Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.35.20] Mr. EDMISTEN. What is Your occupation now, Mr. Stans? Mr. STANS. I am in the final phases of winding ,I) the, Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President,. Mr. EDMISTEN. In regard to my previous question, I noted that, in looking over some press clippings over the years, regarding you that it, has been suggested that you are a stickler for details and, as one newspaperman said, a model of fiscal conservatism. Would it be fair to characterize you as that? Would you agree to that? Mr. STANS. Well, I would say they are correct on both points. I am a stickler for detail in my area of responsibility, and I am essentially conservative and I do not believe in spending more money than is necessary for any purpose. That, was one of the reasons why I found myself in conflict frequently with the campaign people last, year. Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, prior to February 15, 1972, you were Secretary of Commerce? Mr. STANS. That is correct. Mr. EDMISTEN. Tell the committee, please, prior to your coming to the finance committee, what political activities were you engage in while Secretary of Commerce. Mr. STANS. You mean with relationship to the-- Mr. EDMISTEN. The upcoming campaign. Mr. STANS. The. upcoming campaign. In 1971, on a few occasions I met with Mr. Sloan, Mr. Nunn, and Our accountants for the, committee after hours, as I recall it, to discuss the accounting procedures that they were going to use, in the 1972 campaign. I had no part in the campaign. I had not committed myself to be in the campaign and I was strongly of the conviction that I did not want to take on the finance job in 1972, but I did, at their request, sit down with them and discuss some of the accounting procedures that: would be helpful to them. Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, Mr. Stans, I want to ask you if you can identify or know anything about a document I have here. This is purportedly written by Mr. Jeb Magruder, a confidential memorandum for the Attorney General dated July 28, 1971. -Mr. STANS. I have never seen this memorandum before, to the best of my- knowledge. Mr. EDMISTEN. With the indulgence of the committee, I Will read it. This- is a confidential memorandum to the Attorney General: Dick Whitney, who is Secretary Stans' political special assistant spent, some time, with me discussing 1972. One idea which he brought up might be useful in other departments. The Secretary has built up a discretionary fund at Commerce that will total approximately $1 million. He is using this fund for conferences, hiring, and other activities that will be beneficial to the President's reelection. If you feel it is appropriate, Secretary Stans might discuss this concept with other Cabinet officers to see if they can develop the same kind of fund within their own departments. Now, down below on there, there is a line for "Approve, disapprove, comment, " and this, as I said, was signed by Mr. Jeb 'Magruder to the Attorney General dated July 28, 1971. What can you tell us about that? Mr. STANS. I. cannot tell YOU very much about it. I have no idea What the concept was. I think it must, have been based on some misunderstanding or other. I had no fund in the Department of Commerce apart from authorized budgeted funds of the Department, and I think either Mr. Magruder or Mr. Whitney would be the ones to have to explain that, memorandum. Mr. EDMISTEN. Well somebody is $1 million off there in some way, I Would take it? Mr. STANS. Well, if somebody is implying that we had $1 million set aside in the Department of Commerce to help in the election campaign I would say they are off. I do not know -what it means. Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Chairman, could we mark this for an exhibit. Senator ERVIN. [presiding]. Mark it for identification. He says he knows nothing about it so I think it would not be competent until you get somebody who does know something about it so just hold it. [00.40.36]
Battle of Stalingrad
"News of the Day" features (World War Two material) on the Battle of Stalingrad (24 August-31 December 1942). This footage looks like it may be from the Soviet counter-attack that took place 19-23 November.
