Advanced Search
August 4, 1994 - Part 2
(10:50:52) Mr. McLARTY. It was shortly after Mr. Altman's testimony. I do not recall the specific date, Senator. It was probably a day or two, if not a bit longer. Senator BRYAN. A day or two after the 24th? Mr. McLARTY. That is correct. Senator BRYAN. Now what follow up, if any, did you give, or direction to Mr. Ickes or Mr. Podesta or someone else that you may have detailed to follow up on this? Mr. McLARTY. It was my understanding, even when the matter was brought to me, that Mr. Podesta would be following with Treasury to make an effort to make certain that Mr, Altman's testimony to this Committee was complete, which I certainly endorsed and said that is precisely what we need to do. That was my response when the matter was brought to me. Senator BRYAN. I want to be very clear that I am not suggesting, nor should anybody infer that anybody at the White House was try- to alter that testimony in a way that would be negative to the full disclosure of the truth. 302 What I am trying to get at is clearly we have a problem. Podesta is notified, and I am trying to find out why it was not corrected at a sooner point in time, and you are indicating you found out about it. Did anybody thereafter brief you and say, look, I have taken care of this matter, I have notified Treasury that it needs to be-what was the involvement you had, if any, from that point? Mr. McLARTY. Well, Senator, first, I appreciate your clarification because our efforts were to make certain that that testimony was complete, not to alter it in any way, but to supplement and make certain it was complete, if necessary. Senator BRYAN. I want to say that I believe that to be true, as well. Mr. MCLARTY. I wanted to clarify that point. I think Mr. Podesta and others can speak with more preciseness about what was done. The matter was brought to my attention some days--a couple of days after Mr. Altman's testimony. I believe there was a weekend in between. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Podesta answered a similar question before the House Committee and I think he can respond to you. But when it was brought to my attention, the matter was already underway that Mr. Podesta would follow with Treasury and make certain, to the best of his ability, that Mr. Altman's testimony before this Committee was complete. Senator BRYAN. Did anybody ever report back to you that the mission was accomplished, or give you a follow-on report as to what was done to make sure that your directions were carried out? Mr. McLARTY. I do not recall getting that kind of report, Senator. I may have, but I do not recall it. Senator BRYAN. As the White House is organized, who would have handled that? Mr. Podesta is going to be a witness this afternoon, and I will ask him these questions, Mr. McLarty, but I am trying to get an understanding in terms of the structure of the White House who might have been the one that would have been given that information if you yourself have no recollection of a follow-on. Mr. McLARTY. Again, Senator, testimony before Congress, and of course there is a great deal of that by Cabinet Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries, as you certainly appreciate, is the primary responsibility of the Cabinet agency. Senator BRYAN. Yes. Mr. McLARTY. But the activity would be, our Congressional fairs Office, Mr. Griffin, at this point, would have been the logical contact. Mr. Podesta, because of his Hill experience and generally just a very capable professional was asked to become involved in this particular matter by Mr. Griffin and by me. Senator BRYAN. Did Mr. Podesta report to Mr. Ickes? Was that the chain of command or did Mr. Podesta report to you or somebody else? Mr. McLARTY. Mr. Podesta reported to the Chief of Staff's office as Staff Secretary. When he had special assignments, which from time to time he has undertaken over the past 18 months, and I think discharged them very well, he might report or at least have 303 a very close working relationship with whomever was responsible for a particular activity. In this case, it would have been Mr. Ickes. Senator BRYAN. Mr. Ickes would have been a logical person that he might have reported to? Mr. McLARTY. In this particular case, Senator, let me clarify or add to that, because it was testimony before a Committee, Mr. Grif- fin would have been involved in that from Congressional Affairs. Senator BRYAN. I note my time is up and we have a vote in proc- ess, so I thank the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Bryan. Would someone like to continue at this point? There is no one here at this side? [No response.] The CHAIRMAN. All right. I am going to proceed then for a minute myself, if no one else wishes to, and then I will adjourn in just a moment. Mr. McLarty, I want to just follow on with Mr. Bryan's line of questioning for a minute. It seems to me that when Mr. Eggleston, who was here monitor- ing that hearing, our hearing, and he was in a trip wire capacity- this is my phrase now-in the sense that he was there listening for something that might occur, and he just did not pick that hearing to come to that day. There were a lot of hearings. He came here, he was at that hearing for a reason.
