me, from your description of the events, you were the one they turned to in this moment of tragedy and need and you went with the sisters to the home of Mrs. Foster, 101 and you described the situation there, Would that be an accurate assessment of mine, that they turned to you to help them through this? Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, yes, Senator, that is correct. It was a duty I was happy to take on. Senator BOXER. When you got there, you tried to break the news to Mrs. Foster, but you were not able to do that, and the Park Police did that; is that correct? Mr. HUBBELL. That is correct. They said they had to do it. Senator BOXER. They went into the home first? Mr. HUBBELL. That is correct. Senator BOXER. When you went into the home, did the Park Police rush up to you and say we have to seal off this home, we have to search this home for a note, we have to search this home for other documents which could lead us to what really happened here? Did anyone in the Park Police say that to you? Mr. HUBBELL. No, they did not. Senator BOXER. When you were in that home, you testified that there were many other people associated with the White House who were at the home that evening. Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. A lot of people who were close to Vince or Lisa came over that night, as is normally the case in such a tragedy. Senator BOXER. At any time did you or anyone else from the White House or associated with the White House say that you needed to go off to a room and talk about what the next steps were, what to do about Vince Foster's office, what to do about the papers that he may have? Was there any such meeting or conversation on the night of this tragedy? Mr. HUBBELL. No, there was no such conversation. There would not have been room to do it if we wanted to. The house was small, and we were all congregated on the first floor. No one went up, except to be with Lisa, to their bedroom upstairs, Senator BOXER. So you would say that-when you say that that night, although-there were how many people from the White House? I think you've testified, I thought, to about a half dozen. Were there at least that many? Mr. HUBBELL. At least that many. I'm sure there were more, and the days blend together, but that night, I know the President came. Mr. Gergen came. Mack was there. David Watkins was there. Bruce Lindsey was there, but I'm sure there were other people there. We were-the room was full. Senator Pryor was there and -Barbara, Beryl Anthony got there later, the kids got there. It was El typical scene and as I said, the phone was ringing off the wall. People were calling from Little Rock, had seen it on CNN in total disbelief, like the rest of us. Senator BOXER. Would you say, then, that the last thing on people's minds who were there to comfort the Foster family and comfort each other was what to do with sensitive papers or documents? That, as far as you know, there wasn't even such a conversation that night although there were many people there from the White House? 102 Mr. HUBBELL. As far as I know, there was never any kind of conversation like that. The only conversation about any piece of paper would have been is there a note, has anybody seen a note? Senator BOXER. The Park Police never said to you let's close off this house, let's seal it because we're going to look for a note or other documents? Mr. HUBBELL. No, they did not. Senator BOXER. Did the Park Police ever tell you that they wanted to seal off Vince Foster's office and look for any type of note or any clues to a suicide? Mr. HUBBELL. No, they did not. Senator BOXER. Isn't it a fact, I guess-the Park Police have a right to be upset if they feel they were mistreated and I look forward to hearing their comments, but isn't it true that they could have gotten a search warrant or a subpoena if they wanted it? Didn't they have the ability to do that? Mr. HUBBELL. I believe that is correct. I had a discussion with them about jurisdiction the next day, so I know they had the authority.
Rumania Shows Armed Might To Balkan Entente
A little rolling light in contrast and imagery Masses of well-drilled men parade in colorful uniforms and modern equipment in honor of a visit by delegates from balkan nations. Rumania shows armed might to Balkan Enterte. Military parade marching including the calvary.
