Advanced Search
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.02.00--in LEHRER in studio--PBS station ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.04.20--LEHRER in studio] LERHER introduces questioning of Hugh SLOAN by Senator BAKER. [00.04.33--to committee room, wide shot of table at front] AFTERNOON SESSION, WEDNESDAY, June 6, 1973 Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. Senator Baker. Senator BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sloan, I join in the statement that Senator Talmadge made before the adjournment for lunch, that you have presented the appearance of a man who is fair and who is open and forthcoming in your testimony and we are grateful to you. I have the impression that, from your description and the description of others, your cooperation has been of a similar quality with those who have undertaken the investigation of these affairs. I believe that is my point of departure, if I might. Would you tell me how many inquiries into the Watergate situation have produced an interview or inquiry of you? To recall the situation, the U.S. Attorney's office interviewed you, I believe Mr. LaRue and others for the Committee To Re-Elect the President interviewed you. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Senator BAKER. The FBI interviewed you. The staff of this committee has interviewed you, I believe, on more than one occasion. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; that is correct. Senator BAKER. Is there anyone else who has interviewed you in this case? Mr. SLOAN. There have been probably three or four occasions with the General Accounting Office over a period Of time; the two grand jury appearances referred to earlier; numerous depositions in the various civil cases relating to this matter. I have really lost count, Senator, of the time and the number of occasions to this point. Senator BAKER. But you have been a well-interviewed man in the course of the last several months I do not mean to burden the record with unnecessary repetition, but could you briefly describe to me the subject matter of the several inquiries made of you? I am particularly interested in the scope of the interrogation. Begin, if you will, with the first investigation, When was the first time you were interviewed? Was that by the FBI? Mr. SLOAN-. You are talking of an external investigation? Senator BAKER. I am speaking really of any time subsequent to the early morning hours of June 17, 1972, Mr. SLOAN. I considered initially this investigation began as an internal investigation. My understanding, was that 'Mr, LaRue had that function within the campaign committee, Senator Baker. How did you receive that information? Mr. SLOAN. Whether he imparted that to me, I am not sure. It is situation of general knowledge within the committee that he Was looking into the matter. Senator BAKER. And this was as early as during the day of June 17, 1972? Mr. SLOAN. I do not believe it quite moved that fast, Senator. I believe it was in that early part, or mid-week of the week following the break-in. Senator BAKER. Was that the first, interview you had relative. to the Watergate affair? Mr. SLOAN. I believe so; yes, sir. [00.07.34]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.28.57--Robert MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that the Senators are hoping that SLOAN'S testimony will lead them into the inner workings of the COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT, and that Senator BAKER'S questions went to the central purpose of the committee, reforming CAMPAIGN FINANCING. Senator ERVIN will question SLOAN next. Solicits viewer response to the coverage, 70,000 letters, 99% in favor of the form of the coverage--suggests sending letters (and donations) to local public TV stations [PBS network ID--Title Screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.32.10--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL introduces Senator ERVIN'S questioning, stating that ERVIN seems to be looking for clues to possible White House involvement in the Watergate coverup [00.32.33--in to wide shot of committee table] Senator ERVIN. Do you not think this is an area where we need the highest standard of ethics which exceed the requirements of law? Mr. SLOAN. Excuse me, Senator? Senator ERVIN. Don't you think in this area that individuals should have personal ethics whose requirements exceeded the strict letter of the law? Mr. SLOAN, Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. In other words, it is a fundamental principle of ethics that people who handle funds belonging to other people keep records of them, isn't it? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. And I judge from your testimony that you had many misgivings as an individual about the way matters were being handled in the receipt and disbursement of funds, didn't you? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, in this transition period. Senator ERVIN. You were not a policymaker were you? Mr. SLOAN. in certain areas but not in this area. Senator ERVIN. You worked primarily or entirely, I would say, if I infer correctly, with Mr. Stans? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. In other words, your duties were confined entirely to the finance side of the matter and you had nothing to do with the political aspect of it? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir; I would say the only overlap was I was a member of the budget committee that considered the total expenditures for the campaign. The finance committee's role in that essentially would be to say this is all the money we can raise, you have to set your priorities within those limits, We were a restraint factor on the political spending, Senator ERVIN. NOW, you are not a lawyer? Mr. SLOAN. No sir. Senator ERVIN. And in trying to comply with the old law and the new law you were acting upon legal advice given you by others? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Liddy, was he your legal advisor? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir; he was the counsel to the committee at that time. Senator ERVIN. Now at times you had approximately $1,777,000 available to the Committee To Re-Elect the President which were not deposited in banks? Mr. SLOAN. Of that figure, Senator, approximately a million was in terms of direct payments to individuals. The balance, the $750,000, Was deposited in bank accounts. [00.35.05]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.07.34] Senator BAYER. Would you tell us the scope of 'Mr. LaRue's inquiry? Mr. SLOAN. At this point in time, it, was very general. It. was--I would say he restricted his inquiry essentially into the Liddy matter. Within the committee at a very early period, it, was quite. obvious, I think, to everyone that the focus was on Mr. Liddy and as far as any knowledge 1 had that pertained to that, it would be. the area of the money that, I turned over to Mr. Liddy. Senator BAKER. Do you know whether Mr. La Rue had any previous information of his own about 'Mr, Liddy's participation in any of these affairs at the time he made these inquiries of you? Mr. SLOAN. I have no such knowledge. Senator BAKER. What was the nature, of the inquiry that Mr. LaRue made of the Liddy situation? Mr. SLOAN. Essentially, it was seeking the information of me, sort, of the dollar figures. I think once he had the dimensions of it, as I believe I mentioned this morning he came back to me saying this was a very politically sensitive issue, we need to come in with a, lower figure. At that point, it sort, of broke, and I understood Mr. Mardian as being relatively external, In the sense that he had joined the committee shortly before my interview, that he had picked up sort of the range of the investigation. Knowing Mr. 'Mardian, that would be Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien. Senator BAKER. The inquiry of you about, 'Mr. Liddy's functions and responsibilities in the committee was limited just to the payments to Mr. Liddy by you? Mr. SLOAN. I think there was a total awareness of Mr. Liddy's function, at, least as it was supposed to be; there were no inquiries in that regard. It was as purely in regard to financial payments to him. Senator BAKER, But no purely inquiries were put to you about, Mr, Liddy's functions as it involved responsibility for' the Watergate episode? