Advanced Search
Has no title
Mexico
Western airlines
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:00:26) Question: Who in Treasury or the RTC knew that you had this conversation? Answer: I don't recall that I told anyone of the conversation. Question: Did you tell Mr. Altman? Answer. No. Question: Did anyone ask you to have this conversation? Answer: No. I, again, put to you this very basic question about how you got to see Mr. Nussbaum. Was it on your own, or at Mr. Altman's instruction? Ms. HANSON. Sir, I have thought about this very carefully, over a period of time, and I firmly recall having a conversation with Mr. Altman, on the subject, and being given the responsibility to talk with Mr. Nussbaum., as I've stated. I have testified, now, under oath. Senator DODD. Could I just-one second. I heard you respond to this question maybe 10 times in the last 12 hours, and maybe my ears nave picked it up. I heard you use the word "authorized" or the phrase "given the responsibility'' but the Senator from Mary- land asked the question differently. I mean, the question is whether you, on your own initiative, saw Mr. Nussbaum, or whether or not you were directed by Mr. Altman to see Mr. Nussbaum? Do you understand what I'm saying? The question is whether or not you had authorization to do it, or whether you were directed to do it? Ms. HANSON. I understood that I had the responsibility for telling Mr. Nussbaum. Now I don't. Senator DODD. Is that implied by the statute that you talked about earlier, or did Mr. Altman say to you, "Jean, I want you to go see Mr. Nussbaum at the White House and tell him what's going on here"? Ms. HANSON. I don't recall the exact words of the conversation Senator DODD. I understand that. Ms. HANSON. -but I recall the substance of the conversation, and the substance of the conversation was that I should tell this information to Mr. Nussbaum because it was going to leak to the press. You can call it tasked, or given responsibility. Senator DODD. I apologize, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. If you'll permit me. Do you happen to remember where that happened? Do you have a scene in mind? Ms. HANSON. It was in Mr. Altman's office, right after I spoke with Mr. Roelle, 192 The CHAIRMAN. So you can place it, you have a picture in your mind as to where you were when this was said to you? Ms. HANSON. Yes, sir, I do. As I say, I recall that Mr. Altman had a file he asked his secretary to bring, a file which she brought in and out of which he took a copy of an RTC-actually, I had orgotten that it was an RTC clip sheet, but he took out an article that had appeared in The New York Times. He had a copy made and gave it to me which, as I've stated, Mr. Nussbaum, in his testimony, has said that, in my initial conversation with him, I told him Mr.-I understood that Mr. Altman had sent him, had already, previous ly, given him information about this. That's not information I would have had, that piece of information that Mr. Altman had previously given him information, without having talked with Mr. Altman in anticipation of going to talk with Mr. Nussbaum. That's just, as I say, that's just a statement that I've learned of recently. The CHAIRMAN. Was what he gave you out of his folder, then, a copy of the same thing he'd sent over to the White House earlier? Ms. HANSON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm, Senator GRAMM. Let me be sure I've got this right, because this is goign did to be important tomorrow. He gave you that article, which you not have nor did you have access to, in his office when be told you to contact Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. HANsON. I don't recall, sir, if it was in that same conversation or in a subsequent conversation. I recall, though, if you look at Mr. Sloan's notes, the first thing it says is "Altman's files, NYT 3/2/92, Altman thinks" Senator DODD. Just one second. Maybe it's the hour, but I just heard you say, in response to Senator Sarbanes' or Senator Riegle's question, that you recalled the meeting because you had an article, because the Secretary was in the room. In response to Senator Gramm, you're saying you can't recall, whether or not, you were given the article or the memo at that particular meeting?. Ms. HANSON. I think, maybe, we're all getting tired, because I thought I just heard you say something about the Secretary being in the room. Let me make clear-let me do this again. I recall, specifically, having a conversation with Mr. Altman, in his office, shortly after I had the telephone conversation with Mr. Roelle.
