Advanced Search
1898 Shaft Fairhawks Fairbanks Exploration Co
1898 Shaft Fairhawks Fairbanks Exploration Co
On Yukon River Boat Man with pole
On Yukon River Boat Man with pole
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:45:21) I don't have enough fingers to have quite counted up the number of entities, apart from myself, who are legal and ethics experts who .have come to the conclusion that Mr. Altman did not have a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself. The discussion and the issues that were under discussion at the time, February 2, were not legal/ethical discussions, If he had a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself, he would do so. It was political, It was how was it going to look. It was where was he going to take more heat. Was he going to take more heat if he stayed there or was the Administration going to take more heat through the sort of impact of domino effect after Rickie Tigert. Was Jamie Gorelick going to be asked to recuse herself. Mr. Ludwig, on the 25th, even though there is no matter in front of him, decides to recuse himself. Is some midlevel person at the EPA going to be asked to recuse herself, even though there is nothing remotely in front of her. The issue was political and press and congressional; it was not legal/ethical, and I think the fact that every entity that has looked at it came to that same conclusion is worth an enormous amount to me, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I think it was important that you have a chance to put your statement on the record. You've done that. 104 Senator DAmato has asked for 30 seconds to respond. I think in light of the time that was taken to do that, that it's not ail unreasonable request, so Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to make the point that we've invented a Senator KERRY. It's not an unreasonable request, Mr. Chairman but oil the other hand, it absolutely breaks up the process here and totally sets a different standard for how we're proceeding. I'm just saying to my friend that, you know, we're going to get into that same old problem at the end of the line here. Senator D'AMATO. I just wanted to make an observation, if I might. The CHAIRMAN. I think when-I'm told by the clerk over here that when the objection was raised by Senator Boxer that it had the effect of taking 40 seconds off his time so let's restore that and Senator KERRY. He already did restore the time. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I'm told we did not-well, now I'm told that we did. So I'm getting conflicting messages myself. I recognize Senator D'Amato for 30 seconds. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make the point that we've heard a lot about this new definition, and I'd like to know what is the legal definition of "de facto recusal"? What does it mean? That's my point and that's what I raised because I kept hearing it over and over, and I thank my colleagues. The CHAIRMAN. We'll get into that. Senator Sasser. Senator SASSER. well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eggleston, you learn in law school one thing is elementary as in is there a de facto position and a de jure position, and would you explain for the Committee the difference between the two or perhaps I ought to do it. De facto is when something is actually the fact of the matter and de jure is something which might appear to be legal or perhaps you'd have a better definition, but let's hear the definition of that. Mr. EGGLESTON, I can tell you the way I'm using the two words and I don't-I assume they're consistent with the way others are. There were two things he could have done. He could have publicly announced that he was taking himself off the case or he could have done what he did, which is just announce to his staff and to the White House-he did to both, Ms. Kulka testified before you that he told her the same thing-he could announce that he was not going to be a decisionmaker on this matter. I've called that de facto. Senator Sasser, if you have a better word for that, I don't -- I didn't mean to coin a phrase by using that expression, but what I meant was he was not going to participate in the decision. That's something he told us and that's now something I understood that he told his own staff, his own RTC staff. Senator SASSER. So he was essentially out of the decisionmaking line on the question of whether or not to proceed with the civil actions against Madison Guaranty S&L. Mr. EGGLESTON. That was my understanding as of the February 2nd meeting. 105 Senator SASSER. Of course, that all became irrelevant on down the line because the statute of limitations was extended and it made no difference whether or not he chose to proceed with the action against Madison or not. Mr. EGGLESTON. That's correct, both Houses of Congress passed the extension. I think the President signed it on February 12th extending the statute through December 31, 1995. Senator SASSER. Now, Mr. Eggleston, let me ask you this: Did you attend the October 14, 1993 meeting that was attended by Ms. Hanson, the General Counsel of the Treasury Department, and Mr. Steiner and Mr. DeVore? Mr. EGGLESTON. I did, sir. senator SASSER. Did you also attend the meeting on February 2, 1994 with Mr. Altman and Ms. Hanson?
