Advanced Search
Basketball Scrimmage
MS players on outdoor basketball court. Small crowd watching. The men are in uniform, shirts reading "Venturi Victory." Player takes a high pass in the flats and sinks the long three (except it wasn't a 3 then was it?) 01:16:28 (CSL 383-31) MS jump ball in same game (backwards film can be corrected in mastering) 01:16:48 LS same players running a drill -- film is faded 01:16:58 back to game, same shot as first, but film reversed 01:17:04 slightly faded following shot of ball as player takes long shots from top of key (camera follows ball)
Stretching for Fitness
LS four people in empty stadium doing calesthenics, touching their toes in the exercise known as windmills
Beach Volleyball, or Newt's Dream
MS shirtless men playing volleyball on beach
Strange Horse & Skirt Race
LS dirt track with 8 horses racing down, crowd of spectators looking on -- not large, but such as might appear at a state fair or horse show or rodeo. A bizarre race is in progress; the riders, all women, stop, dismount and try to put on white skirts that lie neatly folded on the ground. In contrast to their blue jeans and Western-style shirts, these are an impediment, as we see the women struggle to put the clothes on and remount. One woman is hopelessly stuck with the skirt (or petticoat) down around her ankles and cannot get back on her horse
Ring Toss Game
LS four women playing ring toss outdoors. Rustic cabin in BG suggests resort or summer camp
Monkey passing
Monkey passing
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(20:35:36) The CHAIRMAN. Let me check and see. I think we have an answer on that, but I want to check with Counsel who is away at the moment and provide that answer. Let's put that issue aside for the moment. Senator BOND. I was going to try, Mr. Podesta, to go back to what we were discussing several days ago when I last talked with you. Mr. PODESTA, It feels like that. Senator BOND. Mr. Todd Stern reports to you at the White House; is that correct? Mr. PODESTA. He does. Senator BOND. We have, in the documents submitted to us, Exhibit X 000075 which was produced by Mr. Stern, Senate Banking Committee hearing "to-do" list. And in this it's pretty clear that, at least, Mr. Stern wanted Mr. Altman to focus and here's just a couple of bullets. I'm just going to read excerpts. Mr. PODESTA. Could I get a copy, Senator? Senator BOND. Yes, there's a set. "Altman's failure to recuse himself, the nature of the RTC's investigation of Madison, is investigation continuing, what is going on, question mark. Criminal referral to Justice, what were circumstances, is RTC going to pursue any civil relief," skipping down, "were Madison resources directed into other business ventures and principals in the Clinton campaign funds." Next bullet, chronology of RTC investigation of Madison, who did what, when, and why were referrals made to Justice, what if anything is going on now, et cetera." It even goes on to give a little political flavor. It said "is Treasury working on questions for committee Dems, line up a Senator or two" and they referenced a couple of Senators "have a page or two of background plus questions for the counterpunches." Do you happen to know those counterpunches? Do you have any of those counterpunches available for us that you might share with us? Seriously, well, I assume if you had counterpunches, you'd show them to us, but do you know, was this matter followed up on by Mr. Stern? Do you know what was done with it, was it used in telephone briefings, oral briefings? Mr. PODESTA. Senator, let me testify first to my knowledge which is that while I saw this document in my deposition, I said that I may have received it. It might have been the kind of thing I got, but I wasn't familiar with it. I would point out that with regard to the bullets you read, it says "prepare witness" says next to that 69 is Mike Levy, the Treasury person." I did not talk to Mr. Levy about any of the items on this list. I did mention to Mr. Levy that Mr. Altman would be-- would need to be prepared to answer ques- 437 tions about recusal. I don't know whether Mr. Stern did, I do not believe he did, but I'm not-I can't testify for him. Senator BOND. This shows that, at least, Mr. Stern believed that Mr. Altman should be prepared to address criminal referral to Justice, what the circumstances were and those other items. So this was something the White House was focusing on and I assume that when Mr. Stern prepares a memo like this, he does something with it. Mr. PODESTA. Well, I senator BOND. Is that logical to assume? Mr. PODESTA. I think it would be logical to assume with regard to the bottom couple of points which were the ones in our office relating to counterpunches. Again, I testified earlier that we wanted to put the hearing in a broader context. I think that's what-it's not my word, but I think that's what he was referring to, to try to put Madison in the context of the overall S&L cleanup and our Administration's Senator BOND. My point is the White House, your associate, Mr. Stern, was focusing on the criminal referrals and you forecast the questions that we were going to ask. I mean, if this had been fully utilized in the briefing, Mr. Altman would have been ready. Now, following up on the questions, Senator Bryan asked some questions, and Senator Gramm did. You said that "we had a duty and he had a duty to correct the record. I was tasked to follow up," You said, "I assumed his letter had been sufficient." I went back and read through these four letters and this was the letter of March 2 and it said in the third paragraph, "but I have learned today of two conversations which did take place between Treasury and White House personnel on this matter. My information is that both related to the handling of press inquiries."
