Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.28.03] Senator GURNEY. This is the written report you are, talking about? Mr. PORTER, Yes, Sir. Senator GURNEY. Did Mr. Reisner say what, he did with it? Mr. PORTER. -NO, Sir, he did not. Senator GURNEY. Did you make, any report at all to till anyone in the White House? Mr. PORTER. 'NO, Sir. Senator GURNEY. Did not? Mr. PORTER. -NO, Sir. Senator GURNEY. Neither during your term with the Committee To Re-Elect the. President, or afterward? Mr. PORTER, You mean, Senator, on this particular subject matter or on all the things I was doing in My role as surrogate scheduling? Senator GURNEY. I am not talking "about the legal activities. I am talking about 11 Watergate coverup, surveillance sabotage all these activities Mr. PORTER. Sir, I did not know anything about the Watergate. The only part of' any so-called coverup that I was aware of' was the Part that I knew about, that I was scheduler -and I did not put it in the, context of the Watergate coverup but, there were no written reports, to knowledge, at all. Senator GURNEY. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. I understand Senator Inouye has a question. Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porter, you have testified that you have been in charge of the scheduling of surrogate speakers. Did you schedule the appearance of the Acting FBI Director, Mr. Gray? Mr. PORTER, NO, sir, I did not. Senator INOUYE. Who did? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Gray's activities or scheduling were handled out of the White House, to my understanding, He was not a surrogate for the campaign, Senator INOUYE. Do you know who did the scheduling, sir? Mr. PORTER. I do not know firsthand. I have read in the newspaper reports that it was out of the White House speakers bureau. Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. The Bible bestows blessing on him who swears to his own word and changeth it not. I want to commend you on the forthrightness of your testimony before this committee. Thank you very much. Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, before the witness is dismissed, I want to join in that expression to the witness. I must say that he and I trod on delicate and painful ground on Thursday. And I think you were very manly in the way you reacted to probing and searching questions. It is not an easy job you have undertaken, And the committee is not here to sit in judgement on your guilt or innocence. But the committee is privileged. I would like to comment on your forthcoming testimony and spirit. So while we have used your testimony to probe and explore the atmosphere of campaigning, I hope we have not left the, impression that we have done so with an absence of sensibility for your own situation and your own private concerns. I think you are to be commended for appearing and testifying and the committee is grateful and I am grateful. Mr. PORTER. Thank you. Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. Thank you very much. You are excused now subject to recall at some future date if the committee desires it. Mr. PORTER. Yes, Sir. [00.31.09--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that the testimony of PORTER, the last of the 'LITTLE FISHES' to testify, and that he is lead to wonder what will happen to PORTER now that he has admitted to perjury on national TV [PBS Network ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.33.47--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER introduces questioning of former CRP Finance Chairman, Maurice STANS, who is under indictment for involvement in another case, and will try to get his lawyer, Robert BARKER, to get the committee to drop the case. [00.34.16--ERVIN headshot]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.50.50] [Senator ERVIN responds to STANS' request not to be required to testify for the committee] I note in your statement that the only effect of requiring the witness to testify would be to prejudice his rights. I do not think that is the only effect of taking his testimony, because taking the testimony Of this witness and the testimony of other witnesses will enable this committee to determine whether the activities suggested took place, whether those activities imperiled the integrity of the process by which the people of the United States select the occupant of the highest office within their gift--that is, the Presidency of the United States--and whether any new legislation is necessary or advisable to punish or prevent a recurrence of any activities which the committee may find were illegal or unethical or improper. Now, the people of the United States certainly have a paramount interest in whether those who exercise high governmental power discharge or fail to discharge their duties, they have a high interest in learning whether or not electoral processes for the nomination and selection of Presidents have been polluted. And I do not think, and I think the committee does not think that, we should put off investigation of these matters until they can be determined by the court, because the Constitution gives, the Senate not, only the power but the duty' to make investigations of this character. The courts have had approximately a year to deal with these matters and justice has a habit, of treading on leaden feet, so I certainly