Advanced Search
July 29, 1994 - Part 4
(15:35:15) They ask: "Did you talk about your theories of the case or how you felt the investigation was going." You said: "Yes." They asked: "Did the White House get mentioned in those conversations? You answered: "Yes," Next they questioned: 'Vill you tell me a little bit about them? How it bad come up, what kind of context?" Your answer was: "This is from memory, but I know that Captain Hume was very upset. The White House was stonewalling us in our investigation and getting access to the office. They went up there, were not allowed in, were not treated very nicely, and they were very upset. They bad to go up a second time before the things were put together and they were allowed to go in there. After that time, I was not there. I only heard what people told me." Does that reflect what you told the questioner in the deposition? Mr. ROLLA. That is correct. I was not there either time because this was all from memory, office talk. Senator BOND. Then, again, referring to the stonewalling and on page 156, the question is asked: "Did you ever talk in detail with Captain Hume about what went on at the notification to tell him some of those concerns that you had?" You answered: "Yes. We talked about them, that we were stonewalled, we were stonewalled there. People basically, we bad a few questions here and there of certain people but we were stonewalled." Does that reflect your memory of the situation? 81 Mr. ROLLA. The transcript does not read as good as it sounded when I said it. [Laughter.] Senator BOND. Would you like to state it in your own words? maybe, I am sure that it was The CHAIRMAN. That happens to us too. Senator BOND. Would you express your views for the Committee? Mr. ROLLA. Of course, you are reading parts of statements that were much longer. Talking about the death notification, You are speaking of the death notification? Senator BOND. Yes. Mr. ROLLA. OK Senator BONI). And the investigation that, went on. Mr. ROLLA. As far as the death notifi cation, it was not the situation we would normally have liked to have had, There were too many people there, too many people met us at the door. It was not the right atmosphere in which to make a notification in which to ask questions after a period of grieving. There were too many people there, and we did not have an opportunity to question the family or friends the way we would have liked to. Senator BOND. It was not just with the investigation at the time Of notification? You had problems with getting access to the papers? Is that correct? The papers of Mr. Foster and other personal effects? The CHAIRMAN. Let me just sound a caution here because the question of the papers and the handling of the papers is an issue that Mr. Fiske is still investigating, and be 'has written to us and asked us to not move into that subject because he is not finished with it. And so I think we have got to be very careful about the degree to which we inadvertently cross into that zone. Senator BOND, I gather there was an effort, by you to find if there was a suicide note or any other information that might bear upon the cause of death while you were at the Foster home? Mr. ROLLA. Yes. Senator BOND. Did you have any luck with it, were you able to carry that out? Mr. ROLLA. We were there for a total of almost an hour, I be- And it seems like a long time, but with all that was going on, it was not very long. We did not have the-we had opportunity to ask certain questions, but not anything at length and we were told, asked was there anything, did you see this forthcoming, was there anything different about him, has be been depressed, and all the answers were no. Senator BOND. But your testimony in the deposition was that you were stonewalled? Mr- ROLLA, And by that, I mean that everybody said, Do, they knew nothing about his depression or anything when It later comes Out that he was depressed and they were aware of it, but at the time, no one really spoke to us or gave us any Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I think this witness, just in the limited area, has given us an idea of some of the difficulties of the investigation and we will be getting into the question, of access to the White House papers later on. 82 I think that this all leads up to the fact that this phase of the investigation by Mr. Fiske is another very important one that we will have to explore at a 'later date. I thank the witnesses. The CHAIRMAN. And we will do so. Senator Sarbanes, you are next in line. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I just returned, and I would like to defer. I will defer to a colleague The CHAIRMAN, Would you yield to me, then, briefly? Senator SARBANES. I will pick up my round later. The CHAIRMAN. Just would you yield a couple of minutes of your time to me, then? Senator SARBANES. Certainly.
August 1, 1994 - Part 7
(20:55:06) Ms. HANSON. I don't know. He may be mistaken. He must have been mistaken, because I know I did not. Senator MURRAY. Ms. Hanson, did you ever brief congressional staff on Madison, Senate staff? Ms. HANSON. No. I spoke with Senator Riegle, and his staff, on February 10, 1994, 1 believe. We were talking about a possible permanent CEO, and we had a conversation about the statute of limitations operation. And, I recall, we also talked briefly about whether-about Mr. Altman and the fact that he was-felt be could be impartial and was going to stay and Senator MURRAY. In that briefing, you, use the same talking points that Roger Altman used in his February 2, 1994, meeting? Ms. HANSON. No, I did not. Senator MURRAY. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I really agree with Ms. HANSON. No-if I could just clarify. I used--they were not the, identical, talking points that I used in-that Mr. Altman used in the February 2, 1994, meeting. They were, however, almost identical. They had-because they had been modified, for my use, to just talk about the statute of limitations issue, so yes, they were almost identical. Senator Mup-RAY. Would it be correct to say that information provided at the February 2, 1994, meeting was being shared elsewhere, specifically, in Congress or congressional briefings? Ms. HANSON. It's my understanding that was correct yes. Senator MURRAY. I tend to agree with my friend, Senator Bennett, who said a little earlier, 'If these meetings hadn't occurred, we wouldn't have to hold these hearings." I wish those meetings hadn't occurred, and I think my family, at this point, wishes they hadn't as well, but I understand the motivation. I think I know what it's like. I think we all do, when a press story is shaped by leaks and the inclination is to coordinate a response. If you hadn't met, we'd probably all be criticizing the Administration for being disorganized. Let me ask you the one, really, relevant question here. Have you, Ms. Hanson, ever done anything, anything whatsoever, to impede or derail an investigation at the RTC or the Department of Justice? Ms. HANSON. Never. Senator MURRAY. To be complete, are you aware of anybody who is responsible for derailing or impeding an investigation into Madison? 160 Ms. HANSON. No. Senator MURRAY. Do you know of anybody or have you yourself ever seen the criminal referrals? Ms. HANSON. I have never seen the criminal referrals. Senator MURRAY. Thank you. Mr. Chairman from MY unique perspective way down here, it seems to me that the chairs are getting empty and the yawns are getting larger so I'II yield back my time. The CHAIRMAN. Do I understand you need to take a short break? Ms. HANSON. Yes. The Chairman. I don't want your lawyer deciding it. I want you deciding it, and there's a big difference between the two. I mean, I'd gotten an indication that you needed one, but if that's his thinking not yours, we're going to continue, no disrespect to him. Ms. HANSON. Let's continue for a few minutes. The CHAiRMAN. Very good. Senator Hatch, you're re going to finish your line of questioning now. Senator HATCH. I'll try to finish this time. Ms. Hanson, when we finished before, you had called Mr. Nussbaum on February 8, 1994, and I wasn't quite sure what your answer was, but as I understand it, at the time you called him, you were of the view, personally, that the RTC civil case would not be handed over to Mr. Fiske at that time. Ms. HANSON. I don't remember what my view was, at that point, sir. I've told you what I understood from Ms. Kulka. Senator HATCH. You don't recall conveying that to Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. HANSON. I don't. Senator HATCH. You're not denying that you may have conveyed it to him at that time, are you? Ms. HANSON. I'm not denying it. I don't recall. Senator HATCH. Let me jump ahead a few weeks to February 24, 1994, the day that Mr. Altman testified before the Banking Committee. On that day, you received a call from Neil Eggleston. Is that right? Ms. HANSON. That's correct. Senator HATCH. On February 24 1994. He was an attorney in the White House Counsel's Office. Correct? Ms. HANSON. Correct. Senator HATCH. He was, then, working for Mr. Nussbaum? Ms. HANSON. Yes. Senator HATCH. And Mr. Nussbaum called to ask you whether former U.S. Attorney, Jay Stephens, was the lead outside counsel representing the RTC in the Madison Guaranty matter? Ms. HANSON. This was after the hearing on February 24, 1994, yes. Senator HATCH. It was clear to you that Mr. Eggleston viewed this as a problem, wasn't it? Ms. Hanson. He just asked me the question. Senator HATCH. He wasn't the only Administration official who complained to you about the RTC's hiring of Mr, Stephens, was he? Ms. HANSON. He was the only White House official that I spoke to about the matter. 161 Senator HATCH. But he wasn't the only one who complained to you about it, was he? Ms. HANSON. There were other people in the Treasury Department that I spoke to. Senator HATCH. Anybody else in the Administration? Ms. HANsON. In the White House, no. Senator HATCH. In fact, Joshua Steiner, the Chief of Staff to Treasury Secretary Bentsen, bad told you that be thought Ellen Kulka should be fired for hiring Stephens, hadn't he? Ms. HANSON. Yes, he did.
August 2, 1994 - Part 11
(00:45:30) So while I have sought to try to understand the recusal issue nevertheless, there is no question before this Committee that man personally was going to somehow be involved. So for somebody who is writing a memo who wasn't at that meetin to suggest Senator DODD. The February 2 meeting. You said the 3rd. Senator KERRY. At the February 2 meeting or the February 3 meeting with Mr. Ickes, for someone to write this on February 28 saying now that Mr. Altman has recused himself, in fact, demonstrates he was not privy to any of that discussion on the 3rd or the 2nd and didn't know what Mr. Altman's true relationship to this decisionmaking was. So I would simply respectfully submit that this is, if you read the whole memo, a fairly straightforward lawyering memo, a status-oriented memo that kind of lays out where things are going and it almost shows a fairly significant lack of day-to-day knowledge of what is happening and the data significant for the quantity of lack of information. Senator DODD. If my colleague would yield. Just a step further on 'that point, I mean, it said and I'm sorry the Senator of New Mexico has left as well, with sort of the pause for drama, that Mrs. Clinton got a copy of this memo from Mr. Ickes, who is what, the Deputy Chief of Staff at the White House, as if somehow that is a major revelation and someone ought to be getting a copy of a legal memo regarding the status. Senator KERRY. I might just add, it involves the RTC/Rose Law Firm issues, the Rose Law Firm of which Mrs. Clinton was a partner. I think- I'm not trying--I think I've been fair in these proceedings, trying to find the facts. It strikes me that this is not what it has purported to be and it's important for us not to leave so now Mr. Eggleston I think is coming in. Am I correct? So we'll have ample opportunity to explore this with him but on the face of it, I think we should not draw a conclusion at this point in time. I think it's unfair. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bennett. Senator DAMATO. Will the Senator yield for a moment? Senator BENNETT. Yes, I'd like to yield a minute to Senator D'Amato. Senator DAMATO. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask that the entire memo be placed in the record. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I just make note that Mr. Eggleston was at one of those meetings, the February 3 meeting, where Mr. Ickes came in. That's number one, so he had a little understanding and he is from the Office of White House Counsel. 539 Second, Mr. Ickes is the Deputy Chief of Staff, and I think-and he was at both of those meetings, and so I don't think we should be drawing inferences that somehow they were not in a position to understand all of the nuances With Mr. Ickes being at both of the meetings, Mr. Eggleston being at one of them. I thought I'd like to put that on the record. Senator KERRY. I think that's fair. All I'm suggesting, Senator, is I think it's important for him to explain it and put it in a context before we have a dramatic conclusion. Senator DAMATO. I thank my colleague. Senator BENNFrr. I'll yield a minute to Senator Gramm. Senator GRAMM. I'd like to add just two more points. First of all, this memo, except for the introductory paragraph, was redacted, so we didn't get it initially. We bad to go back and ask for it. So that suggests that somebody somewhere may have not wanted us to have it. Second, there is a cover memo, which neither you nor Senator DAmato referred to. This cover letter is the memo to the First Lad~ from Harold Ickes, which then encloses the memo from Mr. Egg leston. Mr. Ickes was at every meeting, and if he is forwarding this memo on to the First Lady to read, it seems to me that is clear and convincing evidence to, at least, his belief in the veracity of it. That's all I wanted to point out. Senator KERRY. Let me just say to my friend that if the issue of his being there was of such critical importance and on the 3rd, be got out-be said he was going to stay and what, the 25th, he gets out, there would have been some knowledge about who the other players were. Now, I'm not trying to exonerate. All I'm saying is you can't draw that conclusion. But second, don't make insinuations about the redactions because this entire memo is outside of the scope of this hearing. It does not involve contacts, and it has only been made available to us by virtue of the White House's willingness to clarify this, to unredact and make it available. But into the scope of this hearing, we have no right to this and it's by their judgment that they want this open that we have it.
