August 2, 1994 - Part 4
August 2, 1994 - Part 4
(11:25:49) The CHAIRMAN. Are the notes available so we can do this in the context of not having to call you back? Mr. STEINER. I don't know, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. Where are the notes? Mr. WEINGARTEN. In my office, Senator, Mr. STEINER. They're in my attorney's office. Senator SHELBY. They're here. They're in the lawyer's office. The CHAIRMAN. Where's the office? Mr. WEINGARTEN. In Washington. Mr. STEINER, It's here in town , sir, up by Dupont Circle. Senator SHELBY. Mr. Chairman, he could probably get those notes while we're going through another round of questioning. The CHAIRMAN. I think it would be useful to try to get the notes up here on this one sentence and let me tell you why, and then I'm going to yield back the time and I thank Senator D'Amato. What Senator Shelby has pointed out here, if the literal transcription is correct, certainly could lend itself to the interpretation that he raised and that is, turning the RTC people they didn't know. I've heard that phraseology used before, and that suggests, in a sense, finding a way to deflect them from the decision path they might be on. Mr. STEINER. Senator, I can understand why, based on the text'. that is before you, why you might interpret it that way. I cannot, possibly be any clearer, however, that that was not my intention", when I wrote this. I had a very clear issue in mind, which was the. one I described earlier, concerning Mr. Altman's term under Vacancy Act and that was my intention in writing this passage. The CHAIRMAN. I'll finish with this. This becomes very Important since it was earlier in the day that either Senator Shelby or Sen- ator Kerry reviewed your own background. You've had an excellent.., academic background. You've earned a master's degree' You've worked in a library. You're obviously very good at words, This is 389 a skill you have, It is a developed, polished skill and so the issue of what you've said in its initial accuracy, especially because there have been these stories circulating that there s now an effort to try and take and in a sense, reinterpret or redefine the meaning, makes every word on this piece of paper highly relevant, Mr. STEINER. I appreciate that, Senator. I might point out, that you'll notice, in fact, I describe the same set of events twice in this diary, and the reason is that I did not go back and review it. I did not go back over former passages and look at them again and check them for accuracy, check to see whether my language was precise, check to see whether my sentences were complete. As you'll see here, my syntax is not the same I might use in writing a memo or formal letter. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, sometimes we get better information that way, I mean, you weren't concerned about nuances when you wrote this. You were, I assume, giving the most honest, direct-you were talking to yourself. There is absolutely no reason for you to not be absolutely candid with yourself. I assume you were. Mr. STEINER. Nor was there a reason, however, Senator to be precise or be entirely accurate because my purpose was not to write a precise or accurate narrative. My purpose today under oath, as it has been under 4 previous sworn testimonies, was to be as precise and as accurate as I possibly can. The CHAIRMAN. Senator DAmato. Senator D'AMAT0. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sir, I just want to make note of something you just said and something the witness said as it relates to-you'll notice that I keep going back because I didn't check. You went back and as a diary would you continued to update it and this issue of recusal was big. Bernie Nussbaum got down, beating up your boss. Every body told your boss "recuse yourself." You said it. You expected him to TO it and be came back and be was pounded and changed his mind. You look at your diary, you'll see that you even agonized, and I tell you something it is distressful to see a young, bright, intelligent man who wrote this diary and comes around and concocts some feeble, lamebrained excuses to try to explain it away like it didn't count and it didn't matter. You don't do yourself justice. You have a memo I've given you that you prepared at the end of February, sometime in February-middle of February you've testified. It's dated March 4 because that's when it's printed out. And in it you are going through and you've describe an analysis of the advantages of a recusal and the disadvantages. And your last five advantages, and then there is one disadvantage, you have three. Would you read that first disadvantage.