August 4, 1994 - Part 12
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(22:50:31) I suggested to Ms. Hanson that whoever was doing the research might find it useful to speak to Beth Nolan. Ms. Nolan was an Associate White House Counsel on my staff who dealt with ethic issues. She is a former ethics professor at George Washington Law' School and is well known and respected for her expertise. (Ms, Nolan later told me she did in fact have a discussion with the Treasury ethics official, Dennis Foreman.) I also suggested to Ms. Hanson that to the extent there might be ultimately be some concern at the Treasury or the RTC about an appearance of lack of independence of the decisionmakers on the Madison/Whitewater investigation, she might take a look at the civil jurisdiction in the recently appointed Independent Counsel's charter and consider the advisability of the RTC referring these matters to the Independent Counsel. On February 3, or shortly thereafter, I recall running into Mr Altman in the hallway of the West Wing of the White House. Mr. Altman told me in a brief conversation that he had given the recusal issue more thought, and he probably would not recuse him self But I also knew at the same time as I just said, that Treasury Later in February, either Mr. Eggleston or Ms. Hanson told me that Mr. Altman would leave the RTC at the end of March when his term expired and that he either could not or would not seek renewal of his appointment. I also believe that Mr. Altman told me later in February, in another brief conversation, that a Washington lawyer, Larry Simon, was likely to be nominated to head and he hoped Mr. Simon's nomination would be confidence There is also an additional conversation, an internal one the White House not with Treasury or the RTC or anyone the White House-which I believe will help the Committee understand that there was no attempt on our part to influence outcome of the RTC's investigation. In mid-February 1994, one of the lawyers on my staff told that the RTC had retained Jay Stephens to conduct its investigation of Madison. Mr. Stephens, as you know, had expressed bitter political opposition to the President in the past. When he resigned 475 as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia in early 1993, he did so with a political blast at the Administration. In response to this news, when I heard Mr. Stephens was hired by Ms. Kulka and Mr. Ryan, I shook my head in dismay and disbelief I said internally in the White House, the appointment of Mr. Stephens was ridiculous and unfair. I also said there was nothing we should or would do about it. The meetings and contacts I have described have given rise to considerable controversy. In my view, however, they were appropriate. I was acting to facilitate the proper functioning of the Exec- utive Branch and to enable the White House to perform its official duties. I was acting in the pursuit of legitimate public purposes. First, with respect to the September 29 meeting, Ms. Hanson provided the White House with notice of a referral that she predicted--quite correctly-the White House would be required publicly to address in the near future, Treasury understood that neither the President nor the First Lady was a subject of the referral. They were potential witnesses. 'There was obviously a concern that a partial or inaccurate leak might lead the uninformed to believe that because the Clintons were mentioned-or "named"--in the referral, they were somehow ,implicated in some improper conduct. In preparation for these hearings and those in the House, I have been questioned about whether I thought Treasury officials had provided the White House with so-called nonpublic information as if there was something illegitimate about an executive agency sharing nonpublic information With the White House. The White House receives nonpublic information all the time. The real question is whether the information is being properly transmitted and properly used for an official purpose and not for private gain or some other illegitimate purpose.