Advanced Search
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:10:17) That is why certain Senators would be here at some times and not at others. They'd have other responsibilities going on at precisely the same time. That's why sometimes the same question would get asked two, three, or four times over. Because one Senator would want the answer to a question that might have been asked earlier by another Senator, but because that Senator was out of the room at the time somebody asked the question, they didn't hear the question asked and they didn't hear the answer, so when they came back they would have to put the question themselves. A lot of it does seem repetitive, and I don't know any way to solve that problem. That's the nature of the situation. But the other side of it was this- When you have witnesses in where there are conflicts in what they're saying, and where there are direct contradictions, you have to examine people very carefully, You don't just examine them with cross-examination as witnesses, but you have to take documents, records, and other things that you can find that establish the truthfulness and completeness of what they're saying. That takes time, especially when you have conflicts. We have a lot of direct conflicts in the testimony here as to what the truth is and if people are being honest in the answers they're giving. It can take a long time to sort that out. And, sometimes, it's never completely sorted out. Finally, you just have to make a judgment at the end as to bow the weight of evidence comes out. I think, in some of these situations, we're going to have differences of opinion around the table as to what we think and how we assess it. It's no different than a jury. This is not a trial as such, it feels partly like it, but it's different in important ways that I won't get into, but it's the same in the sense that we have to make a judgment at the end as to what we believe. We try to do that collectively and we try to do it individually but it's 'very difficult and we're all tired. And, like anybody that works long hours and gets tired, that has an effect on how you think about things, it slows down, at least for me, my processing time a little bit. So, with respect to some of the things we've heard, I want to now weigh very carefully. In fact, I want to go back and read some of the cross-examination again. I want to read, again, what an individual witness said and then perhaps compare it, side by side, with what another witness said to try to make a final judgment as to why there was a difference, why there was a discrepancy, and if 797 somebody there was being less than truthful or less than complete in their answers. In that regard, without getting into specific individuals, but to illustrate the point, we bad one witness here one day who gave an answer to a question by Senator Sarbanes. And the answer to the question that was put by Senator Sarbanes was no, but what had happened was be bad conditioned his answer in such a way as to enable him to give a no answer to the question. Senator Sarbanes, very skillfully, could see what was going on. He took the person's answer and, one by one, asked him to remove the qualifying aspects that he had very skillfully put into his answer. It took Sen- ator Sarbanes about three slices to get the qualifiers out of there. Once he had done that, it turned the no into a yes on the very same question. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, if I might. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Senator DAMATO. That was absolutely one of the most magnificent pieces of examination that I have ever seen. I just want to commend my colleague. You did it with such art. You sliced away all of the fat and got right to the core. The CHAIRMAN. It was a brilliant job. The bottom line was it was an illustration, if somebody was paying attention, of bow a witness can very skillfully, in my view, give a false answer to a question by the very clever juxtaposition of words. And Senator Sarbanes, who has a keen ear and an even keener mind, shaved that away and got the truthful answer. That doesn't excuse the answer that was given in the first instance. When that happens it shouldn't be lost on people in the Executive Branch of Government, not just in terms of the initiating facts that caused this case to come before us, but also with respect to testimony given by witnesses here. That's just my view. I'm not trying to speak for the Committee in saying that, but I have a very strong feeling about it. That's one of the things that we can't tolerate any longer, so I was very distressed. I thought we had to deal with some of that right in the course of these hearings. It takes a long time to strip away and get down, as close as we can, to what the true facts are so that we can put them there and make decisions.