Northern Lights
Recreation of the Northern lights. Very brief shot of cheezy animated model. Probably used in 1950's educational science film.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.40.36] Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Stans, how did you become chairman of the finance committee? Who encouraged you to take that responsibility? Mr. STANS. A number of people encouraged me to do it, I guess I became chairman by default, and in the absence of another candidate for the job I eventually ended up volunteering to the President early in January 1972. Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, in your statement you mentioned that there was a good deal of difference between the finance committee and the actual campaign committee. Did you not have anything to do at any time with the campaign committee? Mr. STANS, I had nothing of any significance to do with the campaign committee at any time except insofar as I sat as a member of the budget committee. Mr. EDMISTEN, Did you on May 10, 1972, write a memo to the Honorable John N. Mitchell in which you discussed a number of issues regarding the various open budget matters and may I show this memorandum to you? Mr. STANS. You do not need to, I am very familiar with that memorandum. Mr. EDMISTEN. Yes. Mr. STANS. And I certainly did write it. I wrote it under the circumstance I described in my opening statement. I was frustrated, upset, at the level of spending that was projected by the campaign people, and I proposed a number of reductions in the budget. Mr. EDMISTEN. Yes, Now, Now, you pretty well covered the whole area of the campaign in this memo, did you not? For instance, No. I was November Group, No. 2 convention, No. 3 Republican National Committee, No. 4 national campaign budget. You were rather familiar with the Operation of the campaign committee if you were able to write this extensive a memo, I would take it? Mr. STANS. Well, I do not think that is- quite the right way to say it. I was not very familiar at all with the operation of the campaign committee I was only familiar with their objectives its to how much they were going to spend and approximately a dozen categories in which they were going to spend it, and I was objecting to the total am amount that they were going to spend. Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Chairman, could we have this one marked, it is a memo from Mr. Stans. Senator IRVIN. Yes, Sir, I understand he has identified it, he, says he wrote it. Mark it appropriately as an exhibit and receive it as such. Mr. EDMISTEN, Mr. Stans what, was Gordon Liddy's position in the campaign? Mr. STANS. Gordon Liddy was general counsel to the campaign committee until around the end of March, and then he became general counsel to the finance committee. Mr. EDMISTEN. And then during his tenure at the finance committee you relied upon his advice a great deal. Mr. STANS. I relied upon his- legal advice a great deal. Mr. EDMISTEN. Right. Did he give you the advice regarding the pre-April 7 contributions and those after? Did you rely upon his, legal advice? Mr. STANS. Yes, as one of the sources of legal advice, I did rely on his. Mr. EDMISTEN, Were You aware that he was receiving cash from. Mr. Bart Porter and Mr. Hugh Sloan" Mr. STANS. Prior to April 7 I was aware that he, had received cash on some occasions-. I was not aware of the amounts in total or on any one occasion and I was not aware that the total was anywhere as large as it was. I thought it consisted of' relatively small amounts of money. I had heard at one point or another that Mr. Liddy was receiving money for use in the primaries. Mr. EDMISTEN. That is the Only reason that you had knowledge of what was brought to your attention? Mr. STANS. It was one of the things that was mentioned at one time or another. Mr. EDMISTEN. I am sure, Mr. Stans, that you are familiar with Mr. Sloan's testimony before this committee that he discussed with you a payment of $83,000 to Mr. Liddy. Now, what is your testimony On that transaction? Mr. STANS. Somewhere around the 6th of' April, Sloan came to me, and said that Gordon Liddy wanted a very substantial amount of money. I don't recall the amount he named and last August, which was much closer to the time, I recalled in testifying in a deposition to the Federal district attorney's office that I thought the amount, was $30,000 but I recalled that only vaguely. In any event I don think the amount is very important. Mr. Sloan said. "Liddy wants a substantial amount of money. Should I give it to him". And I said, "I don't know. I will find out from John Mitchell." [00.45.56]
Flying Saucer in Sky
Cheezy, animated flying saucer in sky. looks like white ellipse animated on black background.
Comets and Flying Saucers
Several takes of more cheezy recreations of comets and/or flying saucers flying through night sky. Little white-ish blobs quckly appear and disappear from the flat black background.
Trip through space
Trip through space
Tripo through space - scratched
Trip through space -scratched
Cosmos negative
Lights of nights
Animated surface of earth
Animation of earths - strata
Two globes collide
Computer test - misc writing
Computer test - misc writing
computer test - coca cola