August 3, 1994 - Part 6
(17:40:31) Mr. EGGLESTON. The only point I want to add, I've gone long enough, I didn't pick up the last of the points that Mr. Kerry mentioned, I wanted to make sure it wasn't because it was-I'd overlooked it. The issue that Mr. Nussbaum was actually talking about at the time was the perception of recusals-it was the perception of Rickie Tigert having to recuse. It was the perception for not, legal or ethical reasons. She had told, I think this Committee, that she would consult her ethics officer. And my recollection from the press really was that at least to some people that was not acceptable. And Mr- Nussbaum was concerned about a perception, sort of a domino effect, of how it would look if people who did not have a legal or ethical obligation to recuse themselves were nevertheless either being forced to recuse or maybe sua sponte start recusing themselves even though they had no action to take. That was the matter, that was the perception that Mr. Nussbaum was talking about at the time as it relates to this issue. Mr. KLEIN. Senator Riegle, if I can add to that because I had numerous discussions-it is my view as well and I think this is something that Senator Sarbanes raised before that when this started with Rickie Tigert and sort of the price of admission to her confirmation was that she had to agree to a blanket recusal, even no specific matter before her, because she was a "friend of the First Family's," when I know the extent of Rickie Tigert's familiarity 'With the First Family, This seemed to me the worst sort of politics, to be perfectly candid about it, that somehow this was going to be used against the President so that his nominees could not sit on any matter that Was in any way relevant to him and so the cost of all these matters Would be an extraction of recusal. So when Mr. E ggleston says that were important political considerations, there were important 122 political considerations and I at least was very concerned about the politics of the matter. And I think that The CHAIRMAN. In that sense. Mr. KLEIN. And so was Mr. Nussbaum in that sense. The CHAIRMAN, I think that's illuminating and I think it's impor. tant that you have the chance to say that. Senator Bennett. Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to follow this direction because I think this issue is the nub of the matter. I will stipulate that you have correctly told us what Mr. Nussbaum was thinking and what his motives are. If that is indeed the case I would also say respectfully that Mr. Nussbaum is wrong. Mr. Nussbaum is seeing shadows that aren't there and that Mr. Nussbaum has missed the point. Let me respond to Mr. Eggleston's rather vigorous, if not passionate, statement that came over and over again. "He did not have a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself' and he quoted all of the entities that came to that conclusion and said "this carries great weight with me." And that obviously it carried great weight with Mr. Nussbaum. Today we heard from Lloyd Bentsen who said he would have recused himself And Lloyd Bentsen has been around this town to understand the political ramifications, to understand the appearances, to understand all of these circumstances, if it had been his decision he would have recused himself Ms. Hanson, who was the General Counsel of the Treasury Department handling this, recommended that he recuse himself Ms. Kulka, who was the General Counsel of the RTC handling this, recommended that he recuse himself And my memory is that last night he said in hindsight he wishes he had done so and had not responded to pressure, suggestions, whatever in the White House. So I think Mr. Nussbaum carried his point in the meeting and I think subsequent events demonstrate that his point was wrong. However persuasive he may have been by virtue of his intelligence and articulateness or by virtue of his position as the leading White House figure at the meeting I think in hindsight it is very clear that Lloyd Bentsen's political instincts were the correct ones and Mr. Altman would have been far better served to have done it because this is the dilemma that he got himself into. And we go back now to Ms. Hanson's deposition. She talks about this how he announced he was going to recuse himself, how Mr. Nussbaum in her words got excited. And indeed Mr. Altman confirmed that last night in his testimony that Mr. Nussbaum was very excited. And then Ms. Hanson in her deposition, "the following morning Mr. Altman called me. He said he had spoken with Mr. McLarty the prior evening and Mr. McLarty had wanted to know what had taken place at the meeting. Mr. McLarty didn't attend the meeting. He also said that he had had a couple of other calls and that he had decided that he would not recuse himself for the time being. He said that he didn't believe that it made any difference to the outcome but that it made them happy," and "them" clearly is identified elsewhere as the White House.
August 4, 1994 - Part 6
(14:05:23) Senator BOND. Do you have any recollection who would have prepared you for that CNN interview show which I have referred to in the last line of questioning, where you talked about Mr. Altman's position? Do you know who would have done it or who did it? Mr. MCLARTY. Senator, as I recall it, that was a relatively farranging interview, as many are, and I think I received briefings from several people. Perhaps someone from the White House Counsel's Office would have briefed me on the matter that you are speaking of I honestly don't recall the briefing. As I remember, it was a busy time and I didn't spend a lot of time getting briefed before that interview. Senator BOND. And I can understand that. I'm trying to find out who did it because the concern I have is, there was much discussion in the White House about the inaccuracy of Mr. Altman's testimony, but that seems to be as far as it got. There was talk about it. I personally received a telephone call on March 2nd from Mr. Altman, not because he had discovered that the testimony was in error, his first words to me were The Washington Post is going to publish this story the next day, and I have the sinking feeling that I found out only because it was going to be in the newspaper the next day. That's why I'm trying to find out who should have or would have been in a position to brief you, to tell you why the testimony by Altman was not correct or why you were not given the information that the recusal should have been discussed. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. I right. Let me just indicate I've been informed that the Senate is about to start four back-to-back votes starting at 2:10. The first one will run for 20 minutes; the next three, 5 minutes each. That will take us into the range, by the time they announce those votes and so forth, to a little bit after 3:00. So I'm going to, in a moment, discharge these witnesses and indicate that we'll start with our next panel. We'll recess the Committee as well. We'll start our next panel at 3:15, so those witnesses can be on notice. I want to say to these two witnesses, we appreciate, very much, your testimony. I have one other question that I want to put to Ms. Williams before this vote starts. I was listening very carefully to everything that's been said, not just by the two of you but by all of our witnesses, and I'm trying to make sense out of this obvious contradiction between Mr. Altman, his diary, what he bases that on and the testimony that we've gotten here from you today, and also very much on the recusal issue. What I'm wondering is this: I'm looking for how, how could that plausibly be, how could that ever be reconciled? I'm wondering, Ms. Williams, you came to the meeting late, the meeting that we're talking about on February 2nd? Ms. WILLIAMS. That's correct sir. The CHAIRMAN. You arrived late at the meeting. So anything that went on in the meeting before you got there, you are obviously not going to know about because you weren't there; isn't that fair to say? Ms. WILLIAMS. That would be fair to say, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. So whatever lie might have taken away from that meeting that occurred before you arrived would be between the other participants in the meeting and him and that would be outside the scope of your knowledge; wouldn't that be fair to say? Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. That would be fair to say. The CHAIRMAN. OK. Also, when you came in, you weren't prepared or briefed or ready to discuss recusal, as I understand your testimony today, in any formal fashion. The issue came up and you gave a point of view, essentially off the top of your head; would that--I don't say that disrespectfully, but would that be a fair way to characterize it? Ms, WILLIAMS. Very much off the top of my head. The CHAIRMAN. In fact, Mr. Nussbaum, you felt, in the meeting was sort of dismissive of your point of view. You also said that today, did you not? Ms. WILLIAMS. I believe I mentioned that. The CHAIRMAN. I thought I heard that. In any case, I'm wondering, just to try to reconcile these two accounts if, in Mr. Altman's mind, if he's in there and he's already gotten a dose of negative feedback on his decision to recuse himself-I'm just theorizing now-if, when you offered your opinion, which was a spontaneous opinion that you offered at that particular time, if he might have construed your opinion to be one either coming-you have two roles in the White House, you work for the President, you work for the First Lady-whether Altman, in his frame of mind, might have thought that whatever opinion you were giving was not just your opinion, but maybe you were giving an opinion that might have been a reflection of either the President's or the First Lady's.