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:05:34) I recall discussing it with him, and I recall the substance of the conversation to be that I should tell Mr. Nussbaum about the press leaks, the imminent press leaks. I also recall, and I have always recalled, and my testimony on this has always been the same, that either in that meeting, or in another meeting around-close in time, Mr. Altman called in his secretary and asked her to bring him a file, which-in which he had The New York Times article that he gave me. He had a copy made and he gave it to me. It was around that time. I have not recalled whether it was in that exact meeting, or in a subsequent meeting shortly after that. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm. Senator GRAMM. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So it's even possible, Ms. Hanson, that you talked to Mr. Altman twice about it. You might have gotten the directive to call the of 193 fice, and you might have gotten the article at another meeting on the same subject? Ms. HANSON. That's correct, sir. Senator GRAMM. You made the point, the strongest point you've made here tonight, that it would be, for all practical purposes, impossible that you would have contacted Mr. Nussbaum, on this subject, without a clear and direct directive or order. I've sat here ever since you've been here, and that's been the strongest point you've made. The point is that it would have been inconceivable for you to have contacted Mr. Nussbaum without a straight directive or order from Mr, Altman. That's correct, isn't it? Ms. HANSON. That is correct. I would not have contacted Mr. Nussbaum. Senator GRAMM. Would you say it is also correct that Mr. Altman would have known that you would not? Ms. HANSON. I'm sorry? Senator GRAmm. Would you say it is also true that Mr. Altman would have known, or would have known then, that you would not have made that contact without his approval? Ms. HANsON. I don't know the answer to that question, sir. If you could rephrase the question. Senator GRAMM. You worked with Mr. Altman. You worked for him. Right? ht9 Ms. HANSON. Yes. Senator GRAMM. Would you believe that he would think that you would contact Mr. Nussbaum, about a criminal investigation &at involved the President of the United States, without him telling you to do it? Ms. HANSON. You'll have to ask him that question, sir. Senator GRAMM. You don't have an opinion, one way or another? Ms. HANSON. No, sir, I don't. Senator GRAMM. I want to go back to the letter of March 2, 1994. 1 have a total of five questions and I'll try to get through them as quickly as I can. You have said, several times ere, that this letter of March 2, 1994, a letter that, as Counsel, you were involved in, was sent for one, and only one, purpose. That purpose was, in essence, to give the Committee a heads-up that there was about to be a media story about these two meetings. Is that right? Ms. HANSON. That was my understanding of what the purpose of that letter was. Senator GRAMM. So Mr. Altman wrote us the letter simply to tell us something he knew we were going to hear about the next day in the paper. Ms. HANSON. As I stated, it was not intended to correct the record or to be a full answer to your question. Senator GRAMM. Was he telling us, as a courtesy, so we would know when we read it in the paper the next day? Ms. HANSON. It was my understanding the timing of the sending of that letter was a result of the article that was going to appear in the paper. However, as I stated, the expectation was that there would be a full review Senator GRAMM. Let me go back to this point. Was be telling us, as a courtesy, so that we would know what the facts were when the article came out, or was he writing this letter, solely, to protect himself so that 194 he would have told us prior to the article coming out the next day? Ms. HANSON. I think you'll have to ask him that question, sir. Senator GRAMM. You here say, that in this letter, there was no reason for him, in essence, to tell any more, that this was a special purpose letter, and that, because he was going to write us another letter, he was under no obligation in this letter to give us the truth, the whole truth-you know the line better than I do.
Dartmouth 28 - Princeton 14
With a 17-game winning streak behind them, Princeton takes on Dartmouth for the Ivy League title. this game, too, is an aerial thriller with Mal Beard of Dartmouth tossing some brilliant passes - including the longest touchdown pass in Dartmouth history - 79 yards. New Jersey Fans packed at Princeton's football field. Princeton rolls out early against Dartmouth, runs 35 yards. From about the 2 yard line, Princeton carries the ball over for a touchdown. Dartmouth comes awake in the second quarter. Dartmouth opens a brilliant passing attack, the ball is caught and is good for 22 yards. Dartmouth goes over from the 1 yard line and the game is all tied up. Princeton passes the football and it is interceptedr. Dartmouth passes again and chalks up another 22 yards. Dartmouth passes and gets to the 5 yard line. Dartmouth takes it over the goal line for touchdown. At the half Dartmouth leads 14 to 7. Late in the third quarter Dartmouth reopens the passing attack. Cheerleaders do an exercise for the football fans. The football is passed off and run around end for the third Dartmouth touchdown. Dartmouth throws a 79 yard pass - the longest Dartmouth pass in their history, and it is run in for a touchdown. With 32 seconds left Princeton passes and makes it Princeton 14, Dartmouth 28.
