Advanced Search
Flowering Trees
Orange-red Poinciana ***
Flowering Trees
Long shot of Orange Poinciana ***
Flowering Trees
Petals on ground
Flowering Trees
Poinciana & Bus ***
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(14:30:34) I tried to call Mr, Nussbaum, but I did not get through. Instead, I got passed along from one person to another in the White House Counsel's Office. I amnot sure I remember all the people I spoke with in this series of phone calls. I know Cliff Sloan has testified that he spoke with me at some point in this series of calls. This is entirely possible, but I do not recall it. I do recall speaking with Bill Kennedy and Joel Klein. In my conversation with Mr. Kennedy, I again sought a general sense of what Whitewater was about and whether I could appropriately advise the President about it. I do not remember getting any new information from Mr. Kennedy. I do recall that lie, too, seemed to have reservations about my advising the President on this subject. Mr. Kennedy recommended that I speak to Joel Klein. I believe Mr. Klein was not available when I first tried to reach him, and that he subsequently called me back. I then learned that 64 he was also attending the Renaissance Weekend. I do not remember clearly whether we finally spoke in person or on the telephone, We were both part of a large informal dinner group that evening, and the conversation could have occurred then, but my best recollection is that we spoke by phone. I do clearly remember that he was very negative about the idea of my advising the President on these matters. Reflecting on the President's question and the reactions of Jean Hanson, Bill Kennedy and Joel Klein, I concluded that I could not appropriately give the President legal or regulatory advice relating to Whitewater. I felt, in the end, that any effort to provide informed advice could lead me into discussions with the President and others that might be inappropriate for me as a regulator and director of the FDIC. The next day, I literally bumped into the President and Mr. Klein in the hallway near a seminar room. Without further discussion, we all agreed that I should not provide advice to the President about these matters. That was the end of it. The President did not ask me to advise him about Whitewater, but rather whether it would be permissible for me to advise him. Upon reflection, within less than a day, we all concluded that I should not. And I did not. Everyone involved, including the President, took great care to avoid any inappropriate actions. No advice was given. No confidential information changed hands. The third occasion on which I recollect contact with a White House or Treasury official regarding Whitewater-aside from occasional passing references in the course of other discussions-was January 19, 1994. 1 was concerned about the steady trickle of news stories about Whitewater. I concluded that I could properly offer the White House one piece of advice drawn from my years of legal practice in Washing-ton: disclose everything. I called Margaret Williams, Hillary Clinton's Chief of Staff, to say just that. I had no way of knowing if anything remained undisclosed at that point. I also told her I thought they should put at least one person to work full-time on the matter, if they had not already done so. I do not recall Ms. Williams saying anything other than "thank you." I did not ask for and we did not exchange any information. There were no follow-up communications.
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(14:35:55) These three occasions-the faxes, some brief discussions at RenaissaDee Weekend, and a short phone call to Margaret Williamsare the sum andsubstance of my contacts with the Treasury Department and the White House relating to Whitewater and Madison Guaranty. I have done my best to recall them as accurately and completely as I can. I hope my recollections are useful to you. I will be pleased to answer any questions you might have. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you Mr. Ludwig. I want to take up the first item in your statement, these FOIA items that somebody sent you unsolicited. When would that have happened? I don't see a date as to when you got that. You sent them over to the White House Mr. LUDWIG. Late in November---early December, I think it was early December. 65 The CHAIRMAN. And so you got them and then you-you do know you sent them over on December 2nd so Mr. LUDWIG. They would have been received then the same day it was December 2nd, December 1st or December 2nd. The CHAIRMAN. Now, what were these FOIA items? Mr. LUDWIG. These were two press inquiries, Freedom of Infor mation Act requests, sent to the FDIC. As I said in my statement they were public documents. I even checked with our Chief Coun sel, as best I remember, to make certain they were, in fact, public documents. The CHAIRMAN. OK. Now I've got them in front of me and you provided them to the Committee. Actually, the White House provided these to us for our work here. One is a letter from Susan Bear of The Baltimore Sun going to a Doyle Robinson at the FDIC, and the other is a letter on the letterhead of The Washington Post by Susan Schmidt to a Mr. Jack Smith, Deputy Counsel, General Counsel of the FDIC. Now, how often would it have been your practice to get FOIA items and send them on to the White House? Mr. LUDWIG. This was unusual, The CHAIRMAN. Is it the only time it ever happened? Mr. LUDWIG. This is the only time it ever happened. The CHAIRMAN. So this was a unique event? Mr. LUDWIG. This was a unique event. The CHAIRMAN. Why did you feel compelled to do this? Mr. LUDWIG, Well, as I said, Senator, I determined these were public documents. I had nothing to do with Whitewater or Madison. It had never come up The CHAIRMAN. Right.Mr. LUDWIG [continuing], At the board, it had never come up at had nothing to do with them, but they were public documents, it seemed to me that it was appropriate to send them along to people who might have something to do with them. I certainly didn't. So I sent them on. The CHAIRMAN. I guess I'm still curious as to why, in the normal course of events, if there is some reason for these people to have these documents, and I guess we ought to talk about-just describe briefly what these documents cover. Don't read them verbatim, but what are the thrust of these two items? Do you remember? Mr. LUDWIG. I don't have them in front of me, but they're inquiries relating to Madison and Whitewater. The CHAIRMAN. Well, they cover a lot of things, do they not, related to Madison Guaranty, the Rose Law Firm, the FDIC's lawsuit, various other things that's in The Baltimore Sun letter. I guess when I look at this in the context of this general inquiry that we've been assigned to do here, I'm wondering why, when this is not your normal practice, you would take these two documents and send them out to four different individuals. You send one to the Treasury Undersecretary, you send one to the Chief of Staff, so Mr. Newman, Josh Steiner, then Bruce Lindsey and David Dryer in the White House press office. You fanned this out in four directions and I'm just wondering what-you say this was not a common practice. What was your purpose in doing that?