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.45.56] I will quote my conversation with John -Mitchell as best I call paraphrase it. It is not, precise. But I saw John Mitchell a relatively short time after and said, "Sloan tells me that Gordon Liddy wants a substantial amount of money. What is it all about?" And John Mitchell's reply was, "I don't know. He will have to ask Magruder because -Magruder is in charge of the campaign and he directs the spending." I said, Do you mean John, that if Magruder tells Sloan to pay these, amounts or any amounts to Gordon Liddy that he should do so?" and he said, "That is right." NOW, that is my recollection in a paraphrase of the discussion that took place. I went back to Sloan and reported it to him And found Out, that he had already talked to and had the same information. Mr. EDMISTEN. NOW, let's go through the transaction that Mr. Sloan testified to here with reference To payment, of cash to Mr. Herbert Porter after April 7. Did he have a conversation with you? Mr. STANS. I would like to go back to the previous answer and add one more point. Apparently, from the testimony, Mr. showed Mr. Sloan a budget of $250,000 against -which he intended to draw. To the best of my knowledge, Mr. Sloan did not tell me about, that, budget and I did not know that Mr. Liddy had authority to draw an amount of money of that size. Now, with respect to Bart Porter, I think that Mr. Sloan's recollection is somewhat confused, because my understanding of it, is somewhat different. I had learned prior to April 7 that Mr. Porter had a cash fund in his safe, that he sometimes received money from one or more sources and used it to pay for certain campaign purposes: I objected to that, because I wanted there to be only one treasurer in the campaign So there was an understanding which Mr. Sloan has confirmed in his testimony that, Mr. Porter would not receive any more. money from him. And to the best, of my knowledge, he did not receive any money from Mr. Sloan after April 7. Now, subsequently, some date. in August, I asked Mr. Sloan how much money he had given Porter after April 7, and he said none, More importantly, on September 6, I met with Mr. Sloan's attorney, and the attorney for the committee, to learn some more information about Mr. Sloan's activities after April 7, and Mr. Sloan's attorney told us that after April 7, Sloan had given Porter only $500. Both the committee's attorney, Mr. Parkinson, and I have our notations of that conference. Subsequently as you know, it was developed that Mr. Porter had received $5,300 from Mr. Sloan and that that was cited by the General Accounting Office. Later, it evolved that the amount was $11,000, and I understand Mr. Porter- testified last Friday or Thursday that, he received $17,000 from Mr. Sloan, So I have no knowledge of those, transactions or the, use to which they were put, except what I have learned subsequently in testimony, Mr. EDMISTEN. So we have some conflicting testimony again regarding the transaction. Mr. STANS. I do not want to be critical, but I believe that Mr. Sloan's memory in that respect is faulty and perhaps confused. He may have discussed with someone else the question of authority to give money to Bart Porter. [00.50.37] Mr. EDMISTEN. NOW, Mr. Stans, did you learn of the payment, of cash of some $350,000 from the finance committee to Gordon Strachan and when that, payment was made? Mr. STANS. Yes, I learned a little bit more about, it I think than Mr. Sloan did because back in February Of last year I heard from someone--I think it was; Mr. Kalmbach, but I am not, sure--that the White House would like, to have some of the 1968 money that he, had turned over to our committee, to use for special polling purposes. NO amount, was mentioned at, that time and I have no recollection of any other discussion about, this subject, until after the $350,000 was given by Mr. Sloan or Mr. Kalmbach to Gordon Strachan. I believe that, Mr. Kalmbach takes full. responsibility for that transaction. At later date, I asked Mr. Sloan if the White House had ever gotten the money it wanted, and he said, "Yes, they got $350,000". I do not, think that the. difference in our recollections is material on this point, because I certainly would not, have objected to the item in any event, had I been asked about, it, beforehand. I did not object, to it, when I. heard about it in February. I think it was a perfectly proper transaction. [00.52.10]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.52.10] Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, Mr. Stans, I do not want to drag this out but I think the committee does want to know something about all of the allegations that, have 'been made regarding four SO- so-called Mexican checks, $89,000 drawn on a Mexican bank account,. I think it is time, for you in your own words to describe what you know about, that, what you did about it, and who you discussed the matters about it with. Mr. STANS. I will be, happy to tell you because I do not think the full story has ever been. told in one place before. This is my recollection of the sequence of events. On April 3 of last year, I received a telephone call from Bill Liedtke, who was then our finance chairman in the State of Texas. He said, "I have a U.S. citizen residing in Texas, who is a prospective contributor for $100,000, but he wants to give it in U.S. funds that are now in Mexico, I this Is this legal?" I said, "I am quite sure it is, but let me check again and I will call you back." I checked with our counsel, found out it was perfectly legal for a U.S. citizen to give any foreign funds he. wanted, and called back to Liedtke and told him so. Now, the next thing that I knew about the transaction was after April 22, when I came back from a vacation, and at a meeting I learned from Mr. Sloan that on April 5, Mr. Liedtke's representative, Roy Winchester, had brought, to Washington to the Committee $100,000 in the form of a contribution from an unnamed person; that it was in the form of checks drawn on American banks, by a Mexican bank; that he was not sure 'how to handle checks of that nature; and that he set, them aside. They had clearly arrived before, the change in the law on April 7. He set them aside to talk to counsel for the committee and did so the following week. The committee counsel suggested that they be, reconverted into cash, into dollars, and took the checks from Sloan for that purpose. So when I got back from my vacation, as I said, I found out about the checks, I found out he had given them to counsel, and I found out that the proceeds of the checks had not yet been returned. At this point, I was of the understanding that, the four checks totaled $100,000, and I did not know until I read in Time magazine somewhere along the line there that the four checks totaled only $89,000 and that $11,000 of the, $100,000 was in currency. Now, from here on, I have to quote what Mr. Sloan -said, because I had not seen the checks nor did I see the proceeds of the checks conic back to him. But according to him, the proceeds of the checks came back to him less a collection fee of $2,500 that was imposed on it, and he held the Money and included it in a bank deposit that was made on May 25. Now, that is my recollection of the transaction. You may have other questions about it. Mr. EDMISTEN. No, I will leave those for the Senators. -Mr. STANS. I would like to point out, though, that the General Accounting Office has concluded that the funds were properly received before April 7 and that, there was no requirement to report them. Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, what. did you have to do with the so-called Dahlberg check? You received checks, did you not, from Mr. Dahlberg? Mr. STANS. Yes. May I recite the details of that transaction as I Understand it" Mr. EDMISTEN. Yes. Mr. STANS. Kenneth Dahlberg, as I recollect it, was a member of the early finance committee working in the State Minnesota and living in Florida, in a hotel that he owned. As I understand it from Dahlberg, somewhere around as early as January, Andreas said: "I want to help the, President's campaign and I will give you $25,000 when you got around to it." He confirmed that to Dahlberg in February. In March, on the 12th, and this I get from Andreas, he decided to get the money in hand and he decided to make the contribution in cash because he was a close friend of Hubert Humphrey and a contributor to Humphrey's campaign as well as a friend of the President, and he wanted to achieve all the' anonymity he could achieve. On March 12, he instructed his secretary to get together $25,000 of money, which he did, from a tax-paid account, and put, it in an envelope to be given to, Mr. Dahlberg on the 15th of March at a meeting of a board of directors of a bank of which both Dahlberg and Andreas were directors. Unfortunately, on the 14th, Dahlberg found suddenly that he had to go to Europe to deal with the affairs of an affiliated company there, and he could not attend the meeting. So Andreas continued to hold the money in an envelope. [00.58.54]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973
[00.58.54] On the 5th of April, having in mind the change in the law that would take place in the next day or so, Andreas, in Florida, called Dahlberg in Minnesota and said: I still have that money. I would like to give it to you before the change in the law; can you pick it up? And Dahlberg said: I cannot get down there before the 7th. I will get down there on the 7th and arrange it to pick it up. Andreas said: Well, I want the contribution to be made now, made effective now. So I will put it in an envelope in your name and put in the safe deposit box in the hotel in your name. You can pick it up whenever you are ready, but I want the understanding between you and me that title has passed and it is your money and you accept it as of today. Dahlberg said, "I do," and called me and relayed the transaction, and I advised him on the basis of legal advice that I had already received that a commitment of that nature was properly a contribution before April 7 and when received would not, have to be reported. On April 7, Dahlberg went to the hotel in Florida but arrived too late to pick up the money because the safe deposit box had been closed. He talked to Andreas on the 8th and arranged for the two to get together on the 9th, and at Dahlberg's request, Andreas took the money out of the safe deposit box and delivered it to Dahlberg on the 9th. On the 10th, Dahlberg bought a cashier's check for that because he did not want to carry that amount of money around with him from Florida to Washington, where he was due on the 11th for a meeting of all of our State finance people on our committee. On the, 11th, at an intermission in the meeting, Dahlberg endorsed the check and handed it, to me, with the explanation that "This is the money from Andreas." And I had a full accounting of the sequence of the transaction up to that, date. I thereupon, the same day, as quickly as possible, gave the, check to the, treasurer, explained to him the background that this was money that had been. contributed before the 7th, and asked him to determine the accounting handling of the check. The treasurer, not being sure, discussed it with the general counsel for the committee and the general counsel suggested that he take the check and convert it into cash. The treasurer gave him the check Now, again, I can report what the treasurer has said, that he did not get the proceeds of the check back until some time in "May. He received them in full and they were deposited in a bank account on May 25. Now, as to those two transactions and several others in a similar category we treated that as cash on hand on April 7 and reported it in the report of the media Committee To Re-Elect the President, in the, amount of $50,000, and that exact amount of $350,000 was deposited in that committee's bank account, on May 25. We, felt that we had complied with every requirement of the law as to the handling and reporting of That money; we had accounted for it fully. The General Accounting Office subsequently cited our committee for a, possible violation of the law in failing to report the $25,000. But the Department of Justice, in a letter some months later, concluded that there was no violation of the law in the handling of that transaction. Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Stans, when was the, first time that, you learned that these checks had cleared through a bank account? Mr. STANS. -It was well after the Watergate event of June 17, Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, shortly after that, did you have any discussion with Mr. John Mitchell or anyone at the White House concerning any of these checks during the week following? Mr. STANS. I don't recall any specific conversation with John Mitchell, but do recall a conversation with Fred LaRue and subsequently with Robert Mardian. Mr. EDMISTEN. What did you talk about? Mr. STANS. As I recall it, it, was the morning of the 23d of June---- [01.04.12--TAPE OUT]
"Winter Sport for He-Men!"
