Episode 470 The Fall of Bob Packwood (part 4) 24 Hours ( A ) Dueling Press Conferences Dole 11

No one saw it coming. There had been no public hearings, the story had died down, the Ethics Committee had been predicted to censure Senator Packwood, and most likely strip him of his Chairmanship of the powerful Senate Budget Committee. 

Then it announced that in a 6 - 0 vote, it would recommend expulsion to the full Senate. 

As the old saying goes, that is when it hit the fan. 

Here we will tune in to the dueling press conferences as Senator Bob Packwood went on the offensive to defend himself and try to salvage his 27 year career. Just after his press conference ended the Ethics Committee Chairman, Mitch McConnell R- Kentucky and Richard Bryan, the ranking member, D-Nevada, stepped in front of the cameras with thousands of pages of materials and made their case. 

Bob Packwood was cornered, but he was not without friends and as you will hear, many of them, including members of the press would come to his defense, and often it wasn't even subtle. It would be some of the most interesting and riveting hours that I ever can remember in politics. 

Over the next few episodes we will take you through it all as Senator Bob Packwood, one of the most popular and powerful members of the United States Senate saw his career finally unravel in front of the world. 

Questions or comments at  , Randalrgw1@aol.com ,  https://twitter.com/randal_wallace   , and http://www.randalwallace.com/
Please Leave us a review at wherever you get your podcasts
Thanks for listening!!

Transcript

SPEAKER_14 0:25

Continuing the quote from the statement released by Senator Packwood, quote, the committee has been the judge, jury, and prosecution. And he ends with this sentence. Quote, this process makes the Inquisition look like a study in fairness, unquote. That statement from Senator Bob Packwood. He will be a guest tonight on Larry Kive at 9 p.m. Eastern. And as I keep repeating, as soon as he holds his news conference in the Senate Gallery, CNN will take you there live.

SPEAKER_12 0:56

Thus we begin what was probably one of the most high drama days I remember in my time in politics. As the Ethics Committee comes out and does announces their ruling, and Bob Packwood vows to fight.

SPEAKER_15 2:01

Never, not once, never had a chance to question them, to have a process where no single committee member ever heard any of the complainants involved in this case, not one. If I were a normal citizen, I could ask for a public hearing. I could ask to cross-examine my accusers. I could do anything that any of you in this room have a right to do that has been denied to me. Now, having said that, let me very clearly indicate my response to the three charges, and then I'll take some questions. One, on the women. I am accused of kissing women. On occasion of perhaps overly eagerly kissing women, and that is the charge. Not drugging, not robbing, kissing. And when we buffed, never approaching them again. And there's one charge in the last twelve years. Two. On the jobs for my wife, as you know, it was referred to the Justice Department, and they spent a lot of time going through it, interviewed a lot of people, and concluded there was no misconduct. There is no evidence and no finding that I know by the Ethics Committee that there was any official action or unofficial action that I ever took in exchange for some job for my wife. The people that I talked with were the oldest, closest friends I have in this country. People I had known 15, 20, 25, in one case 35 years. People who, when they heard of my plight, offered to help. And there was never a suggestion that my wife should do anything other than give a fair day's pay, fair day's work for a fair day's pay. On the diaries, and I want to make this very clear, every original word in the diaries was turned over to the committee voluntarily. I was the only one who knew that the original diaries existed, and when subpoeded, I gave them to the committee. I very specifically asked the chairman of the committee and vice chairman Brian, were they misled? Were they in any way impeded or obstructed in their investigation by diaries that had been altered? They did not answer. And here was the situation. These diaries were kept locked in a safe for 25 years, and the only people that ever saw them were the woman that typed them and me. And when this case first arose, and Arnold Porter wanted some of the diaries, I had some fear of a leak. I don't mean in this sense, I mistrusted my lawyers at all. All I knew is that something that I had guarded and protected for 25 years that no one had ever seen, and which was never going to be opened until years after my death, was now going out of my hands to a big place that had copiers and people on bicycles and who knows what else, and I frankly feared not any problem with my lawyers, but I could see the National Enquirer somebody saying to somebody else, if we give you $2,000 or $3,000, can you get us a copy of some pages? So I made some alterations in copies of the diaries, not the originals. The originals were kept. And the committee was never given an altered copy other than when at the end of this process and there was a subpoena, I gave them simultaneous, I should say, simultaneously. The original and the copy. So the committee cannot say it was impeded or obstructed or in any way prevented from reaching a decision because they saw altered material. And I'll say again, and this is the irony. No one knew the original tapes existed but me. The woman who transcribed these for a quarter of a century would transcribe from a copy of a tape, and I would keep the original. In case something went wrong with the copy, and have to run her another copy, and this for all of you who dictate, you know this happens from time to time. The tapes just don't work. She would finish over the years with the tape cassette, erase it, and usually throw it away. And she thought I then erased the original. She did not know I kept them. Arnold and Porter did not know I kept them. And when I was given a subpoena, I gave them to the Department of Justice. They subsequently gave them to the committee. And that is the background of the charges.