Holsum Bread Ad Plus
1950s commercials on this reel include: Holsum Bread (with happy housewife); Hygrade Hot Dogs (with scholar/professor); Strobe Effect (b/w, very weird SFX stuff); Tractor/plow (color). ON PREVIEW CASSETTE 97559 II 09:00:00
Mayor Daley Press Conference
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #210906 F. (12.12.00 - 12.14.39) Mayor Richard J. Daley of Chicago (the father) talks at a news conference in this short film that has something to do with a new stadium (or new architecture). Stands with drawings. Politics, Democrats.
Senator Paul Douglas
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #991248 Early campaign footage of Senator Paul Douglas, running for office from the state of Illinois. Color, original materials. Shaking hands, politics, elections, etc.
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:50:32) Senator SASSER. Did you also attend the February 24 hearing before this Committee here? Mr. EGGLESTON. I did. Senator SASSER. Now, Mr. Altman was asked a series of questions at that hearing and that's become a great bone of contention here. Did there come a time in that hearing when you were surprised by Mr. Altman's testimony and felt that he could have answered more forthrightly? Mr, EGGLESTON. During the immediately during the questioning of Senator Gramm, he--I think Mr. Altman testified about the one substantive contact that he had had. He described it as procedural relating to the statute of limitations issue. I was surprised that he had not mentioned the fact that the second subject had been recusal. I had, as I think the Committee heard from Ms. Hanson, I'd actually called Ms. Hanson the day before or within a couple of days before. She testified, it was the day before, to make sure that Mr. Altman was prepared to answer a question about the February 2nd meeting. In light of that, I was surprised that he had not testified about the recusal aspect. Senator SASSER. Well, did you speak to any of the Treasury staff about Mr. Altman's testimony while you were at the hearing, Ms. Hanson or others? Mr. EGGLESTON, I did not. Immediately after the testimony before Mr. Gramm, I went out in the hallway. I had a cellular phone and I called back to the White House to say that I was concerned. I did not speak to any members of the Treasury staff. Senator SASSER, So you were concerned about Mr. Altman's response to the question? Mr. EGGLESTON. I was, and I called back to the White House, Senator SASSER. In fact, who did you call, Mr. Eggleston? Mr. EGGLESTON. I called someone in Mr. Podesta's office. I don't-as I sit here today, remember whether I'd-I called to speak to Mr. Podesta. I may have gotten Mr. Podesta, I may have gotten his deputy. Senator SASSER. As a matter of fact, you were so concerned that You called the White House Counsel, Mr. Bernie Nussbaum, who's on vacation in Mexico; is that correct? Mr. EGGLESTON. I did, Mr. Nussbaum had left Thursday morning, the morning of the hearing, for-it was actually a Federal Bar 106 Council event. He had been the president the year before and I called him, I think on more than one occasion on that weekend to tell him that I was concerned about the testimony. Senator SASSER, Do you have any explanation as to why Mr. Altman did not refer to the recusal here before the Committee, the subject of the recusal? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, I do not. When I called Ms. Hanson the day before, she told me the three subjects that lie was going to testify to, or two or three subjects that he was going to testify to about regarding the February 2nd meeting. I specifically asked whether he was prepared to answer questions about that meeting, and she said that he would testify that related to procedures-I said 3 and now I can only remember 2-but about procedures relating to the statute of limitations, and I recall that she specifically mentioned the recusal issue, that he would testify [about that]. Senator SASSER. Did you ever have any conversation with Ms. Hanson thereafter about Mr. Altman's testimony and why he did not address the issue of recusal when he was before the Committee on February the 24th. Mr. EGGLESTON. I did not. By that time, I'd raised it within the White House. There is substantial, I think there's been testimony about it, there were substantial conversations in the White House about this issue, and the White House was deciding sort of what to do and how to respond. I did talk to Ms. Hanson again. I did not talk to her about Mr. Altman's testimony, I want to make sure I'm clear on that. Senator SASSER. You subsequently had conversations with Ms. Hanson, but not about the subject of Mr. Altman's testimony Mr. EGGLESTON. Correct. Senator SASSER [continuing]. Before the Senate Banking Committee? Mr. EGGLESTON. Not about that particular issue. I called her to ask her whether it was true that Jay Stephens had been hired to pursue the civil matter. I called the next day. During the hearing Mr. Altman had testified that Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro was the law firm [that had been hired]. I heard during the course of the day on Thursd ay that Jay Stephens had been hired. I called her the next morning or that day to say I've heard this. I assume since the law firm is public information, the name of the lawyer is public information, is it Jay Stephens? She told me either she didn't know or she didn't know who Jay Stephens was and that was the end of that conversation. Senator SASSER. She did not know who Jay Stephens was? or that Mr. EGGLESTON. She told me either that she didn't know she didn't know who Jay Stephens was. I actually think she told me she didn't know who Jay Stephens was, but I can't-it could have been the former. Senator SASSER. The fact that Jay Stephens was hired was a matter of some chagrin to some members of the White House, was it not? Mr. EGGLESTON. I had spoken about it with some people. Senator SASSER. I'm not unsympathetic with their concern about him being hired myself. 107 Mr. Klein, one quick question, you are turning to Mr. Altman's testimony before the Committee on February 24th, were you surprised by his testimony?
