August 2, 1994 - Part 2
August 2, 1994 - Part 2
(12:15:57) Mr. DEVORE. It may be defensible, but it's certainly not the advice I would give a client. Senator BENNETT. What advice would you give in this cir- cumstance where there's confidential information that has this kind of legal thing? Forget what was done. Put your hat on and you're in a seminar now, Communications 101 at George Washington University, instructing people who want to go into your profes- sion. What would you advise them to do? 357 Mr. DEVORE. Well, let me distinguish between the situation we were actually in and the theoretical situation you're setting up. As I understand it, there were-I'm not aware of any questions being asked of the White House at this point by reporters that required an answer from the White House. Senator BENNETT. That's true. There were none. This was in anticipation, Mr. DEVORE. That's right. But let's assume that it had moved to the next stage, the stage at which the reporters were going to the White House and asking for a comment. At that point, if I were flacking, I would urge whoever is responsible for press activities in the White House to call the RTC and get the correct informationthe information, by the way, that really is not all that confidential since the reporter has it-to be sure the re reporter's facts are correct so they can devise an answer that is as forthcoming as possible, Senator BENNETT. I accept that as forthcoming as possible. Butas my time is running down, I postulate to you this articular problem. We are dealing with legal information here that could conceivably lead to an indictment. What is the President, or the White House Communications Director, or you in your role at the Treasury going to do when the reporter says- "We understand that there is a confidential-there is a criminal referral that proposes the following things and misstates the circumstances?" Would you comment? We got that from Ms. Hanson yesterday. She said it might be misstated and they must have a complete briefing so they could handle it. Do you then say oh, you've misstated what the confidential thing is, this is what's really going to happen in court? You can't do that. When you're dealing with matters that are going to end up in court, your posture is, I have to say, no comment because this is a matter under the jurisdiction of the Justice Department, and it will end up in court. I have no problem with notifying the White House that a call came from the reporter and, therefore, the White House is alert to the fact that the reporter is trolling around. I have no problem with telling the White House what the reporter told you. There's nothing confidential there. I do have a problem with a group of Treasury officials, not in cluding the flack going over to the White House, sitting down with the Counsel to le President and spending time in what appears to me to be a strategy session on the overall issue and not a headsUP on the question of "gee, we I 've got a reporter trolling out there and we need to be prepared for whatever he or she might say." I see that my time is up. The CHAIRMAN. Let me say, Senator Bennett, as you finish, we are on the second bells of still another vote and we all must go now in order to make that vote. Senator Boxer will be next in the order and I've asked her to go ahead so she can come back and resume the hearing. We must ail go now or we'll miss this vote. The Committee stands in recess for about 10 minutes. I'd ask the witnesses not to go far from the room so we can resume promptly. (12:19:47) [Recess.] (12:19:49) Commentary of hearings hosts DON BODE and NINA TOTENBERG, they also talk to MARY MCGRERY (?) of the Washington Post (12:27:32)(end of tape #10066)