Advanced Search
August 4, 1994 - Part 11
(22:05:30) Mr. LINDSEY. I don't remember. Senator MACK. I mean, let me toss out something. Did you say something like, we had heard that there was some information? Mr. LINDSEY. Senator Mack, I really-I don't have any specific recollection of the conversation at all. Senator MACK, No, you do have some recollection of the conversation. You just told me you remembered that he said something about the press leaks and about referrals. Mr. LINDSEY. Actually, I have a note that reflects what he told me. I couldn't tell you Senator MACK. Do we have that note? Mr. LINDSEY. I don't believe so. Senator MACK. I wonder if we could get that note? My question is apparently, Mr. Lindsey kept some notes of a phone conversation from Mr. Lyons, and Mr. Lindsey was having difficulty in remembering what that conversation was. He was able to confirm thatmaybe we're going to get-are those the notes? The CHAIRMAN. If there's any note that he has that falls within the scope of our inquiry, we should have received it by now, and I would assume that we have. So my first question would be, is this a document that is within our scope or beyond our scope? Mr. LINDSEY. In my opinion, this document does not relate to White House-Treasury contacts. It involves a conversation with a private attorney about press inquiries he had received from reporters. Senator DAMATO. This is 2 days after the contact. Mr. LINDSEY. I don't have any objection to the Committee having it. Senator DAMATO. OK. The CHAIRMAN. I don't have any objection. Let's let the Counsel look at it to make sure that we're not going beyond what we're sup posed to do at this point. Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, while you're doing that, can I make a point of procedure here, ask the two leaders here. We are now, as I calculate it, about 7 hours that these four people have been here at this table. I'm ready to call Amnesty International. They're becoming political prisoners. [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. They're on their way. Senator BOXER. They haven't eaten, no bread-well, water, yes. I fervently hope that we can get on to the next panel. The CHAIRMAN. I think, if I may say, I want to accommodate, and I've done everything I can to accommodate, everybody that has questions to ask. I think your point is very well taken. We've been 465 here a long time. We've covered a lot of ground. I'm not sure that we're plowing new ground. Let's take a look at this, however, I would add my voice to Senator Boxer's appeal that within a short period of time, we try to finish, if we possibly can. I say that also out of respect not just to these individuals but the next witness that's coming, who is an important witness. I think we need some time with that witness as well and we've already made a commitment between ourselves we'll finish with that witness tonight so senator MACK. Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Mack. Senator MACK. I think frankly I have asked the questions I wanted to ask. It's just when Mr. Lindsey indicated that there were notes of this conversation, we were having difficulty reconstructing, I thought it might have been helpful if we could have had those notes. And I assume The CHAIRMAN. The opinion of my Counsel is that he thinks arguably it would fall within the scope. You have no objection. Let's make it a part of the record. Do you want to take a look at it? I Senator MACK. That would be fine, if you make it part of the record. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, just an inquiry. When does Letterman, Leno come on? Do they come on, what time, in another hour or so? [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. They're on our next panel. [Laughter.] Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, they generally bring out the cots when we're around the Capitol. Maybe they can bring out some for everybody. The CHAIRMAN. I'm told by Senator DAmato we're very close to being finished on this side. I've had no more requests for time on this side. Senator MACK. I only really have, I think, one more comment to -make. The CHAIRMAN. Let's take it now and perhaps we can finish. Mr. LINDSEY. Senator Mack, this note is a note of a conversation I had with Mr. Lyons while I was in San Francisco, on that trip, and as you see halfway down, it says "Gerth Isikoff"---"RTC source FIRREA," "9 criminal referrals." What I remember about the conversation is based on the fact of this note.
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:55:45) Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's exactly what I try to do. I try to give the best advice and judgments, legal judgment and other judgments, that I can give under the circumstances at the time. I try to do my best. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Now that you've had a chance to see and hear the other views, the other perceptions, would you change that view now? Mr. NUSSBAUM. You're not going to like this answer, perhaps. Senator MOSELEY-BRAuN. That's OK Mr. NUSSBAUM. But I've thought about it a lot. I've had occasion, having left the Government, taking a mini-sabbatical, to think about this. I respect the other views. I respect your view, Senator Boxer's view, Senator Kerry's view, the Chairman's view, Lloyd Cutler's view, Lloyd Bentsen's view. I don't agree. I don't agree. I really still maintain my view that if you're not legally or ethically required to recuse yourself, and that includes appearances, then you do your job. You do your duty. Now, that's my position. As a result of that position, I am now back in New York rather than in Washington, but that's my position. Senator MOSELEY-BRAuN. I have no further questions. Thank you, Mr. Nussbaum. Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman? 510 The CHAIRMAN. Senator Murray. Senator MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listen carefully to my colleagues talk about this issue of recusal because I think it raises a lot of And I can't help but agree with my colleague, Senator Kerry. my Sometimes, you've got to look past legal and ethical issues and see public perception and public opinion because we live with that' every day, But I find myself sitting here thinking what does that do to us in the future if we factor public perception into every deci- sion? I think one of the reasons we find ourselves sitting here for 5 or 6 solid days, going through questions, is because we had a man who essentially held two jobs, one in Treasury and one in the RTC. He was there because the White House sent a name over to the Senate, and this Committee didn't deal with him. We never got anybody in place. Trying to find somebody to do that job has been extremely difficult. If we had confirmed a name, any name, Stanley Tate or anybody sent over by the President to head up the RTC and, I think we would ask whoever that person is: Are you too close to Bill Clinton' to deal with the Madison Guaranty issue? And I have to ask, is there any Presidential nominee we could put in place who would not have to recuse himself on this as head of the RTC? Mr. NUSSBAUM. This raises a profound difference I have with so many of you in this room. Just because the President appoints somebody to a position and that person is confirmed by the Senate doesn't mean he can't act with a matter affecting the President or the President's family. In the Silverado case, a George Bush appointee confirmed by the Senate acted with respect to Neil Bush. Congressman Leach, in his letter to Roger Altman on February 3rd when he told him to seriously consider recusing himself, mentioned that fact, recognized that Presidential appointees are not, ipso facto, by virtue of that position, prevented from acting with respect to matters affecting the President or the President's family. Roger Altman was not, because he was a Presidential appointee, was not disqualified from acting in this matter. The fact that he was a friend of the President didn't disqualify him from acting in this matter. We have ethics rules that deal with these issues here and I'm not arguing with anybody in particular now, we're sort of overriding them because of some greater public relations consideration, political considerations, public perception considerations, whatever these names people are using. I understand how important those things are politically, and I understand how those things have political effects on people's lives but nonetheless, I don't believe they should override the fundamental principle if a person is not legally or ethically required to recuse himself. And because you're a Presidential appointee doesn't legally or ethically require you to recuse yourself Senator MURRAY. I want to ask my friend, Senator Kerry, because, as he pointed out, if we set a legal standard and an ethics standard and also a public opinion standard Senator KERRY. Perception.
August 2, 1994 - Part 10
(00:15:34) 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 is a conclusion about the Department of the Treasury, but not about the myriad of people players involved in this. Can somebody tell me if I'm right or wrong? Senator DODD. Well, I don't know. You may be right. All I'm saying is that because when I first heard about this, it sounded to me like it was somewhat like a Treasury operation looking at itself and I'm a little suspicious when people look at themselves. I felt much better about it when I was told that it was an independent operation. I think I'm correct in that. Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, Senator. Senator DODD. And two, the person who beads it was a Republican appointee who's been maintained and kept on the job as I understand it. These are not people necessarily who are trying to protect anybody or cover an body. Now, maybe, their mandate should be broader, to look at other people and that may be the case, but they struck me as being pretty straightforward honest people who don't have an axe to grind or to cover anybody's act up. If they thought something was done , I think they'd tell us. Senator DOMENICI. I didn't say that. 511 Senator DODD. My point is, I think we've got to understand who these people are. The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me Just Say to the Members here several people are seeking recognition. Senator Kerry is, Senator Dodd is finished. By rights, it's supposed to rotate to this side. Is it a parliamentary inquiry that you re making? Senator KERRY. It 's not so much a parliamentary inquiry Mr. Chairman, as it is an answer to the question that was asked by the Senator from New Mexico. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm is next in the order. Would you be willing to yield for a moment Senator GRAMM. Not on my time, I wouldn't, I would be willing to withhold and let him go ahead. The CHAIRMAN. He's prepared to withhold, Senator Kerry. Why don't you make your point. Senator KERRY. The point I was going to make, I simply wanted to answer my friend. I would think that he ought to take he may not have hag the time yet and I'm sure he will want to read this and will, but the report from the Office of Government Ethics makes it very clear that as to the meeting in February that there was no disclosure of nonpublic information in any way that was a violation, No. 1; and No. 2, that there was no furtherance of anybody's own interest or that of another. And therefore, there was no ethical violation as to that meeting. In addition to that, with respect to Mr. Altman personally----and this is by name, this is not generic-it found that as to the meeting with Mr. Ickes on the discussion with respect to recusal there was also no violation. Now, in fairness it did leave open a question with respect to Mr. Altman's role on September 29 Sim simply because there wasn't adeluate information on the 1993 disclosure by Ms. Hanson. It did find the disclosure by Ms. Hanson did not violate ate the rules. You have an independent ruling as to three tiers with respect to Mr. Altman and Ms. Hanson, but there is one open question remaining Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, Senator Domenici. Senator DOMENICI. Yes, sir.
