August 4, 1994 - Part 9
August 4, 1994 - Part 9
(19:40:33) The CHAIRMAN, In any event, is that clear to you, Senator Dodd? Senator DODD. It is, but it's quite clear as well, the point you're giving, the testimony, and this is done in depositions for good reason, that a witness in a deposition is not allowed to refer to their notes. Mr. STEPHANOPOULOS. May I read into the record what was read to us by the Counsels when we testified? The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. I'll permit you to do that. Senator DODD, Let me complete it here. There's a point. I'm looking at his testimony. He's got his lawyer saying "guess." You call in the best lawyer in America-when my lawyer tells me to guessyou 've got a testimony that's prefaced by "guess." Now your notes are in front of you. That's a little disconcerting, but what he does and I think it's so important, Pete, on page 122, line 18 down to line 22, this is Mr. Ickes, that "it was his understanding"-and he's talking about Altman-----"that the investigation probably could not be concluded and that a determination could not it be made by the RTC's General Counsel as to whether there was a basis for a civil claim." Now, we know that's not true because Ms. Kulka testifies that that's not the case on February 1. So the issue is concluded. Now, if you could look at your notes instead of saying concluded, com pleted or concluded suit, and you see that the options are commence litigation to preserve a claim, that's your protective claim, or seek a tolling agreement. So your notes could help you in re-,. sponding to that kind of a question. Instead, you have Mr. Bennett say, "Go ahead. Guess. Do your best." I just point out that's a bit of a problem when you're getting into this. Senator KERRY. May I also point out Senator DOMENICI. Will you yield since I yielded to you? The CHAIRMAN. I'm going to make a point here. I want to into the record, so there's no further confusion about it, what the procedure was that was available for correcting testimony in a dep- 425 osition because this was the format that we followed, and I'm just going to read it verbatim into the record. "The deposition after it's prepared will be kept Committee confidential. However, if your attorney wants to review it or you want to review it, you can make arrangements, and we spell out how to do that and for you to read it." I'm dropping down, "it may be reviewed," and tells the time in which it is generally available for doing that and it says-it makes it very clear that it can be reviewed by the person giving the deposition or the attorney. Then it says "with respect to changes, there will be a jurat page supplied to you to make corrections, so if you find a mistake in the review, you put it on that page. Your attorney can explain a jurat page. That will allow you to make changes, for instance, if a person's name is used and it's misspelled. That can be changed. Minor corrections in transcription if there's some grammatical change you wish to make. "However, I will tell you if there are changes made in the substance of an answer, for example, a yes changing to a no, that may require you to be brought back in and redeposed and I want to make you aware of that. It should not deter you, however, from making changes. Since some Counsel believe they can make changes in the depositions themselves, we have clarified if changes are made on the jurat page, they are to be made by the witness and not by the Counsel." That was the instruction that was given. That's the ground rule that we followed. I just want to put that into the record so that it's clear that there was that opportunity for review, that is the normal practice in which it's done, and I take it that that's the instruction that you all received at the time, and that there's really no dispute about that part of the procedure. Would that be fair? Mr. ICKES. There's no dispute about that, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Senator Domenici. Senator DOMENICI. Senator Dodd, with reference to the note taking, could I refer you to page 87 of the deposition of Mr. Ickes? Senator DODD. I'm going to have to get that. Senator DOMENICI. Let me read it for you. "Question: Did individuals take notes" Senator DODD. Where are you on the page, Pete? Senator DOMENICI. Page 87, second line. Question: Did individuals take notes at those meetings, if you noticed? Answer: Some individuals did. Question, Did you take notes? [Witness conferred with counsel.] Answer: I kept notes. Question: Would it be correct to say that if they pertained to the scope of the Senate Resolution 229 that they have been delivered to the Committee? Answer: Yes. Question: And you have reviewed your notes yourself or along with your attorney? Answer: I have, So it isn't as if he didn't review his notes. He had reviewed them and admitted that and maybe that's the