Advanced Search
Campers
Donkeys & Burros ***
Campers
Mules & Burros ***
Campers
Burros & Mules ***
August 3, 1994 - Part 8
(19:40:40) Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, my recollection is that-I can't remember how I got to Maggie Williams' office, although it's about 10 yards from Mr. Nussbaum's office. It's in the same general location of the west wing. Senator GRAMM. You walked over there, though? Mr. EGGLESTON. I must have-let me just say also I don't think that Mr. Altman was thinking about meeting 151 Senator GRAMM. Let me go back-Mr. Altman came in. You were there. What did he say and how did he say it? Mr. EGGLESTON. He came in. He did not sit down. As I recall, he stood right inside the door, closed the door and said, quietly without any particular emphasis, I've decided not to recuse or I've decided not to recuse for now-I can't quite remember which one and turned around and walked out. I think he was Senator GRAMM. That's all he said, he came in and said, I've decided not to recuse, and then he walked out. Was there applause? Mr. EGGLESTON. Sir, I think he walked out and the meeting-if you call it a meeting, no one was sitting-lasted about 10 seconds. There was no applause. Senator GRAMM. No one said a word? Mr. EGGLESTON. I do not remember anyone saying anything back to him. I don't think he was there long enough. Senator GRAMM. But people were still there when Ms. Hanson showed up, who had been beeped to come out of her luncheon. Mr. EGGLESTON. Ms. Hanson showed up within seconds of the time Mr. Altman left. Senator GRAMM. Is that not the meeting where Mr. Ickes says to her, how many people know about this recusal thing, and she said three, and he said, well, that's good we don't want it to be known? Is that the meeting where that happened? Mr. EGGLESTON. Let me just make sure I'm clear about what I remember about it. The CHAIRMAN. Why don't you go ahead and finish this answer. Time is up and we 're going to continue on here, but complete the answer. Mr. EGGLESTON. My recollection is that Mr. Ickes said, how many people at Treasury know about this. I thought she said four or five and I don't remember anything after that. I think I was leaving. This was over. Nothing-we were all standing, when this took place, by the door, and I walked out. Senator D'AMATO. I think you gave a deposition where you indicated that you did hear the statement and that Mr. Ickes says, it's better that you forget that. Mr. EGGLESTON. Well, you know, I don't think that I did say that in my deposition. I think I was asked what I understood by that, and I think I understood by that that he meant that should be closely held, and I apologize if I'm misremembering but I think I didn't say that I had heard, actually, the rest of the conversation. I'm just doing my best. If that's wrong, Senator D'Amato, I'm sorry. The CHAIRMAN. We'll dig it out and check. Senator Sarbanes. Senator SARBANES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Earlier, as I recall, I think a couple of you said that after the testimony of February 24th before the Committee, there was concern in the White House over two things: one, that Mr. Altman had not mentioned the recusal discussion that took place at the meeting of February 2nd; and second, that the earlier contacts had not been referenced. He' said there was only that one contact. Then there was a third thing which you said didn't rise to the level of who called the meeting. Why did you think that Altman knew about the earlier contacts? 152 Mr. EGGLESTON. Senator, it was our view-we did not think--I did not think that he knew about the earlier contacts) but it seemed to me, and it seemed to others in these meetings, including I think, Mr. Mein, that Mr. Altman was answering on behalf of the' RTC. The question that Mr. Bond-that Senator Bond had Posed to him was when the RTC informed the White House about the criminal referrals. It was our view that he was responding on behalf of his institution, that Ms. Hanson had been sitting at the hearing, and that he should at least-even if he did not know that he should at least for the record make clear that there had been these earlier-because he was not-he was responding on behalf of his institution and if he had information-if his institution had information that was contrary to what he thought, he still should be providing it to the Committee. That was our Senator SARBANES. That information was transmitted by Ms. Hanson from the Treasury. Was Altman, in effect, very carefully making a distinction there? Mr. EGGLESTON. I was not thinking about this issue that carefully. I knew she was sitting there. I think he was testifying in his role as head of the RTC, not in his role as Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Sloan, you were at the-at least partially this meeting with Nussbaum and Hanson on September 29th? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. Did you think Hanson was-did you think that Altman knew the information that Hanson was bringing to you? Mr. SLOAN, The only information that I can relate that bears on that on September 29th is that in the course of the fairly brief conversation, Ms. Hanson said that she thought that Roger Altman had sent Bernie some materials on this previously. That's the only reference to Roger Altman that I recall.