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:55:45) Mr. KLEIN. I was concerned in two respects, Senator, One, as I said, I had heard that the issue of recusal had been raised, That's all I heard was that he had brought it up and there was nothing in the newspaper accounts referring to recusal in the lengthy descriptions of his testimony. Senator SASSER. Well, my time has expired, but you heard it had not been brought up by, not by Mr. Altman at the Committee Mr. KLEIN. No, I heard it had been brought up at the meeting, but not discussed at the hearing by Mr, Altman, and so I was concerned about the omission, essentially the same point that Mr. Eggleston just made. Senator SASSER. Thank you very much. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Sasser. Senator Gramm. Senator BRYAN. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. Earlier the point I think he had indicated that he had concerns about two points and I don't think that he fully responded to the question. The CHAIRMAN. He should respond. Mr. KLEIN. The second point I had, later in the day there were press accounts on Friday the 25th about the hearing. Late in the day about 4:00, Cliff Sloan, Associate Counsel, came to my office and asked me if he could talk to me and he said, look, I've read in the paper that Mr. Altman only testified that there was one meeting. He said I was involved in and know about some meetings in late September, early October. Sloan said, I don't know what Mr. Altman's knowledge was. 1 didn't deal with Mr. Altman, but I know about these meetings and I think it's important that the White House make sure it responds accurately to any questions and not say that there was only one meeting or anything like that. So I had a concern about additional meetings and I had a concern about the fact that as far as I could tell, recusal had not been mentioned, even though I had learned that recusal had in fact been discussed at the February 2nd meeting, The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Bryan. Senator Gramm. Senator GRAMM. Mr. Mein, your basic involvement here is that you're the one who was asked to look at the Altman testimony to try to decide what he had said that might not have comported with the facts.
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:57:52) Hearings coverage hosts NINA TOTENBERG voices over segue back to House Banking Committee Hearings at which JEAN HANSON, JOSHUA STEINER, DENNIS FOREMAN, and JACK DEVORE testify - this House hearing footage runs to the end of the tape
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(12:42:05) In voice over, hearings host NINA TOTENBERG segues to Senate Banking Committee Hearings: coming up with some procedures and changes in the law, perhaps, if necessary, to go through and discuss this issue regarding, again, the interface between these agencies so that we don't run into these problems down the road. Secretary BENTSEN. Senator, thank you, and I understand the confusions of titles. I was getting out of an elevator the other day in Washington, a young man took a look at me and stopped the elevator door and held me and he said, I know you. He said wait a minute, let me think. He said, yes, I know, you are Senator Bentsen. He said, I went to a political rally of yours in Texas. He said, whatever happened to you? Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. We won't ask you right now to give the answer to that question, but I'd like to hear that later. Senator Hatch. 52 OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR HATCH Senator HATCH. Thank you, Chairman. And welcome, Lloyd, we're happy to have you here. I just want to say for the record, in my 18 years here, you've always been a great person of candor and integrity and wisdom and honesty. And, frankly, your word has always been your bond, so that's important, And I think all of us feel that way. Secretary BENTSEN. Thank you very much. Senator HATCH. Let me just try to clarify or clear up a few discrepancies that bother me, Do you recall the first conversation you had with Mr. Altman on the subject of his recusal from Madison Guaranty, and if so, could you summarize that conversation for us? Secretary BENTSEN. I could be corrected on trying to remember a date, but I would-I think that was on February the 1st. And he told me he was trying to make up his mind on recusal and that he'd been challenged in that regard and challenged by Members of the Congress as to a possible conflict of interest, and he was asking for my advice. I told him that that had to be his decision, that he knew the facts in that case, I did not. And I must say, I sympathized with him very much about the tough spot he'd been put in. I understand he thinks that I counseled him to recuse himself. He may have come to that interpretation because I was sure sympathizing, but I don't recall so telling him. Senator HATCH. OK. Let me ask a few questions about reports, including Ms. Hanson's testimony that prior to the February 2nd meeting at the White House, Mr. Altman informed you that he had decided to recuse himself from the RTC civil investigation in the Madison Guaranty case. Do you recall Mr. Altman telling you at that time that he had decided to recuse himself?