August 9, 1995 - Part 7
(17:25:25) It's something I had to do. It's something I'm sorry about, but it doesn't support the conclusion, it doesn't support the picture that you paint from that testimony of paranoia of, of terrible things going on in our office. I didn't grill Deborah Gorham. I like Deborah Gorham, she's a gentle, sensitive lady. She was in a state of shock during this period, understandably so. Her boss had just killed himself, in effect. I tried to be as gentle as I could with her, but I think she, remembering back to that terrible period, if I asked her a question two or three times sort of to shake her out of her, she was like she was in shock during that period, for a lot of that period-to sort 1303 of shake her out' of that shock a little bit. She finds that conduct of me talking to her grilling. I didn't grill her, I tried to treat her very gently. But looking back, I can understand her testimony here today. But it doesn't support the picture that you're painting. Nor, sir, when you refer to the Park Police and the Secret Service and all these law enforcement agencies, nor is that a valid summation, Senator Bennett. The fact is our relationship with the Park Police, our relationship with the Secret Service, our relationship with the Department of Justice, our relationship with the FBI was perfectly fine during this period. It changed a little-we had a dispute over how the office search would be conducted, but it was perfectly fine. What happened, sir, and I alluded to this before, is once the note was found on July 26 and turned over on July 27, people were embarrassed, in effect. Law enforcement became embarrassed because they were present at a search which I conducted, not they conducted. They were present at a search at which a note wasn't found. Because of that, Senator, then certain of them at least started feeling aggrieved about prior conduct. So I don't think even their testimony paints a picture of any improper conduct on the part of the White House. Forgive me, Senator, for that very, very long answer. Senator BENNETT. My time is gone. I would like at some point to follow up on some of these issues. The CHAIRMAN. Well, Senator, we'll be back tomorrow morning, and I will recognize you first so that we can again follow up on these issues. Senator BOXER. May I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR BARBARA BOXER Senator BOXER. I think that I am not going to get a chance to question today, mostly for my fault. I could only stay for 3 hours. Why are we going back to Senator Bennett--on your time? The CHAIRMAN. When it comes to our side, of course. Senator BOXER. Great. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, we have rotated continually. We will continue to do that. But I'm delighted that you are watching so carefully. Senator BOXER. I am. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I understand that. Senator BOXER. Every move. The CHAIRMAN. We will obviously start with this side. I want to thank Mr. Nussbaum and I hope that we can finish tomorrow, but if we can't, then unfortunately we'll go Friday. But I think if we all work together we will be able to finish tomorrow. All right. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I want to assure you I have no opening statement tomorrow. The CHAIRMAN. You did an excellent job and I want you to know that this Senator has no problem with your opening statement whatsoever. I think you owe it to yourself and you owe it to all of us to put into the record, in a thorough, comprehensive manner, what you did, and I think some points were very important factually to get out. 1304 So I want to commend you for that. I certainly don't mean to sug- gest that you shouldn't tell the Committee what you think is im this portant, but I think if we all work together we can conclude part of our review tomorrow. So we stand in recess until tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. (17:29:34) [Whereupon, at 5:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned, to recon- vene at 9:30 a.m., on Thursday, August 10, 1995.1 (17:29:35) Various shots of the Senate Hearing room where Senators, support staff, media, witness, and audience mingle and leave (17:31:37)(tape #10141 ends)
August 10, 1995 - Part 2
(11:45:25) Mr. NUSSBAUM. I want to thank you for the nice compliment, Senator. No, I don't recall. Senator SHELBY. You don't recall that? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I don't recall promising to call him back. I may have, but I don't recall. Senator SHELBY. What troubles me, and I know my time's about UPI is why, Mr. Nussbaum, did you, a lawyer of experience, Watergate experience, a competent trial lawyer, consciously, I believe, perhaps willfully, contaminate this whole investigation? The Justice Department I believe never had a chance to do a thorough or complete investigation. Their papers have disappeared. You know it, we know it. Mr. NUSSBAUM. No papers have disappeared. Senator SHELBY. Yes, they disappeared, You've dispersed them. You said they've been distributed. Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's not disappearing, every paper was preserved, no paper disappeared. Senator SHELBY. That's in dispute. You obviously had a lot to hide, as Mr. Heymann asked you, did you have a lot to hide. Mr. NUSSBAUM. That is false. We had nothing to hide. Senator SHELBY. And you succeeded in doing it too well. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I didn't hide anything, I didn't succeed in hiding anything. I had nothing to hide. Every document was preserved, nothing was destroyed. Every document that law enforcement requested was given to them, some right after Mr. Foster's death and some later when the Whitewater investigation Senator SHELBY. You controlled the investigation and you dispersed the documents. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I acted in a proper fashion, Senator SHELBY. And you know you did. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I acted in a proper fashion. I acted as a good lawyer is supposed to act, and I'm proud of my conduct. Senator SHELBY. You're proud of your conduct? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Absolutely. Senator SHELBY. You would probably be the only person in America who would be proud. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I don't think so, Senator. I don't think so. Senator SHELBY. My time is up. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SIMON. Mr. Chairman, if you could yield just for 30 seconds? Senator SARBANES. I yield to Senator Simon. 1342 Senator SIMON. I think it should be put in the record that when Mr. Heymann was asked did Mr. Nussbaum act ethically and legally, he said absolutely. The CHAIRMAN. It is in the record. Obviously, the testimony of all of our witnesses, and we will review all of it. [Pause.] Senator SARBANES. I'm going to yield to Senator Kerry but before I do that, I think for the sake of the record, in light of some of the uestioning that was just put, in Mr. Heymann's testimony, here before the Committee, he was asked: Question: I understand your testimony is that the Park Police in that interim did not complain to Mr. Margolis about the White House cooperation? Answer: That's correct. Question: Following the search on the 22nd, you understood, did you not, from Mr. Adams and Mr. Margolis, when they reported back to you that Mr. Nussbaum had designated documents and items to turn over to the Foster family attorney? Answer, Yes. Question: And you weren't surprised by that, I take it? Answer: I wasn't surprised. Then later they also discussed turning over the personal documents relating to the Clinton's. Now that dispersal of documents took place after the search, not before the search, isn't that correct? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct, Senator. Senator SARBANES. So this movement of documents out of the office was subsequent to and after the session at which the law enforcement officials were present? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct. Senator SARBANES. The session at which you went through what the documents were and they indicated which ones they had an interest in? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's right. Senator SARBANES. Senator Kerry. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, does my clock begin now? The CHAIRMAN. Your time is running. Senator KERRY. Mr. Nussbaum, I would like to follow up, if I can, on some of the questions Senator Shelby was asking you, so I can understand better the framework of some of the confrontation between you and he on that question of what happened. When you piled the documents or separated the documents for dispersal to the personal attorneys, you took all the personal documents, is that correct, at that time? Mr. NUSSBAUM. First, I took the Foster personal documents and started piling them up. Senator KERRY. You gave those to Attorney Spafford, correct? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That's correct.
