August 1, 1994 - Part 9
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:35:17) Senator BOND. It was inaccurate, because it did not state who made the contacts. There was never any follow-up effort. You are using the March 4, 1994, subpoena as a reason to walk away from, and leave unfulfilled, your obligation to correct the record. Is that a fair assessment? Is that your reason for not seeing that the record was corrected? Ms. HANSON. Sir, no one asked-if there were supplemental questions answered, and if the responses to the record were reviewed, no one asked me for my input, nobody contacted me. I was under specific instruction, from my attorneys, not to talk with anyone about these matters. I understood that was the understanding of other people who had received the subpoenas as well. Consequently, I did not, because I was a recipient of a subpoena for a Grand Jury investigation. Senator BOND. So you are now using the Grand Jury investigation to justify, number one, your failure to correct the statement made by your client, which you knew to be incorrect at the time, because back on December 21, 1993, you had prepared this draft that was torn out, had you not, referring to the September 29, 1993, meeting with Ms. HANSON. I'm sorry, sir, I don't know what you are talking about. Senator BOND. You don't have this draft that was found, this Madison Guaranty chronology, you didn't prepare that on December 21, 1993? Ms. HANSON. That was-I did prepare that draft chronology, yes, sir. Senator BOND. In which you talked about the meeting with B. Nussbaum, J. Hanson, and Cliff Sloan in B. Nussbaum's office following the Waco prebrief. That was in that memo. Ms. HANSON. Yes. Senator BOND. You remembered it then, forgot it in February, and then, you remembered it later in February? Ms. HANSON. No, sir, I remembered the meeting-I remembered that I had a conversation with Mr. Nussbaum. As I said, my original recollection was that it was by phone. I hadn't thought about it, seriously, for a very long time. The whole focus of the preparation for the hearing was on the civil investigation and the statute of limitations issues. We bad not thought about the fall meetings. There was no intention to mislead anyone. It hadn't been thought about. That letter, the March 2, 1994, letter, was not intended, in my view, to be a full-it certainly wasn't a full response to your questions, because it didn't give any detail. That is not how I viewed the letter, sir. Senator BOND. The March 2, 3, 11, and 21, 1994, letters were still inadequate. Did you see any of those letters? Ms. HANSON. I saw the March 3, 1994, letter. I did not see the other two until the Grand Jury, until at some point Senator BOND. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is out. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Moseley-Braun is next, and when I come across Mr. Bennett has one item that be wants to raise. I think that will conclude Senator Bennetes situation. 186 Senator Moseley-Braun. Senator MOSELEY-BRAUN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Hanson, everybody's very tired and, quite frankly, I was more than taken aback to your answers to Senator Boxer's questions. I would suggest to you that part of the problem, and part of what Senator Boxer was getting at, is the notion that with regard to the things you were hired to do by Treasury as its Counsel,, you failed to follow through with some of those things, specifically, the transcript correction. We have a situation in which testimony given on February 24, 1994, was corrected on March 2, 1994, was corrected 1, again, on March 3, 1994, and after March 4, 1994, you weren't involved, but it was corrected two more times thereafter That is something that fell directly under your responsibility. Senator Boxer was concerned about that. The thing I find as troubling, with regard to the failure to follow through on the things you were hired to do, is with regard to the things you weren't, really, hired to do, the RTC matters. You seemed to have been running around being involved with those matters as well. I refer you, specifically, to the September 29, 1993, October 14, 1993, and February 2, 1994, meetings with Mr. Nussbaum around civil statutes and the RTC criminal referral actions. You said, earlier, that you had the authority to undertake this activity regarding the RTC, and we've gone back and forth with regard to where that authority comes from. I'm not going to dispute whether you had-whether a fair reading of any of the RTC statutes would have given you that authority or not. That is not my question at all. I'm prepared to concede that, under a reading of the statutes having to do with the RTC, you could have been loaned out from Treasury to do RTC matters. My question to you, though, is when did you make the analysis regarding your authority to work on RTC matters? Was that something that was done in front of the process? That is to say, did you attend all these meetings and do all these things having to do with the RTC after you found out you actually bad statutory authority to do so, or did you find out about these statutes and the permission, if you will, that they might have granted, after these activities took place? When, if you can tell us, specifically, did you ascertain that you had the authority to be involved with RTC matters?