Grape Process
Drawer 9 Wine making process. It's really hard to describe what is going on here. It actually looks like some sort of chemical is being produced as opposed to alcoholic beverage. Lots of close ups of bubbling fluids. Overall there's nothing on this reel that's of any interest.
Grape Process (Bottling Wine)
Bottling machinery, bottles being filled with wine, labled. visually stimulating, good camera work.
Transporting Grapes by Truck
Trucks loaded with grapes driving around, waiting in line. Men inspect grapes. I geuss these folks are selling grapes. Good shots of vintage (40's -50's) trucks otherwise pretty boring.
Int. of Grape Process Plant
Inanimate unknown machinery. A man at the end of a corridor. That's it. Not too interesting.
Picking Grapes
Grapes being picked, unpicked grapes, workers are Latino.
Grape Vineyard
Grapes being picked, shots of vineyards, workers in vineyard.
Picking Grapes & Making Wine
Reels 10-1 thru 10-15 have been combined (in numerical order)Grapes on vine (various colors), grape harvesting, female harvester holding large bunch of grapes for camera. Ext. shots of industrial building. Truck dumping huge amount of grapes at wine factory (?), wine bottles being labeled by machine, "Mission Bell Wine", women and men packing bottles of wine into boxes (pretty interesting). Vineyard being sprayed / dusted with pesticides, bottling machinery, display of 3 Mission Bell Wine bottles. Bottles being filled with grape juice, workers harvesting plums.
Grape Vineyard Irrigation
Vineyard and irrigation
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(20:40:53) In your view, is that an adequate follow up to the question that I asked, which was who told the White I-louse of the criminal referrals? Mr. PODESTA. Senator, I would have written a different letter. I think that you asked very specific questions. We were concerned about that. We wanted, we wanted that record to be corrected. What I said earlier was that I thought in the context of what was going on that the information that you had requested was out there. I assumed it was in this letter, I think if this letter was the only thing that you had received without context or anything else, I think it's, you know The CHAIRMAN. You think what-I'm sorry, what did you say? I didn't hear that last word. Mr. PODESTA. I think that it would-you'd need to connect the dots, going back to your questions and looking at those two meetings, The CHAIRMAN. But that's not what he asked you, he asked you whether the letter senator BOND. Did that letter answer the question I asked at the February 24th hearing? Mr. PODESTA. I think you have to go back to your questions to understand. Senator BOND. My question was, who advised the White House of the criminal referrals? 438 Mr. PODESTA. And in my view, the responsive answer would have been the meeting on the 29th and Senator BOND. The answer should have been Jean Hanson. If you believe Ms. Hanson, it was Jean Hanson at Mr. Altman's direction, If you believe Mr. Altman, it was Jean Hanson on her own. The problem Mr. PODESTA. Yes. Senator BOND [continuing]. The problem, Mr. Chairman, is that throughout this we were not able to get a straight answer from Mr. Altman. Mr. Podesta was tasked to make sure this was done. I know Mr. Podesta from having worked with him on the Agriculture Committee. He's very thorough. When he says he's going to follow up he normally does, But I have to tell you, Mr. Podesta, that the failure to answer the simple question which I think would have been devastating had it been properly answered, the failure to follow up on this tells me too much about the attitude of Mr. Altman and perhaps the White House. Mr. PODESTA. Well, Senator, I think I answered earlier with regard to the White House which is that we brought this to Mr. Altman's attention. I understood the next day that a letter had been sent and the Chairman had been called. I did not see the text of the letter. The following day there were newspaper stories that noted Ms. Hanson, noted the criminal referrals. I thought this matter had been taken care of. When I finally saw the letter, which was sometime later-I think, now I take your point. Senator BOND. Mr. Podesta, you're better than that. I've seen you follow up and you do better work than that. Senator KERRY. The Senator may also remember that the entire process was interrupted by the Grand Jury on the 5th of March I think it was. The CHAIRMAN. The record should Senator BOND. The dog ate my homework doesn't get it. The CHAIRMAN. The record should be clear that they got the proper information to The Washington Post, that's been the testimony here today. They just didn't get the proper information to us; isn't that correct, Mr. Podesta? Mr. PODESTA. I think that's a fair statement. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Senator DODD. I'm prepared to ask a question but I think Senator Kerry The CHAIRMAN. I think Senator Kerry has been waiting and is next in the line of march here. Senator KERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to use my time to try and clarify where we were earlier, particularly with respect to my friend from New Mexico, and see if he and I can't get a better understanding here. What disturbs me a little bit is that there's a process where some theories are being propounded, and that's fine. It's all fair game. And questions are being asked to support the theory but the questions and the theory are not based on the evidence, on the full evidence, and so you wind up leaving the impression with the public that there's some line or avenue here that is not in fact documented by where we've been. 439
Men in Tug-o-War Struggle
MS men engaged in tug-of-war game 01:18:53 another game, much more intense, with feet digging holes in the dirt. Several angles on men in this struggle, smiling as if they're having fun
Weightlifter Torsos
MS weightlifter from behind, raising chrome weights on a bar, over his head several times. Good muscle development suggests strength, and the glitzy wall covering he's facing suggests a health club 01:19:31 different man, same angle and pose. He puts the bar down, then raises it again over his head for some slow steady lifting
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(20:45:18) Now, I share with the Senator from New Mexico, and he and I have talked about it, some questions about the recusal questionwhat was going on, what was in somebody's head? But the Senator has asked a question and there was a heated exchange toward the end here based on the notion that somehow Mr. Ickes and his attorneys have cooked up this concept of the notes which with the arrival of my good friend have been usurped over here. I just want to go into that for a minute, because I think you have to look at this in its full context, both on the facts as they are presented with respect to who did what and also on reality, just sort of a commonsense reality that we're called on to apply to it. And we went through this earlier, I may not have been as clear as I should have been, but on this question of Mr. Ickes' testimony and what he knew with respect to the tolling agreement and where things were going to go. The fact is that Mr. Altman has testified differently. A number of other witnesses-let me be very specific here. Ms. Kulka and perhaps she's the most important of all because Ms. Kulka ran the investigation, Ms. Kulka we have all agreed came to us as somebody that we judged was of high integrity, independent, and didn't have any ox in this except wanting to do her job as a professional. Ms. Kulka said to us it was impossible-these are her wordsit was impossible for anybody to understand, for Mr. Altman to transfer information, that we couldn't finish our investigation in time because that was not the fact. Now I know none of you disagree. That was her testimony, So we have her testimony saying it's impossible. We have Mr. Ryan saying impossible, couldn't have done it. Now that's the state of the evidence. But in addition to that state of the evidence, that you could not have transferred this information and, therefore, Mr. Ickes must have been mistaken in whatever he interpreted, you now have contemporaneous notes of Mr. Ickes himself. Now, Mr. Ickes, let me ask you, you are under oath. I mean these notes were made at the same time as the meeting? Mr. ICKES. Are you looking at typewritten transcript, Senator? Senator KERRY. I'm looking at the typewritten transcription, but the handwritten notes dated 2/2/94 were in fact made on 2/2/94? Mr. ICKES. Yes, they were, Senator Kerry. Senator KERRY. Let me suggest, if my friend from New Mexico was indeed concocting up a great conspiracy, you, at least, think ,.the lawyers were smart enough to cover the bases and they would 'Come her here with notes that also mentioned the recusal. But it mention the recusal. At least to this Senator, this lends sort Of some authenticity to the notion that this represented contemnotes at least as to the things that it covers. Now I go one step further than that. Another witness who testified here, Ms. Hanson, specifically said to us, very early on in the process of depositions, that she prepared the talking points for Mr. Altman. Mr. Ickes has testified that those talking points were read and Mr. Altman used them and looked down at his sheet of paper and Ms. Hanson, who was at the meeting specifically said to us he read through the items. At one point I expanded on a piece of the on the statute of limitations but as Mr. Altman was "reading through the talking points. 