Hullabaloo Show 29
Hullabaloo, Show 29, Host: Michael Landon (11/29/65)
Hullabaloo Show 48
Hullabaloo, Show 48; (last show) Host: Paul Anka (4/11/66)
Hullabaloo Show 10, Host Jack Jones
Hullabaloo Show 10, Host Jack Jones (3/16/65)
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(12:45:17) Secretary BENTSEN. I recall he told me that but not at that time. I don't remember the date, and I know I was relieved when he told me. And, as I have found out additional facts subsequent to that, if I'd have been him-if I would have been in his position, I sure would have recused myself. Senator HATCH. He stated that the first time he decided to recuse himself was February 25th. Would that be consistent with your recollection? Secretary BENTSEN. Well, at that time, yes. If that wasn't the date, it's close to it. Senator HATCH. Were you aware that Treasury General Counsel had recommended to Mr Altman that he recuse himself from Madison matters before that? Secretary BENTSEN. I don't remember being told that. Senator HATCH. OK. Did you at the time have an opinion on whether Mr. Altman should recuse himself-well, you've expressed that. Secretary BENTSEN. Yes. Senator HATCH. You said that if it had been your choice, you would have done it? Secretary BENTSEN. Yes. Senator HATCH. Can you tell us why you, if it had been your choice, you would have done it under those circumstances? Secretary BENTSEN. Well, I think he was put in a position where he was considered a friend of the President and he was being chal- 53 lenged that that friendship would influence his judgment and I think he was right to just get rid of that argument. Senator HATCH. OK. Yesterday, Mr. Altman said something to the effect that you expressed your own surprise or puzzlement to him that he did not recuse himself, that it was in his own self-interest to recuse. Did you offer Mr. Altman any advice on recusal from Madison matters and, if so, what was that advice? Did you, for example, tell Mr. Altman that recusing himself or making a decision to recuse was something he had to do? Secretary BENTSEN. I told him he had to make that decision that was his, his alone-that he had the facts, that I did not. Senator HATCH. Did anyone from the White House ever discuss the matter of Mr. Altman's recusal with you? Secretary BENTSEN. I don't remember anyone in the White House discussing it with me. Senator HATCH. Thank you. That's all I have. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator Murray. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR MURRAY Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome Mr. Secretary. Again, I have the privilege of going last and listening to all of the comments before me. We've been here for 31/2 hours and I have to ask you the question I've been asking myself for the last several hours. Why are you here? Secretary BENTSEN. Oh, it is not for me to say. Senator MURRAY. Well, as long as you are here, I really have to ask you a question. You knew Jack Kennedy, you knew Sam Ervin, you knew Howard Baker. You've been here a long time. I'm new to this. If you were sitting on this side of the table listening to all this testimony and hearing everything, what conclusions would you come to? Secretary BENTSEN. Boy, I don't want to tell this Committee what to do, but, Senator, there has been-you've had three investigations and they've been independent investigations. They say no criminal act was committed, no violation of ethical standards, but some troubling things. And 1, as Secretary of the Treasury, assume the responsibility for what happens in Treasury, and I have also told you we're going to try to correct some of those concerns, and we'll be pleased to have the recommendation of this Committee, which has been deeply involved in this issue, and in turn that of the Justice Department and the IG and I sure want to get the Office of Government Ethics involved in it. And we're going to move and try to see that we don't have this kind of problem develop in the future and then I'd arrive at a judgment, but that's yours. Senator MURRAY. Do you think anybody should be removed from their job? Secretary BENTSEN. I think that whatever happened here was not with the intent to harm. I think there were some errors in judgment, but I haven't found anybody that calls them right all the time,
