Advanced Search
Stations of the cross
Religious shrine
Foreign religion festival
Soko Giaki (Japanese religion)
(has not title)
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #991256 Washington monument
U.S. flags
Flags
U.S. flag
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.22.40] Senator GURNEY. When was that, discussion had with him about how to treat it? Mr. STANS. Well I would have to assume that it occurred early in April of last year. Senator GURNEY. I am curious. Why would you confer with him about it instead of the general counsel for the finance committee? Mr. STANS. Oh, I did confer with him, too. I also conferred at an earlier time with the counsel for the Republican National Finance Committee. What we are involved with here is the question of the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Act definition of a contribution. Very simply, and I will paraphrase it without having the language right in front of me--the Corrupt Practices Act says that a contribution includes the receipt of money or anything of value, and includes a promise, agreement, or contract to make a contribution, whether or not it is legally enforceable. And it was on that language that I concluded that the contributions received from several people whom we have discussed here were contributions by law before April 7. Senator GURNEY. Did Mr. Dean ever tell you at any time that he was conducting an investigation for the President into the Watergate affair? Mr. STANS. No, I do not recall that Mr. Dean ever told me that he was conducting an investigation. I think I heard first about that from the public statements of the President or others in the White House. Senator GURNEY. Yesterday, you mentioned in your testimony that you heard that Liddy was receiving money, but you did not identify from whom you had heard it. Do you recall? Mr. STANS. I really can-Dot recall, because it was in the early days of my service to the committee. It could have come from Mr. Kalmbach, it could have come from Mr. Sloan. I doubt that there was anyone else who could have told it to me, My vague recollection is that, I was told that Liddy was getting small amounts of money from time to time in cash and that it was being used in the primaries. I do not have any other recollection of that and I had no idea that the amounts were as large as they apparently were. [00.25.41] Senator GURNEY. Did you ever know about the $250,000 budget before the Watergate break-in? Mr. STANS. No, sir, I was not, told by anyone about a $250,000 budget for Mr. Liddy. Senator GURNEY. Back to these, Kalmbach moneys again. In your initial discussion with Mr. Kalmbach about this money, did he say he was getting it, to spend himself on a, project for the White House, raising it to pass it on to somebody else to spend? Mr. STANS. He did not say. Senator GURNEY. Did you get any impression from your conversation whether He meant, the one or the, other? Mr. STANS. I had no such impression either way. Senator GURNEY. You mentioned, of course a later conversation, I think you said about, 6 weeks ago, perhaps, with Mr. Kalmbach's attorney- Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator GURNEY [continuing]. In which he told you that it, was Mr., Dean who had requested Kalmbach to raise the money. What about in this discussion? Did his attorney tell you whether Mr. Kalmbach raised the money to spend himself or whether he was raising it to Pass on to someone else? Mr. STANS. In that conversation -Mr. Kalmbach's attorney told me that Mr. Kalmbach had raised the money for the purpose of giving it to a man named Tony. he did not give me his last name or any other details, but he said it was for the purpose of paying legal fees for or the lawyers representing the defendants in the Watergate case. Senator GURNEY. He did not identify Tony beyond that? Mr. STANS. No, he, did not. Senator GURNEY. And you do not- know who he was-? Mr. STANS. I do not know who Tony was. Senator GURNEY. The $350,000 for the White House and the reimbursement of $22,000 requested by Dean-I am curious about that. Why should Mr. Dean be so uptight about, restoring $22,000 to this $350,000 fund if $22,000 was used legally, as I thought it was from the testimony? Can you shed any further light on, that? Mr. STANS. Well, I can only shed this light, that in several discussions with Mr. Dean, the desirability of having the $350,000 intact seemed important to him. Senator GURNEY. Well, why did it? Mr. STANS. For example, in -November- Senator GURNEY. -November? Mr. STANS. [continuing]. Of last year. He handed me some bills for polling by a polling organization, I believe it was Opinion Research Corp.--and said that originally it had been the intention to pay those bills out of the $350,000 fund, but that they wanted to keep the fund intact and the bills did relate to the campaign, so it was Perfectly Proper for them to be paid as expenses of the campaign and he asked that, they be so paid. And on that authority, the bills were paid to the Polling organization. Now that I understood to be for the purpose of keeping the $350,000 intact. [00.29.13]
Preview Cassette 97789 Part 1 Explosion / disaster. The film is a brief quiz show called "A Castle Quiz Game, Movies Greatest Headlines." The First scene shows the Hindenburg crashing and burning then words on screen ask "where did the this disaster take place?" The second shows Pres. Roosevelt's funeral procession and asks, "Where is Roosevelt buried?" The third shows the famous galloping gertie bridge and asks, "Near what city was this bridge?" The fourth and last question shows military personnel and the explosion of a nuclear weapon in the seas asking, "Where was first underwater explosion?"
