August 4, 1994 - Part 12
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(22:45:12)(tape #10096 ends) whether he should remove himself. I also said that, even if he ultimately determined to rely on his staff recommendation [as he said he would], the fact that his staff knew there would be a review of its recommendations would help to ensure the fairness and professionalism of the process. I was particularly concerned about the numerous leaks which seemed to accompany RTC actions. 473 The next thing and the last thing I said to Mr. Altman-I concluded by saying to Mr. Altman that, in any event, the decision on recusal was for him and him alone to make. He said he would give the matter further thought, The only other discussion I can recall at the February 2nd meeting is Ms. Williams asking if the private lawyers for the parties, including the Clintons' lawyers, would be briefed on the statute of limitations process. Ms. Hanson or perhaps Mr. Altman said that they would consider it. On the way out of the meeting, I asked Ms. Hanson if Mr. Ryan's and Ms. Kulka's nominations had been submitted to the White House for clearance. [We were normally consulted before agency nominations were approved and I could not recall having heard of their nominations.] Ms. Hanson had, in fact, told me they had been submitted to the White House. During questioning by Committee staff, I was asked whether I had negative feelings about Ms. Kulka. I responded that I did. I explained that, while I had never met or dealt with Ms. Kulka personally, when she was at the OTS she had been peripherally involved in a case brought by the OTS against a respected law firm in New York, In private practice, I had represented that law firm. I believed then and I believe now that the OTS acted unfairly and unprofessionally in that matter. It seized all of the assets of the firm at the outset of the litigation, thereby effectively preventing the firm from defending itself. In the period after February 2nd, I expressed some of these views to members of my staff perhaps in vigorous terms, but I did not do so during the meeting on February 2nd. Nor, indeed, did I do so to any Treasury or RTC official or to any other official outside the White House. In this connection, at this time, I want to be fair to Ms. Kulka. I watched some of her testimony before this Committee. It was quite impressive. And on March 30, 1994, she and her colleague, Mr. Ryan, wrote what I consider to be a highly professional, independent, even courageous letter to Congressman Leach. After noting that they were not political appointees, they wrote: "No pressure has been exerted by the Treasury, the White House, or any other source in the Executive Branch concerning the performance of our responsibilities with respect to Madison Guaranty or Whitewater since either of us joined the RTC." Before leaving the February 2 meeting, I want to respond to one claim that was made at the start of this hearing. It was said in an opening statement: That the reason the White House urged Roger Altman to stay on the case was the fear that the RTC General Counsel who would take over the decision would be too "tough" on the Clintons. To the extent that this statement was intended to refer to me, my answer is this: First, I did not urge Roger Altman to st ay on the case. I do not believe it would have been improper if I had urged him to stay on. But I did not do so, I asked him only to consider whether he should remove himself if he had no legal or ethical obligation to do so. I 474 said the decision was his to make. If I wish to urge someone to do something, I am usually not at a loss of words to do so. And second-my second answer to this contention made at the opening of the hearing-the reason I requested Mr. Altman to consider the matter of recusal further was not a fear that the RTC General Counsel would be too tough. I would have made the same statement no matter who was General Counsel of the RTC. I made it because of the principle I previously discussed, that a public offi- cial has a duty to do his or her duty. I also made it because an Altman recusal would undermine our position on the Tigert, nomination. On February 3, Ms. Hanson faxed me a letter Mr. Altman had received from Congressman Leach urging Mr. Altman to consult an ethics officer concerning recusal. She left a message asking me to phone her. When I returned the call that evening, Ms. Hanson told me that Treasury was continuing to research the ethical issues involved in recusal.