Advanced Search
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(14:45:26) Mr. LUDWIG. Well, sir, I characterized the way I remember it in my statement and that is that I knew there was press interest and I thought it was appropriate to let them know there was press interest since these were public documents. Senator DAMATO. Just one last question. Why did you call Maggie Williams on January 19th to give her your advice and counsel? Why Maggie Williams? Mr. LUDWIG. I had learned I think from either the newspapers or scuttlebutt or somewhere that she was in charge of the Whitewater matter, and that's why I called her. Senator DAMATO. Somehow you got this perception that she was interested or in charge of it. Did you ever speak to her-prior to your call and your advice, did you ever have occasion to speak to her about Whitewater? Mr. LUDWIG. Not that I recollect, I did try to get her to give her this advice on a couple of occasions. That's reflected in my phone logs which I've provided to the Committee, but to the best of my recollection, I've never spoken to her before or since. Senator D'AMATO. OK, thank you. Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether Senator Bond would like to continue on my time or whether it would be better to move over to the other side so he could have a full Senator BOND. Why don't we allow the other side to go forward. Senator DAMATO. I yield back my time. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Ludwig, this kind of call you made to Maggie Williams, was in what, January the 9-when was that call? Mr. LUDWIG. I believe, Senator, it was January 19, 1994. Senator SARBANES. And what prompted you to make it? Mr. LUDWIG. Well, sir, as I said in my statement, reading the newspapers day after day, there was a constant trickle of information about Whitewater. I thought hard about what I could say about this and it seemed to me that what I could say that was perfectly appropriate was that everything ought to be disclosed if it hadn't already been disclosed. I didn't know whether it had already been disclosed, As Secretary Bentsen testified this morning, he evidently spoke with Mr. Stephanopoulos and said the same thing. I felt the same way as Secretary Bentsen. After having practiced law in Washington for 20 years, it seemed to me that in this kind of a matter the best thing to do is disclose and I felt it was appropriate for me to say that. 68 Senator SARBANES. So you felt, given your experience and perceptions, that you might be helpful by calling them and giving them that advice? Mr. LUDWIG. Yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. You say in your statement that was the third occasion of contact Mr. LUDWIG. Yes, sir, Senator SARBANES [continuing]. "Aside from occasional passing references in the course of other discussions, " and I'd like you to elaborate a little bit on what constitutes "occasional passing references in the course of other discussions." What is that phrase intended to encompass? Mr. LUDWIG. Well, sir, you could not, during that period and I think it's true today, meet with anybody whether it's a relative or somebody here in the Congress or in the White House or the Treasury without somebody saying, oh, look, Altman's on the front page or it's Whitewater again or something of that nature. There were not discussions, not a subsequent exchange of nonpublic information--just a word about newspaper or television reports. Senator SARBANES. So that's intended then to refer to those kinds of references and "passing references" in the course of other conversations? Mr. LUDWIG. Yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. I don't need to parse those words very carefully. Mr. LUDWIG. No, sir. Senator SARBANES. So apparently we have testimony from some of the people in the Counsel's Office that they talked to you, but you're not certain that you talked to them; is that right?
Ginger
White Ginger
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(14:50:44) And after you had this exchange at Renaissance Weekend and before the next morning when you said well, you really shouldn't do that, you talked to a number of people and I'm a little curious as to how they record they talked to you but you don't record -- you're not certain you talked to them; is that right? Mr. LUDWIG. Well, sir, this was like calling almost any Government office. I got passed from person to person. I don't remember all the people I spoke with. As I mentioned in my testimony, Cliff Sloan evidently has testified that he remembers speaking to me and it's entirely possible. I don't remember it, but it's certainly possible. The two people I do remember speaking with were Bill Kennedy and Joel Klein. Senator SARBANES. And all of these people as you went through them pressed caution or said we don't think you ought to do this; is that right? Mr. LUDWIG, I remember Jean Hanson, Joel Klein and Bill Kennedy having a cautionary note or tone or saying-I don't remember words-but something that was cautionary. Senator SARBANES. What do you mean by that? Mr. LUDWIG. As I say, I don't exactly remember the words, but it would be something on the order of-I wonder whether you should do this. It was a cautionary note or tone. I do remember Joel Klein being very negative. Again, I don't remember words, but he was very negative, Senator SARBANES. In other words, he said don't do it, I take it. 69 Mr. LUDWIG. Yes, something to the effect of absolutely don't do it or I wouldn't do it or something like that, Senator SARBANES. You say you concluded actually before you talked to 1,0ein that you shouldn't do it. Mr, LUDWIG. No, sir. The President had made this inquiry and I wanted to react, not reflexively, but really consider the question. I wanted to have enough information as a lawyer to be able to react as to whether or not I could provide advice, but after I'd spoken to Mr. Klein and reflected on this situation, I concluded that I should not speak with the President about this matter. Senator SARBANES. Now, have you recused yourself? Mr. LUDWIG. Yes, I have. Senator SARBANES. What is the basis of the recusal? Mr. LUDWIG. I don't understand the question, sir. Senator SARBANES, From what have you recused yourself.? Mr. LUDWIG. I think I've provided a copy of the recusal to the Committee. It's a fairly broad recusal, recusing myself having anything to do with the President or Mrs. Clinton in their personal capacity relating to Madison/Whitewater. Here, I've just been given a copy. It says: Although I have not had occasion to address any issue concerning the so-called Whitewater matter up to the present and have no reason to believe that I will be involved in any such issue in the future, I've