Whitewater Hearings August 1, 1994 - Part 1
Whitewater Hearings August 1, 1994 - Part 1
(11:10:29) Answer: -Just that she wouldn't have enough time between-her feelings were that she wouldn't have enough time between then, the date of the meeting-and that date was February 21, 1994-and February 28, 1994, the statute of limitations expiration, to make an informed, a decision as she would need to make. In her opinion, that wouldn't be enough time to, sort of, go through all of these mountains of documents and so forth or for her staff to do so, so, ultimately, she would have to be making a decision with the best information possible at that time. Question: So the shortness of time and the inability to develop fully the facts of that case was identified as problems? Answer: Yes. Question: Did Mr. Altman or Ms. Hanson offer any advice or discussion on those with Mrs. Kulka? Answer: Only it wasn't so much a response as to, sort of, informing him-him, being Roger-of the situation and making him realize that the recommendation would be coming to him. Does that refresh your recollection, your discussion that you would have difficulty completing this investigation? Mr. Altman recalls it that way, and Mr. Nye, who was there, has given us information. We know that later on, by way of depositions, Mr. Altman actually goes to Mr. Ickes and advises Mr. Ickes of this. Ms. KULKA. I do not understand anything that you just read to be inconsistent with my recollection of what I've said. If I may explain the advice I gave, and what the tenor of the discussion was, I would appreciate it, I told Mr. Altman that it is certainly an unusual circumstance to have the short period of time we had to examine such a complex set of issues, and that no prosecutor that I knew or plaintiffs lawyer, would want to have to put together this kind of case in that period of time. I said we were committed to do it and would do the best we could, given the period of time, to put together any cases we saw against anyone we could show had engaged in conduct that fit within the definitions of fraud or intentional misconduct. Further, to the extent that we couldn't do the best job, we would do what we could to file the complaints we needed to file, amend them later if further discovery after the date made that appropriate Senator D'AMATO. Did you say this, with that kind of detail? Ms. KuLKA. That's correct. Senator DAMATO. Or did you-then Mr. Nye did not accurately represent your views when be said you said you wouldn't be ready to go forward. Ms. KULKA. That's correct. I never said that. I said we would be bringing forward a couple of different approaches and that it may well be that one of the approaches with various, any potential parties who might be named defendants, would be to seek tolling agreements, as I believe, Mr. D'Amato, you had urged us to do in 12 some of your correspondence, so that we could have a better record to go forward on. But that , in any event, if we thought there was any case that could be made, and we wouldn't be subject to Rule 11 sanctions under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we would be prepared to file those complaints, whether or not we received tolling agreements, if we believed that was appropriate. Only in the case where we did not have any information that would lead us to believe that we could make a good faith case against someone whose conduct was either intentional wrongdoing or fraud, would we decide not to go forward with that case. Senator DAMATO. Let me ask you something. You're an experienced litigator representing a client on the civil side who had a potential civil action being brought against him by an agency. If you're aware that a case was not complete, would you enter into a tolling agreement with that vital information? Ms. KULKA. I did explain to Mr. Altman the circumstances under which I understood potential defendants would or would not enter into tolling agreements. Senator DAMATO. But, I'm saying to you, if you were advisedyou, as a private attorney-that the information was not complete and the Government was contemplating bringing a case against your client, would you recommend that our client enter into a tolling agreement if you were armed with that information? Ms. KULKA. Under a variety of circumstances, I may well recommend that. It has to do with whether my client wants an action filed against him or her ' where he believes that additional information may be able to convince the plaintiff or the prosecutor that filing is not appropriate, and therefore Senator DAMATO. Isn't that information very unusual to be given and is never given-would you give that information to a client or to a prospective person that to bring you're going to the file a suit against? Would you give them the information, that was not com- plete, indeed you Might want a tolling agreement, you would be seeking a tolling agreement? Ms. KULKA. I would not give that information. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you very much. Let me ask you one other thing, Ms. Kulka, because my little red light is on. During the time of mid-January through February, you discussed this Madison matter with Mr. Altman on several occasions, Is that correct?