Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.02.00--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that PORTER will come in for some praise by the end of his testimony, including some of Senator ERVIN'S now-famous Shakespearean quotations [00.02.16--committee room] Senator ERVIN. Senator Montoya. Senator MONTOYA. Mr. Porter, I believe at One Stage in your testimony, you stated that you had been instructed by Mr. LaRue, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Parkinson, and Mr. O'Brien not to mention Mr. Reisner in your testimony. Mr., PORTER. Yes, sir. I think, again, I am not sure that. I stated it exactly that way. I think what stated was that Mr. Magruder specifically asked me not to bring up Mr. Reisner's name to the FBI or to the grand jury. Mr. Parkinson-- Senator MONTOYA. Did you ask him for any reasons why? Mr. PORTER. I believe I asked Mr. Magruder why, and he said, well, he said, Bob's not involved in any of this. He is a, young guy, why don't you leave him? You know, it does not do any good to drag his name into it--words to that effect. Those are the same words I think Mr. Parkinson used--oh, he is a young fellow, he does not have to be dragged into this. If you do not have to mention his name, do not, mention it.' Senator MONTOYA. Did you know at any time that he might,, could be involved? Mr. PORTER. No, sir; I did not. Senator MONTOYA. What was Mr. Reisner's capacity or position in the CRP at that time? Mr. PORTER, Mr. Reisner was Mr. Magruder's administrative assistant, Senator MONTOYA. And pursuant to your conversation with Mr. Parkinson and the other people, _you did appear before the FBI, or you were interviewed by the FBI, you did appear before the grand jury, and you did appear before the U.S. attorney, did you not? Mr. PORTER, I did appear before the FBI--they did interview me. I did appear before the grand jury on one occasion, and I did appear at the trial of Mr. Liddy and Mr. McCord. Senator MONTOYA. And the testimony which you have used at all three places was with respect to the disbursement of approximately $100,000? Mr. PORTER. No, sir, that is not correct. Senator MONTOYA. What was your testimony? Mr. PORTER. My testimony was that I gave Mr. Liddy approximately $35,000--$30,000 to $35,000 which is correct. What, I stated was to, Mr. Magruder had asked' me in December how much a program of infiltrating radical organizations would cost, and I told him that it, might cost $100,000. Mr. Magruder, I understand, used that, that conversation, as a basis to then say that, he had authorized Mr. Liddy $100,000 for the infiltration of radical groups so that he would not have to say that he gave, authorized $100,000 to Mr. Liddy for dirty tricks. Senator MONTOYA. Well, there was a--- Mr. PORTER. I never-excuse me. Senator MONTOYA. There was a dialog between you and Magruder with respect to figures about which you would testify before the grand jury-namely, $100,000 or $80,000, was there not. Mr. PORTER. No, Senator, I think what you are referring to is that the $100,000 figure that I testified to was a hypothetical figure. I never testified---- Senator MONTOYA. I understand that, Mr. Porter. You mentioned this in a, conversation with Mr. Magruder, indicating to him that it could justify the expenditure of $100,000 by hiring 10 students. Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. But, What figure did you testify to before the, grand jury and at the trial? Mr. PORTER. Which figure are you referring to, Senator Montoya? You mean the money I gave to Mr. Liddy or the money--- Senator MONTOYA. That is Correct;. Mr. PORTER. I testified to the FBI and to the grand jury and to the trial that, I gave Mr. Liddy a total, pre-April 7, of approximately $35,000. Senator MONTOYA. Where does the $100,000 enter into it other than, as you have mentioned with respect to the. illustrative case that, you have referred to? Mr. PORTER. It did not. Senator MONTOYA. All right. Now, when you went to Mr. Parkinson's office, did he at any time indicate to you that Mr. Magruder was going to contend that there had been a delivery of $100,000 to Mr. Liddy? Mr. PORTER. NO, sir. Senator MONTOYA. Now, did you at any time visit Mr. Silbert? Mr. PORTER. I have visited Mr. Silbert recently sir. Senator MONTOYA. Did you during those days when you were conversations with Mr. Magruder about a possible appearance that he might, make at, Mr. Silbert', office--did you at that time visit Mr. Silbert? Mr. PORTER. No, I did not,, Sir. [00.07.27]
Operation Desert Shield: interviews
01:38:32 -- Interview with Brigadier General Patrick P. Caruana, commander of strategic forces and the 17th AD (air division?) of the Strategic Air Command. 01:40:53 -- Interview with Lieutenant General Charles A. Horner, commander of the U.S. Central Air Force. 01:50:34 -- Interview with Colonel John M. McEvoy, commander of the 1st Tactical Fighter Wing.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.07.27] Senator MONTOYA. Did you ask Mr. Magruder or Mr. LaRue for a Government job during your discussions with him about your grand jury testimony? Mr. PORTER. To answer that question specifically, I would have to answer no, but there is some yes in it and if I could perhaps explain that. In January of this year, when we were getting through with the President's inauguration, obviously the thoughts turned to future employment and I got Mr.