Tourist's Spots
Flooded Meadows ***
Tourist's Spots
Cathedral Rocks ***
Tourist's Spots
Agathlan ***
Tourist's Spots
Mirror Lake & Pans ***
Tourist's Spots
Mirror Lake Misc.
Tourist's Spots
View thru tunnel
Tourist's Spots
Mirror Lake
Tourist's Spots
Reflections
Tourist's Spots
Three Brothers
Tourist's Spots
Pan up El Capitan
Tourist's Spots
El CapitanSouth side of River
Tourist's Spots
Royal Arches
Tourist's Spots
Cathedral Spires
Tourist's Spots
Reflections of Mirror LakeSwift & current lake
Tuolumne Meadows
Bridges over river ***Horses on bridge
August 3, 1994 - Part 8
(19:45:47) Senator SARBANES. Let me ask you. As you interacted with Ms. Hanson, and I'll extend the question to others at the table, did you perceive her as being Altman's agent or acting on her own? Mr. SLOAN. My only knowledge is with respect to that reference because she made that reference. Senator SARBANES. What's your perception of the Altman/Hanson arrangement or relationship, business relationship? Do you think, Hanson would have come to the White House bringing you information about the criminal referrals if Altman hadn't authorized or tasked or instructed her, indicated to her, directed her to come over with that information? Mr. SLOAN. Senator Sarbanes, I honestly am not in a position to give an informed Judgment on that matter. Senator SARBANES. When you all interacted with Hanson on mat-. ters, did you perceive her to be acting for Altman? Mr. SLOAN. The only thing that I can tell you is that with that reference to Roger Altman in the meeting--I mean, I assumed there had been some prior discussion with Roger Altman but the, sole basis for that assumption was the comment that I related to you. And I should add that in a subsequent telephone conversation with me, she said that no, she had been mistaken, and she made" 153 some reference to a March 1992 New York Times article, and so Senator SARBANES. That's the conversation where she told you she was mistaken in telling Nussbaum that materials had been sent over? Mr. SLOAN. That's correct. Senator SARBANES. And she then the next day called and it said it wasn't materials, it was a faxed article that was sent? Mr. SLOAN, I don't remember her saying that exactly. I remember her calling our attention to the article. I don't remember if she said it had been sent. I have a couple of lines in my notes of September 30th that relate to that discussion, but my independent recollection is that she was calling our attention to the article. Senator SARBANES. That's the article that Altman faxed back in March 1992? Mr. SLOAN. That's what I would now understand it to be. It's a March 1992 New York Times article about the Whitewater matter, is my understanding. Senator SARBANES. It's an article of March 1992, but Altman faxed it over on March 1993? Mr. SLOAN. That's a fact that 1 believe I've learned in the last several weeks-- exactly when it was faxed-in the course of these investigations, but that's my understanding. Senator SARBANES. Of the people at the table, Mr. Eggleston, you're the only one who was in the meeting of February 2nd in which the recusal was discussed. How long did that meeting last entirely? Mr. EGGLESTON. Twenty minutes. 1 really have very little recollection of how long. Senator SARBANES. How much of it was devoted to the recusal discussion? Mr. EGGLESTON, I think it was about half and half, but, Senator Sarbanes. I'm really guessing, Senator SARBANES. And were the principal discussants of the recusal Altman and Nussbaum? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes. Senator SARBANES. Anyone else? Mr. EGGLESTON. I don't specific-I'm not using that coyly, I don't specificall remember anybody else. The CHAIRMAN. Would you yield at that point, Senator Sarbanes, because that is a little different than what I think I heard earlier when of you indicated that there were a number of concerns expressed by people in the room, so that it was not just an expression concern from Nussbaum, but there were others there and that the phalanx of opinion was pretty much on the other side of that issue. Am I not remembering that correctly? Mr. EGGLESTON. No, I think you're accurate. I cannot separate this conversation out by who the speakers were except I have a general recollection that Mr. Nussbaum and Mr. Altman were the two people who probably spoke most. I could not say, and I guess have a general sense that others asked questions of Mr. Altman. I don't think I asked any questions, so I'm sorry. I think I have amended my answer, Senator Sarbanes. 154 Senator SARBANES. When the meeting-what set the alarm bells off in the White House? Were you actually watching the hearing and listening to the testimony? Mr. EGGLESTON. The alarm bells were set off by myself. I was in your hearing room in this building. Senator SARBANES. You were here at the hearing? Mr. EGGLESTON. I was here at the hearing. Senator SARBANES, You sat there in the audience and thought to yourself, this is not the right testimony? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, sir, after I heard the responses to the questions from Senator Gramm I had a cellular phone and I went out to the hall to call back to the White House. Senator SARBANES. Mr. Chairman, I see my time is about up and I want to just take the remaining time to just engage Mr. Mein for a moment. I really have no question to put to him.