Flowering Tree
Ohia
Flowering Tree
Ohia Lehua bush
Flowering Trees
Tree top and blossoms
Flowering Trees
Ohia Lehua *
Flowering Trees
Trees of Hawaii
Ginger
Long Shot of Shell Ginger ***
Ginger
Shell Ginger and Blossoms ***
Ginger
Shell Ginger ***
August 3, 1994 - Part 4
(14:40:53) 66 Mr. LUDWIG. Well, these were public documents. The CHAIRMAN. I understand that, but what was your purpose? Mr. LUDWIG. And as I said, this was a single event in -a very busy day, I didn't have anything to do with Madison or Whitewater, so I wanted to send them off. As best I can recollect, I wanted to make people aware that there was press interest in this matter. That's the best I can recollect, as I said in my statement. The CHAIRMAN. But that was not your common practice? I guess you thought this was a sensitive enough item that once you knew about it you wanted to pass it along. Is that essentially it? Mr. LUDWIG. Well, as I said, it was something that arrived on my desk unsolicited. They were public documents. I certainly had no reason to handle or deal with them, and I wanted to send them along to people who might deal with them or handle them, but it was not something that was a matter that I'd ever come in contact with. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Steiner's diary entries which were given to us which fall within this time period do not mention, they have no reference-not that they necessarily would--of this item, but I had asked whether they did and apparently they do not. I assume if Mr. Steiner had a reference in his diary to this, he would send it to us. It sounds to me from your chronology as if there was a very quick turnaround when you had this 30-second conversation with the President when he asked if you could properly provide any advice on this matter and you checked around in a hurry and concluded that you could not and should not and then you informed the President of that the next day. Is that the correct summary? Mr. LUDWIG. That's correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That's all for me at this point. Senator D'Amato. Senator D'AMATO. Chairman, Mr. Lindsey The CHAIRMAN. Ludwig. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Ludwig, I'm just looking at this. Excuse me, but why did you send this to Mr. Lindsey at the White House? Mr. LUDWIG. Well, I knew Mr. Lindsey was a Senior Aide at the White I- louse, and so that's why I selected him. I mean, this was a very quick turnaround, and I just sent it to people that I thought might have something to do with it or know who did. Senator D'AMATO. Well, did you know that he was in charge of the-watching the Whitewater situation in particular? Mr. LUDWIG. No, sir, Senator D'AMATO. Why did you think the White House would have an interest in responding to a request, a FOIA request to the FDIC? Mr. LUDWIG. Well, as I said, I knew these were public documents. I knew they had nothing to do with me. I knew from reading the newspaper that Madison and Whitewater were issues of current discussion, and they involved the White House, so I sent them to the White House. Senator D'AMATO. Well, in one of the requests it says-it makes reference to the FDIC's 1989 lawsuit against and subsequent set 67 tlement with Madison accounts, so to that extent, did you ever send them those documents? Mr. LUDWIG. No, absolutely not. The only Senator DAMATO. Would anybody be entitled to that kind of information? I don't know. I mean, the lawsuit documents of 1989, do you know or is that still Mr. LUDWIG. I don't know. I've never seen them. The only documents I've ever seen in relation to this are these two press FOIA inquiries, and that's the only thing I ever passed along. senator D'AMATO. Let me just ask you this. Would I be unfair in characterizing your sending these documents or the request, the request for the documents, your dispersal of them to the White House as saying or characterizing it as a "heads-up'"?
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