Advanced Search
Man through jungle
Jungle misc.
Jungle misc
Tropical - Carribean islands
Tropical scenic - nite/dusk - through palms to water
Empty tropical beach - night
Tropical scenes
Interior - Carribean Island - saloon
Police directing traffic
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.39.27] Senator WEICKER. In other -words.. when you went to see Mr. Haldeman In January, you already had been rehired? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, that is correct. Senator WEICKER. As a consultant to the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. SLOAN, Finance committee. The political committee, as I understood it had essentially been dissolved although that turned out not to be the case Senator WEICKER. Who rehired you as consultant or how did the rehiring as consultant to the finance committee come about? Mr. SLOAN. During the period after my resignation, I would guess two occasions, Secretary Stans sought me out seeking my return to the campaign. Senator WEICKER. That was at what time? Mr. SLOAN. I am not sure it would have been, I am just not, sure, Some point during this 5-month period following my resignation in July. Senator WEICKER. All right, Mr. SLOAN. I in no way wished to consider it. I turned him down. After 5 months with the election over, he asked me again. Essentially it Was in the terms of you have taken essentially a bum rap on this thing and I know it's been difficult for you, 5 months without gainful employment, I would like you to come back and help me wrap up the campaign. I consented because certain conditions which would have made it objectionable to me and why I would refuse an offer prior to that time were met. One, I did not feel if I had this kind of opportunity at this Particular point in time with no prejudice being attached to that association, that I in good conscience could go on and not provide for my family. The Conditions that no longer existed as far as I was concerned was that the campaign -was over, there was no liability or spinoff effect on the President's chance for reelection by having someone who had been named as someone involved in this affair air being associated with his campaign, the political leadership who were essentially the people that I had my argument with on the Committee for the, Re-Election of the President were no longer there, they had been essentially disbanded either by resignation or by employment in the private sector or had gone over to the Inaugural Committee. Also none of the assignments I would have, it was understood, would have anything to do-in the capacity of an official, it would be purely a personal working relationship with Maury Stans, assist him in preparing to cope with some of the civil litigation that would be forthcoming, Senator WEICKER. So your employment as a consultant was strictly as a result of Mr. Stans' request? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir, in my considered judgment. Senator WEICKER. In your judgment? Mr. SLOAN. At that time I think it should be clear I had already made my testimony to the grand jury although the criminal trial had, not come up, but one of the important considerations I took into account in accepting such a, position would be that there could be no possible misunderstanding in terms of that having any effect on any subsequent testimony I would give. Senator WEICKER, And no other individual was involved insofar as that rehiring was concerned, it was begun by Mr. Stans, or were other persons consulted? Mr. SLOAN. It is possible that Mr. Kalmbach may have been involved in the decision. Senator WEICKER, Why do you say that? Mr. SLOAN. Mr. Kalmbach had attempted to be helpful to me during this period in seeking private employment. He, had indicated on a number of occasions he thought I made a mistake in resigning in the first place. He was in frequent contact, with Secretary Stans I suspect they had conversations to the effect that my personal situation was a result of what had happened, Additionally, I would say part of the considered judgment to rejoin the finance committee is that I did not and do not believe that Secretary Stans in any way was involved in the original criminal activities. I thought he was left essentially holding the bag and I wanted to be helpful to him in that regard. Senator WEICKER. Right. It is true, however, that during the summer months and the fall months that you did feel rather put upon, maybe that is not the right word, maybe you have a better word for it, insofar as those: individuals that were in charge of the campaign. You feel you were being treated in a shabby fashion by them. Mr. SLOAN. I would have to say after I made my decision with the exception of a few of the phone calls we have referred to here, that it was pretty much a hands-off situation, I just did not see any of the people. Senator WEICKER, You were not one of the favorite at all? Mr. SLOAN. I think that would be fairly accurate, yes sir. Senator WEICKER. But what caused you to change your mind, then, and at the end of January, having been treated in that fashion, go and ask for an appointment, with Mr. Haldeman? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, essentially, one, I did not believe the White House had any involvement by the known fact at that point. I also did not believe the finance committee had any involvement. I disagreed with Secretary Stans and we had some discussions early on of this affair, along the lines that the finance committee, because of the very obvious potential for misunderstanding in terms of financial transactions that presumably had -one to these individuals, that the finance committee early on should have made a separate statement and attempted to separate itself away from the. political committee in terms of its own conduct, SO that the financial transactions could be judged purely in terms of what they were. I had no knowledge that Secretary Stans knew what these funds were for. As far as I know? he accepted authorization of others as well. These two areas, in my opinion, were unconnected. I think there had been an error in judgment in not addressing the political problem and forcing resolution There. [00.46.08]
Man in Car
CI man through car window, starts car and releases parking brake
Man Getting into Car
CU insert shot -- man slides into front seat of car (several takes)
CU Of Car Engine In Car
Close up Of Car Engine in car
Woman's hand getting change through car window
Woman's hand getting change through car window
Imprints Of Car Tyre Tracks
Car's tire makes track in wet sand or soft dirt
One Way and Do Not Enter Signs
Street sign insert: "One Way" and "Do Not Enter" against blue sky (transferred upside down, but reads correctly)
CU Of Car Tyre- Flat Getting Filled With Air
car tire insert - flat getting filled with air
Old Cars- 1947 License Plates
1947 license plates in CU: PA, WI, OK, PA, IL, OH, IN, MN, KS, FL, SD, WA, NY, MN
Lamp post
View of top half of lampost next to building with awning
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.46.08] Senator WEICKER. I can understand that, but, I just want to get back to the point, I am trying to develop, that at, the time of your troubles, there, were those who stood with you and those who stood apart from you? Mr. SLOAN. And there were quite a few in the middle,. Senator WEICKER. All right. Mr. SLOAN. And I think, Senator, this may help answer your question. It was very difficult in each and every individual case to determine where those individuals stood, because people just were -not, talking to each other about, the pertinent issues at, this point. Senator WEICKER. But, you did know that you were one of the few people, that were insisting on telling the truth and you would not deviate from that; is that not correct? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, Sir; but at that point in time, all the forums that were potentially on the horizon for doing that had disappeared. I had done what, I thought was right. No resolution of the matter had been raised on the basis of what had said, because. basically, I had very limited knowledge, only of the fact that from a factual basis, all I could ever say was that I gave certain individuals certain money. In the case of Mr. Magruder, it was a ease of, yes, I knew I had been approached to do that, but in case of testimony, here he gives a Contrary testimony, I can full well, certainly in that period of time, fully understand the he prosecutor's position, unless they had additional Information, which I had no way of knowing, where he Simply could not proceed with that, where they had one man's word against another's, I felt there was nothing I could do, nothing more was going to come out, it, was all over, I had essentially lost. Senator WEICKER. Why did you try to have lunch with Mr. Chapin? Mr. SLOAN. You are not talking about the earlier meeting, you are, talking about the luncheon when I called him when he had gone to United Airlines? Senator WEICKER. Right. Mr. SLOAN. I think it was essentially, sir, the same kind of situation that it was with Bob Haldeman. Here was a man I had worked with for 2 1/2 years. I had not seen anything of him since the one time I had seen him in that whole period of time. I was about to leave town, he was about to leave town. I had seen a number of people at the White House over this intervening period. I think it was purely social. Senator WEICKER. Was there any concern in your mind that there were those in this picture who seemed to be ending up with rather good jobs, both within and without Government, while you seemed to have been left standing by yourself? Mr. SLOAN. Well, in going back to the Haldeman meeting and his very definitive definition to me of administration policy with regard to individuals who would not be appointed to positions in Government--now I do not know whether he meant positions that actually required Presidential confirmation--or Senate confirmation, excuse me--but I think it was only a few days after that, after that meeting with Bob Haldeman, which I felt very good about, because he had indicated to me, you know, I realize some mistakes were made, there is nothing being held against you, good luck in the private sector. But within, I think, a very short period of time after that, Mr. Magruder's appointment to the Commerce Department was announced and at that point, I just threw