Advanced Search
Fire Dept.
Fire Dept. - ??? interior
Tile display room, interior
Furniture, lamp, carpet, stores
Men's, boys clothing store - interior
Telephone company operations, information
Bank - day- interior, exterior
Factory exterior "Allied Construction"
Factory interior - modern, women workers
Building elevator/lobby
Aerojet-General
Preview Cassette 220386 Aerojet General building, night
ON PREVIEW CASSETTE #50492 Building, elevator shafts, rooms
Car pulls into driveway
Interior Pool Hall
OV interior pool hall, adult Caucasian male begins a game with a break shot in FG; two other males play their own games on separate pool tables in BG while another male watches and another gets pool ball set from man working behind counter. VS adult Caucasian male taking shots at corner pocket, missing twice, but sinking twelve ball on third shot.
Misc. fountains, day and night, int./ext. with and without people
Fountains
Fountains
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (2/2)
[01.04.15--STANS testifying about campaign finances and payments to KALMBACH and others] Mr. STANS. I think you are referring to disbursements in cash, are you, Senator? Senator MONTOYA. Yes. Mr. STANS. From time to time but,, only a very few occasions, Mr. Sloan gave me reports as to how much cash he, had on hand. Occasionally, I asked him and he would give me the figure. And he also gave me reports as to the contributions received in cash. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Sloan did not ever give me a report of the individual disbursements that, he made in cash to anyone. Senator MONTOYA. Did he ever tell you verbally about any big disbursements which he made? Mr. STANS. Well, I heard about, some that he had made in the past, For example, there was $25,000 given In 1971, almost, a year before I joined the committee, to help in the campaign of Congressman 'Mills in Maryland, I did not know about that at, the time, but after I became chairman, I was told that--- Senator ERVIN. I think you are distracting the attention of the committee and the witness, so please desist from taking pictures, Mr. STANS. At the time I became chairman of the committee or shortly thereafter, I was told that there was a loan of $25,000 still due from Congressman Mills' campaign. I asked Lee Nunn, N-u-n-n, who is one of the members of our committee, to check it out, and see if we could get paid, and the report was that there was no money and we could not get it back. So in that sense, I did learn from Mr. Sloan about, some of the earlier transactions. But I do not recall any full accounting for Mr. Sloan until June 23 of last year. Senator MONTOYA. Well, did you know of any disbursements made to anyone in Maryland for the Agnew dinner? Mr. STANS. Yes; I was a party to that transaction. Senator MONTOYA. Tell us about it. Mr. STANS. In March, Mr. Alexander Lankler was; the chairman of the Maryland Committee for the Re-Election of the President--the campaign committee in Maryland, not the finance committee. And he wanted to be sure that he was going to have adequate financing for his Campaign. So on one occasion, he brought in checks from a contributor totaling $150,000 in March. He said that, in return, he wanted a promise that, on call, we would give him $50,000 of that, money to use in the Maryland campaign at any time. I made the promise. I considered it, a, pledge to him to do so. Sometime in May, before the 19th, Mr. Lankler came in and said he, would like to call the $50,000 that had been promised to him, he would like it as a loan to be used in a salute to Agnew party on May 19. It did not look as though the receipts of that at, affair were going to be of a creditable size and he wanted the receipts to be increased. I gave him the money, with the understanding that it, would be returned promptly after the affair was over. It was returned to the committee in July. That is the story of that transaction. Senator MONTOYA. Did you ever in inquire or was not your curiosity aroused by requests for the large sums which were being disbursed by Mr. Sloan? Mr. STANS. Senator, Mr. Sloan was the treasurer of the committee, MR. STANS. He had the cash fund long before I got there. He continued to handle the cash transactions. My only interest was really in knowing who had made contributions in cash, because I wanted to know who our contributors were. I wanted to know from time to time how much cash he had on hand, because occasionally, he and I would discuss that subject and I would suggest that he ought to put some of it in the bank, and he did from time to time. My recollection is that he banked about half of the money that came in cash in the course of time. So that was the nature of my interest and my curiosity. senator MONTOYA. Why would you attend these budget meetings, because they were meetings about disbursements, then, if you were just interested in contributions? Mr. STANS. I do not, understand your question, Senator. [01.09.23]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (2/2)
