August 2, 1994 - Part 5
August 2, 1994 - Part 5
(16:25:45) There was only one discussion which related to the RTC investigation itself and factors which could affect its outcome. That was the discussion of generic alternatives facing the RTC in regard to the expiring statute of limitations. On February 24, Senator Domenici asked me if there were other contacts beyond the February 2 meeting. My response was, in effect, that I'm not counting bumping into someone in the ball or debating stories in the morning newspapers. This clearly indicated that there may have been other contacts, but that I regarded them as incidental. Had Senator Domenici or any other Member of the Committee then asked me to review any other contacts, I would have done my best, Senator Domenici, to recall them. But those additional contacts after February 2, indeed, were incidental. They could not have bad any bearing whatsoever on the case. They had nothing whatever to do with the RTC investigation. But in the days and weeks following my testimony, it became clear that any contacts which could be remotely tied to the catchall term "Whitewater" could be regarded differently. And as a result, I carefully reviewed my calendar, my telephone calls, and incidental contacts with White House personnel. I wanted to bend over backward to be as complete as possible. I amended the record to include other incidental contacts, although I did not then and I do not today consider them related to the substance of Madison, Initially, there was a brief telephone call to Mr. McLarty a few days after the February 2 meeting to the effect that I was still considering the issue of recusal. Similarly, around the same time, I had a brief discussion with Harold Ickes to tell him essentially the same thing. Those brief conversations on recusal could not, under any circumstances, have bad a bearing on the case. They could not, under any circumstances, have had a bearing on the case. I bad already removed myself from any possible role on the case. I Finally, the record was also amended to advise the Committee that I had a brief discussion with Mr. Ickes the night before my testimony. I told him that I intended to announce during my test' mony that I was stepping down as CEO of the RTC, as I Id, in-deed, announce the next day. Members of the Committee, that bad nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison. Around the same time, I literally ran into Mr. Nussbaum in a corridor of the White House. He told me the Administration would soon be submitting its nominee for permanent RTC head. That had nothing to do with the RTC investigation of Madison either, but I 414 nevertheless amended the record on a voluntary basis so that there would be no question. Some think that I consciously failed to mention these other inci- dental contacts. That isn't true. When we were here 5 months ago, I believed that I was res ponding properly to the questions. I assure you, Mr. Chairman, in the most heartfelt way, that there was no intent to mislead this Committee. Questions also have been raised as to why the subject of recusal was not included in the February 24 testimony. I was not asked about recusal. There were sever Q's and A's in my briefing book on recusal. A team of 10 or 15 members of Treasury and RTC staff helped to prepare them. Had there been any attempt to intentionally withhold information on the recusal, one surely wouldn't have rehearsed answers on that subject with such a large group. Had I been asked about recusal, I would have responded rightly. Senator DAmato and I had a conversation the night before my testimony. Among other things, he said he was going to ask me about recusal. Neither he nor any other Member WE Committee did ask me about recusal. While I have reservations about Mr. you heard his testimony this Steiner's diary, as you can imagine, morning, it confirms the view that recusal wasn't asked. I did not mention recusal in my testimony because I did not think it was responsive to the question I was asked. Members of the Committee, I may have been wrong in this regard, but I had no intention to mislead or withhold information form this Committee. I believed at the time that the Committee was interested in knowing whether Treasury or the RTC had improperly provided information on the substance of the Madison case.