Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.08.03] Senator ERVIN. And you didn't 'take into consideration how much was needed? Mr. STANS. There is no such definition as how much is needed except the subjective definition of the people who want to spend the money. Senator ERVIN. I don't know whether I understand your testimony or not. Are you tolling me in effect that Mr. John Mitchell was running the show and you had very little voice in it except to raise the money that he wanted to spend?' Mr. STANS. NO, I am not quite telling you that. I am telling you that in the budget committee meetings, I was not very successful in holding down the level of spending. Senator ERVIN. Did they ever discuss the question in any budgetary meeting about using any money for intelligence work? Mr. STANS. I don't recall any discussions of that type. Senator ERVIN. Did you ever vote to authorize the use of any money for intelligence work? Mr. STANS. No. If you mean by that the kind of intelligence that we are talking about in connection with the Watergate and so on, no. Senator ERVIN. Now, you say the President called you in August? Mr. STANS. The President called me in August and'! have checked my record, and I believe the meeting I had with him was in September, early September. Senator ERVIN. I will digress for a, minute to say that you are familiar with the power structure, the power as was in the White House, are you not? Mr. STANS. I believe I am. Senator ERVIN. And the man next to the President is Mr. Haldeman? Mr. STANS. One of the men next to the President is Mr. Haldeman. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Ehrlichman -was the other? Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator ERVIN. And John W. Dean was a man who was subordinate to both of them, wasn't he? Mr. STANS, I don't know. I know he was counsel. I don't know where he stood in the organizational structure of the White House. Senator ERVIN. You didn't, put him ahead of 'Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman, either one of them, in authority, did you? Mr. STANS. No; but for all I know, he may have been on a par with them. I just don't know. Senator BAKER, Mr. Chairman we have a vote in progress now and I know we are going to have to leave. But you have raised some interesting questions and I would like the, chairman's attention just for or a moment. I have not been a protector and I have not been a defender of any witness, nor have I been a prosecutor, I believe, and I don't propose, to start that now. But it seems to me that the inquiry into two areas on campaign financing deserves further inquiry. The chairman's question of this -witness as to whether there was a higher duty than that required by the law under the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 is very interesting, particularly with reference to the method and manner of accounting for cash contributions and cash disbursements and the requirements of the law or the custom and usage by political parties in disbursing cash. The second quest on the chairman raised about whether or not the multiple dividing up of cash contributions into smaller sums for deposit is an attempt to defeat the gift tax as distinguished from avoiding the gift tax. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in absolute fairness, if we, going to inquire into something higher than the language of the law or into Custom and practice, of politics in this respect, it is incumbent upon this committee, and I so suggest, that, the committee subpena all of the records of the Democratic National Committee and all of those candidates for nomination of either of the two major political parties for a reasonable time preceding April 7, 1972, and subsequently, to shed light on exactly what the custom and usage in politics was. I hope we will have witnesses here to discuss the manner of handling cash and the manner Of handling deposits in order to avoid gift tax consequences before these hearings conclude. Senator GURNEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate my position, too, with the vice chairman's I think we should look into those things. I would like to say some other things, too. The American public, don't think, understands how these hearings are conducted and I don't want them to get the Impression that the questioning of any Senator here is found favorable by other Senators. I for one have not appreciated the harassment of this witness by the chairman in the questioning that has Just finished. I think this Senate committee ought to act, in fairness. [00.12.53]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
1950s - Women Working in Assembly - Electronics
MS women seated at work stations using soldering irons in order to assemble integrated circuit boards, a woman standing with board in her hands turns to face camera and proceeds to check items off a list for assembly inspection.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.18.45] Senator ERVIN. Yes. Now, at that time Mr. Kalmbach told you that it was a White House project and the request was made on him by higher authority? Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator ERVIN. But he refused to tell You What the money was for? Mr. STANS. That is correct. Senator ERVIN. Now you later found out that that money was given to a man named Tony to bring down to Washington to be used to pay lawyer fees for the defendants in the criminal action before Judge Sirica? Mr. STANS. Yes, I learned that sometime in late April and May--- Senator ERVIN. NOW---- Mr. STANS. Of this year. Senator ERVIN. Don't you know that approximately $450,000, either campaign funds or funds that were raised by people active in the campaign, were given as funds to pay counsel fees for the attorneys for the defendants in the criminal action and to pay their salaries and to take care of their families? Mr. STANS. No, sir, I do not know that. Senator ERVIN. Do you know of anything except the $75,000 that was used for that purpose? Mr. STANS. That is all I know about it. Senator ERVIN. So we have a situation here in the criminal cases where the Department Of Justice, or rather prosecuting attorneys who were prosecuting the case, and to some extent counsel for the defendants in the case, were being paid by people who were active in the campaign isn't that so? Mr. STANS. Well, it depends on how much they were paid and what the, source of the money was. Senator ERVIN. Yes. Mr. STANS. And I really don't know. Senator ERVIN. Only to the extent of $75,000. Mr. STANS. That is correct. And that was not known at the time. Senator ERVIN. -Some very distinguished gentlemen maintain we ought to leave it to the prosecutors and the courts to determine we whole thing and the committee ought to close shop. Now, as understand it, you have no records--, showing that YOU had a meeting with Magruder and Mitchell on June 24, 1972? Mr. STANS. Mr. Chairman, I have something to add to said this morning. I have no records showing that I had any meeting with Magruder or Mitchell on June 24 nor do I have any recollection But because the committee put such emphasis on it, my