August 1, 1994 - Part 3
(13:45:45) Ms. KuLKA. I don't know that anyone-I really don't even know if Mr. Altman knew the status of the case.Senator DAmATo. I'm not asking that. I said would you have approved it? I'm not asking you to get ahead or to try to anticipate what went on at that meeting. I said would you have approved a briefing to the White House or to any private party that disclosed the progress of a case under inquiry? Ms. KuLKA. I don't know what you mean by progress, sir. I don't mean to be argumentative, but our Q's and A's, I think, to some degree, were prepared to discuss some of the procedural aspects, if we were asked that by the Committee. If that is what you mean as progress, I think we would have been prepared to talk about the date that had been originally set for the expiration of the statute and tolling and so on. Senator D'AMATO. Didn't you prepare and send to the staff a memo of February 4, 1994, in which you instructed the RTC officials what areas they should not discuss? Ms. KULKA. That's correct. I did prepare one, and talked about what they were limited to discussing. Senator D'AmATo. Isn't it a fact that that February 4, 1994, memo does not authorize any discussions with non-RTC officials about the likelihood of requiring a tolling agreement from private Parties in the Madison case? Ms. KuLKA. It speaks for itself, sir, and I don't remember the words precisely. Senator D'AMATO. That's a fact. Isn't it a fact that your February 4, 1994, memo does not authorize any discussions with non-RTC of ficials about which particular RTC personnel were supervising the Madison investigation? Ms. KuLKA, I'm sorry, sir, but if 0 you's like to give it to me, I'll reread it. otherwise, you have it in front of ~ you, 'Senator Sarbanes. Mr. Chairman, if we re going to do this-is this Ms. Kulka's memo? ' Senator D'AMATO. Yes. February 4, 1994, and we have it, The CHAIRMAN. If you're asking to have it in front of you, I think You ought to be able to have it in front of you. Ms. KuLKA. I'm sorry to say I can't even read that. 62 Senator D'AMATO. Let's send one down--let's read them out loud, These are talking points for anyone authorized to discuss the Madi. son situation, additional information should not be supplied unless it has been properly approved. This is standard procedure and anyone authorized to speak should be aware that the discussion of any additional information could have an impact on the agency's legal position and any matters arising out of Madison. It's too bad that maybe they didn't have this before because, obviously, matters that are now rather contentious and the question of what they did speak about at that February 2, 1994, meeting could have been avoided. You have a list of eight different points., Does that refresh your recollection? Ms. KULKA. Yes, I have it in front of me now, sir. Senator D'AMATO. Isn't it a fact that the February 4, 1994, memo does not authorize any discussions with non-RTC officials about which particular RTC personnel were supervising the Madison investigation? Ms. KULKA. Unless it had been properly approved, sir. Senator D'AMATO. Correct. I yield the balance of my time to Senator Mack. Senator MACK. I thank my friend. How much time do you have left? Senator D'AMATO. I don't know. Three or 4 minutes. You can take it. Senator MACK, Mr. Roelle, you had testified that Mr. Stephen Katsanos informed you of a press inquiry regarding matters relating to Madison in October 1993, which is to say not September 1993, and didn't you then relay that information to Mr. Altman? Mr. RoELLE, Yes, sir. Senator MACK. Do you have any disagreement with the way I've laid out those dates? Mr. RoELLE. I don't recall exactly when I got the information from Mr. Katsanos. It was the E-mail that I referred to earlier in testimony today. I think be had forwarded a copy of it to me. Senator MACK. I think that was October 6, 1993, but I'm not positive. Mr. RoELLE. I had a subsequent normally scheduled meeting with the Treasury at Treasury. I related the fact that one of our Investigators had been questioned by a reporter regarding the criminal referrals. Senator MACK. What was Mr. Altman's response to that? Mr. ROELLE. He took it rather well. He didn't get upset and he didn't express any indignation. He just said thank you. Senator MACK. Was there any conversation with Ms. Hanson? Mr. ROELLE. Yes, he called Ms. Hanson on the phone and told her what I was telling you.
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:20:45) Ms. HANSON. Sir, it wasn't 10 days. If you recall, February 24, 1994, was a Thursday. On February 25, 1994, Mr. Altman recused himself at the end of the day on Friday, Then there was Saturday, 135 Sunday. Monday was February 28, 1994. Tuesday was March 1, 1994. That was when we played the tape, on March 1, 1994. So I The first letter came in on March 2, 1994. that was actually 3 days. ~ But, sir, I had been asking for a transcript. I asked, repeatedly, for a transcript. I don't know why I didn't get a transcript but I didn't have a transcript nor, to my knowledge, did anyone else in Treasury. Why the White House had a transcript on March 1, 1994, and I did not, I don't know. I asked for one repeatedly. I didn't have one. If I had one, I would have read it. The CHAIRMAN. I'm trespassing on the time. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Perhaps I misheard earlier. I thought you had stated that you had not seen this video at any time. Ms. HANsoN. No, I believe that I was asked whether I viewed it with Mr. Foreman the day after the testimony. Senator SARBANES. No, but I thought the question, then-perhaps I'm not recollecting well, but I thought the question then went beyond that, and asked more generally whether you had seen the video. Ms. HANSON, If it did) I would like to clarify the record. I did look at a portion of the tape with Mr. Foreman. I believe it was on March 1, 1994. Senator BENNETT. My memory is the same as the Senator from Maryland's I'm glad to have that clarification. The CHAiRmAN. It's late in the day and you've been here a long time. It's tiring. That's why it's important to pin these things down. If there's a mistaken impression, we can get it cleaned up, then, if there's a difference of opinion between witnesses, we can decide who's the most plausible, Senator DAmato, the time is on your side. Senator DAMATO. I'm going to yield to Senator Gramm, if I might, but I'd like to make an observation I think the Chair has pointed out. Senator Sarbanes. has alluded to it. Others have. It is inconceivable to me how, as a counsel and a distinguished and skilled lawyer-you didn't get to be General Counsel because you didn't have talent. You didn't have political connections. People were impressed, You had prepared Mr. Altman, and the issue of recusal was one of great significance. You testified to that. Later on, I'll get back to that. You testified he didn't undertake the recommendation You testified, when the Deputy Chief, Harold Ickes, said you should forget it "No, I won't. If I'm asked, I'm going to say it. Mr. Ickes understands." Regarding the February 2, 1994, meeting, the notes you prepared for it say, "I have decided I will recuse myself in the decisionmaking process," and then, you specifically said, "Yeah." You looked at Senator Bond, as he undertook this question again. You allowed a letter to go out which you helped to prepare and which came to the Committee on March 2, 1994, without any attempt, whatsoever, to correct that situation which you, were concerned about and which YOU watched on television with Mr. Foreman. Now, that is being, at the very least, less than candid and frank and gives us something that is so distorted, that it's not worthy in the least. I yield to Senator Gramm. That's my observation. 136 Ms. HANSON. Sir, may I respond? Senator D'AMATO. It's not a question. Ms. HANSON. May I respond? Senator D'AMATO. No, it's not a question, it's an observation. You can do it on someone else's time. Senator GRAmm. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me go back and be sure that Senator D'AMATo. I have to tell you, if you want to respond, I still want to see that Senator Gramm gets his time. The CHAIRMAN. By all means. Why don't you go ahead and re-. spond. You can repond on my time and we'll protect Senator Gramm's-we're going tome Senator Gramm all the time he. needs on this issue. I've to him that, and I intend to see that it's done. Why don't you go ahead and make your comment, Ms. Hanson, then we'll go to Senator Gramm. Ms. HANSON. Sir, I take my responsibilities very seriously, and I did everything that I could, consistent with my responsibilities as I understood them. You may disagree, sir, but I believe that I dis- charged my responsibilities consistent with what they are. Events occurred that I didn't anticipate, and if they hadn't occurred, we wouldn't be here discussing this, but they did. Senator GRAmm. Mr. Chairman The CHAiRmAN. Senator Gramm.
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(09:45:34) Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the witness. I am a little hard of hearing and The CHAIRMAN. I think if you could just pull that mike a little closer, and you might want to put the papers up on the front of that wooden stand, then I think it will move toward you, and then everyone can hear you clearly. Secretary BENTSEN. You want me to start over? The CHAIRMAN. No, that is all right. 5 Secretary BENTSEN. And finally I want to cover the conclusions which have been reached and the actions I will take, Senator can you hear me? Senator KERRY. Yes, sir. Secretary BENTSEN. OK. Knowing that the responsibilities of a Cabinet Office are different from those of a congressional office, I put two systems in place when I came to Treasury to help me make the transition. First, as it regards the RTC, I serve as Chairman of the Oversight Board. By law, I am prohibited from involving myself in any day-to-day activities, I can discuss policy in broad terms, but I cannot intervene in a case-specific matter. I asked my Legislative Director, Mike Levy, to make it clear if Members of Congress or staff inquired about specific cases, that they should be directed to the RTC and not to me. Second, I have organized my office such that all paper work on matters of policy and Treasury's varied operations flow through my Executive Secretary, Mr. Ed Knight. Ed is the gatekeeper. It is his job to make certain that what crosses my desk, as it regards the RTC, or any issue, for that matter, contains only those materials I should be seeing, and nothing else. We have a thick manual about how information flows to my office. I insist on written briefings. It makes the best use of my time. It is the best way I found to absorb information. When I am asked for a decision, I expect a memo that gives me the background, lays out the options, tells me what the staff recommends. That way, I can either make the decision, or let my staff know I want more information, or I want a meeting on the issue. That is how I deal with substantive issues, not in some bull session. I prefer the distilled thoughts that they finally come up with as they prepare a memorandum to me, and I want it a relatively short one. In short, I have a very organized office procedure. I have run my office like that for years. I did it in business, I did it in the Senate, and I do it now as Secretary of the Treasury. When I was building a business, a good part of my time was spent on an airplane going about the country, and I would have my associates prepare the memorandums for me so I could study them on the plane, or if I had some spare time, I would do that. Let me give you an example. When I was in business, I can recall I had a decorator in to decorate my office. And he said he was going to put an ottoman in my office, and I said, do not you put an ottoman in here, I do not have time for people to put up their feet. They are not coming here to visit. We are trying to do business. And that is the way it has been. Mr. Chairman, if someone wanted to communicate with me in a meaningful way, that is how they would have done it, through my in box with a memo, with a meeting on which I was briefed in writing, That is not to say I do not have occasional impromptu visits from or conversations with my staff, because I do. That often happens if there is a developing crisis that has to be dealt with. But for matters of any import, I prefer paper. 6 I asked my staff to go back and look at my office records to see what I was involved in over the period in which the Committee is interested. I have a memorandum I want to put into the record. My staff says that from September 23, 1993, until March 21, 1994, 1 had nearly 800 meetings on 560 topics. I attended 130 meetings at the White House. Met with 51 Members of Congress. Testified on the Hill 11 times. I received more than 500 written briefings prepared for my meetings. I delivered 60 speeches, gave 80 interviews, had 25 press conferences, and I want you to get this. I received over 2,400 memos and during that period, I traveled to 6 countries and 10 States.
