^4i f^f^/^' ^-^'^^^
-^ PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITB OF 1972
r;--, SENATE RESOLUTION 60
D^eA HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
OP THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIKD CONGKESS
FIRST SESSION
WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Phase I: Watergate Investigation
WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, AND 14, 1973
Book 2
Printed for the use of the
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
U. S. Govemrr.^n^ Documpnts Depository
'Pj- ..•' -■:•.: r\.:rzQ LapJ Center Lilji
D359B
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972
SENATE RESOLUTION 60
HEARINGS
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
OF THE
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-THIRD CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
WATERGATE AND RELATED ACTIVITIES
Phase I: Watergate Investigation
WASHINGTON, D.C., JUNE 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, AND 14, 1973
Book 2
Printed for the use of the
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
96-296 WASHINGTON : 1973
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $3
Stock Number 5270-01962
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON PRESIDENTIAL
CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES
(Established by S. Res. 60, 93d Congress, 1st Session)
SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina, Chairman
HOWARD H. BAKER, Jr., Tennessee, Vice Chairman
HERMAN E. TALMADQE, Georgia EDWARD J. GURNEY, Florida
DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii LOWELL P. WEICKER, Jr., Connecticut
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico
Samuel Dash, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Fred D. Thompson, Minority Counsel
RUFUS L. Edmisten, Deputy Chief Counsel
David M. Dorsen, Assistant Chief Counsel
Terry F. Lenzner, Assistant Chief Counsel
James Hamilton, Assistant Chief Counsel
Carmine S. Beluno, Chief Investigator
Wayne H. Bishop, Chief Field Investigator
Eugene Boyce, Hearings Record Counsel
R. Phillip Haire, Assistant Counsel
Marc Lackritz, Assistant Counsel
William T. Mayton, Assistant Counsel
Ronald D. Rotunda, Assistant Counsel
Donald G. Sanders, Deputy Minority Counsel
Howard S. Liebengood, Assistant Minority Counsel
H. Willlam Shure, Assistant Minority Counsel
Robert Silverstein, Assistant Minority Counsel
Laura Matz, Administrative Assistant
Carolyn Andrade, Office Manager
Joan C. Cole, Secretary to the Minority
(n)
CONTENTS
HEARING DAYS
Page
Tuesday, June 5, 1973 457
Wednesday, June 6, 1973 531
Thursday,' June 7, 1973 601
Tuesday, June 12, 1973 657
Wednesday, June 13, 1973 719
Thursday, June 14, 1973 783
CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES
Tuesday, June 5, 1973
Harmony, Sally, former secretary to G. Gordon Liddy, counsel to the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President and Finance Committee To Re-Elect
the President, accompanied by Thomas E. Quinn, Jr., counsel 458
Reisner, Robert A., former administrative assistant to Jeb Magruder, for-
mer deputy campaign director for the Committee for the Re-Election of
the President 489
Wednesday, June 6, 1973
Sloan, Hugh W., Jr., formerly employed as staff assistant to the President;
later became treasurer of the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the Presi-
dent, accompanied by James R. Stoner and James R. Treese, counsels — 532
Thursday, June 7, 1973
Sloan, Hugh W., Jr., testimony resumed 602
Porter, Herbert L., formerlj' employed by the White House in the Office of
the Director of Communications; later joined the Committee To Re-
Elect the President as director of scheduUng, accompanied by Charles
B. Murray, counsel 631
' Tuesday, June 12, 1973
Porter, Herbert L., testimony resumed 657
Stans, Maurice H., former L".S. Secretary of Commerce and chairman of the
Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President, accompanied by Robert
W. Barker, counsel (statement of, p. 680) 687
" Wednesday, June 13, 1973
Stans, Maurice H., testimony resumed 719
Thursday, June 14, 1973
Magruder, Jeb Stuart, private consultant. Metropolitan Research Services ;
former special assistant to the President and deputy director for com-
munications in the executive branch; also former deputy campaign
director for the Committee for the Re-Election of the President; accom-
panied by James J. Bierbower, counsel 783
(HI)
IV
INTERROGATION OF WITNESSES BY MEMBERS OF THE
COMMITTEE AND COUNSELS
Page
Ervin, Hon. Sam J., Jr Harmony: 481-483,
486. Reisner: 502-510, 528. Sloan: 569-587, 62.5-628. Porter: 643-
646, 676. Stans: 750-772, 779-782. Magruder: 854-861, 868, 869,
874, 875.
Baker, Hon. Howard H., Jr Harmony: 483-486.
Reisner: 516-518. Sloan: 562-569, 628-630. Porter: 646-652.
Stans: 733-743, 766. Magruder: 810-817, 870.
Talmadge, Hon. Herman E Harmony: 473-476.
Sloan: 559-562. Porter: 664-668. Stans: 743-750, 774, 775. Ma-
gruder: 833-838.
Inouye, Hon. Daniel K Harmony: 468-470.
Reisner: 513-516, 527, 528. Sloan: 602-608. Porter: 652-655
680. Stans: 726-733, 778, 779. Magruder: 817-823.
Montoya, Hon. Joseph M Harmony: 478-481.
Reisner: 522-527. Sloan: 614-625. Porter: 672-676. Stans: 709-
717, 775-778. Magruder: 844-854, 873, 874.
Gurney, Hon. Edward J Harmonv: 470-473.
Reisner: 518-522. Sloan: 587-599. Porter: 657-664, 678-680.
Stans: 719-726, 767. Magruder: 838-844.
Weicker, Hon. Lowell P., Jr Harmony: 476-478.
Reisner: 510-513, 528-530. Sloan: 608-614. Porter: 668-671.
Magruder: 823-833, 869, 870.
Dash, Samuel, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Harmonv: 458-464,
487. Sloan: 532-552, 630. Magruder: 783-810, 871-873.
Thompson, Fred D., Minority Counsel Harmony: 465-468.
Reisner: 497-502. Sloan: 552-559. Porter: 637-642. Magruder:
861-868.
Edmisten, Rufus L., Deputy Chief Counsel Stans: 694-703, 772-774
Lenzner, Terry F., Assistant Chief Counsel Reisner: 487-497, 530
Dorsen, David M., Assistant Chief Counsel Porter: 631-637, 677, 678
Sanders, Donald G., Deputy Minority Counsel Stans: 704-709
EXHIBITS
No. 16 — Entered into the record on page 464. Stationery showing Gemstone
letterhead, date, and source 877
No. 17 — Entered into the record on page 490. Excerpts from log kept by
Robert Reisner and Vickie Chern 878
No. 18 — Entered into the record on page 497. Envelope with lettering
"Sensitive Material" 890
No. 19 — Entered into the record on page 504. Blue letter-size file folder
initialed on back, "RAFR" with handwritten date May 21, 1973.
Exhibit not shown.
No. 20 — Entered into the record on page 535. Chart entitled "transactions
as of April 7, 1972, Cash Deposits and Disbursements, including
'committed' items" 891
Nos.
21-24 — Entered into the record on page 574. Mexican bank checks dated
April 4, 1972, to Sr. Manuel Ogarrio, also shown are endorsements
of checks 892-895
No. 25 — Entered into the record on page 631. Cashiers check from First
Bank & Trust Co. of Boca Raton, N.A., to Kenneth H. Dahlberg,
dated April 10, 1972, also shown is endorsement of check 896
No. 26 — Entered into the record on page 685. Two-page letter to Senator
Ervin from Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker, law offices, dated
June 4, 1973. Re: Appearance of Maurice H. Stans on June 6,
1973 897
No. 27 — Entered into the record on page 874. "Confidential" memorandum
for the Attorney General dated July 28, 1971, from Jeb S. Ma-
gruder. Entered for identification only on page 696. Officially
made part of record on page 874 899
No. 28 — Entered into the record on page 696. Six-page memorandum dated
May 10, 1972, to John Mitchell from Maurice H. Stans. Re:
Budget matters 900
EXHIBITS— Continued
Page
No 29— Submitted for identification only on page 707. Will be retained in
committee files. ^^ , x tt u
No. 30— Entered into the record on page 746. Memorandums to Hugh
Sloan, Jr., from Maurice Stans, dated February 28, 1972. Re:
Bumper strips, banners, pins, and so forth 906
No 31— Entered into the record on page 747. Three memorandums as
follows: Memo for Hugh Sloan and Robert Odle from M. H.
Stans, dated May 3, 1972; memo dated June 1, 1972 from Stans
to Sloan; memo to Stans from Sloan, dated June 13, 1972 yu»
PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES OF 1972
PHASE I: WATERGATE INVESTIGATION
TUESDAY, JUNE 5, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington, D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:15 a.m., in
room 318, Russell Senate Ofl&ce Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr.
(chaii-man), presiding.
Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker,
Gurney, and Weicker.
Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred
D. Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief
counsel; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant;
David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant
chief counsels; Barry Schochet, William Mayton, and Marc Lackritz,
assistant majority counsels; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority
counsel; H. William Shure and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority
counsels; Joan C. Cole, secretary to the minority; Pauline O. Dement,
research assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert
Baca, oflBce of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator
Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; John Walz,
publications clerk.
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
I wish to make the following statement on behalf of the committee.
The committee has carefully considered the request of the special
prosecutor of the so-called Watergate case and has unanimously
determined that its duty requires it to decline to grant such request
for these reasons:
1. The committee has been authorized and directed by a resolution,
unanimously adopted by the Senate, to investigate the so-called
Watergate affair and its ramifications and to recommend to the
Congress adoption of any legislation it deems necessary and appro-
priate as a result of its findings and for this reason has no authority
to postpone or terminate these activities under the Senate resolution.
2. The committee is unwilling to share the fears of the special
prosecutor that the courts will permit guilty parties to go unwhipped
of justice simply because the Senate committee exercises the con-
stitutional rights and obligations of the Senate to inform the Congress
and the American people of the truth in respect to the Watergate
affair.
3. The committee believes that there is more likelihood that any
other persons who may be indicted will be able to obtain a fair trial
(457)
458
in an atmosphere of judicial calm after, rather than before, the
committee completes its task.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman
Senator Ervin. Mr. Baker.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I thoroughly concur with your
statement. As you pointed out, it was adopted unanimously by the
committee. I might only add if I may, that while the jurisdictional
responsibility of the committee is to hear evidence and to make a
report and recommendations to the Congress on legislation, I believe
that a further responsibility inherent in the system of legislative
hearings is the responsibility to do the public's business in public
view.
Senator Ervin. Does any other member of the committee have
any statement to make in this connection?
[No response.]
If not, the counsel will call the first witness.
Mr. Dash. Will Mrs. Sally Harmony please take the witness chair.
Senator Ervin. Mrs. Harmony, will you raise your right hand,
please?
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give to
the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities will
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help
you God?
Mrs. Harmony. I do.
Mr. Dash. Mrs. Harmony, for the record, please give your name
and address.
TESTIMONY OF SALLY J. HARMONY, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS E.
QUINN, JR., COUNSEL
Mrs. Harmony. Sally J. Harmony. I live at 4515 Willard Avenue,
in Chevy Chase, Md.
Mr. Dash. You are accompanied by counsel at this proceeding?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Will counsel please identify himself for the record?
Mr. Quinn. My name is Thomas E. Quinn, Jr., attorney here in
Washington, D.C.
Mr. Dash. Mrs. Harmony, will you tell the committee where you
were employed around the period of March 1972?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, I was employed at the Committee To Re-
Elect the President. My employer was G. Gordon Liddy.
Mr. Dash. Where was that located then?
Mrs. Harmony. 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Mr. Dash. Will you tell the committee where you were actually
physically located in the ofiices of the Committee To Re-Eiect the
President?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes. When I first went to work for the committee,
our oj65ces were located on the eighth floor. Approximately 2 weeks
after that, we moved to the second floor, to the finance cominittee.
Mr. Dash. Now, over what period of time did you work with Mr.
Liddy as his secretary?
Mrs. Harmony. From March 13, 1972, until June 28, I think the
date was.
459
Mr. Dash. And you were his secretary on the date of June 17,
1972?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Dash. While j'ou were working for Mr. Liddy, will you tell
the committee what his duties were and something about his work
hours?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Liddy, when he first began, was counsel for
the Committee for the Re-Election. I would say in about 2 weeks, he
changed as counsel to the finance committee.
Mr. Dash. Did he have any other assignment or responsibility,
to your knowledge?
Airs. Harmony. When I was employed by Mr. Liddy, I think it is
in the early part of June, he mentioned the fact that he might be in-
volved in clandestine activity.
Mr. Dash. What kind of hours did Mr. Liddy have, working day
or night?
Mrs. Harmony. Well, actually, my recollection would be he would
come in around 8 :45. He would leave at 7 :30 or 8 at night, sometimes 7.
Mr. Dash. Now, during this period of time, did you ever meet
Howard Hunt?
Mrs. Harmony. I had occasion to meet Mr. Hunt, yes.
Mr. Dash. Could you tell the committee what that occasion was
and what were the circumstances?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, I think, Mr. Dash, it was the week of April 7,
around the 5th of April. Mr. Hunt had made a couple of phone calls
to the office. Mr. Liddy was going out of town. I took an envelope to
him, a regular 8 by 10 brown envelope, with no markings on it, to
Mr. Liddy. He asked me to give it to Mr. Sloan the following morning
and after Mr. Sloan had returned it to me, I would call Mr. Hunt and
he would come and pick it up.
Mr. Dash. Now, did you ever in March of 1972, while you were
still on the eighth floor, type a tape furnished to you by Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. I did.
Mr. Dash. Would you describe that particular circumstance?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes. I was working at my desk on one particular
day. Mr. Liddy went into another office, closed the door. Then when
he came back out, he took a telephone call. He asked me to come into
the office and transcribe a tape.
Mr. Dash. What was the natiu-e of that tape?
Mrs. Harmony. This I am really not definite on. The words I can
remember from it are "Joe's," "Stone crab." It was about a three-
fine memo with a list of maybe five or six names. I recollect none of
the names at all or what it might be.
Mr. Dash. Was Mr. Liddy in the practice of giving you tapes to
transcribe?
Mrs. Harmony. That was the first time I had one.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever type any general intelligence memo to
Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir, on a couple of occasions, yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. Could you now describe what those memos were, the
format of those memos?
Mrs. Harmony. I typed two that I can recall the content of that
had come from Senator McGovern's office, headquarters.
460
Mr. Dash. Miss Harmony, don't give us the actual contents of
the memos, but could you describe or characterize what the memos
referred to and, whether the memos were telephone conversations.
What was the form of the memos?
Mrs. Harmony. Oh, all right. This was a question and answer.
It was two people discussing something and it was put dowTi — when
I typed it, I typed it in a question and answer form. It dealt with
goods and services for the Democratic National Convention. That is
about it, the form, my knowledge of it.
Mr. Dash. Have you ever typed any telephone logs? Do you know
what a telephone log is?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, telephone conversations.
Mr. Dash. Is this what you are referring to now?
Mrs. Harmony. No, this is not.
Mr. Dash. And this was just a Q and A type of memo?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Now, did you type it on any particular type of
stationery?
Mrs. Harmony. No.
Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Liddy dictate to you?
Mrs. Harmony. These were tapes that I took off.
Mr. Dash. Now, who gave them to you?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Liddy called me into his office and asked me
to go in there.
Mr. Dash. Were there any general intelligence memos that
Mr. Liddy gave you?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, the ones that he dictated. I mentioned that
there were two that I recognized that had come from Senator
McGovem's headquarters.
Mr. Dash. How would they be characterized? What was the manner
of beginning of the memo; do you know?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir, I don't recall.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall such terms as "reliable source?"
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Now, you did refer to the fact that you did type telephone
logs, telephone conversations?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. How often did that occur?
Mrs. Harmony. I think I may have done eight of them.
Mr. Dash. And you did recognize them as a record of telephone
conversations?
Mrs. Harmony. They were telephone conversations, yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. In what form did you get them in the first place?
Mr. Harmony. Mr. Liddy dictated them to me.
Mr, Dash. Did you recognize any names, without giving us any
content of those logs? Did you recognize any names that appeared in
those telephone conversations?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes. There were two names. Yes; I did recognize
names.
Mr. Dash. Could you just give the names to the committee that
you did recognize.
Mr. QuiNN. Mr. Dash, I wonder if we are not getting rather
dangerously close to a violation of 18 U.S.C. 2515, where it would
be a violation for a witness to disclose any of the content of overheard
or wiretaped conversations.
461
Mr. Dash. I am specifically addressing my question not to content
but to identifying any names. So restrict the question to that.
Mrs. Harmony. The name of Spencer Oliver and another name
given as Maxie.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever receive any telephone logs from Mr.
McCord? Do you know Mr. McCord?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes; I have met Mr. McCord.
Mr. Dash. James McCord. How did you know Mr. McCord?
Mrs. Harmony. He was the securit}^ officer for the committee.
Mr. Dash. Did he ever come to you with any memos or telephone
logs for you to type?
Mrs. Harmony. On one occasion, he asked me, stopped at my
desk— Mr. Liddy wasn't in — and asked me for an envelope, put a
piece of paper in it, and put it on Mr. Liddy's desk.
On another occasion, he did give a folded paper to me, which I
looked at and recognized as being in the telephone conversations
that I had done before, that Mr. Liddy had dictated.
Mr. Dash. Did j^ou type these telephone logs on any particular
stationery?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes; Mr. Liddy had printed a stationery with the
name "Gemstone" across the top of it. I don't recall, sir, that all of
these logs were typed on that particular stationery. I think probably —
Mr. Dash. Did you have any directions as to how you were to use
this stationery? \Vhen were a^ou to use the so-called "Gemstone"
stationery?
Mrs. Harmony. I used it for the telephone conversations that I
typed.
Mr. Dash. For the telephone conversations?
Mrs. Harmony, Yes.
Mr. Dash. I would like to show you two pieces of stationery. Mrs.
Harmon}^, do you recognize the stationery as that which had been
delivered to you?
Mrs. Harmony. I recognize the way it is set up, yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Is that the stationery you used?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Dash, I did not think the stationery was
white. It might have been.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive the delivery of the Gemstone stationery?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. And when was that?
Mrs. Harmony. I cannot recall specifically when it was delivered.
Mr. Dash. Now, did the stationery have a kind of printing on it
like this?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir, I think it did although this at the bottom
I do not remember the warning.
Mr. Dash. Who was the printer who printed the Gemstone
stationery?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Post.
Mr. Dash. And do you know at whose direction?
Mrs. Harmony. I do not know.
Mr. Dash. And Mr. Post has submitted under subpoena these
copies of stationery printed under Mr. Liddy's orders and delivered
to you?
462
Mrs. Harmony. Yes sir.
Mr. Dash. And that you recognize as the stationery that Mr. Post
printed?
Mrs. Harmony. This is the set up of it. I thought it was colored
stationery. I probably am wrong.
Mr. Dash. Where it says source, what was typed on the stationery
where it says source?
Mrs. Harmony. Where it says source, there were three source names
that I recall: Euby 1, Ruby 2, and Crystal.
Mr. Dash. Did you know what they referred to?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. Was there any particular source used more frequently
than another?
Mrs. Harmony. Ruby 1 and Ruby 2, I thmk.
Mr. Dash. More so?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Dash. More so?
Mrs, Harmony. No rhyme or reason as to when one was used.
Mr, Dash. Now, after you typed either the telephone logs on such
stationery or any of the memorandums or intelligence memorandums
you have testified to, to whom did you give these memorandums or
telephone logs?
Mrs. Harmony. I returned them to Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever type any memorandum for either Mr.
Magruder or Mr. Mitchell.
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever deliver any of this for Mr. Magruder or
Mr. Mitchell?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever see any photographs in Mr. Liddy's office
of documents from the Democratic National Committee?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. Could you characterize very briefly what the documents
were, what they looked like?
Mrs. Harmony, They were 8-by-lO glossies.
Mr, Dash. Did they have a letterhead on them?
Mrs. Harmony, There were a stack of photographs I mentioned,
the number of 20 or 25, I can't be definite how many were there. The
only one that I recognize that I can put anything with was one signed
by Larry O'Brien. It was a typed letter.
Mr. Dash. Was there anything unusual about the photograph, that
you can remember?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes sir, they were being held by fingers.
Mr. Dash. Fingers?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes sir, I guess at this point they would have been
fingers of rubber gloves,
Mr, Dash. Had you ever typed a budget for Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr, Dash, What was the nature of the budget?
Mrs, Harmony. I can't remember any given item on that. I think,
now it was electronic equipment but I cannot give you any specific
item.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall about what time during your employment
with Mr. Liddy that occurred?
463
Mrs. Harmony. I would say sometime around the middle of May
but I couldn't be definite.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever prepare a pass for Mc Govern headquarters
for ]Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. How did that come about, how did you do it?
Mrs. Harmony. The day of June 16, right in the afternoon, Mr.
Liddy was looking for some stationery which he couldn't find. We
photocopied and made a sample of a McGovern letterhead which
I dictated in a memo to be typed.
Mr. Dash. Did you have a copy of McGovern stationery?
Mrs. Harmony. No, I did not have one and he did not have one,
this is the reason a facsimile was made.
Mr. Dash. Simulated McGovern stationery?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And what was the nature of the message on it?
Mrs. Harmony. The nature of the message, it was to whom it may
concern, and it was, "This will authorize the bearer to enter premises"
for some such reason.
Mr. Dash. Did it have a signature attached to it?
Mrs. Harmony. I was asked to put the initials GH/w JP as the
secretary would type something.
Mr. Dash. What about the signature to the pass?
Mrs. Harmony. The signature was signed Gary Hart with the
initials Uke a secretary would sign it.
Mr. Dash. Who signed that?
Mrs. Harmony. I did.
Mr. Dash. What happened to that pass, do you know?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, I was informed the following week that Mr.
Hunt had it in his possession.
Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Liddy ever hear from Mr. Bernard Barker,
to your knowledge?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Could you state the circumstances of that?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Liddy — actually I want to clarify something —
Mr. Liddy worked in his office most of the time with the door closed,
frequently took his own phone calls practically all of the time. I
have had occasion to answer the phone when Mr. Barker had been
calling.
Mr. Dash. Now, did Mr. Liddy, to your knowledge, ever see
Mr. Mitchell?
Mrs. Harmony. He has on occasion told me he was going to Mr.
Mitchell's office. I am not aware that Mr. Mitchell ever visited
Mr. Liddy in our office.
Mr. Dash. After the so-called break-in of the Watergate on June
17, what, if anything, happened to your records and note pads that
you kept for Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. The only thing was my shorthand notebooks — the
day that Mr. Liddy was interviewed by the FBI and left the com-
mittee — I shredded my shorthand notebooks.
Mr. Dash. At whose instructions?
Mrs. Harmony. At Mr. Liddy's instructions.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive any other instructions from Mr. Liddy
concerning records or documents?
464
^ Mrs. Harmony. No ; on the day he left the committee I did help
him get his things together when he was leaving and check through
the files. He did ask me to check through the files and if I found any-
thing with his handwriting on it would I please destroy that.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever talk with Mr. Jeb Magruder in March of
1973?
Mrs. Harmony. In March of 1973?
Mr. Dash. Yes, in 1973.
Mrs. Harmony. Well, I am sure I have. I worked with Mr. Ma-
gruder when I was Mr. Marriott's secretary to the Inaugural Committee.
Mr. Dash. During any conversation that you had with Mr. Ma-
gruder in March 1973, did he ever talk to you about any conversation
he had with Mr. Mitchell?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, I think it was probably later than March, it
was after Mr. Magruder went to the Commerce Department to work. I
was called by Mr. Magruder or he had talked to his secretary, who was
still there, who transferred the call. Mr. Magruder indicated to me he
had talked with Mr. Mitchell and assured Mr. Mitchell, this was
after he knew I was going to talk with the Hill people.
Mr. Dash. Will you repeat that, please?
Mrs. Harmony. This was after Mr. Magruder and I had learned I
was going to talk with the Hill investigators. He said I have indicated
to Mr. Mitchell that he has no reason to be concerned about any of
your testimony.
Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Magruder indicate that Mr. Mitchell was
concerned about what your testimony might be?
Mrs. Harmony. I do not know.
Mr. Dash. Now, did you receive a bill for the Gemstone stationary
that was ordered and deUvered to the office?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. Dash. What did you do with that bill?
Mrs. Harmony. That invoice came after Mr. Liddy had left the
committee and I took it to Mr. Magruder's office. I asked Mr. Ma-
gruder if he would authorize payment for it. He had a small piece of
paper and he in his own handwriting was authorizing payment to H. A.
rost Associates for a certain amount of money, signed it Jeb S.
Magruder,
Mr. Dash. What happened to the bill?
Mrs. Harmony. The bill I shredded.
Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Odle, I think has testified the administrator
ordinarily authorizes the payment of bills. Why did you take it to Mr.
Magruder instead of Mr. Odle?
Mrs. Harmony. Because it referred to the Gemstone bill and I
thought Mr. Magruder would be more aware of it than Mr. Odle.
Mr. Dash. Now, I have no further questions of this witness,
Mr. Chairman, but would the Gemstone stationery, now be entered
in evidence for this committee's records?
Senator Ervin. The Gemstone stationery, the blank Gemstone
stationery identified by the witness will now be marked with the
proper number as an exhibit and received as such.
[The document marked exhibit No. 2 for identification on page 50
of Book 1 and the document referred to hereinabove were marked
exhibits Nos. 2 and 16, respectively.*!
Mr. Dash. I have no further questions.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson.
•Exhibit No. 2 appears on p. 450 of Book 1. Exhibit No. 16 appears herein on p. 877.
465
Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Harmony, I would Uke to ask you some questions which may
lay some groundwork for further questioning by members of the
committee, a Uttle more detail about the different categories of
intelligence material that you typed. Now, as I understand it, you
typed first of all, some tapes.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Second, you typed some general intelhgence
information, and third, 3'ou typed some information which evidently
came from the illegal bugging of telephone conversations.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir; I typed telephone conversations.
Mr. Thompson. Let me go over this briefly and lead you. You have
been interviewed three times by the staff of this committee and if I
am incorrect, 3'ou correct me. As I understand it, going back to the
first category, the tapes you typed, these were tapes of telephone
conversations which evidently were consented to, the individuals
involved knew that they were being taped ; is that correct?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Thompson, on the second one that I mentioned
I do not know whether the individual would know he was being taped
or not.
Mr. Thompson. Were there two different tapes?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Were these tapes that you physically had in your
possession? You listened to the tapes and typed from the tapes?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Were these tapes given to you by Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. You mentioned one tape while you were still
on the eighth floor, you remember the words "Joe's Stone Crab"?
Do you know whether or not that perhaps might be a restaurant of
some type?
Mrs. Harmony. No, I am aware that it is.
Mr. Thompson. Where is this restaurant located?
Mrs. Harmony. It is Miami.
Mr. Thompson. All right, what about the second tape that you
t^'ped, what do you remember about that, how did it begin, for
example?
Mrs. Harmony. It began with the words "Good morning, how are
you today, Howard?"
Mr. Thompson. Good morning, how are you today, Howard?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Was it a question and answer type
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Thompson [continuing]. Situation?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. All right, do you have any idea where the individ-
ual talking to Howard, whoever Howard was, was at that time?
Mrs. Harmony. The impression that I got from typing it, after
I typed it, was that it was a conversation in Miami in Florida.
Mr. Thompson. Was there some mention of Mr. O'Brien?
Mrs. Harmony. There was.
Mr. Thompson. They had seen him down there, or something like
that?
Mrs. Harmony, Yes, sir.
466
Mr. Thompson. On these two tapes that you are talking about,
from what you can tell, were conversations wherein one of the indi-
viduals in the conversation was located in Miami? That was your
impression?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Leading to the second category, the general intelli-
gence information, I believe you typed 10 to 15 memorandums of
this type, is that correct?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Thompson, I do not know. The content of
three I can remember. I am sure there were more than that but I
would not guess.
Mr. Thompson. Do you recollect the timespan that these general
intelligence information memorandums covered; when did you do
your first one ; when did you do your last one?
Mrs. Harmony. Actually, I would categorize the first memo as a
general intelligence memo, say, from when I was on the eighth floor
and began my work with Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Thompson. You started to work March 13, 1972, I believe?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. You worked then until July of 1972, is that
correct?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir, I worked for the finance committee.
Mr. Thompson. This second category I am referring to, do you
recollect whether or not there were any indications, notations on the
paper that you used, or whether or not you typed Ruby 1, Ruby 2,
Crystal, those words?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Thompson. All right, do you know what those words had
reference to or who they had reference to?
Mrs. Harmony. I did not know who they had reference to.
Mr. Thompson. It is your understanding these were not derived
from wiretaps or bugging over telephones?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. This consisted of information from certain in-
dividuals?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. All right. These were dictated to you by Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. That is right.
Mr. Thompson. All right. And the third category, I believe you say
you remember perhaps typing eight memorandums of what you
consider to be telephone bugs?
Mrs. Harmony. Telephone conversations.
Mr. Thompson. Results of telephone taps or bugs.
Now, were these all dictated to you by Mr. Liddy, also?
Mrs. Harmony. All but the last two.
Mr. Thompson. Were those the two that Mr. McCord gave you
directly?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. All right, how did he present them to you, if you
recall?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. McCord, the first one he gave me, put in an
envelope and put on Mr. Liddy's desk. I was not aware of what was
in it. The second one he did not ask me for an envelope, he just handed
me the folded sheet of paper.
467
Mr. Thompson. The first one, when did you become aware of what
was in it?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Liddy gave it back to me and asked me to type
it.
Mr. Thompson. You recognized the envelope as before?
Mrs. Harmony. No, no, that I cannot make as a factual statement.
It was out of the envelope but I assumed it was what Mr. McCord had
given since he had given me one after that.
Mr. Thompson. You believe there were eight of these memorandums?
Mrs. Harmony. That is a guess,
Mr. Thompson. When did you use the Gemstone stationery, the
printed Gemstone stationery, how many times did you use that?
Mrs. Harmony. Perhaps two or three, Mr. Thompson; I cannot
be definite on that.
Mr. Thompson. The printed Gemstone stationery was used only
on the illegal or the telephone bug results?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, as I recall.
Mr. Thompson. Going back again to the second category of the
general intelligence information, for a while there I believe you used
plain bond paper to type those memorandums?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Did you for a time type the word "Gemstone"
across the top of it?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. You had Ruby 1 and Ruby 2 references and so
forth?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. As far as the printing is concerned, that was only
used for the telephone bug material.
Let me ask you just another question or two, Mrs. Harmony. You
said Mr. Magruder contacted you in March of 1973. Actually, it was
after your first interview with the committee staff, was it not? He
contacted you on one occasion after?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Thompson, as I recall, it probably was after I
first talked to two of the people.
Mr. Thompson. That was on March 31, 1973?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Did 3^ou discuss with Mr. Magruder the fact that
you had talked with the committee staff?
Mrs. Harmony. I do not know whether I discussed it with him or
not. He was aware that I had talked to them.
Mr. Thompson. Do you remember how the subject of Mr. Mitchell
was first broached?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir, I do not know how it was first broached.
Mr. Thompson. Had you had any pre\'ious conversations with Mr.
Magruder from June 17, 1972, or say, July of 1972, when you left the
committee, up until this particular time?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, I had talked with Mr. Magruder previous to
that.
Mr. Thompson. What did you talk about?
Mrs. Harmony. Well, at one time, I was out of a job, so I was sent
to Mr. Magruder to find another job with the committee.
Mr. Thompson. Did you talk about the Watergate affair during
this period of time?
96-296 (bk.2) O - 73 - 2
468
Mrs. Harmony. With Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Thompson. Yes.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, it was discussed very
Mr. Thompson. Did you discuss with him whether or not certain
other individuals were possibly involved?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. You did not discuss those?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Was Mr. Mitchell's name first mentioned in this
conversation that you had reference to after March 31?
Mrs. Harmony. As I can recall.
Mr. Thompson. Do you recall that he said Mr. Mitchell said he
would not have anything to worry about from your testimony, some-
thing to that effect?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. Do you know how Mr. Magruder knew that Mr.
Mitchell would not have anything to worry about from your testimony,
if you had not discussed it with him?
Mrs. Harmony. No, other than the fact that I did know absolutely
nothing to implicate Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Thompson. But you had not told Mr. Magruder?
Mrs. Harmony. I said you can assure Mr. Mitchell that there is
no way that I am aware that I can implicate him in anyway.
Mr. Thompson. But previous to that, he had told you that he had
told Mr. Mitchell that Mitchell had nothing to worry about?
Mrs. Harmony. That is right.
Mr. Thompson. But you had not previously told Mr. Magruder
that Mr. Mitchell did not in fact have anything to worry about?
Mrs. Harmony. No.
Mr. Thompson. This was just a guess on his part, in other words?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Thompson. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Senator Ervin. I will waive and transfer to Senator Inouye. I will
swap my turn in favor of him.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Harmony, were you aware that you were typing or recording
information which was obtained illegally?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir. They were telephone conversations, to me.
I did not know the source of them at all.
Senator Inouye. You were not aware that these were conversations
resulting from bugs?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir; I did not.
Senator Inouye. When did you first learn that these were bugged
conversations?
Mrs. Harmony. When I read the newspaper on June 18.
Senator Inouye. Now, you have told this committee about some
of the contents of the memos of the tapes, one about goods and
services involved in the Miami Democratic Convention; another a
letter signed by Larry O'Brien. Did you find any information relating
to any activity to endanger the President of the United States or to
endanger the U.S. Government itself?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, not that I can recall; no.
469
Senator Inouye. Do you recall any information in there that
related to any conspiracy mth foreign governments?
Mrs. Harmony. Not that I can recall, no, Senator.
Senator Inouye. In other words, in your mind, none of the informa-
tion related to national security?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir; as nearly as I can recall, it would not have.
Senator Inouye. It was all political.
Mrs. Harmony. As I recall, it probably was, yes.
Senator Inouye. I would like to give you an opportunity, Mrs.
Hannony, to respond to certain statements that have been made
against you. This, according to an article which appeared in one of
our papers, states that Mrs. Eveline Hyde said that Liddy's sec-
retary, Sally Harmony, had implied that as a "reward" for her
testimony, she was given a trip to Florida prior to the Republican
National Convention in Miami. In one of the depositions, Arden
Chambers, who is still the secretar}' of the Finance Committee To
Re-Elect the President, testified that Mrs. Harmony said at a party
in Mrs. HA^de's home last July 16 something to the effect, "For
Gordon I perjured myself."
Would you like to comment on that?
Mr. Dash. Senator Inouye, while the witness is conferring could
we have identified for the record the specific item you are reading
from?
Senator Inouye. This is an article by John Hanrahan appearing
in the Washington Post, entitled "Perjury Laid to Witness on Water-
gate." I am sorry I don't have the paper. It appeared on Saturday,
June 2.
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, in response to the one statement that was
attributed to Mr. Chambers
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Mrs. Harmony. I think at that time, I had not appeared before the
grand jury. I have not read her deposition. I have only glanced at
the newspaper article. I can't think that I would use the word
"perjure" at all. And I feel that I did not make the statement.
Senator Inouye. You didn't say something to the effect "For
Gordon, I'd he," something to that effect?
Mrs. Harmony. I don't believe I had been to the grand jury, no.
Senator Inouye. The article goes on further to state:
Mrs. Hyde said Mrs. Harmony also said in regard to the trip, "I need it; they
owe it to me." Mrs. Hyde said Mrs. Harmony did not know who they were and
we didn't ask her. She said, "Mrs. Harmony did not, to my knowledge, have
any job assignment for the committee at the convention."
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, I can preface this by saying at the time,
I had taken another position working for the Lawyers for the Reelection
and Voter Bloc. I took it on a 2-week trial basis, thinking that this
was not the work I would like to do. At the time I was asked to go to
Florida to the convention, it was on short notice. I was not particularly
happy with my job and thought I was not probably doing a terribly
good job for Mr. Piliero. I was in and out of the office quite a lot at
that time. So I was a logical one to go ahead of the others.
Mr. LaRue asked me to go down and do some work on the domestic
council staff prior to the convention.
Senator Inouye. So you were in Miami on some party work?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
4?0
Senator Inouye. It was not a reward for your testimony?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir; and I have never felt anyone owed me any-
thing.
Senator Inouye. You have testified that you have no contact with
Mr. Mitchell. Is that correct?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir; I have had no contact with Mr. Mitchell.
Senator Inouye. In your discussions with Mr. Liddy, did you discuss
the Attorney General?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir; I do not recall any discussions that he would
have had with me concerning the Attorney General, no.
Senator Inouye. Can you identify Ruby 1 and Ruby 2?
Mrs. Harmony. As individuals, no. I would have no idea who they
were.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dash. Mrs. Harmony, I think if you will bring the microphone
a little closer to you, some of the others in the room may hear you.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Baker?
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I will yield
my turn to Senator Gurney.
Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Who interviewed you, Mrs. Harmony, when you were hired at the
Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mrs. Harmony. I was interviewed by the Personnel Director, Mrs.
Santarelli, originally. She took me to Mr. Liddy. I talked with him.
Then I went back for another screening from Mr. Odle.
Senator Gurney. I understand that at the time you were hired,
there was mention made of being involved in clandestine activities.
Is that correct?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Who brought up that subject?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Liddy.
Senator Gurney. And what did he say?
Mrs. Harmony. He said that — I can't give you a quote — that he
might be involved in clandestine activities.
Senator Gurney. Did he describe the clandestine activities to you?
Mrs. Harmony. He did not.
Senator Gurney. What did you think he might have meant by that?
Mrs. Harmony. Well, to me "clandestine" does not mean illegal,
and I can keep a secret.
Senator Gurney. Did he indicate to you that you would be a partner
in these clandestine activities?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir; he did not indicate anything like that.
Senator Gurney. You mentioned that Mr. Liddy, I think, had
talked to Mr. Hunt. Was that when Mr. Hunt came to Mr. Liddy's
office?
Mrs. Harmony. No. I am not aware that Mr. Hunt ever came to
Mr. Liddy's office. I had the opportunity to see Mr. Hunt twice.
Mainly it was through phone conversations.
Senator Gurney. Do you recall what they discussed?
Mrs. Harmony. I would have no idea.
Senator Gurney. Do you remember any other people who may have
visited Mr. Liddy's office, and if you do, who were they?
471
Mrs. Harmony. The only other people that I am aware of that
might have been m Mr. Liddy's office were the State finance chairmen
or treasurers, who would come in. Actually, our job was to
Senator Gurney. And who was that?
Mrs. Harmony. The State finance chairmen or treasurers from the
individual States. Our job was to set up and register with the General
Accounting Office all of the State finance committees, make sure that
the}" were properly chartered and authorized to take in money and
disburse moneys.
Senator Gurney. Since we are on the subject of moneys, do you
recall any occasion that Mr. Liddy received any moneys from anyone?
Mrs. Harmony. Are you speaking of payment to Mr. Liddy,
Senator Gurney?
Senator Gurney. That is right, payment, cash, anything in the
form of moneys.
Mrs. Harmony. That was given to Mr. Liddy? No, I am not aware
of ever having seen him given any money.
Senator Gurney. Were you aware of any occasions when he might
have given money to anybody else?
Mrs. Harmony. I am not, only on the occasion of when I gave the
sealed envelope to Mr. Hunt that Mr. Sloan had given to me.
Senator Gurney. And you think there was money in that envelope?
Mrs. Harmony. That would be my assumption, sir.
Senator Gurney. Do you have any idea how much and what for?
Mrs. Harmony. I would have no idea.
Senator Gurney. No one ever discussed it with you?
Mrs. Harmony. No.
Senator Gurney. You did mention that Mr. Liddy received many
phone calls himself.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Senator Gurney. Do you recall who might have called him that
you knew about?
Mrs. Harmony. I have taken messages and asked him to return
calls. I remember he did this
Senator Gurney. Do you recall who they were from?
Mrs. Harmony. We are speaking of just general day-to-day
Senator Gurney. That is right.
Mrs. Harmony. He talked to a number of people, I think, at the
White House occasionally.
Senator Gurney. Who were they?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Dean, Mr. Krogh, Mr. Strachan. He talked to
Mr. Barker — I think Roger Barker is at IRS. He had conversations
with a couple of people down at the General Accounting Ofiice on
occasion.
Senator Gurney. Let us talk about the White House for a moment.
Do you know" what he talked about with people at the White House?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator Gurney, I would have no idea.
Senator Gurney. He never told you of his conversations?
Mrs. Harmony. No.
Senator Gurney. Whom did he talk to most at the White House?
Mrs. Harmony. I would have no way of knowing that. Let me say,
when Mr. Liddy worked, he worked with his door closed, he placed
his own calls, and most of the time took his own incoming calls.
472
Senator Gurney. Would you have any recollection that he talked
to one person more than another?
Mrs. Harmony. No, I would not.
Senator Gurney. These memorandums that you typed and referred
to Ruby 1, Ruby 2, and Crystal, these must have provoked your curi-
osity, with Ruby 1, Ruby 2, and then Crystal?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. They did not?
Mrs. Harmony. No.
Senator Gurney. Well, where do you think this information was
coming from, from Ruby 1 ?
Mrs. Harmony. I put no rhyme or reason with who, you know,
what information was coming from whom.
Senator Gurney. Was the information about finances?
Mrs. Harmony. No, it would have been the intelligence informa-
tion, and like I say, I cannot tell you.
Senator Gurney. Can you give us some vague notion of what the
intelHgence information was?
Mrs. Harmony. I can give you three reports that I have typed.
This is all I can remember the content of. Do you want the content of
them that I can recall?
Senator Gurney. Yes. May I point out, I am not pointing out
whether they were legal or not, I am just asking what they were.
Mrs. Harmony. I do recall doing the one that was on the subject
of — was Robert N. Crabstone. That dealt with some sort of a drug
and a girl in a hopsital. That is all I can tell you about it.
Senator Gurney. Well, do you recall anything that happened
that had to do with political activity?
Mrs. Harmony. No. Another one I received from Mc Govern
headquarters was just a report on the fact that the employees were
receiving a pay cut or asked to go on a voluntary basis. And this is the
extent of that memo.
Senator Gurney. Do you recall any of these that may have been
originated from other political campaigns other than the one Mc-
Govern that you identified?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, I am aware that there was someone at one
time in the Muskie headquarters.
Senator Gurney. And what intelligence was received from that
individual?
Mrs. Harmony. I do not know.
Senator Gurney. But at least one of the memos
Mrs. Harmony. I do not remember that it was a memo. I jvist
remember that someone was there. I assume I would have something
from that. The reason I am aware of it was one time Mr. Liddy was
just talking and he said, I am taking someone from the Muskie head-
quarters and moving him to McGovern's.
Senator Gurney. But you do not know whether that was
Mrs. Harmony. As to whether it was one person, two people, I do
not know.
Senator Gurney. And you do not know whether it was Ruby 1,
Ruby 2, or Crystal?
Mrs. Harmony. I do not.
Senator Gurney. This facsimile that you manufactured, how did
that come about? Mr. Liddy came into your office and said, "I would
473
like to have something made up," or could you give us a narrative
account of that?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir; I can. He had looked through a file and
could find no McGovern stationerj^ I had an envelope that I had
saved in my desk drawer. Secretary Stans had been solicited from the
McGovern headquarters for a contribution. That was given to Mr.
Liddy if there were any ramifications.
Senator Gurney. Did he make any contributions?
Mrs. Harmony. If he did, I think we would have had the entire
content. Mr. Liddy and I — he asked me to go to the Xerox room with
him. We took this envelope and used it on the Xerox machine in order
to make the facsimile of the McGovern letterhead.
Senator Gurney. Did he come to you and say, Sally, I need a
pass
Mrs. Harmony. He needed the envelope.
No, I was in his office, he was looking for the stationery, he could
not find it. He said, do you still have the envelope? I said yes.
He said, come to the Xerox room; so we went back and came up
with the copies of the stationery.
Senator Gurney. Did he give you any indication of why he needed
it or what he was going to use it for?
Mrs. Harmony. After he dictated the memo to me. No, I had no
idea. It was a real puzzle to me until about 3 weeks ago, in fact, when
I think I read a statement Mr. McCord made in the paper that they
intended to go into McGovern headquarters that week, also.
Senator Gurney. You did not ask Mr. Liddy, who is going to use
this?
Mrs. Harmony. No.
Senator Gurney. Did you ever make any copies of these telephone
logs or memos you typed?
Mrs. Harmony. No, Senator Gurney; I did not.
Senator Gurney. After you typed them, you turned them over to
Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Do you know whether he kept a file in his oflSice
of these?
Mrs. Harmony. Not that I am aware of.
Senator Gurney. You never saw him file any of these papers?
Mrs. Harmony. No, I never did see him file any.
Senator Gurney. Did he ever tell you what he did with them?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir; he did not.
Senator Gurney. I think that is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge.
Senator Talmadge. Mrs. Harmony, when did your employment
with the Committee To Re-Elect the President terminate?
Mrs. Harmony. On November 20, Senator Talmadge.
Senator Talmadge. 1972?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Where do you now work?
Mrs. Harmony. Well, I am still working at the Inaugural
Committee.
Senator Talmadge. The next one or the last one?
Mrs. Harmony. Keep asking me, I will be there 4 more years.
Senator Talmadge. What do you do?
474
Mrs. Harmony. Answering last minute mail, not requests for
tickets, requests for refunds, the ball favors that people didn't get,
that sort of thing.
Actually, I think one of the main reasons I am down there, we would
like to get the final report finished. I am trying to put the individual
group file reports in good order for Mr. Marriott. We still have two
bookkeepers who are working there and I think they would like me to
stay there as long as they are working there.
Senator Talmadge. What is your salary there?
Mrs. Harmony. $12,500.
Senator Talmadge. Did you ever have any contacts while you were
working for Mr. Liddy with people that were identified only by their
first name?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, not that I am aware.
Senator Talmadge. Neither personally or by telephone or
otherwise?
Mrs. Harmony. No, on occasion when Mr. Barker has called he
may have said this is Bernie rather than this is Mr.
Senator Talmadge. You knew who those were.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. You had no contact with people you could not
identify other than by their first names?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir; not that I am aware of.
Senator Talmadge. To whom did Mr. Liddy confer most
frequently?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, I don't quite know what you mean by the
question.
Senator Talmadge. Did he have a lot of business telephone con-
versations; if so, who did he have most conversations with, most
visits with?
Mrs. Harmony. He very infrequently had visitors in his office and
I was sitting in a position I might not have been aware that somebody
was in his ofiice; I have on occasion tapped on the door and got in and
not realized someone was in there.
Senator Talmadge. When his telephone would ring would you
answer it first or would he answer it?
Mrs. Harmony. We had two outside lines and two that came
through the switchboard. He always answered the one that came
through the switchboard. He would frequently answer the outside line
himself.
Senator Talmadge. You were his personal secretary?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. You don't know who he conferred with the
most?
Mrs. Harmony. No.
Senator Talmadge. Neither personally nor by telephone?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Who were Mr. Liddy's superiors in the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President and also the Finance Committee
To Re-Elect the President?
Mrs. Harmony. The Committee for the Re-Election of the Presi-
dent, he would have reported to Mr. Magruder as general counsel and
Mr. Mitchell. At the finance committee he reported to Secretary
Stans.
475
Senator Talmadge. Did Mr. Liddy meet most often with his
associates in person or by telephone?
Mrs. Harmony. I don't ever recall taking a phone call from Mr.
Magruder. I would say oflFhand when he talked to Mr. Magruder he
went to Mr. Magruder's office, the same way with Mr. Mitchell,
although I cannot be sure of the phone conversations at all.
Senator Talmadge. Did you ever shred any of Mr. Liddy's ma-
terials after the Watergate break-in on June 17?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir; I did not work on that Saturday, referring
to that incident.
Senator Talmadge. Did you shred any subsequent letters?
Mrs. Harmony. Subsequent to that, he asked me to check through
his files with him the day he left. There was very little there that
Senator Talmadge. What day was that? How many documents did
you shred?
Mrs. Harmony. I think it was the 28th of June, on the day he
left. He asked me to pick out anything that might have his hand-
^\Titing on. There were maybe some old drafts of something, maybe
three or four documents perhaps.
Senator Talmadge. What would those
Mrs. Harmony. I would have no idea.
Senator Talmadge. You shredded only those that had his signature
or personal hand\vriting on it?
Mrs. Harmony. Personal handwriting.
Senator Talmadge. With whom did Mr. Liddy meet on a regular
basis?
Mrs. Harmony. He had a staff meeting every morning in Secretary
Stans' office. Other than that, I don't know. It was a regular basis.
Senator Talmadge. Each morning he would leave and go to Secre-
tary Stans' office and have a meeting there.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Who else did he meet with besides Secretary
Stans?
Mrs. Harmony. I am not aware he met with anyone regularly.
Senator Talmadge. What is your knowledge of the extent Mr.
Liddy was involved in the Watergate break-in and the McGovem
headquarters attempted break-in?
Mrs. Harmony. What is the extent of my knowledge of it? Mainly
what I have read in the newspapers.
Senator Talmadge. You didn't know anything prior to that?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. You had no information from Mr. Liddy, or
others, firsthand or subsequent thereto?
Mrs. Harmony. That he intended to break in to those places?
Senator Talmadge. Yes.
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Or that he did break in.
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. All you know is what you read in the news-
papers subsequent to that time.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. What is your knowledge as to the type and
extent to which Mr. Liddy organized, controlled, or participated in
intelligence activities while you were his secretary?
476
Mrs. Hakmony. Senator, the only information I would have would
be the memos that he dictated to me and I typed for him.
Senator Talmadge. That was the full extent of your knowledge.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. You knew, of course, that that was coming from
sources that weren't quite ethical, I guess?
Mrs. Harmony. Well, I think maybe at the time someone had
mentioned the fact they were aware there were two people in our
organization from the other side.
Senator Talmadge. Were you familiar with the fact some messages
were taped by eavesdropping and wiretapping?
Mrs. Harmony. You are talking about the telephone conversations.
I was not aware that they were -wiretapped conversations at the time
I was doing them.
Senator Talmadge. You never were apprised of that or subsequent?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Senator Talmadge. What was Mr. Liddy's association with the
November group?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Liddy was the general counsel for the com-
mittee. I think he was secretary or treasurer of that group. I think
after he went to the finance committee that was probably turned
over to the general counsel for the committee, Mr. Sedam.
Senator Talmadge. What was the November Group?
Mrs. Harmony. It was an advertising organization setup.
Senator Talmadge. What kind of advertising; what was the
nature of the
Mrs. Harmony. Political advertising.
Senator Talmadge. What type, urging the reelection of the
President?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes; it was set up for the Committee for the
Re-Election of the President.
Senator Talmadge. That was the actual extent of the November
group?
Mrs. Harmony. As far as I knew.
Senator Talmadge. You never knew anything about it but it was
an advertising group.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker?
Senator Weicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a few questions.
Could you tell me what you did in the period prior to moving over to
the finance committee of the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
There was a period of time when you worked for Mr. Liddy, as I
understand, when he was general counsel to the Committee To Re-
Elect the President.
Mrs. Harmony. A 2-week period.
Senator Weicker. What was the nature of your activities during
that 2-week period?
Mrs. Harmony. We were working on a project at the time getting
reporting information and filing date information.
Senator Weicker. Reporting dates?
Mrs. Harmony. Filing dates for primaries and elections.
Senator Weicker. For primaries and elections?
Mrs. Harmony. We were in contact with the secretaries of State
at that time.
477
Senator Weicker. Was this in relation to any particular candidacy?
Mrs. Harmony. I think it runs in my mind we were making some
inquiries about what might be necessary for Senator Wallace as to file.
Senator Weicker. I am sorry
Mrs. Harmony. Governor Wallace.
Senator Weicker. You thought this might be an effort
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Senator Weicker. On behalf of Governor Wallace?
Mrs. Harmony. Not in behalf of, but just trying to determine if he
could file and in how many States he might be able to file at that time.
Senator Weicker. And this was activity being conducted out of the
general counsel's office of the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mrs. Harmony. That is right, but it also was to determine the pri-
mar}^ dates and the filing dates for the different States for the Com-
mittee for the Re-Election of the President.
Senator Weicker. So that the work related both to the Committee
To Re-Elect the President as to filing requirements, primary dates,
and am I correct that you stated it also had a relationship to Governor
Wallace?
Mrs. Harmony. I vaguely remember that, sir, and I can't give you
any details on it at all.
wSenator Weicker. Let me ask you one more question. Aside from
the President and Governor Wallace, was there any particular in-
dividual that this work was being done for?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator Weicker that length of time and that 2-
week period I am sorry I just can't recall.
Senator Weicker. Now, am I correct in paraphrasing your
testimony to the committee today, am I correct in my understanding,
3^ou have told us that at no time did you say you would he to protect
Gordon Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator Weicker, I said I never used the word
perjure, I do not recall that I ever made that statement.
Senator Weicker. To the best of your recollection?
Mrs. Harmony. To the best of my recollection.
Senator Weicker. You never made that statement. Now, can you
tell me how many times you appeared before the grand jury?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, I have appeared before the grand jury
four times.
Senator Weicker. I beg your pardon?
Mrs. Harmony. Four times.
Senator Weicker. And can you indicate to me what initiated your
second appearance before the grand jury?
Mrs. Harmony. My second appearance. Senator?
Senator Weicker. Yes.
Mrs. Harmony. No, I do not know.
Senator Weicker. Well, let me ask you this. Were subsequent
appearances before the grand jury in any way motivated by the fact
that you had withheld information at the time of your first appearance
before that body?
Mrs. Harmony. I have no idea why they called me the second
time.
Senator Weicker. Or third time?
478
Mrs. Harmony. The third time? The third time I went back, I
had consulted counsel at the time. I think I was called back to maybe
clarify some information.
Senator Weicker. And the fourth time?
Mrs. Harmony. I think the same reason.
Senator Weicker. Was it for clarification of your previous testi-
mony before the grand jury, would that be correct?
Mrs. Harmony [conferring with counsel]. Yes.
Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya?
Senator Montoya. Mrs. Harmony, other than transcribing from
the bug information and the dictation from Mr. Liddy, did you type
any other secret memorandums which were labeled as confidential or
conveying something clandestine?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator Montoya, other than the ones that I
have related, those are the ones that I can recall.
Senator Montoya. What were your principal duties as secretary
to Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. Well, my main function was to set up the State
finance committees, make certain they were properly registered with
the GAO, all the forms were filed, they were properly chartered,
that they received letters of authorization from Secretary Stans that
they could collect and disburse moneys. They were in a constant
state of perhaps changing treasurers
Senator Montoya. Besides those activities relating to campaigns,
did he dictate letters to you?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes sir.
Senator Montoya. Other than the confidential memorandums?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. About which you have testified?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did you also answer the telephones?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did you arrange appomtments for him?
Mrs. Harmony. I do not recall any occasion — yes, a couple of
times when somebody from the State might have been coming in
they would have told me from some other office and I would have
told him that someone was coming in at a given time.
Senator Montoya. You knew he had met with Mr. Mitchell at the
Department of Justice on several occasions, did you not?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, I did not. I knew that he had gone to
the Department of Justice but with whom he met I did not know.
Senator Montoya. Did you keep his log of appointments?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did you have an opportunity to observe them?
Mrs. Harmony. I have never seen an appointment book that he had.
Senator Montoya. You mean he kept his appointment book
locked in his desk?
Mrs. Harmony. I had access to his desk. He did not keep an ap-
pointment book as far as I am aware.
Senator Montoya. Tell us what kind of a desk; did he have a key
to the desk and also a combination lock?
Mrs. Harmony. No, he had only a key to his desk.
479
Senator Montoya. Now you say that Mr. Liddy ordered the
stationery with a letterhead Gemstone. How many copies of this
stationery or how many sheets did he order?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, I do not know.
Senator Montoya. Did he place more than one order?
Mrs. Harmony. Not as far as I am aware. Only one was delivered.
Senator Montoya. Wliere was this stationery kept?
Mrs. Harmony. The stationery was kept in the bottom drawer of
his file cabinet.
Senator Montoya. Did anybody else use this stationery?
Mrs. Harmony. Not that I am aware of, sir, no.
Senator Montoya. How much did you pay for this stationery when
you paid for it?
Mrs. Harmony. Well I made the statement that the figure was $57.
In the meantime I heard it might have been $67.
Senator Montoya. You mentioned in your statement before the
committee during the interview that you took quite a few documents,
secret documents, to your apartment, did you not?
Mrs. Harmony. No, Senator I did not.
Senator Montoya. You gave the testimony before the committee
during the interview indicating that you had taken some documents
that belonged to Mr. Liddy to your apartment in your car, did you
not?
Mrs. Harmony. Oh, I am sorry. I took some files, some pictures,
some things from his office to my apartment in my car; yes. They were
two cardboard cartons %vith things that belonged to him.
Senator Montoya. Did you take them out of his desk or did you
take them out of the file?
Mrs. Harmony. Actually the things that he and I had gathered up
before he left the night before, other than taking the pictures off the
walls.
Senator Montoya. Where did you gather them from?
Mrs. Harmony. The boxes were on his desk.
Senator Montoya. Were they confidential in nature or were they
reports of investigations or what?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, I do not know what he might have put in
his briefcase and taken the night he left. I am only aware of what was
put in those boxes and I was asked to bring home. It was not a bit
confidential information. He had a voluminous gun control file which
was part of it. I think copies of personal letters he had done.
Senator Montoya. Did the fact that you were writing letters on
Gemstone stationery ever arouse your curiosity as to the clandestine
nature of the activity which the information might have portrayed?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, it did not.
Senator Montoya. Did you, during the month of May, or during
the early part of June, type any memorandum with respect to Demo-
cratic national headquarters or the Mc Govern headquarters?
Mrs. Harmony. You are speaking of prior to the break-in?
Senator Montoya. Yes.
Mrs. Harmony. No, Senator, not that I am aware of.
Senator Montoya. You mentioned that you had some pictures sup-
posedly from the Democratic National Committee with some fingers
on them. Did that not indicate to you that they came from the na-
tional committee?
480
Mrs. Harmony. No, Senator, I did not know where they had come
from.
Senator Montoya. And you did not type any memo whatsoever
before the break-in?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, memorandums that I have mentioned to you
before that I had received from Senator McGovem's headquarters.
Senator Montoya. You have indicated a very hazy memory,
Mrs. Harmony, about the contents of the memorandum which you
typed, did you — see if you can recall — did you type any memorandum
with respect to anything at Democratic national headquarters or
Mc Govern headquarters prior to the break-in in June?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, only the memorandums that I have men-
tioned are the only ones that I can remember. I will say this. I did take
dictation from Mr. Liddy. As any secretary may be aware, the first
word will not relate to the third, you only take down words. When you
type it you only type words, so if you do not read it for content you
do not remember the content.
Senator Montoya. Well, what were the memorandums with respect
to the Democratic National Committee about, how closely tied to the
national committee, what was it?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, I do not know which memorandum you
are referring to.
Senator Montoya. I am referring to any memorandums that you
might have typed prior to the break-in with respect to the Democratic
National Committee or the Mc Govern headquarters.
Mrs. Harmony. Prior to the break-in I typed some general intelh-
gence memorandums. One had to do with the subject of Robert
Cranston, one had to do with the status of the McGovern workers
in the headquarters, one was a list of typewritten names of the workers
in the McGovem headquarters, and the other two were the tapes that
we have talked about. This is all I can recall domg.
Senator Montoya. And how did the pictures of Mr. O'Brien and
others get to Mr. Liddy's desk, and did you ask any questions about
those or do you have any recollection as to why they got there?
Mrs. Harmony. I have no idea how they got to his desk. I did not
see them brought into the oflEice at all. I do not know what disposition
was made of them.
Senator Montoya. What happened to the files which you took for
Mr. Liddy to your apartment?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Liddy came by and picked them up.
Senator Montoya. Since the break-in who have you talked to
among the individuals involved in this, from the White House and
including Mr. Magruder and any others from the Department of
Justice? Who have you talked to about this case?
Mrs, Harmony. I have been interviewed by the FBL
Senator Montoya. Did you talk to Mr. Dean about this case?
Mrs. Harmony. No, I do not know Mr. Dean.
Senator Montoya. Did you talk to the attorney for the Committee
To Re-Elect the President, Mr. O'Brien?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, before my grand jury appearance, yes, I
have had conversations with Mr. O'Brien. I think everyone who went
to the grand jury probably did.
Senator Montoya. Did you talk to Mr. Liddy?
481
Mrs. Harmony. Concerning this?
Senator Montoya. Yes, concerning your grand jury appearance
before this committee or either.
Mrs. Harmony. No, I do not think I have discussed anything
about my grand jury appearance with Mr. Liddy or about appearing
before the Hill, no.
Senator Montoya. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Mrs. Harmony, when did you deliver an envelope
to Mrs. E. Howard Hunt which you believed contained money?
Mrs. Harmony. I delivered an envelope to Mr. E. Howard Hunt.
Senator Ervin. When was that, was that before or after the break-in?
Mrs. Harmony. That was before, sir. It would have been the week
of April 7, I would say probably the 4th or 5th of April. Mr. Liddy
was traveling at that time.
Senator Ervin. Now, how often did you deliver envelopes to E.
Howard Hunt?
Mrs. Harmony. That was the only time.
Senator Ervin. You say that Mr. Liddy reported to Mr. Stans and
to Mr. Magruder?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Liddy when he was counsel to the finance
committee, reported directly to Mr. Stans in that capacity.
Senator Ervin. And he stated to you virtually every day that he
was going to see Mr. Stans?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Stans had a staff meeting every morning.
Senator Ervin. Had a staff meeting every morning attended by
Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. How often did you see Mr. Magruder and Mr.
Liddy together?
Mrs. Harmony. I do not recall. Well, one time I did deliver a memo
to Mr. Magruder's office when Mr. Liddy was there. It was an intelli-
gence memo which he had dictated to me. He was in a hurry, said
bring it to Mr. Magruder's office. That, I did.
Senator Ervin. Did I understand you to testify Mr. Liddy on one
or more occasions told you he was going to visit Mr. John Mitchell?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, he has told
Senator Ervin. How many times did he make statements to that
effect to you?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator Ervin, that would be diflScult for me to
say. I would say maybe two or three occasions. Mr. Liddy has on
many occasions gone out of the office on the second floor and said, I
am going upstairs.
Senator Ervin. Who was upstairs?
Mrs. Harmony. Anybody that was not with the finance committee.
Senator Ervin. Where was Mr. Mitchell's office?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Mitchell's office was on the fourth floor,
I think.
Senator Ervin. That is upstairs?
Mrs. Harmony. That was upstairs. Mr. Magruder was upstairs,
yes.
Senator Ervin. But on several occasions Mr. Magruder did tell
you he was going to visit Mr. Mitchell?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Liddy has on occasion said he was going to
Mr. Mitchell's office.
482
Senator Ervin. You spoke of the fact that there were telephone
conversations between Mr. Liddy and Bernard Barker.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Were these long distance calls?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, sometimes Mr. Barker did call from
Florida and sometimes I was really not aware where he was calling
from.
Senator Ervin. How often did conversations occur between Mr.
Liddy and Mr. Barker?
Mrs. Harmony. By Mr. Liddy answering his own phone I cannot
give you a definite answer. I would say offhand I may have taken four
or five calls from Mr. Barker.
Senator Ervin. About what time of the year did these occur?
Mrs. Harmony. Well, there have been two calls from Mr. Barker
during the last 2 weeks in March when we worked upstairs, I am
aware of.
Senator Ervin. Did you know what they talked about?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. You also state that on some occasions Mr. Liddy
had telephone conversations with people in the White House. Can you
identify any of those people except Mr. John W. Dean III and Mr.
Krogh?
Mrs. Harmony. I think he talked with Mr. Strachan occasionally.
If I had the list of names I could pick some out.
Senator Ervin. How frequently did these conversations occur?
Mrs. Harmony. I say very infrequently. But he may have made
his own, placed his own calls that I am not aware.
Senator Ervin. Did he receive any calls from the White House, to
your knowledge?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir; I am not aware, I do not recall.
Senator Ervin. You do know that he made calls to the White
House and talked with Mr. Strachan, Mr. Dean, and Mr. Krogh?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, he would have received calls because as I
recall, I would have taken a "leave word" if he was not there.
Senator Ervin. Wliy was the committee concerned with Governor
Wallace's campaign?
Mrs. Harmony. I do not know.
Senator Ervin. How often did you hear Governor Wallace's cam-
paign discussed by Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Chairman, this was during my first week or
two with the committee. I was a little at odds at knowing who was
doing what. I only just did some work that was given to me.
Senator Ervin. Now you know from memos that Mr. Liddy was
receiving intelligence from the McGovern headquarters, do you not?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Do you know from whom he was receiving that
intelligence?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Chairman, I do not.
Senator Ervin. Do you know whether he received it from somebody
who had infiltrated Mr. McGovern's headquarters?
Mrs. Harmony. That was my assumption.
Senator Ervin. And the same thing is true with reference to the
headquarters of Senator Muskie?
Mrs. Harmony. That is my assumption.
483
Senator Ervin. So his clandestine operations, whatever they were,
extended into the headquarters of two Senators who were seeking the
Democratic nomination for President?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Can you identify this document?*
Mrs. Harmony. That particular one, no, su\
Senator Ervin. Can you identify that it is like some documents
you have seen?
Hand this to the witness.
Mrs. Harmony. I can see it. Senator. I don't know whether I have
seen that or not.
Senator Ervin. I am not asking you whether you have seen this
particular document. Have you seen
Mrs. Harmony. I know.
Senator Ervin. I wish you would look at it and tell me whether you
have seen a document similar to this one.
Mrs. Harmony. I don't recall. I am sorry. I do not recall.
Senator Ervin. You are unable to identify that as the folders in
which what yovi typed on the Gemstone papers was marked?
Mrs. Harmony. I hate to be unable to identify it as that, but with
the wording down in the left-hand corner, it might well be. But I
don't recall putting any material in it, Senator, no, sir.
Senator Ervin. But you do know the Gemstone typing was put into
some kind of conveyance similar to that, don't you?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir. I only typed the material and gave it back
to Mr. Liddy.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Baker.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mrs. Harmony, I beheve the committee and staff have covered your
testimony very thoroughly. You have been interviewed with the
staff on what, two occasions, I beheve?
Mrs. Harmony. Three occasions.
Senator Baker. And you have appeared before the grand jury
Mrs. Harmony. On four occasions.
Senator Baker. Four times.
There is only one question or one line of questioning that occurs to
me that might be further elaborated. Your testimony, as I understood
it, was that you gave the Gemstone stationery invoice to Mr.
Magruder.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. Rather than to Mr. Odle.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. Because as I understood you to say, you thought
he would know more about it.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. Could you tell me why you thought he would know
more about it?
Mrs. Harmony. I cannot tell you, other than the fact that I do know
Mr. Liddy saw him frequently. But my being aware that any of this
material was given to Mr. Magruder, I cannot factually say that I gave
it to him or handed it to him other than the fact that he did take one
general intelligence memo to Mr. Magruder when Mr. Liddy was in
the office.
*The document referred to was later marked exhibit No. 18 on p. 497.
96-296 (bk.2) O - 73 - 3
484
Senator Baker. I rather judge that you are probably a very, very
efl&cient secretary. I rather judge you are probably telling us exactly
the truth when you say a good secretary-stenographer listens to words
and not to content. I can't really quarrel with that. I have good secre-
taries and I know that to be the case, I believe. But it is difficult for
me to comprehend that you made an independent decision to give this
to Mr. Magruder rather than Mr. Odle without having some basis for
making that judgment. Can you help me with that?
Mrs. Harmony. No, I cannot. I only knew that I should take it to
Mr. Magruder. I had no reason.
Senator Baker. Could 3^ou give us any inkling of why you should
do that?
Mrs. Harmony. No inkling at all.
Senator Baker. Well, now, let's move on from that for a moment.
I really don't want to press you. I think you have been very coopera-
tive. But did you have some reason to think that this dealt with
money that might be spent secretly? Did you have some reason to
think this might have something to do with a separate classification of
intelligence gathering or clandestine activities with some other branch
of activity beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the regular chain of
command? Did any of those things lead you to the conclusion that it
ought to go to Mr. Magruder?
Mrs. Harmony. The word "Gemstone" was printed on the invoice,
sir, as Gemstone stationery.
Senator Baker. Ruby 1, Ruby 2, and Crystal.
Mrs. Harmony. "Gemstone" stationery.
Senator Baker. Was that what caused you to give it to Mr.
Magruder?
Mrs. Harmony. That is what caused me to give it to Mr. Magruder.
Had it been a regular invoice or just simply stationery, I would have
probably processed it through myself.
Senator Baker. What was your understanding of the code word,
"Gemstone?"
Mrs. Harmony. The code word "Gemstone," when we started to
use it, encompassed the general intelligence memos plus the telephone
conversations that I typed.
Senator Baker. Did you give other Gemstone material to Mr.
Magruder?
Mrs. Harmony. I don't know whether the memo that I took up to
him that time and put it on plain white bond, it may have been
"Gemstone" at the top of that one. I don't recall.
Senator Baker. I remember now you said those documents were
given to Mr. Liddy and you lost touch with where they went after that.
Mrs. Harmony. That is right, sir.
Senator Baker. Why didn't you give this invoice to Mr. Liddy?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Liddy was gone. It came after he was dis-
charged from the committee.
Senator Baker. An additional reason, then — let me ask you, had
Mr. Liddy been there, what would have been done?
Mrs. Harmony. I would have given it to him.
Senator Baker. Because it said "Gemstone" on there?
Mrs. Harmony. Because it was Gemstone, and I would assume he
would not want it to be processed by the finance committee in that
form.
