Advanced Search
Trip through space
Trip through space
Tripo through space - scratched
Trip through space -scratched
Cosmos negative
Lights of nights
Animated surface of earth
Animation of earths - strata
Two globes collide
Computer test - misc writing
Computer test - misc writing
computer test - coca cola
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.45.56] I will quote my conversation with John -Mitchell as best I call paraphrase it. It is not, precise. But I saw John Mitchell a relatively short time after and said, "Sloan tells me that Gordon Liddy wants a substantial amount of money. What is it all about?" And John Mitchell's reply was, "I don't know. He will have to ask Magruder because -Magruder is in charge of the campaign and he directs the spending." I 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, that is my recollection in a paraphrase of the discussion that took place. I went back to Sloan and reported it to him And found Out, that he had already talked to and had the same information. Mr. EDMISTEN. NOW, let's go through the transaction that Mr. Sloan testified to here with reference To payment, of cash to Mr. Herbert Porter after April 7. Did he have a conversation with you? Mr. STANS. I would like to go back to the previous answer and add one more point. Apparently, from the testimony, Mr. showed Mr. Sloan a budget of $250,000 against -which he intended to draw. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Sloan did not tell me about, that, budget and I did not know that Mr. Liddy had authority to draw an amount of money of that size. Now, with respect to Bart Porter, I think that Mr. Sloan's recollection is somewhat confused, because my understanding of it, is somewhat different. I had learned prior to April 7 that Mr. Porter had a cash fund in his safe, that he sometimes received money from one or more sources and used it to pay for certain campaign purposes: I objected to that, because I wanted there to be only one treasurer in the campaign So there was an understanding which Mr. Sloan has confirmed in his testimony that, Mr. Porter would not receive any more. money from him. And to the best, of my knowledge, he did not receive any money from Mr. Sloan after April 7. Now, subsequently, some date. in August, I asked Mr. Sloan how much money he had given Porter after April 7, and he said none, More importantly, on September 6, I met with Mr. Sloan's attorney, and the attorney for the committee, to learn some more information about Mr. Sloan's activities after April 7, and Mr. Sloan's attorney told us that after April 7, Sloan had given Porter only $500. Both the committee's attorney, Mr. Parkinson, and I have our notations of that conference. Subsequently as you know, it was developed that Mr. Porter had received $5,300 from Mr. Sloan and that that was cited by the General Accounting Office. Later, it evolved that the amount was $11,000, and I understand Mr. Porter- testified last Friday or Thursday that, he received $17,000 from Mr. Sloan, So I have no knowledge of those, transactions or the, use to which they were put, except what I have learned subsequently in testimony, Mr. EDMISTEN. So we have some conflicting testimony again regarding the transaction. Mr. STANS. I do not want to be critical, but I believe that Mr. Sloan's memory in that respect is faulty and perhaps confused. He may have discussed with someone else the question of authority to give money to Bart Porter. [00.50.37] Mr. EDMISTEN. NOW, Mr. Stans, did you learn of the payment, of cash of some $350,000 from the finance committee to Gordon Strachan and when that, payment was made? Mr. STANS. Yes, I learned a little bit more about, it I think than Mr. Sloan did because back in February Of last year I heard from someone--I think it was; Mr. Kalmbach, but I am not, sure--that the White House would like, to have some of the 1968 money that he, had turned over to our committee, to use for special polling purposes. NO amount, was mentioned at, that time and I have no recollection of any other discussion about, this subject, until after the $350,000 was given by Mr. Sloan or Mr. Kalmbach to Gordon Strachan. I believe that, Mr. Kalmbach takes full. responsibility for that transaction. At later date, I asked Mr. Sloan if the White House had ever gotten the money it wanted, and he said, "Yes, they got $350,000". I do not, think that the. difference in our recollections is material on this point, because I certainly would not, have objected to the item in any event, had I been asked about, it, beforehand. I did not object, to it, when I. heard about it in February. I think it was a perfectly proper