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.29.13] Senator GURNEY. So in November 1972, from your discussion with him, it would be your impression that the $350,000 was there at that, time'? Mr. STANS. That was my impression until he told me that another $22,000 had actually been spent. Senator GURNEY. Did he say when? Mr. STANS. I do not--no. I am sure he did not. Senator GURNEY. Did he say what for? Mr. STANS. Well, I have to hedge on this, because I do not know. I just assumed since it a polling fund, that it had been spent for polling. But recently, I have learned, reading one of the depositions, that it may have been spent for advertising. Senator GURNEY. Another thing that puzzles me. My understanding of this $350,000 is that it went to Haldeman. We have no direct evidence on that, but we do know that Mr. Strachan--- Haldeman's aide-picked it up. Was it not your understanding that it went to Haldeman? Mr. STANS. I had no understanding on that, Senator. The transaction was really handled by Mr. Kalmbach and my knowledge about it was entirely peripheral . At the beginning, I heard, as I testified yesterday, that the White House wanted some money for polling purposes to have to use in its discretion, and subsequently, found out that the money had been paid to the White House. But I really played no part in that transaction, and I believe Mr. Kalmbach will take the full responsibility for it. [00.30.45-- cut to LEHRER in studio] [there are a series of cuts here, I think that it indicates that the speech by NIXON was excised from the tape] [00.31.09--LEHRER reintroduces the questioning of STANS about a $350,000 cash fund being kept at the White House] [00.31.31--Sen. GURNEY] Senator GURNEY. You never heard at any time that Mr. Dean received this money or had any part in the supervision of it, handling of it, or disbursing of it? Mr. STANS. No. I never understood that Mr. Dean was handling the money. Senator GURNEY. Did you ever ask Mr. Dean at this time, or when he asked for the $22,000, why he was handling the money? Apparently, at that time, he must have had something to do with it. Mr. STANS. I didn't ask him why he was making the request. We had discussed the $350,000 on several occasions before--first, when he asked me to pay the polling bills, and second, when we considered the possibility of returning it to the committee. And I assumed that he was in these discussions because of his position as counsel in the White House. Senator GURNEY. Did you check with either Haldeman or Ehrlichman on this $22,000? Mr. STANS. No, I did not. [00.32.35] Senator GURNEY, Why didn't Dean go to the treasurer? The treasurer is the man who I understand, from the testimony, was making almost all of the disbursements with the exception of a few cash ones we have talked about here. Why should he come to you? Why shouldn't he go to the treasurer? Mr. STANS. Well, again, Senator, I can only presume. We had a new treasurer after Mr. Sloan left, Dean had very little contact with him and I doubt that he even knew him. I think that is the reason he called me. Senator GURNEY, You testified that you learned about the Watergate break-in, as I recall, in the newspapers? Is that correct? Mr. STANS. That is correct. Senator GURNEY. Now, of course, as you, as we all know, there was great consternation when this happened and a flurry of conferences and phone calls between the key people who were running the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Did you have any conferences or phone calls on June 17 or 18 regarding Watergate with anyone? Mr. STANS. I don't recall any conferences on the 17th) and I was not in the office on the 18th. so my answer would be other than the possibility that I may have said to somebody, that is a silly thing to do, based on the newspaper headlines, I had no conferences about the transaction. Senator GURNEY. Did you have any phone calls? Mr. STANS. None that my records show. Senator GURNEY. Do you recall any? Mr. STANS. I do not recall any. Senator GURNEY. At some point in time, of course, you learned as we all have, about Watergate, the people who were the key people in it, and to the best of your recollection when did you learn about Watergate and who were the key people in it and from whom? Mr. STANS. The first thing I learned about Watergate, to the best of my recollection was on June 23 when I received a call from Fred LaRue, as I testified yesterday and he said: "Do you know Kenneth Dahlberg?" And I said: "Yes. I know Kenneth Dahlberg very well." He said: "Well, did you know that his contribution ended up in the bank account of one Of the fellows who was arrested in the, Watergate?" And I said: "To the best of my knowledge Mr. Dahlberg didn't make a contribution, particularly in that amount of money that you mentioned. He said: "Well , we had better talk about it." So he came down to my office and we reviewed the situation. I recalled, of course, the, circumstances under which Dahlberg had given us the Check, and we culled Dahlberg on the phone and got him to come to Washington to review the whole matter, That is my first knowledge of the Watergate situation
