Advanced Search
Elk
PART TWO Bull Elk antlers growing
Bison
PART TWO Bison calf sleeping Bison calf nursing 3 day old calf walking, running, umbilical cord
Coyote
(Tape 1) 02:03:09 Coyote makes 2 jumps and misses, then trots off in light snow 02:05:53 Coyote hunts in circle, gets nothing 02:06:26 Coyote lopes 02:06:53 Trotting, stops to check vole, eats it, in light snow 02:08:17 Coyote catches vole, high jumps in snow 02:09:07 Coyote hunting close 02:09:15 Young coyote hunting grasshoppers, tongue hanging out 02:10:37 Coyote in high grass 02:12:05 Coyote hunting vole and missing 02:22:01 Coyote trotting and walking near river bank 02:23:45 Coyote attempting to cross river, turns around and goes back to bank, shaking fur 02:24:48 Trotting on river bank 02:27:53 Hunting, catching and eating vole 02:29:52 Coyote and cattle
Wolf
(Tape 1) 02:32:29 Young wolves playing in water, chase each other around in grass 02:35:20 Wolf in Denali National Park, Alaska. on road with bus, see cameraman walking behind wolf at beginning of shot 02:36:28 Wolf trotting on tundra, looking for ground squirrels
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:35:17) Senator BOND. It was inaccurate, because it did not state who made the contacts. There was never any follow-up effort. You are using the March 4, 1994, subpoena as a reason to walk away from, and leave unfulfilled, your obligation to correct the record. Is that a fair assessment? Is that your reason for not seeing that the record was corrected? Ms. HANSON. Sir, no one asked-if there were supplemental questions answered, and if the responses to the record were reviewed, no one asked me for my input, nobody contacted me. I was under specific instruction, from my attorneys, not to talk with anyone about these matters. I understood that was the understanding of other people who had received the subpoenas as well. Consequently, I did not, because I was a recipient of a subpoena for a Grand Jury investigation. Senator BOND. So you are now using the Grand Jury investigation to justify, number one, your failure to correct the statement made by your client, which you knew to be incorrect at the time, because back on December 21, 1993, you had prepared this draft that was torn out, had you not, referring to the September 29, 1993, meeting with Ms. HANSON. I'm sorry, sir, I don't know what you are talking about. Senator BOND. You don't have this draft that was found, this Madison Guaranty chronology, you didn't prepare that on December 21, 1993? Ms. HANSON. That was-I did prepare that draft chronology, yes, sir. Senator BOND. In which you talked about the meeting with B. Nussbaum, J. Hanson, and Cliff Sloan in B. Nussbaum's office following the Waco prebrief. That was in that memo. Ms. HANSON. Yes. Senator BOND. You remembered it then, forgot it in February, and then, you remembered it later in February? Ms. HANSON. No, sir, I remembered the meeting-I remembered that I had a conversation with Mr. Nussbaum. As I said, my original recollection was that it was by phone. I hadn't thought about it, seriously, for a very long time. The whole focus of the preparation for the hearing was on the civil investigation and the statute of limitations issues. We bad not thought about the fall meetings. There was no intention to mislead anyone. It hadn't been thought about. That letter, the March 2, 1994, letter, was not intended, in my view, to be a full-it certainly wasn't a full response to your questions, because it didn't give any detail. That is not how I viewed the letter, sir. Senator BOND. The March 2, 3, 11, and 21, 1994, letters were still inadequate. Did you see any of those letters? Ms. HANSON. I saw the March 3, 1994, letter. I did not see the other two until the Grand Jury, until at some point Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is out. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Moseley-Braun is next, and when I come across Mr. Bennett has one item that be wants to raise. I think that will conclude Senator Bennetes situation. 186 Senator Moseley-Braun. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson, everybody's very tired and, quite frankly, I was more than taken aback to your answers to Senator Boxer's questions. I would suggest to you that part of the problem, and part of what Senator Boxer was getting at, is the notion that with regard to the things you were hired to do by Treasury as its Counsel,, you failed to follow through with some of those things, specifically, the transcript correction. We have a situation in which testimony given on February 24, 1994, was corrected on March 2, 1994, was corrected 1, again, on March 3, 1994, and after March 4, 1994, you weren't involved, but it was corrected two more times thereafter That is something that fell directly under your responsibility. Senator Boxer was concerned about that. The thing I find as troubling, with regard to the failure to follow through on the things you were hired to do, is with regard to the things you weren't, really, hired to do, the RTC matters. You seemed to have been running around being involved with those matters as well. I refer you, specifically, to the September 29, 1993, October 14, 1993, and February 2, 1994, meetings with Mr. Nussbaum around civil statutes and the RTC criminal referral actions. You said, earlier, that you had the authority to undertake this activity regarding the RTC, and we've gone back and forth with regard to where that authority comes from. I'm not going to dispute whether you had-whether a fair reading of any of the RTC statutes would have given you that authority or not. That is not my question at all. I'm prepared to concede that, under a reading of the statutes having to do with the RTC, you could have been loaned out from Treasury to do RTC matters. My question to you, though, is when did you make the analysis regarding your authority to work on RTC matters? Was that something that was done in front of the process? That is to say, did you attend all these meetings and do all these things having to do with the RTC after you found out you actually bad statutory authority to do so, or did you find out about these statutes and the permission, if you will, that they might have granted, after these activities took place? When, if you can tell us, specifically, did you ascertain that you had the authority to be involved with RTC matters?