Royal Romance: Dutch Princess To Wed Prince
Princess Irene of The Netherlands and Prince Carlos Hugo of Spain prove that love conquers all --- including international politics! After days of intrigue and behind-the-thrones maneuvering, the Royal Lovers arrive in The Hague and it is announced that the couple will marry soon. Protestant Princess Irene converted to Catholicism and forfeits her rights to the Dutch throne when she marries Prince Carlos. The Netherlands Princess Irene of the Netherlands with her Prince Charming, Carlos Hugo of Spain. MS - Princess Irene and Carlos Hugo gets out of a car. MS - Princess Irene and Carlos Hugo standing in a reception line shaking hands with the attending guest. MCUS - Princess Irene and Carlos Hugo sit down for a interview from the press. Princess Irene: She said that they were very happy to be able to tell and share their happiness with everybody.
The Westmnster Dog Show - 2,547 Dogs
The Westminster Show, the World Series of Dogdom, sees a surprise finale as the Best in Show goes to a Whippet, " Courtenay Fleetfoot" of Pennyworth. Before he wins, however, he has to down the cream of the crop in all the six major categories. Among those shown are a poodle, pointer, boxer, and basset hound. New York, NY Center ring of the dog show and the dog handlers are concentrating on showing off their dogs. MS - A standard Schnauzer if put back into his crate CUS - Yorkshire Terrier, CUS - Crain Terrier, CUS - English Springer Spaniel, Westhighland Terrier, CUS - Blood Hound, Standard Size Poodle, and the Best In Show is a Whippet.
Magic Carpet Debut: Harem Beauties Make Test Flight
There's a flavor of the mysterious East in Texas as a magic carpet floats through the streets. It's really mounted on an air car, but use your imagination! The harem beauties that test-fly it are real enough. All this takes place at the world premiere of "The Brass Bottle". Huston, Texas A car pulling a float down the street, and on top of the float sets a Genie bottle. MS - All the Texas beauties pushing the float. MS - The marquee of the show reads: World Premiere: Tony Randall, Burl Ives, Barbara Eden - Brass Bottle, Fabulous Fun.
August 4, 1994 - Part 7
(15:15:02)(tape #10092 begins) PBS funding credits (15:15:12) Whitewater coverage title screen (15:15:24) Hearings hosts KEN BODE and NINA TOTENBERG introduce afternoon's hearing from tv studio, they also talk to ELLEN POLLACK of the Wall Street Journal (15:39:52) Hearing begins: The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will come to order. This afternoon, on this panel, we have before us Mr. Harold Ickes who is 353 Deputy Chief of Staff to the President, Mr. George Stephanopoulos who is the Senior Advisor to the President for Policy and Strategy, Mr. John Podesta who is Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary, and Mr. Bruce Lindsey who serves as Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor. Gentlemen, let me ask you now, if you would, please, stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? The WITNESSES. I do. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that all of you have statements and let's just start with the senior-I'm not sure what the rank is here, being respectful, would that be you, Mr. Lindsey or would that be Mr. Ickes? Mr. LINDSEY. I believe Mr. Ickes. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ickes, why don't you proceed. TESTIMONY OF HAROLD ICKES, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. ICKES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Harold Ickes. I serve as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff, I come before you today to inform you, and the American people, about my knowledge of the facts concerning contacts between the White House and Treasury Department officials related to Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan. I want to thank you for this opportunity to address some of the concerns that have been raised about these contacts. I firmly believe my conduct in this matter was legal, ethical and proper. Let me briefly highlight for you the events relating to my involvement in these matters. In doing so, I ask you to remember that my days, like yours, are long and busy; that there were many other matters that I was dealing with at the time; and that it is hard, months later, to separate what I knew at the time the events occurred from what I also learned from press accounts and public discussions of these matters. I joined the White House staff in January of this year. I am primarily responsible for managing the President's Health Care initiative, but for a period of time when I first came to the White House, I was responsible for pulling together a working group to coordinate the White House's response to press inquiries concerning what is generically known as "Whitewater." In late January and early February, as you