Advanced Search
Poolside Antics & Voyeurism
Poolside Antics & Voyeurism
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (2/2)
[01.22.04] Senator BAKER. What about the Liddy meeting on June 18 at 4 in the afternoon? Mr. STANS. Well I can give you one clue from my notations. I cannot give you any precise recollection of the sequence of discussion. But on June 14 in our staff meeting, it says "Liddy is to report to staff every 3 day-, on the McGaw matter"---- Senator BAKER. On the what? Mr. STANS. McGaw, M-c-G-a-w. He is the contributor who had the legal problems in contributing in the form of stock. And there were a number of other items that were charged to Liddy that day. "Liddy is to talk to Yeutter re problem in Kansas. "Liddy is to follow up filing requirements of 'Maryland gala and D.C. dinner. "Liddy is to follow up filing of 4804 forms by State"--that is the Treasury form. Senator BAKER. Are these all notations from a, meeting on the 14th or 16th. Mr. STANS. These are all notations from a meeting on the 14th. They are subjects that I would assume were discussed with 'Mr. Liddy on the 16th and possibly others but certainly definitely, positively not, Watergate. Senator BAKER. Did you see anything unusual about 'Mr. Liddy's attitude or conduct at the 4 o'clock meeting on the 16th of June? Mr. STANS. No, I did not. As it matter of fact, Senator, Mr. Liddy was in the, office for another day after the, 17th. He attended staff meetings. I had similar meetings with him from time to time and he covered up his concerns extremely well, I had no idea that he involved. Senator BAKER. You have already described for the committee, under inquiry from other Senators or the staff, about how you learned of the Watergate break- in and the events immediately succeeding that,. The next item after June 17, the day of the Watergate entry, is June, 19, Mr. Kleindienst, is that former Attorney General Kleindienst? Mr. STANS. Yes, it is. Senator BAKER. Can you tell us about that meeting? Mr. STANS. Yes, sir. In the preceding week, I had called Mr. Kleindienst and asked for an appointment because we were having difficulties with some Personalities in Arizona in setting up it fundraising program. I asked for an opportunity to see him and talk to him about those people. Senator BAKER. You did not talk to him about the Watergate? Mr. STANS. No. Let me go further, Senator. We never had the Ox meeting He called me on the morning of the 19th and said he was too busy that day. He canceled the meeting and I solved my problem in other We never rescheduled it and I never did talk to Mr. Kleindienst Senator BAKER. June 23 at 4 o'clock. Mr. Liddy: and June 28 at 5 o'clock, Mr. Liddy. I Mr. STANS. The earlier of those two meetings so far as I know, was entirely routine, related to his legal matters. The meeting on the 28th tit 5 o'clock was when _Mr. Liddy stopped in the office to say goodbye- He had been discharged He was preparing to leave the office, came in and said he was very sorry to go and I said, I am very sorry to see you go," and that was the substance of the conversation. Senator BAKER. Did he protest his innocence at the time'! Mr. STANS. No, he did not. Senator BAKER. There are a number of other entries, but there is one that I do not see on your diary, and that is the meeting with Mr. Mitchell, I believe on the 23d or '24th of June. Did that, meeting occur and if so, where, When, and at what time? Mr. STANS. There was a meeting with Mr. Mitchell on the. 23d at 1:30 on my diary. It says "Lunch, Mitchell. NOON-, Now, since Mr. Mitchell never came to my office in the course of the whole campaign it must have been in his office, because I do not; recall that we ever went out to lunch. Senator BAKER. Mr. Stans, I was reading to you from a summary which did not show the Mitchell appointment. I am now looking at copies of the appointment book on Friday, June 23, 1972, at 12 o'clock through 1 :30, it would appear. There is a notation of lunch with "Mr. Mitchell, I am sorry I misinterpreted that. It is important that we inquire into that situation, I believe, Mr. Stans, because here we are, a few days after the Watergate break-in, after you have learned from newspaper accounts or from whatever source of the involvement of people employed by your committee or by the Committee To Re-Elect the President or otherwise. Is it my understanding that you set up the meeting with Mr. Mitchell? Mr. STANS. I do not think you should have that understanding. I do not know how the meeting was set up. Senator BAKER. All right, sir. Who was present at the meeting? Mr. STANS. There is no indication in my records that anyone else was present and I have no recollection on that point. Let me say to you, Senator, this is the day- in which I got my first information that the Watergate affair involved transactions with the finance committee. It was at 9 o'clock, as you see on the schedule that day, that Fred LaRue came to my office to talk about the Dahlberg check that had shown up in the records of the bank of Barker in Florida. It was at 3 o'clock in the afternoon that Dahlberg came to Washington, and at 5 o'clock that I had several meetings With Mardian and LaRue. I am sure that the substance of discussion that day in these meetings was very largely related to that check and possibly to the Mexican checks , although I cannot recall whether that happened on the same day as the Dahlberg check. [01.28.31]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (2/2)