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:45:17) Senator BOND. Just to finish up very quickly. Ms. Hanson, you have referred to the OGE report that makes it clear that divulging nonpublic information can be prohibited, even sharing it Government official to Government official, unless its advancing a legitimate Government interest. You claim that preparing for the press inquiry is a legitimate Government interest, but even the OGE has said, and as we have gone over today, confirming a press leak can have disastrous consequences. For example, today, even though Mr. Roelle refused to comment and give official sanction to what was in the criminal referral, YOU, in fact, gave us the first confirmation that the Clintons were named as witnesses Ms. HANSON. That's not true, sir. Senator BOND. That is the first Ive heard a Government official state that. I'll be happy to have you Ms. HANSON. That is not true, sir. Senator BOND. I would be happy to have you tell us what other Government officials have confirmed it, but I would conclude my point by saying, the one thing that is prohibited is to advance a purely private interest. In my view, there is no more purely private interest than to give someone, whether Government official or not, a 30-day heads-up on a criminal referral which offers the opportunity to destroy documents, talk to other parties, and to get the stories straight. Ms. HANSON. With respect to the private interest, sir, that was something that the Office of Government Ethics looked into. They concluded that there was no violation of the ethics rules because it was not for a personal benefit. There was-the OGE concluded 188 that there was a legitimate governmental purpose. I'm sorry, Sir, could you please repeat your first question, Senator BOND. You said 0 was not the first public confirmation by a governmental official that the Clintons were named as witnesses in the criminal referral, Please provide me the information because I must have missed it. Ms. HANsON. The information is included in Mr. Sloan's notes that were released yesterday by the Inspector General and have also been released by Congress. Senator BOND. Mr. Sloan is an official in the White House, not an official in the investigating agency. Is that correct? Ms. HANsON. I'm not an official in the investigating agency, sir. Senator BOND. You certainly acted like it. You were designated, and you worked, under the direction of the CEO. The CHAIRMAN. Are you finished? Senator BOND. I'm finished, thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennett, you had an item. Senator BENNETT. Thank you. I normally wouldn't stick around for this, but I plan to use it in conversation with Mr. Altman. It comes out of your deposition, so I think it's appropriate that I give you a chance to comment on it before I start quoting it. It is prompted by a statement you made earlier, I've forgotten to whom-it's all beginning to blur together, as I'm sure it is for you-that there was no pressure, of any kind, brought on Mr. Altman as a result of his meeting at the White House. I have trouble with the statement that there was no pressure on Mr. Altman. Let me read to you portions of your deposition that, in my view, demonstrate there was pressure and, then, let you talk about it. That's the point I want to get done tonight. You say, "I recall Mr. Nussbaum"--this is at the meeting at the White House in Mr. McLarty's office. Mr. McLarty is not there, but there's a meeting in his office. "I recall Mr. Nussbaum asking Mr. Altman why be had to do this"!--that is, recuse himself---"and recall Mr. Altman stating that I had"--I, Jean Hanson, General Counsel of the Treasury--"had recommended that he recuse himself, and I stated that Secretary Bentsen had agreed with the recommendation. I recall Mr. Altman saying that it didn't matter, that he held Ellen Kulka in very high regard and had confidence in her, and that any recommendation she brought to him, on this matter, he would certainly follow, so it didn't make any difference if he were involved or not."