will recall, Republican Members of Congress, including Members of this Committee, began making an issue about the expiration of the statute of limitations with respect to the Resolution Trust Corporation's inquiry into Madison. On January 11th, eight Republican lawmakers called upon the RTC to enter into tolling agreements with the Clintons and other interested parties, to "allow time for a complete and independent investigation and permit the orderly operation of the legal and judicial processes." On February 1, Senator D'Amato, on the Senate Floor, stated that the "clock was running" on the RTC's Madison inquiry, and urged the RTC, to immediately seek tolling agreements "to stop the 354 clock and assure that there is time for a thorough, impartial investigation of the facts." On that same date, Roger Altman wrote Senator DAmato to assure him that "the RTC is mindful of the impending February 28 statute of limitations with respect to Madi- son," and stated that the RTC would vigorously pursue appropriate remedies including tolling agreements. On this same day, Mr. Altman asked to meet with myself and others in the White House which we did on February 2nd. Thus, this meeting took place in the context of the highly publicized statements on the Senate Floor and elsewhere that I've just described. As I recall, for most of the meeting, Mr. Altman made a presentation about the procedural options generally available to the RTC in cases such as Madison, in view of the statute of limitations deadline the same options that were the subject of the statements on the Floor of the Senate. My impression from what Mr. Altman said was that the statute was likely to expire before a full investigation into the Madison matter could be completed and that this could result in a situation in which the RTC would have three options: One, the RTC could seek a tolling agreement; or 2, failing that, the RTC could file a protective claim to preserve its ability to fully complete its investigation; or finally, the RTC could allow any potential claims to lapse. In my deposition before the Senate Committee Counsel in July of this year I was asked to recount my recollections of the February 2nd meeting. I was twice denied the opportunity by Committee Counsel to review my notes of that meeting before responding to the questions. I stated that I could not recall the words that were spoken at the meeting, but that my impression of what Mr. Altman said-the gist of it-was that "the investigation probably would not be concluded and that a determination could not be made by the RTC's General Counsel as to whether there was a basis for a civil claim until after the expiration of the statute of limitations."
August 4, 1994 - Part 7
(15:45:35) By this, I meant that there probably would not be sufficient time to complete fully the Madison investigation, in order to permit the RTC to make a judgment about whether the merits of the case justified pursuing a civil suit. My understanding was based on the discussion of the three options, as well as the public statements about these issues. As I understood it, the RTC probably would need more time to complete a thorough investigation and an internal review, before making a final determination as to whether there were sufficiently meritorious claims to justify committing agency resources to pursuing a full-blown lawsuit. But I also understood that the RTC could file a protective lawsuit to preserve future claims, if there was not a tolling agreement. It has been suggested, based on my deposition, that I did not believe the RTC would be in a position to file such a protective suit by the February 28th deadline. That is simply not so. To the contrary, I understood that the RTC was in a position to file such 8 protective claim if it did not obtain tolling agreements. This is corroborated by two sources. First, it is corroborated by my notes of the February 2nd meeting, which were not shown to me at my Senate deposition. These notes refer to the three options outlined above, including the option 355 to "commence litigation to preserve claim." I have attached a copy of those notes to this statement, for the record. Second, RTC's General Counsel, Ellen Kulka, testified before this Committee earlier this week that she advised Mr, Altman that the RTC would not have fully completed its investigation by the deadline, but that it would be able to file a protective claim, if necessary, to preserve its options. Ms, Kulka testified that she told Mr. Altman that "we would do what we could to file the complaints we need to file, and amend them later if further discovery after that date made it appropriate." Ms. Kulka said she "clearly told Mr. Altman that we would put ourselves in a position to do the very best we could and that we would be able to file the complaints." Thus, what Ms. Kulka reported to Mr. Altman, just prior to our