been informed that in connection with the Senate hearings to confirm the nomination of Ricki Tigert as chairperson of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, Ms. Tigert has elected to recuse herself from participation in any such issue. In order to avoid even the possibility of the appearance of a conflict of interest or other impropriety, I have also decided to recuse myself from participating in any official investigation, inquiry, or determination which may come before me in my capacity as Comptroller of the Currency or director of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation concerning matters or events involving the President or Mrs. Clinton in a personal capacity. Senator SARBANES. What is the appearance of a conflict of interest or other impropriety that you perceive that was-is the basis of this recusal? That you're a friend, that you know the President and Mrs. Clinton? Mr. LUDWIG. If there were a personal matter to come before the FDIC; this recusal would apply to a personal matter, relating to the President or Mrs. Clinton, and I would be recused from any such matter,
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(15:19:49) Hearing hosts NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE in tv studio comment on hearings and segue to House Banking Committee Hearings (15:24:25) Testimony of JEAN HANSON, JOSHUA STEINER, DENNIS FOREMAN, JACK DEVORE before House Banking Committee - this House hearings footage runs to the end of the tape
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(15:30:00) Testimony of JEAN HANSON, JOSHUA STEINER, DENNIS FOREMAN, and JACK DEVORE before House Banking Committee
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(14:55:38) Senator SARBANES. Yeah, but why do you feel you need to do that? Mr. LUDWIG, Well, I knew that there was a great deal of concern on the part of this Committee with respect to Ricki Tigert's nomination and whether or not as a friend of the President and First Lady she should decide matters relating to them personally. And I concluded that even though nothing like that Senator SARBANES. What about that? I mean, some Members had that and she undertook that undertaking, of course, she was seeking to he confirmed, but are you and the President lifelong friends from childhood, constantly saw one another and been very close? Mr. LUDWIG. Not at all. Senator SARBANES. What"s the nature of that? If I know the President and I get appointed to a regulatory job, do I have to disqualify myself if any matter comes before me? This is actually the issue Alt -man raised where he said-it was an interesting point 70 he said the Office of Government Ethics had to some extent been critical of the recusal on the basis that it wasn't legally required, it wasn't ethically required, he went ahead and did it anyhow. Now, I mean, what's the nature of the relationship? You're not the President's brother, you're not related to him, so what's the nature of the relationship that you perceive has created an appearance that required a recusal? I mean, this is an interesting issue. It's not altogether directly on point, but it does have a bearing on how people conduct themselves throughout the Government. Mr. LUDWIG, Well, I think that's fair, sir. I'm very cautious by nature and, as a regulator, I think regulators really have to try to achieve the highest standard of ethics and integrity they possibly can. I've certainly tried my best to do that in office. Since this was such a hot topic in the newspapers, the public could be confused as to whether or not there would be any impropriety, and there have been a lot of accusations Senator SARBANES. Let's find out what the I mean, you know the President and Mrs. Clinton. Mr. LUDWIG. I do know them. Senator SARBANES. How long have you known them? Mr. LUDWIG. I met the President when we were students at Oxford, and I knew the President and Mrs. Clinton when we were students at Yale Law School. Senator SARBANES. And have you seen them frequently over the years? Mr. LUDWIG. No. Every two years or so we might exchange greeting cards or, share a telephone call or chance meeting. Senator SARBANES. Would you recuse yourself in matters involving somebody else that you knew exactly on the same basis on which you knew the President? Suppose I'd been at Oxford with you and we knew each other and we went to law school together and we saw each other once in a while over the years., and we changed Christmas cards every couple of years and I had a matter before you; would you recuse yourself in my case? Mr. LUDWIG. I would. It is a very, very cautious approach. But it seems to me, sir, that given the sort of accusations going back and forth in the newspapers, the kind of innuendos that we have seen and rumors in the press, that this is a case where it makes sense to be hypercautious, but I think one could very well argue it the other way, that a recusal is not necessary. Senator SARBANES. Well, you don't feel that simply because you knew him and were friends, you wouldn't be able to render a-an objective judgment, do you? Mr. LUDWIG. I definitely do not, sir. That is, I'm really confident that I can today, or I could then, render a fair judgment irrespective of having known the President over these years, so I don't think it was a matter of impropriety. I think it was a concern about an appearance of impropriety, given the amount of press attention and rumor and innuendo. Senator SARBANES. All right. Thank you. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Bond. Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, before the Senator, begins and I wouldn't-and I'm not suggesting this, we change this point. We 71 noted yesterday, are we on 10-minute cycles or 7-minute cycles? We are on the 7? Oh. The CHAIRMAN, We moved to 7 today. We did 10 yesterday, particularly for Mr. Altman, because it was going to be a long day. We've gone to Senator DODD. I wanted to make a point because we had a hard time reaching somebody The CHAIRMAN. Well, that's one of the reasons why it was a oneday event and we've been going 7-minute cycles today, and that gives people down the line a chance to get into the act more often. Senator Bond.
Austria villages
Austria villages
Tyrol misc
Tyrol - Austria - springtime
Water fountains - Austria
Austria - cable car
Est. Salzburg - Austria
Brussel's World Fair
Brussel's - church steeples
Horses pulling cart, women with plastic rain caps
Architecture (steeples)
Architecture
Hamburg & Puttgarden? Germany, Copenhagen, Denmark
Copenhagen Denmark, misc, street scenes, people, guards
Copenhagen, Denmark, misc, - Tivoli, street scenes, architecture
Medieval castle
English cottage/castle
London, state prison