think it would be manifestly unfair and the committee concedes this to be true, and the, committee has authorized me to state that in the unanimous judgment Of the committee, no questions should be directed to the witness in respect to the matters alleged in the indictments in the U.S. District Court, in New York. I would like to advise you and the witness at this time that if any question should be put to the witness which inferentially would require any testimony about the matters involved in that case, that, it be, called to our attention so we can be certain that it, will not be answered. Of course, the defendant has a constitutional right under the fifth amendment to refuse to if his testimony Would tent to incriminate him, and I can understand the reluctance of the witness to invoke that right. The committee, as I say, has had--fortunately out gave advance notice to the counsel and we considered this matter fully and it, is the judgment of the committee first, that the witness will not, be, asked any questions relating to the -New York case; second that the witness or his counsel will be privileged to call attention of the committee to any question which might invade the field covered by that case; and third, that it is the duty of the committee in the absence of all Invocation of a constitutional right not to testify, to interrogate the witness. So the committee will require the witness in the absence of an invocation of constitutional privilege. to testify, [00.55.13]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.34.16--ERVIN headshot] Senator ERVIN. I have been advised that counsel for the witness desires to make some statement to the committee and we will be glad to hear you at this time. First I would suggest that counsel identify himself for the purpose of the record, STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. BARKER, COUNSEL FOR MAURICE H. STANS Mr. BARKER, Mr. Chairman, I an) Robert W. Barker, legal counsel for the Honorable Maurice H. Stans. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity of making clear for the record Mr. Stans' legal position with respect to testifying before, this committee at this time and under the prevailing circumstances. First, I would like to clear Lip two items with respect to some of the confusion that may have arisen in the press. First, Mr. Stans has not requested and does not now request, not to appear before this committee He is merely requesting, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the impending criminal case in New York against him, his appearance be deferred until an appropriate time. Second, no court has ruled or ordered Mr. Stans to appear and testify before this committee. In the criminal proceeding in New York, the judge has invoked the local court, rule which precludes the defendant's or counsel discussing the controversy outside of the courtroom. Since this was made specifically applicable to Mr. Stans as one of the defendants, we applied to Judge Gagliardi for a ruling as to whether rule 8 restrained Mr. Stans and counsel from appearing and testifying before this committee. We did not ask Judge Gagliardi to rule that Mr. Stans could not appear and testify, The court, ruled that rule, 8 did not apply to legislative hearings. It did not rule and reserved for a later ruling on whether the extensive blanket, of publicity generated by the Watergate activities in this committee would impair the right of fair trial, He ruled that that would be considered at the time the trial is scheduled to commence on September 11. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as you probably recognize, you have a very unique, and unusual legal problem to face with Mr. Stans being called and subpenaed to testify here today. He is the first witness to appear before your committee who is under an impending indictment for criminal 'matters arising out of the Presidential election campaign. As was pointed out this morning by Judge Sirica in his ruling in the, district court, the cases then before him did not involve people under pending indictments. He considered that an important distinction. The ruling which we will ask you to make is a. very important and fundamental legal ruling. Since it involves Mr. Stans' personal and individual rights under the Constitution, it, is much different than the Position of the special prosecutor, Mr. Cox, when he asked merely that these hearings be deferred. Now, having said this, I would like to take a minute to review some factual background upon which we will ask this committee to base its ruling. The first knowledge Mr. Stans had of the Watergate break-in was on June 18, 1972, when he read about, it in the morning papers. He was just as shocked and just as surprised as any person in this room. Thereafter, consistent with his high standards of ethics and his position as a loyal American, demonstrated by years of service to this country, he set a standard for himself and his staff of complete cooperation with the investigation. When his legal; counsel to the finance committee, Mr. G. Gordon Liddy, refused to cooperate with the FBI investigation, he was promptly discharged, with Mr. Stans' approval. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Stans encouraged his own staff to cooperate and he gave full cooperation himself with all investigatory bodies and authorities. Commencing early in July of 1972, on three occasions, he voluntarily submitted himself to inquiries and discussions with FBI agents concerning the Watergate break-in and the Presidential election campaign. [00.39.41]
