Advanced Search
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.07.15] At that time it was understood within the committee that Robert Mardian had been brought to Washington to work on legal matters that were current at the time, and I went to him for advice. His advice, after he learned the description of the money, was to get the money out of the office and out of the, campaign and money, he suggested that I give it to Fred LaRue. Fred LaRue was, the right-hand man of John Mitchell, assistant to Mitchell as campaign director. On that, advice I gave the money, my half of the money to LaRue and Sloan later gave his half of the money to LaRue. I neglected to say that when Sloan expressed concern about, having that much money in his custody, I agreed to divide it with him so that there would only be about $40,000 in each parcel, and I took one and put it, in my desk and he took one. parcel and took it home. I gave mine to LaRue rather promptly, at the first opportunity. Sloan went, on vacation to Bermuda for about 10 days, and gave his money to LaRue upon his return. Now, there is some uncertainty as to whether that money passed through Mardian's hands. In each case. I can't recall whether I gave the $40,000 that I had directly to LaRue or gave it to Mardian to give to LaRue. Sloan did give his $40,000 to Mardian and Mardian gave it to LaRue. Mr. EDMISTEN. Do you know what happened to that money in the end? Mr. STANS. I do not know specifically what happened to that money. Subsequently I received some funds for several Purposes from Fred LaRue. Whether it was part of the same money or other money, I have no way of knowing, and only he could tell. Mr. EDMISTEN. NOW, Mr. Stans, in late June or early July did you receive a call from Mr. Herbert Kalmbach requesting money from you? [00.09.37] Mr. STANS. On the, 29th of June I received an urgent call from Kalmbach. He said he was in Washington at, the Statler-Hilton Hotel, that it was extremely vital that he see me right away, and He wanted me to come over there, and I did. I dropped everything and went over there to see him. He said, "I am here on a special mission on a White House Project and I need all the cash I can get." I said, "I don't have any cash to give to you. Will you take a check. He said "No, I can't, take a check it, must be in cash, and this has nothing to do with the campaign. But, I am asking for it, on high authority." Mr. EDMISTEN. What high authority did he say? [00.10.33] Mr. STANS, He, did not, say. "I am asking for it on high authority and You will have to trust me that I have cleared it, properly." As I said, I had no cash belonging to the committee at that time because we had closed it all out but I did have two parcels of money that were available, and I gave those to Mr. Kalmbach. They added up to $75,000 of funds outside the committee. Mr. EDMISTEN NOW, Mr. Stans, did you not, ask him why he wanted this money? Mr. STANS. Yes, I did. Mr. EDMISTEN. What did he say? Mr. STANS. He said, "This is for a White House project, and that I have been asked to take care, of and I cannot tell you. You will have to trust, me." Mr. EDMISTEN. Would Mr. Kalmbach have, been your superior in this campaign organization? Mr. STANS. NO, Mr. Kalmbach was a man I knew very well. He had been my principal deputy in the 1968 fundraising campaign for Richard Nixon. He subsequently had close affiliation with a number of people in the White House that I was aware of. He was personal counsel to the President. He AN-as a man that I knew was a man of highest integrity, trustworthiness and honesty, and I had no question to doubt, no reason to doubt, anything he told me and I didn't. [00.12.20]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.12.20] Mr. EDMISTEN. Who in the whole organization would you consider your superiors, and would you just go up the line from you? Mr. STANS. Well, I do not know that I had any superiors. It, was a unique situation. The finance committee was separate from the campaign committee. The campaign committee exercised a dominance over the finance, committee by their spending policies, forcing us to raise enough money to pay everything they committed. But I had no superior. I would have taken instructions from the President if he gave me any but, he did not, and I would have been influenced by requests from certain people in the White House from time to time but I do not, believe I had a superior in that, sense. Mr. EDMISTEN Well, now, I just, have one more question here. I want, you to think carefully, Stans: Did you have a meeting On June 24, after the break-in', with Mr. John Mitchell to find out from him what, had happened? Mr. STANS. I am not sure of the exact, date. I had meetings from time to time with Mr. Mitchell. I probably had One on June 24. Mr. EDMISTEN. Did You ask him what happened at that meeting, if you recall it? Mr. STANS. I do not, recall that I asked him