August 2, 1994 - Part 9
August 2, 1994 - Part 9
(22:45:51) Senator DODD. It's just an answer. You may not like the answer. It's his answer. Senator DAMATO. OK Fine. The CHAIRMAN. It's Senator DAMATO. I'd like to make one other point and it will take 10 seconds. This is the sworn deposition of Mr. Ickes, Deputy Chief of Staff. I want you to know that. He said it under oath. Senator SARBANES. Let him give his answer. Senator DAMATO. You disagree. 507 Mr. ALTMAN. I know it's false. I'm sure Mr. Ickes recollection is just different. I know him to be a man of honesty. I know he's honest, but his recollection is wrong. The CHAIRMAN. You're very clear on that. Senator D'Amato has read this into the record. Obviously, Mr. Ickes gave this in a deposition under oath. He'll be here so he can be quizzed on that. I think we've laid out both sides of it, and that's about all we can do at this point. Senator DODD. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think it's my time. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Dodd. Senator DODD. I'd point out it isn't just a question of these two individuals disagreeing. The fact is that Ms. Kulka disagrees with Mr. Ickes. Ms. Hanson disagrees with Mr. Ickes and they were there at the meeting. We've had testimony from Mr. Nye today as "to what Ms. Kulka said to Mr. Altman on February 1 regarding -'how these matters would be handled and whether or not the cases could be brought before the 28th. Why in the world with all of these people agreeing with what was said the day before, why would Mr. Altman sit down at a meeting with people in the White House and tell them something completely different than a bunch people heard the day before? We have heard from Mr. Ickes and he can comment on it, but as of this hour, after 40 hours of bearin this room we have beard from at least 3 or 4 different people substantiate what Mr. Altman has said. That has value I think it ought to be clearly stated. Let me tell you something regarding this. We've spent a lot of me focusing on this bearing on the 24th. I think it's important, but it also difresses, in my view, quite a bit from what the central them ought to be. Let me say I'm just speaking for myself here. I've read over the testimony, I think you have to start back in the middle of page 63 our colleague from New York starts talking about and leadup to the questions about the RTC, the counsels, and the statute of limitations and so forth. Now, I was not at the bearing, so I'm just reading this. I don't doubt in my mind that the Senator from New York, and , A] D'Amato, has a very clear understanding of what he thinks he was asking, particularly the line where it ends from our colleague, Senator DAmato says, "oh, oh. Ickes is in it" and then it goees down and he says, "or Mrs. Clinton's interest or anyone else that you were aware of as it relates to the matter that you went to brief them on." It seems to me that's an operative clause when it comes to the series of questions which is the subject of the dispute here as to whether or not the issue of the recusal meeting on February 3 should have been included in your response. In your mind, that meeting was about the statute of limitations and the procedures. Now there's a debate and discussion as to whether or not you ought to have included the issue of the recusal, but I can see where two well- intentioned people who were sitting there, responding and answering questions came to a different point of view. That's not the most bizarre thing that has ever happened at a congressional hearing. 508 I think we've heard from the witnesses but to dwell on this par. ticular point as if it was somehow central to this whole case is to digress, in my view, from what the central theme is. Let me a background here to review the bidding a little bit. We've had an investigation on the illegal questions by Mr. Fiske, 91 a Republican prosecutor, rave reviews given to him at the time was was named. We've had the Office of Government Ethics who under Mr. Stanley Potts. He, an appointee of the previous Repub- lican Administration declares that ethically, there are no problems here. We have heard Mr. Foreman, a Republican appointee who was kept on by this Administration, declare that there were no ethical problems. Mr. Stephens stays on even though the White House allegedly exercised some influence to change th at. You go to Ms. Kulka, who be gives the total authority to in these matters. She states that unequivocally here. She's not a partisan in all of this. She could have said look, he didn't say that to me. He gave her all the authority to handle these matters. She states that she had plenty to work on and bad no problem with February 28. We have Mr. Altman recusing himself, admittedly today he should have stuck with the decision when he made it in the first place but didn't, and gets involved in a discussion to bang around for a while. But as far as I'm concerned, he made that decision to recuse himself early on.