counsel, at his initiative called Mr. Mitchell's counsel who talked to Mr. Mitchell to see if he had any recollection and this is the report that I got back which Is, quoting Mr. Mitchell. There was a meeting sometime during the day between Mardian, Magruder and Sloan at which Mardian was pushing, Sloan and Magruder to find out how much money Sloan had given to Liddy I was not at the meeting and I did not know who was at the meeting. Then there was a second meeting the same day between Mardian, Sloan, and Mitchell. Mardian got -CA rough on Sloan because -Mardian did not find out from Sloan how much money he had given Liddy. Again I was not at that meeting and I did not know of the meeting at the time it was held. Then according to _Mr. Mitchell's records at 3:40 there was a telephone conversation between Mitchell and me. Whether he placed it originally or whether I did, he did not know. At 4 p.m. I met with Mr. Mitchell in his office, alone, no one, else present. Mitchell told me that Sloan would not tell him how much money Sloan had given Liddy and asked me if I knew and I said I did not. That is all that was said. Now, I am giving you a report which is thirdhand _Mr. Mitchell to his counsel to my counsel to me. As I said earlier, I have no recollection of the meeting and no record of it and I still have no recollection of the meeting but this is Mr. Mitchell's report. Senator ERVIN. Now Mr. STANS. But it did not cover anything beyond the question of how much money did Sloan give Liddy. It did not cover any Of the subjects that were alluded to in the questioning earlier as to whether there was a full discussion of' who was involved in the Watergate and so on. Senator ERVIN. Now, within a few weeks after the break-in you knew that McCord, who had been employed as a security officer for the political committee, as I understand it, that is the committee To Re-Elect the President, had been arrested in the Watergate? Mr. STANS, Yes, I knew that the day after, Senator ERVIN. Then you found out from the press that four, Barker and Sturgis and Gonzales and Martinez had money which had come from 'the proceeds of checks of the committee 'in their pockets at the time they were arrested and in their hotel rooms? Mr. STANS. I knew that only from the press stories. I did not know it of myself. Senator ERVIN. Then a short time later you knew that -Magruder had paid, rather had directed Sloan, and Sloan, at Magruder's direction had paid substantial sums of money to Liddy? Mr. STANS. Yes. [00.25.10]
Roley Poley Slip Covers
Master 194 - Tape 1 MS well-dressed woman in 1950s pleated skirt stands in living room with back to camera, turns quickly and examines her dress, as if someone has said, "Your slip is showing." She sits down in one chair and looks over at the other; it's clearly in need of reupholstering. CU woman flipping through material samples, nice 1940's floral print, zoom out to TLS of woman in department store looking at the Slipcover section. CU female finger with nail polish pointing at a furniture chart. MS woman in her living room, she recovers her tired old chairs in cheerful floral pattern slipcovers. MS woman holding the slipcover box happily up to the camera. Second version of same spot; woman points to the old chair disconsolately. CU fabric swatches in interesting 1950s patterns. Woman recovers chair, and points to box, which reads "Customette."
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.25.10] Senator ERVIN. YOU also knew that Liddy had been charged with complicity the Watergate break-in? Mr. STANS. Well, before that Mr. Liddy had refused to answer questions to the FBI and on advice of counsel I fired him. Senator ERVIN. Did you ask Liddy anything about the matter yourself? Mr. STANS. No. I did not because Mr. Mardian was handling the whole of the legal matters involving the Watergate. Senator ERVIN. Well, Liddy had been serving as general counsel of your committee? Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator ERVIN. Why did not you ask him questions? Mr. STANS. Because Mr. Mardian showed me a memorandum addressed to me stating that Mr. Liddy had failed to cooperate with the FBI, asked my approval to fire him, and said, "Do -not discuss the matter with him" or do not discuss anything with Mr. Liddy, so that was the end of it. I shook hands when Mr. Liddy came to my office, at the close of the day. I shook hands with him, said good-bye and that was it. Senator ERVIN. And you knew that at and, in fact act, Mr. Sloan told you that he had so many misgivings about the money that he had been giving to Liddy at Magruder's request that he was, thinking about resigning. Mr. STANS-. Yes. That happened right around the first of July. Senator ERVIN, And he first gave you that message by telephone, did he not? Mr. STANS. I am not sure. I think he gave it to me in person in the office. Senator ERVIN Well, anyway, you told him to come and talk to you in person about it, did you not? Mr. STANS. That was somewhat later, that was 2 weeks:,, later. Senator ERVIN. Yes. When he came to talk to you about his resigning you told him that you had already informed the FBI that he had resigned? Mr. STANS. No, I did not tell him that, but, it evolved in that manner. I was certain that Mr. Sloan was resigning, There was no question, but that that was his intention. He had not submitted it in writing but when I met with the FBI I said Mr. Sloan burl offered to resign 2 weeks ago and was undoubtedly resigning and that was the record: Senator ERVIN, Well, did not Mr. Sloan tell you at any time that Mr. Magruder had sought to persuade him to commit perjury in respect to the amount of money that had been given to Mr. Liddy. Mr. STANS. Yes, he did. He told me that after he had had the several conversations with Mr. Magruder and after he had told Mr. Magruder that he was going to tell the truth. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Stans, didn't all of this knowledge that you acquired one way or another about these matters that I have enumerated engender in your mind a feeling that you ought to communicate or talk to the President about this matter? Mr. STANS. Mr. Chairman, this did not all happen on one day, as you know. It was a growing thing. Senator ERVIN. Yes, sir. Mr. STANS. As one circumstance after another developed, it was evident that it was entirely possible, that Mr. Liddy was implicated in was no indication that anyone else was outside of this matter, There was those who were arrested. Mr. Mardian had been appointed as counsel to investigate the situation presumably' to report to Mitchell and the President, and it was outside of my domain so I did not go beyond, go any further. Senator ERVIN, You did know about, Magruder since Sloan had told you about Magruder trying to persuade him to commit perjury? Mr. STANS. I had heard that from Sloan but Sloan had-- Senator ERVIN. Yes. Mr. STANS. But, Sloan himself had carried that story to others- Senator ERVIN. And you knew Mr. Mitchell had told you that Mr. Magruder was authorized to direct -Mr. Sloan to make these payments to Liddy? Mr. STANS. Yes, of course, I knew that. Senator ERVIN. -You