unknown 7:31

Questions?

SPEAKER_15 7:37

I don't know. I met with the chairman and I said, Is this a chairman and the vice chairman? I said, is this aggregate or is it a vote for expulsion on the women and a vote for expulsion on the jobs and a vote for expulsion on the diaries? And he said each member had different reasons. I didn't really try to parcel them out when they voted. Uh so I I cannot I cannot answer that question. I don't know. No.

SPEAKER_01 8:03

You said to fully fight these charges, then uh I would like to have a public hearing.

SPEAKER_15 8:09

I indicated that uh some weeks ago. I would like to have a public hearing. I would like the public to hear about the diaries and how they were kept and how the committee got the originals, and how they were never, never, never misled.

SPEAKER_03 9:34

Isn't that right to do that?

SPEAKER_15 9:36

No, that's not right. I don't know. I don't know what the sense of fairness may be. Do you say to somebody after a quarter of a century of work, pick your business, pick any business? We're now going to take your job away without you ever having a chance, assuming some of these members voted on on the issue of the women, because I don't know what they voted on, without ever having a chance to face your accusers. Without having a chance to cross-examine them, without ever having a chance to bring forward your own witnesses. I don't know if that strikes you as fair. It doesn't strike me as fair.

SPEAKER_01 10:22

Senator, how do you feel that you still can effectively serve as chairman of the finance committee, you know, given the the the clear vote by the uh uh the the ethics committee?

SPEAKER_15 10:31

How how do you feel you still can and that's why that's why I would like to have a public hearing and let the public hear this and say, do we think that decision is fair? Do we think he in any way misled the committee? Uh do we think that the punishment is justified by trying to get a job for his wife when there was no misconduct involved, no criminal misconduct, and and should he be denied his job because he tried to over-egally kiss women?

SPEAKER_00 10:56

Have you forgone the right to public hearings by first asking that he not be held?

SPEAKER_15 11:01

I don't know whether or not initially had they then reopened the record, as you recall, and brought in two more charges. Uh and when I'd made the decision, uh I didn't know about those charges. Secondly, one thing that stunned me, and and this is where I I'm gonna give you an example. I had no idea when I waived public hearings that they would then say, now we're going to make what we regard as the relevant portions of the record, the relevant portions public. And the reason I say that it was going to be relevant as they determined that, and I'm going to give you one example of where I'm bothered, and there are others, but this is one. About four months ago, a woman in New York wrote to the ethics committee and called one of the principal staffers of Linda Chapman and said, I'm I'm sending you something on the fax. Here's my phone number, I'm at home most of the time. Call me. I have information on this that relates to one of the accusers, and I saw her kissing, and I want to talk to you. That would seem relevant. The committee never called her. Never called her, even though they had the written statement in the home phone now. That's one thing. When the committee then gave us a list of the relevant affidavits and other documents, they did not give us that letter. Only because she sent us a copy of it did we know about it. And when we then deposed the woman ourselves and had a press conference in response to one of you asking the ethics committee, well, why didn't you call this person? They said, Well, we didn't regard her evidence as relevant. So my theory is in the releasing of quote the record as it is seen to be relevant. It will be as seen to be relevant to support the charges. I will never have a chance to I've never been able to see everything they have. My lawyers haven't been able to see everything we have. We have no idea if whatever other things they have might be regarded as relevant by other people. Don't know. Uh this uh I only learned about this uh about an hour ago. I'm not quite sure yet.

SPEAKER_08 13:20

But is it as let me see if I understand the the uh question I think that Nancy asks, and that is you will not resign unless the full Senate votes to force you out. Is that your position?

SPEAKER_15 13:33

Well, th if the full Senate votes to force you out, it's too late to resign, I think. I may I may miss it. Resigned before fire. I may miss a uh you know, I've learned long ago that you make more mistakes in haste than lose opportunities and delay. I just want to think about this for a minute. I want to talk to some people, and I'm not gonna make instantaneous decisions.