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:15:28) I want to say also, in that same vein of trying to make some sense out of what looks like a process that takes an awfully long time, it can look like we're browbeating witnesses. I don't think any of us here have a desire to do that. I know I certainly don't, nor am I prepared, as Chairman, to tolerate the browbeating of witnesses. There are times when witnesses do not give straight answers and if you don't press them again and again you don't get the answers you need as in the illustration that I just mentioned with Senator Sarbanes. There's a fine balance between the degree to which you press a witness and, oftentimes, witnesses will finally say that they don't have a memory of something. If so, then that's their judgment. They can say that. We'll leave it there and try to make a judgment based on other information and evidence that we have. But I should say again, for the record, we took 37 witness depositions. That meant that before those witnesses came in here to testify, they had to first go and sit down with these two attorneys in 798 a room somewhere and, under oath, be subjected to questions and give answers to them in preparation for gathering the facts we could then come here with those deposition documents them further questions to compare the testimony in the statements of one witness against another. That's the process goes on. It takes a lot of time and it's demanding but that's what's required when you are trying to get the facts and sort them out. We reviewed over 10,000 pages of documents Now you think about it, a 10,000 page book, it's a big book. A lot of the documents were handwritten notes or they were things that were hard make sense out of. They came from different people at different times and you not only had to analyze all those, but You had to I cross-relate them one to the other. It takes a long time to do it. We took evidence from several branches of the Government , the Park Police as well as the Department of the Treasury, the RTC., the White House, and the Department of the Interior. I want, to say, again, we got absolute cooperation from the White House; and to their great credit and to the President's great credit, everything we asked for we got in terms of both witnesses, in an unrestrained and unfettered way, as well as access to all of the documents that are within the scope of our resolution. I don't know of any other time in the history of this country when any Chief Executive has released his people, his documents, and their documents and came in here in a setting like this in as full a way. The President deserves credit for that, It's what he should do but it's the first time it's happened in such a full way as that, to my historical knowl- edge. That should be acknowledged and I want to say I appreciate that cooperation. I want to thank the Members also and I want to say, again, particularly with respect to Senator Faircloth, on the scope issue. We were told by the Senate that we could only look at certain things within a certain set of boundaries so that we would not interfere with the outside investigation going on by Special Counsel Robert Fiske, And that was an absolutely appropriate request by him, in my view, and the instruction by the Senate was that we not go over those boundary lines and interfere with his work and perhaps jeopardize future prosecutors and financial recoveries, for example, that he might pursue. It's always a judgment call as to whether something is in or out of the bounds of the scope of our resolution. I will say, with Senator D'Amato, we resolved every single one of those differences, disputes, and questions in a manner that was agreeable to both sides. And for that, I'm very grateful. Senator Faircloth, who had an intense interest of wanting to go as far as he possibly could, did so, but at the point at which I bad to interject to say that we were up against the scope limits, as we call them, he had the grace and cooperative willingness to stop. I want to say, even though he's not here at the moment, that I'm very grateful for that because be could have been contentious about it. I know he has a strong feeling about it. He worked within the process and I appreciate that and want to acknowledge it. We're not here today, at least I don't feel we are, to draw final conclusions and to say exactly, I mean, each Member is free to speak for themselves, but in terms of a Committee statement, and I'm thinking of myself as Chairman now of the Committee, we're 799 obviously not at, a point where we can render sweeping judgments as a Committee. We are charged with generating a report to the Senate, in addition to laying all these facts out in the light of day and, of course, we will do that. We will make recommendations for changes in the law and in administrative practices that we think are necessary.
Graduation Pomp & Circumstance
High angle WS impressive column of college graduates marching three abreast into outdoor area for ceremonies 00:02:40 nice MS students in cap and gown seated for graduation 00:02:44 another angle school administrators and faculty marching in procession through crowd 00:02:57 side shot faculty members (or could be Master/PhD graduates) in cap and gown marching 00:03:04 MS homey scene of young man graduate shaking Dad's hand, getting pats on back from Mom, and grandmother. Big grin on grad's face implies that finals were no sure thing.
Request state lotus reservation!
High contrast not bad Request state lotus reservation! Take steps to protect only field of biblical flowers in the world outside of Egypt.
PRESIDENT IS 56! - BOY SCOUTS PRESENT MR. HOOVER W
High contrast not bad Carved buffalo horn trumpet given to President Herbert Hoover from the Boy Scouts, President, Hoover, Boy Scouts.
