Advanced Search
Misc
Mendenhall glacier from side and front
Misc
Mendenhall
Misc
Alaska Poor
Misc
Juneau gardensGovener's mansionMrs Leach's(?) flowers
Misc
JuneauRoad to Mend. Sl (Fireweed)cotton
Misc
Port HoleLynn Canal
August 3, 1994 - Part 7
(18:45:34) Senator BOXER. What about the notion of having a private attor- ney deal with a matter that occurred before the President was President? Does that have any merit to you? Can you see where that might be better, to the press talk to the private attorney? Mr. SLOAN. There is absolutely a legitimate role with respect to private attorneys with respect to private legal matters but what was very much the context of these conversations was a govern- mental function, a legitimate governmental function about respond- ing to press inquiries. And that's not Senator BOXER. Because the press inquiry excuse me was dealing with how the agencies were handling this. Is that why you feel it was appropriate? Mr. SLOAN. And because the White House gets questions about the Clintons. If the Clintons were named in a criminal referral, if that was a news story, the White House would get questions about that. And as the Office of Government Ethics report relates, it's well established that that's a legitimate White House function to respond to those questions. So it seems to me for that kind of gov- ernmental function, it is entirely appropriate for White House per- sonnel to be involved. Senator BOXER. I see that my time is up and I will hold for an- other round. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Domenici. Senator DOMENICI. Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman. I wonder, Mr. Eggleston, if I could give you the letters of March 2nd and March 3rd, Do you happen to have those? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, I can't remember. I think Senator Mack gave me a letter of March 2nd. I do not have the letter of March 3rd. Senator DOMENICI Could you put the two in front of you. First, let me say to all four of you, I don't think we would be agonizing until 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning if we had received answers like you've given us today. I want to tell you that I very much appre- ciate the fact that when you know something, you tell us. When "You don't, you tell us you don't. You've been very, very forthright. Mr. Eggleston, the important subject matter for me-and I'll only take one subject-is my concern about the testimony before this Committee; the way the answers were given by the acting head of the RTC and what he did afterwards. Could I just review with you? I' don't know why you did this, but I'm impressed with the fact that the White House seemed much more aware that we were not get- ting the whole story from Roger Altman than he was. And as I un- derstand it, before either of those letters was mailed, if they were mailed on the dates stated, a meeting occurred in the White House. You were part of that. Mr. Podesta headed that team up. Could you just tell me briefly---I know this is repetitious-but what was the I principal concern about the Roger Altman testimony before us? 134 Mr. EGGLESTON. By that time, we had actually identified three issues, and they are as follows: the first was the failure in response to a question from Senator Bond, actually, to identify the two meetings in the fall of 1993. The second issue was in the questioning from Senator Gramm' describing the February 2nd meeting, the failure to mention that one of the subjects that had been covered was the issue of recusal. The third issue, which I think we never raised with Mr. Altman, the third issue was the issue of how the meeting of February' 2 had gotten set up. He testified the meeting had gotten set up through Mr. Nussbaum. Mr. Nussbaum said it was not set up through him, and that he had, in fact, had only learned of the meeting just before it took place. I think that's an issue that we decided was not of a sufficient level of magnitude. I don't thin that Mr. Podesta raised the third issue with Mr. Altman. I think he raised the first two. Senator DOMENICI. My recollection from somebody's testimony under oath that we have available is that Mr. Podesta also raised the subject of the criminal referrals and that he got a response from Roger Altman indicating that Roger Altman didn't want to talk about that, or it wasn't appropriate that he talk about it then. Do you recall that?
The Falls
Ribbon Falls
The Falls
Yosemite Falls--PANS all.
The Falls
Yosemite falls ***
The Falls
Bridalveil--top onlyAll heavy sprayDark background
The Falls
Bridalveil thru trees and across the river **
The Falls
Bridalveil Fall
The Falls
The spray of Bridalveil **
The Falls
Bridalveil
The Falls
All Bridalveil ***First festfrom side & across riverMostly L-S
The Falls
Bridalveil--people at foot
The Falls
Yosemite Falls upper, lower, under, over ***
The Falls
On the road to Bridalveil Falls
The Falls
From Valley View:Bridalveil Fall& s.c.u.
August 3, 1994 - Part 7
(18:50:24) Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, sir. When I talked a out the question from Senator Bond, I think that the question was, when did the White House first learn about the criminal referrals or when did the RTC first tell about the criminal referrals? I think Senator Bond's question was tied to the criminal referrals. I was not on the call with Mr. Altman, and my recollection of what Mr. Podesta said to me afterwards is not real strong, but I have some recollection that he said something like that Mr. Altman--I want to be careful because I don't want to mischaracterize it, but that Mr. Altman said that he didn't know about them, didn't want to know about them, and Mr. Podesta had said, well, you should talk to Ms. Hanson about them. That's my recollection. Senator DOMENICI. There is no doubt in your mind that recusal was brought to his attention and that criminal referrals were at least brought to his attention? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, I know that in the meeting right before the call we raised it. I know that Mr. Podesta is an honorable man, and I think that afterwards he told me that he had raised it. So my sense-that's how I think it was raised, but I obviously don't have any personal knowledge of the call between Mr. Podesta and Mr. Altman. Senator DOMENICI. I said a while ago that I was very pleased with the forthright answers you have given, all of you. I'm refer-. ring specifically to yours because you were asked why Mr. Nussbaum was concerned about recusal, and you ticked off a whole bunch of reasons; the politics of the situation, the press was concerned. You see, Mr. Altman-Roger Altman-Roger doesn't even do that. We ask him that question and we can't get an answer. Now, having said that, I wonder if you would just quickly look at both of those letters. I think you looked at the one that was,: given to you dated March 2nd. Would you look at the other one? It's a little longer. Am I correct that neither of these letters tells' 135 the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking that there were two issues, namely recusal and criminal referral, that were not referred to in his testimony as the subject matter of meetings? Mr. EGGLESTON. I think they're not referenced in either of these letters. senator DOMENICI. As you read it, isn't there an effort to tell us there were two meetings? Would you see if you can find it, on the second one in particular? Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, the March 3rd one appears to be about the February 2nd meeting, if I'm reading that correctly. The March 2nd one indicates that there had been meetings between the Treasury staff and the White House staff that relate to the handling of press inquiries. Senator DOMENICI. OK. Now, you're a very forthright person and you could just as well be sitting back here where one of us sitsand maybe going through your mind is that you might do a lot better than some of us. That's probably true. But it seems to me in the March 2nd letter, there's almost an effort to try to tell us that a meeting occurred, but not to tell us what the subject was. It says in my information is that both related to the handling of press inquiries." Now, I just want to ask you, do you think anybody on this Committee or our staff reviewing this because he's correcting the record would know anything about those meetings if he said "handling of press inquiries"? What does that mean to you, "handling of press inquiries"? Would you guess that they were about criminal referrals? I wouldn't think so. Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, I don't see that there's a reference to criminal referral. I do want to say one thing, though, which is that I do think that the October 14th meeting related to the handling of press inquiries regarding the criminal referral-I'm sorry, Senator Domenici, I was talking when-I think that the October 14th meeting that I attended-I did not attend the September 29th meeting, and I don't know, but the October 14th meeting that I attended, my recollection is that it covered the handling of press inquiries related to the criminal referral. The letter still didn't say anything about criminal referral, but the meeting did relate to the handling of press inquiries related to the criminal referral.
Flower Plant
Snow Plant & young
Flower Plants
Yellow Thistles, White Daisy, ect.
Flower Plants
House & bank of ice plants15mm & 2"