"News of the Day" feature on the Polar Bear Club of Chicago. Chicago, Illinois People are seen frolicking in the waters of Lake Michigan, swimming in between ice chunks, and making me feel chilly just from looking at this news clip!
Eddie Rickenbacker returns home
"News of the Day" feature on the stateside return of Eddie Rickenbacker after surviving three weeks in a lifeboat at sea. Rickenbacker was America's leading fighter ace of World War One with 26 confirmed kills; he later became president of Eastern Airlines. Washington DC Shots of Eddie with his wife and family, as well as General Henry H. Arnold. Then a film clip from Rickenbacker's impassioned plea for U.S. workers to do their jobs in support of the war effort, because any sacrifice they could ever hope to make would not equal the "hellhole of war."
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.02.00--in to Maurice STANS testifying about receiving campaign contributions] Mr. STANS......the general counsel suggested that he take the check and convert it into cash. The treasurer gave him the check Now, again, I can report what the treasurer has said, that he did not get the proceeds of the check back until some time in "May. He received them in full and they were deposited in a bank account on May 25. Now, as to those two transactions and several others in a similar category we treated that as cash on hand on April 7 and reported it in the report of the media Committee To Re-Elect the President, in the, amount of $50,000, and that exact amount of $350,000 was deposited in that committee's bank account, on May 25. We, felt that we had complied with every requirement of the law as to the handling and reporting of That money; we had accounted for it fully. The General Accounting Office subsequently cited our committee for a, possible violation of the law in failing to report the $25,000. But the Department of Justice, in a letter some months later, concluded that there was no violation of the law in the handling of that transaction. Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Stans, when was the, first time that, you learned that these checks had cleared through a bank account? Mr. STANS. -It was well after the Watergate event of June 17, Mr. EDMISTEN. Now, shortly after that, did you have any discussion with Mr. John Mitchell or anyone at the White House concerning any of these checks during the week following? Mr. STANS. I don't recall any specific conversation with John Mitchell, but do recall a conversation with Fred LaRue and subsequently with Robert Mardian. Mr. EDMISTEN. What did you talk about? Mr. STANS. As I recall it, it, was the morning of the 23d of June, which was 6 days after the Watergate affair. I received a phone call from Fred LaRue, saying,, "Do you know Kenneth Dahlberg?" And I said, "I certainly do." He said, his contribution ended up in a bank account of one of the fellows who was arrested. I said, Dahlberg didn't make a contribution." He said, "Well, it is his check." So he came down and we discussed it and concluded that, in Some Manner or other, Dahlberg's cheek must have reached the bank account of Bernard Barker. We called Dahlberg and discussed It with him, got him to Washington on that same day. mot with him, and he met with LaRue and I think with Mardian,. and got all the facts of the transaction in hand. It, was clear that neither Dahlberg nor I nor Hugh Sloan had anything to do with the checks, that check or the Mexican checks, entering the, Barker bank account. They could only have gotten there through the bands of our general counsel, Gordon Liddy, who had. taken them into his custody, Mr. EDMISTEN. Mr. Stans, I am going to skip along, I don't want to encroach on the committee. At one time did you approve Or consent to giving Mr. Fred LaRue $80,000? Mr. STANS. I did. Would you like to know the background of that? Mr. EDMISTEN. Yes. When was that? Mr. STANS. The same day of June 23, Mr. Sloan had balanced out his cash account, something which I had asked him to do as early as April 10 but which he couldn't do because he was waiting for the return of the proceeds of the various checks we were discussing. He showed a balance of $81,000 of cash on hand and expressed some concern about it because he was going on vacation and under the tense situation that was building up he didn't want to hold the cash in his custody. We discussed it and concluded that the funds were of a nature which did not classify them as funds of the current committees, that they were more properly funds of earlier committees, that they were not part of what we had to account, for in an audit by the General Accounting Office, and that we should get legal advice. [00.07.15]