Advanced Search
Greek King - Counter Revolution
Deposed King Constantine Dupree and his family arrive in Rome following the failure of his counter-revolution attempt. His attempt to gain support against military rulers in Athens has failed. His self-imposed exile comes after eight months of uncomfortable silence surround the military's take over. The new Greek Prime Minister blames the king for the current situation. The King Constantine and his family maneuver through a sea of press to an awaiting car whole being escorted by police. Various close-ups show the royal family. Prime Minister Popdopplous stands in a governmental chamber in front of three microphones. Greek politicians sit writing at desks.
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(11:31:07) This investigation in some way now comes full circle to this Committee. Questions have surfaced about prior testimony before this Committee so it is particularly important for us to be satisfied about those questions. We have a responsibility to make certain that information coming to us from the Executive Branch is true, complete, and accurate. And the Senate has a responsibility to police the information which comes to us because no one else will do it for us. For myself, I join a couple of other colleagues in saying that there is a profoundly sad and even degrading aspect to this opening day subject. The FBI, the Park Police, the Foster family, and the Special Counsel have all concluded that Vince Foster tragically to his own life. The medical examiner, (11:31:54) (end of tape #10051) the FBI laboratory, the DNA analysis of the gun, the medical and forensic experts all agree, but somehow here is the U.S. Senate giving credence to the most insulting, degrading, lurid, and lunatic theories that people can invent, and, in doing of dragging a good person's reputation into the gutter. I think this is wrong, Mr. Chairman, but I understand you didn't ask for it. You don't like it, and that like it or not, some have asked for it and if we, don't do it, we feed the worst speculation and give license to the absurd, so we are here. It just leaps out at me that if some people had really wanted answers to the questions they have raised publicly, particularly in the other body, on the floor of the House of Representatives, and in some counts, they bad only to read and inquire. I am convinced that some were not as interested in the answers as they were in seeing to it that the questions received wide circulation. 26 This Committee has an opportunity to get at the truth. Nothing is more important. The principle that we should live by during these hearings is full disclosure, open Government, and let the chips fall where they may. That's the only way to a guarantee we fulfill our obligations as an independent branch of government. and individual Senators. I might say, though, there is an Alice-in-Wonderland quality to some of the comments we've heard this morning. I think the king of hearts said verdict first, trial afterwards, everything upsidedown, It is very clear that there are serious questions which we must ask, but we don't know anything beyond a reasonable doubt until witnesses have testified. It is important that the White House itself, for instance, undertook to correct Mr. Altman. It is important, obviously, that certain political realities could not have permitted some of the things that have been alleged here this morning. It is for the witnesses to determine that and it is for us to fairly and impartially solicit the answers and give them the opportunity to do so. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Roth.
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(11:44:54) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few things about myself No. 1, my name is Robert Bennett, but I am not the President's lawyer. No. 2, 1 will be happy to stipulate that Vincent Foster committed suicide. There was a time when the rumors in the press led me to believe there was some credence to an additional theory. I find no possible justification for that now. I am one Senator who is willing to say that this bearing should not be about whether or not Vincent Foster committed suicide. He committed suicide. I will so stipulate. I will not stipulate that the investigation of that suicide was handled in a proper fashion. I think that's a legitimate thing for us to go into. Now, I see some of my colleagues in the other body saying we shouldn't even be having these kinds of hearings. What a terrible thing. What a waste of time. Why are we here? I agree with some of my colleagues who mention why we're here. We're here because the U.S. Senate by a unanimous vote told us to be here to investigate this. That is not a frivolous reason for the Committee to meet. Why is it in this Committee? I think it's very appropriately in this Committee because this is the Committee that has oversight and a long history of involvement with the RTC. This Committee by public law last year went to lengths to amend the original RTC Act to make sure the RTC would be as independent as possible, that it would not be a politicized arm of any Cabinet level department. And the reason we're here is that we have evidence coming from the deposition that suggests that in this Administration, there has been an attempt to create that circumstance where the RTC would be politicized and run as if it were an arm of the Treasury Department. 30 The eye of that storm, as has been identified, is clearly Mr. Altman, We have two or more versions of what Mr. Altman may or may not have done. Top level officials in the Treasury Department have come and given sworn depositions. We need to find out which version is true. If indeed one version of events is true, then The New York Times is correct in calling for Mr. Altman's resignation or dismissal. I'm not prepared to do that yet. I won't rush to judgment as quickly as The New York Times has because I want to bear Mr. Altman and hear him defend big version of events. But if his version of events does prove to be true, then there are some other people in the Treasury Department who should be dismissed because there's a wide divergence, and we need to find out which one of those is true. If the position of the other officials is true, then I will join with The New York Times and suggest that it's time for Mr. Altman to join Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. Hubbell, Mr. Watkins, and others in pursuing private activities. That's really why this is in this Committee because at bottom, the result we want to have come out of this from a Committee point of view is a reestablishment of the principle that the RTC should be independent, that it should not be meddled with by political appointees in a Cabinet level department and that those representatives of the RTC who appear before this Committee in future circumstances can be depended upon to be frank, candid, and honest with the Committee. Those are legitimate issues. I'm grateful to my friend from Massachusetts who has stipulated that this is a legitimate inquiry because somehow they seem to have lost sight of that on the House side. I congratulate you, Mr. Chairman, in the way you have put this together to make sure that we do not lose sight of the legitimate nature of this inquiry on this side. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bennett. Senator Boxer,