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.35.38] Senator GURNEY. Did you ever discuss it with John Mitchell at any time near this point in time? That is June 17. Mr. STANS. Well, I would be sure that I discussed this with John Mitchell on a number of occasions and my -records show that the first, time I talked to John Mitchell after the, 17th was, on the 23d when we had lunch in his office. I am not sure what the conversation was about. Whenever I met with Mitchell I usually had a list of five or six things to talk about, I would not, presume that we didn't talk about the Watergate I am sure it was a subject of interest but certainly not about who and when and why. Senator GURNEY. Did LaRue come to you in January 1973, this year, and ask you for the names of some of the larger contributors to the campaign? Mr. STANS. Yes;' I reported that to the staff of the committee. he asked me for the names of some contributors to whom Tie might go for money for a White House project. Senator GURNEY, What was the project" Mr. STANS. He didn't tell me. Senator GURNEY. Did you ask him? Mr. STANS. No; I did not Mr. LaRue again was a man of high standing in the campaign. He had been assistant to John Mitchell. There were no revelations at, that time involving him In anything and I had total confidence in anything Mr. LaRue told me. Senator GURNEY. Have you ever conferred -with John Mitchell, Magruder, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean or anybody else on the cover-up of Watergate? Mr. STANS. I have no recollection of any discussion with an anyone about the coverup of the Watergate until after the disclosures that have occurred within the last 2 months. Senator GURNEY, Have you ever discussed this Watergate affair or any aspect of it with the President of the United States? Mr. STANS. Only in the sense that the President and I met once during the campaign and I had one telephone call from him, both in August. Senator GURNEY. Both when? Mr. STANS. In August of last year, in which he said that he was aware of the fact that I was receiving considerable punishment in the press for not answering their questions at the time. He said that he appreciated the sacrifice I was making in that respect but the matter would be over eventually, and he hoped that I could continue to take it. It was a pep talk, in other words, and that was the substance of the discussion over the telephone. Now, in the subsequent meeting about 10 days later in his office in the Executive Office Building I talked about some of the problems on fundraising with him, the pending nationwide dinner which was going to take place in September at which he was going to participate, and matters of that type but there was -no discussion of the Watergate, of coverup or any subject of that type with the President. Senator GURNEY. Do you know from any information from anybody else whether the President of the United States had any knowledge of Watergate or the coverup? Mr. STANS. 1 have absolutely no such information. Senator GURNEY. Thank you, Mr. Stans. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. Senator Inouye. Senator INOUYE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, a few moments ago you testified that you had met with Mr. Mitchell on June 23 and yesterday you suggested that it was possible you met with Mr. Mitchell on June 24. The break-in was on the 17th of June. On the 18th I believe all of the major papers in the United States had banner headlines about the Watergate break-in and you learned about that for the first time. Then, on the 23d of June you testified you received a call from Mr. LaRue., I believe. Then, there were other banner headlines about moneys being traced through a bank and hundred dollar bills all over the place and the security chief of the Committee To Re-Elect the President being arrested as one of those found in the Watergate complex. Last week one of your associates, Mr. Sloan, testified that he was quite apprehensive about an $81,000 cash disbursement to Mr. Liddy and he testified that he conferred with you on this matter and wanted some indication from you that Mr. Magruder was authorized to make these cash payments. So you indicated that you would look into this, and on June 24 you had a meeting with Mr. Mitchell, the Attorney General. [00.41.16]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.41.16] Senator INOUYE. Now, upon your return from the meeting this is what Mr. Sloan testified to, and I am quoting from the testimony: By "he" he means you, sir, "He returned from that meeting with Mr. Mitchell and he confirmed that Mr. Magruder continued to have this authority that I should pay these funds and with regard to my question of concern about his purpose he said 'I do not want to know and you do not want to know'." Do you recall this, sir? Mr. STANS. Before I answer that, may I say that with respect to the meeting with 'Mr. Mitchell on the 24th I have checked my records last night and I do not, have any record of a meeting with 'Mr. 'Mitchell on the 24th of June. Now, that does not mean that I may have met him in the hall, the building, on the street, or even dropped in his office, but I have no record of this meeting having taken place. I did have lunch with Mr. 'Mitchell in his office on the 23d. Now, with respect to the remark that was made after I checked with 'Mitchell about the authority of 'Magruder to ask Sloan to make payments to Liddy, I recall the occasion but that was not the, whole conversation. and I am not quite sure that it is entirely accurate but, it is the substance of what was said. But last week when ',Mr. Sloan testified he also put that remark in a much larger context and that context was much broader than the matter of payments to Liddy and it, was quite accurate. As I recall, he said the context was one of total frustration that I had and he had with the spending program of the campaign committee. At that point we had received a budget of $34 million and it Was incomplete on its face because some items were not priced out. It meant they were going to spend $40 million. I had argued when I came On the committee and even before, that the campaign ought to run, with the President in office. for $25 to $30 million. It was evident, we were in a situation in which the campaign committee was calling