Whitewater Hearings August 1, 1994 - Part 1
(11:05:44) The CHAIRMAN. So, by the fact that you did not know he was going, he obviously didn't invite you to go with him. Is that correct? Ms. KULKA, That's correct. The CHAIRMAN. I want to read you a section of a deposition that Mr. Ickes gave to our Committee about this February 2, 1994, meeting to which Mr. Altman went. There's two or three parts to it, so bear with me here. This will be information that you will be hearing for the first time, I think, Mr. Ickes says the following: The purpose of this meeting on February 2, 1994, at the White House and the focus of Altman's discussion, was the relationship of the time that he felt this investigation might be wrapped up. He said, at least in so many words: That it was his understanding that the investigation probably would not be concluded and that a determination could not be made by the RTC's General Counsel as to whether there was the basis for a civil claim until after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Now that's a direct quote that I've just given you from Mr. Ickes. 'Later in his deposition, he was asked this question: With 8 respect to the information that the inquiry could probably not be wrapped up to re General Counsel's satisfaction, the inquiry about Madison could not be up the wrapped up to their satisfaction, before the statute of limitations would expire as far as you knew, was that public knowledge when he said it? This was the second question to Mr. Ickes, and be answered: I don't know whether it was public knowledge or not. I assume that it was. When you say public, did the public in general? No, I don't think it was. I don't know it was. But it was my assumption that this information was not known to public in general and probably very few people inside the Administration. 10 Is it fair to say that was not public information at that time? Ms. KULKA. It's fair to say that all of those statements are inaccurate if they are meant to be a report of anything I told Mr. Altman. They are directly contrary to the advice I gave Mr. Altman, The CHAIRMAN. He makes no reference to you here in his answers. Mr. Ickes is talking about-because you weren't at the meeting, he's talking about what was represented, as he remembers it, by Mr. Altman at the meeting. Ms. KULKA. Since I have no knowledge of what Mr. Altman said or what Mr. Ickes heard, or anyone else at that meeting, I can only tell you what I advised Mr. Altman, and that is not a reflection of it. The CHAIRMAN. Right. But the question I asked you was, was that information public information at the time? Ms. KuLKA. I'm sorry. I don't mean to argue with you, Senator, but that information, if you say that we wouldn't be able to form a decision about bringing a case, is not accurate. So, it wasn't public, but it wasn't so. It couldn't have been public or private because it was never the advice I gave or the position we were taking. The CHAIRMAN. I see. Ms. KULKA. I'm sorry. The CHAIRMAN. No. That's what we want to do, we want it to be as clear as we can make it here. Ms. KuLKA. Right. The CHAIRMAN. That's why these questions have to be asked and answered, so there's no question about it. We'll come back to that because Mr. Ickes, obviously, has given a different recollection of the events at that time, Senator D'Amato. OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR ALFONSE M. D'AMATO Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to maybe follow up on something. Ms. Kulka, in the February 1, 1994, meeting where you gave your briefing to Mr. Altman, do you recall who else was present? Ms. KULKA. I really don't recall. I think that Mr. Ryan was present, but I don't recall if anybody else was. Senator DAMAT0, Mr. Ryan, were you there? Mr. RYAN. I don't recall. Senator D'AMAT0, Was Benjamin Nye there? Do you recall Benjamin Nye? Ms. KuLKA. I don't recall. Senator D'AMAT0. I'm going to read you his testimony. Benjamin Nye is an assistant at the Treasury Department. Do you know Benjamin Nye? Ms. KuLKA. Yes, I do. Senator DAMAT0. What is his position? Ms. KULKA. I think be's an assistant or a special assistant to Mr. Altman. Senator D'AMAT0. He was at this meeting. I have a deposition here. I'll read you part of it. This is a question being put to Mr. Nye: Why don't you tell me, in your own words, what was discussed at the meeting? Answer: I believe it was a discussion about RTC issues, more generally. But one of the issues, I believe, was this question of procedurally, what Ellen Kulka should do or, you know, the questions she would face procedurally, on the Madison case. Question: One of those issues was whether an action should be commenced or not commenced? Answer: The issue, as I understand it, was, in light of the circumstances' the February 28, 1994, expiration of the statute of limitations, whether one should seek a tolling agreeing or drop cases or file suits based on what she deemed would be imperfect information. Question: What did Mrs. Kulka say about the imperfect, or the information at that point?
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:15:29) Mr. RYAN. No, sir, I don't. Are you referring to & criminal in investigation? Senator KERRY. Yes. I'm referring to any investigation. It was a closed case. Was it not a closed case. Mr. RYAN. I don't know that. That action predated my arrival at 14 RTC. Senator KERRY. But you don't recall-let me refer you to page 74' Of Your deposition: Decisions hadn't been made yet about what to do. This was, as I remember, in kind of the formative stages, the original closure memo had been done. The case 84 had been closed before. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the decision had been made sometime back in 1990 or 1991 that there wasn't a cost-effective case at Madison, so it had to be reviewed in light of new information. Do you recall saying that? Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. Senator KERRY. The new information was The New York Time'. article? Mr. RYAN. I think we're confusing the criminal referrals with RTC civil case. I was referring there, to the reopening of the civil case in light of the extension of the statute of limitations that curred in the Completion Act. That did occur. Senator KERRY. But that's in 1993. Mr. RYAN. That's in 1994, actually. Senator KERRY. Do you, have a recollection at all of why this case was reopened in 1992? Mr. RYAN. I wasn't there. Senator KERRY. Do you, Ms. Kulka? Ms. KuLKA. I think, to the extent that anything was done, sir, it would not be with respect to the civil investigation. It would have been, if anything was done, with respect to the criminal refer., rals. Senator KERRY. I understand that, but what I am asking you is the standard, at that point in time, for a judgment about a civil case was some evidence of negligence or gross negligence. Correct? Ms. KuLKA. That was, yes, the minimum standard. Senator KERRY. And for a criminal case, some evidence of criminal behavior. Correct? Ms. KuLKA. That's correct. Senator KERRY. The New York Times article had no evidence Of criminal behavior that I had read. Did you come across any, Mr. Roelle? Mr. ROELLE. No. Senator KERRY. The question has to be asked why, if there's no question of money being lost in terms of fraud, intentional mis- conduct, or unjust enrichment, which is the standard we applied when we extended the statute, by March 8, 1992, The New York Times article appears. On March 9, 1992, Jean Lewis is suddenly reinvestigating My question to you is, was it simply because the name Clinton appeared in this that the RTC reopened the case? Mr. RYAN. Senator, I don't know. That occurred long before I arrived at the RTC. Senator KERRY. Has it occurred to you it was why this case was reopened? Mr. RYAN. It hasn't. Senator KERRY. Ms. Kulka? Ms. KuLKA. I'd asked some questions about whether it was usual procedure to pursue criminal investigations of matters that had al- ready been closed from a civil point of view, and I've gotten a variety of answers, especially in this case, since it was reviewed and rereviewed several times. From that point of view, I don't understand the procedure that was followed, and I've never gotten an anwer that has made it clear to me. Senator KERRY. Mr. Roelle? 85 Mr. RoELLE. I wasn't aware that there was an investigation until I was notified on the day that I notified Mr. Casey. Senator KERRY. I'd say to my colleagues on the Committee that this is something I find, personally, extraordinarily disturbing and extremely important with respect to this case. There were at that time, and I want to come back on my next round-my time is up The CHAIRMAN. It is, and I'm going to yield next to Senator DAmato. I'm going to give you a chance to make your final point. Senator KERRY. The point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, I have Jean Lewis' chronology. I assume it's hers according to most accounts of The Washington Post and elsewhere. It's what Congressman Leach put into the Congressional Record. Between the dates of 3/9/92 and 3/23/92, during a Presidential race when Mr. Clinton was a candidate, her own statement says, No mention was found Madison Guaranty of any Whitewater relationship with MGSL, Savings & Loan." Notwithstanding that, this incredible investigation goes on. Nobody has even heard of Whitewater. There's no allegation of any wrongdoing that's criminal or civil under the statute, and yet the Clintons are investigated. A few months later, there's a criminal referral which finds its way, we learn today for the first time publicly, to the White House. C. Boyden Gray called. You can make an argument rument. I have a long chronology here, with which you can go back to November 1990, when a fellow by the name of Sheffield Nelson, who's a Republican, is running for Governor against Democrat Bill Clinton. He happened to be somebody who had major investments, along with James McDougal, in Madison Guaranty and is cited as a source in USA Today of the first article in The New York Times linking the two, McDougal and Clinton. In March, 1 day later, the RTC opens the investigation and goes to extraordinary lengths, according to the LA Times, to trace the transaction after finding no ties in the additional document reviews. In September, there is a criminal referral mentioning the Clintons that's sent
