August 4, 1994 - Part 7
August 4, 1994 - Part 7
(16:10:38) In the several days following Mr. Altman's February 24 testimony, I spoke to Mr. Steiner on three or four occasions. On February 25, Mr. Steiner told me that Mr. Altman had recused himself 362 from Madison matters. Mr. Steiner also told me about the procedures the RTC went through in hiring Jay Stephens, the former Republican U.S. Attorney, to pursue RTC civil claims arising out of the Madison failure. Finally, following a meeting on March I at the White House at which Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. Klein, Mr. Eggleston, Mr. Sloan, Mr, Lindsey, and I discussed Mr. Altman's testimony, I spoke with Mr. Altman about the possible need to supplement his testimony oil three points-first, how the February 2nd meeting was arranged; second, the fact that the recusal was discussed at the February 2nd meeting; and third, whether anyone from the RTC had advised the White House of the criminal referrals involving Madison. Mr. Altman and I had what in my view was a constructive con- versation on the three points, which resulted the next day in Mr' Altman's letter supplementing the record concerning the fall meetings. Mr. Altman later sent a letter on the recusal point. I had no subsequent conversations with Treasury or RTC personnel that related in any way to Madison Guaranty. That concludes my prepared remarks and I look forward to an-. swering your questions. The CHAIRMAN. Let me pick up right where you left off. The discussion you had on the phone with Mr. Altman where you made the three points as to omissions in his testimony that he was going to have to fill in, what was the date of that? Mr. PODESTA. March 1. The CHAIRMAN. Did I understand you to say that you mentioned recusal as one of the three items? Mr. PODESTA. I did. The CHAIRMAN. Are you surprised, in his letter of March 2 that he sent to us, that recusal is not mentioned there? Or on March 3? There's another letter that follows. Mr. PODESTA. Mr. Chairman, I think I need to give you something of a long answer to that, if you'll bear with me. It really, I think, needs to be answered in the context of all three points. I mentioned The CHAIRMAN. I'm going to let you do that, but I want to make sure that I've established the predicate for the question that I want you to respond to. Mr. PODESTA. I understand. The CHAIRMAN. I want to be clear in my mind when you had the conversation with Mr. Altman and you mentioned these items, that one of them was the recusal issue. This happened on Mr. PODESTA. March 1. The CHAIRMAN. On March 1. Mr. PODESTA. Let me give you a short-winded answer and then I can give you a long-winded one. Of the three points we discussed, these had been the subject of a meeting, as I mentioned, between four members of the Counsel's Office and Mr. Lindsey and I through the course of the afternoon on March 1st. When I talked to Mr. Altman, I think that those of us on the White House side viewed those three issues somewhat differently. With regard to the first question about how the meeting had been arranged, it was Mr. Nussbaum, I think, who was particularly concerned that Mr. 363 Altman had said that he had asked for a meeting with Mr. Nussbaum. And I think the testimony has shown that he believed that he called Mr. McLarty to set up the meeting, but then asked for Mr. Nussbaum to attend. I think all of us in the White House, with perhaps the exception of Mr. Nussbaum himself, felt that was a matter that would probably not need to be supplemented. It didn't seem, in our view, to be something the Committee would be particularly concerned about or that there would be a strong press reaction to. The CHAIRMAN. Let me do this. I'm going to give you Mr. PODESTA. I'm going to rank these. The CHAIRMAN, I just want to talk about recusal right now. I'd like to leave the other two aside because I want to pose a question to another witness here on this point. Mr. PODESTA. On the recusal point, I think it was our view that the better course was to supplement the testimony and mention recusal, but that it was a judgment call that should be left to Mr. Altman on that point. The CHAIRMAN. The main point I want to establish here is that you flagged that for him on March 1st, and you have no doubt in your mind about that. Mr. PODESTA. I have no doubt in my mind about that. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ickes, in the meeting on February 2nd, yesterday Mr. Eggleston estimated that he thought about half the meeting was spent on the recusal issue. What would be your recollection on what percentage of the time of the meeting would have been spent on the recusal issue? Mr, ICKES. Senator, as I sit here today, it's my best recollection that probably three-quarters of the meeting was spent on the statute of limitation, the balance on recusal. The CHAIRMAN. When I look at your handwritten notes, which have been transcribed and printed on a piece of paper, you have that, I assume? Mr. ICKES. I have that if you'll bear with me a moment, Yes, I have it, The CHAIRMAN. In going through your transcription of notes, I don't find anything about recusal. Can you tell me why that is?