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator BAKER. What was the next interview you had? Mr. SLOAN. Following the Mardian interview, which was the--that was on the 24th of June Just prior to my departing for Bermuda. Senator BAKER. By whom? Mr. SLOAN. This was Mr. Mardian's interview on the 3rd. He again was asking and concentrating On the Liddy payments, also Mr. Porter's payments, I think a far more comprehensive approach to the general financial dealings than had been the case with Mr. LaRue. Senator BAKER, What was the next episode? Mr. SLOAN. It was when I sought out Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien on the evening of July 6. Senator BAKER. An, what was the essence of that conversation? Mr. SLOAN. That conversation was an approach by me to advise them of the facts I knew because they had not sought me out at that point. It was in the face of-the personnel of the finance area had already been subpenaed before, the grand jury. As I said this morning, I felt it was a very severe problem that needed to be addressed and I sought them out, to impart that information to them. Senator BAKER. What was the next time you were interviewed or had a conversation about the Watergate affair? Mr. SLOAN. I think I skipped over the FBI. Senator BAKER. I believe so. Would you go back and identify that by date and tell us of the scope of the FBI inquiry? Mr. SLOAN. I believe that was in mid-week, probably the 21st or 22d of June. It was an interview purely on the question of whether I knew Mr. Alfred Baldwin, was he an employee of the committee. They asked to have our records made available to them to check out those facts. It was very brief and purely on that subject. Senator BAKER. Solely on the. subject of Mr. Baldwin? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. Were any questions asked you regarding Magruder, Mr. Dean, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Liddy, Mr. McCord, Mr. Barker, or anyone else except Mr. Baldwin? Mr. SLOAN, No, sir. The sole subject of that interview was whatever- whether we could identify Mr. Baldwin as having been an employee of the committee. Senator BAKER. Could you? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, 1 never heard of him. Senator BAKER. Do you have any idea why the FBI limited its inquiry to Mr. Baldwin? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; I did not, Senator BAKER. Did it seem to be limited to a particular purpose. Did they express a reason for wanting to know particularly about Mr. Baldwin? Mr. SLOAN. They indicated, the agents who were there at that time, that they had information that Mr. Baldwin had been involved in a demonstration--- am not sure. They did identify where it was, but I have forgotten where that was. Senator BAKER. No one asked you about the Watergate break-in in the course of that FBI interview? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, it was never mentioned. Senator BAKER, Nobody ever asked you about Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator BAKER. Mr. Hunt? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator BAKER. Mr. McCord? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, Senator BAKER. Money? ? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator BAKER. Accounting? Mr. SLOAN. Money--only in the sense of-was Mr, Baldwin on the payroll or had we paid him any money. Senator BAKER. And no one asked you about the $100 bills that were found with or on the defendants that, were involved in the break-in or illegal entry into Democratic national headquarters? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator BAKER. Did any member of the FBI or the Justice Department ever discuss any of this with you? Mr. SLOAN. The next occasion I had to meet with the FBI was following my resignation, which I believe was on the Friday, July 14, I think I am correct in this, that they were present at, my home the following Monday morning and every morning thereafter. Senator BAKER. When did you resign? Mr. SLOAN. On a Friday, July 14. [00.13.19]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.13.19] Senator BAKER. And the following Monday, which would have been the 17th Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER [continuing]. Of July., the FBI was at your home that morning? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. And each morning thereafter, did you say? Mr. SLOAN. The problem there, Senator, was that on that, occasion, they were very much interested in the, Watergate matter. I indicated to them that, I felt because there was a possibility on my part of technical violations of the, campaign lam, that 1 wished to be represented by an attorney before I talked to them, but, that I would be happy to cooperate With them. At that point, I was in the process of receiving a refusal from one attorney and it took me a day or two to get another and they leaned on me fairly heavily during that period until I did have an attorney. Senator BAKER. All right, after you secured an attorney, when did you then talk to the FBI about, the broader range and spectrum of Watergate material? Mr. SLOAN. There was never an independent discussion with the FBI. They were present the first, time I talked to the U.S. prosecutors, Mr. Silbert, Mr. Glanzer, Mr. Campbell. Senator BAKER. When was that? Mr. SLOAN. It Was On July 20, I believe, Senator. Yes, sir, I believe that is correct. Senator BAKER. I am sorry? Mr. SLOAN. July 20, Senator BAKER, July 20? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator BAKER. And tell us briefly: What transpired in that, interview, who was present, where it was held, and the substance of the, interview? Mr. SLOAN. It was in Mr. Silbert's office. Present, were, myself, my attorney, Mr. Stoner, -Mr. Glanzer, Mr. Campbell, and I believe I am correct two agents from the Federal Bureau. Senator BAKER. And what subject matter was covered? Mr. SLOAN. The entire Watergate matter. Senator BAKER. What did you tell them? Mr. SLOAN. What I have told you gentlemen here this morning, Excuse me, Senator. We had really two sessions with them, We did not cover all the material on one occasion. I believe, for instance, the discussions about the Magruder approach, and so forth, were covered in a session a, day or two later. Senator BAYER. YOU are. talking about the indication by Mr. Magruder that you should perjure yourself? Mr. SLOAN. 'Yes sir. Senator BAKER. That was covered in the second interview at the U.S. attorney's office? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator BAKER. Was that matter ever brought out in the trial of the Watergate defendants? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. No, sir. Senator BAKER. Was it ever discussed before the grand jury? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, it was. Senator BAYER- Were you asked those questions at the U.S. attorney's office? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. I would say with regard to my grand jury testimony that I believe I spent about an hour before the grand jury and my best recollection is that approximately half of that time was devoted to the Magruder question. Senator BAKER. Mr. Sloan, how would you characterize, if you can so characterize, the interviews you had with the U.S. attorney's office and the FBI? Were they thorough and searching? Mr. SLOAN. The FBI, in torn-is of the interviews I had with the U.S. attorney's office, they were there as observers. I really have never been questioned by the FBI except in the Baldwin matter. I would say that, given the time and the information that Was available at the time, I feel they were extremely thorough, Senator BAKER. Mr. Sloan, one of the responsibilities ties of this committee is to file a report ultimately on its findings and to recommend, if it chooses to do so, revisions in the Campaign Expenditure Act, election reform, and the like; in a word, to make recommendations On how such situations might be avoided In future Presidential campaigns. Let me ask you a few questions about that, because in a strange, and I am sure unwelcome Way, you have become the Nation's leading expert on this particular situation, at least from the, stand- I point of firsthand knowledge. Would it seriously or would it interfere at all with the conduct of the Presidential election if there were an absolute statutory bar against receiving cash contributions or making cash disbursements? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; I think it would be, for individuals in the technical implementation of the law like myself, I think it would be of great assistance,. Senator BAKER. Wholly aside from the accountant's point of view, and knowing, as you do, something of the internal workings, of the financial side of the national campaign, do you foresee a difficulty in that respect? Do you see any way it would hamper or impede the orderly operation of a Presidential campaign to require that all receipts and all disbursements be by some tender other than currency? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; I would see, no problem with that whatsoever. [00.18.38]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.18.38] Senator BAKER. It is my understanding, and I think you have, intimated as much Without saying so, it is my understanding that in the last several weeks before April 7, there was a virtual torrent of contributions? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. And many of them wore cash contributions? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. And it has been my experience from MY own campaigns, and I rather suspect that others have the same experience, that maximum contributions occur in the last 2 or 3 weeks before an election. Did you have a similar experience in the Presidential election? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. Tell us what, if any, difficulty you had in accounting for last-minute contributins, whether in cash or by check? Does that become a problem? Mr. SLOAN. The sheer volume, yes, sir. I think personally, I handled in the neighborhood of $6 Million in a 2-day period, Senator BAKER. that before the -,November election? Mr. SLOAN. -NO; this was just, prior to April 7, I think the change in the campaign law, in effect, produced a kind of deadline similar to an election. Senator BAKER. Did you have a similar bulge, a similar acceleration in the rate of contributions before the election, just before the election in November? Mr. SLOAN. Of course, I was not there in this election, Senator, but in 1968, 1 would agree with that, yes, as a pattern. Senator BAKER. That was the pattern? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Yes, Sir. Senator BAKER. From your vantage point as one who has participated in two Presidential elections and been in intimately involved in the detail, do you see any difficulty that might derive from a statutory moratorium on any contributions, say, for 2 weeks before the election? Mr. SLOAN. I am not sure I would be qualified to evaluate that, Senator, Senator BAKER. The point of the matter being that it is difficult, if not impossible, to account for last minute money in time for last Minute accounting? Mr. SLOAN'. Yes, sir; I would agree. Senator BAKER. And if campaign disclosure legislation is to have any beneficial effect in the sense the public knows for what the candidates spend money, there ought to be a cutoff point, it seems to Me, sometime substantially prior to the date of the election. If that Were proposed, do you as an expert, so to speak, in this field think that would seriously jeopardize the operation of a, campaign? Mr. SLOAN. NO, sir' I think any date you set as the final date would be looked on by contributors and I think it would produce your bulge in the earlier period. Senator BAKER. I think that is true, but it would give you a better opportunity to report and disclose it, in time for the public to take it in account before the election. Mr. SLOAN. I would agree with that, particularly under the new law where you have detailed accounting procedures where you do, I think it is -almost essential. Senator BAKER. Under the new Campaign Expenditure Act which went into effect on April 7, 1972, and under which we presently operate, there is a limitation, as you know, on radio, television, and certain categories of expenditure, but there is not a total overall limitations of expenditures in Presidential or other Federal elections. If the Congress of the United States were to establish a maximum limitation on expenditures and to establish a requirement that expenditures be not only documented and accounted for, but that they could not be in cash, it there was a requirement that contributions could not ,ash if there was a requirement, that contributions could not be in cash 2 received, nor expended, nor obligations liquidated on behalf of candidates, say, for 2 weeks before the election and if there were a limitation as to the total amount you could spend and a limitation, say, of $3,000 on what an individual could give, do you think that combination of circumstances would provide, an unworkable. situation from the standpoint, of financing a Presidential or a Federal election? Mr. SLOAN. I think one of the most effective curbs might be a time limit on elections. When you look at the 1972 campaign, we started back in March 1971. It is almost a 2-year period of activity. I think a total spending ceiling could be worked with. I suspect quite frankly, out of this kind of situation that is unfolding here, it may Very well get to the point the only way to fund a Presidential campaign is through public funding. I think today in today's world, the intertwining of the business sector with Government with disclosure is going to make it no one's interest in business to contribute because every action after that will be looked into in that light. [00.23.41]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.23.41] Senator BAKER. In my wildest imaginations, I never dreamed I would sit here and have an argument with you about Federal financing of campaigns, but, I am prepared to do that. And as my good friend John Gardner, who is president of Common Cause, and I talk about from time to time, there is the problem. There is the question of financing political campaigns, but just for the brief purposes of this moment, I have a great fear -not only of the abuse of money, especially cash, but I also have a, great, fear of the Federal bureaucracy taking over the electoral system. So before we go that extra mile I think we- ought to give careful thought to the alternative possibilities that are available to us. Do you have any other suggestions, Mr. Sloan, on how we could provide for reasonableness, candor, openness, and accountability on the financial side of politics? Mr. SLOAN. Sir, I think One Of the really great tragedies of this particular campaign is this situation of having one law in effect for part of the campaign and the new law in effect for the balance of the campaign, because I think the whole campaign financing law is being judged in terms of the conduct in this transition period. I do not, believe, for instance, that the present law has been given a fair chance. I think no professional fund raiser would argue with the premise of disclosure. It is a great help in a, way. It takes a lot of the temptations, out of the way or the pressures. I think most of us were glad to See it. But having it come in the middle of the campaign we had to deal with the only rules that existed at the time in the earlier period. I would like to see at least for one more Presidential campaign, the laws that now stand given a fair chance. I think there is a lot Wrong with them but I do not think it has had a fair chance in its present form. I think all of the abuses at least in terms of the campaign to -which I can address myself to, if you will call them abuses are totally related to the earlier period or this transition period, I think that in the effort that, was made to comply with the new law with any contribution that was understood to be a Contribution post-April 7 period, and 1 am not talking about these funds here I am talking about the general receipts. 1 think our campaign did' a magnificent job, I think it is a workable law. I would agree with you, I would rather see an overall ceiling for money period On a campaign than the intermediary but, its restricting choice or like to see a time limit of a campaign restriction, but, I think it is one Of the, great tragedies of this situation, the inability to look at the new law and its workings in a dispassionate sense. Senator BAKER. Thank you, Mr Sloan. I have one. other line of questions that will not take very long, You have covered the material in general with Mr. Dash, the counsel for the committee and Mr. Thompson. I would like to know a, little, more about the extent. and scope of the knowledge of Mr. Stans and Mr. Mitchell of the Watergate operations insofar as you have that, information. Mr. SLOAN. Senator, aside from ]what I have read in the newspapers I have no direct knowledge. Senator BAKER. Did you ever talk with Mr. Stans Dr Mr. Mitchell about the Watergate situation" Mr. SLOAN. -Not to Mr. Mitchell. I met with Mr. Mitchell only on one occasion that has been referred to earlier. During that week, I traveled with Secretary Stans. He, had numerous conversations with, as I understood it from what I could hear at his end of the conversation, presumably with Bob Mardian and Fred LaRue, the people who were understood to be handling the Problem from the political campaign standpoint. Mr. Stans was extremely defensive in all of the conversations I heard. He insisted from the end of the conversation I heard, he said, "Dammit, this is not a finance problem, you guys have to handle it and you have got to keep it away from Sloan and myself because we have nothing to do with it." Senator BAKER. Do you know what he was talking about? Mr. SLOAN. I am making an assumption, Senator, but I think a pretty obvious one, that this was about the only issue being discussed at this point. Senator BAKER, How would you characterize Mr. Stans' attitude or demeanor at that time? Mr. SLOAN. I think he was angry, I think he was upset with the Political campaign, political side of the campaign. Senator BAKER. Did you ask him what he meant? Mr. SLOAN. No sir. Senator BAKER. Thank you. [00.28.57--Robert MacNEILL in studio]
Sky Thriller: 'Chuting Stars Play Tag Aloft