[01.28.31] Senator BAKER. Was there any discussion with Mr. Mitchell of the allegations being made by the press at that time of Republican involvement in the Watergate break-in? Mr. STANS. I have no recollection of the substance of the discussions. I just cannot tell you. I had many meetings with Mr. Mitchell in the course of the time that he was with the campaign. As I said, in each case, I had a list of four, five, or six subjects we talked about that were current at the time, and I do not know which par-- particular ones we talked about on any particular day. Senator BAKER. This was the same day, June 23, when I believe Mr. Sloan went to the White House to, according to his testimony, tell Mr. Ehrlichman of his concerns. Do you have any information or of Mr. Sloan's conduct on this same day? Mr. STANS. Well, shortly before 10 o'clock on this day, Mr. Sloan shows on my calendar as having met with me. It, was at that time that he gave me his accounting for the cash funds and that we discussed.' I believe, the disposition of the balance that he had on hand. I am not aware and was not aware at that time, of his discussions with Mr. Ehrlichman or others and I learned about them from reading his depositions. Senator BAKER. Did you have a meeting with Mr. Mitchell on the 24th of June? Mr. STANS. The 24th was a Saturday. I had no recollection of any meeting with Mr. Mitchell and my record does not show any. I had several other meetings on that day. I was in the offices apparently a good part of the day, until, at, least until early afternoon, but I have no recollection or record of a meeting with Mr. Mitchell on that day. Senator BAKER. Did you have a meeting with Mr. Magruder on the 24th? Mr. STANS. Similarly, there. is no record of it and I have no recollection of it. Senator BAKER. Was there a, series of meetings on The 24th with Magruder Dean, Mitchell, or any of the major figures, in the campaign or finance situation at that time, on the 24th? I think it is important that you try to recall as best, you can Mr. Stans. Mr. STANS. Well, Senator, I have. no recollection. 1 can only go by what my record shows and I do not want to be unfair, but, I would like to know what you did on March 24, 1972, 1 think you would have a hard time remembering Senator BAKER, I am certain I would. Mr. STANS. And I talked to people like John Mitchell a great Many times in the course of the campaign and I have no doubt, that, Some, of them did not, get on my time sheets. Senator BAKER. I think it is worth digressing long enough to say that anyone would have difficulty establishing what they did on a particular day, but, these are not ordinary and usual circumstances. Mr. STANS. Correct. Senator BAKER. And we are dealing here with your best efforts to reconstruct, what happened at a critical time and juncture in these proceedings. Now, that is why I urged you to give particular and careful attention to what happened on June 24 with respect to, meetings or conversations less formal than meetings with any of the principals in the so-called Watergate affair. Mr. STANS. I have tried my best to reconstruct that situation, I have gone through my correspondence and memorandums with all of the principals that have been discussed in connection With this matter, and to the extent that they refresh my memory, I have testified to them but I Would have to say that I had many meetings With the people that I considered quite routine. I can only say to you with absolute finality that I did not discuss any espionage or sabotage operations, with anyone prior to June 17 and I really did not learn about them except as', I learned about, them in the Public press. Senator BAKER. That anticipates most of the questions, I could ask on that subject with the exception of one thing. That is with whom did you discuss the Watergate so-called coverup I after June 17 and when did you do it? Mr. STANS. I did not discuss the Watergate coverup with anyone after June 17 and I did not know there a coverup until I read about that in the press. Now, I know of incidents that obviously. in the light of subsequent events, had a relationship to the coverup. for example, the $75,000 that. I gave to Kalmbach, I gave it, to him in good faith, with no knowledge at the time, and I am sure that when Mr. Kalmbach comes before, this committee, he -will testify that, he did not tell me what the purpose of The money was for and would not tell me what the purpose Of the money was for. But except for an incident of that type, I had knowledge of a coverup activity that may have taken place. [01.34.24]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (2/2)
[01.34.24] Senator BAKER. Did you, Mr. Stans, at any time in June 1972, discuss with 'Mr. Mitchell, 'Mr. Sloan, Mr. Magruder, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Ehrlichman, or Mr. Haldeman, what happened on the morning of June 17 at the Democratic national headquarters in any way? Mr. STANS. Some of those people whom you mentioned I had no contact with at all during the year. For example, John Ehrlichman, so far as I can tell from my records, did not, meet with me during the' entire year. As to the others, I had no discussion on the Watergate affair except, the normal curiosity of discussion about news stories. Now, let, we put that in another perspective, To the extent that the finance committee was involved in the news stories, it related to the Dahlberg, check, the Andreas contribution the Mexican check-s and the names of our contributors and matters of that type. These are, the things that occupied my mind and Mr. Sloan's mind, the activities of the finance committee insofar as they related to public affairs during that, period. We were not, involved, I made it, very plain to the campaign people, the finance committee people were not involved in the Watergate affair, and there were no discussions about, who did what, or why, or when---- [01.36.16--TAPE OUT]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
[00.02.00--STANS testifying about meetings he had with principals in the Watergate matter] Mr. STANS......to the extent that they refresh my memory, I have testified to them but I Would have to say that I had many meetings With the people that I considered quite routine. I can only say to you with absolute finality that I did not discuss any espionage or sabotage operations, with anyone prior to June 17 and I really did not learn about them except as', I learned about, them in the Public press. Senator BAKER. That anticipates most of the questions, I could ask on that subject with the exception of one thing. That is with whom did you discuss the Watergate so-called coverup I after June 17 and when did you do it? Mr. STANS. I did not discuss the Watergate coverup with anyone after June 17 and I did not know there a coverup until I read about that in the press. Now, I know of incidents that obviously. in the light of subsequent events, had a relationship to the coverup. for example, the $75,000 that. I gave to Kalmbach, I gave it, to him in good faith, with no knowledge at the time, and I am sure that when Mr. Kalmbach comes before, this committee, he -will testify that, he did not tell me what the purpose of The money was for and would not tell me what the purpose Of the money was for. But except for an incident of that type, I had knowledge of a coverup activity that may have taken place. Senator