Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, now can you tell us what a single item of this $1000 outside of the $50,000 given to Mr. Lankler, can you tell us what a single item that was spent in this expenditure of $1,270,000 went for? Maurice Stans. I can tell you about the only other item of which I had knowledge at the time. And that is the $15,000 that went at the request of Mr. Clement Stone. Mr. Stone was a very large contributor, the largest contributor in the campaign. He said to someone in the organization, I don't know who, I have given you all that I am going to give this year, but I want $15,000 of it to go to a fund in Illinois that is dealing with vote fraud and I think you ought to be willing to give $15,000 of my money back for that purpose. Now, I was aware of that. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). For what purpose? Maurice Stans. A committee in Illinois, the name of which I don't recall, that was dealing with a bipartisan program to prevent vote frauds, Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). So they took $15,000 of this to prevent vote frauds in Illinois? Maurice Stans. That is correct.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Now, you know about the $50,000 to Mr. Lankler? Maurice Stans. Yes, sir, and I testified about that. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Now, was that paid out in cash? Maurice Stans. Yes, it was. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Will you please tell me why you disbursed $50,000 in cash to Mr. Lankler instead of by check? Maurice Stans. It is my recollection that he asked for it in that form because he wanted to mix it into the receipts of the party that was being held in Maryland. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). In other words, they were holding a fundraising dinner in the Vice President's honor? Maurice Stans. In honor of the Vice President. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Yes. And they wanted to make it appear that they took in $50,000 more than they actually took in, didn't they? Maurice Stans. They wanted to make it look more successful than it apparently was. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). In other words, they wanted to practice a deception on the general public as to the amount of honor that was paid to the Vice President. Maurice Stans. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure this is the first time that has happened in American politics. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). You know there has been murder and larceny in every generation, but that hasn't made murder meritorious or larceny legal. Well, that was the objective, wasn't it? Maurice Stans. That was the objective, yes.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Do you approve of trying to deceive the public about the success or lack of success of a fundraising dinner? Maurice Stans. I gave it to the committee as a loan in consideration of a commitment I had made some months before to give them $50,000 if they needed it or wanted it. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, the only thing they needed it for was to make it appear that the fundraising dinner $50,000 more successful than it actually was, wasn't it? Maurice Stans. That is correct, Senator. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). So they claimed the money to give back. In other words, the only purpose of the $50,000 was to practice a deception? Maurice Stans. So far as I know, that is exactly what was intended and if you want to indict me for that, all right. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, that is almost on a moral plane, in my judgment, with a vote fraud, not quite, perhaps.