Sky Thriller: Chuting Stars Play Tag Aloft. The Navy's crack stunt team, the "Chuting Stars" have a final dress rehearsal before beginning their third year of thrilling crowds all over the world. They fall free for two miles before opening their chutes - meanwhile, they maneuver as if all of infinity was their stage. A twin engine air plane flying, exit door on plane is open. MCUS - Inside the plane there are 10 - neb sitting with NAVY crash helmets on their heads. Air to Air shot - "Chuting Stars" printed on the side of the plane. And the Navy paratroopers are bailing out of the plane doing a free fall. Air to Skydiver - These guys are playing tag as their free-falling from 10,000 up. The have flairs on one of their boots. Air shot - One of the jumpers is doing a summer-salt in the air. MS - The Chuting Stars are landing on their target, X marks the spot.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.35.05] Senator ERVIN. That was deposited. How much money was kept in the safe in your office and in the safe in the office if Mr. Stans' secretary? Mr. SLOAN. It is a question of timing Senator. In the, pre-April 7 period, I kept, all the fund-, in a safe that, was in my office, At, some point after April 7, those funds we have discussed here were moved to the safe in Arden Chambers' office. The reason for this being in pulling together all our records for the pre-April 7 period, there was need for access to my safe which held all of these records by a great number of people, so it was purely a mechanical transfer to another safe because it was more secure and not as many people had access to it. Senator ERVIN. Could you give the committee an estimate as to the total amount of cash that was kept in the offices of the Committee, To Re-Elect the President? Mr. SLOAN. Over this entire period, this $1,700,000, I would say best recollection would be that probably never got above $600,000 Or $700,000 at any one point, and I would suspect that would be just, prior to April 7, because of the influx of cash funds at that point. Senator ERVIN. Now, the deposit made on May 25, 1972, how long was that kept in safes or places other than deposits in a bank? Mr. SLOAN. That would have been money that came in, that made Up that deposit, and would be in the safe in Arden Chambers' office. Senator ERVIN. According to your testimony, there were disbursements in cash in excess of $1 million in the safes over there, wasn't there? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, in the earlier periods some of the cash funds were kept in the safe deposit boxes and subsequently moved to a safe in our office. Senator ERVIN. The first disbursements were Made upon orders of John Mitchell while he was still serving as Attorney General of the United States. Mr. SLOAN. He had general control over the authorization of funds, Whether he specifically authorized me to make a cash disbursement, I am not sure because the delegated authority had moved to Magruder by the time Mr. Liddy and Mr. Porter had this blanket right to draw. Senator ERVIN. The first man that had authority to disburse funds was Mr. Kalmbach. Mr. SLOAN. That is right. Senator ERVIN. Then Mr. Mitchell took over, Mr. SLOAN-. Yes, sir, Mr. Kalmbach's instructions to me were that Mr. Mitchell would control all disbursements including checks and cash. Senator ERVIN. Then some question arose so Mr. Mitchell being irritated upon being interrogated by you so often about the outlay of funds, told you to make an arrangement with 'Mr. Magruder. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, that, is correct. Senator ERVIN. And so after that, Mr. Magruder had direct charge of dictating the outlay of funds. Mr. SLOAN. Yes; that is correct. Senator ERVIN. Now did you talk to Stans from time to time about the demands being made upon you by _Mr. Magruder for funds? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, Mr. Stans was kept advised on this. I reviewed it With him when he assumed the chairmanship. I reviewed all of the outlay that had been mad to that point. Senator ERVIN. Did he authorized or at least acquiesce in all of the outlays made by you from these, funds? Mr. SLOAN. He acquiesced in the authority of others to draw on it. He, did not clear the individual items each time somebody came, Senator ERVIN. But it would be true to say all of the outlays of funds you made were made with either the express or the tacit approval of Mr. Stans. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; from the time he assumed the chairmanship. Senator ERVIN. What records were kept at the committee with reference to the disbursements of these cash funds? Mr, SLOAN. Senator, I kept a working book with me in a safe which reflected all of the payments, the receipt of contributions that were cash contributions, the date of receipt, any distribution of those funds, to whom and on what date. [00.39.28--A CLUE!!!!] Senator ERVIN. Do you know what became of the book? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Where is it? Mr. SLOAN. It has been destroyed, Senator. Senator ERVIN. When was it destroyed? Mr. SLOAN. On June 23. Senator ERVIN By whose order was it destroyed? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, if I could elaborate a little bit on that. This was the occasion in preparing a final record of the pre-April 7 period. Secretary Stans had requested of me a single final copy recording these transactions. The one, difference between this and the cash book for instance, they would be aggregate figures. Mr. Liddy would be listed a total of $199,000 and would not list the individual dates of receipt. He indicated that would be the permanent record of this period of time. In preparing that I was with Mr. Kalmbach to verify the $250,000 figure whatever it was) with him and I asked him what do you think is the appropriate distribution of these records and he asked me what were Secretary Stans' instructions and I said he asked for a single copy, final copy that would be, the permanent, record. He said, fine. He said I am going to destroy the record. I would suggest you do the same and just provide him with the single copy he requested, [00.40.45]
US - Latin Talks: 7 Presidents Confer In Costa Rica
President Kennedy receives a tumultuous welcome in San Jose as he arrives in Costa Rica for s with the heads of six Central American nations. Nearly everybody in San Jose - 250,000 people - turn out to cheer Mr. Kennedy on his way to the first session of the conference. At the National theatre a "Declaration of Central America" is drawn up calling for new measures to meet subversive aggression from Cuba. Mr. Kennedy pledges new aid for economic development both in Central and South America. President Kennedy's helicopter shuttles into an airport near San Jose' - The field is filled with throngs of supporters. MLS - The helicopter is landed and President Kennedy disembarks with the heads of six central American nations. Bolivia, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador. OHS - People waving Latin American and American flags. MOHS - President Kennedy surrounded by secret service men walking through the crowds, and he is greeted by President Francisco Oleg of Costa Rica, standing at the foot of some steps shaking hands. MS - The flags of all seven Republics are flowing in the breeze as President Kennedy delivers a speech to the people of the Republic of Costa Rica. President Kennedy: "I want you to know Mr. President that I come here today but only with the members of the congress, Secretary of State and others. I come here today with one hundred and eighty million fellow Americans who want this hemisphere to be free, and who want this hemisphere to be an example to a watching world, in the crucial years of this century and this decade. And Mr. President, I want to express again our thanks to. We could not feel more at home, a thousand miles from the United States, than here in Costa Rica." MS - President Kennedy leaves the podium and the camera pulls back panning the crowds gathered to cheer on President Kennedy as he is driven in a Presidential Motorcade parade. MS - Some young adult men sitting in a tree applauding President Kennedy. MCUS - People of Costa Rica waving flags and screaming their selves horse "Amigo Presidential" CUS - President Kennedy and President Francisco Oleg standing up in a convertible waving to the people. MS-Outside - The National Theater. MS - As President Kennedy is walking in with other South American Presidents the audience is applauding. CUS - President Kennedy addressing the students of Costa Rica University. MS - President Kennedy leaning over the railing shaking hands with students of Costa Rica. MCUS - President Kennedy making his way through the students who are showing their solidarity
Spring Havoc: Thaw Triggers Landslide In Japan
tape has some damage. Roaring down the mountains that tower over the Japanese waterfront town of Nou, a landslide cuts the village in two and pushes a crack passenger express train into the sea. Tons of dirt and rock crush thirty houses and despite the cataclysmic force of the slide, no one was killed. Aerial Shot - A landslide that cut the village in two. MS - A passenger train that was pushed off the track by the slide. MS - Many rescue workers digging with pick axes and shovels, MCUS - Two men checking out a gully and just above them are the remains of twisted railroad track. MCUS - A railroad train tanker buried halfway in mud. MCUS - A smashed up passenger train with a medium size tree piercing through its roof. Inside the passenger train you see the larger part of the trunk of the tree. MS - One of the passenger cars of the train that was pushed right up to the edge of the ocean. Rescue workers are picking up debris and looking for survivors. Volunteers picking up personal belongings that has been washed up on shore. Aerial shot - Tons of mud and rock that cut loose from the mountain causing one huge landslide right down to the ocean destroying homes in its path.
