August 2, 1994 - Part 4
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(11:15:19) The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Hatch. Senator HATCH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Shelby. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Steiner, do you believe basically, as a basic belief, that when someone asks you a straight question that you ought to answer it, or anyone ought to answer it, with a straight answer? Mr. STEINER. Yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. A straight question deserves a straight answer, not misleading, not evasive, not something less than candid. Mr. STEINER. That's correct. 385 Senator SHELBY. Would you say that's especially true when we were holding oversight hearings, not just today, but the bearings that Mr. Altman attended back in February. Mr. STEINER. I think it's always true Senator SHELBY. Would you agree with that? Mr. STEINER. Yes, I would. Senator SHELBY. I want to go back again to your diary, and I'm going to quote from it. I'm on Deposition Exhibit 4. I'm sure you're familiar with it, and this is dated February 13, the dates to Feb- ruary 7, 1994, lines 7 forward we have here. And I'm quoting "ini- tially " these are your words in your diary-"initially, we all felt that he should," he being Roger Altman, "he should recuse himself to prevent even the appearance of a conflict." You agreed with that statement that was in your diary? Do you disagree with those words that you put down in your diary? Mr. STEINER. As I said before, Senator, I think if you got conflicting Senator SHELBY. I asked you a straight up question. Do you dis- agree or agree with those words? "Initially we all felt, we," you and some of the people around you---"felt that we should" - "that he, Roger Altman, should recuse himself to prevent even the appear- ance," the appearance "of a conflict." Mr. STEINER. I would not say everyone in the Treasury felt that way, no, sir. Senator SHELBY. Did you feel that way? Mr. STEINER. Did I feel he should recuse himself? Senator SHELBY. Yes. Mr. STEINER. Yes, I did, Senator. Senator SHELBY. And you go on to use this word "at a fateful"-- fateful to Mr. Altman, or fateful to the White House, or fateful to whom---"at a fateful White House meeting with Nussbaum, Ickes, and Williams, however, the White House staff told Roger Altman that it was unacceptable," that his recusal, was unacceptable. Roger Altman had gone to brief them on the impending statute of limitations deadline, and also to tell them of his recusal decision. They reacted very negatively to the recusal, and Roger Alt-man backed down the next day and a agreed to a de facto recusal, where the RTC would handle the case life any other and so forth. Again, let's go over who was at the meeting today. They, who is "they," Mr. Ickes? Mr. STEINER. Mr. Ickes was in attendance, yes, sir. Senator SHELBY. Who else was there, Ms. Williams? Mr. STEINER. Ms. Williams, yes. Senator SHELBY. She works with Mrs. Clinton; is that right? Mr. STEINER. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. Who else was there? Mr. STEINER. Mr. Nussbaum. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Altman? Mr. STEINER. Mr. Altman and Ms. Hanson. Senator SHELBY. Is this the meeting we've beard about that took Place in Mr. McLarty's office that was set up for that. Mr. STEINER. That's correct. Senator SHELBY. Mr. McLarty was not there during the meeting but the meeting was set in his offices; is that correct? 386 Mr. STEINER. I did not attend the meeting. It was my understanding that he was not present. Senator SHELBY. What did you mean by the word "fateful"? At a fateful White House-what did -you mean then? What do you mean now? Mr. STEINER. Sure. Senator SHELBY. First, what did you mean then when you put it down, that it was fateful? Mr. STEINER. Senator, as I've said, I believe this was written on February 27, which was after press stories and editorials had come out about this meeting, and in hindsight nearly a month after the meeting took place, I considered it fateful. Senator SHELBY. Now, I want to quote some more from your diary here on the same page. It goes down and it's not broken down into paragraphs, but you can find it. "Once again, they" they being the people at the White House; is that right, that you've just enumerated? "They were very concerned about him," meaning Roger Altman; is that right? "About him turning the RTC people they didn't know. So Roger Altman did not formally commit himself. "Once again, they were very concerned about him turning the RTC people." Are you talking about a political turning, turning them, trying to persuade them to a different course of action? How do you use the word "turning" that way? That's generally what it means, isn't it, when you turn a witness, you change them? When you turn someone you change them? Mr. STEINER That was not the Senator SHELBY. Isn't that the ordinary use of the term, though? Mr. STEINER. That was not the context in which Senator SHELBY. What context were you using it in? Mr. STEINER. I was using it in the context of him stepping down as interim CEO, relinquishing his position as interim CEO. Senator SHELBY. Let's go over that again. You didn't say any of that here as I read it. "Once again, they were very concerned about him , being Mr. Altman, "turning the RTC people le, they didn't know." In other words, they werent familiar with him, they didn't know him. "So Roger Altman did not formally commit himself " Why would they be upset about him possibly recusing himself? Why?