Advanced Search
Crocodile (eating bread, etc.)
Crocodile (eating bread, etc.)
Misc Alligator
Misc Alligator
Snake fight-Rattler & King snake
Snake fight-Rattler & King snake
S.A. Catching snake
S.A. Catching snake
Gila monster
Gila monster
Turtle in water
Turtle in water
Lizards
Lizards
Iguanas
Iguanas
Land turtles fight
Land turtles fight
Horny Toad (lizard)
Horny Toad (lizard)
C.U. Lizard - empty reel
C.U. Lizard - empty reel
Lizards
Lizards
Land turtle
Land turtle
Land turtles
Land turtles
Alligator w/mouth open
Alligator w/mouth open
Alligator & Crocodile (some on master #14)
Alligator & Crocodile (some on master #14)
Anaconda snake in water
Preview Cassette 210796 Anaconda snake in water, crawling up and down a small waterfall in a stream.
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(19:50:30) Mr. PODESTA, I think he thought that the record ought to be corrected on the point. Senator SHELBY, Didn't you get involved in this, sort of handling this crisis? Mr. PODESTA. Well Senator SHELBY. You were the point man, weren't you, at the White House? Mr. PODESTA. I understand he described me that way. Senator SHELBY. Sir? Mr. PODESTA. I understand he described me that way, but let me try to explain it. Senator SHELBY, I won't call you the point man. You were the man Mr. PODESTA. Mr. Eggleston who works in the Counsel's Office who works with Mr. Nussbaum contacted Mr. Nussbaum, I believe, over the weekend. We wanted to see a transcript. We got a transcript. I believe we got the transcript on Monday, and I wanted to confer with Mr. Nussbaum on the matter. He had been at the meeting on February 2nd, and he was the Counsel. I believe the Counsel's Office staff conferred on Monday, the 28th. I got back together with him on the Ist, and we went through this in some detail. We had a meeting that lasted a couple hours. Senator SHELBY. You had a meeting to go through the transcript. Mr. PODESTA. On March Ist, which was a Tuesday. Senator SHELBY. What was your feeling after going through the transcript? You knew there was a lot of damage done there, didn't you? Mr. PODESTA. I think we had 428 Senator SHELBY. A problem on your hand. Mr. PODESTA. A problem. Senator SHELBY. What did you do then? Mr. PODESTA. I called Mr. Altman. Senator SHELBY. And what did you say to him? Mr. PODESTA, 1 raised the three issues Senator SHELBY. Did you say you've got a big problem or what? Mr. PODESTA. Well, I don't want to be repetitive-I've testified to this in great detail, but I think there were three points. On one point, with regard to who was at the meeting, I thought there Was no problem after discussing it with Mr. Altman. On the second point, on recusal, I thought it was his decision, but that it was best to correct the record. On the third point, which was the meetings point, the fall meetings, as I said, I've described a rather truncated conversation, but I think I made it clear to him that we thought something needed to be done on that. Senator SHELBY. You said it was a real problem, not just on recusal but the failure to disclose the meeting Mr. PODESTA. At the time I thought, in fact, that was the more substantial problem. Senator SHELBY. And who else thought that besides Mr. Eggleston? I know you weren't acting alone down there? You had some good minds there. Mr. PODESTA. I think what I went back to Mr. Altman with was the consensus, at least at the meeting, although it's conceivable that different people kind of rank these things slightly differently. I don't know. Senator SHELBY. Were any of the other people at the table with you tonight, were they involved in trying to- Mr. PODESTA. Mr. Lindsey. Senator SHELBY. Correct it? Mr. Lindsey. Mr. Bruce Lindsey. What was Mr. Altman-what did he have to say when you told him there was a problem here and this had to be corrected? What did he say? What did he say to you? Mr. PODESTA. I described, on the first point, I think we both concluded that he didn't need to correct it. Senator SHELBY. Not what we concluded. What he said. Mr. PODESTA. I think he said that he thought the testimony was fair on who set up the meeting. Senator SHELBY. He felt the testimony was fair that he had given before the Banking Committee? He said that? Mr. PODESTA. On the single point of who set up the meeting. Senator SHELBY. OK. Mr. PODESTA. How the meeting was set up is probably a better way to put it. On recusal he said he was going to continue to consider it. It had been raised and that he would continue to look at that issue, that it was a topic that he would consider. On the meetings point Senator SHELBY. The meetings, that's right. Mr. PODESTA. On the fall meetings point, as I said, in my pre- vious testimony, I think that he didn't want to get into the details with me. I thought that was appropriate at the time. I still think it's appropriate. you? Senator SHELBY. Was he acting cavalier over, the phone to 429 Mr. PODESTA. No, he was not. Senator SHELBY. Was this face to face? Mr. PODESTA. No, it was over the phone. Senator SHELBY. How long was it from the time you talked with him until he wrote the first letter trying to supplement the record? Mr. PODESTA, It was the next day. Senator SHELBY, And then how many days until the next letter? Mr. PODESTA. I believe one day. Senator SHELBY. One day. Mr. PODESTA. One more day. Senator SHELBY. And what about the next day? Mr. PODESTA. The third letter was on the 11th, I think. Senator SHELBY. Was Mr. Altman dribbling this information out to the Committee to supplement his testimony as pressure mounted on him through the news media and through the White House, that you all knew he had not told the whole truth and nothing but the truth to this Banking Oversight Committee and the pressure was mounting on him so he was dribbling it out as the pressure demanded? Mr. PODESTA. I want to answer that in two parts. My impression in the phone conversation was that Mr. Altman on the meetings point and on recusal point thought he had done his best and had no knowledge of the meetings when he said that on the 24th. That was my impression.