Woodchuck
(TAPE 2) 07:59:52 Woodchuck feeding on clover 08:02:20 Woodchuck peering from den, close up 08:10:45 Woodchuck feeding on clover, close 08:11:25 Woodchuck and a deer 08:11:38 Woodchuck feeding on clover, close 08:12:20 6 times woodchuck stands erect 08:14:37 Woodchuck and a deer 08:14:51 Woodchuck feeding, close 08:15:42 Woodchuck peering from it's burrow
Lem Bailey Misc. UN Roll 1001
06.05.51 Pan WS Golden Gate Bridge in fog, pan to distant SF skyline (hard to read)
Richest Race - "Adios Don" In Comeback
Richest Race - "Adios Don" In Comeback The richest race in harness racing history sees a thrilling comeback for "Adios Don" who was injured early in the season. He puts on a stretch run that noses him home first and he wins $72,000 out of a whooping $145,000 purse. Crowded stadium seating. Spectators walking down stairs, arriving. Harness racing. Number 8 comes from behind and passes the pack to win. horse racing, prize
Twenty-Five Years Ago
A quarter of a century ago King Edward VIII gave up his throne for the woman he loved --- Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson. King Edward VIII inspecting troops. DO NOT USE Still photo of Wallis Simpson. Two policemen standing outside no. 10 door. Downing street? He was succeeded by his brother who had a daughter who became Queen Elizabeth. Princess Elizabeth and Princess Margaret and Queen Elizabeth getting out of car. Princess Elizabeth grabs hold of Princess Margaret s hand. Crowd lined street. King, Queen, and Princesses shake officials hand. The San Francisco-Oakland Bridge was opened. A wonder of its day --- it's still the longest single span bridge today. Great shot of bridge. Mass traffic jam of cars. Opening of bridge, with fire iron cutter, cutting through chain link. Attendant giving change, we see change belt as car passes through type of toll booth. POV or tracking shot from bridge. Nice footage. The predecessor to today's wire photo system, the transmission of pictures over regular telephone lines was demonstrated. Man talking on old telephone, puts ear piece on record turn-table type device. Picture is held in the middle and is turned on. It transmits a duplicate picture to the machine attached on the other end of the line. Exact copy. Early fax machine.
Pacific Search - Hope Fades For Rockefeller
Pacific Search - Hope Fades For Rockefeller. Despite encouraging clues, there seems little chance that Michael Rockefeller, 23 year old son of New York's Governor, has survived his ordeal in the jungles of New Guinea. He swam for shore when his boat capsized off the coast. His companion, who stayed with the craft, was rescued but there is no sign of Michael's fate. .
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:50:19) Then you say, "I recall Mr. Ickes saying that if Mr. Altman were going to recuse himself, he thought he should, he should do it being Mr. Altman---"thought he should do it sooner rather than doing it later." Here is the key sentence. "I recall Mr. Nussbaum saying that he thought, if Mr. Altman did not recuse himself, it would impose discipline on the process to obtain a fairer result." I'll come back to that, but to finish my overall point, you are asked what the tenor of the meeting is, whether it's a business meeting, and so on. You say it was a business meeting, but Mr. Nussbaum got excited and through the questions, which I won't prolong, he got excited when Mr. Altman said he planned to recuse himself. Then, here is the capstone, in my view. "The following morning, Mr. Altman called me. He said he had spoken with Mr. McLarty 189 the prior evening." So we have Mr. Nussbaum saying you should not recuse yourself, because it will impose discipline on the process and produce a fairer result, "fairer" implying, in my view, different than you would get if it was left to Ms. Kulka. "Mr. McLarty, the prior evening-Mr. McLarty had wanted to know what had taken place in the evening." Mr. McLarty didn't attend the meeting. "He also said that he had had a couple of other calls"--and I will ask Mr. Altman from whom the other calls came- -"and that be had decided he would not recuse himself for the time being. He said he didn't believe that it made any difference to the outcome, but that it made them happy." You are asked, elsewhere, who is them? You say, "The people at the White House represents them." Then, on another occasion in your testimony, when Mr. Altman is telling Mr. Nussbaum that he is going to testify and state in his testimony that, because of the Vacancy Act, be would have no participation, you say, "I called Mr. Nussbaum, in accordance with Mr. Altman's request, and gave him that information." And what did Mr. Nussbaum say, "I recall Mr. Nussbaum saying be's going to leave us with Ellen Kulka." It seems to me that this is pressure. In the language we've been using-no harm, no foul-Mr. Nussbaum was not successful in seeing to it that Ellen Kulka was kept out of it. Ellen Kulka will make the final decision. We will all stipulate that it will be fair, but I would like to give you the