485
Senator Baker. Did you destroy the Gemstone invoice?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, I did.
Senator Baker. Why?
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Magruder asked me to destroy it.
Senator Baker. Did he tell you why?
Mrs. Harmony. No, he didn't have to tell me why.
Senator Baker. Then I would like to know why.
Mrs. Harmony. Because Mr. Liddy had been discharged from the
committee, it had the word "Gemstone" on it. I was familiar with
the word "Gemstone" and the way I had used it, I thought probably
a lot of the members of the committee were not aware of that.
Senator Baker. Mrs. Harmony, why would you be concerned for
the destruction of this material? You knew that Mr. Liddy was no
longer there. You knew from newspaper accounts of the break-in at
the Watergate complex. You knew that this invoice had reference to
Gemstone which had to do with clandestine, although, as you put it,
not necessarily illegal, activity. You knew, apparently, that it was so
sensitive that it ought to be destroyed.
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. Now, what in the total concept of your percep-
tion of Gemstone as an operation, what led you to believe independ-
ently or led you to concur in the judgment of Mr. Magruder that
that information ought to be destroyed, ought to be shredded? What
were you thinking of when you thought that?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator Baker, after I had been aware of the
break-in at Democratic National Committee headquarters, I knew
that the telephone conversations that I had typed had come from
there. They I identified with Gemstone.
Senator Baker. Were there any other Gemstones involved, other
than Ruby 1, Ruby 2 and Tuesday — I mean Crystal? [Laughter.]
Mrs. Harmony. Those are the only ones I recall, sir.
Senator Baker. I am sorry, tell me again.
Mrs. Harmony. Those w^ere the only ones I recall.
Senator Baker. There were no other gems involved?
Mrs. Harmony. I don't recall that there were.
Senator Baker. Did you destroy any other information, any other
document besides your stenographic notepad which you have testified
to, and the Gemstone invoice?
Mrs. Harmony. And some material when Mr. Liddy and I cleaned
out his files, that he asked me to destroy that had his handwriting on.
Senator Baker. Do you know what the contents of those documents
were?
Mrs. Harmony. I do not. As I said, they would have been drafts
and something retyped and probably just put back in the folder for
no particular reason.
Senator Baker. He did not express or state a reason for the destruc-
tion of these particular documents?
Mrs. Harmony. No sir.
Senator Baker. Did he later?
Mrs. Harmony. No.
Senator Baker. At any time?
Mrs. Harmony. No.
Senator Baker. After the break-in?
486
Mrs. Harmony. This was the day he left the committee.
Senator Baker, Did he come to your house and pick up some
material?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes sir, he did.
Senator Baker. Did he tell you anything then about why he came
to your house to pick up material?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, I took the things home because it was
late — not late in the evening. He had been discharged from the
committee. I think probably I offered — I know I offered to take the
things out for him. I mean, you know, rather than go through the
whole thing with everybody that night, which might have proved a
little embarrassing at that particular time.
He said, you know, I have been fired. I said, why don't you let me
take it and you can pick it up.
Senator Baker. When he did pick it up, did he tell you why he
wanted certain material and why he wanted other material destroyed?
Mrs. Harmony. No sir.
Senator Baker. I hate to press you on this, but you understand
that Mr. Liddy has so far not testified, either in court or before this
committee, and I am struggling more than I ordinarily would to try
to get at this subject matter. But did Mr. Liddy tell you, assign you
any reason for wanting to reclaim certain of that?
Mrs. Harmony. They were his personal articles.
Senator Baker. Can you verify that they were in fact personal
articles?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes sir, I think so.
Senator Baker. Can you tell us of what nature?
Mrs. Harmony. There was a personal file folder that I am aware of.
There were pictures from his wall, his law degrees. There was a couple
of volumes of the Criminal Law Reporter that you put in a binder,
whatever that is; his gun control files, which were quite voluminous.
They belonged to him. They were his personal possessions.
Senator Baker. I have a lot of other questions, Mr. Chairman, but
I think that the witness has been very patient.
I understand, Mrs. Harmony, if we need you to return, you will
return.
Mrs. Harmony. I will be happy to, Senator.
Senator Baker. Thank you very much.
Senator Ervin. I have only two questions.
After Mr. Liddy dictated letters or memorandums to you and after
you typed those letters or memorandums, did you not read the letters
or memorandums to find out whether or not you committed any
grammatical errors?
Mrs. Harmony. Senator, I think normally, you will find you just
glance over them and you really do not read for content.
Senator Ervin. My secretaries read what I dictate to them after-
ward for grammatical errors.
Mrs. Harmony. Well, you can see whether the subject matches the
verb and this sort of thing, but to know what the content is, I think
you don't read it well enough to retain it in your mmd as to what it was.
Senator Ervin. Did Mr. Liddy tell you why he was discharged from
the committee?
487
Mrs. Harmony. The reason he gave me that he was discharged by
the committee was that he had refused to answer the questions posed
to hun by the FBI agents that afternoon.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Dash.
Mr. Dash. Mrs. Harmony, I think on the subject of whether you
knew the content or what it was you were in fact typing
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Did you ever have, prior to your job with the Committee
To Re-Elect the President, any type of job where you were engaged
in security activity or had any experience with telephone logs?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. You did know, however, when you were discussing either
^vith Mr. McCord or typing from the dictation or the memos the tele-
phone logs, that they were telephone conversations?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. I think it was your testimony earlier that you did know
there were certain topics. I think you mentioned conversations con-
cerning goods and services of the Democratic National Committee.
You were aware of certain topics?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And you were aware that they did deal with the Demo-
cratic campaign?
Mrs. Harmony. I beg your pardon?
Mr. Dash. You were aware that the topics did deal with the
Democratic campaign.
Mrs. Harmony. This particular one did. Yes.
Mr. Dash. And the telephone conversations?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, there was one.
Mr. Dash. And the telephone conversations. Were you able to know
from what you were typing that there were two parties involved?
Mrs. Harmony Two people
Mr. Dash. A person sending a message and a person receiving the
message?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, there were two people involved, yes.
Mr. Dash. Do you have any idea how that came to be, that it was
being recorded or typed by you? How did you find from your own
knowledge that somebody in Mr. Liddy's position or Mr. McCord's
position had in his possession the conversation of two people on the
telephone?
Mrs. Harmony. I am sorry, Mr. Dash, I am not understanding
your question.
Mr. Dash. Well, you knew you were typing the conversation of two
people on the telephone, did you not?
Mrs. Harmony. That is right.
Mr. Dash. And that this was based upon a recording, did you not?
Mrs. Harmony. Not necessarily. It could have been two people in
the same room, one on another extension.
Mr. Dash. But it was a telephone conversation?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes.
Mr. Dash. And it was a telephone conversation of the people in the
Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mrs. Harmony. No, sir.
488
Mr. Dash. I think you have testified that it had to do with the
Democratic Party.
Mrs. Harmony. Mr. Dash, I have testified, I have given you two
names. I did not know — no offense to these people — but I did not
know who they were or where they were physically located or that
they were in fact with the Democratic National Committee. I am
aware that the contents of one of the memos did deal with possible
Democratic candidates.
Mr. Dash. Now, you were aware, 1 think you testified earlier, that
Mr. Liddy told you he was going to be involved in clandestine
activities?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And you did use this particular stationery for recording
that clandestine activity?
Mrs. Harmony. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. I have no further questions.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. No, Mr. Chairman, I have none.
Senator Ervin. I would like to state on behalf of the committee —
the witness is excused.
[Witness excused.]
I would hke to state on behalf of the committee that as chairman, I
met with the committee staff for the purpose of receiving the testimony
in executive session of Mr. G. Gordon Liddy, who appeared in person
with attorney in response to a subpena issued by the committee. Mr.
Liddy declined to take the oath as a witness and declined to testify,
either then or before the committee in an open meeting, on the basis
that he contended he was exempt from so doing by the fifth and sixth
amendments. The matter has been considered by the full committee.
Also, there was an immunity order under sections 6002 and 6005 of
Title 18, United States Code. He declined to testify on the ground
that he was exempt from so doing, notwithstanding the immunity
order, by the fifth and sixth amendments.
In view of the fact that Mr. Liddy has an appeal pending and in the
event that a new trial should be awarded, he would have the right to
refrain from taking the witness stand or going on the witness stand at
his election, the committee decided they would not insist on receiving
his testimony at this time.
I want to thank you, Mrs. Harmony, for appearing before the com-
mittee and for your testimony.
It is almost the regular recess time and unless there is some objec-
tion on the part of the committee, we will defer calhng the next witness
until the committee resumes the session at 2 o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 2 p.m., this same day.]
Afternoon Session, Tuesday, June 5, 1973
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
Counsel will call the next witness.
Mr. Dash. Will Mr. Robert Reisner take the witness chair, please?
Senator Ervin. Will you stand up? Hold up your right hand. Do
you swear that the evidence that you shall give to the Senate Select
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
489
Mr. Reisner, I do.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, Terry Lenzner, assistant chief counsel,
will ask the first few questions of the witness.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Reisner, will you spell your name and address
please?
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. REISNER
Mr. Reisner. My name is Robert Reisner, middle initial A. F.,
my address is 2727 29th St. NW., Washington.
Mr. Lenzner. WOl you spell your last name?
Mr. Reisner. R-e-i-s-n-e-r.
Mr. Lenzner. And you are appearing here today without counsel;
is that correct?
Mr. Reisner. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you have any short opening statement you would
like to make?
Mr. Reisner. No, I do not. As you know, Mr. Lenzner, Mr.
Chairman, I have met with your staff on a number of occasions in an
effort to try to be cooperative as I can be and I am appearing here
in the same spirit and I will be glad to answer your questions.
Senator Ervin. I would like to say on behalf of the committee the
staff assures me that you have been most cooperative.
Mr. Reisner. Thank you.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Reisner, were you employed by the Committee
To Re-Elect the President in November of 1971?
Mr. Reisner. I was.
Mr. Lenzner. And what was your position with the committee?
Mr. Reisner. I was administrative assistant to Mr. Jeb Magruder.
Mr. Lenzner. And how long did you hold that position?
Mr. Reisner. I worked for Mr. Magruder from November 1971
until Jul}^ 1972. In July, I then went to work for Mr. Clark Mac-
Gregor as his executive assistant.
Mr. Lenzner. When did you leave the Committee To Re-Elect?
Mr. Reisner. On November 8, following the election.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you briefly describe your duties as Mr. Magru-
der's administrative assistant?
Mr. Reisner. My duties were pretty conventional— that of ad-
ministrative assistant. There were three kinds of duties. Basically I
was responsible for the people, for coordinating among the people that
he saw, in other words, his schedule. I was responsible for coordinating
the paper flow that came in and out of his office and, therefore, the
decisions, just keeping track of the decisions that accompanied that
paper flow. And finally, I was responsible for sort of followup role,
just keeping tabs on things that he wanted to have done and that he
had asked various senior staff members to do for him.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, in those duties did you maintain a diary of
Mr. Magruder's schedule?
Mr. Reisner. No, I did not personally maintain a diary. I was
responsible for his calendar and I had a secretary who also worked
directly for Mr. Magruder named Vicki Chern, and her role was to
keep a calendar and keep his own calendar up to date and that would
be the accurate record of his schedule.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, did there come a time when you were intro-
duced to Gordon Liddy?
490
Mr. Reisner. Yes, I was.
Mr. Lenzner. And when was that and who introduced you?
Mr. Reisner. Well, I met Mr. Liddy, I would imagine, the first
time sometime around the beginning of the time that he came to the
committee. I believe that would have been in December of 1971.
Mr. Lenzner. And who introduced you to him?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Magruder introduced me to him in the sense of a
formal introduction. I suppose I perhaps met Mr. Liddy the first time
at a staff meeting in December 1971.
Mr. Lenzner. What did Mr. Magruder say at the staff meeting
about Mr. Liddy's activities?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Magruder indicated at that time that Mr. Liddy
was going to become general counsel of the committee for the re-
election of the President and in addition to that he made a joke about
the fact that Mr. Liddy would also be involved in some research
activities.
Mr. Lenzner. Can you describe those research activities in any
other detail?
Mr. Reisner. Yes; he was making a joke about it and I think that
he may have said something to the effect of Mr. Liddy also has other
talent, I think there was some phrase similar to super sleuth or some-
thing to that effect. The reason I remember that is subsequently I was
told by another member of the staff that Mr. Liddy was rather upset
about that reference.
Mr. Lenzner. Now I am going to show you, Mr. Reisner, some
documents and ask you if you can identify these copies of materials
which you previously turned over to the committee pursuant to the
subpena duces tecum?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; the documents that you have just given me
are copies of a log which I maintained myself. Beginning in January
of 1972, I began to keep a notebook which was basically a calendar
notebook but I did not use it as an accurate recording of meetings or
dates, I used it just for my own personal use to keep track of things
in chronological order.
Mr. Lenzner. Including some of Mr. Magruder's appointments?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, my entire job was related between November of
1971 and July of 1972, my job was related to his activities and as a
result it was that key to my own activities and I recorded what was
going on.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Chairman, may we have these documents entered
as part of the record?
Senator Ervin. The reporter will mark them with the appropriate
number.
[The documents referred to were marked exhibit No. 17.*]
Mr. Lenzner. Would you look at the first entry on January 27,
1972. Does that reflect a meeting at approximately 11 o'clock with
several individuals, including Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. Yes. What it says here at 11 o'clock, it says Jeb,
John Dean, Gordon Liddy, and then there is at White House. There is
a notation indicating that.
Mr. Lenzner. And the next document — the next page — does that
reflect a meeting on February 4 at approximately 4 o'clock?
Mr. Reisner. It is on the third page. It says meeting with AG with
Liddy. What that would have indicated, it would have simply in-
•See p. 878.
491
dicated that Mr. Magruder had a meeting in the Attorney General's
office and that it was the intention at the time that this notation was
made that Mr. Liddy would accompany Mr. Magruder to that meet-
ing. This does not record the fact that such a meeting would have
taken place.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, for the same date, February 4, is there also
an indication that reads, file folders ready for AG?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, it does, at 2 o'clock.
Mr. Lenzner. Would you explain what that means?
Mr. Reisner. The nature of Mr. Magruder's, the way in which he
prepared himself to go to meetings with Mr. Mitchell, both during
the time that he was Attorney General and subsequently, was that he
had two large gray file folders. One of them contained documents
that Mr. Magruder wished to bring up with Mr. Mitchell, the other
contained copies, identical copies of those documents and for Mr.
Magruder's convenience so that if he handed Mr. Mitchell a copy
of a document he would himself have a copy to refer to, and that
is what this refers to. It means that those two folders were prepared
with the documents that he wanted to take to the meeting with him.
Mr. Lenzner. Prior to the meeting with Mr. Mitchell, did Mr.
Lidd}^ ask you to obtain anything for him in preparation for that
meeting?
Mr. Reisner. I am not certain whether this was the meeting. I do
not remember Mr. Liddy going to meetings with Mr. Mitchell very
often. I presume this was the meeting. I can remember a conversation
with Mr. Liddy in which he came to me and indicated that he had
something of the nature of a visual presentation that he wished to
make and he was interested in being certain that there was an easel or
something that he could mount this on in Mr. Mitchell's office. I
subsequently tried to determine whether there was such assistance. I
do not think I had it myself, I think I asked one of the secretaries to
call Mr. Mitchell's secretary to make that determination, and tliere
was none. That was the nature of the conversation and his inquiry.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you ever see Mr. Liddy with any charts or
packages?
Mr. Reisner. I saw him with a package that I think might have
been charts and might not have been charts, I can't say.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember approximately when that was?
Mr. Reisner. I relate it to approximatelv the same period of time.
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know if anybody else attended this meeting
on February 4 or was scheduled to attend it besides Mr. Liddy and
Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. I do not know. I have been shown the records that
were kept by the secretary who worked for me, Vicki Chern, and in
those records it indicates that Mr. Dean attended, would have been
invited to attend that meeting too. That is what the records show.
I have no recollection myself.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, in February or March of 1972, did Mr. Liddy
furnish you with a document to give to Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. I think that we have discussed a document which
Mr. Liddy gave to me. He from time to time would come into my
office, which was located in front of Mr. Magruder's office, it was
adjacent, when Mr. Liddy was unable to get in to see Mr. Magruder,
because he was busy or for other reasons or perhaps he just hadn't
492
scheduled an appointment, he would from time to time stop in my
oflBce, indicate the nature of his business. He from time to time had
stopped in and on one occasion I can remember him giving me a
sheet of paper which I would identify only as being a blank sheet
of paper with such typing on it. I don't remember. A letterhead. On
this sheet of paper, the only recollection I have of the sheet of paper
that we have discussed is there was some figures in the right-hand
side of the page. Mr. Liddy made the statement to me that he hated
to wTite something like this down and that is literally the extent of
the statement. It was clear to me that I shouldn't, that it wasn't for
my consumption either because of the way in which he gave me the
piece of paper, as he handed it to me it was put face down on the
desk, and I would say within a matter of minutes given to Mr. Ma-
gruder and that is
Mr. Lenzner. Do you remember if there was a total amount on
the paper?
Mr. Reisner. We discussed this. My best recollection is there could
have been a total and I seem to remember the figure "250." Sub-
sequently I have read newspaper accounts indicating there was
$250,000 in a certain alleged budget. It is supposition on my part to
say what the piece of paper was. I don't know.
Mr. Lenzner, Now, did Mr. Magruder go to Florida in late
March 1972?
Mr. Reisner. In late March 1972, yes, he did.
Mr. Lenzner. Is that reflected in the documents in front of you,
that trip for March 29, 30, and 31?
Mr. Reisner. Yes. On the 29th there is an entry saying "Jeb
leaving for Miami."
Mr. Lenzner. Do you know who he was going to see?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, at that time it is my recollection that Mr.
Mitchell was at Key Biscayne and that Jeb had a meeting with Mr.
Mitchell in Key Biscayne and that is who he was going to see.
Mr. Lenzner. And are there any notations reflecting Mr. Liddy's
name on any of those dates in your documents?
Mr. Reisner. OK. I think what you are referrmg to is, well it says
"leave for Key Biscayne" also on the 29th, on the 30th; there are a
number of references to Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Lenzner. In the upper left-hand corner of the 30th, what does
that reflect?
Mr. Reisner. It says "Get Gordon Liddy."
Mr. Lenzner. What does that represent?
Mr. Reisner. It says, that column I believe would have referred
to the fact that I had been asked to get Gordon Liddy. But my best
recollection of this is that the reason I was asked to get Gordon
Liddy, I was asked to reach him and have him call Mr. Magruder.
That is just a vague recollection. It could have come at another time
but it makes sense in conjunction with this entry.
Mr. Lenzner. And that entry is in your handwriting; is that
correct?
Mr. Reisner. That is correct.
Mr. Magruder w^as not in Washington at the time as is indicated
here also and I thmk that was the reason for being asked to get Mr.
Liddy to call him.
493
Mr. Lenzner. There is an entr\^ on March 31 in the upper right-
hand comer — Mr. Liddy's name.
Mr. Reisner. Gordon Liddy give answer.
Mr. Lenzner. Wliat does that represent?
Mr. Reisner. The nature of this diary is that it is not a diary, the
nature of this log, is a recording of activities that are taking place in
the office. It is just a random recording of interruptions. It appears
from the way m which this appears that Mr. Liddy would have
interi'upted me and said he needed an answer. I don't know whether
this represented a phone call, Mr. Liddy simply stopping by the
office. This illustrates the purpose for keeping the log in the first
place. There were lots of interruptions like that and a lot of activities
and that was the reason for writing it down, just to remember it.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, after Mr. Magruder returned from Florida,
did he give you a message or instructions to pass on to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Reisner. No, I am not certain it was when he returned
from Florida. What I remember was on one occasion — the timing
of the occasion roughly coincides with this — Mr. Magruder stand-
ing in my dooi"way and telling me to call Mr. Liddy. Now, it was
his habit to frequently do that. That was the nature of my job.
He would come and give me numerous instructions and I was to pass
on approvals, disapprovals, that sort of thing, reactions to decisions
or matters that he was handling. He appeared in my doorway and
said, "Call Liddy, tell him it is approved or tell him it is approved
and that we need to get going in the next 2 weeks." That was a
perfectly characteristic thing for him to say because I frequently
called other senior members of the committee and told them similar
things. I made such a phone call. I related roughly in time to this
because I have the feeling that the first week or two in April had
something to do with the 2 weeks. That is a very vague recollection.
I called Mr. Liddy and his reaction was a little bit different than the
reaction of most people that I communicated this kind of decision
to and I remember it; he said "But I can't, it is going to be hard,"
or something like that, and he protested and I indicated to him that
he was going to have to talk to Mr. Magruder about it, that I didn't
know what I was telling him about, that whatever he had talked
about with Mr. Magruder was approved and if it made sense to him
then I was glad to pass it on to him. He said he subsequently did talk
to Mr. Magruder on a number of occasions. I assume whatever the
matter was was resolved.
Mr. Lenzner. I am going to show you now, Mr. Reisner, some
documents which have previously been used here and ask you if
there came a time in June of 1972 when you observed those documents
in the possession of Mr. Magruder.
Mr. Reisner. These documents were shown to me by you and
other members of the staff. They seem to me to be similar to docu-
ments that I observed. I remember on one — on two occasions seeing
something similar to the envelope. I remember seeing something
similar to the material — to this letterhead.
I believe I tried to describe this on one earlier occasion and that was
when I appeared before the grand jury and was asked about the nature
of observing documents similar to this. At that time, I identified
documents which are not exactly like this. Upon seeing them on a
494
subsequent occasion, I think probably these are the documents — I
mean, I think that this is the stationery.
Mr. Lenzner. You say the documents you saw at the grand jury
are not
Mr. Reisner. No, no, I have never been shown documents by
Mr. Silbert or his staff. He indicated that he might at some future
time do that. He, I do not think, has had an opportunity to do that.
But at the time, I was asked to try to identify what I saw. And when
I did so, I identified it sHghtly differently than this, but upon seeing
this, I think that this is the same document. I am just trying to be
accurate on that.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, approximately when did you see these docu-
ments and describe the circumstances surrounding your observations?
Mr. Reisner. During the week prior to June 17, and perhaps it was
during the 2 weeks prior to June 17 — I cannot be certain on exactly
the time — I observed documents similar to this here.
Mr. Lenzner. You are referring to the stationery?
Mr. Reisner. I am referring to the stationery with "Gemstone"
at the top.
Senator Ervin. The stationery has already been marked for
identification.
Mr. Reisner. It is exhibit 16 for identification.
On that occasion, it was simply in Mr. Magruder's hands or lying
on his desk. I am not certain. Subsequently, I was handed the docu-
ment and I was handed it in such a way that it was indicated to me
very clearly that it was not for me to observe, that it was not for
my conception.
At the time it was handed to me — that was the second time that
I saw it. It was during those 2 weeks prior to the 17th.
Mr. Lenzner. It was Mr. Magruder who handed them to you in
his office, is that correct?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, he did.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he hand what appeared to be stationery and the
envelope together?
Mr. Reisner. My memory of the envelope is that it was slit open
and that the stationery was either in it slit open or on top of it and
that they were together.
Mr. Lenzner. What were his instructions? What were you sup-
posed to do with these materials?
Mr. Reisner. At that time, I was doing the activity that I
described a few moments ago; I was preparing Mr. Mitchell's files for
a meeting with Mr. Mitchell. Now, he was campaign director at this
time and it was a daily activity.
Mr. Lenzner. You were told
Mr. Reisner. I was handed the documents and I was asked to put
them in Mr. Mitchell's files. The nature of that is that things that
Mr. Magruder might have wished to take up with Mr. Mitchell were
put in the file marked "Mr. Mitchell's file," and that is all. That does
not indicate any more than that.
Mr. Lenzner. Is it accurate also that you saw these on a third
occasion in Mr. Magruder's drawer?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, it is.
Mr. Lenzner. On either of those occasions, were there also photo-
graphs with the stationery and the envelope?
495
Mr. Reisner. There appeared — well, I am not certain whether
the photographs were with the stationery on the occasion I described,
in which I was handed them and told — I do not know whether I was
told or not. I mean, it was clear that it was not for me to be looking
at them. I do remember photographs or what appeared to be photo-
graphs with the stationery on that third occasion.
Mr. Lenzner. Now, I want to direct your attention to June 17.
On the evening of June 17, did you receive a call from Mr. Magruder
at home?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, I did. I received a call at approximately
6 o'clock. I was asleep at the time.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he instruct you to go to the office?
Mr. Reisner. Yes. The nature of his instruction was and the
conversation, as I remember it, was, Robert, we have some things
that we would like you to get from the office and to remove from there.
I think the nature of his description was that, we have some sensitive
material that we want you to remove from the office.
He then went on and said, and. Bob, there is a file there. It has — Mr.
Magruder spoke on this occasion, and I think on other occasions, in
a generahzed way. I do not remember the complete sentences. It was.
Bob, we have some things there. There is a file that has "Gemstone"
m it, or, it has some papers called Gemstone in it, do you know what
I mean? I said, well, I think so. He said, it is in a blue file. I said,
I think I know where it is.
He also said, and there are sensitive things in the office and we
would like you to take them out and just keep them over the weekend.
Mr. Lenzner. Did 3^ou go down to the office after you received
that phone call?
Mr. Reisner. I did.
Mr. Lenzner. And did you go to Mr. Magruder's office?
Mr. Reisner. I did.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you see Mr. Odle there?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, I did. When I went into the office, Mr. Odle
was there with a number of other people watching the evening news.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you thereafter have a conversation telephon-
icaUy with j^ourself, Mr. Odle, and Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, I did. It was after the news was over, or
certainly after the portion of the news in which the break-in which
had occurred was discussed. The other people left the room and Mr.
Odle suggested that we call Mr. Magruder.
Mr. Lenzner. Would you just briefly describe what Mr. Magruder
said to you and Mr. Odle?
Mr. Reisner. Yes. I think the purpose of the call and the first
discussion in the call was Mr. Odle wanted to describe what we had
just seen on the news and what the coverage was at that point. He
went on from that and I think discussed in general security matters
at the committee. It was my impression that he had previously talked
to Mr. Magruder that day about security at the committee.
He then went on and said, now, Jeb, I understand that — I was on
the other phone at this point, which was not the one at Mr. Magruder's
desk.
He said, Jeb, now, there are these things that you have asked Bob
to get out of your office. The reason he knew that was when I walked
into the office, I sat down at Mr. Magruder's desk and removed several
496
things from his desk. I removed a polling file and I removed what
appeared to me to be one of the more important things in the file,
which was the analysis of the polls. I removed the operating plans
which described the key States and our strategy following the phone
call. And felt that the activity was perhaps a little bit foolish, to be
sitting at his desk removing things. So I stopped.
Subsequently, the phone call took place. At that point, Mr. Odle
brought up the fact that there were some things that I had already
taken from the desk and he wished to know from Mr. Magruder what
else there was that we should remove.
He at that point was volunteering to be of assistance. I think there
was some concern at that time for just the security of these documents.
The senior campaign officials were in California and I think there was
some concern at that moment that they be in control of things.
Mr. Lenzner. Mr. Reisner, could you describe what Mr. Magru-
der's instructions were?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Magruder's instructions then became very
specific concerning a blue file folder. I knew what he was talking about
at that point. I think it was at that point that I knew specifically
what he was talking about. He indicated that that was one of the things
that had to be removed.
Mr. Lenzner. Did he say on the phone the word "Gemstone" on
that occasion?
Mr. Reisner. It is not my specific recollection that he did. He could
have. He definitely identified specifically a file folder. It seems to me
he said it in the first phone conversation. He may or may not have in
the second phone conversation.
Mr. Lenzner. Did you later take the blue folder?
Mr. Reisner. Yes. At that point, I didn't know where the folder
was and I think I indicated that to him. But I said that I knew where
it was, that I could find it.
At that point, Mr. Odle was volunteering to be of assistance and
Mr. Magruder changed his instruction and indicated to me that Mr.
Odle should take home that and he then generalized it and said, and
other, you know, contender materials, or other strategy materials, or
something to that effect.
Mr. Odle then — the conversation terminated shortly after that. Mr.
Odle left and I was left the task of finding it, which I did.
Mr. Lenzner. You found it, and what did you do with it?
Mr. Reisner. I believe what I did with it was I combined it with
some other materials, the other materials concerning contender. I
put those materials in Mr. Odle's office, in his briefcase, and I locked
his briefcase.
Mr. Odle had at that point gone down to the third floor and I went
down there to indicate to him that these things were in his briefcase.
Mr. Lenzner. One last question. You were subpenaed by this com-
mittee on or about March 30 of this year, is that correct?
Mr. Reisner. That is correct.
Mr. Lenzner. Prior to that time had you been interviewed by
either the U.S. attorney or the FBI?
Mr. Reisner. No, and I had not been interviewed by anyone — the
Democratic National Committee in their civil suit, the FBI, or the
U.S. attorney.
497
Mr. Lenzner. For the record, can we have this envelope marked
for identification? In capital letters are indicated "Sensitive material."
In smaller letters ''Handle as codeword material." In the lower left-
hand corner, the words "Ex Dis", and after that, "No Disem",
d-i-s-e-m.
Senator Ervin. The reporter will mark the envelope as an exhibit.
[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 18.*]
Kir. Lenzner. The Gemstone stationery which has a blue border
around it with letterhead "Gemstone" in capital letters and "date"
and "source", has already been entered as exhibit No. 16 at this
morning's hearing. The other piece of stationery with the same print-
ing, except in the lower left-hand corner, it says "Ex Dis", "No
Disem". At the bottom, it says "Warning, this information is for
intelligence purposes only. Exploitation may compromise source and
terminate flow of information." This piece of stationery was entered
as exhibit No. 2, in the hearing of May 17.
Mr. Lenzner. That is all the cjuestions I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Reisner, when did you first become aware of
the fact that Mr. Lidd}^ was engaged in intelligence-gathering activity?
Mr. Reisner. I think probably there was a general awareness on
my part that he was obtainmg mformation about the time that he
came to the committee. At the time of the introduction I described,
when it was made known to me that Mr. Liddy had not wished to be
described that way, I think I assumed an awareness at that point.
Mr. Thompson. That was in December of 1971?
Mr. Reisner. That is correct, yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. When he was described as a "supersleuth" or
"superspy" or something Hke that?
Mr. Reisner. It was a jokmg reference.
Mr. Thompson. It turned out to be incorrect, too, didn't it?
Mr. Reisner. It turned out to be incorrect.
Mr. Thompson. Was there any discussion back and forth among
the other people who were in that particular meeting as to exactly
what Mr. Liddy was or exactly what
Mr. Reisner. I don't remember any discussion. It came as a
surprise to me that Mr. Liddy was concerned about having been
referred to in that manner.
Mr. Thompson. What did you think about Mr. Liddy personally?
What was your evaluation of him as to his ability or the kind of man
that he was, considering the important position that he had?
Mr. Reisner. I have discussed this with your staff. I think that
my impression of Mr. Liddy was that he may have been a very capable
legal general counsel, but that he also occasionally did some fairly
bizarre things. He gave
Mr. Thompson. We know of one. For example?
Mr. Reisner. He gave a secretary in our office a large poster of
himself [Laughter.]
Mr. Thompson. I don't know if you should pursue that any further.
Mr. Reisner [continuing]. Probably 6 feet by 4 feet in size.
Mr. Thompson. Larger than life size, wasn't it?
Mr. Reisner. Larger than life size.
Mr. Thompson. What kind of picture was it?
•See p. 890.
498
Mr. Reisner. I believe it was a picture of himself with a bull horn
and it may have had — he may have had a gun in his hand, conducting
a raid of some kind. He was in front of a police car.
There was another poster, as a matter of fact, I think of him — I
have the impression of him next to an airplane or something like that.
He was occasionally bizarre.
The other thing is that his relationship with my superior at that
time, Mr. Magruder, was less than friendly on all occasions and I
think that from that, I had an impression of him that he was certainly
not an easy employee to have around. I think I indicated that to Mr.
Magruder on one occasion and he agreed.
Mr. Thompson. Did Mr. Liddy seem to have any particular friends?
You mentioned in other testimony that he had trouble with Mr.
Magruder, personal differences.
Mr. Reisner. I am not certain. I think the reason for the trouble
with Mr. Magruder was that it may have been that he did not like to
work for a younger man. I can remember on one occasion, after he
had gone to work for the finance division, just seeing him in the hall-
way or something, and saying to him, how are you doing? And he
went into a long explanation of his great respect for Mr. Stans and for
Mr. Stans as a manager and that sort of thing.
I think that he may very well have had a number of friends at the
committee. I did not know Mr. Liddy very well at all. I saw him
around. He seemed to be friendly with people at the committee.
Mr. Thompson. Were you aware of an}^ sums of cash that Mr. Liddy
was receiving for his activities?
Mr. Reisner. No, I am not. I was aware in one sense. I was aware
that Mr. Porter had some cash in his possession that was contained
in a safe in his office and that he indicated to me that he had made
disbursements to Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Thompson. What do you know about the cash that Porter
kept in his office?
First of all, again, who was Porter and what was his position?
]VIr. Reisner. Mr. Porter, who was the director of scheduling of
surrogate activity in the committee, had a safe in his office in which
he kept the petty cash for the committee. Prior to April 7, Mr.
Porter came to me and asked me to assist him in just totaling up the
disbursements and receipts related to that sate.
Since I was — the purpose of my doing that was to be able to report
to my boss, Mr. Magruder, for whom Mr. Porter also worked, that
there was not any pocketing of cash or anj^thing like that, that there
was an accounting, I mean that there was a system. And I did that.
Mr. Thompson. Did you assist him in totaling the cash?
Mr. Reisner. I did and it was on that occasion that I learned Mr.
Liddy was receiving some sums of cash from Mr. Porter.
Mr. Thompson. Were there also receipts there for cash that had
been disbursed?
Mr. Reisner. There weren't exactly receipts. There were white
slips of paper on which the initials of people to whom Mr. Porter had
given cash were recorded and Mr. Liddy made a mark on those white
slips of paper.
Mr. Thompson. What was the total amount, if you recall, of the
cash that had been disbursed plus the receii)ts?
499
Mr. Reisner. The total amount, when you added up the amount
Mr. Porter had received, seemed to be in the range of $40,000 to
$50,000. But that was
Mr. Thompson. Is that what the committee referred to as petty-
cash at that time?
^f^. Reisner. I referred to it as petty cash until I had assisted
Mr. Porter in the activity.
Mr. Thompson. And realized it was greater than you thought.
Mr. Reisner. I am sorry?
Mr. Thompson. And you realized that the money he had was more
than you thought?
Mr. Reisner. With this exception : It was not petty cash in the sense
that there were $7,000 or $8,000 on hand, which is certainly not petty
cash. The $40,000 to $50,000 that I am referrmg to was sums that had
accrued from the beginning of the time that there were receipts — July
or June of 1971 until March.
Mr. Thompson. How much cash was in the safe?
Mr. Reisner. How much cash at that time? It seems to me it was
in the neighborhood of several thousand dollars — perhaps as much
as five or six.
Mr. Thompson. Did the receipts — do you recall any names of, or
any amounts to individuals who were receiving money from Mr.
Porter's safe?
Mr. Reisner. Well, I can remember that there were, in addition to
Mr. Liddy — now, Mr. Liddy was — it was Mr. Porter that indicated
to me that Mr. Liddy was receiving money. There was an individual
who was referred to by a code name and that code name was "Sedan
Chair" and that that individual was
Mr. Thompson. Sedan Chair? Two words?
Mr. Reisner. Yes. I believe it was actually "Sedan Chair 2."
Mr. Thompson. Was there a Sedan Chair 1?
Mr. Reisner. I do not know. I do not know. Perhaps there was.
There was also an individual who worked for Mr. Porter named
Roger Stone, who I believe received money. And there may have
been other individuals.
But to my recollection, which is a little bit vague on this, there was
not a regular disbursement, with those exceptions.
Mr. Thompson. Who was Sedan Chair?
Mr. Reisner. I do not know. I know that — well, I mean, I have
sort of a general circumstantial understanding of who I think Sedan
Chair was.
Mr. Thompson. Tell us about it.
Mr. Reisner. I will come as close as I can.
Mr. Thompson. Tell us about it.
Mr. Reisner. Subsequent to that, after I learned that there was
such an individual, I think I was more alert to the name and I did see a
memo in April, I believe, or perhaps May, that purported to be a
report from another campaign committee. I believe it was the Hum-
phrey committee. I do not know for a fact who Sedan Chair was. It
could have been someone who just simply had his disagreement with
the Humphrey committee and wished to report on some of their
acti\'ities.
Mr. Thompson. It was someone in the Humphrey committee, from
what you can tell?
96-296 (bk. 2) O - 73 - 4
500
Mr. Reisner. From what I can tell, I mean it purported to be.
Mr. Thompson. How much money was this individual receiving?
Mr. Reisner. My recollection is that it was approximately a
thousand dollars a month, but I could have read that in the newspaper,
frankly, it is vague.
Mr. Thompson. What about Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Liddy received several disbursements that were
considerably larger than that. I think they were in the nature of $5,000
to $8,000, I am not certain. The reason I remember them is that there
were — he would return sums of money and it made the accounting some-
what bizarre. He would return $300 after taking out $8,000, that sort of
thing. I really am not completely clear on that.
Mr. Thompson. Was there any indication as to the total amount
Liddy had received to that time?
Mr. Reisner. No, there wasn't. I have the feeling that the total
magnitude, $40,000 to $50,000, means that, and that is the total
magnitude of what was recorded. I have no idea. Mr. Porter, I do not
think, would have hidden any of what he was recording but I only
saw what the receipts were there and Mr. Liddy's total figure I would
think would be in the nature of half of that.
Mr. Thompson. Did you state when this inventory took place?
Mr. Reisner. In March, later March. I could not pin it down
exactly but it was late March.
Mr. Thompson. Concerning the money in Mr. Porter's safe, could
you tell either from anj^thing that you saw there in the nature of
receipts, from conversations with Mr. Porter, from conversations
with anybody else about any other operations or individuals who
were being funded, who had been paid money out of the safe of Mr.
Porter?
Mr. Reisner. Anything else would be by the nature of a supposi-
tion. There is nothing else that
Mr. Thompson. Do you know?
Mr. Reisner. It is hard.
Mr. Thompson. Or do you know or have any basis for believing
that any demonstrations or counter demonstrations were funded?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, there was one occasion in April in which I
overheard a conversation. The nature of my job was such that there
are pieces of these things that were overheard that after subsequent
events they perhaps take some meaning. I was sitting in Mr.
Magruder's office at the time he received a phone call. The phone call
concerned the fact that there was a desire to get some counter dem-
onstrators or demonstrators to attend the Hoover funeral, that there
was some sort of planned demonstration. It seems to me that that
was an activity that Mr. Liddy was then asked to undertake and it
seems to me there was some cash in that activity.
Mr. Thompson. Magruder asked Liddy to take care of this?
Mr. Reisner. When I say this I say this in an effort to be coopera-
tive because I am talking about only my specific recollection. It may
be that that wasn't carried out or that it was carried out differently
from the way in which I heard the conversation and I think only Mr.
Porter could be of assistance there. That was the nature of the initial
conversation.
501
Mr. Thompson. Did you have occasion to overhear a conversation
between Mr. Magruder and Mr. Porter concerning a possible front
for some of Mr. Porter's acti^^ties?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, I did.
Mr. Thompson. Could a'ou tell us about that?
Mr. Reisner. That was earlier. That was either in January or
February or perhaps in December and it was, again it was the same,
the nature of the conversation was identical. It was the beginning of
discussion that did not take place with me present. And in the begin-
ning of that discussion Mr. Magruder indicated to Mr. Porter that
Mr. Kalmbach had agreed to find a job for someone who was going
to work for Mr. Porter. That was the nature of the conversation.
Mr. Thompson. Did he state what kind of work?
Mr. Reisner. The idea was there was a business concern who was
was going to employ an individual who would work for Mr. Porter.
That was the limit of the conversation that I heard. I think infer-
entially and from the circumstance under which the conversation
took place it was m}- feeling that that was by way of a front activity,
but as to whether it was in fact, as to whether it was carried out, as
to whether Mr. Kalmbach was of assistance, I can't help with that.
Mr. Thompson. What did you think Porter was doing?
Mr. Reisner. I am not certam. I think perhaps what he was doing
was obtaining information; that there was possibly people that were
working for him who were perhaps disgruntled with other campaigns
or perhaps just individuals who wanted to be involved in politics and
who wanted to obtain information and pass it on to our campaign.
That was as close as I could come.
Mr. Thompson. You never asked him?
Mr. Reisner. There were one or two occasions on which I was
present in the ofRce and I was shown something. For example, one
time I was shown a Xerox copy of what purported to be minutes of
an issues group that Senator Muskie had. I do not know whether
those in fact were minutes of any real issues group.
Mr. Thompson. Who showed you that?
Mr. Reisner. I believe Mr. Porter was giving it to Mr. Magruder.
It wasn't by way of showing it to me.
Mr. Thompson. You do not know how he obtained that?
Mr. Reisner. No, I do not have an}- idea. It could easy have been —
it was someone working for Senator Muskie who had decided that
they wished to do that. It could also — a^ou can make other assump-
tions that were more negative concerning — —
Mr. Thompson. When did you first become aware that the Gem-
stone file had to do WTth surveillance activity of some kind?
Mr. Reisner. I am not certain. I do not think that I am neces-
sarily aware at this time what, I think that when I lock it m with
Mrs. Harmony's testimony and with other witnesses, it seems to me
that I have a pretty good idea of what it was.
Mr. Thompson. On the Monday following the break-in at the
Democratic National Committee, the Watergate, did you not shred a
file yourself?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, I did. The nature of that v;as, I think just to
understand why the idea of shredding a file would go through my
mind, I think you have to go into the nature of why files were shredded.
502
There was a tremendous amount of paper in our committee. Part of
my responsibility, giving Mr. Mitchell papers, documents, was to
make five copies of each document that went to the campaign director.
Senator Ervin. I regret to say there is a signal for a vote in the
Senate. We will come back as quickly as we can.
[Recess.]
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
I do not know whether Mr. Thompson finished his examination
or not.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Chairman, I just have one other question. I
have already exceeded my time and I apologize, but I do have one
question.
If I remember Mrs. Harmony's testimony correctly, she referred to a
belief, I believe, that there were possible plants inside the Committee
To Re-Elect. Do you have any knowledge or belief, was there any
opinion as to that fact?
Mr. Reisner. No, I did not. I know that there was a great deal of
effort expended on finding such plants and we never found any.
Mr. Thompson. Wliy was there a belief that there were such
plants?
Mr. Reisner. There were a number of occasions on which articles
appeared in the newspaper in a way I think would have lent to great
suspicion that there was material being fed out of our committee into
the newspapers or possibly to other candidates. There was such a
wire story the week prior to June 17, according to my best recollection,
and there were such occasions. Mr. Anderson, Jack Anderson, on
several occasions had information that seemed that could only have
come from inside of our committee.
Mr. Thompson. Printing of internal committee documents?
Mr. Reisner. I do not believe there were any documents them-
selves but I do
Mr. Thompson. References to what? Memorandums, letters?
Mr. Reisner. To information and to activity and that sort of
thing which was going on in our committee which I think could only
have gotten into the newspaper if someone had fed it out of our
committee. It was just a feeling.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. You stated that you kept some sort of a log.
Mr. Reisner. Exactly what was the log?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Reisner. My log was a sort of a daily report of activity that
was going on. I would be interrupted frequently and I might make a
notation someone had come to me.
Senator Ervin. As I understand, you reported that your log shows
prior to February 4, that there was a meeting at the Wliite Housf*
attended by Magruder, Liddy, and Dean.
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Is that correct?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And then, your log shows that on February 4, there
was a meeting of Liddy, John Mitchell, Jeb Stuart Magruder, and
John W. Dean III?
Mr. Reisner. Yes; in the other notebook that was kept b}' Vicki
Chern, Mr. Dean's name appears. It does not appear in mine.
Senator Ervin. Where did this meeting of February 4 take place?
Mr. Reisner. Where was their disagreement?
Senator Ervin. Where did it take place?
Mr. Reisner. That meeting would have taken place in Mr.
Mitchell's office at the Justice Department.
Senator Ervin. At the Justice Department?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Then
Mr. Reisner. I believe.
Senator Ervin. You stated that in March that Mr. Magruder
went to Key Biscayne in Florida for the purpose of meeting with Mr.
Mitchell?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And it was after he came back from Key Biscayne
that Mr. Magruder told you to call Liddy and tell Lidd}" that it was
arranged?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Chairman, to be precise, my recollection is that
on one occasion I was asked to call Mr. Liddy and to make such a
statement. My recollection is that it was, could have occurred shortly
after that trip because the time seems correct. I cannot be absolutely
certain.
Senator Ervin. To whom did Magruder report at the Committee
To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Magruder worked for Mr. Mitchell.
Senator Ervin. Did Mr. Magruder send manv memorandums to
Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; he did. And also memorandums that would
have been prepared by senior staff members at the committee would
have been sent through Mr. Magruder to Mr. Mitchell.
Senator Ervin. Now, how frequently did Mr. Magruder send
memorandums to Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Magruder would have been unlikely to have
met with Mr. Mitchell if he did not have some matters worthy of
Mr. Mitchell's attention. He met with Mr. Mitchell virtually every
day when Mr. Mitchell was campaign director and every day, there-
fore, would probably have had memorandums.
Senator Ervin. And I understand from your testimony that Mr.
Magruder had a file called the Mitchell file in which he placed docu-
ments which related to matters he wished to discuss with Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. According to your best recollection, the file con-
tained some Gemstone reports and was in those file papers on one
occasion?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Now, you spoke about the time Mr. Odle took
out the blue file.
Mr. Reisner. Yes.
Senator Er\dn. Which I understand contained Gemstone informa-
tion and other information.
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Was this the kind of a file the Gemstone file was
in?
504
Mr. Reisner. It was, I believe, if that has my initials on it, it is
the file that I gave to your staff in order to
Senator Ervin. It has your initials on it and dated 5/21/73.
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; I gave it to your staff to indicate the kind
of file it was.
Senator Ervin. Let that be marked appropriately as an exhibit
and received in evidence as such.
[The file referred to was marked exhibit No. 19.*]
Senator Ervin. Did anyone else receive copies of memos that Mr.
Magruder sent to Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; each document to Mr. Mitchell went
through me, would have been a formal document to Mr. Mitchell, a
duplicate copy was sent to Mr. Haldeman's office.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Haldeman was Chief of Staff in the White
House?
Mr. Reisner. That is correct. In fairness to the nature of what we
were doing there, we were working for the President who was the
candidate and, therefore, we were providing him the opportunity, if
he wished, or if Mr. Haldeman wished to see any documents that were
taking place in his canjpaign.
Senator Ervin. Do 3^ou know whether anyone on the Committee
To Re-Elect the President ever received any communications from
Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; I would imagine that a number of people —
well — to be precise — Mr. Haldeman had working lor him a man named
Mr. Gordon Strachan. It was my impression that Mr. Strachan com-
municated frequently with many members in the committee. Mr.
Haldeman himself may have communicated directly with other
senior staff members. I do not imagine that it was frequent.
Senator Ervin. Would it be proper to describe Mr. Strachan's
activities as something in the nature of liaison between the Committee
To Re-Elect the President and Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Have you had any conversation with Mr. Magruder
since June 17?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; I have on a number of occasions. You mean
conservations related to the concerns of your committee?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Reisner. I have subsequent to June 17, there took place a
conversation in which I asked Mr. Magruder about some of the things
which I have described previously. I think I asked him by way of
raising some suspicion, just what was going on, and I think I asked him
on that occasion what Gemstone was, because I did not know what
Gemstone was, and he indicated to me that he did not know what
Gemstone was either.
Now, at that time I was asking him are we involved in this thing,
are we connected to this thing, because it looks a little sus])icious, and
he indicated to me that we were not.
There was another conversation in which Mr. Magruder, I had
volunteered to be helpful to another member of the committee and it
would have, I think, involved me getting involved in subsequent
activities, and he indicated to me that I should not.
•The document is not printed in the record, but is retained in the files of the committee.
505
Senator Ervin. Now, in your conversation with Mr. Magruder in
which yoii asked \h\ Magruder what the Gemstone file meant or was —
did that occur after he had called from California and asked that it be
removed from the committee headquarters over the weekend?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; the conversation I am describing took place
in his office. I thmk he may have initiated it by calling me into his
office and saying you know, how are things going or something like
that.
Senator Ervin. After that he told you he did not know what the
Gemstone file was?
Mr. Reisner. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. He told you and Mr. Odle the night when he called
from California that it was very sensitive, did he not?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, he did.
Senator Ervin. Please remove it from the office over the weekend?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, he did.
Senator Ervin. How many times did Mr. Magruder meet with
John Mitchell before John Mitchell became the campaign director?
Mr. Reisner. Prior to March 1, I can only speak of the times
between November and March when I knew Mr. Magruder. He met
with him several times a week, I would say, on the average. That is
indicated in the notebook that I have described and Vicki Chern kept.
Senator Ervin. And that was while Mr. Mitchell was still Attorney
General and had offices in the Justice Department?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; he went down to meet Mr. Mitchell, that
is right.
Senator Ervin. Now, how many times did Mr. Magruder meet with
Mr. Mitchell after Mr. Mitchell resigned, ceased to be Attorney
General and took up offices in the headquarters of the Committee To
Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Reisner. I would say Mr. Magruder perhaps early in March,
when Mr. Mitchell also was concerned with the hearings concerning
ITT, it may not have had this frequency, but certainly with the excep-
tion of those days it was my impression that Air. Magruder met with
Mr. Mitchell every day.
Senator Ervin. ^Vhen was your first conversation with Mr. Ma-
gruder on June 19, 1972?
Mr. Reisner. On June 19, 1972? That was on the Monday morning
when Mr. Magruder returned from California. I believe I just saw him
when he came in and did not have an opportunity to talk to him.
Senator Ervin. Did Mr. Magruder have meetings from time to time
with members of the Wliite House staff?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. How frequently?
Mr. Reisner. I would say that, I would say that he met with differ-
ent members of the White House staff who were concerned with
different aspects of the campaign practically every day, certainly as the
campaign heated up and became more active he did, but that could
have, that would have to be verified in the calendar, I cannot speak
precisel3^
Senator Ervin. Where did the meetings take place?
Mr. Reisner. It depended on the individual. If it was a senior
member of the White House staff I would say that it probably took
506
place at the White House or in the Executive Office Building. If it
was a member, more junior member of the staff, it probably took
place in our office.
Senator Ervin. What senior members of the White House staff
would Mr. Magruder meet with at the White House?
Mr. Reisner. Here, to be precise, he did not meet that frequently.
He probably talked on the phone more with senior members of the
White House staff. I think that he met with virtually all of the senior
members of the White House staff that were concerned with either
political activities of one kind or another or the campaign.
Senator Ervin. And who would those senior members be?
Mr. Reisner. That would have been Mr. Colson, Mr. Dent, Mr.
Ehrlichman, perhaps later, after the campaign got going and the plat-
form was important, Mr. Haldeman, perhaps. All of these men, of
course, were extremely busy. When Mr. Magruder went over there I
was not certain whether in fact he had been able to see them or not.
There were others.
Senator Ervin. Which members of the Wliite House staff came down
to the committee headquarters of the Committee To Re-Elect the
President to see Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. It would have depended upon the subject of the meet-
ing. If the meeting concerned something that one of them was directly
involved in — Mr. Timmons was the man who oversaw the convention.
He would have come probably to the committee offices and met with
Mr. Magruder and other people concerned with the convention. I
would say that the more senior the member of the White House staff
the less likely he would have had time to come to the committee and,
therefore, they would have come less frequently.
Senator Ervin. Did Mr. Dean ever come to the Committee To
Re-Elect the President and consult Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, he did, and he did not come that frequently, he
came on several occasions that I saw him there.
Senator Ervin. Did you receive any instructions from Magruder
about the shredding of documents after June 17, 1972?
Mr. Reisner. Well, yes, sir. I received instructions that related to
documents that were later destroyed. What I received were instruc-
tions to look through the files and to try to centralize documents that
were sensitive politically. The purpose — the instruction was not, go
find political things and shred them, the instruction was "Go find the
sensitive political documents that we have in our files and bring them
to me." And that is what I did. Some of these were subsequently
destroyed, because they appeared in his outbox and were marked
"destroy" and others I didn't see again.
Senator Ervin. What was the general nature of them?
Mr. Reisner. Virtually anything — well, I think Mr. Magruder's
secretary and I looked through his own files. I think other people on
the committee did similar things and virtually anything that con-
cerned the opposition, contenders, that sort of thing, that would have
been awkward or politically damaging to — well, no, even broader than
that. Anything that would have concerned the opposition.
Senator Ervin. As I understand one of the files that you gave to
Mr. Odle at the time that Mr. Magruder called from California was
a file relating to the seven opposing contenders?
Mr. Reisner. I beUeve it was, yes, sir.
507
Senator Ervin. In other words, that was done on candidates for
the Democratic nomination?
Mr. Reisner. To be specific, I gave Mr. Odle two files, one that
was contained inside another. One file was the file that has become
known as the Gemstone file and I don't know what the contents were.
I know from reading the newspaper now what I presume them to be.
The other file was a file concerned — it was called "attack" or "attack
strategy." That concerned materials, that contained materials con-
cerning the opposition, but I am not certain of exactly what was
there on the 17th.
Senator Ervin. Did a^ou receive any documents from Mr. Liddy on
June 16, 1972?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, I did.
Senator Ervin. What were they?
Mr. Reisner. I received an envelope that I believe was similar
to the one I identified as saying sensitive material on it. Mr. Liddy at
that time gave me this envelope, which was sealed and said to me,
"Here is an extra" or something like that; Magruder wanted a copy,
Magruder wanted an extra. That is the document that I received.
Senator Ervin. And you gave that to Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. No, I didn't.
Senator Ervin. What became of it?
Mr. Reisner. Here is what happened to it. I put it in my drawer
and that clearly would have fallen in the category, I presume, of
documents similar to the one I have called the Gemstone file. The
reason it would have is that it came in a similar envelope and Liddy
had called it a copy.
On Monday morning, I discovered that I had not given that to
Mr. Magruder — I mean to Mr. Odle — as I had been instructed to do.
It was a copy, I presumed, of the material I had given to Mr. Odle
and it was not with it. In fact, I guess I hadn't done what I was asked
to do, to get that sensitive material out of the office.
At that point, I did not know Mr. Magruder was going to return
that Mondav morning; it turns out he was already in Washington.
And thinking that it was a copy and sensitive material that should
have been gotten out of the office, I destroyed it.
Shorth^ thereafter, Mr. Magruder came into the office and I realized
I could have turned it over to him, so I realized it was a mistake on
my part. I am sure he is learning for the first time about this.
Senator Ervin. That was destroyed by shredding?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And that happened on June 18?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. When were you first interviewed by the prosecuting
attorney, Mr. Silbert?
Mr. Reisner. I met Mr. Silbert for the first time on April 8 of this
year.
Senator Ervin. And did you make a statement to him, substantially
what you have made to the committee today?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir. It was not on April 8 that I made this
statement. As a matter of fact, I had completely forgotten that action.
You are speaking of the shredding of that document or the
Gemstone?
508
Senator Ervin. Just generally speaking.
Mr. Reisner. Generalty speaking, shredding that document, I
remembered for the first time when I read that Mr. Gray had shredded
a document and I simply realized that there was a similarity there.
Senator Ervin. When were 3'ou subpenaed to go before the grand
jury?
Mr. Reisner. On April 8. It was at a subsequent meeting with
Mr. Silbert that I described that document to him. It was in a previous
appearance before the grand jury that I described virtually all that I
have described here today.
Senator Ervin. Did you talk to Mr. Silbert before you talked to
this committee staff?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Were you subpenaed before the grand jury before
you talked to the staff" of this committee?
Mr. Reisner. To be precise, on March 30, your staff subpenaed
me, which was the first time I had heard from an investigatory body.
I met with two of your investigators on that Friday. The subpena was
canceled. I believe, Mr. Chairman, you were out of town and returned
and the nature of the proceeding changed.
Subsequently, I was subpenaed by the grand jury and appeared
there.
Senator Ervin. Now, did you receive a phone call or any communi-
cation from Mr. Magruder after you were subpenaed to go before the
grand jury or before our committee?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; on that Friday, which was, I believe,
March 30. Actually, it was in the newspaper before I knew what was
going to happen. I read in the newspaper that morning that I was
to be subpenaed.
Senator Ervin. What did Mr. Magruder ask you to do?
Mr. Reisner. He asked me to get together with him. He called
me at home and asked me to get together with him that morning. He
asked me whether he could take me to work. I indicated that I didn't
think that was appropriate, because I presumed that the reason I
was being subpenaed before this committee was to discuss Mr,
Magruder; therefore, I didn't think it was appropriate for us to meet.
He then called me again that morning to urge a meeting. I suggested
there should be a third person there. We set a meeting. Then I chose
not to attend the meeting. I wanted to be firm about not meeting
with him.
Senator Ervin. Did he say anything to you in either of those
conversations about meeting with a Paul O'Brien?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; the nature of that was this, as I understand
it, I indicated to him that if we were going to meet, there should be a
third person there.
He said, well, we will have to find someone. How about if we find
either Paul O'Brien or Ken Parkinson, who were counsel to the
committee?
I said that that would be acceptable, but subsequently called Mr.
O'Brien at 11 o'clock that morning and said that I didn't think it
was appropriate to get together with the man about whom I was
going to be asked to testify. Mr. O'Brien agreed wdth that and said
that he understood completely and there was no problem.
509
Senator Ervin. Did Mr. O'Brien give you advice about or make an
offer of help to you?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. O'Brien?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Reisner. Well, yes, sir, he was counsel to the committee, and
I think he said, "I will be glad to help you, Bob," but, he said, "I
think you will have to realize that if you have independent counsel
or someone who is independent who can give you advice, that may
be your best situation. After all, I have to represent the committee
as well."
Senator Ervin. ^Vhat was Magruder's reaction when you told
him that
Mr. Reisner. I didn't want to come to the meeting?
Senator Ervin [continuing]. That you didn't want to meet him.
Mr. Reisner. He called Mr. O'Brien's office expecting me to be
there and found out I wasn't going to attend. His response was ex-
tremely agitated. He felt he wanted to know what I thought I was
doing.
He also indicated to me that — I had said to Mr. O'Brien I didn't
think there was very much I could j^rovide that would be helpful to
this committee and Mr. O'Brien had apparently— we just discussed
briefly the nature of the evidence I could provide and Mr. Magruder —
one of the pieces of evidence, of course, was the easel. We mentioned
that and I think Mr. Magruder stated that he didn't — he said there
was no easel. He said, I don't see how you can remember that.
Senator Ervin. Now, he called you at your home, didn't he, and
talked about that?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. That was the third telephone call he made to you
that day?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. I would like you to explain the conversation. What
did you tell him outside of the easel and what did he tell you?
Mr. Reisner. What did he tell me?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Reisner. He also indicated to me — well, the nature of the
conversation was one in which he was saying to me, you know, what
are you doing? There was no easel.
Then he said, I can't understand this. He said, you know, are you not
going to be cooperative? Ai-e you not going — everyone else has been
cooperative, or something to that effect.
Now, in fairness to Mr. Magruder here, because I think it is border-
ing on a very serious point that I have discussed with your staff, there
was a fourth phone call on that day. He, I think, knew that he didn't
wish to — that I didn't want to meet with him. He called my home and
had my wife call me and ask me to call him that evening.
Now, in that evening phone call, the entire nature of the phone
call was different. I think he said that he was upset, that he was sorry
if he was overly anxious. He said he just wanted me to realize that
there were some extremely serious matters concerned here and that I
should treat them in that way.
I said I intended to treat them in that wav.
510
Senator Ervin. Did he tell you at that time that you should be
careful about what you said because people's lives and futures were at
stake?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, he did. That was in that second phone call,
and that was by way of explaining to me why he was so concerned.
Senator Ervin. Just for my edification, I wish you would explain
about the easel story, because I don't quite understand.
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir. I think the nature of the easel story is
just that Mr. Liddy came to me indicating that he was going to
have a meeting with Mr. Mitchell and that he wished to have some
sort of a prop to use, on which to use visual aids. I indicated to him
I would try to look for such a prop.
I had, I think, one of the secretaries call Mr. Mitchell's oflBce and
see whether there was such a prop. I don't think there was.
Senator Ervin. In other words, Mr. Liddy told you he was going
to meet with Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And he asked you if you could get him an easel
on which he could display charts for Mr. Mitchell's
Mr. Reisner. He did not say to display charts, but I presumed that
is what it was.
Senator Ervin. Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. If there is
no objection by you and the committee, I would Uke to yield now to
Senator Weicker to examine the witness.
Senator Weicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Reisner, I would like to go back to the evening of June 17,
because as I understand your testimony, and if I also understand
testimony that has been given before this committee, there seems to
be some discrepancy as to what occurred.
Now, just let me try to go over the sequence of events that trans-
pired with the phone call to Mr. Magruder the evening of the 17 th
from Mr. Magruder's oflBce.
Was Mr. Odle on the phone when you spoke to Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. Yes.
Senator Weicker. During the entire time?
Mr. Reisner. It is my belief that he was on the phone during the
entire time. As I remember the phone call, he initiated it.
Senator Weicker. Now, may I stop you? Mr. Odle initiated the
phone call?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Why would he have initiated it?
Mr. Reisner. He, I think, came into the room and said, what is
the — are you doing here?
I said, Jeb called me and asked me to come down here.
He then said something to the effect — well, he said— I said that the
reason I was down there was to remove some sensitive things from the
file and that that is what Jeb wanted me to do.
He said, do you know exactly what he wants?
I said, no, not really.
He said, I think we ought to tell him about the news, or something
to that effect. So he called Mr. Magruder.
511
When he placed that call, Senator, I had the impression that he
had made several calls that day and that he was just staying in touch
again.
Senator Weicker. And the call having been placed to Mr.
Magruder, was it then Mr. Odle that led off the inquiry, or were
you the first one to speak to Mr. Magruder, and was the nature of
the question as to what was meant by sensitive material?
Mr. Reisner. As I recollect the thing, and you know, it is a little
bit — this is my best recollection. Mr. Odle began the conversation by
describing the evening news and what had been shoAvn on the evening
news that day.
The second thing that he discussed, I think, was security. It seems
to me that he must have said something like he had in fact doubled
the guard and everything was OK. But he said, now. Bob tells me
that there are some things you want to get out of the office, or, you
know, that there are some things here that you want to have us take
home; can I help, or something to that effect.
He said, what is it that you want? And that was where Mr.
Magruder, I think, began describing precisely what it was that he
wanted.
Senator Weicker [now presiding]. And did Mr. Magruder de-
scribe precisely what it was that was to be removed from his desk?
Mr. Reisner. OK, now, as to whether Mr. Magruder used the
word "Gemstone" to describe exacth' what it was he wanted removed,
I do not know. It is my initial recollection that he probably did,
because it is during that second phone call that I came to know
exactly that that file should be removed, among other things. He
may not have. I just do not know the answer to that.
Senator Weicker. Did Mr. Odle assist in the removal of material
from Mr. Magruder's desk?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir; it was left to me to determine which
materials it was that Mr. Magruder had described to me in that
phone call.
Senator Weicker. Now, the materials that were removed from Mr.
Magruder's office b}' you and Mr. Odle — Mr. Odle said that he returned
the file on Monday morning. Would that be correct?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, he did — I read his testimony. I believe that he
did say that it was on Monday morning. My recollection of his re-
turning that file was not that it was Monday morning, but, you know,
I do not
Senator Weicker. Do you have any idea as to whether or not Mr.
Odle would have known what was contained in the file which he took
home?
Mr. Reisner. No, I do not have any idea.
Senator Weicker. By the nature of the phone conversation?
Mr. Reisner. No, I do not.
Senator Weicker. But that was the same phone conversation
which indicated to 3'ou
Mr. Reisner. Which file it was, that is correct.
Senator Weicker [continuing]. Which file it was.
Mr. Reisner. But as to the substance
Senator Weicker. But as to the contents
512
Mr. Reisner. No, sir, I do not have any knowledge of that.
Senator Weicker. Do you know of any phone calls as between Mr.
Magruder and Mr. Colson?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Concerning demonstration projects?
Mr. Reisner. OK. I have read that. There was a story in the news
recently.
Senator Weicker. I am interested in your knowledge and not what
you have read.
Mr. Reisner. OK. It is my impression that Mr. Colson was — let
me go back. I think I have described earlier in testimony here that at
the time of Mr. Hoover's death there was a demonstration. I think it
was here on Capitol Hill. At that time, it seems to me Mr. Magruder
received a phone call in which he was instructed to get counter-
demonstrators. Now, I was not monitoring the phone call. I was sitting
in front of him when he received the phone call; so I do not know
exactly who it was. It was my impression that it was Mr. Colson that
did that.
The reason that I say that, is that, I think I subsequently said I
expressed some surprise about the activity. And he indicated to me
something along the lines of, "It is a throwaway; we have got to do
things like this, because that allows us to say no when it is important."
Senator Weicker. Now, were there any other projects aside from
the conversations you have referred to that were discussed as between
Mr. Magruder and the person whom you thought to be Mr. Colson?
Mr. Reisner. OK. When I say thought to be, you know, it was
my impression that it was from the circumstances, and if asked who
I thought it was, I thought it was Mr. Colson. But I cannot say that.
It seems to me that Mr. Magruder also was called on a subsequent
occasion. The reason I remember this is that he made some joke
about the fact that he had gotten himself in trouble. The way he
had gotten himself in trouble was that he had removed an individual
who was supposed to be sitting in front of the White House wearing
a McGovern button. He had said, he had called it off. He had placed
that individual there initially, I guess, and then had removed him.
He received a phone call and again, it was my impression, but impres-
sion is as close as I can come, that he had gotten himself in trouble
and, therefore, replaced that demonstrator.
Senator Weicker. Now, during the period from June 19 to June 23
was there a general house cleaning of files and removal of so-called
sensitive material from the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Reisner. Well, as to whether other individuals of the com-
mittee removed material, I do not know. As to what material there
was in the committee, you know, I cannot be certain. But I have
testified here today that I was asked to go through Mr. Magruder's
files and to centralize the sensitive political material, that anything
that is sensitive material takes on an added meaning. I do not mean
that as Gemstone material. There was no other, as far as I know.
Senator Weicker. All right, within your knowledge, do you know
where the orders came from as to this house cleaning?
Mr. Reisner. No sir, I do not.
Senator Weicker. Prior to July 1, 1972. to whom were major
committee policy memos distributed?
513
Mr. Reisner. Prior to — I am sorry?
Senator Weecker. Jul}^ 1 of 1972.
Mr. Reisner. Well, the major policy memos would have gone to
Mr. Mitchell for his decision.
Senator Weicker. All right, after Jiil}^ 1, 1972, where did all
major committee policy memos go?
Mr. Reisner. To Mr. Clark MacGregor. Copies of them would
have gone to Mr. Haldeman and additional copies would have gone
to interested people in that particular decision.
Senator Weicker. Did Mr. Strachan play a role in the dissemina-
tion of the material as to whom it would go to?
Mr. Reisner. Subsequently^ Mr. Strachan was the contact point
m the Wliite House and, therefore, those memos that we were dis-
cussing would have been sent to Mr. Strachan for Mr. Haldeman.
That was the purpose of sending them to Mr. Strachan.
Senator Weicker. After July 1 of 1972, insofar as your own
observation is concerned, was Mr. Clark MacGregor's role as the
head of the Committee To Re-Elect the President a real role or was
he a figurehead?
Mr. Reisner. This was colored by the fact that I becajne Clark
MacGregor's executive assistant.
Senator W^eicker. I understand.
Mr. Reisner. My impression was that it certainly was.
Senator Weicker. Certainly was what?
Mr. Reisner. A real role. That the activities for the Committee To
Re-Elect the President increased as time went on, that the burden of the
campaign director increased as the campaign went on and, therefore,
the activities that Mr. MacGregor performed may have been different
than those that Mr. Mitchell performed because of his o^^^l talents
and because of the fact there was more to do.
Senator Weicker. The running of the campaign from that point
on, was this a dual affair insofar as Mr. Strachan's role and Mr.
MacGregor's role was concerned. How would you relate these two
individuals?
Mr. Reisner. No, Mr. Haldeman and Mr. MacGregor would both
have been aware of decisions concerning the campaign. Mr. Haldeman
was informed after July 1 as he was prior to July 1 on an mfor-
mation basis that decisions were those of the campaign director.
Senator Weicker. Lastly, did Mr. Magruder ever tell you what hap-
pened to the Gemstone file after June 17?
Mr. Reisner. Yes. In a conversation that I think I began to go into
with the chairman, Mr. Magruder during that conversation said to
me "It's gone". I was asking about the Gemstone and its meaning
and he said 'T don't know w^hat it means either, forget about it, it's
gone, don't worry about it." I can only speculate as to what "It's
gone" means.
Senator Weicker. I have no further questions at this time. I have
to go vote.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Reisner, from your testimony you have
indicated that you did inspect some of the so-called Gemstone files.
You advised this committee some of the files related to candidates
and I believe you told the staff that some of the files related to a Presi-
dential appointee and a Member of Congress. Were they all of apoliti-
cal nature?
514
Mr. Reisner. Let me be specific about that, Senator, as to what I
mdicated to the staff.
I mdicated to the staff that the first time that I saw the word
Gemstone was not in those materials that I have described as being
the ones that I was asked to remove on June 17. There was an earlier
occasion. The stationery was different. It seems to me that the memo
said something like "Subject Gemstone" and there were two such
memos that I remember having been marked destroy or something
like that that were put in the outbox and it was from those two
memos that I had gathered an impression of subject matter, but as to
whether the means of obtaining that information was the same.