July 27, 1995 - Part 3
(14:10:38) Mr. CHERTOFF. After you and Mr. Margolis returned to the Department, do you know whether that agreement or understanding was reported to the Deputy Attorney General? Mr. ADAMS. I did not speak with the Deputy Attorney General that afternoon. It's my understanding that Mr. Margolis did, and he reported that agreement to Mr. Heymann. Mr. CHERTOFF. Again, to make clear, when we say "agreement," I understand this was not an agreement like a written contract you go to court to enforce. It was a gentleman's handshake agreement; right? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, it was our understanding; that's correct. Mr. CHERTOFF. Now, the next day, did you come back in the morning to carry out this agreement? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, we did. Mr. CHERTOFF. Did you go in the morning to Mr. Nussbaum's office? Mr. ADAMS. Yes, we did, arriving at approximately 10 a.m. Mr. CHERTOFF. What happened? Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Nussbaum an nounced that he had decided to change the procedure for the search or inventory of the office. He said that he alone would look at each document to determine relevance and privilege, and that we would not be doing that. Mr. CHERTOFF. When you say "we would not be doing" it, you mean Mr. ADAMS. Mr. Margolis and myself would not be looking at the documents. Mr. Nussbaum would be doing that himself. Mr. CHERTOFF. What was the reaction that you or Mr. Margolis had to that? Mr. ADAMS. We pointed out that that was completely inconsistent with the agreement of the day before, and we argued with Mr. Nussbaum. We said this was not what we had agreed to, that he was making a mistake, and we were going to have to call our boss, the Deputy Attorney General. Mr. CHERTOFF. What did Mr. Nussbaum say? Mr. ADAMS. I can't recall exactly what Mr. Nussbaum said at that point. Mr. Margolis, in fact, did call Phil Heymann. Mr. CHERTOFF. Tell us what happened then. Mr. ADAMS. I cannot recall whether Mr. Heymann got Mr. Nussbaum on the telephone or not. Either he did that, or he relayed his own opposition to this change in plans through Mr. Margolis. At any rate, the position of Mr. Heymann was communicated to Mr. Nussbaum, that he was making a mistake to make this change in plans. 548 Mr. CHERTOFF. In other words, Mr. Heymann's position was that Mr. Nussbaum was making a mistake in changing this agreement? Mr. ADAMS. That's correct. Mr. CHERTOFF. Now, I want to still focus on these discussions you're having on the morning of the 22nd when Mr. Nussbaum changes the deal here and I want to ask you, first of all, whether you had prepared a document the next week, the week of the 26th, that summarizes your recollections of what happened on this particular day. Mr. ADAMS. Yes, the following week, I did. Mr. CHERTOFF. Do you have a copy of that with you? The CHAIRMAN. I take it the Committee has been furnished a copy of this? Mr. CHERTOFF. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ben-Veniste, we all have copies. Mr. CHERTOFF. Yes, it is F149, and perhaps we could put it up on the Elmo. Mr. ADAMS. I do have a copy, yes. Mr. CHERTOFF. While we're putting this up and getting it focused, I want to ask you why did you prepare this document the next week? Mr. ADAMS. At the time I prepared the document, Mr. Heymann had instructed me to do such a document because he was concerned with various things that had transpired between the Justice Department and the White House, and he instructed me to prepare, essentially, a listing of things that happened Senator KERRY. Could you speak up a little? Mr. ADAMS. He instructed me to prepare a listing of things that we didn't like. Mr. CHERTOFF. He did this because he was concerned about the way things have been handled. Mr. ADAMS. He was concerned about-yes, various events that had transpired. Mr. CHERTOFF. So this document was prepared at the Deputy Attorney General's request the following week. Let me move you down to about the middle of the second paragraph where it says "the next morning," and I'd like to ask you to read that to the end of the paragraph there. Mr. ADAMS. It says: The next morning, however, Mr. Nussbaum had changed his mind and said be would look at the documents and decide privilege issues himself. The Justice Department attorneys pointed out that that was inconsistent with the previous day's agreement and would cause problems. We stated that the Counsel's Office would be better off to allow the Department attorneys to decide or at least help decide privilege issues because that would allow the White House to say that the issue was considered independently, Moreover, we stated that we had been asked to undertake this particular assignment at the White House in part because we had reputations of not talking to the press or 'leaking.' Mr. Nussbaum did not immediately begin the search but waited for about 21/2 hours---during which time be said he was considering whether to allow us to see the documents-before deciding that only he and Associate Counsels Neuwirth and Sloan would see the documents.
August 9, 1995 - Part 6
(15:40:35) Senator DODD. Are there any other aspects of this, with the benefit now of some weeks and months looking back-and I realize the red light is on-but just to finish this thought, and I have read your opening statement carefully and listened to it carefully, and your last line of "no regrets," and I appreciate the emotions behind. that statement, but I wonder if there are other aspects of this that,? you think may be worthwhile to share with this Committee as to. what-and again, no one is suggesting the 20/20 hindsight view, but in looking back on some of these matters and how they were. handled, would you do anything else differently? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Well, yes. As I said in my statement and I said before to Senator Simon, I would have looked at the bottom of the briefcase and I would have scooped out the yellow pieces of paper. I am sorry that they weren't found on July 22. 1 am sorry for the reasons I gave to Senator Simon. I am sorry because it has created some sort of aura of suspicion. That was a mistake. We looked at the trash. We looked at the burn bag, We looked at all the pieces of paper in the office. But I didn't see those little yellow scraps, and I didn't pull them out. I am sorry about that. Senator DODD. Let me ask you last, and the heart of the question, I suppose, when it comes to this issue of the question of how the search was done. Now, you outlined options. Senator SARBANES. Chris, we are trying to watch the clock. Senator DODD. I apologize. Senator SARBANES. I think we had better stick to the clock. Senator DODD. I will come back to that. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Chertoff. Mr. CHERTOFF. I just want, Mr. Nussbaum, since I began with page 406 and 407 and you then moved to page 411, to include the middle part in there, so that we can capture a sense of, and understand the dynamics going on in the deposition. Now, you volunteered the answer initially in response to the question about whether official documents were commingled in files. You volunteered the answer at line 22, "And we made an effort to send over solely personal records, and actually one record was sent over and returned." Right? Then I think we read down to line 15 at page 407. 1 would like to ask you to read from line 16, page 407, up to the point that you were reading from when you supplemented your answer, which I think was the very beginning of page 411. Why don't you read that in now in its entirety? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Starting where? Mr. CHERTOFF. Starting at page 407 at line 16, which is the point at which I think we stopped, and then concluding at the point where you began again, which was at the top of page 411, or actually I think it was on page 411 at line 9. So why don't you read that middle portion? Then there will be no question that we have the complete picture of what the first answer was, what the answers were then in the middle and where the answers ended up. 1281 OK? We are putting it on the thing, and we will follow along. Page 407, line 16. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Page 407: Question: But you are quite sure Ms. Williams returned the document? Answer: No, I am not quite sure Ms. Williams returned the document. I believe Ms. Williams returned the document. A residence file was returned. There was a file that was returned because we were making an effort to send over solely per sonal documents which had been used, yes, which were Mr. CHERTOFF. Which were in the White House? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Excuse me. which were in the White House Counsel's Office because there was an official purpose The purpose was now over. Vince Foster was dead. We weren't going to be using those files now, so we sent over the personal records to the Clintons and their personal attorneys. Question' Did Ms. Williams tell you who had made the decision to return the document? Answer: No. Question: Did she say anything about how she came to return it? Answer: It was some statement merely that this concerns the residence, It was not really a private file, although the Clintons live in the residence. And then my attorney asked, "Can we take a break?" We took a break. Mr. CHERTOFF. Wait. Now, read it, please, Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. NUSSBAUM. You want me to read it? Mr. CHERTOFF. Yes, please. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Sure. Mr. PEDOWITZ. Can we take a break for a minute? Mr. CHERTOFF. Can I hear an answer to the question? Mr. NUSSBAUM. And, consequently, the documents should remain in the White House Counsel's Office, Mr. CHERTOFF, Can you remember any discussion with Ms. Williams concerning this document when she returned the document? Mr. PEDOWITZ. I would really like to talk to my client for a moment, and he will answer the question. [Witness conferred with counsel.) Mr. CHERTOFF. You had an opportunity to consult with counsel? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes.
August 10, 1995 - Part 1
(11:25:30) Now, if you listen to Mr. Heymann, he says, and I'm quoting from his deposition, "I thought that for the White House Counsel's"-wait a second. I have to find the rest of this. "I thought that 1335 for the White House Counsel's Office to make these decisions large- ly by itself as it did was simply not an acceptable way of address- ing them. A player with significant stakes in the matter cannot also be a referee." And he was very clear about his feelings on that point and you have stated you respect his point of view although you disagree with it; is that correct? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct, Senator. Senator BOYER. You don't think that he's being, shall we say, unreasonable to have this point of view? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Well, I understand his point of view. I do respect it and he is a very able and respected person, but I do have a vehement disagreement with his point of view, which I expressed yesterday. Senator, with all due respect to you and to the other Members of this Committee, I think in some ways it's even a dangerous and cynical point of view because what it says is basically, as I said in my statement yesterday, that only Justice Department lawyers can somehow be trusted and other lawyers who have the same ethical obligations, White House lawyers or private lawyers, are not deserving of trust. And while I know Phil doesn't intend to do this, what that does is feed into the very cynicism which sort of pervades a lot of what's going on today. Senator BOXER. I appreciate that view. And then you had Mr. Quinn on the other side, who said, and I quote, "It was my view at the time and it remains my view today that prior to the search of Mr. Foster's office by the Park Police, it was incumbent upon Mr. Nussbaum or some other appropriate person from the Counsel's Office to undertake a preliminary review in order to determine whether there were sensitive, privileged, or classified materials that required protection. As far as I was concerned, these obligations simply were more important than to maintain good appearances." In other words, cutting through that, what Mr. Quinn said is you should have shut the door, gone through every piece of paper in that office, decided what was privileged and then invite everyone in. You rejected that. Can you explain to me why you rejected that? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Your description of Mr. Quinn's position is absolutely correct. Senator BOXER. I read it from his deposition. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Absolutely precise. That's exactly the position he took, and I respected that view. He's a very able lawyer and a very experienced lawyer also. I understood that view. The reason I rejected it is because, frankly, I was Counsel to the President in his official capacity. I was not representing a private individual and, Senator, I was concerned about public perceptions. I was concerned about appearances, and I didn't think it was necessary to bar the door to Mr. Foster's office in order to adequately protect our rights, the right to protect confidentiality and privilege and to preserve the right to protect privilege and law enforcement issues. Senator BOXER. So what you did was, you had the Justice Department and the Park Police there and you basically described each document and put it in the appropriate place. Now, I want to get to this other question that keeps coming back arid I guess we'll have another person after you come and say the same thing, that You had promised Mr. Heymann, you had made a commitment, 1336 signed, sealed, and delivered that you were going to do it a dif- ferent way, that the police would be able to, in fact, look at every document rather than you describe it. Now, when you testified, you said, "I told them I would consider it. I never promised it." And what I'm trying to see if I can have you remember is this: Sometimes I have people come into my office from both sides of an issue because I like to work out disagreements with everyone in the room, rather than meeting one person here, another person another day. Each side presents a view, and I try to be objective and I sit back and they talk about it. Sometimes they have left my office and one party said she's going to be a cosponsor of the bill, and the other party said she opposes the bill and what I basically said in the meeting was not much, except that's interesting. That's a good idea. That's a good point. I'm going to consider it. Thinking back to that moment because that's an important point because Members on the other side are saying you reneged on a promise, and the hint is that someone whispered in your ear and said, Bernie, back out of that deal. Can you tell us, if you can, what you may have said to lead people to think you had already decided on something and it was done? (11:30:56)(tape #10142 ends)
August 2, 1994 - Part 3
(00:10:22) Senator SARBANES. I'm sorry. Mr, FOREMAN. It comes with the position of Deputy General Counsel, comes the Designated Agency Ethics Official position as well. Senator SARBANES, Did you-I'm Dot quite clear on your background. Did you come to this position working up through the civil service ranks, or was there a political dimension to your obtaining this position? Mr. FOREMAN. Sir, I think both. I was a Career Senior Executive Service Lawyer in the Department of State. I resigned from that position in the summer of 1988 for a few months, worked as a volunteer in the Bush campaign, went back to a career position in the State Department and then was selected for the Deputy General Counsel person as a political noncareer appointee. Senator SARBANES. I see. So you left your job in 1988 to go into George Bush's political campaign; is that correct? Mr. FOREMAN. No money, as a volunteer, that's correct, sir. Senator SARBANES. Then after the campaign, what happened? Mr. FOREMAN. After the campaign, I got a call from the State Department Legal Advisor's Office where I had worked, and they asked me to return to a career attorney position, and I did so. Senator SARBANES. And then what happened? Mr. FOREMAN. Then I was selected for a Career Senior Executive service position as an assistant legal advisor a year or so later, and then in December, I guess, of 1990, 1 got a call from Ms. HansonJeanne Archibald at the Treasury Department asking me to come 377 interview for 'the position of Deputy General Counsel which I did not even know or was aware was open, Senator SARBANES. That was a political appointment? Mr. FOREMAN. The position was a noncareer position, Senator. Senator SARBANES. Noncareer. Mr. FOREMAN. That's correct. So I went from a career senior executive position to a noncareer senior executive position. Senator SARBANES. Then I take it our name had been floating around in the personnel office at the White House for that Mr. FOREMAN. It may have been, Senator, but my name was specifically suggested to Ms. Archibald by another former General Counsel of the Treasury Department; that she might be interested in interviewing me for the position. Senator SARBANES. Then when the new Administration came in? Mr. FOREMAN. When the new Administration came in, Mr. Altman met with me, asked me to stay on as Acting General Counsel until a new General Counsel bad been confirmed. Senator SARBANES. And then what happened? Mr. FOREMAN, Then Ms. Hanson asked me to stay on. Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The Committee will recess now, and we'll resume at approximately 2:15 p.m. (00:13:25) [Recess.] (00:13:27) Hearings hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG close out morning coverage (00:15:16) WETA logo, PBS funding credits (end of tape #10067)
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:55:24) Mr. ALTMAN. Yes. Well, of course, one of the things we could have done would have been to leave it vacant until Congress con firmed a permanent nominee. We could have done that and per A haps we should have. We did go forth pretty promptly and nomi- nate our candidate and that candidate's nomination did not succeed and at the end of the year be withdrew. So one option would have been just leave it vacant until a permanent Chairperson is confirmed for that precise job. Senator DODD. Let me ask you this: I kept on asking this yester- day. Ms. Hanson said she was basically a detailee, of the RTC even 510 though she was General Counsel for the Treasury. It was clear to me when she got that job as a detailee. Did you at some point say to her when I'm talking to you the RTC, you're General Counsel for the RTC. I mean, at what point did she know she was RTC or she was Treasury? It se to me she was never clear what job she was operating in. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I just asked her to help me out. There no formal designation. I didn't go through the process one through, the formal process, to actually detail someone fro place to another. I just asked her to help me out. Senator DODD. Is there statutory authority somehow? She was talking about statutory authority that gave her the right to do RTC functions. Mr. ALTMAN. I believe that FIRREA, the law FIRREA permits, in this case, the Treasury to-it says here, "the RTC is authorized to utilize the employees of the FDIC or, on consent, the personnel of any other Executive Department or Agency. As interim CEO of the RTC, Mr. Altman exercised all of the powers of the RTC and thus was authorized to use the time of Treasury personnel on RTC matters." Senator DODD. So that's the authority? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator DODD. I might just ask you at some point here to submit to us, to this Committee a more formal set of recommendations on how we avoid this kind of mess in the future. Mr. ALTMAN, Yes, sir. Senator DODD. I yield back my time. Senator DOMENICI. Senator Dodd, do you have a couple of seconds? Could I just clarify something and ask you if you knew this: A lot of comments have been made about the Office of Government Ethics and their report. It's my understanding that they only spoke to employees of the Treasury Department. Now that's a very big difference because this whole dispute is a dispute between what Treasury Department people say and what White House people say. So with reference to that, it does seem to me that the conclusion (22:58:18)(tape #10073 ends)
August 3, 1994 - Part 3
(12:42:05) In voice over, hearings host NINA TOTENBERG segues to Senate Banking Committee Hearings: coming up with some procedures and changes in the law, perhaps, if necessary, to go through and discuss this issue regarding, again, the interface between these agencies so that we don't run into these problems down the road. Secretary BENTSEN. Senator, thank you, and I understand the confusions of titles. I was getting out of an elevator the other day in Washington, a young man took a look at me and stopped the elevator door and held me and he said, I know you. He said wait a minute, let me think. He said, yes, I know, you are Senator Bentsen. He said, I went to a political rally of yours in Texas. He said, whatever happened to you? Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. The CHAIRMAN. We won't ask you right now to give the answer to that question, but I'd like to hear that later. Senator Hatch. 52 OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR HATCH Senator HATCH. Thank you, Chairman. And welcome, Lloyd, we're happy to have you here. I just want to say for the record, in my 18 years here, you've always been a great person of candor and integrity and wisdom and honesty. And, frankly, your word has always been your bond, so that's important, And I think all of us feel that way. Secretary BENTSEN. Thank you very much. Senator HATCH. Let me just try to clarify or clear up a few discrepancies that bother me, Do you recall the first conversation you had with Mr. Altman on the subject of his recusal from Madison Guaranty, and if so, could you summarize that conversation for us? Secretary BENTSEN. I could be corrected on trying to remember a date, but I would-I think that was on February the 1st. And he told me he was trying to make up his mind on recusal and that he'd been challenged in that regard and challenged by Members of the Congress as to a possible conflict of interest, and he was asking for my advice. I told him that that had to be his decision, that he knew the facts in that case, I did not. And I must say, I sympathized with him very much about the tough spot he'd been put in. I understand he thinks that I counseled him to recuse himself. He may have come to that interpretation because I was sure sympathizing, but I don't recall so telling him. Senator HATCH. OK. Let me ask a few questions about reports, including Ms. Hanson's testimony that prior to the February 2nd meeting at the White House, Mr. Altman informed you that he had decided to recuse himself from the RTC civil investigation in the Madison Guaranty case. Do you recall Mr. Altman telling you at that time that he had decided to recuse himself?
LAWMAKERS
03.11.08-WETA credit/Sponsor Credits/title sequence 03.11.57-PAUL DUKE in studio-On program: More battles over BUDGET, REAGAN threatens veto if CONGRESS' budget does not include more SPENDING CUTS; CONGRESS agrees with REAGAN'S wish for MORE DEFENSE SPENDING, approves MX MISSILE and B-1 BOMBER; look at Sen. HARRISON WILLIAMS' problems with a BRIBERY SCANDAL. 03.12.30-COKIE ROBERTS intro report on CONGRESSIONAL debate on BUDGET CUTS, need to pass temporary appropriations to fund the GOVERNMENT, measure that outrages traditionalists. 03.13.11-Shot of Sen. JOHN STENNIS (D-Miss.), arguing that EMERGENCY APPROPRIATIONS powers should be reserved for real emergencies, not political squabbles. Shot of Sen. WILLIAM PROXMIRE (D-WI), says passing temporary appropriations for an entire fiscal year is absurd. Shot of Sen. MARK HATFIELD, argues that all temporary appropriations would be removed as soon as a real budget is enacted. Shot of BUDGET COMMITTEE hearing. Shot of podium of HOUSE chamber. Shot of Rep. THOMAS HARTNETT (R-SC), arguing for 5 percent across-board budget cuts, rails at "limousine liberals" who have a "stranglehold on the taxpayers", says the cut wouldn't be too bad. 03.14.43-Shot of Rep. LES AUCOIN (D-OR), arguing REPUBLICANS want to cut out "people programs", calling that a balanced budget is "a crock of baloney". Shot of Rep. CHARLES STENHOLM (D-TX), arguing for BUDGET CUTS, says there will still be enough to help truly needy. ROBERTS v.o.-DEMOCRATS could point to RECESSION and the skepticism of REAGAN'S own budget guru DAVID STOCKMAN and say "I told you so". Shot of TIP O'NEILL criticizing "flaky economics" of REAGAN ADMINISTRATION, says it will cost at least a million jobs, CONGRESS should force REAGAN to "Face the Facts". 03.16.10-Shots of other CONGRESSMEN in debate. Shot of Rep. SYLVIO CONTE (R-MA), criticizes REPUBLICANS tactic of "back-door, meatax cuts" in budget proposal. ROBERTS v.o.-many REPUBLICANS decided political survival demanded a vote against the policies of REAGANOMICS which were perceived as too hard on the poor and working people.. Shot of TRENT LOTT (R-MS), says that REAGAN will veto the bill if it doesn't include cuts, Congress won't be able to override it, so Congress had better approve the BUDGET CUTS. 03.17.03-Shot of REAGAN, NANCY REAGAN, HOWARD BAKER, other REPUBLICANS. ROBERTS v.o.-SENATE REPUBLICANS met with REAGAN to work out a compromise and avoid a VETO. Shot of letter from REAGAN to BAKER, REAGAN saying he'd accept a minimum five percent cut in CONGRESS' proposal. Shot of BAKER addressing press, says the goal is to make a bill that REAGAN will sign, no one wants to get into a veto battle. 03.17.40-DUKE/ROBERTS/WERTHEIMER in studio. Discussion of the BUDGET DEBATE. REAGAN may want to veto the BUDGET so he can go on TV to pitch his reasoning to the public. Budget process inevitably results in a last-minute scramble.