opportunity to talk about these words that, to me, demonstrate an attempt, unsuccessful-no harm, no foul-but an attempt to place someone in the position of making the final decision that, at least in Mr. Nussbaum's --perception, would, to quote the term you have used, "impose discipline on the process" and to quote, again, your term, "obtain a fairer result." I'd love your comments on that because, as I say, I intend to discuss that with Mr. Altman at some length. Ms. HANSON. I've beard Mr. Nussbaum's testimony on his views on recusal. I understand what those views are. He states he believes that, unless there is a mandated recusal, people should serve. I understood, when Mr. Nussbaum made the comment, in my words, about discipline- having a discipline process-and I recall that I said, would produce a fair result Senator BENNETT. Are you saying this deposition should be corrected to say "fair," not "fairer"? Ms. HANSON. Yes, as I say, I have not had an opportunity to read my deposition, but that's what I understood. It would produce a fair result, which meant that if someone of Mr. Altman's stature were overseeing the process, and people knew they would have to report to him, they would accomplish their work in a professional, thorough manner so the result would be fair. I didn't understand Mr. Nussbaum to be asking for any preferable treatment or for any outcome that was other than fair.
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:10:40) Ms. HANSON. I can't say what was in Mr. Altman's mind, at that time, about that letter. I have testified as to how I viewed the letter and what I understood the letter to be. Senator GRAMM. In your mind, because you were going to do another letter later, you thought that this was an adequate, acceptable response to give? Ms. HANSON. With respect to putting the Committee on notice of the two fall meetings-but, again, sir, it was not intended to fully answer +I%,- question or to be a complete supplement, by any means, to the transcript. Senator GRAmm. Maam, let me just read you what this says. I don't understand this whole! logic. Let me just read you this, give you the answer, and then, pose a couple of quick questions. With regard to the second paragraph of the letter, the situation is that you've been asked, "Were there any other communications between the RTC and the White House?" and that Mr. Altman says, in the letter in which he had answered, "Not to my knowledge." Forget the fact that we know-and I could give you 20 or more examples where-that's not true. Just forget that. Then, this letter comes down and says, "I have learned, today, of two conversations which did take place between Treasury staff and White House personnel on this matter. Ms. Hanson, you have answered questions, in the last hour, in which you said that you, not just anybody that worked for the Treasury, but you, had conversations with the White House on February 3, 1994, 49 1994, February 8, 1994, and two conversations with two different people on February 23, 1994. In fact I three different people on February 23, 1994, one day before the testimony. When you read this letter, when you had, personally, had one, two, three, four, five, six communications yourself , as a member of the Treasury Department, didn't you think about it and say "Mr. Altman, you write here that you said at the Committee you had no knowledge of any communications between Treasury staff and the White House, but that you have learned about two"? Did you think about saying, 'Mr. Altman I have, personally, myself, had a mini-mum of six communications, and three of them were the day before you testified"? I don't understand why-when you read this letter, why you didn't say to him, "Mr. Altman, this is clearly not true." Ms. HANSON. This letter was intended to respond to Senator Bond's question that asked how the White House was notified of the referrals, because the first conversation that he refers to, of the two conversations, was my conversation with Mr. Nussbaum. This was not intended to answer-in fact, at the time this letter was written, I hadn't even-the only questions that I had before me 195 were the two questions of Senator Bond as to how the White House had been notified. Senator GRAMM. To try to save time, and not to be impolite, when Senator Bond asked him, at the hearing, whether any other conversations had taken place, he answers, "Not to my knowledge." Then, he writes in this letter that he's learned, today, of two conversations. My point is, you yourself, by testimony you've given today, have told us that you were involved in one, two, three, four, five, six conversations, three of them the day before he testified. How could you not say, "Mr. Altman, this letter is verifiably false"'? I can't conceive-it's almost as if,. Ms. Hanson, you can compartmentalize, in your mind, this question, and limit it down to just what Mr. Altman wants to say, and that he is saying he is giving a limited response when he says he would appreciate the ability, through this letter, to amend the record.
