Whitewater Hearings August 1, 1994 - Part 2
Whitewater Hearings August 1, 1994 - Part 2
(12:00:29)(Beginning of tape #10057) Others have testified that the reason they did this was because of an impending press leak. Does the RTC usually brief people named in criminal referrals if they think there's a chance that there may be a press leak? Is this normal procedure? (12:00:50) Mr. ROELLE. No, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Why did we do it this time? Mr. RoELLE. I have no idea sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. I'm still a little confused. There bad been no press inquiry about this criminal referral that named the Clintons. And there was no evidence of a press leak. By that standard, the RTC could tell anybody anything they want, so long as they say there is a possibility that there may be a press leak. Is that right? Mr. ROELLE. No, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Has there ever been another case where the RTC gave an i.e., heads-up, in criminal referrals because they thought there might be a press 'leak? Mr. ROELLE. No, sir, not that I'm aware of Senator FAIRCLOTH. This was an all-time first, to notify the Clintons? Mr. ROELLE. Pardon me? Senator FAIRcLOTH. This was an all-time first, to notify the White House? Mr. ROELLE. As far as I know, yes, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Mr. Ryan, have you heard a report prepared by Mississippi attorney Stanley Huggins, known as either the Huggins report or the Garish report? Mr. RYAN. I believe I've heard of that, yes. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Do you know whether or not the RTC or the OTS has that report? (12:02:20)(End of tape #10056) Mr. RYAN. I believe we do, yes. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Has anyone from the White House or one of the President's personal attorneys contacted you about the report? Mr. RYAN. No, sir. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Has Robert Fiske contacted you about the report? Mr. RYAN, I don't know. We provided a great deal of information Mr. Fiske. I'm not sure whether that particular report was 28 among the information. I think it probably was, but I just don't know. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Could you provide the Committee and us with a copy of that report? Mr. RYAN. I think it goes beyond the scope and might compromise any particular action that the RTC might take. Senator FAIRCLOTH. A report prepared by a Memphis attorney would go beyond the scope of what the Senate is looking at? Mr. RYAN. I believe that report deals with the substantive matters that are under review by Mr. Fiske and by our office with respect to the possibility of bringing an actionable claim. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Have you seen the editorial from this morning's Wall Street Journal, entitled, "Who is Jack Ryan?"? Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. I read it with a great deal of interest. I was curious myself. [Laughter.] Senator FAIRCLOTH. I thought it might be of interest to you. [Laughter.] Mr. Ryan, that editorial asks some good questions that I'd like to ask you now. Mr. RYAN. Sure. Senator FAIRCLOTH. First, April Briselow, an RTC attorney, said in a tape-recorded phone call to Jean Lewis, an RTC investigator who has been taken off the Madison Guaranty investigation, that you and Ms. Kulka would like to be able to say that Whitewater did not cause a loss to Madison. Ms. Lewis responded that the Whitewater account alone might show losses in excess of $100,000. 1 appreciate the remark you made in your opening statement. You essentially said that, ultimately, you should be judged by what you do, not by what you say. That's hard to argue with. But, specifically, did you ever say anything to anyone along the lines of you would like to be able to say that Whitewater did not cause a loss to Madison, that statement or anything close to it? Mr. RYAN, Senator, I don't recall ever having said anything like that. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Not even close to it? Never alluded to such a thing? Mr. RYAN. Not that I recall, Senator FAIRCLOTH, The editorial-do I have time for one more question? The CHAIRMAN. If it's a follow-up to this and it will be brief. I mean, the light's on, but I don't want to cut you off if you want to finish a point. I'm not going to do that to anybody.