BAKER. Did you, Mr. Stans, at any time in June 1972, discuss with 'Mr. Mitchell, 'Mr. Sloan, Mr. Magruder, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Ehrlichman, or Mr. Haldeman, what happened on the morning of June 17 at the Democratic national headquarters in any way? Mr. STANS. Some of those people whom you mentioned I had no contact with at all during the year. For example, John Ehrlichman, so far as I can tell from my records, did not, meet with me during the' entire year. As to the others, I had no discussion on the Watergate affair except, the normal curiosity of discussion about news stories. Now, let, we put that in another perspective, To the extent that the finance committee was involved in the news stories, it related to the Dahlberg, check, the Andreas contribution the Mexican check-s and the names of our contributors and matters of that type. These are, the things that occupied my mind and Mr. Sloan's mind, the activities of the finance committee insofar as they related to public affairs during that, period. We were not, involved, I made it, very plain to the campaign people, the finance committee people were not involved in the Watergate affair, and there were no discussions about, who did what, or why, or when, that I can recall at any time, Senator BAKER. At any time? Mr. STANS. At any time, until the events were reported in the press. Senator BAKER. Well, after the events were reported in the press. I do not want, to keep knocking down the limitations that you seem to be placing on this, but at any time after June 17, 1972, regardless of when, at any time until this moment had Mr. Sloan, Mr. Magruder, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman attempted to tell you what happened vis-a-vis the Watergate break-in on June 17? Or the President? Mr. STANS. Not at all. The issue of culpability, which I think is what you are getting at, was never discussed with me by anyone. Senator BAKER. No; I am not really trying to get at culpability, I am trying to get at communication. I guess another way to put it, Mr. Stans, is did you gain all of your information about the facts, and circumstances that, related to Watergate from newspaper accounts or did one of those gentlemen that, I have identified and I will identify again--Mr. Sloan, Mr. Magruder, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Mitchell--did any of them at any time until this moment tell you what happened at Watergate? Or Mr. Liddy or the President? Mr. STANS. My answer to that is "No." [00.07.17]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
[00.43.42] Mr. STANS. Well, Senator, with the greatest of respect, that is really not what I said. I worried about all of these things. I devoted my time to them, I gave consideration to the handling of the accounting for these various items. Mr. Sloan and I discussed them over and over again and we exercised our best judgment on the basis of advice of counsel. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you, Mr. Stans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Senator ERVIN. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock. [00.44.22--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER describes Sen. TALMADGE'S attitude as one of disbelief that STANS did not have better records of the cash disbursements made in the campaign. Solicits viewer response to the coverage, directs viewers to write to their local public tv stations. {PBS network ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"--LEHRER in studio] [00.47.27-LEHRER introduces Sen. ERVIN's questioning as "the toughest of the day and perhaps of the entire hearings thus far] [00.47.42--committee room, ERVIN gavelling] Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. I am going to ask the witness questions about the exhibit testified to by the witness, Sloan, entitled "Transactions as of April 7, 1972, cash deposits and disbursements including committed items." This has already been entered in the record as exhibit No. and I ask that this copy be handed to Mr. Stans. This represents, as I understand, what Mr. Sloan, the Treasurer of the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President, testified was the cash receipts of the finance committee down to April 7, 1972, plus such portions of those receipts that had been submitted for various purposes. If my arithmetic is correct, this shows the total cash receipts in excess of $1 million-approximately $1,777,000, is that correct? Mr. STANS. That is the figure on the statement, yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Well, is it a correct figure, approximately? Mr. STANS. So far as I know from information that I have acquired during the entire course of my chairmanship of the committee, it is approximately correct. [00.49.46]
Outdoor Jazz Performance
Outdoor Jazz Performance - on a dark and cold day. All performers are older African American men, wearing trench style rain coats or bright red lounge jackets. Instruments and band size suggest Swing or Dixieland. Low angle MCU trombone player in jazz ensemble standing up playing, pan to clarinetist and trumpet player. Interesting low angle MCU piano player grinning at camera while playing. MS musicians seated while playing. MCU drummer playing with smile on his face. CU trombone player. MCU clarinet and trumpet players. MCU/CU tuba player. MSs band on stage taking a break and clapping during piano solo. MCU men rising to their feet while playing. MCU tuba player.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