Senator Inouye. I am not talking about the means of the subject
matter. It was all political, wasn't it?
Mr. Reisner. Those two pieces of general campaign intelligence
that I have testified to, yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. Do you recall seeing anything referring to foreign
organization or foreign countries?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir; I do not.
Senator Inouye. Or international intrigue or conspiracy?
Mr. Reisner. Let me, and this is again in order to be specific — in
answer to your question I was asked by your staff whether I recog-
nized other code names and I believe that the word "Crystal" was
brought up in that connection. That sounds familiar. I do not know
specifically that I had seen the word Crystal but it has a familiar
sound to it. It seems to me that I had seen one or two other memos
that concerned demonstrators, it concerned the kinds of things that
I think Mr. McCord has testified about here before. But as to whether
or not they related to Gemstone or to Crystal or anything like that,
I cannot be specific because I do not remember.
Senator Inouye. You have testified that Mr. Sedan Chair received
a thousand dollars a month. How long was he employed by your
committee?
Mr. Reisner. I do not know. I think, that if Sedan Chair referred
to one individual, it was my impression that that individual was
receiving compensation for approximately 6 to 9 months.
Senator Inouye. Six to nine months. Do you know who Mr. Sedan
Chair is?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir; I do not.
Senator Inouye. I thought you told the committee you had some
idea as to his identity.
Mr. Reisner. I am sorry.
Senator Inouye. Didn't you tell the committee you had an idea as
to his identity?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir; at no time. Have I indicated that? I have
indicated that I had some idea as to where he might have been located
at one point in time but that I think is as close as I can come as to
identity.
Senator Inouye. You have indicated you weren't quite certain of
the nature of the Gemstone file and yet on June 17 when
Mr. Magruder asked you to take those files home, you showed great
reluctance to do so and had Mr. Odle take them back. Why were you
so reluctant?
Mr. Reisner. I think the nature of the reluctance was the nature of
the circumstance under which the conversation took place. I think that
515
had it come the other way, had Mr. Magruder said in the phone
conversation you take that file home, I would have done so. I do not
think I would have had any reason not to. There was some hesitation.
I think it was because I did not know where the file was at the time he
was saying to me on the phone you have the file, don't you, and I
was — in fact I did not know where it was, and I think I said yes, I can
find the file.
Senator Inouye. It is your testimony that you were not aware of
the nature of the Gemstone file?
Mr. Reisxer. With this exception. That I had a circumstantial
understanding of who it came from.
Senator Inouye. And you were not aware
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Liddy. And therefore I had some general
awareness.
Senator Inouye. You were not aware that the information gathered
for the Gemstone file had been gathered illegally?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. Beside Mr. Magruder, have you met with any
other person who might have attempted to influence you in your
presentation here or before any investigating group?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir; I had not met with Mr. Magruder and as I
also indicated, I think he took back his — if that was intended — in-
fluence. I think he apologized for it.
Senator Inouye. Did any other person call you?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; I have received phone calls from other
indi\'iduals who have business before this committee. Mr. Strachan
called me. He did not ask me, he did not try to influence me in any
way. He just indicated he would like to get together and through
counsel I declined.
I was also called by Mr. Porter and he did not attempt to influence
me.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Porter was a full-time employee of the com-
mittee, wasn't he?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. Was he on the payroll of some other organization?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Porter?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Mr. Reisner. Not to my knowledge.
Senator Inouye. Did you not testify that someone, I thought it
was Mr. Porter, was on a company payroll?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir, Mr. Magruder had a conversation with Mr.
Porter standing in front of me early in the year in which Mr. Magruder
said something to the effect that we found a company where we can
have some individual who was working for Mr. Porter work for that
company.
Senator Inouye. Was this common practice in the committee?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. Now, you discussed the so-called demonstrations
and Hoover funeral. What was the nature of the demonstrations?
Mr. Reisner. At the demonstrations, at the Hoover funeral. I do
not know. I know from reading newspaper accounts and I can fill it in,
I can fill in my own understanding of what took place. I think the
significance of that phone call is one that is derived, it did not seem
that significant at the time.
96-296 (bk. 2) O - 73 - 5
516
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Senator Baker [now presiding]. Mr. Reisner, it is possible the
points I am going to raise have been raised in my absence. As you
know, the committee had a rollcall vote to attend and part of us
left and part stayed in an effort to expedite the proceedings and hope-
fully to finish with your testimony today, so if the points I raise are
repetitious, bear with me and we will move through them as fast as
we can.
It is my understanding that you met with staff of this committee
on three separate occasions.
Mr. Reisner. Four, sir.
Senator Baker. Four occasions.
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. And in any event, the last occasion was at your
request.
Mr. Reisner. The third occasion was, yes. I met yesterday with
the committee just to go through the notebook and to try to clarify
some issues.
Senator Baker. But the third occasion then, was at your request?
Mr. Reisner. As a matter of fact, Senator, it was directly in
response to a statement I think you had made at Friday's hearings. I
think you described the nature of witnesses that you wanted to see
and indicated that you did not know the questions to ask sometimes.
There were also, as Senator Weicker has indicated, some conflicts
which I did not feel were material conflicts but they were issues I
thought I should discuss with the staff.
Senator Baker. We appreciate that and we appreciate your coming
forward of your own volition to give additional testimony.
The information I have from the staff memorandum here is that
you had indicated, in fact, that you thought there were certain dis-
crepancies that you would like to clarify based on your understanding
of the facts and the facts as described by Mr. Odle.
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. And that is the point I wanted to reach. Would
you describe for me then the points where you thought additional
clarification was required vis-a-vis the testimony of Mr. Odle?
Mr. Reisner. Well, there may very well be points in your summary
that I do not remember raising. It seems to me there were a few
points of question in time. Wlio had the key to open the desk? I
had the key to open the desk. I worked for Mr. Magruder. Who left
the room? Did Mr. Odle leave the room? It seems to me he did but
after the phone call. When did the phone call take place? I placed it
shortly after 6:30 because when I arrived the news was on. What
was discussed in the conversation? We reviewed that but I thought
it was worth going over it again.
Senator Baker. So in effect, your tenor of testimony as evidence
in your request for a third meeting with the staff was to supplement
the testimony of Mr. Odle rather than to contradict the testimony?
Mr. Reisner. Absolutely. I do not think there are any significant
conflicts.
Senator Baker. I think you are to be commended for offering to
come forward with that information. I appreciate your clarifying
that point.
517
Mr. Reisner, do I understand that you did not interview with
Mr. Porter or Mr. Magruder or Mr. O'Brien? Is that the burden of
your testimony?
Mr. Reisner. That I did not interview?
Senator Baker. Yes.
Mr. Reisner. You mean
Senator Baker. Subsequent to the June 17 entry into the Watergate
complex, to discuss the nature of the situation, your role in the mves-
tigation, or any other aspect material to this inquiry.
Mr. Reisner. Not precisely, I testified that I had several con-
versations with Mr. Magruder subsequent to June 17 in which this
subject came up.
Senator Baker. Did you ever meet and talk with Mr. Magruder
in Mr. O'Brien's office?
Mr. Reisner. No, the only time I have been in Mr. O'Brien's
office was this April. I did not meet with Mr. Magruder in Mr.
O'Brien's office. I talked to him on the phone and he called me from
Mr. O'Brien's office to express his displeasure at my not coming to
the meeting. I met with Mr. O'Brien subsequently in which I de-
scribed the nature of the conversation, sure, go ahead and meet with
his staff.
Senator Baker. For the record, would you describe — would you say
who Mr. O'Brien is?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Paul O'Brien is a lawyer here in Washington
who was employed b}' the Re-Election Committee and in that role
was just providing advice and the advice was you simply have, if
you want to have counsel, you should have your own counsel, keep
your own counsel, you know.
Senator Baker. Did he advise you about what you should say to
the staff or what you can testify to?
Mr. Reisner. He told me I should tell the truth.
Senator Baker. Did he tell you anything else?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Baker. I understand that you mentioned a conversation
with Mr. Magruder and an unidentified party on the other end of the
telephone 3^ou thought might be Mr. Colson.
Mr. Reisner. I have testified I was sitting in Mr. Magruder's
office and listened to him receive a phone call. It is my impression it
was from Mr. Colson.
Senator Baker. I apologize to jou for not being present when you
covered that testimony. But even acknowledging the repetition,
would you tell me on what you base that conclusion?
Mr. Reisner. It just seems to me that, I do not know, I had the
impression that that particular phone call came from Mr. Colson.
It seems to me his secretar}', who would have been sitting practically
in the entrance to his office might have said it is Mr. Colson or some-
thing like that.
Senator Baker. I am not trjdng to protect Mr. Colson, I am simply
trying to sharpen the identification to have some bearing on the
qualit}^ of the identification. So you are speaking of Mr. Magruder's
secretary?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir. There are any number of ways in which I
could have gained the impression that it was Mr. Colson.
518
Senator Baker. Can you help me any further?
Mr. Keisner. It could have been, he could have said, he could
have addressed him by name or something in the phone call. Sub-
sequently, I do remember having a conversation about this kind of
thuig.
Maybe it is important to bring up the nature of how I testified to
that phone call to the staff. I think the staff, was asking me about
demonstrators and they were saying, well, what would cash — what
cash would have been spent on, do you have any knowledge of demon-
strators, and I said I only have knowledge of this one occasion,
possibly this other one.
Senator Baker. Is that the total of your information on the question
of identifying Mr. Colson as the other end of the telephone conversa-
tion?
Mr. Reisner. To the best of my recollection it was just gained
circumstantially from sitting in front of this man and gaining a feeling
of who he was talking to.
Senator Baker. I am trying to be fair to both you and Mr. Colson.
It is your firm impression that was Air. Colson on the other end of
the telephone but you cannot supply additional information on which
you base that judgment. Is that a fair restatement of your situation?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; perhaps even less strongly. I think I indi-
cated it could have been Mr. Howard, Mr. Colson's assistant.
Senator Baker. Mr. Reisner, time is growing short and we are
going to have another rollcall very shortly. With other witnesses I
assume you are willing to return and give further testimony if that
becomes necessary?
Mr. Reisner. Certainly.
Senator Baker. I would yield now, if I may, to Senator Gurney.
Senator Gurney. Mr. Reisner, who employed you at the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Reisner. Who employed me; who offered me the job?
Senator Gurney. Yes.
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Magruder did.
Senator Gurney. Were you recommended by anybody?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir; I was; I was recommended by Mr. Fred
Malek to Mr. Magruder.
Senator Gurney. What was your job before that?
Mr. Reisner. Prior to coming to the Committee for the Re-Elec-
tion of the President, I was in the Environmental Protection Agency.
Senator Gurney. For how long?
Mr. Reisner. For approximately 3 or 4 months — 4 months. I had
graduated from school in June, had gone to work for the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, and then had been recommended for this
job and had gone over and accepted it.
Senator Gurney. EPA was your first job after school?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. What was your pay there?
Mr. Reisner. My pay there?
Senator Gurney. Yes.
Mr. Reisner. My pay was GS-12 salary, which was $15,000.
Senator Gurney. And at the Committee To Re-Elect?
Mr. Reisner. Identical. The pay was a lateral pay.
519
Senator Gurney. One or two questions here that others have raised
but I would Hke a httle more detail on.
You mentioned that about the meeting of Mr. Magruder with
Mitchell m March?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. And upon his return you were instructed to call
Gordon Lidd3- and tell him the project was approved?
Mr. Reisner. I have testified to that. I have also, I think, indicated
that I cannot be certain that it came following that meeting, but that
I do remember such a phone call.
Senator Gurney. Did you have any such idea what the project
was?
IMr. Reisner. No, sir, I did not. In fact, it led to confusion in the
phone call when Mr. Lidd}- objected to the time limit and I indicated
to him I did not know what he was talking about.
Senator Gurney. You mentioned some of the meetings here that
you noted in your log between Magruder and Mitchell and Dean and
Liddy. Did you ever know what those meetings were about? J
Mr. Reisner. No, sir, I did not.
Senator Gurney. Did Mr. Magruder ever discuss them with you?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir, he did not.
Senator Gurney. There is one notation here in the log that is on
the page before the one marked Thursday, March 30. Do you have
the log there?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, I do.
Senator Gurney. Could you turn to that?
Mr. Reisner. I am afraid it has gotten out of order. On the 29th
of March?
Senator Gurney. Well, it is the one prior to March 30. It is not
marked any date on mine.
Mr. Reisner. Yes.
Senator Gurney. Just has three notations on it.
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Up in the left-hand corner there is a notation that
I cannot decipher. What does that say?
Mr. Reisner. I think it says Sedam Muskie piece.
Senator Gurney. What does that mean?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Sedam was the general counsel and he was,
therefore, concerned with the election law. To the best of my knowl-
edge, what he would have been concerned with there would have been
an advertisement or something like that or a piece that Senator Muskie
may have run that Mr. Sedam would have been concerned with that
kind of thing. I remember it being involved with advertising litigation
and I do not know whether that is it or not.
Senator Gurney. But ^-ou think it is an ad that the Muskie cam-
paign was running, is that what you said?
Mr. Reisner. Well, I think, I do not know, I would have to ask
Mr. Sedam what it was because I do not remember it exactly. The
reason that it appears in that column, I would have been responsible
for following up and seeing whether or not he had done the brief or
whatever it was he was asked to do.
Senator Gurney. Now, on the date of the log marked Monday,
June 19, would you turn to that one?
520
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. There are some names again over on the left-hand
side in the upper part. What are those names?
Mr. Reisner. It is my impression that those names are Liddy,
Dean, Shumway, Strachan, and the fact that there is an arrow next
to them I can only guess as to what it means. I think that that would
have meant that it was just a continuing activity. Those were people
who came in to see Mr. Magruder. That column would have referred
to Mr. Magruder's activity and it is my impression that those people
came in to see Mr. Magruder, not to get that Monday morning
Senator Gurney. Do you have any idea why they were there?
Mr. Reisner. Why they were there? Well, as to Mr. Liddy and
Mr. Dean, you know, I can only speculate from what I read in the
newspaper recently. As to Mr. Shumway, he was the press person at
the committee and, therefore, I think would have been meeting with
Mr. Magruder as to what to say to the press. As to Mr. Strachan, it
was his role to stay in touch with the committee, I guess; I do not
know.
Senator Gurney. Well, is it your feeling that they came in to discuss
the Watergate break-in?
Mr. Reisner. I am certain that that is what Mr. Magruder was
concerned about that morning.
Senator Gurney. Did they seem agitated, do you recall anything
about their appearance, how long they were there?
Mr. Reisner. As to whether they seemed agitated, I cannot say
that.
Senator Gurney. Do you recall how long that was?
Mr. Reisner. No, I don't. It seems to me they came in individually.
It probably took most of the morning, judging from the notation.
Senator Gurney. You mentioned the money that you helped Mr.
Porter count. I don't recall that you ever said anything about where it
came from. Do you know where it came from?
Mr. Reisner. It was my impression that it was given to Mr. Porter
by Mr. Sloan.
Senator Gurney. On one occasion, several occasions?
Mr. Reisner. I don't know. In fact, as I tried to indicate, I don't
know whether all the money that Mr. Strachan gave Mr. Porter was
accounted for. The accounting was an accurate accounting, to the best
of my knowledge.
Senator Gurney. Do you know who had Gemstone files other than,
of course, Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. He never discussed that with you?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. You mentioned that on several occasions when
you, I guess, saw the file and also the copies of these photos that ap-
parently came from the Democratic National Committee, it was in-
dicated to you that you shouldn't be looking at those. Wasn't that
your testimony?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. How was that indicated to you?
Mr. Reisner. Well, the reason I say "indicated" is I do not re-
member Mr. Magruder specifically saying to me, don't look at this.
521
But it seems to me he may have turned them upside down and he may-
have indicated with his expression that it was none of my business.
There were other times during the time that I worked for him that
he was working on something and I didn't know what it was, and he
indicated to me that I was — it was none of my concern.
Senator Gurney. That was going to be m^^ next question. How many
times did this occur?
Mr. Reisner. There were a number of times in which things were
extremely closely held. Senator, at the time that the convention was
moved, for example, at the time that new polling came in with head-
on-head results with the President and contenders, that w^as informa-
tion which was not given to me and in which it was made extremely
specific that I was not to be involved in it.
Senator Gurney. Well, did you get the impression that there was,
shall we call it surreptitious, activity going on
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney [continuing]. That you weren't supposed to know
about?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. And this occurred rather frequently, is that right?
Mr. Reisner. No; I would have considered that prior to June 17,
when it could have had extraordinary impact on the campaign, I
would have considered it to be very unimportant, that there were other
things in the campaign that were important to the campaign.
Senator Gurney. Did Mr. Liddy spend a great deal of time with
Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Reisner. No; he would have met with him on several occasions,
but not a great deal of time.
Senator Gurney. Did anybody from the White House contact
you at any time after June 17 and counsel you about any testimony
you might be giving?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir; I was never contacted by anybody in the
committee or at the White House.
Senator Gurney. There were FBI interviews, as I understand, of
many personnel of the Committee To Re-Elect the President after
June 17. Were you interviewed by the FBI?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir; I wasn't.
Senator Gurney. Are you aware of such interviews?
Mr. Reisner. Oh, yes. There would sometimes be 10 or 15 FBI
agents that would come to the office simultaneously.
Senator Gurney. There have been charges made by some that the
Committee To Re-Elect the President did not cooperate with the
FBI. Can you shed any light on that?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir. I think that there has been a newsstory
saying that some of the agents may have resented the presence of
counsel at those interviews. I was aware that there was counsel sitting
in on interviews. But as to anything else, I am not aware of anything
else there.
Senator Gurney. But it would be your recollection that there was
cooperation?
Mr. Reisner. There was an extraordinary number of interviews;
that was my impression. But I don't know anything more than that.
522
Senator Gurney. You mentioned reports and memos that went to
the White House from your office. Did Mr. Magruder report directly
at all to anybody in the White House regularly?
Mr. K.EI6NER, Well, concerning certain activities that took place
in the campaign, there were individuals at the White House who were
primarily concerned with those and Mr. Magruder would have un-
questionably discussed things with those people just because they
were the ones who were responsible for them. As to whether he reported
to him, Mr. Magruder worked for Mr. Mitchell and Mr. MacGregor
and the reporting relationship was one of coordination rather than
reporting.
Senator Gurney, You mentioned a phone call in some detail that
you had with Mr. Magruder on June 17. Did you have any other
phone calls with anybody in California on that date?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. That was the only one?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. That is all, Mr. Chairman. I have to vote.
Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya.
Senator Montoya. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to apologize for not being here during the full course of the
testimony, but we did have two rollcall votes and I had to be at two
other meetings.
Mr. Reisner, as administrative assistant to Mr. Jeb Magruder,
you, of course, knew who he was going to meet everyday while you
were there ; is that correct?
Mr. Reisner. I would say approximately, yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. And prior to March 4, how many meetings did
he have at the Department of Justice with Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Reisner. Prior to March 4?
Senator Montoya. Yes.
Mr. Reisner. I would say he met several times a week with Mr.
Mitchell. That could be verified exactly in the calendar.
Senator Montoya. And what individuals accompanied him to see
Mr. Mitchell at the Department of Justice during this time?
Mr. Reisner. It would have depended on the nature of the meeting.
If the meeting concerned advertising, for example, I am certain Mr.
Peter Daly would have accompanied him.
Senator Montoya. If the meeting were concerned with clandestine
activities, who would have accompanied him?
Mr. Reisner. Clandestine activities?
Senator Montoya. Yes.
Mr. Reisner. Well, this is retrospective in the sense that I think
I knew there were activities that weren't generally
Senator Montoya. Now that the names of the individuals have been
divulged, were any of those names engaged in clandestine activities —
were any of those individuals at the Department of Justice with Mr.
Magruder during any of these times?
Mr. Reisner. Well, I have testified that Mr. Liddy and Mr.
Magruder went to the Department of Justice. Other individuals I am
not certain.
Senator Montoya. What about Mr. Dean?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, in the notebook, in the calendar, it indicates
that Mr. Dean attended that meeting.
523
Senator Montoya. On how many occasions would you say Mr.
Liddy accompanied Mr. Magruder to see Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Reisner. As far as I know, there was only one occasion. But
perhaps the calendar shows more than that.
Senator Montoya. Now, prior to June 17, were you aware or did
you have any knowledge of any plans to bug the DNC or the McGov-
em headquarters?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did you have an inkling that such a thing might
be in the offing?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. You did not ascertain this until after the matter
was announced in the newspapers?
Mr. Reisner. That is correct.
Senator Montoya. Is that about right?
Mr. Reisner. That is correct.
Senator Montoya. Now, were you aware, as AA to Mr. Magruder,
of his activities with regard to employing individuals to disrupt any
part of the Democratic campaign?
Mr. Reisner. To Mr. Magruder's activities to employ individuals
to disrupt the campaign, I cannot say that I was. There are individual
incidents to which I have testified. For example, this Hoover funeral
testimony that I have discussed here today, where I overheard a phone
call which indicates that it was related to an activity. I did not have
any knowledge of any of that kind of activity except circumstantially.
Senator Montoya. Were you aware of the instance where somebody
from the CRP employed someone to park right in front of the White
House and pose as a McGovern supporter?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Were you aware of other similar incidents?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir. There is a distinction here which may not
be a good one. The distinction is that it seemed to me at the time that
the purpose of that individual sitting in front of the White House —
and I learned about the mdividual after he had been removed and
then was replaced there — that the purpose of that was some sort of a
public relations effort, that it was for the publicity value of it, not for
any disruptive value. Now, I am not certain that that is a very
Senator Montoya. Publicity for whom?
Mr. Reisner. Well, negative publicity for Senator McGovern would
be the concept. If that negative publicity is disruptive, yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. And you were aware of other instances?
Mr. Reisner. Of indi\dduals like that?
Senator Montoya. Yes.
Mr. Reisner. Well, yes, I have testified that I was aware of an
individual who I think was referred to — I don't think — who was
referred to as vSedan Chair and that that individual was obtaining
information, it seemed, from the Humphrey campaign.
Now, as to whether that individual worked for Mr. Humphrey and
was disgruntled at that moment and passed information, I can't say.
I mean it could have been less negative.
Senator Montoya. Well, were you aware that there was a plan
being executed to employ individuals to pose as McGovern supporters
at the Democratic National Convention and to indulge in certain acts
and that all this was under the sponsorship of the CRP?
624
Mr. Reisner. Let me be specific about this, because just a minute
ago, when I said I was aware of that individual, what I was aware of
was the purported fruits of his activity. You know, that is how I
learned about the individual.
Now, as to a plan to employ someone there, I listened to a con-
versation in which Mr. Liddy basically bursts into Mr. Magruder's
office and said, "I have this idea."
Now, I don't know whether — and the idea was to employ supporters
who would pose as McGovem supporters — I presume it was Mc-
Govern supporters.
Senator Montoya. At the Democratic National Convention?
Mr. Reisner. The Democratic National Convention.
Senator Montoya. Tell us more about that conversation.
Mr. Reisner. The nature of the conversation was Mr. Liddy
coming in and saying, "I have this great idea." The idea, I think, was
employing some sort of demonstrators who would wear Mc Govern
identification badges or something.
Senator Montoya. What kind of identification badges would they
be?
Mr. Reisner. There was on one occasion. Senator, and I think I
described this to your staff, a woman who would have disrobed at the
Democratic National Convention. That was the nature of the con-
versation.
Now, maybe that is important to point out, because I have no idea
whether Mr. Magruder would have said that was a good idea or not.
[Laughter.]
He certainly did not indicate it was a good idea at the time. He
just was amazed. [Laughter].
Senator Montoya. He wasn't shocked?
Mr. Reisner. I am not
Senator Montoya. Mr. Reisner, are you aware of any other plans
along these same lines with respect to the conduct of the Democratic
National Convention in Miami?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Now, do you know whether or not Mr. Ma-
gruder employed any of the individuals that were engaged in the bug-
ging or trying to disrupt the campaign activities on the part of the
Democrats?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir. The most accurate^ — I mean the most in-
formation I have ever seen about that has been in the newspapers
recently.
Senator Montoya. Did you know Mr. Segretti?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Do you know whether or not he visited the
CRP headquarters?
Mr. Reisner. I don't know. I wouldn't have recognized him.
Senator Montoya. Now, when you kept the log, did this particular
log which you presented to the committee reflect all the appointments
that Mr. Magruder had? And can you tell us what other individuals
at the White House Mr. Magruder met?
Mr. Reisner. Well, sir, to my knowledge, the diary that was kept
by my secretary would reflect his schedule accurately. All individuals
that he met with, unless he would have just stopped by their office to
see them, would be reflected in that calendar.
525
Senator Montoya. Did Mr. Magruder meet very frequently with
Mr. Lidd}' in his office or in Mr. Liddy's office?
Mr. Reisner. I do not know about Mr. Liddy's office. I do not
imagine that he did. It seems to me that he probably met with Mr.
Liddy on a number of occasions, but not frequently. Their relation-
ship was not one that — they did not get along very well.
Senator Montoya. Now, it is my understanding, as has been
testified to here previously that on the evening when you and Mr.
Odle decided to take out some secret files from Mr. Magruder's desk,
you took what was known as the advertising file and that you turned
over what has been called the strategy file to Mr. Odle to take home
with him. That is correct, is it not?
Mr. Reisner. Yes. I took home some things in addition to that.
Senator Montoya. What else did you take home?
Mr. Reisner. I took home — the first thing that I remember taking
out of Mr. Magruder's desk was a document which was the June wave
of polhng information. There was a wave of polls that was conducted
in late spring. That was the most sensitive polling information that
we had.
There was some analj^sis of that polling information. There was also
a file, a large, thick file that contained the operating plans in the key
States that we considered important following, beginning in July.
In addition to that, there was this advertising file. In fact, what
that was was not our advertising file concerning the November
group at the Committee for the Re-Election of the President adver-
tising; that file concerned the creation of the Democrats for Nixon,
which had not at that time been created. Mr. Connally had not
returned from his trip and it was very sensitive at that time.
Senator Montoya. Why was it sensitive?
Mr. Reisner. Well, I do not think it was agreed to at that time
that Mr. Connally would head the Democrats for Nixon. In addition
to that, I know that there were a number of Democrats all over the
country who might or might not wish to be supporters of the President.
Senator Montoya. Was the advertising file such that it contained
advertising or plans for advertising, something derogatory against
Democratic candidates?
Mr. Reisner. No. I believe that all it contained at that time was —
the Democrats for Nixon did later conduct negative advertising. I
mean it was shown on national television. But at that time, all that
that file contained, to my knowledge, was the ad copy for the ad that
was going to represent the formation of the Democrats for Nixon.
Senator Montoya. Up to that time, you did know what was in the
Gem file or you knew that there was something very strategic in the
Gem file?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir. All I knew was that Mr. Magruder con-
sidered it important.
Senator Montoya. Why did you, as administrative assistant to
Mr. Magruder, give the Gem file, then, to Mr. Odle to take home when
it was the only really sensitive file in the whole bunch?
Mr. Reisner. Well, it is sensitive in retrospect. It is sensitive in
the fact that we now know it appears to have concerned illegal activi-
ties. If that was ordinary intelligence, just things that Mr. Liddy had
been gathering somehow, through his sources or whatever, in a per-
526
fectly legal way, it would have been sensitive, but it would not have
been any more sensitive than anything else that was taken home.
I gave it to Mr. Odle because I was told to give it to Mr. Odle and
my relationship with Mr. Odle and his with Mr. Magruder was one of
trust. I mean there was no reason not to give it to him. I was just
asked to. I am certain I would have taken it home if Mr. Magruder
had said it the other way.
Senator Montoya. Did you on that day do any shredding?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did you on any subsequent day do any
shredding?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Tell us about that.
Mr. Reisner. Subsequently, I, on Monday morning, as I have
indicated — on Friday I had been given a document. I presumed it
was a document. I had been given an envelope which was marked
"sensitive material.-' When I was given that envelope
Senator Montoya. Who gave you that envelope?
Mr. Reisner. Mr. Liddy. When I was given that envelope by
Mr. Liddy, he indicated to me that it was a copy or an extra. It was
standard operating procedure for me to get rid of copies. There were
five copies made of all the documents that were given to Mr. Mitchell
and clearly, that was not necessary for the files. Many of them were
sensitive and I would get rid of them.
Now, on that Monday morning following the 17th, I discovered
that I had not in fact taken home that copy — I had not given that
copy to Mr. Odle as I had been instructed to.
Senator Montoya. I understood that from your testimony, but the
point I am trying to make is did you shred many documents after
June 17?
Mr. Reisner. Oh, no; not many. It is conceivable that
Mr. Magruder might have put something in his out box and said,
"destroy" — just written "destroy" on the thing, or "shred", or
something.
Senator Montoya. Did you, on your own, take and examine files
and cull out sensitive documents and shred them?
Mr. Reisner. There is a distinction. The distinction is that if it
had been an original, it is extremely unlikely that I would have
destroyed something that was an original without having Magruder
indicate that he did not need it any more. If it was a copy, I am certain
I destroyed many copies.
Senator Montoya. Well, after June 17, did you receive any
instruction and pursuant to those instructions, if you did receive
them, proceed to categorize documents as sensitive or confidential
and then proceed to shred them?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir. The instructions were, find those sensitive
materials that may be in the files and give them to me, which is what
I did.
Senator Montoya. And I think you indicated in the previous testi-
mony that you wanted to centralize the sensitive document in one
particular file. That you did, too, did you not?
Mr. Reisner. What I did was I culled the files to find things that
were sensitive, gave them to Mr. Magruder. It is conceivable that he
put them all in one file. It is conceivable he might have given them
527
back to me and they might have — I don't think so. I think it was a
pretty random selection of materials.
Senator Montoya. Now you mentioned the easel a few minutes
ago. What about the charts that were in Mr. Liddy's or Mr. Hunt's
room which were going to be used at the Attorney General's office?
Did you see those charts?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir; I did not see anything that I could identify
as charts. I saw a package at approximately the same time. The size
and shape of the package was such that it could easily have contained
charts, but it might not have.
Senator Montoya. Was that package taken on that February 4
visit to the Attorney General's office?
Mr. Reisner. I did not see Mr. Liddy leave for that meeting and
I do not know.
Senator Montoya. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witness.
Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, just to complete the record, I
have one incomplete question.
Mr. Reisner, you testified that from July 1971 to November 1971
you were employed by EPA for $15,000?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir; that was my annual salary.
Senator Inouye. $15,000, a year?
Mr. Reisner. Yes.
Senator Inouye. From there, from November 1971 to July 1972,
you w^orked as administrative assistant to Mr. Magruder, also at
$15,000 per annum?
Mr. Reisner. That was my initial salary when I joined the com-
mittee. I joined laterally. I was subsequently given a raise, I think
it was in March of that year.
Senator Inouye. Then from July 1972 to November 1972, you
were executive assistant to Mr. MacGregor?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. What was your pay then?
Mr. Reisner. It was $19,000. The initial raise was a $3,000 raise
which I think generalh^ equalized my salary with those of other
administrative assistants and people in similar positions at the com-
mittee. I think that is in the GAO reports.
I was subsequently, when I moved to Mr. MacGregor's office,
given a raise of $1,000 to $19,000. That is also in the GAO report, sir.
Senator Inouye. Then from November 1972 to April 1973, you
became a staff assistant of the President of the United States?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. What was your pay then?
Mr. Reisner. It was exactly the same as it was when I worked
for Mr. MacGregor. It was $19,000.
Senator Inouye. And from April 1973 to this date, you have been
employed by the Office of Management and Budget?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. What is your pay there?
Mr. Reisner. At the time I was employed by the White House, I
was on what they call the administrative roll. That means when the
pay increase took place m January, it did not affect me. Therefore,
when I was given — when I was offered this new job, the offer was made
528
and it would have been a one-grade increase over what would have
been a GS-13 salary to a GS-14 salarj', which is what I am now at the
Office of Management and Budget. That is $23,000 or something
like that.
vSenator Inouye. $23,000?
Mr. Reisner. I think it is $23,400.
Senator Ervin. I have just one question.
When Mr. Magruder called you on the occasion of March 30, after
you had been subpenaed to go to the grand jury, he in effect suggested
to you that you ought not to testify about the request of Mr. Liddy
that you procured him an easel to show these visual exhibits to Mr,
Mitchell because he said that was incredible?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir. Yes, in substance yes. What he has saying
was, he said it is incredible that you remember the easel. Nobody
remembers the easel. Then, later he said that, he apologized, he -was
under a great deal of pressure and he did not mean that and I should
do what I had to do.
Senator Ervin. You construed that advice on his part for you not
to testify about that?
Mr. Reisner. I construed it as advice on his part at that time that
he thought it would be, he was indicating to me that it would be
extremely unfortunate testimony but he subsequently corrected that
impression.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Senator Weicker. Mr. Reisner, I just want to come back to one
point on the questioning that I conducted earlier. You indicated you
thought Mr. Clark MacGregor's role as head of the Committee To
Re-Elect the President to be a very real one and you made that ob-
servation since you were his administrative assistant?
Mr. Reisner. Well, I was trying to. You asked me the question.
I was trying to keep my bias as a witness. I think one of the things
that Mr. MacGregor did that simply did not happen before, he
traveled and he spoke and, therefore, the role changed.
Senator Weicker. Right. In other words, in that respect he took
a very active part?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. For the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Answer me this question:
Did you tell Mr. MacGregor everything that you have told this
committee?
Mr. Reisner. No, sir.
Senator Weicker. As to what transpired before he came over
there?
Mr. Reisner, No, sir; I did not. Frankly, I have thought about
that a good deal. As to whether Mr. MacGregor, I mean at that time,
and I think throughout this summer, throughout the time after that,
I had suspicions about the things that I have told this committee. It
is not until Mrs. Harmony indicated that she typed the transcripts
that they came from Mr. Liddy and that Mr. Liddy had been con-
victed, that these things all lock up together and the testimony became
significant. At that time it would have been a matter of voicing my
suspicions to Mr, MacGregor and I did not do that.
529
Senator Weicker. Did anybody else voice suspicion to Mr. Mac-
Gregor?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, sir. I think it is important to point out why I
did not do it.
Senator Weicker. You are well aware of the fact that during the
course of the summer on more than one occasion Mr. MacGregor
indicated there was nothing improper that had happened?
Mr. Reisner. That is right.
Senator Weicker. Did this give you any pause for concern when
you saw these denials taking place?
Mr. Reisner. Absolutely. I think that, to be precise, I was in a
situation where I thought that, I could make assumptions and say I
was asked to remove a file which had come from Liddy and that Liddy
was being investigated by the grand jury. It looks very suspicious
and I certainly had suspicions about that, on the other hand, I am
reassured by Mr. Magruder there was not an involvement, the com-
mittee was not involved. I Ustened to Mr. MacGregor ask Mr.
Magruder the same questions at Miami at the time of the convention.
We spent 4 hours and I listened to that discussion. There was not any
need for me to raise to him suspicion. I am sure he had them himself.
But as to evidence, I do not think at any time did we have any,
did I have anything more conclusive.
Senator W^eicker. Did you have a concern, he might be standing
before the press in the Nation making these disavowals without com-
plete knowledge? Would that give you any pause for concern?
Mr. Reisner. Yes, it did. On the other hand, I did not have com-
plete knowledge. There was no question in my mind that Mr. Mac-
Gregor was discussing this with people who knew the facts and the
idea that perhaps Mr. MacGregor was being misled by others with
whom he was working, that concerned me a good deal, yes.
Senator Weicker. Concerned you in what way?
Mr. Reisner. Well, for exactly the reason I think you have indi-
cated, to watch a man stand up before the country and say there is no
involvement here when you yourself think to yourself, well, maybe
there is not and maybe there is. But you know there are so many
factors involved in this thing that I was not aware of and that I was
not sure about, I think that, you know, I did not know what the fac-
tors were. For me to go to Mr. MacGregor and say I have these sus-
picions, that would have indicated, I think, that I had complete lack
of faith in what I have been told by Mr. Magruder and I did not, I
trusted him.
Senator Weicker. You had no cause to believe at that time, in
other words, that there was something that had gone wrong?
Mr. Reisner. I had cause to believe that there was something that
had gone wTong but as to what it was that had gone wrong, whether
Mr. Liddy had acted on his own, I had no cause, I had no evidence to
believe that he had not acted on his own.
Senator Weicker. In any event, neither you nor any other member
of the Committee To Re-Elect the President gave Mr. MacGregor a
briefing?
Mr. Reisner. Oh, no, that is why I was indicating he was talking,
he talked to Mr. Magruder, he talked to Mr. LaRue, he talked to Mr.
Alitchell, he talked, I am certain he attended the 8:15 meetings at the
535
White House and I am certain he talked to Mr. Haldeman and Mr.
Colson and Mr. EhrHchman.
Senator Weicker. But, to your own knowledge, none of the informa-
tion which involved you personally was ever transmitted by you to Mr.
MacGregor; is that correct?
Mr. Reisner. Of my knowledge, no, I do not know whether this
information that I have talked about here today was transmitted to
Mr. MacGregor, no.
Senator Weicker. So when you saw the disavowals take place, did
it concern you that such disavowals were being made without this type
of knowledge, specific knowledge, you had, never mind anybody else?
Mr. Reisner. Let us be specific about the knowledge. The knowl-
edge was I had been asked to remove and give to Mr. Odle a file which
seems suspicious in retrospect because I think it came from Mr. Liddy.
As to whether Mr. MacGregor knew I had been asked about that, no,
but then there are a lot of other factors concerning that file that would
have been even more important than the little bit that I knew about
such as the content.
Senator Weicker. I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Lenzner, did you have something?
Mr. Lenzner. Yes, just one question. Mr. Reisner, you answered
Senator Ervin's question about the attack file you saw on June 17.
You had seen that attack file on prior occasions?
Mr. Reisner. Yes; it was an active file. What I meant to say, I
was not certain what was in the file on June 17. I have a general
knowledge.
Mr. Lenzner. You had seen documents in that file on prior occa-
sions, is that not correct?
Mr. Reisner. Yes. I am not certain I have seen all documents in
the file.
Mr. Lenzner. Had you seen documents on the prior occasion that
began confidence source reports or reliable reports?
Mr. Reisner. I have read in the press that it is supposed to have
significance, it is supposed to indicate a wiretap transmittal. I did not
know that at the time and if in fact that is what it contained. I do not
believe it did but I had seen documents that began confidence source
reports.
Mr. Lenzner. Thank you.
Senator Ervin. On behalf of the committee, I want to take this
occasion to thank you for the complete cooperation which you have
given to the committee at all times and commend you on the forth-
rightness of the testimony you have given to the committee today.
Mr. Reisner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock
tomorrow.
[Whereupon, at 4:40 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a.m., Wednesday, June 6, 1973.]
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 6, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington, D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:07 a.m., in
room 318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr.
(chairman), presiding.
Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker,
Gurney, and Weicker.
Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred D.
Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief
counsel; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant;
David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant
chief counsels; Barry Schochet, William Mayton, Ron Rotunda,
assistant majority counsels; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority
counsel; Howard S. Liebengood, H. William Shure, and Robert
Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; Pauline O. Dement, research
assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert Baca,
office of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator
Baker; A Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; John M. Walz,
publications clerk.
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
We are somewhat shorthanded this morning. Senator Weicker is
compelled to attend a graduation of his son. Senator Talmadge is the
floor manager of an agricultural bill which is now the pending business
of the Senate, and Senator Inouye is compelled to chair hearings on a
subcommittee of the Senate Commerce Committee. So, notwithstand-
ing our investigation, the business of the Senate is compelled to go on
and we hope that these Senators will be able to come in sometime
today.
Counsel ^\tI1 call the first witness.
Senator Gurney. Mr. Chairman. Before we call the first witness, I
think we ought to straighten out this news report that appeared last
evening and also this morning about the fact that the committee was
going to issue a subpena to obtain the logs of the President to verify
the number of times that Mr. Dean either did or did not see him. I
have talked to the chief counsel about this. He tells me that there was
no such statement issued by him and I think that ought to be made
clear at this time because it certainly is a misapprehension and it indi-
cates the committee and the White House are not operating in con-
junction with this or the White House is not cooperating with this
committee, and I wonder if we can have an explanation at this time.
Mr. Dash. Yes. Mr. Chairman, a request was made of me as I left
the hearing or some time during the recess as to whether or not the
committee would be seeking the information concerning contacts
(531)
96-296 (bk. 2) O - 73 - 6
532
between the President and Mr. Dean. My statement was that if it is
relevant evidence we certainly will be seeking it and I made no state-
ment that the committee will be issuing a subpena. A correcting
statement to the news releases has been made by me, Senator Gurney,
which indicates all of our requests to the White House for the appear-
ance of a White House witness or for the production of records from
the White House has been made through a discussion between me and
Mr. Leonard Garment, Counsel for the President. Up to that date
we have received complete cooperation concerning such requests. We
will continue that policy which is carried in our guidelines which were
approved by this committee, and that is the explanation of this situa-
tion.
Senator Gurney. I thank the chief counsel and I do think it does
clarify the situation.
Mr. Dash. Now the next witness is Mr. Hugh Sloan.
Senator Ervin. Will you raise your right hand. Do you swear that
the evidence which you shall give to the Senate Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, so help you God.
Mr. Sloan. I do.
Mr. Dash. For the record, would you please give your full name
and address.
TESTIMONY OF HUGH W. SLOAN, JR., ACCOMPANIED BY JAMES R.
STONER AND JAMES R. TREESE, COUNSELS
Mr. Sloan. Hugh W. Sloan, Jr., 7022 Alicent, A-1-i-c-e-n-t, Court,
McLean, Va.
Mr. Dash. Are you accompanied by counsel?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir; I am.
Mr. Dash. Would counsel please identify himself for the record.
Mr. Stoner. Yes, my name is James R. Stoner. I am an attorney
here in Washington and I am appearing here along with my partner,
James R. Treese, who is seated directly behind me. The two of us are
counsel to Mr. Sloan.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Sloan, did you have a position with the Committee
for the Re-Election of the President?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Dash. Could you tell us when you first joined the Committee
for the Re-Election of the President?
Mr. Sloan. There were a series of committees here. As far as my
participation in the campaign goes, it would go back to March 6,
1971, and run through until my resignation on July 14, 1972.
Mr. Dash. Now, prior to March 6, 1971, when you joined the
campaign, how were you employed?
Mr. Sloan. I was employed at the White House on the President's
staff.
Mr. Dash. What position did you hold there?
Mr. Sloan. I was a staff assistant to the President in the scheduling
and appointments area.
Mr. Dash. Now, how did it come about that you joined the cam-
paign which, as I understand it, did that mean the Committee for
the Re-Election of the President?
533
Mr. Sloan. At that point in time it was the Citizens Committee
for the Re-Election of the President.
Mr. Dash. How did it come about that you took that position?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Herbert Kahnbach, President Nixon's personal
lawyer, at this point in time called me at the White House one day
and indicated to me that he wished to talk to me, would I come to
California, which I did, and spent an evening with he and his wife
and we discussed the proposition of the organization of the reelection
effort for President Nixon. His specific concern was in the finance
area. He was looking for someone who had experience from the 1968
campaign to be the firet one essentially to set in motion the personnel,
the organization, and so forth, the earl}^ stages, planning stages of
a full-fledged Presidential campaign.
Mr. Dash. Was any other person at the White House involved
in your selection or approval?
i^Ir. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is correct. In my conversations with
Mr. Kalmbach he indicated to me that before I made a final decision,
since I was working at the White House, that he wished me to discuss
this matter with Bob Haldeman, which I did upon my return from
California.
Mr. Dash. And you had this discussion. Did he approve your going
over to work in the campaign?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, he did.
Mr. Dash. Now, you said you had a number of positions. Could
you ver}^ briefly outline the positions you had in the campaign?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. The Citizens for the Re-Election of the Presi-
dent was really formed after I went across the street to what has be-
come our headquarters and remained the headquarters building
throughout the campaign. This essentially ran from the March period,
formative period, up until probably some point in the summer or early
fall. This committee essentially contained both political and financial
functions in one committee.
At a point in time, as I indicated, in the summer or in the early fall,
the decision was made to di\dde the campaign into two separate com-
mittees, one ha\ang the political function and one having the finance
responsibility along the patterns that we had in the 1968 campaign.
I assumed the chairmanship of this committee which was in exist-
ence until February 15, 1972.
At that point in time Secretary Stans left his position as Secretary
of Commerce. He wished to restructure the committees in the campaign
and to have a fresh start with his coming into it, so we changed the
name of the committee at that point. It had been the Finance Com-
mittee for the Re-Election of President Nixon. It became the Finance
Committee for the Re-Election of the President. He became the chair-
man of that committee. I became the treasurer.
This committee ran until the effective date of the new campaign law,
which was April 7, 1972. Several days prior to April 7, probably on the
5th or 6th, was created the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the Presi-
dent, which was to be the principal committee in operation during the
effective period of the new law.
Secretar}^ Stans maintained the same position in that committee as
chairman and I remained in the same position as treasurer.
534
Mr. Dash. Now, as treasurer of the Finance Committee for the Re-
Election of the President, could you briefly tell us what your duties
were?
Mr. Sloan. The duties changed over a period of time. Perhaps I
could describe this whole process up till the time I left.
As I indicated, in the early stages it would be an organizational one,
a function of planning, recommending what the requirements would
be in dollars amount for a Presidential campaign. The selection of per-
sonnel to participate in the campaign, the attempt to get qualified
people who participated in the earlier campaigns to come in, a general
organizational function.
As we proceeded this involved formation of various committees for
receipt of campaign contributions. It involved asking people whether
they would be willing to serve as chairman, as treasurer of these vari-
ous committees, which totaled some 450 prior to the effective date of
the law. So there was an organizational period here of seeking out
people, getting people in place to be ready for a full-fledged campaign.
With the advent of the new law the decision was complicated
because I think this is an unprecedented situation in a Presidential
campaign where you essentially have the ground rules changed in
midstream. So at this point there was a tremendous responsibility
on my part to provide the organizational manuals to review the new
law, to provide the instructions to the various State committees
that we would set up and operate around the country in the post
April 7 period. So there was a great educational function here, the
banking function, of course, recordkeeping and so forth.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Sloan, I know that you have submitted a statement
to the committee. Before I ask my next question, which goes further
into the facts, do you wish to read this brief statement that you have
submitted to the committee into the record?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, I would appreciate that opportunity.
Mr. Dash. Would you do so.
Mr. Sloan. By way of introduction, I wish to advise this Select
Committee that I served in the finance area of President Nixon's
reelection campaign from March 6, 1971, until my resignation on
July 14, 1972. The last position I held in this regard was treasurer
of the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President. Since the
Watergate break-in, I have cooperated with all investigating au-
thorities including the staff of this committee, the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, the Federal prosecutors in Washington and in New
York and the Office of Federal Elections within the General Account-
ing Office. I have testified before Grand Juries in Washington and
in New York and testified at the trial of the persons indicted in
Washington, D.C., and have also testified in a related trial in Miami,
Fla. In addition, I have given extensive depositions in three separate
civil cases relating to the 1972 Presidential Election Campaign and
the matters which have become known as "The Watergate Affair."
I stand ready to continue my cooperation and to answer all of your
questions to the best of my abilit3^
Mr. Dash. Thank you, Mr. Sloan, and I can say for the staff of
this committee that you have indeed met regularly with our staft" and
have cooperated with us in preparing us for your testimony today.
535
Now, during the period of time that you served as treasurer for
the Committee To Re-Elect the President, did you handle cash
contributions?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; I would have handled all of the contributions
of the campaign, securities, checks, and currency, yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. With regard to cash contributions, could you give us a
general idea as to the total amount that you handled and over what
period this took place.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; I would say in terms of the total campaign
effort up to the April 7 period, the receipts in behalf of the President's
reelection in total amounted to approximateh^ $20 million. Of that
figure, my best recollection would be that $1.7 or $1.8 million came in
the form ot currenc3^
Mr. Dash. Now, am I correct that some of the cash that was
received was deposited contemporaneously with receipt of the cash?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Mr. Dash. Could you give us an estimate about how much that
would amount to?
Mr. Sloan. I would not say directly contemporaneously but as over
a period of time certain funds were deposited. This would total
approximately $400,000.
\h. Dash. Now as to the approximate balance, having deposited
$400,000 of cash, where was the rest of the cash kept?
Mr. Sloan. Over the entire period, from March forward, at various
times, it was kept in different places. At the outset, we used safe
deposit boxes at the bank in which our headquarters were located, the
First National Bank of Washington. At a later period, we obtained a
safe, and subsequent to that, a second safe within the confines of the
finance committee. At that point in time, the cash funds were moved
into one or the other of these safes and at a subsequent period of time,
it was shitted between them.
Mr. Dash. Could you tell us where these safes were located actually
in the committee for the reelection offices?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, one safe was physically in my office. The other
safe was kept in the office of Arden Chambers, the secretary to Mr.
Stans.
Mr. Dash. Going back to the balance of cash which was not
deposited, I refer you to a chart which is just in place up on the easel
to my left. Would the reporter enter this with the appropriate exhibit
number?
[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 20.*]
Could you give us an accounting of the individuals who received
cash disbursements and as 30U do that, to the best of your knowledge,
tell the committee what was the basis of that cash disbursement? Why
was the money given, if you know?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir. Would you like me to take it in the order you
have on the chart?
Mr. Dash. Yes, I think it would be an easy way to do that.
Mr. Sloan. In the case of Mr. Kalmbach
Mr. Dash. When you are speaking of Mr. Kalmbach, you are
speaking of Mr. Herbert Kalmbach?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is correct.
•See p. 891.
536
In the case of Mr. Kalmbach, he, in a period from March 1971
up until Secretary Stans came into the campaign, was essentially my
senior, from whom I took instructions. He was the principal fund
raiser for the President's reelection campaign, during that period.
He, over this period from March until April 7, received, to the best
of my recollection, approximately $250,000 in cash. I would qualify
that by saying that in raising the funds, there were occasions, and
I cannot give you what proportionate amount, where we would raise
the funds, not give it to me but give me the name of the donor, so in
terms of my own internal bookkeeping, I would receive the funds
from that individual to Mr. Kalmbach. So the entire $250,000 figure,
that amount of money did not physically go through my hands.
Mr. Dash. Now, do you know of your knowledge why Mr. Kalm-
bach received, either by holding on to receipts of his own or by actual
disbursement by you, this amount, $250,000?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, I have no knowledge.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive any receipt from Mr. Kalmbach con-
cerning any money that was received by him from you?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. Not only in the case of cash, but in this entire
pre-April 7 period, receipts just were not used in the campaign,
period.
Mr. Dash. Then will you go to the next person listed?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Gordon Strachan, who was the political liaison
between Mr. Haldeman at the Wliite House and the campaign
committee. This $350,000, Mr. Kalmbach, on a day just prior to
April 7, and I am not sure of the precise date but my best recollection
would be within 10 days prior to the effective date of the new law,
came to me and indicated that he had had a request from the White
House for $350,000 in cash, would I get that together for him. In
the conversation, he indicated that he had talked to Bob Haldeman.
At some point in the same day, Mr. Strachan was present in the
committee. Mr. Kalmbach indicated to me that Mr. Strachan would
arrange to have this picked up. I had put the money in a briefcase
and I do not believe I was there when the money was physically
picked up, so I do not confirm that Mr. Strachan in fact personally
picked this up. But I either turned it over to Mr. Kalmbach or to
my secretary. I believe I was going out to lunch and was not there
when this was picked up.
Mr. Dash. With regard to the $350,000 or any other cash, could
you tell us what denominations generally the cash was in?
Mr. Sloan. I would say generally the cash was in $100 bills, although
at times, there were $50's, $20's, $10's. At one point, I think we even
had some $1,000 bills.
Mr. Dash. Now, with regard to Mr. Porter.
Mr. Sloan. I might add one further remark about the $350,000.
To the best of my recollection, after having the authority from Mr.
Kalmbach to do this, there was a meeting in Secretary Stans office
in which he was present and I was present. I do not believe this was
the subject of the meeting. I think it was a very brief reference. My
recollection is that Mr. Kalmbach indicated to Mr. Stans that he had
had this request for $350,000, that he had asked me to get it together.
My best recollection is that Mr. Stans said fine.
Mr. Dash. Now, do you know of your own knowledge the purpose
or reason for the $350,000 being sent to the White House?
537
Mr. Sloan. No sir, I do not.
Mr. Dash. Go to the next person, please.
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Herbert Porter, who was a member of the staff of
the Committee to Re-Elect the President. He was in charge of
schediiHng surrogates, speakers for the President, in place of the
President^ This $100,000 covered a period probably starting in either
December 1971 or January 1972. He had a blanket authority to
draw cash funds from jVlr. Magruder. He would come to me and
indicate on various occasions, I need $10,000, would you have it
read}" for me.
This $100,000 is not a smgle disbursement. The increments of
disbursement or distribution were probably in the range of $10,000
to $15,000 over a period of time, running up to April 7 and beyond.
To the best of my recollection, I turned over approximately $6,000
to Mr. Porter following the April 7 date, under my understanding
that these were committee funds.
In that case, he — excuse me.
Mr. Porter, I understand from his testimony to the General Ac-
counting Office, puts the figure higher, at $11,000. So I say, this is
from memory. I would not dispute his recollection. I believe he also
recollects the total figure to be somewhat less.
I had instructions, and I forget from whom — possibly Mr.
Magruder — that IVIr. Porter would receive no further funds after
April 7.
When Mr. Porter came to me \nth that request, I went to Mr.
Stans. I asked him — I indicated to him that my clear understanding
was that Mr. Porter would no longer receive any cash funds. He
indicated to me at that time that that was his understanding as well,
that he would take the matter up with Mr. Mitchell and let me know.
On his return, he indicated to me that I should continue making
pa^^ments on request from Mr. Porter.
Nir. Dash. I think you have indicated that Mr. Porter had a blanket
authority from Mr. Magruder and that later you checked or it was
checked with Mr. Mitchell. Generally, who had the authority to
approve your making cash payments to anybody?
Mr. Sloan. In the earlier period, it would have been Mr. Kalmbach
alone. He did not physically spend much time in Washington, D.C.
He would be in and out every week or two. He would visit with Mr.
Mitchell. At some point in time, fairly early, he indicated to me — and
I beHeve that initialh', it was with regard to all funds — that I was not
to disburse an}^ money without Mr. Mitchell's approval.
Mr. Dash. This is what period you are now talking about?
Mr. Sloan. This would be prior to Mr. Mitchell leaving the Justice
Department. It would be in probably the summer of 1971.
Mr. Dash. Did 3 ou check with Mr. Mitchell to get his approval on
making cash payments?
Mr. Sloan. What happened in this regard was essentially that I
don't believe any cash payments came up before the authority issue
was resolved. What had been done prior to my assuming the disburse-
ment side of the campaign, going back to the Citizens Committee,
when we first moved into the campaign, before there was a division of
the finance and pohtical arms of the campaign, Mr. Harry Flemming
was handling the disbursement side and I was handling the receipt
538
side. During that period of time, he had established a procedure with
Mr. Mitchell of sending down a monthly budget in writing. I inherited
that procedure from him and with regard to the operating expenses of
the committee, each month, I would send down to the Justice Depart-
ment a memorandum outUning the projected expenses of the campaign
at that point for the following month. Generally, his secretary would
call back and say fine. So that anything that fell within that budget
would be approved in that kind of way. Any extraordinary item, I
would have to call him and call his secretary and ask him.
Mr. Dash. When you said call him, you meant Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And his secretary, who would that be?
Mr. Sloan. Miss Lee Jablonski. What was happening was that
Mr. Magruder was meeting with Mr. Mitchell regularly at the Justice
Department with regard to planning for the political side of the
campaign. During those meetings, he evidently was discussing financial
matters, expenditures, and so forth, and getting clearance from Mr.
Mitchell to go ahead and make those expenses. Following the strict
instructions I had from Mr. Kalmbach, when Mr. Magruder came
back to me and said, this has been approved, I would turn around and
call back down to the Justice Department. I understand from Lee
Jablonski at that point in time that Mr. Mitchell was getting irritated
about being double-teamed on the same issue and issued instructions
for Mr. Magruder and I to work out the clearance authority for
expenditure.
This was resolved in terms of Mr. Magruder saying to me, any
time I ask you for money, you can count on the fact that this has
Mr. Mitchell's clearance. Conversely, he indicated to me that anything
I said with regard to the finance committee, he would assume that
I had Mr. Stans' permission. Although Mr. Stans had not come into
the campaign at that point, it was known he would be assuming the
finance chairmanship.
Mr. Dash. Now, with regard to that $100,000, approximately, that
Porter received, do you know of your own knowledge why he received
that money?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, I do not.
Mr. Dash. Now, with regard to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Liddy's situation is very similar to Mr. Porter's
situation.
Mr. Dash. Talking about Mr. Liddy, who is Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. Excuse me. Mr. Gordon Liddy was at that period of
time, the time he began receiving cash payments, was general counsel
to the political committee, the Committee To Re-Elect the President.
At a subsequent time, he became general counsel for the Finance
Committee To Re-Elect the President.
Mr. Dash. I think the chart shows a total amount of $199,000. Is
that correct, to the best of your recollection?
Mr. Sloan. To the best of my recollection, yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Could you review very briefly how that money was
paid to him and under what circumstances?
Mr. Sloan. It was a similar type of arrangement. Mr. Porter had
blanket authority from Mr. Magruder to come to me and give me a
539
figure of how much cash he would need. He generally, up to that time,
received funds in the same type of increments as Mr. Porter re-
ceived them — generally $10,000 or $15,000 at a time. There came
a time when, it came very close to the April 7 date and I am not
positive whether it was before or after and my best recollection would
be the chart. He came to me with a budget of $250,000. He did not
release that from his hand; he merety showed me the figure. He said,
I will be coming to you for substantial cash payment, the first item
of which will be $83 000 and I would like to pick that up in a day or
two.
He said, in the case ol these additional expenditures, distributions
beyond what I had given him previously, he indicated that the pro-
cedure had changed, that I was to clear each and ever}?- distribution
from that point on with Mr. Magruder. I called Mr. ]\Iagruder with
regard to this $250,000 budget. He indicated to me that wdiat Mr.
Liddy told me was correct, that I was to go ahead and pay the $83,000
on request, but that subsequent distributions were to be personally
cleared with him b}^ telephone prior to their being made and he wanted
at that time to review both the timing and the amount.
Confronted with this, I at that point in time took uj) with Secretary
Stans. I went to see him. I indicated to him that here was a situation
where we had a budget running into the ])ost-A])ril 7 period out of
pre-April 7 cash funds. I said in my judgment, because I had been
sitting on top of the total figures that it seemed to me that the cash
distributions were becoming massive and that this particular distribu-
tion of $83,000 was totally out of line with anything we had done
before.
At that point in time, I requested that he reconfirm to me Mr.
Magruder's authorit}^ to make these kinds of decisions and he indi-
cated to me that he would take the matter up with Mr. Mitchell.
He returned from that meeting with Mr. Mitchell and he confirmed
that Mr. Magruder continued to have this authority, that I should
pay these funds, and with regard to my question of concern about
purpose, he said, "I do not want to know and you don't want to know."
Mr. Dash. Now, you have referred in the testimon}^, Mr. Sloan, to
a pre-April 7 period and a post-April 7 period. So that we fully under-
stand what you mean by that, this did refer to a new law, election law?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. That was passed that took effect as of April 7?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Could 3^ou very briefl}" indicate that was the significance
of pre-April 7 funding and post-April funding?
^Ir. Sloan. Well, the pre-April 7 period, as I understand it, from
certainly the 1968 election and precedent, the interpretation had been
put on the Corrupt Practices Act, that prenomination fundraising
activities of Presidential candidates were not required to be reported.
This made a tremendous difference in terms of the administrative
overhead, how many people you had to keep track of, no requirement
to have receipts. From an internal standpoint it is obviously a much
easier thing to deal with. There was no disclosure.
540
The post-April 7 campaign election law is very stringent, has massive
accounting requirements, principally in the disclosure area. It also
puts restrictions on media advertising and so forth. But what it
essentially meant to us as a campaign was that in the middle of a
campaign we had to essentially restructure, close down 450 committees
and set up a whole new structure under a whole new set of ground rules.
Mr. Dash. Now, do you know, to j^our own knowledge, what
Mr. Liddy was doing or what right he had to receive that $100,000
you disbursed to him?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; I only knew he had the authority to receive it.
Mr. Dash. And, as you indicated in your testimony, that Mr. Stans
confirmed that arrangement and said that you do not want to know
and he does not want to know?
Did that raise any question in your mind when he said that to you?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; but I think in all fairness, to put it in the
context of the time, at that point in time I would have interpreted
that kind of remark, because of the continuing problems between the
political and finance committee, was that he was unhappy and had
essentially thrown up his hands about the loss of control over the
funding. Traditionally the role has been the finance people raise it
and the political people spend it. However, there is a responsibility
to finance a campaign to set realistic limits of what we imagine can
be raised and to provide the mechanism to monitor the expenditures
of a campaign so that the expenditures will be properly paced and
you will have the wherewithal in the home stretch where you need it.
I had the impression with regard to the cash funding situation that
this was just a runaway situation, that he lost the argument.
Mr. Dash. While Mr. Liddy was working as a counsel to the finance
committee, did he have any responsibilities with the regular Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; when Mr. Liddy came to the finance committee
it was clearly understood, made known to me and to Secretary Stans,
that he would be able to devote about 95-98 percent of his time to
legal work for the finance committee. However, it was indicated to us
that he would have continuing responsibilities with regard to the
political committee which would take up a relatively small percentage
of his time on special projects. It was not identified beyond that.
Mr. Dash. Now, on the chart, which is exhibit No. 20, your next
item there is Mr. Magruder. Is that Jeb Magruder, who was your
superior?
Mr. Sloan. He was deputy campaign director on the political side
of the campaign. I do not know how — the structures were sort of
parallel.
Mr. Dash. The figure indicates $20,000 cash disbursement to him.
Is that a correct figure?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And could you tell us briefly the circumstances of that,
the payment to Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Sloan. That was to the best of my knowledge, on his direct
request to me. It would have been sometime probably early 1972,
probably February or March, somewhere in that period. He did not
indicate to me the purpose for wliich he made that reqviest.
Mr. Dash. Now, the next name on the chart is Sandy Lankier
in the amount of $50,000. Who is Sandy Lankier?
541
Mr. Sloan. I believe at the time we are talking about, which would
be during the earh^ part of the cami:)aign, I cannot pin down on this
in terms of the actual disbursement, but he was at the time he came
in to receive this money from Secretary Stans, he was to the best of
my recollection, was the political chairman for the Republican Party
in Mar^^land.
Mr. Dash. And did he receive $50,000 in cash?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And do you know, to your knowledge, what the purpose
of that disbursement was?
Mr. Sloan. I have sort of a peripheral knowledge from being there
at the time it was turned over. My understanding was that this
situation arose out of the fact during the pre-April 7 period we had
asked everything, all funds received in the States be turned in to the
national committee. Evidently, in the case of Maryland an arrange-
ment was made, jjresumabh' between Secretary Stans and whoever
the other principals were, that they were going to have a dinner for,
I believe. Vice President Agnew at a later date which they knew about
and, yes, they would be willing to turn all money in at this point but
they would expect a loan back as seed mone}^ for this dinner and that
that money would come back to us again in terms of receipts from the
dinner.
Mr. Dash. Now, who is Mr. Hitt, who is the next person listed on
the chart?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Bob Hitt, this would be in 1971, was the adminis-
trative assistant to Rogers Morton at the Department of the Interior.
Mr. Dash. And the chart indicates that he received a cash dis-
bursement from you of $25,000; is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. To your knowledge, do you know what that disburse-
ment was for?
Mr. Sloan. I am not positive that I knew precisely at the time
I gave it to him but certainly in the period of attempts to get it back
it was clearly indicated that those funds had been requested for the
purpose of aiding in the special election for the congressional seat
vacated by Rogers Morton when he assumed the secretaryship of
Interior.
Mr. Dash. Just briefly, would you go down the rest of the names
on the list and give a brief statement, to your knowledge, if you do
know what the amount was for?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Len Nofsiger, at that time was probably the execu-
tive director of the California Committee for the Re-Election of the
President. I am not positive that it was in cash but it is likely that it
was. I had no knowledge at the time of the purpose. This would be
hearsay and I have heard rumors since then from people in the
campaign. This was used for some purpose with regard to the Wallace
primary.
Mr. Stone, I assume, is Mr. Clement Stone. That request really was
from Mr. Bob Athey, who was his political assistant. As I understand
the circumstances there, Mr. Stone had made a very large contribution
to the President's campaign in the pre-April 7 period. Evidently, he
had indicated in the period of time where the arrangements for this
were made, at which I was not present, that he intended in making his
542
total contribution to the national level that this would be his complete
contribution for all political activities in the 1972 election year. So
what this amounted to was a request from Mr. Athey foi a return of a
certain portion of his contribution to be used, I believe, in Illinois for
a bipartisan vote-fraud committee. He had evidently made a com-
mitment of $15,000 to that committee.
In that case I am not sure, as well as the case of Mr. Nofsiger,
whether that was check or cash.
Mr. Robert Dole at that point in time was the chairman of the
Republican National Committee. I do not recall how this request was
made. I remember within the committee it was disputed. The funds,
as I understood them, were to pay for a trip of his to Vietnam. Inter-
nally within the staff, we could not understand why we would be
paying for Mr. Dole's trip.
Mr. Dash. I think the other were miscellaneous amounts and I
think for the purposes of this time we do not need a full explanation of
those, but would you provide the committee, I think you have the list,
the specific accounting, if you have it, of the others.
Now, what I would like to do, Mr. Sloan, is move ahead to the
period of June 17, 1972, which was the date of the break-in of the
Democratic national headc^uarters. Where were you at that time?
Mr. Sloan. At the time of the break-in?
Mr. Dash. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sloan. I believe the break-in was in the very early hours of
the morning. On the date that the news of the break -in came out, which
was the i7th, I was at my office in the campaign committee.
Mr. Dash. Now, did anything occur on that date with regard to
Mr. Liddy and you?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Please tell the committee what, if anything, happened?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure precisely of the timing of this but I
believe it was as I came into the committee that morning, which would
have been probably 9:30, quarter to 10, somewhere in that range, I
believe I ran into Mr. Liddy outside of his office. I stopped him,
whether merely to say good morning or whether I had a specific
question of him, I really cannot recall. He was obviously in a hurry.
He was essentially heading down the hall. At that point in time he
made the statement to me, to the best of my recollection, that:
M}^ boys got caught last night; I made a mistake; I used somebody from here
which I told them I would never do; I am afraid I am going to lose my job.
Mr. Dash. Did that statement mean anything to you at that time,
Mr. Sloan?
Mr. Sloan. Not right then. It was an odd statement to make
obviously, but I had no knowledge at that point in time of the break-in
itself. It had no real relevance. I assumed he was talking about what
people do in campaigns all the time, when they make mistakes they
are going to lose their jobs.
Mr. Dash. Did there come a time during the day when you did give
significance to the statement?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. When was that and what significance did you give to it?
Mr. Sloan. It would have been at the time I received knowledge
of the break-in, the fact I believe it was indicated at that point Mr.
543
McCord was involved. It would have been at some point after that
meeting with Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Dash. On or about June 21 or 22 did you have a conversation
with Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Could you briefly tell the committee what that con-
versation was about?
Mr. Sloan. I forget all of the circumstances surrounding it. I am
not positive on the dates but to the best of my recollection, this would
be the general time frame, the time period. I forget, I believe he
called me to his office. He indicated to me that we are going to have
to — or suggested to me a figure of what I had given to Mr. Liddy in
the range of somewhere $75,000 to $80,000. I do not believe at that
point in time I had prepared a summary of the figures so I did not know
the precise amount of money that I had given to Mr. Liddy at that
point. However, I did know that the sum was considerabh^ larger than
that because Mr. Magruder himself had authorized a payment for
$83,000 in one smgle installment.
I must have indicated to him, well, that just is not the right figure.
I did not have the right figure, but that is too low. He indicated to me
at that time that I said to him, he must have been insistent because I
remember making to him on that occasion a statement I have no
intention of perjuring myself.
Mr. Dash. What did he say to you when you said that?
Mr. Sloan. He said you may have to.
Mr. Dash. Did you have shortly after, either on that day or any day
follo^\'ing, a conversation with Mr. Fred LaRue?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Who was Fred I^^aRue at that time?
Mr. Sloan. He was a special assistant to Mr, Mitchell, who was the
campaign director at that time.
Mr. Dash. Could you just briefly give us the content of that
conversation?
Mr. Sloan. I believe by that point in that time there was a general
awareness within the campaign that an internal investigation was
going on and that Mr. LaRue was conducting it in behalf of Mr.
Mitchell.
At that meeting we discussed, I believe, in general terms, and again
my recollection, if the timing is right, I would not have the right figure,
we were just generally discussing figures cash problems and he
specifically mentioned, he asked me whether I received a $50,000
contribution from Mr. Porter and I said I had, and he said, and this
would be after April 7, he said what have you done with it? I said I have
done nothing because I do not know who it is from. I am waiting for
Mr. Porter to give me the information. He called in Mr. Porter and
this was in the context of there is going to be an external investigation,
are there any remaining problems, things that could be embarrassing? I
was recounting to him there were certain funds we did not have in-
formation on, we had done nothing. He called Mr. Porter in and asked
him about it and Mr. Porter said he did not know, it came through an
attorney in Washington, they did not want to be knowni, it was an
anonymous contribution.
