August 2, 1994 - Part 6
August 2, 1994 - Part 6
(01:00:40) Mr. ALTMAN. For example, Senator, I saw a transcript of a depo. sition she gave. And if I have it right, she was asked whether I instructed her to go to the White House She said, I can't recall. It was my sense that he may have wanted me to, Then she was asked a second time, did he or did he not instruct you to go to the White House and as I recall the deposition, doing my best to recall it, she said I can't recall, it was my impression. So she hasn't said, at least' in those responses, be asked me to go. She's saying I can't recall. The CHAIRMAN. We've got to stop there in the interest of time. I know you are right in the middle of this and I think it's very important and I trust that there will be an opportunity to finish that line of questioning to your satisfaction, Senator Sarbanes. Let me now call on Senator Gramm. Senator GRAMM. Could I ask a very quick question? How did you see her deposition? Mr. ALTMAN. I believe-and I may want to double-check this, Senator-but I believe we were permitted to Senator GRAMM. Ours are confidential. Mr. ALTMAN. I didn't see yours. Senator GRAMM. How did you see hers? Mr. ALTMAN. I have seen the Inspector General's depositions which have been made public now. I believe I'm correct on that. I want to reserve that that's the best of my belief. Senator GRAMM. I may come back to that. But I want to go back and try to nail down this whole question of the veracity of your statement before this Committee, because I think when you get down to the bottom line, that's the major reason you're here. It's going to take me a minute, but I want to go through it because what is happening in going back and forth, part of our 5-minute rule, unless we look at all this together we lose continuity, so I want to read you several questions, your answers, and then refer to the facts as we now know them. On February 24, as we all know, you were asked before this Committee by me: Have you or any member of your staff had any communication with the President, the First Lady, or any of their representatives, including their legal counsel, or any member of their White House staff, concerning Whitewater or the Madison Savings & Loan? I then asked, as a follow-up to that: I would like to know what the substance of the communication was, when it occurred, who initiated it, and what you were asked to do. You said two things in response to that. You said, "I have had one substantive contact." Now I think, in his diary, your Chief of Staff was referring to that when he talks about your graceful duck of the question. You 431 said, "I've had one substantive contact, " and that the sole purpose of that contact was to talk about the statute of limitations. It was the whole conversation, you said. It was the sole purpose. Then Senator Domenici asked you a question, and you go back to what Mr. Steiner calls in his diary, I think, this "graceful duck." You say, "one substantive or meaningful contact, and then Senator Domenici says, "well, I assume we're not arguing there that you had-you are not suggesting that you bad more than one, are you?" Obviously, more than one "contact." You then , Mr. Altman, say, no." You say, "No. I am just saying that if you run into someone in the hall, if you see that thing in the paper this morning, I'm not including that." Now that's what you said. And Mr. Domenici's question broke through this graceful duck. You said, "No. I've bad on] one contact." We now know-and, in fact, the question was about your staff and you. We now know that there were over 40 contacts that we have verified. We now know that you made four of those contacts personally. We now know that the sole subject matter was not the issue of statute of limitations. In fact we know, and I have reason to believe as I'll raise in another question, that the real objective of the meeting was the whole recusal issue. But we know it was at the very least a