July 29, 1994 - Part 2
July 29, 1994 - Part 2
(12:15:25) In February, facing a recusal decision by Mr Altman, the White House was concerned that RTC attorney Ellen Kulka might be too "tough" in pursuing RTC's civil claims related to Whitewater. In order to avoid this tough litigator, the White House considered whether it might be preferable to have Special Prosecutor Robert Fiske take over the RTC civil investigation. In late February, White House officials, alarmed that the former U.S. Attorney, Jay Stephens, bad been retained by the RTC to conduct its civil investigation of Whitewater, had a series of contacts with Treasury and RTC officials to see if he could be replaced. The facts refute the suggestion that these contacts can be dismissed as simply blowing off steam. In short, these matters raise serious questions that demand full and honest answers. What relation, if any, exists between Ms. Casey's nomination as U.S. Attorney in Little Rock and the White House's knowledge that the RTCs criminal referrals regarding Madison Guaranty would be sent to that office? Why did Ms. Casey not recuse herself from the outset from matters relating to Whitewater? Why were the RTC's criminal referrals to the Justice Department leaked to the White House? Did the White House exert any influence to control the scope of authority to be given to the Special Prosecutor? Has the White House attempted to use the Special Prosecutor for its own ends? Overarching all of these questions, of course, is the question of whether Administration officials have been honest in informing Congress and the American people of what really happened. Finally, let me just say-let me note it is not the role of the Committee to act as a rubber stamp for the Special Counsel or for Special Counsel Fiske's conclusions. We have conducted our own investigation and, frankly, in a lot of respects, we have uncovered a lot more in 5 weeks than Special Counsel Fiske uncovered in 6 months. So let's focus on the evidence before the Committee. Now, finally, I would like to say this with regard to the Foster part of this. Pursuant to Resolution 229, this Committee was instructed by the Senate: To conduct hearings into whether improper conduct occurred regarding the Park Police investigation into the death of Vincent Foster. I know this has to be a terrible ordeal for the Foster family and my heart goes out to them. It is unfortunate that the tragic events of last summer must be the subject of conjecture. The Senate has instructed this Committee to review this matter, and I commend Senator Riegle and Senator D'Amato for their willingness to comply with the Senate's instructions. This is a disagreeable facet of Washington life and I want to express my remorse to Mrs. Foster and the children and friends. Accordingly, I want to be clear on one point. There is absolutely no credible evidence to contradict the Fiske Report's conclusion that Vincent Foster took his own life and it, happened at Fort Marcy Park. There is no credible evidence to the contrary. I suspect conspiracy theorists will always differ with this conclusion and lit 39 tle this Committee does is going to muffle their speculation Nonetheless the Committee may ponder whether bad Mr. Fiske been somewhat more assiduous in investigating the cause of Mr. Foster's depression, some of the added speculation we have witnessed in recent weeks would not have surfaced. The conclusion of Mr. Fiske that there is no evidence involving issues of Whitewater were a factor in Mr. Foster's death is tenuous. The Majority's reluctance to fully examine this issue is unfortunate. But in all honesty, I just want to make it clear that the conclusion is correct. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Moseley-Braun.