knew all of this before you talked to the President in August, did you not? Mr. STANS. Oh, yes . Senator ERVIN. Now, you were not only a personal friend but, a political friend of the President, were you not? Mr. STANS. Yes, I believe I was. Senator ERVIN. And wished him well, Mr. STANS. I certainly did. Senator ERVIN. And You knew that under the Constitution one of his principal obligation obligations was to see that the laws be faithfully executed? Mr. STANS. No question about it. Senator ERVIN. Did it not, occur to you that as a friend of the President, as one who wished him well and one who was endeavoring to procure his reelection, that you should have talked to the President and suggested to him that he come, out, and make it, clear that he was going to enforce the law regardless of what happened? Mr. STANS. Mr. Chairman, the President, had far more resources than I did. It was known that the White House was conscious of the problem. I had no knowledge that was not common knowledge at the. time, I had nothing to tell the President that would have been unusual. [00.30.35]
New York City Stock Shots 1 - New York Skyline
New York City Stock Shots 1 - New York Skyline New York, NY WS NY skyline with World Trade Center in distance. Bright sunny day looking at Manhattan across East River.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.30.35] Senator ERVIN. Well, didn't all of this engender in your mind a suspicion that maybe so something was rotten in the Committee to Re-Elect the President? Mr. STANS. Mr. Chairman, I had no reason to suspect at that time and until 'March 23 that there was anybody involved in this matter beyond McCord and Liddy. Senator ERVIN. There was Hunt who had worked and had an office in the same building in which you had an office, did he not? Mr. STANS. I did not know Mr. Hunt. I know, nothing about his connection with the affair. Senator ERVIN. Did you not learn something about that shortly thereafter. Mr. STANS. He was one of those indicted. No, I did not know anything about Mr. Hunt until I read in the press and he was indicted. Senator ERVIN. And the fact that you had been told that Mr. Magruder had tried to persuade Mr. Sloan to commit perjury, did this not Make you think that Mr. -Magruder was implicated in some way? Mr. STANS. Well, it is entirely possible that Mr. Magruder was but he was -not, indicted by the grand jury who had apparently had the entire story, according to Mr. Sloan's statement. I am not in position to accuse people of crimes if the grand jury does not find them indictable Senator ERVIN. 'Well, I wasn't suggesting that. I was just suggesting as a friend and well-wisher of the President that you might naturally have exactly the same inclination Which Mr. Sloan evidently had that something might be wrong, might be rotten in the Committee To Re-Elect the President and if you might feel like protecting the President, you ought to call to his attention your misgivings. Mr. STANS. Well, Mr. Sloan and Mr. Magruder testified before the grand jury. Mr. Sloan talked to people in the White House. All I can say is that I saw no reason for my going any further with the President, Senator ERVIN. Well, you didn't have any feeling that there was anything rotten in the Committee To Re-Elect the President that ought to be investigated? Mr. STANS. Beyond that investigation which was going on by the FBI, by the grand jury, by the White House, and whatever other sources were involved, I had no investigating mechanism and I did not. Senator ERVIN. Were you questioned individually by the FBI? Mr. STANS. Oh, yes. I had three meetings with 'the FBI plus the one occasion when they came back for a few questions. Senator ERVIN, In other words, the information you did give the FBI was not in the form of a written statement made by you? Mr. STANS. No, it was not. Senator ERVIN. And how long was it after you had the conversation with the President until the President announced that Dean had made an investigation and that he could assure the American people that nobody presently employed or then employed in the White House was implicated in any way? Mr. STANS. Mr. Chairman, offhand, I don't know whether that announcement was made before or after the date that I had the meeting with the President. Senator ERVIN. NOW, you talked with the President personally in September, you say? Mr. STANS. Yes. Senator ERVIN. Did you discuss any of these matters with him? Mr. STANS. No; I did not discuss the Watergate matter as Such. The President commiserated with me. He said, I know you are, taking a lot of punishment in the press and taking a great many accusations. He said, you are doing a fine job, I hope that you will keep on working,' because this will all be cleared up some day and I am confident that you had nothing to do with it. It was a pep talk, as I said. I did take advantage of the occasion to say to the President, I think we are spending an awful lot of money, we are working awfully hard to raise it, and Mr. President, it is very hard to raise money for a candidate who is 30 points ahead in the polls. But that, was the nature of the discussion. Senator ERVIN. Do you have any questions? Mr. EDMISTEN. I have a couple of rapid questions, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stans, you have testified that part of the, money that went to Mr. Kalmbach was paid out of some Philippine National money and you said that, that had to be paid back? Mr. STANS. Yes, sir. Mr. EDMISTEN. Was that paid back by check? Mr. STANS. No; that was paid back by Mr. LaRue in the, same form in which we received it, in cash. Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, isn't it true, Mr. Stans, that shortly after the break-in, Mr. Sloan went to the White House because he was very, upset about certain things that had allegedly happened and that did indeed go there, and that he talked to Mr. Ehrlichman and to Chapin? Mr. STANS. He has so testified. I had -no direct knowledge of it at the time.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.36.16] Mr. EDMISTEN. All right. he returned to the committee and did you not speak to him about his conversations at, the White House? Mr. STANS. I have no recollection of having spoken to him about that. It is possible that somewhere along the line, he reported on those conversations, but I don't recall it. Mr. Sloan may have a better recollection on that than I do. Mr. EDMISTEN. In quotes, do you recall "raking him out" about that, maybe, criticizing him? Mr. STANS. I didn't understand Your question. Mr. EDMISTEN. Did you "rake him out" about having that meeting in the White House? Mr. STANS. Oh, absolutely not. Mr. EDMISTEN. All right. Now, do I understand it that your concept of Mr. Mitchell's role in the whole campaign is that he chaired those meetings you spoke about? Mr. STANS. The meetings of the budget committee? Mr. EDMISTEN. That is right. Mr. STANS. Yes, we were really cochairmen of the budget committee but I deferred to Mr. Mitchell. The meetings were held in his office or near his office and in effect, I considered him the chairman of the meeting. Mr. EDMISTEN. So you viewed