Air Exodus Begins: 75 Cuban Exiles Arrive in U.S.
The Wings of Freedom. The first Cuban refugees to be airlifted from Castro's Cuba arrive in Florida, the beginning of what may become the greatest exodus in history. There are only 75 in this first group, but they are the harbingers of an estimated three to four thousand a month who will be flown to freedom by the United States. LSs crowds gathered on balcony at Miami International airport. TLSs - Cuban exiles embarking an Pan American commercial jet airplane. TLS/MSs -refugees milling about tarmac. TLS refugees boarding buses. MSs young female refugees sitting on bus, one woman wiping tears from eyes. Nice MS - American flag flying from flagpole. MSs refugees in immigration office, immigration officers filling out forms for young women tending to small children. MSs - refugees at impromptu dinner celebration; includes nice shot of father holding young daughter with lollipop.
Landmark Destroyed: Historic NY Church Gutted by Fire
Landmark Destroyed: Historic NY Church Gutted by Fire. The sounding of five alarms can't save the Church of Saint Matthew & Saint Timothy on New York's West side. 120 children were at Bible classes when the Sexton discovered smoke. They were safely evacuated, but the flames quickly spread through the 72 year old structure, a Victorian Gothic structure that was tastefully ugly. TLS/MSs - smoldering ruins of church. MS - firefighters using fire hose, fire hydrant in BG. High angle. LS - fire trucks & police cars parked in narrow street. Nice MS - five firemen wearing helmets & oxygen tanks walking along sidewalk, away from camera. Panning TLS - fire hose mounted on ladder squelching smoldering fire. TLS - five white men standing on roof of adjacent building, watching firefighters, one man filming event with small camera. H/a LS - spray from fire hose on church fa ade. TLS - eight firefighters pushing street-parked car away from scene. TLS - firefighters using fire hose from sidewalk. TLS - fire in church archway, tilt up ruins.
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:15:29) Ms. HANsON. Sir, as I have stated, this letter was drafted very quickly, late in the day, on March 2, 1994, by Mr. Altman. This letter was only intended to respond to the Senator Bond question of how the White House was notified. This was not intended to be an answer to the other question that we've discussed here, relating to all contacts. Senator GRAMM. That's not what it says. Did you believe this was true when you read it? Ms. HANSON. What I understood and, frankly, I will tell you, what I particularly focused on, is the sentence describing the conversations, but I understood this letter to only be responding to the Senator Bond inquiry as to how the White House was notified of criminal referrals. That's how I understood this letter. Again, as I say, my understanding, and my intention, was that there was going to be a full review of the record. The questions were going to be received, every single question would be answered, and all these conversations would be described in detail. That's not what this letter was and that's not what I understood it to be. Senator GRAMM. You meant, here, to tell us only about what was going to be in the paper the next day and, therefore, the fact that it was incomplete, the fact that it was invalid, was OK, because it was later going to be supplemented. Is that Ms. HANSON. That's not what I've said. I'm saying-I have said, at that time, I still didn't have the transcript before me. I still hadn't seen the question that you asked. I hadn't seen it. Senator GRAMM. You had watched this on tape. You had watched the Ms. HANSON. I watched the only the Senator Bond questions on the tape. That's all that I watched of the tape. That's all that I watched of the tape, that's what this letter was designed to do, and that's what I understood of it. Senator GRAmm. Mr. Chairman, I want to say for the record, it's very interesting that when Mr. Podesta put in the file at the White I Ouse the transcript of the February 24, 1994, hearing, he didn't get it from us, he pulled it off of the Federal News Service. That ]Federal News Service is available in any Federal office. It's tied into their computer. 196 The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm, your time is up. I'm going to give you another round, if you need it, but Senator DAmato lad a couple of questions. Senator GRAmm. If I could, I'd like to go ahead and get finished if that's all right. Senator DAmATO. Go ahead. Ms. HANSON. Could we take a brief break, sir? The CHAIRMAN. Sure. (23:18:21) [Recess.] (23:18:25) Commentary of hearings hosts NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE, they also interview Senator AL D'AMATO