Female "Firemen" Defy Flames
High contrast, grainy not bad Female 'firemen' defy flames! Smoke-eater-ettes roll hose and otherwise do their stuff to protect home town. Women firefighters, fire truck.
New Airmail Pick-up Surprises
High contrast, grainy not bad Roger Wolfe Kahn demonstrates new cabot device for postal officials, who required 75 out of 100 perfect pick-ups. Pilot, plane, airport, single engine, gabot
Lumberjack 'rolleo' Kings Vie In Loggers Water Sport Meet
High contrast, not bad some drop out spots on imagery 'Block rolling' too is excitingly pictured in timbermen's battle against wet odds.
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:20:28) I raised some issues with Mr. Cutler, who is still here, in my opening statement today. I'm going to insert in the record a legal brief we have that makes it clear to us that the RTC is an inde- pendent agency. I just want to make it clear that I hope, whether the Executive Branch agrees with that or not, they'll act in a manner that respects our view so that we're not back in here again on some matter that challenges that question. I don't foresee a problem in that area, but I want to make it clear that that's our feeling on it. Let me say just a couple of other things, and I apologize for the length of this time, but there are several wrap-up things that I think need to be said. I think, with respect to the first day of our bearings, the tragic death of Mr. Vincent Foster, that the record is now complete in that area. It's just a terrible loss in terms of the circumstances that attach to that situation. But, I think that we were charged with reviewing those facts, and we've done so. I think that issue is clearly examined and settled and should be seen as so. I would hope that it could be left there so this family can deal with the grief they feel. Anybody that has a hard time thinking about it ought to think about how they would feel if it happened in their immediate family, and how you try to pick up the pieces and go on from there. It's been said by many that Fiske, Mr. Fiske, the Special Counsel, has already came back and said, with respect to the areas in which we've done our review, that there was no basis for criminal action that he saw. His finding was clear on that. That was an important finding by him. We found, at least in my view-I don't see anything that obviates that, but I'm not speaking for the Committee and to the extent that there is anything in our record that is in addition to what be may have, then, obviously, we, in effect, are automatically conveying that to the Justice Department and to him, so that be can add that to his body of information. I want to just finish now by saying two things. I want to, again, thank the staff. When I was paying a tribute to you for the extraordinary effort you made you were out of the room, but I can't thank you enough. We'd never met 6 weeks ago and we made this climb together to get this job done. I'm deeply appreciative to you. I thank your family for the sacrifice. And the same with the staff here. We've got exceptional people at work here. They work 7 days a week. They don't complain about it and they do fine work for the country. That's the way our system works and thank goodness we have people who are willing to do the work. In terms of individuals in this situation, I set forth, in my opening statement, a test that I was going to apply with respect to statements by witnesses before this Committee, both depositions and direct testimony. I said that people are going to have to be ac- curate, complete, and fully responsive to the questions, and I meant by that, not on the third try, the 10th try, the 15th try, 10 800 days later, 20 days later, or 50 days later, but at the time the ques tion was posed. We've got some problems in that area, and I think the record is there to establish that. I'm troubled about that. I'm troubled about the fact that in the instances of some, I thought that was still a factor we were having to deal with right here this room. My view is that, I'm going to express some of my personal judgments in that regard directly, and to people who are in positions to receive that information. We don't have any power to hire or fire anybody. I mean, that's not our job, nor should it be, although we can have strong feelings about the performance of individuals. In terms of my personal views, my first instinct is to want to convey I that in a direct, personal way, as opposed to a public way, but I think there are issues outstanding in that area that are important I think it's absolutely critical and should be clearly understood because I made this point as directly as I could to the Treasury Secretary when he was here and to Mr. Cutler, when he was a witness and he is still here in the room, that we can't have a situation in the future where anybody in the Executive Branch comes before this Committee or any Committee of the Congress and evasive answer, an incomplete answer, or a less than the answer whatever the circumstances. And then, not at the earliest moment, if it's done by inadvertence, repair that fully. There are times when people can omit something from an answer because there's a misinterpretation or something doesn't come to mind or something can happen and that's understandable. We make an al- lowance for that.