that, question. Certainly I was curious about it, and it would not surprise me if I had. I have no recollection of specifically talking about, that, subject. That was a, week after the break-in, specifically Mr. EDMISTEN. Yes. Do You recall at! any time Mr. Mitchell telling you that, there were others involved beside-, those. who were apprehended? Mr. STANS. No, I do not Mr. EDMISTEN. At a meeting of that nature about that time? Mr. STANS. No, I do not. Mr. EDMISTEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.. [00.14.29--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states STANS' testimony will continue [PBS network ID--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.16.58--LEHRER] LEHRER states that in the last hour of testimony, STANS will be questioned about the activities of the CRP Budget Committee, and "the activities of the 'mystery man to end all mystery men', G. Gordon LIDDY". [00.17.14--committee room]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.29.15] Mr. SANDERS. To your knowledge, was there any cash goal during the campaign? Mr. STANS. A goal to be received in cash? Mr. SANDERS. Yes, sir. Mr. STANS, I never heard of one. Mr. SANDERS. At or about the time -you became chairman of the finance committee, did you have some contact with Mr. Kalmbach, Herbert Kalmbach, concerning the transition--that is, the turnover to you of the funds he had on hand- -and receive an accounting for this? Mr. STANS. Yes. That happened before I became chairman of the finance committee but after the time, I had agreed to take on the job. Mr. Kalmbach had money in his possession, some, of which he had carried over from 1968 and some of which he had accumulated sub subsequently. It was a substantial amount of money and I had tried to have the understanding in 1968 and I wanted the understanding in 1972 again, that there would not be separate cash funds in operation outside of the hands of the treasurer. Mr. Kalmbach was totally in agreement with that and we had an understanding that he would turn in all the funds in his possession--not only before I became chairman, but before the law was- signed by the President. And I am told by him and by Mr. Sloan that on February 3 Mr. Kalmbach turned over to the finance committee all the money that he then had, cash and in bank accounts. Mr. SANDERS. Do you have a recollection of meeting with Mr. Kalmbach prior to that, February 3 date and receiving from him personally some accounting of the funds he had on hand? Mr. STANS. Yes, I remember that. Mr. Kalmbach and I met and talked about the very subject, we are talking about. Kalmbach gave me a statement showing how much money he still held in bank accounts and in safe deposit boxes. Mr. SANDERS. Do you recall the date, Mr. Stans? Mr. STANS. I think it was January 24. The date. is on the statement, and I believe you have a copy and I have a, copy. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Chairman, I have a document here which I would like to have marked for identification and shown to Mr. Stans. Senator BAKER [presiding]. The document will be marked for identification and shown to the witness. Senator BAKER. Mr. Stans, before you proceed any- further, we have just received a vote signal. It is now 3:30 and if you are agreeable, to returning, we will take about, a, 10-minute break while we go vote, and come back and continue with your questioning. Mr. STANS. I will stay, Mr. Chairman. [00.32.36--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that the committee has taken a recess for a rollcall vote on the Senate Floor [PBS network ID--title screen--"SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES"] [00.35.08--MacNEILL] MacNEILL states that in the last hour of testimony, STANS will explain how he got the $75,000 that was given to Herbert KALMBACH for unknown purposes [00.35.28--Sen. ERVIN.]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.17.14--committee room] Senator ERVIN. Mr. Sanders. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Stans, this committee has received testimony from several witnesses and from you today concerning the Budget Committee of the Finance Committee To' Re-Elect the President; that, is, that it was composed of three members from the finance committee and three members from the Committee To Re-Elect the President and I would like to take just a, few minutes to explore some aspects of that committee with you. To begin with, it's been asked of you -who your superiors were. No mention in your answer was made of Mr. Mitchell. Did you consider in any way that you had any line responsibility to him, you being chairman of the finance committee and him as chairman of the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Mr. STANS. No, I did not really consider that I was subordinate to Mr. Mitchell. We were separate committees, each performing our mission, and we communicated from time to time and our principal means