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(19:55:25) With regard to how, then, he corrected the record and the taking of the four letters to address all those points, I think I've already said that I think that would have been better handled had it been done the next day in one letter and more specifically. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Podesta, it would have been better handled if he had told the whole accounting.of the situation candidly in the Banking hearing, would it not? Mr. PODESTA. It would certainly had been better if he had given a whole accounting. The only thing I'm quibbling with you about, Senator, is that I think my impression on March 1st was he thought that he had been candid on the 24th to the extent of his knowledge. Senator SHELBY. Does that-is that backed up by Mr. Steiner's diary when he said he gracefully ducked the question and did not refer to phone calls he had had and so forth? Mr. PODESTA, No. Senator SHELBY. In other words, what you're saying here, your impression of Mr. Altman, the way he felt Mr. PODESTA. Was just Senator SHELBY. It was contrary to Mr. Steiner's diary. Mr. PODESTA. My only conversation with Mr. Altman was a single phone conversation on March 1st, and that's just my best impression. The CHAIRMAN. You gave him a heads-up, among other things, did you not? Mr. PODESTA. I ran through those three issues. Senator SHELBY. But you realize that you all had a real problem at the White House? Mr. PODESTA. At least with regard to the fall meetings, and I think with recusal, We knew we had a problem. 430 Senator SHELBY. With regard to Mr. Altman's testimony. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Shelby. Senator D'Amato. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ickes, do you have the depositions there you testified to? Mr. ICKES. I do. Senator D'AMATO. Would you turn to page 132. This refers towe're talking about the meeting of February 2nd and the question asked you is "what did Mr. Altman say about recusal?" Your answer: "The gist of what he said, and this came toward the very latter part of the meeting and was-I think the bulk of the meeting was taken up with his presentation and our questions and his answers and discussions about the investigation and its relationship to the statute of limitations." Is that true? Mr. ICKES. What? Senator DAMATO. Is that true? Mr. ICKES. As I testified, yes. Senator DAMATO. Now, a few minutes ago when you were answering Senator Domenici's questions, you testified that Altman had taken himself out of the decisionmaking chain; is that true? Mr. ICKES. That's the best of my recollection, Senator. Senator D'AMATO. Just a few. minutes ago Mr. ICKES. Could I just finish my answer, sir? Senator DAMATO. Certainly. Mr. ICKES. The best of my recollection, is during the course of that meeting, I recall him saying that he was going to abide by whatever or follow whatever recommendations were made by the staff attorneys. Senator D'AMATO. And he was taking himself out of the decisionmaking chain? Mr. ICKES. I don't know if I wanted to--I don't know if he used those exact words. That may be my interpretation, Senator, but I do recall him saying that he intended to abide by whatever recommendations would be made by the staff attorneys. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you. Would you continue reading page 132, go to line 8. Mr. ICKES. Where do you want me to pick up, sir? Senator D'AMATO. Line 8. Follow with me. Toward the latter part of the meeting, he brought up that he was considering recusing himself in connection with this matter and as recall, it was because he, as the acting chairman or the President, would ultimately have to determine whether or not to implement a recommendation, if any, made by the general counsel's office with respect to this investigation. Whether or not. Mr. ICKES. I don't think that's inconsistent with what I said, Senator DAmato. Senator D'AMATO. OK. That's fine. Mr. Stephanopoulos, I'm going to ask you, and this is important because it's your testimony under oath before Congress-is it your testimony now that you never suggested that Mr. Steiner or Mr. Altman find a way to fire or get rid of Mr. Stephens? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I don't remember anything like that at all, sir. 431 Senator DAMATO. That's not- Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I've testified to that 100 times. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, this is not responsive, and we have continued now on this line.