-- Mr. Magruder told me that I believe it was Mr. Malek at the White House Could be, could possibly be an obstruction to my getting a good job with the Government, and I asked Mr. Magruder what he thought I should do about it,. He said "Well, I think Mr. Mitchell could probably help you a little bit, 'You know, he's still got some clout there." So I said, "What is the, best way to do that? Should I call him directly or what?" He said, "No, why don't you talk to Fred LaRue?" So I believe I went over and talked to Mr. LaRue, and the conversation went something like my saying "Fred, you know this problem that, I have with Mr. Malek." I said "'I have been a pretty loyal guy." And he said, I know that." And I said, "Now, I do not want to be treated any better than anybody else but I sure as heck don't want to be treated any worse than anybody else, I either. Do you think Mr. Mitchell could. perhaps make a Call and unloose the log jam a little bit"' He said, "Yes, I will call him." And I understand that he did. That was the extent of that conversation. Senator MONTOYA. Why were you concerned about Mr. Malek obstructing any move that you might, make? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Malek was in charge of handing out Government jobs, Senator, and that didn't sound too good when he heard that he perhaps could be an obstruction to my getting one and I wanted to see what I can do. Senator MONTOYA. What reason did you have to believe that? Mr. PORTER. I believe, strictly personal, Senator. I was between Mr. Malek and me. Senator MONTOYA. Was it, your understanding around the CRP on important decisions, that Mr. Haldeman should be informed? Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA, And what sphere of decisions would you say covered any communications between the CRP and Mr. Haldeman at the White House? Mr. PORTER. Senator, I can only--I would have to Confine My answer to my area of involvement in the surrogate scheduling program, but everything that I did, all reports, all plans, all schedules, all States, key States, times et cetera were all sent to Mr. Haldeman. Senator MONTOYA. Did that include disbursements? Mr. PORTER. Sir, I am not aware of that. I was never asked to give Mr. Haldeman or anybody like that, any--- Senator MONTOYA. Well, would you say definitely that it did not include disbursement? Mr. PORTER. I would say that to my knowledge, it did not include any disbursements that I made but that is as far as I could go. Senator MONTOYA. You mentioned that for every disbursement that you made you had received a receipt? Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. Senator MONTOYA. From the recipient? Mr. PORTER, Yes, sir, Senator MONTOYA. How long did you keep those receipts? Mr. PORTER. The initial receipts from the pre-April 7 money I kept until the end of March, I believe when Mr. Sloan asked me to balance with him. I did. The figure was approximately $52,000. I had balanced, I had no reason to keep the receipts any longer-excuse me, and so I throw them away. I had additional receipts that were in my possession until after the Watergate break-in and I would say approximately a week or 10 days after the break-in I believe it Was Mr. LaRue who came by my office and said, "You know, if You have anything that might be politically sensitive or whatever," again using the immediate discovery story of the Democrats civil suit, you know, "Why don't you just throw it away." So I went through a few things and I didn't think I had anything politically sensitive but in that same process I did ask Mr. Reisner to come in again and we did balance, and Mr. Reisner was made aware of the money and the cash on hand and the amount of money received from Mr. Sloan, et cetera, and those receipts, they were thrown away. [00.12.39]
Junior Welterweight Championship Match
"Former U.S. Marine Paul Fuji takes the World's Junior Welterweight title from Champion Sandro Lopopolo of Italy in a bout in Tokyo. He's the first Japanese-American to hold a world crown. TLS/MSs - Brutal, aggressive, totally unscientific boxing match between PAUL FUJI (Paul Takeshi Fuji, dark trunks, white stripe) and Junior Welterweight champion SANDRO LOPOPOLO (dark trunks, no stripe). TLS/MSs - Japanese crowd standing, watching bout. Panning MS- vicious, unrelenting Paul Fuji hitting Sandro Lopopolo with a right jab, Sandro staggering backward into corner, Fuji stalking him, the referee pulling him away; Sandro stands, ref picks up count (more or less a standing eight count); ref call for fight to continue, Fuji storming into frame, nailing Lopopolo with a series of hard combinations, battering him against the ropes; Lopopolo's corner man calls its quits just as the ref calls the match, trying desperately to pull Fuji away; Fuji's corner men celebrate in ring, lifting their victorious fighter.
Death of a Newspaper
"The merged N.Y. World-Journal Tribune dies after only eight months. Mounting losses and union harassment is blamed by management. Union leaders blame faculty management and bickering among co-owners. A Congressional investigation has been requested. Tilting TLS - Fa ade & main entrance of New York World-Journal Tribune printing facility. TLS -Slow-moving printing press. MS - Elderly male employee holding edition of World Journal Tribune with headline, "Atlanta Faces New Riots." Side view CU - Man shooting with small Beaulieu film camera. CU -Edition of World-Journal Tribune. Panning TLS - Stilled printing presses in deserted printing facility. Panning MS - Empty typesetting stations. TLS - Fleet of newspaper delivery trucks parked at docks.