Hullabaloo Show 9 Part 1
Hullabaloo, Show 9 Host: Bobby Vinton (3/9/65)
Hullabaloo Show 9 Part 2
Hullabaloo Show 9 Host: Bobby Vinton (3/9/65)
Hullabaloo Show 7 Part 1
Hullabaloo Show 7. Host Sammy Davis Jr (2/23/65)
Hullabaloo Show 7 Part 2
Hullabaloo Show 7. Host Sammy Davis Jr (2/23/65)
Hullabaloo Show 2
Hullabaloo, Show 2. Host Paul Anka (1/19/65)
Hullabaloo Show 2
Hullabaloo Show 2. Host: Paul Anka (1/19/65)
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(12:50:19) Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Murray. 54 Mr. Secretary, there's one other item I want to cover with you and then we may be near finishing, depending upon what Senator D'Amato wants to raise. I want to just quickly review with you the history of this recusal matter with Mr. Altman because it's very important and you were at least involved in aspects of that as it unfolded. Let me tell you what's in our Committee record so that you have a clear frame of reference here. Mr. Altman had a meeting with you and Ms. Hanson on February 1st where he was thinking aloud about what he ought to do and you have expressed the view that that was going to have to be his decision. His testimony-and it's undisputed- is that he had reached the decision, that he was leaning in the direction of recusal, and that that was his state of mind and that he had not made a final decision on that, he was going to sort of weigh that, he was seeking your advice, presumably, and the advice of others. Then he went to the meeting at the White House on the 2nd, the very fateful meeting. He testified last night in the middle of the night that sometime after he left your office and before he got into that meeting at the White House on the 2nd, he actually did make the decision to recuse himself. So he went into the meeting and in the course of the meeting, he declared that intention. Well, now what we have in the way of testimony as to what followed, probably the most useful guidance we have, in addition to what Mr. Altman confirmed last night, are the diary entries of your Chief of Staff, Josh Steiner, because he took- he put notes down based on what he had been told by Mr. Altman after that meeting. Mr. Altman also gave us some of the flavor of that last night. And the bottom line is that Mr. Nussbaum, particularly, didn't like the sound of Mr. Altman's decision to recuse himself, and so, in some manner, he expressed himself forcefully-and you can get the full flavor of it in terms of your Chief of Staff 's diary notes on that and what happened was that it obviously had enough of an impact on Mr. Altman that he decided that he'd better sleep on it, despite the fact that he walked in with the intention of-had made the decision to recuse himself. So he slept on it overnight and the next day decided that he wouldn't recuse himself and apparently on that next day, if my recollection is right, he spoke with you and indicated that he had now reached the judgment that he would not, at least for the time being, recuse himself. Now, that's what the record is. We don't have anybody disputing that chain of events. Now, the feel of that and the look of that, I think, is troubling. Because here you have a fellow going over to the White House, he says he's made up his mind, he goes in, the President's lawyer, in terms of the Institutional Office of the Presidency, his lawyer is there, doesn't like it, really applies some form of pressure-and you should read the words in Josh Steiner's diary in terms of the flavor of what, the intensity of it-and Altman gets turned around here and he changes his mind and then he stays in that status for some period of time. terms of when he decides to Now, there's an end to the story in recuse and how he decides to recuse and so forth. One of the concerns that I have and I think you have to think about as well 55 I mean, I think every senior officer of the Government has to think about this who has any relationship to this and just is a citizen as well-and that's the appropriateness and the propriety of Mr. Nussbaum in that capacity, in effect, trying to strong-arm Mr. Altman out of his decision. Now, I find that troubling. My question to you would be, is that the way things ought to work? Is that a proper action for Mr. Nussbaum to be taking in this situation?