of discussion about what we had to do to accomplish our mission was in the budget committee meetings. Mr. SANDERS. Who designated you to be a member of the budget committee? Mr. STANS. Mr. Mitchell and I worked that out Jointly, that there would be three members from each committee. Mr. SANDERS. The budget, committee then was not, in being at the time you became chairman of the. finance committee? Mr. STANS. No, sir, and Mr. Mitchell was not, there, either, at that time. Mr. SANDERS. When did the budget committee actually begin to function? Do you recall? Mr. STANS. I do not recall precisely but I think our first meetings were in April. They were irregular, they were not on schedule, they were meeting-, as material came to hand or questions arose and in those days we were trying first to get an overall budget put together on which we could agree, and secondly, we were trying to get budgets from each of the 50 States; as to how much would be spent in each State. Mr. SANDERS. Would you please state the membership of the budget committee at the time. it was constituted? [00.19.47] Mr. STANS. There was John Mitchell, Job Magruder and, I believe, Bart Porter on the Campaign committee side. There was myself , Hugh Sloan, Jr., and Lee Nunn on the finance committee side. but in addition to the three from each side, meetings were attended by two or three. other people from each committee so they were a little larger than six-man meetings. Mr. SANDERS. Did you customarily chair the budget committee meetings? Mr. STANS. No, we were, cochairmen but I deferred generally to Mr. Mitchell and I think he, chaired more often than I did. Mr. SANDERS. Who prepared the agenda for the meetings, or Were they less formal than that? Mr. STANS. Well, for the, first, number of months they were very informal, there, were no agendas We began to have agendas after the convention when we began to deal with the very large amounts of money currently being spent. Mr. SANDERS. To your knowledge, did the budget, committee ever give consideration to the Collection of cash contributions and retention of that in a repository within the premises of the finance committee? Mr. STANS. The budget committee did not, deal with contributions. The budget committee dealt, exclusively with the expenditures of the campaign. Specifically it did not, separately deal with cash transactions. Mr. SANDERS. Realizing that the budget committee may not have considered the receipt of cash contributions, nevertheless did it ever consider the potential use, of cash as opposed to the, Use Of funds in bank accounts? Mr. STANS. No, there was no distinction between cash and bank accounts in any discussions in the budget committee Mr. SANDERS. Now, there were large sums of money, we have, been hearing expended for -Mr. Liddy, Mr. Porter, and some Others. To your knowledge, and I presume you either attended all of the budget committee meetings or were informed what had transpired there if you were not able to attend, to your knowledge, did the budget committee ever take under consideration the allocation of any cash funds to Mr. Liddy or to Mr. Porter? Mr. STANS. No. The budget committee did not specifically deal with any allocation of cash funds to any individuals, Porter, Liddy, or anyone else. Mr. SANDERS. To your knowledge, did the budget committee ever take under consideration the allocation of funds to be expended for any intelligence-gathering operation? Mr. STANS. I do not recall ever hearing any discussion of intelligence-gathering in the budget committee meetings. [00.23.23]
Los Angeles Aerials
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE # 215454 A Los Angeles, CA
Solitary Sandpiper
TAPE 1 Solitary Sandpiper Solitary Sandpiper CU. - Bill Solitary Sandpiper feeding
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.23.23] Mr. SANDERS. Prior to June 17, Mr. Stans, were you aware that, an intelligence-gathering operation was underway? Mr. STANS. No, I was not. I do not recall hearing any discussion of such an activity. Mr. SANDERS. In fairness, Mr. Stans , let me cite, to you you what I am getting at here. In the Patrick Gray confirmation hearings I have before me, in the transcript of those hearings at page 143, it, is stated by Mr. Gray that he had checked his records concerning FBI interviews with you. He says that you were interviewed four times by the FBI and that on the last date, which would have been July 28, you stated to this effect; I presume he is paraphrasing you here he says this: "Stans became, aware from general conversations that Liddy was assigned a 'security-gathering job and that certain cash disbursements would have to be made available to Liddy." Mr. STANS, Well, I think we are talking about semantics here and I 'Would like to correct, the impression right away. I was told somewhere in 'May, I believe by Magruder that Liddy had it responsibility for security at the San 'Diego convention. Now, how