544
I believe at that point, whether Mr. Porter was still there or not I
am not sure, I had a call from my own office from Jane Dannenhauer,
my secretary, which indicated there were two agents from the FBI
in my office, who would appreciate the pleasure of seeing me at that
point. Mr. LaRue indicated that I do not think he should go down
there without seeing John Mitchell first. He said wait here, and he
went down the hall to Mr. Mitchell's office. He came back and got me
and I believe Mr. Mardian was in the room as well.
Mr. Dash. You said Mr. Mardian was in the room with whom?
Mr. Sloan. With Mr. Mitchell, I entered with Mr. LaRue in Mr.
Mitchell's office.
Mr. Dash. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Mitchell at that
time?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. What was that discussion?
Mr. Sloan. I was essentially asking for guidance. The campaign
literally at this point was falling apart before your eyes, nobody was
coming up with any answers as to what was really going on. I had
some very strong concerns about where all of this money had gone. I
essentially asked for guidance, at which point he told me, "When the
going gets tough, the tough get going." [Laughter.]
Mr. Dash. Did he say anything else to you?
Mr. Sloan. Quite frankly, Mr. Dash, that is one thing that really
sticks in my mind. I think I left at that point.
Mr. Dash. Did you understand what he meant by that?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure I did, but I understood that I was not
getting any particular helpful guidance at that point. [Laughter.]
Mr. Dash. You did go downtown; and were you interviewed at that
time by FBI agents?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And after you were interviewed by the FBI agents, did
you again see Mr. LaRue that day?
Air. Sloan. With regard to that interview, the FBI concern at that
point in time was merely the question of identity of Mr. Alfred
Baldwin and none of the questions which were bothering me at that
point in time came up in the questioning.
I believe Mr. LaRue came down to my office following that inter-
view essentially to find out what I said and what matters came up.
At that point he indicated to me that, and I do not have the precise
words, the sense of the meaning as it came across to me, there was
very brief reference something to the effect that the Liddy money is
the problem, it is very political sensitive, we can just not come out
with a high figure, we are going to have to come out with a different
figure. And I said, as I recall, I said if there is a problem, I cannot see
that it makes any difference whether it is $200 or $200,000, at which
point he dropped the conversation.
Mr. Dash. Well, now, Mr. Sloan, apparently, you were becoming
concerned. I take it that you were concerned about your own involve-
ment in this matter?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Wliat did you do about it thereafter?
Mr. Sloan. I believe some of these events I am describing today,
or a moment ago, the Magruder-Mitchell-FBI meetings probably
happened on that Thursday, the 22d, because there was a party that
545
evening on a boat on the Potomac, with Col. Verne Coffey, who had
been the Army aide to the President — and I remember my wife
picking me up that day. I assume it was probably the Magruder
comment to me which by that point in the day had me, to put it
mildh', rather agitated the more I thought about it.
I went to this cocktail party on this boat. I guess my mood would
be essentialh' anger. I sought out at that party a number of people.
I talked to Ken Cole, Air. Ehrlichman's assistant on the Domestic
Council, Mr. Chapin, the President's appointments secretary, and
Mr. Pat Buchanan, who was a speech writer for the President. I
really do not remember the depth with which I expressed my concern
wdth the problem, but I believe I was generally expressing a concern
that there was something very wrong at the campaign committee.
Mr. Dash. As a result of that concern, did you in fact have an}'
meetings with Mr. Ehrlichman or Mr. Chapin?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; Mr. Cole indicated to me that night that I
was expressing to him and to Mr. Chapin that I felt that John Ehr-
Uchman and Bob Haldeman should be aware that there was a
problem. I do not — in the case of Mr. Chapin — I do not know whether
I specificall}^ requested a meeting with Bob Haldeman. I indicated to
him that Bob should have this knowledge. He asked me to come see
him the next day at noon.
Ken Cole, the next day, called me at some point — I do not know
whether he called me himself or somebody in his office, but that John
Ehrlichman would like to see me at 2 o'clock that afternoon.
I went to the Chapin meeting. I again — there has been a year here.
I do not precisel}^ know what degree of knowledge or what conclusions
I had come to at this point. But I believe probably the tone of the
conversation was that there is a tremendous problem there, some-
thing has to be done.
Mr. Chapin evaluated my condition at that point as being some-
what overwrought and suggested a vacation, which in fact, I was
planning to leave on the next week. It had been planned for a long
time. He suggested that the important thing is that the President be
protected.
In the Ehrhchman meeting
Mr. Dash. When did that occur?
Mr. Sloan. That happened around — I believe it was a 12 o'clock
meeting on the 23d.
The Ehrhchman meeting — it would have been a Friday. In the
Ehrlichman meeting at 2 — I started into generally the same dis-
cussion of problems.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Sloan, when you say problems, did that include
any statements by you about cash disbursements that had been
made to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. I do not beheve I at that point in time was pointing
fingers. I do not beheve I mentioned the Magruder remark, I do not
beheve I mentioned the money to Liddy or the Liddy remark. I just
said I beheve somebody external to the campaign has to look at this
because it raised in my mind at that point possibihtj' of the entire
campaign being involved and it
Mr. Dash. What was Mr. Ehrhchman's response?
546
Mr. Sloan. I believe I expressed my concern, my personal concern
with regard to the money. I believe he interpreted my being there as
personal fear and he indicated to me that I had a special relationship
with the White House, if I needed help getting a lawyer, he would be
glad to do that, but do not tell me any details; I do not want to know;
my position would have to be until after the election that I would
have to take executive privilege.
Mr. Dash. Now, Mr. Sloan, on that same day, on June 23, did
you make a final report to Mr. Stans concerning your cash disburse-
ments and at about that time, did you discuss with Mr. Stans what
should be done about the balance of the cash remaining in the safe?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir,
Mr. Dash. Would you please give the committee a brief report on
that?
Mr. Sloan. Since April 7, Secretary Stans had been pressuring
very hard on myseK for the preparation of records in the final form
that he wanted them as the permanent record of the pre-April 7
period. This was a very mammoth task with regard to all the contri-
butions and so forth that had been received at that point; the problem
with producing a cash summary, a summary of all the cash funds that
had been handled. When I submitted them to him in an earlier report
close after April 7, he wanted to be sure that I went back to every
individual on that list and verified with them personally that they
acknowledged the amount of money on that list as having been
received by themselves, so that there would never be an internal
conflict or possibility of somebody saying somebody absconded with
some funds. So this took a considerable period of time and the reason
for the delay until this late date with regard to this process was that
Mr. Herbert Kalmbach — he had been traveling in Europe during this
period and this was the first occasion I had to sit down with him
since his return and since he had been able to come to Washington to
review the figures on that list, the receipts he had from me.
Mr. Dash. But you did on this day give this final report to Mr.
Stans?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, I did.
Mr. Dash. Did it show a cash balance still in the safe at the office?
Mr. Sloan. I could not recollect the final form of this. The problem
with the cash balance is that it included $18,000, with presumably a
balance left over out of the Liddy commitment. There was another
$63,000 — the 50 I had mentioned before of funds that had come in
from the people on the political side of the campaign, who had accepted
the contribution on the basis that they would remain anonymous.
We did not have the information. We could not accept them that way.
We would have to know, for instance, from a $10,000 contribution
what four committees that was to go to. These were pending problems,
whether to go back to the individuals, whether they wanted their
money back or whether they were wilUng to be disclosed and give us
the information we needed.
Mr. Dash. Do you know approximately how much money was left
in the safe at that time?
Mr. Sloan. Oh, yes, approximately $81,000.
Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Stans make any statement to you concerning
that $81,000?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, he did.
547
Mr. Dash. Would you tell us what he said?
Mr. Sloan. He indicated that he was aware I w^as leaving with my
wife on vacation to Bermuda on Sunday. He indicated to me that he
feared a General Accounting Office audit, that these were pre-April 7
funds, it was none of their business. He thought this might occur when
I was in Bermuda and suggested he asked me whether I had a safe
at home that I could put the funds in. I said no, I did not, that I had
no secure place. He said, in that case, j^ou had better take half and
i had better take half. So I took half, approximately $40,000, home
with me that day.
Mr. Dash. What did you do with that $40,000?
Mr. Sloan. I put it in a trunk.
Mr. Dash. And to your knowledge, did Mr. Stans also take $40,000
with him?
Mr. Sloan. I understood he took $40,000. He has since told me that
he never took it out of the office.
Mr. Dash. On that same day, did you receive a telephone call from
Mr. Mardian?
Mr. Sloan. That would be the next day, I believe, the 24th, a
Saturday.
Mr. Dash. On Saturday, the 24th, did you receive a call from
Mr. Mardian?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Would you tell us what Mr. Mardian said to you on the
telephone?
Mr. Sloan. I was at home, not planning to go in that day, it was
a Saturday. He called and asked if I would come in to see him. It was
around 11 o'clock. I had trouble finding him.
I believe I went down and found there was a meeting going on in
John Mitchell's oflBce. I talked with Mr. Mitchell's secretary, I
believe Lee Jablonski at that time, and asked whether Mr. Mardian
was there. She went in and got him.
Mr. Mardian and I went back to Mr. Mardian's office. He asked me,
he said, we really have to get into this money thing. He said, where
did all the money go?
At that point in time, I had just prepared the permanent record
for Mr. Stans, so I had a very good fix in my own mind of what the
magnitude of the distributions were. I started — I do not know whether
we went through the entire list. The focus was very much in the
Liddy-Porter area. When he got to Mr. Liddy, he blew up, staggered
by the amount. He said, "God damn, Magruder lied to John Mitchell.
He told hun it was only $40,000."
We continued on beyond that point and covered the ground, the
information requested from me. I indicated to him, asked him whether
under these circumstances, with known investigations underway,
whether I should proceed with my plans to take a vacation. I had
promised my wife, who was pregnant at that point, it had been long-
standing. He said, well, I do not know. Why don't you go home and
pack as if you were prepared to go and I will give you a call tonight.
He gave me a call later that evening, probably around 6 o'clock,
and said, why don't you go ahead.
Mr. Dash. Now, you did go to Bermuda?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
96-296 (bk. 2) O - 73 - 7
548
Mr. Dash. Was that on June 25?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. When did you return?
Mr. Sloan. It would be on July 3.
Mr. Dash. On or about July 4, did there come a time when you did
something with the $40,000 that you had taken home with you?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. I was at home and got a call from Fred LaRue,
who indicated to me that he was aware that I had this cash in my
possession and would I bring it in to him, which I did, and returned
home.
Mr. Dash. Did you learn from Mr. Stans whether he did likewise?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. I believe — I am not sure what his travel
schedule was, but I believe the first opportunity, probably the next
day, I indicated to Mr. Stans that I had had this call. I assumed Mr.
LaRue must have talked to Mr. Stans to know that I had it. I asked
Mr. Stans was this in fact what he wanted me to do with it? He said:
"Yes, that is precisely right, that is what I did with mine."
Mr. Dash. On the next day, July 5, did Mr. Magruder get in touch
with you again?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir.
Mr. Dash. Could you tell us briefly what he wanted to talk to you
about and the circumstances of that conversation?
Mr. Sloan. If I can go back for a minute to the earlier Mardian
meeting before I went to Bermuda, because it is pertinent to this
particular item. I on that occasion had indicated to Mr. Mardian that
Mr. Magruder had made this suggestion to me that it might be neces-
sary to perjure myself, and I had indicated to Mr. Mardian at that
point in time — I understood Mr. Mardian essentially to have taken
over the investigation from Mr. LaRue at this point. I said I just did
not want to have any further dealings with Mr. Magruder if things are
going to be done that way.
By way of background, during the period of time I was in Bermuda,
Mr. Mitchell's resignation was announced, Mr. Liddy's resignation
had been announced. My reaction to that announcement, particularl}^
Mr. Mitchell's, was that, well, somebody was taking action and was
probably cleaning out the committee and starting over, as should be
done.
I had a call from Mr. Magruder during the day, on the 5th of July.
He said he wanted to get together with me, would I like to do it then,
would I like to have a drink with him after work. It was a very busy
day, since I had just gotten back. I said, well, let's do it after work.
We went to the Black Horse Tavern, I believe. He had dinner and
I just had a cocktail because I was expected at home.
He said, you know, we have to resolve this Liddy matter. He said,
what we should do is you and I should go down to see the U.S. attor-
ney, Mr. Harold Titus. He said, I will tell Mr. Titus that I authorized
the payments to Mr. Liddy and you merely have to confirm the fact
that you did make those distributions under my instructions.
Then he said, but we have to agree on a figure. This time, the figure
was even less than the time before; it was $40,000 or $45,000.
No resolution was made on that occasion.
Mr. Dash. What did you say to him?
Mr. Sloan. I was a little flabbergasted, I guess, and I just told him
I would think about it and let him know the next morning.
549
Mr. Dash. Did you meet with him the next morning?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. What happened at that time?
Mr. Sloan. I told Mr. Magruder when I saw him in his office, I
behave I said I had abschitely no objection to going down to see the
U.S. attorney; however, you know, if I am asked point blank, did Mr.
Liddy ever receive $45,000, of course, I will say yes. But I said, I
■wall not stop there. If I am asked more than that, I will also say yes.
If he asks what the total figure is, I will tell him to the best of my
knowledge.
Mr. Dash. Did Mr. Magruder say anything when you told him that?
Mr. Sloan. He just sort of said, fine, and dropped the subject He
never suggested going down to Mr. Titus again.
Mr. Dash. Did Mr. LaRue meet with you shortly after that?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; I believe it was practically on the way out of
Mr. Magruder's office. He took me by the arm and pulled me into
an adjoining conference room and said, did you and Jeb get together?
I said, well, we had a discussion last night and one just now. He
said, did you decide on the figure?
I told Mr. LaRue precisely what I told Mr. Magruder, and he
dropped the subject.
Mr. Dash. Now, the next day, on July 6, did you have a meeting
with Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien, who were the attorneys for the
Committee for the Re-Election of the President?
Mr. Sloan. Yes. This would be the evening of the day of the
Magruder-LaRue meeting.
Mr. Dash. The same evening?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. That would be July 6, is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Mr. Dash. What was the purpose of that meeting?
Mr. Sloan. A considerable period of time had gone by since the
Watergate break-in. I was amazed, one, that I was not, had never
met or been asked any questions by the counsel for the committee that
had, in the interim, been hired to handle this problem.
Additionally, a civil suit had been filed by this time. The grand jury
was active — I believe nine of the people who worked for me had been
subpenaed that day. It was obvious to me that I would be subpenaed
shortly. And I really just wanted to find out what the score was, be-
cause no one was sajang anything.
I went to Mr. Parkinson and O'Brien
Mr. Dash. What are their full names?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Kenneth Parkinson and Mr. Paul O'Brien. I be-
Heve at the time I sought them out, they were essentially in a de-
briefing process of people who had been before the grand jury. Mrs.
Hoback was there.
Mr. Dash. Who is Mrs. Hoback?
Mr. Sloan. She is a bookkeeper of the finance committee that had
worked
Mr. Dash. Did you at that time tell Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien
about the cash distribution?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. Mr. Robert Odle was also there. I had asked
anyone else to leave the room; I wanted to talk to the attorneys alone.
550
I recounted as fully as possible all the facts that I then had with
regard to the money, also with regard to the Magruder continued sug-
gestions of agreeing to a different figure.
Their reaction was incensed ; thev were angry.
Mr. Dash. At you?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. At whom were they incensed or angry?
Mr. Sloan. They said, "Well, we have been lied to by the people
here. We have not even been able to see John Mitchell and we are a
month into this thing." They seemed to have an extreme frustration
about the information I had given them at that point. It was cer-
tainly my judgment that they, from their reactions, that they had not
heard any of the critical information before from anybody and it had
been told to other people within the campaign.
Mr. Dash. Did they suggest you might take a little trip?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. They indicated that they felt under these cir-
cumstances, this new information that they had available to them, that
they needed the time to confront the other officials of the political
campaign with the information they then had.
Senator Baker. Mr. Dash, just a minute. I have lost track of who
"they" are. We have said "they" about three times. Who was there?
Mr. Sloan. It was never identified.
Senator Baker. All right, would you tell us who "they" are?
Mr. Sloan. I do not know. This was the comment of the lawyers.
They said they had been lied to by those officials. They did not identify
those oflScials to me.
Senator Baker. I see. Do you know who they are now?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Baker. Thank you.
Mr. Sloan. They asked if I had any legitimate business I could do.
We were working with 50 State committees and I said, there are al-
ways things you can do in the field. It turned out that Mr. Stans was
on a trip at that point on the west coast. They suggested that I might
join him and follow through that next week with him until they should
contact me.
They did say that, you know, we are in no position to tell you to go.
Mr. Dash. Now, later that evening, did you receive a telephone
caU?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. They said, we will take this matter up with
individuals on the political side of the campaign and you will get a
call from someone in the political organization asking you to go to
California tonight.
Mr. Dash. Did you in fact get a call that evening?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, from Mr. LaRue.
Mr. Dash. From Mr. Fred LaRue?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. What did he say to you on the telephone?
Mr. Sloan. I don't recall precisely, but he impressed on me the
urgency of departure, to the extent of suggesting that I had a reserva-
tion on, I believe, a 6 a.m. fiight at Dulles. He urged me to take
a room at the Dulles Marriott that evening and to leave my home
immediately.
Mr. Dash. Now, you were in California from a period of July 7
through July 12; is that true?
551
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Now, when you returned, did you have a meeting with
Mr. LaRue again on July 13?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Would you just briefly tell us where that meeting took
place and what the conversation was about?
Mr. Sloan. At the Watergate restaurant.
Mr. Dash. Was there any significance to your meeting at the Water-
gate restaurant?
Mr. Sloan. I thought it was somewhat black humor, but he evi-
dently resided in the Watergate himself.
Mr. Dash. WTiat was the conversation about, Mr. Sloan?
Mr. Sloan. I have really forgotten how we led in. He had asked me
to come back, I believe it may have been the following morning. The
attorneys asked me to come back a day early. I left Mr. Stans in Des
Moines, had lunch with Mr. LaRue. We began to review the entire
situation.
I said — I think what he was doing was reviewing the options that
might be open to me. He, I think, impressed on me at that point that
I might have some campaign law problems; that I ought to think
perhaps about taking the fifth amendment with regard to any testimony
that might be forthcoming. I had been thinking about this whole
subject for quite awhile on this trip and I said — told Mr. LaRue — I
said, 3"ou know, it is obvious to me that there is a climate of suggestion
and I cannot relate it to specific conversations of either — well, in the
case of perjury, I can with Mr. Magruder, but with regard to taking the
fifth amendment, I cannot. But it was obvious to me that I should
take one of those two com-ses of action to essentially stay in the good
graces of the campaign organization. I indicated to him that I was
prepared to do neither, that I felt I should tell the truth and if I had
problems, I would have to face them. I said I think it is in the interest
of everybody under those circumstances for me to resign. I said, I can
see no way, for instance, that I can accept the advice of counsel of a
committee that has a clear responsibility to represent an organization;
the}^ cannot represent my personal interests down the road. To me
there was an ob\4ous conflict of interest developing.
Mr. Dash. What did Mr. LaRue say when you mentioned that
to him?
Mr. Sloan. He said that he would not fight me on the subject. He
said, "Well, it might be in the best interests of everybody. I will check
with the political side of the campaign and why do you not check with
Maurj' Stans?" Mr. Stans was due back the next morning. I said,
"Well, I wdll go in and see him in the morning." He said, "No, why do
you not call him tonight?" I did call Mr. Stans that evening and I
said I had lunch vdth Fred LaRue and under the circumstances I
think I ought to consider resigning and he said: "Wait a minute;
let us not discuss this on the phone, I will be in the office [laughter]
I will be in the ofl&ce in the morning, but do not come in because I
have a meeting ^^•ith the Federal Bureau of Investigation. You will
have a call from my office following that meeting." I went in the
next morning, saw Mr. Stans, was advised at that time that he had
already informed the Federal Bureau of Investigation that I had in
fact resigned.
Mr. Dash. You had not resigned at that time, had you?
552
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. I had every intention of resigning.
I went to my office and wrote up a pro forma resignation, a letter,
which stipulated personal reasons, and left the committee and began
seeking a law>^er.
Mr. Dash. You did in fact retain counsel?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. About when did that occur?
Mr. Sloan. The same day.
Mr. Dash. And your present counsel who now appears with you?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Mr. Dash. Who did you retain?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Ed Tappich.
Mr. Dash. What did you do shortly thereafter?
Mr. Sloan. Excuse me, I missed your last question.
Mr. Dash. Did there come a time when you did retain Mr. Stoner?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Did you shortly after your resignation, and could you
give us the date, go to see the U.S. attorneys, assistant U.S. attorneys,
Mr. Silbert, Mr. Glanzer, and Mr. Campbell?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Were you with your counsel at that time?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Did j^ou report to them generally all that you have been
testifying to here in terms of activities, the cash transactions and the
approaches that were made to you by Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. What date was that?
Mr. Sloan. I believe the first time I met together with Mr. Stoner,
Mr. Silbert, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Glanzer was probably Jul}^ 20.
Mr. Stoner had met with the attorneys prior to the time
Mr. Dash. And it is your testimony that principally everything
that you have testified before us is about what you gave to the U.S.
attorneys at that time?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And did you testify before the grand jury?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And what date did you testify before the grand jury?
Mr. Sloan. July 31.
Mr. Dash. And was your testimony before the grand jury prin-
cipally based on what you have testified before this committee?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And did it focus on the efforts of Mr. Magruder to ask
you to agree on a term of money that was given to Mr. Liddy and
indeed, to commit perjury?
Mr. Sloan. Yes; I would say approximately half of my grand jury
testimony related to Mr. Magruder's approaches to me.
Mr. Dash. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Sloan, is my understanding correct that your
testimony essentially is that you played no part in determining how
funds would be spent or how funds 'would be allocated, but merely
was a conduit for the handling of the funds, that someone else made the
determination ; is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; with the cash funds and generally with other
funds, with the one obvious exception of the operating budget of the
553
finance committee itself. Its own expenditures were controlled by the
finance committee.
Mr. Thompson. Did you ever, on any occasion, inquire of the people
who you were dealing with, people you were giving money to, as to
what' they were doing with the money, out of personal curiosity, if
nothing else?
Mr. Sloan. I believe very early on — when Mr. Porter made a
request, after he had this blanket authority, out of curiosity, I said
what is it for? He said I cannot tell you, you are going to have to go
to Mr. Magruder or go over mj' head if you want to find out.
Mr. Thompson. Did you go over his head?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Was this after April 7 or before?
Mr. Sloan. This was very early 1972.
Mr, Thompson. Very early 1972?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Talking about Mr. Porter just a minute, I believe
you said after April 7 it was your understanding he was not to get any
more money?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; I had been told that.
Mr. Thompson. Why was he not to get any more money after
April 7? Obviously, that was the effective date of the new Campaign
Spending Act. What was the significance of that?
Mr. Sloan. I would guess that whatever projects or whatever the
funds were for that project had terminated. I do not know, that would
be just my best estimate. In general, however, the cash funds, Sec-
retary Stans, when we came up to the April 7 date and we were making
these*^ massive transfers of funds from all of these other committees,
at the same time, we were trying to put any cash balance of pre-April 7
money into a bank account, as a practical matter, it takes quite a
while to sit down with the bank and count out $100,000 in a verified
amount. I got in the situation where I had more work than I could
handle and we were not going to meet the deadlines which kept push-
ing on the cash. Secretary Stans, at that point, when I presented him
with the problem, he said there is no problem here because I have read
the law. The law clearly states funds do not have to be in a bank ac-
count, in any repository, of which a safe is one. He said I will tell you
at a later date what of these cash funds we will be carrying forward
as a transfer of funds from pre-April 7 committees to post-April 7
committees. But he did say he wanted to be sure that this deposit
was made to a post-April 7 committee before the end of May, which
was the cutoff point for the first filing requirement of the new law,
because he indicated to me that he wanted to be sure that every
single contribution in the post-April 7 period went through a bank
account so that there would be a clear audit trail in front of the new
law which the General Accounting Oflfice did have the right to inquire
into; he wanted to have a very precise accounting within the ground
rules of the new law.
Mr. Thompson. Would it also be a reasonable interpretation that
whatever Mr. Porter was doing with the money that he did not have
to disclose — the committee did not have to disclose what he was domg
with the cash before April 7 but would have to disclose what he was
doing after April 7, and they did not want to do that, and that might
be the reason for terminating his activities?
554
Mr. Sloan. Well, I anticipated when we came up to April 7 that
all cash funds would cease, period. For this precise reason
Mr. Thompson. But they did not, did they?
Mr. Sloa-N. That is correct. In the case of Mr. Porter, Mr. Liddy
and, I believe, I am not positive, the payment to Mr. Lankier, came
after April 7.
Mr. Thompson. Were all of these reported or
Mr. Sloan. Excuse me?
Mr. Thompson. Were they reported or were they previously
committed?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, I was told by Secretary Stans the figure to be
deposited was $350,000. I considered the balance of funds, pre-April 7
funds, that had not been transferred to the post-April 7 committee,
were essentially internal committed prepayments to the individuals
involved. Just as we similarly — in a cash area — we made a political
decision that on April 7, when we liquidated the assets of pre-April 7
committees, we had very successful fund raising, something like $20
million and we may have spent four or five up to that point. We
wanted to redound the cash balances that would be carried forward
essentially, so we would not have the obvious fund raising problem of
sitting pretty and having a big bank balance. Under the legal advice
we decided that on our cash accounting system that prepayments
would be legal actions under the terms of the old law. In other words,
take one example. A million dollars was paid to a direct mail firm on
April 6. Clearly those benefits from that money redound to the benefit
of a campaign after April 7, but this was done, I was present at the
meeting, and I believe there was a written legal brief to justify this
practice. I considered the cash fund in precisely the same category.
Mr. Thompson. We are talking about the previous commitments
concept; are we not really talking about commitments to the committee
and also commitments by the committee, it works both ways, con-
tributions on the one hand and expenditures on the other hand? These
things had been committed before April 7.
Mr. Sloan. I do not think in the contribution, I do not think that
question came up quite that way. I think in most cases contributions
that came in after April 7, they physically left the hands of the donor,
although they were delayed in transit.
Mr. Thompson. Without getting into this, which we will probably
get into on a subsequent occasion, would that be true of Vesco money,
Dahlberg's check?
Mr. Sloan. Yes; all the funds I received with the exception of
$63,000 we referred to before, when they were turned over to me were
represented to me as being pre-April 7 contributions.
Mr. Thompson. Who made the determination as to whether or not
these funds actually were committed before April 7?
Mr. Sloan. I essentially was operating blind. I was operating under
the instructions of Secretary Stans as to what was being carried
forward, therefore, the balance has to fall in the other category.
Mr. Thompson. As far as you know, he was making the determina-
tion as to whether or not any particular funds were previously
committed?
Mr. Sloan. I do not know who made that determination. I would
assume it would have been on the political side of the campaign. All
I can really tell you is that these were the assumptions I operated on
555
at that time. In light of what has happened today, those assumptions
ma}^ ver}' well be not correct.
Mr. Thompson. Did 3^ou understand what the criterion was, was
it as to whether or not the money had actually left the hands of the
donor? You mentioned that.
Mr. Sloan. Most of the discussion abut this really came up after
the fact and after the problem in the whole question of constructive
receipt. As far as my handling of the funds; any time I was given money
I was simply told this is pre-April 7 mone3^ It was not discussed in
those terms. The Vesco matter, I understand from other testimony,
was physicall}' turned over to me on April 10. My assumption was in
that case that John Mitchell had had it before. I was not given any
of the information surrounding it because it was presented to me as
being from John Mitchell and the name was not given to me at that
point.
Mr. Thompson. What did you say your function or role was in 1968?
Mr. Sloan. At this time titularil}^ it was assistant finance director
but that was a carryover from the Republican Finance Committee
in terms of the Presidential campaign. My duties were restricted to a
project basis, running the thovisand dollar nationwide.
Mr. Thompson. Did you have any access to figures concerning cash
contributions or cash inflow in the 1968 Presidential campaign?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. To make a comparison between the two campaigns
with regard to cash
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, that is not anywhere a comparable situation.
Mr. Thompson. You have stated here, stated just previously that
in the staff meetings you had made attempts to get these outlays of
money to Mr. Liddy and Mr. Porter, and others verified, and I
believe in Mr. Liddy's situation it was in the budget, you checked
with Mr. Magruder and he OK'd it and you went further and checked
with Mr. Stans and he said Mr. Magruder had the authority from
Mr. Mitchell.
As far as Mr. Porter is concerned, you checked again with Magruder
and I believe you checked again with Mr. Stans, who, I believe, again
said Mr. Mitchell said that it was OK; is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. With regard to the $.350,000, of course, that was
ordered cleared by Mr. Stans. We know now — the speculation is — and
we have some testimony with regard to how some of that money was
spent that a^ou were giving out at that time, Mr. Liddy, $199,000, al-
legations concerning the $350,000 being coverup money, and all these
allegations — you were the man who had the money and j^et you were
doing everything you could, evidently, to check and double check the
situation to see that it was properly spent.
Could you enlighten the committee as to how this could be pre-
vented? Could there by any structural changes inside the campaign
political organization to prevent this, or does it depend on the good
judgment of the people involved?
Mr. Sloan. I think in terms of, one of the biggest problems I
think was the fact we had a change in the law.
Mr. Thompson. Change of what?
Mr. Sloan. A change of campaign law in the middle of the cam-
paign. I think that probably created, assuming the allegations are
556
correct, an opportunity to abuse that transition period. I do not know
how you can ever avoid
Mr. Thompson. What kind of difficulties did that cause, what kind
of opportunities did that present?
Mr. Sloan. I think this whole question of prepayment and so forth
is you really don't have any choice in a way in terms of political con-
text to go that far. There is an obvious political advantage to it, but
you would have had to make that decision.
Mr. Thompson. There was no objective standard?
Mr. Sloan. There is no precedent for it. I think as far as individuals
handling cash in a campaign, I don't know of anything that could
prevent individuals from doing that unless you just outlaw cash but
they may do it anyway.
Mr. Thompson. Let me ask you one or two other lines of question-
ing. You mentioned you went to Mr. Ehrlichman after the break-in,
with your concerns, and he in effect said he did not want to hear the
facts at that time ; is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Statements have been made publicly to the effect
that Mr. Ehrlichman at one time told Mr. Dean to make a report
about this matter. Did Mr. Dean ever contact you from June 17, 1972,
up until the time he left the White House, about the Watergate
matter?
Mr. Sloan. I had numerous conversations with Mr. Dean over a
period of time, but with regard to your specific question, in terms of
an investigation, I would have to describe the transmittal of informa-
tion essentially as my forcing it on him, rather than him soliciting it
from me.
Mr. Thompson. Another point. Did I understand your testimony
correctly that you told three prosecutors in the criminal case on July 18
that Magruder had attempted to get you to perjure yourself?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. All three of them?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. In the same room at the same time?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; in the presence of counsel.
Mr. Thompson. Your present counsel?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir,
Mr. Thompson. Did they have a reaction to this at that time?
Mr. Sloan. I think they were disturbed by it. I cannot characterize
their reaction but I think they were disturbed by the whole thing.
Mr Thompson. The trial was the following January and you were
a witness at that trial.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. You told about the $199,000.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Magruder was also a witness at that trial, a
prosecution witness, was he not?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. What was the atmosphere? You knew what you
told the prosecutors, did you have any further conversation with the
prosecutors, did you have any further conversation with Mr. Magru-
der about the situation? What was the atmosphere over there during
557
the trial when both of you were being used as Government witnesses
to prove the Government's case.
Mr. Sloan. I don't believe I have seen Mr. Magruder except on the
day of the trial where we were put in the same witness room.
Mr. Thompson. Who was called first?
Mr. Sloan. I believe it was Mr. Magruder, Mr. Porter, and then
myself.
Mr. Thompson. Go ahead.
Mr. Sloan. There really was no conversation with Mr. Magruder.
As to the prosecutors, I don't recall any further discussion about
that aspect of it. My assumption is that they got mto a situation
where here is one man's word against another, no one else was present,
they have no corroborative evidence, they can't do anything.
Mr. Thompson. Do you know whether or not they confronted
Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Sloan. I have no knowledge. Excuse me. Indirectly I have
knowledge that that issue came up, yes, sir.
Mr. Tho:mpson. Could you tell us what you know about it?
Mr. Sloan. Sir, following m}- appearance before the grand jury,
prior to Mr. Magruder's appearance before the grand jury, Mr. Mar-
dian and Mr. Paul O'Brien requested that my attorney at that time,
Mr. Treese, Mr. Stoner was out of town, meet with them at the
committee headquarters. They requested at that point in time informa-
tion as to what I told the grand jury precisely with regard to Mr.
Magruder and I said I have no hesitancy at all, I would tell it to his
face. I told them they already knew because I told Mr. O'Brien before.
I was very surprised at the request.
Mr. Thompson. You went ahead and told them?
Mr. Sloan. I told Mr. O'Brien originally.
Mr. Thompson. I assume you told the grand jury the same thing
that \'ou told the three prosecutors?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. About Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. What was their reaction whenyou told Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. Sloan. You mean initially?
Mr. Thompson. No; after you told them what you told the grand
jury about Mr. Magruder.
Mr. Sloan. I believe Mr. O'Brien's comment quite frankly was,
"I do not know what the hell Jeb is going to do but you have to give
the guy a fighting chance."
Mr. Thompson. One question and I mil leave that for further in-
quir3\ Are you saying that after this initial meeting with the three
prosecutors you talked to them about it?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. And told the grand jury?
Mr. Sloan. That was after my grand jury testimony.
Mr. Thompson. That was after your grand jury testimony?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Was this in response to a specific question or did you
volunteer this information?
Mr. Sloan. They asked us directl}?- would we tell them what we had
told the grand jury about Mr. Magruder's approaches to me and es-
558
sentially I believe our response was you already know because I told
you initially,
Mr. Thompson. Excuse me, I am talking about before the grand
jury.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, what I told the grand jury was essentially what
I had told the prosecutors. It was also the same thing I told Mr.
Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien originally.
Mr. Thompson. I am sorry, I think I misunderstood you. Did you
tell the grand jury first or did you tell the three prosecutors first?
Mr. Sloan. Talked to the three prosecutors first and then the grand
jury and then the meeting Avith Mr. Mardian and Mr. O'Brien.
Mr. Thompson. I believe you said the $25,000 to Mr. Hitt was a
loan.
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure I knew that at the time and I cannot re-
call who instructed me to make the payment.
Mr. Thompson. Was there ever any attempt, if you understand that
to be the case now, was there ever any attempt to collect that loan?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir; I think this is really where my knowledge came
from. Mr. Lee Nunn, who is one of our vice chairmen, who was in-
volved in this when Secretary Stans came in February. When he was
reviewing the status of the campaign we had run prior to his coming
in, I had mentioned to him one of the open items at that point was
what I understood to be a loan, this $25,000, and he said "well, let's
get it back," and I believe 1 said I do not know all of the arrange-
ments but Lee Nunn was involved in it. Mr. Nunn, I believe, was
called in at that point to Mr. Stans' office and he said, "yes, I have
tried." The campaign had been long over. I believe at that point he
said Bob Haldeman made the deal, let him get it back.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Nunn said Bob Haldeman made the deal?
Mr. Sloan. That is my best recollection, he indicated there had
been a conversation between
Mr. Thompson. Did you understand that meant Haldeman ordered
that the loan be paid?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure in my recollection whether that is in-
directly where the request came from.
Mr. Thompson. Do you know what it was used for?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. General campaign?
Mr. Sloan. Well, the knowledge I had was that it was something
to do with the special election.
Mr. Thompson. When did you understand, according to the phrase-
ology, that the deal had been made and the money had in fact been
delivered?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure. There had been some discussion back and
forth. This was negotiated over a period of time. I believe Mr. Nunn
and myself both felt strongly that here we essentially were taking
money that had been given to the President's campaign, giving it to
a congressional race, and you have a problem of obvious precedent
when you come up in the 1972 campaign.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Haldeman did, in fact, have something to do
with his getting the loan?
Mr. Sloan. That is my understanding, but it is secondhanded
Mr. Thompson. I was wondering when — if you can shed any light —
first of all back in 1971?
559
Mr. Sloan. Oh, I am sure it is 1971. 1 believe it can be pegged when-
ever — I would suspect it was a few days or a week before the election,
whenever precisely that was. But I am sure it was 1971.
Mr. Thompson. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman, of Mr. Sloan.
Senator Ervin. In view of the fact that Senator Talmadge is the
floor manager of the Agriculture bill which is the pending order of
business, I am going to waive my right to question the mtness. I am
going to swap \\dth Senator Talmadge.
Senator Talmadge. Thank ^'■ou, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sloan, I get the impression that you are a forthright and candid
man from your answers and 3'our response to the questions that have
been asked this morning. Exactly what were your duties at the finance
committee?
Mr. Sloan. It varied somewhat over different periods of time.
Senator. In the very early periods of the campaign, it was really an
organizational function, setting up the multiple committees that allow
gift tax distribution of contributor's contributions, organization
work, hiring of people, staffing out, budget planning. As we went on
later on, it involved the banking of the bank accounts. When we came
up to April 7, when we got into this new law period, just prior to that,
we hired a full-time, qualified CPA — I am not an accountant myself —
to handle the new law period, the increased volume of administration.
I would say although at that time, though I carried the title of treas-
urer, most of m}' duties were administrative and liaison mth various
State committees, educating State committees on the new law
requirements.
Senator Talmadge. I assume you are familiar with the Campaign
Disclosure Act that went into effect on April 7 of that year and at
that time, all income and disbursements had to be very stringently
reported. Are you aware of that fact?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Now, you accumulated, I believe, large sums
of cash prior to the time the April 7 law came into effect, did you
not?
Mr. Sloan. I was the custodian of a large sum of money. I did not
personally collect it m^-self.
Senator Talmadge. You had on hand, I believe, about $910,000
that you disbursed in cash at one time or another. Is that substan-
tially accurate?
Air. Sloan. It is close to a million dollars over this entire period of
March through the end of this period.
Senator Talmadge. Now, much of that money was disbursed subse-
quent to April 7, 1972, was it not?
Mr. Sloan. Some of it was, not the
Senator Talmadge. Why did you not comply with the Disclosure
Act that went into effect on April 7 of last year?
Mr. Sloan. For a variety of reasons. Senator. First, I was not treas-
urer of those funds and they were not identified to a committee, so I
could not personally file them with my committee.
Second, I understood them by our operating practice to have been
essentially committed in prepaj^ments to individuals within the cam-
paign along the same guidelines as the $5.5 miUion that had been
made in prepayments in terms of check disbursements.
560
Senator Talmadge. It can't be prepaid until it is delivered, can it?
Mr. Sloan. My difficulty with this, Senator, is that it is an assump-
tion on my part. I was not part of the decision as to, in fact, even
whether these funds were committed. I approached the problem
from the other side. I was told precisely what to report and what fell
in this committed category.
Senator Talmadge. Did you understand that at midnight on
April 7, 1972, all expenditures thereafter had to be reported in detail
and subject to audit by the Comptroller General of the United States?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, but my understanding was that on these
moneys, a decision had been made and as far as I was concerned, they
were considered expended prior to that time.
Senator Talmadge. You took the view, then, that it was on hand
and someone else told you that it had been committed and it absolved
you of responsibility under the law?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. You were following higher orders, higher au-
thority, not making decisions on your own accord?
Mr. Sloan. Sir, I would not want to be put in the position of passing
the buck on this. I may have had a responsibility to this. I do not
believe I did. All I can tell you is that in my understanding of the law,
I believe I complied. That understanding, particularly given some
recent developments, may in fact be totally incorrect. I concede that.
Senator Talmadge. What officials at the Committee for the Re-
Election of the President, or the Finance Committee for the Re-
Election of the President, knew of these cash disbursements that
you made?
Mr. Sloan. Officials of the committee, I would say, with the excep-
tion of Mr. Liddy, who received some of them himself, but he would
not have a comprehensive understanding of the total picture ; I would
say Secretary Stans was the only other official who had a complete
listing, because it was to him that I made my reports on these cash
funds.
Senator Talmadge. And who had authority to call you up to
deliver x number of dollars to x individual?
Mr. Sloan. There were various authorities at various times. Prior
to Secretary Stans coming, Mr. Kalmbach had the authority for a
while. He passed it to Mr. Mitchell. I was told I was never to make
any cash disbursements without Mr. Mitchell's approval. That
subsequently was passed to Mr. Magruder and we came up into this
April 7 period, and the proposition of the request for cash funds that
went over that period. At that point in time I went back to Mr.
Stans in each instance to ask whether in fact, he agreed and acquiesced
in this continuing payout of cash funds under this basis of a budget
that had been presented to him.
Senator Talmadge. In other words, from time to time, four or
five different individuals had authority to tell you to disburse the
cash and you did so?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. I do not befieve we have heard from you an
expression in detail of circumstances surrounding this $350,000
deposit of May 25, 1972. Would you tell us about that?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, as I beUeve I indicated before, Secretary
Stans had told me prior to April 7, that in terms of the new law, this
561
cash on hand was validly held in any repository which included a
safe. But he did say he wanted this money, the money that was to
be carried forward as cash on hand under the new law, to be deposited
prior to the end of the first reporting period, so that all post-April 7
funds would have gone through a bank account to facilitate any
auditing that might come up by the General Accounting Office. He
wanted to be sure that it was, in that first report, in by virtue of
ha\4ng been in a bank account.
So on probably, maybe the same day, May 25, or maybe a day or
two before — I do not recall whether I reminded him that we had this
deadline or whether he called me in — asked what is the cash balance?
He said $350,000 of this is to be deposited to the Media Committee
To Re-Elect the President. On that day, I put the money in brief-
cases. This was the fu'st occasion where I had had to deposit cash in
a bank other than the bank that was in our own building. The reason
for this was that this was the only committee that had enough margin
left to receive that amount of money under the $3 million limit of
the old law.
In other words, all the post-April 7 committees had to be established
first under the old law, all the transfers made into them before they
could become effective in the period of the new law. So during that
day or two, while they were receiving the carryover funds from
predecessor committees
Senator Talmadge. Would you yield at that point? The reason for
that, I presume, was that you did not have to disclose the source of
that money because you had an existing committee to deposit it to?
Mr. Sloan. That is right. In other words, we were liquidating the
assets of the pre-April 7 committees into what would be the post-
April 7 committees, because we had to
Senator Talmadge. You deposited it in that account because you
did not have to disclose the source of it?
Mr. Sloan. None of this money that would be transferred would
have to be disclosed, it would just have to be listed as cash on hand
as of April 7. Because of my concern, I had to walk essentially across
Lafayette Park, and this was a lot of money, so I was worried about
security. So I requested Mr. Liddy, who I ran into, if he was not
bus}^, would he accompany me. I took Mr. Liddy with me. We made
the deposit, had lunch, returned.
Senator Talmadge. He was the only one who went with you?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. That was in cash, $100 bills?
Mr. Sloan. Probably; I am not sure all of them were.
Senator Talmadge. Do 3^ou have any knowledge of the origin of
the cash or any other cash or funds on hand?
Mr. Sloan. I think if I saw a list, I could probably estabUsh, but
I would have a very difficult time trying to remember contributors at
this point.
Senator Talmadge. Did you speak to Mr. Mitchell concerning the
break-in and funds that you gave Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. I only talked with Mr. Mitchell on one occasion.
Senator, and it was a very brief meeting because the FBI was waiting
in my office to talk to me. I essentiall}^ went in to get some guidance
on this point as to really what was going on. It was on this occasion
562
that he told me, when the going gets tough, the tough get going. It
wasn't particularly helpful.
Senator Talmadge. How did you interpret that remark?
Mr. Sloan. I really wasn't sure, Senator, but it really wasn't very
helpful guidance.
Senator Talmadge. You did not think it was an invitation for you
to leave, did you?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, I left after that.
Senator Talmadge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further
questions.
Senator Ervin. In view of the fact that it is almost time to recess
for lunch, I think anybody else who wants to question could not pos-
sibly complete questioning before the recess. So, unless there is an
objection from the committee, the committee will stand in recess until
2 o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 11 :50 a.m., the committee was recessed until 2 p.m.
of the same day.]
Afternoon Session, Wednesday, June 6, 1973
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
Senator Baker.
Senator Baker; Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sloan, I join in the statement that Senator Talmadge made
before the adjournment for lunch, that you have presented the
appearance of a man who is fair and who is open and forthcoming
in your testimony and we are grateful to you. I have the impression
that, from your description and the description of others, your coop-
eration has been of a similar quality with those who have undertaken
the investigation of these affairs.
I believe that is my point of departure, if I might. Would you tell
me how many inquiries into the Watergate situation have produced
an interview or inquiry of you? To recall the situation, the U.S.
Attorney's office interviewed you, I believe. Mr. LaRue and others
for the Committee To lie-Elect the President interviewed you.
Mr. Sloan. Yes.
Senator Baker. The FBI interviewed you. The staff of this com-
mittee has interviewed you, I believe, on more than one occasion.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Senator Baker. Is there anyone else who has interviewed you in
this case?
Mr. Sloan. There have been probably three or four occasions with
the General Accounting Office over a period of time; the two grand
jury appearances referred to earlier; numerous depositions in the
various civil cases relating to this matter.
I have really lost count, Senator, of the time and the number of
occasions to this point.
Senator Baker. But you have been a well-interviewed man in the
course of the last several months. I do not mean to burden the record
with unnecessary repetition, but could you briefly describe to me the
subject matter of the several inquiries made of you? I am particularly
interested in the scope of the interrogation. Begin, if you will, with the
first investigation.
When was the first time you were interviewed? Was that by the
FBI?
563
Mr. Sloan. You are talking of an external investigation?
Senator Baker. I am s])eaking realh- of any time subsequent to
the early morning hours of June 17, 1972.
Mr. Sloan. I considered initially this investigation began as an
internal investigation. My understanding was that Mr. LaRue had
that function wdthin the campaign committee.
Senator Baker. How did you receive that information?
Mr. Sloan. Whether he imparted that to me, I am not sure. It
was a situation of general knowledge within the committee that he
was looking into the matter.
Senator Baker. And this was as early as during the day of June 17,
1972?
Mr. Sloan. I do not believe it quite moved that fast. Senator. I
believe it was in that early part or mid-week of the week following
the break-in.
Senator Baker. Was that the first interview you had relative to
the Watergate affair?
Mr. Sloan. I believe so; yes, sir.
Senator Baker. Would you tell us the scope of Mr. LaRue's
inquiry?
Mr. Sloan. At this point in time, it was ver}' general. It was— I
would say he restricted his inquiry essentially into the Liddy matter.
Within the committee at a very early period, it was quite obvious,
I think, to everyone that the focus was on Mr. Liddy and as far as
any knowledge I had that pertained to that, it would be the area of
the money that I tiu"ned over to Mr. Liddy.
Senator Baker. Do you know whether Mr. LaRue had am' previous
information of his own about Mr. Liddy's participation in any of
these affairs at the time he made these inquiries of you?
Mr. Sloan. I have no such knowledge.
Senator Baker. What was the nature of the inquiry that Mr. LaRue
made of the Liddy situation?
Mr. Sloan. Essentially, it was seeking the information of me, sort
of the dollar figures. I think once he had the dimensions of it, as I
believe I mentioned this morning, he came back to me sajdng this
was a very politically sensitive issue, we need to come in with a lower
figiu-e. At" that point, it sort of broke and I understood Mr. Mardian
as being relatively external in the sense that he had joined the com-
mittee shortly before my interview, that he had picked up sort of
the range of the investigation.
Knowing Mr. Mardian, that would be Mr. Parkinson and Mr.
O'Brien.
Senator Baker. The inquiry of you about Mr. Liddy's functions
and responsibilities in the committee was limited just to the payments
to Mr. Liddy by 3'ou?
Mr. Sloan. I think there was a total awareness of Mr. Liddy's
function, at least as it was supposed to be; there were no inquiries
in that regard. It was piu*ely in regard to financial payments to him.
Senator Baker. But no inquiries were put to you about Mr.
Liddy's functions as it involved responsibihty for the Watergate
episode?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Baker. What was the next interview you had?
96-296 (bk. 2) O
564
Mr. Sloan. Follo%ving the Mardian interview, which was the —
that was on the 24th of June just prior to my departing for Bermuda.
Senator Baker. By whom?
Mr. Sloan. This was Mr. Mardian's interview on the 3d. He again
was asking and concentrating on the Liddy payments, also Mr.
Porter's payments, I think a far more comprehensive approach to the
general financial dealings than had been the case with Mr. LaRue.
Senator Baker. What was the next episode?
Mr. Sloan. It was when I sought out Mr. Parkinson and Mr.
O'Brien on the evening of July 6.
Senator Baker. And what was the essence of that conversation?
Mr. Sloan. That conversation was an approach by me to advise
them of the facts I knew because they had not sought me out at that
point. It was in the face of — the personnel of the finance area had
already been subpenaed before the grand jury. As I said this morning,
I felt it was a very severe problem that needed to be addressed and
I sought them out to impart that information to them.
Senator Baker. What was the next time you were interviewed or
had a conversation about the Watergate affair?
Mr. Sloan. I think I skipped over the FBI.
Senator Baker. I beheve so. Would you go back and identify that
by date and tell us of the scope of the FBI inquiry?
Mr. Sloan. I believe that was in mid-week, probably the 21st or
22d of June. It was an interview purely on the question of whether I
knew Mr. Alfred Baldwin, was he an employee of the committee. They
asked to have our records made available to them to check out those
facts. It was very brief and purely on that subject.
Senator Baker. Solely on the subject of Mr. Baldmn?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. Were any questions asked you regarding Mr.
Magruder, Mr. Dean, Mr. Hunt, Mr. Liddy, Mr. McCord, Mr.
Barker, or anyone else except Mr. Baldwin?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. The sole subject of that interview was what-
ever — whether we could identify Mr. Baldwin as having been an
employee of the committee.
Senator Baker. Could you?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, I never heard of him.
Senator Baker. Do you have any idea why the FBI hmited its
inquiry to Mr. Baldwin?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; I did not.
Senator Baker. Did it seem to be limited to a particular purpose?
Did they express a reason for wanting to know particularly about Mr.
Baldwin?
Mr. Sloan. They indicated, the agents who were there at that
time, that they had information that Mr. Baldwin had been involved
in a demonstration — I am not sure. They did identify where it was,
but I have forgotten where that was.
Senator Baker. No one asked you about the Watergate break-in
in the course of that FBI interview?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, it was never mentioned.
Senator Baker. Nobody ever asked you about Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Baker. Mr. Hunt?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
565
Senator Baker. Mr. McCord?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Baker. Money?
Mr. Sloax. No, sir.
Senator Baker. Accounting?
Mr. Sloan. Money — only in the sense of — was Mr. Baldwin on
the payroll or had we paid him any money.
Senator Baker. And no one asked you about the $100 bills that were
found with or on the defendants that were involved in the break-in
or illegal entry into Democratic national headquarters?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Baker. Did any member of the FBI or the Justice Depart-
ment ever discuss any of this with you?
Mr. Sloan. The next occasion I had to meet with the FBI was
following my resignation, which I believe was on the Friday, July 14.
I think I am correct in this, that they were present at my home the
following Monday morning and every morning thereafter.
Senator Baker. When did you resign?
Mr. Sloan. On a Friday, July 14.
Senator Baker. And the following Monday, which would have been
the 17 th
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 law that I wished to be repre-
sented 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
recei\dng 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 beheve
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 inter-
view, who was present, where it was held, and the substance of the
interview?
Mr. Sloan. It was in Mr. Silbert's office. Present were mj^self, my
attorney, Mr. Stoner, Mr. Glanzer, Mr. Campbell, and I believe I am
correct, two agents from the Federal Bureau.
566
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 Baker. 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 Baker. Were you asked those questions at the U.S .
attorney's ofl&ce?
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 terms 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 Baldwm matter.
I would say that, given the time and the information that was avail-
able at the time, I feel they were extremely thorough.
Senator Baker. Mr. Sloan, one of the resi)onsibilities of this
committee is to file a report ultimately on its findings and to recom-
mend, 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-
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 re-
ceipts and all disbursements be by some tender other than currency?
567
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; I would see no problem with that whatsoever.
Senator Baker. It is m^^ understanding, and I think you have
intimated as much without saying so, it is my understanding that
in the last several weeks before April 7, there was a virtual torrent
of contributions?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. And many of them were cash contributions?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. And it has been my experience from my own
campaigns, and I rather suspect that others have the same experience,
that maximum contributions occur in the last 2 or 3 weeks before
an election. Did you have a similar experience in the Presidential
election?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. Tell us what, if any, difficulty you had in account-
ing for last-minute contributions, whether in cash or by check? Does
that become a problem?
Mr. Sloan. The sheer volume, yes, sir. I think personally, I handled
in the neighborhood of $6 million in a 2-day period.
Senator Baker. Was that before the November election?
Mr. Sloan. No; this was just prior to April 7.
I think the change in the campaign law, in effect, produced a kind
of deadline similar to an election.
Senator Baker. Did you have a similar bulge, a similar accelera-
tion in the rate of contributions before the election, just before the
election in November?
Mr. Sloan. Of course, I was not there in this election, Senator, but
in 1968, I would agree with that, yes, as a pattern.
Senator Baker. That was the pattern?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. From your vantage point as one who has partici-
pated in two Presidential elections and been intimately involved in the
detail, do you see any difficulty that might derive from a statutor}^
moratorium on any contributions, say, for 2 weeks before the election?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure I would be qualified to evaluate that,
Senator.
Senator Baker. The point of the matter being that it is difficult, if
not impossible, to account for last minute money in time for last
minute accounting?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; I would agree.
Senator Baker. And if campaign disclosure legislation is to have
an}^ beneficial effect in the sense the public knows for what the can-
didates spend money, there ought to be a cutoff point, it seems to
me, sometime substantially prior to the date of the election. If that
were proposed, do you as an expert, so to speak, in this field think
that would seriously jeopardize the operation of a campaign?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; I think any date you set as the final date would
be looked on by contributors and I think it would produce your bulge
in the earlier period.
Senator Baker. I think that is true, but it would give you a better
opportunity to report and disclose it in time for the public to take it
in account before the election.
568
Mr. Sloan. I would agree \vith that, particularly under the new
law where you have detailed accounting procedures where you do, I
think it is almost essential.
Senator Baker. Under the new Campaign Expenditure Act which
went into effect on April 7, 1972, and under which we presently oper-
ate, there is a limitation, as you know, on radio, television, and certain
other categories of expenditure, but there is not a total overall limita-
tion of expenditures in Presidential or other Federal elections.
If the Congress of the United States were to establish a maximum
limitation on expenditures and to establish a requirement that expendi-
tures be not only documented and accounted for, but that they could
not be in cash, if there was a requirement that contributions could not
be in cash, if there was a requirement that contributions could not be
received, nor expended, nor obligations liquidated on behalf of candi-
dates, say, for 2 weeks before the election, and if there were a limita-
tion as to the total amount you could spend and a limitation, say, of
$3,000 on what an individual could give, do you think that combi-
nation of circumstances would provide an unworkable situation from
the standpoint of financing a Presidential or a Federal election?
Mr. Sloan. I think one of the most effective curbs might be a time
limit on elections. When you look at the 1972 campaign we started
back in March 1971. It is almost a 2-year period of activity.
I think a total spending ceiling could be worked with. I suspect
quite frankly, out of this kind of situation that is unfolding here, it
may very well get to the point the only way to fund a Presidential
campaign is through public funding. I think today in today's world,
the intertwining of the business sector with Government with dis-
closure is going to make it no one's interest in business to contribute
because every action after that will be looked into in that light.
Senator Baker. In my wildest imaginations, I never dreamed I
would sit here and have an argument with you about Federal financing
of campaigns, but I am prepared to do that. And as my good friend
John Gardner, who is president of Common Cause, and I talk about
from time to time, there is the problem. There is the question of financ-
ing political campaigns, but just for the brief purposes of this moment,
I have a great fear not only of the abuse of mone}^ especially cash,
but I also have a great fear of the Federal bureaucracy taking over the
electoral s^'^stem. So before we go that extra mile I think we ought to
give careful thought to the alternative possibilities that are available
to us.
Do you have any other suggestions, Mr. Sloan, on how we could
provide for reasonableness, candor, openness, and accountability on
the financial side of politics?
Mr. Sloan. Sir, I think one of the really great tragedies of this
particular campaign is this situation of having one law in effect for
part of the campaign and the new law in effect for the balance of the
campaign, because I think the whole campaign financing law is being
judged in terms of the conduct in this transition period. I do not
believe, for instance, that the present law has been given a fair chance.
I think no professional fund raiser would argue with the premise of
disclosure. It is a great help in a way. It takes a lot of the temptations
out of the way or the pressures. I think most of us were glad to see
it. But having it come in the middle of the campaign we still had to
deal with the only rules that existed at the time in the earlier period.
569
I would like to see at least for one more Presidential campaign, the
laws that now stand given a fair chance. I think there is a lot wrong
with them but I do not think it has had a fair chance in its present
form. I think all of the abuses at least in terms of the campaign to
which I can address nwself to, if you will call them abuses, are totally
related to the earlier period or this transition period. I think that in
the effort that was made to comply with the new law with any con-
tribution that was understood to be a contribution post-April 7
period, and I am not talking about these funds here, I am talking
about the general receipts. I think our campaign did a magn'ficent
job. I think it is a workable law. I would agree with you, I would
rather see an overall ceiling for money period on a campaign than the
mediary but its restricting choice or like to see a time limit of a
campaign restriction, but I think it is one of the great tragedies of
this situation, the inability to look at the new law and its workings in
a dispassionate sense.
Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Sloan. I have one other line of
questions that will not take very long. You have covered the material
in general with Mr. Dash, the counsel for the committee, and Mr.
Thompson.
I would like to know a little more about the extent and scope of
the knowledge of Mr. Stans and Mr. Mitchell of the Waterage opera-
tions insofar as you have that information.
Mr. Sloan. Senator, aside from what I have read in the news-
papers, I have no direct knowledge.
Senator Baker. Did you ever talk with Mr. Stans pr Mr. Mitchell
about the Watergate situation?
Mr. Sloan. Not to Mr. Mitchell. I met mth Mr. Mitchell only
on one occasion that has been referred to earlier. During that week
I traveled with Secretar}^ Stans. He had numerous conversations
with, as I understood it from what I could hear at his end of the con-
versation, presumably with Bob Mardian and Fred LaRue, the
people who were understood to be handling the problem from the
political campaign standpoint. Mr. Stans was extremely defensive in
all of the conversations I heard. He insisted from the end of the con-
versation I heard, he said, "Dammit, this is not a finance problem, you
guys have to handle it and you have got to keep it away from Sloan
and myself because we have nothing to do with it."
Senator Baker. Do you know what he was talking about?
Mr. Sloan. I am making an assumption, Senator, but I think a
pretty obvious one, that this was about the only issue being dis-
cussed at this point.
Senator Baker. How would you characterize Mr. Stans' attitude or
demeanor at that time?
Mr. Sloan. I think he was angry, I think he was upset with the
poUtical campaign, political side of the campaign.
Senator Baker. Did you ask him what he meant?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Baker. Thank you.
Senator Ervin. Do you not think this is an area where we need the
highest standard of ethics which exceed the requirements of law?
Mr. Sloan. Excuse me, Senator?
570
Senator Ervin. Don't you think in this area that individuals should
have personal ethics whose requirements exceeded the strict letter of
the law?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir.
Senator Ervin. In other words, it is a fundamental principle of
ethics that people who handle funds belonging to other people keep
records of them, isn't it?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir.
Senator Ervin. And I judge from your testimony that you had
many misgivings as an individual about the way matters were being
handled in the receipt and disbursement of funds, didn't you?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, in this transition period.
Senator Ervin. You were not a policymaker, were you?
Mr. Sloan. In certain areas but not in this area.
Senator Ervln^ You worked primarily or entirely, I would say, if I
infer correctly, with Mr. Stans?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir.
Senator Ervin. In other words, your duties were confined entirely
to the finance side of the matter and you had nothing to do with the
poHtical aspect of it?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir; I would say the only overlap was I was a mem-
ber of the budget committee that considered the total expenditures for
the campaign. The finance committee's role in that essentially would
be to say this is all the money we can raise, you have to set your
priorities within those limits. We were a restraint factor on the politi-
cal spending.
Senator Ervin. Now, you are not a lawyer?
Mr. Sloan. No sir.
Senator Ervin. And in trying to comply with the old law and the
new law you were acting upon legal advice given you by others?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Liddy, was he your legal advisor?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir; he was the counsel to the committee at that
time.
Senator Ervin. Now at times you had approximately $1,777,000
available to the Committee To Re-Elect the President which were not
deposited in banks?
Mr. Sloan. Of that figure, Senator, approximately a million was in
terms of direct payments to individuals. The balance, the $750,000,
was deposited in bank accounts.
Senator Ervin. That was deposited. How much money was kept in
the safe in your oflBice and in the safe in the office of Mr. Stans'
secretary?
Mr. Sloan. It is a question of timing. Senator. In the pre-April 7
period, I kept all the funds in a safe that was in my office. At soiilp
point after April 7, these funds we have discussed here were rtioved
to the safe in Arden Chambers' office. The reason for this being in
pulling together aU our records for the pre-Aprii 7 period, there was
need for access to my safe which held all of these records by a great
number of people, so it was purely a mechanical transfer to another
safe because it was more secure and not as many people had access to it.
Senator Ervin. Could you give the committee an estimate as to
the total amount of cash that was kept in the offices of the Committee
To Re-Elect the President?
571
Mr. Sloan. Over this entire period, this $1,700,000, I would say
my best recollection would be that probabh^ never got above $600,000
or $700,000 at any one pomt, and I would suspect that would be just
prior to April 7, because of the influx of cash funds at that point.
Senator Ervin. Now, the deposit made on May 25, 1972, how
long was that kept in safes or places other than deposits in a bank?
^ir. Sloan. That would have been money that came in, that made
up that deposit and would be in the safe in Arden Chambers' office.
Senator Ervin. According to your testimony, there were disburse-
ments in cash in excess of $1 million in the safes over there, wasn't
there?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, in the earlier periods some of the cash funds
were kept in the safe deposit boxes and subsequently moved to a
safe in our office.
Senator Ervin. The first disbursements were made upon orders of
John Mitchell while he was still serving as Attorney General of the
United States.
Mr. Sloan. He had general control over the authorization of funds.
Whether he specifically authorized me to make a cash disbursement,
I am not sure because the delegated authority had moved to Mr.
Magruder by the time Mr. Liddy and Mr. Porter had this blanket
right to draw.
Senator Ervin. The first man that had authority to disburse funds
was Mr. Kalmbach.
Mr. Sloan. That is right.
Senator Ervin. Then Mr. Mitchell took over.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, Mr. Kalmbach's instructions to me were that
Mr. Mitchell would control all disbursements including checks and
cash.
Senator Ervin. Then some question arose so Mr. Mitchell, being
irritated upon being interrogated by you so often about the outlay of
funds, told 3'ou to make an arrangement Anth Mr. Magruder.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Ervin. And so after that, Mr. Magruder had direct charge
of dictating the outlay of funds.
Mr. Sloan. Yes; that is correct.
Senator Ervin. Now did you talk to Mr. Stans from time to time
about the demands being made upon 3-0U b}' Mr. Magruder for funds?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, Mr. Stans was kept advised on this. I reviewed
it \\-ith him when he assumed the chairmanship. I re\'iewed all of the
outlays that had been made to that point.
Senator Ervin. Did he authorize or at least acquiesce in all of the
outlaj-s made by you from these funds?
Mr. Sloan. He acquiesced in the authority of others to draw on it.
He did not clear the individual items each time somebody came.
Senator Ervin. But it would be true to say all of the outlaj^s of
funds you made were made with either the express or the tacit approval
of Mr. Stans.
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, from the time he assumed the chairmanship.
Senator Ervin. What records were kept at the committee with
reference to the disbursements of these cash funds?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, I kept a Avorking book with me in a safe which
reflected all of the payments, the receipt of contributions that were
572
cash contributions, the date of receipt, any distribution of those funds,
to whom and on what date.
Senator Ervin. Do you know what became of the book?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Where is it?
Mr. Sloan. It has been destroyed. Senator.
Senator Ervin. When was it destroyed?
Mr. Sloa.n. On June 23.
Senator Ervin By whose order was it destroyed?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, if I could elaborate a little bit on that. This
was the occasion in preparing a final record of the pre-April 7 period.
Secretary Stans had requested of me a single final copy recording
these transactions. The one difference between this and the cash book,
for instance, they would be aggregate figures. Mr. Liddy would be
listed a total of $199 and would not list the individual dates of receipt.
He indicated that would be the permanent record of this period of
time. In preparing that I was with Mr. Kalmbach to verify the
$250,000 figure, whatever it was, with him and I asked him what do
you think is the appropriate distribution of these records and he asked
me what were Secretary Stans' instructions and I said he asked for a
single copy, final copy that would be the permanent record. He said,
fine. He said I am going to destroy the record. I would suggest you
do the same and just provide him with the single copy he requested.
Senator Ervin. In other words, Mr. Kalmbach in effect told you
he was going to destroy such records as he had and advised you to do
the same thing with the records you had.
Mr. Sloan. With the exception. Senator, I do not know whether
he had another copy of the record. In the case of the figures I had, I
did not feel I was destroying any original information because I was
handing a report that contained that information to Secretary Stans.
Senator Ervin. You had made a compilation in aggregate form of
what your original record showed.
Mr. Sloan. That is right, and it would include all contributors.
Senator Ervin. Did anyone else beside Mr. Kalmbach talk to you
about destroying your original record?
Mr. SLOA.N. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. They were destroyed on the 23d of June, a few days
after the break-in.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Do you know if there were any records kept or
now in existence of what became of the $250,000, approximately,
given out of these funds to Mr. Kalmbach?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; I have no knowledge of what he would have
used those funds for. I would think if there is a record he would have
to be a source of it.
Senator Ervin. Now, where did Mr. Strachan work at this time?
Mr. Sloan. He was in the White House working as a political aide,
liaison with Mr. Bob Haldeman.
Senator Ervin. In other words, he was political liaison between
Mr. Haldeman and the committee, was he not?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Ervin. And you got the instructions to put $350,000 in the
briefcase to be carried to the White House?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
573
Senator Ervin. And that was taken to the White House in cash?
Mr. Sloan. My understanding is it went to the White House. I
did not
Senator Ervin. Who transmitted the message that that money was
to be sent to the Wliite House?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Kahnbach.
Senator Ervin. Where did Mr. Porter work?
Mr. Sloan. He worked at the Committee for the Re-Election of
the President.
Senator Ervin. Do you have any knowledge of whether any record
was made, or whether any record has been preserved, in respect not
only to the $250,000 given to Mr. Kalmbach and $350,000 carried out
of the commi tee to the Wliite House bv Mr. Strachan, in respect to
the $100,000 given to Mr. Pcrter, the $199,000 given to Mr. Liddy, the
$20,000 given to Mr. Magruder, the $10,000 given to Mr. Nofsiger,
the $15,000 given to Mr. Stone; and the other $8,000 exclusive of the
$50,000 given to Mr. Lankier and Mr. Hitt. Is there an}'' record in
existence that shows what became cf that mone}^?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, I do not know if they are in existence, but in
the process of preparing this final report, Secretary Stans had in-
structed me to sit do^^^l with, each one of these individuals where there
had been multiple distributions to verif}^ the figure that I had in my
records ^nth what they had in theirs.
Senator Ervin. Did 3^ou?
Mr. Sloan. So presumably at that point in time, there were records
in existence in the hands of these individuals which would indicate
what happened to that money if it had been spent.
Senator Ervin. But there were no records kept there, no records
that 3^ou know of now in existence in the committee offices, which
would disclose what had become of these funds?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, not to m}^ knowledge.
Senator Ervin. You became much concerned about the disburse-
ment of some of these funds, didn't you, particularly those to Mr.
Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir.
Senator Ervin. So when you got orders to continue these disburse-
ments to Mr. Liddy, which you mentioned were $199,000, you ex-
pressed your concern to Mr. Stans?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, that is correct.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Stans told you to go ahead and continue
to disburse them.
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, he said he would check with Mr. Mitchell and
came back and told me to continue.
Senator Ervin. And you told Mr. Stans in the course of your con-
versations with him that you had misgivings about giving so much
monev to Mr. Liddv without knowing what the money was to be used
for?
Mr. Sloan. The $83,000 was really the trigger. I am not sure I
restricted it in my conversation with Secretary Stans to Mr. Liddv.
I said, here we have a tremendous sum of money that this committee
has no control over or accountability for. I did express that general
concern at that time.
Senator Ervin. That was when you were authorized and directed
to give $83,000 in cash at one time to Mr. Liddy?
574
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir.
Senator Ervin. And when you made the statement to Mr. Stans
about your misgivings about the disbursing of mone}^ without knowing
what it was being used for, Mr. Stans said, I do not want to know what
the mone}^ is used for and you do not want to know?
Mr. Sloan. As I recall, sir, it was when he returned from seeing
Mr. Mitchell and he said, I do not want to know and you do not want
to know, yes sir. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. As a matter of fact, was not a deliberate effort made
at the committee not only not to report receipt of funds, but to hide
the source of those funds?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, I know of no deliberate effort in that regard.
With regard to these funds, I have never had it suggested to me
Senator Ervin. Well, what about the $89,000 in Mexican checks
and the Dahlberg check?
