Advanced Search
White Face Beef Cattle In Range
White Face Beef Cattle In Range
Cattle On Range - Horse and Rider
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE 95519 Cattle On Range - Horse and Rider
Cattle Stampede B/W
Cattle Stampede B/W
Cow In Swarm
Cow In Swarm
Young Brahma Cattle
Young Brahma Cattle
Cattle Dip
Cattle Dip
Cattle Dip
Cattle Dip
Dead Cattle In Desert
Dead Cattle In Desert
Cows In Snow
Cows In Snow
Brand Marks
Brand Marks
Cows Bring Dust By Plane
Cows Bring Dust By Plane
Two Cowboys In Desert
Two Cowboys In Desert. ON PREVIEW CASS 98613.
Bulls Fighting
Bulls Fighting
Cattle Stampede
Cattle Stampede
Washing Cattle
Washing Cattle
Longhorn Cattle
Longhorn Cattle
Cattle Branding - Giving Shot Round Up
Cattle Branding - Giving Shot Round Up
Cowboy Explains To Young Boys
Cowboy Explains To Young Boys
Loading Freight Train With Cattle
Loading Freight Train With Cattle
Cattle Stampede
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #991477 Cattle Stampede
Loading Truck With Cattle
Loading Truck With Cattle
Loading Freight Train
Loading Freight Train
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:10:40) The CHAIRMAN, That's what I'd like to hear, is your recollection Mr, EGGLESTON. Sir, my recollection and, again, where this out was in Mr. Altman's first sentence when he turned to recusal issue. I didn't know and I don't think anybody there knew 93 he was going to start talking about this issue. My recollection is not that he told us that he had decided to recuse himself. My recollection is that he told us he was considering recusing himself. He was thinking about recusing himself. I think I saw his testimony yesterday. I think he says that he said he was inclined to recuse himself It was not my recollection that he told us he had decided to recuse himself. The CHAIRMAN. I asked earlier if we had last night's transcript. Because we went so late, it's not typed up in an index in the way we can refer to it, but my memory, his testimony was to us that he had reached a decision before he went to that meeting and did communicate that decision, so there's a bit of a difference of opinion as to what happened. We'll have to try to pursue that. Mr. EGGLESTON. In any event, as I say, whatever he said, it came out in the first sentence and I don't think any of us knew that sentence was coming. The CHAIRMAN. You mean that was the first thing up in the meeting? Mr. EGGLESTON. No, that was the first thing up when he finished the statute of limitations issue. He turned to a new issue we were not anticipating. The CHAIRMAN. I don't want to go past my time. Senator DODD. Just a point of inquiry because I'm curious as to whether or not we're going to go into this. I Last evening, I believe you indicated that this memo going to the Rose Law Firm was beyond the scope when the issue was raised last evening, and I'm just curious as to whether or not it is still ,beyond the scope of this hearing or not. The CHAIRMAN. We did discuss that and that issue was presented last evening in detail by Senator Domenici, but the feeling was that because it dealt with the line of succession as to who would make the decisions in the event of a recusal, that that in effect brought it within the scope of the general charter that we have on this issue. That was the argument. Senator DODD. If I'm not mistaken, and I want to check the record, but a similar question was raised last evening-and the Chairman can correct me if I'm wrong on this-but you made a determination that it was beyond the scope. I stand to be corrected not the case, but I thought that was the decision last evening. CHAIRMAN. I don't have that recollection but, unfortunately, we don't have the transcript here at the present time. Senator D'AMATO. I think clearly it would be incredulous if we were to take a position that this memo written by the White House relates to the line of succession and who will make the ulti- ion, which is really the scope of this memo, is beyond the Committee. Senator DODD. Senator, I'm not arguing about lines of succession. There was a decision last evening when this matter was raised. I'm repeating what I thought the issue was last evening Senator KERRY. Was not the full document made part of the 94 The CHAIRMAN. I thought it was. My recollection is that it was, but I can't be certain of that because it would have happened late at night and it was Senator KERRY. I was the one who was inquiring about it and I think afterwards Senator D'Amato followed up and Senator DAMATO. That's right, and I asked that it be placed in the record in its entirety. Senator DODD. I understand the point of succession but this goes into the matter of the scope of the hearing based on the resolution we agreed. This is the Rose Law Firm issue. That's not what the resolution talks about. That's that whole memo and