he was going about on security I had no way of knowing and it may well have included intelligence gathering of various types. Mr. SANDERS. Do you have any recollection of -making any statement to the FBI that you were "aware that Liddy was engage in intelligence gathering? Mr. STANS. I do not recall using that Word at all. I do recall testifying before. the grand jury, I believe, that sometime before June 17, had learned from Magruder, I believe, that Liddy was working On security for the San Diego convention. Mr. SANDERS. It seems that the line of questioning has developed that one of the problems perhaps with the campaign was too much cash on hand and available for some perhaps questionable purposes. The question naturally arises that as chairman of the finance committee is it reasonable that you did not become aware of the expenditures of such large sums of money and could these sums have been allocated without consideration by the budget committee? How does this happen? How can this possibly come about? Mr. STANS, Well, again, I think you would have to break down your consideration of that question to the period before April 7 and after, beginning April 7. Before, April 7, there. were amounts of money received by the committee in cash going back to long before I became finance chairman. After April there were practically none-there were one or two transactions which were never completed in the way of contributions in cash and there were a few contributions in cash which were deposited and fully reported. But most of the cash, a very high proportion of it, was received, handled and disbursed before April 7 and, therefore, operated under the old law. Mr. SANDERS. I fully understand that many donors may have wished to make cash contributions for purposes of anonymity. Aside from the cash contributions that have been covered by Mr. Edmisten--that is, the Dahlberg and Mexican checks, and we are remaining away from the Vesco matter--did you specifically, in your search for contributions, seek any cash donations? Mr. STANS. Let me first, put the cash question into perspective. Out of all of the money raised during the campaign, only about 3 percent was in cash. Out of all the, money spent during the campaign, only about 2 percent was in cash, or less. So that we were not running a bank in which people were running in every day by the hour handing us cash and we were disbursing cash. We did have some from people who wanted that extra degree of anonymity. And for those who tendered us cash, we accepted it and properly so, because the law, as I read it and as counsel advises me, said we properly may accept money or anything of value. So we received money in the form of checks, we accepted money in the form of cash, and we accepted contributions in other forms that we could convert into cash, [00.29.15]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.35.28--Sen. ERVIN.] Senator ERVIN. The committee will come to order. Mr. Sanders. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Stans, the exhibit just handed you has been marked for identification and we are going to defer that, I would like you to review it again and we will take that matter up at such time as you return for further testimony before the committee. I want to ask you a few more questions about Gordon Liddy's assumption of the job as counsel for the finance committee. At the time that occurred, were you aware of any conflict that he had been having with Magruder? Mr. STANS. No, I wasn't. I didn't learn about that -until quite recently, It is a very interesting development, because I am not, quite sure why Mr. Magruder was so generous in giving me Mr. Liddy's services. But on the other hand, I think Mr. Liddy did a good job as counsel. Whatever else he did or may have, done was something else, but as counsel he did an effective job. Mr. SANDERS. Did it ever appear to you that he was perhaps not devoting full time to his responsibilities as legal counsel for the finance committee? Mr. STANS. Not, that I observed. Mr. Liddy was one of those who attended the daily staff meetings and his attendance was quite regular. I recall only once or twice when he said he had some mission to do outside of Washington and asked if he could have a day off. That was not, particularly unusual. I gave him responsibilities that required daily follow-up and he did the follow-up that was required. For example, just before April 7, it, was necessary for every committee to file with the General Accounting Office a registration statement and to file a qualifying statement with the Treasury Department. That included not only our committees in Washington, but each of the 51 States. Mr. Liddy had that responsibility and he gave me regular reports on what was happening and which one was in default and which one wasn't. And I thought he administered it well, Mr. SANDERS. I believe you did say earlier that you did have