SPEAKER_13 13:53

You said you had a discussion with them this afternoon. Did he say anything about that?

SPEAKER_15 13:56

I said, Do you mean there are no public hearings? That you can this action can be taken and you never have a chance to face your accusers? Now, here I'm assuming, based upon what he said, that as the committee didn't vote among itself that the reason for this decision is A or B or C, to the extent that some of them may have voted uh for this decision based upon the uh complaints of the women, in essence, I would be denied this position with no chance to ever confront them.

SPEAKER_13 14:25

No indication he was gonna accede to your request for public hearings.

SPEAKER_15 14:28

Oh no, I don't I don't think they're gonna accede to the request for public hearings. Well, I waived it when one, I thought the record was closed. And subsequently my lawyers were told the record was closed. Then come the two new charges. One is your will involving the teenager, and from the comments you saw from other senators, that cast a new light on it. Many of them said it cast a new light on it. Two, when I made that decision, I had no idea they were then gonna say, okay, now that you've waived your right to a public hearing, now that you've waived your right to depose a witness, now that you've waived your right to cross-examination, we now, in essence, are going to have a public hearing by making the record public, but only the portions of it that we think are relevant.

SPEAKER_14 15:21

You have been listening to the live remarks from the Capitol of Oregon Republican Senator Bob Packwood, who just a few moments ago categorically said he is not considering resigning, notwithstanding the six to nothing vote by the Senate Ethics Committee earlier this afternoon to recommend to the full Senate that he be expelled from the United States Senate, the committee accusing the Senator from Oregon of certain rules and law violations, and Senator Packwood with a long string of denials. We will continue covering this story, a full report at 8 p.m. tonight, and another full report on inside politics at 8 30 p.m. Eastern. Now to Jim Murray in Los Angeles.

SPEAKER_12 16:01

This day will start out. Uh the Ethics Committee makes the announcement, and we're gonna have these dueling press conferences, which we just heard Bob Packwoods. Now we're gonna hear from the chairman and the ranking member of the Ethics Committee. Now the chairman is Mitch McConnell. And Senator Richard Bryan is the ranking member. Uh also on the committee uh will be Ted Stevens, the Republican Senator from Alaska, and Barbara McCulski and uh I believe there's two others that were on it. Um so this is a pretty a strong group that made this decision. And you're gonna hear from we're gonna we're gonna we'll we're gonna let you hear the senators that come out to speak um during this 24-hour period. Uh but this is their um the the press conference with just Senator Bryan and Senator McConnell. And uh, you know, Mitch McConnell is you're gonna see exactly why he rose like he did in the power structure of the tenant, because you know, 24 hours as that's Senator McConnell uh is not someone to tangle with.

SPEAKER_02 17:13

I want to say as strongly as I possibly can that the conduct that we find Senator Packwood guilty of is unacceptable. Unacceptable in any workplace in America, unacceptable in the United States Senate. His exercise of power over those he controlled was reprehensible. I want to say something to the women who came forward to the Ethics Committee. I know this has been an extremely unpleasant experience for each of you. I'm the father of two daughters. Very proud of those daughters. One of my daughters worked as a member of the staff in the United States Senate. I believe what the Ethics Committee has done yesterday, and what I hope that the Senate will do on the floor of the Senate when this matter is brought to the Senate, can make a difference for women in America as they continue their careers, whether in the private sector or in the public sector. This case has a number of historic firsts. No ethics committee in the history of the United States Senate was ever forced to subpoena documents from a senator under investigation. No ethics committee in the history of the United States Senate has ever been required to spend a year in court to obtain requested information to complete that investigation. And no ethics committee in the history of the United States Senate has ever submitted a recommendation for discipline on charges of sexual misconduct to the full Senate. Now it is time to move ahead and put this sad chapter behind us all. I am hopeful that Senator Dole will give the Ethics Committee time, hopefully next week, so that this matter can be brought to a conclusion. I want to respond very briefly, as did the chairman, to some of the comments that Senator Packwood uh made yesterday and has made over the past few weeks. First, with respect to the assertion that there are some anonymous charges that he knows nothing about. Let me just say that the Ethics Committee provided the senator with the names of all of those who were complainants and upon whom we based the 18 allegations of sexual misconduct involving 17 women. Regarding his comment that he was found guilty of kissing women, when you have examined this record, the record is explicit and detailed in terms of the assaulted behavior that Senator Packwood was guilty with respect to some of the women who filed these complaints. And finally, let me say that Senator Packwood's version of the handling of the diary material is totally incorrect. Senator Packwood provided altered diary materials to his attorney without making the attorney aware that he had in fact altered the content. The only reason the committee did not receive altered materials was that the review process of the diaries by the committee was terminated by Senator Packwood in October of 1993, before Senator Packwood's lawyers had turned over the altered diary material that Senator Packwood had provided to his attorneys, and which would have reasonably been expected to been turned over by his attorneys to the committee. Clearly, Senator Packwood intended for the committee to receive the altered documents, and his conduct was designed and calculated to mislead and to deceive the committee in the most material aspects of this investigation. Senator Packwood first withheld relevant documents from the committee despite two document requests, as the chairman has indicated. He then altered the material he knew was relevant to the inquiry, and then he and his transcriber deliberately altered tapes after the transcriptions have been given. With respect to the jobs matter, every member of the United States Senate knows that no matter what one's personal relationship is, public officials cannot solicit or arrange personal financial support from those who have business before the Senate. If we need to prove our charges before the Senate, this committee is fully prepared to do so, and the case will speak for itself.

