August 4, 1994 - Part 13
August 4, 1994 - Part 13
(00:15:18) Mr. NUSSBAUM. Senator, you know Senator BOND, Consider that. Mr. NUSSBAUM. [continuing]. If you're going to flunk me on an ethics exam then I think you'll have to flunk also the ethics advisors of the Treasury Department who told Mr. Altman that he's not legally or ethically required to recuse himself, you're going to have to flunk the OGE-the Office of the Government Ethics-maybe you, as a professor grading these exams, are correct and I'm wrong, the OGE is wrong, the three ethics opinions of the Treasury Department are wrong. But there's another thing which you are saying which is so interesting because going in here I thought I was taking the Republican position or the position the Republican party has taken in the past with respect to the Special Counsel's statute. Senator Bond, the Republican party has opposed the Independent Counsel's statute, believing that an Attorney General appointed by the President could act, could perform her duty even with respect to cases against the President or high Executive officials. Now Congress has passed an Independent Counsel statute because it doesn't take that position. Most Republicans took that position. I happened to agree with that position. It sounds like maybe you don't agree with that position. Under that position, an appointee of the President would be fully entitled to investigate the President or to investigate other high officials of the Executive Branch. An appointee of the President 499 would be perfectly free and should do his or her duty. I have no doubt that Janet Reno, for example, appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, would conduct an appropriate investigation of the President, of me, of you, of anybody, if it was the right thing to do. I didn't think we needed an Independent Counsel statute and man of your colleagues in your party also felt we didn't need an independent Counsel statute, When you tell me that Roger Altman cannot-it's just like Jay Stephens because he was appointed by the President-to me that totally undercuts and undermines the position taken by the Republican party with respect to this issue and the position I happen to agree with. Senator BOND. It's a position taken by Mr. Altman and, finally, he was able to act on it, The CHAIRMAN. Senator Kerry. Senator KERRY. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, Good morning, Mr. Nussbaum. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Good morning, Senator. Senator KERRY. I want to associate myself, first of all, with the questions asked by Senator Sarbanes about the duality of the hat. I want to say to you, sir, that these are serious proceedings. We may joke here and there about being here late or whatever, but we're here and we know why we're here and it's a responsibility for all of us that we care about. I've listened to your full statement, I've listened to my colleagues and I really have to say to you, Mr. Nussbaum, your last page statement, I respect these different views, but let's be clear we're talking about legitimate differences of opinion- We're not talking about differences in ethical standards or standards of propriety. I disagree with you, based on the record. We are talking about a difference in an ethical standard and a standard of propriety. I must say to you, sir, and I say this as kind- ly as I can, but as strongly as I can, too, I find your arguments le- gally, ethically and politically indefensible, They are legally inde- fensible because you violated your own standards. You say on page 6 that we recognized that such contacts were potentially sensitive and as a general proposition they should not occur. It's sensitive enough to have called Mr. Eggleston in, but not sensitive enough to have known immediately that Mr. Ickes and Ms. Williams had no business being there to discuss this legal matter that belonged to you alone. fraud in Second, it is legally, I believe, wrong because there is a your argument. You are suggesting to this Committee that you didn't believe in "de facto or de jure recusal, ' yet Mr. Altman made it as clear as a bell to you in that meeting that it was de facto. You accepted that. You never said a word against it. You knew, according to his own testimony, that he was not going to have anything to do with this. So sworn duty, sworn duty. I mean, come on. He wasn't going out there to do his sworn duty because his sworn duty was not to do a "de facto recusal." But you accepted it was a "de facto recusal." He told you he was doing a "de facto recusal." And witness after witness has come to this Committee and said it didn't make a difference because he wasn't going to make a decision. He was not performing his sworn duty. 500 Mr. NUSSBAUM. I remember him saying--can I-if I'm interrupting Senator KERRY, I want to just finish and then I'm going to give you a chance Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm sorry.