Easter Parade: Hats To Turn A Pretty Head
Ladies have something in their future to close the doldrums of winter. A preview of hats for the Easter Parade features turbans...but they are not all severe. Flossy flowered fantasies are forecast, too. From turbans to cartwheels- there's something for every parade, come Easter. Three friends Ms. Moe, Ms. Larry and Ms. Curly are sitting indulging in tea and cookies wearing their stunning Indian turban hats. Mr. Moe is wearing a skillfully draped chiffon and her friend Ms. Larry is wearing a hot pink with flowers growing out of her head, a turban that only a Raja could appreciate. MS - At last Ms. Curly is wearing another light blue Raja creation. MS - Three more ladies are wearing stunning hat creations. MS - Some are a bit severe as this flossy floral fantasy with bright green leaves spearheading the brim of the hat. CUS - A real horticulture delight a lacey apple blossom hat. CUS - A horrendous spring flower hat one that would drive the hormones of a bee crazy. MS - Hat head huggers for every mood. One lady is wearing a rough straw bee hive like, hat and her friend is wearing a straw twisted thread bolder and the last of this delightful triad is wearing a dark beige army helmet type hat, that will protect her neck from the sun rays. OHS - Wide brim hats for romantic interludes. All of these these hats would insure the survival of these lovely ladies from a horrible thunder storm or nuclear fall-out.
'Rock Closes' Last Prisoners Leave Alcatraz
It's "open house" at Alcatraz as the last of its 1500 prisoners are removed to other Federal penitentiaries. Reporters and cameramen are allowed to roam at will through the corridors and cell blocks of "The Rock" in San Francisco Bay that once confined the nation's most desperate criminals. Looking up at Alcatraz. CUS - Warning Keep Off: Only Government Boats Permitted Within 200 yards. (A warning painted on a huge electrical box). OHMS - The press milling around the halls and corridors of Alcatraz, if only walls can talk, what tales would they tell? MLS - The jail cells with the gates closed, one lonely guard in attendance a watchful eye over nothing. MS - Wearing hand-cuffs and leg irons the last 27 of it prison inmates leave the aging prison. MS - Prison transport buss transporting the prisoners. MS - Alcatraz prisoners walking down a stair case and queuing on to a prisoner passenger boat with many guards as they move across San Francisco Bay. Looking Up - A jail house guard waves to the camera man. MS - Jail house guard walking down the stairs holding a machine gun. MCUS - Jail house guard wearing a bullet proof vest and holding a riffle in his hands. MS - On the prisoner transport boat are the family members of the guards and Alcatraz administration waving adieu to the rock. POVS - Of Alcatraz from the deck of the boat.
Royal Wedding
Royal Wedding New York socialite, Hope Cook, weds the Crown Prince of Sikkim, a tiny Himalayan kingdom and protectorate of India. In an ancient and exotic ceremony the first Westerner to marry into this royal family becomes the future queen of a fairy book realm. Establishing shot - Aerial shots of houses built into the rural country sides of the mountain's of Gangtok. MS - A lovely guard house with a roof as you pass under and enter Sikkim, Gangtok. CUS - Colorful dress of an armed guard holding a riffle at the gates of Gangtok. MCUS - Guest of the wedding party disembarking from a royal bus. MCUS - The Maharajah with his royal assistants entering a Buddhist temple for the marriage of his son to American socialite, Hope Cooke. MCUS - Hope Cooke sitting on the floor next to her groom in the Buddhist temple. MS - The wedding ceremony begins with placing of a scarf around the brides neck and the groom receives his scarf. MS - The bride and groom walking, close up of the groom and the smiling bride, Hope.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.40.45] Senator ERVIN. In other words, Mr. Kalmbach in effect told you he was going to destroy such records as he had and advised you to do the same thing with the records you had. Mr. SLOAN. With the exception, Senator, I do not know whether he had another copy of the record. In the case of the figures I had, I did not feel I was destroying tiny original information because I was handing a report that contained that information to Secretary Stans Senator ERVIN. You had made a compilation in aggregate form of what your original record showed. Mr. SLOAN. That is right and it would include all contributors. Senator ERVIN. Did anyone else beside Mr. Kalmbach talk to you about destroying your original record? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator ERVIN. They were destroyed on the 23d of June, a few days after the break-in. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Do you know if there were any records kept or now in existence of what became of the $250,000, approximately, given out of these funds to Mr. Kalmbach? Mr. SLOAN. No , sir; 1 have no knowledge of what he would have used those funds for. I would think if there is a record he would have to be a source of it, [00.41.49] Senator ERVIN. Now, where did Mr. Strachan work at this time? Mr. SLOAN. He, was in the White House working as a political aide, liaison with Mr, Bob Haldeman. Senator ERVIN. In other words, he was political liaison between Mr. Haldeman and the committee, was he not? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, that is correct, Senator ERVIN, And you got the instructions to put $350,000 in the briefcase to be carried to the White House? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Sir. Senator ERVIN. And that, was taken to the White House in cash? Mr. SLOAN. My understanding is it went to the White House. I did not--- Senator ERVIN. Who transmitted the message that that money was to be sent to the White House? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Kalmbach. Senator ERVIN. Where, did Mr. Porter work? Mr. SLOAN. He worked at the Committee for the, Re-Election of the President. Senator ERVIN. Do you have any knowledge of whether any record Was Made, or whether any record "has been preserved, in respect not only to the $250,000 given to Mr. Kalmbach and $350,000 carried out of the committee to the White House by Mr. Strachan, In respect to the, $100,000 given to Mr. Porter, the $199,000 given to Mr. Liddy, the, $20,000 given to Mr. Magruder, the $10,000 given to Mr. Nofsiger, the, $15,000 given to Mr. Stone; and the other $8,000 exclusive of the $50,000 given to Mr. Lankler and Mr. Hitt. Is there any record in existence that shows what became of that, money? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, I do not, know if they are in existence, but in the process of preparing this final report-, Secretary Stans had instructed me to sit down with each one of these individuals where there had been multiple distributions to verify the figure that, I had in my records with what they had in theirs. Senator ERVIN. Did you? [00.43.54] Mr. SLOAN. SO presumably at that point, in time, there were records in existence in the hands of these individuals which would indicate, what happened to that money if it, had been spent. Senator ERVIN. But there were no records kept, there, no records that you know of now in existence in the committee offices, which would disclose what had become of these funds? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, not to my knowledge. Senator ERVIN, You became much concerned about, the disbursement of some of these funds, didn't you, particularly those to Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. Yes Sir, Senator ERVIN. So when you got. orders to continue these disbursements to Mr. Liddy, which you mentioned were $199,000, you expressed your concern to Mr. Stans? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, that, is correct. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Stans told you to go ahead and continue to disburse them. Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, he Said he would check with Mr. Mitchell and came back and told me to continue Senator ERVIN. And you told Mr. Stans in the course of your conversations with him that you had misgivings about giving so much money to Mr. Liddy without knowing what the money was to be used for? [00.44.56] Mr. SLOAN. The $83,000 was really the trigger. I am not sure I restricted it in my conversation with Secretary Stans to Mr. Liddy. I said, here we have a tremendous sum of money that this committee has no control over or accountability for. I did express that. general concern at that time. Senator ERVIN. That was when you were authorized and directed to give $83,000 in cash at one time to Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. And when you made the statement to Mr. Stans about your misgivings about, the disbursing of money without knowing what it was being used for, Mr- Stans said, I do not Want to know what the money is used for and you do not want to know? [key QUOTE starts@ 00.45.15] Mr. SLOAN. As I recall, sir, it was when he returned from seeing Mr. Mitchell and he said, I do not want to know and you do not, want to know, yes sir. That is correct. Senator ERVIN. As a matter of fact, was not a deliberate effort, made at the committee not only not to report receipt of funds, but to hide the source of those funds? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, I know of no deliberate effort, in that regard. With regard to these funds, I have never had it, suggested to me--- Senator ERVIN. Well, what about the $89,000 in Mexican checks and the Dahlberg check? Mr. SLOAN. They were considered to have, been pre-April 7 funds and were considered not to be covered under the new legislation, [00.46.20]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.46.20] Senator ERVIN. But did the checks for the Mexican banks totaling $89,000 come into the committee offices? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, they did. Senator ERVIN. They came into the committee offices, in the form of checks, did they not? Mr. SLOAN. Cashier's checks, both. Senator ERVIN,. Cashier's checks from the Mexico City Bank? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, Senator ERVIN. When did those funds reach the committee office? Mr. SLOAN. On the evening of April 5. Senator ERVIN. How did they get there? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Roy Winchester brought them to my office, that evening. Senator ERVIN, Who is Mr. Winchester? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Winchester, I believe, is the vice president of the Pennzoil Corp. Senator ERVIN. I wish you would look at these documents that are marked "Government Exhibit 112C," "Government Exhibit 112D," "Government Exhibit 112B," and "Government Exhibit 112A" and see if you can identify them. Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, I believe these tire. accurate copies of the checks I handled. Senator ERVIN. Let those be marked, numbered as exhibits and received as such. Senator ERVIN. Did Mr. Winchester bring any other cash along with those checks? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, he came in with a briefcase that, to the best of my recollection, in terms of checks, cash, including, these cashier's checks, totaled somewhere in the, neighborhood of $700,000. Senator ERVIN, Do you know, where. he carried that cash and those checks from? Mr. SLOAN. My understanding was that these were a result of fund-raising effort in the Southwest Senator ERVIN. In Texas? Mr. SLOAN. I know Texas, but whether it was just restricted to Texas, I am not sure. senator ERVIN. You do not know from your own knowledge, of course, whether they came from fund raising or whether they came from correspondence? Mr. SLOAN. As I recall, all the checks were individual checks. The cash funds--I might explain. 'There was a listing in the briefcase, the total amount which equaled the, total amount in the briefcase, Individual names were associated -with each of those items. Senator ERVIN. Were am- checks brought at that time in addition to these four Mexican checks? Mr. SLOAN. Oh, Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. I thought that the rest Was in cash Wits I mistaken in that? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. I think a large proportion of it Was in personal checks from contributors. Senator ERVIN. I would like to hand you a check that purports to be drawn on the First, Bank and Trust, Co. of Boca Raton, a cashier's check, to the order of Kenneth H. Dahlberg. I hand that to you and ask if you can identify that? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; that, appears to be accurate. Senator ERVIN. When did that check reach the office of the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. SLOAN. I did not know when Secretary Stans received it. I believe he turned it over to me sometime in the week following April 7. Senator ERVIN. This cheek was not dated, this cashier's check was not dated until April 10, 1972, 3 days after the new law went into effect. Mr. SLOAN. Secretary Stans in giving that, check to me, told me it, represented pre-April 7 funds. Senator ERVIN. The committee proceeded upon the advice of Mr. Liddy to the, effect that, if somebody promised them money before April 7, or they had agreed to make a disbursement before April 7, that that did not have to be reported--is that, so' Mr. SLOAN. I believe that, is correct, Senator. Senator ERVIN. NOW, what happened to these four Mexican checks? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, excuse me. In response to that other question, presumably Mr. Liddy gave his advice to Secretary Stans. He did not specifically give that advice to me. It, was represented that way to me by Secretary Stans. Senator ERVIN. In other words., Mr. Stans told you that Mr. Dahlberg's check had been received somewhere under some circumstances by somebody before April 7, and, therefore, even. though it had not reached the committee or any person authorized to receive funds on behalf of the committee, that it, was received before April 7? Mr. SLOAN, My understanding riders was that Mr. Kenneth Dahlberg, Who was an authorized representative of the committee, had received it from Mr. Dwayne Andreas. As to the exact circumstance of that arrangement I do not know, Senator ERVIN,. Were not the four -Mexican. checks and the Dahlberg check deposited in a bank in Miami, Fla. Mr. SLOAN. That is what I understood happened to them, Senator. It, -was certainly not Under my instructions. [00.52.16]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.52.16] Senator ERVIN. Call YOU explain to the committee why the cheeks were transmitted from Washington to Miami and deposited in a bank in Miami to the credit of Bernard L. Barker? Mr. SLOAN.! have no idea, Senator. Senator ERVIN. Would you not infer from those circumstances that somebody that had something to do with the checks did not want anybody to know about receiving the checks and wanted to hide them? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, my understanding when I received them was a judgment had been made that they were pre-April 7 contributions and, therefore, were not required to be reported. I did turn them over to Mr. Liddy to have them converted to cash. He handled them from there. Why he gave them to Mr. Barker, I have no idea. Senator ERVIN. Well, even though they did not, have to be reported, can you inform us why, instead of being put in the safe in the committee office, why they were sent, down to Florida? Mr. SLOAN. I do not know, why they went to Florida, Senator. The reason for the conversion of those checks to cash was to attempt to comply with the spirit, of the old law of distributing an individual's contribution in $3,000 increments among pre-April 7 committees. But as those bank accounts had been closed out, the only way to do this was by converting it to cash and counting that, cash as a transfer as cash on hand in the Media Committee To Re-Elect the President. It was reported in that figure--- Senator ERVIN. I am a little mystified. How could it comply with the old law with reference to the receipt of $3,000 or less in cash by having $114,000 deposited in the bank account, of Bernard L. Barker in Miami, Fla.? Mr. SLOAN, Senator, I do not know any circumstances surrounding the deposit of the checks in Mr. Barker's account. That was not my intent in turning those checks over to Mr. Liddy. Senator ERVIN. Who instructed you to turn them over to Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. I believe I took them to Mr. Liddy in response to the conversation of Secretary Stans. He asked me, do we have any problem in handling these? I told him I did not know; I would check with counsel. His recommended way of handling this was a diversion to cash. He offered at that time to handle that, transaction for me. It took him until mid-May to return those. funds to me in cash form, minus roughly $2,500 expenditure, [00.54.42--A VERY FUNNY PART HERE] Senator ERVIN. I hate to make comparisons, but I would have to say on that, Mr. Liddy in one respect, was like the Lord, he moves in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. [Laughter.] Now as a matter of fact, do you not know that some of the funds that were drawn out, that represented proceeds of these checks which were drawn out of the Miami bank on Mr. Barker, were found in the possession of some of the people who were caught in the ;burglary at the Watergate? Mr. SLOAN. I have since learned that,- yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. How long was it after the break-in before, you learned that? Mr. SLOAN. I believe not that specific reference, but the fact that these men had been found with $100 bills in their Possession came out Probably within 3 days of the first, week. I do not have a direct recollection of when that connection specifically was made to the bank account of Mr. Barker. Senator ERVIN. Well, during the trial, in January, it was brought out that the Miami bank in which Mr. Barker had deposited these funds had, pursuant to law, kept the serial number of $100 bills withdrawn by Barker and that the serial Nos. 043 $100 bills found in the possession of those who burglarized the Watergate bore those serial numbers? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And that came out very early in the newspaper, did it not? Mr. SLOAN. I do not think it took too long. It came out certainly within a, week or two. [00.56.18--more funny stuff] Senator ERVIN. NOW, I do not mean any of these questions to make any reflection on you, because your testimony and your forthrightness have renewed my faith in the old adage that an honest man is the noblest work of God and I am not in any of these expressions meaning to reflect on you in any respect. Senator BAKER. Nor on God? Senator ERVIN. No. Now, there was a good deal of consternation among the officers and employees of the Committee To Re-Elect the President when it was reported on the morning of June 17, 1972, that one of the employees of the committee, Mr. McCord, and four other people had been arrested in an act of burglary during the early morning hours of that, day, was there not? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. [00.57.18] Senator ERVIN. And that was the time that Mr. Liddy made his statement to you to the effect that "some of his boys had been caught in the Watergate" and he had "made a mistake" in letting one of "our people participate" in the matter? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; that is correct. Excuse me, Senator. He did not say, "My boys were caught last night in the Watergate." He just said, "My boys were caught," with no direct connection to Watergate. Senator ERVIN. You inferred what he was talking about? Mr. SLOAN. Not until after I read the newspapers, Senator. He made that comment to me before I knew of the break-in. [00.57.54]
