August 3, 1994 - Part 8
August 3, 1994 - Part 8
(19:50:38) I do want to underscore that I think this issue about recusal generally is a very important question, and I think you've raised some considerations today that deserve very serious attention. I mean, carried to its extreme, you could end up in a situation where the fact that you had been appointed to a position is in it. self-people will then assert that's a sufficient basis that you should recuse yourself. Then you depart from that position and you say well, not only were you appointed, but you knew the President who appointed you, you had met him, and then you had met him three times, six times and so forth and so on. It was instructive to be here today with Mr. Ludwig. I thought the point you made, the judges don't disqualify themselves in cases, even though the lawyers representing the litigants appear before them. They have a social relationship with the judge. They've known one another. They may, in fact, have gone to college together. They may have gone to law school together. And it seems. to me it's a tough issue. I recognize that, and I don't think there's an easy answer to it, but I think there is a danger in drifting down this road and particularly when it's used as the extracting price for getting a confimation and suggesting that a person can't make an independent" and objective judgment, even though they may have a personal acquaintanceship or a friendship with an appointing authority, so I think it's a matter that's worth a lot of very careful thought, I appreciate your raising the issue here today, and, I thought, in a very forthright and perceptive way. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes. Let me announce a plan now, we've discussed it and I think we have an agreement on it, that what we will do is we'll finish with this panel tonight. We've got a fair amount of requests here for people who have additional questions. So we'll stay and we'll finish with this panel tonight. Once we are finished we will adjourn for the evening. We will start with the panel of Mr. McLarty and Williams that we were planning to do tonight at 9:00 tomorrow morning. So we'll get an earlier start tomorrow with the understanding that we will go all day tomorrow and into the evening as late as. we need to finish up with the witnesses that we have on the schedule for tomorrow, including the two that we'll be carrying over 155 from our schedule for today. We will also target our efforts to be finished in terms of this entire effort by late in the afternoon on Friday and that will be our operating plan. Everybody can attempt to plan accordingly including the witnesses that will be appearing here tomorrow. So with that, let me now yield to Senator D'Amato. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Eggleston, you went to the meeting on February 24th, you were there and heard the testimony Mr. EGGLESTON. The hearing, yes, sir, I did. Senator DAMATO. And prior to that, as a matter of fact, the day before you had a conversation with Mrs. Hanson on the telephone and the gist of it was, was Mr. Altman prepared, was he prepared to answer the various questions as it related to the meeting that took lace on the 2nd, and Mrs. Hanson then read to you the propsal answers including answers from the following meeting of February 3rd. Mr. EGGLESTON. That's not my recollection. I don't know Senator D'AMATO. Well, did you have a conversation with Mrs. Hanson the day before February 23rd Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, sir. Senator DAMATO [continuing]. As it related to Mrs. Hanson's testimony? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, I did. Senator D'AMATO. Excuse me, Mr. Altman's testimony? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, I did. Senator D'AMATO. And didn't she go into some of these things that he would be prepared to speak to, and read them to you? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, what I was objecting to, you made a reference that she made to the meeting on February 3rd. She did not go into the meeting on February 3rd. I'm sorry, that's what I was contesting in what you said. Senator DAMATO. So she did say, as it related to the areas of discussion, that basically it would touch on the February 28th deadline, that the handling of civil claims-I'm trying to go through this in general. Finally, if the RTC were to determine any claims existed, the RTC would have to determine whether they seek a tolling agreement. Basically to outline the three procedures that we've talked to before.