transaction. [00.52.10]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.52.10] Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, Mr. Stans, I do not want to drag this out but I think the committee does want to know something about all of the allegations that, have 'been made regarding four SO- so-called Mexican checks, $89,000 drawn on a Mexican bank account,. I think it is time, for you in your own words to describe what you know about, that, what you did about it, and who you discussed the matters about it with. Mr. STANS. I will be, happy to tell you because I do not think the full story has ever been. told in one place before. This is my recollection of the sequence of events. On April 3 of last year, I received a telephone call from Bill Liedtke, who was then our finance chairman in the State of Texas. He said, "I have a U.S. citizen residing in Texas, who is a prospective contributor for $100,000, but he wants to give it in U.S. funds that are now in Mexico, I this Is this legal?" I said, "I am quite sure it is, but let me check again and I will call you back." I checked with our counsel, found out it was perfectly legal for a U.S. citizen to give any foreign funds he. wanted, and called back to Liedtke and told him so. Now, the next thing that I knew about the transaction was after April 22, when I came back from a vacation, and at a meeting I learned from Mr. Sloan that on April 5, Mr. Liedtke's representative, Roy Winchester, had brought, to Washington to the Committee $100,000 in the form of a contribution from an unnamed person; that it was in the form of checks drawn on American banks, by a Mexican bank; that he was not sure 'how to handle checks of that nature; and that he set, them aside. They had clearly arrived before, the change in the law on April 7. He set them aside to talk to counsel for the committee and did so the following week. The committee counsel suggested that they be, reconverted into cash, into dollars, and took the checks from Sloan for that purpose. So when I got back from my vacation, as I said, I found out about the checks, I found out he had given them to counsel, and I found out that the proceeds of the checks had not yet been returned. At this point, I was of the understanding that, the four checks totaled $100,000, and I did not know until I read in Time magazine somewhere along the line there that the four checks totaled only $89,000 and that $11,000 of the, $100,000 was in currency. Now, from here on, I have to quote what Mr. Sloan -said, because I had not seen the checks nor did I see the proceeds of the checks conic back to him. But according to him, the proceeds of the checks came back to him less a collection fee of $2,500 that was imposed on it, and he held the Money and included it in a bank deposit that was made on May 25. Now, that is my recollection of the transaction. You may have other questions about it. Mr. EDMISTEN. No, I will leave those for the Senators. -Mr. STANS. I would like to point out, though, that the General Accounting Office has concluded that the funds were properly received before April 7 and that, there was no requirement to report them. Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, what. did you have to do with the so-called Dahlberg check? You received checks, did you not, from Mr. Dahlberg? Mr. STANS. Yes. May I recite the details of that transaction as I Understand it" Mr. EDMISTEN. Yes. Mr. STANS. Kenneth Dahlberg, as I recollect it, was a member of the early finance committee working in the State Minnesota and living in Florida, in a hotel that he owned. As I understand it from Dahlberg, somewhere around as early as January, Andreas said: "I want to help the, President's campaign and I will give you $25,000 when you got around to it." He confirmed that to Dahlberg in February. In March, on the 12th, and this I get from Andreas, he decided to get the money in hand and he decided to make the contribution in cash because he was a close friend of Hubert Humphrey and a contributor to Humphrey's campaign as well as a friend of the President, and he wanted to achieve all the' anonymity he could achieve. On March 12, he instructed his secretary to get together $25,000 of money, which he did, from a tax-paid account, and put, it in an envelope to be given to, Mr. Dahlberg on the 15th of March at a meeting of a board of directors of a bank of which both Dahlberg and Andreas were directors. Unfortunately, on the 14th, Dahlberg found suddenly that he had to go to Europe to deal with the affairs of an affiliated company there, and he could not attend the meeting. So Andreas continued to hold the money in an envelope. [00.58.54]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.58.54] On the 5th of April, having in mind the change in the law