August 1, 1994 - Part 8
August 1, 1994 - Part 8
(21:05:12)(Tape #10062 ends) Senator HATCH. Just a couple other questions. Ms. Hanson, would you agree that one of the concerns underlying the confidentiality of criminal referrals is that the premature disclosure can jeopardize the prosecution itself?. Ms. HANSON. That's correct, sir. Senator HATCH. Did you not run such a risk when informed the White House of the proposed Madison referral on September 28 and 29, 1993? MS. HANSON. I know Mr. Nussbaum to be a man of great integrity, an able lawyer. That was the person that I was giving that information to. I expected that he would use that information only for the proper governmental purpose that I gave. In fact, every piece of information that I was given by Mr. Roelle has appeared in the newsprint somewhere so, if there was a problem with jeopardizing the prosecution, it happened from the leaks out of the RTC and not from my conversation with Mr. Nussbaum. Mr. Nussbaum and I are two officials of the Executive Branch who are both bound by the Office of Government Ethics regulations. Senator HATCH. Ms. Hanson, I was very interested in your statement to Senator Gramm, that the reason you contacted Bernard Nussbaum regarding the criminal referrals was that Mr. Nussbaum was the person at the White House in charge of investigations. I think that was the word you used. Ms. HANSON. I don't believe that's quite what I testified, sir. Senator HATCH. That was my recollection, maybe I misconstrued it, but that's --- if that was so, then, that may be a breach in the well- orchestrated claim by the Administration MS HANSON. What Senator HATCH. -that all actions were taken in anticipation of press leaks. I'm just noting that for the record. If you didn't, that's OK but that was my recollection. Ms. HANSON. What my testimony was, if I could just clarify it, please, is that the internal White House procedures designate Mr. Nussbaum, the Office of Counsel to the President, as the contact for any discussions relating to anything involving an investigation, so as a -he was, as I understood it, with respect to the internal White House policy, the person who was the appropriate person to contact. The CHAIRMAN. I just want to take a moment here. I was reviewing two documents that were given to me by the Counsel on the Republican side. We'll put the coding numbers in the record. One, is this list of talking points for Roger Altman's informational meeting with Mack McLarty, dated 2/2/94, at the bottom of which was this briefing point where Mr. Altman indicated that he had decided he was going to recuse himself from the decisionmaking process as Interim CEO of the RTC and so forth, Then there is a subsequent briefing document, which, apparently, was used by you and others up here on the Hill, that has the same items, although it drops off the last item, which is the recusal item. You made a passing reference, a few moments ago, 164 to a meeting with my staff and me at a point in February. I re-, member that meeting. I remember that meeting for the purpose of discussing the likelier hood of appointing a man named Larry Simons to head up the RTC. You were coming to indicate that you were looking at what his qualifications were how he might be received, and forth and so on. I remember no effort, whatsoever, to go down a process, like this discussion off of a set of talking, points, with respect to the discussions or points made by Republican Sen- ators on tolling agreements, Jim Guy Tucker, or any of this business. I mean, that wasn't the focus of the discussion that day, and I just don't want that inference left on the record. Ms. HANSON. If I could clarify, too, for the record as well Senator. The discussion-as I recall, the discussion was, in fact on Larry. Simons as a possible CEO nominee. I recall, at the end of the discussion, having a discussion with you and your staff on the fact that the statute of limitations was running on Madison Guaranty and that, in fact, work was being done, at that point, to ex'tend the statute of limitations, and that Mr. Altman was still involved in the process. But it was not-this was, clearly, not a meeting set up, specifically, to talk about that issue.