August 1, 1994 - Part 9
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:24:35)(Tape #10064) I just do not approve of the way this matter was handled in terms of giving us the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I also do not approve of using, as an excuse press leaks to discuss very confidential information which I think only fed into the whole cycle of more press leaks and more stories. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Bond. Ms. HANSON. Could I respond to that, please? The CHAIRMAN. If you do it briefly, you know-go ahead. (22:25:01) Ms. HANSON. First, I disagree that this has been-there has been an investigation by the Independent Counsel. There's been an investigate tion by the inspectors General and there has been no finding that this information, the information that was conveyed to the 183 White House on the criminal referrals on the press leaks, was used inappropriately by anybody, no one. In addition, I am sorry that if you-that you think I didn't handle this transcript, and these issues, appropriately. However, I had no expectation, no expectation the letter that was written on March 2, 1994, which was designed for a specific purpose, and the letter that was written on March 3, 1994, that was also designed for a specific purpose, was going to complete, or was intended to complete, the record. My attorneys gave me specific instructions when the Grand Jury subpoenas were served that since I was under, and the conduct was under, investigation-under a criminal investigation, that conversations between the participants involved could be misconstrued by the Independent Counsel. That was a view that was shared by other people who had received subpoenas. I am sorry that the transcript was not supplemented as I expected it to be, but I was not able to participate, and I did the best job I could do. The CHAIRMAN. We have to leave this exchange at that point. Senator Bond. Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, first, I want to say to the Senator from California that the very perceptive questions she asked were ones that have been bothering me. I have been disturbed, I've listened all day, and I've read the statements, Ms. Hanson, about what happened to that simple little question I asked. You worked on and prepared, with Mr. Altman, an answer on March 2, 1994. That was, as I gathered from the statement, "I appreciate the opportunity to amend the record accordingly." You did not, in that March 2, 1994, letter, feel that you had to correct the major inadequacies in the answer to that question I asked Mr. Altman? Ms. HUNGARIAN. I'm sorry, sir, I don't understand your question. Senator BOND. You participated in writing the letter of March 2, 1994, that Mr. Altman sent to the Chairman. Is that correct? Ms. HANSON. I read the letter of March 2, 1994, yes. Senator BOND. You knew at the time, that when Mr. Altman answered the question I asked, it was not a full and truthful answer, did you not? Ms. HANSON. I believed that Mr. Altman understood the question and responded to it, to the best of his recollection, with respect to RTC contacts. Senator BOND. Are you trying to play lawyer with us, saying because you were in the Treasury, even though you were detailed to the RTC, that he was somehow using that technicality to say that, because you were operating at the direction of the CEO of the RTC but were employed by the Treasury, it didn't apply to you? Ms. HANSON. I understood that I acted in my capacity as General Counsel to the Treasury. Again as I have testified, I didn't recall at that point in time-as I sat here during the hearing, I had only a vague recollection of my conversation, and I did not know what Mr. Altman recalled. The letter of March 2, 1994, was designed, solely, to put the Committee on notice about the two additional meetings in the fall, that were going to appear in the newspaper article the following day. It was not intended to be a complete description of those contacts, or to supplement the record to make it 184