August 2, 1994 - Part 6
August 2, 1994 - Part 6
(00:35:15) Mr. ALTMAN. No. Senator D'AMAT0. Or anyone else from the White House? Mr. ALTMAN. No. Senator D'AMATO. Mr. Ickes? b4r. ALTMAN. I had no-I received no subsequent request for meetings. 424 Senator D'AMATO. What about private counsel? Did private counsel-I find it hard to believe that there was no private counsel. Are you saying to me that there was level? not even private counsel meeting with staff lawyers at some level? Mr. ALTMAN. Not to my knowledge, Senator. [Videotape ended.] The CHAIRMAN. Let me just indicate there now needs to be a tape change. There will be two more segments to review here and then we'll be finished with this viewing. Senator GRAMM. Mr. Chairman, while they're doing that The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead with the tape, please. [Videotape started.] Senator BOND. Next, when did you become aware of the RTC recommendations that further criminal prosecution be taken against Madison? Mr. ALTMAN. Last fall. I was advised that the question of a referral to the Justice Department was under consideration at the RTC. And as other members of the RTC staff will attest, I said that normal procedures with no deviation whatsoever should be pursued, including chain of command procedures, in terms of reaching that con. clusion. I might tell you that typically decisions like that are made at the Regional Office level and it was in this case. Senator BOND. Were you aware that the Regional Office had asked the National Office to make a determination as to whether the Clintons' name should be in the new expanded referral? Mr. ALTMAN. No. Senator BOND. You did not know they were asking for the National Office to make a determination? Mr, ALTMAN. No. I was simply informed that this issue was on the table, and my reaction was-and I had only one conversation about it-that normal procedure should be followed. That's the way we're going to handle this thing to the very end. Senator BOND. How was the White House notified of the referral, was it from the RTC? Mr. ALTMAN. They were not notified by the RTC, to the best of my knowledge. Senator BOND. Nobody in your agency, to your knowledge, advised White House staff that this was going to 'be a major-this could be a major source of concern? Mr. ALTMAN. Not to my knowledge. Senator BOND. Ms. Ford, do you know if the White House was notified by the RTC? Ms, FORD. No. We have had no involvement at the Oversight Board whatsoever. [Videotape ended.] Senator BOXER. Mr. Chairman, could you go back to the point when she shook her bead no. The CHAIRMAN. I don't mind doing that. I think we ought to see the fourth piece here and then we can go back and do that. There may be other requests, too. Senator BOXER. Fair enough. The CHAIRMAN. No, technically the way we were able to get this material-it's got to go back, you'll see the final section. [Videotape started.] Senator DOMENICI. You and you counsel went up to talk to the White House Counsel. Mr. ALTMAN. It wasn't a substantive meeting. Senator DOMENICI. Please Mr. ALTMAN. One substantive or meaningful contact. Senator DOMENICI. I assume we're not arguing there that you had-you're not suggesting that you had more than one, are you? Mr. ALTMAN. No, I'm just saying if you run into someone in the hall-did you see that thing in the paper this morning? I ' m not including that. Senator DOMENICI. You said you were there to give a "heads up." What I under stand the situation to be for average folks, like a couple of them in my State that were bordering up on the statute of limitations becoming a defense, they were presented with a tolling agreement and if they didn't sign it a suit was filed. So as to toll the statute, limitations. Is that a rather fair assessment of the way business is done? Mr. ALTMAN. I think I'd have to know the details of the matter, Senator. 425 Senator DOMENICI. I guess what I'm wondering is, are we getting the right perspective of why you did this? Did you go there because you, wanted them to know that, clearly, they might be asked to sign a tolling agreement? Or, to know that the normal process was that the statute is going to toll and that there is reasonable grounds to suspect something, they might expect a lawsuit? Why else would you give them "heads up'?