all the signals was making all the commitments. We really had nothing to Say about it, and it was one, as I said, of total frustration with the whole situation. I threw up my hands and I that literally and I think Mr. Sloan quoted that specifically, that we were just not going to have any influence in this situation. [00.44.23] The remark I made, and I cannot quote it precisely, was something to the effect that "I don't know what's going on in this Campaign and I don't think you ought to try to know." We were the cashiers, we received the money, and we paid the bills. They had the responsibility for everything they did. If they did it right they got the credit. If they did it wrong they got the blame and it did not seem that it 'Was incumbent upon us to question the propriety of any payment, Whether it was to -Mr. Liddy or anybody else, and we did not. Senator INOUYE. Wasn't this rather uncharacteristic of your background, sir, as one who had received all of the honors that a certified Public accountant can ever hope to get, one who has been described as having an accountant" mentality one who is a stickler for details, one who insists upon putting the right notes on the debit side and the right notes on the asset side, that you would put up your hand and say "I do not want to know?" [00.45.31] Mr. STANS. It was uncharacteristic of my background as an accountant but it Was not uncharacteristic of the responsibilities I had in this campaign -which had absolutely nothing to do with accounting. My job was to raise an unbelievable amount or money $40 million or More. Mr. INOUYE. And you were not curious about how these funds, especially since you read in the paper about the break-in On the 18th, you heard about the accounts of the Dahlberg money on the 23d. you read about it in the paper and then you heard about. Mr. McCord being one of those arrested, weren't you a bit suspicious? Mr. STANS. Oh, I must say, Senator, that in the sequence of dates, it did not occur that way. This conversation that I had with Mr. Sloan and the occasion of the verification of Magruder's authority took place early in April, and the subsequent events obviously could not possibly have been conceived by me or anyone else. [00.46.37]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.46.37] Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, you stated yesterday, that Mr. Magruder told you sometime in May, I believe you said the latter part of May, that Mr. Liddy was to provide security at the San Diego convention. Did I hear correctly, sir? Mr. STANS. Yes, that was about all I ever heard about Mr. Liddy's activities except, as I said, when I came to the committee in February I got intimations from someone that Mr. Liddy was using relatively small amounts of cash in connection with the primaries. Senator INOUYE. So you provided funds to Mr. Liddy in May for security activity in San Diego? Mr. STANS. I did not provide Mr. Liddy any funds. The funds came from the treasurer an came to him-came to Liddy, I believe, before the time of my conversation with Magruder, indicating that this was for convention security. Senator INOUYE. When was the conversation with Mr. Magruder? Mr. STANS. Well, I really cannot in it down by date. Senator INOUYE. The early part of May? Mr. STANS. I have testified earlier that I think it was in the latter part of May, It may have been in the early part of June. But it had no relation to the timing of the Watergate developments. Senator INOUYE. Mr. secretary, are you aware that the transfer of the Republican Convention from San Diego to Miami was made public on April 21? Mr. STANS. I do not recall the exact date, but nevertheless, that was what Mr. Magruder told me as to what Liddy had been using the money for. Senator INOUYE. Was this not a major decision in which I am certain you must have participated? Mr. STANS. I had no part in the decision to move the convention from San Diego to Miami. Senator INOUYE. Even when it meant the additional sums of money? Mr. STANS, Well, I think this is pretty good evidence of the fact that the finance committee had very little to say in the campaign. We knew that the convention in San Diego was going to cost a lot of money. I had seen budgets indicating that it was going to cost $3 million because of structural changes to the building in San Diego and so on. But we had no voice in that decision. It was a Presidential decision and we in the finance committee accepted it as something that had to be coped with. Now, having said that, there was a separate committee that had the responsibility of financing the convention. There was a separate convention committee, and it had its own funds which were not part of our responsibility to raise, except that as these things go, if they had run short, I am certain they would have come to our treasury in order to make up any deficit on the costs of the convention. Senator INOUYE. So you are testifying that in middle May or late May, you were not aware that the party had changed its convention site? Mr. STANS, Oh, I am -not testifying to that at all. I cannot put the date, but, I was aware of what, was being said in the press and certainly was conscious of that. Senator INOUYE. On July 1, or June 29, somewhere in that period, Mr. Kalmbach called you and advised you that, there was a very urgent, request for cash funds for a special purpose. NOW, in the, weeks prior to that, questionable activities were being reported in the press. Were you not a bit curious as to what, these funds were going to be used for? Mr. STANS. Well, Senator, I think you--it is very easy for all of us in retrospect to assume a lot, of knowledge in the week following the disclosure of the, Watergate break-in. But this came step-by-step, day-by-day, slowly. I do not believe that I had any knowledge of any activities in connection with Watergate except that, Mr. McCord was one of those arrested and I did not know Mr. McCord. I was aware that, Sloan had made payments to Liddy; there was the possible connection there. But it was not until the 28th of June, which is later than the date you are referring to, that, Mr. Liddy refused to answer questions of the FBI and I discharged him, discharged him on advice of counsel the minute I had heard about it. Senator INOUYE. On the 28th of June' [00.51.40] Mr. STANS. 