August 3, 1994 - Part 5
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:45:21) I don't have enough fingers to have quite counted up the number of entities, apart from myself, who are legal and ethics experts who .have come to the conclusion that Mr. Altman did not have a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself. The discussion and the issues that were under discussion at the time, February 2, were not legal/ethical discussions, If he had a legal or ethical obligation to recuse himself, he would do so. It was political, It was how was it going to look. It was where was he going to take more heat. Was he going to take more heat if he stayed there or was the Administration going to take more heat through the sort of impact of domino effect after Rickie Tigert. Was Jamie Gorelick going to be asked to recuse herself. Mr. Ludwig, on the 25th, even though there is no matter in front of him, decides to recuse himself. Is some midlevel person at the EPA going to be asked to recuse herself, even though there is nothing remotely in front of her. The issue was political and press and congressional; it was not legal/ethical, and I think the fact that every entity that has looked at it came to that same conclusion is worth an enormous amount to me, sir. The CHAIRMAN. I think it was important that you have a chance to put your statement on the record. You've done that. 104 Senator DAmato has asked for 30 seconds to respond. I think in light of the time that was taken to do that, that it's not ail unreasonable request, so Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I'm just trying to make the point that we've invented a Senator KERRY. It's not an unreasonable request, Mr. Chairman but oil the other hand, it absolutely breaks up the process here and totally sets a different standard for how we're proceeding. I'm just saying to my friend that, you know, we're going to get into that same old problem at the end of the line here. Senator D'AMATO. I just wanted to make an observation, if I might. The CHAIRMAN. I think when-I'm told by the clerk over here that when the objection was raised by Senator Boxer that it had the effect of taking 40 seconds off his time so let's restore that and Senator KERRY. He already did restore the time. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I'm told we did not-well, now I'm told that we did. So I'm getting conflicting messages myself. I recognize Senator D'Amato for 30 seconds. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make the point that we've heard a lot about this new definition, and I'd like to know what is the legal definition of "de facto recusal"? What does it mean? That's my point and that's what I raised because I kept hearing it over and over, and I thank my colleagues. The CHAIRMAN. We'll get into that. Senator Sasser. Senator SASSER. well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eggleston, you learn in law school one thing is elementary as in is there a de facto position and a de jure position, and would you explain for the Committee the difference between the two or perhaps I ought to do it. De facto is when something is actually the fact of the matter and de jure is something which might appear to be legal or perhaps you'd have a better definition, but let's hear the definition of that. Mr. EGGLESTON, I can tell you the way I'm using the two words and I don't-I assume they're consistent with the way others are. There were two things he could have done. He could have publicly announced that he was taking himself off the case or he could have done what he did, which is just announce to his staff and to the White House-he did to both, Ms. Kulka testified before you that he told her the same thing-he could announce that he was not going to be a decisionmaker on this matter. I've called that de facto. Senator Sasser, if you have a better word for that, I don't -- I didn't mean to coin a phrase by using that expression, but what I meant was he was not going to participate in the decision. That's something he told us and that's now something I understood that he told his own staff, his own RTC staff. Senator SASSER. So he was essentially out of the decisionmaking line on the question of whether or not to proceed with the civil actions against Madison Guaranty S&L. Mr. EGGLESTON. That was my understanding as of the February 2nd meeting. 105 Senator SASSER. Of course, that all became irrelevant on down the line because the statute of limitations was extended and it made no difference whether or not he chose to proceed with the action against Madison or not. Mr. EGGLESTON. That's correct, both Houses of Congress passed the extension. I think the President signed it on February 12th extending the statute through December 31, 1995. Senator SASSER. Now, Mr. Eggleston, let me ask you this: Did you attend the October 14, 1993 meeting that was attended by Ms. Hanson, the General Counsel of the Treasury Department, and Mr. Steiner and Mr. DeVore? Mr. EGGLESTON. I did, sir. senator SASSER. Did you also attend the meeting on February 2, 1994 with Mr. Altman and Ms. Hanson?