SPEAKER_09 22:06

Well, first let me say I think that most of you underestimated the significance of the charges uh from the beginning, and I say that not to put you down, but the the alteration of documents, the violation of 1505 of uh Title 18 of the U.S. code, which was made apparent in the Bill of Particulars back in May, should have suggested to you that this was an extraordinarily serious case. Over the summer, I wrestled with um what I thought was appropriate. Um candidly, I never thought uh anything less than loss of uh chairmanship was in the offing. And all of us had to weigh, uh particularly over the month of August, I think, just what we thought was the appropriate response uh to a deliberate attempt uh to deceive the committee in clear violation of criminal law. And as the vice chairman indicated uh by yesterday, obviously, actually by several days ago. I had not I did not tell him that, but by several days ago I had uh decided to offer the motion that I did.

SPEAKER_05 23:20

Um Senator Bryant, does the committee intend to request that the Justice Department enact a criminal investigation of the destruction of a connection investigation?

SPEAKER_09 23:33

We really didn't discuss that. Um I don't know whether they would want to pursue that after expulsion had occurred or resignation had prevented expulsion. That would be up to them, I suppose. And frankly, we didn't discuss it. We were concerned about what the Senate's response to this ought to be, not what any other agency of government might conclude ought to be appropriate. The evidence is compelling, and it seems to me the appropriate response would be resignation.

SPEAKER_01 24:09

Senator McConnell, if you case the Senate Survey, why didn't you apply the public hearing?

SPEAKER_09 24:14

Well, let's go back over that. We spent a couple of months on it. Um first, if you will recall, and only one of you I think wrote, the professional staff of the committee felt that hearings were not necessary. Second, because we had everything before us we needed to make a decision. And my view was we ought to move on to the decision phase, and frankly, but for the flap over public hearings, we would have reached a decision in late July or early August rather than in September. My own personal view was that nothing was to be gained uh by putting on what I think we all agree would have been an extraordinary show, which would have diverted the Senate from its uh um responsibilities. And I never felt that was necessary to achieve a a just result in this case. And I think the action that the committee took yesterday demonstrates that it was not necessary uh to achieve uh a just result. At the risk of being redundant, let me also repeat that the notions that Senator Packwood has expressed uh last night and this morning that the loss of right to cross-examination was critical. Was something he had to have been aware of at the time he waived his right to a hearing the first time, and had to have been aware of at the time he voted against the Boxer Amendment later. And of course he knew that we were going to release this information right here, which we said we were gonna do the same day we voted not to have public hearings. To sum it up, I didn't feel that public hearings were an indispensable part of reach reaching a just decision. Committee differed on that issue, uh, but we managed to move ahead.

SPEAKER_05 25:56

How did you react though when Senator Packard then called for public hearings?

