August 1, 1994 - Part 9
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(22:50:19) Then you say, "I recall Mr. Ickes saying that if Mr. Altman were going to recuse himself, he thought he should, he should do it being Mr. Altman---"thought he should do it sooner rather than doing it later." Here is the key sentence. "I recall Mr. Nussbaum saying that he thought, if Mr. Altman did not recuse himself, it would impose discipline on the process to obtain a fairer result." I'll come back to that, but to finish my overall point, you are asked what the tenor of the meeting is, whether it's a business meeting, and so on. You say it was a business meeting, but Mr. Nussbaum got excited and through the questions, which I won't prolong, he got excited when Mr. Altman said he planned to recuse himself. Then, here is the capstone, in my view. "The following morning, Mr. Altman called me. He said he had spoken with Mr. McLarty 189 the prior evening." So we have Mr. Nussbaum saying you should not recuse yourself, because it will impose discipline on the process and produce a fairer result, "fairer" implying, in my view, different than you would get if it was left to Ms. Kulka. "Mr. McLarty, the prior evening-Mr. McLarty had wanted to know what had taken place in the evening." Mr. McLarty didn't attend the meeting. "He also said that he had had a couple of other calls"--and I will ask Mr. Altman from whom the other calls came- -"and that be had decided he would not recuse himself for the time being. He said he didn't believe that it made any difference to the outcome, but that it made them happy." You are asked, elsewhere, who is them? You say, "The people at the White House represents them." Then, on another occasion in your testimony, when Mr. Altman is telling Mr. Nussbaum that he is going to testify and state in his testimony that, because of the Vacancy Act, be would have no participation, you say, "I called Mr. Nussbaum, in accordance with Mr. Altman's request, and gave him that information." And what did Mr. Nussbaum say, "I recall Mr. Nussbaum saying be's going to leave us with Ellen Kulka." It seems to me that this is pressure. In the language we've been using-no harm, no foul-Mr. Nussbaum was not successful in seeing to it that Ellen Kulka was kept out of it. Ellen Kulka will make the final decision. We will all stipulate that it will be fair, but I would like to give you the opportunity to talk about these words that, to me, demonstrate an attempt, unsuccessful-no harm, no foul-but an attempt to place someone in the position of making the final decision that, at least in Mr. Nussbaum's --perception, would, to quote the term you have used, "impose discipline on the process" and to quote, again, your term, "obtain a fairer result." I'd love your comments on that because, as I say, I intend to discuss that with Mr. Altman at some length. Ms. HANSON. I've beard Mr. Nussbaum's testimony on his views on recusal. I understand what those views are. He states he believes that, unless there is a mandated recusal, people should serve. I understood, when Mr. Nussbaum made the comment, in my words, about discipline- having a discipline process-and I recall that I said, would produce a fair result Senator BENNETT. Are you saying this deposition should be corrected to say "fair," not "fairer"? Ms. HANSON. Yes, as I say, I have not had an opportunity to read my deposition, but that's what I understood. It would produce a fair result, which meant that if someone of Mr. Altman's stature were overseeing the process, and people knew they would have to report to him, they would accomplish their work in a professional, thorough manner so the result would be fair. I didn't understand Mr. Nussbaum to be asking for any preferable treatment or for any outcome that was other than fair.