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(11:34:02) OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR WILLIAM V. ROTH, JR. Senator ROTH. Mr. Chairman, there are two important points that Id like to make in my opening remarks. First, that these hearings are appropriate, and they are important. It is the responsibility of Congress to be concerned about the oversight of Government agencies. It is the responsibility of Congress to see that these agencies, including the Treasury Department and the Resolution Trust Corporation, are operating accord in public the laws passed by Congress and in the best interest of the lie, It is the responsibility of the Congress to see that they maintain high standards of ethics and that they avoid conflicts of interest. The second point is that we are here to determine whether our code of ethics and our laws are adequate to guide men and women in public office. I'd like to make it clear that our intent is not to judge criminal wrongdoing. That is not a function of these hearings. In addition, we had been restricted by the Majority to keep the scope of these bearings very narrow. Nevertheless, what we must concern ourselves with here is the question of ethics and the possibility of con . flicts of interest in Government agencies that we ereate Most, if not all, of the questions I will be asking are based on common sense. questions like if an investigation is being made of the personal conduct of the President, should an individual who is appointed by the President, an individual who is a personal friend, be resp onsible in any way in the investigation, or as a general rule should the remove himself from the investigation. (11:36:13) Questions like when a preliminary investigation is underway in volving his own personal contact, should the President be given information concerning that investig ation that the man on the street would not be given if be were in the same situation. I know the Administration states it is entitled to be provided with such sensitive nonpublic information so it can respond to 27 press inquiries. But is this reason enough to extend privileges to the President that the common man does Dot have? On this point, it is interesting to note that The New York Times today states while White House Counsel Lloyd Cutler said in a colloquy that giving the President information concerning the investigation was necessary for the Administration to respond to press queries, the fact is, according to the Times, and I quote, "The Administration's answers to media inquiries at the time were generally 'no comment."' Another more specific question is whether White House personnel violated the White House's own ethical guidelines in this case. For example, White House staffer George Stephanopoulos called Treasury Chief of Staff, Mr. Steiner, to complain about the hiring of Jay Stephens by the RTC for the Madison Guaranty civil case. In the words of Mr. Steiner's own diary which I quote: George suggested to me that we needed to rind a way to get rid of him. Now, this communication from Mr. Stephanopoulos came in spite of an official memorandum from Presidential Counsel Nussbaum on the prohibition of White House staff contacts with independent agencies, which was issued on February 22, 1993, a copy of which is displayed behind me. Mr. Nussbaum's memorandum states, and I quote: There is generally no justification for any White House involvement in particular adjudicative . . . proceedings at any agency. Therefore, as .9 general rule, no member of the staff should contact any agency in regard to any adjudicative matter pending before that agency. This is exactly what George Stephanopoulos appears to have done. Was not this a violation of the White House's own published ethical standards? As I say, we are not here to determine the criminal liability of any particular individual; that is the task of the Special Counsel and the courts if it comes to that. As far as I am concerned, we are here to get the facts. That is bow I shall proceed and I hope it is bow the Committee will proceed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAiRmAN. Thank you, Senator Roth.
Olympic Site
Construction moves forward in Mexico City, host for the '68 Olympics. A village to house 11,000 athletes and reporters, an 80,000 seat stadium, pool-gymnasium, and Sports Palace will all be completed on time. A black screen reads, "Olympic Site - Mexico Prepares For 1968 Games." Construction crews use bulldozers to construct buildings. A close-up shows dirt being graded. Another shows a cement truck pouring concrete into a mold. Archaeologists are shown measuring the height of a pyramid, and then excavating the site. The camera pans the Olympic Stadium. A pool under construction. The Hemispheric Sports Palace is shown under construction. Flying buttresses support the weight of the walls and the large metal skeleton dome.
Anti-Pollution Muffler
Ten of Manhattan's busses get special anti-pollution mufflers in a 6 month experiment to check their performance. They claim to cut diesel exhaust fumes and odors by fifty percent. They're already used in Detroit and they're good in trucks, too! City bus (public transit) outfitted with anti-pollution muffler parked on street, advertisement for TWA on roof. CU Sign on bus: "For Cleaner Air, We are Testing a New Anti-Pollution Muffler on this Bus." MS Heralded muffler. Crowded bus, people standing. Split-model of muffler. Nice panning shot of bus pulling away, "Special" on destination ticker, bus driver manning wheel.
Fuel Cell Truck - Electrical
"Four fuel cells power an experimental U.S. Army Truck, and also operate its weaponry and communications equipment. The cells produce electricity by chemical oxidation, driving the truck up to 40 mph. Panning U.S. Army truck powered by hydrazine electric fuel cells. CU Electric fuel cells under hood (stickers on engine for U.S. Army & Monsanto). Man closing hood of truck. Man driving away.