[01.09.23] Senator MONTOYA. Well, you attended quite a few budget meetings with your budget committee to determine how the, money would be spent. This did not deal with contributions. Mr. STANS. No; it, did not; it dealt, with the spending of the campaign Senator MONTOYA. Now, did you discuss at these budget meetings the big expenditures that were being doled out to certain individuals such as Mr. Liddy? Mr. STANS. Senator, from the time I came, the expenditures so far as I know, were not big, were not large., except on the one occasion when Mr. Sloan came too me and said that, Liddy wanted a fairly I substantial amount, of money, and I went to John Mitchell and determined that Magruder had the authority to tell Sloan to make payments to Liddy. I was not aware of large amounts of payments. Senator MONTOYA. Did '.Mr. Mitchell at that meeting tell you what this money was going to be used for-, the money that, was going to be disbursed I to Mr. Liddy? Mr. STANS. No; Mr. Mitchell and I did not discuss an amount of money. We discussed only the principle of whether Mr. Magruder had the authority to direct Sloan to make payments. Mr. Magruder said he did not, know what it was about-- I mean, excuse me, Mr. Mitchell said he did not know what it was about, that it was 'Magruder's responsibility. Senator MONTOYA. Did you make any reports about the state of the finances and also the state of disbursements to anyone in the White, House while you were with the finance committee as chairman? .Mr. STANS. I made no reports of any kind on cash transactions, if that is the nature of your question. Senator MONTOYA. No disbursements--total disbursements--cash or otherwise. Mr. STANS. Total disbursements? I had several conferences with Mr. Haldeman on the subject because I was, as I said earlier, very Much concerned, almost irate, about the level of spending in this campaign. I thought originally that, in the President's position, he Could he be reelected for $25 or $30 million. And when they came to me -With budgets of $40 million which were incomplete and higher amounts I objected very strenuously I insisted that, there was overkill in the, budgets in the sense that they were spending money for massive amounts of direct, mail, massive amounts of telephoning, amounts of advertising that, just, were duplicating each other. And with that feeling of frustration, which was pretty constant every time we had a meeting, I went to Haldeman a couple of times and asked whether he couldn't get some help for me from the President in holding down the level of spending--not in term-, of any One Category, but just let's ran this campaign with less money. I don't know what Mr. Haldeman did. I didn't see any significant consequences as a result of those several meetings. Senator MONTOYA. Did he ever get, back to you? Mr. STANS, I don't recall any specific report. He would take it up and talk about it, but that was it. Senator MONTOYA. Did you ever discuss 'With Mr. Haldeman any expenditures with respect to any of the activities chargeable to the White House? Mr. STANS. NO, I don't recall any discussion with Mr. Haldeman about that. Senator MONTOYA. Were you aware that expenditures were being made for activities which were emanating from the White House? Mr. STANS. I was aware that the Republican National Finance Committee was reimbursing the White House for fairly substantial amounts of money for matters which were believed to be political, such as mailings and things like that. And when the President became the official candidate of the party, I was aware of those amounts in considerably greater detail, because I also became chairman of the Republican National Finance Committee, Yes, the two committees were paying substantial amounts of money for mailings by the White House, for traveling expenses of people 'in the White House, and for the President's political travel. Senator MONTOYA. And how was this money disbursed to the White House for these purposes? In cash or by check? Mr. STANS. Oh, it was all by check, I don't know of any case in which the money went by cash. Senator MONTOYA. SO, do I understand that the cash disbursements about which you are aware are as follows: $350,000 to Mr. Kalmbach' which eventually went to the White House to Mr. Strachan, and $75,000 to Mr. Kalmbach directly, comprised of $45,000 from your safe and $30,000 from the contribution by the Philippine National then $89,000 to Mr. LaRue on one occasion Mr. STANS. $81,000. [01.14.53]
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (2/2)