440 Now, I say to my friend from New Mexico, you then 90 to the talking points. The talking points say specifically it is not certain the analysis will be completed, but it will be before February 28th. So when my friend offers a question based on the facts, I think it ought to take all the facts into account. Now, you may want to test his memory beyond that and that is certainly fair, but what did Mr. Ickes' notes say, "contemporaneous"? They say that teh--- there's an A, B, C--"A, last date for RTC to reach conclusion, any claim for potential misconduct or fraud re: any other parties, I$ or "B, commence litigation to preserve claim," that is, as it's called, a protective suit, and "C, a tolling agreement." Now that brings us to the political reality issue that I raise. The Senator's been here a long time, he knows the politics of this place better than I do. Senator D'Amato was in the middle of a very visible, well covered and clever countdown. It is
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(20:50:24) Senator DOMENICI. Clever in the good sense of the word. Senator KERRY. I didn't characterize it in any way. You can in- terpret "clever." And if I was being pejorative, I might have found a different New York word for it. The point is that in the political climate with day after day of front- page headlines, with this incred- ible countdown going on, could the Senator or anybody really believe that if Ms. Kulka came and said we're not ready, we've got to file a protective suit or we're going to have we need a tolling agreement, that the White House could conceivably have withstood the political pressure and not have signed a tolling agreement? Now you have to disbelieve Ms. Kulka completely and Mr. Ryan and the independence they asserted here to believe that they would not have filed a protective suit or have asked for the tolling agreement. I respectfully suggest to my colleague that the factual situation he drew is, therefore, number one, incorrect. Number two, it simply could not have happened because of Ms. Kulka. Number three, it Sim ply couldn't have happened because of the politics and 51 the reality of the public scrutiny of any tolling request and the sit- uation. The fourth reality is the President understood this and what did he do, he previously had a pointed a Special Counsel. He. subsequently signed the statute of limitations and effectively ren- dered moot any of these other issues So all I want to do with my friends, you know, we're tired, we 've been here a long time, we've done this I think with mostly the dig- nity that it ought to have and I think we all want to try to continue that. But I would simply say that we've got to deal with the facts and we probably shouldn't even be arguing them now. We should! simply be gathering them and then sit down amongst ourselves and try to deal with them rather than argue the theory first and then chastise the witness because they don't give you the answer you want to fit the theory. Senator SARBANES. Senator Kerry, your time has expired and, Senator D'Amato, we'll go over to your side Senator D'AMATO. Senator Domenici for a moment and then I know Senator Hatch is going to follow up. Senator DOMENICI. Senator Kerry, first of all, I appreciate ever knowledge you have attributed to me about this place tics. But I want to respond by telling you that Mr. Altman's 441 Assistant, Mr. Nye, was also deposed. My point is that Roger Altman remained in a very serious decisionmaking position regardless of what's said about de facto recusal and everything else. And let me tell you that Mr. Nye agrees with that in spite of Ms. Kulka's statements about the case. I'm just going to read two questions and two answers in that regard. Question- What did Ms. Kulka say about the imperfections of the information at that point? Answer: Just that she wouldn't have enough time between-her feeling was that she wouldn't have enough time between then, the date of the meeting, and the 28th, the statute of limitations expiration, to make as informed a decision as she would need to make-in her opinion, that wouldn't be enough time to sort of go through all of these mountains OF documents, and so forth, or for her staff to do so, and that ultimately she would have to be making a decision with the best information possible at the time. Then I want to skip right down one line and say: Question: Did Mr. Altman or Ms. Hanson offer any advice or discuss those issues with Ms. Kulka? Answer: Only-it wasn't so much a response as a sort of informing him. And now "him" is in quotes meaning Roger Altman. So "informing him" of the situation and making him realize that the recommendation would be coming to him. Did you hear the last part, Senator? Senator KERRY. Yes, I did. Senator DOMENICI. The recommendation would be coming to him. On the question of whether or not to file one of these early suits, (20:55:05) Hearing hosts KEN BODE and NINA TOTENBERG close out coverage of hearings from tv studio **** FOOTAGE OF HEARING CONTINUES LATER ON THIS TAPE (20:56:41) WETA logo, PBS funding credits (20:57:01) Black screen