African Chief
Solemn, colorful, primitive ceremonies mark the swearing in of a new chief of the Guto Tribe, largest in all Rhodesia. The new 70-year old Chief, is the center of all the pomp and military honors. Premier Smith's all white regime has given new power to the Chiefs. Older British man in business suit bestowing elderly tribal Guto chief with pith helmet & cane at ceremony in village. Panning from behind Guto Chief inspecting Rhodesian soldiers marching (note their fez headwear). Guto Chief reviewing troops, leopard skin hanging in FG. Guto chief being bestowed with leopard skin cape. Rhodesian army soldiers presenting arms, British officer with saber in FG. Side view of Guto chief, Royal Union Jack (British flag) flying on screen right. Tribesmen in Western clothing standing, watching ceremony. Villagers dancing, stroking the chief's goatee beard for good luck.
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(11:39:31) Senator Bryan. OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD H. BRYAN Senator BRYAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Our focus in this phase of the Whitewater matter must be threefold: First to inquire if there was improper interference into the independence of regulatory agencies. Second, to ascertain if conflicts of interest existed and were ignored. Third, to determine if there was an effort to mislead the public and/or the Congress. It is this Committee's duty to conduct a thorough, fair, and nonpartisan inquiry and we established a process to do just that. Because Mr. Fiske, a Special Prosecutor looking into the entire Whitewater/Madison matter has asked the Committee to confine the scope of this bearing to only those matters be has completed investigating, there will undoubtedly be questions left unanswered for the time being. This will not be because there is an attempt to avoid a full discussion but in order to prevent the Special Prosecture's investiga 28 tion from being compromised. Mr. Fiske has not yet completed his investigation. The Congress should learn from its mistake in the Iran-Contra hearing. By holding hearings, calling witnesses and offering them immunity for their testimony before the Special Prosecutor had completed his case, Congress ultimately compromised that inves. tigation. Our judicial system paid the price when the prosecutor's cases were then thrown out of court and convictions were overturned. We should not make that mistake again. The process that we have established to review areas of inquiry, once Mr. Fiske has completed his work, is the sensible and responsible way to handle this matter. (11:41:05) Mr. Fiske has concluded that no criminal offenses were committed in this first phase of his investig ation. This Committee's charge, however, is much broader. It is this Committee's obligation to consider the ethical propriety of certain actions taken by public officials. In my view, some contacts appear to be improper. Some discus. sions appear to be inappropriate. Compounding whatever errors may have occurred is the undeniable fact that from day one statements made and questions answered bad to be revised, written, and retracted until the shadow of doubt was cast simply because all the facts were not forthcoming from the outset. Another lesson to be learned is that policymakers and regulators must be kept separate. No one person can assume both roles. Whatever errors Mr. Altman may have made, he was placed in an untenable position. The independence of regulators is one of the basic tenets of our Government. This is not a problem unique to this Administration. It has occurred in the past. Regardless of au decisions later made, the independence of the Resolution Trust Corporation was, in my view, undermined when a Treasury Department policymaker was put in charge. Mr. Chairman, we need to take legislative action to ensure that the head of the RTC will be totally independent A high ranking Treasury political appointee has the responsibility and duty to to advance the interest and policies of his Administration. Mixing the two is asking for trouble and in this case we found it. We should amend the RTC regulations so that a future regulatory independence is insured, None of us yet have the knowledge to judge the entire matter and those questions are left to be answered by Mr. Fiske's full probe when it is completed. There are legitimate questions which this Committee should ask. The Committee has a right to know. The Committee has a right to ask. The media has a right to report. That's what makes our system a democracy and that is all good. What is not good are the innuendoes, the leaks, the exaggerations, and distortions which have occurred around this hearing. It is time for that to end. My role in this hearing is simple. I want to get at the facts fairly and openly. And although it appears no criminal violations have occurred, I am troubled by the conduct of some of the Administration's aides. The President, in my opinion, has not been well-served by their zeal and I'm particularly bothered by the testimony before 29 this Committee by Mr. Altman and the series of explanatory letters that followed. I'm hopeful, however, that today's hearing focusing on the tragic death of Vincent Foster can be conducted in a manner which will not unnecessarily add to the personal grief his family has already endured. This is not the time, nor the place for -sensationalism. I did ' not know Mr. Foster but from what I've beard about him, be was a good man who came to Washington to serve his President and his country. Mr. Fiske concluded, and I quote: That Vincent Foster committed suicide in Fort Marry Park on July 20, 1993. Although the Contributing facto" to his depressed state can never be precisely determined, there is no evidence that any issues relating to Whitewater, Madison Guar. anty, or CMS played any part in the suicide. While I do not advocate that this Committee should be bound by all of Mr. Fiske's findings, I do find reprehensible the attempts by some to invent a new scenario surrounding Mr. Foster's death. Let us deal solely with the facts as they occurred. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bryan, Senator Bennett.
Kite Flying
"The first annual Kite Carnival is held on the grounds of the Washington Monument sponsored by the Smithsonian Institution. Some 200 entries, all shapes and sizes, make the day lively. Even a kite hospital stands by to repair any kites snared by angry trees." African-American & Caucasian adults & children ready or pose with homemade kites in field. An older man wearing sunglasses and a trenchcoat try to fly a flower-shaped kite with little success. Middle-aged man trying to fly kite, only to have the kite string get caught around his ankle. Smithsonian Building is in the BG. Nice Girl with short haircut flying kite, pan right to kite with Washington Monument in BG. Sign at base of a tree: "Beware! Kite Eating Tree." Heavily damaged kite stuck in tree. Kite with bald eagle shape and design being flown and brought safely to ground.