SPEAKER_09 26:08

Well, obviously I didn't agree with that decision. The issue was was crazy by that guy. Well, I'm not gonna express my feelings about it. I mean, obviously, having argued that on the floor and having voted that way on the committee, I disagreed with the decision. And I continued to disagree with it even after the senator decided at at the uh at this late hour that he wanted to go in a different direction. I mean, I could only conclude at that point that that was an effort to delay the process because we we I believe, I guess I'm not sure everybody would come to the same answer on this, but I believe it would have taken probably four to six months to have gone through the public hearing process. Um, and I thought we already hadn't had what we needed to make a decision. Let me just the staff sent me a note. Apparently the criminal referral uh was approved and is required under Rule 8 of our rules of procedure, so that that is the answer to that question.

SPEAKER_02 27:02

Yeah, the resolution has been adopted that contains the language of referral. That was yesterday's resolution.

SPEAKER_09 27:09

Let's take one at a time, Mr. Franklin.

SPEAKER_06 27:20

What do you think that this does for the Senate? What does it say about it?

SPEAKER_02 27:32

I I would uh respond by the substance. Uh it seems to me that what the committee has done in its action by a unanimous consent was in the first instance to file by unanimous agreement a series of some 18 charges filed by 17 women alleging sexual misconduct. That in itself represented a historic first, and I think was the first indication publicly that the committee viewed this as serious and that this type of conduct was simply unacceptable. The action taken yesterday by the committee, again by unanimous consent of all members, indicates that the Senate has zero tolerance for this kind of conduct and should send a message to every woman in America that the United States Senate recognizes that this conduct is unacceptable and will exercise the ultimate sanction. This is the atomic bomb. We can do no more than to expel a member and to refer this conduct to the uh Justice Department. Mr. Follow up, does this reflect an involving or change attitude on the part of the Senate? Well, I can only speak for the attitude of those of us who are here now and for one member myself. I think it does indicate that whatever the history of the past may have been, that those days are over, that the Senate now has spoken clearly, and that the action taken by this committee is a clear precedent for other ethics committees that follow, and other members who may succeed Senator McConnell and myself in these respective positions, that the Senate has spoken loudly and clearly, and sexual misconduct will not be tolerated in any form.

SPEAKER_09 29:12

Let me just, if I may, just follow up very briefly. I think the message here is the Senate has zero tolerance for criminal conduct.

SPEAKER_07 29:21

Mr. Chairman, if I can just follow in light of the seriousness of these charges, if Mr. Pavett follows your advice to resign, he would still be able to keep a rather generous pension versus if he uh is expelled. Do you think it's appropriate to be able to keep Mr. Pension in light of these charges?

SPEAKER_09 29:41

To be perfectly frank with you, I hadn't really thought about that aspect of this, and I'm sure we will think about it in the next couple of days. I don't have any reaction.

SPEAKER_17 29:49

Senator Brian, so we don't have to guess here on misinterpreting. You said that we're going to find things right there in those records that are, quote, unseemly for.

SPEAKER_02 30:03

Well, I think we're talking about unseemly. I think, unlike Senator Packwood's characterization that uh the sexual misconduct involved kissing, the record will reveal in explicit detail the nature of those encounters that Senator Packwood had with each of the 17 women. I believe that any fair-minded reading would lead one to the conclusion that this is unseemly conduct, outrageous conduct, intolerable and unacceptable conduct, and ought to have an appropriate sanction. And that is what we concluded. Hackers had the statute of limitations of this whole thing has brought out these happened years ago. Let me respond to that. Senator McConnell and I, in the last session of the Congress, that he appointed by Senator Dole, I appointed by the then majority leader, Senator Mitchell, reviewed the ethics process not with respect to any one case, but overall. And among the issues that was discussed was whether or not there ought to be a statute of limitations. Again, not with respect to the PAC wood matter in particular, but just in general. We called witnesses before the committee who had served as counsel to the ethics committee, as special counsel. We call witnesses before the committee who had represented uh members of the United States Senate in ethics matters. Each of those lawyers, some representing what might be considered a prosecutorial and a defense view, were asked the question: should the Senate of the United States impose a statute of limitations with respect to misconduct? Each of them agreed that it would be highly inappropriate. Statutes of limitations do not relate to ethical matters and ought not to relate to ethical matters because the Senate ought to have the ability to judge all of the conduct before it. And in this case, I think it's important to note that the committee found a pattern of conduct, a pattern of conduct from 1969 down to the most recent event that indicated that sexual misconduct was uh part of the pattern of uh Senator Peckwith's conduct of his official duties.

