August 4, 1994 - Part 8
August 4, 1994 - Part 8
(17:10:34) Senator BRYAN. Are we talking about a legal duty? Mr. PODESTA. A legal duty. Senator BRYAN. We're at a legal standard now. Mr. PODESTA. A legal duty and we tried to decide what the best course of action was. I think with regard to recusal, we thought that from a legal perspective, and I was sitting with four members of the White House Counsel's staff-this is the best of my recollection-that the context of recusal with regard to it being approached in the tolling agreement could be fairly described in his testimony. But that the better course of action was to have disclosed that as his talking points with regard to the answer had done-I'm sorry. That it would have been better to just stick to the talking points and to have said recusal, so I think we all regretted that he didn't do it. But I think we thought at that point it was a judgment call about whether he should-whether he needed to do it, and that was best left with him. That it was his judgment. He was the witness. With regard to the fall meetings and Specifically with regard to the questions Senator Bond posed, how did the White House learn of the criminal referrals, we thought we had a duty, and that he had a duty to supplement the record on that point, a legal duty. Senator BRYAN. I must say I think the good judgment that was apparent immediately concurrent with the testimony on the 24th 381 deserted you because it seems to me there was, in fact, an obligation to correct the record. Now, did you yourself follow up or designate someone? As I understood your testimony in response to Senator Bond, you indicated, or perhaps in response to Senator Kerry, some period of time before you actually saw the March 2nd and the March 3rd letters sent by Mr. Altman to the Chairman. Mr. PODESTA, I believe I saw the March 3rd letter, which was faxed over to the White House from Treasury sometime probably over the following weekend, 4th or the 5th. I never saw the March 2nd letter until sometime quite a bit down the road into the future. Senator BRYAN. What was your reaction to the March 3rd letter? Mr. PODESTA. The March 3rd letter I viewed as largely putting on the record the point that the Deputy Counsel, the Ethics Officer, whose name is now escaping me, who testified before the Committee, had been Senator BRYAN. Ms. Nolan, I believe. Mr. PODESTA. Foreman. Senator BRYAN. Oh, Mr. Foreman, Mr. PODESTA. Had been consulted in advance of the February 2nd meeting and had essentially cleared it. I think that's the import of that letter. Senator BRYAN. I think what I find a bit surprising here, that we have all of these initial reactions which I think are absolutely right on. There's a high level staff meeting in which some of the superstars in the White House are gathering to strategize and it seems to me that the ball was dropped. Was there anybody charged with following up to see what was going to be done or did you view at that point that everything had been done? Mr. PODESTA. No. I think in the normal course of events, he would have continued to follow up. I think this wasn't a normal week. I called Mr. Altman on Tuesday. On Wednesday, we called back, I was informed that a letter had been sent. On Thursday, The Washington Post reported in detail on the two meetings, specifically with regard to Senator Bond's question, that the two meetings had occurred in the fall, that the criminal referrals had been mentioned, that the people who were at the meetings were identified. That's all information the White House provided. I thought that matter had been taken care of. I assumed his letter went through those details, and that the letter had been-as I say, I've been told that the Chairman had received the letter. On Friday, Mr. Fiske issued subpoenas to the White House and to a number of individuals in the White House. I'll take one step backwards. On Thursday, at that point, Mr. McLarty went to the lengths of issuing a memo putting up a Chinese Wall between the White House and Treasury. There was tremendous criticism of any contact between Treasury and the White House. Under those circumstances, and especially after Friday, when Mr. Fiske had issued the subpoena, I don't think we wanted to do anything to further complicate the record or that could be essentially criticized for our trying to intervene in testimony that was now being looked into by Mr. Fiske. senator BRYAN. Let me just say in fairness--and my time is up understand we have the benefit of hindsight. I must say, I find 382 it somewhat extraordinary after one attempt is made to correct the record, and then a decision is made to send a second letter, that there wouldn't be the sense, hey, let's get it right the second time