August 3, 1994 - Part 1
August 3, 1994 - Part 1
(10:10:38) I think that is why it took as long as it did to attempt to get the record to even reflect the events that transpired. Was there an additional meeting that we should have been told about? Were there additional contacts that we should have been told about, given the questions that were asked by the various Members to Mr. Altman on the 24th? I think that it was painful to finally get him to the point where he admitted that there was a meeting on February 3rd. Yes, the issue of recusal was something that was discussed and was at least of some significance even though, at times, Mr. Altman did not want to admit that recusal had any relevance to the Whitewater matter. I mean, I still find that troubling, perplexing, and interesting, that you could maintain, or that he attempted to maintain, and does, that the issue of recusal had nothing to do with Whitewater. Well, what was it about? Of course, it was about his relationship with the Clintons and whether or not that placed him in an untenable position. Clearly it did. Having said that, the contradictions that I will allude to and will send to you in some detail, are Mrs. Hanson's contradiction as it relates to her instructions to brief White House officials. 12 Question. Would she go on her own to brief Bernie Nussbaum? We have her version, which I believe is substantiated. Mr. Altman does not believe he did that. He says he did not do it. Mr. Roelle testifies and this is the second contradiction that Altman told Hanson, he told her to brief Bernie on October 6th, and two that Roelle notified Altman about these referrals. Then we have a third contradiction. Mr. Ickes about details of the meeting. I am not going to ask you to respond to these, so do not worry about that, nor to keep all of them. That is why I said I would then send them to you with some detail. We have a fourth, and 1 will try to summarize them quickly, Fourth, as a conflict, Mr. Steiner's diaries and again, I think the Members of the Committee have great regard and compassion for Mr. Steiner. Because I believe that those diaries were the best evidence of what took place. And he was pained. He was pained and talks about the lessons of it, and I think he found himself in an awkward and an embarrassing position and I wish his counsel had been more concerned. I do not know who his lawyer is, I have to tell you. I would like to find out, but his attorney, what he allowed that young man, in my opinion, to do to himself should disqualify him for, I mean, that, that was incredible. That was incredible. But there is the diary of Josh Steiner. Mrs. Williams, she contradicts Mr. Altman concerning the February 3rd meeting. Mr. Podesta contradicts, I believe, in his affidavits, Mr, Altman as it would be necessary to correct the record of March 1st and supplement, and he talks about the issue of recusal. Finally, another Treasury employee, Ben Nye, he testifies that Kulka briefed Mr. Altman. In any event, we will enumerate these, and send them to you for review. The Inspector General, as I have indicated, has not covered this issue of the veracity or the truthfulness or the completeness of the answers of the hearing of the 24th.