him as the man in charge, didn't you, of the whole campaign? Mr. STANS. Yes, but not, in charge of the finance committee. Mr. EDMISTEN All right;, but overall, you said that YOU really had nothing to do with the campaign, that you considered him in charge of the whole campaign process. Mr. STANS. Yes, he was campaign director, That was his title. Mr. EDMISTEN. All right. When you were approached about giving Some money to Mr. Liddy, you called up Mr. Mitchell, did you not? Mr. STANS. I went to See him. Mr. EDMISTEN. And I think yesterday in response to a, question I Posed, you said, "Do you mean, John, that if Magruder tells Sloan to pay these amounts or any amounts to Gordon Liddy, that he should do so? And he said, "That is right." Now', before that, Mr. Mitchell had said to you, "He will have to ask Magruder because Magruder is in charge of the campaign and he directs the spending." Now, wasn't that incredible to you? Mr. STANS. NO, not in the, context in which I understood it. What Mitchell was saying is that Magruder is the man who is handling the details of the campaign, Magruder is the man who is working out, the, Programs Magruder is the man who has the responsibility for directing the spending ending. When John Mitchell is before this committee, he can tell you better than I can what his function was, but I conceived his function to be that Of the political professional, the man who talked to the political leaders in' a State and organized the campaign in a State, the man who sought to bring about harmony in the campaign, and so on. I did not conceive of Mr. Mitchell as the man who said, "Let's spend $745,000 for public relations." He was in on the discussions on that, but he was the political professional, as I understood it. Magruder was the on-hand manager of the activity. Mr. EDMISTEN. All right, Mr. Stans, My last question is this: I know that you have subsequently read about the so-called CIA involvement of the Mexican transactions, but did you not have some inkling of that at the time that the Dahlberg-Mexican checks came up? Did somebody notify you that there was a possible CIA involvement, and, if so, who? Mr. STANS. The stories I have, been reading in the paper recently have been a great surprise to me about the discussions, between the heads of the CIA and the FBI because I was not aware that any of that was going on. But there was, one occasion when Bob Allen had complained to me that the attorney in Mexico was being harassed, that the FBI had demanded to know the name of his client, that this would have breached his lawyer-client privilege, find that the, FBI had threatened him that if he did not tell them who the client was in this matter, they were going to go to all the clients of the firm and find out. Allen called me and said, "Does the FBI have that much authority in a foreign country," and I said, "I do not know." I talked to either Mardian or John Dean, I can't recall which one it was and asked them the question. Sometime later a day or two later, I got a reply. It said that it appears as though this lawyer may be a CIA source and if that is the case, the investigation will stop at that point. Now, that is all I heard or know about, that situation. I can't place that conversation in terms of a date. But I did get that one report. The investigation did not cease and eventually was carried on until I was told the investigation was over. [00.41.44]
1940s - Wedding Scenes - Bridesmaids and Bride
B&W. Two Caucasian young adult bridesmaids approaching camera. Bride with maid-of-honor walking behind her, carrying bride's train, walking to car.
Ahfachkee School - Big Cypress Indian Reservation
Ahfachkee School - Big Cypress Indian Reservation MCU mailbox for Ahfachkee School, pan to GV of modest school building across the street. MCU Ahfachkee School mailbox, pan to GV of pickup truck filled with native kids in the back bed pulling out of school parking and driving down main road, kids wave to camera. CU mailbox with the Ahfachkee School address. (Native Americans)
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.41.44] Mr. EDMISTEN. Do you know the basis of that statement that that was the White House position? Mr. STANS. Pardon me? Mr. EDMISTEN. Do you know of any basis for the apparent House position that there was CIA involvement? Mr. STANS. No, I do not, except as you know, the White House getting the FBI investigation reports, apparently, and- Mr. EDMISTEN. Thank you, Senator ERVIN. Any other question-, On this side? Senator TALMADGE. I have one Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stans, I will ask you to get volume 10 of the testimony and turn to page 1733. Do you have that? Mr. BARKER. Senator, whose testimony is that? Senator TALMADGE. This is Mr. Stans' testimony. Page, 1733. Mr. STANS. We do not have that, sir. Senator TALMADGE. Do you have another copy here? Let me read an inconsistency in the testimony and ask you if can clarify it, please. On page 1733, this morning--I am quoting Senator Inouye. Yesterday and this morning, you 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 and Mr. Kalmbach. When did suspect that something was wrong? Mr. STANS. I did not have any suspicions about an.), of these people until after the disclosures in the press following, I believe it was March 23, when Mr. McCord wrote his letter. Then, on page 1770 of the testimony, on line 20: [quoting] Senator TALMADGE. Mr. Stans, 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. [end quoted section] Senator TALMADGE. Now, you have stated in response to Senator Inouye's question that you had no suspicions until March 23 this year. You stated in response to the question that I had asked you that your suspicions arose earlier than that., but particularly on June 28. [00.44.48] So when did you first get, suspicious that, something was rotten in Denmark? Mr. STANS. Well, I think I can clear that up very easily. The first quotation you recited was as to men like LaRue and Kalmbach and I was not, suspicious of them until sometime after March 23d. But my suspicions as to Gordon Liddy began to grow shortly after the Watergate affair and that, is the answer I was giving in the second part, so far as I can get it, from your quotation. These were different, people. Senator TALMADGE. So you were suspicious about some individuals earlier than you were suspicious about, others? Mr. STANS. I was suspicious about Gordon Liddy within the week or 10 days that evolved after the, Watergate disclosure, yes. Senator TALMADGE. But your early suspicions were not enough to arouse, more suspicions, is that, correct? Mr. STANS. Not as to the gentlemen you named, particularly as to Mr. LaRue and Mr. Kalmbach, both of whom I held in very high regard. And I do not think there was anything in the public press or anywhere to point any fingers of implication at either of them. Senator TALMADGE. Thank you, Mr. Stans. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [00.46.00] Senator MONTOYA. Mr. Chairman, I just have one little clarification. Mr. Stans, you indicated your testimony throughout that Mr. Sloan was in charge of the, money which was collected and the disbursements of the money that, was collected and that, your primary duty was, to go out in the field and collect money and handle fundraiser events. Mr. STANS. That is correct. Senator MONTOYA. Now, were you in California and Iowa on a, similar mission in early July? Mr. STANS, Yes, approximately July 11 and 12, as I recall, yes. Senator MONTOYA. And when had you left for that trip from Washington'? Mr. STANS. Well, I had left for that trip on approximately July 5. Went to Atlanta and several cities in Georgia. I went, to Miami and elsewhere in Florida, spent the weekend in Florida; from there to California, from there to Seattle; from there to Portland; from there to Des Moines and from there to Dayton, Ohio, I returned, I believe, on the night of the 13th, about 2 o'clock in the morning. [00.47.30]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.47.30] Senator MONTOYA. Were you in touch on or about the 6th of July with anyone connected with the White House or with the committee? Mr. STANS. I was out of town then. I do not recall any phone calls until I got to Florida. I had a phone call from Bob Mardian. Senator Montoya. And what wit-, that telephone call about? Mr. STANS. About the importance of my going to California. Mr. Mardian had been in charge of that region of States. There was a very difficult budget, problem with the California, Campaign Committee that had not been resolved and he wanted very much for me. to go to California and try to work it out. Senator That was the only telephone call with Washington or anyone connected with the CRP or with the White House on that day? Mr. STANS. Senator, I really do not know who I talked to. This is only one I can recall, it was the important one because I tried to get out of the trip, I wanted to go directly to Seattle. Senator MONTOYA. To the best of your recollection, was that the only call? Mr. STANS. To the best of my recollection now, yes. Senator MONTOYA. And to the best, of your recollection, was the conversation confined just to the very subject and urgency of going to California? Mr. STANS. It was confined to that subject and to the suggestion that Mr. Sloan join me in California. Senator MONTOYA. That, is what, I was getting at. Now, who suggested to you that Mr. Sloan join you in California? Mr. STANS. I think it was Mr. Mardian. Senator MONTOYA. Did anyone else call you? Mr. STANS. Well, you are testing my recollection now but I do not recall anyone else telling it. Senator MONTOYA. Had you requested that Mr. Sloan join you? Mr. STANS. No; I had not. Senator MONTOYA. Did you ask Mr. Mardian why he should join You? Mr. STANS. I do not recall any discussion on that. He thought it would be a good idea if Sloan were in California. It was one of our biggest States. The budget problem was serious, and whatever his reasons were for Sloan going along I do not recall them at this time. I do not know that he even told me. Senator MONTOYA. Did you ever use Mr. Sloan in California during that trip for budgetary problems? Mr. STANS. Mr. Sloan sat in the meeting. Senator MONTOYA. Did he contribute anything to those meetings, any input? Mr. STANS. I do not recall that he did. Senator MONTOYA. Did he stay with you in your room or somewhere in the, same hotel next to your room? Mr. STANS. I think he was in the same hotel in a room somewhere but I do not know where it was. Senator MONTOYA. Did he discuss the fact, that, Magruder had been trying to get him to perjure himself with you? Mr. STANS. Well I really do not know whether he discussed it on that trip or not or whether that, had come out, earlier. Senator MONTOYA. Well, you must, have discussed something about the Magruder involvement during that trip. Did you? Mr. STANS. I do not think we did. I do not recall it. Senator MONTOYA. Did you discuss anything about Watergate with Mr. Sloan during that trip? Mr. STANS. Well, again, I think there were some discussions with Mr. Sloan toward the end of the trip but let me tell you what we were doing. We had a bud 'get meeting with the California people that lasted quite late. I flew that, night quite late. It was midnight, before I got, to Seattle. The next day I had a series of meetings beginning with breakfast, then private meetings, a luncheon meeting and a series of other meetings during which time Mr. Sloan met with the treasurer of the Washington finance committee. We left that afternoon late or evening, I guess it was either late that, evening or early the next: morning for Portland, Oreg., and I had a similar schedule. Mr. Sloan again met and talked with the treasurer of the Oregon State committee, so far as I can recall. We had a very busy time, and it was not until---- Senator MONTOYA. I know. Well, you had a little social conversation together, did you not? Mr. STANS. Yes, we did but the one, the only ones I recall were--- Senator MONTOYA. Did you socialize about Watergate? Mr. STANS. Senator, I really- do not recall. We talked about it, we talked about, it in terms of general interest, the nature of his concerns, but I do not know anything fundamental or new that came out in the course of that, trip.' [00.52.25]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.52.25] Senator MONTOYA. Do you mean to tell me that Mr. Sloan did not express to you his concern about Mr. Magruder's attempts to get him to perjure himself? Mr. STANS. Well, I said Mr. Sloan had said that to me on one occasion I do not know whether it was on that trip or whether it was before we made the trip. Senator MONTOYA. Would you say that it, was either on that trip or before, one of the two? Mr. STANS. I would be inclined to think so, yes, but I am not even sure of that. I do not see how I can fix the dates of any one conversation. Senator MONTOYA. If you knew that and if he did that either on that trip or before, why do you say that, you had no knowledge of anything disparaging about Mr. Magruder until March 23 of this year Of 1973? Mr. STANS. Well, I do not really think I said I had no knowledge of anything disparaging about Mr. Magruder. Senator MONTOYA. I believe that was your indication. Mr. STANS. I said I had no knowledge about, anything disparaging about Mr. LaRue, Mr. Kalmbach and others but, I" did have in mind What Mr. Sloan had told me. But Mr. Sloan told it to the grand jury and as time went on it was evident that the grand Jury did not think that it, was anything that they were going to act on, and that was as far as I was concerned, the extent of my interest, and concern. Senator MONTOYA. Now, did Mr. Sloan divulge to you that he had had a meeting with the attorneys, Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien and informed them of the attempts on the part, of 'Mr. LaRue that he go before the grand jury and claim the fifth amendment? Mr. STANS. I do not recall that Mr. Sloan ever told me that. Senator MONTOYA. You were aware that he had met with Mr. LaRue on the day he returned from the California trip, were you not,? Mr. STANS. Well, I really have no direct recollection of it. I have' heard his testimony later on to that effect. Senator MONTOYA. He did call you on the