August 4, 1994 - Part 7
August 4, 1994 - Part 7
(15:45:35) By this, I meant that there probably would not be sufficient time to complete fully the Madison investigation, in order to permit the RTC to make a judgment about whether the merits of the case justified pursuing a civil suit. My understanding was based on the discussion of the three options, as well as the public statements about these issues. As I understood it, the RTC probably would need more time to complete a thorough investigation and an internal review, before making a final determination as to whether there were sufficiently meritorious claims to justify committing agency resources to pursuing a full-blown lawsuit. But I also understood that the RTC could file a protective lawsuit to preserve future claims, if there was not a tolling agreement. It has been suggested, based on my deposition, that I did not believe the RTC would be in a position to file such a protective suit by the February 28th deadline. That is simply not so. To the contrary, I understood that the RTC was in a position to file such 8 protective claim if it did not obtain tolling agreements. This is corroborated by two sources. First, it is corroborated by my notes of the February 2nd meeting, which were not shown to me at my Senate deposition. These notes refer to the three options outlined above, including the option 355 to "commence litigation to preserve claim." I have attached a copy of those notes to this statement, for the record. Second, RTC's General Counsel, Ellen Kulka, testified before this Committee earlier this week that she advised Mr, Altman that the RTC would not have fully completed its investigation by the deadline, but that it would be able to file a protective claim, if necessary, to preserve its options. Ms, Kulka testified that she told Mr. Altman that "we would do what we could to file the complaints we need to file, and amend them later if further discovery after that date made it appropriate." Ms. Kulka said she "clearly told Mr. Altman that we would put ourselves in a position to do the very best we could and that we would be able to file the complaints." Thus, what Ms. Kulka reported to Mr. Altman, just prior to our February 2nd meeting, was consistent with what I took away from that meeting-that while the agency would probably need more time to do a thorough investigation and make a final determination, it would be able to file a protective lawsuit to preserve its rights to proceed. As I stated in my Senate deposition, both the questions I asked and the matters discussed by Mr. Altman were procedural, not substantive in nature. The information communicated by Mr. Altman did not strike me then nor does it strike me now as being secret or confidential, nor did Mr. Altman or his General Counsel, who was present at the meeting, state that this information was confidential. Indeed, I was under the impression that the issues flagged by Mr. Altman on the February 2nd meeting were already a matter of public debate. Moreover, because it was my understanding that the RTC could file a protective suit, I would have had no reason to inform either the President or Mrs. Clinton that there was no need for them to enter into a tolling agreement-and I am confident that I made no such suggestion to either of them. In fact, to my knowledge, the President and Mrs. Clinton were not asked to sign a tolling agreement. I remind you that just 10 days after the February 2nd meeting, the President signed into law a bill extending the statute of limitations until the end of 1995. Once that happened, the deadline for any decision concerning Madison and the procedural options we discussed at the February 2nd meeting were no longer of any relevance, Toward the end of the February 2nd meeting, Mr. Altman also stated that he was considering recusing himself from the Madison matter. I, and others present, inquired as to why he was considering recusal, and to the best of my recollection, he said it was because he was a personal friend of the President's.