28th of June. Senator INOUYE. 1972? Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator INOUYE. And Mr. Kalmbach made the request, on June 29? Mr. STANS. On the 29th of June, the very next day. Senator INOUYE. And you were not a bit suspicious then? Mr. STANS. I was, not. I knew Mr. Kalmbach very well and he was a man who had close ties in the White House, had had them for years, including being counsel to the President. I trusted him implicitly as a man of honor and integrity, and when he came. to me and said he needed money for a, special purpose, I had no reason to assume that it was anything but proper.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.52.17] Senator INOUYE. The next series of questions I would like to inquire into, Mr. Secretary, may sound a bit naive coming from a politician, but, I think it would be most helpful to the people of the United States if we had some explanations. Many of us who spend much of our lives in Washington have not been unaware of cash contributions. Yesterday, you testified that "naturally, we wanted most of our contributions in by April 7." Mr. STANS. Did I say that, Senator? Senator INOUYE. Yes. Mr. STANS. I would question the record on that, because there was no chance that we could get most of our money in by April 7. Senator INOUYE. Was there not a mad rush to get as much as, you could by then? Mr. BARKER. Senator Inouye, could you refer to the page or something so we could check that if we Senator INOUYE. I am sorry. Let me put it this way: Was there a mad rush to get as much money as you could before April 7? Mr. STANS. Mad rush is not the correct word for it. It is a characterization that is really not very fair. Senator INOUYE. Mr. Sloan has testified that in the last 4 or 5 days, they were just deluged, and I believe he used the word "avalanche." Mr. STANS. There is no question about that. There was an avalanche, of money in the last 5 days before April 7. What I did when I took office on February 15 was to plan an effort to reach as many people as possible among the larger contributors and tell them the option they had of giving their contribution before April 7 and having the right of confidentiality or giving it later. Many people said, "I do -not care, I will give it later." Now, there was an advantage in getting early money. Anyone who has ever run for office knows that the early Money is the hardest to get. I took advantage of that opportunity to visit a number of cities in the country, met with a lot of people, urged those who were working with me in the States to make it clear that there was an option to the individual contributor. Senator INOUYE. Why would it contributor desire, as you say, confidentiality or anonymity? Mr. STANS. Oh, there are a number of reasons, Senator. Senator INOUYE. Why don't we tell the people of the United States? Mr. STANS. I would be very happy to tell the people of the United States, because I think contributors have been very badly maligned in their desire for confidentiality. One is that sometimes it affects relationships with employers, with unions. Sometimes, and this is, I think, the most important point, it, makes them a target, It makes them a target, for a great many other political campaigns. It makes them a target, for charitable drives of all types. And many people want to make their contribution and not be that kind of a target. Senator INOUYE. Aren't we, all targets for charitable drives? [00.55.36--HUMOR] Mr. STANS. Yes, but you are a much better target if it is known that you gave $25,000 to Senator Inouye's campaign than you are--- Senator INOUYE. That will be the day. Mr. STANS [Continuing). That you are if that is not known, Now, there are some people, frankly, who give to both sides, both candidates. There are some like Mr. Dwayne Andreas, who is a close friend of Hubert Humphrey and contributed to his campaign, but was also a friend of the President and wanted to contribute to his campaign. So he wanted anonymity. The greatest disservice that is done to people is to assume that because a man wants anonymity that he has a secret, sinister motive it, doing so. Senator INOUYE. As an accountant, I am certain from your standards that you have applied to yourself, you must have questioned the receipt of cash. I have been told that most accountants would like to have everything clean and proper, that everything should be in writing. Mr. STANS. Well, lot me answer that in two ways. Senator INOUYE. Is cash an important element in political elections? Mr. STANS. I do not think it is an important, element at all. I testified yesterday that the cash receipts that were taken in before I came with the committee and after amounted to about 3 percent of the total receipts of the campaign and that the disbursements in cash amounted to only 2 percent of the total disbursements of the campaign. And that includes the $350,000 that went, to the White House. So cash is not an important element. Let me say this. Contrary to what has been said on one or more occasions, we did not, prefer getting cash. We did not ever solicit anyone to contribute in cash. It was the option of the contributors to give us money in cash. We had no need for it in substantial amounts, and as I said. yesterday, we put in the bank about half of the money that we received in cash. So the choice was that, of the contributor and not of our committee to receive money in cash. [00.58.02]
