August 2, 1994 - Part 4
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(11:30:42) Mr. STEINER. "The White House may feel defenseless prior to the appointment of a new CEO." Senator D'AMATO. "The White House may feel defenseless." I'd SU gest to you that that dovetails exactly with what Senator Shelby has been talking about. You stated that the first reason for Altman to stay on the case was so that the White House wouldn't feel defenseless. Was it your view that the White House wanted Altman to stay on as a defender Of the President? 390 Mr. STEINER. No, it was not. Senator DAMATO. Isn't that what that indicates, that the White House would feel "defenseless?" Mr. STEINER. Senator, I believe that refers to a comment made by Mr. Nussbaum to the effect Senator DAMATO. That's a comment-that the White House would feel "defenseless." Think about that. Mr. STEINER. Senator, if I might- Senator D'AMATO. No, I don't want anymore. You're going into a filibuster. Mr. STEINER. You've asked me a question, Senator, and I'd like to answer it. Senator DAMATO. I'll take your answer. I took it. In your,, discussion Mr. STEINER. Thank you. Senator, I wasn't complete-I'd like to complete it, if I might. Senator DAMATO. I only have 7 minutes and I'm going to control. my 7 minutes. Mr. STEINER. It makes it difficult to answer questions if I can't complete them. Senator DAMATO. Your instructions with Secretary Altman The CHAIRMAN. Let me-are you appealing to be able to respond to that particular point? If you're directing an appeal to me Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I make that as an observation and not as a question, OK I'm going to state that given the manner in which you have continued to come up with answers that obfuscate the truth, then I don't even want you to respond to that. Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. There's plenty of time here and I appreciate passions can run high, but this witness, as all witnesses in my view, deserve an opportunity to respond when a statement is made that they disagree with. Senator D'AMATO. If you could attempt to respond in an expeditious manner, I'd appreciate it. Mr. STEINER. Thank you, Senator. Mr. Altman, when he returned from the February 2 meeting, relayed to me the fact that, I have said to you before, that Mr. Nussbaum was concerned that in Mr. Altman's absence, the RTC, which had a reputation for being a partisan institution might carry out this investigation in a partisan fashion. This reference was to that conversation. At no time did Mr. Nussbaum say to me or, to the best of my knowledge, did he'., say to Mr. Altman that he wanted Mr. Altman to defend anyone. Senator D'AMATO. OK I note your words and they're your words, "the White House may feel defenseless prior to the appointment or a new CEO." That's in the record and I note that for the record. Let me ask you one other question: In your discussions with Secretary Altman and Treasury officials, wasn't concern expressed about the awkwardness of filing suits against the Clintons? Mr. STEINER. I believe it was, yes. Senator DAMATO. Now, let me go to this question of the diary, second page. You wrote this 2 days after the event took place: Harold and George then called to say that BC was furious. They also asked Jay Stephens, the former U.S. Attorney, had been hired to be Outside Counsel On the case. Simply outrageous that the 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 391 That's a very clear, precise message. It's not a message that he simply complained. "We needed to find a way to get rid of him." "Even more amazing," you say. Words have meaning, Mr. Steiner, don't come here now and say that was just an impression. And let me suggest this, that that's backed up by the testimony that was given by Jean Hanson. Let me tell you what she says. She says about recalling a conversation with you, you said do you believe that the they want to see if they can get rid of Jay Stephens, everyone agreed and understood that that was ridiculous. Let me suggest that your diary comports exact] with the testimony of independent witnesses, over and over and over. again and yet, you would have us believe now that your diary is inaccurate. That article that appeared in today's Washington Post, someone had some real insight into your restructuring of your testimony, unfortunately, The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dodd. Senator DODD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. We can go back to the diary, back and forth in different people's interpretations of what it means. That's the purpose in having this hearing. I view our role up here not as prosecutors and defense attorneys but as a Committee, required, under a resolution passed by the U.S. Senate, to try and determine whether or not there were any acts of impropriety or illegality in the relationship dealing with contacts and the unfortunate suicide of Mr. Foster.