Korean Presidential Election
"President Park Chung-He of South Korea wins reelection by a million-vote landslide. He supports the fight in South Vietnam with 45,000 troops. Ten million voters cast ballots. TLS - Large crowd gathered outside polling place. MS - Grim-faced Korean men standing in line outside polling station, one man holding the hand of his young daughter. MS -Several men in business suits assisting an elderly woman along path. CU - Elderly man with shorn hair, long white beard, standing in line between two young men in suits. Wide MS - Young Korean woman wearing black skirt & white top entering voting booth. MS - Middle-aged woman placing ballot in ballot box. MS - Young woman placing vote in ballot box. MSs - President of South Korea PARK CHUNG-HEE (Park Chunghee, Park Chung Hee, Park Jung Hee) and his wife YOOK YONG SOO entering voting booths, later placing votes in ballot boxes. MS - Battery of Korean press photographers with cameras (no flashbulbs). MS - President Park Chung-Hee and Lady Yook Yong Soo walking from voting place.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.12.39] Senator MONTOYA. Who did you ;how these receipts to before you destroyed them? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Reisner. Senator MONTOYA. Did you show these receipts to Mr. Magruder? Mr. PORTER. I don't, believe so. It is my understanding that, -Mr. Reisner relayed the information to Mr. Magruder, that is what he told me. Senator -MONTOYA. What was so sensitive with respect, to Watergate that, in your own discretion you destroyed them? Mr. PORTER. No, sir, I never said it was any relation to Watergate at, all, and I don't put anything in the category that I relate to you involving any of the payments that I made after April 7 to Watergate. Senator MONTOYA. just mention or suite, to me what sensitivity you find In those receipts that warranted their destruction. Mr. PORTER [conferring with counsel]. Yes, sir; as I say Mr. LaRue had come to in my office and had asked me to throw away anything that, could be in the category of being politically sensitive. -I would imagine I put in that category payments to Mr. Odle during the mining of the Haiphong Harbor and payment to Mr. Joanou which I later learned was for an ad in the -New York Times and I felt those were politically sensitive enough that I should not keep them. Senator MONTOYA. What others? Mr. PORTER. Well, sir, if I were going to throw away two or three I just took them all, again I had balanced with Mr. Reisner and had no need to keep them. It was strictly--- Senator MONTOYA. You must be able to recall other instances in the sensitivity which you placed on those receipts? Mr. PORTER. No, sir, I do not. As I have stated, I had balanced with Mr. Reisner I did not have tall accounting function at the committee. I had--the receipts were strictly internal documents. They were not meant for any public viewing at all and they were strictly internal and I had satisfied the internal requirement and I destroyed them. I throw them away. Senator MONTOYA. how many receipt would you say that you destroyed , can you estimate that, sir, Mr. PORTER. The second time, sir, after the Watergate break-in? Senator MONTOYA. Yes. Mr. PORTER. I would say approximately 10. Senator 'MONTOYA. And did you destroy other documents? Mr. PORTER. I had some. as -I say , travel schedules and old speeches and position papers and that sort of thing from some of the potential Candidates that I had been keeping that I throw away. Senator MONTOYA. what Were your exact duties at the CRP besides scheduling what other duties did you have? Mr. PORTER. Well, sir, as I said, in my--one of my earlier statements--, almost all of my time spent in the surrogate schedule, planning for the surrogate program which amounted to over a thousand man days of campaigning on the part of the surrogates, all their Schedules, talking with State chairmen and their appointed agents all over the country, working on airline schedules, Senator MONTOYA. Mr. Porter, I don't mean any duties pertaining to your scheduling and being out in the field, I say within the CRP in-house. What other duties did you perform? -Mr. PORTER. Other than those I have described sir, that--- Senator MONTOYA. In other words, you were the one, who would give instructions to Mr. Sloan for his disbursements of money? Mr. PORTER. I beg your pardon? senator MONTOYA. You were the one -who would give instructions to Mr. Sloan for the, disbursements of money or you would receive the money from Mr. Sloan and in turn give money to individuals such as Mr. Liddy? Mr. PORTER. That is right. I received my instructions from Magruder on the- who was to get certain funds and approximately how much, and I did go to Mr. Sloan, and I did get those funds and I did pass them on to various individuals. As I stated to Senator Baker, I believe on Thursday, of the some $60,000 that went through me from Sloan to others, that, in going back about 75 percent of that I did not know what the money was being used for at, the time. I served as a, I guess more or less a, bank teller really or a messenger to go down and pick it up. Senator MONTOYA. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. I have just one or two questions. Mr. PORTER. Yes sir. Senator ERVIN. Mr. Porter, you give the appearance of a, man who was brought up in a good home. Mr. PORTER. Thank you, sir. Senator ERVIN. And you were undoubtedly taught that it is an obligation of a citizen to testify truthfully when he is called on to testify under oath before a grand jury or a petit jury. Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN. But you were persuaded not to do so with respect to the nonexistent conversation between you and Magruder in December 1971 by Magruder's insistence that, your loyalty to the President required you to go along with him on that proposition. Mr. PORTER. I would say that is basically correct. Senator ERVIN. Then later you applied for a position with the Government and did not receive it? Mr. PORTER. I would say a more accurate response to that is that I encountered quite a bit of difficulty in getting it and finally did receive an offer which I received on my own initiative. [00.18.10]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.18.10--A GREAT MOMENT FROM SENATOR ERVIN] Senator ERVIN. Yes! Well, it was a wise man Mr. PORTER. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, and rejected it. Senator ERVIN [continuing]. It was a wise man named "William Shakespeare" who wrote a play called Henry the IV and in that he has one of his characters, Cardinal Woolsey, say after Cardinal Woolsey instead of serving his church had served his king and he was cast out in his old age by the king, and he said, "Had I but served my God with half the zeal I served my king he would not in mine age left me' naked to mine enemies," [Applause.] [shot of whole committee, all Senators in stitches, ERVIN gavels very hard] Please cut out the applause. [ERVIN looking very satisfied, more laughter] Senator Baker. Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions I thank Mr. Porter for long, arduous testimony. He has been here now for the better part of 2 days, covered a lot of material, and very frankly there is a lot more material to cover. As Mr. Porter will recall, when I first examined him I asked him to be prepared to return and answer other questions on other subjects and you indicated that you would in the interest of time and orderliness the committee has tried in an informal way to compartmentalize these proceedings, the particular subject matters, so we omitted to ask certain questions. We have not probed in great) depth into other matters, but, we intend to do that, and I understand you are fully agreeable to return to testify. Mr. PORTER. Absolutely. Senator BAKER. Thank you very much, -Mr. Porter. Senator ERVIN. Counsel have any questions? Mr. DORSEN. I have two or three questions along the lines we have been talking about, Mr. Porter. First, did you ever meet privately with any assistant U.S. attorneys before your grand jury appearance that led to the September indictments? Mr. PORTER, -No sir, I did not. Mr. DORSEN. In your conversations with-- Mr. PORTER. Excuse me [conferring with counsel]; that is correct, I did not. Mr. DORSEN. In your interview with the Federal Bureau of Investigation or in your testimony before the grand jury, were you ever asked, for example, the sums of money the denominations of money which you gave to Mr. Liddy? Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir. Mr. DORSEN. What did you say? Mr. PORTER, The same thing I have stated to this committee, the sums were in total amount, aggregate was approximately $30,000, $31,000, $32,000, and the individual amounts were, ranging anywhere from I think $500 to on one occasion $6,000. Mr. DORSEN. Were you ever asked in view of the fact that the program required setting up of 10 individuals at 10,000 a month why the units you gave Mr. Liddy were not in units of $1,000 or aggregated $10,000 a month? Mr. PORTER. No, sir I do not believe so. Mr. DORSEN. Was it your understanding that the Conversation which you had with Mr. Magruder according to the testimony---- Mr. PORTER, Yes, sir. Mr. DORSEN. [continuing], Would provide the justification for your having paid Mr. Liddy the sum of $30,000 or so? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Dorsen, I never testified, in fact let me state it positively, I testified that I did not know specifically what Mr. Liddy did with the money I gave him. I also testified that I gave him a total of approximately $33,000. Mr. DORSEN. But am I correct that A-our conversation with supposed conversation with Mr. Magruder, the one that never took place--- Mr. PORTER, Yes, sir. Mr. DORSEN. [continuing] supposed to provide the justification for the large sums of money given by you to Liddy, is that correct? Mr. PORTER. It my understanding that part, on the money that I gave to Mr. Liddy was supposedly going to be justified under that basis and later I learned that there was a substantial sum Mr. Sloan had given him which I had not been aware of. Mr. DORSEN. Were, you asked by the FBI or before the, grand jury any other questions concerning the use of the money you gave Mr. Liddy such as whether you asked Liddy whether there were infiltrators whether Mr. Liddy indicated there were infiltrators, anything along those lines? Mr. PORTER. Not that I remember Mr. DORSEN. Now, Mr. Porter, you have stated today that at no time did you request immunity from the U.S. attorney's office and, in fact, I know you have not requested immunity from this committee,; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. That is correct. Mr. DORSEN. And I assume also that you have no desire to be indicted for perjury; is that correct? Mr. PORTER. Yes, sir, that is correct. Mr. DORSEN. Could you please tell the committee why then, at this time did you, or I assume your counsel, seek immunity? [00.23.06]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.23.06] Mr. PORTER. I guess, Mr. Dorsen, that would really have to go, to answer that question fully I would have to go back to Senator Baker's rather searching questions on Thursday. No matter how much a person prepares he thinks he is prepared to answer a question like that and it turns out when he is faced with it he fumbles a bit and I have done a lot of reflecting on those questions and why I did what I did and why I am here doing what I am doing now. That many of the reasons that the, the normal reasons that you read about in the newspaper and you hear about that people do things like that were not present in my case. I did not do it for money, I did not take a bribe, I did not do it for power, I did not do it for position, I did not do it to hide anything I had done because I did not think I had done anything. And yet, on the other hand, there were three or four factors that probably weighed and I cannot put any percentage on them of which weighed more and which toppled me over onto the other side. My vanity was appealed to when was told my name had come up in high counsels, and I was an honest man and I made a good appearance and that sort of thing. My loyalty was appealed to, to the President. It was the heat of the campaign a campaign as I am sure everyone of you Senators know was an abnormal situation, you react, you act and