Pick-Up Football Game
LS park with three guys passing a football back, hiking it, and kicking off. Good long shot of pickup game. Man kicks off several times
College Football Game, Unidentified
WS college football game in progress, offense coming to the line. Several plays are shown (running). Referee calls a penalty and places the ball right on the other team's goal line
Tug of War
MS men in tug-o-war contest, pulling fiercely at a rope
Runners on Your Marks
LS track with four runners poised to start race (two boys and two girls -- high school age). Coach in track outfit is kneeing near them with starting gun, and they take off. Scene is shot in slight slow motion, and one girl drops behind, but the other keeps up with the boys out of frame 01:13:01 LS single man runner (college age) in blocks with another man beside him with starter pistol. Huge stadium behind them is deserted. Man takes off in slight slow motion, as previous shot, and runs out of frame
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(20:00:28) Let me put it this way, Mr. Stephanopoulos. We're talking about a pretty important matter. We're talking about a call that you admit that you were irritated about and, to be quite candid, I could understand that. I could understand the perspective that someone who is a partisan in the political arena and who can be suspect as it relates to his independence is now placed in a very sensitive position. I understand that. So I understand your feelings as it relates to that. But listen to the testimony as it relates to the diary of Josh Steiner. He says, and I'm paraphrasing, that these guys even wanted us to fire him, and I told George. I persuaded him that it's crazy, no. Now, I want to ask you, is it your testimony under oath, and I tell you there's no way you could forget this, one way or the otherexcuse me, in my opinion, in my opinion, this is not the kind of thing that someone could forget given the incredible publicity that followed within a relatively short period of time. Time magazine, stories following. We're not talking about an incident that took place or getting rid of somebody or not getting rid of somebody. We're not talking about nuances. The question is did you ask Mr. Steiner--or no--Mr. Altman to find a way to fire or get rid of Mr. Stephens? Yes or no. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Senator, what happened in that conversation is what I said in my testimony, what I've said hundreds of times, I will repeat it again Senator DAMATO. I don't want you to repeat Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I've answered your questions time and time again, Senator. Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, it is absolutely unfair for a U. S. Senator to cut off a witness simply because he doesn't like his answer. Senator D'AMATO. That's not the case, Senator. Senator KERRY. Yes, it is the case. Senator DAMATO. No, it's not. It is because the answer has been nonresponsive. Senator KERRY. I beg to differ with the Senator, politely with the Senator. Senator D'AMATO. Then I'm making the point that something that's so critical---- Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to make a point. Senator DAMATO. You're doing it on my time. Senator KERRY. Mr. Stephanopoulos-and we can go back to the record. On several occasions, Mr. Stephanopoulos has said in answer to the question-you said is it true or isn't it, did you or didn't you, with a huge buildup with all of the negatives, and he has said, Senator, I don't remember. That's his answer. Now, no matter how many ways you phrase it and no matter how bad you try to make it sound, he doesn't remember. And I think it's unfair when he says I don't remember to simply cut him off and rephrase all the negatives. 432 The CHAIRMAN. Well, what is your answer? Is Senator Kerry correct? Are you saying that you don't remember one way or the other and that's your testimony or can you give a direct answer? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. First of all, Senator, I think that is a di. rect answer. The CHAIRMAN. No, I mean an answer that goes beyond the fact, Is there any other answer you can give? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I can't speak to Mr. Steiner's diary. I don't know why he wrote what he wrote in his diary. I can testify to the conversation as I have, I asked him how Jay Stephens came to be hired. I was angry in that conversation. I concede that. Once he told me how Jay Stephens came to be hired by an independent never directed any. one at the Treasury Department or the RTC to interfere with this investigation in any way, and that a conclusion is corroborated by the Special Counsel Mr. Fiske and the Office of Government Ethics. The CHAIRMAN. May I ask you this? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. Just so we can be clear and take some of the heat out of it for a moment and if you will permit me. Senator DAMATO. Certainly. The CHAIRMAN. Let's take the word "directive" out of the answer. Did you say to anybody that Stephens should be fired? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I said that Stephens had a terrible conflict of interest. I don't remember saying anything like that at all. The CHAIRMAN. So you have no memory whatsoever of saving board, that was the end of the conversation. I that he should be fired? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No, I do not, sir. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, I hope my time The CHAIRMAN. Time is being restored right now. Senator D'AMATO. And I appreciate that. I'm going to make a statement on my time. I don't think it's conceivable given the history-and I'm not going to recount it-of the events, given the diary that has been presented, given the phone call that was made, given with some particularity the manner in which Steiner says, and he's talking about colleagues and friends of his-"George suggested to me we needed to find a way to get rid of him" and "persuaded George to fire him would be incredibly Stupid and improper," very precise