August 1, 1994 - Part 4
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:00:58)(Tape #10059 begins) My beliefs were based on his discussion that he would rely on the advice and recommendations given to him by Mr. Ryan and myself He was taking an unnecessary potential hit. Senator DomENici. There's an understandable reason for pressure to be on that person who recuses himself Ms. KULKA. I wasn't commenting on that, sir, and I haven't analyzed that. Senator DOMENICI. Let me ask, were you part of the briefing team for Roger Altman before he came to testify before us? Ms. KuLKA. Yes, sir. Senator DOMENICI. Could you tell us what date that was? Ms. KuLKA. There were a couple of dates. I think there may have been a short meeting at the end of the preceding week, and I know there were at least two meetings. I believe they were late Monday night and late Tuesday night of the week in which the bearing was actually held. Senator DOMENICI. Mr. Ryan, you were part of those, too? Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. Senator DOMENICI. Do either of you know now or were you told when Mr. Altman came to testify before us---even though he had a note, which we have seen, that indicated what was talked about at the February 2, 1994, meeting, and one point on it was his recusing himself-do any of you have any information as to why he didn't tell us when he came before us on February 24, 1994? Has anything been said to you about that, any of you? Mr. RYAN. Not to me. Ms. KuLKA. No, sir. Senator DOMENICI. Did you understand at any point, Ms. Kulka, based on his conversations with you, that he was going to recuse himself'.? Ms. KULKA. No, sir, I did not know what be was going to do. Senator DOMENICI. He never indicated to you that be was? Ms. KULKA. No, sir. Senator DOMENICI. To you, Mr. Ryan? Mr. RYAN. No. As a matter of fact, be indicated he was not. Senator DOMENICI. Did be tell you where he got pressure from Pot to do that? He did not. Senator DOMENICI. Do you know who he talked to before be told that? Mr Ryan. No. No I don't. 80 Senator DomENici. When Mr. Altman came before us, before the Senate Committee, he indicated that the principal subject matter of the February 2, 1994, briefing did not include a discussion recusal. (15:03:30) (End of tape #10058) Are you familiar enough with that meeting to tell whether you remember it differently? Mr. Ryan. Are you referring to the meeting at the White House? Senator DomENici. Yes. Do you know anything about it them, or from any sources? Mr. RYAN. I know' nothing about it, other than what I've been told. Senator DOMENici. How about you, Ms. Kulka? Ms. Kulka. That's the same case for me, sir. Senator DomENici. When he came back, he did not discuss you what took place? Ms. Kulka. They did not discuss that it took place. Senator DomENici. Much less, what. Ms. Kulka. That's correct. Senator DOMENICI. I know we've covered this one way, in a sense, but I just want to offer my own observations. Some have been saying, "Well so what?" Even if all this insider information some of which should not have occurred, but even if it did, I guess White House Counselor-he says, in a basketball term, "No harm, no foul. " From the standpoint of violating a confidentiality, is it required, in your opinion, Mr. Roelle, that there be proven-that it actually' be proven that the confidential information was acted upon, or is it not a breach of confidentiality and ethics, as you know it, merely to divulge confidentialities? Mr. ROELLE. In the past today, Senator I have tried to refrain from making comments about what is legal in terms of criminality or what the legal interpretation of statutes regarding conflicts of interest have been because I don't believe I'm qualified. I will only say that criminal referrals are highly sensitive matters. They should not , in had judgment, be discussed outside of the agency. Rarely are they discussed, to my knowledge, unless it is with the FBI, the Justice Department, or another agency that is working with you in the processing of those criminal referrals.