August 2, 1994 - Part 6
August 2, 1994 - Part 6
(00:50:40) Senator SARBANES. Now, Ms. Hanson was very explicit in testifying that she went to Nussbaum-told Nussbaum on the basis of a directive from you. Are you aware of that testimony? Mr. ALTMAN. I am, sir, and I just disagree with her recollection. Senator SARBANES. And you responded to Senator Riegle earlier, as I understand it, not that you couldn't recollect-in other words, we don't have a situation in which Ms. Hanson says this is what happened and you're )re saying, well, I don't remember whether that's what happened or not. You now are telling us that your recollection is different from hers and contradicts hers; is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Moreover, I just don't understand why she would have signed off on my letter to Senator Riegle explaining that I had just learned of the two fall meetings if she didn't agree with my-with that statement. Senator SARBANES. Now, is this the letter of March 2? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. On what basis-let me accept your version of this for the moment, for the purpose of these questions. On what basis would Ms. Hanson go to Nussbaum and advise him of these referrals? Mr. ALTMAN. I don't know, Senator, but let us keep in mind that if it related to a press leak or a press inquiry, the Office of Government Ethics has said there is nothing inappropriate in it. Senator SARBANES. Well, now you're the head of the RTC or you were at the time; is that correct? Mr. ALTMAN. Yes, sir. Senator SARBANES. What would have been your reaction if RTC employees had gone to the White House to alert them about these referrals? Mr. ALTMAN. My understanding, Senator, is that the purpose of the meeting or the communication was not to alert the White House in detail about the referrals, but to alert the White House Senator SARBANES. Let's strike the words "in detail." 428 Mr. ALTMAN, As I say, my understanding is that the purpose of the communication was to alert the White House to an impending leak. Senator SARBANES. If employees of the RTC had done that, Mr. Roelle, the regional person, what would have been your reaction to that? Would that have been an appropriate thing to do? Mr. ALTMAN. I think if an RTC employee had advised of an impending press leak that's something I could imagine happening, I could understand happening. Senator SARBANES. It's view that it would have been proper for an RTC employee to have gone to Nussbaum to tell him that these criminal referrals bad been made to the Justice Department?, Mr. ALTMAN. No, sir, I would not have favored, not have thought sensible a communication for the sole purpose of advising the White House of the status of a criminal referral, No, sir, that not what I understand happened. Senator SARBANES. What happened they were advised because there was going to be a press leak and in the course of bearing about the press leak they learned about the criminal referral. Mr. ALTMAN. Senator Sarbanes Senator SARBANES. Would you have sanctioned or regarded as proper or appropriate conduct for an RTC employee to have gone to Nussbaum and advised him of this matter Mr. ALTMAN. Senator Senator SARBANES. -particularly without telling you? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I wouldn't have thought it appropriate to advise the White House solely for the purpose of communicating to them information on criminal referrals, no, sir, I would not. That's not my understanding, however, of what happened, although I was not there, Senator SARBANES. Would you have regarded it-let's accept your version of the purpose of the conversation. Would you have regarded it as appropriate for an RTC employee to have done that without your knowledge? Mr. ALTMAN. Senator, I can imagine that the RTC Public Affairs Office, for instance, would have contacted White House Public Affairs to alert them of an impending story.