Color patterns
Indigo Bunting
TAPE 1 Male Indigo Bunting on twig
Stanley Cup Finals
In the sixth game of the National Hockey League Stanley Cup Playoffs, the Montreal Canadians win 3 to 2 beating the Detroit Red Wings at home in Olympia Stadium. It's the second consecutive championship for the Canadians and their seventh in the last eleven years. Detroit's Olympia Stadium the Red Wings face the Montreal Canadians, players are all skating on the ice. Sport fans sit in their seats watching the Canadians score first. No. 21 Gilles Tremblay beats Detroit's goalie, Roger Crozier. Detroit Players skate around on the ice consoling each other. Score board reads Montreal 1 Red Wings 0. Canadian Leon Rochefort slams a shot into the net and scores. Scoreboard reading Montreal 2 Red Wings 0. Norm Ullman slams a shot passed the goalie and gives the Detroit home fans something to cheer about. Scoreboard reads Montreal 2 Red Wings 1. Floyd Smith of the Red Wings shoots one past the Canadian goalie and scores to tie up the game. Detroit Fans applauding the goal. The first goal will win it and Rochefort slides into the net with the puck and the game is over, the Montreal Canadians win. 3 to 2. Canadian Plays gather on the ice to congratulate one another. You can see the top of the Stanley Cup being held in the crowd.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.39.41] [STANS' attorney Robert BARKER continues to argue that STANS should not be required to testify because his testimony would prejudice his chances for a fair trial in a criminal indictment against him] On August 2, 1972, Mr. Stans voluntarily appeared and gave sworn testimony to the assistant U.S. attorney for use before the Watergate grand jury here in Washington, D.C. Subsequently, Mr. Stans voluntarily appeared before the staff of the House Banking and Currency Committee and gave information with respect to campaign finances and cooperated with that, committee, On six different occasions, in addition to submitting the official reports required of the committee, Mr. Stans gave affidavits and discussed matters, with Representatives of the General Accounting Office concerning campaign Finances and activities. He did everything he could to clarify matters. Again voluntarily, he went, to New York and appeared before the U.S. attorney handling the grand jury investigation into the Vesco contribution to the campaign. He then also voluntarily appeared on two occasions before that grand jury and fully and candidly and completely testified as to the matters known to him to the best of his ability. In addition, on three occasions, he has given en deposition-, in the civil litigation arising out of the campaign. He has also testified for the litigation in Florida, a criminal case down there. Subsequently, he appeared before the staff of this committee and on two occasions, gave them information concerning the campaign activities and finances, and he fully intended to appear voluntarily before this committee and to give it, all the cooperation and assistance that he could. However, on May 10, the United States of America, of which this committee is a part, a coordinate branch, changed the whole situation. It brought an indictment against Mr. Stans, charging him with very serious crimes arising out of the campaign and his duties as chairman of the finance committee. As you know, Mr. Stans pleaded innocent. Now, Mr. Stans is before this committee under subpena, with a direction to testify about his function as chairman of the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Inevitably, directly or indirectly, this hearing will influence any jury which might be called to hear the case In New York. This places Mr. Stans in an impossible position and a completely unfair one. Under our constitutional system and the fundamental laws of this land, an accused is entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, unimpeded by a deluge of publicity. In other words, as the Supreme Court said in Estes v. Texas, the concept of due process of law entitled the defendant to "both judicial serenity and calm." Now, Mr. Chairman, the inevitable Kleig light of publicity which will result from Mr. Stans' appearance here would preclude any judicial serenity and calm at the trial now set, as I say, for September 11 in New York. It would also tend to deny him the possibility of an impartial jury of the, kind guaranteed by' the sixth amendment. To paraphrase the language, of the Supreme Court in Delaney v. U.S. (199 F. 2d. 107Y 1st cir., 1952), Mr. Stans' appearance before, this committee and the television and other news media, related thereto would accomplish additional investigation and extensive publicity Which would serve no other purpose than to further prejudice Mr. Stans' right to a fair trial. Now, the Supreme Court, in speaking of the problem of publicity and fair trial, has said, the Court has insisted that no one, be, punished for a crime without a charge fairly made and fairly tried in a public trial free of prejudice, passion, commitment, and tyrannical power." (Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 