August 2, 1994 - Part 9
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:15:57) Mr. ALTMAN. I don't remember the precise conversation, but I ,think, Senator, it's important for me to note that I immediately amended the record. It was his conversation that told me about the fall meetings. I then went through the process I described earlier today Senator HATCH. The thing that's bothering me is that either Mr. Podesta. is wrong or you're wrong and if be's right, how could you possibly forget a White House accusation to you that what you did was misleading, or wrong, or not true? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I don't believe that the White House called me up and said I was misleading. I don't believe that or, at least, I don't recall it. I remember the two parts of the conversation. Yes, 'Sir, he did ask me about recusal. He said, and my answer was, I -thought that my answer was responsive to the question. Now, I that's important because it shows what I was thinking. I might have-as I said in hindsight, I should have been more ex on at Treasury and that he through what was viewed 498 pansive but it wasn't intentional. I said to him a week after the testimony I thought my answer was responsive to the question. Senator HATCH. But then, if you knew there was a problem with the testimony, why did you wait 3 weeks to correct the record on recusal? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, first of all Senator HATCH. It seems to me there's something wrong here. Mr. ALTMAN. I didn't wait 3 weeks. Senator HATCH. You did. Mr. ALTMAN. No, my letter of March 11 said I was discussing recusal with the White House. Senator HATCH. But that was February 3;. right? Mr. ALTMAN. I'm just saying that I Senator HATCH. That's at the February 3 meeting. Mr. ALTMAN. No. I'm just saying I notified the Committee that I was having a discussion-that there was a discussion with the White House on recusal on March 11. Now, I just didn't think the question called for that answer, and I appreciate that I perhaps should have, but I think the most important point is intent and my response to Podesta a week later shows that I didn't have an intent to withhold that information. Senator KERRY. The letter was on March 11. The recusal discussion was on February 3. Senator HATCH. But see on March 11, they still dont Senator KERRY. I am clarifying for Senator Hatch. Senator HATCH. You're backing me up on this, on the 2nd, rather. This just doesn't compute, and again, I'm not trying to give you a rough time. I just want to get the facts out there because there's a real distinct difference between what Dee Dee Myers says, what Bruce Lindsey says, what John Podesta says, and what you're saying here today. Mr. ALTMAN. But I think Mr. Podesta will affirm that when he asked me about recusal, I said, well, I thought my answer was responsive to the question. I think he'll affirm that. Senator HATCH. But the March 11 letter did not mention the recusal discussion at the February 2 meeting. Mr. ALTMAN. No, but Senator, I said to Mr. Podesta, I believe, my answer was responsive to the question, meaning that I thought I answered the question that I was asked. Senator HATCH. Why, then, didn't the March 11 letter mention the recusal discussion of February 2? Mr. ALTMAN. Well, rightly or wrongly, I didn't reach the conclusion from Mr. Podesta's call that I had answered improperly. I said-in fact, I said in contrast to that, I said to him, I gather, I thought my answer was responsive to the question. In other words, I thought I said John, I thought I answered properly. Senator HATCH. Mr. Altman, I don't mean to beat this to death, but he told you your testimony was misleading. Mr. ALTMAN. No, I don't believe he did tell me that. Senator HATCH. You don't recall that? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't recall that. Senator HATCH. You disagree with Mr. Podesta. 499 Mr. ALTMAN. I don't recall it. I recall him telling me two things and I recall them quite vividly. One was the fall meetings and the other was the recusal and my response to him. Senator HATCH. Regarding your February 1 meeting with Ms. Kulka, didn't Ms. Kulka brief you on the RTC status of its civil investigation of Whitewater? Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir. Senator HATCH. Mr. Nye testified under oath at his deposition as follows: Question: What was and what do you mean when you say the situation that Ellen Kulka was facing? Answer: That she was going to be forced to make a decision how to proceed without perfect information on a politically charged case or potentially charged case. Question: What did Ms. Kulka say about the imperfections of the information at that point? Answer: Just that she wouldn't have enough time between-her feeling was she wouldn't have enough time between then, the date of the meeting and the 28th, the statute of limitations expiration, to make as informed a decision that she would need to make. In her opinon that wouldn't be enough to go through all these mountains of documents and so forth, or for her staff to do so, and that ultimately she would have to be making a decision with the best information possible at that time. So the shortness of questions--so the shortness of time and the inability to develop fully the facts of the case was identified as a problem-as problems in and the answer is, yes. Now, Mr. Nye testified earlier today