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(12:55:29) Secretary BENTSEN. Let me say first-the February 1st meeting I have spoken on, I was told by Roger Altman at some later date that he was not recusing himself I don't recall that it was February 3rd. The CHAIRMAN. That's what our records indicate. Secretary BENTSEN. Well, I don't have that recollection. I think an argument can be made, you know, that you have this responsibility and you have to carry it out. The CHAIRMAN. Why is it Mr. Nussbaum's obligation to weigh in on that? What vests him with the authority to step into Mr. Altman's decision on that? Secretary BENTSEN. I assume because he was representing the White House in that situation. The CHAIRMAN. But didn't he have a conflict there because this involved a case that touched the White House? Should he have done that? Secretary BENTSEN. Well, I looked at the Office of Government Ethics report and they say that there was neither criminal-that there was no violation of ethical standards, and they're the experts on that type of thing. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I hear that. Are you comfortable with that? I mean with the situation I've just described. Secretary BENTSEN. Let me tell you, they live and work at that and I'm not going to question their judgment. The CHAIRMAN. I've got to tell you, I'm troubled about it. Secretary BENTSEN, OK The CHAIRMAN. Senator DAmato. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, you went right to the heart of the matter. I know it wasn't easy for you. It's not easy when you have a colleague with as distinguished a reputation as the Senator. Mr. Secretary, did Josh Steiner convey to you the enormity of the pressure that he saw being placed on Mr. Altman as it related to the issue of recusal? Secretary BENTSEN. No, he did not. That, obviously, I got out of what I saw in his diary. Senator DAMATO. Did you feel, when Mr. Altman came to you the first time and thereafter, several days later-and I understand the sequence is redacted- exactly which date is not there, but our information is on the 3rd, after he came back, you knew he had visited the White House, and he told you that he indicated to them that he had decided not to recuse himself. Did he indicate to you that Mr. Nussbaum or others wanted him to stay on? Secretary BENTSEN. I did not know that he had visited the White House and I don't think he told me that Mr. Nussbaum and others '"'anted him to stay on. I thought he'd made up his mind. When lie 56 was in front of me, I think he was troubled and trying to make up his mind. Senator DAMATO. And when he came back and told you that he had changed his mind, did you tell him that? Secretary BENTSEN. I didn't understand that he changed his mind. I understood that he'd made up his mind. Senator D'AMATO. What did you say to him at that point? Secretary BENTSEN. Acceptance and acknowledgment of what he'd done, made up his mind. Senator D'AMATO, Well, Mr. Secretary, Roger Altman was under your jurisdiction. You knew that he had expressed, obviously, his concern that here was a case that affected the Clintons. It could affect them. It was a possibility. That he was a personal friend of the Clintons. In addition, he was in a unique role working with Mrs. Clinton on-the health task force, and that he was the ultimate decisionmaker. When he initially indicated to you that his inclination was to step aside, you said to him Secretary BENTSEN. No, he didn't indicate that to me and I have said that repeatedly. Senator D'AMATO. He never indicated that to you, but when he told you that he made up The CHAIRMAN. You were-let's let the Secretary finish. You were going to say what he said. Secretary BENTSEN. He was asking for counsel and advice the way I read him. Senator D'AMATO. What counsel did you give him? Secretary BENTSEN. I told him it was his decision , that I didn't know the facts in the case, that he had to make that decision,
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(13:00:31) Senator D'AMATO. Well, he didn't talk about the case. He talked about his position of being close to the Clintons and being the ultimate decisionmaker, didn't he? You knew he was close to the Clintons. Secretary BENTSFN. Well, of course I knew he was a friend of the Clintons, obviously so. I don't recall the details of the discussion. Senator D'AMATO. Well, Mr. Secretary, as painful as this may be and I've said it a short time ago, I think you had an obligation then to give him counsel to step aside. I think the matter Secretary BENTSEN. Senator, I don't agree when I didn't know the facts in the case. I am not about to counsel someone Senator D'AMATO. This is not a question, Senator Secretary BENTSEN [continuing]. On something that is as important as that to that person without knowing the facts. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Secretary, we're talking about one case and the question of the facts, excuse me, is irrelevant. secretary BENTSEN. Well, I don't agree. Senator D'AMATO. We're not talking about the merits of the case. We're talking about a person who comes to you who says I have a decision to make, whether I should recuse myself or not in a case that affects the Clintons. You don't need to know more than that because you know that he has a personal relationship and will be the ultimate decisionmaker. Now, that you knew Secretary BENTSEN. Senator, you and I have a difference of opinion on what should be done in that. 57 Senator D'AMATO. Well, then, tell me how you differ from that opinion. Secretary BENTSEN. I just told you. Senator D'AMATO. OK. Secretary BENTSEN. I think that you have to know the facts in the case before you arrive at that kind of a judgment. Senator D'AMATO. Well, I'm suggesting to you that given the facts Secretary BENTSEN. I wasn't given the facts. And frankly, I did not want to get in a position of any intervention on my part. The CHAIRMAN. Well, in fact Senator D'AMATO. Here is what Mr. Altman says The CHAIRMAN. We'll come back to that. If you'll permit me. I think in your role as the oversight person with respect to the Oversight Board, you really couldn't do that even if you wanted to. I mean, it seems to me that, you know Secretary BENTSEN. That's right. The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Your responsibility there was such, because you have to stay removed from these cases, that even if you had a firm and final judgment of advice, you'd have to withhold it because, in a sense, that compromises your own role in this other status. Wouldn't that be true? Secretary BENTSEN. That's true, Mr. Chairman. Senator D'AMATO, Let me suggest to you-here is what Mr. Altman says in his own words when this issue came up. Said the Secretary, "he knew it was optional. He said it was purely a personal decision," which is what you've related, meaning that you could go either way on this. But it's a personal decision" and again that verifies your- there's no doubt about it. Secretary BENTSEN. That's not exactly my words. I've told you what my words were. Senator DAMATO. For the sake of-and for the sake of appearances or something to that effect, you would be better off doing it. Secretary BENTSEN. No, I don't recall saying that. senator D'AMATO. All right. Given the time and whatnot, Mr. Secretary, I'm going to say to you again that if a deputy comes to You and states an obvious situation where there is a very real case-possibility of a case being brought that might involve personal friends and that he is vested with the ultimate decisionmaking, the question of whether or not that person should step aside for that case seems to me to be one in which someone with your seasoning, with all of the years that you have been here, would have said, step aside. Secretary BENTSEN. Senator, if you go back and look at the rules that the Chairman of the Oversight Board operates on, as directed by the Congress, there will not be an intervention in a case-specific, and that could have been interpreted as that Senator D'AMATO. You mean Secretary BENTSEN [continuing]. And I was not about to get into that kind of a compromise. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Secretary, you're trying to interpret the rules at this point to say that if someone comes to you-and we're 'lot-and indicates that he has a personal relationship with a case that will come, and it is before him and there's a very real question 58 as to whether he should step aside, recuse himself from that case, that you're interpreting it to say it would be a violation of rules to suggest step aside? Let me ask you Secretary BENTSEN. Yes, I certainly think it could be interpreted as an intervention into the case, in a case-specific and I wasn't about to get into that position. Senator DAMATO. OK. I can understand that, Mr. Secretary. I just disagree. I think at that point in time you should have said to him, you don't want to embarrass yourself, the Department, the Administration, you should step aside and don't worry about the White House or anybody else. I will say this to you The CHAIRMAN. Could you just yield if you are going to move off that point because this is one area where I think our interpretation is different.
1950s "indian" Footage
Very nice color footage of native Americans, c. 1950s, in full regalia, on horses, talking in sign language, dancing, and generally playing "noble savage". VERY stereotypical, tourist-trap type footage--technicolor feathers, war paint, etc. MS 4 Native American men on horses in traditional costumes - beads, feathers etc. 4 Native Americans in Hollywood-style costumes with technicolor feathers, etc. All speaking rapid sign language. Fits 1950's white america's/hollywood stereotype of 'Indians". VS CU young Native American with war-paint and feather headdress.