SPEAKER_09 32:18

Hold on, let me let me just follow up on that. I agree with uh with the vice chairman that there should be no statute of limitations in Senate ethics uh committee cases. It was envisioned that the 3-3 nature of the committee would certainly protect a senator against an ancient, isolated, inconsequential event. But as the vice chairman has said here, there was a pattern of conduct over a lengthy period of time, and clearly uh the Senate should adopt a tougher standard, and there is no arbitrary statute of limitations in a Senate Ethics Committee proceeding. You can take into account, obviously, the age of the of the complaint as a factor in deciding whether to go forward with a case which would require four votes of the committee.

SPEAKER_05 33:04

Senator McConnell, have you spoken to uh the majority leader yet about a time frame for bringing the I spoke to him only after I spoke to Senator Packwood yesterday?

SPEAKER_09 33:14

Senator Bryan and I both visited with Senator Packwood uh yesterday afternoon in his office after the committee rendered its decision. At that point, I went to see Senator Dole and explained to him what the committee had done. And uh, as you all know, uh floor time for this matter will be up to him.

SPEAKER_05 33:35

Senator Dole Dole, we will recognize Senator Captain.

SPEAKER_09 33:40

Senator Dole didn't say anything at all to me about what he planned. Uh he listened to my uh presentation, he did not tell me what he planned to do, uh, either with regard to scheduling floor time for the uh committee's recommendation or any other matter related to the case.

SPEAKER_02 34:00

Have you ever discussed punishment with Senator Dole?

SPEAKER_09 34:03

No, I I did not discuss this with Senator Dole. He had no prior knowledge of my decision in this case. In fact, he learned about it after Senator Packwood learned about it.

SPEAKER_07 34:12

How did Captain react when you would talk to him about this?

SPEAKER_02 34:16

Oh well, he I I think that I just would say that the Senator Packwood had a couple of questions about the process that he asked us about, and uh Senator McCall and I tried to respond as best we could.

SPEAKER_05 34:28

Senator Brian, can I follow up on the question of a criminal referral? Yes, you said that um the rules of the Senate requires a criminal referral by committee directly. That's incorporated in the resolution.

SPEAKER_02 34:40

It is incorporated, it is incorporated in the report, as I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong. The report it is in the resolution, and uh that was acted upon yesterday unanimously by the committee.

SPEAKER_05 34:51

Can it be deleted from the resolution or can can can could the committee agree, for example, not to make such a representation to the justice department if Senator Packard be resigned?

SPEAKER_02 35:03

Well, though, of course, whether or not they would pursue it would be up to the Justice Department if that's your question.

SPEAKER_05 35:08

I'm asking whether the Senate would refer the matter, could decide not to refer the matter to the Justice Department.

SPEAKER_02 35:15

Well, I mean the the the the ethics committee has already made its decision, and this decision is irrespective of what the full Senate might do with respect uh to the penalties that we've recommended. We we have made a decision to refer this to Justice Department. Uh I can't conceive of the circumstance. Yeah. Yeah.

unknown 35:32

Yeah.

SPEAKER_09 35:33

Whether or not our rules, I'm told our rules require us to refer it. Whether or not we referred it. If the Justice Department decided to pursue this, they could. We don't control what they pursue. So I'm not sure our decision to refer, which our rules require, isn't going to keep them from pursuing it if they wanted to. Even if we've not done that, they could pursue it if they wanted to. Well, that's part of our action.

SPEAKER_02 36:00

We've already taken the action.

SPEAKER_09 36:01

We have to make the referral, but if you're asking, can we control what the Justice Department does? The answer is no.

SPEAKER_02 36:07

And and the other part of that question, if I might respond further, I mean, if Senator Packwood resigns, that would not per se terminate the Justice Department's right to pursue it. In other words, his resignation does not terminate uh their ability to proceed.

SPEAKER_01 36:24

Right. Does that mean it's a possibility of public hearings?

SPEAKER_09 36:28

We've already got the results. We've made a recommendation. Uh that issue's over. We've made a recommendation. Hopefully, if there is no resignation, uh our uh resolution will be approved by at least 67 members of the Senate. That is our hope.

SPEAKER_04 36:48

Is Senator Dole didn't even take money helping for the features and has been made the recommendation?

SPEAKER_09 36:53

I think I've already answered that question. Uh Senator Dole did not learn about my position until after Senator Packwood did. He did not express his view on the issue. He listened to the question.

SPEAKER_16 37:01

Is that motion debatable on the floor? Yes. Yes. Oh, yes.

SPEAKER_06 37:08

Now is the time for justice to be done. If Senator Packwood were to resign with these benefits, would justice be done?

