August 4, 1994 - Part 9
August 4, 1994 - Part 9
(19:30:27) Mr. ICKES. I think the date, Senator, was Sunday, July 24th, Senator DOMENICI. All right. Now, Mr. Ickes you stated in your deposition that there was no mention of this suit to preserve a claim. It is nowhere in your deposition. Your deposition says the purpose of this meeting and the focus of this discussion was the amount of time in which he felt this investigation might be wrapped up. And he said, at least in so many words, that it was his understanding that the investigation probably would not be concluded and a determination could not be made by the RTC's General Counsel as to whether there was a basis for a civil claim until after the expiration of that statute of limitations. Mr. Ickes, you know what I think has happened? I think you all have been talking about this, and this is the most damaging testimony with reference to why the White House did not want Mr. Altman to get out of this position in the RTC. Your testimony under oath establishes that the White House could very well want him in there because he's the decisionmaker-notwithstanding this "de 'facto recusal" business-and there were still 3 weeks before the statute of limitation would run. In fact, he would be the one making--a decision as to whether or not this lawsuit got filed. Now, frankly, Mr. Altman took the witness stand and he said three different times, "wait 'til Mr. Ickes comes up here; he will deny this or he will change his mind about this." And guess what happened? You did. in fact, it will be very tough for anybody to understand this record as to what you really are saying. You told Sen- 422 ator D'Amato three times that what you said in your deposition was true. Now, there is absolutely no mention in this about a 44 protective suit." And it appears nowhere in your deposition. All Of a sudden, it appears today. And it appears in your opening remarks, and the reason I think it occurred, and the reason I think that Mr. Altman was so sure it was going to occur is because the talk around the White House, at least between Altman and you or Counsel, Legal Counsel, was "Mr. Ickes, you got a big problem," You've got a big problem. Senator DODD. Would you yield on that point just for a moment? Senator DOMENICI. Let me finish the thought and I'd be pleased to yield. I haven't had a chance to talk yet. Senator DODD. I haven't either. But I might point, you've got a cumulation of testimony, Ms. Kulka on February 1st, and then all the other participants in that meeting with the exception of one who's unclear. And even if you disregard Mr. Ickes, it seems to me when you're- looking and trying to determine what was said-Ms. Kulka, who has no axe to grind, here is one thing but Senator DAMATO. She wasn't there. Senator DODD. I'm talking. Senator D'AMATO. Wait a minute. Senator DODD. Wait a second. Senator D'AMATO. I let you go well over your time; didn't say a word. You ask him and make a statement that's incorrect. Ms. Kulka was not there. Senator KERRY. Senator Senator DODD, I said on the February 1st meeting Senator DOMENICI. Could I retain my time? Senator DODD. Certainly. Senator DOMENICI. Would you not charge me, I've had no opportunity to say anything thus far and I wanted to make my point. The CHAIRMAN. Fair enough. Senator DOMENICI. Frankly, it seems to me that you assumedrightfully or wrongfully-that when Mr. Roger Altman talked about recusal at the February 2nd meeting, you assume that it was very important that he stay in that job. I cannot extract anything different than that from what occurred. Is it true or not that you still considered him to be the ultimate decisionmaker until he actually recused himself?