August 4, 1994 - Part 9
(19:10:01) Now, that's Tuesday, August 2nd. The third one was the one that we read here which came from the diary of Mr. Steiner. "After Howell Rains from The New York Times called to say that they were going to write a brutal editorial, Roger Altman decided to recuse himself. Harold and George then called to say that BC"- --Bill Clinton I guess-was furious. They also asked how Jay Ste- 415 phens, the former USA, 'U.S. Attorney,' had been hired to be Outside Counsel in the case. Simply outrageous that RTC had hired him, but even more amazing, when George then suggested to me that we needed to find a way to get rid of him, persuaded George that firing him would be incredibly stupid and improper," Now, do those three refresh your recollection at all with regard to these matters? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Well, there's nothing new there, sir. I would just say in all three instances, first of all, I had never directed anyone at the RTC to do anything, just get that down as a fact. Number two, as I read Mr. Altman's Senator HATCH. You did talk to Mr. Altman. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. As I read Mr. Altman's two pages here, what he seems to be saying is that simply bringing up the subject of Jay Stephens in any way was unwise. I understand his feeling there, but I certainly didn't direct anybody to do anything. I don't know when the conversation with Ms. Hanson and Mr. Steiner occurred, so I can't respond to it in any way. What I can say, it may have happened before he ever talked to me for all I know. I just simply don't know. Senator HATCH. Was somebody else at the White House who did these things? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Again, I had one brief conversation with Mr. Steiner about this subject. What 1 would go on to say is I've never met Ms. Hanson. I've never directed or asked her to do anything. I never met Ms. Kulka. I never directed or asked her to do anything. I have never directed anyone to do anything of this kind. I did grant that I got angry about Jay Stephens when I asked how he was hired. I did get angry. I testified to that, I've said that in public dozens of times. I've said it under sworn testimony several times as well. And I would point out that all of these people that you point out have given sworn testimony to the Office of Government Ethics, to the Special Counsel Mr. Fiske, to the House Committee on Banking, to the Senate Committee on Banking, all of them Senator HATCH. Let me interrupt you there. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Let me finish my sentence. The Office of Government Ethics found no ethical violations and Mr. Fiske found no criminal violations of any way. So the suggestion that in any way I did direct anyone to do anything like this is simply wrong. Senator HATCH. Mr. Stephanopoulos, the fact of the matter is that these questions weren't asked by Special Counsel, and I'm asking them. I've asked them throughout this proceeding because I'm concerned about what happened. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Mr. Fiske asked me all about this area. Senator HATCH. Frankly, it looks to me like dissembling. Somebody is lying here. Either Steiner is lying or Altman is lying or Ms. Hanson is lying or somebody else. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I don't agree with that, sir. Senator HATCH. Let me just say this: I'm not reaching any conclusions, but have you-did you or Mr. Ickes ever review Title 18 USC 1505? That's the Federal Obstruction of Justice statute. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Mr. Fiske fully reviewed it and found absolutely no 416 Senator HATCH. Did you and Mr. Ickes review it together? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No, sir. Senator HATCH. They could all three be lying, I suppose. That' what's bothering a lot of us up here. There are all kinds of inconsistencies. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. There are no inconsistencies in my state- whatsoever. Senator HATCH. There sure is between these three things what you're saying here today. And I don't know who's telling the truth here, but somebody is not telling the truth. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Mr. Fiske asked all of these people all of these questions, sir, and he found absolutely no criminal violation. All of these questions have been covered Senator HATCH. I submit to you that Mr. Fiske did not do a good job in this area and he didn't ask some of these questions and he didn't go into it and pursue it the way he s hould have pursued. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I don't know how you know that. Senator HATCH. How do you know it? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I was asked questions by Mr. Fiske. Senator HATCH. What bothers me is we're asking the questions and we're getting the answers, except you deny it. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. I give you my testimony as I've always done. Senator HATCH. Mr. Stephanopoulos, let me say this. Joshua Steiner has testified that sometime during the week of February 14th, he received a telephone call from John Podesta or from Mr. Podesta's assistant, Todd Stern, regarding the RTC's hiring of Jay Stephens. When did you first learn about the hiring of Jay Stephens? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Much later than that. Either the 24th or the 25th. Senator HATCH. It was at or near the time these calls were made? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Yes. Mr. PODESTA. Senator, I feel compelled to correct the record. Senator HATCH. Sure. I'd feel glad to have you do it, John. Go ahead. Mr. PODESTA. I did not learn of Mr. Stephens' hiring until, at the earliest, the night of the 24th or the morning of the 25th, so I do not believe that Mr. Steiner's testimony can be correct on that point. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Hatch, the time has run. If you had one follow-up right here, I would certainly permit it.
July 29, 1994 - Part 3
(13:20:30) Mr. MONROE. As I said before, Senator, we cannot conclusively rule out that Whitewater could have played some role, What we can say right now is that we uncovered no evidence that during this period of time that Mr. Foster raised any concern regarding that particular issue. Senator DODD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Dodd. Senator Gramm. Senator GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, let me first thank our witnesses, You guys have a very tough job. I'm glad you do it and it's obvious to me you do it well and I think the whole country is the beneficiary. I think the subject matter you're covering is one that we are all confident that basically a good job was done in. Mr. Chairman, I just want to take my time to respond to several comments that were made earlier about why are we here, why are we on this subject, and what is wrong with this process that we're talking about the death of a human being in very tragic circumstances. I would like to remind my colleagues that we are here as a result of a resolution by Senator Mitchell that every Member of the Republican Party in the Senate voted against, We're here as a result of the scoping of this bearing in such a way that this is one. of only three areas that we're allowed to look at. It is not an area that I am the least bit interested in. Now, I want to ask the next panel at some point, or I'm confident my colleagues who are more confident than I am will do it, I want to ask them whether or not they were interfered with in their investigation. That's the only relevant point, it seems to me in this whole subject matter, that we ought to be looking at. Second, I'd like to say that I'm not aware that our side of the aisle had anything to do with establishing what was going to come the first, I think people could argue on the other side of Capitol that the decision to bring the White House Counsel, who was not even on the scene when most of these things that we're supposed to be looking at occurred, to testify first, at least started the hearing with a very high degree of boredom and perhaps that was the objective. I don't think that was the case here ,but the point I want to make is we're not on this subject because anybody on this side of the aisle said we should be on this subject, We're on this subject because it is one of three areas we're limited to by a resolution that no one on this side of the aisle voted for and I in not aware that anybody on this side of the aisle said, let's talk about this subject matter first. I think it is clear from the opening statements that were made that this is not an area of any real interest to this Committee. And I certainly am sensitive, as my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and some on to this side of the aisle have expressed, to the sensitivity of this issue for the human beings that were involved. I just thought, Mr. Chairman, it was important to make this point. The CHAIRmAN. Senator Sasser. Senator SASSER. Mr. Chairman, I think the original D'Amato amendment, number 1775, states on page 2 the Park Police investigation into the death of Vince Foster. Now, perhaps our friends on the other side of the aisle didn't vote for this particular resolution under which this Committee is being guided today, but to say that our friends on the other side of the aisle did not want to look into the death of Vince Foster imp] because they did not vote for the Majority Leader's resolution, I think A is a misleading statement because clearly in Senator D'Amato's resolution, be's looking into -the Park Police investigation into the death of Vince Foster. Now, 'that's a matter of record. Senator GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, if I can respond-and I'll be very -brief-the point is that the D'Amato resolution led us into the whole Whitewater/Madison area. It covered the whole waterfront, and were we operating under that resolution, we would be able to get into a wider variety of things that are of interest to us Senator SASSER. But, Mr. Chairman, the point is were we operat- ing under that resolution, we'd have the Park Police here today and these gentlemen here looking into Vince Foster-the cir- surrounding his death. Whereas Senator GRAMM. We might or we might not, Mr. Chairman. .-We're limited now to on ly three areas. My point is that our Demo- cratic colleagues who are asking what we are doing here, what a terrible thing it is that the resolution limits us to three areas, were the Majority that made the decision as to where we started this hearing process, That's my point. 58
August 4, 1994 - Part 9
(19:00:56) Senator GRAMM. I offered the amendment in this very Committee to assess the S&L's $15 billion to begin promptly shutting down troubled thrifts, and my amendment was defeated basically along a party line vote, except for one Member, Senator Dodd, on your 412 side, who voted with me. That might have been avoided, had that not become somewhat of a partisan issue at that point. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Senator, I wasn't meaning to get into what you did or did not do with regard to the S&L's. Certainly you're not personally responsible for all these $25 billion worth of payments. [Laughter.] Senator DODD. I think we ought to have a hearing on that. Senator GRAMM. I don't hold you responsible for the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. There we are, In the spirit of bipartisan cooperation, I will turn to the witnesses. And I just want to nail down a couple of points. I know the witnesses have been asked time and time again, but I just want to firm up a couple of points with regard to Mr. Altman's recusal decision, and just to make the record perfectly clear, did any of you-you already testified you did not tell him to recuse himself Did any of the members of this panel suggest, insinuate or in any way communicate to Mr. Altman a negative reaction to his possible recusal? Mr. ICKES. No, I told him it was entirely up to him whether or not he recused himself Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Just yes or no. Did you suggest, insinuate or in any way communicate a negative reaction? Mr. ICKES. No. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No. Mr. PODESTA. No. Mr. LINDSEY. No. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Very good. All right. And then the second question. Mr. Stephanopoulos, in your deposition, you said, talking about the Jay Stephens' issue that Senator Hatch asked you about, you said in your deposition, and I quote, "I just couldn't understand how Jay Stephens was hired by the RTC. I thought it was a pure conflict of interest." On what did you base that opinion? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. On several things, Senator. Number one) as I stated earlier, Jay Stephens was a U.S. Attorney appointed by President Reagan in the District of Columbia. In the beginning of 1993, President Clinton asked all U.S. Attorneys appointed by President Reagan to submit their resignations. Ninety-two did so without complaint. Jay Stephens submitted that resignation and immediately went on a public attack of the President. He went on Nightline and all but accused him of obstruction of justice. He immediately began campaigning as a Senator for the Senate from Virginia, using this information. He was accused by several of his colleagues in the field of poor conduct in this matter, and I would just say his predecessor, another Republican U.S. Attorney in the District Of Colum- bia Joseph diGenova called Mr. Stephens' conduct outrageous and unprofessional "former U.S. Attorneys shouldn't be running around and politicizing cases." "Another author on legal ethics, Terence Reed, says Stephens may have breached a duty owed to the Government to preserve the confidences he obtained solely by virtue of his position of trust as a lawyer for the Government in the criminal investigation of Congressman Rostenkowski." He consistently went out on public at 413 tacks of the President. He was accused by many of probably leaking Grand Jury information into the public, a serious breach of ethics in the public realm. And he was a obvious opponent of the President, I couldn't understand how the RTC could have done this. If they didn't know about this activity, they hadn't done a thorough background check. If they knew and picked him anyway, I thought it was simply unfair, and I would point out there were press reports subsequent to that. I believe it was in Newsweek magazine where one banking regulator was quoted as saying he was deliberately picked in this case. I don't know if that's true or not. I don't know what other testimony you've received in this Committee. In fact, here the quote is. It was from Newsweek It says "a banking regulator was deliberately chosen so the RTC could deflect charges that it wasn't being rigorous." Here was a partisan opponent, according to banking regulators, being deliberately picked. Even though I was very angry about this and to this day I still can't understand it, nobody in the White House did anything about it. Jay Stephens is still on the case. I have never spoken to anyone at the RTC. So it's unfair, but you have to live with it. All I can hope is that the spotlight of all these hearings may have at least ensured that Stephens does a fair job.