Displaced Vietnamese to Refugee Camp
"A mass evacution moves some 6,000 Vietnamese families from a village in the hotspot of Zone C constantly under fire. They arrive at a refugee camp near Saigon, where each family is provided a house and daily meals. The Saigon regime, with U.S. aid, built the camp. TLS/MSs - Vietnamese civilians-- some wearing concial palm leaf hats-- loading belongings onto U.S.- Army lorries (transport trucks). LS - Scene, military officers wathcing on. MS - Two young Vietnamese girls watching, one holding upside-down dead chicken (hen). MS - Buck naked boy & girl filling bucket with water. CU - Elderly Vietnamese man with long goatee looking into cam. 3/4 view CU - Old Vietnamese man wearing eyeglasses & palm leaf hat. MS - Three Vietnamese children. TLS - Lorry pulling away with ARVN officer riding siderail, waving to crowd. LSs - refugee convoy pulling away. MS- Woman stepping from cab of truck with young son in arms. TLS - Palm-leaf wall being hoisted from truck. MCU - Girl holding young brother in her arms.
Gary Player Takes Open
The US Golf Open goes into overtime as Gary Player battles Kel Nagle in a playoff round. Five strokes ahead on the 8th hole, Player breezes in and announces, he is donating his purse to Cancer Research and for the development of junior golfers. Player is not interested in the money, he only wants the title. Throngs walking down where the golfers are going to tee off going into overtime. Kel Nagle swinging his golf club, golf fans are standing behind him. Sport spectators, men wearing sunglasses and women with sunglasses and hats. Gary Player and Kel Nagle walking to the next hole. Player makes a short putt. The two golfers Player and Nagle shaking hands, golf caddy holding the flag.
American Driver Wins At Le Mans
American-born Masten Gregory, of Kansas City - co-pilot in an Italian car, wins the French race with Jochen Rindt of Austria. The 24-hour drive grind covers just a bit under 3,000 miles. Taking the lead 2 1/2 hours from the finish, they have little trouble in beating the 11-American-made cars, only one of which finished. All the race car drivers running across the road to their cars. High Angle Shot 53 race cars take off and it will end 3,000 miles later. American made race cars take the lead careening around the bend. Aerial shot - A huge parking lot with thousands of cars. Coming down the road are the 51 race cars. The cars come speeding around the bend and some race car enthusiast standing very close to the street on a raised platform. Young adults faces with their heads turning as the cars fly by. High Angle Shot - Racing cars with their headlights on. There is a crowd of racing enthusiast off to the right. Still night, as the cars come flying down the road with their head lights on. Only 14 cars out of 53 finish the race. Race car 21, driven by an American is in the lead of the race. An American won the French race driving an Italian car a Ferrari. Masten Gregory of Kansas City, winner and his co-pilot.
UN's 20th Year: World Body Marks Signing Of Charter
Twenty years ago 50 nations met in San Francisco to take part in the birth of a World Organization that promised peace among men. Though the United Nations has fallen short of the ambitious dream of 1945, it has achieved many notable gains. It has not prevented wars, but in the field of agriculture, health, child welfare and technical aid, it has contributed much toward world progress. Here are scenes at the original meeting and at the 20th anniversary observance - both at the San Francisco Opera House. San Francisco, California
Top Jumpers Show How It's Done
At Hamburg, Germany, 15,000 people see 42 of the world's best horses and riders in competition for the Earl of Derby title. Although a German meet, it is named for the English horseman. He would have been proud of some of the form and grace as revealed by the camera. Nelson Pessoa aboard "Gran Geste" covers the 17 jumps in 161 seconds without a single fault. European premier for spectators draws 15 thousand spectators at Hamburg. A rider and his horse jumps over a fence with a nice clean jump. POV from ground looking up - Jumpers taking on the fences nice and clean. Older man looking through binoculars. Rider from France takes on second place with her nice clean jumps. (Slow motion) Lady holding a 8mm camera to her eye taking pictures. A rider and his twelve year old stallion taking nice clean jumps. Horse jumping enthusiast applauding. Nelson Pessoa and his horse getting awarded a wreath of roses around the horses neck.
Taxis Stop Rolling: NY And Chicago Hit By Strike
Taxicab strikes have emptied the streets of both New York and Chicago as the drivers seek union recognition. In the Chicago strike, the two major cab companies are idle while independents continue to operate. In New York, it's about the same story....the fleet cabs remain in garages while only owner-operated taxis are on the street. Chicago, Illinois High angle shot of a packed parking area just outside the downtown area of Chicago. Behind barbed wire locked fence are taxi cabs just sitting still. A man walking down the side walk, building with a sign painted on it: Chicago Engine & Parts Exchange. H & N Auto Parts Incl. Yellow Cab employee on strike with a sign on his chest, "Employees Of Yellow Cab Co. On Strike. Union Contract Better Wages. Local 777." MS signs "Taxicabs Only - Loading and Unloading." "Private Cars Only - Loading and Unloading." Elderly woman walking down the sidewalks of Chicago with her luggage and shopping bag in her hands. More pedestrians walking down the street with their luggage in their hands. New York, NY New York City's Time Square, streets have traffic but there are no cabs. Yellow cab employees picketing. Taxi driver on strike with a poster around his neck, "We Demand Union Recognition - Now TDOC" Man and woman standing on a street corner with their luggage, and there are no cabs in sight. More bewildered people on the street with their luggage looking for cabs. Outside the train station, out of town people looking completely lost. Queen Elizabeth passenger ocean liner docked and the disembarked passengers have to walk 5 blocks to the subway station with their baggage in hand.