that would take place in the next day or so, Andreas, in Florida, called Dahlberg in Minnesota and said: I still have that money. I would like to give it to you before the change in the law; can you pick it up? And Dahlberg said: I cannot get down there before the 7th. I will get down there on the 7th and arrange it to pick it up. Andreas said: Well, I want the contribution to be made now, made effective now. So I will put it in an envelope in your name and put in the safe deposit box in the hotel in your name. You can pick it up whenever you are ready, but I want the understanding between you and me that title has passed and it is your money and you accept it as of today. Dahlberg said, "I do," and called me and relayed the transaction, and I advised him on the basis of legal advice that I had already received that a commitment of that nature was properly a contribution before April 7 and when received would not, have to be reported. On April 7, Dahlberg went to the hotel in Florida but arrived too late to pick up the money because the safe deposit box had been closed. He talked to Andreas on the 8th and arranged for the two to get together on the 9th, and at Dahlberg's request, Andreas took the money out of the safe deposit box and delivered it to Dahlberg on the 9th. On the 10th, Dahlberg bought a cashier's check for that because he did not want to carry that amount of money around with him from Florida to Washington, where he was due on the 11th for a meeting of all of our State finance people on our committee. On the, 11th, at an intermission in the meeting, Dahlberg endorsed the check and handed it, to me, with the explanation that "This is the money from Andreas." And I had a full accounting of the sequence of the transaction up to that, date. I thereupon, the same day, as quickly as possible, gave the, check to the, treasurer, explained to him the background that this was money that had been. contributed before the 7th, and asked him to determine the accounting handling of the check. The treasurer, not being sure, discussed it with the general counsel for the committee and the general counsel suggested that he take the check and convert it into cash. The treasurer gave him the check Now, again, I can report what the treasurer has said, that he did not get the proceeds of the check back until some time in "May. He received them in full and they were deposited in a bank account on May 25. Now, as to those two transactions and several others in a similar category we treated that as cash on hand on April 7 and reported it in the report of the media Committee To Re-Elect the President, in the, amount of $50,000, and that exact amount of $350,000 was deposited in that committee's bank account, on May 25. We, felt that we had complied with every requirement of the law as to the handling and reporting of That money; we had accounted for it fully. The General Accounting Office subsequently cited our committee for a, possible violation of the law in failing to report the $25,000. But the Department of Justice, in a letter some months later, concluded that there was no violation of the law in the handling of that transaction. Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Stans, when was the, first time that, you learned that these checks had cleared through a bank account? Mr. STANS. -It was well after the Watergate event of June 17, Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, shortly after that, did you have any discussion with Mr. John Mitchell or anyone at the White House concerning any of these checks during the week following? Mr. STANS. I don't recall any specific conversation with John Mitchell, but do recall a conversation with Fred LaRue and subsequently with Robert Mardian. Mr. EDMISTEN. What did you talk about? Mr. STANS. As I recall it, it, was the morning of the 23d of June---- [01.04.12--TAPE OUT]
"Winter Sport for He-Men!"
"News of the Day" feature on the Polar Bear Club of Chicago. Chicago, Illinois People are seen frolicking in the waters of Lake Michigan, swimming in between ice chunks, and making me feel chilly just from looking at this news clip!
Eddie Rickenbacker returns home
"News of the Day" feature on the stateside return of Eddie Rickenbacker after surviving three weeks in a lifeboat at sea. Rickenbacker was America's leading fighter ace of World War One with 26 confirmed kills; he later became president of Eastern Airlines. Washington DC Shots of Eddie with his wife and family, as well as General Henry H. Arnold. Then a film clip from Rickenbacker's impassioned plea for U.S. workers to do their jobs in support of the war effort, because any sacrifice they could ever hope to make would not equal the "hellhole of war."