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(21:55:25) This was a tiny sliver, 30 minutes, 30 seconds to 2 minutes of a 14-hour day in which I had probably 100 conversations. And frankly, sir, I remember an awful lot about that conversation, given the context of that day, and I've told you everything that I have told every other Committee. I've remembered a lot about that day. I've remembered it to the best of my ability, and I have done the best I can, and I think I've been very direct in answering your questions, and I would finally just say and I feel because I know that people are watching, I want to repeat it again. This has been looked at by the Special Counsel Robert Fiske. He found no criminal violations-please let me finish, Senator-this was found by the Office of Government Ethics Senator DOMENICI. Don't tell me how to behave. Please don't tell me "let me finish." I didn't even say a word. OK? Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. Yes, sir. I would like to complete the statement. Senator DOMENICI. Unless I speak up, you don't have to admonish me or ask me for anything. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS, Yes, sir. It was looked at by the Office of Government Ethics. Every single one of these questions was asked dozens of times. They were all answered. The Office of Government Ethics found no ethical violations. It was looked at by Lloyd Cutler, the Counsel. Every single one of these questions was asked dozens of times. He found no ethical violations. I have been asked this by numerous news outlets in public several times. This has been gone over and over and over and over and over again. I remember an awful lot of it. I did not direct anybody to interfere in any investigation. I did not interfere in any investigation. No one in the White House interfered in any investigation, and that's what these Committee hearings are going to find. Senator DOMENICI. Let me first say I never did accuse you of that so Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. No, I didn't suggest that you did. I just wanted to repeat it. Senator DOMENICI. In fact, I'm not sure that's why you're here, because someone accuses you of interfering in a criminal investigation Frankly, I wanted to know some very basic questions. After reading your deposition it's clear there's not very much use in asking you some of those questions because you don't recall and that's what I was alluding to. Mr- Podesta, your answer said to me that there was a wall because of the subpoenas and the like. But I don't think I asked you 462 why you hadn't talked to Treasury about it. I think I asked youwhether you thought you had fulfilled your responsibility to correct' the record or did you think it was only Treasury's responsibility.,' Mr. PODESTA. I thought it was ours. I placed the call to Mr. Alt,. man. I thought that that was why I placed the call to Mr. Altman.-, It was my understanding at the time, faulty I think, that with regard to the matter that we thought needed-absolutely neededcorrection, which was the two fall meetings, that that had been done. I think that you have to read the letter and connect the dots back to the question to Senator Bond to take that information out of there, but I thought that information had been provided. Senator DOMENICI, Thank you. Senator SARBANES. Is there anyone on this side who wishes to ask a question? Senator D'Amato, we'll come back to you then, I guess. Senator DAMATO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make an observation. There's been some controversy, to say the least, as it relates to how we should interpret Mr. Steiner's diary. Some of us believe that it is the best evidence as it relates to what really, truly took place, Others point to Mr. Steiner's more recent recollections, and his testimony as indicating there may be a difference and that of others. Now, Josh Steiner obviously made a judgment. He made judgments that he recorded. Indeed, some of them may have been subjective judgments. He made a judgment that he recorded about the President's state of mind in his diary. He said--I believe the word was "furious." And the question of Roger Altman relating this to him. Now, some have disputed that. Some have even gone so far as to say, and I think this evening we've heard testimony from Mr. Stephanopoulos, as I recall several hours ago, that on that particular Friday in the afternoon, he went into see the President, and the President wasn't upset, not to mention furious, wasn't upset, Is that a fair characterization of what you
August 2, 1994 - Part 10
(00:35:18) Senator SASSER. I guess what I'm trying to do is to get an as ssesment of the priorities of your time vis-a-vis the RTC during this period of time. In other words, did being interim CEO of the was that a particularly large job as far as you were concerned was it a particularly high priority on your scale of priorities? Mr. ALTMAN. I tried to take it seriously, but I had other priorities that were senior to that one. They included the economic plan.' They included the U.S.--Japan negotiations, they included the evolution of the Health Care plan, and I took 6 weeks or so off at the end of the summer last year to work full-time on the economic plan. I moved over to the White House in the so-called war room and I worked full-time for 5 or 6 weeks on it. During that time I bad nothing to do with the RTC. I couldn't Senator SASSER. Well, I just want to sort of put this in perspective. In other words, some people viewing these proceedings might come to the conclusion that you were full-time working as the act- ing CEO of the RTC, but the truth is you were devoting no more, than 3 hours a week to it, and you had all these other balls in the air simultaneously? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, Sir. Senator SASSER. Mr. Chairman, I want to yield what time I might have remaining to Senator Kerry if that's permissible. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry. Senator SASSER, Thank you, Mr. Altman. Senator KERRY. Thank you. Who I understand you yielded some time. Thank you very much. I thank him for that. Mr. Chairman I guess I might say that the last series of questions raised by the Senator from Tennessee sure raises some questions about the RTC itself and that's not what we're here for. But I just want to say it is not comforting to learn that the acting CEO was spending only a few hours and had not enough time to pay at, tention to it and that raises a separate series of question that this Committee, and 1, and some others have been deeply concerned about with respect to recoveries and the direction of this can Of worms, as it's been called. I want to go into a couple things, if I may, very quickly. I think it is obviously appropriate and within the scope that the Commit- 517 tee's instructions from the Senate which is to conduct hearings into whether improper conduct occurred with respect to contacts, to certainly determine whether there was improper conduct in those contacts with respect to testimony before this Committee. I agree with my colleague it's not the center focus or the whole focus. It's one of them, but I would ask my colleagues to be really fair in assessing the answers of the witness and the realities of this transcript as you read it. I think there are questions, very serious ones still, about the February 3 meeting and the lack of statements and the contrary evidence as to who knew about that. I think there are questions there, and we still need to make judgments about it. But I also think it is fair to the witness to read his answer to Senator Domenici in its full context. And to understand that be was talking about a substantive meaningful contact. He was-you can argue the February 3 meeting falls into that and I'm not going to discuss that now, but you cannot argue that the Maggie Williams' notation falls into that. And it seems to me that Mr. Altman has fairly suggested in his answer at the time contemporaneous with the question saying when you asked Senator Domenici, you are not suggesting you bad more than one, are you, which was specifically on the subject of RTC incidentally, not on the subject of recusal. He would then answer no, I'm just saying if you run into someone in the hall, if you see a thing in the paper this morning, I'm not including that. Now, in my judgment the Maggie Williams' communication certainly falls under that kind of casual encounter at a separate kind 'of event not calculated or scheduled for any purpose except other things and he learned something. So I think we have to be fair in were going to attach here. I think it is fair to raise questions about the February 3 meeting. I think it is certainly fair to raise another set of questions about the recusal, and I think the Senator from New Mexico and I share a concern here about what may or may not have been going on. Now, I would simply like to start by saying- and I hope my colleagues will agree with me here-the recusal is not an important issue for what did happen because nothing happened. And so when Altman says it was moot, he is, in fact, correct as to any action to interfere with the investigation.
August 10, 1995 - Part 2
(12:00:40) This relates to the issue that Senator Kerry raised concerning the question of what documents were distributed. Mr. Nussbaum, I don't see how you are in a position to know that all of the documents were thereafter turned over to various people because you are not the custodian and did not have the absolute ability to control the documents. You have indicated that you had trust and confidence in various people, but that is at issue here, and certainly Mr. Heymann was concerned about, or the notes indicated that he was concerned about the distribution. We are trying to find out whether the mainframe can produce the indices that Ms. Gorham seems to indicate were not there. Now we have gone on record by sending a letter from the Committee. We would like to know if you're going to undertake this, and if you're going to have the FBI do it. We have every reason to believe you are, but I think we're entitled to an answer this afternoon. Otherwise, we have to do other things, but if we could get that from a representative of the White House, I would be very appreciative. Senator Murkowski. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR FRANK H. MURKOWSKI Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Might I inquire as to the time I have available? The CHAIRMAN. It has started, 10 minutes. Senator MURKOWSKI. Thank you. Mr. Nussbaum, I welcome you to. the Committee. You look rather comfortable in that chair, although I suspect you've had enough of it by now. I want to raise a number of issues in connection with your search of Mr. Foster's office on July 22, 1993. 1 would ask that Mr. Foster's briefcase be carried down to the witness stand and made available at this time. 1347 Now, in your deposition, you indicated on pages 221 and 222, and I quote: I believed I had emptied the briefcase of all the files. I don't remember seeing anything else in the briefcase. I didn't see scraps of paper, I didn't remember seeing scraps of paper in the bottom of the briefcase, By reaching in, I felt I had emptied the briefcase of all its files. Mr. Nussbaum, would you identify the briefcase in question? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Let me get my briefcase out of the way, Senator. Mr. MURKOWSKI. That's fine. Mr. NUSSBAUM. We don't want to confuse two briefcases. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Do we have the other briefcase there? Mr. NUSSBAUM. This is it, Senator. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Do you recognize that briefcase? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, Senator, I recognize this briefcase. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Is that Mr. Foster's briefcase? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, this is Mr. Foster's briefcase. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Do you maintain the version of your search of the briefcase and basically what you saw? Having the briefcase does not bring back any reflection on finding a note or seeing anything, so everything stands as is, right? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Everything stands as is, Senator. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Do you recall whether you actually looked inside the briefcase, looked all the way to the bottom? I wonder if you would show us how you think you may have satisfied yourself that there was nothing in the briefcase? Mr. NUSSBAUM. What I did is I took the briefcase from behind me, pulled it to the side of me Mr. MURKOWSKI. Were you sitting down or standing up? Mr. NUSSBAUM, I think I was sitting down or half-sitting. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Can you show us kind of how you, just pick the briefcase up. We're interested in knowing how you looked in it to ascertain that it was empty? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Sure, Senator. We'll do this again. Mr. MURKOWSKI. That's fine, you're doing fine. Mr. NUSSBAUM. The briefcase was against the wall-I'm not speaking into the microphone-was against the wall. I reached back, I brought it up to me, to my side, I then reached in, and I saw it was full of files, I then reached in, picked up the files, and put them on the desk. Mr. MURKOWSKI, How many files were there, do you recall? Mr. NUSSBAUM. A number, I don't recall. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Did you make two trips or did you get it all in one? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I may have made two trips. I may have. I think I did make two trips. 1, you know, it's vague, but I reached in, pulled the files up, put them on the desk, I glanced down and it was clear to me that I removed all the files. Then I just turned to describing the files. To answer your question, I don't remember looking back and looking into the bottom of the briefcase. Mr. MURKOWSKI. Did you ever move the briefcase up off the floor?