some awareness that he had some responsibilities with regard to the San Diego convention? Mr. STANS. This is something that, as I have said, I picked up quite casually, and as I recall it, late in May. And I am not quite sure, but I think it came from Magruder, but it may have come from some other source. Mr. SANDERS. YOU would judge that that was not specifically within the scope of responsibilities as legal counsel for the finance committee? Mr. STANS. No, it was not. But apparently, when Mr. Liddy came to the finance committee from the campaign committee there was an understanding that he had or Magruder had with Sloan that he was going to give something like 96 or 98 percent of his time to the finance. committee, but he had a few things still to look after for the campaign committee. I don't think I was aware of that at the time, but, I heard about it somewhere along the line. Mr. SANDERS. At, the time of Mr. Liddy's termination, were you consulted by Mr. Mardian? Mr. STANS. Yes. I believe the date was June, 28 of last year. Mr. Mardian called me to his office and handed me a memorandum to read. It was to the effect that Mr. Liddy had failed to cooperate with the FBI, had not answered their questions, and Mr. Mardian recommended to me that he be discharged and asked for my approval. I put my approval right on the form and Mr. Mardian undertook to call Liddy in and tell him that his services were no longer required. Mr. SANDERS. At that point, were you aware of any facts which indicated involvement by Mr. Liddy in the Watergate, in the illegal entry of the Democratic National Committee? Mr. STANS. I was not. Mr. SANDERS. Did you at any time have a conversation with Mr. Liddy concerning Segretti? Mr. STANS. I don't recall ever discussing Segretti's name with anyone until I read it in the newspapers some months ago. I do not know Donald Segretti and never discussed him with anyone. Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Stans, did you have any awareness of an effort on the part of Mr. Magruder to induce Mr. Sloan to falsify testimony., Mr. STANS. Not until Mr. Sloan told me about it, and I don't recall how soon it was after it happened. I think it was a, matter of some days after it had happened, Mr. Magruder had come to me and asked me how much money Sloan had given to Liddy and I said I really did not, know, that he should talk to Sloan about it, And that is about the substance of the, discussion I had with Magruder. I do not recall whether he named any amounts or not, but he was probing to find out and I could not help him on it, [00.41.33]
Marine Mammals - Sea Otter
(On Part 1) Female sea otter & pup eat mussels, female eating while pup nurses, sea otter pounds mussel shells on rock to open them.
Marine Mammals - California Sea Lion
(On Part 1) Male California sea lion swims.
Marine Mammals - Sea Otter
(On Part 1) Female sea otter and pup eat mussels. Mother grooms while pup nurses.
Marine Mammals - Sea Lion
(On Part 1) Big male sea lion sleeping in the water, CU of ear.
Marine Mammals - Sea Otter
(On Part 1) Female sea otter grooming. Female calls for pup, they eat mussels. Pup nurses.
Marine Mammals - Sea Otter
(On Part 1) Female sea otter and pup eat mussels. Sea otter wrapped in kelp. Sea otter grooming, can see tongue. Otter wrapped in kelp, rolls in the kelp, can see hind feet.
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.41.33] Mr. SANDERS. Did you make any mention to him of any options he would have at such time as he had to make a choice, at, such time as he would be required to testify? Mr. STANS. Are you referring now to Magruder or Sloan? Mr. SANDERS. Sloan. Mr. STANS. I do not recall that I did. I think when Sloan told me that Magruder had asked him to testify to other amounts than he had given him, my reply to Sloan was to tell the truth. That is the only advice I gave. him. Mr. SANDERS. Do you recall any discussion with him, concerning the use of the fifth amendment? Mr. STANS. No, I do not recall any discussion about that. Mr. SANDERS. I just have one more question, Mr. Stans. Did you at any time seek from Mr. Parkinson or Mr. O'Brien in their capacities as attorneys for the Committee To Re-Elect the President--and I must add the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President--did you at any time seek from them any status of their work, any report of their work or an explanation of the facts that they were developing? Mr. STANS. Well, I do not know that I ever asked for a report, but I was in fairly regular communication with them on a great many things. Most of my conversations with them were with regard to the litigation in which we were involved on a number of fronts. Mr. SANDERS. All right. Let me confine my question to the criminal aspects of their representation on of the committee--that is, the grand jury testimony that was being required. I am not inquiring into the civil action. Mr. BARKER. Mr. Sanders, might