July 19, 1995 - Part 2
(11:10:42) Senator BOXER. Thank you. I yield my remaining time to counsel. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Mr. Hubbell, I'd like to ask you about a comment contained in a question put to you by Senator Shelby. He asked you whether Mr. Nussbaum and his involvement in determining the procedures to be used in searching for the note in Mr. Foster's office was a situation akin to the fox guarding the hen house. Now, let me ask you, sir, in connection with the suicide of Vincent Foster, how, in your mind, would Mr. Nussbaum be considered the fox? Mr. HUBBELL. I don't consider Mr. Nussbaum the fox. I think, to elaborate, Senator Shelby, the files that would have been in Vince's office were the files of the White House Counsel. They were Bernie's files as well, except to the extent of Vince's personal files. It's like a law firm. The law firm's files belong to the firm, not to any one individual in the White House. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Now, with respect to Mr. HUBBELL. I was trying to talk about that. Senator SHELBY. I wonder if counsel would yield for 2 seconds. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Certainly, Senator. Senator SHELBY. Maybe he wasn't the fox watching the hen house. Maybe he was the tiger guarding the door, at least that was the perception that a lot of people had of him. They were intimidated by him. Mr. BEN-VENISTE, Let me ask you about the concept of the tiger in connection with attorneys and sensitive information they re-, ceive. Are you aware of any ethical restrictions on attorneys from disclosing confidential information provided by a client? put aside whether it's the President of the United States who's the client. Mr. HUBBELL. There are ethical restrictions, and the privilege is the client's, not the attorney's, to waive. Mr. BEN-VENISTE, What are the consequences for an attorney who might, without the client's permission, disclose confidential information, if you know? 103 Mr. HUBBELL. I presume back in Arkansas that attorney could be disciplined by the Bar Association. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Up to the penalty of being disbarred, losing his right to practice law if it were egregious? Mr. HUBBELL. If it were egregious, yes. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. Now, Senator Hatch asked you some questions about the attorney-client privilege and asked whether that privilege was limited to communications from the client. I ask you whether there is such a thing as the work product privilege associated with the attorney-client privilege? Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, there is a work product privilege in connection with litigation, yes. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. What does that relate to? Mr. HUBBELL. Work product produced by the lawyer in connection with the client's business. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. You've indicated, I think, with respect to attorney- client privilege that one of the ways that that privilege is normally asserted is in connection with a litigation. Let me ask you, if there is no litigation pending and some third party wishes to see the attorney-client privileged materials in an attorney's office, does that mean that the attorney-client privilege doesn't hold? Mr. HUBBELL. I don't believe so. The analogy I try to make to this circumstance is if the Justice Department or the FBI were to try to come into a law firm and ask for clients' records or the law firm's records, You would be in a position of having to still claim the privilege for your client unless it was waived. I believe that occurs a lot of times within law firms. Mr. BEN-VENISTE, I see that my time is up now and there may be some more questions along these lines, if I may, a bit later. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Hatch, Senator HATCH. Thank you, Senator D'Amato. Mr. Hubbell, again, let's return to the questions exploring attorney-client privilege, because I think it's good to get these out of the way. You stated that attorney-client privilege, as a general rule, applies when there is one, a communication that, two, is between the attorney and the client. Now, let me just continue along that line. I asked you, then, if because of the fact that Mr. Foster was a Government employee, and while acting as Deputy White House Counsel, he could not and should not have acted as President Clinton's personal attorney, and you weren't sure whether he could or couldn't, if I recall correctly?
Dollar Chain Stores Draw Huge Crowds
A little rolling light in contrast and imagery Permanent offices for the hand-to-hand exchange of 'prosperity chain letters' draw eager throngs with the managers offering to pay off at the rate of 128 to 1. Man counting dollars.
Roosevelt Sees Son In Crew Race
Jumpy (camera) some shots a little blurry imagery The President inspects the Naval Academy (Annapolis) and sees the navy crew win from a Harvard Jay-Vee eight in which Franklin. Jr. is rowing. The Pennsylvania boat finishes last in a thrilling race.