I think we're going to face these issues. Senator DAMATO. We're not going into the Rose Law Finn orthis is a memo, among other things that touches on Whitewater. It says FDIC and RTC, Rose Law Firm issues. We're not going into the issues. The question this Committee will be attempting to ascertain is why is it and how is it that White House Counsel is providing this kind of legal documentation. Senator DODD. I'm asking a procedural question, Senator procedural question. I'm not challenging your right to ask questions. It seems to me this memo includes matter, the Rose Law Firm issue) which was beyond the scope of the resolution which defines our job. I'm merely asking the question as to whether a procedure, a parliamentary question is it within or beyond the scope. The CHAIRMAN. Let me say to the Senator, this document arrived late in the document production period. And it was not part of it, but when we became aware of it, we discussed it with the White House, and they were willing to make it available to the Committee, Now, my own view would be and my own questions have been, limited solely to the items that are within the scope of our inquiry. If somebody were to try to take it off into another area, then I think the scope issue would arise in terms of our getting into the discussion here, but that has not happened thus far. I would hope that would not happen. Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:15:48) The CHAIRMAN. Senator DAmato. Senator D'AMATO. Senator, I'm going to yield to Senator Bond because lie's going to want to return after a vigorous debate on the Floor in which he's going to participate in; is that right? Senator BOND. That is correct. I thank the Ranking Member and I thank the Chair, Mr. Chairman, this argument over the scope of the hearings and seeing all these attorneys before me makes me understand now why I left the practice of law, staying up late at night, spending Sundays reading depositions rather than other things. I spent this Sunday trying to go over the depositions, and I gather that you all were, too. Mr. Eggleston, when I signed in at Dirksen, I noticed that you. and Mr. Podesta had signed in to go to room 542, 1 was just curious what were you up to over here? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, I was here to read my deposition on Sunday. I had been invited to come down and read it, and that's what I did. Senator BOND. They made your deposition available to you? 95 Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, only my deposition by the Senate was made available to me, and that's the only one I've read. Senator BOND. Mr. Podesta, I guess, read his? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes. Senator BOND, Mr. Klein, we've heard witness after witness over the last several days talking about legitimate Government interest in the White House as having the heads-up on the details of confidential criminal referrals. There isn't a hotline for the average citizen to call the RTC to say, am I part of your investigation, but apparently the White House does get that kind of heads-up, and I think that's something that people may be a little bit concerned about, as to why the White House gets special treatment. Now, I would agree that Secretary Bentsen today made a good point, and I think others have inferred that there are some situations when you want to protect the President from an embarrassing or compromising encounter. It was very regrettable a few years ago that then Vice President Bush wound up having his picture taken with Manuel Noriega just before he was indicted. I think that there are probably legitimate interests in keeping the President from associating with people who are going to have major criminal actions brought against them. Is that one of the legitimate reasons for giving the White House a heads-up? Mr, KLEIN. I believe so, Sir. Senator BOND. Would you explain how that would work and what would happen if the President were greeting a foreign visitor, for example? If he were going to greet a foreign visitor and you found he was going to be Noriega-ized, what would be your responsibility? Mr. KLEIN. I had one experience with this, sir, and I could tell you how we did it in this instance. We did get a so-called headsup from the office of the Deputy Attorney General. I then notified the Chief of Staff that the President was going to be in a room with certain people and that the President should not be taken aside and be put in a position talking alone with this person. That's the way it was handled. Senator BOND. Since we understand that Governor Jim Guy Tucker was referred to as a target in the RTC criminal referrals and the President was to meet with him within about a week after the heads-up from the RTC from Mrs. Hanson, was a similar kind of warning given to the President? T