I observe for the record that Mr. Parkinson was Mr. Stans' personal counsel as well as committee counsel, and of course, you are inquiring into the, area of attorney-client privileges. Mr. SANDERS. All right. Well, Mr. Stans, I will defer my question at, this time and relinquish any further time, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. Senator Montoya. Senator MONTOYA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stans, going back to the, time prior to April 7, you indicated, I believe, that total cash on hand was approximately $1.5 million, is that, correct? Mr. STANS. I did not mean to say that, Senator. The total cash received during the entire period of the campaign, I believe, including the cash turned over by Mr. Kalmbach was about, $1,700,000. There never was that, much on hand at any one time. Senator MONTOYA, Then including this amount the sum which was turned over from the 1968 Presidential election? Mr. STANS. I am including in that, figure the amount which was turned over from the 1968 election to the extent that at it, was in cash. Senator MONTOYA. How much of it, was in cash? Mr. STANS. About $233,000. Senator MONTOYA. And the other amount or balance of the $680,000 Was commingled with the 1972 election fund? Mr. STANS. Yes. There was; $680,000 received in the form of checks from accounts under Mr. Kalmbach's control that came into the committee on February 3 of last year from 1968 money principally, that became part of the funds of the committee to use from them on. Senator MONTOYA. Then after April 7, what money came to the committee in cash? Mr. STANS. There were three or four items that I am aware of. One was an item of $10,000 from a Mr. and Mrs. Saunders in Mississippi that came to the committee but without adequate instructions as to how it should be handled and to which committees it should be distributed to and that matter was not cleared up by the time the $81,000 was given to Mr. LaRue so it was included in that $81,000 with a request to Mr. LaRue that he give it back unless the parties were willing to allow it to be spread among committees in their name. Mr. LaRue has confirmed by letter through his attorney that he gave that $10,000 back, That is the first cash item. [00.47.12]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.47.12] Mr. STANS. There was a receipt of $3,000 from two men in Omaha that Mr. Sloan received after April 7 and before June 23 that I was not aware of until the $81,000 were turned over to Mr. LaRue. At that time I asked Mr. LaRue to handle that also and either get clearance from the contributors to deposit that money or return it to them. Mr. LaRue told me sometime later that he had not been able to do it with the result that the $3,000 was not returned to them, and in order to clear the matter we ran down the names of the contributors and reported them in our report that was filed last Saturday. That at is the second item of money received. There was a third contribution in cash of $50,000 received from a Lehigh Valley farmer's cooperative through its attorney in Washington that was received by the treasurer after April 7 and before June 23. I was not aware of the details of that transaction and did not learn about, it until October. We have since been able to identify the source of the money and it has also been reported in our last report to the General Accounting Office. Those are three transactions. There were some other miscellaneous cash items received from contributors that I do not recall, whose names were reported and the money was put in the, bank just as though it was by check so that it has no distinction. Senator MONTOYA. Did you receive many contributions over and above $10,000 in cash? Mr. STANS. Before I answer that, could I complete my other answer, because there was one other transaction? Senator MONTOYA. Yes. Mr. STANS. There was a total of $39,000 in cash received in two transactions representing funds raised by former Gov. Tim Babcock of Montana. We did not get the names of the contributors until recently, and that money has now been reported to the General Accounting Office in our last report. Now, as to your last question, did we receive many contributions of $10,000, in excess of $10,000 in cash? I would have to guess, Senator, as I do not have any list in front of me. I would guess that we probably received 30, possibly 35 contributions of $10,000 or more in cash. Senator MONTOYA. Let us go into the $20,000 contributions in cash. How many would you say you received in that, category? Mr. STANS. $20,000? Well, you are testing my memory now and I am not quite sure. I would say that perhaps five less than the number I gave you before that were in $10,000 amounts, So that the balance of 25 to 30 would have been $20,000 or more. Senator MONTOYA.. Let us go into the $50,000 bracket. How many of those did you receive? Mr. STANS. Well, I have to do a considerable