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.02.00--in to Sen. ERVIN questioning Hugh SLOAN about the aftermath of the Watergate Break-in] Senator ERVIN. And you got to talk to Mr. Dwight Chapin, the President's appointments secretary? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you told him that you were very much concerned about what had happened? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Chapin suggested that you take a vacation? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, he did. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chapin didn't suggest that you talk to Mr. Haldeman? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. I made the assumption that if lie felt that I was that, overwrought with the information I had given him, presumably he would convey that to Mr. Haldeman. Senator ERVIN. Didn't you think it was time for some honest man to be overwrought? Mr. SLOAN. I was overwrought,, yes, sir, Senator ERVIN. Mr. Chapin tried to impress upon you that it was necessary to take a trip Mr. SLOAN. He made that comment yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. After that, you talked to Mr. John L. Ehrlichman, didn't you? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you tried to talk to him about it? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you told Mr. Ehrlichman that it was evident to you that somebody external to the campaign should look into this matter. Mr. SLOAN. I am not sure whether I precisely said that. Certainly, my purpose in being here, which I think 1 conveyed was that there is a tremendous problem over here that somebody needs to take a look at, yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. In other words, the idea you -were trying to impress upon Mr. Ehrlichman was that somebody in the White House or somebody outside of the Committee To Re-Elect the President should make an investigation of this matter? Mr. SLOAN. Whether I put it in quite those strong terms, I was trying to express a, concern that there was a major problem in my judgment at the campaign, yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Which ought to be investigated by somebody other than the members Of the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Ehrlichman told you that he didn't want to know anything about it. Mr. SLOAN. When I began to try to get specific as to details, probably in the area of money, I think he interpreted my concerns as being Personal concerns which I did have as well and suggested to me, that since I had worked at the White House, since I had a special relationship with the White House, if I had personal problems he would be, glad to arrange a lawyer for me or see that I had a, lawyer. With regard to his hearing any further information he stated that as far as he was concerned he didn't want; to know the details, that his position personally would he to take executive privilege on this matter until after the election. Senator ERVIN. So Mr. Ehrlichman at that time was what was known as the chief domestic adviser to the President, wasn't he? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, he was. Senator ERVIN. And so when you tried to tell the chief domestic. adviser to the President that there should be an investigation of this matter, the chief domestic adviser to the President said he didn't want to know anything about it, and if he did learn anything about it he was going to take executive privilege until after the election was over. Mr. SLOAN. Essentially, that is correct. I don't think I used the word "investigation"; I think it was more implied a problem one would assume he would want to look into. Senator ERVIN. Who did you see first on the visit to the White House which you say occurred on the 23d of June, Mr. Chapin or Mr. Ehrlichman? Mr. SLOAN. My best recollection is I probably saw Mr. Chapin around noon and Mr. Ehrlichman around 2 o'clock. [00.05.17] Senator ERVIN. NOW, was it the same day that Secretary Stans suggested to you that $81,000 which was still left in the safes at the committee should be divided and you should take half home and he would take custody of the other half? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, that is my best recollection. Senator ERVIN. Then, it was as the same day that you had a conversation with Mr. Robert Mardian. Mr. SLOAN. The next day, Senator. Senator ERVIN. That would be the 24th? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Mardian gave you the impression that he had succeeded Mr. LaRue as an investigator on behalf of the committee of these matters. Mr. SLOAN. He was clearly looking into it. Whether I had the direct impression from him or other sources it was clear in my mind he had this authority at that point to talk to and investigate the matter among other staff members. Senator ERVIN. At that time you and your wife had been planning to take a vacation to Bermuda.' Mr. SLOAN, Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And when Mr. 'Mardian asked you something about the financial transactions and about how much money Mr. Porter and Mr. Liddy got, you told him approximately. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Then he advised you to go on your vacation? Mr. SLOAN. I think when I told him, Senator, at that point I had just completed the summary report the day before, I think I gave him a very precise figure. I indicated to him a concern because of the investigations going on at that point, in time whether I should in fact go on a vacation under these circumstances He did not, give me an answer at that point in time. but called me, at, home later in the day. Senator ERVIN. Pursuant to this advice you did go to Bermuda. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And returned on July 4. Mr. SLOAN. The 3rd. [00.07.16]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.07.16] Senator ERVIN. Well, on July 4 Mr. LaRue obtained from you the $40,000 which you had taken from the committee safes and put in the trunk at, your home. Mr. SLOAN. That, is correct. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Stans gave the. $40,000 that he, had assumed custody of to Mr. LaRue, Mr. SLOAN. That, is what he indicated to Me when I checked on the propriety of having turned that money over to Mr. LaRue. [00.07.44] Senator ERVIN. That same day or same evening Mr. 'Magruder called you and asked you to come to the Black Horse Tavern. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Sir. Senator ERVIN. And you went, to the Black Horse Tavern and Mr. Magruder suggested to you that you and he go down and talk to the U.S. District Attorney Titus, Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Senator ERVIN. And he wanted you to tell Mr. Titus that, you had given only approximately $40,000 to Mr. Liddy. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. -Now, had you told Mr. Magruder ruder or did you tell him in this conversation that the amounts you had given to Mr. Liddy was $199,000 or thereabouts? Mr. SLOAN. I don't believe I did on that occasion. The next morning, I knew he. knew that that was not a correct figure, which he himself had authorized a figure in the magnitude of $83,000. Senator ERVIN. You told him you Would talk to him the next day about it. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. [00.08.40] Senator ERVIN, You did talk to him the next day and you told him if you went down to see District Attorney Titus dial, you wore going to make a disclosure of the truth in respect to the amounts you gave to Mr. Liddy. Mr. SLOAN, Yes, Sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Magruder pursued the subject no further. Mr. SLOAN. That is correct). Senator ERVIN. On the evening of July 6, you met with Mr. Kenneth Parkinson and Mr. Paul O'Brien, Counsel for the Committee To ]Re-Elect the President. Mr. SLOAN. That is correct. Senator ERVIN. And they suggested that, they were afraid you would be called before the grand jury very soon and it would be well for your health, and the committee's health, and somebody's health for you to take a trip to California. Mr. SLOAN-. Senator, I think I expressed the concern about the grand jury. I said I was trying to get information as to what I was Supposed to do. My personnel themselves had been subpenaed that same day and in response to my concerns, they had not talked to me prior to that that point. I reviewed the entire financial disbursements to these key individuals with them. They were shocked by that. They indicated they had been lied to and requested of myself to consider a trip to give them time to confront the officials which they indicated to me had lied to them and they did not identify the officials. Senator ERVIN. Then that night after you got I home you got a from Fred LaRue who urged you to go to California. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, that is right. As a matter of fact, he urged to leave the house that evening. Senator ERVIN. Did he give you any reason why he thought that you ought to go to California? Mr. SLOAN. I just do not recall, Senator. It certainly was in the context, I think, of the grand jury appearance that--- Senator ERVIN. Did anybody, did Mr. LaRue, or anybody else about that time tell you that it would be well for you to be out of town a few days so they could get some stories arranged or anything like that? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator ERVIN. No reason whatever was given for it being desirable for you going to California. Mr. SLOAN. The reason was they wished time to confront the officials at the committee. My information was new to them. They wanted to confront the committee officials who presumably had given them different information than I had. Senator ERVIN. Now, you did go to California for several days and when you came back I believe it was Friday, the 13th of July. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. [00.11.22] Senator ERVIN. That is an unlucky day, I have always heard. At that time Mr. Fred LaRue met you at the Watergate restaurant and advised you that you ought, to either commit perjury or take the fifth amendment if you went before the grand jury. Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; I don't think he advised me to commit perjury, I think the emphasis in that conversation was he was implying to me that I had campaign law problems and that I should very well consider the option of taking the fifth amendment. It was at that point that I told him of the decisions I had already made and I told him in saying I would not consider the fifth amendment. I would also not consider perjury, I had every intention of telling the truth as I knew it. Senator ERVIN. Had he made any suggestion to you at that time or prior to that time that you ought to minimize in your testimony before the grand jury the amount that you had given to Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. Not in relation to any particular proceedings but very early in the first week he had suggested to me that the, amount,, and I did not have a precise figure, but I knew the general magnitude, would be very politically sensitive and damaging and there was L need to come in with a lesser figure. Senator ERVIN. Anyway, you drew the inference that Mr. LaRue thought and expressed the thoughts at the meeting at the Watergate restaurant that the only alternatives open for you, as he saw it, was either to minimize the amount that you had given 'Mr. Liddy or to plead the fifth amendment? Mr. SLOAN. By the time of the Watergate meeting, the luncheon, I do not know if we were at that point, even talking the Liddy figure, any longer. I think he was talking about the fifth amendment, to deny, any information on this subject, period. [00.13.19]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973
[00.13.19] Senator ERVIN. And you told him you would not take the fifth amendment? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. I believe what I told him at, that, point, in time was I did not wish to consider it, as I understood it, but I would want to have private, separate counsel before I made that kind of decision, Senator ERVIN. Did LaRue in that same conversation suggest, to you that he thought that you ought to resign from the committee? Mr. SLOAN. NO sir; I told him that, is what, I thought I ought to do. Senator ERVIN. And so did he suggest to you that, you call Mr. Stans about that or did you tell him You were going to call "Mr. Stans, about that? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir-; he indicated to me, when we left, that he, would check with the political leadership, without, mentioning names, and he suggested I talk to Secretary Stans, that he would let me know what the political people thought, which he never did. Senator ERVIN. And you did call Mr. Stans, and Mr. Stans told you the next morning that you ought not to discuss this matter over the telephone but, to come up to the office and talk to him there. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, but, he asked me to stay home until after he talked to the investigators from the Federal Bureau and that, I should come in following that interview. Senator ERVIN. You remember what, day of the month that was? Mr, SLOAN. The 14th of July. I am not, sure what day of the week it was. Senator- ERVIN. You talked to the FBI. Had you talked to the FBI at that time? They asked you first, whether you knew Baldwin? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; that was the only subject matter they covered with me in the one interview I had with them prior to leaving. Senator ERVIN. After that you had a conversation, you talked to the U.S. district, attorney? Mr. SLOAN-. Mr. Silbert. Senator ERVIN. Was U.S. District Attorney Titus there? Mr. SLOAN. NO, sir, I believe [conferring with counsel] Mr. Titus came in at one point during the interview just to say hello. He did not sit in. Senator ERVIN. He did not stay? Mr. SLOAN-. NO, sir; he did not sit in. Senator ERVIN. This was on July 20, preceding the September in which bills of indictment were returned and preceding the January in which the trials of those bills of indictment Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Sir. Senator ERVIN. And on that occasion you told Mr. Silbert about having given Mr. Liddy $199,000 in cash? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir' Senator ERVIN. You told him about the efforts on the part of Mr. Magruder and perhaps others, I believe you said, the next day or a day later, to persuade you to commit perjury in case you went before the grand jury. Mr. SLOAN, Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you say you told him virtually everything that, You have told this committee today? Mr. SLOAN. I believe so, Senator, There may be some amplifying information that, has developed since then but to the, best of my recollection I related to them the essential facts I have to you here today. Senator ERVIN,. And that was after it, had been stated in the press that $4,300 in $100 bills which came from the campaign funds of the Committee To Re-Elect the President were found in the possession of the people who burglarized the Watergate? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. My attention has been called to the fact that this statement about the cash appeared in the Washington Post on June 24. Mr. SLOAN. it would have been after that. Senator ERVIN. After that you went before the grand jury? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. That -was on the day following your meeting with Mr. Silbert in which you told him virtually everything you have told this committee today? Mr. SLOAN. I saw Mr. Silbert on two occasions prior to the grand jury. My attorney saw him on one and I think I saw him a third time prior to appearing before the grand jury and testified before the grand jury on July 31. Senator ERVIN. Was there any lawyer there representing the prosecution at the time you testified before the grand Jury? Mr. SLOAN. I am not sure I understand the question. Senator ERVIN. Was there any lawyer present in the grand jury when you testified there? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Silbert and Mr. Campbell. Senator ERVIN. And did they ask you questions? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, they- did. Senator ERVIN. Did they ask you questions about the payment of the $199,000 to Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, they did. Senator ERVIN. Did they ask you questions, about the efforts, the advice that you had received from. Mr. Magruder and others to commit perjury? Mr. SLOAN. Yes; I would say roughly, Of an hour's time I spent before the grand jury, I would say half of that time roughly was devoted to the Magruder approach to me. Senator ERVIN. Then I later you testified in the trial of the case before Judge Sirica? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. Who had the primary charge of the case for the Government before Judge Sirica? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Silbert. Senator ERVIN. Did he question you? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, Senator ERVIN. Did he ask you any questions about your paying $199,000 to Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. And Mr. Liddy at that time was on trial? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. [00.19.07]
???? "Quest for Light"
Native - witch doctor - old man
Africa - 2 chiefs
Natives on loose