August 3, 1994 - Part 6
August 3, 1994 - Part 6
(17:29:52) Hearings hosts NINA TOTENBERG and DON BODE comment on hearings from tv studio and segue back to Senate Banking Committee hearings (17:31:25) Senate hearings resume: If you go to the deposition on page 30 it says did the conversations you had- this is the deposition of you Mr. Mein. Did the conversations you had with Mr. Nussbaum in which Mr. Nussbaum told you of his opinion of Ellen Kulka come up in the context of Mr. Nussbaum telling you that he preferred, he would prefer it if Mr 119 Altman did 'not recuse himself? And your answer is the question "did Mr. Nussbaum say you prefer he not recuse," that Mr. Altman not recuse-and you went on a little more and then you said "I think two facts are in my mind clear. He did not think Altman should capitulate to pressure and he was concerned about the fact that if Altman did not, if Altman did recuse that Ellen Kulka would then be in charge." "Question: So it was clear to you based on your conversations with Mr. Nussbaum that Mr. Nussbaum preferred to have Roger Altman making the decisions at the RTC in the Madison case as opposed to Ellen Kulka?" Your answer, "that's correct," Now then you turn to another deposition and this is the deposition of you, Mr. Eggleston, page 136. And the question was "did Mr. Ickes tell Ms. Hanson that it would be better if that information did not get out?" This is the information about Ms. Hanson saying that there should be a recusal but the conversation incidentally in Ms. Williams's office to the effect that he was not going to recuse himself. And your answer in this, Mr. Eggleston, was "I don't remember him saying that, but I think that was the import of his question. I don't actually remember him saying that but I think that's what he meant by the question." I "Question: In other words you interpreted what Mr. Ickes said to mean that he thought it would be better if nobody knew that Ms. Hanson had recommended recusal?" You answered that the concern Was a leak and so forth and you went back and forth. Now, when you add these up and then add them still further to another area in your deposition, Mr. Eggleston, on page 74 you said that the concern in the White House was whether or not Altman should recuse himself, a consideration and whenever that started .0 get raised on the Hill it got raised in the White House. There seems to be a sense left with us and I want you to have plenty of time to answer it that that there was political judgment being exercised here. Maybe the best thing to do is kind of explain if it was clumsy, if it was not the best judgment then we can really understand this better, but I sense that that's what's happening here. Now, the biggest dilemma is this, and I've asked you two questions on that biggest dilemma. If indeed there was to use this new term, a de facto recusal and I've seen it throughout the record here, Altman himself saying in talking points prepared by Ms. Hanson, Mr. Altman saying it to us and Ms. Hanson saying it to us, I'm not going to make a decision. I'm not involved." Now, if he wasn't going to make a decision and was not involved, there's a real dilemma in understanding why Mr. Nussbaum would feel more comfortable with him there than Ellen Kulka and how it is that he could be then viewed in the White House as being the one to make the decisions instead of Ellen Kulka while at the same time truly not being involved. And this may be the nub of this whole thing, that there was somehow a presence there, a perception of a chilling effect or something that might go away. Obviously it would go away on March 30th because on March 30th he was anyway. Can you explain all of that?