August 2, 1994 - Part 7
(19:05:41) Why, assuming he had no reason to lie on his impression and he put this, why did you, Deputy Secretary of Treasury confirmed by the Senate, acting CEO of the Resolution Trust Corporation, if this is correct, why would you let Nussbaum, Ickes, and Williams beat up on you or back you down in any way and cause you not to recuse yourself when it seemed to be imminent? Why, Mr. Altman? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I did not do so. Senator SHELBY. In other words, this gentleman is wrong and he's lying? Is that what you're saying? Mr. ALTMAN. Mr. Steiner, as you know. did not attend the meeting did attend the meeting. Senator SHELBY. You told him about the meeting, didn't you? Mr. ALTMAN. I did attend the meeting. Senator SHELBY. Did you tell him about your impressions of the meeting? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, there's testimony under oath from the other participants-let me be very clear. No one asked me not to recuse myself. No one told me the recusal was unacceptable. No one said to me, please don't do that. So the notion that recusal was unacceptable is false. That was not said to me. Senator SHELBY. In other words, what he's saying is not true? Mr. ALTMAN. The reference to unacceptable is not true. Senator SHELBY. Why didn't you recuse yourself? Because they would have been unhappy at the White House-that is Nussbaum, Ickes, Williams- if you bad? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, let me describe the recusal decision. I went to the meeting having been advised orally and later advised in writing, that there was no legal or ethical requirement to recuse, that it was a purely personal decision. It wasn't an easy decision to make because I was also aware of the argument that I had a duty to serve. Indeed, the Office of Government Ethics Report released on Sunday, questions my decision of recusal and suggests it may have been the wrong decision because in the absence of a legal or ethical requirement to recuse, there is a requirement that you should serve so it wasn't an easy decision, and I admit being Senator SHELBY. It wasn't an easy decision, but it would have been the right decision, wouldn't it? Mr. ALTMAN. I think, I said in my decision, I should have recused myself right off the bat. this Senator SHELBY. It would have been the right decision. I want to ask you about something else. You know, we have a limited amount of time here. Referring to Josh Steiner's diary and at again, I'm quoting it: "Once again, they were concerned out him"-- about you---"turning the RTC people, they didn't know. So Roger Altman did not formally commit himself to stepping down." 450 Turning the RTC, turning someone is changing them some way. in other words, you turn a prisoner. You turn somebody. That iswhat's your interpretation of that phrase? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, if you look up a little bit, you see-and. you' quoted this a moment. ago-" "agreed to a de facto recusal where the RTC would handle this case like any other and RA," meaning me, would have no involvement.' at was the understanding that the participants in that meeting had. Why did they have that understanding? Because I explicitly told them at the meeting. I did the right thing. I said recusal is irrelevant because I wont be playing any role in. the decisions on this case. I told them not once but twice, and before that meeting, I told that to Ms. Kulka and she testified that I would have no involvement in the case, and that's my point about recusal. It had nothing to do with the RTC investigation. Whether I executed a formal recusal or remained de facto recused, I wasn't going to play any role in that case whatsoever. Senator SHELBY. Why did you duck the question Senator Gramm asked you before this same Banking Committee back in February? Mr. ALTMAN. I did not duck it. Senator SHELBY. You didn't. Mr. Josh Steiner's diary says, and you're familiar with it "they had also asked if staff had met but Roger Altman gracefully ducked the question and did not refer to phone calls he had. The next day The New York Times ran a frontpage story on the meeting. The heat was on. We spent," we spent "a tortured day trying to decide if he, " meaning you "should recuse himself." Was Mr. Steiner working with you at this time? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, what happened on February Senator SHELBY. Was he working with you at the time? Mr. ALTMAN. No, he was not in direct line responsibility to me. senator SHELBY. You were not around him during this time? Mr. ALTMAN. No. Let me be clear. Mr. Steiner served as my special assistant through the fall of 1993, 1 believe September, but I'm not certain. At that time he was promoted and be became-I might say he's privileged to be Secretary Bentsen's Chief of Staff. So at the time of these discussions, he was Chief of Staff of the Department, not my special assistant.
August 2, 1994 - Part 7
(19:35:36) Mr. ALTMAN. Senator Kerry, if I could suggest and you may not agree with me, but I think the salient points here are nothing unethical occurred. We've had an independent report from the Mee of Government Ethics, nothing to do with the Clinton Administration, happens to be headed by a gentleman who was, appointed by President Bush, who's looked into every aspect of this. Nothing unethical occurred. Senator KERRY. Well, let me say, I've always had great respect for you and I'm not here to do anything except try to find out what happened. I want to know. I haven't made a judgment. You haven't been tried and found guilty as far as I'm concerned and, I think, most of my colleagues. But I don't agree that it is simply a question of whether or not those findings by the ethics officers are all there is to it. I do agree, in your defense, that they have legitimately determined no laws or ethics standards were violated. I think, unfortunately, theirs is almost exclusively a legal standard. And we're really talking about a standard that goes beyond just the letter of the law, if you will. We're trying to question judgment here. I mean, Mr. Cutler, in his wisdom and eloquence, has suggested bad judgment was, indeed, exercised to a certain degree. I'm trying to understand whether or not-I see my time is up. I never even got to the second area I want to get to, which is critical to this question of judgment, but it seems to me that there is a legitimate question here as to whether the judgment was right. You said in your opening, last question, you've made mistakes and perhaps there was some bad judgment. Could you tell the Committee what you deem to be either the mistakes that you were referring to or the bad judgment that you would say was exercised? Mr. ALTMAN. Let me step back, if I can, a moment. I'm not an ethics expert, but I don't quite agree with our characterization. Recently for obvious reasons, I have look through the ethical codes. Again, I haven't read every word of them or anything like that, but I think they set a very high standard. I think a conclusion from the Office of Government Ethics that there's been no ethical violation, is actually a very high bar that was crossed, not a low bar. This isn't the issue of legalities, this is the issue of ethics. As I read through the ethical codes they struck me as quite strict. I think it's quite something that the Office of Government Ethics concluded there was no ethical violation. After all, we have a situation here where nothing illegal was done, nothing unethical was done. Now, as to judgments, in retrospect, I think the February 2 meeting shouldn't have happened, and it should have been-that 459 information should have been communicated in writing. So that wasn't a great judgment. When I look back on my February 24 testimony, I wish I bad interpreted the questions a little bit differently than I did and then I would have given better answers. There was no intent to conceal the information. But I wish I had testified and put forth some additional information here because then people wouldn't think that perhaps I did intend to withhold it, but I didn't. So sure, there was some mistakes of that type and I could go on. There were other mistakes, but there was nothing unethical and nothing illegal. The CHAIRMAN. Let me say-excuse me. I'm sorry, Mr. Altman. Mr. ALTMAN. Well, I think we're all human, we all make mistakes. These sure aren't the first ones I've made, and I'm afraid they won't be the last ones. Senator KERRY. We absolutely do. I want to follow up with this a little later and I think it's very important to try to draw the record out on this. The CHAIRMAN. We will do so, Senator Kerry. I think you are raising a very important line of inquiry and the second issue you wanted to raise, we will make sure is raised. Senator Bennett. Senator BENNETT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Altman, you testified that you called Mr. Ickes on what date? Mr. ALTMAN. I believe it was February 3 or it might have been February 4, a day or two after the meeting. Senator BENNETT. A day or two after the February 2 meeting. Senator Gramm's indication was that you talked to Maggie Williams, you said and you called Mr. Ickes and the testimony was you were trying to set up a meeting in the White House; is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. I called Mr. Ickes to say that I'd like to have a brief conversation with him. He and I were on our way, or were going to be later that day, to the same meeting, which I think was a Health Care meeting, but I'm not certain and I wanted to talk to him a moment or two before the meeting, and we did. Senator BENNETT. And you have no way of knowing how Maggie Williams got it in your bead that you were talking to her?
