August 1, 1994 - Part 6
August 1, 1994 - Part 6
(19:25:35) Senator GRAmm, Let me, first of all, clarify things. As I always tell my children, don't argue about facts; argue about theory. So, let me just clear up the facts. In the deposition of Clifford Sloan, he says that the White House had a rough copy of the transcript by Monday, February 28, 1994. We know that they bad the complete transcript by March 1, 1994, because Mr. Podesta put the copy of the transcript in a memorandum to the file. We know that, in fact, Mr. Podesta called Mr. Altman on March 1, 1994, and we know, from Mr. Cutler's testimony, that he said to him, that be expressed concern "with Mr. Altman's omission of the fall meetings and his possible recusal as a subject of discussion on the February 2, 1994, meeting." We know that Mr. Altman was called on March 1, 1994. We know there were at least two different copies of the transcript before March 1, 1994 and we know that you watched the tape on March 1, 1994, We know that, by February 28, 1994, Josh Steiner, who was the Chief of Staff at the Treasury Department, wrote the following in his diary. He wrote "At the hearing, the recusal, in amazingly, did not come up. The GOP did hammer away at whether Roger Altman had had any meetings with the White House. He admitted to having had one to brief them on the statute deadline. They also asked if staff had had meetings, but Roger Altman gracefully ducked the question and did not refer to the phone calls he had had." Now, the Chief of Staff knew that Robert Altman had gracefully ducked the question Ms. HANSON. Roger Altman. Senator GRAmm. Roger Altman. Please forgive me. I'm sorry I gracefully ducked the question. Two copies that Roger Altman had of the transcript were available. You had watched the tape, and yet, when the letter was written to us, nowhere-if I could have 137 the letter just one second-nowhere in this letter is there any ref. erence to the fact that you hadn't bad a chance to look at the transcript or look at the tape. In fact, not only are there two copies available, not only have you looked at the tape, but Mr. Podesta, from the White House called and said to Altman in a direct conversation, "We think, on two issues, that you didn't tell the Committee the truth: One ' you, didn't mention the two meetings"-and this language suggests that he, at least, believed that Altman knew about those meetings-"and you didn't mention one of the subject matters you talked about." And yet, Mr. Altman sends us a letter on March 2, 1994, where he never, ever mentions the issue of recusal. In fact, by what you said today, on the recusal issue as discussed on February 2, 1994, Mr. Altman had said that he wanted to recuse himself. It was discussed. You say he wasn't under pressure, but yet, 22 days later, when be appeared before this Committee, he hadn't done it and he didn't do it until we asked him the question. I guess what I'm getting back to is this: You're the Legal Counsel of the Treasury Department. As I understand it, your job is seeing that people comply with the law. I can't understand this letterI don't understand the testimony-I don't see how somebody could be asked, point-blank about contacts, and they say, definitively, there's only one, though now we know about dozens of them. I don't know how someone could say, three times, that he talked only about one subject, and that subject was the statute of limitations, when, in fact, tremendous amounts of discussion had gone on about recusal. I don't understand that, there is no explanation for this March 2, 1994, letter. At least I'd like to give you an opportunity again, now that nobody is confused about the fact that there are transcripts out there. You have seen the tape. Roger Altman received a telephone call from the White House warning him that he had not told the Committee the truth. Why this letter.