Mr. Sloan. They were considered to have been pre-April 7 funds
and were considered not to be covered under the new legislation.
Senator Ervin. But did the checks for the Mexican banks totaling
$89,000 come into the committee offices?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, they did.
Senator Ervin. They came into the committee offices in the form
of checks, did they not?
Mr. Sloan. Cashier's checks, both.
Senator Ervin. Cashier's checks from the Mexico City Bank?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir.
Senator Ervin. When did those funds reach the committee ofl&ce?
Mr. Sloan. On the evening of April 5.
Senator Ervin. How did they get there?
Mr. Sloan, Mr. Roy Winchester brought them to my office that
evening.
Senator Ervin, Who is Mr. Winchester?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Winchester, I believe, is the vice president of the
Pennzoil Corp.
Senator Ervin. I wish you would look at these documents that
are marked "Government Exhibit 112C," "Government Exhibit
112D," "Government Exhibit 112B," and "Government Exhibit
112A" and see if you can identify them.
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, I believe these are accurate copies of the checks
I handled.
Senator Ervin. Let those be marked, numbered as exhibits and
received as such.
[The documents referred to were marked exhibits Nos. 21, 22, 23,
and 24.*]
Senator Ervin. Did Mr. Winchester bring any other cash along
with those checks?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, he came in with a briefcase that, to the best
of my recollection, in terms of checks, cash, including these cashier's
checks, totaled somewhere in the neighborhood of $700,000.
Senator Ervin. Do you know where he carried that cash and those
checks from?
Mr. Sloan. My understanding was that these were a result of a
fund-raising effort in the Southwest.
Senator Ervin. In Texas?
•See pp. 892-895.
575
Mr. Sloax. I know Texas, but whether it was just restricted to
Texas, I am not sure.
Senator Ervin. You do not know from your own knowledge, of
course, whether they came from fund raising or whether they came
from correspondence?
Mr. Sloan. As I recall, all the checks were individual checks. The
cash funds — I might explain. There was a listing in the briefcase, the
total amount which equaled the total amount in the briefcase. Individ-
ual names were associated with each of those items.
Senator Ervin. Were any checks brought at that time in addition
to these four Mexican checks?
Mr. Sloan. Oh, 3'es, sir.
Senator Ervin. I thought that the rest was in cash. Was I mistaken
in that?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. I think a large proportion of it was in personal
checks from contributors.
Senator Ervin. I would like to hand you a check that purports to
be drawn on the First Bank and Trust Co. of Boca Raton, a cashier's
check, to the order of Kenneth H. Dahlberg.* I hand that to you and
ask if you can identify that?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; that appears to be accurate.
Senator Ervin. \ATien did that check reach the office of the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Sloan. I did not know when Secretar}^ Stans received it. I
believe he turned it over to me sometime in the week following April 7.
Senator Ervin. This check was not dated, this cashier's check was
not dated until April 10, 1972, 3 days after the new law went into
effect.
Mr. Sloan. Secretary Stans, in gi\'ing that check to me, told me it
represented pre-April 7 funds.
Senator Ervin. The committee proceeded upon the adxdce of Mr.
Liddy to the effect that if somebody promised them money before
April 7, or they had agreed to make a disbursement before April 7,
that that did not have to be reported — is that so?
Mr. Sloan. I believe that is correct. Senator.
Senator Ervin. Now, what happened to these four Mexican
checks
Mr. Sloan. Senator, excuse me. In response to that other question,
presumabh*, Mr. Liddy gave his advice to Secretary' Stans. He did not
specifically give that advice to me. It was represented that way to me
by Secretary Stans.
Senator Ervin. In other words, Mr. Stans told you that Mr.
Dahlberg's check had been received somewhere under some cir-
cumstances by somebody before April 7, and, therefore, even though it
had not reached the committee or any person authorized to receive
funds on behalf of the committee, that it was received before April 7?
Mr. Sloan. My understanding was that Mr. Kenneth Dahlberg,
who was an authorized representative of the committee, had received
it from Mr. Dwayne Andreas. As to the exact circumstance of that ar-
rangement, I do not know.
Senator Ervin. Were not the four Mexican checks and the Dahl-
berg check deposited in a bank in Miami, Fla.?
* The document referred to was later marked exhibit No. 25 on p. 631.
576
Mr. Sloan. That is what I understood happened to them, Senator.
It was certainly not under my instructions.
Senator Ervix. Can you explain to the committee why the checks
were transmitted from Washington to Miami and deposited in a bank
in Miami to the credit of Bernard L. Barker?
Mr. Sloan. I have no idea, Senator.
Senator Ervin. Would you not infer from those circumstances that
somebody that had something to do with the checks did not want
anybody- to know about receiving the checks and wanted to hide them?
^Ir. Sloan. Senator, my understanding when I received them was a
judgment had been made that they were pre-April 7 contributions
and, therefore, were not required to be reported. I did turn them over
to Mr. Liddy to have them converted to cash. He handled them from
there. Why he gave them to Mr. Barker, I have no idea.
Senator Ervin. Well, even though they did not have to be reported,
can 3'ou inform us why, instead of being put in the safe in the com-
mittee office, why they were sent down to Florida?
Mr. Sloan. I do not know why they went to Florida, Senator. The
reason for the conversion of those checks to cash was to attempt to
comph' with the spirit of the old law of distributing an indi\'iduars
contribution in 83,000 increments among pre-April 7 committees. But
as those bank accounts had been closed out, the only way to do this
was by converting it to cash and counting that cash as a transfer as
cash on hand in the Media Committee To Ke-Elect the President. It
was reported in that figure.
Senator Ervin. I am a little mystified. How could it comply with
the old law with reference to the receipt of 83,000 or less in cash by
having 8114,000 deposited in the bank account of Bernard L. Barker
in Miami, Fla.?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, I do not know any circumstances surrounding
the deposit of the checks in Mr. Barker's account. That was not my
intent in turning those checks over to Mr. Liddy.
Senator Ervin. VTho instructed vou to turn them over to Mr.
Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. I believe I took them to Mr. Liddy in response to the
conversation of Secretary Stans. He asked me, do we have any prob-
lem in handling these? I told him I did not know; I would check with
counsel. His recommended way of handling this was a diversion to
cash. He offered at that time to handle that transaction for me. It took
him until mid-May to return those funds to me in cash form, minus
roughly 82,500 expenditure.
Senator Ervin. I hate to make comparisons, but I would have to
saj" on that, Mr. Liddy in one respect was like the Lord, he moves
in mysterious ways his wonders to perform. [Laughter.]
Now, as a matter of fact, do you not know that some of the funds
that were dra^vn out, that represented proceeds of these checks
which were dra^sTi out of the Miami bank on Mr. Barker, were found
in the possession of some of the people who were caught in the burglary
at the Watergate?
Mr. Sloan. I have since learned that; yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. How long was it after the break-in before you
learned that?
Mr. Sloan. I believe not that specific reference, but the fact that
these men had been found with $100 biUs in their possession came out
577
probably within 3 days of the first week. I do not have a direct recol-
lection of when that connection specifically was made to the bank
account of Mr. Barker.
Senator Ervix. Well, during the trial, in January, it was brought
out that the Miami bank in which Mr. Barker had deposited these
funds had, pursuant to law, kept the serial number of 8100 bills
withdra\\Ti by Barker and that the serial Xos. 043 SlOO bills found in
the possession of those who burglarized the Watergate bore those
serial numbers?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervix. And that came out very early in the newspaper,
did it not?
Mr. Sloax. I do not think it took too long. It came out certainly
^^-ithin a week or two.
Senator Ervix*. Now, I do not mean in any of these questions to
make any reflection on j'ou, because 3'our testimony and your forth-
rightness have renewed my faith in the old adage that an honest
man is the noblest work of God and I am not in any of these expressions
meaning to reflect on you in any respect.
Senator Baker. Xor on God?
Senator Ervix. Xo.
X'ow, there was a good deal of consternation among the oflScers
and employees of the Committee To Re-Elect the President when it
was reported on the morning of June 17, 1972, that one of the employ-
ees of the committee, Mr. McCord, and four other people had been
arrested in an act of burglarj- during the early morning hours of that
day, was there not?
Mr. Sloax. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervix. And that was the time that Mr. Liddy made his
statement to you to the effect that ''some of his boys had been caught
in the Watergate" and he had "made a mistake" in letting one of
''our people participate" in the matter?
Mr. Sloax. Yes, sir; that is correct.
Excuse me. Senator. He did not say, "My boys were caught last
night in the Watergate." He just said, "My bWs were caught,"
with no direct connection to Watergate.
Senator Ervix. You inferred what he was talking about?
Mr. Sloax. Xot until after I read the newspapers, Senator. He
made that comment to me before I knew of the break-in.
Senator Ervix. Xow, was the flrst person you had any conversa-
tion ^^-ith about this, Mr. LaRue?
Mr. Sloax. I am not sure preciseh' the sequence, whether it was
the Magruder conversation or the LaRue conversation in that week.
It could be either one.
Senator Ervix". Yes.
WeU, Mr. LaRue came to talk to j'ou — that is Mr. Fred LaRue,
isn't it?
Mr. Sloax. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervix. And he was an aide to John Mitchell?
Mr. Sloax'. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervix. And had served with John Mitchell in the Depart-
ment of Justice, hadn't he?
Mr. Sloax. I am not sure of my o^^^l knowledge. The last I knew
of Mr. LaRue, he had been at the White House.
578
Senator Ervin. Anyway, he came to you and told you he was
investigating this matter at the request of Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And at that time, you had been notified that the
FBI wanted to see you?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. LaRue told you that — not to go down
and see the FBI until you had seen Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Ervin. So you went to see Mr. Mitchell and you told him
you were much concerned about what had happened.
Mr. Sloan. I was asking generally for guidance, restricted to that
situation. I guess what I was hoping for was an explanation that
everything was all right. I didn't get any such guidance.
Senator Ervin. Yes; and the only advice you got on the subject
was the philosophical observation that "when the going gets tough,
the tough get going"?
Mr. Sloan, Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Well, that is the sort of enigmatic expression that
is worthy of the SphjTix, I guess. I don't quite understand it all.
Mr. Sloan. I didn't really understand, either, su\
Senator Ervin. How long after that was it before Mr. Mitchell
left the committee? [Laughter.]
Mr. Sloan. Senator, I must admit that when I received news of
Mr. Mitchell's departure when I was in Bermuda, that same thought
did cross my mind. I had heard of that when I was in Bermuda,
which would be probably — I guess it was July 1 .
Senator Ervin. What time did this conversation with Mr. Mitchell
occur about when the going gets tough, the tough get gomg? What day
of June was that?
Mr. Sloan. I am not precisely sure, but I think it was midpoint of
that first week, probably the 21st or 22d of June.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Mitchell left on July 1?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Now, you were so much concerned about what had
happened that you requested an opportunity to speak to Mr.
Haldeman.
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure, in all fairness, Senator, that I may not
have specifically asked to see him. I sought people out, feeling that
he personally should know certain information. Wliether it was
transmitted to him or whether they would arrange an interview
directly with him was not decided until the next day.
Senator Ervin. In other words, your concern was so great that
you wanted an opportunity to communicate with someone in the
White House your misgivings?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. At this point in time, my judgment was that
there was a strong possibility that the entire, essentially command, of
the political side of the campaign was involved in this affair and that
the only way to look at it from essentially the external standpoint
was to get someone in the White House at that point to take a look
at their own campaign organization.
Senator Ervin. Now, you did go to the White House?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. That was about the 23d?
579
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, it was the 23d.
Senator Ervin. And you got to talk to Mr. Dwight Chapin, the
President's appointments secretary?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And 3'ou told him that you were very much con-
cerned about what had happened?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Chapin suggested that you take a
vacation?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, he did.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chapin didn't suggest that you talk to Mr.
Haldeman?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. I made the assumption that if he felt that
I was that overwrought with the information I had given him, pre-
sumably he would convey that to Mr. Haldeman.
Senator Ervin. Didn't you think it was time for some honest man
to be overwTought?
Mr. Sloan. I was overwrought, yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Chapin tried to impress upon you that it was
necessary to take a trip
Mr. Sloan. He made that comment, yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. After that, you talked to Mr. John L. Ehrlichman,
didn't you?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And 3'ou tried to talk to him about it?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you told Mr. Ehrlichman that it was evident
to you that somebody external to the campaign should look into this
matter.
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure whether I preciselj^ said that. Certainl}',
my purpose in being here, which I think I conveyed, was that there
is a tremendous problem over here that somebody needs to take a
look at, yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. In other words, the idea you were trying to impress
upon Mr. Ehrlichman was that somebody in the White House or
somebody outside of the Committee To Re-Elect the President should
make an investigation of this matter?
Mr. Sloan. Whether I put it in quite those strong terms, I was
trying to express a concern that there was a major problem in my
judgment at the campaign, yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Which ought to be investigated by somebody other
than the members of the Committee To Re-Elect the President.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Ehrlichman told you that he didn't want
to know anything about it.
Mr. Sloan. When I began to try to get specific as to details, prob-
ably in the area of mone}'-, I think he interpreted my concerns as being
personal concerns which I did have as well and suggested to me that
since I had worked at the White House, since I had a special relation-
ship with the White House, if I had personal problems he would be
glad to arrange a lawA'er for me or see that I had a lawyer. With
regard to his hearing any further information, he stated that as far
as he was concerned he didn't want to know the details, that his
96-296 (bk.2) O - 73 - 9
580
position personally would be to take executive privilege on this matter
until after the election.
Senator Ervin. So Mr. EhrHchman at that time was what was
known as the chief domestic adviser to the President, wasn't he?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, he was.
Senator Ervin. And so when you tried to tell the chief domestic
ad\iser to the President that there should be an investigation of this
matter, the chief domestic adviser to the President said he didn't
want to know anything about it and if he did learn anything about it
he was going to take executive privilege until after the election was
over.
Mr. Sloan. Essentially, that is correct. I don't think I used the word
"investigation' ' ; I think it was more implied a problem one would assume
he would want to look into.
Senator Ervin. Who did you see first on the \asit to the White
House which you say occurred on the 23d of June, Mr. Chapin or
Mr. EhrHchman?
Mr. Sloan. My best recollection is I probabl}?- saw Mr. Chapin
around noon and Mr. Ehrlichman around 2 o'clock.
Senator Ervin. Now, was it the same day that Secretary' Stans
suggested to you that $81,000 which was still left in the safes at the
committee should be divided and you should take half home and he
would take custody of the other half?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, that is my best recollection.
Senator Ervin. Then, it was the same day that you had a conversa-
tion with Mr. Robert Mardian.
Mr. Sloan. The next day. Senator.
Senator Ervin. That would be the 24th?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Mardian gave you the impression that he
had succeeded Mr. LaRue as an investigator on behalf of the com-
mittee of these matters.
Mr. Sloan. He was clearly looking into it. Whether I had the direct
impression from him or other sources it was clear in my mind he had
this authority at that point to talk to and investigate the matter
among other staff members.
Senator Ervin. At that time you and your wife had been planning
to take a vacation to Bermuda.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And when Mr. Mardian asked you something about
the financial transactions and about how much money Mr. Porter and
Mr. Liddy got, you told him approximately.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Then he advised you to go on your vacation?
Mr. Sloan. I think when I told him, Senator, at that point I just
completed the summary report the day before, I think I gave him a
very precise figure. I indicated to him a concern because of the investi-
gations going on at that point in time whether I should in fact go on
a vacation under these circumstances. He did not give me an answer
at that point in time but called me at home later in the da}".
Senator Ervin. Pursuant to this advice 3^ou did go to Bermuda.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And returned on Jul}^ 4. - '
Mr. Sloan. The 3d.
581
Senator Ervin. Well, on July 4 Mr. LaRiie obtained from you the
$40,000 which you had taken from the committee safes and put in the
trunk at your home.
Mr. Sloan. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Stans gave the $40,000 that he had
assumed custody of to Mr. LaRue.
Mr. Sloan. That is what he indicated to me when I checked on
the propriety of having turned that money over to Mr. LaRue.
Senator Ervin. That same day or same evening Mr. Magruder
called you and asked you to come to the Black Horse Tavern.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you went to the Black Horse Tavern and Mr.
Magruder suggested to you that you and he go down and talk to the
U.S. District Attorney Titus.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And he wanted you to tell Mr. Titus that you had
given only approximately' $40,000 to Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Now, had you told Mr. Magruder or did you tell
him in this conversation that the amounts you had given to Mr.
Liddy was $199,000 or thereabouts?
Mr. Sloan. I don't believe I did on that occasion. The next morning,
I knew he knew that that was not a correct figure, which he himself
had authorized a figure in the magnitude of $83,000.
Senator Ervin. You told him you would talk to him the next day
about it.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. You did talk to him the next day and you told him
if you went dowTi to see District Attorney Titus that you were going
to make a disclosure of the truth in respect to the amounts you gave to
Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Magruder pursued the subject no further.
Mr. Sloan. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. On the evening of July 6, you met with Mr. Kenneth
Parkinson and Mr. Paul O'Brien, counsel for the Committee To Re-
Elect the President.
Mr. Sloan. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. And they suggested that they were afraid you would
be called before the grand jury very soon and it would be well for ycur
health, and the committee's health, and somebody's health for ^'^ou to
take a trip to California.
Mr. Sloan. Senator, I think I expressed the concern about the
grand jury. I said I was trying to get information as to what I was sup-
posed to do. My personnel themselves had been subpenaed that same
day and in response to my concerns they had not talked to me prior
to that point. I e\dewed the entire financial disbursements to these key
indi\nduals with them. They were shocked b}^ that. They indicated
they had been lied to and requested of myself to consider a trip to give
them time to confront the officials which they indicated to me had lied
to them and they did not identify the officials.
Senator Ervin. Then that night after you got home you got a call
from Fred LaRue who urged you to go to California.
582
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is right. As a matter of fact, he urged me
to leave the house that evening.
Senator Ervin. Did he give you any reason Avhy he thought that
you ought to go to California?
Mr. Sloan. I just do not recall, Senator. It certainly was in the
context, I think, of the grand jury appearance that
Senator Ervin. Did anybody, did Mr. LaRue, or anybody else
about that time tell you that it would be well for you to be out of
town a few days so they could get some stories arranged or anything
like that?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. No reason whatever was given for it being desirable
for you going to California.
Mr. Sloan. The reason was they \\dshed time to confront the
officials at the committee. My information was new to them. They
wanted to confront the committee officials who presumably had
given them different information than I had.
Senator Ervin. Now, you did go to California for several days and
when you came back I believe it was Friday, the 13th of July.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. That is an unlucky day, I have always heard.
At that time Mr. Fred LaRue met you at the Watergate restaurant
and advised you that you ought to either commit perjury or take the
fifth amendment if you went before the grand jury.
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; I don't think he advised me to commit perjury.
I think the emphasis in that conversation was he was impl^dng to me
that I had campaign law problems and that I should very well con-
sider the option of taking the fifth amendment. It was at that point
that I told him of the decisions I had already made and I told him in
saying I would not consider the fifth amendment. I would also not
consider perjury, I had everj^ intention of telling the truth as I knew it.
Senator Ervin. Had he made any suggestion to you at that time or
prior to that time that you ought to minimize in 3^our testimony
before the grand jury the amount that you had given to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. Not in relation to any particular proceedings but very
early in the first week he had suggested to me that the amount, and
I did not have a precise figure, but I knew the general magnitude,
would be very politically sensitive and damaging and there was a
need to come in with a lesser figure.
Senator Ervin. Anyway, you drew the inference that Mr. LaRue
thought and expressed the thoughts at the meeting at the Watergate
restaurant that the only alternatives open for 3^ou, as he saw it, was
either to minimize the amount that j^ou had given Mr. Liddy or to
plead the fifth amendment?
Mr. Sloan. By the time of the Watergate meeting, the luncheon, I
do not know we were at that point even talking the Liddy figure an}^
longer. I think he was talking about the fifth amendment, to deny any
information on this subject, period.
Senator Ervin. And you told him you would not take the fifth
amendment?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. I believe what I told him at that point in time
was I did not wish to consider it, as I understood it, but I would want
to have private, separate counsel before I made that kind of decision.
583
Senator Ervin. Did Mr. La Rue in that same conversation suggest
to you that he thought that you ought to resign from the committee?
Air. Sloan. No, sir; I told him that is what I thought I ought to do.
Senator Ervin. And so did he suggest to you that 3'ou call Mr.
Stans about that or did you tell him you were going to call Mr. Stans
about that?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; he indicated to me when we left that he would
check with the political leadershij), without mentioning names, and he
suggested I talk to Secretary- Stans, that he would let me know what
the political people thought, which he never did.
Senator Ervin. And you did call Mr. Stans and Mr. Stans told you
the next morning that you ought not to discuss this matter over the
telephone but to come up to the office and talk to him there.
Air. Sloan. Yes, sir, but he asked me to stay home until after he
talked to the investigators from the Federal Bureau and that I should
come in following that interview.
Senator Ervin. You remember what day of the month that was?
Mr. Sloan. The 14th of July. I am not sure what day of the week
it was.
Senator Ervin. You talked to the FBI. Had you talked to the
FBI at that time? They asked you first, whether you knew Baldwin?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; that was the onl}^ subject matter the}^ covered
with me in the one interview I had with them prior to leaving.
Senator Ervin. After that you had a conversation, you talked to
the U.S. district attorney?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Silbert.
Senator Ervin. Was U.S. District Attorney Titus there?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, I believe [conferring with counsel] Mr. Titus
came in at one point during the interview just to say hello. He
did not sit in.
Senator Ervin. He did not stay?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; he did not sit in.
Senator Ervin. This was on July 20, preceding the September in
which bills of indictment were returned and preceding the January in
which the trials of those bills of indictment
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And on that occasion you told Mr. Silbert about
having given Mr. Liddy $199,000 in cash?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. You told him about the efforts on the part of Mr.
Magruder and perhaps others, I believe you said, the next day or a
day later, to persuade you to commit perjury in case you went before
the grand jury.
Mr. Sloan, Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you say you told him virtually everything that
you have told this committee today?
Mr. Sloan. I believe so, Senator. There may be some amplifying
information that has developed since then but to the best of my recol-
lection I related to them the essential facts I have to j^ou here toda}-.
Senator Ervin. And that was after it had been stated in the press
that $4,300 in $100 bills which came from the campaign funds of the
Committee To Re-Elect the President were found in the possession of
the people who burglarized the Watergate?
584
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. My attention has been called to the fact that this
statement about the cash appeared in the Washington Post on June 24.
Mr. Sloan. It would have been after that.
Senator Ervin. After that you went before the grand jury?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. That was on the day following your meeting mth
Mr. Silbert in which you told him virtually everything you have told
this committee today?
Mr. Sloan. I saw Mr. Silbert on two occasions prior to the grand
jury. My attorney saw him on one and I think I saw him a third
time prior to appearing before the grand jury and testified before the
grand jury on July 31.
Senator Ervin. Was there any l&wyer there representing the pros-
ecution at the time you testified before the grand jury?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure I understand the question.
Senator Ervin. Was there any lawyer present in the grand jury
when you testified there?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Silbert and Mr. Campbell.
Senator Ervin. And did they ask you questions?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, they did.
Senator Ervin. Did they ask you questions about the payment of the
$199,000 to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, they did.
Senator Ervin. Did they ask you questions about the efforts, the
advice that you had received from Mr. Magruder and others to commit
perjury?
Mr. Sloan. Yes; I would say roughly, of an hour's time I spent
before the grand jury, I would say half of that time roughly was
devoted to the Magruder approach to me.
Senator Ervin. Then later you testified in the trial of the case before
Judge Sirica?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Who had the primary charge of the case for the
Government before Judge Sirica?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Silbert.
Senator Ervin. Did he question you?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Did he ask you any questions about your paying
$199,000 to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Liddy at that time was on trial?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Did he ask you anything about any efforts of Mr.
Magruder or others to persuade j^ou to commit perjury?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; he did not.
Senator Ervin. Were there any questions asked by him concerning
the activities of officers or employees of the Committee To Re-Elect
the President?
Mr. Sloan. I do not believe so. I am not positive of that.
Senator Ervin. Were you present when Mr. Magruder was inter-
rogated by counsel in the criminal prosecution?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; I have never been present when Mr. Magruder
has been interrogated.
585
Senator Ervin. Were you present when Mr. Silbert made his
argument to the jury?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. Did 3^ou hear any statement made by any counsel
in the case that there was no evidence anybody was impHcated in the
Watergate affair except the seven men on trial?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure, Senator. The only period of my appear-
ance at the trial was just my own testimony.
Senator Ervin. Do you recall the prosecution of Bernard L. Barker
in Miami in connection with an allegation about which he had falsely
notarized a signature of Kenneth Dahlberg?
Mr. Slo^^n. Yes, sir; I testified at that trial.
Senator Ervin. Did you have a conversation with anyone, with
John Dean — did you have a conversation with anyone concerning the
trial m Miami, Fla?
Mr. Sloan. I did not. I had one conversation with John Dean
myself not specifically with regard to the trial but in terms of the
extradition proceedmgs in Virgmia where he expressed a hope that
my attorneys would oppose extradition. Following that, one of my
attorneys, Mr. Treese, received a direct phone call from Mr. Dean.
Senator Ervin. Mr. James T. Treese was your attorney and he is
the gentleman sitting right behind your counsel there?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; he is.
Senator Ervin. What did Mr. Treese tell you that had occurred?
Mr. Sloan. He related to me that Mr. Dean had called him and
indicated that Hugh Sloan would be a real hero over here if he took
the fifth amendment.
Senator Ervin. That is in Florida. You would be a real hero.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Did Mr. Dean talk to you yourself about resisting
extradition to testify in the Florida case?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And he advised you to oppose extradition?
Mr. Sloan. He expressed the hope that my attorneys would, yes,
sir.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Treese, I wonder if you would mind testifying
a moment. Just stand up and take the oath.
Do you swear that the evidence that you shall give to the Senate
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Treese. I do.
Senator Ervin. You were attorney for Mr. Hugh W. Sloan?
Mr. Treese. That is co'rrect.
Senator Ervin. And did you receive a call on or about October 21,
1972, in which you received a suggestion about what Mr. Sloan should
do about his testimony in Florida?
Mr. Treese. Senator, I received a call on October 31 on that
subject.
Senator Ervin. Do you know who the call was from?
Mr. Treese. Yes, it was from John Dean.
Senator Ervin. What conversation did you have with him?
Mr. Treese. Mr. Dean called trying to locate Mr. Sloan. That
happened to be the day that Mr. Sloan and Mr. Stoner departed for
Florida in order to participate in the trial in Miami. As a matter of
586
fact, Mr. Dean had just missed Mr. Sloan, who had left about a half
hour before the call. He called to discuss the case very briefly with me
and he said are you prepared to advise 3^our client to take the fifth
amendment? I laughed. I would like to explain that. I did not think
it was particularly comical as I look back at it now, but taking it in
the context of the events at that time, to invoke the fifth amendment
on that kind of case, knowing Hugh Sloan as I did and knowing about
the case, what I did, was probably like swatting flies \vith sledge
hammers. It was just so out of place and inappropriate that it did
cause me to laugh. He pursued the matter and said Hugh could be a
real hero around here if the took the fifth. And I said, John, relax.
Hugh is with Jim Stoner, he is fully protected. This case has absolutely
nothing to do \\dth the Watergate, it just happens to be a case that has
come up involving one of the participants in the Watergate, he is going
to draw an amount of publicity and attention and quite franklj^,
Senator, I believe at that time he was reacting in terms of public
relations considerations rather than legal analysis of the case.
I did make a promise to him to try to get hold of Hugh and Jim
Stoner at National Airport by having them paged at the Eastern
Airline counter and I signed off with him at that point. I tried to get
them. It was about 15 minutes before their flight time and missed
them. I called Mr. Dean back and said you have absolutely nothing
to worry about, Mr. Dean, Hugh Sloan is not going to take the fifth
amendment. It is totally inappropriate in a case of this nature.
Senator Ervin. Thank you very much. Mr. Sloan can come back
to the stand.
Mr. Sloan, do you know Lee Nunn?
Mr. Sloan. Yes.
Senator Ervin. What position did he have with respect to the
Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Sloan. He was vice chairman of the Finance Committee To
Re-Elect the President.
Senator Ervin. Did he give you any advice as to what you should
do in respect to testifying about any of the matters that are being
investigated?
Mr. Sloan. He personally never suggested anything to me except
to tell the truth. He relayed to me a telephone conversation, the fact
that an invididual whom he refused to name to me from the political
committee upstairs had come to his office \vith the suggestion that he
use Mr. Nunn's friendship with me to pressure me to take the fifth
amendment. I understood him to undertake that conversation with
me on the basis of friendship. He told me essentially to tell the gentle-
man, whoever he was, that he would in no way advise whoever was in
my position to take orders in this situation to take the fifth amend-
ment.
He just conveyed the fact he wanted me to know that there were
pressures, external pressures, that might well be brought to bear on
me and hurt my testimony as the case developed.
Senator Ervin. The only identification he gave to you about that
certain person who had called him was that it was an official of the
Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. I had the distinct impression that it was a
staff member of the political committee.
587
Senator Ervin. Yes; but he told you that he was conveying the
message to you, but that he would advise you to tell the truth?
Mr. Sloan. No; he was not conveying that individual's request to
me. He told the gentleman that he w^ould in no way ever advise me
to take that course of action. He called me just to let me know the
fact that someone had approached him with that kind of request. It
was purely to inform me, to alert me that pressures might be brought
to bear on me over a period of time.
Senator Ervin. Well, I still repeat what I said earlier in my inter-
rogation of you; I think you have strengthened my faith in the old
adage that an honest man is the noblest work of God.
I will also meditate for a moment on the old saying, "What a
tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."
That is all.
Senator Gurney.
Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You have certainly been very full in your information to the
committee, Mr. Sloan. I think you have covered about all that you
know about it. There are one or two little loose ends I would like to
clean up this afternoon, myself.
On the interrogation just recently by the chairman, let us go
back to that Mexican-Dahlberg transaction.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. When did you give the checks to Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. Essentially what happened here. Senator, the four
Mexican checks had come in the night of April 5. They were drawn
on a foreign bank. I had no knowledge of whether they were even legal
or whether they could be accepted into the campaign. We were so busy
in that period of time, I essentially set aside anything that was a prob-
lem area to get through this transition period. Probably sometime
during that following week, I addressed myself to the problem areas.
It was in this case clear by the dates and the checks that they had
been issued prior to April 7.
Senator Gurney. I must say I am really not interested in retracing
ground we covered before. I am just curious about the date you
gave them to Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Sloan. I would think it was probably sometime in the week
follo^nng April 7 — probably within a 10-day period.
Senator Gurney. And he said he would take care of cashing them?
Mr. Sloan. If I could correct that, Senator, thinking of the Dahl-
berg check that I gave to him immediately after I received it from
Secretary Stans, I would say I probably gave it to him within a day
or two after the 7th.
Senator Gurney. Now, then, you have testified that he returned
the cash to you when?
Mr. Sloan. My best recollection was in the two installments,
probably separated by a week or two in mid-May.
Senator Gurney. And how much was involved, in cash?
Mr. Sloan. What went out was $114,000, I think. It came back
$25,000 short.
Senator Gurney. Did you ever inquire in that intervening time —
I think nearly a month went by — what happened to the mone}^?
After all, he was simply to cash these checks and bring back the money,
was he not?
588
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, I did question him on that. He said, "I have
given them to people in different places in the country and it takes a
while; I will get them back as soon as I can."
Senator Gurney. Did he ever explain the brokerage fee of $2,500?
Mr. Sloan. I asked him that question, Senator. He indicated that
there were expenses involved. He never gave me a detailed breakdown.
At that point in time, it was an accomplished fact. I essentially broke
it off, but I believe I told Secretary Stans of the fact that it had been
short by that amount.
Senator Gurney. Weren't you rather suprised that it came back
that short?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; that is a pretty large fee.
Senator Gurney. I judge, of course, from what we have learned
in the testimony here, that the money was used for the Watergate
operation.
Mr. Sloan. Evidently. What happened here. Senator, I think is
that I did receive back $112,000 that went into this safe where the
funds were commingled and what I suspect probably happened was
that some of those same physical $100 bills were paid out again to
Mr. Liddy in either that $63,000, but probably in the later two
$12,000's.
Senator Gurney. That was going to be my question. Where do
you think he got the money to return to you? Do you think he got it
out of some of those first payments out of his $250,000 budget?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. I think time-wise, I think it must have been
part of the two $12,000 disbursements or distributions I made to him
in late May or even early June.
Senator Gurney. By the way, on this fifth amendment advice of
Mr. Dean's, did you tell the committee about that before?
Mr. Sloan. This committee?
Senator Gurney. Yes.
Mr. Sloan. We told the staff investigators, yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. As a little bit of background, it is my under-
standing that you worked in the Wliite House before you went to
the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Gurney. For whom did you work?
Mr. Sloan. Dwight Chapin.
Senator Gurney. How long?
Mr. Sloan. Two and a half years.
Senator Gurney. And did you know in the White House Mr,
Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman, and Mr. Dean?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, I knew all of them quite well.
Senator Gurney. You knew them quite well?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. You used to see a good deal of them?
Mr. Sloan. I would not say I saw them regularly. I was at a dif-
ferent staff level than they were. Most of the work went through
somebody else, but I was certainly on a friendly, working-type re-
lationship with them.
Senator Gurney. On the $20,000 payment to Mr. Magruder, did
you seek Mr. Stans' approval on that?
589
Mr. Sloan. I really do not precisely recall. I think that I accepted
that on his own authority, since he was in a position to give blanket
authority to other individuals within the campaign.
Senator Gurnet. Do you know what he used it for?
Mr. Sloan. I have no direct knowledge. I just by rumor heard that
it went to pay for a book by Mr. Victor Laskey. The reason I am
aware of that is that I was talking to Mr. Vance Shumway, who was
a press spokesman for the Committee for the Re-Election of the
President. At the time, he had a press inquiry to the effect that Mr.
Laskey had identified the Committee for the Re-Election of the
President as the source of money for a book he had written. Mr. Vance
Shumway asked me whether that was the $20,000 I had given to
Mr. Magruder. I said I did not factually know.
Senator Gurney. What was the book?
Mr. Sloan. I have forgotten the title.
Senator Gurney. Was it used in the campaign?
Mr. Sloan. I think it was.
Senator Gurney. We have gone over this before, but I am curious.
How man}" people ad\dsed you to leave town from time to time? I
am just interested in the number and who they are.
^Ir. Sloan. I think the only occasion where I was specifically re-
quested to consider a trip was the occasion of going to California.
This was a request by Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien. Although the}^
said they obviously could not essentially ask me to do it, they said
would I consider it. The reason they gave me at that time was that
the}' felt they had been lied to by other officials and the information I
was giving them for the first time
Senator Gurney. I recall that. I am just, again, interested in names
now, not what has been testified before as to why they told you to
leave towTi. Did others sort of make that suggestion now?
Mr. Sloan. I think only the telephone conversations with Mr.
LaRue that night. He emphasized the urgenc}- of my departing.
Senator Gurney. Going back to the $350,000 to the White House
through Mr. Strachan, weren't you curious about that sum of money
and what it was going to be used for?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, after having been through essentially 2 years
in this campaign, where there was a very clear separation of a decision
as to what money is used for resting with the political campaign, I
think my curiosity had realh' run out by that point in time. So much
money had, in a similar wa}-, been distributed by me without knowl-
edge, I was beyond the point of really asking questions.
Senator Gurney. Did you ever hear Mr. Stans, Mr. Magruder, or
anybody give any reason for this large disbursement?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. You testified that you talked to John Dean on
many occasions.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Why was that? He was counsel for the President.
He did not have anvthing to do with the Committee To Re-Elect,
did he?
Mr. Sloan. This was essentially after I had left the committee. I
am not sure precisely the time — it was at a time
590
Senator Gurney. First of all, did you talk to him at all when you
were with the committee?
Mr. Sloan. In earlier periods mth regard to advice on campaign
law, particularly the old Corrupt Practices Act, prior to the time we
had a full-time counsel with our committee.
Senator Gurney. I see.
Now, then, go on about the other occasions.
Mr. Sloan. I do not believe I had any other regular contact with
him other than that context while I was at the finance committee.
When I left, I saw him the day I resigned, and after I retained counsel
or thought I had retained counsel, because this had taken a consider-
able period of time and my car that was parked in the towawa}- zone
of the White House had been towed away. It was sort of a frustrating
daj.
Senator Gurney. What was that? I missed it.
Mr. Sloan. M37 car, which had been parked in a towaway zone,
that da.}'- lasted beyond 4:30 and my car had disappeared follo^^dng
my resignation.
Senator Gurney. Did that have anj^ connection wdth Watergate?
Mr. Sloan. I do not believe so. Senator. I was somewhat frustrated
at that point and turned to John Dean, that he might be of some as-
sistance locating where the Metropolitan Police Department might
have placed it, and he was very helpful in that regard.
Senator Gurney. He certainly has a lot of contacts.
Well, continue, now, on your contacts with Mr. Dean after you left
the committee.
Mr. Sloan. Sir, he. Herb Kalmbach, and Maury Stans, throughout
this period, would essentially call me every week or so to see how I was
doing, take the temperature of the water, so to speak.
Senator Gurney. Could you tell us a little more about these con-
versations?
Mr. Sloan. I really can't Senator. They were very indefinite. Maury
Stans occasionally would ask me advice on some 01 the civil litigation
that had come up — what do you think we ought to do about this, how
is your family? It was generally that kind of conversation. There were
a number, but I realh?- can't characterize them in terms of any specific
substantive material.
Senator Gurney. But this was Dean calling you now?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; and at various times, I would call him. At that
point, I understood that he was handling within the White House the
investigation of this matter. I sought him out, surely, after I had
resigned to give him the same information I had given everybody else
with regard to the money and the Magruder approach.
Senator Gurney. As I understand it, these are conversations gen-
erally by him to you to find out anything he could find out. Is that it?
Mr. Sloan. Well, he generally would not — m}^ judgment was that
he was not seeking information from me with regard to what had hap-
pened after I had resigned and the money and the Magruder approach.
I really had to force it on him. I went over and saw him one da}^ and
said, this is what I think happened; I understand you are doing an
investigation.
One day we had a conversation about Mr. Magruder which con-
tinued on. I think this must have been later after — I am not sure of the
©91
exact timing, but I expressed a feeling to him that I had felt so strongly
about what Mr. Magruder had — not so much what he had suggested,
but what he had forced on me in the way of a personal decision, and the
very nature of the suggestion, that I expressed to Mr. Dean the
thought that if ]Mr. Magruder ever were presented before a Senate
committee for confirmation for a high public office, I would personally
seek out that committee and voluntarily testify against him.
Senator Gurney. What did Mr. Dean say to that?
Mr. Sloan. He said, it will never happen.
Senator Gurney. How many phone conversations would you say
you had with him and during what period of time? Just approxi-
mately.
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure, Senator. They might have come up 2 or
3 weeks apart, throughout the period leading up to the trial.
Senator Gurney. This is from July 1972 until January 1973?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir.
Senator Gurney. And is it your impression, then, that he made
these conversations because he was in charge of the White House in-
vestigation, the Watergate investigation?
Mr. Sloan. No; my impression more was that it was a personal con-
cern. He was just checking to see how I was. He was involved with —
Herb Kalmbach, for instance, had offered to assist me in seeking pri-
vate employment. We discussed my going to law school. He suggested I
see John Dean on that matter, if John had any suggestions. It was
generallj^ this kind of a conversation.
Senator Gurney. Has he ever made any suggestion to you other
than the one you discussed with the chairman on the fifth amendment
ad\dce as far as testimony in the grand jury or this committee is
concerned?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, I do not believe he has ever given me any legal
advice in that context.
Senator Gurney. In all of these conversations, did he ever mention
the name of President Nixon?
Mr. Sloan. Not that I recall. Senator.
Senator Gurney. You testified that you w^ent to California. That
was when you were asked to leave town for a w^iile, I do not think you
told us what you did in California. Would you describe to the com-
mittee w^hat you did''
Mr. Sloan. Well, I forget where Secretary Stans was. I could not
join up with him until that Sunday night. There was a meeting on the
California budget
Senator Ervin. There is a vote on the floor of the Senate, so maybe
we had better go over and vote and come back.
[Recess.]
Senator Ervin. Senator Gurney.
Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think we were
discussing the time that you were in California, Mr. Sloan.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. You had described what your activities were
there at that time.
Mr. Sloan. Until that Sunday evening when I joined Secretary
Stans I had gone to San Francisco and spent a day and a half in my
hotel room. I joined Secretary Stans for the budget meeting. When we
592
concluded that we flew to — I think Portland, Oreg., where we had fund-
raising meetings. I think there was one other stop and we went to
Des Moines for a meeting there and at that point I had a call to
come back.
Senator Gurney. From whom?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure whether it was one of the attorneys or
Fred LaRue himself. I was asked to come back a day earlier than the
scheduled trip for Secretary Stans.
Senator Gurney. What about the discussions on the budget, what
budget was this?
Mr. Sloan. At this point in time we were attempting probably I
think for the first time in a Presidential campaign to incorporate the
50 State budgets in an overall budget nationally and there was rather
acrimonious discussion of what was the proper amount for California
to do the job they thought they ought to do. Someone had gone out
there to try to solve a problem.
Senator Gurney. While j^'ou were in California did you have any
telephone discussions with anyone in the Committee To Re-Elect
here in Washington?
Mr. Sloan. I probably did. I am sure I probably checked with my
office secretary. I recall none that would be pertinent in this context.
Senator Gurney. We have covered this before, the rather humorous
advice you received from Mr. Mitchell and I don't want to go over that
again except I wish you would explain in more detail exactly how the
conference between you and Mr. LaRue and Mr. Mitchell came
about.
Mr. Sloan. I was talking to Mr. LaRue in his ofl&ce about these
general financial matters, particularly about a $50,000 contribution
that Mr. Porter had brought in post-April 7, for which there was no
identification of the donor. It was during this conversation that I had
a call from my secretary indicating the two gentlemen from the
Bureau were waiting in my office to see me. I asked Fred what I should
do and he said before you go down I think you ought to see John
Mitchell, and why don't you wait here, I will go down and see him.
And he went down and came back in a few minutes and took me down
into the room I believe where Bob Mardian was.
Senator Gurney. He took you to Mr. Mitchell's office.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. Mr. Mardian was there, I believe. Of course,
Mr. LaRue and possibly Jeb Magruder. Mr. Mardian suggested the
first thing I ought to do is calm down a little bit.
Senator Gurney. This is when you first entered the office.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Mr. Mardian was the first person who said any-
thing.
Mr. Sloan. I believe that was the sequence, yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Go on.
Mr. Sloan. Then it was a very brief meeting. I think I essentially
asked what is going on. The agents are here, they want to talk to me,
and my assumption at that point was that they were probably there
to talk about financial matters.
I was hoping for some enlightenment or somebody to say don't
worry about it, we have an accounting of all of this, or something of
that sort. Listead, I got the remark of Mr. Mitchell's.
593
Senator Gurney. That was the only thmg that was said in this
meeting.
Mr. Sloan. Senator, I am sure there was more said but that essen-
tially rocked me back so far on my heels I have forgotten all the rest.
I came away from the meeting with a feeling of absolutely no guidance
as far as what I should do with the FBI and particularly no guidance
with regard to the whole general problem.
Senator Gurney. How long did the meeting last?
Mr. Sloan. I think it was only a couple minutes because the
Bureau was waiting.
Senator Gurney. Was the ad\'ice flippant, was it serious or wasn't it?
Mr. Sloan. I don't think anybody was being flip. I think he was
being serious but I did not understand what he meant to convey by
that remark.
Senator Gurney. I would like to go over agam the Chapin and
Ehrlichman meetings. They were very important. By the way, in
that meeting with Mitchell, LaRue, Mardian, Magruder, and your-
self, did the name of President Nixon come up at all?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. Senator, as a blanket answer to that question,
I don't believe the President's name had come up in any conversations
I have had with anybody in any meaningful way.
Senator Gurney. Well, now, let's go to these Chapui-EhrHchman
meetings again, and there again could you construct in narrative
detail about the meetings with Mr. Chapin at 12 o'clock?
Mr. Sloan. I really with the passage of time cannot really recon-
struct the nature of the way I expressed a concern to them. The
responses, as in the case of Mr. Mitchell's response, were very cryptic
and they stick very strongly in my mind. Beyond that, I really cannot
be very helpful.
Senator Gurney. Mr. Chapin, of course, had been your boss for 2}^
years, hadn't he?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. How long was that meeting?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure, probably 20 minutes. We discussed some
other things.
Senator Gurney. Did you discuss with him any of the Liddy
payments?
Mr. Sloan. I am not just sure. I suspect, Senator, at that point in
time I would probably have been very reluctant to make any specific
accusations in terms of Mr. Liddy or anybody else. I think I was
attempting to convej'^ the general information there is a hell of a
problem over there and somebody has to really look into it.
Senator Gurney. As best you can say, well how long was the
Ehrlichman meeting?
Air. Sloan. I am just not sure, Senator. Aside from the remark, they
were all very friendly, talked about other tilings, families. It was a
period of time of normal social interchange prior to getting these
specifics we have discussed here.
Senator Gurney. And the only discussion was just an indication
on your part of a general alarm as to what was going on down at the
Committee To Re-Elect and somebody ought to do something about
it.
Mr. Sloan. And also a personal fear I think with regard to the
situation I found myself in.
594
I just cannot reconstruct my own thinking or what I would have
conveyed at that particular point in time.
Senator Gurney. And again was there any indication in these
meetings that President Nixon knew anything about what was going
on at the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, the President's name in any conversation I had
with anybody with regard to the Watergate or related matters I don't
believe has ever come up.
Senator Gurney. The summaries of cash disbursements that you
gave to Mr. Stans, in your testimony you said you destroyed these
after you gave them. Why was that? Why didn't you keep a record of
those?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, my understanding of Secretary Stans' instruc-
tion, and I think this has to be put somewhat in the context of what
was happening there, we had had a number of different kinds of
records. Decision had been made to remove all of the pre-April 7
records from the committee, as a part of the past. The question was
constructing the kind of records for internal use that we want to have
available to us as an aid in our fundraising post- April 7. Essentially,
it would be we are after a man for you, target him as a man capable
of giving $50,000. You would want to have available to you a record
that indicates he has already given 25 in the pre-April 7 period, so
when you went back to him you woidd have this fact in mind. So it
was a 2)^-month period attempting to unscramble essentially what
was a nightmare influx April 5 and 6, and put in a useable form. This
finally consisted of the cash summary on the one side and on the other
a total listing of all contributors by category. Category 1 might have
been all contributors who had given above $50,000. Category 2 might
be $100,000 or above, for instance. So, what was being requested was
either a single copy or two copies to be tightly held of this kind of
information and the request that had been made of me by Secretary
Stans was a single copy of this final report.
I, in destroying the backup material, I did so with the clear and
positive understanding relayed to me by him that he intended the
material I gave him, which covered the same transactions essentially
in a different format as a permanent record of the campaign. I assumed
that that record would still be in existence but it evidently is not.
Senator Gurney. And you also understood as part of that trans-
action that he wanted you to get rid of the backup information so
there would only be one copy in his possession.
Mr. Sloan. I suppose it is an inference he asked for one and the
recommendations to me or the conversation that led to my destroying
the earlier reports and the summary book was with Mr. Kalmbach,
when I asked his advice now that we have checked this all out and I
have this final report ready, what do you think I ought to do with
these records? He operated as my boss through the entire earlier
period, had a very close relationship with Secretary Stans, he was
clearly a person I would look to for guidance in this kind of situation.
Senator Gurney. Now then, on this whole business of cash, some
of which was deposited according to the graph up there, and some was
paid out.
Was there any general discussion between you and Mr. Stans or
anybody else as to how cash was to be handled, that is, what was to
be kept in safes and what was to be deposited in bank accounts?
595
Mr. Sloan. I would say the ph3^sical seciirit}^ of the money would be
a judgment I would have made as to where to keep it. I would say, on
handling of any deposits or an}^ distributions of funds, I never made —
with one possible exception of reimbursing somebod}' for a travel
expense when there wasn't somebod}^ else to write a check — I would
say virtually every decision was made by somebody else, and with
regard to the deposits, all those instructions came from Secretary
Stans.
Senator Gurnet. Well, what were those instructions? You come
on board as treasurer and Stans is the fundraiser. Somebody must
have said all cash that comes in we are going to put in a lockbox or a
safe. Did anybody say that? When did they say it? Who made that
decision?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, it goes all the way back to March 1971 and
I am not quite sure how it evolved, but it was clearly my responsibility
in terms of preserving the physical security and a record of what was
received in cash and what was not.
Senator Gurney. I understand that. But my question really is, who
made the decision that cash would be kept in safes and lockboxes and
not deposited in bank accounts?
Mr. Sloan. I would have to make an assumption here because I
would not make the decision myself. I would suspect that this pro-
cedure evolved back in the period of time because cash was being re-
ceived then and it has always been handled essentially the same way
by Mr. Kalmbach. As to the making deposits out of this, in reviewing
periodically the interim reports on cash funds and balance on hand in
the office. Secretary Stans often said in the pre-April 7 period, this is
too high a balance, we don't need that much. Why don't you deposit
$100,000 in $3,000 increments among a number of our committees,
and I would follow that instruction.
Senator Gurney. Well, now, when he said, this is too much, we do
not need this much — what did he think he needed the amount that
he was keeping in cash for, anyway?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, I am not sure. He was fully aware that people
were drawing on a cash fund. He was fully aware that people did have
authority to come to him. I do not know how he made his estimate of
what the appropriate amount available at any one time was.
Senator Gurney. Well, now, may I try to reconstruct the testi-
mony? As I understand it, from your understanding as the keeper of
the money here, you first got the idea from Kalmbach that cash
money was to be kept either in lockboxes or in safes. Is that right?
Mr. Sloan. I am sure it came from him, the more I think about it,
because it was from him that I got the initial instructions on who
should be the signatories on a safe deposit box and a procedure to
have more than one signature for access if two people would have to
go at any one time.
Senator Gurney. Then after the transfer to the Committee To
Re-Elect the President — that is, the finance committee — you just
continued that practice and then as far as the amounts of cash were con-
cerned, that remained in either lockboxes or laid in safes, that de-
cision was made by Mr. Stans, is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. I never made, to the best of my recollection,
any deposit out of these funds without having had instruction from
him. In terms of distribution, it would have been one of the various
96-296 (bk. 2) O - 73 - 10
596
people we have discussed that had authority, that I recognized their
authority to make this decision.
Senator Gurney. Did you ever ask Mr. Stans, what do we need to
keep this cash here, x hundred thousand dollars and what do we need
it for?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, I never asked him that, except in the — no; I
never asked him that kind of question.
Senator Gurney. Who had access to the lockboxes?
Mr. Sloan. I think it varied at different times. I think initially,
probably Mr. Kalmbach and myself were two of the signatories;
probably two of the girls in my office were the other two. It would
have taken two at any one time. Maybe there were only three at that
point.
Senator Gurney. Where were the lockboxes?
Mr. Sloan. In the bank vault downstairs of the building where we
were located, the First National Bank of Washington.
At that time, Mr. Francis Raine
Senator Gurney. Mr. Francis who?
Mr. Sloan. Raine, R-a-i-n-e, of CaUfornia, was a signatory on one
of the boxes.
Senator Gurney. Now, he worked for the Committee To Re-Elect
the President?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; he did not.
Senator Gurney. Who did he work for?
Mr. Sloan. My first meeting with Mr. Raine was, I believe, some-
time in February 1972, when he transmitted to Washington on behalf
of Mr. Kalmbach several hundred thousand dollars in cash which
were represented to me as being a carryover of 1968 funds. I think
we had initially set up a separate safe deposit box from the one we
already had for those funds.
Senator Gurney. Any of them had access to the lockboxes during
the time Mr. Kalmbach was your boss; is that right?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Stans may have been in place at that point in time,
but Mr. Kalmbach was still very active as a fundraiser and at one
point in time in March was actively an officer of the committee.
Senator Gurney. Do you know whether Mr. Raine ever made any
withdrawals of cash at any time?
Mr. Sloan. I know he has not, because I kept the records and
eventually consolidated this all in the safe in the office. I can verify
that no money that ever came under my control was ever taken out
without my knowledge.
Senator Gurney. And who else had access to the lockboxes?
Mr. Sloan. I think just so there would be other people around, I
think Jane Dannenhauer, my secretary, would have been a signatory.
Eveline Hyde might have been. I thiiik Judy Hoback, just as a func-
tion of having somebody who would be there if Mr. Kalmbach came
to town and I was out, just so somebody would be in the office who
could act as a second signatory.
Senator Gurney. Any withdrawals of cash from lockboxes were
made by you, is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. How many were made?
Mr. Sloan, I have forgotten, Senator, precisely when we got the
safe. The procedural handling of cash funds was the same throughout.
597
I kept a cash-in and -out book, recording receipts and distributions, so
that I kept an ongoing record wherever it happened to be at that
particular time.
Senator Gurney, This is a record you later gave to Mr. Stans?
Mr. Sloan. In summar\' form. In other words, the figures would be
aggregated — Mr. Liddy, $199,000 — not just the individual occasions.
Senator Gurney. With regard to access to the safes, who had access
to the safes?
Mr. Sloan. When it was in my oflfice, I had the combination. I
think m}^ secretary had it as well. When it was moved into Arden
Chambers' ofiice, only Secretary- Stans and I had it.
Senator Gurney. Whom did you have the most contact with in the
Committee To Re-Elect the President? Whom did you see most of,
have transactions wdth?
Mr. Sloan. You mean within the political committee in terms of
Senator Gurney. Yes.
Mr. Sloan. Probably Rob Odle, because in our internal procedures
in approving bills and so forth, he was really the centra] point for the
political committee on where those bills came from. His signature was
necessary to approve them; they would come through him and be
sent douTi to mj^self. I would say he was the principal person I had
an}* regular contact ^^^th. I obviously saw some of these other people
almost day-to-da}', but not too often in the business sense.
Senator Gurney. Did you ever have any contact with Mr.
Haldeman?
Mr. Sloan. Not from the time I joined the committee until fairly
recently. I have seen him once since I joined the committee.
Senator Gurney. WTien was that?
Mr. Sloan. I think it was probably sometime in January, Senator.
Senator Gurney. WTiat was the occasion of that meeting?
Mr. Sloan. I sought him out. At that point I had rejoined the
finance committee as a consultant. Since he had gotten me into the
campaign, I had made certain decisions. I wanted to, before I left
town — and I was making plans to do so — I wanted to advise him
essentialh* on the basis of the information that I had at that time, that
I had totally supported the President of the United States and that
my leaving the campaign was not intended in any way to reflect on
that, but that essentially, I was unwilling to follow the advice of some
of his advisers at this time. I felt that having worked for him, on the
way out, I just wanted to let him know what I had done and why I
had done it.
Senator Gurney. What is this about following advice of someone?
Mr. Sloan. I had the feeling — I think the term has been used by
Bome of your staff investigators — that I was considered "off the reserva-
tion" as far as the White House and the campaign committee were
concerned because of the actions I had taken. I did not know, for
instance — I knew that Bob Haldeman had regular access to the
President. I felt that any information on me quite probably had never
gotten there, and that I felt that I knew him well and that I just
wanted to make one effort to put on the record there how I felt about
things and why I had done them.
Senator Gurney. This occurred in January 1973?
Mr. Sloan. I believe so. Senator. I am just not sure.
Senator Gurney. Where did the meeting occur?
598
Mr. Sloan. In Mr. Haldeman's oflBce.
Senator Gurney. Did you seek the audience with him?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator Gurney. How long did it last?
Mr. Sloan. About 45 minutes.
Senator Gurney. And would you be a little more specific about
what you discussed in the meeting?
Mr. Sloan. It was a very friendly meeting. We discussed my future.
I think we discussed Mr. Magiuder. I think I may have, whether by
name, I mentioned how strongly I felt about certain individuals in
terms of what they had done that I thought was wrong. I told him
that I thought positive action should have been taken away back when.
I was seeking his counsel a little bit in terms of employment as well.
I told him that I fully understood why, under the umbrella of what
had happened in Watergate, it would be inappropriate of me in any
case, regardless of your instance, to seek employment in Government.
He was just very friendly and cooperative and agreed with that
analysis. He said if I ever wanted to come back in Government 2
years from now, he would be glad to recommend that. It was that
kind of a conference.
Senator Gurney. And your conversations about the President — I
was quite clear about that. You professed faith in him. Is that what
you generally said?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. Looking at this whole problem in a time per-
spective, I felt that a long decision had been made, in a way, what to
do about this matter. At that point in time, I think the trial had al-
ready been and it looked as if that was the end of the line, that was as
far as it went. It looked as if, in a way, aside from the convicted in-
dividuals, that essentially, in a way, I was the only big loser on this
thing. I think it had been interpreted at the White House, by people I
considered friends over a long period of time, that there was something
I had done that was improper. I think I just wanted to express my
side of the story to someone who I felt could make a difference before
others.
Senator Gurney. Did Mr. Haldeman mention anything at all in that
conference about his involvement in Watergate or anybody's involve-
ment in Watergate?
Mr. Sloan. He indicated to me that he had absolutely no involve-
ment in Watergate. He knew about the Segretti matter and indicated,
you know, when the full story was told, that would be understandable.
We did not go into any great depth about this.
He admitted to me that he felt that some mistakes had been made in
the handling of the Watergate matter.
Senator Gurney. Was there any mention of the President other
than the one you have referred to by yourself?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure I even mentioned the President's name.
I think it was just a feeling that, being close to the President, I felt a
lot of information because of the peopl involved, I was getting black-
listed, essentially.
Senator Gurney. What did he say about Mr. Segretti? Did he
mention when he had learned about Segretti?
Mr. Sloan. It was a passing reference in response to my explaining
to him why I had done certain things. He just said, well, the Segretti
thing, when it comes out, will be understandable — he probably said
599
to the American people. He said, I personally know the story on that;
that will be defensible. He said, the Watergate, I do not know about.
He said, I have no knowledge.
Senator Gurnet. Have you had any conversations \vith Mr. Ehrlich-
man other than the one you have told about?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Gurnet. With Mr. Chapin other than the one you have
told us about?
Mr. Sloan. I attempted once, after he joined United Airlines, to
have lunch with him when he was lea\dng towTi, but he was unable to
arrange it.
Senator Gurney. Do you know anything at all about the coverup
of Watergate?
Mr. Sloan. Only what I have read in the newspapers, Senator.
Senator Gurney. You do not know an3^thing of j^our oami personal
knowledge?
Mr. Sloan. I would say the only comment I have even heard that
would be relevant was a comment by Secretary Stans to me when we
were in a legal conference sometime in, I guess it would be April of
this year, where we were asked by the attorneys — we were addressing
ourselves to certain litigation in certain civil matters — to leave the
room for a whDe and we were chatting informally. I think this after-
ward came out in the press. He said, well, I think we know now where
the $350,000 went, referring to the subsequent transfers, as I under-
stand it from news reports, of that money to Mr. LaRue.
Senator Gurney. You have mentioned the advice from Mr.
Magruder about perjury and also the fifth amendment ad^dce from
Mr. Dean. Did anybody else tr}- to give you am' advice on what
to say to the grand jury or this committee or anyone else about
Watergate?
Mr. Sloan. I do not believe so, Senator. I think that covers it.
Senator Gurney. There was one mention in one report about the
GAG investigation and their ha\dng difficulty in locating you. Could
you tell us about that, their investigation, a^ou know, in July and
August of the funds of the Committee To Re-Elect?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, with regard to the General Accounting Office,
I believe we have responded to every request they have ever made,
either in writing, in wrritten interrogatories. I had been traveling at
times. It e\adently has not been timely from their standpoint, but we
have made even,^ effort to be cooperative.
Senator Gurney. "WTienever they have gotten in touch, wdth you,
you have tried to cooperate fully?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, or my attorney, by transference of their requests
b}^ ^drtue of attorney or some other way, yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. We certainly appreciate your cooperation.
Senator Ervin. If there is no objection from anybody on the com-
mittee, the committee will stand in recess until tomorrow morning.
Mr. Sloan, you will be back in the morning?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
[Whereupon at 4:20 p.m., the committee recessed to reconvene at
10 a.m., Thursday, June 7, 1973.]
THURSDAY, JUNE 7, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington, D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chair-
man), presiding.
Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker,
Gurne}^ and Weicker.
Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred D.
Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief coun-
sel; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant; David
M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief
counsels; Barry Schochet, Phillip Haire, and Marc Lackritz, assistant
majority counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel; Donald G.
Sanders, deputy minority counsel; Howard S. Liebengood, H. William
Shure, and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels; Pauline O.
Dement, research assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye ;
Robert Baca, office of Senator Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to
Senator Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator Weicker; John
M. Walz, publications clerk.
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
The New York Times and the Washington Post carried news dis-
patches indicating that papers identified as the so-called "Dean
Papers" have been released in some manner to the New York Times
and published in part in the New York Times.
When Judge Sirica ordered a copy of these — I do not know whether
they are the same papers but indications are that they are — ordered
copies of the papers which Mr. Dean allegedly carried from the White
House and placed in the safety deposit box and later surrendered to
Judge Sirica and furnished to this committee. I have a very wise man
for a vice chairman of this committee. In spite of his youthful appear-
ance, he has wisdom of the ages and he suggested to me when the
papers were received that we deposit them in a secure place under
the most watchful security officer, and I am happy to report that an
investigation made this morning indicates that any release that may
have been made to the press of any papers of this nature did not
come from tliis committee. These papers were deposited under the
understanding they would be kept secure, that no one would have
access to them except the Senators who constitute members of this
committee, and that no member of this committee would make any
notes in respect to those papers. So I am glad to be able to report
that however the New York Times may have gotten copies of any
papers of that nature, that they had not come from this committee
or from copies of the copy deposited with this committee under order
of Judge Sirica,
(601)
602
I would be glad to have my wise colleague make a statement on
this point.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Whatever
wisdom I have in that respect I learned from you.
But anyway, I think it might be of some interest to know how we
provided for the security of these documents.
Judge Sirica ordered a certified copy delivered to us provided that
the documents would be delivered to the chairman and vice chairman
for disposition as they directed. Senator Ervin and I, in accommoda-
tion of that suggestion by Judge Sirica, conferred on how best to pro-
vide for the security of documents that are considered classified at a
very high level.
I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy. The
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy has the highest security custodial
facilities. The committee permitted us then to provide for separate
storage of those documents in a separate safe under the direction of the
security officer of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, in a secure
area protected 24 hours a day by guards, protected by automatic
detection systems, protected by other devices that, I believe, virtually
guarantee that there would not be intrusion into that area. No one
has seen those documents except the members of this committee plus
the chief counsel and the minority counsel. No one has taken those
documents out of the secure area. Those documents are still in a
secure area.
It is a matter of some pride the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
since its instigation, since its beginning, has never had a security
leak and I am sure this does not constitute an exception to the rule.
Senator Ervin. Any other member of the committee desire to make
any statement before we resume the questioning of the witness?
Senator Inouye will resume the questioning of the witness.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sloan, I gathered from the testimony yesterday you have been
involved in raising funds, political funds since 1965; is that correct?
TESTIMONY OF HUGH W. SLOAN, JR.— Resumed
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Inouye. I would gather that this would qualify you as an
expert in political fundraising.
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure anybody really becomes an expert in this
area. Senator.
Senator Inouye. I gather also from the testimony yesterday that
you were a member of the budget committee.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Inouye. Who were the other members of this committee?
Mr. Sloan. To my best recollection it was Mr. John Mitchell,
Mr. Maurice Stans, myself, Mr. Lee Nunn, vice chairman of the
financial committee, Mr. Jeb Magruder and Mr. Fred Malek. Mr.
Robert Odle participated in those meetings in the form of keeping the
notes of changes and so forth as we proceeded through budget reviews.
He would take that information, recollate it and revise it and provide
the working papers for any subsequent meeting.
Senator Inouye. Would you call this a high echelon policy com-
mittee?
603
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. Now, did this committee decide upon how funds
were to be spent?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, it really had a dual function, which is the
reason for the joint representation essentially, of the political members
and the finance members.
The finance input essentially into budget committee meetings would
be to indicate at any particular point in time what our best estimates
might be of what we realistically felt we could raise in terms of funds
for the total effort.
We also had responsibility in providing a detailed budget for our
own operating overhead for the finance committee as one of the items
considered in these meetings.
The political committee essentially working with the guidelines
we gave them, for instance, if you aie talking about a $40 million
campaign, each of the various differentials would begin the process by
indicating the tasks they wanted to accomplish and how much they
thought it would cost. The process within these meetings would be to
review these in total and totals might come in at $60 million and
subsequent discussions would generally be along the line: where did
you cut, where do we establish cur priorities, how do we get all of the
individual departments and divisions so they fall within the ceiling
set by the finance committee in terms of total dollars expected to be
raised.
We subsequently were in the process which we had not completed
at the time I left of setting up a monitoring function where we would
report back to the various divisions on essentially a monthly basis as
to how they were doing versus the funds they were allowed within
their budgets.
Senator Inouye. So in your budget committee discussions you
discussed the purposes for which these funds were to be used?
Mr. Sloan. In broad categories. There would be, for instance, in
considering the advertising budget, the members of that department
would come in, essentially make a presentation and say our judgment
is we should allocate 60 percent of this money for television, 10 percent
for radio, and so forth. But generally, to these kinds of dimensions
there would often be discussion of whether that is the proper alloca-
tion in terms of percentages and so forth.
Senator Inouye. Would the disbursement of $1 million qualify
for discussion in these meetings?
Mr. Sloan. I believe it should have. I never heard any of these
funds listed here ever discussed in any budget.
Senator Inouye. Did you ever discuss clandestine activities?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; 1 never heard any such discussion.
Senator Inouye. Was it the practice of your budget committee
to dispense $300,000 or a $1.7 million without your knowing what
the purpose was to be?
Mr. Sloan. As I indicated. Senator, these funds and the authority
that was set up to disburse them was never a subject of any budget
committee meeting in which I sat. I did not sit in all of them.
Senator Inouye. You just took it on face value that it was to be
spent for legal purposes.
Mr. Sloan. Absolutely.
Senator Inouye. Never got suspicious?
Mr. Sloan. Not at the time I was doing it. Certainly, following
June 17, yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. Did your office, the White House and Internal
Revenue Service ever get together to discuss how the laws of the
United States, the tax laws of the United States would be skirted
to raise funds such as, for example, avoiding payment of capital
gains taxes?
Mr. Sloan. There were discussions, I am not sure quite the context
you presented, Senator. Opinions on the subject of capital gains
liability were sought from various legal sources independent as well
as, I believe there were opinions probably from counsel in the White
House at early stages since we did not have a full-time counsel
ourselves.
With regard to the other matters, for instance, the gift tax liability
to donors, I believe both our Party as well as the Democratic Party
were urging, I believe, cooperatively an attempt to reverse the decision
to get some kind of a decision that would do away from the necessity
of these multiple committees which are real headaches and nightmares
for people involved in the mechanical end of fundraising.
Senator Inouye. I have here a draft letter prepared by Mr. Thomas
Pike, cochairman of the California Committee To Re-Elect the Presi-
dent. It is a draft letter which is addressed to you, sir. It is a form
letter that one would fill out when he wishes to contribute stocks and
securities.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. Did you receive an}^ stocks and securities?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; we received a very large proportion, particularly
in the pre-April 7 period, of our receipts in the form of securities.
Senator Inouye. What was the scheme, sir?
Mr. Sloan. Excuse me, sir?
Senator Inouye. What was the scheme involved?
Mr. Sloan. The scheme, sir?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Mr. Sloan. I do not believe there was any scheme. I think in terms
of fundraising, anything that is of value essentially can be accepted
into a campaign. Securities, as far as I know, certainly not in the
magnitude or quantity that existed normall}^ in a Presidential cam-
paign, have been handled by finance committees regularl3^ For
instance, when I was with the Kepublican National Committee, there
would be contributions in the form of securities.
Senator Inouye. What was the magnitude of the funds received
through this means?
Mr. Sloan. I would be guessing, but I would say probably a third,
maybe more.
Senator Inouye. Twenty million dollars worth?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, that would be — I am not familiar with the
receipts following June. The period I am really familiar with is the
$20 milHon we raised essentially from March of 1971 through the
April 7 period. I would say a third of that figure probably would have
been in securities.
Senator Inouye. Was this a scheme where one business stocks,
say, 10 years ago at $10, and the value is now $50 and you get it for
$50 and the donor does not have to pay any tax on it?
606
Mr. Sloan. I do not believe it is a scheme, Senator.
Senator Inouye. Other Americans have to pay taxes, don't thej^?
Mr. Sloan. Well, I am not a tax expert. The legal opinion we had
under which I was operating essentially said that this turning the
securities over, in other words not cashing the securities — if the indi-
vidual had cashed the securities himself, he obviously had a capital
Grains liability. But in making the gift in the form of securities, that
liability did not go back to the donor. The legal opinion as to the
status of the committee which I understood we were operating under,
and there were — I believe there are legal opinions in the files of the
committee supporting this — was that the committee essentiall}^ is a
nonprofit organization in the sense that it is not a moneymaking
business and at the conclusion of the campaign, all its assets essentially
are liquidated.
Senator Inouye. I have with me a cop}^ of a GAO report dated
May 20, and in this report, you have listed several disbursements.