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:45:21) I don't have enough fingers to have quite counted up the number of entities, apart from myself, who are legal and ethics experts who .have come to the conclusion that Mr. Altman did not have a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself. The discussion and the issues that were under discussion at the time, February 2, were not legal/ethical discussions, If he had a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself, he would do so. It was political, It was how was it going to look. It was where was he going to take more heat. Was he going to take more heat if he stayed there or was the Administration going to take more heat through the sort of impact of domino effect after Rickie Tigert. Was Jamie Gorelick going to be asked to recuse herself. Mr. Ludwig, on the 25th, even though there is no matter in front of him, decides to recuse himself. Is some midlevel person at the EPA going to be asked to recuse herself, even though there is nothing remotely in front of her. The issue was political and press and congressional; it was not legal/ethical, and I think the fact that every entity that has looked at it came to that same conclusion is worth an enormous amount to me, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I think it was important that you have a chance to put your statement on the record. You've done that. 104 Senator DAmato has asked for 30 seconds to respond. I think in light of the time that was taken to do that, that it's not ail unreasonable request, so Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to make the point that we've invented a Senator KERRY. It's not an unreasonable request, Mr. Chairman but oil the other hand, it absolutely breaks up the process here and totally sets a different standard for how we're proceeding. I'm just saying to my friend that, you know, we're going to get into that same old problem at the end of the line here. Senator D'AMATO. I just wanted to make an observation, if I might. The CHAIRMAN. I think when-I'm told by the clerk over here that when the objection was raised by Senator Boxer that it had the effect of taking 40 seconds off his time so let's restore that and Senator KERRY. He already did restore the time. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I'm told we did not-well, now I'm told that we did. So I'm getting conflicting messages myself. I recognize Senator D'Amato for 30 seconds. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make the point that we've heard a lot about this new definition, and I'd like to know what is the legal definition of "de facto recusal"? What does it mean? That's my point and that's what I raised because I kept hearing it over and over, and I thank my colleagues. The CHAIRMAN. We'll get into that. Senator Sasser. Senator SASSER. well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eggleston, you learn in law school one thing is elementary as in is there a de facto position and a de jure position, and would you explain for the Committee the difference between the two or perhaps I ought to do it. De facto is when something is actually the fact of the matter and de jure is something which might appear to be legal or perhaps you'd have a better definition, but let's hear the definition of that. Mr. EGGLESTON, I can tell you the way I'm using the two words and I don't-I assume they're consistent with the way others are. There were two things he could have done. He could have publicly announced that he was taking himself off the case or he could have done what he did, which is just announce to his staff and to the White House-he did to both, Ms. Kulka testified before you that he told her the same thing-he could announce that he was not going to be a decisionmaker on this matter. I've called that de facto. Senator Sasser, if you have a better word for that, I don't -- I didn't mean to coin a phrase by using that expression, but what I meant was he was not going to participate in the decision. That's something he told us and that's now something I understood that he told his own staff, his own RTC staff. Senator SASSER. So he was essentially out of the decisionmaking line on the question of whether or not to proceed with the civil actions against Madison Guaranty S&L. Mr. EGGLESTON. That was my understanding as of the February 2nd meeting. 105 Senator SASSER. Of course, that all became irrelevant on down the line because the statute of limitations was extended and it made no difference whether or not he chose to proceed with the action against Madison or not. Mr. EGGLESTON. That's correct, both Houses of Congress passed the extension. I think the President signed it on February 12th extending the statute through December 31, 1995. Senator SASSER. Now, Mr. Eggleston, let me ask you this: Did you attend the October 14, 1993 meeting that was attended by Ms. Hanson, the General Counsel of the Treasury Department, and Mr. Steiner and Mr. DeVore? Mr. EGGLESTON. I did, sir. senator SASSER. Did you also attend the meeting on February 2, 1994 with Mr. Altman and Ms. Hanson?
August 4, 1994 - Part 5
(13:20:42) Senator GRAMM. If the gentlelady would yield Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. No, no, sir. Senator GRAMM [continuing]. We have two sworn statements or, that. September the 29th he made a decision to pass those criminal referrals and the reference to the President on to the White House., Two people under oath have said that. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. At the time that these witnesses that the conversation that we're discussing today were involved, the recusal decision related to the civil cases. Senator GRAMM. No, but he had dealt with the criminal cases on September 29th, which occurred before. That's all I'm saying. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. That's not correct, sir, and the record will indicate that. Senator GRAMM. Two people said under oath that was correct. senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, can we The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Illinois does not have to yield. Senator KERRY. The Senator is allowed to draw a conclusion. The Senator is allowed to draw a conclusion as to the 29th, but there is no fact, I mean, two people may have testified, it doesn't make it a fact. The CHAIRMAN. The Senator from Illinois has the time. Senator GRAMM. They said it under oath. That's all I'm saying. Senator KERRY. Somebody else said under oath that wasn't true, so you are left drawing the conclusion. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. That's all I wanted to point out, that the editorializing, I think, may confuse the message that we're giving here in terms of the scope of the testimony, the substance of the testimony from these witnesses and I just want to narrow the focus back to the limited context that these witnesses had and what they have to share with this Committee. And in that vein, I think there is a second misconception that kind of Came Out in the conversation here with regard to the diary entries about, regarding your conversation, Ms. Williams, concerning the First Lady's state of mind. Based on your testimony what we have are two different stories. To use again the Senator from Texas' words, he said there are two stories here. Well, there are two stories about a third person 's state of mind. And the only regard in which it would be material in any event would be to the extent that it might have suggested that Mr. Altman's perception was affected in terms of his decision about whether or not to recuse himself. That's kind of long and tortured, but I think it's important to show where the connections are here because we, we have again and it kind of blurs the waters and a lot of editorializing going on an allows for the possibility at least of misconception ion. And I believe I've heard both of these witnesses say that neither of them had any direct role in pressuring or otherwise suggesting to Mr- Altman what he should do. And that is correct, is it not? Ms. WILLIAMS. That is generally correct, although I would just once more like to volunteer that I suggested to Mr. Altman, with respect to whether or not he should recuse himself that since he was going to use what I thought to be excellent judgment defer- 339 ring to the staff, being a staff person, I thought it made a lot of sense for him not to recuse. I asked him why he would recuse. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. OK. Now, again to put this matter in context, the Madison situation involved a failed S&L that in terms of dollar amounts, Mr. Chairman, and we've gone over this. Senator Kerry was particularly good at trying to put this whole thing in the context of the savings and loan debacle that this country witnessed. Madison came out in terms of dollar losses, although it was a lot of money in whole dollars to ordinary folks, it was still 5/10,000 of 1 percent of the total savings and loan losses. And the only question, there is no question in anyone's mind that the reason that we are all here is, again, the connection as witnesses or again the connection, however tangential it might be, between the President and the First Lady. But at the time getting again being specific to the issues before this panel today, at the time of the recusal decision specifically, at the time that Mr. McLarty describes, in his statement as a period from the end of September to the beginning of March, which would have been roughly the period in which you were involved, I don't know if the question has been asked, I don't think it has, but if you could quickly describe for the panel the context in which all of this happened in terms of your typical day, how many phone calls did you have in a day, how many meetings did you have in a day, how many hours did you work in a day. If you could just very briefly do that because I have a question I'd like to wrap this up with and I don't want to lose much of my time. Mr. McLarty and then Ms. Williams.
July 19, 1995 - Part 3
(12:29:54)(tape #10114 begins) that aspect may be outside of the scope but would not preclude ascertaining if there was some kind of connection. If it goes further than that, I will rule it out. Senator SARBANES. The other observation I might The CHAIRMAN. Now, in fairness to the Senator, I think I've set down-and I hope that I have responded in a manner which constitutes the area of governance of this Committee. At this time, I'd like to see that the Senator has his opportunity to proceed. (12:30:26) Senator SARBANES. Fine. The CHAIRMAN. Then, if people want to raise or question why the Senator brings that up, they can do it on their time. Senator SARBANES. Let me just make this final observation. This is our first witness. I think there is some 23 or 24 either witnesses or panels, and we've now virtually used up the second day of the scheduled hearing. So, if we don't keep the focus on and keep moving along, we're going to have a problem. The CHAIRMAN. I'd like to do that. 126 Senator FAIRCLOTH. If nobody hinders the proceedings any more than I do, we'll move quickly. Mr. Hubbell, I will briefly run through the question one more time. Were you, as Associate Attorney General, aware on or before July 20, 1993, that the FBI or the U.S. Attorney in Little Rock was investigating David Hale? Were you aware, by whatever method? Mr. HUBBELL. As Associate Attorney General is how you asked the question; the answer is no. But during the campaign, I believe, there was a newspaper article that said Mr. Hale was under investigation. So I had read that in the paper, for whatever that's worth'. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Did you know a subpoena was issued to search the office of David Hale on July 20, 1993? Mr, HUBBELL. Not until much later. The CHAIRMAN. Senator, at this point I'm going to say that I think we're beginning to move into a different area. Those questions will be appropriate when it comes to looking into all of those aspects as it relates to Little Rock and whether or not there-and I don't want to be inflammatory or sensational, but all of the various matters laid out in the resolution that cover the Justice Department and its interaction in various events that it had to deal with, at this time Senator FAIRCLOTH. I was through pursuing that line, anyway. The CHAIRMAN. OK. Do you have any other questions? Senator FAIRCLOTH. Yes. Mr. Hubbell, are you aware that anyone with the Rose Law Firm went to Vince Foster's home in Arkansas after his death and removed documents from Vince Foster's home? Mr. HUBBELL. I don't believe that-I'm not aware of anything like that happening, no. Somebody else was living in the home at the time. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Mr. Hubbell, you testified that Lisa Foster looked for a note in the Foster home the evening (12:33:01)(tape #10113 ends) of Mr. Foster's death. During the course of your search, did you discover any documents relating to Whitewater, Madison or any other documents which were later removed to either the White House or to a private attorney? Mr. HUBBELL. No, we did not. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Mr. Hubbell, were you ever aware that the Park Police wanted the Justice Department to search their database for any connection between Vince Foster and the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, more commonly known as BCCI? Mr. HUBBELL. I've never heard that, Senator. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Did you have any responsibility for handling BCCI matters at the Justice Department, or do you know if Mr. Foster had done any work, either in private practice or while with the Government, related to BCCI? Mr. HUBBELL. I recused on the BCCI matter. So I did not have any involvement in Justice on the BCCI matter. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Do you have any knowledge whether there were BCCI documents in Mr. Foster's office? Mr. HUBBELL. I have no idea. I don't know what documents were in Vince's office. 127 Senator FAIRCLOTH. Do you know a John Richardson who worked at the Justice Department? Mr. HUBBELL. I know a John Richardson, but he does not work at the Justice Department, so I don't know--I mean, I know a John Richardson here in Washing-ton, but he's a private attorney. I don't know a John Richardson at the Justice Department. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Do you know who Susan Thomasson is? Mr. HUBBELL. Thomases, yes, I do. She's an attorney in New York with the firm of Wilkie, Farr & Gallagher. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Will you explain briefly her relationship to the President and First Lady as you know it? Mr. HUBBELL. I believe that she and the First Lady went to college together. I know that she has been a longtime friend of both the President and First Lady, and she worked in the campaign and worked in the transition and, as far as I know, is still a very close friend of the First Lady and the President. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Why would Vince Foster have been discussing Travelgate with Susan Thomases?