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.02.00--in to Maurice STANS testifying about receiving campaign contributions] Mr. STANS......the general counsel suggested that he take the check and convert it into cash. The treasurer gave him the check Now, again, I can report what the treasurer has said, that he did not get the proceeds of the check back until some time in "May. He received them in full and they were deposited in a bank account on May 25. Now, as to those two transactions and several others in a similar category we treated that as cash on hand on April 7 and reported it in the report of the media Committee To Re-Elect the President, in the, amount of $50,000, and that exact amount of $350,000 was deposited in that committee's bank account, on May 25. We, felt that we had complied with every requirement of the law as to the handling and reporting of That money; we had accounted for it fully. The General Accounting Office subsequently cited our committee for a, possible violation of the law in failing to report the $25,000. But the Department of Justice, in a letter some months later, concluded that there was no violation of the law in the handling of that transaction. Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Stans, when was the, first time that, you learned that these checks had cleared through a bank account? Mr. STANS. -It was well after the Watergate event of June 17, Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, shortly after that, did you have any discussion with Mr. John Mitchell or anyone at the White House concerning any of these checks during the week following? Mr. STANS. I don't recall any specific conversation with John Mitchell, but do recall a conversation with Fred LaRue and subsequently with Robert Mardian. Mr. EDMISTEN. What did you talk about? Mr. STANS. As I recall it, it, was the morning of the 23d of June, which was 6 days after the Watergate affair. I received a phone call from Fred LaRue, saying,, "Do you know Kenneth Dahlberg?" And I said, "I certainly do." He said, his contribution ended up in a bank account of one of the fellows who was arrested. I said, Dahlberg didn't make a contribution." He said, "Well, it is his check." So he came down and we discussed it and concluded that, in Some Manner or other, Dahlberg's cheek must have reached the bank account of Bernard Barker. We called Dahlberg and discussed It with him, got him to Washington on that same day. mot with him, and he met with LaRue and I think with Mardian,. and got all the facts of the transaction in hand. It, was clear that neither Dahlberg nor I nor Hugh Sloan had anything to do with the checks, that check or the Mexican checks, entering the, Barker bank account. They could only have gotten there through the bands of our general counsel, Gordon Liddy, who had. taken them into his custody, Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Stans, I am going to skip along, I don't want to encroach on the committee. At one time did you approve Or consent to giving Mr. Fred LaRue $80,000? Mr. STANS. I did. Would you like to know the background of that? Mr. EDMISTEN. Yes. When was that? Mr. STANS. The same day of June 23, Mr. Sloan had balanced out his cash account, something which I had asked him to do as early as April 10 but which he couldn't do because he was waiting for the return of the proceeds of the various checks we were discussing. He showed a balance of $81,000 of cash on hand and expressed some concern about it because he was going on vacation and under the tense situation that was building up he didn't want to hold the cash in his custody. We discussed it and concluded that the funds were of a nature which did not classify them as funds of the current committees, that they were more properly funds of earlier committees, that they were not part of what we had to account, for in an audit by the General Accounting Office, and that we should get legal advice. [00.07.15]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.07.15] At that time it was understood within the committee that Robert Mardian had been brought to Washington to work on legal matters that were current at the time, and I went to him for advice. His advice, after he learned the description of the money, was to get the money out of the office and out of the, campaign and money, he suggested that I give it to Fred LaRue. Fred LaRue was, the right-hand man of John Mitchell, assistant to Mitchell as campaign director. On that, advice I gave the money, my half of the money to LaRue and Sloan later gave his half of the money to LaRue. I neglected to say that when Sloan expressed concern about, having that much money in his custody, I agreed to divide it with him so that there would only be about $40,000 in each parcel, and I took one and put it, in my desk and he took one. parcel and took it home. I gave mine to LaRue rather promptly, at the first opportunity. Sloan went, on vacation to Bermuda for about 10 days, and gave his money to LaRue upon his return. Now, there is some uncertainty as to whether that money passed through Mardian's hands. In each case. I can't recall whether I gave the $40,000 that I had directly to LaRue or gave it to Mardian to give to LaRue. Sloan did give his $40,000 to Mardian and Mardian gave it to LaRue. Mr. EDMISTEN. Do you know what happened to that money