[00.07.17] Senator BAKER. Thank you. Mr. Stans, can you off offer the committee now or at a later date-and I know it is extraordinarily difficult to offer negative testimony or negative proof-but, can you offer the committee any other suggestions on bow We Might inquire into the meetings and your relationships to them with these people that I have named-- Mr. Ehrlichman Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Dean, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Mitchell? I am thinking, for instance, of meetings at which other people, were present so that we could verify or dispute this information. I am thinking of other records, memorandums, or data that, you might know of that, could buttress your accounts. I apologize once again for as asking you to try to prove a negative fact, but if there is other and collateral information, 1 think the committee would like to have it. Mr. STANS. Senator, we have made available to the staff of the, committee all the files, They have examined my personal files; they have all of the correspondence and memorandums, that passed between me and the individuals you have named. I ha given you the best of my recollection on the various matters that I have been asked about, and I think from here on out, the answer is that it is up to the other witnesses that, you are going to call to tell what they know about, it. Senator BAKER. Thank you, Mr. Stans. One or two other questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator Inouye asked you about the conversation with Mr. Hugh Sloan which, according to Mr. Sloan, you told him when he inquired about, what Was going on, or something to that effect, "I don't want to know and you don't want to know." My recollection of your answer to Senator Inouye's question was that you indicated a similar response, something to the effect, that, I do not know and you do not want, to find out, or something to that effect. [00.09.36] Either version of that, -Mr. Stans, I think creates an inescapable curiosity on the part of this member of the committee. Why not? Why didn't you want to know or why didn't you want him to want to know? Mr. STAINS. In the context in which the statement was made, which was the context of the overall campaign, there Was no basis by which we could attempt to know the commitments made by the campaign people. And I think this is the place for me to go back to the budget, and tell how it was operated, because I think there may be some members of the committee and perhaps the public who think that in the budget committee meetings we talked about whether or not we were going to spend $25,000 with this organization Or $100,000 with that organization for a certain purpose. We never discussed in the budget committee meetings where money would go, and I have furnished the staff a copy of the budget which shows how it was broken down. The first item is "Advertising, $12,153,000." Now, within that, we might discuss whether some of that was going to go to billboards, and the conclusion was that there would be no billboards. There, may have been and there were discussions about how much to television as, against radio, but not which station or even at what time. "Campaign -Materials" was another item in the budget, This was for the buttons and bumper strips and things that are part of a campaign. But there was never any discussion in the budget Committee about who do we buy these or when do we get them delivered, that from sort of thing. There was an item in the budget of almost $7 million entitled "Research and Planning, Direct Mail and Telephone Operations." Now, $4 1/2 million of that was for direct mail and $1.9 million was for telephone operations. The discussions in the budget committee were about which States shall we use for direct mail operations, and in this, the campaign committee made the decisions. There were discussions in the budget. committee about which States shall we use telephone operations in. There were questions raised such as, why do you need to have three pieces of direct mailing to every householder in California, why couldn't you do it with two, [00.12.16]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
[00.12.16] Senator, BAKER. Is this, Mr. Stans, what 'Mr. Odle probably was referring to when he answered in, response to Mr. Thompson's question On page 33 of the Odle testimony With regard to Mr. Stans, was his role limited to raising money or did Mr. Stans also participate in the decisions as to how money would he allocated? Mr. ODLE. I think that Mr. Stans in the budget meetings certainly kept an eye on where the money was going, He sometimes challenged expenditures. he would say, for example, do we really need to spend this money on television advertising this week? Is this the kind of thing you are describing? Mr. STANS. That, is the kind of thing I am describing and that the way in which the budget committee operated. At some. times, a concession would be made that we would take $100,000 out of polling and put it into candidates support, for example, but I was never successful in getting any reductions in the budget despite my letter of May 10 to Mr. Mitchell, which is before us, despite all of my pleas, despite the fact that, I got quite irate at times, despite the fact that I said, I don't think we can raise that amount of money. We, were against an upward situation and the ultimate, as I said yesterday, was in excess of $50 million that was spent. Senator BAKER. Mr. Odle also testified, and according to the transcript, that "I would say that in budget, committee sessions, his agreement--meaning your agreement--"was necessary before we, could allocate a great deal Of money, say for television advertising the following week: yes, those kinds of major decisions." Is that essentially correct? Mr. STANS. That is essentially correct, and in principle, it is the basis on which we operated. Senator BAKER . What about that $350,000 that went to the White House? Did you have to approve that? Mr. STANS. Well, that came up before the budget committee, I believe, had any effective operation, and as I testified yesterday, I knew that the subject was under consideration. I learned 'shortly after that, the money had been paid to the White House; I had no objection to it; I would have approved it had I been asked about it; and the minor difference in recollection between me and Mr. Sloan as to whether I approved it in advance or later is, I think, immaterial. Senator BAKER. Mr. Stans, you testified, I believe, that the $350,000 for the White House was intended for, as you understand it, polling costs, polling operations, and other things. Why on earth--cash would be the most, awkward way on earth to take care of something like that. Why wouldn't a check have been sent to an account against which the White House could draw from those funds? Mr. STANS. Well, I think this is a question that might well be, worth asking of other witnesses but I do understand that the White House, and I get some of this from Mr. Haldeman's testimony and depositions that the White House wanted to do some polling on its own to check on the reports that it got from the campaign committee as to issues and findings in certain States and they wanted to do it without the knowledge of the regular polling organizations that were being used by the campaign