telephone that night, did he not? Mr. STANS. He called me in Des Moines or Dayton, Ohio, before I returned to Washington, yes. Senator MONTOYA. And did you not tell him in that telephone conversation that you said "Let us not discuss this on the phone. I will be in the office." Mr. STANS. He was talking about his resignation, and I said let us not discuss this on the telephone, Mr. Sloan is a, very valuable man. I did not want to lose him. One of the reasons why I welcomed him going on the trip, I wanted him to participate. in the meetings, to bear the discussions, to develop some of the enthusiasm of the campaign, and I did not want to lose Mr. Sloan when it was evident that he had concluded that he wanted to leave. Senator MONTOYA. actually, you were aware there were more than 2 months between the time that Sloan talked to you and the grand jury acted, were you not? Mr. STANS. I would say something like that, yes. Senator MONTOYA. Well, were you not aware of this? Mr. STANS. I think that is about what all it was, Senator MONTOYA. Thank you. Then, if Mr. Sloan resigned to you and discussed his resignation with you do I understand that Mr. Sloan worked under you and was responsible to you for his acts as treasurer? Mr. STANS. Mr. Sloan was responsible under the law for his acts a treasurer directly in reporting to the Comptroller General but I was the chairman of the committee, I coordinated its activity. Mr. Sloan consulted with me, I consulted with him, and the relationship was exactly that as I described it. Senator MONTOYA. But in theory and practice, he did work under you, Mr. STANS. On the organization chart Mr. Sloan worked under me, right. Senator MONTOYA. Thank you. [00.56.48 Senator INOUYE. Mr. Secretary, in past, scandals, political scandals, such as the Teapot, Dome scandal, the crime involved was the use of money for personal gain or personal purposes. Many have suggested that in the activity now under consideration by this select committee, none of the funds were ever used for personal gain or personal purposes. Are, you aware of any of the funds that were under your control were ever used for personal purposes or personal gain? Mr. STANS. I am not aware of anyone connected with either committee who profited financially as a result of any of these results other than as a salary and normal reimbursement of expenses. [00.57.46]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (1/2)
[00.57.46] Senator INOUYE. You can't quite be definite, can you, after you told the committee that you were not, aware of what, the cash disbursements were used for? Mr. STANS. No, that, is right. That is why I say I am not aware of anything Obviously some of it, apparently went, to the role of Mr. McCord and '.Mr. 'McCord has testified that he, got, compensation for quite a period of time after he was discharged. Senator INOUYE. Now, its the events have unfolded have, you as chairman of the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President, made any attempt to investigate what, uses, these moneys were put to? Mr. STANS. I am not sure, which moneys you are referring to. Senator INOUYE. The cash disbursements Mr. STANS. The cash disbursements. I have, not conducted an independent investigation that could be described in those terms. I have learned a great deal about these items, I have inquired into some of them. and I am conversant with most of them by this time, but, not in terms of having made an investigation Senator INOUYE. How would you respond to my inquiry by the Internal Revenue Service if they became interested in the use, of these funds'? Mr. STANS. Well again it, would be a, matter of which funds. If I look at the chart, and go down the names I would say that, it, would be necessary for each of these people to justify his receipt and use of the funds but I would not be, in a position to know whether they could account for them properly or whether they would be taxable on them. Senator INOUYE. Now that there is it great possibility that some of these funds have been used for unintended purposes, such as the coverup will you as chairman of the finance committee make an effort, to get the fund returned to its proper place? Mr. STANS. Senator. I had not thought of that as a responsibility until now. Senator INOUYE. Whose responsibility would that be, Mr. STANS, I do not, know. I think I should discuss that with counsel and see whether there is a responsibility to recover any of those funds. Senator INOUYE. Do you think there is an obligation to those who contributed? Mr. STANS. I think it is a very valid suggestion and I thank you for -Making it. [Laughter.] Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. Senator ERVIN. The audience will please refrain from laughter. The, committee has decided to, and I think this is satisfactory to all Members of the committee, that we will hold, if necessary, a session on Monday. Of course we have sessions scheduled for Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday of next week and if it, is satisfactory we Will hold hearings Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, June 25, 26, and 27. That is the last, week before the Fourth of July recess, and if there is no objection to that being done- Mr. STANS. 'Mr. Chairman before you recess, if that is your intention may I have the opportunity under the committee's rules of A closing statement. Senator ERVIN. Yes sir. Mr. STANS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee for your consideration and for the opportunity to me to present my story for the first time. I hope that it creates a picture of a very difficult undertaking, a frenzied activity on my part and on the part of the finance committee in trying to meet the obligation of the campaign. I have done my best to recall from all the records I have everything to answer the committee's questions but I am only human and I can only tell what I know. Now, I do want to say something about three elements: First, I would like to talk about the people in the finance committee. Under the, conditions of separateness, and I won't use the term watertight in view of Senator Baker's comment, this morning, but under the conditions of separateness between the two committees, I am confident that no one in the finance committee., except of course Gordon Liddy, had any knowledge of or participation in the Watergate affair or any other espionage or sabotage activities. When all the testimony is in in the course of your hearings, I am confident that you will find that, everyone connected with the finance committee has cooperated fully, and that all of them are innocent of any involvement. I want to say so particularly with respect to our two treasurers, Hugh Sloan and Paul Barrick. Now much has been made of a few differences in recollection between me and Mr. Sloan. That ignores all of the common ground between our testimony and there is a great deal of it, and above all the differences that have come out between the recollection of Mr. Sloan and me really related to financial reporting rather than to any responsibility for espionage or sabotage, not with regard to the Watergate affair. The second thing I would like to talk about briefly is about the contributors. Among all of our committees, in this campaign there were about a million contributions received for the President and the Republican Party. Some of them came from wealthy people, some of them came from people in the middle strata, and some from poor people. 'We received amounts from $1 or less up to a very large amount of a million or more. I have always urged people in the course of MY travels and solicitation to contribute according to their means, according to their ability to give, just as they pay taxes. So it is true there were some large contributions, some very large contributions. But the idea is being purveyed in some circles------ [01.04.36--TAPE OUT]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (2/2)