in the end? Mr. STANS. I do not know specifically what happened to that money. Subsequently I received some funds for several Purposes from Fred LaRue. Whether it was part of the same money or other money, I have no way of knowing, and only he could tell. Mr. EDMISTEN. NOW, Mr. Stans, in late June or early July did you receive a call from Mr. Herbert Kalmbach requesting money from you? [00.09.37] Mr. STANS. On the, 29th of June I received an urgent call from Kalmbach. He said he was in Washington at, the Statler-Hilton Hotel, that it was extremely vital that he see me right away, and He wanted me to come over there, and I did. I dropped everything and went over there to see him. He said, "I am here on a special mission on a White House Project and I need all the cash I can get." I said, "I don't have any cash to give to you. Will you take a check. He said "No, I can't, take a check it, must be in cash, and this has nothing to do with the campaign. But, I am asking for it, on high authority." Mr. EDMISTEN. What high authority did he say? [00.10.33] Mr. STANS, He, did not, say. "I am asking for it on high authority and You will have to trust me that I have cleared it, properly." As I said, I had no cash belonging to the committee at that time because we had closed it all out but I did have two parcels of money that were available, and I gave those to Mr. Kalmbach. They added up to $75,000 of funds outside the committee. Mr. EDMISTEN NOW, Mr. Stans, did you not, ask him why he wanted this money? Mr. STANS. Yes, I did. Mr. EDMISTEN. What did he say? Mr. STANS. He said, "This is for a White House project, and that I have been asked to take care, of and I cannot tell you. You will have to trust, me." Mr. EDMISTEN. Would Mr. Kalmbach have, been your superior in this campaign organization? Mr. STANS. NO, Mr. Kalmbach was a man I knew very well. He had been my principal deputy in the 1968 fundraising campaign for Richard Nixon. He subsequently had close affiliation with a number of people in the White House that I was aware of. He was personal counsel to the President. He AN-as a man that I knew was a man of highest integrity, trustworthiness and honesty, and I had no question to doubt, no reason to doubt, anything he told me and I didn't. [00.12.20]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.12.20] Mr. EDMISTEN. Who in the whole organization would you consider your superiors, and would you just go up the line from you? Mr. STANS. Well, I do not know that I had any superiors. It, was a unique situation. The finance committee was separate from the campaign committee. The campaign committee exercised a dominance over the finance, committee by their spending policies, forcing us to raise enough money to pay everything they committed. But I had no superior. I would have taken instructions from the President if he gave me any but, he did not, and I would have been influenced by requests from certain people in the White House from time to time but I do not, believe I had a superior in that, sense. Mr. EDMISTEN Well, now, I just, have one more question here. I want, you to think carefully, Stans: Did you have a meeting On June 24, after the break-in', with Mr. John Mitchell to find out from him what, had happened? Mr. STANS. I am not sure of the exact, date. I had meetings from time to time with Mr. Mitchell. I probably had One on June 24. Mr. EDMISTEN. Did You ask him what happened at that meeting, if you recall it? Mr. STANS. I do not, recall that I asked him that, question. Certainly I was curious about it, and it would not surprise me if I had. I have no recollection of specifically talking about, that, subject. That was a, week after the break-in, specifically Mr. EDMISTEN. Yes. Do You recall at! any time Mr. Mitchell telling you that, there were others involved beside-, those. who were apprehended? Mr. STANS. No, I do not Mr. EDMISTEN. At a meeting of that nature about that time? Mr. STANS. No, I do not. Mr. EDMISTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.. [00.14.29--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states STANS' testimony will continue [PBS network ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.16.58--LEHRER] LEHRER states that in the last hour of testimony, STANS will be questioned about the activities of the CRP Budget Committee, and "the activities of the 'mystery man to end all mystery men', G. Gordon LIDDY". [00.17.14--committee room]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.29.15] Mr. SANDERS. To your knowledge, was there any cash goal during the campaign? Mr. STANS. A goal to be received in cash? Mr. SANDERS. Yes, sir. Mr. STANS, I never heard of one. Mr. SANDERS. At or about the time -you became chairman of the finance committee, did you have some contact with Mr. Kalmbach, Herbert Kalmbach, concerning the transition--that is, the turnover to you of the funds he had on hand- -and receive an accounting for this? Mr. STANS. Yes. That happened before I became chairman of the finance committee but after the time, I had agreed to take on the job. Mr. Kalmbach had money in his possession, some, of which he had carried over from 1968 and some of which he had accumulated sub subsequently. It was a substantial amount of money and I had tried to have the understanding in 1968 and I wanted the understanding in 1972 again, that there would