February 2nd meeting, was consistent with what I took away from that meeting-that while the agency would probably need more time to do a thorough investigation and make a final determination, it would be able to file a protective lawsuit to preserve its rights to proceed. As I stated in my Senate deposition, both the questions I asked and the matters discussed by Mr. Altman were procedural, not substantive in nature. The information communicated by Mr. Altman did not strike me then nor does it strike me now as being secret or confidential, nor did Mr. Altman or his General Counsel, who was present at the meeting, state that this information was confidential. Indeed, I was under the impression that the issues flagged by Mr. Altman on the February 2nd meeting were already a matter of public debate. Moreover, because it was my understanding that the RTC could file a protective suit, I would have had no reason to inform either the President or Mrs. Clinton that there was no need for them to enter into a tolling agreement-and I am confident that I made no such suggestion to either of them. In fact, to my knowledge, the President and Mrs. Clinton were not asked to sign a tolling agreement. I remind you that just 10 days after the February 2nd meeting, the President signed into law a bill extending the statute of limitations until the end of 1995. Once that happened, the deadline for any decision concerning Madison and the procedural options we discussed at the February 2nd meeting were no longer of any relevance, Toward the end of the February 2nd meeting, Mr. Altman also stated that he was considering recusing himself from the Madison matter. I, and others present, inquired as to why he was considering recusal, and to the best of my recollection, he said it was because he was a personal friend of the President's.
August 4, 1994 - Part 7
(15:50:20) I am not an expert on such issues, and I think I expressed my view that this did not appear to me to necessitate his recusal. Others present expressed similar views. But we certainly conveyed to Mr. Altman that the decision was entirely up to him. At the close of the meeting, Mr. Altman indicated that he would further consider the issue and let us know what he had decided. Within a day or two, he informed me that he had decided not to recuse himself. At all times, I viewed the February 2nd meeting as wholly appropriate. Mr. Altman initiated the meeting. There were Counsels 356 present from both the Treasury Department and the White House, who never suggested that there was anything inappropriate or improper about the meeting. The expiration of the statute of limitations with respect to Madison was a matter of public debate. While opinions were expressed on the recusal issue, the bottom line is that the decision was Mr. Altman's to make. Under these circumstances, I believe the meeting comported with all applicable ethical and legal standards. Independent Counsel Robert Fiske, a Republican, has found that no laws were violated by this meeting, and White House Special Counsel Lloyd Cutler, as well as the Office of Government Ethics have confirmed that this meeting violated no ethical standards. Following the events of early February, to the best of my recollec. tion, the next time I had a discussion with Mr. Altman concerning these matters was on February 23rd, the evening before he testified before the Senate Banking Committee. I don't recall the specifics of the conversation but generally, but generally I recall Mr. Altman informing me that he was considering either before or as part of his testimony announcing his recusal from the Madison matter , and he wanted to know if I had any thoughts on that. I believe I asked him whether any circumstances had changed since early February that would cause him to change his prior decision not to recuse. I recall him saying they had not, And I recall telling him that it would be entirely up to him, but if I had any other thoughts, I would get back to him. He asked me to call him later that evening, after he returned from an event outside of his office. Rather than wait, I phoned Josh Steiner a short while after my conversation with Mr. r. Altman. I repeated what I discussed with Mr. Altman and asked Mr. Steiner to convey to Mr. Altman that I had no further thoughts on the subject and that it was entirely up to him whether to announce recusal the next day. During his testimony on the 24th of February, Mr. Altman did not say he was going to recuse himself from the Madison matter. As you may recall, the news accounts the day after Mr. Altman's testimony focused on his statement at the hearing that he had met with White House officials in early February to discuss the statute of limitations with respect to Madison. As a result, the White House was getting a number of press inquiries about the issue of contacts with Mr. Altman, as well as the