August 3, 1994 - Part 5
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:05:30) The CHAIRMAN. Are you in a sense conveying the notion that you think that the hearing on the 24th was the precipitating event that caused you to be detailed to prepare this memo? Mr. EGGLESTON. I think it was, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, in the final paragraph of the memo, it deals with who will be the decisionmaker on whether to bring a civil action arising out of the failure of the Madison Guaranty. Who instructed you to deal with that issue? Mr. EGGLESTON. I don't think I received a specific instruction to deal with that issue. I think I was asked only to set forth sort of where the civil matter stood after the hearing and after Mr. Altman's recusal on February 25th. I did not get-as I recall, I did not get this level of instruction about what should go in this memo. The CHAIRMAN. Where did you get the information that you put in the memo? Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, let me just go through it. The first sentence about "we intend to nominate a person for the position of CEO within the next few weeks," I believe I learned that from Mr. Nussbaum sometime between the--I don't actually know, but sometime obviously before the 28th. I think the rest of it is pretty much public information. It's my analysis of how that issue may play out through the confirmation process. The CHAIRMAN. When you finished the memo, do you know what happened to it next? Was there a presentation of it, discussion of it? What followed? Mr. EGGLESTON. I gave it to Mr. Ickes, and I don't know what followed after that. I don't recall discussing it with Mr. Ickes after I provided it to him. The CHAIRMAN. You got no feedback whatsoever? Mr. EGGLESTON. Not that I remember. The CHAIRMAN. No follow-up questions, no Mr. EGGLESTON. I don't think so. Can I correct that just for a second? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sure. Mr. EGGLESTON. It's possible that he and I discussed some of these issues. I want to be as precise as I can. The CHAIRMAN, I appreciate that. Mr. EGGLESTON. It's possible that he and I discussed the issues here on more than one occasion. I can't really remember whether I discussed it-the final product with him after I provided him the final product. That I don't quite remember. The CHAIRMAN. What would the meaning be up on the front page of the memo where in the right-hand corner it says "revised" in brackets? 92 Mr. EGGLESTON. Actually-I don't know whether I gave him a draft of it and lie talked to me about it. When I corrected myself that's what I was thinking about. I can't remember whether I gave' him a draft and he looked at it and told me that I hadn't covered some issues that he wanted me to cover or whatever. I think that's what I remember. I don't have any specific recollection, and that's not- I don't mean that as a word of art. I don't have a recollection of how it got to say "revised." That's a logical explanation. The CHAIRMAN. Would it be fair for us to assume this was the final version, the one we have? Mr. EGGLESTON. This is the final version, The CHAIRMAN. Now, I guess the question that stands out, among other things, is why would it be appropriate for you as a General Counsel for the President to be spending your time analyzing a possible conflict of interest of the Rose Law Firm in its representation of Madison Guaranty? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, this had been a matter of enormous public and, frankly, congressional interest. As I recall the hearing on February 24th-and I attended that hearing-really on the Republican side, the Rose Law Firm issue, the involvement of Mrs. Clinton in that particular issue, whether she had billed, whether she hadn't billed; whether she had a conflict essentially dominated that entire hearing. The CHAIRMAN. Here's my point. Wouldn't private attorneys normally be the people who would gin up that kind of memo. Wouldn't that normally be done in a private law firm by private attorneys? Mr, EGGLESTON. It may well have also been done in a private law firm by private attorneys, but I thought there was an official function for this. We were facing at the time a possibility of a similar oversight hearing on the House side. I think as of the time of your hearing, shortly after your hearing, I think, that the House hearing had been canceled. But as of the time of your hearing, I think the House hearing had not been canceled, and it was a mat-... ter of enormous public interest that the White House was getting', questions on a more than daily basis and it was a matter of con-' gressional interest and I thought in those circumstances it was ap- proriate It may well be that the Clintons ' private counsel did a similar kind of analysis addressing their own sort of personal is sues. This is broader than that. The CHAIRMAN. I'm glad to have your answer on the record. Senator DODD. Mr. Chairman, could I ask a question? The CHAIRMAN. In the time I have--you'll be up quickly. one other topic and I have one minute to do it. I want to go meeting in which Mr. Altman came over to the White House indicated that he was preparing--he had reached the decision recuse himself in the Madison case, and apparently Mr. Nussbaum expressed a very strong concern about that. Were you there at that meeting?