[01.14.53] ***SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD IN RIGHTS SECTION**** Senator MONTOYA Well, Mr. Stone says $89,000, so there is conflict there--Mr. Sloan, I mean. Mr. STANS. Senator, may I say that I think Mr. Sloan's record a number of cases is that he said $81,000. I am sure that is the right one, Senator MONTOYA. And $39,000 on another occasion. Is that correct?' Mr. STANS. That is correct. Senator MONTOYA. And those are the only cash disbursements that it is your feeling went to the White House? Mr. STANS, Well, the $350,000 went to the, White House. The $75,000 that I gave to Mr. Kalmbach went for a White House purpose but I do not know that the White House ever got it. So far as I know, the $81,000 did not go to the White House, and the $39,000 did not go to the White House except, for one item,. which I have not yet told you about. On November 28, I got a call from John Dean, or it, may have been a day or two before November 28 which led to an action on November 28, saying that the $350,000 fund which had been turned over to Strachan in April had ad been depleted by $22,000 ; $22,000 had been used for some purpose, Since it was a fund for polling, I Just assumed that it was for polling. He said that he would like very much to have that fund restored to $350,000 so that if he ever had to account, for it, it would be intact. And as a matter of fact, along about, that time, we began discussions about whether or not the $350,000 might be given to the finance committee and taken into its receipts. But, he indicated it was quite important that he have $22,000 to restore the fund. So I gave him $22,000 out of the money that I had received through Tim Babcock, on November 28. He sent Gordon Strachan of the White House staff over to the office to pick it, up. Now, the other $17,000 that I had received from Tim Babcock I gave to Fred LaRue as a, payment on account of the $30,000 that he had given me to give back to the Philippine national. So that $39,000 was expended and those transactions have all been reported to the General Accounting Office in our last report. Mr. BARKER. - Senator Montoya, Senator Montoya, for the record, I might, indicate that in Mr. Dash's questioning on June 6 of Mr. Sloan at page 1254, he refers to the $81,000 figure, consisting of $18,000 and $63,000. Senator MONTOYA. I received that information from the transcript of the interview which indicates the sum of $89,000, so there must have been a typographical error but on page 4 of the interview of which we have a record it, indicates $89,000. Now, let's go back to [he cashier's check that, Mr. Dahlberg got in Miami and brought to Washington and then went back to Miami and was cashed. -Now was the cashier's check for $25,000, was that in the name of Mr. Dahlberg? Mr. STANS. Yes, it was on a Miami bank payable to Kenneth Dahlberg. Senator MONTOYA. Did he endorse it? Mr. STANS. Yes, he did. He endorsed it Just before he gave it, to me. Senator MONTOYA. Who cashed it? Mr. STANS. Well, I don't know for, a fact who cashed it except that I gave it to Mr. Sloan at the first, opportunity. Mr. Sloan discussed it 'with our general counsel Mr. Liddy, and -according to Mr. Sloan, Mr. Liddy undertook to cash it. Senator MONTOYA. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. It is sort of a warm day and the witness has been on the Stand for a long time. It is apparent we can't finish today so 'Without objection on the part of some member of the committee we Will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, Thank you. [01.19.40--Senators, photographers, others, stand to leave] [00.19.45--MacNEILL in studio] MacNEILL states that STANS will return to the stand tomorrow, to be questioned about the degree of his ignorance about how the money he raised was spent. Probably also comment about STANS' assertion that he complained to the White House about the cost of the campaign. States that STANS' testimony leads logically to next witness, Deputy Campaign Director Jeb MAGRUDER. STANS said that MAGRUDER was the one to authorize sums of money paid to LIDDY, and with LIDDY taking the Fifth, STANS' testimony is important. [01.20.41]
Fountains
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 12, 1973 (2/2)
[01.20.41--LEHRER in studio] ***SEE RESTRICTIONS FIELD IN RIGHTS AREA*** LEHRER states that STANS will not answer questions pertaining to his pending indictment, and that the committee has been careful to avoid asking such questions. However, the staff feels that things have gone well in spite of the agreement to limit questioning. LEHRER introduces interview by Peter KAYE of Rufus EDMISTEN, deputy counsel. [01.21.08--KAYE with EDMISTEN in vacated committe chamber] KAYE asks if EDMISTEN felt circumscribed in his questioning by virtue of the fact of STANS' pending indictment EDMISTEN says he would characterize it more as restraint, and rightly so, as not to prejudice the judicial system KAYE asks about pre-interviewing by the committee staff, and if there were any surprises with STANS. EDMISTEN says he won't comment, but perhaps there were??? but there will be the