react, you spend most of your time reacting, and I was, I think all of those things coupled with what I have found out to be a weakness in my character quite frankly, to succumb to that pressure, all added up to my tipping over to that side. Having discovered that weakness, and having determined that the, context in which what I did has been put, the first thing I told MY attorney, I said I want to go down and I want to tell the truth and I do not want to, you know, hide behind a darned thing and I have not tried to make any deals with anybody and, as I say, I have not come to this committee to do so. Senator Baker used the word atonement the other day, perhaps that is what I am doing, I do not, know. I will let others judge that but that is the way I feel and that is what I am doing. DORSEN. I have no further questions at this time. Senator GURNEY. Mr. Chairman, could I have one question would like to put, to the witness? Senator ERVIN, Yes. Senator GURNEY. From time to time these people that you employed in the prank or sabotage department made reports, to you, did they not? Mr. PORTER. On a couple of occasions? I believe they wrote letters and explained what it was they had done; yes, sir. Senator GURNEY. I am not interested in the substance of the reports. Did they make reports to you by phone conversations? Mr. PORTER. The first gentleman, Mr. Greaves, talked to me a couple of times on the telephone, yes sir, and--but he, as I say, he. was only on board, so to speak, for a very short, period of time, 2 weeks, so I do not, believe there were, any written reports at all of any kind. No reports were required. The, second fellow I believe, sent, one handwritten statement that was later, I think, retyped and shown to Mr. Magruder but, it was brief, maybe about a page long, a page and a half and had to do with his activities in a field office of Senator Humphrey's up in Pennsylvania, some place or something like that. Senator GURNEY. Well now, these reports, whatever nature they were, were they phone calls? Mr. PORTER. I would say reports, Senator. Senator GURNEY. Reports or conversations. Who did you report to? Mr. PORTER, Mr. Magruder. Senator GURNEY. About, what they were doing? Mr. PORTER. Mr. -Magruder. Senator GURNEY. Did you report to anyone else? Mr. PORTER. No, sir. Senator GURNEY. Did you report by written memorandum? Mr. PORTER. I believe, on one occasion I did report on the, as I say, it was a narrative of the man's letter that, he had sent on his activities in this field office in Pennsylvania, that was the only one, as I remember. Senator GURNEY. Do you know if _Mr. Magruder made a report, to anyone about these activities? Mr. PORTER, I do not. I would expect that perhaps, Mr. 'Magruder may have taken that document or that report and shown it to somebody. Senator GURNEY. But You and Mr. Magruder never discussed this, whether he was--- Mr. PORTER. No, sir, I do not, think--I think I gave it to Mr. Reisner as a matter of fact, Mr. Reisner had it and gave it back to me. [00.28.03]
LBJ's Courtesy Calls
"President Johnson makes brief courtesy calls on West German officials, discreetly mixing international affairs with his mourning of former Chancellor Adenauer. A prelude to later full consultations on mutual problems. TLS - President of the United States exiting Villa Hammerschmidt with President of West Germany HEINRICH LUEBKE (Karl Heinrich Lubke). CU - President Luebke. MS - President Lyndon Johnson (LBJ) shaking hands with President Luebke. TLS/MSs - President Johnson exiting building with West German Chancellor KURT KIESINGER. MS SPD - Party Chairman WILLY BRANDT chatting with U.S. Secretary of States DEAN RUSK on steps outside bldg. Nice side view MS - Slew of reporters, cameramen at bottom of steps. MS - President Johnson and Chancellor Kiesinger shaking hands, Willy Brandt and Dean Rusk watching on.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.28.03] Senator GURNEY. This is the written report you are, talking about? Mr. PORTER, Yes, Sir. Senator GURNEY. Did Mr. Reisner say what, he did with it? Mr. PORTER. -NO, Sir, he did not. Senator GURNEY. Did you make, any report at all to till anyone in the White House? Mr. PORTER. 'NO, Sir. Senator GURNEY. Did not? Mr. PORTER. -NO, Sir. Senator GURNEY. Neither during your term with the Committee To Re-Elect the. President, or afterward? Mr. PORTER, You mean, Senator, on this particular subject matter or on all the things I was doing in My role as surrogate scheduling? Senator GURNEY. I am not talking "about the legal activities. I am talking about 11 Watergate coverup, surveillance sabotage all these activities Mr. PORTER. Sir, I did not know anything about the Watergate. The only part of' any so-called coverup that I was aware of' was the Part that I knew about, that I was scheduler -and I did not put it in the, context of the Watergate coverup but, there were no written reports, to knowledge, at all. Senator GURNEY. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. I understand Senator Inouye has a question. Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Porter, you have testified that you have been in charge of the scheduling of surrogate speakers. Did you schedule the appearance of the Acting FBI Director, Mr. Gray? Mr. PORTER, NO, sir, I did not. Senator INOUYE. Who did? Mr. PORTER. Mr. Gray's activities or scheduling were handled out of the White House, to my understanding, He was not a surrogate for the campaign, Senator INOUYE. Do you know who did the scheduling, sir? Mr. PORTER. I do not know firsthand. I have read in the newspaper reports that it was out of the White House speakers bureau. Senator INOUYE. Thank you very much, Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. The Bible bestows blessing on him who swears to his own word and changeth it not. I want to commend you on the forthrightness of your testimony before this committee. Thank you very much. Senator BAKER. Mr. Chairman, before the witness is dismissed, I want to join in that expression to the witness. I must say that he and I trod on delicate and painful ground on Thursday. And I think you were very manly in the way you reacted to probing and searching questions. It is not an easy job you have undertaken, And the committee is not here to sit in judgement on your guilt or innocence. But the committee is privileged. I would like to comment on your forthcoming testimony and spirit. So while we have used your testimony to probe and explore the atmosphere of campaigning, I hope we have not left the, impression that we have done so with an absence of sensibility for your own situation and your own private concerns. I think you are to be commended for appearing and testifying and the committee is grateful and I am grateful. Mr. PORTER. Thank you. Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. Thank you very much. You are excused now subject to recall at some future date if the committee desires it. Mr. PORTER. Yes, Sir. [00.31.09--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that the testimony of PORTER, the last of the 'LITTLE FISHES' to testify, and that he is lead to wonder what will happen to PORTER now that he has admitted to perjury on national TV [PBS Network ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.33.47--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER introduces questioning of former CRP Finance Chairman, Maurice STANS, who is under indictment for involvement in another case, and will try to get his lawyer, Robert BARKER, to get the committee to drop the case. [00.34.16--ERVIN headshot]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.50.50] [Senator ERVIN responds to STANS' request not to be required to testify for the committee] I note in your statement that the only effect of requiring the witness to testify would be to prejudice his rights. I do not think that is the only effect of taking his testimony, because taking the testimony Of this witness and the testimony of other witnesses will enable this committee to determine whether the activities suggested took place, whether those activities imperiled the integrity of the process by which the people of the United States select the occupant of the highest office within their gift--that is, the Presidency of the United States--and whether any new legislation is necessary or advisable to punish or prevent a recurrence of any activities which the committee may find were illegal or unethical or improper. Now, the people of the United States certainly have a paramount interest in whether those who exercise high governmental power discharge or fail to discharge their duties, they have a high interest in learning whether or not electoral processes for the nomination and selection of Presidents have been polluted. And I do not think, and I think the committee does not think that, we should put off investigation of these matters until they can be determined by the court, because the Constitution gives, the Senate not, only the power but the duty' to make investigations of this character. The courts have had approximately a year to deal with these matters and justice has a habit, of treading on leaden feet, so I certainly think it would be manifestly unfair and the committee concedes this to be true, and the, committee has authorized me to state that in the unanimous judgment Of the committee, no questions should be directed to the witness in respect to the matters alleged in the indictments in the U.S. District Court, in New York. I would like to advise you and the witness at this time that if any question should be put to the witness which inferentially would require any testimony about the matters involved in that case, that, it be, called to our attention so we can be certain that it, will not be answered. Of course, the defendant has a constitutional right under the fifth amendment to refuse to if his testimony Would tent to incriminate him, and I can understand the reluctance of the witness to invoke that right. The committee, as I say, has had--fortunately out gave advance notice to the counsel and we considered this matter fully and it, is the judgment of the committee first, that the witness will not, be, asked any questions relating to the -New York case; second that the witness or his counsel will be privileged to call attention of the committee to any question which might invade the field covered by that case; and third, that it is the duty of the committee in the absence of all Invocation of a constitutional right not to testify, to interrogate the witness. So the committee will require the witness in the absence of an invocation of constitutional privilege. to testify, [00.55.13]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.34.16--ERVIN headshot] Senator ERVIN. I have been advised that counsel for the witness desires to make some statement to the committee and we will be glad to hear you at this time. First I would suggest that counsel identify himself for the purpose of the record, STATEMENT OF ROBERT W. BARKER, COUNSEL FOR MAURICE H. STANS Mr. BARKER, Mr. Chairman, I an) Robert W. Barker, legal counsel for the Honorable Maurice H. Stans. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity of making clear for the record Mr. Stans' legal position with respect to testifying before, this committee at this time and under the prevailing circumstances. First, I would like to clear Lip two items with respect to some of the confusion that may have arisen in the press. First, Mr. Stans has not requested and does not now request, not to appear before this committee He is merely requesting, Mr. Chairman, that in view of the impending criminal case in New York against him, his appearance be deferred until an appropriate time. Second, no court has ruled or ordered Mr. Stans to appear and testify before this committee. In the criminal proceeding in New York, the judge has invoked the local court, rule which precludes the defendant's or counsel discussing the controversy outside of the courtroom. Since this was made specifically applicable to Mr. Stans as one of the defendants, we applied to Judge Gagliardi for a ruling as to whether rule 8 restrained Mr. Stans and counsel from appearing and testifying before this committee. We did not ask Judge Gagliardi to rule that Mr. Stans could not appear and testify, The court, ruled that rule, 8 did not apply to legislative hearings. It did not rule and reserved for a later ruling on whether the extensive blanket, of publicity generated by the Watergate activities in this committee would impair the right of fair trial, He ruled that that would be considered at the time the trial is scheduled to commence on September 11. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as you probably recognize, you have a very unique, and unusual legal problem to face with Mr. Stans being called and subpenaed to testify here today. He is the first witness to appear before your committee who is under an impending indictment for criminal 'matters arising out of the Presidential election campaign. As was pointed out this morning by Judge Sirica in his ruling in the, district court, the cases then before him did not involve people under pending indictments. He considered that an important distinction. The ruling which we will ask you to make is a. very important and fundamental legal ruling. Since it involves Mr. Stans' personal and individual rights under the Constitution, it, is much different than the Position of the special prosecutor, Mr. Cox, when he asked merely that these hearings be deferred. Now, having said this, I would like to take a minute to review some factual background upon which we will ask this committee to base its ruling. The first knowledge Mr. Stans had of the Watergate break-in was on June 18, 1972, when he read about, it in the morning papers. He was just as shocked and just as surprised as any person in this room. Thereafter, consistent with his high standards of ethics and his position as a loyal American, demonstrated by years of service to this country, he set a standard for himself and his staff of complete cooperation with the investigation. When his legal; counsel to the finance committee, Mr. G. Gordon Liddy, refused to cooperate with the FBI investigation, he was promptly discharged, with Mr. Stans' approval. Immediately thereafter, Mr. Stans encouraged his own staff to cooperate and he gave full cooperation himself with all investigatory bodies and authorities. Commencing early in July of 1972, on three occasions, he voluntarily submitted himself to inquiries and discussions with FBI agents concerning the Watergate break-in and the Presidential election campaign. [00.39.41]
Color patterns
Indigo Bunting
TAPE 1 Male Indigo Bunting on twig
Stanley Cup Finals
In the sixth game of the National Hockey League Stanley Cup Playoffs, the Montreal Canadians win 3 to 2 beating the Detroit Red Wings at home in Olympia Stadium. It's the second consecutive championship for the Canadians and their seventh in the last eleven years. Detroit's Olympia Stadium the Red Wings face the Montreal Canadians, players are all skating on the ice. Sport fans sit in their seats watching the Canadians score first. No. 21 Gilles Tremblay beats Detroit's goalie, Roger Crozier. Detroit Players skate around on the ice consoling each other. Score board reads Montreal 1 Red Wings 0. Canadian Leon Rochefort slams a shot into the net and scores. Scoreboard reading Montreal 2 Red Wings 0. Norm Ullman slams a shot passed the goalie and gives the Detroit home fans something to cheer about. Scoreboard reads Montreal 2 Red Wings 1. Floyd Smith of the Red Wings shoots one past the Canadian goalie and scores to tie up the game. Detroit Fans applauding the goal. The first goal will win it and Rochefort slides into the net with the puck and the game is over, the Montreal Canadians win. 3 to 2. Canadian Plays gather on the ice to congratulate one another. You can see the top of the Stanley Cup being held in the crowd.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.39.41] [STANS' attorney Robert BARKER continues to argue that STANS should not be required to testify because his testimony would prejudice his chances for a fair trial in a criminal indictment against him] On August 2, 1972, Mr. Stans voluntarily appeared and gave sworn testimony to the assistant U.S. attorney for use before the Watergate grand jury here in Washington, D.C. Subsequently, Mr. Stans voluntarily appeared before the staff of the House Banking and Currency Committee and gave information with respect to campaign finances and cooperated with that, committee, On six different occasions, in addition to submitting the official reports required of the committee, Mr. Stans gave affidavits and discussed matters, with Representatives of the General Accounting Office concerning campaign Finances and activities. He did everything he could to clarify matters. Again voluntarily, he went, to New York and appeared before the U.S. attorney handling the grand jury investigation into the Vesco contribution to the campaign. He then also voluntarily appeared on two occasions before that grand jury and fully and candidly and completely testified as to the matters known to him to the best of his ability. In addition, on three occasions, he has given en deposition-, in the civil litigation arising out of the campaign. He has also testified for the litigation in Florida, a criminal case down there. Subsequently, he appeared before the staff of this committee and on two occasions, gave them information concerning the campaign activities and finances, and he fully intended to appear voluntarily before this committee and to give it, all the cooperation and assistance that he could. However, on May 10, the United States of America, of which this committee is a part, a coordinate branch, changed the whole situation. It brought an indictment against Mr. Stans, charging him with very serious crimes arising out of the campaign and his duties as chairman of the finance committee. As you know, Mr. Stans pleaded innocent. Now, Mr. Stans is before this committee under subpena, with a direction to testify about his function as chairman of the Committee To Re-Elect the President. Inevitably, directly or indirectly, this hearing will influence any jury which might be called to hear the case In New York. This places Mr. Stans in an impossible position and a completely unfair one. Under our constitutional system and the fundamental laws of this land, an accused is entitled to a fair trial by an impartial jury, unimpeded by a deluge of publicity. In