up my hands. In answer to your question, yes, sir; it was obvious to me that not only did they not address the problem of people, I think they had, fairly strong indications were involved--I perhaps can understand the intent to postpone it until after the political election, but there was certainly no attempt, even at that point, to take these people out of the picture. Senator WEICKER. In other words, that possibly, integrity is a disability in this matter? Mr. SLOAN. The way it is ultimately believed to be resolved, I would not think that it is a liability. I think it takes a long time. Senator WEICKER, Let me get back, if I could, to the meeting with Mr. Haldeman. You indicated there was some talk about the Segretti matter and he explained that this would turn out all right. Mr. SLOAN, Yes, sir; he said when this received the full light of day--I am not sure of his precise word-, or paraphrasing--that it would be understandable to the American people. Senator WEICKER. Now, what else was discussed; 45 minutes is a considerable period of time. The Strachan payments, which you Surmised went to Mr. Haldeman, was this a matter of discussion during that session? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir, no subject matter with regard to the finance campaign activities came up at all. It was not my purpose to be there to discuss any of that matter. Senator WEICKER. In other words, neither the payments to Liddy not to Strachan. none of these matters were discussed at all during that 45 minutes? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Only that discussion was re really a minor--not on those Matters, on really very broad matters that I referred to a Minute ago, in explaining that the team had left, me, in that, type Of context. I mentioned that I had been approached to perjure myself and take the fifth amendment, but I did not feel it was appropriate to make specific allegations as to individuals. I felt that that had already been addressed in the judicial processes and the point was, moot. [00.52.00]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.52.00] Senator WEICKER. Did you feel that the basic, purpose of the meeting then, was that you would need the support of the administration in finding employment in the future? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; I think I was looking at it more, from the other side of the coin, that I wanted to be sure that there would not be active efforts to inhibit my own efforts. Senator WEICKER. The fear of---- Mr. SLOAN. Retribution. Senator WEICKER. [continuing]. Of retribution. Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator WEICKER. One last question, Mr. Sloan. You have, been very patient and very responsive also. How were the payments to Mr. Liddy made? In what form? You indicated, for example, in Mr. Strachan's Case that it was Put in a suitcase What was the nature and form Of payment to Mr. Liddy? Mr. SLOAN. In View Of the fact that he was physically located in the same suite of offices I was, he would generally just tell me he needed x number of dollars and generally, I would go get it and put it in a manila envelope, something of that sort. I think on one. occasion I was going to be out of town at a time he needed to pick up certain funds. I think on that occasion, he had his secretary, Sally Harmony come in and get the envelope. Senator WEICKER. You say that Sally Harmony picked up the Money from you? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; on one occasion, I believe that was correct. Senator WEICKER. On one occasion? Mr. SLOAN. In an envelope. She--and I had forgotten this, but other testimony has brought it to mind. I think the circumstances were that he must have been out of town and called me and said, I need whatever the amount was; the only time I could pick it, up is I am coming in on Sunday or something. He said, what I will do is I will tell Sally to come into your office with an envelope and you take care of the matter and I do not want her to know what it is and she will put, it in my--he had a locked file drawer cabinet, in his, office--and she knows the combination, she will put, it in there. Senator WEICKER. So you turned over in envelope to her? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; she did not see it. Senator WEICKER. She did not see the money but you gave her the envelope? Mr. SLOAN-. Yes. Senator WEICKER. She understood there was money in the envelope? Mr. SLOAN. No, No, sir; she did not. Senator WEICKER. She did not? Mr. SLOAN. I recall it, and I am not positive, Mr. Liddy stressed the fact that he did not want her to know that this was money. Senator WEICKER. Fine. One last question in relation to, again, the Haldeman meeting. Was there any discussion at all at that meeting of Magruder's perjury suggestion? Mr. SLOAN. I did not mention it by name, but in relating to why I had left--I was trying to give him an accounting of why I had made the. personal decisions I had. I said I have been asked to perjure myself on numerous occasions and in my judgment, there was pressure to take the fifth amendment, and I said, Bob, I am just not prepared to do that. Senator WEICKER. What was his