Royal Engagement: Dutch Princess To Wed German
There were murmurings in The Netherlands when the engagement of Princess Beatrix to a former member of Hitler's Wehrmacht was announced. As usual, though, love conquers all. The Princess is to marry a minor German diplomat, Claus Von Amsberg who will become Prince Nicolass and be the next royal consort of the House of Orange-Nassau. The royal family gives a press conference to announce the engagement. Crown Princess Beatrix and Claus Von Amsberg. Queen Juliana. Claus Von Amsberg. Princess Beatrix. Claus Von Amsberg and Princess Beatrix. CUS - Princess Beatrix telling the story on how they met. MS - Princess Beatrix, her parents and her fiancee, she proudly holds up her hand showing off her engagement ring, adding "they're all diamonds, all diamonds".
Nun's New Look: Religious Dress Is Modernized
In line with the modernizing of the Roman Catholic Church, the dress of Nuns is being revised. New habits are shorter and more adapted to this modern age. One Nun, for example, finds the new dress much more suitable to her trips aboard a scooter. In a filled auditorium there sits an audience of school age children and Nuns. A Nun dressed in a white habit, this Nun and other Nuns are of the Franciscan Order. Franciscan Nun camera pans down and shows she is wearing sandals with no stockings. Two Nuns of different orders standing side by side. A Nun walks out wearing a revised version of the new habit the Nuns will wear. A Nun who is a Medical Doctor wearing a white dress but has the veil on only its modernized. Nun comes around the corner driving a motor scooter.
Bing Hits Bingo In Irish Sweepstakes Derby
The "Old Crooner" almost steals the show at Curragh, Ireland, during the running of the Irish Derby. The night before the race, Bing Crosby bought a share in Meadow Court and the next day the three-year-old wins the Derby handily!! More "Pennies from Heaven" for Crosby. Horses being walked by their jockeys on the race track. CUS - Horse and jockey. Packed stands behind the jockey with horse racing fans. High Angle Shot - Horse Ranking Fans. Horses starting off from the gate. Meadow Court stays in with the pack of horses. Man looking through binoculars. High Angle Shot - Horses speeding down the track. High Angle Shot - Meadow Court is on the rail with a duel with Conover and their heading for the wire. CUS - Bing Crosby, pipe in his mouth and he has a huge smile on his face standing next to him is his wife.
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(17:35:53) Ms. HANSON. I was shown the notes in connection with my testi- mony on these matters, although I do not recall seeing them in Senate deposition, but they're not really legible, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You have to study them. It took me a while, too. As you read them and figure out how that person's handwriting looks, they appear to read, essentially, as Senator Mack has state as far as the names mentioned and so forth. You can see, particu- larly on the second half of the last page, I think it gets a little clearer. Senator MACK. I know those notes are very difficult to make heads or tails of. Senator DAMATO. How about going through them? Senator MACK. I've already read them. The additional points are that President and Mrs. Clinton have been mentioned in other charges as potential witnesses,,the RTC investigation of Madison originated in Kansas City, and the White House had obtained the unlisted telephone numbers of the RTC investigators. Ms. HANsON. I don't believe that's correct. That's-actually, that's not correct to my recollection. It was my understanding, at one point in here, that a reporter had been given the names of all of the investigators who had worked on the criminal referrals and bad contacted the Kansas City office to obtain their telephone numbers, because the numbers were unlisted. Senator MACK. Do you agree with the rest of it, then? Ms. HANSON. Some of this information I don't recall, but it does note here that-there is a reporter mentioned. Senator MACK. I just want to finish one point. The CHAIRMAN. Might I make this suggestion: I want you to do exactly that. We've had a vote start. Maybe, because you haven't had a chance to see this, in the time that we're gone to vote, you can, with the help of staff, figure out what it says and see if it sounds like a logic flow you would have given at that time. You will have that time as we're going to vote. Why don't you finish, Senator Mack. Senator MACK. I'll just make this last point. There was a memo that you addressed to Mr. Altman on September 30 ' 1993, where you had spoken with the Secretary and also with Bernie Nussbaum and Cliff Sloan. You said, "I've asked Bill Roelle to keep me informed," in reading from your memorandum to Mr. Altman. You went on to say, "Is there anything else that you think we should be doing?" In this memo, were you effectively reporting back to Mr. Altman that you did what he told you to do on September 27, 19930 in essence carrying out the task that he bad given you? Ms. HANSON. As I testified, I don't have an independent recollection of preparing that memorandum, but it is this type of-but 113 there is no question in my mind that I did, and it's the type of memorandum that I would write to Senator MACK. That's the memo over there and it does have your initials on it, doesn't it? Ms. HANSON. I'm sorry, I can't see it. Senator GRAMM. Let's just pick it up and bring it over to her. Senator BOXER. Why don't you give her this normal-sized piece of paper? Ms. HANsON. As I testified, this is the type of memorandum I would write to follow up on a task I had done. It was also attached to the RTC Early Bird that made reference to the fact that internal RTC sources ha spoken with the press about multiple criminal referrals. Senator MACK. Do you remember the date of the Early Bird? Ms. HANSON. I believe it was dated the same date. Senator MACK. What date was that? Ms. HANSON. September 30, 1993. Senator MACK. Was that after the meeting at the White House had taken place? Ms. HANSON. That's correct, although, as I indicated, the IG chronology that was released yesterday indicates that reporters were making inquiries as early as September 23, 1993. Senator MACK. Again, my point is that you say you had no knowledge of that? Ms. HANSON. I had a very good idea that I was going to be right, I don't know exactly when it was that the first reporter had this information, but I knew that it was imminent. It could very well have happened by the time that I spoke with Mr. Nussbaum. Senator MACK. But, again, you had. no actual knowledge of that? Ms. HANSON. Correct. The CHAIRMAN. I think what we should now do-the second bells have rung on this vote on the floor, so we have just a few minutes left to go to vote. Why don't we give you an opportunity to review, if you need to, that memo. Perhaps the staff can help you make out the handwriting and, if there are further questions, we can deal with that when we resume. The Committee will stand in recess for about 10 minutes while we go to vote and then we'll resume. (17:41:13) [Recess.] (17:41:18) Commentary of KEN BODE and NINA TOTENBERG