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(21:00:29) Hearing footage resumes: Senator HATCH. grave concern about the fact that Mr. Stephens' firm and we understood they had been retained and we -understood Mr. Stephens in particular was going to be working with the RTC on that." Mr. ICKES. You're reading correctly. Senator HATCH. OK. And that's correct? Mr. ICKES. Yes. Senator HATCH. OK That's all I have. Thank you. Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Senator Hatch. Mr. ICKES. But I just want to clarify, Senator Hatch, that the President never asked me to do anything about it and I never did anything about it. Senator HATCH. I didn't ask you, you know. That's fine. That's a good clarification. Senator SARBANES. Senator Dodd. Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just want to point out I can't recall now which of our colleagues inquired of Mr. Ickes about his deposition-I'm referring to page 132 of his deposition, regarding the rationale for Mr. Altman's decision to recuse himself-and went down to part of that Sage, line 14. I thought the question of that should be in clude in the record if we're going to keep a full one, because then the question was did he go on to explain at that time what he thought the reasons for recusing himself were. long that line, "Answer."-Mr. Ickes--"there were questions a both from myself, Mr. Nussbaum and I think others to determine the basis and as I recall, the gist of his basis was that he was-had a long and well-known friendship with the President and that he was considering recusing himself to eliminate any possible conflict 444 or appearance of conflict." It seems to me that is very important if you are going to have a full transcript of what the conversation was at that time, so you get a full picture. Now, Mr. Chairman, a lot has been made of these Steiner diaries and some are relying on them more than others. Mr. Podesta, on the last page of your opening statement, the top paragraph, you say that "in the several days following Mr. Altman's February 24th testimony, I spoke by telephone to Mr. Steiner on three or four occasions." Then you go on to say "on February 25th Mr. Steiner told me that Mr. Altman had recused himself from Madison matters." Disregarding that we have that particular line and considering the Steiner diaries in which Mr. Steiner says gracefully dodged the question or words to that effect. Gracefully ducked the question; much has been made of that. Now you had by your own testimony here in your opening remarks-and, by the way, he wrote that entry on the 27th of February so, it's contemporaneous with your conversations with Mr. Steiner on the 24th and the 25th and possibly beyond that. Now, are you familiar with the Steiner diary description of Mr, Altman's handling of the February 24th testimony? Mr. PODESTA. I know he used that term. Senator DODD. He used that term. Now, in your conversations with Mr. Steiner, I presume you talked about the February 24th testimony? Mr. PODESTA. Senator, to the best of my recollection we had two conversations about recusal Senator SARBANES. Mr. Podesta, if you could pull that mike closer to you. Senator DODD. I'm looking at your opening statement today "in several days following Mr. Altman's February 24th hearing, I spoke by telephone to Mr. Steiner on three or four occasions." Mr. PODESTA. Correct. Senator DODD. Maybe-I'm sorry, I jumped ahead. During those conversations, did Mr. Steiner characterize for you how Mr. Altman handled the testimony before this Committee? Mr. PODESTA. No, Senator, no, he did not. Senator DODD. Did you ask him at any point how he would characterize Mr. Altman's testimony? Mr. PODESTA. I think those conversations were very brief. I don't believe I asked him how he would characterize the testimony. He informed me of the Dennis Foreman conversation on the February-on February 1st. He informed me that Mr. Altman was thinking of recusing himself, that conversation occurred on February 25th followed very shortly by a call that said that he had recused himself. Senator DODD. I'm curious about this Mr. PODESTA. We did not discuss the substance of Mr. Altman's testimony. I had that conversation with Mr. Altman and he never characterized that to me.