However, I notice that the cash disbursement which is noted on this
board to Mr. Lankier is not listed in the GAO report. Would you tell
the committee why you did not advise the GAO as to the $50,000 cash
disbursement to Mr. Lankier?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, at the time I was giving the information con-
tained in that report, I did not recall that particular transaction or, I
believe, a number of other ones. This has been an attempt over a
period of time with the General Accounting Office, from memory, to
try to reconstruct what in fact has happened. The Lankier transaction
and one or two others were brought to my attention, to my attorney's
attention, through another gentleman's attorney.
Senator Inouye. What was the purpose of this disbursement?
Mr. Sloan. Excuse me?
Senator Inouye. What was the purpose of this cash disbursement to
Mr. Lankier?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Lankier?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Mr. Sloan. As I understand it — I am not totally clear, as I was not
present in the earlier periods. But my understanding of the situation
that led to that distribution to Mr. Lankier was that in the setting up
of our fundraising operations, that I believe Secretary Stans had
made an arrangement with the fundraisers in Maryland who were
working in behalf of the President that all the funds they raised in a
certain period would be turned in to the national headquarters. In
other words, they would not hold out funds for their own operation.
As I understand it, in return for this, there was an understanding that
when they had a major undertaking such as the, I believe it was an
Agnew dinner in tliis case, that they would get seed money back from
us on a loan basis to run their dinner and that this would be reim-
bursed to us out of the receipts of the dinner.
Senator Inouye. I gather from yesterday's testimony that as
treasurer of this committee, you had listed on one sheet of paper all of
the cash disbursements that you had made.
Mr. Sloa.n. Senator, that listing of cash funds, that does not repre-
sent a listing of a committee. Those funds were funds of multiple com-
mittees. This was merely an internal control over funds that were kept
in a physically secure place, namely, a safe.
606
Senator Inouye. How did you list these cash disbursements, or did
you record them at all?
Mr. Sloan. I listed them on the same list of paper — excuse me, by
name of the individual to whom the distribution had been made.
Senator Inouye. And you testified that you destroyed this sheet.
When did you destroy it?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, I testified that I destroyed a working book which
I had maintained for my own use in maintaining the security of these
funds, only with the clear understanding that the final report made
from that book, in turning it over to Secretary Stans, would remain
as a permanent record of those transactions.
Senator Inouye. You have used the phrase — maintained the secu-
rity of these funds. Were you afraid that these funds may be incrimi-
nating?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, my concern was — I obviously had a responsi-
bility to keep track of who they were from and who they went out
to, merely a record of that, and also a verification of any time someone
wanted — if Secretary Stans, for instance, wanted to say, OK, let us
go count the cash on hand, I want you to be able to substantiate to
me that that is all the cash that is supposed to be there. In other
words, it was a guarantee, a written record of all transactions.
Senator Inouye. If Citizen A contributed $1,000 to your committee
by check, you would list that, would you not?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. By name and address?
Mr. Sloan. Not in the pre-April 7 period, Senator; only under the
requirements of the new law.
Well, we would if we had it, yes, sir. I mean, for internal purposes,
we would attempt to have the names and addresses of all these persons.
Senator Inouye. Did you list the cash contributions by name and
address?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, not on this report we are talking about here,
but all the cash contributors were merged into a composite list of
contributors and their addresses were listed on that report. In other
words, there was a single record at the end of the pre-April 7 period,
that listed all contributors to the cami:»aign, including those that
gave securities, by check, and by cash. There was a total record listing
names and addresses of all our major contributors in that period.
Senator Inouye. April 7 is an important date. I notice from the
GAO report that after that, j^ou had received $50,000 from an anony-
mous source which, for some reason, you preferred not to report as
required by law. Could you tell us why?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, in the receipt of that money, I did not have
the information on the basis to which I could make any report. At
the time I left the committee, I had not made the effort to get that
information. I quite frankly was too busy. It was one of the items —
there were four others— three others — that I pomted out to officials
of the campaign at the time I left were items that needed to be re-
solved. The}' either had to be returned because indications had
been made that the donors wished to remain anonymous and I did
not know how to do that, or else we had to get the information — for
instance, a $50,000 contribution, to protect the individual on a gift
tax liability, would have to be distributed among a number of com-
mittees. We did not know the wishes of the donor in that regard. I
607
did not know the name of the donor. I had no way of dealmg with
that, in a sense I was holding it in escrow until I had that information.
Senator Ixouye. And what moved aou to report this, or did you
report this?
Mr. Sloan. Excuse me you mean on a final report or a report to
the
Senator Inouye. Yes, sir.
Mr. Sloan. Senator, at the time I left, this matter was unresolved.
I made no report — excuse me, Senator. I internally made reports of
this to officials who I presumed were carrj^ing on these responsibilities
after my departure.
Senator Inouye. When did you leave the committee?
Mr. Sloan. July 14, 1972.
Senator Inouye. And after that were you emplo3'ed?
Mr. Sloan. Not for a period of 5 months. Senator.
Senator Inouye. And then were did you work?
Mr. Sloan. I worked for a period from January to March as a
consultant at the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President.
Senator Inouye. It is your testimon}^ to this committee that
during the period you served as treasurer of this Committee To
Re-Elect the President, and during which time you were responsible
for the cash disbursements of amounts totaling about $1 million,
you did not at any time have a twinge of suspicion as to the use of
these funds.
Mr. Sloan. I think anj'-body has a normal curiosity, Senator,
but these procedures had been going on for nearh^ a period of a year
and a half, in manj^ cases it had been indicated it became an operating
procedure. I was quite frankly too bus}^ after a certain period of
time to pursue curiosity.
Senator Inouye. Did these people ever account to you as to whether
the funds were used or not?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, they did not.
Senator Inouye. I think the Internal Revenue Service would like
to know if the funds were spent otherwise it would be income, would
it not?
Mr. Sloan. I would imagine that is correct, Senator. I considered
it from the committee standpoint, the point it left my hands, I don't
mean a single committee, but the funds of pre-April 7 committees,
that was in fact a final distribution from our standpoint as far as my
responsibility to account for it.
Senator Inouye. You indicated that 3'ou authorized and forwarded
the sum of $350,000 in cash to Mr. Haldeman.
Mr. Sloan. I do not know whether he received it. M}^ instructions
on that distribution came through Mr. Kalmbach. I understood from
conversations with Mr. Kalmbach, he had had conversations with Mr.
Bob Haldeman about this matter.
Senator Inouye. Did Mr. Kahnbach tell you how the funds were
used?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, he did not.
Senator Inouye. Did you ever suspect that it might have gone into
one's own pocket?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. As treasurer you were never curious as to how the
funds were used?
608
Mr. Sloan. As I think I have indicated, Senator, these were funds
authorized by higher authority, men who I worked with for periods of
5 or 6 years. They are men I have great trust in, I had no reason to
be suspicious at that time of the motivations of any of these
individuals.
Senator Inouye. Now, as the events unfold, how do you feel, sir?
Mr. Sloan. Quite frankly. Senator
Senator Inouye. Were you surprised?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. Everyday I continue to be surprised.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. Mr. Sloan, I would hke to, if you could go back
to your meeting with Mr. Haldeman in the White House on January
of this year.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Now, first of all, exactly when was the date of
this meeting?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, I am not sure of the precise date. My best
recollection from memory would be toward the end of January per-
haps early February.
Senator Weicker. And am I correct in stating you indicated the
meeting lasted about 45 minutes?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. Well, my first question would by why, why the
meeting, why did you request the meeting or did you request the
meeting?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator Weicker. Wliy?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, the reason I requested the meeting, and I
think the period of time in question is important, the criminal trial
was over, I think some of the information on Mr. Segretti had come
out, but generally it was in a lull period where in my judgment the
decisions had been made, essentially the matter had been gotten away
with, that it stopped with, the conviction of the seven men. I was at
the point in time where I was actively seeking private employment.
Mr. Haldeman had essentially asked me to undertake this task. The
continuing on of the political leadership in the campaign in opposition
to the views I held, the fact that presumably these same men were
the source of any information that Mr. Haldeman had, I felt it was
in my interest, particularly in terms of seeking private employment,
to be sure that there was not an active effort on the part of the admin-
istration because of misinformation of the reasons I had done what I
had done, that there would be any active efforts to make things dif-
ficult for me in terms of seeking private emplo}anent. I sought him
out. I had a very cordial meeting mth him, spent about 45 minutes.
I told him without naming names, because I thought it was a dead
issue, but I told him essentiall}^ that I wanted to make very clear to
him why I had done what I had done, and I said I also want you to
know that I still feel total loyalty to the President of the United
States. I have worked for him over this period of time and my ^^^fe
has for a long period of time, because we believe in what he is doing,
and I want you to know that I feel that I did not leave the team, as
far as I am concerned the team left me. And I said I cannot under-
609
stand the continuing support of indi\aduals who in my judgment it
is prett}" obvious are involved in this situation.
I think he interpreted part of the purpose of my meeting was
essentiall}^ to feel out the possibility of employment in the Govern-
ment. This was not m}' purpose. I had long ago made the decision
that is not what I wanted to do. However, it did produce the discussion
on his part, a statement that the policy of the administration was
that no individual who had become a "Watergate" figure or promi-
nently mentioned in the newspapers would be placed in high Govern-
ment office until the issue was totally resolved, and I said I totally
understand that policy, I couldn't agree wdth you more, and he said
in terms of your age I agree with, your decision, this is the right time
to go out in the private sector if a^ou want to make a career there.
However, if at a later date, if this matter is totally resolved, if you
want to be considered for high position in Government I mil be glad
to sponsor you.
Generall}'-, I think this was the tone and nature of this discussion.
Senator Weicker. Now, did that meeting have anything to do with
your being rehired by the Committee To Re-Elect the President as a
consultant?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; I made that decision prior to that. This would be
probably about the midpoint during that consultancy. I went to the
committee in early January, probably I think January 3.
Senator Weicker. In other words, when you went to see Mr.
Haldeman in January, you already had been rehired?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, that is correct.
Senator Weicker. As a consultant to the Committee To Re-Elect
the President?
Mr. Sloan. Finance committee. The political committee, as I
understood it, had essentially been dissolved, although that turned out
not to be the case.
Senator Weicker. Who rehired you as consultant or how did the
rehiring as consultant to the finance committee come about?
Mr. Sloan. During the period after my resignation, I would guess
two occasions. Secretary Stans sought me out seeking my return to
the campaign.
Senator Weicker, That was at what time?
Mr. Sloan. 1 am not sure it would have been, I am just not sure,
some point during this 5-month period following my resignation in
July.
Senator Weicker. All right.
Mr. Sloan. I in no way wished to consider it. I turned him down.
After 5 months with the election over, he asked me again. Essentially
it was in the terms of you have taken essentially a bum rap on this
thing and I know it's been difficult for you, 5 months without gainful
employment, I would like you to come back and help me wrap up the
campaign.
I consented because certain conditions which would have made it
objectionable to me and why I would refuse such an offer prior to that
time were met. One, I did not feel if I had this kind of opportunity at
this particular point in time with no prejudice being attached to that
association, that I in good conscience could go on and not provide for
my family. The conditions that no longer existed as far as I was con-
610
cemed was that the campaign was over, there was no Habihty or spin-
off effect on the President's chance for reelection by ha\'ing someone
who had been named as someone involved in this affair being asso-
ciated with his campaign, the political leadership who were essentially
the people that 1 had my argument with on the Committee for the
Re-Election of the President were no longer there, they had been
essentially disbanded either by resignation or by employment in the
private sector or had gone over to the Inaugural Committee. Also
none of the assignments I would have, it was understood, would have
anything to do in the capacity of an official, it would be purely a
personal working relationship with Maury Stans, assist him in
preparing to cope with some of the civil Utigation that would be
forthcoming.
Senator Weicker. So your employment as a consultant was strictly
as a result of Mr. Stans' request?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, in my considered judgment.
Senator Weicker. In your judgment?
Mr. Sloan. At that time I think it should be clear I had already
made my testimony to the grand jury although the criminal trial had
not come up, but one of the important considerations I took into
account in accepting such a position would be that there could be no
possible misunderstanding in terms of that having any effect on any
subsequent testimony I would give.
Senator Weicker. And no other individual was involved insofar as
that rehiring was concerned, it was begun by Mr. Stans, or were other
persons consulted?
Mr. Sloan. It is possible that Mr. Kalmbach may have been in-
volved in the decision.
Senator Weicker. Why do you say that?
Mr. Sloan. Mr. Kalmbach had attempted to be helpful to me
during this period in seeking private employment. He had indicated
on a number of occasions he thought I made a mistake in resigning
in the first place. He was in frequent contact with Secretary Stans. I
suspect they had conversations to the effect that my personal situa-
tion was a result of what had happened.
Additionally, I would say part of the considered judgment to rejoin
the finance committee is that I did not and do not believe that Sec-
retary Stans in any way was involved in the original criminal activi-
ties. I thought he was left essentially holding the bag and I wanted
to be helpful to him in that regard.
Senator Weicker. Right.
It is true, however, that during the summer months and the fall
months that you did feel rather put upon, maybe that is not the
right word, maybe you have a better word for it, insofar as those
individuals that were in charge of the campaign. You feel you were
being treated in a shabby fashion by them.
Mr. Sloan. I would have to say after I made my decision with the
exception of a few of the phone calls we have referred to here, that
it was pretty much a hands-off situation, I just did not see any of
the people.
Senator Weicker. You were not one of the favorite at all?
Mr. Sloan. I think that would be fairly accurate, yes sir.
011
Senator Weicker. But what caused you to change your mind, then,
and at the end of January, having been treated in that fashion, go
and ask for an appointment with Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, essentially, one, I did not believe the White
House had any involvement by the known fact at that point. I also
did not believe the finance committee had any involvement. I dis-
agreed with Secretary Stans and we had some discussions early on
of this affair, along the lines that the finance committee, because of
the very obvious potential for misunderstandmg in terms of financial
transactions that presumably had gone to these individuals, that the
finance committee early on should have made a separate statement
and attempted to separate itself away from the political committee
in terms of its owti conduct so that the financial transactions could
be judged purely in terms of what they were. I had no knowledge
that Secretary Stans knew what these funds were for. As far as I
know, he accepted authorization of others as well.
These two areas, in my opinion, were unconnected. I think there
had been an error in judgment in not addressing the political problem
and forcing resolution there.
Senator Weicker. I can understand that, but I just want to get
back to the point I am tr^dng to develop, that at the time of your
troubles, there were those who stood with you and those who stood
apart from you.
Mr. Sloan. And there were quite a few in the middle.
Senator Weicker. All right.
Mr. Sloan. And I think. Senator, this may help answer your
question. It was very difficult in each and every individual case to
determine where those individuals stood, because people just were not
talking to each other about the pertinent issues at this point.
Senator Weicker. But you did know that you were one of the few
people that were insisting on telling the truth and you would not
de\aate from that; is that not correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; but at that point in time, all the forums that
were potentially on the horizon for doing that had disappeared. I
had done what I thought was right. No resolution of the matter had
been raised on the basis of what I had said, because basically, I had
very limited knowledge, only of the fact that from a factual basis,
all I could ever say was that I gave certain individuals certain money.
In the case of Mr. Magruder, it was a case of, jes, I knew I had been
approached to do that, but in case of testimony, where he gives a
contrary testimony, I can full well, certainly in that period of time,
fully understand the prosecutor's position, unless they had additional
information, which I had no way of knowing, where he simply could
not proceed with that, where they had one man's word against
another's. I felt there was nothing I could do, nothing more was going
to come out, it was all over, I had essentially lost.
Senator Weicker. Why did you try to have lunch with Mr.
Chapin?
Mr. Sloan. You are not talking about the earlier meeting, you are
talking about the luncheon when I called him when he had gone to
United Airlines?
Senator Weicker. Right.
96-296 (bk.2) O - 73 - 11
612
Mr. Sloan. I think it was essentially, sir, the same kind of situation
that it was with Bob Haldeman. Here was a man I had worked with
for 2}^ years. I had not seen anything of him since the one time I had
seen him in that whole period of time. I was about to leave town, he
was about to leave town. I had seen a number of people at the White
House over this intervening period. I think it was purely social.
Senator Weicker. Was there any concern in your mind that there
were those in this picture who seemed to be ending up with rather
good jobs, both within and without Government, while you seemed
to have been left standing by yourself?
Mr. Sloan. Well, in going back to the Haldeman meeting and his
very definitive definition to me of administration policy with regard to
individuals who would not be appointed to positions in Government —
now, I do not know whether he meant positions that actually required
Presidential confirmation — or Senate confirmation, excuse me — but I
think it was only a few days after that, after that meeting with Bob
Haldeman, which I felt very good about, because he had indicated to
me, you know, I realize some mistakes were made, there is nothing
being held against you, good luck in the private sector. But within, I
think, a very short period of time after that, Mr. Magruder's appoint-
ment to the Commerce Department was announced and at that point,
I just threw up my hands.
In answer to 3'our question, yes, sir; it was obvious to me that not
only did they not address the problem of people, I think they had,
fairly strong indications were involved — I perhaps can understand the
intent to postpone it until after the political election, but there was
certainly no attempt, even at that point, to take these people out of
the picture.
Senator Weicker. In other words, that possibly, integrity is a
disability in this matter?
Mr. Sloan. The way it is ultimately believed to be resolved, I
would not think that it is a liability. I think it takes a long time.
Senator Weicker. Let me get back, if I could, to the meeting with
Mr. Haldeman. You indicated there was some talk about the Segretti
matter and he explained that this would turn out all right.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; he said when this received the full light of
day — I am not sure of his precise words or phrasing — that it would
be understandable to the American people.
Senator Weicker. Now, what else was discussed; 45 minutes is a
considerable period of time. The Strachan paj^ments, which you
surmised went to Mr. Haldeman, was this a matter of discussion
during that session?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; no subject matter with regard to the finance
campaign activities came up at all. It was not my purpose to be
there to discuss any of that matter.
Senator Weicker. In other words, neither the payments to Liddy
not to Strachan, none of these matters were discussed at all during
that 45 minutes?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. Only that discussion was really a minor- — not on
those matters, on really very broad matters that I referred to a
minute ago, in explaining that the team had left me, in that type of
context. I mentioned that I had been approached to perjure myself
and take the fifth amendment, but I did not feel it was appropriate
613
to make specific allegations as to individuals. I felt that that had
alread}" been addressed in the judicial processes and the point was
moot.
Senator Weicker. Did j^ou feel that the basic purpose of the meet-
ing, then, was that you would need the support of the administration
in finding employment in the future?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; I think I was looking at it more from the other
side of the coin, that I wanted to be sure that there would not be
active efforts to inhibit my own efforts.
Senator Weicker. The fear of
Mr. Sloan. Retribution.
Senator Weicker [continuing]. Of retribution.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. One last ciuestion, Mr. Sloan. You have been
very patient and very responsive also.
How were the paj'ments to Mr. Liddy made? In what form? You
have indicated, for example, in Mr. Strachan's case that it was put
in a suitcase. What was the nature and form of payment to Mr.
Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. In ^aew of the fact that he was physically located in
the same suite of offices I was, he would generally just tell me he
needed x number of dollars and generalh^ I would go get it and put
it in a manila envelope, something of this sort. I think on one occasion,
I was going to be out of town at a time he needed to pick up certain
funds. I think on that occasion, he had his secretar}', Sally Harmony,
come in and get the envelope.
Senator Weicker. You sa}^ that Sally Harmony picked up the
money from you?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; on one occasion, I believe that was correct.
Senator Weicker. On one occasion?
Mr. Sloan. In an envelope. She — and I had forgotten this, but other
testimony has brought it to mind. 1 think the circumstances were
that he must have been out of town and called me and said, 1 need
whatever the amount was; the only time 1 could pick it up is I am
coming in on Sunday or something. He said, what I will do is I will
tell Salh' to come into your office with an envelope and you take care of
the matter and I do not want hei to know what it is and she will
put it in m}' — he had a locked file drawer cabinet in his office — and
she knows the combination, she will put it in there.
Senator Weicker. So you turned over an envelope to her?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; she did not see it.
Senator Weicker. She did not see the money, but you gave her the
envelope?
Mr. Sloan. Yes.
Senator Weicker. She understood this was money in the envelope?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; she did not.
Senator Weicker. She did not?
Mi. Sloan. As 1 recall it, and I am not positive, Mr. Liddy stressed
the fact that he did net want hei to know that this was money.
Senator Weicker. Fine. One last question in relation to, again, the
Haldeman meeting. Was there any discussion at all at that meeting of
Mr. Magruder's perjury suggestion?
614
Mr. Sloan. I did not mention it by name, but in relating to why
I had left — 1 was trying to give him an accounting of why 1 had
made the personal decisions I had. I said I have been asked to perjure
myself on numerous occasions and in my judgment, there was pres-
sure to take the fifth amendment, and 1 said, Bob, I am just not
prepared to do that.
Senator Weicker. What was his response?
Mr. Sloan. I am not positive. 1 think I would be putting words
m his mouth, but 1 think it was to the effect that, well, 1 realize
there were mistakes made in the early period.
Senator Weicker. I have no further questions.
Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Sloan, I believe you testified yesterday
that in arriving at the figures represented by this chart with respect
to reimbursement of different individuals, that you had gone to these
individuals personally and reconciled the memories, and both you and
the individuals had arrived at this figure as a reconciUation. Is that
correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. Probably not in every individual case — for
instance, Mr. Nofziger, where there was only a single or just a double
distribution and the person is not available. This would generally
relate to, for instance, the Porter, the Liddy, Magruder, Kalmbach
situations, where there were multiple distributions, where over a
period of time, some discrepancies could happen.
Senator Montoya. Now, I ask you, was the figure of $250,000 to
Mr. Kalmbach reconciled with him?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, these figures here are to the best of my recol-
lection. I realize they are not precise. There could be dollars and cents
Senator Montoya. Could there be any material deviation or
variation?
Mr. Sloan. Oh, no, sir; in terms of what the precise figure was, we
did agree in every case. There was no discrepancy with any individual
1 talked to.
Senator Montoya. Could your figures with Mr, Porter differ in an
amount close to $50,000? Would that be possible?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, again, after a year, it is possible. This is my
best recollection of what the figure was. The Liddy matter, I think, for
instance, I am far surer of that figure than Mr. Porter's because Mr.
Liddy was the issue at the time.
Senator Montoya. To the best of your recollection and after re-
conciliation with Mr. Porter, do you still state that you disbursed to
him the sum of $100,000?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, that is my best recollection. If he has a differ-
ent recollection, I would not — you know, I would not stand on the
hard figure of $100,000. That is the best approximation of what I
recall I gave.
Senator Montoya. Were you familiar with the activities of Mr.
Porter?
Mr. Sloan. In terms of what he did with his money?
Senator Montoya. Yes.
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Are you now?
Mr. Sloan. I have read some stories in the press, yes, sir.
615
Senator Montoya. What information can you give this committee
from those reports and from what you have gathered since you left
the committee?
Mr. Sloan. I beUeve it came out at the criminal trial, that of the
funds 1 had given to Mr. Porter, he evidently, in turn, had turned
over $35,000 of those funds to Mr. Liddy, which produced the aggre-
gate figure that was used in the trial, the funds that were made avail-
able to Mr. Liddy.
Senator Montoya. Did j'ou also ascertain that some of this money
was used for the "dirty tricks" part of the campaign?
Mr. Sloan. There was a story about a student named Mr. Brill.
There is a convoluted chain of custody here, 1 believe, from Mr. Porter
to Mr. Rees to Mr. Gordon to Mr. Brill for — 1 am not sure "spying"
is the right word, but whatever those activities were.
Senator Montoya. Are you aware of any other extended activities
besides those two instances in this particular categor}^?
Mr. Sloan. I think those are the only two that I am aware of,
Senator.
Senator Montoya. You stated that a report on finances was given
to Mr. Stans on one or two occasions, did you not?
Mr. Sloan. In terms of these cash funds, yes, sir; there were two
or three reports in that period from February 15, when he came on
board, until my final report which I gave on June 23.
Senator Montoya. And did you not state the purpose of those dis-
bursements as told b}" those individuals, if they told you?
Mr. Sloan. I have never been told directly by any of these indi-
viduals. Senator.
Senator Montoya. I believe you questioned some disbursements to
Mr. Porter and Mr. Liddy at one time and took this matter up with
Mr. Stans; did you not?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator Montoya. And you also took this matter up with Mr.
Magruder, is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. And Mr. Magruder told you in turn that you
were not to question the request at all, but to make the disbursements
as they were requested of you, is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. And did you file or prepare any internal reports
as to what you were doing with this money?
Mr. Sloan. Just these reports I gave Secretary Stans. They were
the only reports and he was the onl}^ recipient of those reports.
Senator Montoya. Did you provide any copy of any reports to the
White House?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir — oh, excuse me, not of these cash funds, no,
sir; not to my knowledge.
Senator Montoya. Well, any other reports?
Mr. Sloan. As I understand it, and I think this happened after I
left in terms of the aggregate report of all contributors, we put together
a reconciliation of the pre-April 7 period by category; for instance,
all contributors who gave above $200,000 might be category 1,
above $100,000 category 2, and so forth.
616
Senator Montoya. Would you further categorize category 1 and
category 2? What particular information did you really specify by
way of more definition?
Mr. Sloan. Well, these reports merely list the name of the person,
the address, and the total amount, I mean the aggregate figure of
what they had given in multiple — it would include all cash, currency,
and securities.
vSenator Montoya. Do I vmderstand you to say these reports
reflected the disbursement prior to April 7 to Mr. Liddy, Mr. Porter,
and to the others?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; excuse me, Senator, these are contributors'
reports, not disbursements reports. I misunderstood you. I apologize.
The report I am referring to is a listing of all contributors without
the dollar amount by category I believe was made available to the
White House. Disbursements, I do not believe any reports were given
to the White House.
Senator Montoya. Who received a report on the disbursements
besides Mr. Stans?
Mr. Sloan. As far as in terms of the cash funds he is the only
individual I ever gave that report to.
Senator Montoya. You never gave any of these reports to Mr.
Mitchell or Mr. Magruder.
Mr. Sloan. No, sir.
Senator Montoya. Do you know whether or not Mr. Stans gave
them?
Mr. Sloan. I do not of my personal knowledge.
Senator Montoya. Did you ever talk to Mr. Magruder, Mr.
Mitchell or to anyone else, other than Mr. Stans, and verbally tell
them how you were disbursing this cash?
Mr. Sloan. Well, there were, as the authority for this distribution
of funds evolved, there were obviously conversations with these
individuals. Certainly Mr. Magruder had a working knowledge of who
was receiving a number of these distributions. For instance, he was
responsible for the one he received, the Liddy one, the Porter one,
probably did not know about the one to Mr. Strachan, Mr. Kalmbach
separate. I would say those are the ones he was familiar with.
Senator Montoya. Well, in view of your later understanding and
instruction, doesn't it stand to reason that Mr. Mitchell was consulted
on these expenditures by Mr. Magruder? Doesn't it stand to reason
that he knew of the disbursements to Mr. Liddy and to Mr. Porter?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, you know I would be making an assumption,
obviously, with you. I think in an original sense it is inconceivable
to me he would not be in a general sense, if his aides were doing their
proper job, aware of this kind of situation. Certainly Mr. Stans
indicated to me on two occasions that was the source of his confirma-
tion, I should continue on making distributions. So Mr. Mitchell had
some knowledge; yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. So far as you knew Mr, Mitchell was aware
of these disbursements from that indication?
Mr, Sloan. He was aware of some of them. Whether he had any
knowledge as to the total figure, whether the Secretary gave him a
rundown at any particular time, I do not know from personal
knowledge.
617
Senator Montoya. Did you know at the time for what purposes
Mr. Liddy was going to use this money?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir; I did not.
Senator Montoya. Have you since then ascertained for what pur-
pose he did use this monej^?
Mr. Sloan. I understand from the conviction in the Watergate trial
that certain!}' a certain element of this money was used in support of
that particular operation.
Senator Montoya. In support of clandestine activities?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. And j'ou stated and the chart reflects that you
disbursed $199,000 to Mr. '^Liddy. Then later he received the checks
which came in from Mexico and that they were taken to Miami and
that this totaled $114,000. Is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. But I did receive that money back.
Senator Montoya. How much of it did you receive back?
Mr. Sloan. Approximately $112,000. There was a discrepancy of
about $2,500.
Senator Montoya. Now, was it your understanding that Mr.
Mitchell and Mr. Magruder approved all of the reimbursements before
and after April 7?
Mr. Sloan. Reimbursements, Senator?
Senator Montoya. Disbursements rather.
Was it your understanding that Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Magruder,
approved of all disbursements made by you before April 7?
^Ir. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. What was the carryover amount from the 1968
campaign?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure of the figure, Senator. I may be carrying
one in another. But I can give you dimensions of it. I think the total
amount of the 1968 funds that were turned over to me pre-April 7,
probably amounted to about $580,000. Most of this was out of a
bank account from which checks were written directly into existing
committees. I think there were approximately $230,000 in cash.
Whether that is part of the $580,000 or whether it is separate from
that I am not sure from my own memory, but this is money Mr.
Francis Raine brought in in behalf of Mr. Kalmbach from California
and that money would be a part of the total receipts in the cash area
as listed here.
Senator Montoya. To the best of your recollection, as you have
stated before, prior to April 7, 1973, you had received approximately
$20 million ; is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Before April 7, 1972; yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. I beheve you stated that those were hectic days
prior to April 7.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; they certainly were.
Senator Montoya. And that 3'ou were in constant turmoil trying to
meet the deadline and to get all of the cash in.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. And what was your pohcy with respect to
contributions which people called about and asked you to pick them
up?
618
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure I received the calls directly but what was
being done in the committee, we were using essentially'- any available
people we had who could travel for us at that time. For instance, Ken
Talmadge, who was administrative assistant to Secretary Stans made
a number of trips during this period to New York, for instance, to
visit contributors to pick up their contributions and so forth.
Senator Montoya. Was there any ceiling on pickup during those
last days?
Mr. Sloan. I would say I am not sure there was a dollar amount
and I may have been misunderstood in a previous deposition on this.
There was one case where we did not think it worth our while to pick
up a $100,000 contribution which happened to be the money in
Mexico, but generally there were certain sums, the man could not get
around to all of the places, he did it by priority, he took the largest
sums first. There were places where we couldn't pick up a $50,000
contribution.
Senator Montoya. Didn't you indicate to the committee through
your deposition or interview that in the last hectic days your limitation
of pickup was $100,000 or over?
Mr. Sloan. That may have been overstated, Senator. There was no
set amount. I think that came out of a citing and example of the fact
that in one case we made that decision with regard to a $100,000
contribution. I know of no policy that stipulated below a certain level.
Senator Montoya. You weren't picking up any $5,000 contribu-
tions during those hectic days?
Mr. Sloan, No, sir; they would have to come in by mail. [Laughter.]
Senator Montoya. You weren't picking up any $10,000 contribu-
tions during those hectic days when all of your manpower was being
used internally to collect big amounts, were you?
Mr. Sloan. It would depend on the area. For instance, if a man went
to New York and two men were working the same business office and
one of them had $10,000, it would be easy to pick up. I would say if
there was a question of choice or priority or disportionate amount of
time in going up to pick up a lesser amount, we would not do that.
Senator Montoya. How many men would you say you had during
the last few days on pickup missions?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure, probably two or three people, maybe
more than that, maybe as many as seven or eight moving around.
Senator Montoya. Did you have any pickup men in California?
Mr. Sloan. I am just not sure. Mr. Kalmbach, of course, was out
there, he was very active, he was in our headquarters during that
period of time. He would go back on weekends. He may very well
have brought money back in the general period of the last month.
Whether it was picked up the last day or two I am not sure.
Senator Montoya. Did you have a pickup division within the
finance committee?
Mr. Sloan. No; this was not a structured thing, it was a matter of
necessity in using whoever was available.
Senator Montoya. Now when a^ou went to Mr. Mitchell's office to
explain the situation and to tell him the FBI was downstairs waiting,
would 3^ou please be a little more specific as to who accompanied you
there, what conversation took place while you were in there, who
opened up the conversation and what transpired?
619
Mr. Sloan. Senator, my best recollection was that when I had the
call two agents from the FBI were in my office. I was in a meeting with
Fred LaRue. At this point m his office, he indicated to me I think you
ought to see John Mitchell before you go down. He at that point left
me and went do^vn the hall to John Mitchell's office, came back in a
minute or two and asked me to accompany him back into the room.
Present, to the best of my knowledge, would have been Mr. LaRue,
myself, Mr. Mitchell, I know Mr. Mardian was there and possibly
Mr. Magruder.
I do not have a good sense of how I expressed my concern or any-
thing. I think it was an obvious time pressure here. The men were
sitting there; I was looking for some quick guidance. I indicated essen-
tially, "Wliat do you want me to say? These men are here" and I was
concerned at that point. I could not believe that thej'' were not there to
talk to me about finance and Mr. Liddy and the Watergate and every-
thing else.
Senator Montoya. I fully appreciate you were greatly concerned
because the FBI was downstairs and you may not remember. I can
appreciate your concern when you walked into Mr. Mitchell's office.
But now you must have said something to Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Sloan. Oh, yes, I am sure I did.
Senator Montoya. What did you say?
Mr. Sloan. I have no direct recollection of what I said other than
the purpose of my being there. Whatever I said had to be in that con-
text. I needed some guidance. What do j^ou want me to do. As I am
sure the kind of way it was presented. Bob Mardian, as I recall, first
put his hand on my knee and said the first thing you have to do is
calm down. At that point Mr. Mitchell made his comment and that is
the last recollection I have of that meeting.
Senator Montoya. Did Mr. Mardian suggest to you anything that
you might say to the FBI?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. When I left that meeting, I had absolutely no
guidance except to go down and see them.
Senator Montoya. Did you have any guidance before you went in to
see Mr. Mitchell from either Mr. Mardian, Mr. Magruder or Mr.
LaRue?
Mr. Sloan. No; I had no guidance at all.
Senator Montoya. Did you engage in any discussions with them as
to what you might say to the FBI?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. When the matter came up it happened, it
developed so fast that I assumed that Mr. LaRue by suggesting I see
John Mitchell, the purpose of that was to give me some guidance.
None was forthcoming.
Senator Montoya. Now let us go into the California trip. I believe
you were gone with Mr. Stans for approximately 5 or 6 days?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir.
Senator Montoya. Now, did you stay in the same hotels with him?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, I did after I joined him. I went out on the
morning of the 7th, which I beheve was Friday morning, and I did
not join him until the evening of the 9th, which would be the Sunday
night. From that point on the balance of the week I traveled with
him, yes sir. . . .
Senator Montoya. And did you share the same room or adjommg
rooms?
A
620
Mr. Sloan. No sir. They might be neighboring rooms but they were
not adjoining or the same suite.
Senator Montoya. What duties did you perform when you were
with him on this trip?
Mr. Sloan. I was, I think, merely a good Hstener at the fund-
raising meetings he had and met some of our people who were operating
in our behalf in the field. I had no specific duties as such.
Senator Montoya. What conversations did you have with Mr.
Stans with respect to the Watergate affair and the cash disbursements
that took place during this sordid affair?
Mr. Sloan. The Watergate obviously, I think the point in time,
the principal emphasis in terms of what was going on in the news-
papers and what the level of concern was, was with regard to the
Mexican checks and the Dahlberg matter. As a matter of fact, Mr.
Dahlberg joined us, I believe, in Des Moines and spent quite a bit
of time with Secretary Stans.
Senator Montoya. What did Mr. Dahlberg discuss in Des Moines
during that trip?
Mr. Sloan. I do not
Senator Montoya. With Mr. Stans?
Mr. Sloan. I do not know. I was not present at this meeting.
Senator Montoya. How did Mr. Dahlberg meet with Mr. Stans
in Des Moines?
Mr. Sloan. I believe it was in his hotel room.
Senator Montoya. Isn't Mr. Dahlberg the individual who trans-
ported the Mexican money from Dallas, Tex., to Washington?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is my understanding.
Senator Montoya. How long did they meet?
Mr. Sloan. I really do not know. In terms of a conversation Mr.
Dahlberg mentioned to me that he had met the previous evening or
whenever it was with Mr. Stans.
Senator Montoya. Were you ever aware of any meetings between
the President and Mr. Stans with respect to campaign financing?
Mr. Sloan. I know he met with the President, that I am aware of,
maybe once after he had joined the committee and once probably
after the election. I do not know what the subject matter of whether
it was even on the subject of finance.
Senator Montoya. Did you in your reports to the White House or
to Mr. Stans reflect balances periodically of what was in the campaign
fund?
Mr. Sloan. Oh, yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. And how were these reports transmitted to the
White House?
Mr. Sloan. Excuse me, I have never made such a report to the
White House, Senator.
Senator Montoya. Did anyone from the White House pick up any
of these reports either from you or Mr, Stans?
Mr. Sloan. Not that I am aware of.
Senator Montoya. You stated that you were aware that Mr. Liddy
was spending approximately 90 percent of his time on finance com-
mittee matter as counsel.
Mr, Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Were you aware of how he was spending the
other 10 percent of his time?
621
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. Wlien he joined the finance committee, he in-
dicated to me that he would have continuing projects for the political
side of the campaign. Mr. Magruder confirmed that fact to me. No
discussion took place as to the nature of those duties.
Senator Montoya. Did it ever arouse 3- our curiosity that Mr. Lidd}^
might be performing other tasks?
^Ir. Sloan. I was full}^ aware he was spending some time on other
affairs. I do not know what the}' were.
Senator Montoya. What led 3'ou to beheve, as j^ou stated, that the
disbursement of $10,000 to Mr. Len Nofziger was to recruit a team of
American Nazis to disrupt the Wallace candidacy in California?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, 1 have no knowledge of that. I believe my
statement yesterday with regard to the $10,000, there was as we went
through this list, it was a c^uestion, an inquiry, as to did you know
what any of these expenditures were for in the case of Mr. Nofziger
in California. I had said subsequent to that disbursement I had heard
by rumor, and I cannot even tell 3'ou who from, it had something to
do with the Wallace campaign in California, but that is the extent of
my knowledge in that matter.
Senator Montoya. Now, in your meeting with Mr. Ehrlichman, I
beheve it was on July or June 23, at the White House?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. You started discussing with Mr. Ehrlichman
the problem of how you were going to face up to the reporting of the
cash disbursement, is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. I have no precise recollection of how and to
what depth or dimension I expressed my concern to him. I think it
was in the nature that it was by way of just indicating to him that I
think there is a problem. I did not get to the point, I am sure, of
mentioning names or leveling allegations at anybody.
Senator Montoya. Well, in what context did you place that
observation to him that there was a problem? There must have
been some context.
Mr. Sloan. Oh, yes, sir. The party on the boat on the Potomac
the night before — I think probably that day or in that period of
time, it had become knowm that these gentlemen wdth McCord in
the room at the Watergate had $5,300 in hundred dollar bills. I
obviously had an initial concern with regard to Mr. Liddy's first
remark. WTien the money issue came up, it obviously indicated to
me that there might be a direct connection, that that money may in
fact have been money that I had given to Mr. Liddy or to somebody
in the campaign. I think what I was expressing is we have a situation
here where there is no accountability of these funds as far as I know.
At least, there has been none to me, and as far as I know, Secretary
Stans does not know. In fight of this, there is a suspicion, a possibility,
that there is a connection.
What I was trying to conve}^ — I do not know how hard I pressed
the point. What I was trying to convey to Mr. Ehrlichman and Mr.
Chapin was that I thought it was a more serious problem than any
individual I had seen, either in the White House or in the campaign,
appeared to be taking at that point.
Senator Montoya. So in your observations to Mr. Ehrlichman on
June 23, you tried to connect the existing cash on the person of the
burglars with the distributions you had made to Mr. Liddy?
622
Mr. Sloan. Senator, just in fairness, I just do not have that good
a recollection of how I presented this concern. I just do not remember.
Senator Montoya. Was it in that area?
Mr. Sloan. That was my concern. Whether I expressed it in those
terms to him, I do not know.
Senator Montoya. But you did have conversations with Mr.
Ehrlichman relating to this, whether it was as specific as I have
stated it or not. You did have such a conversation?
Mr. Sloan. Oh, yes, sir; it was certainly in the context of the
event at the Watergate.
Senator Montoya, And it was then that Mr. Ehrlichman told you
that if you had any personal problem that he could help you with, he
would be willing to do anything to help you with his personal prob-
lems — with your personal problems?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. And he also said that he would take these
problems up with the President and he was certain that this would
be covered by executive privilege.
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, that is an incorrect statement.
Senator Montoya. What did you say and what did he say?
Mr. Sloan. He indicated to me after he recognized my concern
in a personal sense and had indicated to me that I had a special
relation with the White House, since I had worked there and since
they had asked me to get in the campaign, they would be very glad
to be helpful if there was a question of getting a lawyer. I said, well,
that may be a problem, but that is not really why I am here. I said
I would like to get into some depth on this.
He said, no, do not give me the details. He said, my position per-
sonally would have to be that I would take executive privilege until
after the election.
I thought the remark somewhat strange, but at the time, in that
context, I interpreted that as a statement on his part that he was
involved in running the Government and did not want to have a
position of having knowledge that he could get dragged into all these
court cases, A civil suit had been filed at that time. I interpreted it as
a statement that it was my job to work here with the President and
run the domestic council, and if it is a campaign problem, they have
got to work it out.
Senator Montoya. Well, did he mention that the President would
help you out with your personal problems?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, the President's name never came up, as far as
I remember.
Senator Montoya. Now, let us get on with the boat ride on the
Potomac. Who invited you to go on that boat ride?
Mr. Sloan. It was a farewell party for the aide to the President of
the United States, Vernon Coffey, who is a close personal friend of
ours, and in addition to the White House personnel invited, both my
wife and I had worked at the White House with him and were included
on that guest list.
Senator Montoya. When were you invited, on the same date?
Mr. Sloan. Oh, no, I think it would have been probably a week's
leadtime. At this point, I am not sure.
Senator Montoya. Who was there at the party?
623
Mr. Sloan. It was a very large party, probably 150 people or more.
Senator Montoya. Was Mr. Chapin there?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, he was.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Colson?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure whether Mr. Colson.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Dean?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure I recall seeing Mr. Dean.
Senator Montoya. Which of these indi\dduals who were mentioned
were there that night?
Mr. Sloan. ]Mr. Chapin, Mr. Dean, Mr. Pat Buchanan. Those are
the three individuals I recall.
Senator Montoya. Do you recall going into a corner to talk with
them about this matter?
Mr. Sloan. There really were not too many corners, Senator, but
we attempted to get a certain measure of privacy.
Senator Montoya. And who solicited who for these conversations?
]Mr. Sloan. Senator, in terms of my best recollection of the events
that happened, I think quite possibly, first, Magruder's suggestion
had been made to me at that point. M}^ wife reminds me that when I
was picked up at the office that day by her to go to this party that I
was extremely angrj^ and upset. I am sure that under those circum-
stances, the concerns were very heightened in my mind and I sought
these individuals out.
Senator ]Montoya. You sought these people out?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator Montoya. And you did discuss this affair?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, to what depth, I just cannot recall as to pre-
cisel}' my knowledge at this particular point in time.
Senator Montoya. Was it as a result of your conversations with
Mr. Chapin that he in\4ted you to meet with him at the White House
at 12 o'clock the next day?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, that is mj^ best recollection.
Senator Montoya. And you did meet with him for lunch, would
you say, or just for conversation?
Mr. Sloan. I did not meet him for lunch and I am not quite sure
of the precise timing. I am sure I talked to both of those individuals
on that same day.
Senator Montoya. Was it as a result of your conversation at 12
noon with Mr. Chapin that y-ou at 2 o'clock that same day saw
Mr. ElirHchman?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir, they were originated independently. The
Ehrlichman appointment resulted from tlie conversation I had with
his deputy, Ken Cole, the night before. I think what I was expressing
to Mr. Cole and Mr. Chapin, who were principal assistants of Mr.
Ehrhchman and Mr. Haldeman, was that Tfelt that either Bob or
John ought to have this informatdon. In the case of Mr. Chapin, I
assumed that in talking to him, at least my concern would be relayed.
I do not know whether I requested a specific appointment with Bob
Haldeman. In the case of Ken Cole, he called me or his ofiice called
me the next day and said John Ehriichman would like to see me — I
believe it was at 2 o'clock — and Mr. Chapin did indicate to me the
night before that he would relay my concerns to Mr. Haldeman.
Senator Montoya, Who was present in your conversation with
Mr. Ehrlichman?
624
Mr. Sloan. No one, as far as I know — no one was there except
myself.
Senator Montoya. And you have indicated in your testimony
before this committee that Mr. Magruder tried to get you to do
certain things and that you, in turn, indicated that if Mr. Magruder
would be up for an appointment, you would personally come and
testify against any confirmation. Now, why did you single out Mr.
Magruder and not any of the others who had been working on you
to perjure yourself?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, he was the only individual that I could clearly
identify in my mind without any doubt whatsoever — I mean, there
was just no question in my mind. In the case of Mr. LaRue, in asking
me to agree to a figure, he could very well have had misrepresenta-
tions from Mr. Magruder and perhaps legitimately think that there
was a discrepancy and it was merely a question of resolving the
figure. So that he is the only individual who specifically requested of
me that I consider an illegal act, as far as I know.
Senator Montoya. Now, you also mentioned that on your return
from California, you had a drink with Mr. Magruder and that he,
in turn, suggested to you that both of you visit Mr. Titus at the
U.S. attorney's office.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. I think it was after my return from Bermuda.
Senator Montoya. Bermuda?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Montoya. Why was he the moving force here when there
was nothing pending and no request had been made of you to testify
or to perjure yourself at the U.S. attorney's office? Why was he so
anxious to take you there?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, I believe the grand jury had been convened
at that point in time.
Senator Montoya. Was he running liaison between the grand jury
and the Watergate people or the people associated with the finance
committee?
Mr. Sloan. I was quite amazed at the fact he would call me in
light of my conversation with Bob Mardian in response to the first
suggestion he had made, where I indicated that if this is the way
you guys are going, I just do not want to deal with this man again.
I was certainly prepared at that point in time, in the way he suggested
it, to overlook his initial remark. But by the second time, there was
no question in my mind.
Senator Montoya. Did you ask him why he wanted you to go to
the U.S. attorney's office without invitation from the U.S. district
attorney?
Mr. Sloan. I believe. Senator, that the climate at that point in
time was that very rapidl}^, the grand jury essentially was moving
up through the echelons of the campaign, starting with secretaries
and people who worked for people and it was only a matter of days
before, if you will, principals who had knowledge at least as far as
this money, would come up. I think my guess would be that there
was to be an attempt to head off, you know, have an organized dis-
closure as opposed to individuals going in separately with different
stories.
Senator Montoya. Well, did Mr. Magruder indicate to you that if
you went to see Mr. Titus, Mr. Titus would aid in staving off any
further inquiry?
625
Mr. Sloan. Oh, no sir, there was no such indication.
Senator Montoya. What was the specific purpose for which he
vvanted you to go?
Mr. Sloan. I am really not sure, Senator. Again, it is very hard to
reconstruct exactly what was known at that point in time, but the
amount of monej' that Mr. Liddy received was the critical issue at
that point. There must have been some knowledge on somebody's part
that this was where the focus was next coming and I think there was
an attempt to resolve that issue prior to questioning coming up
independently and indi^'idually.
Senator Montoya. I believe you stated that he had asked you at
this meeting to go to see Mr. Titus and to tell Mr. Titus that you had
onh^ disbursed approximately $40,000 to Mr. Liddy. Is that correct?
Mr. Sloan. Yes sir, that is my best recollection.
Senator Montoya. And in what context did this conversation arise
with respect to going to Mr. Titus with this information?
Mr. Sloan. He merely suggesting the going down to Mr. Titus and
at the tail end of that proposition, the idea of getting together to
resolve the issue at one time, the suggestion about the filing came up
again.
Senator Montoya. He did not tell you that Mr. Titus asked him to
invite you to go to the U.S. attorney's office, did he?
Mr. Sloan. I am not aware of that, Senator. I am not positive, but
I have no knowledge.
Senator Montoya. And you assumed that Mr. Magruder was
acting on his own?
Mr. Sloan. I am not sure of that. Senator. I mean, there was no
indication on his part to the contrary, but I am just not sure in the
light of the fact that I had made other individuals in the campaign
knowTi of his initial approach.
Senator Montoya. That is all, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
Senator Ervin. Rule 25 of the committee rules provides that any
person who is the subject of an investigation and public hearings may
submit to the chairman questions in writing for cross-examination
of the witnesses. Their formulation and admissibility shall be decided
by the committee in accordance with rule 24.
Rule 24 gives the committee the power to rephrase the questions
that are asked. Mr. Robert Barker, who is counsel for Mr. Stans, has
contacted the committee and asked the committee to put the following
questions to Mr. Sloan.
Mr. Sloan, you have testified that you have checked with Mr.
Stans about certain payments to Mr. Porter. Now, this is the first
question Mr. Barker wants us to ask you: When did this occur?
Mr. Sloan. My best recollection. Senator, would have been on the
occasion of the first request in the post-April 7 period for funds. I
could not place it in a precise date.
Senator Ervin. The second question is what amounts, if any, were
involved?
Mr. Sloan. I do not believe that we even mentioned the precise
dollar amount. I think it was an expression of concern on m}^ part
whether this was continued, to continue in light of both my under-
standing and Secretary Stans' understanding that he was no longer
to receive funds. I am not even sure the dollar figure came up.
Senator Ervin. Was anyone else present at the time you checked
with Mr. Stans about the payments to Mr. Porter?
626
Mr. Sloan. No sir.
Senator Ervin. Did you check with Mr. Stans as to any payment
to either Liddy or Porter after the time you checked about Magruder's
authority to authorize an $83,000 payment to Liddy?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. I do not believe I ever checked with him on a
dollar amount. It was purely the authority.
Senator Ervin. Do you recall what amount of money was made to
Porter after April 7, 1972?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, my best recollection of that figure was approxi-
mately $6,000. I understand Mr. Porter's general recollection to the
General Accounting Office was $11,000. I have no reason to dispute
that figure.
Senator Ervin. There is another question which Mr. Barker asked
which really is four questions and relates to payments that you made
to Mr. Ralmbach. The first is: Did you make any payments to Mr.
Kalmbach after February 15, 1972?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. The second subdivision of this question is: If so,
what was the amount of these payments?
Mr. Sloan. I am really not sure. Senator. They were not tremendous
amounts. There may have been two or three at the most.
Senator Ervin. The third subdivision of the question is: What were
these paj^ments for, these payments to Mr. Kalmbach after February
15, 1972?
Mr. Sloan. I have no idea, Senator.
Senator Ervin. The fourth subdivision of the question is: Were
they disclosed on periodic summaries after February 15, 1972?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, all the funds I handled were covered in that
report to Secretary Stans.
Senator Ervin. They were?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Now, as 1 understand you, after you had prepared
what the committee called a summation of all of these disbursements,
you gave that to Secretary Stans?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator Ervin. Did }ou make more than one copy?
Mr. Sloan. I may have at the time it was t3'ped, but in the light
of — in my understanding, more than a single copy, whatever copies
would have been destroyed at the same time as the book, yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And after you had imparted the sum total of
what your record disclosed in this statement that you furnished to
Mr. Stans, you destroyed your record?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Now, you testified, as I recall, that you had put
a — rather you testified on the examination of Senator Gurney and
Senator Weicker and Senator Montoya about the conversation you
had with Mr. Haldeman.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. When did that occur?
Mr. Sloan. I piobably could find a precise date. I neglected to
look it up last night and I apologize. My best recollection would be
toward the end of Januar}^ or early February, somewhere in that
point.
Senator Ervin. This year?
627
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, it was while I was a consultant at the
committee.
Senator Ervin. Where did this occur?
Mr. Sloan. In Mr. Haldeman's cflSce at the White House.
Senator Ervin. Then you stated Mi. Haldeman told you he had
nothing to do with the Watergate affair?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervjn. But he told you that he knew^ about the Segretti
matter and that when the Segretti matter was revealed, that it
would be understandable?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, or words to that effect.
Senator Ervin. Well, that occurred in January of this year?
Mr. Sloan. January or early February.
Senator Ervin. So far as you know, has Mr. Haldeman ever revealed
anj^thing about the Segretti matter to the general pubhc or anybody
else?
Mr. Sloan. Not that I am aware of, sir.
Senator Ervin. Do 3^ou know what the expression "laundering
checks" means?
Mr. Sloan. What expression?
Senator Ervin. "Laundering checks."
Mr. Sloan. I read the term numerous times. Senator. I do not
have any precise knowledge of what that term is.
Senator Ervin. Do you know whether any of the checks that were
received by the committee were sent out to some person in Bethesda
or Silver Spring or somewhere in the environs of Washington to be
converted into cash and returned to the committee?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, I believe what you are referring to there is, in
the early period Mr. Magruder asked me to set up essentially what
was an agency account with Mr. Henry Buchanan, a CPA, who was
doing work for us. I understood that a certain portion of this money,
and I think it was something in the neighborhood of $2,000 a month,
went to supplement the salary of Ken Rietz. I do not know what the
balance went for. As I recall, it was quite an argument at that point
and I have forgotten the participants or where the final authority
came from, but I recall objecting to the concept of a separate fund
out of the hands of the finance committee.
Senator Ervin. Am I correct in inferring from your testimony that
the objections of the disbursements of the funds which you paid out
under the authority of Mr. Kalmbach, Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Magruder
was determined by either them or the recipient of those funds?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And not by Mr. Stans or you?
Mr. Sloan. Not by myself and to the best of rny knowledge not
by Mr. Stans.
Senator Ervin. And so those are the men, or the recipients of those
funds, who would be the people who would know what was done with
those funds.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; I would say with one exception. Mr. Stans and
I were involved in the Lankier item of $50,000 that was a finance mat-
ter and the Clement Stone matter as well, but the other matters —
that would be correct.
Senator Ervin. Well, I can't give any retroactive advice to the
men who were responsible for this disbursing funds for political
\,
96-296 (bk. 2) O - 73 - 12
628
purposes and concealing the objectives of the disbursements, but I
can suggest to future people who attempt to do that that when they
do, they may be either rightly or wrongly judged by the standards
set out in the Scriptures where it says "Alen love darkness rather than
light because their deeds are evil,"
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. I have one additional question or line of questions
and I apologize to the committee and Mr. Sloan, but when you have
a good witness you try to get as much information as you can.
In reviewing the testimony that you have given to the committee,
and in anticipating some of the testimony I expect we may receive
from other witnesses later, I have tried to establish areas where there
might be jDotential conflicts or where there might be elements of
uncertainty or incomplete explanation of either statements of people
or the contents of documents.
Now, with that preamble, let me point to two or three things I
would like to ask you about and, frankly, I confess in advance I am
asking you for subjective answers. I think it is impossible for you to
give an objective answer.
I am concerned at this point for a clear definition of the quality
and the scope of j^our warnings or your expressions of concern to Mr.
Chapin, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Mitchell. I have only
a sketchy picture of what was said and, therefore, all I can ask you
to do in addition to what you have already said is give me some
appraisal of the quality of that warning.
Was it a stern, intensive sort of thing or was it a casual expression
of vague uneasiness? Between those two, if you can help me on this
scale of subjectivity, I would be grateful.
Mr. Sloan. Senator, with regard to the Chapin and Ehrlichman
matters, I think they essentially fall in the same category.
As I have tried to point out, I have a very great deal of trouble
putting together in my precise state of mind what factors were affect-
ing that at that point in time. The nature of those meetings were, as in
the case of Mr. Haldeman, extremely cordial. They are men I consider
my friends. We talked over a range of other things. The introduction
in each case was about families, vacations, the social amenities and
so forth.
I would say probably just because it is not my character I do not
believe that I made the hard sell anywhere. I think I said I just think
there is a problem. I do not believe at that point in time, and I am not
sure of the precise sequence, in fact, whether Mr. Magruder made his
approach to me, so what I am saying, there were certainly no — it
was not a warning in a sense of substantive information. I think it was
an expression of personal concern that perhaps maybe I, because of
how I felt, assumed that these gentlemen would intuitively pick that
up and perhaps run with the ball from there.
I cannot characterize these meetings as something where I said,
gee, you guys have to do something about this specific problem or I
am going to do something about it. It was not that kind of proposition,
it was very low keyed.
Senator Baker. I am sure you understand why I asked that
question.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir.
629
Senator Baker. Because at some future time this committee pre-
sumably will have to judge the likelihood or the appropriateness of the
conduct of others in response to the information you imparted, j^our
frame of mind, your attitude, and the quality and scope of your warn-
ings or admonitions. It is important for me to know that quality, the
subjective qualit}^ of concern as it relates to the future testimony of,
say, Mr. Chapin, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Mitchell and
Mr. Stans.
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir, I understand.
Senator Baker. Does the description which you have given us, which
obWously is subject to many interpretations, that of the general type
warning, fit all of these meetings or were there variations of it, say,
wdth Mr. Mitchell or with Mr. Ehrlichman or Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Sloan. Of course, in the case of Mr. Haldeman, this was sort
of after the fact. It wasn't a warning situation at all, it was merely: It
is all over, I am going my way, I want to pass through on the way out
to be sure that you understand why I did what I have done. As far as I
was concerned somebody somewhere had already made their decision
between me and how they were going to go in this matter, which was a
moot point. So I don't — he for instance, in this meeting discussed Mr.
Chapin, what a difficult decision it had been for him, a man who had
been very close to the power, to the President personally, which I had
not been, to make the decision to go into the private sector. We dis-
cussed this in terms of the proper age for a young man who is not, be-
cause of being in an appointed position with a partisan administration,
is not a career government official, you have to make a personal
decision at some point where you are going to provide in the long term
for your family.
Senator Baker. I think I understand your point of view and just for
the sake of time I am going to ask one final cpiestion that is even more
patently subjective, but the committee will weigh it for whatever it is
worth, if you can answer it.
The questions I have asked so far on this subject obviously lead to
one master question, and that is, in your judgment, did the men to
whom you talked, Mr. Chapin, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Haldeman, Mr.
Stans, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Magruder, did the men to whom you talked
respond in j^our judgment in an appropriate way to the quality or the
intensity of your admonition, warning or conversation?
Mr. Sloan. Senator, if I could I would answer that question in terms
of how problems within a campaign are normally addressed.
I mean it is not only for me but it was quite clear potentially there
was great damage coming to the campaign just by nothing else, guilt
b}^ association, because the campaign is the very logical place to look
for suspects in a case of bugging of the opposing party's headquarters.
But the thing that disturbed me was not the negative response but lack
of positive response. In a sense that if you had a problem about gift tax
you get all of th» appropriate people on the committee together and sit
do^\Ti and talk about it. As far as I know, in view of the knowledge I
had about the money, I could not believe that at some point in time he
didn't have a situation develop where more than two people get
together in a room at any one time. This creates a climate as you go
through this, perhaps suspect what might be going on. I don't know
whether that is characterized very well but it did not seem to be a
normal response given the nature of the problem.
630
Senator Baker. I am not sure — your response is at least as good as
my question. We will let it stay there, Mr. Sloan, you dropped one
little pearl there that I can't resist picking up.
When you said the bugging of each other's headquarters, do you
have any information about that?
Mr. Sloan. No, sir. That was a slip. I have no knowledge of that.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Gurney.
Senator Gurney. No.
Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya.
Senator Montoya. No questions.
Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. No questions.
Senator Ervin. Then, I would suggest that we close with letting
counsel and minority counsel ask quite a few questions that they may
have.
Mr. Dash. Mr, Sloan, I just have two questions. You may have mis-
understood Senator Montoya's question to you concerning any ef-
forts by anybody other than Magruder to have you testify differently
than you believed was the truth.
You did say in answer to Senator Montoya that with regard to Mr.
LaRue's conversations with you, that you believed he ma}^ have had
an honest belief that there was a difference of opinion as to the amount.
Let me just refer you to your testimony yesterday in response to a
question put by me to you concerning a conversation you had with Mr.
LaRue after you had had your interview with the FBI, and let me
read your testimony on page 1248 and 1249 of the transcript.
You just went back from your interview with the FBI and you
stated :
I believe Mr. LaRue came down to my office following that interview, essen-
tially to find out what I said and what matters came up. At that point he indicated
to me, and I do not have the precise words, the sense of the meaning as it came
across to me, there was very brief reference something to the effect that the Liddj'
money is the pioblem. It is very politically sensitive. We can just not come out
with a high figure, we are going to have to come out with a different figure. And I
said, as I recall, I said if there is a problem I cannot see it makes any difference
whether it is $200 or $200,000, at which point he dropped the conversation.
Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir. I guess it is a question of degree, that in the
case of Mr. Magruder it was a very hard sell blatant kind of approach.
In the case of Mr. LaRue, very low key and he backed off it very fast,
but that is a correct statement, to the best of my knowledge, in the
sense of that meeting.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Sloan, also in the early part of your testimony you
did mention the name Francis Raine as a person who was a cosigner,
I understand, of one of the cash safe deposit boxes. Do you have of
your own knowledge, any information as to whether Mr. Raine is
related to Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Sloan. Yes, sir; I do not believe I knew it at the time. I have
since been told he is a relative. I am not sure by whom. I understand
it is a brother-in-law relation.
Mr. Dash. I have no further c^uestions of Mr. Sloan, but I think
for the record, the Dahlberg check which was dated April 10, 1972,
drawn on the First Bank & Trust Co. of Boca Raton in the amount
631
of $25,000, which had already been identified by you, Mr. Sloan,
but it has never been marked as an exhibit, and I would like to have
it given to the reporter to mark as an exhibit and introduced into
evidence. I have no further questions.
Senator Ervin. The reporter will number the check or copy of
the check, give the appropriate number and be received as an exhibit.
[The check referred to was marked exhibit No. 25.*]
Senator Ervin. Mr. Sloan, I want to thank you on behalf of the
committee for your appearance here. I want to thank you for the
intellectual integrity which you have displayed throughout your
examination and for the very forthright manner in which you have
testified.
Mr. Sloan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. You are excused now, subject to be recalled if the
committee later finds it necessary to do so.
Thank you very much.
The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock, unless other
members of the committee object.
[Whereupon, at 11:50 a.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 2 p.m., this same day.]
Afternoon Session, Thursday, June 7, 1973
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
I understand the first witness will be Mr. Porter. We intend to recall
Mr. Porter at a later date and it is the hope of the chairman that at
this time, we will only go into question him about his knowledge or
lack of knowledge of the budgeting and break-in of the Watergate and
any alleged attempts to cover up that episode.
The counsel will call the witness.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Herbert Porter, will you please take the witness
chair?
Senator Ervin. Mr. Porter, will you stand up and rise your right
hand?
Do you swear that the evidence which you shall give to the Senate
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Porter. I do; so help me God.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Chairman, Mr. David Dorsen, assistant chief
counsel, will ask the opening questions of this witness.
Mr. Dorsen. Mr. Porter, could you please give your full name and
address?
TESTIMONY OP HERBERT LLOYD PORTER, ACCOMPAmED BY
CHARLES B. MURRAY, COUNSEL
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; my name is Herbert Lloyd Porter. My
present address is 32451 Mediterranean Drive, Laguna Niguel, Calif.
Mr. Dorsen. Mr. Porter, I see you are represented by counsel.
Could counsel please identify himself?
Mr. Murray. Charles B. Murray is my name, sir.
Mr. Dorsen. Mr. Porter, I understand that you have a brief
opening statement. Would you please make it at this time?
•See p. 896.
632
Mr. Porter. Thank you.
My full name is Herbert Lloyd Porter. I am also known as "Bart"
Porter. I was born and reared in California. I served 2 years as an
officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, after which I spent 7}^ years in the
marketing of data processing computers and software. Having never
been involved in any political campaign or other political activity, I
was both honored and excited at the opportunity to help in some way
toward the reelection of Richard Nixon to a second term in the
White House.
Prior to joining the Committee for the Re-Election of the President
in May 1971, I served a brief period in the White House, working
in the office of the Director of Communications, Herbert G. Klein.
My function at the Committee for. the Re-Election of the President
was to organize the surrogate candidate program. My title was
director of scheduling. I was also responsible for organizing all
celebrities, entertainers, and athletes for the campaign. Almost all
my time, while at the Committee for the Re-Election of the President,
was spent organizing and directing the activities of these several groups
Stories have appeared in both newspapers and magazines mentioning
my name in connection with what has come to be known as Water-
gate. A few of these stories have been fairly accurate, some half
true, while others have been totally false. The record will show that
I have made no comments to any reporters or newsmen over the past
several months. This may or may not have been wise on my part,
but I was trying the best I knew how to protect my wife and my three
children from the consequences of any excess publicity.
I have cooperated fully with both the Federal prosecutors and
members of the investigative staff of this committee, and I have made
full disclosure to them. I also wish to state that in cooperating with
both the Federal prosecutors and this committee, I did so voluntarily
and, in the case of the Federal prosecutors, I appeared at my own
request. At no time did I ever seek immunity from either group, nor
did I authorize my lawyer to do so. I have made no deals. I have
agreed only to tell the truth.
I will answer all questions put to me by this committee regarding
testimony heretofore given by me. At no time did I ever have any
intention of covering up a criminal act. At no time did I knowingly
engage in any coverup of the Watergate burglary.
I had no prior knowledge of the Watergate burglary. And up to
this very moment, I have no knowledge of the involvement of others.
I have been guilty of a deep sense of loyalty to the President of
the United States. The facts speak for themselves.
Finally, may I say that this whole affair has had a most devastating
effect on my personal life. Because of the unfavorable publicity,
I have been terminated from a lucrative position in private industry,
a fact which, in turn, has caused me to forfeit, at substantial loss,
the purchase of a new home in California, where I was born and
planned to live.
This is my situation, Mr. Chairman. I am now ready to answer any
and all questions to the best of my ability.
Mr. DoRSEN. Mr. Porter, in your opening statement, you refer to
the surrogate candidate program. Could you please explain what that
program entailed?
633
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; very briefly, the surrogate candidate program
was a program that involved the efforts of about 35 Congressmen,
Senators, Governors, Cabinet officials, a mayor, who would appear on
behalf of the President during the primaries and during the campaign.
The purpose of the program was to look at that group as a resource
and to maximize it through scheduling and certain campaign appear-
ances on behalf of the President.
Mr. DoRSEN. Mr. Porter, while you were at the committee, did
you know G. Gordon Liddy?
Mr. Porter. I did, sir.
Mr. DoRSEN. In connection with your duties at the committee,
were you ever asked to give cash to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; I was.
Mr. Dorsen. And who asjced you to do this?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Jeb Magruder.
Mr. Dorsen. When was the first time he so asked you?
Mr. Porter. In December of 1971.
Mr. Dorsen. And what did Mr. Magruder tell you?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Magruder told me that Islr. Liddy was going to
be taking on dirty tricks and other special projects and that Mr.
Liddy would be coming to me from time to time to request funds and
that I was to, in turn, ask Mr. Sloan for the funds and turn them over
to Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Dorsen. Did Mr. Liddj^ in fact come to you for funds?
Mr. Porter. He did.
Mr. Dorsen, On how many occasions?
Mr. Porter. I would say probably seven or eight occasions.
Mr. Dorsen. And w^hat was the approximate amount you furnished
Mr. Liddy on each of those occasions?
Mr. Porter. The amounts varied, Mr. Dorsen, probably anywhere
from $500 all the way up to — one time I think $6,000 he requested. It
was usually in the $2,000 to $3,000 category, as I remember.
Mr. Dorsen. Prior to April 7, 1972, how much in total did you
furnish Mr. Liddy?
Mr, Porter. Approximatelv $30,000 to $35,000. Probably closer to
the $30,000 figure; 30, 31, 32."^
Mr. Dorsen. In ]\Iarch of 1972, Mr. Liddy changed positions; is
that correct?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dorsen. What was the change?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Liddy left his duties as general counsel of the
Committee for the Re-Election of the President and because general
counsel of the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President.
Mr. Dorsen. How many of the payments which you have described
occurred after he went to the finance committee?
Mr. Porter. I am sorrv, I misunderstood your first question. When
I answered the $30,000 to $35,000 figure that was up to April 7. There
was an additional payment after April 7 that occurred in the early
part of May 1972, in the net amount of $3,300, which should be added
to the other figure.
Mr. Dorsen. When you say net amount, what do you mean?
Mr. Porter. Sir?
Mr. Dorsen. By net amount?
634
Mr. Porter. Net amount means I gave Mr. Liddy $3,500 and he
returned $2,000 of that $3,500 the next day.
Mr. DoRSEN. Did Mr. Liddy ever give you receipts for the money
you gave him?
Mr. Porter. Yes sir; he did.
Mr. Dorsen. Did Mr. Liddy ever give you anything else?
Mr. Porter. Yes sir; he did.
Mr. Dorsen. What was that?
Mr. Porter. I would say on three or four occasions Mr. Liddy
handed me white, large, letter-sized envelopes sealed on the back with
his initials written over the seal and asked me to keep them in my safe
in my office. He instructed me that if anything should ever happen to
him that I was to take those directly to the Attorney General.
Mr. Dorsen. Who was the Attorney General?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Dorsen. Did there ever come a time when you took any of
these envelopes to Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Porter. No, sir.
Mr. Dorsen. What happened to the envelopes?
Mr. Porter. The envelopes, I have told you this before, 1 cannot
remember whether it was at the end of March or after the Watergate
break-in. I have a feeling it has the end of March but I can't be certain.
It was one of the times I went through and audited my cash on hand.
Mr. Liddy came by and he said, you know those envelopes I gave
you or that you are holding for me? I said, yes. He said, go ahead
and shred them. I did that and in doing so they were stuffed full of
paper of some kind and would not go through a shredder without
looking inside.
Mr. Dorsen. Did you open the envelopes?
Mr. Porter. I did. I opened all of them, yes sir.
