August 1, 1994 - Part 4
August 1, 1994 - Part 4
(15:15:29) Mr. RYAN. No, sir, I don't. Are you referring to & criminal in investigation? Senator KERRY. Yes. I'm referring to any investigation. It was a closed case. Was it not a closed case. Mr. RYAN. I don't know that. That action predated my arrival at 14 RTC. Senator KERRY. But you don't recall-let me refer you to page 74' Of Your deposition: Decisions hadn't been made yet about what to do. This was, as I remember, in kind of the formative stages, the original closure memo had been done. The case 84 had been closed before. I don't know if you're aware of this, but the decision had been made sometime back in 1990 or 1991 that there wasn't a cost-effective case at Madison, so it had to be reviewed in light of new information. Do you recall saying that? Mr. RYAN. Yes, sir. Senator KERRY. The new information was The New York Time'. article? Mr. RYAN. I think we're confusing the criminal referrals with RTC civil case. I was referring there, to the reopening of the civil case in light of the extension of the statute of limitations that curred in the Completion Act. That did occur. Senator KERRY. But that's in 1993. Mr. RYAN. That's in 1994, actually. Senator KERRY. Do you, have a recollection at all of why this case was reopened in 1992? Mr. RYAN. I wasn't there. Senator KERRY. Do you, Ms. Kulka? Ms. KuLKA. I think, to the extent that anything was done, sir, it would not be with respect to the civil investigation. It would have been, if anything was done, with respect to the criminal refer., rals. Senator KERRY. I understand that, but what I am asking you is the standard, at that point in time, for a judgment about a civil case was some evidence of negligence or gross negligence. Correct? Ms. KuLKA. That was, yes, the minimum standard. Senator KERRY. And for a criminal case, some evidence of criminal behavior. Correct? Ms. KuLKA. That's correct. Senator KERRY. The New York Times article had no evidence Of criminal behavior that I had read. Did you come across any, Mr. Roelle? Mr. ROELLE. No. Senator KERRY. The question has to be asked why, if there's no question of money being lost in terms of fraud, intentional mis- conduct, or unjust enrichment, which is the standard we applied when we extended the statute, by March 8, 1992, The New York Times article appears. On March 9, 1992, Jean Lewis is suddenly reinvestigating My question to you is, was it simply because the name Clinton appeared in this that the RTC reopened the case? Mr. RYAN. Senator, I don't know. That occurred long before I arrived at the RTC. Senator KERRY. Has it occurred to you it was why this case was reopened? Mr. RYAN. It hasn't. Senator KERRY. Ms. Kulka? Ms. KuLKA. I'd asked some questions about whether it was usual procedure to pursue criminal investigations of matters that had al- ready been closed from a civil point of view, and I've gotten a variety of answers, especially in this case, since it was reviewed and rereviewed several times. From that point of view, I don't understand the procedure that was followed, and I've never gotten an anwer that has made it clear to me. Senator KERRY. Mr. Roelle? 85 Mr. RoELLE. I wasn't aware that there was an investigation until I was notified on the day that I notified Mr. Casey. Senator KERRY. I'd say to my colleagues on the Committee that this is something I find, personally, extraordinarily disturbing and extremely important with respect to this case. There were at that time, and I want to come back on my next round-my time is up The CHAIRMAN. It is, and I'm going to yield next to Senator DAmato. I'm going to give you a chance to make your final point. Senator KERRY. The point I'm making, Mr. Chairman, I have Jean Lewis' chronology. I assume it's hers according to most accounts of The Washington Post and elsewhere. It's what Congressman Leach put into the Congressional Record. Between the dates of 3/9/92 and 3/23/92, during a Presidential race when Mr. Clinton was a candidate, her own statement says, No mention was found Madison Guaranty of any Whitewater relationship with MGSL, Savings & Loan." Notwithstanding that, this incredible investigation goes on. Nobody has even heard of Whitewater. There's no allegation of any wrongdoing that's criminal or civil under the statute, and yet the Clintons are investigated. A few months later, there's a criminal referral which finds its way, we learn today for the first time publicly, to the White House. C. Boyden Gray called. You can make an argument rument. I have a long chronology here, with which you can go back to November 1990, when a fellow by the name of Sheffield Nelson, who's a Republican, is running for Governor against Democrat Bill Clinton. He happened to be somebody who had major investments, along with James McDougal, in Madison Guaranty and is cited as a source in USA Today of the first article in The New York Times linking the two, McDougal and Clinton. In March, 1 day later, the RTC opens the investigation and goes to extraordinary lengths, according to the LA Times, to trace the transaction after finding no ties in the additional document reviews. In September, there is a criminal referral mentioning the Clintons that's sent