August 2, 1994 - Part 1
August 2, 1994 - Part 1
(10:35:19) Mr. DEVORE. It's my own, Senator, If you're going to succeed as a flak, you need to be accurate, honest, and responsive. And to adopt a posture of no comment begs the question. You won't succeed. Senator SASSER. If you adopted a policy of "no comment," I can just imagine what the lead on the story would be. White House and Treasury stonewall on Madison inquiry. However, informed sources say that criminal referral is imminent. Mr. DEVORE. That's correct. In the vast majority of cases, refusing to comment would not kill a story; it would simply leave the field free for others to fill in the story with their comments. Senator SASSER. The story is going to go on whether we make a comment or not. I think that's a fair assessment. Mr. DEVORE. That's correct. Senator SASSER, Mr. Steiner, you had a rather widely reported conversation with George Stephanopoulos about the hiring private of Jay Stephens, did you not? Mr. STEINER. Yes, I did, Senator. Senator SASSER, You knew of Mr. Stephens' background, I assume you knew of his background, as an ardent opponent of the White House. The new Administration had, in essence, fired him as U.S. Attorney. Knowing of Mr. Stephens' background as an oponent of the Lite House, were you surprised that Mr. Steph- anopoulos was angry? Mr. STEINER. No, I was not. Senator SASSER. What did George Stephanopoulos say to you about Jay Stephens? Mr. STEINER. To the best of my recollection, Senator, he asked me how Mr. Stephens bad come to be hired. And I explained to 338 him, as I understood it, there was a panel or board at the RTC that reviewed bids on contracts and that this panel or board had selected him. He then said that be thought Mr. Stephens faced a conflict of interest, given his relationship with the Administration and the fact that when he was considering, I believe, a candidacy for Senator he had said some strongly worded things in opposition to the Ad-' ministration. He asked me if these public comments in opposition to the Administration shouldn't disqualify him from the post. I explained to him that even if they did or should, it would be impossible for us to do anything about it. Senator SASSER. My time has expired. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Steiner. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Sasser. Senator Bond, OPENING COMMENTS OF SENATOR CHRISTOPHER S. BOND Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Foreman, you have discussed the circumstances in which it was appropriate to share nonpublic information with the White House. If there were some nonpublic information that affected the Secretary of Commerce, would it be appropriate to notify the Genera! Counsel at Commerce? Mr. FOREMAN. Senator, the question is, is there a legitimate Government purpose involved as the Office of Government Ethics Analysis put forward. One would have to look at the situation and see if there's a legitimate Government purpose in doing so or not. Senator BOND. If there was a possibility that there might be a press leak about the Secretary of Commerce, would it then be appropriate to advise the General Counsel to the Secretary of Commerce that there was some very important, nonpublic information affecting the Secretary that might be the subject of a press leak? Mr. FOREMAN. Possibly. However, sir, if I may just add one comment. The White House is a special place. I think we can look around the room today and see the intense press interest in anything that involves the President or the Presidency or the White House. All I can say is, in my experience over the years, generally speaking, White House Counsel would like to not be surprised at things that are going to happen, including press inquiries and leaks. I think that's a legitimate Government purpose to tell the White House Counsel about certain information that has been, or is, or will be leaked, but that's obviously also a very, very difficult situation to analyze and one has to look at all the circumstances. In fact, I think it's less likely in the hypothetical that you propose that it would be appropriate to tell Commerce Counsel, but you would have to look at all the facts and circumstances. Senator BOND. I can assure you that Members of this body, a Senator, for example, who was about to be named in a criminal referral would certainly prefer not to be surprised and to have his or her counsel notified of perhaps a criminal referral..