Military Planes
Planes preparing for takeoff, propellers spinning. There s a green biplane, a red one with a skull and cross bones on the body. High Angle over a yellow plane gliding towards the runway. Biplane soaring and performing aerial stunts in flight on a cloudy day. Air to Air shot of plane in flight.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.58.02] Senator INOUYE. I notice that other Presidential candidates voluntarily disclosed all of their contributions which were made prior to April 7. Was there any reason foil refusing to do so on your parts sir? Mr. STANS. I think, Senator, there were some of the other candidates for the Presidency who did not disclose the source of their contributions I do not believe that Senator Jackson made that disclosure and I do not believe that Wilbur Mills made that disclosure and there, may have been one or more others that did not, disclose. We viewed the disclosure of contributions by some of the candidates who had not, received much money anyway as a political ploy in an effort to try to force us to disclose. I have said yesterday that our committee had no concern about disclosure except insofar as it affected the rights of the individuals under the law and we, didn't think we had the right to waive the privilege for them. So as a matter of policy, and I was joined in this by representatives of the campaign committee and the White House, the conclusion was reached that we would not make that disclosure. Now, that matter is still the subject of litigation and we have not yet disclosed the names of our contributors before April 7 except as to one group of names amounting to about $6 million that we disclosed just before the election. Senator INOUYE. As one who, has been described as the most successful political fundraiser in the history of the United States, would you recommend to this committee that legislation be drafted to prohibit the receipt and disbursement of cash in political campaigns? Mr. STAINS. Well, I am a bit ambivalent, on that. I am not quite sure. I think any finance chairman would welcome that kind of legislation, because 'it eliminates one potential series of questions as to where the cash came from and where it went. But I think you have got to be very careful in drafting it to make sure that you don't destroy some of the means by which elections are carried on, because there are times when you have to pay certain expenses in cash on the spot. You have to have petty cash funds with which to pay small bills, and so forth. Carefully drafted, I would, as a, finance chairman, say, that it would Make life a little bit easier because, we wouldn't have so many questions to answer later on, Senator INOUYE. Yesterday and this morning, you have testified that you had no reason to question the integrity or the reliability of such associates as Mr. LaRue--you have described him as a good person--Mr. Mitchell, or -Mr. Kalmbach. When did you begin suspecting that something was wrong? Mr. STANS. I didn't have any Suspicions about any of these people until after the disclosures in the press following, I believe it was March *****SECTION OF TRANSCRIPT MISSING*** [Sen. INOUYE continues to question STANS. STANS states that it was March 23 when McCORD's letter to Judge SIRICA began to involve more names in the scandal. He has no firsthand knowledge of the activities alleged, and got most of his information from TV. Sen. INOUYE asks whether before McCORD'S letter, if STANS recalled seeing reports in the Washington POST naming CHAPIN, Donald SEGRETTI, and other powerful figures in the aftermath of WATERGATE, and if those reports made him suspicious. STANS. states that he doesn't believe everything he reads in the POST. the SEGRETTI matter was not described as being connected to WATERGATE, and he did not know of SEGRETTI or his SABOTAGE of opposing candidates. He had no reason to believe that anyone besides the original Watergate BURGLARS were involved at that time. INOUYE. asks if it is STANS' testimony that he had no reason to suspect, prior to March 23, 1972, that KALMBACH, MITCHELL, HALDEMAN, EHRLICHMAN, were possibly involved in WATERGATE. STANS confirms this. INOUYE expressed disbelief that in STANS' position as finance chairman and cochair of the CRP budget committee, that he heard no discussion of these matters.
Cougar
ALL OF THESE SHOTS ARE IN A SNOWY WINTER FOREST AREA. 06:24:47 Cougar on rock, leaning against tree 06:27:26 " running off 06:27:49 " watching prey up in tree 06:32:34 " walking through forest 06:32:52 Cougar - CU 06:35:57 " chewing on stick 06:37:11 " stalking through forest 06:43:13 " runs off and stalls looking back 06:43:51 " jumps for bird 06:52:50 Cougar walking in snow 06:53:30 " stalking 06:57:07 " on stump walking on log ON PART TWO.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (2/2)