July 20, 1995 - Part 3
(11:35:20) Mr. HINES. I would characterize it as unusual in our normal experiences, but, again, it's unusual for us to go to the White House and make that type of investigation. Senator SHELBY, Did you wonder if they had something to hide in those papers there? Mr. HINES. I just wondered why we didn't have any cooperation because we were only looking for limited information about why Mr. Foster would commit suicide, was there anything on his mind that might tend to have him take his own life. Senator SHELBY. But it was unusual procedure that was going on and it gave you reason to question what was going on, really? Mr. HINES. That was our perception. Senator SHELBY. OK. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Senator Dodd. Senator DODD. Thank you, Senator. I'll take a few minutes then turn to counsel. First, let me thank all three of you. You've been before us before. You begin to wonder, I suppose, what your careers are. I suppose you spend a great deal of time just on this and there's a great deal of respect that all of us have for the jobs you have to do. Certainly, you probably didn't anticipate on that day in July two years ago that you'd be spending this much time going back and recounting events and details of those several days. So I thank you immensely for the time you dedicated to this and the effort that you've made to share with this Committee and others your recollections. I understand, and I appreciate immensely your jobs and your training and what you've got to do. Obviously, none of you knew Mr. Foster, I presume, before, you didn't know the family. You get a report the afternoon of July 20, 1993, late afternoon, and you respond to it, Sergeant Braun and Investigator Rolla, and you are doing your job, in effect. I wonder if you might, because I think it gets to the heart of what we're talking about here-you've got your job to do as investigators and we're trying to determine motivations and so forth, intents of people. The accusation is, in effect, by some that there was a corrupt intent here to somehow deprive investigators, you and others, of doing your job. That's the assumption some people have drawn. Others are saying they're not sure about that, it doesn't look that way necessarily. You are dealing with a traumatic event, here and the people were acting in a rather human way given the circumstances. We're asking you, in a sense, to try to shed some light on this, and there will be those who will obviously try to get' you to characterize these situations so that it reinforces the argument that there was some intent in that regard. I wonder if you might be able to step back a little bit and let me begin with you, Sergeant Braun and Mr. Rolla, Are you an officer, Mr. Rolla? I didn't get your- Mr. ROLLA. Detective. Senator DODD. Detective. I'm sorry. Give us a feel for this. Obviously, You ' re being very analytical, your reports require you to do 175 so, just what the facts are, the times, the dates and what people say. I guess I should, first of all, begin by asking both of you, have you ever been involved in a suicide situation in the past? Ms. BRAUN, Yes. Senator DODD. You have, Sergeant? Ms. BRAUN, Yes. Senator DODD. So you've had some familiarity with how people react. You've had to notify a family? Ms. BRAUN. Yes, I've done notifications. Senator DODD. What normally happens? What are people like when you do that? MS. BRAUN. They're initially very upset, and then they are very inquisitive as to what happened, did the people suffer, things like that. Senator DODD. That was the case here when you went to the Foster home and, Mr. Rolla, as you say-and I appreciate entirely your job there at that point, taught and trained to go in and have to break that news- that's the toughest thing you have to do. Did Mrs. Foster and her family react in a predictable way? Mr. ROLLA. Very predictable. Traumatic. Senator DODD, Cried? Mr. ROLLA. Crying, screaming, collapsing. Senator DODD. You were there how long? About an hour; is that right? Mr. ROLLA. About an hour. Senator DODD. Hour, hour and a half, something like that? Ms. BRAUN. Hour, hour and 10 minutes. Mr. ROLLA. We got there at 10 p.m. and we cleared at 11.10, according to reports. Senator DODD. In the space of that time, it's a handful of people as you arrived and the crowd begins to gather, as I understand; is that correct? Mr. ROLLA. No other people arrived, other than the President, once we originally got there that I'm aware of. Senator DODD. So it was just, so just Ms. BRAUN. They arrived-the group arrived upon our heels of going up into the doorway, and that's the only group that came other than the President, who arrived at about 11 p.m. Senator DODD. OK. Did you talk to each individual person there, however limited, for a few minutes or less than that?
July 20, 1995 - Part 4
(13:15:34) Senator DODD. Again, I'm not sure you're aware of what I'M" about to ask. First, I'll ask if you're aware of it and, if not, maybe I'll tell you about it and get your reaction to it. That is, dealing with the cleaning service that had come to Mr. Foster's office and had routinely emptied out wastepaper baskets and whatever else they do when they clean up an office, Were you aware that had occurred sometime between 10:40 and 11:40 that night? Ms. BRAUN. No. Mr. ROLLA. No. Senator DODD. In fact, it did. It goes to the intent issue again, what we're driving at here, and we're asking you to help us draw' the conclusions. Because you are professionals and you deal with these matters, I wanted to raise the issue of what happened here,' and let me just share it with you. That, in fact, cleaning people did come and clean out the office as they do routinely. Unaware of what had occurred, they removed the trash, as they do, from the offices. White House personnel, not at the direction of any outside policing authority, checking with senior people, recaptured that trash and left it and put it into the' Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff, I believe is the case. Now, those are facts. I'm not making those up, obviously. Knowing that, without the direction of anyone, is that the kind of thing that people should have been doing in this situation? Is that the kind of thing you would have asked to have been done? Ms. BRAUN. Yes. Mr. ROLLA. Yes. Mr. HINES. Yes. Senator DODD. As you're looking at this question-and Senator Simon raised the issue again-as I understand it, Major Hines, and I'm going to ask Detective Rolla and Sergeant Braun the same question, that as you look now at the totality of everything that's happened here, clearly you've indicated to this Committee that this investigation could have been done a lot better. Though you appre- ciate and understand the venue, the place where the office was and so forth, that clearly it could have been done a lot better. That's the general conclusion of all three of you; is that not correct? Ms. BRAUN. Yes. Mr. HINES. That's our feeling, yes. Mr. ROLLA. Yes. Senator DODD. But, as you now draw that same conclusion, is there any question in your minds about some corrupt intent he 207 or an intent to hide or deceive the Park Police or any other policing agency based on what you now know and the totality of this? Mr. HINES. Based on what we now know, I don't believe that. Senator DODD, How about you, Detective Rolla? Mr. ROLLA. I don't feel comfortable answering that. From what I know, I don't believe-I don't know if anybody--I can't say if people were in that office, and I can't say if somebody removed documents, if somebody did something. As far as a death investigation goes, no, we were not-there was no conspiracy or corruption, but something further, I don't know. I don't feel comfortable answering yes or no. Senator DODD. You wouldn't draw a conclusion that there was a corrupt intent? Mr. ROLLA. No, I guess I wouldn't. Ms. BRAUN. As far as my involvement in the investigation, which was the immediate night of and that morning, I would say no. Senator DODD. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator SARBANES. I yield to Mr. Ben-Veniste. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. So, really, to sum up on this issue, as you walked out the door at 11.10 that evening, the President had arrived, and Mr. Watkins obviously had to be attentive to the fact that the President of the United States was there. You believe you mentioned to him that the office ought to be either locked or the door closed and that people would be there the following day to resume the investigation. That's where this record ends; correct? Ms. BRAUN. I know I asked him that. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. With respect to your view, Major, as the ranking official on this panel, in terms of whether your investigation into Vincent Foster's death was obstructed, I take it your answer is that it was not? Mr. HINES. No, it was not. We had a thorough enough investigation to determine that it was a suicide. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. In connection with the papers that were of relevance to the Park Police in Mr. Foster's office, it is correct that Mr. Braun and others reviewed in Mr. Hamilton's office the material that they wished to see regarding Mr. Foster's diary, his appointments and the related material; correct? Mr. ROLLA. I reviewed Lieutenant Kass' material. They told us we could review what was taken from his office, not necessarily everything we would have wanted. I don't know what we would have wanted. We didn't get that chance. Mr. BEN-VENISTE. You weren't present on the 22nd, Detective? Mr. ROLLA, In the office, no, I was not, Mr. BEN-VENISTE. There were 13 people in the office when Mr. Nussbaum went through those materials; correct? Mr. ROLLA. I believe so, Mr. BEN-VENISTE. OK, You weren't there and Major Hines was not there either, and you don't know what was requested, You don't know whether by that time people had made the request that you said you would have made: let's look on his desktop, let's look in the drawers, let's look around to see if lie left any material and let's look at it. You don't know what they asked for specifically; correct? 208