opportunity for further corroboration by more witnesses. KAYE asks about plans to call MITCHELL and Dick WHITNEY to corroborate the issue of the MEMO which STANS denied knowing about (the reserve fund of the Commerce Department) EDMISTEN states that the committee staff plans to follow up all investigative leads KAYE states that STANS had been billed as the first of the big-name witnesses, and he seemed to acquit himself well with his testimony, Asks how EDMISTEN feels about the testimony EDMISTEN states that he doesn't feel the staff really even got started today, he covered the ground that he could cover, and the Senators will have more questions tomorrow. [01.23.45--LEHRER in studio] LEHRER states that the mention by EDMISTEN of a memo from MAGRUDER to MITCHELL that said STANS had a million-dollar political fund at the Commerce Department was a surprise to many. STANS denied the existence of the fund, and LEHRER states that it was a surprise to many in the audience that EDMISTEN dropped the line of questioning. [01.24.11--MacNEILL] MacNEILL states that if STANS finishes in time, MAGRUDER is expected to take stand the next day, and may potentially resolve some disputed issues, such as the reason MAGRUDER gave to Hugh SLOAN as justification to pay cash to LIDDY. MAGRUDER may, conversely, testify like others have, that he was just following orders from someone higher in rank. LEHRER calls on Alan BARTH, D.C. journalist, and Bill GREENHALGH, assoc. dean of Georgetown University Law School, as guest commentators. LEHRER asks GREENHALGH whether it's true that the hearings will prejudice STANS' trial in New York. GREENHALGH. states that he thinks a juror would be hard pressed to find prejudice based on the proceedings today. The witness appeared precise and cooperative. If anything, STANS' appearance on TV seems as if it would become a credit and not a liability. BARTH says he hopes that the days hearings will lay anxieties to rest that a congressional investigation automatically prejudices judicial trials, and that STANS' testimony was beneficial to both the committee and to STANS. States that the counsel's argument ought instead to be made to the court if they later feel that the course of the hearings did prejudice his case, but the committee had exercised great restraint despite the graveness of its task to investigate the operation of the executive branch under the system of checks and balances. LEHRER asks GREENHALGH if this bodes for more legalism in the future in the hearings, and the issue of the rights of potential criminal defendants will become a greater issue. GREENHALGH says that this is true, and that as yet, there has not been an invocation of the fifth amendment, leading him to believe there is a great deal of behind the scenes effort to establish ground rules for questioning. States that he is impressed, and he is not sure when a witness will choose to take the fifth. Continues to state that he was irritated by AGNEW'S statement that the ERVIN hearings were a miscarriage of justice because the concepts of Due Process, Notice, Counsel, and Self-Incrimination have been scrupulously followed, and witnesses have been respected in their rights. LEHRER states that Senators ERVIN and BAKER used quotations and generous words to address PORTER at the conclusion of his testimony, and sent him on his way with thanks. LEHRER offers that PORTER'S discussion of his character and some flaws in it was dramatic, personal, and frank, and very sad. STANS was self-assured as a man who had been at the top levels of power for a long time, but PORTER appeared to be in awe of even the mention of President NIXON, which was one of the reasons he followed orders to do what he did (PERJURY). STANS confessed to nothing, and the contrast was striking, and LEHRER wonders what quotation will be offered by Senator ERVIN when STANS finishes tomorrow. LEHRER signs off [01.30.47--title screen "SENATE HEARINGS ON CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES", sponsor credits, NPACT ID--PBS NETWORK ID] [01.31.26--TAPE OUT]
Parachute jump over Dominican Republic
Preview Cassette 220368 Parachute jump over Dominican Republic The first parajump over Dominican Republic soil by the 82nd Airborne Division, U.S. Army-- jump over San Isidro, DR, Sunday May 30, 1965. This was a practice jump and not combat-inspired.
U.S. Marines, Dominican Revolution
Preview Cassette 220370 U.S. Marines (8th Marine Regiment) manned checkpoints in Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic during the April-June 1965 Revolution. Shots of Marines stopping cars at checkpoint in the U.S. Corridor Zone... two marines relax next to their armed machine gun bunker... contrast shot of expensive homes in the area and teh scenic beach front south of the city.
Ride through rebel territory
Preview Cassette 220368 Ride through rebel territory , Santo Domingo Dominican Republic