Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 6, 1973 Testimony of Hugh Sloan
[00.13.19] Senator BAKER. And the following Monday, which would have been the 17th Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER [continuing]. Of July., the FBI was at your home that morning? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator BAKER. And each morning thereafter, did you say? Mr. SLOAN. The problem there, Senator, was that on that, occasion, they were very much interested in the, Watergate matter. I indicated to them that, I felt because there was a possibility on my part of technical violations of the, campaign lam, that 1 wished to be represented by an attorney before I talked to them, but, that I would be happy to cooperate With them. At that point, I was in the process of receiving a refusal from one attorney and it took me a day or two to get another and they leaned on me fairly heavily during that period until I did have an attorney. Senator BAKER. All right, after you secured an attorney, when did you then talk to the FBI about, the broader range and spectrum of Watergate material? Mr. SLOAN. There was never an independent discussion with the FBI. They were present the first, time I talked to the U.S. prosecutors, Mr. Silbert, Mr. Glanzer, Mr. Campbell. Senator BAKER. When was that? Mr. SLOAN. It Was On July 20, I believe, Senator. Yes, sir, I believe that is correct. Senator BAKER. I am sorry? Mr. SLOAN. July 20, Senator BAKER, July 20? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator BAKER. And tell us briefly: What transpired in that, interview, who was present, where it was held, and the substance of the, interview? Mr. SLOAN. It was in Mr. Silbert's office. Present, were, myself, my attorney, Mr. Stoner, -Mr. Glanzer, Mr. Campbell, and I believe I am correct two agents from the Federal Bureau. Senator BAKER. And what subject matter was covered? Mr. SLOAN. The entire Watergate matter. Senator BAKER. What did you tell them? Mr. SLOAN. What I have told you gentlemen here this morning, Excuse me, Senator. We had really two sessions with them, We did not cover all the material on one occasion. I believe, for instance, the discussions about the Magruder approach, and so forth, were covered in a session a, day or two later. Senator BAYER. YOU are. talking about the indication by Mr. Magruder that you should perjure yourself? Mr. SLOAN. 'Yes sir. Senator BAKER. That was covered in the second interview at the U.S. attorney's office? Mr. SLOAN. Yes sir. Senator BAKER. Was that matter ever brought out in the trial of the Watergate defendants? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir. No, sir. Senator BAKER. Was it ever discussed before the grand jury? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir, it was. Senator BAYER- Were you asked those questions at the U.S. attorney's office? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. I would say with regard to my grand jury testimony that I believe I spent about an hour before the grand jury and my best recollection is that approximately half of that time was devoted to the Magruder question. Senator BAKER. Mr. Sloan, how would you characterize, if you can so characterize, the interviews you had with the U.S. attorney's office and the FBI? Were they thorough and searching? Mr. SLOAN. The FBI, in torn-is of the interviews I had with the U.S. attorney's office, they were there as observers. I really have never been questioned by the FBI except in the Baldwin matter. I would say that, given the time and the information that Was available at the time, I feel they were extremely thorough, Senator BAKER. Mr. Sloan, one of the responsibilities ties of this committee is to file a report ultimately on its findings and to recommend, if it chooses to do so, revisions in the Campaign Expenditure Act, election reform, and the like; in a word, to make recommendations On how such situations might be avoided In future Presidential campaigns. Let me ask you a few questions about that, because in a strange, and I am sure unwelcome Way, you have become the Nation's leading expert on this particular situation, at least from the, stand- I point of firsthand knowledge. Would it seriously or would it interfere at all with the conduct of the Presidential election if there were an absolute statutory bar against receiving cash contributions or making cash disbursements? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; I think it would be, for individuals in the technical implementation of the law like myself, I think it would be of great assistance,. Senator BAKER. Wholly aside from the accountant's point of view, and knowing, as you do, something of the internal workings, of the financial side of the national campaign, do you foresee a difficulty in that respect? Do you see any way it would hamper or impede the orderly operation of a Presidential campaign to require that all receipts and all disbursements be by some tender other than currency? Mr. SLOAN. No, sir; I would see, no problem with that whatsoever. [00.18.38]