August 2, 1994 - Part 9
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:10:37) So her particular notes indicate that your representation that you had no other contact was just plain not true. Now, were you aware that the White House regarded your testimony that you bad only one substantive contact as not true? Did they tell you that? Mr. ALTMAN. No, I wasn't. Mr. Podesta called me about a week after the testimony and he said-first 'thing he said was, what about the other two meetings, meaning the fall meetings, and I said to him I never beard of them and I believe he affirms that in his deposition. Senator HATCH. Let me get to that. Mr. ALTMAN. If I can just say Senator HATCH. Sure. Mr. ALTMAN. -the second thing he said was-the second thing he says he said and I'm sure he did, was recusal, and my answer, Senator, was I thought I responded properly to the question, and I believe that's what his account is and that's what I'm trying to say today. Senator HATCH. Let me read you Dee Dee Myers' notes of what Bruce Lindsey said at this March 1 meeting. Let's see, "didn't do anything"-OK. I won't read the whole thing. I'll just read what I consider to be the salient portions. It says, "White House officials say they advised him," meaning you, "to look at the legal and ethical obligations and make a decision." Subtext, "If there is no legal obligation, don't" and then exclamation point in brackets. Now, do you understand that the White House believed your failure to mention the recusal discussions when you testified on February 24 was misleading? Mr. ALTMAN. No, I wasn't aware of that, but let me say again, because this is real important, when Mr. Podesta called me, his account, and I assume it's true, is that he first asked about the fall meetings and I said I never beard of them and then be asked about recusal and I said I thought my answer was responsive to the question, Now, I know some people here don't agree with me but what I'm trying to say is that was my state of mind as affirmed by my response to Mr. Podesta. Senator HATCH. But you can see why I'm upset about it-I'm not upset but you can see why I'm raising this because Dee Dee Myers says in her notes when you represent there was only one substantive contact, "not true." And then you have Bruce Lindsey saying look at the legal and ethical obligations. If there's no legal obligation don't." Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I don't know what Dee Dee was referring to, but she could have been obviously referring to the fall meetings on the notion that I should have mentioned them and I didn't. 4 Senator HATCH. I don't think so. I think it was pretty clear she was referring to that but let me go to John Podesta. In Dee Dee Myers' notes again, "John Podesta then talked to Roger and told him that he had misspoken, could be misleading, assumed there was no way to correct record, write letter, et cetera, decided to leave it up to him how to do it." This was on March 1. Now, do you recall discussing your February 24 testimony with John Podesta of the White House on March 1? Mr. ALTMAN. I recall that conversation, yes, sir. Senator HATCH. Do you recall that Mr. Podesta told you that you had given misleading answers? Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir, I don't believe he did, I believe he asked me the two questions I mentioned that he did. Senator HATCH. You and Mr. Podesta did have a conversation on March I when be informed you that the White House was of the view that your failure to mention the recusal discussions, to use his terms, "did not fit within the frame of your characterization of the Meeting being procedural"; right? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I remember two points he raised with me. One was about the fall meetings, as I said, to which I responded that I never heard of them, and the other was about recusal, as I have remembered through his account. And I said that I thought my answer was responsive to the question, Senator HATCH. Well, let me help here a little bit. Let me read from Mr. Podesta's deposition. Question: Did you tell Mr. Altman on March 1 that it was the view of you and others that the White House record needed to be supplemented as to what was discussed at the February 2, 1994, White House meeting, specifically to include or to add the fact that recusal had been discussed? Answer: I think my conversation with him was that we were concerned about it. We thought whether or not it fit within the frame of his characterization as the meeting being procedural, that there would be a reaction to a further disclosure that the subject of recusal came up and that it may be best to supplement the record, My conversation closed without resolution on that point or any direction on my part that he needed to supplement the record with regard to recusal. He was going to consider it. My recollection was it was under consideration would. continue to--we would continue to kind of work as an issue or a problem. Now, do you remember discussing any of that with him?