LAWMAKERS
20.06.21-ROBERTS-the AIRLINE INDUSTRY problems have led to a loss of interest in other forms of DEREGULATION on Capitol Hill. DUKE-intro. Report on INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND and political controversy about the fund. WERTHEIMER-the IMF loan bill is being held up by electoral politics-after deferring to REAGAN'S request to support the aid bill, DEMOCRATS found themselves under attack by REPUBLICANS. 20.07.32-Clip of REPUBLICAN ATTACK AD showing large BANK BUILDINGS and attacking TIP O'NEILL for trying to force the public to contribute through the IMF to "Communist" countries. WERTHEIMER-discussion of REAGAN'S effort to lobby HOUSE DEMOCRATS to support the IMF bill. Rep. ROBERT MICHEL in well, asking Congress to support the bill. C/S Rep. PHIL GRAMM (R-TX) advocating his amendment to prevent IMF funds from going to "Communist" countries [never mind that an IMF loan is a virtual indenture to the Western system and that DENYING IMF aid is a surefire prescription to get a poor country to seek U.S.S.R. aid]. C/S letter issued by REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE attacking DEMOCRATS who sided with REAGAN for "supporting Communism". 20.09.22-C/S Rep. HOWARD WOLPE (D-MI), says the charge is ridiculous because it implies that REAGAN was also "voting for Communism". WERTHEIMER-the letter was sent to newspapers in Congressmen's districts and even to campaign donors. C/S Rep. TONY COELHO says that accusing members of being "Communist sympathizers" is not within the limits of acceptable politics. C/S Rep. SILVIO CONTE (R-MA) pledging to work to amend the slander to the DEMOCRATS who voted for the bill, calls the charges McCARTHYISM in it's lowest form. C/S NEWT GINGRICH in office, says the wording of the press release was "a little tough" but not wrong on general principle to call out members for "aiding Communist countries" [of course, that definition seems to only apply to DEMOCRATS]. Rep. COELHO says that charges of "Communist sympathizer" are unacceptable. 20.11.16-C/S GINGRICH, says that the "hyperbole of the 'left'" is always acceptable, lists some "examples", says that REPUBLICANS were just telling the facts. C/S Rep. CONTE, says that the move is tactically inappropriate and will hurt REPUBLICANS in their efforts to forge compromises with the majority Democrats. C/S a letter from the attacked Democrats, asking REAGAN to publicly defend their votes. Rep. WOLPE says that it will take REAGAN'S strong effort to defend the Democratic members to get them to side with him on the IMF issue again. Rep. CONTE says that a simple photo-opportunity would do much to ease the tension. C/S GINGRICH says REAGAN does owe something to the DEMOCRATS who took heat for him, but he has to be careful. Rep. COELHO says REAGAN is caught between the Right Wing and The Right Thing to do. Shots of a REAGAN address to a large gathering of dignitaries. REAGAN asserts that the IMF LEGISLATION is appropriate, urges BIPARTISANSHIP, but doesn't single out the REPUBLICANS. C/S TIP O'NEILL says that REAGAN'S response to the REPUBLICANS' tactics is inadequate, and DEMOCRATS aren't satisfied.
Hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committe on the Nomination of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court
Joel Paul. On Monday morning, after I read the news of Professor Hill's allegations, I phoned some of my colleagues from my home to ask their advice about what to do with this information that I had. When I arrived at school later that morning, another colleague, Ms. Susan Dunham, on her own initiative, came to me, having read the article in the Post - Senator Joseph Biden (D - Delaware). What day was this, again? Joel Paul. This was on Monday morning, sir - and she reminded me, that is, Ms. Susan Dunham reminded me of the fact that I had communicated to her the substance of my conversation with Professor Hill shortly after it occurred in the summer of 87. I then recalled that, indeed, right after my lunch conversation with Professor Hill, I went to Ms. Dunham, who had some practical experience in the field of employment discrimination, and told her of Professor Hill's problems at the EEOC. Ms. Dunham said at that time that this was the case of the fox guarding the hen house. That phrase stuck in my mind. I was pleased that Ms. Dunham independently could confirm my memory of these events. I had at that time, and I have now, no reason to question the facts as Professor Hill related them to me. I always regarded her as having the highest integrity. I know her to be a deeply religious person. Moreover, I cannot believe that she could be politically motivated. I know from numerous conversations with her that she served faithfully in the Reagan administration, that she was generally in sync with the goals of that administration, and that she did not disagree with the overall policies of the administration. Indeed, when Judge Robert Bork was nominated to the Supreme Court in the summer of 1987, I remember vividly that Professor Hill supported his nomination and told me that she held him in extremely high esteem, as a former teacher of hers at Yale. Her strong support of Judge Bork led to a number of loud lunch table disagreements between Professor Hill and other colleagues of mine. Thus, I cannot accept the conclusion that her statements have been motivated by political ideology. In closing, I would re-emphasize that I am here simply to aid the Senate Judiciary Committee in its efforts to determine these facts. I have not taken any position with regard to Judge Thomas' nomination prior to these allegations. Indeed, a national petition of law professors opposing his nomination was circulated at my law school several weeks ago. I was asked to sign it and I refused, despite the fact that 18 of my colleagues signed that petition, as well as many others from other law schools. I came forward on my own initiative to recount what I was told by Professor Hill. I have not spoken to Professor Hill since sometime prior to the nomination of Judge Thomas. I have never discussed my testimony or any aspect of these hearings with Professor Hill or any person representing Professor Hill, or with any organization or anyone representing any organization. Mr. Chairman, I am here to help you get to the facts. Thank you.
August 9, 1995 - Part 6
(15:30:00)(tape #10140 begins) Senator D'AMATO. Now, let's start the clock over again. You have 10 minutes, and I recognize Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Let me just make this observation. I was listening very carefully, and that's exactly what Mr. Nussbaum was trying to do. Mr. Chertoff quoted his deposition to him. He acceded to the quotes that were made to him from his deposition and then said he wanted to add something from another page in a fuller explanation. In fact, the quotes that Mr. Chertoff put to him stopped and the next question was: (15:30:37)(tape #10139 ends) "When thereafter?" And the answer was: "Within a matter of days."' That was asked. The next question was: "Before the documents went to Williams & Connolly?" And the answer was: "I don't know, I don't remember at this point," which for the purpose of this line of questioning I think was a relevant answer. Now, we stopped short of that. No one picked up on that. Mr. Nussbaum then said, in fuller explanation, he wanted to go to page 412, and I am going to give him a chance to do that in just a second. Senator SIMON. If I could ask if you would yield for 20 seconds? Senator SARBANES. I yield to the Senator. Senator SIMON. I would point out one other thing. When Mr. Chertoff says, "OK, we will put your full deposition in the record," that doesn't take care of people who are watching this on television. I think, in fairness to witnesses, they ought to have a chance to give a balanced presentation here. The CHAIRMAN. I will, at the appropriate time, have all 6 pages read into the record and put on the monitor, And I am serving notice that we are going well beyond 4:00 p.m. Senator SARBANES. I think we should go on beyond 4:00 p.m. The CHAIRMAN. We will go tomorrow and Friday. Senator SARBANES. Fine. We should do a proper and thorough inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Senator SARBANES. I agree with that, Mr. Chairman, The CHAIRMAN. Well, we are going to run the clock the way you want it. Senator SARBANES. All right. The other point I want to make before I yield is on the Adams depositions talked about earlier. This is the question to Mr. Adams on the disposal of the documents. This is Mr. Chertoff. Question: I understand that. I am not suggesting that he did otherwise. Now I am focusing at the end of the review of the materials in Mr, Foster's office by Mr. Nussbaum. He indicated that he intended to disperse the materials in the category of personal to Mr. Foster and his family to Mr. Foster's family representatives, and those pertaining to personal matters of the President and Mrs. Clinton? Answer, To their personal attorney. Question: To their personal attorney. And the other materials to other individuals in the White House Counsel's Office who would then be reassigning the matter? Answer. That's correct. Now, in his testimony here, Mr. Adams was also asked: Question it was your understanding, was it not, that following the review of the files that the personal files relating to Mr. and Mrs. Clinton would be sent by Mr, Nussbaum to the personal attorneys for Mr. and Mrs. Clinton? Mr. ADAMS. That's correct. Question: And neither Mr. Margolis nor you voiced any objection that. Isn't that so? Mr. ADAMS. That's correct. 1278 In light of some of the questioning that has transpired here, I think it's important to get that on the record. Mr. Nussbaum, if you would now address the question of the additional material in your deposition which you wanted to present to the Committee. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes this starts on page 411 and it runs onto412. This is about the returned file. Question: [by Mr. Chertoff] Who brought the file back? Answer: That I don't remember. Either Ms. Williams or Mr. Neuwirth. Even though they're quite distinct, one of them brought the file back. Question: Where did they bring it back from? Answer: I don't know, because I wasn't there when the file was brought back and I am not sure it was brought back from the residence or frrom Ms. Williams' office wher this file was. It was a residence file, and we made a determination that it was not a personal file that we should send to the Clintons' personal lawyers. That's all that happened here. We came across a residence file which was re turned to Mr. Foster's office for Mr. Neuwirth to work on in the future, just like Mr. Foster worked on residence matters with Ms. Williams and Mr. Neuwirth. Question: It was originally a Foster file. Right? Answer: No. It is a White House residence file which Mr. Foster worked on Question: Which was in his office? Answer: I'm not positive it was in his office. It was either in his office or Ms, Williams' office, but it was a matter he worked on, Question: But it originated in Mr. Foster's office? Answer: I'm not a hundred percent positive of that. It may have originated in Mr. Foster's office and gone out or was returned, or it may have been in Ms. Williams) office and was put into Mr. Foster's office. But it was a residence file. There was a discussion as to whether this was a personal rile that should go to the Clintons and their new personal attorneys and was determined that it was not a personal file, it was a file that should stay in the White House Counsel's Office so we should continue to work on that matter. I yield the balance of my time to Senator Dodd.
