Q. Did you ever de anything to attempt to reach an understanding? (TR 350-351) Ms. Stewart's testimony to the Committee contained the charge that there was a "vendetta" against Lincoln. In her deposition, Ms. Stewart clarified har comments: A. Q. My earlier testimony I had said .. I believe I had said that The vendetta that I spoke of by San Francisco in my So, la that sense vendetta attitude meant something very You were also asked about your personal knowledge of any Is it correct that the only personal knowledge of any evidence THE WITNESS: I believe that has consistently been my testimony, yes. In what you have been given by either Mr. Kesting, AOC or Line in, is there anything in that information that you would consider hard evidence of animust THE WITNESS: I don't know if there is such a thing as hard Q. A. Did you reach a conclusion that there were bank employees ea No. (TR 371) Ks. Stewart testified to Congress that Chairman Gray and I sought to "punish" Lincoln for its opposition to the direct investment rule. (Testimony, Part 1, p. 256) This charge was Bodified under ACC'a questioning: Do you believe that Black and Gray tried to punish Lincola for A. This is one of these phrases where my choice of words was not I think using them as an example of a direct investment And I don't think that the use of the word "yunishing" vas (TR 301) She also said: I do not believe that had Lincoln challenged the (direct investment) The fact was there was a violation, and there was opposition to the (TR.384) Unfortunately, ACC's counsel did not question Ka. Stewart as to the basia for her claim that I should be "investigated for perjury" because of my criticisme of her side letter" in my testimony to the Committee. (Committee Hearing Transcript, Part 5, p.22) In any event, while Ke. Stewart acknowledgon that she bears personal animus againat me (Appendix 55), she has not withdrawn her slain as to "parjury," (T2 343-65) I would like to thank you and the Committee for your past assistance in improving thrift regulation and protecting the taxpayers from further loss. Sincerely, |