Pro Baseball Game Clips
Good view from behind home plate of batter (#11) hitting pitch down third base line and running to first -- shot slightly in slow motion. Runner on third scores 01:25:05 closer view of batter (#7) behind backstop (home plate screen); hits ball straight up the middle off-screen 01:25:10 LS batter (#15) from lower deck; takes a pitch, hits one foul, takes another and then drives one deep -- his jersey reads San Diego (Padres). He rounds first and lopes towards second, but pulls up as it's apparently just a long out (last of the inning) 01:25:32 LS baseball field with batter up, thrown out at first 01:25:41 LS batter and pitcher from high behind home plate; a called strike 01:25:47 LS pitcher windup (#20) and pitch 01:25:53 LS batter from high above home plate; it's a ball 01:25:56 good angle on batter, catcher, umpire; two balls and a double (player has a star on jersey as earlier; his number is 5)
August 4, 1994 - Part 10
(21:05:38) Senator DODD. I find that somewhat curious. Now you've received this hot line phone call from Mr. Eggleston outside of the Committee room because in Mr. Eggleston's opinion, Mr. Altman has just made a mistake; is that not true? 445 Mr. PODESTA. I don't believe Senator DODD. Someone in your office did, not you. Mr. PODESTA. I talked to Mr. Eggleston on the 25th. Senator DODD. On the 25th and so there is some concern about this testimony, Mr. PODESTA. Correct. Senator DODD. Mr. Steiner, of course, works for Mr. Altman. Mr. PODESTA. No, he works for Secretary Bentsen, but I think the point is fair. Senator DODD. The point I'm trying to get at is if we're concerned about this and here is someone who can maybe shed some light on what Mr. Altman's testimony was, what it should have been, why wouldn't you have raised the question with Mr. Steiner about the content of Mr. Altman's testimony? Mr. PODESTA. I may have, Senator, but I don't recall that. I think we had, as I said, a series of very brief information telephone calls. Senator DODD. Now, that hearing was televised on C-SPAN I believe, and I presume it was being carried live, but I don't know that. Was it being carried live? You had the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board and others, the Secretary of the Treasury. Did you have-were you monitoring the hearing live? Mr. PODESTA. I was not. Senator DODD. Was anyone in the White House monitoring that hearing live? Mr. PODESTA. No, I don't think so. Senator DODD. You don't know. OK. Now, did you agree with Mr. Eggleston when he called and I gather said gee what did he tell you in that phone conversation? When did he call or what do you know that he may have said, not to you but to your office? I'm sorry. Mr. PODESTA. Why don't I testify to what 1 know which is the next day I think. He came to me and said Mr. Altman was asked to describe the meeting on February 2nd. He described it, he did not say that the topic of recusal had come up. He was concerned about that. Senator DODD. Who is this saying this? Mr. PODESTA- Mr. Eggleston said that to me. Senator DODD. Did he tell you that he felt that Mr. Altman had not answered candidly and honestly to this Committee? Mr. PODESTA. He was concerned that that was not-I'm not sure I would use the term "candid and honest," I think he was concerned that the full information was not provided to the Committee. Senator DODD, Had you read the testimony, by the way, the full transcript of the hearing at this point? Mr. PODESTA. No, I had not. Senator DODD. Had Mr. Eggleston read the transcript? Mr. PODESTA. No, he had not. Senator DODD. Had he talked with Mr. Altman? Mr. PODESTA. No, not to the best of my knowledge. Senator DODD. So in a subsequent conversation now with Mr. Altman, confronted with the information that he should have included that, as I understood your testimony a while ago to one of our colleagues here, Mr. Altman challenged that in fact he had not 446 been forthcoming because he interpreted the questions differently than Mr. Eggleston had. Mr. PODESTA. I wouldn't put that gloss on it. I think that Mr. Altman-when I raised the--specifically what I think I was referring to was Senator Bond's question and I read or paraphrased, I think I actually read it to him. He said that's correct, that he had no knowledge of the meetings and I believed him. Senator DODD. All right. My time is up Mr. Chairman, may I ask one clarification question. lt goes back to a moment ago and