August 3, 1994 - Part 5
August 3, 1994 - Part 5
(16:50:32) Senator SASSER. Did you also attend the February 24 hearing before this Committee here? Mr. EGGLESTON. I did. Senator SASSER. Now, Mr. Altman was asked a series of questions at that hearing and that's become a great bone of contention here. Did there come a time in that hearing when you were surprised by Mr. Altman's testimony and felt that he could have answered more forthrightly? Mr, EGGLESTON. During the immediately during the questioning of Senator Gramm, he--I think Mr. Altman testified about the one substantive contact that he had had. He described it as procedural relating to the statute of limitations issue. I was surprised that he had not mentioned the fact that the second subject had been recusal. I had, as I think the Committee heard from Ms. Hanson, I'd actually called Ms. Hanson the day before or within a couple of days before. She testified, it was the day before, to make sure that Mr. Altman was prepared to answer a question about the February 2nd meeting. In light of that, I was surprised that he had not testified about the recusal aspect. Senator SASSER. Well, did you speak to any of the Treasury staff about Mr. Altman's testimony while you were at the hearing, Ms. Hanson or others? Mr. EGGLESTON, I did not. Immediately after the testimony before Mr. Gramm, I went out in the hallway. I had a cellular phone and I called back to the White House to say that I was concerned. I did not speak to any members of the Treasury staff. Senator SASSER, So you were concerned about Mr. Altman's response to the question? Mr. EGGLESTON. I was, and I called back to the White House, Senator SASSER. In fact, who did you call, Mr. Eggleston? Mr. EGGLESTON. I called someone in Mr. Podesta's office. I don't-as I sit here today, remember whether I'd-I called to speak to Mr. Podesta. I may have gotten Mr. Podesta, I may have gotten his deputy. Senator SASSER. As a matter of fact, you were so concerned that You called the White House Counsel, Mr. Bernie Nussbaum, who's on vacation in Mexico; is that correct? Mr. EGGLESTON. I did, Mr. Nussbaum had left Thursday morning, the morning of the hearing, for-it was actually a Federal Bar 106 Council event. He had been the president the year before and I called him, I think on more than one occasion on that weekend to tell him that I was concerned about the testimony. Senator SASSER, Do you have any explanation as to why Mr. Altman did not refer to the recusal here before the Committee, the subject of the recusal? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, I do not. When I called Ms. Hanson the day before, she told me the three subjects that lie was going to testify to, or two or three subjects that he was going to testify to about regarding the February 2nd meeting. I specifically asked whether he was prepared to answer questions about that meeting, and she said that he would testify that related to procedures-I said 3 and now I can only remember 2-but about procedures relating to the statute of limitations, and I recall that she specifically mentioned the recusal issue, that he would testify [about that]. Senator SASSER. Did you ever have any conversation with Ms. Hanson thereafter about Mr. Altman's testimony and why he did not address the issue of recusal when he was before the Committee on February the 24th. Mr. EGGLESTON. I did not. By that time, I'd raised it within the White House. There is substantial, I think there's been testimony about it, there were substantial conversations in the White House about this issue, and the White House was deciding sort of what to do and how to respond. I did talk to Ms. Hanson again. I did not talk to her about Mr. Altman's testimony, I want to make sure I'm clear on that. Senator SASSER. You subsequently had conversations with Ms. Hanson, but not about the subject of Mr. Altman's testimony Mr. EGGLESTON. Correct. Senator SASSER [continuing]. Before the Senate Banking Committee? Mr. EGGLESTON. Not about that particular issue. I called her to ask her whether it was true that Jay Stephens had been hired to pursue the civil matter. I called the next day. During the hearing Mr. Altman had testified that Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro was the law firm [that had been hired]. I heard during the course of the day on Thursd ay that Jay Stephens had been hired. I called her the next morning or that day to say I've heard this. I assume since the law firm is public information, the name of the lawyer is public information, is it Jay Stephens? She told me either she didn't know or she didn't know who Jay Stephens was and that was the end of that conversation. Senator SASSER. She did not know who Jay Stephens was? or that Mr. EGGLESTON. She told me either that she didn't know she didn't know who Jay Stephens was. I actually think she told me she didn't know who Jay Stephens was, but I can't-it could have been the former. Senator SASSER. The fact that Jay Stephens was hired was a matter of some chagrin to some members of the White House, was it not? Mr. EGGLESTON. I had spoken about it with some people. Senator SASSER. I'm not unsympathetic with their concern about him being hired myself. 107 Mr. Klein, one quick question, you are turning to Mr. Altman's testimony before the Committee on February 24th, were you surprised by his testimony?