August 4, 1994 - Part 6
August 4, 1994 - Part 6
(14:05:23) Senator BOND. Do you have any recollection who would have prepared you for that CNN interview show which I have referred to in the last line of questioning, where you talked about Mr. Altman's position? Do you know who would have done it or who did it? Mr. MCLARTY. Senator, as I recall it, that was a relatively farranging interview, as many are, and I think I received briefings from several people. Perhaps someone from the White House Counsel's Office would have briefed me on the matter that you are speaking of I honestly don't recall the briefing. As I remember, it was a busy time and I didn't spend a lot of time getting briefed before that interview. Senator BOND. And I can understand that. I'm trying to find out who did it because the concern I have is, there was much discussion in the White House about the inaccuracy of Mr. Altman's testimony, but that seems to be as far as it got. There was talk about it. I personally received a telephone call on March 2nd from Mr. Altman, not because he had discovered that the testimony was in error, his first words to me were The Washington Post is going to publish this story the next day, and I have the sinking feeling that I found out only because it was going to be in the newspaper the next day. That's why I'm trying to find out who should have or would have been in a position to brief you, to tell you why the testimony by Altman was not correct or why you were not given the information that the recusal should have been discussed. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time. The CHAIRMAN. I right. Let me just indicate I've been informed that the Senate is about to start four back-to-back votes starting at 2:10. The first one will run for 20 minutes; the next three, 5 minutes each. That will take us into the range, by the time they announce those votes and so forth, to a little bit after 3:00. So I'm going to, in a moment, discharge these witnesses and indicate that we'll start with our next panel. We'll recess the Committee as well. We'll start our next panel at 3:15, so those witnesses can be on notice. I want to say to these two witnesses, we appreciate, very much, your testimony. I have one other question that I want to put to Ms. Williams before this vote starts. I was listening very carefully to everything that's been said, not just by the two of you but by all of our witnesses, and I'm trying to make sense out of this obvious contradiction between Mr. Altman, his diary, what he bases that on and the testimony that we've gotten here from you today, and also very much on the recusal issue. What I'm wondering is this: I'm looking for how, how could that plausibly be, how could that ever be reconciled? I'm wondering, Ms. Williams, you came to the meeting late, the meeting that we're talking about on February 2nd? Ms. WILLIAMS. That's correct sir. The CHAIRMAN. You arrived late at the meeting. So anything that went on in the meeting before you got there, you are obviously not going to know about because you weren't there; isn't that fair to say? Ms. WILLIAMS. That would be fair to say, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. So whatever lie might have taken away from that meeting that occurred before you arrived would be between the other participants in the meeting and him and that would be outside the scope of your knowledge; wouldn't that be fair to say? Ms. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir. That would be fair to say. The CHAIRMAN. OK. Also, when you came in, you weren't prepared or briefed or ready to discuss recusal, as I understand your testimony today, in any formal fashion. The issue came up and you gave a point of view, essentially off the top of your head; would that--I don't say that disrespectfully, but would that be a fair way to characterize it? Ms, WILLIAMS. Very much off the top of my head. The CHAIRMAN. In fact, Mr. Nussbaum, you felt, in the meeting was sort of dismissive of your point of view. You also said that today, did you not? Ms. WILLIAMS. I believe I mentioned that. The CHAIRMAN. I thought I heard that. In any case, I'm wondering, just to try to reconcile these two accounts if, in Mr. Altman's mind, if he's in there and he's already gotten a dose of negative feedback on his decision to recuse himself-I'm just theorizing now-if, when you offered your opinion, which was a spontaneous opinion that you offered at that particular time, if he might have construed your opinion to be one either coming-you have two roles in the White House, you work for the President, you work for the First Lady-whether Altman, in his frame of mind, might have thought that whatever opinion you were giving was not just your opinion, but maybe you were giving an opinion that might have been a reflection of either the President's or the First Lady's.