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:55:32) Mr. Nussbaum is an advocate and he advocated his position, but the final decision was Mr. Altman's. When Mr. Altman called me on February 3, 1994, and said that he had decided not to recuse himself, for the time being, and that he thought it didn't make any difference to the outcome, but it made them happy, I agreed with him. I didn't believe it made any difference to the outcome either, because Ms. Kulka was 190 in charge of the investigation, she was going to make the recommendation, and I believed that he would follow it. Senator BENNETT. I shan't prolong- this because, as I say, it's really an issue to discuss with Mr. Altman, but I wanted to give you the opportunity to talk on it. I will make the comment that I think Mr. Nussbaum is on thin ice here, to be leaning on a man who has walked in and said, "I plan to recuse myself, my General Counsel has told me to recuse myself, my immediate superior, who is a Cabinet-level officer, has agreed that I should recuse myself"for a member of the White House staff to say, "No, you should stay where you are, because I want a fair result, is, in my view, an improper thing for a member of the White House staff to do, but that is something I will pursue with Mr. Altman. Ms. HANSON. Just to be clear, I have no recollection of Mr. Nussbaum telling Mr. Altman he had to do one thing, as opposed to another. He expressed his views and Senator BENNETT. He apparently got excited. Ms. HANSON. He's an excitable person. The CHAIRMAN. It sounds to me like-if I may, a while back I said I was going to take a minute here-he certainly got his point across. By all the testimony we have, Mr. Altman went in prepared to recuse himself. He got turned around, came out, and decided not to recuse himself. I want to ask you this. Do you know when the moment came when he made the decision to recuse himself and to whom he said that? Ms. HANSON. I don't recall the exact moment. The CHAIRMAN. I've read-and I don't know whether it's true or not, so I'm asking if you can confirm it-the story that he made the decision or announced the decision, in a discussion with somebody on the editorial board of The New York Times. Do you know whether that's true or not? Ms. HANsON. I don't know, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You've not heard that? Ms. HANSON. I have heard that, but I don't know whether it's true. The CHAIRMAN. But you don't know when the-when did you hear about the decision? Ms. HANSON. The final decision to, actually, recuse himself? Mr. Altman's decision to finally recuse himself, was after the hearing on-the day after the hearing, on February 25, 1994. Let me make sure that we're clear. He had made--he had decided to recuse himself on February 1, 1994. He, actually, recused himself on February 25,1994. The CHAIRMAN. You don't know the circumstances under which that was done, beyond what you've just said? Ms. HANSON. No, I don't. The CHAiRmAN. I have time remaining, Senator Sarbanes, you wanted Senator SARBANES. I just have one or two brief questions I want to put to Ms. Hanson. Just today, Deputy Secretary Altman appeared in an interview with Bernard Shaw on CNN. Mr. Shaw asked him, "Mr. Secretary, the General Counsel of the Treasury Department, Jean Hanson, says that she went to the White House and briefed White House 191 Counsel, Bernard Nussbaum, in September. She says you, her boss told her to do it." Mr. Altman answered, "Well, as you know, I have a different recollection of that. I don't think there is anything un- usual about that." Mr. Shaw asked, "You did not tell her to do it? Mr. Altman answered, "I don't think there is anything unusual about that. The events in question occurred 5 months before the testimony. So having different recollections, I don't think, it is very surprising. So Mr. Altman, even today, holds the position that he did not tell you to go to see Mr. Nussbaum. The reason I put this question to you, is that Mr. Altman's version is consistent with the questions and answers-the draft questions and answers which you put into your computer on, I think, March 1, 1994, as I recall, which said:
Mexico - misc. shots
Spanish horse, etc.
On Preview Cassette #217792 Mexico City
Mexico City
On Preview Cassette #217792 Mexico City
Tijiuana, Mexico
Mexico City
VS shots of murals depicting scenes from Latin American history: Aztec people, agriculture and cooking; Aztec warriors, pyramid in BG; Spanish Conquistadors and colonists.
Mexico City (night)
Mexico City Traffic Circle
On Preview Cassette #217792 Mexico City Traffic circle
Cliff divers - Acapulco (night)
Cliff divers - Acapulco (night)
Old Mexico town