fact that he had not recused himself, despite congressional demands to do so. And we were attempting to respond to those inquiries. At some point during the afternoon of February 25, George Stephanopoulos informed me that he had heard that Mr. Altman had recused himself from the Madison matter, and that he had done so in the course of a conversation with the editorial page editor of The New York Times, without notifying the White House in advance of his decision. Mr. Stephanopoulos and I called Mr. Altman immediately to confirm if that were true. Mr. Altman confirmed these events, and we expressed surprise that he had chosen to announce his recusal to a newspaper editor. We had simply been', caught off guard, especially since we had been fielding questions, from the press on these issues. 357 I am aware that Mr. Steiner's diary reflects that we indicated to Mr. Altman that the President was "furious" about these events. As far as I know, Mr. Steiner was not a party to that phone call, and I do not recall making any such statement. Moreover, I would not have any basis for making such statement because I had not spoken with the President between the time I learned that Mr. Altman had recused himself and the time when Mr. Stephanopoulos and I called Mr. Altman. In closing, I should also add at some point in time I recall briefly informing the President and Mrs. Clinton in separate conversations of the gist of the discussion at the February 2nd meeting. And that Mr. Altman had shortly thereafter decided not to recuse himself. I speak with the President and the First Lady several times a week about a number of matters, and I cannot recall the specifics about neither nor did these conversations or when they took place. I recall that of them had any particular reaction to the information; they ask me to take any action with respect to the recusal issue.
The World Series 1962
The World Series 1962 Pictorial highlights show how the underdog Giants give the Yankees an unexpected run for their money as they battle for baseball's World Championship. The New Yorkers win the opening game, but the San Francisco lads come back in the second to tie it up. When they transfer from West to East Coast, the Yankees go ahead, two games to one, but again the Giants bounce right back. Pan baseball diamond with players. Side view of crowded stadium. CU Roger Maris at bat. Batter (Maris) hitting double. Runner tags home plate. Side view of mixed crowd, black (african american) and white fans in front of score board. Quick crowd reaction shot, rise to their feet. Ext Yankee Stadium.
President Greets Space Family
President Greets Space Family There's a family gathering at the White House as the President receives astronaut Walter M. Schirra, Jr., and his family. President Kennedy seen sitting in rocking chair speaking with Schirra family. Ext Pentagon, two military men seen walking down steps. Schirra children wait outside, their father receives his astronaut wings for his six orbit space flight. Pin ceremony.
Germans Hold "Wheel" Championships
Germans Hold "Wheel" Championships Tourists in Europe often see sights that stand them on their heads and the popular Rhoen-Wheel is one of them. This is a giant wheel guided by men (or women) inside its perimeter. A fair lady and a male companion roll off with the World Title..... Giant metal wheel, with person inside, rolling down street. Nice POV of camera rolling upside down on wheel, view from rolling wheel. Camera turns upside down, passing cars, traffic and pedestrians crosssing street. Topsy turvy, acrobatic, stunts, gymnastic. CU toddler in baby stroller.
Norwegian King In Scotland
Norwegian King In Scotland King Olav Fifth of Norway, is greeted by Queen Elizabeth and Prince Philip as he arrives in Edinburgh, the first head of state ever to visit Scotland. Train pulling into station. Queen Elizabeth and Prince Phillip (wearing kilt) walk down platform. Horse drawn carriage. Crowds line street. Kings guard follow carriage.
Crown Princess Celebrates Birthday
Crown Princess Celebrates Birthday The wife of Japanese Crown Prince, Princess Michiko, celebrates her 28th birthday and poses with her husband and Prince Hiro, two and a half. Prince Hiro walks down steps and runs to his mother seated on couch. Prince Hiro riding tricycle outside home.
Crisis Eases: Wary U.S. Awaits Missile Removal
Crisis Eases: Wary US Awaits Missile Removal Ext. United Nations. The curtain goes up at the United Nations on what the world hopes is the final act in the drama that was the Cuban crisis. U Thant confers with the US and Soviet representatives before flying to Cuba to arrange for the dismantling of the Russian missile bases. Then, it is hoped, the final curtain will fall. Two photographers with cameras. Russian foreign minister walks through revolving glass doors. Three photographers and a reporter with note pad.