August 1, 1994 - Part 5
(17:57:20) Hearing resumes The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come back to order. Let me again invite those in the room to find seats so that we can begin, Let me now recognize Senator Shelby. Senator SHELBY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson, before you came to Washington last year as General Counsel what kind of law practice were you involved in? HANSON. Corporate. Senator SHELBY. Was that office practice, or was that white-collar criminal defense or prosecution or both? Ms Hanson. It was corporate finance and securities. Senator SHELBY. Did you do trial work? MS. HANSON. No, I did not. Senator SHELBY. OK you didn't. You do realize, I know, as an accomplished lawyer, that information is very important to any- 114 thing, to lawyers, to business decisions, or anything. Basic information is an important commodity, is it not? Ms. HANsON. Yes. Senator'SHELBY. OK. Information that's timely is more important. Ms. HANSON. That's right. Senator SHELBY. OK. would you think the White House- would be interested in ' or did you think the White House would In interested in, this information that you were-that bad been given to you, that you talked to Mr. Altman about? Why did you think, when Mr. Altman told you to brief Mr. Nussbaum or call him, or whatever happened, he wanted that done? Did it occur to you why he wanted that done? Ms. HANSON. I knew exactly why he wanted it done. Senator SHELBY. Why, what was that? Ms. HANSON. Because, with press leaks imminent, there were going to be press inquiries that the White House, by definition, would receive. The White House needed to be prepared to respond intelligently to the press inquiries as they came in. Senator SHELBY. Could there have been other motivations, other than press leaks, for which the White House would want this infor- mation, or for which Altman would think they would need this information? Ms. HANSON. The only reason that I communicated with the White House was to put them in the position to be able to respond to press inquieries. Senator SHELBY. Did Mr. Altman use the word "Press leaks" to you? Ms. HANSON. It was my understanding in the Senator SHELBY. No, did he use that word, that phrase? Ms. HANSON. As I've stated, I don't recall the specifies of the conversation but that was the purpose of my task. Senator SHELBY, Did you make some notes about this for your records? Ms. HANSON. No. Senator SHELBY. Did you make some notes about this conversation? Ms. HANSON. With Mr. Altman? Senator SHELBY. Yes. Ms. HANSON. Not to my recollection. Senator SHELBY There is nothing you recollect from your notes about that conversation? Ms. HANSON. No, sir. (18:00:13) Senator SHELBY. I want to ask you this. Did you ever, ever think it was improper, as General Counsel, to brief the White House on something from the RTC that was basically confidential, something of this importance, dealing with a Justice Department-a referral to the Justice Department involving criminal behavior, possible criminal behavior? Ms. HANSON. Sir, I knew Senator SHELBY. I'm not talking about now, but before. (18:00:53)(Tape #10060 ends)
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:15:35) Ms. HANSON. Did I ever get the information Senator D'AMATO. When Mr. Roelle called you and made reference to the nine criminal referrals, did he give you that information? Is that the information he gave you? Ms. HANSON. The information about the checks or the information about the Senator D'AMATo. About the nine referrals and did he give Ms. HANsoN. I don't recall hearing anything about checks from Mr. Roelle at all. Senator D'AMATO. But you do remember the nine criminal referrals? , Ms. HANsON. That's right. Senator MACK. The implication is that Mr. Lindsey learned about these checks from you. Ms. HANsON. I did not have that information. Sir, I understoodactually, I understood that the information about the checks came from Mr. Gerth, that it was the Senator MACK. I don't think he had that information, in fact the RTC believes that the funds'for the cashier's checks came from a loan. I don't think Mr. Gerth had that information at that time. Ms. HANSON. Certainly, Mr. Gerth, according to this, bad the information about the checks because Mr. Gerth wanted Mr. DeVore to find out who bad endorsed them. As I say, I have no recollection of ever having heard anything about checks from Mr. Roelle. Senator MACK. I don't have any further questions. senator DAMATO. Senator Bennett. Senator BENNETT. Thank you. I intend to yield to Senator Roth, who wants to pursue the chronology, but I can't resist making a comment, somewhat in the spir- 120 it of the Chairman's comment, about lessons to be learned you, out this for the future. This is all done in the name of dealing with press inqueries. not a lawyer, so I don't understand all that's going on around here but I have earned my living advising people about press inqueries. I first came to Washington as Press Secretary to a Congress The press response the White House gave was the right on ' one, comment." It did not require a briefing in the White House or briefing in Mr. McLarty's office or anyplace else to prepare them for that stunning riposte to a press inquiry. "No comment." The best response, I realize, is terribly difficult to discipline yourself to give, but the best response would have been, since we have re- ? no communication of any kind from the RTC about this mat-: ter and since it would be inappropriate if we had, we are not in a position to comment. That gives the White House the high moral ground and they should hang on to it. I think they made a serious mistake in having you come over and give them their briefing. With that comment, Mr. Chairman, IT yield whatever time I have left to Senator Roth. The CHAIRMAN. Time