committee. Senator BAKER. Mr. Stans, let me, in the interest of time, with a full understanding you are going to return and testify later on other matters more intimately related to the structure of campaign financing let me ask you a final question: In retrospect, and hindsight is always 20-20, can You see any reason why we should lot eliminate cash transactions from the political system? Mr. STANS. Well, we had that question just a minute ago. I think when you say eliminate cash transaction in just those words, you will run into a lot, of trouble because you will even eliminate petty Cash funds for paying for the, delivery of a parcel--something like that. I think also the committee ought, to inquire into the circumstances of whether or not under certain conditions of elections, for example, it is necessary for people to have cash funds to pay certain types of expenses to get people to the polls, and that, sort, of thing, But its a finance chairman in the past, never again, I would have welcomed that kind of legislation because it would have eliminated an awful lot, of the questions. Senator BAKER. It, would have made it, a lot easier for you to account for the income and outgo, wouldn't it? Mr. STANS. Not necessarily- easier but just, easier to eliminate the, suspicions that, seemed to be associated with people paying in cash even though it, is legal tender. Senator BAKER. I can't help but note, your voluntary statement that you will never be a finance chairman again, I understand you didn't want to be this time. Mr. STANS.' That, is entirely correct. Senator BAKER. And I take it nothing has happened to change your mind? [Laughter.] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [00.17.25]
Leopard
Master 2140, Part 1 MS Leopard (Panthera pardus) laying on high tree branch. He is watching the ground for potential prey.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
[00.17.25] SENATOR. ERVIN. Senator Talmadge, Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Stans, I have had the pleasure of knowing you for a great number of years. Your career IS one of the most remarkable success stories in the history of America, humble origins, a hard working young man, certified public accountant at the age Of 23 years, highly successful businessman, Secretary of Commerce, Director of the Bureau of the Budget and, finally the most effective money raiser for any political campaign in the history of the country. My questions may be viewed as antagonistic but I don't want you to think of them in that vein because I, too, am merely seeking facts which I think the American people entitled to know. You, of course are well acquainted with Mr. Sloan. Mr. STANS. Yes, I am very well acquainted with Mr. Sloan. Senator TALMADGE. He testified before the committee last week and there, are certain direct contradictions- between your testimony and Mr. Sloan's I thought Mr. Sloan was an articulate, able, and effective witness. How do You regard Mr. Sloan's character? Mr. STANS. I would like to say something about that and I welcome the opportunity to talk about that. I consider Mr. Sloan a man of very high character. He is able, he is a brilliant person, We worked very closely together all through the time that he was associated with the Committee. I had known him in 1968 when he worked on our campaign. He is also sophisticated. He has spent more time in fundraising than I have, perhaps by a factor of two, He was in this campaign before I was, and I don't consider it significant that there are a few matters on which our remarks differ. We have agreed on almost everything I that We have testified about. There has been no disagreement in our testimony except on two or three points I think perhaps it would be a matter of suspicion If there weren't some disagreements between us. But The basic fact is that we do have high respect for each other. We Worked very closely together and I want to repeat what I have said before; the finance committee, in its isolation from the campaign, had nothing to do with the events that you are investigating in this hearing. Except for Mr. Gordon Liddy who was with us a relatively short period of time, who was transferred over under circumstances which have been described here, I am convinced that neither Mr. Sloan nor anyone else connected with the finance committee had any knowledge of these events, Senator TALMADGE. You would believe Mr. Sloan under oath? Mr. STANS. Pardon me. Senator TALMADGE, You believe Mr. Sloan's testimony under oath? Mr. STANS. I would believe Mr. Sloan's testimony under oath except in the few cases in which his recollection is slightly different from mine. Senator TALMADGE. It Went substantially beyond recollection, I may say. I think at, one point he said you would have to check it with Mitchell, $83,000 payment to Mr. Liddy, you deny that, don't you? Mr. STANS. Oh, no. Senator TALMADGE. You did check it with Mr. 'Mitchell? Mr. STANS. I did check with Mr. Mitchell on the principle of whether Mr. Magruder had authority to tell Mr. Sloan to make payments to Liddy. I did not check with Mr. Mitchell on the amount. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Mitchell authorized the payment? Mr. STANS. Mr. Mitchell--no; he did not authorize the payment. He said that Mr. Magruder is the man to talk to. "Mr. Magruder Is; running the campaign and he is directing the expenditures." Senator TALMADGE. After talking with Mr. Mitchell, you told Mr. Sloan to make the payments? Mr. STANS. No, sir. After talking with Mr. Mitchell, I told Mr. Sloan to check with Magruder to see whether he should make the payment and Mr. Magruder said--and Sloan said he had already talked to Magruder. Senator TALMADGE. You deny also that you told Mr. Sloan about $83,000 to Mr. Liddy, that you didn't want to know and he didn't want to know what it was going for? Mr. STANS. No, Senator, I don't deny a discussion on that subject. I said two things: one, that it was not, the whole conversation. Second, that I am not sure the words are entirely accurate, and Mr. Sloan himself has said, last week what I said here today, that that remark was made in a, context of total frustration with the campaign people, and it was not related solely to the question of the payment to Mr. Liddy. Senator TALMADGE. I believe you verified in the question asked by Senator Baker Mr. Odle's testimony which was that your position on the budget committee was to maintain the expenditures at an economical level? Mr. STANS. To try, yes. [00.22.41]