[01.04.20--Maurice STANS-former CRP finance chairman-gives a closing statement about campaign financing and his opinion that most of the contributions given are honest, legitimate, and without strings attached] Mr STANS......to contribute according to their means, according to their ability to give, just as they pay taxes. So it is true there were some large contributions, some very large contributions. But the idea is being purveyed in some circles that no one gives a substantial amount of money to a campaign without buying something in return, without the expectation of a favor. I think most, of the members of the committee would agree with me that that is vicious that is a lie, and it is belittling to our self-respect as a people. I would like to give a couple of examples. Clement Stone of Chicago, pretty well known now, gave $2 million to elect the President. He gave a lot in 1968. He, is a very wealthy man and he can afford it. He believes in the President and knows him as a friend. Clement Stone, has never asked for anything from his Government or the administration in return. He has done it because he believes it is public service from a man of wealth. I would like to give you another case: Ray Kroc is a man in Chicago who is responsible for the development of the McDonald hamburger chain. I visited with him in Chicago in September for about 45 minutes, I had never met him before. I talked about the campaign and we discussed his success story. Mr. Kroc said: On October 3, I am going to have my 70th birthday, and in appreciation for what I have been able to achieve I am going to give millions of dollars of my money to charity. I said: Mr. Kroc, you are a beneficiary of the great American system and I am sure you believe in it. I have reason to believe that you think the President will help to preserve that system and I would like to make a suggestion, When you get to October 3 and make those distributions to charity, why don't you at the same time give $250,000 to help re-elect the President? He did. There, was no discussion in that meeting of -anything else. Now, what happened after his contribution became known? First, the press accused him of making the contribution so that, he could influence the Price Commission on matters affecting his company. Secondly, he was accused of making the contribution so that he, Could get a lower minimum wage for the young people who work for his company. He was insulted by these insinuations and falsehoods, they were vicious and unfair, completely conjectural without any fact whatever. My point, is there are MANY people like 'Mr. Kroc [multibillionaires?] who believe in the country who believe in the party, Who believe in principles, and who may believe at a given time in a candidate. There are very few people who want to collect in return for their contribution, and they don't get very far under either part party that is in power, Democrats or Republicans, I think the time has come to express more confidence in the honor and integrity of our fellowmen, whether they are rich or poor and stop manufacturing reasons to attack people who merely exercise their right, of citizenship by making a political contribution.' I want to say one thing more about innocent people and I will be finished. In the, course of all the things that have happened since June 17, a lot of innocent people have been drawn through the mire of unrelenting publicity, insinuations accusations, charges. To name a few, Kenneth Dahlberg, Dwayne Andreas, Robert Allen, and there fire a considerable number of others, who paid a horrible price merely because they participated in a campaign as a contributor or as a worker, a price in time and in expenditures expenses and even in their reputations. There have been very damaging effects on their- businesses and on their personal lives. It is very unfair. Somebody has got to speak up for those people. So when the committee concludes its work and writes its report, I hope it will make it clear that such people, and by name are. innocent victims of this tragedy I hope that people like Hugh Sloan and others in the limelight of adverse publicity will be directly cleared, I Put myself in that category. I volunteered or was drafted, whatever the, case may be because I believed in my President. You know by now from what you have heard, but I know you cannot feel, the abuse to which I have' been subjected because of the associations I fell into. I ask, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, is that when Write your report you give me back may good name. Thank you very much. [01.09.52]
Elk
PART 1 01:02:18 Elk cross stream - Male, Heard of cows, tear turf 15:04:30 Elk cows - Female and calves cool off in river 15:06:40 Elk calf in stream, drinking 15:21:50 Elks - Males, CU, hearding 14:53:28 Elk - Male, tending Pre-estrus cow 14:54:10 Elk - Male, Flehmen 15:26:44 Elk - Male checking for estrus cow 15:32:25 Elk on misty A.M sunrise
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (2/2)
[01.09.52] ****SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD OF RIGHTS SECTION***** Senator ERVIN. Mr. Stans, you were placed in a rather embarrassing situation in being called upon by the committee to testify and that as the reason that I stated that I commend your lawyer for the very excellent and very eloquent statement that he made in support of your position. I am a lawyer and sometimes we lawyers get a little overzealous and all that, but I have a profound respect for the legal profession, and I do not think a finer service can be rendered than for an attorney to see that his client's rights are protected. Notwithstanding the fact that owing to the existing situation it was somewhat embarrassing for you to appear, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for appearing before the committee and testifying in substantial detail in connection with all the matters you were asked about. Thank you very much, Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, if I may before the witness is excused, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the chairman and also express our appreciation to Mr. Stans for appearing as a witness. I hope now that with this phase of his testimony concluded, that the concern about the involvement in testimony of other matters in other forums has been dispelled, that we have not trespassed or encroached on other inquiries. We do not intend to put, you in an embarrassing position. We do not intend to create for you problems and difficulties. But we do not intend to do less than the very best we can to get all the facts and to follow those facts wherever they lead us. I think you have been very helpful in that respect and we thank you for it. Mr. STAINS. Thank you. Senator ERVIN. It may be later the committee will recall you for further testimony, not in connection with matters you, have been interrogated about but in connection with campaign contributions in general, , but we will try to do that at your convenience as far as possible. Mr. STANS. Thank you. Senator ERVIN. Thank you very much. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow. [01.12.19--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that the end of STANS' testimony brought out the greatest acrimony thus far, with Sen, GURNEY attacking Sen. ERVIN for perceived harrassment of the witness. States that STANS maintained his characteristic calm, and may return for more questions about how he ran the campaign finances generally. States that next witness is Jeb Stuart MAGRUDER, the deputy campaign director, reputed to have authorized the payment of cash to Gordon LIDDY. The key question will be if MAGRUDER knew what LIDDY was going to do with the money, and who had instructed him to give money to LIDDY and to involve LIDDY in the first place. States that MAGRUDER was given immunity to testify, and there are several theories about what he will say. MacNEILL states that the end of the hearings seems further away, as Sen. ERVIN announced that the committee will work 4-day weeks for the next two weeks, and that no one knows for sure when the hearings will end or how close they will come to the start of the 1974 Congressional elections. [01.13.41]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 (2/2)
****SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD OF RIGHTS SECTION***** [01.13.41] [shot of AUSTEN and ALEXANDER, guest commentators] LEHRER introduces guests. Asks ALEXANDER if there is an inherent evil in the use of CASH in a political campaign. ALEXANDER states that STANS stated there is a need for petty cash, and that sometimes small sums of cash are raised, like a collection at a rally, and there should be no restriction on small sums of cash. In terms of legislation, he would not favor a ban on cash, but circumscribing it with a limit of $50 to $100 or other amount set by Congress, and regulations on the use of cash within organizations. I.E., an advance man might need $200 cash, but he would want to limit it as much as possible. LEHRER states that STANS had just testified about some advantages of anonymity for a contributor, but he did not discuss why a contributor might prefer to give CASH. Asks what such advantages might be. ALEXANDER states that cash is a universal exchange, and it is not linked directly to its source, LEHRER asks AUSTERN about KALMBACH'S request of STANS for cash on authority of unnamed "high sources" in the White House. Asks if it is later determined that the $75,000 was used for illegal reasons, is STANS legally culpable, even though he did not know and KALMBACH refused to tell him the purpose of the money. AUSTEN says that in the criminal law, STANS is not responsible if he was ignorant of the purpose of the money, but adds that a number of civil suits have been lodged in the Watergate matter, including one by the Democratic Committee against CRP defendants. In this case, the issue is not intent, but negligence--Not what STANS knew, but what he should have known and failed to inquire about. The proof in a civil matter is very different, and as a civil defendant he could be liable. LEHRER asks about the AUSTEN's rating of Sen. ERVIN as a country lawyer, notwithstanding his squabble with Sen. GURNEY. AUSTEN says that he would like "to be a country lawyer like he's a country lawyer", that ERVIN obviously has a superior legal mind, and plows right ahead in questioning, which is vital with a witness like STANS, who does not answer "yes or no", but gives lenthy answers. Says that ERVIN asks his questions without getting sidetracked by the long answers of STANS. LEHRER states that VP AGNEW has caught some spillover from Watergate, as a Maryland grand jury has delivered a four-count indictment against parties involved in the Baltimore fundraising dinner mentioned by STANS. The identity of persons indicted will not be known until arrests are made, likely tomorrow. [01.19.27--MacNEILL] MacNEILL states there are two themes in the hearings, with the first being finding out who did the dirty deeds of the 1972 campaign, who is guilty and how high the guilt reaches. Theme two, getting a great deal of play today, was finding out the ins and outs of campaign financing, the morality of campaigning, in order to draft better campaign legislation, with Sen. ERVIN and Sen. BAKER forcing many witnesses to publicly search their consciences. States that this may help to shed light and attention, by example, on the role of morality in political campaigning. Says that two principles have emerged, first that loyalty, to President or Party, is not an excuse to abandon one's own judgment. second, that the conduct of people in high positions of power, should be guided by principles higher than the bare legal minimum. Signs off. [title screen--:SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"--Sponsor credits--NPACT ID--PBS Network ID] [01.21.40--TAPE OUT]
The Visual History of Cars: Thunderbird - 1950's
The Visual History of Cars: Thunderbird - 1950's
The Porter Wagoner Show No.449
Porter Wagoner "Wake Up Jacob" The Kendalls "You and Me" Mack Magaha "Smoky Mountain Rag" (Instrumental) Dolly Parton "Gypsy, Joe and Me" Porter Wagoner "I'll Keep on Livon' You" Speck Rhodes "I'm a PLain Ole Country Boy" Porter Wagoner "I Found a Man" (Gospel) The Kendalls "Jet Plane"
The Porter Wagoner Show No.447
Porter Wagoner "Sun Don't Shine on the Same Dog Everyday" Bobby Bare "Ride Me Down Easy" Buck Trent "Mystery Mountain" Dolly Parton "Wash Day Blues" Porter Wagoner "Just Someone I Used to Know" (01.13.20 - 01.15.44) Speck Rhodes "Too Old To Cut the Mustard" Porter Wagoner "City on the Hill" Bobby Bare "Come Sundown She'll Be Gone"
The Porter Wagoner Show No.458
Porter Wagoner "Wake Up Jacob" Prophets "Roll Back River Jordan" Buck Trent "Grandfather's Clock" (Instrumental) Dolly Parton "Travelin' Man" Porter Wagoner "Be A Little Quieter" Speck Rhodes "My Little Shirt" (Little Shirt My Mamma Made For Me) (The Little Shirt My Mother Made for Me) Porter Wagoner "Sing Me A Song" (Gospel) Prophets "The Pain of Lovin' You"
The Porter Wagoner Show No.443
Porter Wagoner "Old Slew Foot" Carl and Pearl Butler "Kentucky" Mack Magaha "Love Faded Gray" Dolly Parton "Joshua" Porter Wagoner "Lightening the Load" Speck Rhodes "Little Shirt My Mamma Made For Me" (The Little Shirt My Mother Made for Me) Carl And Pearl Butler "Jesus is the One" (gospel) Porter Wagoner "Can You Tell Me" Carl and Pearl Butler "Don't Let Me Cross Over" (01.24.01 - 01.25.26)