July 19, 1995 - Part 2
(11:15:52) Mr. HUBBELL. That's correct. Senator HATCH. Now, wouldn't you agree that Vincent Foster's handwritten notes were not "communications" between Mr. Foster and the President? Mr. HUBBELL. Which notes are you talking about? Senator HATCH. Let me put up--why don't we put up Exhibits 87, if we could go to 93--87 and 93 are two good illustrations and maybe 229. Let's start with 87. Mr. HUBBELL. Yes. 104 Senator HATCH. You would agree that that's not a communication? Mr. HUBBELL. I cannot tell from looking at this, Senator, but I have a similar note, and that was a meeting that was held back during the transition as part of a checklist of a lot of things to be Senator HATCH. Would it be fair to say you do not believe that .was a communication between Mr. Foster and the President? Mr. HUBBELL. And the President, no, but it could be a reflection of a meeting of lawyers about Senator HATCH. Sure, but it's his own personal notes is what we're establishing? Mr. HUBBELL. Yes, but they could be privileged. Senator HATCH. Let's go into that. Number 93, wouldn't that be the same? There's just one note on there. Everything else is redacted. Let me take one other, 229. The CHAIRMAN. I think it's fair to say that the Committee will, at least it is my inclination to, look into the question that has been raised regarding the production to the Committee of pages and pages of blank documents or documents that have been covered over, whited out. Senator HATCH. Let me get into that, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. But that will be of interest, I believe, in the future, to this Committee. Senator HATCH. What I'm trying to establish here now is that these three documents with Mr. Foster's notes were not communications between Mr. Foster and the President? Mr. HUBBELL. They don't appear to be communications between Mr. Foster and the President. They appear to me to be minutes of a meeting with some other people. I don't know who was there. Senator HATCH. Isn't it true that if a client releases documents, even assuming Mr. Foster was a client, and I don't think you can the President was a client of Mr. Foster's, but if the client releases information to a third party, even if the documents are in part redacted, that that privilege may be waived with respect to the entire document? Mr. HUBBELL. I don't know with respect to the entire document. It may be waived as to the extent of the issue, Senator. That's my understanding of the privilege, but, again, I haven't researched. attorney-client privileges in a long time. Senator HATCH. Isn't it possible that the President believed he may get some sort of an advantage if he released portions of the documents but not others? Mr. HUBBELL. I don't know, Senator. Senator HATCH. Isn't it true that the President probably didn't think it would be advantageous to release the documents? If he didn't think it would be advantageous, he wouldn't have released them. Wouldn't you agree with that? Mr. HUBBELL. Senator, I really don't know what the thought process is of the President or his advisors. Senator HATCH. Mr. Ben-Veniste raised the attorney work product privilege. Doesn't the work product privilege, which is different from the attorney-client privilege, protect an attorney's written work and his thoughts concerning a case involved in litigation? 105 Mr. HUBBELL. That's usually the case. Senator HATCH. Isn't it the case that the privilege can be overridden "for good cause" such as an inability to acquire the documents from any other source? Mr. HUBBELL. As for my understanding of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that is correct. Senator HATCH. That is correct. Now, since Mr. Foster's notes do not qualify as protected attorney-client communications, and I don't think they do, then do you agree that at best they can qualify as work product, as an attorney work product? Mr. HUBBELL. I don't know whether they qualify for the attorney-client privilege or not, but they could qualify for the work product privilege. Senator HATCH. Couldn't the work product privilege be overridden if the Committee cannot obtain these materials in any other way? Mr. HUBBELL. A court could make that determination, or it could go the other way. Senator HATCH. If you wanted to keep a document privileged, you ordinarily wouldn't release it to the press, would you? I think that goes without saying. Mr. HUBBELL. That goes without saying. Senator HATCH. You wouldn't release a portion of that document to the press, would you? Mr. HUBBELL. Senator, I have a bias about releasing anything to the press. Senator HATCH. My point is, as a good lawyer, you wouldn't do that if you wanted to retain the privilege? Mr. HUBBELL. It would be risky, yes. Senator HATCH. That's right. Finally, if you wanted to keep a document privileged, you wouldn't want anyone other than the lawyer or the client to have possession of it, would you?
Japan - misc.
Streets, aerials, people
1950s - Tea Fields - Japan
Men working in field, harvesting tea leaves.
Japanese industry (toys)
Japan - int. factory
Japan - mostly Nara or Kyoto ?? - Buddha, temples, etc.
Crowds in costume