August 4, 1994 - Part 7
(15:55:43) I also recall speaking to the President at some point about the RTC's retention of Jay Stephens. The President expressed concern that such a highly partisan individual could have received such an appointment, but he did not ask me to contact Treasury or the RTC, or to take any other action with respect to the Stephens appointment, nor did I take any. I have outlined for you the essence of any conversations that I presently recall having with Mr. Altman concerning the RTC's inquiry into Madison. There was nothing in any of my contacts with Treasury officials that was intended to influence or that had the effect of influencing any RTC decision with respect to Madison. Independent Counsel Fiske concluded that there was nothing illegal about these contacts. In addition, both White House Special Counsel Lloyd Cutler and the Office of Government Ethics reviewed the record on these contacts and have concluded that there was nothing unethical about them. I will answer any questions you may have about these events. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. Lindsey, why don't you go next here, please. BRUCE IL LINDSEY, ASSISTANT TO THE PRESIDENT AND SENIOR ADVISOR, WASHINGTON, DC Mr. LINDSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Bruce Lindsey. I am Assistant to the President and Senior Advisor. I am also from Arkansas and have known President Clinton for over 25 years. I am therefore the person in the White House who generally handles press inquiries related to Arkansas issues. I welcome this opportunity to share with this Committee and with the American people the facts as I know them concerning communications I had with Treasury Department officials in which the RTC investigation of Whitewater or Madison Guaranty was discussed. These conversations occurred after information about RTC referrals involving Madison Guaranty were leaked to the press. My conversation with Treasury officials centered solely around what the 358 press was reporting and how, if at all, we should respond. It was always my understanding that the Treasury officials were simply passing along what they were hearing from the press. In fact, to this day, I do not know the contents of the criminal referrals. Mr. Chairman, I am not aware of any law, ethical rule or principle of common sense that suggests that one Administration official cannot alert another Administration official to the contents of reporters' questions. To suggest that something improper occurred is simply to ignore the facts. Let me briefly state those facts. In late September or during the first few days of October 1993, had a short conversation with Associate White House Counsel Cliff Sloan, and perhaps Associate White House Counsel Neil Eggleston, in which I learned that there had been RTC referrals relating to Madison Guaranty and that the Clintons were incidentally mentioned in the referral document, but not as targets or subjects. I have no notes of this first conversation, but my best recollection is that it was quite brief and that Cliff Sloan alone spoke with me. It was my understanding that leaks had occurred or were imminent and that members of the press were or would be asking about the referrals. I assumed that they wanted me to know this information so that I would not be surprised if I received calls from the press about these referrals. In fact, I did receive such press calls in the coming days and did respond to them. A few days later, on or about October 4, 1993, 1 received a call from Jim Lyons, a Denver lawyer who had been involved in the 1992 campaign, reporting on press inquiries he and others had received which referenced the criminal referrals. I was traveling with the President at the time and briefly mentioned the information to him. I didn't suggest, nor did the President ask, that any action be taken, and none was. The next conversation I had about this matter occurred on October 7 or 8, 1993, a few days after my discussion with the President, and was with both Cliff Sloan and Neil Eggleston. My notes, which have been provided to the Committee, reflect that I was informed in this conversation of specific press inquiries, including information from the press that the apparent criminal referrals included a reference to Arkansas Governor Jim Guy Tucker. I did not have any conversation with the President regarding this conversation.
Rams fighting
Rams fighting
Mt. Goats
Mt. Goats
Big Horn Sheep-Rams
Big Horn Sheep-Rams
Big Horn Sheep
Big Horn Sheep
American Buffalo
American Buffalo
Antelope Runs Away
Antelope Runs Away
Buffalo In Snow
Buffalo In Snow
Rams - Long Horn Sheep
Rams - Long Horn Sheep
Elk (trans.)
Elk (trans.)
Feeding Sheep Into Corral From Hay Wagon
Feeding Sheep Into Corral From Hay Wagon