has expired on this side at this point. Senator Sasser. Senator SASSER. I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson., I want to return to the reason that Mr. Roelle called you in the first place. When he called to alert you to the fact that there would be nine criminal referrals coming from the Kansas City office of the Resolution Trust Corporation to Washington, as I understand it, he called to alert you to that fact because he felt that as soon as these criminal referrals got to Washington, they would be leaked to the press. Is that an accurate statement? Ms. HANSON. Yes. Yes, sir. Senator SASSER. I find that really fascinating. Did he tell you why he thought they would be leaked or who would gain an advantage by leaking that information to the press and why they would do it? Did he mention that? Ms. HANSON. No, but it was common knowledge, at that point, that the RTC-information regularly leaked from the RTC. Senator SASSER. This was information that was supposed to be privileged and confidential in order to protect what might very well be innocent citizens who were alluded to in a criminal referral. Isn't that an accurate statement? Ms. HANSON. Yes, yes, and in order not to compromise the inves- tigation.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(17:59:45)(Beginning of tape #10061) Senator SHELBY. No, did he use that word, that phrase? Ms. HANSON. As I've stated, I don't recall the specifies of the conversation but that was the purpose of my task. Senator SHELBY, Did you make some notes about this for your records? Ms. HANSON. No. Senator SHELBY. Did you make some notes about this conversation? Ms. HANSON. With Mr. Altman? Senator SHELBY. Yes. Ms. HANSON. Not to my recollection. Senator SHELBY There is nothing you recollect from your notes about that conversation? Ms. HANSON. No, sir. (18:00:13) Senator SHELBY. I want to ask you this. Did you ever, ever think it was improper, as General Counsel, to brief the White House on something from the RTC that was basically confidential, something of this importance, dealing with a Justice Department-a referral to the Justice Department involving criminal behavior, possible criminal behavior? Ms. HANSON. Sir, I knew Senator SHELBY. I'm not talking about now, but before. (18:00:53)(Tape #10060 ends) Ms. HANSON. The conversation that I had with Mr. Nussbaum related to press inquiries that he was likely to receive. He was bound by the ethics regulations, and, in fact, was the Chief Ethics 115 Officer for the Office of the President. I was bound by the ethics rules as well. It never occurred to me that he would use that information for any purpose other than the governmental purpose that I intended it to be used for. Senator SHELBY. As General Counsel there at the Treasury and also working with the RTC in that role, did it ever occur to you that the information, once it left the RTC, could be left for many purposes, or could be leaked past the White House? Ms. HANSON. I was under the impression, and, in fact, I turned out to be right, that the information was going to be leaked. It was leaked out of the RTC to a number of news reporters. Senator SHELBY. Ms. Hanson, did you ever, ever check with Treasury or RTC ethics officers before meeting with the White House? Ms. HANSON. I didn't have to do that. I was familiar with the ethics rules. I understood how they operated. I understood that I was doing this for a governmental purpose, a proper governmental purpose, Senator SHELBY. Have you had second thoughts on that? Ms. HANSON. Excuse me? Senator SHELBY. Have you had second thoughts on that? Ms. HANSON. No. The Office of Governmental Ethics has said the same thing. Senator SHELBY. In your meeting at the White House, this has been touched on in your deposition and here, too, I suppose, but could you tell us for the record, again, what you basically told Mr. Nussbaum and the other gentleman. There was someone else there, too. Ms. HANSON. Mr. Sloan. Senator SHELBY, Mr. Sloan. Ms. HANSON. As I stated, I don't recall the specifics of the conversation. I don't recall exactly what I said. I Senator SHELBY. Did you take notes with you when you went down there? Ms. HANSON. I don't recall that I did. Senator SHELBY, You don't recall whether you took notes down there and you don't recall the specific conversation, but you do recall briefing him regarding the RTC information that was imparted to you? Ms. HANSON. That's right. Senator SHELBY. But, of your own recollection, you don't remember any of it now? Is that what you're saying to the Committee? Ms. HANSON. I don't remember, specifically, what I told him. Senator SHELBY. Could you, generally tell us what you told him? Ms. HANSON. Going back to Mr. Sloan's notes-which was a question I was asked Senator SHELBY. Are you referring to Mr. Sloan's notes now? Ms. HANSON. I'm referring to Mr. Sloan's notes of September 30, 1993. In looking at Mr. Sloan's notes, they do not refresh my recollection of having had a conversation with him on that date. There Is some information in here that I don't recognize, but the bulk of the information in Mr. Sloan's notes is what I recall having been told by Mr. Roelle. Senator SHELBY. Do you differ with his notes in any way? 116 Ms. HANSON. There are some things in here I don't remember. Senator SHELBY. What do you, differ with? Ms. HANSON. As I say, I don't remember. Some of the things in here I don't remember. I don't remember, for example, the water Co. I just don't remember that. Senator SHELBY. Yes ma'am. Ms. HANSON. The bulk of what is here is my recollection of. what I was told by Mr Roelle. Senator SHELBY. Do you have any reason-although you might not remember everything about what transpired in the meeting, do you have any real reason to differ with his notes? Ms. HANSON. No, no, sir. Senator SHELBY. Ms. Hanson, did you check with the Treasury' ethics officers before the February 2, 1994, White House meeting." I asked you, and you said no. Was that right? Ms. HANSON. I thought you asked about the September meeting. Senator SHELBY. Ok the first one. Did you check with the White House-did you check with the Treasury ethics officers before the February 2, 1994, White House meeting? Ms. HANSON. Yes, I did. Senator SHELBY. You did. What did they tell you, if anything? Ms. HANSON, We discussed, generally, the topics that Mr. Altman intended to discuss. Senator SHELBY. Did they talk to you about the propriety of the meeting and the perception of it? Did you go into that?