Bison
PART 1 15:35:40 Huge Bison herd in migration 15:40:03 Huge Bison herd, Bison Bull bellowing CU 15:42:42 Huge Bison herd in migration, crossing slough
Elk
PART 1 17:33:52 Male Elk herd coming toward me 17:49:21 Male Elk drinks, crosses stream 17:52:53 Female Elk and two (2) calves cool off in river 22:18:27 Male Elk bedded, Bugle 22:23:37 Male Elk tear turf and herd harem of Female Elks 22:25:40 Female Elk CU. 22:31:03 Male Elks herd, tear turf, bed, scratch with antlers 22:34:34 Two (2) young Bull Elks spar 23:04:24 Big Male Elk feed in scenic area 23:08:30 Big Male Elk browse, urinate, yawn 23:11:38 Big Male Elk drinks, swims river .... shakes off water 23:14:59 Big Male Elk trash bush with antlers, angerly 23:25:40 Big Male Elk wade river, shake water off, walk 23:28:44 Big Male Elk cross highway 23:29:16 Big Male Elk browse on willows, trash bush 19:20:02 Big Male Elk and tourists 19:24:04 Big Male Elk bedded, bugle, gets up turf and masterbates 23:39:36 Big Bull Elk in meadow, herd cows into forest 23:40:53 Big Bull Elk rub antlers on pine, rubs resin on neck
Bison
PART 1 23:42:08 Big Bison Bull feed and scratch 10:53:57 Bison herd along river PART 2 10:57:21 Bison herd crossing river walking 11:01:37 Bison Bull rolls in dust backlit
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:26:00) I don't think that's what we're dealing with here, in some of these instances, so that is part of the reason why we're here. But, if nothing else is clear out of this, it's clear we can't have that. If this Government's going to work, we've got to have a situation where the information we get the first time is reliable. It's full, complete, honest, and direct. People can't go through graceful ducks or anything else, or whatever phrases anybody else wants to pick. Whether they're questions asked by someone on this side or on that side, every Senator's questions are important and every one needs to be answered fully and directly by every witness. Any other system just is not a working system in terms of democracy as I understand it. So, with that, I want to finally thank my colleagues. There 's no way in the world we could do this job without the tremendous commitment and talent of Senators like Senator Sarbanes and the others, going right down the aisle on our side, and Senator D'Amato and all of the rest of the Members on his side, and their staff. I think every Senator worked as hard on this assignment, in a short timeframe, as I have seen during my time in the Senate. It's not uncommon, by the way, for Senators to work that hard. I think every Senator works that hard, on a variety of issues, virtually every day. People bad a chance to see it here. They saw that when we had to go until late into the evening to fit this compressed timeframe problem that we had, everybody stepped up to the assignment and did it. I'm very grateful for that. 801 This is a team effort and this team, I think, performed in a way that I certainly feel proud about and I thank everyone for that cooperation. So, with that, unless there is anyone else seeking recognition, I'm going to indicate that we've concluded this phase--we've concluded our work, under Senate Resolution 229, in terms of the part that we could deal with at this stage. I thank all concerned. The Committee stands in recess. (14:27:59) [Whereupon, at 2:27 p.m., the hearing was concluded.] (14:28:00) Commentary of DON BODE and STEVE ROBERTS from tv studio
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(14:30:25) House Banking Committee Hearings resume at which several officials from the RTC or Resolution Trust Corporation testify
Safety in Offices office accidents
Safety in Offices office accidents. Created by the United States Navy for civilian workers.
Circus - marches - neg
Clowns - circus inside
Could be Spanish circus
Unique Trapeze Act
Unique Trapeze Act - Women swing by teeth. MS inside the big top as women in pink costumes are lifted into air by man in support frame pedaling a cycle contraption, once the momentum is going the women fly around hanging from their teeth, they look like butterflies as they spin & lift the arms of their winged costumes. the wings are eventually shed and the act returns to the ground. MS trapeze act with women in pink costumes spinning by their teeth.