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:28:12) Hearing resumes: Senator SARBANEs. Ms. Hanson, are you ready to resume? I think Senator Gramm said be had a couple more questions he wanted to put, and then I think he will have concluded. Ms. HANSON. If I could, before Senator Gramm begins, I would like to make clear, for the record, this March 2, 1994, letter. This letter, to my knowledge, was-and to my state of recollection-, was correct, was accurate at the time that it was written.. The paragraph says, "When Senator Bond asked me, at that hearing, whether an other communications had taken place between the RTC the White House, my response was not to my knowledge." I and still have no knowledge that any such discussions occurred, and that was correct. That is correct, to my knowledge. The CHAIRMAN. Wait a second. Let me just stop you there, because this goes right to this dilemma of you being two people at once. I mean, you're the Treasury Counsel, but you're carrying this RTC load at the behest of Mr. Altman. He detailed you to do RTC activities, so when you go over to the White House, you don't go over as 100 percent of Treasury and 0 percent of the RTC. You go over as a mixture of both, so when the point is made that there's no RTC contact, that, then, makes a reference to you in a context that's not accurate. Do you see the point? Ms. HANSON. I understand that point, sir, but this goes on to say, "But I have learned, today, of two conversations which did take place between Treasury staff and White House personnel on this matter." That was intended to answer Senator Bond's question of how the White House was notified of the referral, so, whether I was there in an RTC capacity or a Treasury capacity, that question was answered, and was intended to be answered, in this letter. As I've stated, it was not the intention of this letter, and I didn't understand this letter, to be trying to be a full description of every conversation that had taken place, which was the question that had to be answered asked by Senator Gramm. That's not what this letter was intended to do, but it was accurate, to my knowledge and to my state of recollection, when it was written.
Wading Bird - Great Blue Heron
07:21:28 3 young great blue herons preening 07:22:01 Great blue heron sunning, wings are drooped 07:22:45 Young great blue heron begging for food, adult regurgitates 07:24:54 Great blue heron and chick in nest 07:25:02 Great blue heron arrives and feeds 2 different size chicks ON PART ONE
Wading Bird - Common Egret
Common egret breeding display ON PART ONE
Wading Bird - Great Blue Heron
07:30:25 Great blue heron arranges sticks on nest 07:33:53 Great blue heron stands on nest 07:34:30 Great blue herons mate arrives, greeting ceremony 07:35:38 Male grt blue heron gets a twig for the nest 07:35:36 Male grt blue heron brings a twig to the nest 07:37:06 Great blue heron and young at the nest 07:39:51 Tug of war between male grt blue heron and young over a snake 07:43:00 Female great blue heron pulls big snake out of young's throat and swallows 07:45:32 Female great blue heron and young ON PART ONE
Wading Bird - Common Egret
Common egrets copulating ON PART ONE
Wading Bird - Great Blue Heron
07:46:16 Great blue heron and half grown young 07:46:48 Grt blue heron and young 07:47:06 Male grt blue heron comes to nest and regurgitates food for young ON PART TWO 07:49:18 Grt blue heron young just out of nest and practicing flying 07:51:04 Grt blue heron returns and feeds young
Wading Bird - Common Egret
07:52:48 Common egrets at nest 07:53:49 Common egrets at rookery, cattle egrets coming in too 07:55:21 Common egrets displaying ON PART TWO
Wading Bird - Great Blue Heron
Great blue heron flying from nest ON PART TWO
Wading Bird - Common Egret
07:57:47 Common egret flying from nest 07:57:58 Common egret flying to nest with a twig 07:58:23 Common egret flying and snatches a twig from the water 07:58:41 Common egret flying from the nest 07:58:49 Common egret flying to nest ON PART TWO
Wading Bird - Cattle Egret, Snowy Egret
Cattle and snowy egrets in rookery ON PART TWO
Wading Bird - Black Crowned Night Heron
Black crowned night heron scratches, itches ON PART TWO
Wading Bird - Great Blue Heron
08:18:52 Great blue heron female being bred by 2 males, neither is her mate. They leave and mate returns 08:19:46 Great blue heron looking for sticks for nest ON PART TWO