amount of guessing here, I would say about 10, maybe 12. Senator MONTOYA. Of course, what, I am trying to elicit from you, Mr. Stans, it has nothing to do with the trial in New York, I want you to understand that. Mr. STANS, I understand that. Mr. BARKER. Senator Montoya, any answers Mr. Stans would make he will eliminate any references to that. Is that understood? Senator MONTOYA. Yes, I want him to. Let-- Mr. STANS. Then, you have to reduce each amount I gave you by one. [Laughter.) Senator MONTOYA. Let us go into the cash disbursements, Mr. Stans. I believe you mentioned that, before April 7 that you authorized or tacitly approved a disbursement of $350,000 to Mr. Kalmbach. Mr. STANS. May I correct, that, slightly? I had knowledge of it after it, happened, I raised no objection to it, but I do not recall ever approving it as such. And the payment was not made to Mr. Kalmbach It was made by Mr. Sloan 'at the direction of Mr. Kalmbach to Gordon Strachan of the White House staff. [00.52.48]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.52.48] Senator MONTOYA. Did Mr. Sloan contact you about this contribution before he distributed the same? Mr. STANS. That is where my recollection differs from his. My recollection is that, I learned about it, from Mr. Sloan after it was distributed but I really do not think that, is material. Senator MONTOYA. What about, the $75,000 contribution to Mr. Kalmbach about which he, called you from the Statler-Hilton Hotel. Did you approve this? Mr. STANS. Well, I gave him the money, as I said, from sources outside the committee, and relying on his good faith and on his assurance,, to me that it -was an important transaction and that he had cleared it with high authorities and he was doing it at their request. Senator MONTOYA. You knew of course that, Mr. Kalmbach was a man of very high influence in the, White House, did you not? Mr. STANS. Yes, I did. Senator MONTOYA. You knew he had a good line of communication with those in the upper echelons in the White House? Mr. STANS. No question about it, Senator. Senator MONTOYA. '"Then he mentioned that this request was coming from very high authority-, what did go through your mind as to who that person might be? Mr. STANS. Well, I knew the people with whom Mr. Kalmbach had 'very close association and contact. I did not, try to identify anyone as the party to that transaction-. I did learn about 6 weeks ago from Mr. Kalmbach and his attorney who it, was. Senator MONTOYA. Who was it? [00.54.38] Mr. STANS. he fold me the request to raise the money came from John Dean. That, he asked Mr. Dean whether it was a legal transaction and Dean assured him it, was. But, being unwilling to proceed solely on that basis he, went to Mr. Ehrlichman and asked Mr. Ehrlichman if it was something that should be done and whether it was legal and that Mr. Ehrlichman told him it, was. Now that is hearsay but I got that, as I said, about 6 or 8 weeks ago from Mr. Kalmbach and his attorney. Senator MONTOYA. Did not, Mr. Kalmbach tell you that that this was not going to be used for the, campaign, that it was going to be used for other purposes? Mr. STANS. Yes, he did. Senator MONTOYA. Did that arouse your curiosity? Mr. STANS. NO; not in the relationship that I had with Mr. Kalmbach, and that he had with the White House. Don't forget that Mr. Kalmbach had been entrusted with a very large sum of money that he had left over from the 1968 campaign, he had -worked with the White House people in the handling of that, sum of money, and I believed Mr. Kalmbach when he said it was important but, he, could not tell me what it was about, and I trusted him and I still do. Senator MONTOYA. Wasn't, it your understanding, Mr. Stans, that when you were collecting this money from contributors that the money would be used strictly for political purposes? Mr. STANS. Oh, Senator, I think I have already said that the money I gave to Kalmbach was not money that, had come as contributions. Senator MONTOYA. What money did you give him? Mr. STANS. Well, I will be glad to tell you. Senator MONTOYA. I believe you stated that) $407 000 of that was from your safe and I believe you have stated before through other sources that $35,000 came from contributions made by a foreign national. Mr. STANS. Let me recite that very carefully so that, I can correct the amounts as well; $45,000 of the money I gave to Mr. Kalmbach was money that I had received from him just about, the time I became finance chairman to use for expenses in the campaign, not for ordinary expenses, but for unusual expenses that I might incur, such as using jet transportation by charter if I needed to get, around the country quickly, or to pay for a vacation because at that point, I was working Without Compensation. Mr. Kalmbach gave me $50,000 to use for that kind of expense. But as I got into the campaign I decided I was not, going to incur much of that type of expense, I didn't need the money, and was submitting regular expense accounts for all the amounts I incurred on behalf of the committee. So I had $45,000 of that still in my safe. deposit, box, and when Mr. Mr. Kalmbach said he had this urgent need for or in money for a very high purpose on behalf of the White House,, I went to the safe deposit box and got that money and gave it, to him. That was not Money belonging to the finance committee. [00.58.10]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (1/2)