Ext. circus (clowns)
Circus - people - outside tent
Lights on ride -night
March into and in tents - circus
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:10:00)(tape #10103 begins) people who don't have a legitimate Government 497 interest-I should note I don't agree with you that you had a legitimate Government interest. Number two, you can't do anything to destroy evidence or get rid of any evidence, and I don't think anybody here is willing to tell us under oath that documents didn't disappear, that things weren't altered, that files weren't searched on the basis of the nonpublic information which apparently, according to your testimony, not only did the President know, but it also went to Mr. Lyons. It may well have gone to Governor Tucker; it may have gone to others. (00:10:37) Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, did you see my staff here the other day, the members of my staff who testified? Beth Nolan and Joel Klein and Neal Eggleston. Senator BOND. Yes. Mr. NUSSBAUM. And Cliff Sloan. Senator BOND. Yes, I did. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Did you think they were fairly impressive people? Senator BOND. I think I'm asking the questions, Mr. Nussbaum, but there were people in the White House who looked to you for guidance and you didn't give them the guidance. Mr. Gearan at least was not a lawyer. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I think Senator BOND. Let me ask you a question. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Can I respond to you? Senator BOND. I'm going to have to--are you going to extend the time? The CHAIRMAN. I'll extend your time. I think he ought to have a chance Mr. NUSSBAUM. If I can just respond. I surrounded myself in the White House and the Counsel's Office with excellent people. Some of the other people in the White House, especially Mr. Lindsey, are people of superb character, superb judgment, good lawyers. I don't have to tell them that you shouldn't misuse inside information or nonpublic information you're getting. These people knew their responsibilities, knew their roles. I didn't have to go around telling these people not to do that and indeed, Senator, with all respect, I recognize you feel strongly about this, too. With all respect, Senator, there is not a single shred of evidence that anybody misused this information in any way. Not a single thread of evidence that documents were destroyed, or people tipped off. Those are just, in my view, Senator, irresponsible charges when somebody makes them when there is no evidence for those charges. And the fact that I didn't tell people not to abuse their oath, it ,Wasn't necessary. These people know that as well as I, perhaps even better than 1. Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, if I may resume. would comment on that. I would make the statement that it's I think it's significant you used the term "shred of evidence," and unfortunately, that raises a question because as you and I know if evidence has disappeared, it would be very difficult to prove. That is not the charge that that was done in this case, but the danger of it is the reason that nonpublic information on criminal cases shouldn't be shared. Now, Mr. Lindsey did say that he had a discussion with Mr Lyons. Let me ask you, does the same standard apply to judges? You cited Justice Rehnquist. Had President Clinton appointed Altman and this case, a civil case, come before Mr. Altman, would Altman as a judge have to disqualify himself? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, I don't believe so. Senator BOND. Well, that may be the standard in the Southern District of New York, Mr. Nussbaum, but I've got to tell you just recently, a year ago, I had to file a lawsuit in the Eastern District of Missouri. Some of the judges I had previously appointed to State judgeships. Others, I had voted, as a Senator, to confirm. One of them, our sole contact, said that 22 years ago, he had made a campaign contribution to me. All of them disqualified themselves. Now, as an advocate, you can make a strong case if you are trying to defend somebody (00:14:12)(tape #10097 ends) and keep them out of jail that what Mr. Altman did was proper, but if you wrote an ethics exam in a law school and said that in those circumstances a man in Mr. Alt --- - - position would not have to disqualify himself, I think you would get a failing grade because Mr. Altman was in the same position as Jay Stephens, where it would have been ridiculous and unfair for him to act upon it. Mr. Altman was not trying to duck his job, he was very aggres- sive in his job and he even faxed you information. Finally, I would say that when you talk about the need to tell the President everything because the President is so important, that is probably the most awe- inspiring statement of omnipotence that we have heard since, was it Louis XIV who said, "The state, it is I"-l'etat c'est moi. You have, I believe, contributed to the ethi- cal lapse that the White House suffered from so greatly in the last year.