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:30:30) The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm. Senator GRAmm. Mr. Chairman, I would go back and make the same point 100 times, but I think the point has been made, and I'll just leave it to impartial observers. Had there been no threat of a press leak concerning the RTC re- ferral, would it have been ethical or you, Ms. Hanson, to have told Mr. Nussbaum about a referral that related to the First Family? Ms. HANSON. It's my understanding--I understand the ethics rules to require a legitimate governmental purpose. 197 Senator GRAMM. Let me go back and ask my question again. Had ou not been told by somebody that there might be a press leak, ad you never received that communication, quite aside from evaluating its accuracy, but if you bad never received it, would it have been a violation, a breach of ethics I for you to have told Mr. Nussbaum, who was the General Counsel to the President, that there are nine criminal referrals and that at least some of them referred to the President and the First Lady? Would that have been a breach of ethics? Ms. HANsON. Sir, it would have depended on the facts that existed. The fact of the matter is, there were imminent press leaks, and that was the governmental-there has to be a legitimate governmental purpose, and that was the governmental purpose. So, if the question is, if there is no governmental purpose, would it be a violation of ethics? There has to be a proper governmental purpose. Senator GRAMM. You are the General Counsel of the Treasury Department of the United States of America. I'm asking you, in that capacity, had there been no rumor of a press leak, would it have been unethical for you to have told Mr. Nussbaum, who is the General Counsel to the President, and is an employee of a person who was referred to in those nine criminal referrals, would that have been a breach of ethics? Could I get you to say yes or no? Ms. HANsON. It depends on whatever other facts existed. In this particular case, there were press leaks. Senator GRAMm. I'm asking you, as the Legal Counsel of the Treasury Department, a matter of policy concerning ethics, and you're supposed to be an overseer of this activity. Had there been no rumor of a press leak? Ms. HANsON. If there had been no rumor of a press leak, sir, I would not have had this conversation. Senator GRAMM. I didn't ask you that. Would it be ethical? Ms. HANSON. If there was not a legitimate governmental purpose, it would not have been ethical. Senator GRAMM. Can I go back and change my question? Had there been no rumor of a press release or press leak, would it have been ethical to have told the counsel to a person who was referred to in at least one of the nine criminal referrals? Ms. HANsON. We may be just talking past each other here, sir, and it is very late and don't mean to be argumentative. What I'm saying is that you can communicate that information if you have a legitimate governmental purpose. Press leaks, and dealing with the fallout from press leaks, is a legitimate governmental purpose. Senator GRAMM. If everything else had been the same Ms. HANSON. If everything else was the same, and there had been no press leaks, I wouldn't have done it Senator GRAMM. I'm not asking would you have done it. Would it have been ethical, in your opinion Ms. HANSON. I don't believe so. Senator DODD. Could you yield for just one second? The CHAIRMAN. "I don't believe so" is your answer, though? Ms. HANSON. I don't believe so. Senator DODD. Just on that point, and I just read this the other night. It may be interesting, and I'll ask with unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to include this in the record. The facts are substan- 198 tially different than the facts before us here, but there was a Subcommittee investigation by the Judiciary Committee in 1980, as between Benjamin Civiletti's communication to then-President Carter about his brother and the possibility of some dealings with Libya and the like. The communication was directly to the President, and the Subcommittee then, and this was a different matter, I admit, but the Subcommittee then concluded that it would not have been improper for the Attorney General to advise the President of significant information received by the Department of Justice, in this case, about Billy Carter's activities. As pointed out below, the President should receive significant information, relative to the constitution, of the exercise of his responsibilities, in this respect to foreign affairs, because it involved Libya and law enforcement. There may be other facts that would warrant- the point I'm making-I understand your point and
Hippoptamus
01:33:33 Zoom Out from Hippo's buttocks. 01:35:19 3 hippos submerged, their eyes peaking above the water. 01:35:44 6 hippos submerged in lake. 01:36:30 1 hippo yawns in water.
Elephant
Elephant