Elephant
10:14:45 Female elephant with long tusks, feeding 10:17:30 Female elephant feeding - CU trunk 10:18:35 Young elephant nursing 10:20:00 Baby elephant 14:26:07 1-tusked elephant feeding 06:59:48 Elephants teeth (this next footage starts after the gazelles and not here) fast forward past the cheetahs and such... 07:08:27 Elephants bluff charge and aggression 07:08:56 Female elephant nervous, moves off 07:09:19 Elephant backing down, rival push on 07:10:26 Male elephant after estrus with female 07:11:05 Elephants feeding 07:12:13 Young bull elephant after female elephant, chased off from breeding 07:13:44 Big bull elephant elephant courts female elephant in estrus, trunks entwined 07:14:48 Young bull elephant after another female elephant ON PART ONE.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
[00.22.41] Senator TALMADGE. Did you ever question why staff members such as Mr. Liddy and Mr. Porter, Mr. Magruder were drawing off large sums of money? Mr. STANS. Well, I never knew that Mr. Magruder had drawn any money until long after it happened. With respect to 'Mr. Liddy, I knew that, he had been drawing some sums of money. I understood they were relatively small. It had something to do with the primary campaigns and that was the situation up Until Mr. Sloan came to me. With the statement that Mr. Liddy had asked for a substantial amount of money. With respect to 'Mr. Porter, I testified yesterday that I had heard in February or along in there, that, Mr. Porter had a safe with a sum of money in it, that he, was receiving money and disbursing it, that I objected to that, and that, Mr. Porter then stopped disbursing any money. I learned last, night that he did not, disburse any money or receive any money during the month of April and it wasn't until sometime in May that he again received some funds. I was not aware Of those payments. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Liddy attended 33 out of 39 staff meetings of the finance committee August 6, 1971, to June 28 of 1972, He was general counsel to the committee. He received an assignment In fact, on June 28, the day he was fired. Doesn't, it seem rather incongruous that 'Mr. Liddy, your general counsel, with whom you met daily, could take large sums of money and not report the use of it? Mr. STANS. Senator, Mr. Liddy was accountable in money terms to the treasurer, not to me, and except for, the limited knowledge that I had about transactions with Mr. Liddy, I had no knowledge of what he was doing with the money or how much he had gotten and I was as surprised as many other people when I found out that he had received a total of $199,000. [00.25.10] Let me make a point here which has not yet been Made before the committee. As I read the testimony and depositions in various Civil suits the program for Liddy to receive $250,000, if it was approved by anyone, was approved in March and apparently the $83,000, which happens to be exactly one-third of $250,000, was, paid to Mr. Liddy, if it was paid to him, early in April, The testimony indicates if you take into account the other money that 'Mr. Liddy received. and the money given to him by Porter that he had spent $125,000 before that, before the Watergate espionage Program was approved, I have no idea what that was for, I had no idea until I did the arithmetic that, that was the case. But it, would seem to me that, and this answers one of Senator Baker's questions, that, this is one area of the investigation that no one seems to know anything about. [00.26.35] Senator TALMADGE. Where in the budget did this program for Mr. Liddy appear? Mr. STANS. There was no item in the budget for the program of Mr. Liddy that is identifiable. If the people. I who made the budget had it in mind I do not know what item it would have appeared in. Senator TALMADGE. YOU testified yesterday, did you not, Mr. Sloan told you on July 12 that, he was, approached by, Mr. Magruder and asked by 'Mr. Magruder to minimize the amount, of money that he had disbursed, is that correct? Mr. STANS. I am not sure that I referred to the date of July 12 but I was told by Mr. Sloan that, that had happened and that he had--had told Mr. Magruder and others that he, was not going to do so. Senator TALMADGE. Did that not, raise suspicions in your mind of a possible illegal or unethical use of the money that Magruder was disbursing'? Mr. STANS. Senator, you do not mean Magruder, I take it. Could you rephrase the question? [00.27.38 Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Sloan. did that, not raise suspicions in your mind as to the possible illegal or unethical uses of the money that Mr. Magruder was disbursing? Mr. STANS. No question about that but those suspicions began to generate earlier than that, particularly on June 28 when Mr. Liddy was discharged for failing to cooperate with the FBI. Senator TALMADGE. Did you testify yesterday in effect that your Whole purpose was raising money, that you did not take care of small detailed items? Mr. STANS. That is pretty much true. I will not say that at times I did not got into detail. One is always forced into that but my job was to raise the massive amount of money that I could see was going to be spent. [00.28.30]
Yellow Baboon
12:10:51 Yellow baboon feed on roots 12:13:03 Yellow baboon, female with baby on her belly 12:13:44 Yellow baboon, female nursing baby 12:17:59 Male yellow baboon 12:18:45 Yellow baboon with baby nursing 12:20:10 Female yellow baboon with baby, feeding 12:20:59 Female yellow baboon carries baby on belly 12:21:25 Female yellow baboon and baby, affectionately playing 12:23:02 Yellow baboon with a radio collar, screaming ON PART ONE
Electronics Assembly
Electronics Assembly Shot begins with a stationary MS of young Caucasian woman w/ hair pulled back in ponytail at work assembling some sort of electronic circuit panel, the shot then tracks to the RT showing women of varying ages & ethnicities also working on circuit panels (Caucasian, Asian). Elevated GV work stations void of people, showing the massive amounts of storage bins holding various electronics parts used in assembly, Caucasian women walk into frame & take seats at their work spaces. MS attractive woman w/ short black hair assembling electronics at work station. MS Caucasian women seated at work stations using soldering irons on circuit boards, shot tracks to the RT.