222, 236-237, 1940). Also speaking of freedom Of the Press, the Supreme Court has said it must not be allowed to divert, the trial from the very purpose of the court system, to adjudicate controversies both in the calmness and solemnity of the court-room according to legal procedures. Among the legal procedures is the requirement that the jury's verdict, be based on evidence received in open court, not from outside sources," (Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 350, 351, 1965). The undeviating rule of the Supreme Court was stated long ago by Mr. Justice Holmes, when he said, "The theory of our system is that the conclusions, to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print." (Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 4621 1907). [00.45.20]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.45.20] [STANS' attorney Robert BARKER continues to argue that STANS should not be required to testify because his testimony would prejudice his chances for a fair trial in a criminal indictment against him] Now, this was said in 1907, before the great media of radio and television existed. I am sure that if he were speaking today, he would include those great, media within the. scope of public print. Now, as I have said, the Supreme Court has indicated that a defendant is entitled as part of due process of law to a fair and impartial jury trial free from outside influence. I pose this question: After all the publicity given these hearings; and the Watergate situation in general, where in the United States can an impartial jury, uninfluenced by publicity be found? Moreover, under 'our settled system of due process of law and justice guaranteed by the fifth amendment, an accused has a right to remain Silent, completely silent, and require the Government to go forward with the presentation of its evidence before the defendant need present his case or put on any evidence. By requiring Mr. Stans to appear here before one of the coordinate arms of the Government which has placed these charges would require Mr. Stans to present his case in advance of hearing the Government's case in New York. This clearly would deprive him of due process of law, If Mr. Stans refuses to testify, as we understand it, he, would be Under a severe threat of citation for contempt of Congress and would face imprisonment. This places him under compulsion of either interfering 'with his own fair trial or going to jail. I repeat, this is a, completely unfair position to put, him in. The' only other alternative open to Mr. Stans, Mr. Chairman, is for him to refuse to testify on the grounds of the fifth amendment. This Would tend to degrade and embarrass him and would severely interfere With fair trial, because he would be branded throughout the United States as a former Cabinet officer who had taken refuge behind the fifth amendment. What would a prospective Juror say about that? The courts have recognized and the facts of many cases show that the, taking of the fifth amendment, even though it, is a constitutional right, is likely to severely prejudice a person in the minds of the, public, including prospective jurors. Mr. Chairman and member-, of the committee, Mr. Stans is left no reasonable choice or fair opportunity. As lawyers of broad experience each of you must recognize that fact. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, on behalf of Mr. Stans, I respectfully request that the committee, and I strongly urge the committee in the interest of fairness and fair trial, defer Mr. Stans' appearance and testimony until the indictment, in the Vesco case in New York has been disposed of. It is, probably already too late to preclude the publicity which will make a fair trial in that case impossible. However, I sincerely pray that the committee will at least not make the situation worse by proceeding at this time with Mr. Stans' testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. [00.49.11--Sen. ERVIN responds to the statement] Senator ERVIN. Well, Mr. Barker, you have made a very appealing statement to the committee, In view of the fact that the committee was apprised in advance of the nature of the position which would be taken in behalf of the witness, the committee considered this matter at great length this morning. This committee has been authorized and directed by a unanimous vote of the Senate to investigate the question whether any persons, acting individually or in combination with others, engaged in illegal or unethical or immoral activities in connection with the Presidential election of 1972, or in connection with any campaigns of any candidates seeking nomination to run in that election which had the effect of perverting the integrity of the process by which 'Presidents of the United States are nominated and chosen. [00.50.50]
Color effects, color on abstracts
Color effects on abtract forms
Color effects: turning ball, playing with colors
Color effects: rainbow refractions from prism
Color refractions from prism - moving
Color refractions from prism - moving
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE 210906 A. Diffused light through a prism
Light effect
Electrical arc - bolts of electricity
Dot - white on black
Swirling sunlight
Black and yellow spirals - graphic
Color spirals - (from W.W.)
Sun flares
Sun flares
Earth and smoke effects