August 2, 1994 - Part 4
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(11:40:40) Mr. FOREMAN. Yes, Senator, I think you're very much on track with that. I thought that was a very interesting commentary from the Office of Government Ethics. It's hard to do any better job than what you've just said and what they said in the report . I would only comment that in my years as a Government lawyer, in various Executive Branch agencies, that I have talked with the White 393 House Counsel's Office on a number of previous situations involving criminal and civil allegations against the President, the Vice President, and others. I specifically refer to situations like Iran Contra, to BNL, to BCCI, to POW/MIA, to October Surprise, all of which I have had some legal work on and in each case, we have worked in some manner with the White House Counsel's Office. Senator DODD. In every one of those cases, there were contacts with the White House for a variety of different reasons because it was the unique institution of the President. Mr. FOREMAN. Yes, sir. Senator DODD. Let me tell you from my own point of view, and, each Senator and Member can express themselves on how this was managed. If you accept the threshold issue of whether or not the contact was correct, both legally and ethically, then when you get into the number of contacts, the number of meetings, that's where you begin to lose me a bit. I can understand a contact being made with Mr. Nussbaum, to give him the proverbial heads-up on the possibility of press inquiries. That to me would have satisfied the notification, and then if the White House wants to have its meetings about bow to handle that, I accept that. Where the difficulty arises is that it appears there were a lot more contacts between the Treasury and the White House in handling that matter. Am I off base in that analysis? Mr. FOREMAN. No, sir, I think that's correct, and it's bard to believe that anyone could argue with the idea that all of these things could have been handled more thoughtfully, looking in hindsight from here. Senator DODD. So as a management practice, this was sort of a sloppy - operation. Mr. FOREMAN. I guess I'd have to agree with that. We should all be learning from this I think, for the future. Senator DODD. But not unethical or illegal? Mr. FOREMAN. Sir, it would appear that Mr. Fiske and the Office of Government Ethics have made their independent judgments that it's not illegal or unethical. Senator DODD. Let me ask you because I've asked this of all of the witnesses and although my time has expired it's an important question. Youve all been sworn witnesses here and so I'm going to ask each one of you to respond to this because it's critically important to the threshold or meat issue, as far as I'm concerned. Did any official at the White House or Treasury ask you to take or instruct you to take any action to obstruct or impede the Resolution Trust Corporation's handling of either the criminal or civil case against the Madison Guaranty? Mr. Nye. Mr. NYE. No, sir. Senator DODD. Mr. Devore, Mr. DEVORE. No, sir. Senator DODD. Mr. Foreman. Mr. FOREMAN. No, sir. Senator DODD. Mr. Steiner. Mr. STEINER. I want to be very clear on this. I made it clear that Mr. Stephanopoulos asked me if Mr. Fiske's apparent-Mr. Ste 394 phens' apparent conflict of interest should preclude him from workin on this case. Beyond that, the answer to your question is no. Senator DODD. Did you take any action? Mr. STEINER. No, Sir. senator DODD. The last question, did you take any action to obstruct or impede the Resolution Trust Corporation's handling of ei ther the criminal or civil case against Madison Guaranty? Mr. Nye. Mr. NYE. No, sir. Senator DODD. Mr. Devore, Mr. DEVORE. No, sir. Senator DODD. Mr. Foreman. Mr. FOREMAN. No, sir. Senator DODD, Mr. Steiner. Mr. STEINER. No, sir. Senator DODD. Now, the last piece of advice I would have is, Mr. Steiner, I think you ought to spend an evening drinking six-pack with Mr. Devore, You could learn a lot in terms of how things, ought to get handled in this town, [Laughter.] The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm. Senator GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, I know we want to get on to the next witness so let me Just make a couple of observations. First of all, I'd like to say of this whole debate about diaries ver- sus testimony before this Committee, it seems to me, Mr. Steiner that your problem is that the power of your written word expressing your heartfelt feelings in a diary that the world was never to see is so powerful that it destroys your testimony today. Whoever, in all those years that your parents paid all that high tuition taught you how to write, and reason, and think, and express, and use words like daggers created a situation where you cannot, with what you're trying to say to us and the message you ' re trying to convey here today, undo what you have written, because your diary speaks so much more clearly in pure terms that clearly you felt than anything you could ever say today.