other words, as the Supreme Court said in Estes v. Texas, the concept of due process of law entitled the defendant to "both judicial serenity and calm." Now, Mr. Chairman, the inevitable Kleig light of publicity which will result from Mr. Stans' appearance here would preclude any judicial serenity and calm at the trial now set, as I say, for September 11 in New York. It would also tend to deny him the possibility of an impartial jury of the, kind guaranteed by' the sixth amendment. To paraphrase the language, of the Supreme Court in Delaney v. U.S. (199 F. 2d. 107Y 1st cir., 1952), Mr. Stans' appearance before, this committee and the television and other news media, related thereto would accomplish additional investigation and extensive publicity Which would serve no other purpose than to further prejudice Mr. Stans' right to a fair trial. Now, the Supreme Court, in speaking of the problem of publicity and fair trial, has said, the Court has insisted that no one, be, punished for a crime without a charge fairly made and fairly tried in a public trial free of prejudice, passion, commitment, and tyrannical power." (Chambers v. Florida, 309 U.S. 222, 236-237, 1940). Also speaking of freedom Of the Press, the Supreme Court has said it must not be allowed to divert, the trial from the very purpose of the court system, to adjudicate controversies both in the calmness and solemnity of the court-room according to legal procedures. Among the legal procedures is the requirement that the jury's verdict, be based on evidence received in open court, not from outside sources," (Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333, 350, 351, 1965). The undeviating rule of the Supreme Court was stated long ago by Mr. Justice Holmes, when he said, "The theory of our system is that the conclusions, to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print." (Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 4621 1907). [00.45.20]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.45.20] [STANS' attorney Robert BARKER continues to argue that STANS should not be required to testify because his testimony would prejudice his chances for a fair trial in a criminal indictment against him] Now, this was said in 1907, before the great media of radio and television existed. I am sure that if he were speaking today, he would include those great, media within the. scope of public print. Now, as I have said, the Supreme Court has indicated that a defendant is entitled as part of due process of law to a fair and impartial jury trial free from outside influence. I pose this question: After all the publicity given these hearings; and the Watergate situation in general, where in the United States can an impartial jury, uninfluenced by publicity be found? Moreover, under 'our settled system of due process of law and justice guaranteed by the fifth amendment, an accused has a right to remain Silent, completely silent, and require the Government to go forward with the presentation of its evidence before the defendant need present his case or put on any evidence. By requiring Mr. Stans to appear here before one of the coordinate arms of the Government which has placed these charges would require Mr. Stans to present his case in advance of hearing the Government's case in New York. This clearly would deprive him of due process of law, If Mr. Stans refuses to testify, as we understand it, he, would be Under a severe threat of citation for contempt of Congress and would face imprisonment. This places him under compulsion of either interfering 'with his own fair trial or going to jail. I repeat, this is a, completely unfair position to put, him in. The' only other alternative open to Mr. Stans, Mr. Chairman, is for him to refuse to testify on the grounds of the fifth amendment. This Would tend to degrade and embarrass him and would severely interfere With fair trial, because he would be branded throughout the United States as a former Cabinet officer who had taken refuge behind the fifth amendment. What would a prospective Juror say about that? The courts have recognized and the facts of many cases show that the, taking of the fifth amendment, even though it, is a constitutional right, is likely to severely prejudice a person in the minds of the, public, including prospective jurors. Mr. Chairman and member-, of the committee, Mr. Stans is left no reasonable choice or fair opportunity. As lawyers of broad experience each of you must recognize that fact. Therefore, under the prevailing circumstances, on behalf of Mr. Stans, I respectfully request that the committee, and I strongly urge the committee in the interest of fairness and fair trial, defer Mr. Stans' appearance and testimony until the indictment, in the Vesco case in New York has been disposed of. It is, probably already too late to preclude the publicity which will make a fair trial in that case impossible. However, I sincerely pray that the committee will at least not make the situation worse by proceeding at this time with Mr. Stans' testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. [00.49.11--Sen. ERVIN responds to the statement] Senator ERVIN. Well, Mr. Barker, you have made a very appealing statement to the committee, In view of the fact that the committee was apprised in advance of the nature of the position which would be taken in behalf of the witness, the committee considered this matter at great length this morning. This committee has been authorized and directed by a unanimous vote of the Senate to investigate the question whether any persons, acting individually or in combination with others, engaged in illegal or unethical or immoral activities in connection with the Presidential election of 1972, or in connection with any campaigns of any candidates seeking nomination to run in that election which had the effect of perverting the integrity of the process by which 'Presidents of the United States are nominated and chosen. [00.50.50]
Color effects, color on abstracts
Color effects on abtract forms
Color effects: turning ball, playing with colors
Color effects: rainbow refractions from prism
Color refractions from prism - moving
Color refractions from prism - moving