Mr. Dorsen, Did you see what was inside the envelopes?
Mr. Porter. Yes, I did generally.
Mr. Dorsen. What did you see?
Mr. Porter. I determined very quickly that they were very
similar to a salesman's receipts if he went on a trip, an airline ticket,
parking ticket, a restaurant stub, that kind of thing, and so I didn't
bother to look and inspect each one. There were no memos in them.
I do remember I think one of the airline tickets was from Washington
to Los Angeles and back, I think.
Mr. Dorsen. Did you ever discuss the contents of the envelopes
with Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. Dorsen. Did you ever discuss the contents of the envelopes
with Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. Dorsen. Mr. Porter, prior to April 7, 1972, how much m.oney
did you receive from Hugh Sloan?
Mr. Porter. Approximately $52,000.
Mr. Dorsen. How much of this did you disburse?
Mr. Porter. Approximately $49,500.
Mr. Dorsen. After April 7, 1972, how much money did you receive
from Hugh Sloan?
Mr. Porter. Approximately $17,000.
Mr. Dorsen. And how much did you disburse?
635
Mr. Porter. All of it.
Mr. DoRSEN. How have you now arriv^ed at the figure you have
just given us?
Mr. Porter. I have had ample opportunity to go back and recall
as best I know how each of the transactions in which I went and got
money from Mr. Sloan and gave it to others, and to the best of my
ability I have come up with those figures.
Mr. Dorsen. And is it your best recollection and knowledge that
you received from Mr. Sloan a total of approximately $69,000?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; to the best of my knowledge.
Mr. DoRSEX. Mr. Porter, when did you first become aware of the
break-in at the Watergate?
Mr. Porter. Saturday, June 17, in Los Angeles, Calif.
Mr. Dorsex. And briefly how did you become aware?
Mr. Porter. Well, sir, that was a weekend which we were having
a large party at a private residence in California for a lot of the
celebrities who were going to be supporting the President during the
campaign, and it was on that trip that apparently the word, the news
broke Saturday morning here and was relayed to some of the campaign
officials with whom I was traveling at the time and I learned it from
them.
Mr. Dorsex. Following the break-in at the Watergate, did you
have a conversation with Mr. Jeb Magruder concerning any state-
ments you might make to the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. Dorsex. Where and when did this conversation occur?
Mr. Porter. I would saj' that approximately 10 or 11 days, I am
not sure of the exact date, whether it was June 28 or the 29th, but in
that time frame, Mr. Magruder asked me to come in to his office,
which I did. He shut the door and he told me that he had just come
from a meeting with Mr. Mitchell, Mr. La Rue, himself, and a fourth
part}' whose name I cannot remember, where my name had been
brought up as someone who could be, what was the term he used,
counted on in a pinch or a team pla3'er or words to that effect.
Mr. Dorsex. You are now recounting what Mr. Magruder told you.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dorsex. Please continue.
Mr. Porter. He said that I believe at that time Mr. Liddy had
been fired from the campaign. He said it was — "apparent" was the
word he used — that Mr. Liddy and others had on their o\\ti, illegally
participated in the break-m of the Democratic National Committee,
and Mr. Magruder swore to me that neither he nor anybody higher
than Mr. Liddy in the campaign organization or at the White House
had any involvement whatsoever in Watergate, at the Watergate
break-in, and reinforced that by saying, "Doesn't that sound like
something stupid that Gordon would do?" and you have to know
Mr. Liddy, I agreed with that. [Laughter.]
He said, "I want to assure you now that no one did." He said,
however, "There is a problem with some of the money. Now, Gordon
was authorized money for some dirty tricks, nothing illegal, but
nonetheless, things that could be very embarrassing to the President
of the United States and to Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman and
others. Now, your name was brought up as someone who we can count
on to help in this situation," and I asked what is it you are asking
636
me to do, and he said, "Would you corroborate a story that the
money was authorized for something a little bit more legitimate
sounding than dirty tricks, even though the dirty tricks were legal, it
still would be very embarrassing. You are aware that the Democrats
have filed a civil suit against this committee." I said, "Yes, I have
read that in the paper." He said, "Do you know what immediate
discovery is?" I said, "I do not. They may get immediate discovery,
which means they can come in at any moment and swoop in on our
committee and take all of the files and subpena all of the records
and you know what would happen if they did that." I conjured up
in my mind that scene and became rather excitable and knew I didn't
want to see that. So I said, "Well, be specific," and he said, "Well,
you were in charge of the surrogate campaign, you were very con-
cerned about radical elements disrupting rallies, and so forth," and I
said yes, and he said, "Suppose that we had authorized Liddy instead
of the dirty tricks, we had authorized him to infiltrate some of these
radical groups. How could such a program have cost $100,000?" And
I thought very quickly of a conversation I had had with a young
man in California in December, as a matter of fact, and I said, "Jeb,
that is very easy. You could get 10 college-age students or 24- or
25-year-old students, people, over a period of 10 months." Mr.
Magruder had prefaced his remark by saying from December on. And
I said, "You can pay them $1,000 a month which they would take
their expenses out of that, and that is $100,000. That is not very
much for a $45 million campaign." And he said, "Now that is right;
would you be willing, if I made that statement to the FBI, would you
be willing to corroborate that when I came to you in December and
asked you how much it would cost, that that is what you said?"
That was the net effect, the net of his question. I thought for a moment
and I said, "Yes, I probably would do that." I don't remember saying
yes, but I am sure I gave Mr. Magruder the impression I would
probably do that and that was the end of the conversation.
Mr. DoRSEN. Now, Mr. Porter, did the conversation you agreed to
tell the FBI actually take place?
Mr. Porter. Sir?
Mr. DoRSEN. Did the conversation which you agreed with Mr.
Magruder that you would tell to the FBI actually take place in
December of 1971?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; it did not take place in December.
Mr. DoRSEN. Later, did you tell the FBI what Mr. Magruder asked
you to tell them?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. DoRSEN. And subsequent to that, did you appear before a
Federal grand jury?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Mr. DoRSEN. Were you asked about the surrogate candidate pro-
gram?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Mr. DoRSEN. What did you tell the Federal grand jury?
Mr. Porter. The same thing.
Mr. DoRSEN. Were you a \\dtness at the trial of the seven defendants
who were indicted in the Watergate case?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dorsen. And did you give the same account?
637
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; I did.
Mr. DoRSEN. Did Mr. Magruder ask you to make any other state-
ments which you knew to be false?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; he did.
Mr. Dorsen. What did he ask you?
Mr. Porter. Shortly after that, he asked me to, if I would increase
the amount of money that I was going to saj^ that I gave to Mr.
Liddy, and I said, no, I would not do that. He said, wh}^ not?
I said because I just absolutely — I did not give him that amount of
money and I Nnll not say I gave him that amount of money.
I said the conversation that you are asking me to relate, I can con-
ceive of it happening because I would have told you that in December
if you had asked me. And that is a strange answer, but that is the
answer I gave him. And I would not increase the amount of money.
He wanted me to say that I gave Mr. Liddy $75,000, when in fact, I
had given him some $30,000 to $35,000— $32,000.
Mr. Dorsen. Did Mr. Magruder tell you why he wanted the high
figure?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; he did not.
Mr. Dorsen. When was the first time you told any investigatory
body that you had not testified truthfully at the grand jury and at the
trial?
Mr. Porter. April 18, I believe.
Mr. Dorsen. 1973?
Mr. Porter. 1973, 3'es, sir.
Mr. Dorsen. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions at this
time.
Senator Ervin. We have a vote on in the Senate, so it will be
necessar}^ for us to take a recess so the members of the committee can
go and vote.
[Recess.]
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Porter, as I understand it, your statement here
this morning is to the effect that you agreed with Mr. Magruder that
you would tell the grand jury a false story, is that correct?
Mr. Porter. What I agreed to specificalh^, Mr. Thompson, was
that I would agree initiall}' to corroborate a story that Mr. Magruder
was going to tell to the FBI, which I felt was, in effect, replacing one
lawful authorization for another lawful authorization.
Mr. Thompson. Well, was it or was it not a false story?
Mr. Porter. Yes, that is absolutely correct; it was a false
statement.
Mr. Thompson. Well, you gave this false statement to the grand
jury?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. And you gave it at the trial in Januar}'?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. When did you go to the proper authorities and tell
them the truth about these matters?
Mr. Porter. The appointment was on April 18 at the U.S. at-
torne3''s office, although the contact had been made earlier than that,
or the contact to set up an appointment, I mean.
Mr. Thompson. When was the contact made?
638
Mr. Porter. I believe the 15th.
Mr. Thompson. The 15th?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. What caused you to go to them and make that
contact?
Mr. Porter. To answer that question, Mr. Thompson, would, in
its context — would really cause me to go back to April 9, when Mr.
Magruder called me in New York, where I was employed, and stated
that things were not looking too good for him. I said, what do j^ou
mean?
He said, "Well, let me just say that things are getting a little hot
down here."
I said, "Well, Jeb, I do not know what you mean by that. You have
always indicated to me that you were not involved in any of these
matters."
And he said, "That is right."
I said, "I do not want you to go into anything."
He said, "Well, I will keep 3''ou up to date, or keep you up to
speed, or words to that effect."
He called me on Wednesday, on April 11, and said, "Bart, if I were
you, I would call Paul O'Brien" — who was one of the lawyers for the
committee — "and tell him to call Earl Silbert and go down and tell
Earl what you know."
I said, "Jeb, you realize you are asking me to, in effect, put one of
your feet in a 6-foot-deep hole."
He said, "Yes, I know that, but I got you into this and the least I
can do is help you get out of it."
So I called Mr. O'Brien on the telephone.
Mr. Thompson. Wlien?
Mr. Porter. This was on April 11. And I told him that I had had
the conversation with Mr. Magruder. I told him I wanted him to call
Mr. Silbert and that I wanted to go talk to Mr. Silbert.
Mr. O'Brien's response to me was, "Now, why do you want to go
and do a stupid thing like that for?"
I said, "Well, I just do."
He said, "Now, you sound a little rattled, just calm down a little,
when are you going to be back down in Washington?" I was commuting
at the time; my family was here.
I said, "Well, I will be in tomorrow evening, Thursday evening,
April 12."
He said, "Well, why don't you come in and see me on Friday, the
13th, and we will talk about it?"
So I did and we — during the afternoon, Mr. O'Brien alternately
said, "Gee, I don't know whether you have a problem here or not."
He was very tired, he in fact fell asleep a couple of times during our
conversation. [Laugh ter.l
I don't say that jokingly. The man was exhausted, in my opinion.
I was not.
So, he said, "Well, I think maybe we ought to get another opinion
here." So he called Mr. Parkinson on the telephone and there was a
brief pause and he said, "Yes, I will tell him that. Parkinson thinks
you should tell the truth."
I said, "Yes, that is what I called you about 2 days ago."
639
He said. "Well, I do not know what to tell you. I just, we still
need" — and he hemmed and hawed.
He then got a phone call from Mr. Magruder, who was over at his
attornej^'s office. They conversed briefly and I — he said, "Yes, I will
tell Porter that; that is a good idea."
So he hung up and he said, "You go over and talk to Magruder's
lawyer." At this point I did not have any counsel except Mr. Parkinson
and Mr. O'Brien. He said, "You go over and talk to Magruder's
lawyer and see what he thinks you ought to do."
So I went over to the office of Mr. James Sharp and spoke briefly
with him, I would say no more than 10 minutes.
Mr. Thompson. The same day?
Mr. Porter. The same day; yes, sir. This is the afternoon of the
13th, now. I explained very quickly what I have just explained to
you gentlemen here and he looked at me rather incredulously and
he said, "My God, you are an ant, you are nothing. Do you reaUze
the whole course of history is going to be changed?"
I said, "No, I didn't realize that, but I knew what my worries were."
He said, "I can't advise you. Do you have an attorney?"
I said, "No."
He said, "Do you know an}^?"
I said, "Yes, but I don't know anybody that could handle anything
like this or be involved. I want somebody that you would know."
He said, "I will call you tonight, later on this evening, and give
you a couple of names. You talk to the attorney and have him call
me."
He said, "Now, if Mr. Magruder is going to go down and talk to
the Federal prosecutors, we would certainly give you the courtesy
of going down first."
I said, "I would appreciate that very much."
Mr. Thompson. Why?
Mr. Porter. I think because Mr. Magruder is the one who got me
involved and it was Mr. Magruder's feeling, at least he indicated to
me, that he wanted to do everything he could to extricate me from
that situation.
So Mr. Sharp did call me that evening about 10, 10:30
Mr. Thompson. Wouldn't it have been better from your standpoint
if you had come forth with this information first?
Mr. Porter. Sir?
Mr. Thompson. Wouldn't it have been better from your stand-
point if you had come forth with this information first in your own
eyes, instead of having Magruder go down there and then you
come
Mr. Porter. No, sir; perhaps you didn't understand me. I am ex-
plaining what Mr. Sharp said to me. If Mr. Magruder is going to
go down to the U.S. attorney's office, we would certainly give you
the courtesy of going first.
Mr. Thompson. Oh, I see. All right.
Mr. Porter. He said that to me.
Mr. Thompson. All right.
Mr. Porter. And I agreed with that.
So he called me later that evening, about 10:15 on Friday evening,
Mr. Sharp did, and gave me the name of two or three lawyers here
640
in Washington. Mr. Murray was on that list. He said, have him call
me.
The following Saturday afternoon, the next day, when I ran into
Mr. Magruder across from St. Johns Church at 5 o'clock in the
afternoon, among other things, he told me that he had been to the
U.S. attornej^'s office that morning, Saturday morning. I was rather
stunned by that.
I said, "How did that happen?
He said, "Well, Jim Sharp called me last night, said that he had
set up an appointment with Earl Silbert for 8:30 this morning and
instructed me absolutely not to call anybody or discuss it with any-
body. I am sorry", he said.
Mr. Thompson. In other words, Mr. Magruder did not do what Mr.
Sharp suggested that he do?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Magruder did not call me, sir, and tell me he
was going down. No, he followed Mr. Sharp's instructions according
to what he said.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Sharp told him what, again?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Magruder told me, Saturday afternoon, that his
lawyer, Jim Sharp, had called him the night before and had told
him that he had made an appointment for Mr. Magruder to see the
Federal prosecutors the next morning, Saturday morning, April 14,
at 8:30 in the morning, and instructed Mr. Magruder, according to
Mr. Magruder now, not to contact anybody or call anybody or discuss
his meeting wdth anybody at all.
Mr. Thompson. So Mr. Sharp did not abide by the agreement that
you and he had?
Mr. Porter. In my opinion, no, sir.
Mr. Thompson. What did Mr. Magruder tell you on the 14th
besides what you have already related?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Magruder just told me he had just come from a
meeting at the White House and that it is all over, he said, and I
said, what do you mean it is all over? He said it is all over, the Presi-
dent has directed everybody to tell the truth. Those were his exact
words. He said I had a meeting with Mr. Ehrlichman and I told
him the whole story and boy, was he really shocked, words to that
effect. He also told me that he had been to the Federal prosecutors
that morning. He also told me that there were going to be several
indictments and Hsted off a series of names, a number of names,
people that he thought would be indicted.
Mr. Thompson. All right, I am sure that will produce some further
questions, but I mil leave it for others on that particular point.
Let me ask 3^ou this: When is the first time you talked with Mr.
O'Brien and Mr. Parkinson about this false story concerning the
$100,000 to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Porter. I talked to Mr. Parkinson — ^the way it happened was,
a few days, I would say maybe 2 or 3 days after Mr. McCord's letter
to Judge Sirica was made public in the latter part of March, Mr.
Magruder called me on the phone. I was still in mv office at the
Inaugural Committee and said, "Did you see McCord's letter?" and
I said, "Yes, I saw parts of it in the newspaper." And he said, "What
do you think of it?" or words to that effect, and I said, "Well, I am
not really concerned about any part of it. I do not, he is not talking
about me." He said — Mr. Magruder said — "Well, I guess he is not," or
641
something like that. "Ken Parkinson wants to talk to you," and I
said, "What about," and he asid, "Well, I am not sure but he said
let me just say one thing. When you do talk to Parkinson, tell him
everything," and I said, "I was a little startled at that; all right, I
will." I had occasion, Mr. Parkinson and I, he did call me, Mr. Parkin-
son did and we set up an appointment, I believe it was for 4 o'clock
in the afternoon of March 28.
Mr. Thompson. Was this meeting before you went to the grand
jury?
Mr. Porter. Sir?
Mr. Tho.mpson. Was this meeting before you went to the grand
jury?
\It. Porter. I have onl}^ made one grand jury appearance.
Mr. Thompson. When was that?
Mr. Porter. August 1972.
Mr. Thompson. Go ahead.
Mr. Porter. So I had occasion to talk to Mr. O'Brien before I
went to Mr. Parkinson's office and he asked me to come by his office.
I did. I talked to ]Mr. O'Brien, I would say for an hour, hour and a
half, in his office, told him m}' whole story, or what I have told this
committee. Mr. O'Brien said he did not think I had a problem. I
think that was the way he put it. I went to see Mr. Parksinson. Mr.
Parkinson began by asking me what I knew about Mr. McCord's
letter to Judge Sirica, and I said quite frankly, "Ken, I do not see
where, I cannot really shed any light on it at all." And then I said,
"However, you are aware of" — then I told him about the false state-
ment or the statement that was not true, and he looked at it. I believe
he had ni}^ trial testimony in front of him. I am not certain of that,
however. I cannot be certain. But I do remember him sitting back
and he said, "Well, all you have done, you have just embellished a
little, that is all, you have not got a problem; you have nothing to
worry about." I said, "Well, I felt a little uneasy, although I felt
better after that." I said, "Do you think I should have my own
attorney?" Up to this point Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Parkinson were in
there representing the committee, were made available to anybody
who was making FBI appearances or grand jury appearances, et
cetera, and in connection with the civil suit filed by the Democrats.
I said, "Do you think I need my own attorney or my own counsel?"
and he said, "Well, you certainly can, it will probably cost you a
little money, ma^^be, but I do not see why you need your own counsel.
As a matter of fact, Bart, at this point it would probably be a little
disru]itive because things are kind of coming down to a close and it
would take somebody new a long time to learn the case. We have
been on this thing for many months now. I do not think we have any
conffict of interest here representing your interests in this thing at all."
So I walked away and that was it.
Mr. Thompson. So you never discussed the matter with Mr.
Parkinson or Mr. O'Brien before August of 1972?
Mr. Porter. Well, I am not sure in what context you are asking.
Mr. Thompson. You never discussed the story you were going to
tell the grand jury?
Mr. Porter. Yes, I did; but in a slightl}- different context.
Back in Juh- or late June, early July 1972, Mr. Magruder said to me
that Mr. Parkinson wanted me to ^^Tite a statement, just on regular
yellow pad.
642
Mr. Thompson. Let me ask you, maybe I can short circuit. Did you
tell either of these men before a'ou went to the grand jury in August
1972 you were going to tell a false story?
Mr. Porter. No, I did not.
Mr. Thompson. Let me ask you one other line of questions and I
will pass it on to the chairman. Your testimony at the trial, of course,
dovetailed almost completely with what Mr. Liddy testified to at the
trial, as was planned, is that correct?
Mr. Porter. I am sorry, sir?
Mr. Thompson. It dovetailed.
Mr. Porter. Mr. Liddy did not testify at the trial.
Mr. Thompson. I mean Mr. Magruder as far as the $100,000 was
concerned?
Mr. Porter. I have never seen Mr. Magruder's testimony at the
trial, never read it and do not know what that testimony is.
Mr. Thompson. Let me read you a question from the trial transcript.
Mr. Porter. Is this my testimony?
Mr. Thompson. This is Mr. Magruder's testimony.
Question. What funding or financial arrangements did you agree
upon A\ith Mr. Liddy with respect to the two different assignments that
you just distributed?
Answer. On the first assignment we agreed to a funding of approx-
imately $100,000 for the 10-month period starting in January and on
the convention program we agreed to $150,000, total funding of $250,-
000. With regard to the $100,000 he was talking about the surrogate
candidate program or protection for the surrogate candidates.
Mr. Porter. Yes sir.
Mr. Thompson. Assuming that is a fact, that would dovetail with
essentially what you testified to ; is that correct?
Mr, Porter. Yes sir.
Mr. Thompson. How many times did you discuss this matter
A\dth Mr. Silbert and Mr. Glanzer and Mr. Campbell?
Mr. Porter. I made one grand jury appearance in August of 1972
and discussed it Avith them then.
There was a pretrial meeting, I believe, the night before or two
nights before, I am not sure which, before the trial that was brief in
Mr. Silbert's office.
Mr. Thompson. How long did it last?
Mr. Porter. I think Mr. Magruder was there for the early part
of it and he left.
Mr. Thompson. Were you both in the same room?
Mr. Porter. We were both in the same room for a brief period of
time; yes, sir.
Mr. Thompson. Was Mr. Sloan there at the same time?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; he was not.
Mr. Thompson. Who else was in the room while you and Mr.
Magruder
Mr. Porter. Magnider, Mr. Silbert, Mr. Glanzer, I think Mr.
Campbell was there.
Mr. Thompson. Mr. Magruder left?
Mr. Porter. Yes, he did.
Mr. Thompson. Did any of the prosecutors ever ask you if
Magruder had tried to get you to perjure yourself?
Mr. Porter. No, sir.
Mr. Thompson. I have no further questions.
Senator Ervin. You talked to Magruder before you went before
the grand jury in August of 1972?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervix. And you agreed to testify that during December
1971 you had told ]\Iagruder that it would require about $100,000
for the dirty tricks episode?
Mr. Porter. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. For what episode?
Mr. Porter. What I
Senator Ervin. You had estimated.
Mr. Porter. Yes, that is correct; not for dirty tricks, for infor-
mation-gathering from radical groups.
Senator Ervin. From radical groups.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Magnider had attempted to get you to swear
to some other things which you say were not true.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. You refused to do that.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Then you went before the grand jury and you
testified in August of 1972 and that is the only time you have been
before the grand jury.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Then about the last of March, Mr. McCord wrote
a letter to Judge Sirica which came out in the newspapers.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. It was about that time that Mr. Magruder called
you.
Mr. Porter. Shortly after that.
Senator Ervin. And told you things were getting hot.
Mr. Porter. No, sir; that was on April 9.
Senator Ervin. Well
Mr. Porter. For himself, he said.
Senator Ervin. Yes. You came doAVTi to Washington after you
received the phone call from Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Porter. Well, I was already planning to come down to Wash-
ington.
Senator Ervin. When did you come?
Mr. Porter. On the evening of April 12.
Senator Ervin. And was that when Magruder suggested to you
that 3'ou go and talk to the counsel for the committee, that is, Kenneth
Parkinson?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. When was that?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; I beheve Mr. McCord's letter to Judge Sirica
was made public in a story in the Washington Post on a Saturday
morning toward the end of March, the 20th, something — 24th, 25th,
something like that.
Senator Ervin. Anyway, you talked to Parkinson and O'Brien on
the 28th of March.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator Ervin. And vou did that at the instance of Mr. Magruder.
96-296 (bk. 2) O - 73 - 13
644
Mr. Porter. I talked to Mr. O'Brien on my o^\'n. I talked to Mr.
Parkinson because Mr. Magruder had called me saying Mr. Parkinson
wants to see you and is going to call you to set up an appointment.
Senator Ervin. You talked with Parkinson and O'Brien together,
did you?
Mr. Porter. Not together, separately, but on the same afternoon.
Senator Ervin. On the same afternoon?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Who told you that the whole course of history was
going to be changed?
Mr. Porter. That was on Friday afternoon, April 13, and that
was Mr. Sharp; Mr. Magruder's the one
Senator Ervin. I will go back to Parkinson and O'Brien. You told
them in effect that you were troubled because of your having testified
before the grand jury that you had estimated for Mr. Magruder in
December 1971 that it would require about $100,000 to supervise
these radical groups?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And what did Mr. Parkinson say when you talked
to him about that?
Mr. Porter. You mean when Mr. Parkinson learned that that was
not a true statement?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Porter. I don't remember that he said anything other than he
was taking some notes, I believe, and I probably initiated the question
by saying, "What, Ken — what do you think?" To which he responded,
"Bart, I don't think you have a problem at all. All you have done is
embelHsh a Uttle."
Senator Ervin. That was Mr. Parkinson.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. What did Mr. O'Brien say about it?
Mr. Porter. Mr. O'Brien said I don't think you have a problem.
He did not use any other words.
Senator Ervin. In other words, both of the attorneys for the com-
mittee told you after you told them that you had sworn falsely before
the grand jury, they said that was no problem.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. You just embellished things a little.
Mr. Porter. Mr. Parkinson used those words, yes, sir.
vSenator Ervin. Now, a short time after that, you went to see Mr.
Sharp, who was then the attorney of Mr. Magruder.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Sharp told you that the whole course of his-
tory was going to be changed.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Did he explain what he meant by that?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, he didn't.
Senator Ervin. But he recommended that you talk to Mr. Ma-
gruder.
Mr. Porter. No, sir, he did not. He said that it would be wise for
me to retain an attorney, that I should tell the attorney, m}^ attorney,
the same brief story that I told him and to have my attorney call
him, and that is when I — then he asked me if I knew any and I asked
645
him since his client was the one who in effect had asked me to do
that it would be helpful if he
Senator Ervin. Now, did Mr. Sharp tell you that they could
arrange for you to see the district attorney before Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir. He stated specifically if we decide that Jeb
should go down and see Silbert, we would certainly give you the
courtes}' of going first. Those were his exact words.
Senator Ervin. Then you met Mr. Magruder and found out from
him that he had alread}^ been to see Silbert?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Now, did you consult a lawyer friend of yours after
you were asked by Magruder to lie?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator Ervin. You asked him what he would do under the cir-
cumstances, and he said he would probably lie for the President?
Mr. Porter. Those words were not used, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. What words were used?
Mr. Porter. I stated to — I went, right after Mr. Magruder had
had this discussion with me in late June, I went to a friend of mine
who happens to be a lawyer, but I did not go to him because he was
a lawyer; to share an experience, I think, and I stated what Mr.
Magruder had said to me. We talked about it.
I think you have got to protect yourself back a little bit in a period
of time. This was in the heat of the battle or the campaign. Here
were two loyahsts talking between the prospect of having the Demo-
crats, our "enemy" come into our camp and bust our whole campaign
wide open. I was not concerned about bad things, I was concerned
about things like polling and State strategy and research and adver-
tising and all these other things that could be made public.
So I told him what Mr. Magruder had asked me to do. He made a
comment to me. He said, after thinking about it, he said — by the way,
I think another important thing, if I may digress just momentarily,
Mr. Chairman. I think it is very important that both of us, me
particularly, since I am the one involved, believed Mr. Magruder,
had no reason to mistrust him at all, that neither he nor anybody
else was involved in the Watergate. And he specifically said that it
was important that the investigation be confined to the Watergate,
and I did not think that I was being asked to do anything in connection
with the Watergate break-in at all.
My friend said to me — I think he was speaking rather rhetorically.
He said, what difference does it make whether the money was author-
ized for this purpose or this purpose if what they are apparently
saying is that Liddy diverted funds and went off and did something
illegal? If one thing is going to embarrass the President and the other
one is not, he said, I would not do it for Mitchell and I would not do
it for Haldeman, but I would do it for the boss. And that is the feeling
I had at the time.
Senator Ervin. Was that before you testified before the grand jury?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Who was the lawyer who told you that?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully prefer that I
not have to give his name at this time. My lawyer knows who it is.
He is not involved in this in any way. Unless you insist on it; I wouW
prefer not to.
646
Senator Ervin. Did you go before the grand jury and make a
statement on account of what the lawyer said to you or on account
of what Mr. Magruder had said to you?
Mr. Porter. This lawyer was also a member of the Committee
for the Re-Election of the President, but not acting in a legal capacity.
So he is not a
Senator Ervin. He was a member of the Committee To Re-Elect
the President?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. I think under these circumstances, you ought to
divulge that.
Mr. Porter. His name is Curtis Herge.
Senator Ervin. Curtis who?
Mr. Porter. Herge, H-e-r-g-e.
Senator Ervin. Did Mr. Magruder, about the time of your con-
versation with him in April, tell you that he had prior knowledge of
the Watergate matter?
Mr. Porter. I am sorry, sir.
Senator Ervin. Did Mr. Magruder admit to you at the time of
your conversation about April of this year that he, Mr. Magruder,
had prior knowledge of the Watergate affair?
Mr. Porter. On April 14, in the afternoon of April 14, was the first
time that I learned that Mr. Magruder had prior knowledge or that
anybody else had prior knowledge other than those convicted.
Senator Ervin. How did you learn that?
Mr. Porter. I deduced it from his statement that there were going
to be a number of indictments and he included his own name.
Senator Ervin. Up to that time, he had always maintained to you
that he had no prior knowledge?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Senator Ervin. And at that time, he stated to you that probably
some people would go to jail?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. On account of the Watergate affair. Did he predict
that he himself would be one of them to go to jail in all probability?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Did he say he had talked to Mitchell about the
matter in addition to talking to Ehrlichman?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, I think he did.
Senator Ervin. And he told you that Mitchell had told him that he
was going to deny complicity to the end?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. Mr. Porter, I am not going to try to take you over
the same testimony that counsel and the chairman have already
covered, nor am I going to be unduly critical of your position, I trust.
But rather than inquire into the factual background and factors and
circumstances that led you to swear falsely, apparentl}^, before the
grand jury of the U.S. district court, rather than elaborate and expand
further on the situation that leads you to this witness chair today, I
would like to probe your reasons and motivations. I would like to
start with how you got into the dirty tricks business, what you
thought of it at the time and what you thought you would accomplish.
And I believe that is a good place to stop.
647
Would you tell me that, please?
Mr. Porter. The first time I ever heard the words "dirty tricks,"
I think, was from Mr. Magruder sometime in the fall of 1971, and
I had to ask him what it was. He asked me if I knew who Dick Tuck
was. I said, "No; I had never heard the name." And he described
some of Mr. Tuck's activities.
I then, upon reflection, remembered something out of Theodore
White's book from the 1964 Presidential campaign, where President
Johnson had a group called the 5 O'Clock Club, I think it was, a
group of 12 young attorneys and White House staffers that met in
the WTiite House every afternoon during the campaign to plan all
kinds of deviltr}", I think it was referred to, and dirty tricks against
Senator Goldwater.
Senator Baker. Now, let me stop you just a moment.
Mr. Porter. And this is what I thought dirty tricks were.
Senator Baker. All right. May I stop you just a moment?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. The chairman has explained to you and the com-
mittee that we intend to recall you for other testimony.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. And the scope of our testimony today ought to
be on the Watergate attendant circumstances.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. I am departing from that slightly, but I want to
tell you that I am searching for your motivations and reasons. I am
not now at this time searching for the facts. I will at a different time.
Any insight you can give me as to why a young man with your
background, with your education, with your obvious intelligence,
found yourself in charge of or deeply involved in a dirty tricks opera-
tion of the campaign, I need to know more of why.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir. I do not think I was in charge of any dirty
tricks operation at the campaign, and I am not aware that anybody
has testified to that fact.
Senator Baker. Well, tell me what your involvement was.
Mr. Porter. I dispensed certain moneys to certain individuals
at Mr. Magruder's request over the period of time from, probably,
October of 1971 until probably May or June, I guess, of 1972 — some
$69,000. About $52,000 of that'^$69,000 was given to people or persons,
for purposes the use of which I did not know at the time. So ap-
proximately 75 percent of that money was used for purposes I did
not know about.
I was asked to have a "Dick Tuck" type of individual, find one,
and pay him to perform those kinds of activities that were more in
the prank category. The first person that I made contact with did
that for about 2 weeks, as I remember, and decided that that was not
his bag.
The second person was on — was paid for a period of about 3 months
and participated in some of the primary campaigns. That was just
about the extent of it.
Senator Baker. Well, who else was doing this?
Mr. Porter. I do not know, sir.
Senator Baker. Do you know of anyone else besides you who were
hiring people for pranks?
648
Mr. Porter. No, sir; 1 do not.
Senator Baker. As 1 understand the essence of your testimony to
this point, then, 75 percent of the money is unaccountable, or you
cannot account for; 25 percent of the money you can; that you hired
two men to do, as you put it, a Dick Tuck operation, so-called "prank"
operation.
Mr. Porter. Yes sir.
Senator Baker. Is this sjnionymous with the "dirty tricks" opera-
tion that you referred to earUer in your testimony?
Mr. Porter. No, sir.
Mr. Magruder indicated to me that money had been, in fact,
authorized to Mr. Liddy for dirty tricks and other special projects.
Now, what he said was that they were not illegal and that what Mr.
Liddy had done, apparently — what he had apparently done at that
time was illegal and was not a part of that authorization.
Senator Baker. Did you ever have any doubt in your mind about
the propriety of this?
Mr. Porter. About the what, sir?
Senator Baker. About the propriety? Not the illegality, but the
propriety of it.
Mr. Porter. I did not know what he was referring to, and he did
not tell me what he was referring to. He never explained any of the
dirty tricks operation that Mr. Liddy was involved in.
Senator Baker. I do not think that answers my question.
Mr. Porter. I am soriy, sir.
Senator Baker. I will put it again. Did you ever have any qualms
about what you were doing, about the propriety of hiring these people
for the dirty tiicks or whatever it was? I am probing into your state
of mind, Mr. Porter.
Mr. Porter. I understand.
I think the thought crossed my mind. Senator, in all honesty, that
I really could not see what effect it had on reelecting a President of
the United States. On the other hand, in all fairness, 1 was not the
one to stand up in a meeting and say that this should be stopped,
either. So 1 do not — 1 mean, there is space in between. I kind of
drifted along.
Senator Baker. Now, you have reached now precisely that point
that I would like to examine and I intend to examine it with other
witnesses as this hearing proceeds.
Mr. Porter. OK.
Senator Baker. Where does the system break down when concern
for what is right as distinguished from what is legal is never asserted
or never thought about and you do not stand up and say so? At any
time, did you ever think of saying: I do not think this is quite right,
this is not quite the way it ought to be. Did you ever think of that?
Mr. Porter. I think most people would probably stop and think
about that.
Senator Baker. Did you?
Mr. Porter. Yes, I did.
Senator Baker. What did you do about it?
Mr. Porter. I did not do anything.
Senator Baker. Why didn't you?
Mr. Porter. In all honesty, probably because of the fear of group
pressure that would ensue, of not being a team player.
649
Senator Baker. And the fear of not being a team player was strong
enough to suppress your judgment on what action you should take if
you considered an action improper, if not illegal?
Mr. Porter. Well, I never considered any action up to that point
illegal, No. 1. However, I was
Senator Baker. Do you think an organization, a political organiza-
tion, should be so anonymous, so military and obedient, so careful for
the concerns of peer approval that it, each and every member of that
organization, at least up until a certain point and level in the organiza-
tional chart, completely abdicates his conscience and judgment?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; I certainly do not.
Senator Baker. What caused you to abdicate your own conscience
and disapproval, if you did disapprove, of the practices or dirty tricks
operation?
Mr. Porter. Well, Senator Baker, my loyalty to this man, Richard
NLxon, goes back longer than any person that you will see sitting at this
table throughout any of these hearings. I first met the President
Senator Baker. I really very much doubt that, Mr. Porter. I have
known Richard NLxon probably longer than you have been alive, and
I really expect that the greatest disservice that a man could do to a
President of the United States would be to abdicate his conscience.
Mr. Porter. I understand. Senator.
I first met Mr. Nixon when I was 8 years old in 1948, when he ran
for Congress in my home district. I wore Nixon buttons when I was
8 and when I was 10 and when I was 12 and when I was 16. My
family worked for him; my father worked for him in campaigns, my
mother worked for him in campaigns. I felt as if I had known this man
all my life — not personally, perhaps, but in spirit. I felt a deep sense
of loyalty to him. I was appealed to on this basis.
Senator Baker. Mr. Porter, I am sorry to interrupt you at this
point. We have a warning bell on a rollcall. I know I will return. When
we do, I know you will continue this.
[Recess.]
Senator Baker [presiding]. I might say that the chairman A\'ill be
here shortly. I understand from the chairman's representative that
it was his \nsh that we reopen the hearings and continue.
Mr. Porter, I reiterate what I said earlier, I am in no way trying
to be antagonistic to you, I have no animosity toward you, I am
tr\"ing to probe for a state of mind and the institutional arrangements,
the structuring, the situation that produced what would appear to
me to be an abdication of one's personal judgment of what is right or
wrong about a particular set of activities. That inquiry was frankly
kicked off in my mind by the designation of "dirty tricks" within the
campaign organization itself, by a situation that led you by your
testimony-, apparently, to commit perjurj.
With that as the end result, I hope you can understand why I am
trj'ing to probe for the set of circumstances that led a young man to
do those things.
I think I have spent most of my questions. I think that I am at
best in an area of questionable definition, but if you have anything
further you can give me that would shed light on why you agreed to
swear falsely, why you closed your mind, apparently, to undesirable
conduct, if not improper conduct, in a political campaign, the com-
mittee would be grateful for it.
650
Mr. Porter. Senator Baker, I am not a philosopher or more a
philosopher but I am trying to answer your questions as honestly as
I possibl}'' can and hopefully it comes out right. If it does not it is as
honest as I can make it.
First of all, I was not in charge of dirty tricks. I do not know where
all of this money went. I was never aware of all of this money. I was
aware of the amount of money I got from Mr. Sloan and even that I
was really only aw^are of about $17,000, where that actually ended up.
I had been told
Senator Baker. Did you tell Mr. Sloan what you used that money
for?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; I did not.
Senator Baker. Did Mr. Sloan ever ask you about
Mr. Porter. I have heard Mr. Sloan mtike iLat statement iind I
believe, I would not dispute it, I am sure he probably did, and 1 prob-
ably said you will have to ask Mr. Magruder. Whether that wns be-
cause I did not know what it was being used for, whether I was just
evading a question, I do not remember the conversation.
Senator Baker. If Mr. Sloan were to assert that he asked you what
the money was being used for and you refused to tell him, would you
dispute that?
Mr. Porter. I would not dispute it. I do not remember the con-
versation. Senator.
Senator Baker. All right, go ahead.
Mr. Porter. But I did not have any knowledge of that. Senator.
I did not know. At the time Mr. Magruder talked to me in retrospect,
I was a pretty easy target for that sort of thing because I did not know
anything. I did not have any knowledge of the Strachan money, the
Kalmbach money, the Liddy money, all of these other things. I did not
know anything about that.
Senator Baker. Did you ever see any stolen documents or trans-
scriptions of illegal wiretaps?
Mr. Porter. I never saw any transcriptions of legal wiretaps.
Senator Baker. Did you ever see any stolen documents?
Mr. Porter. Probably so. Probablj^ so. But I do not know w^hether
they were stolen or whether they were sent by somebody perhaps in a
campaign.
Senator Baker. Do you know a Mrs. Duncan?
Mr. Porter. I know Martha Duncan.
Senator Baker. Who was she?
Mr. Porter. She was my secretary for a short period of time.
Senator Baker. Did she ever type up any documents that you
knew to be stolen documents?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. What happened then. Tell me a little, illuminate
that a little bit. What tinge of conscience came into play when you
instructed your secretary to type a copy of stolen documents?
Mr. Porter. I am not sure of any tinge of conscience. Senator. I
had been told by others in the campaign that this kind of thing was a
normal activity in a campaign.
In my opening statement I said that I had never been involved in a
political campaign before and I had not. These things were all new to
me and I accepted them for what they were.
651
Senator Baker. That is a terrible indictment of politics. Being a
politician I am really distressed to hear that.
Are you telling me in effect that it was your opinion that this sort of
thing went on in politics \\ith Democrats and Republicans and that it
was fair game and that it might bother your conscience a little but it
had to be done?
Mr. Porter. That is exactly what I felt, Senator.
Senator Baker. How do you feel now?
Mr. Porter. Well [laughter] I am not sure that they have stopped.
Senator Baker. What would you do now?
Mr. Porter. If what, sir?
Senator Baker. If j^ou were in the same situation, pick any one of
the things, whether you are swearing falsely to the grand jur^^ or
whether you are photographing or rather typing stolen documents,
whatever it is, or $17,000 for pranks or dirty tricks, what would your
attitude be at this point?
Mr. Porter. It would be I would not become involved in any way,
shape or form.
Senator Baker. What brought about the change? Where is this real
emergence of human instinct for decency in politics?
Mr. Porter. Again 3'ou are asking me to give a moral judgment. In
my o^^^l personal case it has devastated me personally and that is
reason enough for me never to do it again. I can't answer for the
others.
Senator Baker. If you make a contribution to this country b}^
ser\dng, as an example, a deterrent to others having that attitude, it
might make some atonement for that submerged conscience, but time
\\i\\ tell that, we will have to wait and see.
Mr. Porter. I had that in my statement and took it out because I
thought that was rather self-ser\dng to make because that is how I
feel.
Senator Baker. Before I ask this last question, let me point out
that this inquiry is not that of an amateur philosopher or psychologist
but rather in pursuit of the statutory jurisdiction of this committee,
which is not only to find those things which may have been illegal but
improper as well.
Mr. Porter. I understand.
Senator Baker. Can you tell me, Mr. Porter, how we might venti-
late the structure of campaigning, how we might expose to the fresh
breeze of conscience and personality the organization of a presidential
campaign so that young men and old men assert their sense of right or
wrong instead of doing so-and-so because someone told them to.
Mr. Porter. I think you are doing a damn fine job right now,
Senator. [Laughter.]
Senator Baker. It is a painful thing, you know.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Baker. And it is a terrible way to have to do it. Do yon
have any other suggestions?
Mr. Porter. I have often thought we had too much money.
Senator Baker. Money is the — I am sure the chairman would
approve of this. [Laughter.]
And in deference to the chairman I will save it for him. [Laughter.]
Mr. Porter. I am waiting myself to find out which one he is going
to apply to my case.
652
Senator Baker. Mr. Porter, I believe that is all I have. I would
like to yield to Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much.
Mr. Porter, you have in your interview with the staff said it was
a standard operating procedure that Mr. Haldeman of the White
House be kept totally informed of everything that went on; is that
correct?
Mr. Porter. Senator Inouye, I believe I told the staff it was my
understanding that certainly in my area that major policy decisions
and that sort of thing that Mr. Haldeman's aide, Mr. Strachan,
always got copies of everything that we had, everything that went
on in my division, and I am sure got copies of everything that went
on in other divisions.
Senator Inoi/ye. To the smallest detail such as a guest list?
Mr, Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Inouye. Did you advise Mr. Haldeman as to cash dis-
bursements?
Mr. Porter. No, sir.
Senator Inouye. Are they a bit more important than guest lists?
Mr. Porter. I am not sure I understand the question. Senator.
Senator Inouye. You just indicated that Mr. Haldeman was
desirous of getting everything including guest lists of parties. Now,
I asked if you had advised Mr. Haldeman of cash disbursements,
$67,000 worth, and you say no. I was just wondering, don't you think
$67,000 is a bit more important than just a little old guest list?
Mr. Porter. I think the two, one doesn't follow the other. The
money that was disbursed through me as a conduit Mr. Magruder
was aware of and it would have been Mr. Magruder's responsibility
to relay that situation to his superior, Mr. Mitchell, and if he wanted
to, Mr. Kalmbach, not Mr. Kalmbach, Mr. Strachan or Mr. Halde-
man. That was not my function, no, sir.
Senator Inouye. I presume you kept a record of all your disburse-
ments?
Mr. Porter. I did.
Senator Inouye. What happened to the record, sir?
Mr. Porter. At the end of March 1972, I received a phone call
from Mr. Sloan saying that he would like to balance out, because
April 7 was approaching. I, to protect myself internally, called upon
Mr. Reisner, who has testified before this committee, to come in and
act as a disinterested third party to review what I had in — I had it
on a little secretarial steno pad, an in-and-out sheet, if you wdll, a
record of my copies of my receipts and cash on hand. Mr, Reisner
did that. I called Mr. Sloan. I told him the figure, $52,000, that I
had received from him from whatever the beginning of time was
until that point. He agreed to that.
I did not have an accounting function at the committee. In fact,
nobody at the Committee for the Re-Election of the President had
any accounting or disbursing function, so to speak. That was the
finance committee. And I had no need for the records, and I threw
them away,
I had — excuse me, sir.
Senator Inouye. Was that the only reason for destroying the
records? Were you afraid the information might be incriminating?
66a
Mr. Porter. No, sir. In fact, just the opposite. I made sure
Mr. Reisner had seen it all.
I just physically, I had no reason to keep them. I had balanced with
Mr. Sloan. He was satisfied. I was satisfied that there would be no
questions regarding the money. I had asked Mr. Reisner to act as an
independent auditor; he did. I started fresh, and threw the little
slips of paper away.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Porter, after the Watergate trial, you sought
a good Government job, did you not?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, I did.
Senator Inouye. And when Mr. Malek, through the White House,
was not helpful, you went to Mr. LaRue and told him, "Listen,
Fred, you know what I did at the trial. I have been loyal. I do not
3xpect to be treated better than anyone else, but I do not expect to
be treated worse." And Mr. LaRue said, "I know, I will contact
John."
Mr. Porter. That is correct, sir.
Senator Inouye. Did this happen?
Mr. Porter. I think basically, yes.
Senator Inouye. Who is "John"?
Mr. Porter. I presume that is John Mitchell.
Senator Inouye. After that, did Mr. Magruder tell you that
Mr. Haldeman had called Mr. Malek to insure that you would be
taken care of?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Magruder told me that he had talked to Mr. Hal-
deman and that Mr. Haldeman had called Mr. Malek and had told
aim, in effect, to kind of back off Porter, I think was the wording.
Senator Inouye. Do you know for a fact that Mr. Haldeman was
aware of the situation?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, I do not. I only know what Mr. Magruder
told me.
Senator Inouye. Did you get a good Government job after that?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; not through that particular process, no, sir.
I, on my own, contacted one of the department secretaries whom I
knew personally, made arrangements to talk to him, and through a
series of interviews, was offered a position in the Government at the
end of March. At the same time, as early as the latter part of January,
I had been seeking employment in private industry, to have a choice
between the two when the time came for me to make a choice.
Senator Inouye. Was not that job subject to clearance by Mr.
Malek?
Mr. Porter. I do not know, sir.
Senator Inouye. Now, you advised the committee that you were
in CaUfornia on June 17 in the company of Mr. Mitchell and who
else?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Mardian, Mr. Ma-
gruder, Mr. Raymond Caldero, who was in charge of our celebrities
at that time.
Senator Inouye. And at that time, you received a call from Wash-
ington, or someone did receive a call.
Mr. Porter. That was in the morning. This was at the Beverley
Hills Hotel. Mr. Caldero and I had come down from our rooms at
8:30 to have breakfast. We sat down at a table next to Mr. and Mrs.
LaRue, Mr. and Mrs. Mardian, and Mr. and Mrs. Magruder.
654
Senator Inouye. So that is when you first learned about the Water-
gate break-in?
Mr. Porter. Well, in looking backwards, Senator, I guess you
would have to say so, but at the time, no.
The phone call that you are referring to is one that Mr. Magruder
had received already, I think, because he came back to the table,
and not to me, but to the people he was sitting with, said, "Do you
know where I can find a secure phone?" And there was a discussion
at the table, apparently, about where one might find a secure phone.
And he turned to me, and he said, "Do you know where I can
find a secure phone?"
I said, "What for"?
He said, "Well, Liddy is trying to call me, or wants to talk to me on
a secure line."
And I said, "Well, we do have a direct outside line in the Mitchell
suite, why don't you use that?"
He said, "No, that is not good enough."
I said, "Well, why don't you go out to a pay phone and call him
back? Nobody's going to, you know, that is about all the security
you are going to get." That was the end of that conversation.
Senator Inouye. Who took care of the situation there?
Mr. Porter. I beg your pardon, sir?
Senator Inouye. WTio took charge of the situation there?
Mr. Porter. I am not sure I understand the question.
Senator Inouye. When this call was made, were the others agitated,
or were they not?
Mr. Porter. Senator, I do not remember at the time. I think my
back was to them and I do not remember seeing any expressions or
conversation. Mr. Magruder appeared quite open about it at the time,
in a loud voice.
Senator Inouye. Were you aware of a telephone call that Mr.
Magruder made on June 18 from California at 4 in the morning?
Mr. Porter. You would have to qualify that. Senator. I understand
that Mr. Magruder made or had phone conversations early Sunday
morning with
Senator Inouye. Who was the party he contacted in Key Biscayne?
Mr. Porter. I do not know, sir. I only know that — in fact, I think
Mrs. Porter, who was sitting behind me, told me that Mrs. Magruder
had told her — we were all kind of sitting or living in a suite of rooms on
the same floor— that her husband had been on the phone all morning
with Key Biscayne, I think was the quote. That is the only place I
can remember where that statement might come from.
Senator Inouye. You advised the committee that Mr. Magruder
told you that he perjured himself 12 times. Did he tell you about the
12 times he perjured himself?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, he did not. He made that comment the after-
noon — the same afternoon, on April 14.
Senator Inouye. I am just — as a matter of curiosity, you have
indicated that you were moved to take certain actions because of fear
of ostracism; you did not want to be ostracized by the team.
Mr. Porter. I am not
Senator Inouye. I think that is the phrase you used. What team
are you talking about?
655
Mr. Porter. It is just a generic term, Senator; not any particular
squad of people. I used the term generically, I think.
Senator Inouye. People like Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Porter. Probably.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Porter. Probably.
Senator Inouye. The President?
Mr. Porter. I don't think that ever crossed my mind, no, sir.
Senator Inouye. I have other questions, but they relate to the dirty
tricks and I have been advised we Avdll take these up later on. So, Mr.
Chairman, I yield at this time.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. If there is no objection, we have some more votes
3oming up very quickl3^ and our time is running out. Can you come
3ack Tuesday?
Mr. Porter. Sir, I am going to California in the morning with Mrs.
Porter. It wi]] require me to fly back on Monday. If that is what the
3ommittee wants me to do, I wall certainly be mlling to do it.
Senator Ervin. I don't think we can finish this afternoon. I hate to
nconvenience you.
Mr. Porter. No inconvenience.
Senator Ervin. The committee ^vill stand in recess until Tuesdaj^ at
10 o'clock.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, I ^vill be here.
[Whereupon, at 4:42 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to recon-
vene Tuesday, June 12, 1973, at 10 a.m.]
TUESDAY, JUNE 12, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington, D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 a.m., in room
318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (chair-
man), presiding.
Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker,
Gurney, and Weicker.
Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred D.
Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief
counsel; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant;
David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant
chief counsels; Barry Schochet, Ron Rotunda, Phillip Haire, and
William Mayton, assistant majority counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings
record counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority counsel; How-
ard S. Liebengood, H. William Shure, and Robert wSilverstein, assistant
minority counsels; Pauline O. Dement, research assistant; Eiler
Ravnholt, office of Senator Inouye; Robert Baca, office of Senator
Montoya; Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator Baker; A. Searle Field,
assistant to Senator Weicker; John Walz, publications clerk.
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
The witness will return to the stand.
Senator Inouye, I believe it is your turn to question the witness, is
that right?
Senator Inouye. I finished.
Senator Ervin. Are there any other questions?
Senator Gurney.
Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Porter, to get caught up to date, as I understand it you were
the director of scheduling in the Committee To Re-Elect the President,
in charge of the speakers, the surrogates program, and also the celeb-
rities, entertainment, and athletes, and I think that two pertment
pieces of testimony you gave us last week were that you had disbursed
some $69,000 in this, I guess you might call it, sabotage program, and
that you also perjured yourself at the trial at Mr. Magruder's request
on what you paid mone}' to Liddy for.
Now, that I might clarify one or two points here, would you explain
to the committee how you disbursed the $69,000? I don't think that
Was gone into in much d.tail last week.
TESTIMONY OF HERBERT L. PORTER— Resumed
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; I will. April 7, I passed approximatelv $31,-
000 to Mr. Liddy — the purpose of the funds to be used for a purpose
1 was not aware of. I passed $8,000 to Mr. Richard Howard at the
White House at Mr. Magruder's request.
(657)
658
Senator Gurnet. What did he use that for?
Mr. Porter. I do not know, sir.
Senator Gurnet. Did you ask Mr. Liddy what he was going to use
this money for?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; I did not. Mr. Magruder instructed me to
pass Mr. Liddy funds when he requested them, and I did not ask
what they were used for nor did he tell me.
Senator Gurnet. Go on.
Mr. Porter. I gave $300 at Mr. Magruder's direction to Mr.
Douglas Hallet who was at the White House who worked to help
put some reports together and it was— I do know the purpose of that —
that was to pay roundtrip air fare for Mr. Hallet to California for
an Easter vacation because he had helped out in the campaign putting
these reports together.
I paid $1,100 to Lionel Hampton for a band appearance and rally
in Miami, Fla., in March. I paid approximately $3,700, $3,800 to a
Roger Greaves in Los Angeles. I paid
Senator Gurnet. Do you know what that was for?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Greaves, on two occasions, promoted some sign ^
carrying placards to greet, I believe it was, Senator Muskie upon air--
port arrival in Los Angeles, and also came on to the — was also paid^
for a period of about 2 weeks, served for a period of about 2 weeks
and actually paid a month's salary in fact to do some Dick Tuck
type, as I think I cited the other day, Dick Tuck type prank liarass-
ments in New Hampshire, Florida, and it lasted for about 2 weeks
and he went back to California.
Senator Gurnet. Go on.
Mr. Porter. Gave $200 to Mr. Robert Mardian for an advance
trip to California that he took when the bank was closed. I gave
approximately $300 to about, I would say, seven or eight people in
various spots around the country to promote the President's campaign
at opposing candidates stops, signs which would say "This is Nixon
Country," or whatever.
Senator Gurnet. You gave each one that amount?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; total aggregate approximately $300 to pay
for signs and paint and maybe a keg of beer afterward or something
like that.
I paid a hundred dollars, I believe approximately a hundred dollars
to Mr. Roger Stone on one occasion to go to New Hampshire to leave
a leaflet, I believe, at Senator McGovern's headquarters, and I paid
another $200 to Mr. Stone, the same Mr. Stone, to go a second time
to New Hampshire to make a cash contribution to Mr. McCloskey's
camjmign. These were all at the direction of Mr. Magruder.
Gave Tom Bell $350 at Mr. Magruder's direction for the printing
of a small pamphlet having to do with Senator Muskie's candidacy.
Approximately $25 went for stamps, and about a thousand dollars,
approximately, went to Mr. Magruder on about probably two or I
three occasions when his aide would come and say "Jeb wants $300 '
or Jeb wants $500." I don't know the purpose of that and I gave
approximately $3,000 to Mr. Ken Rietz who was then the youth
director, director of the President's youth campaign. Total amount
that was passed pre-April 7 period was approximately $49,500.
• After April 7, I gave $3,300 to Mr. Liddy at Mr. Magruder's
direction for purposes I did not know. I gave approximately $90 to
659
my chief scheduler, Mr. Curtis Herge, which I understand was passed
on to his secretary to pay for her parking for 2 months, rather than a
raise. I gave another $450 over a 3-month period to the same Mr.
Roger Stone for salary supplement until such time as I could talk
Mr. Odle in raising his salary to $550 a month.
I gave $4,400 to Mr. Phil Joanou at Mr. Magruder's direction,
I did not know the purpose of that money. I gave $4,000 to Mr.
Robert Odle on two occasions of $2,000 each; I did not know the
purpose of that mone}'. I think I took out about $300 for cash expenses
on the trip to California with the Mitchells and the Mardians and the
Magruders and the LaRues on the weekend of the 17th. I gave $750
to Mr. Ken Wrights on two occasions, one I think a $300 payment
and the other a $450 payment. I think Mr. Wrights told me what
that money was used for but I do not remember whether it was the
first or second time he told me but I understood later it was for the
gentleman sitting out in front of the White House, Mr. Brill. I made
total payment of about $6,000 over a 3-month period again to Mr.
Stone that was passed on to a Mike, I cannot remember his last name
agam now, I believe it was McMinaway, from Louisville, Ky., who
worked in two or three of the primary campaigns as kind of an eyes
and ears and kept the campaign, kept Mr. Stone informed of morale
and this kind of movement and that sort of thing. That totals about
$19,000. The total was approximately $69,000, $52,000 before April 7
and about $17,000 after April 7.
Senator Gurnet. When Mr. Sloan, who was testifying before us,
he testified he had given you $100,000, as I recall.
Mr. Porter. I understand.
Senator Gurney. Can you account for the discrepancy between
your testimony and his?
Mr. Porter. Senator Gurney, this discrepancy was brought to my
attention around early July of last year, and I at that time said that
Mr. Sloan was wrong and that it had been approximately $65,000 or
$70,000 and that Mr. Reisner, I had asked independently to come in
and check those amounts. Now, I can't account for it any other way
than to tell you that is my best memory of the approximate amount
that Mr. Sloan passed to me. I noticed in Mr. Sloan's testimony on
Thursday that the figure of $100,000 that was up on the board that
was one figure he was a little unstable on and unsure of. I believe he
did say he was not exactly sure of that amount but that was to the
best of his memory.
Senator Gurney. Did you and he ever get together and reconcile
Mr. Porter. No sir, not at any time.
Senator Gurney [continuing! . Amounts of money?
Mr. Porter. Never.
Senator Gurney. One thing that has been a puzzlement to me is
why you disbursed money to Mr. Liddy at all, because Mr. Sloan also
testified that he disbursed something like $199,000 to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Porter. That is right.
Senator Gurney. Why didn't Mr. Liddy go directly to Sloan for
all the money? Why get some from you?
Mr. Porter. I do not know, sir. All I can do is answer the question.
In December, Mr. Magruder told Liddy that he was going to come
to me and that I was to get funds from Mr. Sloan. I was not aware
that Mr. Sloan was also giving money to Mr. Liddy. The last money
96-296 (bk. 2) O - 73 - 14
660
I gave to Mr. Liddy, I think it should be pointed out, was in March
of 1972, with the exception of the $3,300 that I was directed to give
him in early May of 1972, which I
Senator Gurney. Did you know during any of this period of time
that you were disbursing moneys to Mr. Liddy that he was also getting
moneys from Mr. Sloan?
Mr. Porter. No sir; I did not.
Senator Gurney. In your testimony last week, too, you mentioned
this conversation with Mr. Magruder after he had come from the
White House, as I recall, and quoting from the record, you said:
He also told me there were going to be several indictments and listed off a
series of names, a number of names, people that he thought would be indicted.
Who were these people that he thought would be indicted?
Mr. Porter. I believe, and then I would ask the counsel's help on
this one, I believe the names that he mentioned were Mr. Mitchell,
Mr. LaEue, Mr. Mardian, himself, and Mr. Magruder, Mr. Halde-
man, Mr. Strachan, Mr. Dean, Mr. Colson.
Mr. Dorsen, does that run the list?
Mr. Dorsen. I do not remember. I think that is it.
Senator Gurney. Did you and he have any discussions as to why
he thought they were implicated?
Mr. Porter. I am sorry, Senator.
Senator Gurney. I say did you and he have any discussion at that
particular time as to why he thought they would be indicted?
Mr. Porter. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. Now, then, let us go to the California visit. That,
of course, was when the news broke about the Watergate break-in, out
in California that morning. And you mentioned that you were at
breakfast with a number of people. Now, who were these people?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir. I came down to breakfast at about 8:30.
This was at the Beverley Hills Hotel. Mr. Caldero, who was working
on the celebrities portion of the activities of that weekend, was ^v^th
me. We sat down at the table next to Mr. and Mrs. LaRue, Mr. and
Mrs. Mardian, and Mr. and Mrs. Magruder. It was during that
breakfast — I was reading the paper; I think Mr. Caldero was, too —
that I overheard Mr. Magruder say, does anyone know where I can
find a secure phone? And nobody did, apparently. And he leaned over
and asked me and leaned back in his chair over to the next table and
said, "Do you know where I can find a secure phone?"
I said that we had a phone, an outside line up in the Mitchell's suite.
He said, "No, that was not good enough."
I said, "Why do you need it?"
He said, "Well, Liddy wants to talk to me." That was all he said.
I said, "Well, why don't you just go to a pay phone, pick a pay phone
at random and call him." I do not know whether he did that or not.
Senator Gurney. Did he leave the room then?
Mr. Porter. I do not believe so.
Senator Gurney. There was also testimony that I think it was your
wife, in a chat with Mrs. Magruder, got the information that Mr.
Magruder was on the phone all morning long.
Mr. Porter. That is right.
Senator Gurney. With Key Biscayne.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
661
Senator Gurney. Can you amplify that any further? Do you know
who he talked to?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, all I can say about that conversation further is
that Mrs. Porter did mention to me that morning, Sunday morning —
I guess she later has now told me that she went in to have a cup of
coffee with Gail, I think, Mrs. Magruder, and our rooms were like
across the hall. And I believe Mr. Magruder's parents at that time were
with him also.
Carol came back and made a comment to me that Gail had said to
her that Jeb had been up since very early in the morning, all morning,
she said, on the phone to Key Biscayne. And that was the net of the
conversation.
Senator Gurney. Did you see Mr. Magruder at all the rest of the
day?
Mr. Porter. On Sunday, Senator?
Senator Gurney. Yes.
Mr. Porter. I believe I saw him that morning. He introduced me
to his parents and I said hello to them.
Senator Gurney. Was there any conversation at any time during
this day about the break-in?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, because Mr. Magruder was making arrange-
ments at that time for air transportation back to Washington and he
left the group and flew back to Washington some time Sunday morning,
I believe.
Senator Gurney. What other people did you see during that day —
that is, principals in this — Mr. Mitchell, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Mardian,
anybody else?
Mr. Porter. Are you talking Saturday or Sunday, Senator?
Senator Gurney. Well, the day of the, the morning of the break-in.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir. There was a meeting, a California political
meeting, at the Airport Marina Hotel, at about 10 o'clock or 10:30,
I believe, and the arrangements were that Governor Reagan was
going to stop by the hotel and pick up Mr. Mitchell, which he did. We
went down to the Airport Marina Hotel, and it was at the Airport
Marina Hotel that I noticed, again noticing a lot of rather private
conversations going on.
Senator Gurney. Between whom?
Mr. Porter. Among Mr. LaRue, Mr. Mardian, Mr. Magruder, and
then ultimately, Mr. Mitchell. There were several large banquet
rooms, empty banquet rooms, in the hotel that were not being used
and a lot of these meetings were held in those rooms, off in a corner.
I was asked at one occasion to stand some 50 yards away, whatever
it was, and kind of be the guard on the door as they had this meeting.
Senator Gurney. Who was present at that particular meeting?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Mardian, Mr. LaRue, Mr.
Magruder, Mr. Clifford Miller from Los Angeles was present, but I
am not sure whether he was present at that particular meeting.
There were several of these conferences going on intermittently
during the
Senator Gurney. How many would you say?
Mr. Porter. Three or four, ])robably.
Senator Gurney. And would you please name all the people that
you can remember who participated in these conversations?
Mr. Porter. I think I have named them, Senator, those people.
662
Senator Gurnet. Did you overhear any of the conversations?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, not a bit.
Senator Gurnet. Did any of these people repeat to you later any
part of these conversations?
Mr. Porter. No, sir. Obviously, my curiosity became piqued and
I asked, I believe it was Mr. Miller — I think it was Mr. Miller —
probably a question like, what's up? He said, I believe, that one of
the committee's employees had been caught inside the Democratic
National Committee. I asked him who it was and he said, James
McCord. And that was the first time I had learned of that. It was
toward noon.
Senator Gurnet. How long did you stay in California?
Mr. Porter. I personally, Senator?
Senator Gurnet. Yes.
Mr. Porter. Through Tuesday, I believe, the following Tuesday.
Senator Gurnet. And what about the rest of the time that you
were in California? Do you recall any conversations that took place
about Watergate that you have any knowledge of?
Mr. Porter. No, sir. At no time was I ever included in any of
those conversations with any of those people.
Senator Gurnet. While you were in California, did you make any
phone calls back to Washington?
Mr. Porter. I have been asked, I believe, that question by one of
the members of your committee. I received a phone call from the same
Roger Stone who I mentioned earlier in this about the — in my earlier
testimony. And Mr. Stone was taking care of our house while we were
gone. I had taken my family out to California for the summer.
Senator Gurnet. Is this significant?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, it is significant. He was, I think it was on
Monday night, I guess feeding our dogs and the phone rang and a
voice asked for me and he said, he said, is Bart Porter there?
Mr. Stone said, no, he was not. He said, who is this?
And the voice said, and it sounded like an older man, according to
Roger, this is Jim McCord.
And Roger said, I do not believe you. And I guess the man pressed
him and said, yes it was.
He said, where are you?
He said, well, I am in jail. I want to talk to Porter.
I do not think this is accurate. I think personally it was a hoax
or some friend calling. But anyway, Roger called me in California
immediately.
I was convinced it was a prank because I hardly knew Mr. McCord
and he would have no reason to call me. But because Mr. Magruder — I
think I tried to get Mr. Magruder, I am not sure. But I did call Mr.
LaRue. I felt somebody should know that I had received that call. So
I did tell, I think I called Mr. LaRue and told him that. And he just
took the information and said, thank you. And that was the last I
heard of it.
Senator Gurnet. Now, when you returned to Washington again,
did you participate in any conferences, phone conversations with
anyone about this Watergate break-in?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, not at all, other than the normal
Senator Gurnet. Did you hear anybody discuss it there at the
Committee To Re-Elect the President?
663
Mr. Porter. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. What about destruction of records? What records
have you destroyed other than the accounting that you have men-
tioned?
Mr. Porter. Well, I really did not have any other records. Senator,
other than some speech material and some travel schedules that were
out of date and other things that I had been kind of saving over a
period of months that really were not — I would not classify as any-
thing important, but I did have those and I did throw those away, I
think.
Senator Gurney. From the time that you were in the service of the
Committee To Re-Elect the President until now, have you ever had
any discussions about Watergate or bugging or surveillance or sabotage
with Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Porter. Never.
Senator Gurney. With Mr. Ehrlichman?
Mr. Porter. Never.
Senator Gurney. With Mr. Dean?
Mr. Porter. Never.
Senator Gurney. With Mr. Colson?
Mr. Porter. Never.
Senator Gurney. With Mr. Kalmbach?
Mr. Porter. Never.
Senator Gurney. With Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Porter. Never.
Senator Gurney. With anyone whose name I have not mentioned?
Mr. Porter. With anyone whose name you have not mentioned?
Senator Gurney. That is right.
Mr. Porter. Mr. Magruder, although
Senator Gurney. Besides Mr. Magruder, that we have heard about.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
I do not believe so. Senator. I do not believe so.
Senator Gurney. I understand you had a meeting on January 24,
1972, with Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Magruder, is that correct?
Mr. Porter. Correct.
Senator Gurney. What was the substance of that meeting?
Mr. Porter. The substance of that meeting was that many of us
who had come on early in the campaign and had been preparing a
series of position papers and other reports on various aspects of the
campaign and although I was the supposedly director of scheduling I
had a few other duties that I had to perform like putting together an
ethnic report, a middle-American vote report, a Spanish-speaking,
Spanish American voter
Senator Gurney. These were routine.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, these were large documents and Mr. Ma-
gruder set up a meeting on the 24th for me to deliver these reports to
Mr. Mitchell.
Senator Gurney. Nothing occurred in this meeting about bugging,
surveilling, sabotage?
Mr. Porter. No, nothing at all.
Senator Gurney. Just two final questions.
Do you know of your own knowledge whether the President of the
United States had any prior knowledge about Watergate?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, I do not. . .<
664
Senator Gurney. Surveillance?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, I do not.
Senator Gurney. Do you know of your own knowledge whether
the President of the United States had any participation or knowledge
of the coverup?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, I do not.
Senator Gurney. Do you yourself have any knowledge of the
coverup?
Mr. Porter. Only— —
Senator Gurney. Other than what you — Mr. Magruder told you?
Mr. Porter. Only to the extent of my own involvement in that.
Senator Gurney. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge.
Senator Talmadge. Mr. Porter, what was your position before
assuming your position with the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Porter. Sir, I was a staff assistant to the President working
in Mr. Herb Klein's office at the White House principally in the same
area, Senator Talmadge, that of a speaker bureau responding to
requests for speakers that would come into the executive offices.
Senator Talmadge. Who offered you that ])osition?
Mr. Porter. I am sorry.
Senator Talmadge. Who offered you that position?
Mr. Porter. I believe Mr. Magruder did back in January of 1971.
Senator Talmadge. Why were you upset when Mr. Magruder
suggested that the Committee To Re-Elect the President files and
records might be searched?
Mr. Porter. Well, sir, we had an extensive, as I understood it, an
extensive advertising plan.
We had our key States, that was quite a confidential plan, what
States we were targeting, the amounts of money we were going to
spend in each State, all the polling data we had, the research data we
had, the plans for the telephone banks that ultimately were quite
successful that we had. I mean all those things, my whole surrogate
planning schedule for the campaign, these were things that I under-
stood could all be subpenaed and made public.
Senator Talmadge. You know of nothing illegal that was in the
files? ^ ^
Mr, Porter. No, sir, I do not.
Senator Talmadge. Why did that upset — excuse me, go ahead.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, go ahead.
Senator Talmadge. The only thing you were concerned about was
political information of a sensitive nature; is that an accurate state-
ment?
Mr. Porter. That is an accurate statement.
Senator Talmadge. Did Mr. Magruder ever mention the Presi-
dent's name to you when he discussed with you this Watergate matter?