Tuolumne Meadows
Tenaya Lake, ECO ***
Tuolumne Meadows
Tenaya Lake, new & old ***
Tuolumne Meadows
A boy & his guitar on the river ***
August 3, 1994 - Part 8
(19:50:38) I do want to underscore that I think this issue about recusal generally is a very important question, and I think you've raised some considerations today that deserve very serious attention. I mean, carried to its extreme, you could end up in a situation where the fact that you had been appointed to a position is in it. self-people will then assert that's a sufficient basis that you should recuse yourself. Then you depart from that position and you say well, not only were you appointed, but you knew the President who appointed you, you had met him, and then you had met him three times, six times and so forth and so on. It was instructive to be here today with Mr. Ludwig. I thought the point you made, the judges don't disqualify themselves in cases, even though the lawyers representing the litigants appear before them. They have a social relationship with the judge. They've known one another. They may, in fact, have gone to college together. They may have gone to law school together. And it seems. to me it's a tough issue. I recognize that, and I don't think there's an easy answer to it, but I think there is a danger in drifting down this road and particularly when it's used as the extracting price for getting a confimation and suggesting that a person can't make an independent" and objective judgment, even though they may have a personal acquaintanceship or a friendship with an appointing authority, so I think it's a matter that's worth a lot of very careful thought, I appreciate your raising the issue here today, and, I thought, in a very forthright and perceptive way. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes. Let me announce a plan now, we've discussed it and I think we have an agreement on it, that what we will do is we'll finish with this panel tonight. We've got a fair amount of requests here for people who have additional questions. So we'll stay and we'll finish with this panel tonight. Once we are finished we will adjourn for the evening. We will start with the panel of Mr. McLarty and Williams that we were planning to do tonight at 9:00 tomorrow morning. So we'll get an earlier start tomorrow with the understanding that we will go all day tomorrow and into the evening as late as. we need to finish up with the witnesses that we have on the schedule for tomorrow, including the two that we'll be carrying over 155 from our schedule for today. We will also target our efforts to be finished in terms of this entire effort by late in the afternoon on Friday and that will be our operating plan. Everybody can attempt to plan accordingly including the witnesses that will be appearing here tomorrow. So with that, let me now yield to Senator D'Amato. Senator D'AMATO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Eggleston, you went to the meeting on February 24th, you were there and heard the testimony Mr. EGGLESTON. The hearing, yes, sir, I did. Senator DAMATO. And prior to that, as a matter of fact, the day before you had a conversation with Mrs. Hanson on the telephone and the gist of it was, was Mr. Altman prepared, was he prepared to answer the various questions as it related to the meeting that took lace on the 2nd, and Mrs. Hanson then read to you the propsal answers including answers from the following meeting of February 3rd. Mr. EGGLESTON. That's not my recollection. I don't know Senator D'AMATO. Well, did you have a conversation with Mrs. Hanson the day before February 23rd Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, sir. Senator DAMATO [continuing]. As it related to Mrs. Hanson's testimony? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, I did. Senator D'AMATO. Excuse me, Mr. Altman's testimony? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, I did. Senator D'AMATO. And didn't she go into some of these things that he would be prepared to speak to, and read them to you? Mr. EGGLESTON. Yes, what I was objecting to, you made a reference that she made to the meeting on February 3rd. She did not go into the meeting on February 3rd. I'm sorry, that's what I was contesting in what you said. Senator DAMATO. So she did say, as it related to the areas of discussion, that basically it would touch on the February 28th deadline, that the handling of civil claims-I'm trying to go through this in general. Finally, if the RTC were to determine any claims existed, the RTC would have to determine whether they seek a tolling agreement. Basically to outline the three procedures that we've talked to before.