***TRANSCRIPT MISSING--THIS SECTION PARAPHRASED*** [01.03.54--Sen. INOUYE questioning Maurice STANS, former Finance Chairman of the NIXON campaign] INOUYE asks whether, as a close associate of Mitchell, Haldeman, etc, those men ever discussed plans for political espionage with STANS. STANS denies any discussion about planning the WATERGATE operation or the coverup. States he was completely uninformed, and that the Finance and Strategic arms of the CRP operated in "watertight compartments" and he had no say about how money was spent. None of his people knew about plans for Watergate, and he is glad that they didn't know. INOUYE asks when members of his "watertight compartment" were notified, since he was the head of the Finance Committee. STANS states that as far as he knew, no one from the Finance Committee was involved except for LIDDY, and that LIDDY, he understood, only came to the Finacne Committee because he had a feud with MAGRUDER and was transferred from the other side of CRP. And states "in fairness to Mr. Liddy," STANS thought he was a very good lawyer and that his outside activities were none of STANS' business. INOUYE states that he, like STANS, finds the circumstances regrettable, since INOUYE once worked with STANS as a member of the Senate Commerce Committee. [01.05.54--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that STANS has held firm to his statement that he was unaware of the Watergate or the coverup. [PBS network ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [01.08.29--LEHRER introduces questioning by Sen. BAKER and questions about who had the ultimate responsibility for Watergate] [01.08.49--committee room]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (2/2)
***TRANSCRIPT MISSING--THIS SECTION PARAPHRASED*** [01.08.49--committee room] Sen. BAKER states that after 6 1/2 years in the Senate, there is "some remnant of lawyer left in me". States it is axiomatic that stronger, logical witnesses are difficult to test, and to assess conflicts and areas for corroboration. States that he does not want to seem antagonistic or doubtful, but it is necessary to test STANS' testimony against other witnesses. Asks STANS to understand that he does not want to imply belief or disbelief by his questioning. BAKER. asks about the circumstances, number, and occasions of meetings or conference between STANS and other principals in the Watergate matter, prior to and after June 17, 1972. States that he has entries or abstracts from entries in STANS' diaries, asks him to direct his attention to these pages [STANS and counsel shown lifting large leather-bound binder onto table] BAKER requests January 17, 1972, Stans does not have his diary with him, request made of staff to provide STANS with a copy, which is provided BAKER calls attention to the entry marked "Finance Committee", asks if STANS was Finance Chairman at the time. STANS says he was not. ****TRANSCRIPT**** Senator BAKER. Were you Secretary of Commerce at, the time? Mr. STANS. I was Secretary of Commerce. Senator BAKER, January 25, 8:30 a.m., "1701 Pennsylvania Avenue (all day)." Mr. STANS. Yes, that turned out to be an exaggeration because I did have other appointments on that day, but that, is the entry. Senator BAKER. Were these campaign-related activities? I believe 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue was the headquarters of the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Mr. STANS. Those were related to discussions of the new law as it then stood. Senator BAKER. The law that went, into effect on April 7, 1972? Mr. STANS. That, is correct. Senator BAKER. January 28, 9:30 a.m., the same entry, 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue? Mr. STANS. That is correct. Senator BAKER. January 31, "Hugh Sloan," is this Hugh Sloan, Jr., known also as Duke Sloan who appeared and testified before the committee previously? Mr. STANS. That is correct. Senator BAKER, February 1, 4 o'clock, "Finance, Group Arden," as I can read the entry. Mr. STANS. Did You say, February 4? Senator BAKER. I am sorry, February 1, 4 o'clock is the entry apparently--4 p.m. Mr. STANS. Yes, that is in brackets and I take that to mean since I left for the airport at, 3 o'clock that that meeting was cancelled. Senator BAKER. February 11, 8:15, "Breakfast with R. S. at Watergate." Incidentally of all of the synonymous phrases I could have chosen, I think I would have chosen last your description of your functions as being watertight. [Laughter.] Mr. STANS. Touche, Senator. What is the last date you are asking me about? Senator BAKER. February 11, 8:15, "Breakfast, with R. S. at Watergate." Mr. STANS. That had no relation to campaign matters. R. S. was Rocco Siciliano, the former Under Secretary of Commerce,. I had breakfast -with him. Senator BAKER. Thank you, sir, February 14, 10 o'clock, "Sloan-Nunn redirect." I can't read the last word. Mr. STANS. That, was a meeting with Sloan--Nunn regarding direct, mail solicitation of contributors. Senator BAKER. February 15, 11:30, Tom Evans, New York. Mr. STANS. Yes, Tom Evans was not with the campaign at that, time. I -would not, be able to recall at the moment, the subject of that discussion. He did not join the campaign until July or along in there,- Senator BAKER. February 22, 3:30, "Mitchell fit Justice." 'Mr. STANS. This is now after I had joined the campaign on February 15. Senator BAKER. Can you tell us about, that conversation" Mr. STANS. I can't tell you] any of the, particulars. It was a general discussion with Mitchell. I think- it, was the first opportunity after joining the campaign to sit, down and talk with him about plans, in general, the, spending programs and so on. [01.16.25]
TV Commercials - Top Job floor cleaner
TV Commercials - Top Job floor cleaner A woman places an armful of aerosol air fresheners on the kitchen table. Shots of the woman spraying multiple air freshners in the kitchen with no sucuess. She is looking down at the kitchen floor as the picture fades into a shot of a bluish chemical being poured from a test tube labelled "Top Job" into a beaker holding a dirty floor tile; the dirt is seen rising off. The same woman is sniffing the air in satisfaction after mopping the kitcken floor clean with "Top Job." Shot of the Top Job floor cleaner in front of a white bucket with the words beside it: "A kitchen so clean you can smell it."
