August 4, 1994 - Part 8
August 4, 1994 - Part 8
(18:05:22) The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Ickes, before you respond and again excuse me for interrupting and I say to my friend from North Carolina, that particular memo, which was the last document to come to us, really falls into two parts. There is a part that in effect is within the scope of our inquiry and then there is a part that is not. I think it's appropriate to ask questions about the part that's within the scope of the inquiry, but I think we run into an issue of getting beyond that and so I would just say to Mr. Ickes that you should restrict your response to the part of the memo that's within the scope of this charter that we have. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Mr. ICKES. Mr. Chairman, I would-I'm somewhat at a disadvantage because I don't have the document in front of me. It's my understanding- The CHAIRMAN. We're going to send it out to you and mark it out so that we're true to our mission here. And let's suspend the clock for a minute so that your time is not running while we do this and we'll just hold things in place until such time as you have a chance to do this. You better take it down and explain it. I appreciate Senator FAIRCLOTH. I understand. The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. The forbearance here. [Pause.] And if there's any confusion, Mr. Ickes, if you're not exactly clear, ask for guidance and I'll see that you have the guidance, So, Senator Faircloth, we'll restore that time and do you want to pose the question again or leave it as it sits and let Mr. Ickes answer within the scope of what Senator FAIRCLOTH. I'll leave it as it sits if he remembers it and answer within the scope that's within the bounds of what we're doing. The CHAIRMAN. Fair enough. Senator FAIRCLOTH. If he doesn't remember it, I'll read it again. Mr. ICKES. Senator, just so the record is clear, I've been handed three pieces of paper. As I understand it there were many more pieces of paper involved in this document or set of documents. The first one is a memorandum to the First Lady from Harold Ickes, dated 1 March 1994. I've been informed by Counsel that the first paragraph of that two-paragraph memorandum or actually threeparagraph memorandum is redacted, that the only one that is within the scope of this hearing is the second one. And then there is I have two other pieces of paper in front of me which apparently are part of a memorandum that I gather was attached to the socalled transmittal memorandum of which only a limited amount of those two pages are within the scope. 395 So based on that, could I trouble you to ask your question again? I'm sorry. Senator FAIRCLOTH. Well, my question is why would the White House staff send Hillary Clinton a memo about something that happened before she was First Lady and about which the White House and she as an individual says nothing is wrong, why would you be sending her such a memo? Mr. ICKES. Primarily informative, Senator. This was a matter that was being discussed, if not daily certainly very frequently, in the press. Her relationship with Rose Law Firm, as you've pointed out, was well known and it was my understanding that two of the memorandum included in this discussed the relationship of the FDIC as well as the RTC to the Rose Law Firm. It was merely being sent to her as a matter of information and interest. Senator FAIRCLOTH. But she had a pretty intense interest in what was going on here, isn't that correct? Mr. ICKES. Certainly-she certainly in my view had an interest because it involved her name and it involved her prior law firm. I would like to say for the record however, Senator, that it is not at all clear to me that this memorandum, that is the transmittal memorandum which I described earlier was in fact sent.