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(11:10:24) Mr. Nye, yesterday Ms. Kulka testified about the status of Madison/ Whitewater case. Ms. Kulka told us that as of February 383 2: One, there were numerous witnesses that needed to be interviewed; two, there were many documents to be reviewed; three, there was much work that needed to be done in order to investigate the case prior to the 28th and that she so informed Mr. Altman, on February 1, the day before he went to the White House. Did you also attend that meeting on February 1, where Ms. Kulka briefed Mr. Altman? Mr. NYE. I believe I did, yes. Senator HATCH. Mr. Nye, you testified under oath at your deposition as follows: Question: What was--what do you mean when you say the situation that Ellen Kulka was facing? Answer. That she was going to be forced to make a decision on how to proceed without perfect information on a politically charged or potentially politically charged case. Right, you said that? Mr. NYE. I believe so. Senator HATCH. Let me read further. Question: What did Ms. Kulka say about the imperfections of the information at that point? Answer: Just that she wouldn't have enough time between-her feeling was that she wouldn't have enough time between them, the date of the meeting and the 28th, the statute of limitations expiration, to make as an informed decision as she would need to make. In her opinion, that wouldn't be enough time to sort of go through all of these mountains of documents and so forth or for her staff to do so and that ultimately she would have to be making a decision with the best information possible at that time. Question: So the shortness of time and the inability to develop fully the facts of the case was identified as problems? Answer: Yes. Is that right? Mr. NYE. Yes, I believe that's right. Senator HATCH, You did testify truthfully at your deposition? Mr. NYE. Yes, I did, and I think I also responded to that today. It's in both cases that she would have to make a decision or a recommendation. Senator HATCH. Just one last question. Now, earlier during today's testimony, you testified that one of the points Ms. Kulka discussed with Mr. Altman was the tolling agreement. Is it true that one of the issues discussed was whether or not it would be necessary to present a tolling agreement to President Clinton and the First Lady? Mr. NYE. I believe that was part of the discussion on the 1st of February. Certainly, the subject of a tolling agreement, and whether or not to present it to the President and First Lady, that I'm less certain of Senator HATCH. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one last question of Mr. Foreman? And I'll be through. The CHAIRMAN. All right. If that will finish your line of questioning Senator HATCH If I could, Mr. Foreman, 'you testified in your deposition on February 25, that you and Jean Hanson reviewed a videotape of Roger Altman's Banking Committee testimony on February 24; is that correct? Mr. FOREMAN. Sir, I haven't had a chance to review my transcript. I just saw it today, but February 24 was the date of the hearing. it couldn't have been that 384 Senator HATCH. Was it the day after, then? Mr. FOREMAN. I do not know. I remember that I taped it in the middle of the night on C-Span. Whether it was Thursday night or the weekend, I can't tell you. Senator HATCH. But you did review the videotape with Ms. Hanson Mr. FOREMAN. I reviewed a portion of the videotape with Ms. Hanson. Senator HATCH. What portion was that? Mr. FOREMAN. To the best of my recollection, there was a portion of Senator Bond's questioning that we looked at together. Senator HATCH. Is it also the case that at various times during the day on February 25 or the day when you viewed this or imme- diately thereafter, you and Jean Hanson transcribed portions of Mr. Altman's testimony from the video itself? Mr. FOREMAN. At some point, when we were watching Senator Bond's period of questioning, she wrote down a question and answer, or a couple of questions and answers about that, that is correct. Senator HATCH. In other words, made her own transcript of what was said on the videotape? Mr. FOREMAN. She was trying to do that, yes, I think, on those couple of questions. Senator HATCH. Was that within a day or so after the hearing? Mr. FOREMAN. Senator, I wish I could tell you exactly Senator HATCH. It doesn't have to be exactly. Mr. FOREMAN. It was either Friday or Monday, it was within a couple of days. Friday or Monday, whenever-after I had taped it on C-Span. Senator HATCH. In your deposition, you said it was the day after. Mr. FOREMAN. If that's what I said, that was my best recollection at the time. I do not know when I recorded it on C-Span. My idea was that it was the day after we talked about it. It could have been Monday. I don't know for sure. Senator HATCH. But you do recall sitting down with her and reviewing that portion of the transcript, Senator Bond's questions, and her making some notes as to the actual words? Mr, FOREMAN. Almost, Senator. We didn't quite sit down. I re- member that she looked at part of Senator Bond's questioning and wrote down one or two questions and answers about it. That's the best I can remember.
INTERVIEWS OF THE CENTURY - AMBASSADOR JAMES McDONALD
INTERVIEWS OF THE CENTURY - AMBASSADOR JAMES McDONALD Interviews with Ambassador James Grover McDonald, 1st American Ambassador to Israel. Union Station, Chicago, Illinois Interviewer - We have a distinguished guest on The Century Today, a gentleman who s been in the diplomatic service for many years. He was the first Ambassador to Israel, Mr. James McDonald, who by the way is the author of a new book. Mr. McDonald is your book on the shelves as yet? Ambassador McDonald - Just out. Interviewer - Oh, is that right? Ambassador McDonald - It gives me pleasure to present you with one. (The Ambassador hands over the book to the Interviewer) Interviewer - Well I ll be delighted, My Mission In Israel Ambassador McDonald - Promise that you will read it Bob. Interviewer - Well I certainly will and I look forward to it with great interest. How much time did you spend in Israel as an Ambassador? Ambassador McDonald - Two years and a half. Interviewer - Two years and a half, well those were the growing years, weren t they? Ambassador McDonald - Those were the painful years. The War was not yet over, blackouts and bombing were common, but we got a measure of peace while my family and I were there. Interviewer - Well, and the country has made tremendous strides, hasn t it, in the last few years? Ambassador McDonald - Yes, they taken in, within the last three and a half years, more than six hundred thousand Jewish refugees. In other words, they about doubled the Jewish population in the country. And their great need now is new money in which to undergird the economic life of the country. And it s for that reason that I am actively engaged in the Israel Bond Drive, an effort to secure $500 million in this country in which to buy American supplies, American materials. Interviewer - Mr. McDonald one of the magazines, I don t remember whether it was Newsweek or Time, did something on your career. They mentioned so many positions that you ve had, that I can t recall, which one would be, in my opinion, the most interesting. What about it yourself, as you go back over your career? Ambassador McDonald - Well, from the point of view from my job in Israel, my most interesting preliminary work was when I was a member of Anglo American Committee of Inquiry, named by President Truman in 46. And before that, back in the early days of Hitler, I was the League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees from Germany. And it was to me that Hitler first divulged his plan to destroy the Jews throughout the world. And I at that time warned the governments of Western Europe, but of course nobody ever takes warnings seriously. They could have rid the world of Hitler without a struggle if they have done it in the early 30 s, but everybody waited until it was too late. Interviewer - Officially Mr. McDonald where did you last see Hitler. Ambassador McDonald - I saw him in the Chancery in Berlin. Interviewer - What were your impressions of him at the time? Ambassador McDonald - He s an extraordinary fanatic, the perfect demagogue, a man of violence expressed in his actions and in his eyes. He made no apology for this program of wholesale destruction, and he said that the world would yet thank him for teaching it how to deal with the Jews. Interviewer - You know Mr. McDonald, I imagine that in your career and a wonderful career it s been, you met a lot of other people the opposite of Mr. Hitler in your travels and in Europe and other places. What about just a few of them? Ambassador McDonald - Well the most interesting people that I ve met most recently, of course have been the leaders in Israel. Ben Gurion the Prime Minister. A man whom I consider to be one of the great men of our time, a man of Churchill s caliber. And Dr. Weizmann, the President, who s a great scientist and a great father of his country. And perhaps, one of the greatest favorites in Israel is a woman, Mrs. Golda Myerson (Golda Meir), the Secretary of Labor. A woman who embodies in her faith, for me, the whole story, the whole historic, tragic story of the Jewish People throughout the ages. A powerful woman and yet a very charming one. Then of course, in Israel the children are among the loveliest children of the world, husky, strong, and of course there s only one disadvantage, they speak only Hebrew, but we had a few words in common and we became very good friends. Interviewer - Does your book cover the entire period that you were in Israel? Ambassador McDonald - Yes, it does. From the time I was named, a surprise appointment when the White House called me up, first question was; Are you a Democrat? And my answer to that was, that I was born a Democrat and I never bothered to reform. That seem to satisfy them and then they proceeded to tell me that the President wanted to send me right off. Well, I sort of hesitated because I had no money, but after an hour or so the announcement was made. Even before the State Department knew of it. Interviewer - Mr. McDonald it s been so nice having this chat with you on the Century Today and I m certainly going to look forward to your book on Israel with great anticipation. Ambassador McDonald - You must read it. Interviewer - I will indeed. Ambassador McDonald - As they say in Israel, Shalom . Interviewer - Thank you so much sir for being our guest. That was a very well known Diplomat, the first Ambassador to Israel, Mr. James McDonald.