Speeches of Winston Churchill
Speeches of Winston Churchill. November 12, 1939. MS of Churchill seated while giving a speech. "We have been agreeably surprised that ten weeks have been allotted to us to get into fighting trim. We are in a very different position from that we were in ten weeks ago. We are far stronger than we were ten weeks ago. We are far better prepared to endure the worst malice of Hitler and his huns than we were at the beginning of September. I shall not attempt to prophesize whether the frenzy of a cornered maniac will drive Herr Hitler into the worst of all his crimes. But this I will say without a doubt, that the fate of Holland and Belgium, like that of Poland, Czechoslovakia, and Austria will be decided by the victory of the British Empire and the French Republic." Edit "And with the British Empire around us we shall fight on, unconquerable, until the curse of Hitler is lifted from the brows of men. We are sure that in the end all will be well." Churchill Voiceover continues over various WWII battle scenes.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (2/2)
[01.16.25] Senator BAKER. Ws there any discussion of the Watergate or related activities? Mr. STANS. Absolutely not,. Senator BAKER. Or of intelligence gathering? Mr. STANS. NO, Senator BAKER. Or the form, matter, and type of fiscal control that would be exercised by you over campaign expenditures? Mr. STANS. Yes, I think that was discussed because I wanted it very clear with Mr. Mitchell that we had precisely the arrangement that I have discussed here. Senator BAKER. Did you discuss then the matter of the finance committee meeting where as Mr. Sloan described it, I believe, there was a discussion of the authorization of larger expenditures by this committee consisting Of political types and finance types. Was that discussed at the meeting with Mr. -Mitchell on February 22? Mr. STANS. Senator, I would appreciate it if you would repeat, the question. I didn't, quite get the point, Senator BAKER. All right, sir. It is my understanding that, there. was a committee made up of representatives of the finance committee and of the political side of the campaign that met periodically to discuss expenditures proposed or made for the campaign. Is that correct? Mr. STANS. That is correct. It was called the budget committee. Senator BAKER. Was the budget, committee's formulation or function discussed with Mr. Mitchell on February 22? Mr. STANS. I don't know but, I wouldn't be surprised if it were because it was one of the matters of organization that was important to me at the time. Senator BAKER. Drawing your attention to March 8, 4 p.m., "Robert," I can't, read the words, "Chairman Richardson, Pres. P-r-e-s," period. Mr. BARKER. Mr. Chairman, I think this is getting into an area where we need not to tread. Senator BAKER. Then at your request I certainly shall not. The next, item is April 25 to Liddy. I will read off a list, here and ask you if you can comment on this list of appointments Mr. Stans, since they appear to be in sequence: April 25, 2 p.m. Liddy; May 1, 3:30, Liddy; May 8, 10:30; and 2 p.m., Liddy-23, 2 o'clock, Liddy; May 30, 10 o'clock, Liddy- May 14, 3:30, 4:30, Liddy, Since, these are all Liddy appointments and they are all in chronological order, apparently, could you tell us what that group of meetings With Mr. Liddy was about? Mr. STANS. Yes, Mr. Liddy by- then was the counsel for the committee He, had been given a number of responsibilities to pursue as a regular matter. I remember some specific subjects that, came up such as the contribution of a man in Chicago who wanted to give stock and we had some considerable discussions with his attorney conducted by Mr. Liddy over a period of time, I remember giving Mr. Liddy the responsibility of seeing that everyone of the national and State committees had properly registered with the General Accounting Office, had properly registered with the Treasury Department and I was following these matters with '-Mr. Liddy as the general counsel from time to time, as the Occasion warranted in addition to the fact that Mr. Liddy appeared at the daily staff meetings. In our staff meeting minutes of April 24, for example, there is an item "Liddy is to continue follow-up of all States not yet registered to submit a weekly list to Stans each Monday of all those not, yet done." Another item "Liddy is to furnish Stans with a legal opinion on anonymous contributions prior to April 7." He was the counsel for the committee. I have given to the committee a number of his legal opinions in writing which indicate that he was quite active and our daily staff minutes show a number of things that were assigned to him. It was quite routine that I discussed all of these matters with him. Senator BAKER. There was no discussion of the Watergate or of intelligence gathering? Mr. STANS. There was absolutely no discussion of that type. [01.20.36] Senator BAKER. The next item is June 16, 1972, and there are two entries, one at 11:30 in the morning I take to be "Haldeman at the White House." And the other 4 in the afternoon, "Liddy." Mr. STANS. That, was the day of a Cabinet meeting at the White House also, I can't recall specifically the purpose of my meeting with Mr. Haldeman. Senator BAKER. Was there any discussion of the Watergate? Mr. STANS. Oh, absolutely not. Senator BAKER. Bear in mind, this was the day before the break-in of the Democratic National Committee headquarters. There was no Mention of intelligence-gathering activities? Mr. STANS. No, absolutely not. Senator BAKER. Of the impending break-in later that night or early the next morning of the Democratic National Committee headquarters? Mr. STANS. No, Senator, absolutely not. Now, I think I did testify yesterday that I saw Haldeman a few times in the course of the year to discuss the size of the budget, the amount of money that the campaign was seeming to cost and my feeling of concern about whether we could raise that, amount of money. In the absence of any other information, I would tell you that the best of my recollection is that that would be what we discussed on June 16. [01.22.04]