not be separate cash funds in operation outside of the hands of the treasurer. Mr. Kalmbach was totally in agreement with that and we had an understanding that he would turn in all the funds in his possession--not only before I became chairman, but before the law was- signed by the President. And I am told by him and by Mr. Sloan that on February 3 Mr. Kalmbach turned over to the finance committee all the money that he then had, cash and in bank accounts. Mr. SANDERS. Do you have a recollection of meeting with Mr. Kalmbach prior to that, February 3 date and receiving from him personally some accounting of the funds he had on hand? Mr. STANS. Yes, I remember that. Mr. Kalmbach and I met and talked about the very subject, we are talking about. Kalmbach gave me a statement showing how much money he still held in bank accounts and in safe deposit boxes. Mr. SANDERS. Do you recall the date, Mr. Stans? Mr. STANS. I think it was January 24. The date. is on the statement, and I believe you have a copy and I have a, copy. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a document here which I would like to have marked for identification and shown to Mr. Stans. Senator BAKER [presiding]. The document will be marked for identification and shown to the witness. Senator BAKER. Mr. Stans, before you proceed any- further, we have just received a vote signal. It is now 3:30 and if you are agreeable, to returning, we will take about, a, 10-minute break while we go vote, and come back and continue with your questioning. Mr. STANS. I will stay, Mr. Chairman. [00.32.36--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that the committee has taken a recess for a rollcall vote on the Senate Floor [PBS network ID--title screen--"SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.35.08--MacNEILL] MacNEILL states that in the last hour of testimony, STANS will explain how he got the $75,000 that was given to Herbert KALMBACH for unknown purposes [00.35.28--Sen. ERVIN.]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.17.14--committee room] Senator ERVIN. Mr. Sanders. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Stans, this committee has received testimony from several witnesses and from you today concerning the Budget Committee of the Finance Committee To' Re-Elect the President; that, is, that it was composed of three members from the finance committee and three members from the Committee To Re-Elect the President and I would like to take just a, few minutes to explore some aspects of that committee with you. To begin with, it's been asked of you -who your superiors were. No mention in your answer was made of Mr. Mitchell. Did you consider in any way that you had any line responsibility to him, you being chairman of the finance committee and him as chairman of the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. STANS. No, I did not really consider that I was subordinate to Mr. Mitchell. We were separate committees, each performing our mission, and we communicated from time to time and our principal means of discussion about what we had to do to accomplish our mission was in the budget committee meetings. Mr. SANDERS. Who designated you to be a member of the budget committee? Mr. STANS. Mr. Mitchell and I worked that out Jointly, that there would be three members from each committee. Mr. SANDERS. The budget, committee then was not, in being at the time you became chairman of the. finance committee? Mr. STANS. No, sir, and Mr. Mitchell was not, there, either, at that time. Mr. SANDERS. When did the budget committee actually begin to function? Do you recall? Mr. STANS. I do not recall precisely but I think our first meetings were in April. They were irregular, they were not on schedule, they were meeting-, as material came to hand or questions arose and in those days we were trying first to get an overall budget put together on which we could agree, and secondly, we were trying to get budgets from each of the 50 States; as to how much would be spent in each State. Mr. SANDERS. Would you please state the membership of the budget committee at the time. it was constituted? [00.19.47] Mr. STANS. There was John Mitchell, Job Magruder and, I believe, Bart Porter on the Campaign committee side. There was myself , Hugh Sloan, Jr., and Lee Nunn on the finance committee side. but in addition to the three from each side, meetings were attended by two or three. other people from each committee so they were a little larger than six-man meetings. Mr. SANDERS. Did you customarily chair the budget committee meetings? Mr. STANS. No, we were, cochairmen but I deferred generally to Mr. Mitchell and I think he, chaired more often than I did. Mr. SANDERS. Who prepared the agenda for the meetings, or Were they less formal than that? Mr. STANS. Well, for the, first, number of months they were very informal, there, were no agendas We began to have agendas after the convention when we began to deal with the very large amounts of money currently being spent. Mr. SANDERS. To your knowledge, did the budget, committee ever give consideration to the Collection of cash contributions and retention of that in a repository within the premises of the finance committee? Mr. STANS. The budget committee did not, deal with contributions. The budget committee dealt, exclusively with the expenditures of the campaign. Specifically