August 4, 1994 - Part 12
August 4, 1994 - Part 12
(23:00:31) The question, I submit, is not whether the information is subject to possible misuse. Of course it is. The question is whether it was, in fact, misused. Did anyone in the White House violate his or her oath by using this information for a purpose other than to prepare the White House to respond to press inquiries? There is not a shred, to my knowledge, a single shred of evidence, that anyone in the White House did that. What did happen is that the criminal referrals proceeded on their normal course. They were not stopped, they were not changed, they were not adversely affected in any way. And as of this time, they have been referred to the Independent Counsel for whatever action he ultimately determines to be appropriate. Finally, with regard to the February 2 meeting, the information regarding the statute of limitations process was no different from that already provided to a number of Members of Congress. In any event, there was no information provided in the February 2 meeting related to RTC procedures on the statute of limitations that White House lawyers did not already know and would not have been obvious to any experienced litigator. I already explained at some great length the significant public policy concerns with Mr. Altman's statement, that he was consider- ing recusal. It was appropriate to ask Mr. Altman-and that's all I did-to consider carefully whether he should recuse himself in a case involving the President where Mr. Altman was neither ethi- Cally nor legally obligated to do so. In Mr. Altman's case, it was all the more important to urge careful deliberation since he and oth- ers, such as Ms. Tigert, were being pressed by the President's polit- ical opponents to recuse themselves. As I have stated, I believed then, and I firmly believe now that Executive Branch officials and agency heads should not remove themselves from sensitive matters simply because of political advantage or expediency or for their own personal convenience, They should do their duty. Now, I feel strongly about the importance of the policy issues that were raised by these meetings. Others, I know, feel less strongly about these policies, They believe that there are other overriding considerations, particularly political ones. Mr. Cutler has a different view than I have. I respect these different views. But let us be clear. We are talking about legitimate differences of opinion. We are not talking about differences in ethical standards or standards of propriety. At the same time, as I as reach the end of this statement I want that you to understand that I agree that not everything we did in the White House or that I did as Whit HouseCounsel was perfect. We could, and should, have done better. I agree with Lloyd Cutler that there were too nany contacts, by too many people, about too many subjects--particularly in February 1994. I feel responsible for some of the lack of discipline reflected in some of those contacts. And I support Mr. Cutler's proposals for changes in White House procedures. All future contacts of the sort I have described should be lawyer to lawyer. We may have our differences today. But position I want you to understand that every moment I held the position of Counsel to the President, I sought , as I said in the beginning, to conduct myself 478 in the highest traditions of public service and of my profession. And as I've said earlier, I believe I did so. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for suffering through this lengthy statement with me. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Nussbaum. Let me be clear oil a couple of things, and then I want to make a couple of very direct points to you. When you were Counsel to the President, who did you report to in the White House? Mr. NUSSBAUM. I reported to the President and to Mr. McLarty, The CHAIRMAN. You reported to the President and to Mr. McLarty. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes, The CHAIRMAN. So it would be fair to say when you spoke to any body, they might assume you were speaking for the President because you reported to him, certainly as a direct agent of his. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. I was a direct agent of his. I don't want to make it sound that I was the person in the White House who was closest to the President. The CHAIRMAN. No, I'm not saying that. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Or saw the President more than anybody else. The CHAIRMAN. You were the top lawyer. You were the legal voice for the President reporting directly to the President. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I was the legal voice to the President reporting directly to the President at times, yes. The CHAIRMAN. To my knowledge, we've never met or if we have we've never had the chance before now to get acquainted, and Mr. NUSSBAUM. We may have talked on the phone, Mr. Chairman, but I don't remember meeting you.