August 4, 1994 - Part 8
August 4, 1994 - Part 8
(16:50:52) Senator D'AMATO. Well, I'm referring-and I don't mean to im- pinge, but if you Senator KERRY. I don't want to lose my time. Senator D'AMATO. I was referring to Senator KERRY. If I don't lose my time, I'm happy to have a colloquy on it. Senator D'AMATO. I'm certain to yield you time and you've been courteous and I think we all have. I was referring to whether or not the testimony he gave was true. Senator KERRY. Exactly. Senator D'AMATO. And he said it was. Senator KERRY. That's what I want to pin down. To the best of his memory. Senator D'AMATO No no that was sworn testimony that he gave that 375 Senator KERRY. I understand, whether or not the testimony as he delivered it, he still stands by it. I understand that. Senator DAMATO. Right. Senator KERRY. The reason it's important is that the testimony of Mr. Ickes that you specifically referred to, and appropriately, this is a very important area of inquiry. I share the interest of the Senator from New York in it. I just want to understand the playing field as we discuss it. The second part of it referred specifically to Mr. Ickes' testimony on "line 4, page 121, the investigation was going to take a longer period of time to conclude and it might not conclude until after the expiration of the statute of limitations." Then on the next page to another question, Mr. Ickes said the purpose of this meeting and the focus of this discussion was the relationship of the time that he felt the investigation might be wrapped up and that it was his understanding the investigation would probably not be concluded and a determination could not be made. Now, if we accept those two statements and find that those are, in fact, true, then there's a serious question about the transfer of that information, both from Treasury to the White House and from the White House to the First Lady, and I think the Senator agrees with me. We're both going in the same direction here. Without any further discussion on that for a moment, I just want to ask you a question. Do you remember whether or not Mr. Altman, in this meeting on February 2nd when you were all sitting around discussing this, did he read, to your memory, did he read from a prepared list of talking points? Mr. ICKES. Senator, he had a piece of paper in front of him. I was not sitting close enough to him to see whether there was anything on it. From time to time, during the course of his discussion, he would refer to that piece of paper. Senator KERRY. Throughout the discussion. Mr. ICKES. I don't want to say throughout, As I said, from time to time, he would refer to the piece of of paper Senator KERRY. Let me refer my col league-all of my colleagues, if I can, to the testimony of Ms. Hanson. In her deposition on pages 16 and 17, Hanson says Mr. Altman started the meeting by going through the talking points, and on page 17 "he read through the items. At one point I expanded on a piece of the discussion on the statute of limitations. I don't recall if it was as Mr. Altman was reading through the talking points or later, But other than that, there was no discussion while he read the talking points," Now, I ask unanimous consent that the talking points be placed in the record at this point. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, so ordered. Senator KERRY. Turning to the talking points, the second to last talking point, I will read from it. "It is not certain when the analysis will be completed, but it will be before February 28th," Now, the testimony of Ms. Kulka, the testimony of Mr. Ryan was adamantly, as the people in charge of this investigation, that it could not have been possible for Mr. Altman to say that it might not be concluded because that was not the fact. In fact, his talking Points say that it is not certain when the analysis will be completed, and the evidence is that he read his talking points. 376 In addition to Ms. Kulka, you have Mr. Eggleston, Mr. Nussbaum, Mr. Altman himself and Ms. Williams, all of whom have a different memory from Mr. Ickes. So when we discuss this issue of is the testimony true or obviously true to the best of your recollection, is it possible, Mr. Ickes, and I'm trying to get the facts, not suggest something else, but all of the other evidence is countervailing to this notion that it would have been possible for you to have understood what you understood, Where are we?