[00.58.10] Senator MONTOYA. Did You ever indicate to him that it was his own money that, you were giving back? Mr. STANS. Well, it really wasn't his own money It, was money entrusted to him but, I am not sure whether I told him that I at that time. I think I did but he knows it now. [Laughter.] Senator MONTOYA. Why would he use the. plea that this request was coming from high authority in the White House, if he was reclaiming his own money? Mr. STANS. 'Well, he wasn't reclaiming, Senator, he was not reclaiming his own money. It happened that that was about the only money that, I could put my hands on to help him meet the needs that he had expressed, and I was willing to give it up because I wasn't going to use it for the purpose for which I had originally received it. Senator MONTOYA. Let, us go into the $30,000; where did you get, that? Mr. STAINS. On the same day. a Philippine national had been in my office and said he was an acquaintance of the President. Senator MONTOYA. Who Was it? Mr. STANS. I can refer to a paper and give you his name. The Honorable Ernesto V. Lagdameo. He is a Philippine businessman. Senator MONTOYA. What does he do? Does he deal in sugar? Mr. STANS. Well, it does not sound like it from the name of the company. He is chairman of the board of' Sanitary Wares Manufacturing Corp.--Wares (W-a-r-e-s). I take it to be a plumbing supply firm or something of that, type. Senator MONTOYA. Quite ironical, wouldn't, you say? [Laughter.] Mr. STANS. I think -Mr. Lagdameo is a very innocent party here. He came in to see me, said that he was an acquaintance of the President, and was prepared on behalf of himself and some of his friends, to make a contribution to the campaign if it, could be legally received. Senator MONTOYA. And what about the other friends? Who were they, the other Filipino friends? Mr. STANS. They were two of his associates the same company. Senator 'MONTOYA. Do you have their names? Mr. STANS. I have them here. Mr. Jesus Cobarrus, Sr.---J-e-s-u-s C-o-b-a-r-r-u-s, Sr.--who is With the same company; and Mr. -I can't, pronounce Spanish as well as you can, Senator-Eugenio Senator MONTOYA. Eugenio? Mr. STANS. Eugenio Lopez, Jr. Senator MONTOYA. All right. Mr. STANS. There was at that, time considerable doubt as to whether we could receive contributions from foreign nationals. Back in the 1968 campaign, we had opinions of counsel that it was perfectly proper to receive a contribution from a foreign citizen and we did receive, some contributions, of that nature in 1968. In 1972, early in the campaign, we also received a, few, and then questions began to arise as to the, interpretation Of the Corrupt Practices Act and whether or not we could receive items of that, kind. So when this money was offered to me, I took it contingent upon determining that, we would accept it. And I got, an opinion of counsel shortly after, the counsel for the committee who succeeded Mr. Liddy, expressing the opinion that, we could not accept money from a foreign national. SO I arranged with -Mr. Fred LaRue to give $30,000 back to Mr. Lagdameo and his associates. Since then, and this is more irony, Senator, I have learned that the Department of Justice has held that it would have been perfectly proper to accept, a contribution from a foreign national so long as he is not an agent, of a foreign principal. But that is the source of the $30,000. Now, I had not, accepted the money on behalf of the committee. I Was holding it as his agent or in escrow, or whatever the legal term might be, to determine whether or not I could accept it on behalf of the committee. Senator MONTOYA. Did you finally get the money from, Mr. LaRue? I Mr. STANS. I got the money from Mr. LaRue, and he arranged to give it back. Senator MONTOYA. Let. me ask you this question: Did Mr. Sloan make periodic reports to you about, moneys which he would disburse? Mr. STANS. I think you are referring to disbursements in cash, are you, Senator? Senator MONTOYA. Yes. [01.04.11--TAPE OUT]
Harbor, oil well, tract homes, large farms, factories, civic center, green country, hills, LA River, freight yards, hill homes, LA Basin
Tract houses, rams, ??, Orange groves, flood control, factories, panorama
Aerial - L.A.
Pasadena, Glendale, Santa Anita, Rose Bowl, Huntington Hotel, Orange Grove Blvd., Hollywood
Aerial - Beverly Hills, residential district with pools
Aerial - Beverly Hills, residential district with pools