again comes back to the issue that was raised over the conflicting testimony between Ms. Hanson and Mr. Altman regarding the September 29th meeting. I think the record, if it's going to be consistent, should reflect that it's Ms. Hanson's recollection that she went to that meeting under the direction of Mr. Altman. Mr. Altman's testimony is that that was not the case, that he does not recall sending her there. The statements are being made that there you have a conflict between two people and I think to draw the conclusion that Mr. Altman should have mentioned the 29th meeting when pursuant to his own testimony he doesn't recall that at all and therefore would not have necessarily brought it up on the 24th, if you're to believe him that he did not recall that. I just want to make that point. Senator SARBANES. Fine. Senator Mack. Senator MACK. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Lindsey, I'd like to address a question to you. Mr. LINDSEY, Yes, sir. Senator MAC And it's going to cover a period of time from basi- callv September 30th to October 4th and 7th. Mr. LINDSEY. OR Senator MACK. But before I run through kind of a series of points you had a phone conversation with Jim Lyons on October 4th, I think? Mr. LINDSEY. I believe it was October the 4th, yes, sir. Senator MACK. Do you remember whether you made that call or he did? Mr. LINDSEY. I believe he called the White House. I was in California with the President. The phone call got relayed to me in California and I think I probably returned it.
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(21:11:04)(tape #10096 begins) That is to give some information to Mr. Nussbaum about the 9 referrals. Mr. Nussbaum calls Mr. Sloan into that meeting and there is a continuation of a discussion about the referrals. As I understand it, Mr. Nussbaum then says to Mr. Sloan, that he should get in touch with you. Let me run through this and then I'll give you-believe me, you'll have an opportunity to respond. Mr. Sloan does contact you and he believes that that contact is either the same day or it could have been the day after. He then refers or provides you with the information about what had been 447 passed on to him by Ms. Hanson with respect to the referrals. And we have Mr. Sloan's notes of the conversation, of his conversation with Ms. Hanson about the referrals, Now I understand that there also was confusion over a memorandum. A memorandum that I think was dated October 7th, and that memorandum we believe basically underscores that you had in fact met with Mr. Eggleston and Mr. Sloan around the 29th of September. And my whole point in running through that, is that I'm under the impression that as of that October 1st or September 30th, that you've got information about the referrals. Now, we also know that you had made some notes of a conversation and during the deposition you had indicated, when you were reminded by this October 7th memorandum, that, yes, these notes corresponded to that meeting that took place either on the 30th or on the 1st. Now, also in the deposition, to be clear about it, I think you began to back away from that, saying that that was that first conversation. Then you got this phone call from Mr. Lyons when you were with the President on October 4th and I think you also testified that you men had a conversation with the President on that trip, October 4th or 5th. And I believe also that your testimony is something to the effect that, maybe if it hadn't been for Mr. Lyons calling so recently, maybe you wouldn't even have raised it with the President, but you in fact did mention the referrals to the President, on that trip. Now is that a pretty good Mr. LINDSEY. Close, but not quite. Let me go back. I think I testified in my deposition that I remembered having a short conversation with Cliff Sloan in which he informed me that there were referrals, that they expected or that there were leaks and that the Clintons were mentioned but not as targets or subjects. That is the only conversation I remember prior to my conversation with President Clinton. There are notes that Mr. Sloan has of a September 30 conversation he had with Jean Hanson, There are also notes of a October 7th conversation that Cliff Sloan had with Jean Hanson. There are notes that I have which are undated which say "conversation with Neil/Cliff." If you compare my one note with his two notes, it is apparent to me, and I believe to Mr. Sloan,