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(18:05:12) Ms. HANSON. I spoke with the Deputy General Counsel, who is the Treasury designated agency ethics officer for his Senator SHELBY. What advice did you get, if any? Ms. HANsON. He said he didn't have an objection to the meeting. Senator SHELBY. No objection to the meeting. OK I believe you were asked earlier about when Mr. Altman testified before this same Banking Committee back in February-I forget the exact date--and you were in the audience. You were Counsel and seated right behind him, if I recall. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. I recall you using the phrase, and I quote, you thought that it "would require further elaboration" on some of his answers. Are those your words? Ms. HANSON. Those are my words. Senator SHELBY. Did you ever, while he was testifying, hand him a note or something to refresh his recollection about these questions that were being asked of him? Ms. HANSON. I recall handing him notes from time to time. Senator SHELBY. Do you recall if these were to correct some of his answers, and if he ignored the notes, or what? Ms. HANSON. I don't recall, sir. I recall that Ms. Kulka and I drafted a response to a question we anticipated during the hearing and gave it to him for him to look over, but I don't recall exactly what else. Senator SHELBY. What did he do with it, if anything? Ms. HANSON. He kept that one to use for an answer. It was a question that we didn't have a specific answer to, but drafted one during the course of the bearing. I passed him some other notes as well. don't recall what they were. 117 Senator SHELBY. Were some of those notes, and this will be-my time is up, but my last part of this suggestion--were some of the notes that you all would pass to him then, would they be to help him further elaborate on his answers, like we all do? Ms. HANsON. I don't recall that any-tbat there were any notes of that type. Senator SHELBY. OK My time is up. The CHAIRMAN. I want to yield to Senator Mack, who is going to continue on their side. I've spoken to Senator DAMATO. an I want to just take a minute myself, I'll elaborate on this more at a later point. I think for your reference, and the reference of any other person who comes before a Senate or House Committee in a situation such as the meeting we're referring to, if information is asked for by a Senator-let's keep it on the Senate side-and an incomplete answer is given, to get the information later is not the same thing as giving a full and responsive answer at the time, particularly if there are follow-up questions. If there is a pattern of questions that make it clear that Senators are trying to understand something, and there are incomplete answers one after the other, if you're there in the room and possess the knowledge, you should not allow that to go on. I think you have some obligation, you and anybody else in that situation, to respond in real time. That's why we have hearings. Yes, you put stuff in the record that you may not have the information on at the time. If you've got to go find something to put it in the record, that's one thing. If you are sitting there and you have the information and it's being withheld, that's another. That, in my view, is not proper, Whether you're the person doing the testifying or somebody you directly report to is sitting there doing the testifying and you or they are giving answers, not once, but more than once, that are incomplete and you recognize them to be incomplete I think there is an obligation to respond in real time. If you can write a note, as you say you just did with Ms. Kulka, on something else, you can certainly write a note in that area-and I say that not only to you, but everybody else who might be in an equivalent situation. A later response down the line, for the record, is not the same thing as a true and accurate response in real time. Do you understand what I'm saying? Ms. HANsON. I do understand what you're saying, sir. If I might, as I stated, Mr. Altman was testifying. He had questions and answers in front of him, and I had every reason to believe that he 'was testifying"-he was making decisions as he testified. The issues before us now have assumed much more importance and significance than they had at that particular time. As I stated, I expectfully expected that we would respond in an orderly way, and would respond fully and completely to every question. There was no intention on my_part, sir, not to do that. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, could I have 10 seconds on this follow-up because it relates? The CHAIRMAN. Of course. Senator SHELBY. Ms. Hanson, you say that Mr. Altman had the questions and answers before him. Were these a lot of the quesitons that were anticipated, like in the preparation for the overought hearing, and some of the answers that you all had prepared 118 and that he bad prepared himself to answer accordingly? Is that what you were referring to?