August 5, 1994 - Part 4
August 5, 1994 - Part 4
(13:59:35)(tape #10102 begins) Opens to discussion between hearings host DON BODE, STEVE ROBERTS and Majority Counsel J. WILLIAM CODINHA in tv studio (14:01:37) Senate Hearing coverage begins: How does this confidential information help the White House deal with press leaks? Were they going to deliver it to reporters? How did this information help shield the President from embarrassment? Did it keep the President away from Governor Tucker? Second, it will not do to say that the recusal decision was a tempest in a teapot. The top officials of the White House and the Treasury spent too much time agonizing over how to keep Roger Altman involved. But for the unexpected congressional extension of the statute of limitations, Mr. Altman would have been the final decisionmaker in Madison. At bottom, the question is why were they so afraid to leave the White House "defenseless" without Altman? Third, we must also decide if, as Mr. Ickes testified, nonpublic information was revealed by Altman to the White House on February 2. Why would he say so if it were not true? Can we accept his efforts to dilute his testimony? Robert Fiske's report said there was insufficient evidence to prove criminal wrongdoing. That conclusion, of course, reflects the extraordinary burden of proof (14:02:55)(tape #10101 ends) which applies in a criminal case. But since the Fiske Report, we've beard testimony from Roger Altman that is clearly in contradiction to testimony he gave to this Committee months ago. And there have been evasions and contradictory statements made by other witnesses in an attempt to justify Altman's failure, and the failure of others, to live up to ethical standards. I believe it's incumbent upon Robert Fiske to review the facts, as revealed by this investigative panel, and determine, once again, if criminal charges should be brought. In particular, given the fact that some of the testimony here seems to have changed after wit- nesses have had an opportunity to consider the testimony of their colleagues, we specifically suggest that Mr. Fiske take the testi- mony in our depositions and in this hearing and lay it side by side with the Grand Jury testimony. Let him see whether further action should be taken. Let me say something else. We have not et bad an opportunity to explore the White House document handling phase of the Whitewater matter. Even so, new revelations have emerged in the last week that suggest that the White House has not been forthright about the handling of the Foster documents. The White House originally suggested that the documents were removed and sent to a private lawyer. Now, incredibly, we bear that they may have been stored in a closet in the White House residence for some period of time. The same pattern of changing stories and misleading statements that occurred regarding the White House-Treasury contacts may be occurring again with respect to the White House document handling. We will have many of the same witnesses back. Their stories about the document handling will be subjected to the same exacting scrutiny that occurred here. I think these hearings prove that the attempt to narrow the focus of this investigation was a mistake. All of the facts needed to be aired for the American public. They need to be aired and, eventually, they will be. 795 I congratulate, again, Chairman Riegle and my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle for making this, truly, a bipartisan investigative Committee. Now we continue to go forward, not as Republicans and Democrats, but as United States Senators, with an oversight responsibility in order to get to the bottom of this matter.