August 2, 1994 - Part 11
August 2, 1994 - Part 11
(01:05:37) And so I'm not suggesting that you are going to think of doing anything other than what you've testified. You ad your own pur pose your own mind, but you changed your mind. You said all right, I'll sleep on it, you come back and you have the next day and again the meeting on the 3rd, recusal, precipitated by that brow- 544 beating-and that's my characterization now, but if you read eve body else's that probably isn't inaccurate-one by Bernie Nuss- baum who is the President's attorney. Now we go on. On March 3 you write another letter and again you fail to mention the recusal of February 2. You bring up the meeting, the meeting that took place on the 3rd, and didn't you mention it at that time? Is that unreasonable to You see, look, you are correcting the record, Podesta tells you the meeting on the 2nd, you didn't correct the record. Is it because you don't want to say to the Committee at that time, look, I did go in there to, and I was going to, recuse myself and this took place? I mean that's a reasonable explanation. I can understand it. 1, an: 7, Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I think the record will show or does show that when Mr. Podesta called me and asked me about that, I said that I thought my answer was responsive to the question. Now; that shows, for whatever it's worth, my state of mind. I thought my answer was responsive to the question and I believe that he'll con- firm that I said that, On the first matter, the fall meetings, I was taken aback and before the end of the day I sent the Committee a letter indicating I just learned about it. Now I just thought that my answer was responsive. Senaotr D'AMATO. Well, it's not until March 21, and that's nearly a month later, that you correct your testimony once again and you finally allude to that February 2 discussion of recusal. I'd have to suggest to you when I begin to read all the other things, I come to the conclusion, given your discussion that you outlined in your diary, you don't want to discuss what happened. The diary where Maggie Williams tells you that the White House is "paralyzed" by Whitewater, Mrs. Clinton in particular. And I have to come to a conclusion, reasonable people might even disagree, that that's why Maggie Williams is at all of these meetings. What is Mrs. Clinton's Chief of Staff doing at these meetings to briefed, the one on February 2, the one on February 3, conversations that she has with you on January 11 that you record in your diary? Where did she get the impression that Ms. Reno was attempting to limit the scope of the-I mean, this is an impression that she conveyed to you. Whether or not it was accurate or not, she actually told you this. You recorded that, I mean you recorded this faithfully as you remembered it at the time; is that true? Mr. ALTMAN. As you see in the notes I drew that inference. You'll have the opportunity to ask a whole variety of people as to whether I drew the correct inference. Mr. Cutler believes that I didn't. In other words Senator DAMATO. Let me give you Mr. ALTMAN. In other words, it didn't happen. Senator D'AMATO. Let me give you something that you quoted in that diary. You said Maggie Williams indicated that "Hillary Clinton doesn't want the counsel poking into 20 years of public life 'in Arkansas." And that's quoted. And here's-you have Lloyd Bentsen and he goes over and he says, and you quote, be's going to go over to see George on Whitewater to "recommend lancing the boil." 19 Of getting this out, getting you recused. 545 Mr. ALTMAN. No, Senator, I'm sorry. That's not what I meant in that. Senator DAMATO. What did you mean by that? Mr. ALTMAN. Secretary Bentsen, who's got the best judgment of anybody I've ever met, thought that the White House should get on with it, get the Independent Counsel in place and move forward that way. That's what he meant by "lance the boil" or, at least, as I remember it. Nothing to do with recusal.