response? Mr. SLOAN. I am not positive. I think I would be Putting words in his mouth, but I think it was to the effect that, well, I realize there were mistakes made in the early period. Senator WEICKER, I have no further questions, [00.55.25--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL gives the gist of SLOAN's testimony, that he did not believe the White House was involved in a COVERUP, but placing MAGRUDER at the center Solicits viewer response to coverage, citing 70,000+ letters, 99% approving [shot of mailbag, MacNEILL V.O. reads letters, titles show excerpts from the letters] MacNEILL urges viewers to give feedback to local PBS stations, along with donations [PBS network ID--title screen 'SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES'--back to MacNEILL] [00.59.58--Mac NEILL introduces next questions from Sen. MONTOYA.] [01.00.07--committee room]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.51.55] Mr. DASH. Mr. Sloan, I just have two questions. You may have misunderstood Senator Montoya's question to you concerning any efforts by anybody other than Magruder to have you testify differently than you believed was the truth. You did say in answer to Senator Montoya that with regard to Mr. LaRue's conversations with you, that you believed he may have had an honest belief that there was a difference of opinion as to the amount. Let me just refer you to your testimony yesterday in response to a question put by me to you concerning a conversation you had with Mr. LaRue after you had had your interview with the FBI, and let, file read your testimony on page 1248 and 1249 of the transcript. You just went back from your interview with the, FBI and you stated: [quoting] I believe -Mr. LaRue came down to my office following that interview, essentially to find out what I said and what matters came up. At that point he indicated to me, and I do not have the precise words, the sense of the meaning as it came across to me, there was very brief reference something to the effect that the Liddy money is the problem. It is very politically sensitive. We can just not come out with a high figure, we are going to have to come out with a different figure. And I said, as I recall, I said if there is a problem I cannot see it makes any difference whether it is $200 or $200,000, at which point he dropped the conversation. [end quoted section] Mr. DASH. Is that a correct statement? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. I guess it is a question of degree, that in the case of Mr. Magruder it was a very hard sell blatant kind of approach. In the case of Mr. LaRue, very low key and he banked off it Very fast, but that is a correct statement, to the best of my knowledge, in the sense of that meeting. Mr. DASH. Mr. Sloan, also in the early part of your testimony YOU did mention the name Francis Raine as a, person who was a cosigner, I understand, of one, of the cash safe deposit boxes. Do you have of your own knowledge, any information as to whether Mr. Raine is related to Mr. Haldeman? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; I do not believe I knew it at the time. I have since been told he, is a relative. I am not, sure by whom. I understand it is a brother-in- law relation. Mr. DASH, I have no further questions of Mr. Sloan, but I think for the record, the Dahlberg check which was dated April 10, 1972, drawn on the First Bank & Trust Co. of Boca Raton in the amount of $25,000, which had already been identified by you, Mr. Sloan, but, it has never been marked as an exhibit I, and I would like to have it given to the reporter to mark as -in exhibit and introduced into evidence. I have no further questions. Senator ERVIN. The reporter will number the check or copy of the check, give the appropriate number and be received as an exhibit. [The check referred to was marked exhibit -No. 25.*] Senator ERVIN. Mr. Sloan, I want to thank you on behalf of the committee for your appearance here,. I want to thank you for the, intellectual integrity which you have displayed throughout your examination and for the very forthright manner in which you have testified. Mr.. SLOAN-. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. You are excused now, subject to be recalled if the committee later finds it necessary to do so. Thank you very much. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock, [00.55.55--members, reporters, spectators stand to leave--00.55.59--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that after almost 7 hours, SLOAN'S testimony has ended, and the next witness will be a man to whom SLOAN gave large sums of cash, Herbert PORTER [PBS Network ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.58.39-LEHRER in studio] LEHRER introduces questioning of PORTER by associate counsel David DORSEN [00.58.49--to ERVIN gavelling meeting to order] [00.58.52]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[01.00.07--committee room] Senator ERVIN. Senator Montoya. Senator MONTOYA. Mr.. Sloan, I believe you testified yesterday that in arriving at the figures represented by this chart with respect to reimbursement of different individuals, that you had gone to these, individuals personally and reconciled the memories, and both you and the individuals had arrived at this figure as a reconciliation, Is that Correct? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Probably not in every individual case-for instance, Mr. Nofziger, where there was only a single or just a double distribution and the person is not available. This would generally relate to, for instance, the Porter, the Liddy, Magruder, Kalmbach situations, where there were multiple distributions, where over a period of time, some discrepancies could happen. Senator MONTOYA. Now, I ask you, was the figure of $250,000 to Mr. Kalmbach reconciled with him? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, these figures here are to the best of my recollection. I realize they are not precise. There could be dollars and cents off. Senator MONTOYA. Could there be any material deviation or variation? Mr. SLOAN. Oh, no, sir; in terms of what the precise figure was, We, did agree in every case. There was no discrepancy with any individual I talked to. Senator MONTOYA. Could your figures with Mr. Porter differ in an amount close to $50,000? Would that be possible? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, again, after a year, it is possible. This is my best recollection of what the figure was. The Liddy matter, I think, for instance, I am far surer on that figure than Mr. Porter's because Mr. Liddy was the issue at the time. Senator MONTOYA. To the best of your recollection and after reconciliation with Mr. Porter, do you still state that you disbursed to him the sum of $100,000? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, that is my best recollection. If he has a different recollection, I would not--you know, I would not stand on the hard figure of $100,000. That is the best approximation of what I recall I gave. Senator MONTOYA. Were you familiar with the activities of Mr. Porter? Mr. SLOAN. In terms of what he did with his money? Senator MONTOYA. Yes. Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Are you now? Mr. SLOAN. I have read some stories in the press, yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. What. information call you give this committee from those reports and from what, you have gathered since you left the committee? Mr. SLOAN. I believe it came out at the criminal trial, that of the funds I had given to Mr. Porter, he evidently, in turn, had turned over $35,000 of those funds to Mr. Liddy, which produced the aggregate figure that was used in the trial, the funds that were made available to Mr. Liddy. Senator MONTOYA. Did you also ascertain that some of this money was used for the "dirty tricks" part, of the campaign? Mr. SLOAN. There was a story about a student named Mr. Brill. There is a, convoluted chain of custody here I believe, from Mr. Porter to Mr. Rees to 'Mr. Gordon to Mr. Brill for--I am not sure "spying" is the right word, but whatever those activities were. Senator MONTOYA. Are you aware, of any other extended activities besides those two instances in this particular category? Mr. SLOAN. I think those are, the only two that I am aware of, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. You stated that a report on finances was given to Mr. Stans on one or two occasions, did you not? Mr. SLOAN. In terms of these cash funds, yes, sir; there were two or three reports in that, period from February 15, when he came on board, until my final report which I gave on June 23. Senator MONTOYA. And did you not, state the purpose of those disbursement disbursements as told by those individuals, if they told you? Mr. SLOAN. I have never been told directly by any of these individuals, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. I believe You questioned some disbursements to Mr. Porter and Mr. Liddy at one time and took this matter up with Mr. Stans; did you not? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; I did. Senator -MONTOYA. And you also took this matter up with Mr. Magruder, is that correct? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. And Mr. Magruder told you in turn that you were not, to question the request at, all, but to make the disbursements as they were requested of you, is that correct? [01.04.35--TAPE OUT]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.02.00--in to Sen. MONTOYA questioning former CRP Treasurer HUGH SLOAN about campaign expenditures given to Gordon LIDDY] Senator MONTOYA. Could your figures with Mr. Porter differ in an amount close to $50,000? Would that be possible? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, again, after a year, it is possible. This is my best recollection of what the figure was. The Liddy matter, I think, for instance, I am far surer on that figure than Mr. Porter's because Mr. Liddy was the issue at the time. Senator MONTOYA. To the best of your recollection and after reconciliation with Mr. Porter, do you still state that you disbursed to him the sum of $100,000? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, that is my best recollection. If he has a different recollection, I would not--you know, I would not stand on the hard figure of $100,000. That is the best approximation of what I recall I gave. Senator MONTOYA. Were you familiar with the activities of Mr. Porter? Mr. SLOAN. In terms of what he did with his money? Senator MONTOYA. Yes. Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Are you now? Mr. SLOAN. I have read some stories in the press, yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. What. information call you give this committee from those reports and from what, you have gathered since you left the committee? Mr. SLOAN. I believe it came out at the criminal trial, that of the funds I had given to Mr. Porter, he evidently, in turn, had turned over $35,000 of those funds to Mr. Liddy, which produced the aggregate figure that was used in the trial, the funds that were made available to Mr. Liddy. Senator MONTOYA. Did you also ascertain that some of this money was used for the "dirty tricks" part, of the campaign? Mr. SLOAN. There was a story about a student named Mr. Brill. There is a, convoluted chain of custody here I believe, from Mr. Porter to Mr. Rees to 'Mr. Gordon to Mr. Brill for--I am not sure "spying" is the right word, but whatever those activities were. Senator MONTOYA. Are you aware, of any other extended activities besides those two instances in this particular category? Mr. SLOAN. I think those are, the only two that I am aware of, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. You stated that a report on finances was given to Mr. Stans on one or two occasions, did you not? Mr. SLOAN. In terms of these cash funds, yes, sir; there were two or three reports in that, period from February 15, when he came on board, until my final report which I gave on June 23. Senator MONTOYA. And did you not, state the purpose of those disbursement disbursements as told by those individuals, if they told you? Mr. SLOAN. I have never been told directly by any of these individuals, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. I believe You questioned some disbursements to Mr. Porter and Mr. Liddy at one time and took this matter up with Mr. Stans; did you not? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir; I did. Senator -MONTOYA. And you also took this matter up with Mr. Magruder, is that correct? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. And Mr. Magruder told you in turn that you were not, to question the request at, all, but to make the disbursements as they were requested of you, is that correct? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA, And did you file or prepare any internal reports as to what you were doing with this money? Mr. SLOAN. Just these reports I gave Secretary Stans. They were the only reports and he was, the only recipient of those reports. Senator MONTOYA. Did you provide any copy of any reports to the White House? No, sir--oh, excuse me, not of these cash funds, no Mr. SLOAN. NO, sir; not to my knowledge, Senator MONTOYA. Well any other reports? Mr. SLOAN. As I understand it, and I think this happened after I left in terms of the aggregate report of all contributors, we put, together a reconciliation of the pre-April 7 period by category; for instance all contributors who gave above $200 000 might be category 1, above $100,000 category 2, and so forth'. Senator MONTOYA. Would you further categorize category 1 and category 2? What particular information did you really specify by way of more definition? Mr. SLOAN. Well, these reports merely list the name of the person, the address, and the total amount, I mean the aggregate figure of what they had given in multiple--it would include all cash, currency, and securities. Senator MONTOYA. Do I understand you to say these reports reflected the disbursement prior to April 7 to Mr. Liddy, Mr. Porter, and to the others? Mr. SLOAN. NO, sir; excuse me, Senator, these are contributors, reports, not disbursements reports. I misunderstood you. I apologize. The report I am referring to is a listing of all contributors without the dollar amount by category, I believe was made available to the White House. Disbursements, I do not believe any reports were given to the White House. Senator MONTOYA. Who received a report on the disbursements besides Mr. Stans? [00.06.49--shot of SLOAN'S WIFE listening to testimony, appearing concerned] Mr. SLOAN. As far as in terms of the cash funds he is the only individual I ever gave that report to. Senator MONTOYA. You never gave any of these reports to Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Magruder Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Do you know whether or not Mr. Stans gave them? Mr. SLOAN. I do not of my personal knowledge. Senator MONTOYA. Did you ever talk to Mr. Magruder, Mr. Mitchell or to anyone else, other than Mr. Stans, and verbally tell them how you were disbursing this cash? Mr. SLOAN. Well, there were, as the authority for this distribution of funds evolved, there were obviously conversations with these individuals. Certainly Mr. Magruder had a working knowledge of who was receiving a number of these distributions. For instance, he was responsible for the one he received, the Liddy one, the Porter one, probably did not know about the one to Mr. Strachan, Mr. Kalmbach separate. I would say those are the ones he was familiar with. [00.07.44]