it did not, separately deal with cash transactions. Mr. SANDERS. Realizing that the budget committee may not have considered the receipt of cash contributions, nevertheless did it ever consider the potential use, of cash as opposed to the, Use Of funds in bank accounts? Mr. STANS. No, there was no distinction between cash and bank accounts in any discussions in the budget committee Mr. SANDERS. Now, there were large sums of money, we have, been hearing expended for -Mr. Liddy, Mr. Porter, and some Others. To your knowledge, and I presume you either attended all of the budget committee meetings or were informed what had transpired there if you were not able to attend, to your knowledge, did the budget committee ever take under consideration the allocation of any cash funds to Mr. Liddy or to Mr. Porter? Mr. STANS. No. The budget committee did not specifically deal with any allocation of cash funds to any individuals, Porter, Liddy, or anyone else. Mr. SANDERS. To your knowledge, did the budget committee ever take under consideration the allocation of funds to be expended for any intelligence-gathering operation? Mr. STANS. I do not recall ever hearing any discussion of intelligence-gathering in the budget committee meetings. [00.23.23]
Solitary Sandpiper
TAPE 1 Solitary Sandpiper Solitary Sandpiper CU. - Bill Solitary Sandpiper feeding
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.23.23] Mr. SANDERS. Prior to June 17, Mr. Stans, were you aware that, an intelligence-gathering operation was underway? Mr. STANS. No, I was not. I do not recall hearing any discussion of such an activity. Mr. SANDERS. In fairness, Mr. Stans , let me cite, to you you what I am getting at here. In the Patrick Gray confirmation hearings I have before me, in the transcript of those hearings at page 143, it, is stated by Mr. Gray that he had checked his records concerning FBI interviews with you. He says that you were interviewed four times by the FBI and that on the last date, which would have been July 28, you stated to this effect; I presume he is paraphrasing you here he says this: "Stans became, aware from general conversations that Liddy was assigned a 'security-gathering job and that certain cash disbursements would have to be made available to Liddy." Mr. STANS, Well, I think we are talking about semantics here and I 'Would like to correct, the impression right away. I was told somewhere in 'May, I believe by Magruder that Liddy had it responsibility for security at the San 'Diego convention. Now, how he was going about on security I had no way of knowing and it may well have included intelligence gathering of various types. Mr. SANDERS. Do you have any recollection of -making any statement to the FBI that you were "aware that Liddy was engage in intelligence gathering? Mr. STANS. I do not recall using that Word at all. I do recall testifying before. the grand jury, I believe, that sometime before June 17, had learned from Magruder, I believe, that Liddy was working On security for the San Diego convention. Mr. SANDERS. It seems that the line of questioning has developed that one of the problems perhaps with the campaign was too much cash on hand and available for some perhaps questionable purposes. The question naturally arises that as chairman of the finance committee is it reasonable that you did not become aware of the expenditures of such large sums of money and could these sums have been allocated without consideration by the budget committee? How does this happen? How can this possibly come about? Mr. STANS, Well, again, I think you would have to break down your consideration of that question to the period before April 7 and after, beginning April 7. Before, April 7, there. were amounts of money received by the committee in cash going back to long before I became finance chairman. After April there were practically none-there were one or two transactions which were never completed in the way of contributions in cash and there were a few contributions in cash which were deposited and fully reported. But most of the cash, a very high proportion of it, was received, handled and disbursed before April 7 and, therefore, operated under the old law. Mr. SANDERS. I fully understand that many donors may have wished to make cash contributions for purposes of anonymity. Aside from the cash contributions that have been covered by Mr. Edmisten--that is, the Dahlberg and Mexican checks, and we are remaining away from the Vesco matter--did you specifically, in your search for contributions, seek any cash donations? Mr. STANS. Let me first, put the cash question into perspective. Out of all of the money raised during the campaign, only about 3 percent was in cash. Out of all the, money spent during the campaign, only about 2 percent was in cash, or less. So that we were not running a bank in which people were running in every day by the hour handing us cash and we were disbursing cash. We did have some from people who wanted that extra degree of anonymity. And for those who tendered us cash, we accepted it and properly so, because the law, as I read it and as counsel advises me, said we properly may accept money or anything of value. So we received money in the form of checks, we accepted money in the form of cash, and we accepted contributions in other forms that we could convert into cash, [00.29.15]