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:10:11) The CHAIRMAN. Let me be clear with you. I've been talking with the staff here. Apparently, in the course of the meeting on Mr. Simons, there was something else going on. He was having people make side phone calls on totally unrelated matters. I don't have any recollection of talking with you about these items on this list. I remember Larry Simons and that's it, and I think I would have a memory of this if I had been engaged in that conversation. To the extent you discussed it with staff Ms. HANSON. OK The CHAIRMAN. -that may or may not have happened but, the point is, there was no substantive discussion with me on the points on this list or I would clearly remember it. Is your recollection different than that? MS. HANSON. I recall, sir, that you were in and out. But I recall discussing at least a part of this with you being present. The CHAIRMAN. It rings no bells with me. I remember Larry Si- mons because we talked about it at some length. Wasn't that the purpose of the meeting, to go over Ms. HANSON. Absolutely, it was the purpose of the meeting and I understand not being able to recall things. The CHAIRMAN. I think I would recall this if you had come and given me a briefing-did you come and give somebody else in the Senate a briefing on this? Was this a talking point prepared for other meetings at other times? Ms. HANSON. It was prepared for other meetings at other timesI, personally, didn't talk with anyone else in Congress on it. The CHAiRMAN. When it has-there's a mystery document. On our side, next, is Senator Dodd. Did you want to be recognized? Senator Boxer, I guess, had wanted to be also Senator DODD. Just very briefly, and I'll yield time to my colleague from California. Sitting here, let me just express my own views as I listen and look at the cluster of issues before us. It seems to me, there are three issues, and others may find more. The 165 first issue is the question of statutory authority, which saddled you with, or transferred to you, this responsibility to act as a General Counsel of the RTC. 1, again, will emphasize the point I think oth-ers have made already, but it needs to be emphasized, and that is I find this to be a terrible sense of bad judgment. With hats switch-in all the time, to put people in that position is troublesome. There Le is at least a real potential for conflict of interest, not to men-tion the appearance of conflict of interest. Again, that's something we're going to correct with the law but, someone, in my view, should have had some ability to make a judegment call that this was inviting a problem. I think that's one duster of issues. The second, is congressional testimony. I was not at the meeting in which Senator Gramm, Senator Bond, and Senator Domenici raised the issues of questions to Mr. Altman, but I've been a Member of Congress for 20 years and have attended a lot of hearings over a lot of years, and I understand bow it's a little difficult for some of the staff to jump in when either one of us is asking a question or a witness is testifying I'm not going to argue about that particular moment. But, I've It to tell you, Ms. Hanson, I find it inexcusable that almost 3 weeks could go by without someone coming back on this issue. Others may wander around that set of questions. I find it hard to draw that conclusion. Third, with regard to the contacts at the White House, in my view, there were far too many meetings, far too many people, and far too vague lines that were drawn here. It seems to me, that's becoming obvious and it was sloppy. The old smell test, for those of us who have been around here. is should have been handled better than it was handled, Those are three clusters of issues that I find troublesome. I think it's also important to put everything in some sort of perspective. Even though a lot of time gets spent on these issues, I come back to the questions I asked you in my first round which come back to the issue of whether or not anything was done here to in any way jeopardize these criminal referrals or to in any way try to influence those decisions. Now, I know others have raised the issue we don't know if something was done. It's hard to prove a negative, and I'm waiting to see if any evidence emerges to see if something was done. To this juncture, nothing has. That, to me, is a very critical issue. So, while Im concerned about this testimony to Congress, I think that, in and of itself, is a set of legitimate issues to be addressed, and, certainly, the statutory authority and the contacts with the White House are also. This is awfully confusing to people watching and 'listening to it. At the end of the day, didi something happen here which jeopardized these criminal referrals? At this juncture, the testimony that all of you have given, under oath, before this Committee, is that nothing was done; no obstruction of justice to interfere with those criminal referrals. The bottom-line issue, at least as far as this Senator is concerned the ethical issues others are addressing, I think, are troublesome. And more than troublesome doesn't do them justice, because we send out messages to future witnesses about how to perform before congressional panels. But, on the bottom-line issue, on the serious, note of whether or not there was any damage done to 166 the legal process, I'm satisfied, at this juncture, that's not the case'. Regarding congressional testimony, there was bad judgment on statutory authority, and sloppy operations. I think there's a real concern. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Roth. Ms. HANSON. Could we break? Could we break for a few minutes, sir? The CHAIRMAN. Lees take a brief break and come back in. We're going to be here past midnight if we don't get back at it. The Committee stands in recess for a short period of time. (21:16:46) (21:16:48) Commentary of hearings hosts NINA TOTENBERG and KEN BODE, they also interview Senator JOHN KERRY [Recess.]
July 29, 1994 - Part 4
(15:30:31) Mr. ROLLA. To my knowledge, the body had not been moved other than that we do have this blood transfer stain from the collar to the chin. Somebody either checked the carotid or whatever, may have moved the head, I do not know, but that is the only possible movement. Otherwise, no, the body bad not been moved. I approached the body carefully. The head was the first part of the body at the top of the embankment. Again, it is a very steep embankment with heavy foliage on both sides of the body. I carefully walked around the body, looking at it. Again, I was already told that there was a gun in the band and at that point, I leaned over the body and observed a dark-colored revolver in the right band of the deceased. The CHAIRMAN. Let me just stop you there. My time is up. I want top if I may, just ask one question, and then I will yield because I do not want to trespass on the time either. Did either of you see anything at the time that caused you to think that this might not be a suicide or the way it apparently would have appeared to you? in other words, when you arrived, saw the scene, and saw the body, was there anything that struck either of you that would have caused you to say, maybe this was not a suicide. Was there anything that stuck out at that time that you recall now, or that you made a point of at the time? Ms. Braun. Ms. BRAUN. No. When we arrived at the scene and I went up to the scene, everything was consistent with a suicide. The CHAIRMAN. Everything was consistent with a suicide. What would your answer be, Mr. Rolla? Mr. ROLLA. Pretty much the same. Again, it was the early stages of investigation just arriving on the scene but at that point, everything was consistent with a suicide. The CHAiRmAN. Let me yield now to Senator D'Amato. Senator DAMATO. I am going to yield my time to Senator Bond. The CHAiRmAN. Senator Bond. -Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I want .to thank the panel for their good work. I believe, Mr. Rolla, for ease of going through this, you have provided a great deal of information in the depositions. want to highlight for this Committee, some particular points of your testimony, and I will go through and give you the page numbers and ask you if that is an accurate reflection. It has to do with the outside interference in the investigation. On page 63, you were asked: "If, at any time, if someone outside the the Criminal Investigation Bureau, would you let me know, be- We there are lots of names." You give an answer. "It would be very odd if anybody outside the 'would ask anybody or do anything in the investigation." questioned you: "Did Officer Rule, when be called you, tell autopsy had been moved up specifically at the request of White House?" 80 Your answer was: "Yes, he told me it had been pushed up. They wanted it done sooner, so they got it." Is that an accurate statement? Mr. ROLLA. Yes, it is. Senator BOND. Next, on page 68, the question's asked to you: "Is it SOP, standard operating procedure, to have someone who was at the scene of the death attend the autopsy?" And your answer was: "Yes, that would be normal operating procedure. As I say, there may be nothing, there may be questions, you like to explain the scene and the doctor likes to hear besides reading the report and looking at the photographs. He can explain things, if you have questions. The investigator may have questions that he needs to ask the doctor."' Is that accurate? Mr. ROLLA. That is correct. Senator BOND. And you were not able to attend the autopsy? You did not attend the autopsy ? Mr. ROLLA. Well, myself and Cheryl Braun worked all night. We worked, our shift was 2 p.m. to 10 p.m. The day before we worked until 6:30 that morning, waited for Dr. Beyer to get in and confirm that the autopsy would be on the morning of the 22nd. So we went home to get some sleep after our reports were written. Senator BOND. That is understandable, but in other words, the autopsy was pushed up so you were Mr. ROLLA. It was pushed up and I was too tired to drive in and go back. Senator BOND. Next, on page 75, you are asked about White House contacts.
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:30:29) Senator DODD. Now the law required that a confirmed individual assume that responsibility. As of the date when Mr. Casey left, the previous Administration's appointee, there were only two people who had been confirmed by the U.S. Senate that could have assumed that responsibility. One was yourself, as Secretary of the Treasury, and the other was Mr. Altman. Secretary BENTSEN. That is correct. Senator DODD. Now maybe some other Cabinet officer at Labor, but, I mean, I do not know of anyone who is suggesting that that job would go there. Secretary BENTSEN. Right. Senator DODD. So I wonder if you might share with us what should be done. I realize that it is right for you to indicate you would like to think about this, and I asked Mr. Altman yesterday and the Treasury might send some recommendations to this Committee. One of the constructive things we might do is address that piece, I guess it was FIRREA, as to how we might modify the law and avoid the kind of inherent Catch- 22 situation that led to a lot of the problems that have resulted in these hearings and the questions that have been raised. I would ask you this morning if you might just comment generally on that particular legislative or statutory mess we have ourselves created. Secretary BENTSEN. Let me do that, Senator. Let me also supplement the answer to Senator Gramm insofar as those things taking place within the White House that involved answers on the RTC. I had built a wall to be sure that I did not get involved in those things. The legal interpretation of the responsibility of the Chairman of the Oversight Board is that you not intervene in case specifics, and I wanted to be sure that that did not happen to me. Now to get to your point, Senator, you are absolutely right. As we interpreted the law, it had to be someone who was a Presidential appointee who had been confirmed by the Senate. And logic was that you tried to use someone that had a background in finance, and there were only two of us in that capacity, that had been confirmed by the Senate. And that was myself and Deputy Secretary Altman. He had a background in finance. He had a background in management. And I asked him to do that, to take that position. No one really wanted that job. Senator DODD. In fact, you could have left it vacant, I suppose, but I am not sure that would have been a responsible decision. Secretary BENTSEN. Well I do not see how we-we had to have somebody over there in charge. And so he took it. 18 And that was under the Vacancy Act. And it really should be amended. I think both you and Senator Gramm have made the point that that should not happen again. I think you are right on that, and we will work on legislation we would recommend to you for your consideration to see it does not happen again. Now we did get an amendment in there, as I recall, on the Resolution Trust legislation that provided for a deputy in that situation. Senator DODD. That is correct. The Chairman has informed me of this, and I think it is called for under the Completion Act of 1993. Some of this may have been already addressed, and so I appreciate your response and I appreciate the Chairman's pointing that out that some of this has already apparently been addressed, but you made another point which I think also is worth noting, There is a piece in The Washington Post this morning written by Lloyd Cutler entitled "A Heads Up History." Mr. Chairman, I might just ask unanimous consent that that be included in the record. [No response.] The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. Senator DODD. Because I think the Secretary has pointed to another problem here that we have identified in a referral from the RTC in this matter, and that is at what point is a legitimate government function triggered that conversations between people of different agencies can talk to one another. Today, we are discussing the Resolution Trust Corporation, the Treasury and the White House, but there are referrals made from, virtually every other Cabinet agency to the Justice Department. There are circumstances completely different from the ones we are talking about here that would need to have some sort of clarification as to how you draw that white line.