SPEAKER_09 37:15

Well, I I really haven't thought about the benefit issue, and I that's already been asked. I really just haven't thought about that, and I'm not prepared to take a position on that.

SPEAKER_02 37:26

He expressed remorse that he would be so. I commented with respect to his testimony, but I found that his testimony, in my judgment, was not persuasive on any of the issues that we had filed the charges the sexual misconduct, the solicitation of jobs, and the deliberate and calculated uh effort to deceive the committee. That's all I would say is that I did not find anything in his testimony that persuaded me uh that the actions taken by him in each of these three categories did not once.

SPEAKER_09 37:59

I made mistakes. Yeah, I I think that our action yesterday uh speaks loud more loudly than anything we could say now about our view of his position in this matter.

SPEAKER_17 38:10

Three years to complete that.

SPEAKER_09 38:19

I'm glad you asked that. It takes a while to interview 264 witnesses. I've got my little list here. I want to give it to you again. I can find it. 264 witnesses, 111 depositions, 44 subpoenas. That that can't be done overnight. And also let me remind you that we lost 10 months as a result of Senator Packwood's fighting the subpoenas to get the diaries, which was taken all the way to the Supreme Court. So we were confronted with a choice, and I hope you will listen to this. We could have either done an incomplete investigation, in which case you all would have been here asking us, well, why didn't you talk to everybody? We decided the most important thing to do is to have a thorough and complete investigation, the results of which you see right here, so that um we could stand before you at the end of this case and say that we pursued every lead and we came to a conclusion uh based upon a total investigation. And so I think it is pretty unfair to, after doing uh uh such a thorough job to be uh criticized for taking so long.

SPEAKER_02 39:33

Let me let me just add, if I may, to what the chairman had to say. So I associate myself with his comments. One additional factor that will appear when you read the record here is the handling of the diary material itself. First of all, we did not know initially what the circumstances would be. There is an original tape that we learned of only in late November of 1993, after Mr. Packwood's then lawyers, Arnold and Porter, made us aware of that. There is a transcript. Obviously, there are missing altered diary tapes, and so all of this had to go to the Justice Department for them to review, to compare, before that information was provided to staff. Mr. Starr, as you'll recall, is our special counsel. In addition to the delays which the chairman has addressed, it took months. We did not receive the last of those diary transcripts until earlier this year. January or February, and staff will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it was January or February of this year when we received the last. Is that correct? That is correct. So that accounts for the delay. What? Well, the diaries were altered uh, in our view, in three very significant ways. In some instances, there were complete deletions in areas that were material to our investigation. In other instances, there were whole new portions added to the diary in ways that materially altered or changed the diaries again on issues related to our inquiry. And third, there was a combination of the two preceding, some deletions and interlineations in a material way. I believe it was that issue to which the chairman addressed himself that this was a calculated and designed effort to deceive and mislead the committee with respect to the nature of the charges. John's first formal job is only one of the questions. What's the question? Well, the diaries were altered not only because of the jobs charge, but also section of misconduct. That's correct. That's correct. That's correct, yes.

SPEAKER_09 42:01

Oh, I have no idea. I I certainly hope so.

SPEAKER_16 42:15

If the Senate, full Senate, hadn't the opportunity to vote.

SPEAKER_09 42:20

My my view is the important thing that the committee, having made its recommendation after this exhaustive investigation, is for Senator Fackwood to leave. And it seems to me the most dignified way to do that would be to resign. But obviously that's his decision, and we're prepared to move forward if uh if that doesn't happen.

SPEAKER_02 42:39

I would agree with that and simply point out that all of the information upon which the committee relied upon in making its decision is contained in that record. So no information is going to be withheld. You'll have an opportunity to see it all, and I would agree that the most dignified part of that presentation.

SPEAKER_10 42:58

Senator Bryan and Senator McConnell on the Senate Senate Ethics Committee talking about their recommendation made yesterday that the committee recommends to expel Senator Bob Packlett. Senator McConnell saying that the Ethics Committee found gross and persistent misconduct. No workplace should tolerate his conduct, and certainly not in the U.S. Senate. And it was not merely stolen kisses. Senator Bryan saying is that as they examined the evidence, they were increasingly appalled and that expulsion became the only course of action. No one event or element. It was an accumulation of evidence, all three areas. CNN understands that Senator Packwood has asked for time on the Senate floor. We will be carrying that live when he does come on the Senate floor.