Telephone Cable
Telephone Cable MS giant spools of telephone cable stored on lot, camera zooms in on CU of sign attached to spool reading Reserved, Waiting for Customers" and pans to another sign reading Cost: $50,000 installed". Similar shots repeated.
Arc Welding
Nice compellation of industrial arc welding.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
[00.28.30] Senator TALMADGE. I will ask the staff to give each member of the committee and the witness and the court reporter a copy of these documents for the, purpose of identification. Show Mr. Stans one, please, immediately, so he can begin refreshing his memory. Mr. STANS. Yes; I remember these memorandums. Senator TALMADGE. That is a document you wrote, both pages? Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that they be inserted in the record at this point and appropriately marked as an exhibit. Senator ERVIN. Let it be marked as an exhibit and received. [The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 30. [00.29.22] Senator TALMADGE. I will read part of it. "It will be necessary for us to establish a system of control over the purchasing and distribution of all articles, such as bumper strips, banners, pins, jewelry, and so forth," other details there. Page 21 "I think we need a lapel pin for our 1972 contributors," et cetera. Would that not indicate to you that you had more than a casual interest in the operations of the campaign? Mr. STANS. Let us take them one by one, Senator. The question of accounting for the sale of articles like, jewelry and pins and so forth was a new one. We never did that in previous elections, we did not do it in 1968. It Was customary for people running a store front location to get jewelry and sell it and put the proceeds into some purpose, locally. The new law changed that, It required us to account for every dollar of receipts, and being aware of that I told Mr. Sloan by this memorandum, in the second paragraph, "I would appreciate it if you would work with the campaign people in setting up a procedure for 1972." Now, I did not consider, I do not consider, this a detail. I consider it a rather important element, in our responsibility to account to the, General Accounting Office. Senator TALMADGE. NOW, that, Was dated February 28, 1972, was it not,? Mr. STANS. That is correct, sir. Senator TALMADGE. More than 2 months before the new accounting procedure contributions and disbursements went into effect April 7, 1972? Mr. STANS. About 5 weeks, Senator, yes. [00.31.12] Senator TALMADGE. Five weeks. Why would you consider so important the, matter of bumper strips and banners and pins and jewelry and so forth, and there on that board is over $1 million in cash disbursements unaccounted for? Mr. STANS. I did not get the question, Senator. Senator TALMADGE. The question is [laughter] why were you spending all your time worrying about bumper strips and right there on that board you have got deposits of $750,000 and disbursements of $1,777,000? You are considered to be one of the most able certified accountants in America, why did you worry about bumper strips instead of those funds? Mr. STANS. Well, Senator I suppose this is argumentative, I worried about bumper strips and Jewelry. The accounting for proceeds of sales of articles was an important responsibility under the statute, Now, most, of this, material on the chart, as we have already learned happened before April 6, only a few items on there happened after April 6, and there was no responsibility under the law on the Treasurer to account, for that money but he was accountable for the proceeds of sales of any Jewelry or items of that type. Senator TALMADGE. And didn't you send out an interoffice memo on May 3 stating that you were greatly concerned that thank you letters to contributors be sent out within 48 hours of the receipt -of the contribution? Mr. STANS. Yes, sir, I did consider that a very important function of the fundraising effort to see, that people were thanked very promptly Senator TALMADGE. I will ask the staff to show Mr. Stans; a copy of the next document and give a copy to each member of the committee staff, and I want to insert, that into the record appropriately numbered and marked the next exhibit. Senator ERVIN. Let the document be entered us an exhibit and marked with the appropriate number Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Stans, do you admit writing that memorandum also to Mr. Sloan? Mr. STAINS. Yes sir, I do. [00.33.37]
1950s - Film Editing - Laminator Machine
Film Editing; editor; working with film laminator machine; film reel running through sprockets; processing; preparing; 16mm; reels; equipment; machinery; lamination; analog; magnetic track; audio.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
[00.33.37] Senator TALMADGE. In that you still are chastising Mr. Sloan because he did not deposit a check, I believe, for $1,000 from Mrs. Alice Abel promptly enough, and get, out, a thank you letter promptly enough. Is that the sum and substance of it? Mr. STANS. Well, the sum and substance of it, Senator, is that I received a check from this lady and--while I was in Omaha on May 12--for some reason it did not appear on the sheet listing the contributions until June 1. Now, I did receive from Mr. Sloan every day a report, of the contribution received, and when I found out, that that check hadn't appeared on the report, for 2 weeks as having been received, I was concerned because it, related to the question of whether we were behind in all of Our work in his shop, His reply was very clear that the check was improperly made out or returned for appropriate endorsement and deposited. I was, not checking on at routine involving one transaction. I Was checking on whether or not, the thank you letters were being kept up to schedule. Senator TALMADGE. Then that at raises this question, Mr. Stans: Why did you allow Mr. Sloan, contrary to your explicit instructions to casually report to you only several weeks later the deposit of the $25,000 check received from Mr. Dahlberg and $89,000 check in Mexican bank checks? Mr. STANS. Well, Senator, I fairly well covered that in my testimony yesterday. The fact is that I was not aware that the Mexican bank checks had even been received until I got back from my vacation around the 24th of April, The fact also is that the record shows that, before I went on that vacation, I left a memorandum of things to be done by the staff, and one of the items was a request for Mr. Sloan to balance up his cash as soon as possible. Now, Mr. Sloan had given those checks to Mr. Liddy, he followed up with Mr. Liddy and I think his testimony is that be followed up several times, and Liddy said, "It takes time to get that money back." Mr. Sloan did get the money back in early or mid-May and deposited I think the follow-up was as thorough as we could have expected it to be. Senator TALMADGE. But you got the Dahlberg check personally, I believe, did you not? Mr. STANS. Yes, it went through my hands, and I had it for a short time on the 11th of April. Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Stans, are you telling---- Mr. STANS. I think, Senator, what you are bringing out is the difference in the function between the 'chairman and the treasurer. I raised the money--he had no part in soliciting contributions. He did the bookkeeping and the accounting and I had no part of that, and once I turned a check over to Mr. Sloan, I had every reason to assume that it would be handled in due course and only when I learned about things that were not handled in due course-as that Abel check--did I raise questions with Mr. Sloan about it. [00.37.20] Senator TALMADGE Are you telling us, Mr. Stans, that as a certified public accountant, a member of the Accountants Hall of Fame, former Secretary of Commerce, and who further had been personally selected by the President to be the Director of the Budget and director of the committee to raise $50 million for his reelection campaign you intended all this money to be spent without any of your supervision and control? Mr. STANS. No, I am not telling you that at all, Senator. I did exercise some supervision and control. I got a daily report of all the contributions received which I looked over every day. I indicated to the extent, that I knew people personally their first, names so that the letter of acknowledgement, and appreciation would be a first-name basis. I saw--I got reports from time to time, I had a daily staff meeting, the summaries of the reports that Were filed with the General Accounting Office. So I did exercise supervision but, I did not, Senator, have anything to do with the day-to-day work of the treasurer's office. Senator TALMADGE, Now, you realize that, the reporting act went into effect on April 7, 1972, do you not? Mr. STANS. That is correct. Senator TALMADGE. And a -very stringent law? Mr. STANS. Yes, sir. [00.38.55]
World's tallest flagpole; road signs and highway signs
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
[00.38.55] Senator TALMADGE. Tell us why You didn't, report, this Dahlberg check from Florida. I don't, believe you got, it, until the 10th of April, did you? Mr. STANS. Senator, I covered that, in great detail yesterday; I will be happy to review it again today. Because I think it is important that everybody understand This Was a Contribution which was promised by Mr. Dwayne Andreas in -March and before, and in March he went to the trouble of getting the money in hand. Senator TALMADGE, I don't think you need to repeat that testimony because You made that clear. But how do you consider that it could avoid being reported when the check didn't get to you until the 10th of April, do you take the position that it, was constructively received before you got it? Mr. STANS. NO, Sir. I take the position that it qualified under the definition of the contribution of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, and I would like to read the definition to you. "The term "contribution" includes a gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value and includes a contract, promise, or agreement to make a contribution whether or not, legally enforceable ." Now, Andreas had made a promise, an agreement, to make a contribution well before April 7. He had not only done that, he had gone to the point of doing everything he could personally to make the money available as a contribution It was Clear to me and it was clear to lawyers with whom I consulted: that that contribution was received as a matter of law before April 7 even though it didn't come into our hands until the 11th and, Senator, the Department of Justice has agreed with us in a letter of January 11, 1973 from Henry Petersen, the Assistant Attorney General to Wright Patman. It says: The issue TO be resolved is when the gift became effective as a matter of law. From the evidence developed we are forced to conclude that for criminal purposes, at least, we cannot prove that This contribution had been made after the April 17 effective date of this act and, accordingly, have closed the matter. Now, Senator, I fail to find any basis for criticism in the handling of that transaction. I acted on the basis of legal advice and it turns out that my legal advice was good. Senator TALMADGE. You do not think a promise to contribute to a political campaign is legally enforceable, do you? Mr. STANS. No; but the statute says that it, does not have to be legally enforceable. Senator TALMADGE. I thought, the statute said the receipt had to be reported, even though the promise of the agreement does not have to be. Anyway, we will not argue about that further, but my certified public accountant would certainly hold me to a greater degree of accountability than you would, I believe. Mr. STANS. Let us go a little further into that, Senator, because you have it and I think it is important that this be understood. As of April 7, we had millions of dollars of commitments from people to contribute. Many of these had been solicited by Mr. Kalmbach as early as 1971. I could have, under a literal construction of this law, concluded that every one of those did not need to be reported when the money came in, because it was a commitment before April 17. But I adopted a very much stricter standard for the purposes of a accounting and it, was that only in the case of a commitment where the individual contributor had done everything possible to hand it to us would I consider it a contribution under the second part of this definition. Mr. Andreas had done everything. He wanted to make the contribution He had it in hand. He put it in a safe deposit box for Mr. Dahlberg in his name. It would have been very unfair to him, it seems to me, not to consider it so. Senator TALMADGE. I will not quarrel with you further about, that, Mr. Stans. You have been a man that, I have admired greatly over a long period of time. But it strikes me as being literally inconceivable that you could spend the largest part of your time worrying about pen labels and bumper stickers and not, worrying about what happens to large sums of cash that are being disbursed by these people for unknown causes, particularly when the law is clear on stringent reporting of disbursements. [00.43.42]
Flags
Color Stock 16 - Original Film 473 - Reel 1 (History/War)
World War I action and soldiers