August 1, 1994 - Part 9
August 1, 1994 - Part 9
(23:30:30) The CHAIRMAN. Senator Gramm. Senator GRAmm. Mr. Chairman, I would go back and make the same point 100 times, but I think the point has been made, and I'll just leave it to impartial observers. Had there been no threat of a press leak concerning the RTC re- ferral, would it have been ethical or you, Ms. Hanson, to have told Mr. Nussbaum about a referral that related to the First Family? Ms. HANSON. It's my understanding--I understand the ethics rules to require a legitimate governmental purpose. 197 Senator GRAMM. Let me go back and ask my question again. Had ou not been told by somebody that there might be a press leak, ad you never received that communication, quite aside from evaluating its accuracy, but if you bad never received it, would it have been a violation, a breach of ethics I for you to have told Mr. Nussbaum, who was the General Counsel to the President, that there are nine criminal referrals and that at least some of them referred to the President and the First Lady? Would that have been a breach of ethics? Ms. HANsON. Sir, it would have depended on the facts that existed. The fact of the matter is, there were imminent press leaks, and that was the governmental-there has to be a legitimate governmental purpose, and that was the governmental purpose. So, if the question is, if there is no governmental purpose, would it be a violation of ethics? There has to be a proper governmental purpose. Senator GRAMM. You are the General Counsel of the Treasury Department of the United States of America. I'm asking you, in that capacity, had there been no rumor of a press leak, would it have been unethical for you to have told Mr. Nussbaum, who is the General Counsel to the President, and is an employee of a person who was referred to in those nine criminal referrals, would that have been a breach of ethics? Could I get you to say yes or no? Ms. HANsON. It depends on whatever other facts existed. In this particular case, there were press leaks. Senator GRAMm. I'm asking you, as the Legal Counsel of the Treasury Department, a matter of policy concerning ethics, and you're supposed to be an overseer of this activity. Had there been no rumor of a press leak? Ms. HANsON. If there had been no rumor of a press leak, sir, I would not have had this conversation. Senator GRAMM. I didn't ask you that. Would it be ethical? Ms. HANSON. If there was not a legitimate governmental purpose, it would not have been ethical. Senator GRAMM. Can I go back and change my question? Had there been no rumor of a press release or press leak, would it have been ethical to have told the counsel to a person who was referred to in at least one of the nine criminal referrals? Ms. HANsON. We may be just talking past each other here, sir, and it is very late and don't mean to be argumentative. What I'm saying is that you can communicate that information if you have a legitimate governmental purpose. Press leaks, and dealing with the fallout from press leaks, is a legitimate governmental purpose. Senator GRAMM. If everything else had been the same Ms. HANSON. If everything else was the same, and there had been no press leaks, I wouldn't have done it Senator GRAMM. I'm not asking would you have done it. Would it have been ethical, in your opinion Ms. HANSON. I don't believe so. Senator DODD. Could you yield for just one second? The CHAIRMAN. "I don't believe so" is your answer, though? Ms. HANSON. I don't believe so. Senator DODD. Just on that point, and I just read this the other night. It may be interesting, and I'll ask with unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to include this in the record. The facts are substan- 198 tially different than the facts before us here, but there was a Subcommittee investigation by the Judiciary Committee in 1980, as between Benjamin Civiletti's communication to then-President Carter about his brother and the possibility of some dealings with Libya and the like. The communication was directly to the President, and the Subcommittee then, and this was a different matter, I admit, but the Subcommittee then concluded that it would not have been improper for the Attorney General to advise the President of significant information received by the Department of Justice, in this case, about Billy Carter's activities. As pointed out below, the President should receive significant information, relative to the constitution, of the exercise of his responsibilities, in this respect to foreign affairs, because it involved Libya and law enforcement. There may be other facts that would warrant- the point I'm making-I understand your point and