August 2, 1994 - Part 2
August 2, 1994 - Part 2
(12:10:31) Mr. STEINER. Senator as I said, Mr. Altman repeatedly told Treasury staff and RTC staff that he wanted this case handled in an identical fashion, in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical manner. Senator BENNETT. What was the battle about? Mr. STEINER. My reference here, I suspect, was the question of whether Mr. Altman should publicly recuse himself. Senator BENNETT. So in fact, your diary should have said we've been battling for weeks over whether he should recuse himself, not how the RTC should handle the case? Mr. STEINER. I think, Senator, as I've said, the issue was a public recusal, and that was the issue I believe I was referring to in this instance. Senator BENNETT. So there was a battle in the Treasury Department or the RTC over that issue that lasted for weeks? Mr. STEINER. Senator, I think, if I might, there were deliberations about this issue, and there were discussions. I think the word 'battle" is perhaps overly dramatic. Senator BENNETT. It our word. Let me go into your diary to I sentence that no one has read yet. All the other sentences I picked out somebody else on one side or the other has read, until low, but I find this one fascinating. The reference to the tortured lay, again, on whether or not he could recuse himself Then after Howell Raines, from The New York Times, called to say they were going to write a brutal editorial, Roger Altman decided to recuse himself. Harold and George, then called to say that Bill Clinton ,,as furious. Is that a true statement? Mr. STEINER. I'm glad you're asking. I think it deserves clarification. I never bad a conversation with Mr. Ickes and Mr. Stephenopoulos concerning the President. And at no time did anyone say to me anything about the President's views on the subject. My 356 understanding was in a conversation between Mr. Altman Mr. Stephanopoulos, and Mr. Ickes, they relayed to him the fact That the President was unhappy about the manner in which Mr. Altman had recused himself. Senator BENNETT. We can ask Mr. Altman, then, exactly what Harold and George said to him and whether or not the impression that you received was sufficient to put it in your diary on that day, that the President was furious at his recusal. Mr. STEINER. As I said, Senator, I bad no direct conversation with anyone in the White House about this subject. Senator BENNETT. We'll ask Mr. Altman that question. Mr. Devore, I too have been a flack. You made comment that the best thing to do was to be as open and honest as possible and that you really shouldn't say "no comment" because that sends the sig- nal that you -might have something to hide. I agree with that completely and have had argu ments within organizations where I've served with lawyers who have said our public comment must be no comment and my comment is no, you do that, you create further circumstances. So I'm sympathetic with your other comment. But this is a slightly different circumstance here. We are dealing with information, which is by legal definition, confidential. Indeed, the leaking of which violates regulations and presumably could lead to dismissal. I'm sure, listening to the Treasury officials we've bad here, if they could find out who did leak this information from the RTC, that individual would be dismissed immediately. You're nodding, Mr. Foreman. Is that true? Mr. FOREMAN. Well 7 1 can't speak to an employee of the RTC, but I certainly think serious administrative action would be considered against such an individual, sure. Senator BENNETT. We are dealing, then, with information that is extremely sensitive and has the legal title of confidential. I ask you in your professional advice as a flack, using the term we both know and love, wouldn't it have been wiser to say to the White House, yes, I have had a call from a reporter. I think that's a perfectly legitimate thing to say to the White House. The reporter calls you, involving the White House. I have no reason at all to complain about your calling the White House and saying we've had a call. It deals with extremely sensitive information, indeed, confidential information with legal implications around that confidentiality. Your best stance is to distance yourself from it and say since it involves confidential information regarding the courts, the White House will not comment on it. Indeed, it would be inappropriate for the White House to comment on anything that potentially could go to the court. Isn't that a defensible position for a public relations man to advise his client to take?