Mr. Porter. The President's name was mentioned, sir, in a context
of "Save the President from embarrassment. Doing this for the
President." He never, never did he inquire nor did I infer that he,
that the President of the United States, was aware of Mr. Magruder's
request of me; no, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Did he indicate to you that it was important
to keep the investigators from getting to Mr. Mitchell, Mr, Haldeman,
and the President?
665
Mr. Porter. No, sir; I think, to answer the question directly, the
answer would be no. However Mr. Magruder did say, I believe, that
it was important that the investigation be kept to the Watergate
investigation and avoid the embarrassment that could be caused by
ha\dng it go on to other areas and he specifically mentioned Mr.
Haldeman, Mr. Mitchell and the President as being those, and I think
those are the three that he mentioned that could be embarrassed.
Senator Talmadge. He wanted the investigators to be kept from
the President, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haldeman, is that your testimony?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Magruder didn't key on the investigators as much
as he did the opposition, the Democrats coming in.
Senator Talmadge. What was the area of sensitivity there? Why
did he mention those specific names?
Mr. Porter. I don't know, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Did Magruder tell you that he had talked with
Mr. Mitchell about this matter?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. "Wliat did he say Mr. Mitchell had said?
Mr. Porter. He did not, sir. He said that, as I had stated earlier,
that he had come from a meeting where my name had been brought
up, and in that context he mentioned Mr. Mitchell's name.
Senator Talmadge. ^Yhat did he sa}^ Mr. Mitchell said?
Mr. Porter. He did not quote Mr. Mitchell directly.
Senator Talmadge. He didn't say anything in that regard?
Mr. Porter. I think the answer to that question I should say Mr.
Magruder in stating those who were present at the meeting I got a
picture that there was a discussion of me and that he was bringing
the message from the meeting so in that context
Senator Talmadge. What w^as the nature of the meeting? What
was it about?
Mr. Porter. I do not know, sir.
Senator Talmadge. What did Mr. Magruder tell you occurred at
the meeting?
Mr. Porter. Magruder said my name had come up and that there
was, first of all, he wanted to — he said he wanted to — assure me that
no one higher than Mr. Liddy was involved in the Watergate. However
there was a problem with the authorized funds given to Mr. Liddy
and that apparent!}^ he had taken some of these authorized funds that
had been authorized for what Mr. Magruder claimed to be legal
purposes but embarrassing purposes.
Senator Talmadge. How did your name arise in that discussion?
Mr. Porter. Well, Senator, that they apparently had decided at
this meeting that they wanted to be able to say, to tell the investiga-
tors that the money had been authorized to Mr. Liddy for something,
I believe my words were, the other day were, a Httle more legitimate
sounding than what they had been authorized for, and Mr. Magruder
was going to do that and asked me, and I got the impression I was
being asked b}^ the others also, to corroborate that story, and to, in
fact, replace one lawful authorization with another, one that would be
less embarrassing but one that was not in any way, in my opinion, to
my know-ledge at the time, tied in any wa}^ to Watergate.
Senator Talmadge. As I recall you testified last week that Mr.
Magruder urged you to commit perjury, did you not?
Mr. Porter. I didn't use those words. Senator.
666
Senator Talmadge. That was the sum and substance of it, wasn't
it?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Magruder asked me to corroborate and change
the date of a conversation, yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Did he say he was making that statement on
his own initiative or authority or that it came from higher levels?
Mr. Porter. I don't believe those words were used but I certainly
got the impression that they were from a group of people higher than
Mr. Magruder.
Senator Talmadge. What group do you think it was?
Mr. Porter. The group that he said was at the meeting.
Senator Talmadge. Who were they?
Mr. Porter. Which was Mr. Mitchell, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Magruder,
and a fourth person whose name I have not been able to remember
for a year.
Senator Talmadge. You think that was the group that urged you
to follow the Magruder pattern; is that the idea?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator Talmadge. All right.
Now, did Mr. Liddy ever give you some sealed envelopes?
Mr. Porter. Yes, he did.
Senator Talmadge. How many times?
Mr. Porter. I would say three or four times.
Senator Talmadge. What were his instructions when he gave you
those envelopes?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Liddy asked me to hold them for him and with
the instruction that if anything should happen to him that I should
take those envelopes directly to the Attorney General at that time.
Senator Talmadge. Who was the Attorney at that time?
Mr. Porter. Mr. Mitchell.
Senator Talmadge. Did he tell you what the contents of those
sealed envelopes were?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, he did not. They were sealed.
Senator Talmadge. Were you curious about what they were?
Mr. Porter. I suppose in retrospect my curiosity was piqued some-
what but not enough
Senator Talmadge. Did you have any impression at the time as
to what the contents were?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, I did not.
Senator Talmadge. Did you ever wonder about the nature of what
he gave you?
Mr. Porter. I thought about it, surely. Senator.
Senator Talmadge. That, if anything happened to him you were
to give them to the Attorney General of the United States?
Mr. Porter. I am sorry, I missed that last.
Senator Talmadge. Did it excite curiosity in your mind that he
would give you sealed envelo])es and tell j^ou and instruct you if any-
thing happened to him you would deliver them to the Attorney
General of the United States?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir; I am only human and I was naturally curious
but as I say they were in my safe and I forgot about them most of the
time quite frankly, but they were there.
Senator Talmadge. Did you return them to Mr. Liddy after he
came back?
667
Mr. Porter. No, sir; Mr. Liddy asked me on one occasion to shred
them. He said, "You know those envelopes I gave you. Go ahead and
shred them."
Senator Talmadge. And you would do so?
Mr. Porter. I did.
Senator Talmadge. All three times?
Mr. Porter. Sir, I believe all at once, the four envelopes I had —
three or four different envelopes I had.
Senator Talmadge. You shredded them at one time, not after he
returned?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; I shredded them all at one time.
Senator Talmadge. All at one time. You testified last week about a
meeting j^ou had with Mr. Parkinson who, I believe, was the lawyer for
the reelection of the President, was he not?
Mr. Porter. I am not sure exactly which committee Mr. Parkinson
represented, Senator, whether it was the finance committee or the
reelection committee.
Senator Talmadge. At that time I believe he directed you or
suggested to you that you play ball by Magruder's rules or what was
the comment that he made at that time?
Mr. Porter. No sir. I beheve that the conversation you are referring
to perhaps that the staff has put down is that during tbe M&j 28
meeting that I had with Mr. Parkinson in his office at his request Mr.
Parkinson made a comment about me by Mr. Magruder, and I do not
remember exactly what the comment was, but I said "Well, that is
kind of a strange thing for him to say" or something and he said
"Well, let me tell j^ou exactly what he said," and he picked up a yellow
note pad and he had on it notes that he said he had taken from an
earlier conversation with Mr. Magruder in his office, and he read from
the bottom part of the page and I quote him "Porter told play ball
by Mitchell, La Rue, Dean and Magruder. Porter will not hold up
under indictment." Then he flipped the page and it said "Porter had
meetings with Mitchell, Dean, LaRue, Magruder" and I looked at him
rather incredulously I think and I said "First of all. Ken, I was never
told to play ball by anybody. I never had a conversation with Mr.
Mitchell or Mr. LaRue or Mr. Dean or Mr. Magruder was the only
one I talked to. That the expression 'play ball' certainly was never
used," and I described to him again the conversation Mr. Magruder
had with me.
Concerning the second paragraph I never had any meetings after
that with Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Dean. I may have had a conversation
with Mr. LaRue but I would not classify them as meetings, and that
was the extent of it.
Senator Talmadge. Did anything else of significance occur at
that conversation?
Mr. Porter. I beheve I have already testified that Mr. Parkinson
told me when I detailed my story to him that I had no problem, that
I had not committed perjury, that I had embellished the story, that
I should not worry about it and when I asked him if I should, if he
thought it was important for me to get a lawyer in this thing at all,
he said no. I was certainly entitled to do so but he thought it would
be a little disruptive at that point and it would take too long for a
new lawyer to come in and learn all the facts in the case. We were
668
referring to the civil suit filed by the Democrats in which I was
named as a defendant. So I took that advice and left.
Senator Talmadge. Thank you, Mr. Porter. Thank you very much.
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. No further questions.
Senator Ervin. Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. Mr. Porter, I would just like to cover two areas.
In the disbursement of the moneys the list of which you gave to Senator
Gurney, did you mention in that list the purchase of microfilm
viewing equipment?
Mr. Porter. No sir; I did not. And that should be in there.
Senator Weicker. You did not mention it in the list which you
gave Senator Gurney?
Mr. Porter. No sir, I probably, in my mind I had that classified
under the Reitz money but I did not specifically mention it.
Senator Weicker. Well, is it the Rietz money or is there a separate
expenditure?
Mr. Porter. It is a separate expenditure, Senator.
Senator Weicker. Thank you. Would you give me the amount
of that expenditure?
Mr. Porter. I believe it was probably $60, $50 or $60, something
like that.
Senator Weicker. In the nature of microfilm viewing equipment?
Mr. Porter. Yes sir. Well, I would not classify it as microfilm
viewing equipment. I would classify it as film strip viewing equip-
ment, 35 millimeter film strip, not microfilm.
Senator Weicker. You say you thought you had this classified
in your mind under the Rietz payments but is it not so that you
gave this money to your secretary, Martha Duncan?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; I do not believe so.
Senator Weicker. You gave no money, then, to your secretary
to purchase microfilm for you and your equipment?
Mr. Porter. No, sir; I do not believe so. I did not. If you would
like me to tell you what I know about buying any equipment, I
certainly can, but I do not remember giving Mrs. Duncan, or Miss
Duncan — at least, nothing was ever purchased as a result of it.
Senator Weicker. You never instructed your secretary to purchase
viewing equipment for microfilms?
Mr. Porter. Senator, I do not remember. I think at the time
Mr. Magruder brought some 35-millimeter negative film to me on one
occasion. I remember looking for a better viewing vehicle than the
little tiny thing that you had to hold up to your eye, and I did go, I
believe, to one or two camera stores around, close to the committee,
and look for a 35-millimeter film strip projector. Now, it is possible that
I might have asked Miss Duncan, on a lunch hour or something, to go
to one of these places to see if she could find one or see if she knew
where I could get one. I was having trouble finding one and I ended
up getting one from New York or out of a New York company. So
Miss Duncan did not purchase any of that equipment, to my knowl-
edge.
Senator Weicker. What was the purpose of this equipment?
Mr. Porter. The purpose of the equipment was to view 35-milli-
meter film strips that were given to me.
Senator Weicker. And what was the nature of those film strips?
669
Mr. Porter. The nature of the film strips was that they were, ap-
peared to be 35 millimeter photographs or negatives of interofiice
memorandums from Senator Muskie's campaign headquarters to his
Senate oflices and back again.
Senator Weicker. And did you give any sort of an admonition to
your secretary, Miss Duncan, as to whether or not she was free to talk
about these matters?
Mr. Porter, I think there was a general imderstanding, Senator,
at the time that it was not anything you went to a party and talked
about, if that is an answer to the question.
Senator Weicker. I want to know exactly what Mrs. Duncan's
function was in relation to these particular microfilms.
Mr. Porter. Let me back up. Senator, to answer the question, I
think, a little more fully and put it in context. At a certain time, and I
do not remember the exact month — November, perhaps, of 1971 —
Mr. Magruder came into my office with a small roll, a very small roll,
of 35 millimeter film strip and a little viewing device that had a little
Ught source from the back. He said, here, hold these for me, put them
in my safe or desk or whatever I had at the time. I asked him what they
were and he said, well, you can look at them, but never mind.
So I looked at them, and they were apparently, as I say, interoffice
memos from staff members in Senator Muskie's office.
He came back later, I think a day later, perhaps, and retrieved the
film strips, took them and said that he was going to show them to Mr.
Mitchell. He came back and apparently he did show them to Mr.
Mitchell, because he was a little irate at me for not making sure that
the batteries worked, and apparently, he got all the way to Mr. Mitch-
ell's office and the batteries did not work, and he blamed it on me.
After that time, when he gave the film strips back to me — I would
say there were probably four or five frames on the strip — I think I
asked Mr. Magruder where he got them and he refused to tell me at
that time.
At a later date, Mr. Magruder said that Mr. Ken Rietz was going
to be, was going to deliver these film strips to me and would I view
them for him, and Mr. Magruder, and anything that I thought was
"important" or interesting, that I should bring it to Mr. Magruder's
attention and he would then tell me what to do with it.
I did that and Mr. Rietz started delivering these things to me, and
I did view them. And at that, I think the first or second time that I
did this, it became apparent that I needed something a little more easy
on the eye, perhaps, to see what these things said, and so I then went
out and out of my own pocket, I think, wrote a check for just a small,
little projection device so that you could see it, you could enlarge it
and see what it said.
Senator Weicker. All right, now. Let us take it right at that point.
Did your secretary participate in typing any transcripts or memoran-
dums based on these microfilms?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, she did. On one occasion, I remember there
was a, I think it was in December, early December, there was a staff
memo that I saw from one of the campaign officials to the Senator or
perhaps to his campaign manager, saying that the Senator's role, I
believe as chairman of a subcommittee on Governmental Operations
or something like that
670
Senator Weicker. Which Senator is this?
Mr. Porter. Senator Muskie — could be used as a great front to
go to Cahfomia and hold tax hearings that would be a great visual
event for Senator Muskie and all at the taxpayers' expense and he
could get a lot of value for his campaign.
We thought that was rather interesting, to say the least, and I told
Mr. Magruder about it. He asked me to just copy the memo on a, I
believe it was written on plain bond — and send it to Evans and Novak.
Miss Duncan did that. Miss Duncan typed it and we sent it to
Evans and Novak, and they printed it and the hearings were never
held.
Senator Weicker. All right. Were there other documents or other
instances where Miss Duncan performed services relative to
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir, I believe it was Miss Duncan. On one occa-
sion, Senator Muskie's speech that he was going to deliver in the
Senate against the nomination of William Rehnquist to the Supreme
Court was on the film, and I specifically was — it was about 20 pages
and I asked Mr. Magruder what he wanted me to do with it. He said,
let me check, and he did check, and he got back to me and said, Mr.
Mitchell would like to see it.
So that had to be completely typed and I had to read — I read off the
film into an IBM dictaphone, and I believe it was Miss Duncan who
typed that. I believe it was she.
Senator Weicker. Miss Duncan now being your secretary, is that
correct?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. At any time, did you send Miss Duncan to the
White House to give Gordon Strachan copies of the photographed
documents or the transcripts emanating from those documents?
Mr. Porter. I do not remember, sir, whether I did or not; I do not
remember. It is possible that I did. If I did, it would have been be-
cause Mr. Magruder would have said, take a copy of this over to
Gordon Strachan.
Senator Weicker. I do want you to think about this answer.
Mr. Porter. I understand.
Senator Weicker. I am not trying to mislead you, and if you care to
take a minute or so, just to carefully think about it, please do so. I do
not want to rush you.
Mr. Porter. I will tell it as I remember it, and I do — let me say
this. Certainly, if Miss Duncan says that that happened, then it did
happen. I would not dispute anything that she might say.
On the other hand, the only reason that I would send a document
over to Mr. Strachan would be at Mr. Magruder's suggestion or
direction. I believe that I do remember sending — I believe there was
only one copy of the Rehnquist speech put together — I think — it was
so long. However, on the item that appeared that was sent to Evans
and Novak, I think perhaps that may have been sent over to Mr.
Strachan. I just do not remember, Senator.
Senator Weicker. And you realized at that time that these various
documents — well, let me rephrase my question.
The obtaining of these documents, did you consider them to have
been obtained legally or illegally?
671
Mr. Porter. I remember asking Mr. Rietz. The first question I
asked him, I said, "Is this any part of the U.S. maU?" And he said,
"No."
I knew that intercepting the U.S. mail would be a violation of the
law.
I put the photographing of a document in the same category as
xeroxing a document. If you are taking a picture of it one way, you
are taking a picture of it another way. So I did not think it was illegal.
I thought it was very surreptitious, but I did not think it was illegal.
Senator Weicker. You thought it was surreptitious?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Weicker. But you did not think it was illegal?
Mr. Porter. No, sir.
Senator Weicker. Why, then, did you indicate to your secretary
that these were not matters to be discussed?
Mr. Porter. I think that is, in my opinion, that would be self-
evident, Senator Weicker, that you would not go around discussing
things like that, the same as you would not go around discussing any
kind of information gathering that you might be doing.
Senator Weicker. Did you indicate to her that if she discussed it,
she would be fired?
Mr. Porter. I do not believe I ever made that statement to her,
no, sir.
Senator Weicker. Again, let me just ask the question, am I correct
in paraphrasing your answer to me that there might have been an
instance where you sent material to the White House to Gordon
Strachan or am I correct in saying that there were those instances and
if so, how many? That is my question.
Mr. Porter. I cannot remember the exact number of instances
that I sent things to Mr. Strachan. Mr. Strachan would get copies
addressed to Mr. Haldeman of many things that I did. Senator, in
relationship to my primary function at the campaign or the surrogate
operation, schedules, and plans
Senator Weicker. I understand, but-
Mr. Porter. I do not remember — excuse me.
Senator Weicker. Excuse me.
Mr. Porter. I just do not remember specific instances where Mr.
Strachan was sent an item here or an item there. As I say, if Miss
Duncan says that she did, then I would believe that. But I personally
do not remember that specific instance.
Senator Weicker. You do not remember, then, sending Miss Dun-
can to the White House to give Gordon Strachan copies of these photo-
graphed documents?
Mr. Porter. I would say that, if it is an answer, I kind of remember
it, but not enough to sit and testify that I did it. All right? I mean, I
sent Mr. Strachan documents and, on occasion. Miss Duncan would
hand carr}^ them for one reason or another — either because the mes-
senger was not going to come back until 4 o'clock and it was noon, or
Mr. Magruder wanted to get something over there right away, or
something like that, and the secretaries would hand carry them.
Senator Weicker. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Montoya.
672
Senator Montoya. Mr. Porter, I believe at one stage in your testi-
mony, you stated that you had been instructed by Air. 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 I 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 Avith 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 approxi-
mately $35,000— $30,000 to $35,000, which is correct. What I stated
was that 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 Mr.
Magruder wdth 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
673
Senator Montoya. I understand that, Mr. Porter. You mentioned
this in a conversation ^^^th Mr. Magruder, indicating to him that he
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. Wliich 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 \dsited Mr. Silbert recently, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did you during those days when you were con-
versing \\'ith Mr. Magruder about a possible appearance that he might
make at Mr. Silbert's office — did you at that time visit Mr. Silbert?
Mr. Porter. No, I did not, sir.
Senator Montoya. Did you ask Mr. Magruder or Mr. LaRue for a
Government job during your discussions with him about your grand
jur}' 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 em-
ployment and I got Mr. — Mr. Magruder told me that I believe it was
Sir. Malek at the White House could be, could possibly be an obstruc-
tion 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 conversa-
tion went something like my saying, "Fred, you know this problem
that I have wdth Mr. Malek." I said "I have been a pretty loyal guy."
And he said, "Yes, I know that."
And I said, "Now, I do not want to be treated any better than any-
body else, but I sure as heck don't want to be treated any worse than
anybody else, 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."
674
And I understand that he did. That was the extent of that conver-
sation.
Senator Montoya. Why were 3^011 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. It 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 ])lans, 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 these receipts?
Mr. Porter. The initial receipts from the pre-April 7 money I
kept until the end of March, I believe when Mr. vSloan 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 threw 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 mone}^ and the cash on hand and the amount
of money received from Mr. Sloan, et cetera, and those receipts then
were thrown away.
Senator Montoya. Who did you show these receipts to before
you destroyed them?
Mr. Porter. Mr, Reisner.
675
Senator Montoya. Did j^ou 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 Water-
gate 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
invohdng an}^ of the pa3^nents that I made after April 7 to Watergate,
Senator Montoya. Just mention or state to me what sensitivity
did you find in those receipts that warranted their destruction.
Mr. Porter [conferring with counsel]. Yes, sir; as I say Mr. LaRue
had come to ni}^ office and had asked me to throw away anything that
could be in the category of being politicalh^ sensitive. I would imagine,
I put in that categor}' 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. WTiat 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 an accounting function at the committee.
I had — the receipts were strictly internal documents. Thej^ were not
meant for any public viewing at all and the}^ were strictly internal and
I had satisfied the internal requirement and I destroyed them, I
threw them away.
Senator Montoya. How many receipts would you saj^ that you
destroyed, can j^ou 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 3^ou 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 threw away.
Senator Montoya. Now, what were your exact duties at the CRP
besides scheduling, what other duties did you have?
Mr. Porter. AYell, sir, as I said in my — one of m}^ earlier state-
ments, almost all of my time was spent in the surrogate schedule,
planning for the surrogate program which amounted to over a thou-
sand 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 was it.
Senator Montoya. In other words, you were the one who would
give instructions to Mr. Sloan for the disbursements of money?
Mr. Porter. I beg your pardon?
96-296 (bk.2) O - 73 - 15
676
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 Ma-
gruder 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 De-
cember 1971 by Magruder's insistence that your loyalty to the Presi-
dent 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 resi)onse to that is that I
encountered quite a bit of difficulty in getting it and finally did re-
ceive an offer which I received on my own initiative.
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
Shakesphere" 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.]
Please cut out the applause.
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
677
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 3'ou 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 mth
any assistant U.S. attornej^s before your grand jury appearance that
led to the September indictments?
Mr. Porter. No sir, I did not.
Mr. DoRSEN. In your conversations \nth
Mr. Porter. Excuse me [conferring with counsel] ; that is correct, I
did not.
Mr. DoRSEN. In your interview \nth the Federal Bureau of Inves-
tigation or in your testimony before the grand jurj^, 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 saj-?
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 jou ever asked in view of the fact that the pro-
gram required setting up of 10 individuals at $1,000 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 $30,00 yourself?
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 approximate]}^ $35,000.
Mr. Dorsen. But am I correct that 3^our conversation with, sup-
posed conversation mth Mr. Magruder, the one that never took
place
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dorsen [continuing]. Was supposed to provide the justification
for the large sums of money given by you to Mr. Liddy; is that correct?
Mr. Porter. It is my understanding that part of 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 Mr. Liddy whether there were infil-
trators, whether Mr. Liddy indicated there were infiltrators, anything
along those lines?
Mr. Porter. Not that I remember
678
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 j'-ou 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?
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 I 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
frankl}^, 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.
Mr. Dorsen. I have no further questions at this time.
Senator Gurney. Mr. Chairman, could I have one question I
would like to put to the witness?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Senator Gurney. From time to time these people that you em-
ployed 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?
679
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 or any kind. No
reports were required. The second fellow, I believe, sent one hand-
written statement that was later, I think, retj^ped 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 oflice 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
acti\aties 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 am'one about these activities?
Mr. Porter. I do not. I would expect that perhaps Mr. Magruder
may have taken that document or that report and shoAvn 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.
Senator Gurney. This is the ^\Titten report you are talking about?
Mr. Porter. Yes, sir.
Senator Gurney. Did Mr. Reisner say what he did wdth it?
Mr. Porter. No, sir, he did not.
Senator Gurney. Did you make any report at all to anyone in the
White House?
Mr. Porter. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. Did not?
Mr. Porter. No, sir.
Senator Gurney. Neither during your term ^^dth 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 Watergate, bugging, surveillance, sabotage, coverup,
all these acti\aties.
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 m}^ knowledge, at all.
680
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 judgment on A^our 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 3^ou 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.
Senator Ervin. Counsel will call the next witness.
Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Chairman, the next witness is Mr. Maurice H.
Stans.
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 am Robert W. Barker, legal counsel
for the Honorable Maurice H. Stans.
681
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 up 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 com-
mittee. 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 approjiriate 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 dis-
cussing 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 recog-
nize, 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 impend-
ing 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 mil 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, ha^^ng said this, I would like to take a minute to re\dew 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 \nth his high standards of ethics and his position
as a loyal American, demonstrated by years of service to this coimtry,
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 mth the FBI investigation, he was
prom^ptly discharged, ^v^th Mr. Stans' approval. Immediatel}' there-
after, Mr. Stans encouraged his o^^^l staff to cooperate and he gave full
cooperation himself with all investigatory bodies and authorities.
682
Commencing early in July of 1972, on three occasions, he voluntarily
submitted himself to inquiries and discussions with FBI agents con-
cerning the Watergate break-in and the Presidential election campaign.
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 Currenc}^ 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 dis-
cussed matters \vdth 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 investigations into the Vesco
contribution to the campaign. He then also voluntarily ajjpeared 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 depositions in the civil
Utigation 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 ju-
dicial 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. 107, 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
683
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 tyranical
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 pro-
cedures. . . . 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 unde\aating 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,
462, 1907).
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 defend-
ant 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
publicit}', 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 Mm 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 inter-
ferring w4th his own fair trial or going to jail. I repeat, this is a com-
pletel}' unfair position to put him in.
The onl}^ 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 liim 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.
\Miat 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
684
right, is likely to severely prejudice a person in the minds of the public,
including prospective jurors.
Mr. Chairman and members 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.
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.
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 the}^ 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 approxi-
mately a year to deal with these matters and justice has a habit of
treading on leaden feet, so I certainly think it would be manifest^
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 vou and the witness at this time that
685
if any question should be put to the witness which infrequently 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 testif}^ if his testimony would tend to incrim-
inate him, and I can understand the reluctance of the witness to
invoke that right.
The committee, as I say, has had — fortunately, a'ou gave advance
notice to the counsel and we considered this matter fullj^ and it is the
judgment of the committee, first, that the mtness 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
anv question wliich might invade the field covered by that case; and
third, that it is the duty of the committee, in the absence of an in-
vocation of a constitutional right not to testify, to interrogate the
mtness. So the committee will require the witness in the absence of
an invocation of constitutional privilege, to testify.
Mr. Barker. Mr. Chairman, just for the purpose of the record, I
would like to clarify the ruling of the committee, then. Mr. Stans is
appearing here today under subpena. He, in order to protect his right
of fair trial, has not volunteered to be here today. And now the com-
mittee has directed him under the penalty of citation of contempt of
Congress to proceed to testify.
Is that correct, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Ervin. The committee has directed him to testify and the
committee recognizes, as you as one learned in the law, that a refusal
to testify under these circumstances, without an invocation of the
constitutional principle set out in the fifth amendment, would subject
the witness to the possibility that the Senate might order the issuance
of a citation for contempt of the Senate if he refuses to testify.
Mr. Barker. Is it the position of this committee that if Mr. Stans
did not proceed to testify the}- would seek a citation for contempt
against Mr. Stans?
Senator Ervin. Well, that would be a matter that the committee
would have to consider. Since that condition has not arisen, we have
not passed on that but I would say that it would be certainly within
the prerogative of the committee to recommend to the Senate in the
event the witness refused to testify without invoking the fifth amend-
ment, that he be cited by the Senate for contempt of the Senate.
Mr. Barker. Mr. Chairman, the point I am trying to make, I
would like at this point, for the record, our letter to you dated June 4,
1973, concerning Mr. Stans' appearance to be made part of the record
at this time.
Senator Ervin. That ^\'ill be done.
[The letter referred to was marked exhibit No. 26.*]
Mr. Barker. And, Mr. Chairman, what I am trying to make is a
matter of record, that Mr. Stans is not doing anything vohmtarily
which would waive his right to test in the proceeding in New York
whether he can get a fair trial and whether the indictment should be
dismissed on the grounds it is impossible for him to get a fair trial, and
I want to be clear that you are ordering him to testify, and that he is
not proceeding under circumstances which would waive that right.
* See p. 897.
686
Senator Ervin. Well, in the absence of any objection to the contrary
from any member of the committee, I would state as chairman of the
committee, that you have made it perfectly clear. PLaughter.]
Please refrain from laughing. You made it perfectly clear and Mr.
Stans has made perfectly clear to the committee that he is not volun-
tarily appearing to testify and that any testimon}^ he may give to the
committee is given to the committee merely because the committee
orders him to give such testimony.
Mr. Barker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to take just
a moment to check with Mr. Stans.
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stans Avill proceed under those circumstances.
Senator Ervin. I think there may be some other member of the
committee who may want to make some remarks at this time before
we proceed further.
Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to
make one brief remark which has nothing to do really, with the legal
maneuvering which has gone on here. I fully understand the importance
of these exchanges. I simply wanted to say on, I believe, on behalf of the
committee, certainly on behalf of this Senator, that the committee is-
not insensitive to the rather delicate position in which Mr. Stans finds]
himself. We are not insensitive to the whipsaw between the judicia
system and the legislative system which would appear on the surface
But I think two or three observations might be appropriate to set the
stage and to create the right atmosphere for our going forward at this
time. We are not ordering Mr. Stans to testify simply to serve the
purposes of this committee's desire to proceed. We are, as a coordinate
branch of the Government, proceeding with the mandate given us by
the Senate. The case, the Delaney case to which counsel referred if my
memory serves me, was a case that tested this theory and went out on
the question of whether or not the court under these circumstances
should delay and continue criminal prosecutions until after the legisla-
tive proceedings had been concluded. I do not suggest that the U.S.
district court for any district in the State of New York, or that in
which this case is pending, should grant a continuance. I rather say —
nor do I suggest that you should ask for a continuance. I rather say
that there are remedies other than disposing of this witness without hi&
testimony and without suspending the proceedings of this committee
in view of the coordinate branch of conflict which is presented.
On the question of fair trial, if for no other reason than human
sensibilities, I am concerned for a fair trial for any defendant, especially
any defendant charged with any violation of the law in conjunction
with the so-called Watergate situation or Presidential campaign activl
ties of 1972. I am very concerned for a fair trial for the Government
and for the defendant.
But I suggest, for whatever it is worth, that this committee is in a
position to develop the circumstances and involvements, to do it
fairly and openly, to do it publicly, to do it as a forum creating an
opportunity for the witness to state his side of the case so the potential
jurors do not have just rumor, innuendo, inferences, and conclusions
on which to base judgment. I suggest there is a far greater likelihood,
in my view, that a fair jury, an impartial jury, and a fair trial might
be engaged in after this hearing and after everybody has had an
opportunity to testify than would have been the case a few months
i
i
687
ago without a public exposition of all the facts and circumstances
attendant on Watergate and the involvements described being under-
taken by this committee. No one can be certain of this result but I
certainly hope for that result because I hope that these committee
hearings do not prejudice the right to a fair trial but, in fact enhance
the right to a fair trial.
I pledge before you again that I will not inquire into any matter
that I or you suggest in good faith might be involved in the trial of
the Vesco case. I urge you to caution your client in that respect and
pledge on my part that no refusal to answer on that legitimate basis
will be viewed b}' the committee or this member of the committee, as
a failure of cooperation. I believe, in conclusion, that this legislative
committee, this committee of the Senate, a coordinate branch of the
Government, can proceed with its mandate as required by the resolu-
tion which created it mthout jeopardizing the fairness of trial for
3ither the Government or the defendant.
It is my fervent hope that we conduct ourselves in that way.
Thank you.
Senator Ervin. Any further statements?
I would just like to add that I agree mth Senator Baker's observa-
:ion that the chances — there has been so much publicity in the press
hat the chances for anybody getting a fair trial of anybody involved
.vould rise with the completion of this hearing rather than postpone-
nent of this hearing and, as I construe the U.S. Suprerne Court
decision in the Hutchinson case, the committee is acting within the
constitutional limits. And I also would like to say this, Mr. Barker,
is one w^ho admires legal craftsmanship, I want to commend the
jxcellence and the eloquent manner in which you have undertaken to
Drotect what you conceive to be the rights of the witness.
Mr. Barker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. We might let the other attorneys, if they are there,
:o identify themselves for the record, and you might do the same, Mr.
Barker.
Mr. Barker. Mr. Chairman, I am Robert W. Barker. I am accom-
panied by Walter J. Bonner and Leon T. Knauer.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Stans, would you stand up?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, I would like to proceed with an opening
statement which will take me approximately 20 minutes, perhaps a
minute or two over.
Senator Ervin. I was thinking maybe I would administer the oath
and then recess and perhaps it would be better to make your opening
statement after the recess.
Mr. Stans. It is quite agreeable either way, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Will you stand and raise your right hand? Do you
swear that the evidence that you shall give to the Senate Select
Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities shall be the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
TESTIMONY OF MAURICE H. STANS, ACCOMPANIED BY
ROBERT W. BARKER, ATTORNEY
Mr. Stans. I do.
Senator Ervin. We normally recess until 2 o'clock. At that time we
will give you an opportunity to read your entire statement and I would
688
suggest that you be allowed to read your entire statement without
interruption by questions.
Mr. Stans. Thank you.
Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 11:58 a.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 2 p.m., this same day.]
Afternoon Session, Tuesday, June 12, 1973
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order. I presume
Senator Baker will be here in a minute.
Since the witness will first read a written statement of which
Senator Baker has a copj^, we will proceed.
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am
very sorry that the circumstances of my appearance made it necessary
for my counsel to raise legal points in order to protect my right to a
fair trial in New York. I personally would much have preferred to
testify without any need to protect myself in that criminal action in
which I feel that in the setting of a fair and impartial trial I would be
exonerated.
However, I want to assure you now that I will do my very best to
be helpful to the committee in my testimony.
Less than 2 years ago, one of the proudest moments of my experience
occurred here on the Senate side of the Capitol, as I approached the
end of my service as Secretary of Commerce.
Some of you and many of your colleagues on the Senate Commerce
Committee were extremely generous in a public hearing in praise of
my efforts over a 3-year period as head of the Department of Com-
merce — and some of the Democratic Senators even wished me success
in my new undertaking as fundraiser — but not too much success,
they said.
All of those comments remain highly valued to me now, as much as
any reward of the many years I spent in public service in two admin-
istrations.
I would like my appearance here today to be another service in the
public interest. The circumstances that bring us together are extremely
regrettable, but I still share a strong mutual concern with you — in
this case establishing the facts and the truth of these matters of
national interest.
For that reason, as you know, I have cooperated with your staff
prior to my appearance here today, just as I intend to do fully with
the committee here now. My sense of integrity compels me to do so.
In the past, I have refrained from answering in a piece-meal fashion
various questions which have been raised by the media concerning the
Presidential campaign and other related matters. For that I have been
highly criticized. But I felt that it was better if I could answer these
questions before an appropriate forum in the setting and perspective
of the overall situation. This would enable me to give a complete
picture rather than a piece-meal response, and this is what I hope to
do today, to the extent 1 am able. This may help resolve some ques-
tions as to which there has been a minimum of understanding and
much erroneous public information.
Next, let me say that 1 have cooperated fully with every official
agency that has sought information from me. I have met twice with
the staff of this committee, once with the staff of the House Banking
and Currency committee, have had three meetings with the FBI and
it least six with the General Accounting Office, have given a deposi-
tion to the assistant U.S. attorney in Washington, and have met with
t,he assistant U.S. attorney in New York and twice testified before a
^e\v York grand jury. All of this has been voluntary. I have also
testified several times by deposition in civil suits and once in a Florida
criminal case.
Also, during all the investigations which have commenced since
June 17, 1972, I have instructed all finance committee personnel to
cooperate fully and candidly. The reported testimony of Hugh Sloan,
Jr., Paul Barrick, Judy Hoback, Evelyn Hyde, and Arden Chambers,
s evidence that this is being done. I am convinced that none of these
Persons had a part in Watergate or the subsequent events. However,
is will come out, Mr. Sloan's recollections and mine may differ in a
'ew respects. This is obviously attributable to the passage of time, or
:he pressures of events at the time, or subjective recall. Just as he
las given you his best recollection, I will give you mine, on the various
inancial matters. On the major issue, that of involvement in the
Watergate matter, I am satisfied that he is completely innocent.
Now, it is my understanding that the committee is probing three
natters on which it might assume that I have some knowledge — the
espionage charges, including the Watergate bugging, and the coverup
Lhat allegedly followed; the sabotage charges, including the Segretti
jperation; and the handling of campaign finances. On these three
natters I would like to state this:
(1) I had no knowledge of the Watergate break-in or any other
espionage efforts before I read about them in the press, or of the
3fforts to cover up after the event.
(2) I had no knowledge of any sabotage program to disrupt the
campaign by Segretti or anyone else.
(3) To the best of my knowledge, there were no intentional viola-
tions of the laws relating to campaign financing by the finance com-
mittees for which I had responsibility. Because of the complexity of
the new law that became effective in the course of the campaign, and
the vast amount of work that had to be done under the new law,
there may have been some unintended technical violations by the
committee.
What I want particularly to stress in this opening statement is the
fact that this committee cannot effectively evaluate the work of the
finance committee or my own activities without having in mind four
fundamental distinctions:
1. The distinction between the functions and activities of the cam-
paign committee and the functions and activities of the finance
committee.
2. The distinction between the election financing law which expired
on April 6, 1972, and the new election financing law which was effec-
tive on April 7, 1972.
3. W^ithin the finance committee, the distinction between the
functions and activities of the chairman and the functions and ac-
tivities of the treasurer.
4. The activities of the finance committee before I joined it on
February 15, 1972, and the activities of that committee after Feb-
ruary 15, 1972.
690
By the campaign committee I mean, of course, the Committee
for the Re-Election of the President. By the finance committee I
mean the Finance Committee for the Re-Election of the President and
its several predecessors up to A])ril 6, 1972, and the Finance Com-
mittee to Re-Elect the President beginning April 7, 1972 (together with
their associated committees in each time frame).
During the period of my affiliation with the finance committee as
its chairman, the treasurer was Hugh Sloan, Jr., until July 15, 1972,
and thereafter the treasurer was Paul E. Barrick. I shall refer to the
treasurer as though it were the same individual, letting the time
period identify which of these persons it relates to.
Now, as between the campaign committee and the finance committee,
the campaign committee had all of the responsibility for the planning
of the campaign, the development of its strategy and the execution
of its tactics. The questions of how many people to employ, the efforts
to be expended in each State, the determination of the relative use of
direct mail, personal solicitation and media advertising, the kinds
of appeals to voters, and the entire gamut of the political effort wea
developed, organized, managed and conducted by the campaign
committee. In effect, their decisions fixed the amount the campaign
would cost.
The finance committee had no part in any of these basic decisions.
The role of the finance committee was directed toward a single ob-
jective — to raise enough money to pay the bills. The finance committee
had nothing to say about which bills to incur. Under the arrangements
in effect, the finance committee paid any bill or made any payment
which bore the approval of an ajjpropriate official of the campaign
committee.
The campaign committee was supposed to see that the amounts it
OK'd were within the limits of an approved budget. It turned out
that the controls did not work as they were intended, and spending
overran the budget by more than $8 million, perhaps more likely
$10 million.
So, in practical terms, the two committees operated in watertight
compartments. They were physically separated on different floors.
The campaign committee ran the campaign and created the debts; the
finance committee raised the money and paid the bills.
There was only one forum for the exchange of opinions with respect
to campaign spending, and that was the budget committee. The budget
committee consisted of three officials of the campaign committee and
three officials of the finance committee. Formal meetings of the budget
conmiittee with recorded minutes did not take place until after Labor
Day, 1972. A niunber of informal meetings on budget matters were
held before that, but most of those centered on the overall amount of
funding at the National and State levels.
The meetings of the budget committee were not, in my opinion,
very effective. Each one was opened by me with a general statement
of the current cash position and the expectations of future contribu-
tions, which vmtil the last few days of the campaign never equaled the
expected s])ending. I i)ressed continuously for reductions in overall
spending, but the actual trend was constantly upward. At times the
meetings became bitter, and I walked out of one meeting at which I
thought there was absolutely no understanding of the difficulties of
691
fundraising on the part of those who were doing the spending. The
budget grew to $40 milUon, then $4.3 niilhon, and ended up in excess
of $48 million and our latest accounting, which is not yet completed,
shows it to be in excess of $50 million. Onl}' a late surge of contribu-
tions, as a result of the effective organization we had built across the
countr}^, made it possible for us to end u]) with a surplus above that.
Now, as between the old law and the new law, prior to April 7, 1972,
the controlling law on candidates for Federal office was the Corru])t
Practices Act enacted in 1925. This act made a major distinction
between fundraising for a candidate to secure a nomination — through
primaries or conventions — and fvmdraising in a general election. There
was no rejiorting required of any kind on contributions and expendi-
tures to secure a nomination. There was a requirement that contribu-
tions and expenditiu-es in a general election be reported to the Clerk
of the House.
The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which became effective
April 7, 1972, changed that by eliminating entirely the distinction
between a campaign for nomination and a campaign for election. It
required that all contributions a.nd all expenditures in any political
campaign be reported. Although the bill was signed by the President
on February 7, it did not become effective until April 7 because the
Congress specifically allowed 60 extra days for operation under the
old law.
The distinction between election financing and nomination financing
had existed for almost 50 years, and countless candidates for the
Presidency, the Senate, and the House of Representatives had ob-
served the requirements of the one and the exemption of the other.
In 1972, candidates for such offices in both political parties formed
finance committees that did not have to publish or file their trans-
actions prior to April 7, and organized new reporting committees after
that date. In the President's campaign, a Finance Committee for the
Re-Election of the President had been created solely to raise funds for
the renomination, and this committee terminated its activities on
April 6; it was not, under the law, required to file reports. A new
Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President was created to operate
beginning April 7, and it has filed all public reports required by the
new law.
We readily acknowledge that our fundraising operated under the
old law until April 7, 1972, the Federal Election Campaign Act of
1971; under this law the fact that contributions need not be reported
gave the committee and its contributors a right of confidentiality
The issue of confidentiality versus disclosure of such information
has never been fairly presented to the public. It has been made to
appear that the committee engaged in secret, thereby concealed and
suspect, transactions which would not have occurred had they been
required to be disclosed. That is not true. The transactions were
valid and proper and the question of whether they were to be reported
was a question of law that involved important rights of individuals.
The committee's position all along has been that nondisclosure
created no advantage to it, but that privacy was a right of the con-
tributor which the committee could not properl}^ waive. The right
to live without undue intrusion is a long-respected benefit of the
American system. Therefore the committee did not release the names
96-296 (bk.2) O - 73 - 16
692
of contributors before April 7. It has never objected to any contributor
disclosing his contribution. And on one occasion, just before the elec-
tion, the committee released a list of such contributors — up to March
9, 1972 — only after consulting with those making the larger gifts.
Much has also been made of the fact that a few records of the
committee before April 7 were destroyed. The fact is that the very
large part of such records has been preserved, and the committee
believes that the others can be reconstructed if needed. But the
important point is that there was no illegall act in throwing away
any of these records, and even those that were retained could have
been disposed of. Not only was there no statutory requirement
that records of transactions before April 7 be preserved; it was not
even necessary that any recordings be made at all. At least, that's
what our lawyers told us at the time, and that corresponded with
what we had been told in the 1968 campaign.
The Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President undertook to
observe strictly all the provisions of the new law, beginning April 7,
and also urged its State committees to do likewise. Systems and con-
trols were developed to insure that would be the case. Notwithstand-
ing this, there have been a few instances in which the committee has
been cited by the General Accounting Office and the Department of
Justice for failure to report transactions which occurred after April 7,
and in at least one case, the Department of Justice has ruled in favor of
the committee. The committee believes that it has valid explanations
for this small number of technical violations, and that considering the
hundreds of thousands of contributions received and bills paid, its
record of operation under a new and highly complex law should be
commended rather than criticized.
Now, as to chairman and treasurer. These are the only two statutory
offices required of a political committee. As chairman of the com-
mittee, I had a personal responsibility for overall coordination of its
activities. The principal vehicle in this respect was a daily staff meet-
ing attended by the treasurer, the controller, the general counsel, and
several vice chairmen working in Washington.
But without doubt my prime personal responsibility was to raise
the money required to finance the campaign, and that occupied almost
all of my time and attention. Between February 15 and November 7,
1972, I visited approximately 45 cities in 32 States to meet with fund-
raising committees, groups of potential contributors, and individual
potential contributors. I also met with individuals and groups in
Washington and made many hundreds of phone calls to fundraisers
and contributors. And this was not a campaign financed by a few large
contributors. To insure participation by hundreds of thousands of
individuals, I directed a direct-mail program that reached 30 million
homes and a group fundraising plan to reach people at their places of
employment. These took a great deal of time.
As chairman of the committee I had no responsibility in connection
with the internal handling of funds, banking, recording, accounting
and reporting. I did not sign checks. I did not expend cash from the
treasurer's cash fund. I did not have a cash fund. It was my regular
practice when I accepted contributions for the committee to turn them
over to the treasurer promptly. I did not have relationships with the
banks. I did not make entries in the books or even see the books. And
693
I did not prepare the public reports and did not review them except to
scan their summary pages.
These were all the responsibility of the treasurer. That was not only
within the working format of our committee, but was provided under
the Federal Election Campaign Act. His was the responsibility for all
day-to-day internal operations, and generally I consulted with him
only when he came to me for guidance on a specific problem, which
was on a limited number of occasions.
Now, as to before pre-February 15 and after February 15. When
I joined the committee on February 15, last year, a considerable
number of activities were underwa}'^ and a number of people were in
place. Fundraising and campaign activities had been engaged in for
almost a year. Programs had been planned or committed by the
campaign people, funds had been collected and disbursed, committees
had been formed and terminated, and some well-publicized transactions
already occurred.
Patterns of payment to Herbert Porter and Gordon Liddy were a
practice. Magruder had blanket authority to direct payments. Kalm-
bach had turned over to the committee the funds in his possession.
But no steps had been taken to comply with the new law, and the
procedures generally were inadequate to cope with the volume of work
sure to come.
When I joined the committee the bank balance was about $3
million, and there was still $30 million or $40 million or more to be
raised. I did not review what had happened before but began to work
with the problem at hand. I did not learn about many of the earlier
transactions until a much later time. For example, from February 15
to April 7, I had 45 working days, counting Saturdays, and 13
days were spent outside Washington. It was not a period in which I
could spend time on detail.
I trusted the people already in the committee organization, and I
relied heavily on the treasurer because of his previous experience in
1968 and 1971, and even before 1968. I was after contributions.
What I would like to emerge from all of this information are a few
simple conclusions:
(1) The finance committee played no part in the strategy or the
tactics of the campaign. If they went wrong, it was the fault of the
campaign committee. The finance committee's only responsibility^ was
to raise enough money to pay the costs that were incurred by the
campaign committee.
(2) The finance committees in existence prior to April 7, 1972,
operated under legal advice that their transactions need not be re-
corded or reported, as a matter of law.
(3) Within the finance committee, the chairman's basic job was to
raise the money and the treasurer's basic job was to account for it
and disburse it.
(4) The responsibilit}^ of raising the largest amount of money ever
spent in a political campaign obviously put massive pressures on the
finance committee, especially those engaged in fundraising. In my
own case, the stress was multiplied manifold by the serious illness of
my wife, beginning August 9 and continuing into early 1973.
Gentlemen, I repeat to you that I had no advance knowledge of
the Watergate affair and no knowledge of any efforts that may have
694
been made to cover it up, nor do I know about any other espionage
or sabotage activities on the part of the campaign committee. I can
also assure the committee that I have made an honest and careful
effort to abide by the spirit and intent of the election laws.
Senator Baker [presiding]. Thank you, Mr. Stans. In the chairman's
absence and pursuant to a request by Senator Weicker, if there is no
objection, Senator Weicker has a brief statement he would like to
make to follow directly after the statement of the witness.
Is there any objection to that?
[No response.]
Senator Baker. Senator Weicker.
Senator Weicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and fellow members of my committee, in 1970, I
gained the Republican Party's nomination to the U.S. Senate from
Connecticut by way of a primary. During the course of that primary
campaign, Republicans both within and without Connecticut, prop-
erly closed sides as between myself and my opponent. It came to my
attention that Mr. Maurice Stans, then Secretary of Commerce, spoke
in Connecticut against my nomination and on behalf of my Repub-
lican opponent, John Lupton. His action, I know, was not an indica-
tion of any official position taken by the White House. But needless
to say, it did not endear me to Mr. Stans.
Though I have had no contact with Mr. Stans, and, though actually,
I feel a great compassion for him and his family, I do not want it said
by any person, or wondered about by Mr. Stans, as to whether my
questioning of him would be an act of getting even. Therefore, Mr.
Chairman, I will refrain from questioning Mr. Stans now or at any
time in the future.
Senator Baker. Thank you, Senator Weicker.
Mr. Edmisten.
Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Stans, is it not true that most of your adult
life that you have been in the accounting business one way or another?
Mr. Stans. Yes, that is true of all of my adult life except for 8 or 9
years in Government and 8 in one type of banking or another.
Mr. Edmisten. In 1957 you were head of the Bureau of the Budget?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Mr. Edmisten. In 1952 you were the recipient of the American
Accounting Association's annual award, and the Institute of Certified
Public Accountants' annual award in 1954, and you were elected to the
Accounting Hall of Fame in 1960?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Mr. Edmisten. So you would consider ^^ourself a pretty good
accountant?
Mr. Stans. I would hope that others considered me a pretty good
accountant.
Mr. Edmisten. What is your occupation now, Mr. Stans?
Mr. Stans. I am in the final phases of winding up 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 news-
paperman said, a model of fiscal conservatism. Would it be fair to
characterize you as that? Would you agree to that?
695
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 neces-
sary for an}^ 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 engaged
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 Anth Mr. Sloan, Mr. Nunn, and their accountants for the com-
mittee after hours, as I recall it, to discuss the accounting procedures
that they were going to use in the 1972 campai^. I had no part in the
campaign. I had not committed myself to be m the campaign and I
was very 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 vnth. 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 iden-
tif}' or know anything about a document I have here. This is pur-
portedly Amtten by Mr. Jeb Magruder, a confidential memorandum
for the Attome}^ General dated Jul}'- 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, do\\Ti 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 mis-
understanding 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 impl34ng that we had $1 million
set aside in the Department of Commerce to help in the election cam-
paign I would say they are off. I do not know what it means.
Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Chairman, could we mark this for an exhibit.
696
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.
[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 27 for
identification only.*]
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 ^vrite it. I wrote it under the cir-
cumstance I described in my opening statement. I was frustrated, up-
set 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, you pretty well covered the whole area of the campaign in this
memo, did you not? For instance, No. 1 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 com-
mittee. I was only familiar with their objectives as 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 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.
[The docum.ent referred to was marked exhibit No. 28.**]
Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Stans, what was Gordon fiddy's position in the
campaign?
Mr. St\ns. Gordon Ijiddy was general counsel to the campaign
committee until around the end of March, and then he became general
counsel to the finance committee.
♦Officially made part of record on p. 874. Exhibit appears on p. 899.
♦♦See p. 900.
697
Mr. Edmisten. And then during his tenure in the finance committee
you rehed 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
mone}^ I had heard at one point or another that Mr. Liddy was re-
ceiving 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 Mr. 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't think
the amount is very important. Mr. Sloan said, "Liddy wants a sub-
stantial amount of mone3^ Should I give it to him?"
And I said, "I don't know. I will find out from John Mitchell."
I will quote my conversation with John Mitchell as best I can para-
phrase 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 sub-
stantial 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 3'ou 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 Magruder 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. Liddy showed Mr. Sloan a
budget of $250,000 against which he intended to draw. To the best of
698
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 recollec-
tion 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 cam-
paign. 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, 1 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 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 as I have
learned subsequently in testimony.
Mr. Edmisten. So we have some conflicting testimony again regard-
ing 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.
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 a 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.
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-called Mexican
699
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 Avill 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 propsective contributor
for $100,000, but he wants to give it in U.S. funds that are now in
Mexico. 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 Ajiril 7. He set them aside to talk to counsel for the com-
mittee and did so the follo\\'ing week.
The committee counsel suggested that they be reconverted into
cash, into dollars, and took the checks from wSloan for that purpose.
So when I got back from my vacation, as I said, I fovmd out about
the checks, I foimd 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 maga-
zine 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 come
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 rej^ort them.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, what did you have to do with the so-called
Dahlberg check? You received checks, did you not, from Mr. Dahl-
berg?
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 of Minnesota and
Dwayiie Andreas was a Minnesota resident who also had a place of
700
living in Florida, in a hotel that he owTied. 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 get 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 con-
tributor 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.
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 under-
standing 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 contribu-
tion 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 t > 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 rej)ort 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 Ai:)ril 7 and reported it
in the report of the media Committee To Re-Elect the President, in
the amount of $350,000, and that exact amount of $350,000 was de-
posited in that committee's bank account on May 25. We felt that we
had complied with ever}- 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 i^ossible 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 trans-
action.
Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Stans, when was the first time that you learned
that these checks had cleared through a bank account of Bernard
Barker?
Mr. Stans. It was well after the Watergate event of June 17.
Mr. Edmisten. Now, shortly after that, did you have any discus-
sions with Mr. John Mitchell or anyone at the White House concerning
any of these checks during the week immediately following?
Mr. Stans. I don't recall any specific conversation with John
Mitchell, but I do recall a conversation with Fred LaRue and subse-
quently with Robert Mardian.
Mr. Edmisten. What did 3-ou 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, "Well, 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 check must have reached the bank
account of Bernard Barker.
We called Dahlberg and discussed it with him, got him to Wash-
ington on that same da}", met mth 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
hands of our general counsel, Gordon Lidd.y, who had taken them into
his custod}'.
Mr. Edmisten. Mr. Stans, I am going to skip along, I don't want
to encroach on the committee. At one time did vou approve or consent
to giving Mr. Fred LaRue $80,000?
Mr. Stans. Yes, I did. Would vou like to know the background of
that?
f02
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.
At that time it was understood \vithm 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 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 u])on 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?
Mr. Stans. On the 29th of June I received an urgent call from Mr.
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?
703
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. Wliat did he saj^?
Mr. Stans. He said, "This is for a Wliite 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 organization, 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 was 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.
Mr. Edmisten. Who in the whole organization would you consider
your superiors, and would you just go up the line from 3'ou?
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 bj' 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 am' 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 carefull}', Mr. 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 \nth Mr. Mitchell. I probably had one on June 24.
Mr. Edmisten. Did you ask him what happened at that meeting,
if you recall it?
\h. 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.
Mr. Edmisten. Yes. Do you recall at any time Mr. Mitchell
telling you that there were others involved besides those who were
api)rehended?
Mr. Stans. No, I do not.
Mr. Edmisten. At a meeting of that nature about that time?
Mr. Stans. No, I do not.
704
Mr. Edmisten. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
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 com-
mittee 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. A4itchell. 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 Com-
mittee 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 meetings 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?
Mr. Stans. There was John Mitchell, Jeb 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 addi-
tion 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.
7DS
Mr. Sanders. To 3^our 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. Lidd}', 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 3"our knowledge, did the budget committee
ever take under consideration the allocation of Siuy 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 individual. Porter, Liddy, or an3^one
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 intelli-
gence-gathering in the budget committee meetings.
Mr. Sanders. Prior to June 17, Mr. Stans, were jou 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 what I am
getting at here. In the Patrick Gra}^ confirmation hearings I have be-
fore me, in the transcript of those hearings at page 143, it is stated b}*
Mr. Gray that he had checked his records concerning FBI interviews
with 3^ou. He says that 3^ou 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 Lidd}' was
assigned a 'securit3"-gathering' job and that certain cash disburse-
ments 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 awa3\ I was told somewhere
in May, I believe b3^ Magruder, that Liddy had a responsibilit3^ for
security at the San Diego convention.
Now, how he was going about on security' I had no wa3^ of knowing
and it ma3' well have included intelligence-gathering of various types.
Mr. Sanders. Do 3'ou have an3^ recollection of making an3' state-
ment to the FBI that you were aware that Liddy was engaged in
intelligence gathering?
Mr. Stans. I do not recall using that word at all. I do recall testi-
f3ang before the grand jur3", I believe, that sometime before June 17,
I had learned from Magruder, I believe, that Liddy was working on
securit3' for the San Diego convention. '
Mr. Sanders. It seems that the Kne 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 com-
mittee, is it reasonable that you did not become aware of the expend-
itures 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 specificallj", 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 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.
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 30U of the funds he had on hand — and receive an accounting for
this?
Mr. Stans. Yes. That happened before T became chairman of the
finance committee but after the time I had agreed to take on the job.
Mr. Kalmbach had mone}' in his possession, some of which he had
carried over from 1968 and some of which he had accumulated sub-
sequently. 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
707
agreement with that and we had an understanding that he would turn
in all the funds in his possession — not onh' before I became chairman,
but before the law was signed by the President. And I am told b}' 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 3"ou have a recollection of meeting with Mr.
Kalmbach prior to that Februar}^ 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 \ ou 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.
[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 29 for
identification only and is not for publication at this time.]
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.
[Recess.]
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 \\ill 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
recentl}'. It is a very interesting development, because I am not
quite sure why Mr. Magruder was so generous in giving me Mr.
Liddy's ser\dces.
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.
-296 (bk.2) O
708
I gave him responsibilities that required daily followup and he did
the followup that was required. For example, just before April 7,
it was necessar}^ for every committee to file with the General Account-
ing Office a registration statement and to file a qualifying statement
with the Treasury^ Department. That included not only our commit-
tees in Washington, but each of the 51 States. Mr. Liddy had that re-
sponsibility 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 wdth 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 recom-
mended 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 anj^ 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
709
anj^ amounts or not, but "he was probing to find out and I could not
help him on it.
Mr. Sanders. Did 3'ou make &iiy 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, mj^ reply to Sloan was to tell the truth. That is the
onl}^ 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 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 beHeve, that total cash on hand was approximately $1.5 milHon, 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 beheve, 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, are you including in 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 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 comingled 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 com-
7,10
mittee 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
disbributed 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.
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 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 Ac-
counting 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 perha})s 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.
711
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. Kalm-
bach. It was made by Mr. Sloan at the direction of Mr. Kalmbach to
Gordon Strachan of the White House staff.
Senator Montoya. Did Mr. Sloan contact you about this contribu-
tion 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
assurances 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 Wliite House?
Mr. Stans. No question about it. Senator.
Senator Montoya. When he mentioned that this request ^yas
coming from very high authority, what did go through your mmd
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?
Mr. Stans. He told 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. Erhhchman and asked Mr. Ehrhchman
if it was somethmg that should be done and whether it was legal and
712
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 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. Kalm-
bach, 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 $40,000 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 I 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. Kalmbach said he had this urgent need for 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.
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 en-
trusted to him but, I am not sure whether I told him that 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 reclaim-
ing 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
713
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. Stans. 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 Manu-
facturing 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 in 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 in-
terpretation 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?
Mr. Stans. I got the money from Mr. LaRue, and he arranged to
give it back.
714
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.
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. Occa-
sionally, 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
mj'^ recollection, Mr. Sloan did not ever give me a report of the indi-
vidual 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 Lankier 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 con-
tributor 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. Lankier 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 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 inquire or was not your curiosity
aroused by requests for the large sums which were being disbursed
by Mr. Sloan?
Mr. Stans. Senator, Mr. wSloan was the treasurer of the committee.
He had the cash fund long before I got there. He continued to handle
715
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 in cash in the course of
time.
So that was the nature of my interest and my curiosity.
Senator Montoya. Why would 3'ou 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.
Senator Montoya. Well, you attended quite a few budget meetings
with 3'our 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 cam-
paign.
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 to me and said that Liddy wanted a fairly
substantial amount of money, and I went to John Mitchell and deter-
mined 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 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 st_ate of
the finances and also the state of disbursements to anyone in the
White House while 3 ou 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 3'our 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 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 ver3' strenuously. I insisted that there was over-
kill in the budgets in the sense that they were spending money for
massive amounts of direct mail, massive amounts of telephoning,
massive amounts of advertising that just were duplicating each other.
7116
And with that feeling of frustration, which was pretty constant e very-
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 terms of any one cate-
gory, but just let's run 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 each month 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 chair-
man 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.
Senator Montoya. Well, Mr. Stone says $89,000, so there is a
conflict there — Mr. Sloan, I mean.
Mr. Stans. Senator, may I say that I think Mr. Sloan's record in
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 Houste except for one item, which I have not yet
told you about.
717
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 Novem-
ber 28, saying that the $350,000 fund which had been turned over to
Strachan in April had 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, 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 the 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.
[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at
10 a.m., Wednesday, June 13, 1973.]
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 13, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington, D.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:05 a.m., in
room 318, Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr.
(chairman), presiding.
Present: Senators Ervin, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker,
Gurney, and Weicker.
Also present: Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director; Fred D.
Thompson, minority counsel; Rufus L. Edmisten, deputy chief coun-
sel; Arthurs. Miller, chief consultant; Jed Johnson, consultant; David
M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant chief
counsels; Barry Schochet, Ron Rotunda, Phillip Haire, and Marc
Lackritz, assistant majority counsels; Eugene Boyce, hearings record
counsel; Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority counsel; Howard S.
Liebengood, H. William Shure, and Robert Silverstein, assistant mi-
nority counsels; Pauline O. Dement, research assistant; Eiler Ravn-
holt, office of Senator Inouye ; Robert Baca, office of Senator Montoya;
Ron McMahan, assistant to Senator Baker; A. Searle Field, assist-
ant to Senator Weicker; Michael Flanigan, assistant publications
clerk.
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
Senator Gurney.
Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stans, you testified yesterday about four large cash payments
which you either made or you knew about. Did you make any other
cash payments to anyone and if so, to whom and how much and when?
TESTIMONY OF MAURICE H. STANS— Resumed
Mr. Stans. I made a note last night of cash payments after April 7
of which I had any knowledge, and the first one was to Alexander
Lankier in the amount of $50,000. There was one which I am not sure
was mentioned yesterday but which has been reported to the General
Accounting Office, a cash payment of $10,000 to Max Fisher for travel-
ing expenses that he incurred on behalf of the campaign.
Senator Gurney. Who is he?
Mr. Stans. Max Fisher of Detroit was a cochairman of the finance
committee. He spent a great deal of his time in the course of the cam-
paign working with the Jewish community in the United States on
behalf of
Senator Gurney. This had nothing to do with Watergate?
Mr. Stans. No, nothing w^hatever.
Senator Gurney. Go on.
(719)
720
Mr. Stans. Then, there was an item of $22,000 that I mentioned
yesterday which was given at the request of John Dean in order that
he could rebuild the $350,000 fund that he had
Senator Gurney. That was one of those four that I said
Mr. Stans. Yes, I do want to say one thing here. I misspoke myself
yesterday and said that Gordon Strachan was the man who picked up
that money. Actually, it was Fred Fielding.
Senator Gurney. You are talking now about the $350,000 or
$22,000?
Mr. Stans. No, about the $22,000. Fred Fielding picked up the
$22,000. Fielding worked in the office of John Dean and it was not
Gordon Strachan at that point.
Now, as to payments beyond that I mentioned the $81,000 that
Mr. Sloan and I gave to Fred LaRue late in June, and $17,000 that
I gave to Fred LaRue in January of this year.
Senator Gurney. What was that for?
Mr. Stans. It was money that I had received in cash from a
contributor, and I gave it to LaRue in part payment on the $30,000
that he had given to me so I could return the money to the Philippine
contributor, hoping that thereby I could help LaRue to rebuild his
$81,000 fund because at that point we were talking about the desira-
bility of LaRue accounting for the $81,000 and perhaps turning it in to
the committee.
Now, those are the only items that I recall of cash payments after
April 7.
Senator Gurney. I think that you did testify on this but do you
know what LaRue used the $81,000 for?
Mr. Stans. I do not know what he used the $81,000 for.
Senator Gurney. I understand, Mr. Stans, that cash was kept in a
safe in your office from time to time. Is that not true?
Mr. Stans. That is not true. There was no safe in my office. I
would like to give you the entire story however. There was no safe in
my office. There was a safe in the office of my secretary. [Laughter.]
During the time that there was money in that safe, the only people
to my knowledge who had access to the safe were Mr. Sloan and
myself.
Originally, the concept was that money would be accumulated there
and as Sloan needed it, he would draw upon it. But actually it did
not work that way because when I received cash from a contributor
I gave it immediately to Mr. Sloan if he was available. I would call
him to my office and hand it to him or walk to his office and give it
to him. The only cases in which money was put in that safe at all
were when Mr. Sloan was not available, and I would put it in over-
night and give it to him the next day. If it was the weekend, I would
put it in over the weekend and give it to him the following week and,
to the best of my recollection there was only one time at which there
was more than one contribution for more than a day or so. It was
toward the end of the campaign when I think there were three con-
tributions in the safe that came in close together. That safe was not
used for anything but a way station for temporary periods. Mr. Sloan
had custody of the entire cash fund and I did not pay out any money
out of that fund that Mr. Sloan had until we came to the end when we
divided ilp the $81,000 and I handed $40,000 of it to Fred LaRue.
721
Senator Gurney. Do you know of your own knowledge what cash
disbursements were made by Sloan or anybody else?
Mr. Stans. I did not have any knowledge of cash disbursements
by Mr. Sloan at the time other than the fact, as I testified yesterday,
that Magruder had authority to direct Mr. Sloan to make payments.
I did not know anything about the amounts of the individual pay-
ments made by Mr. Sloan. I did know, of course, about the $50,000
that he gave to Alexander Lankier as I testified yesterday. I did not
know at the time about any payments to Herbert Porter or to the
WMte House beyond the $350,000 to which we have testified. I did
not know about any payments which he made to Herbert Kalmbach
or any of the other payments that were made by Mr. Sloan before
or after April 7 except that I believe I had some knowledge about
the $15,000 that he gave to Robert Athey at the request of Clem Stone
to give to some law enforcement group in Illinois.
Senator Gurney. Back for a moment to the $75,000 to Mr.
Kalmbach. At that time did he tell you who asked him to get the money?
Mr. Stans. No, he did not. He would not tell me.
Senator Gurney. Did you ask him?
Mr. Stans. I asked him why he wanted the money and he said it
was on high authority for a White House project not related to the
election and I would have to trust him, that he had checked it out.
Senator Gurney. Did you check with anybody else like Halde-
man, Ehrlichman, or anybody else whether you should pay the $75,000
to Kalmbach?
Mr. Stans. No, I didn't.
Senator Gurney. At one point in your testimony yesterday you
made passing reference to the fact that you had received moneys
from time to time from Mr. LaRue, you did not identify in what
amounts or for what.
Could you do that now?
Mr. Stans. Yes. I received $30,000 from Mr. LaRue, not received
in hand, but at my direction Mr. LaRue refunded the $30,000 that
had come from the Philippine contributor.
On another occasion late in the vear
Senator Gurney. What did you do with this $30,000?
Mr. Stans. At the time Mr. LaRue made the repayment I didn't
handle the money at all. He made it direct.
Late in the year
Senator Gurney. Direct to whom?
Mr. Stans. Mr. LaRue made the payment to Anna Chennault, to
transmit to Lagdameo who had proffered the contribution to us in the
first place.
Senator Gurney. I see.
Mr. Stans. Late in the year Mr. LaRue gave me $10,000 to give
to Max Fisher which we had owed him for a long time for his traveling
expenses in the course of the campaign. On another occasion, Mr.
LaRue used $10,000 of the money we had given him to refund to a
contributor whom I mentioned vesterday by the name of Saunders.
So Mr. LaRue had accounted for three items, $30,000 plus $10,000
plus $10,000 or $50,000 against the $81,000 we had given to him.
Subsequently, as I testified, I gave him $17,000 to begin to rebuild
his fund. That is all I was able to give hun. So he then had an ac-
countability for a balance of $48,000.
722
Late in May Mr. LaRiie gave us the $48,000 and balanced out his
account. So far as I know of at this time of any transactions between
our committee and Mr. LaRue, his account is balanced.
Senator Gurney. Did you confer at any time with John Dean on
the $25,000 Andreas contribution, how to handle it, the legality of it?
Mr. Stans. No. I do not recall that I conferred with John Dean
about that item specifically. I believe that I conferred with John Dean
and with other counsel on the principle of law of whether that contri- :
bution had to be reported as having been received after April 7 or
whether it could be treated as a contribution before April 7, but only in
terms of the principle of law.
Senator Gurney. When was that discussion had with him about
how to treat it?
Mr. Stans. Well, I would have to assume that it occurred early in
April of last year.
Senator Gurney. I am curious. Why would you confer with him
about it instead of the general counsel for the finance committee?
Mr. Stans. Oh, I did confer with him, too. I also conferred at an
earlier time with the counsel for the Republican National Finance
Committee.
What we are involved with here is the question of the meaning of
the Corrupt Practices Act definition of a contribution. Very simply —
and I will paraphrase it without having the language right in front of
me — the Corrupt Practices Act says that a contribution includes the
receipt of money or anything of value, and includes a promise, agree-
ment, or contract to make a contribution, whether or not it is legally
enforceable. And it was on that language that I concluded that the
contributions received from several people whom we have discussed
here were contributions by law before April 7.
Senator Gurney. Did Mr. Dean ever tell you at any time that he
was conducting an investigation for the President into the Watergate
affair?
Mr. Stans. No, I do not recall that Mr. Dean ever told me that he
was conducting an investigation. I think I heard first about that from
the public statements of the President or others in the White House.
Senator Gurney. Yesterday, you mentioned in your testimony
that you heard that Liddy was receiving money, but you did not
identify from whom you had heard it. Do you recall?
Mr. Stans. I really cannot recall, because it was in the early days of
my service to the committee. It could have come from Mr. Kalmbach,
it could have come from Mr. Sloan. I doubt that there was anyone else
who could have told it to me. My vague recollection is that I was told
that Liddy was getting small amounts of money from time to time in
cash and that it was being used in the primaries. I do not have any
other recollection of that and I had no idea that the amounts were as
large as they apparently were.
Senator Gurney. Did you ever know about the $250,000 budget
before the Watergate break-in?
Mr. Stans. No, sir, I was not told by anyone about a $250,000
budget for Mr. Liddy.
Senator Gurney. Back to these Kalmbach moneys again. In your
initial discussion with Mr. Kalmbach about this money, did he say he
was getting it to spend himself on a project for the White House, or
did he say he was raising it to pass it on to somebody else to spend?
723
Mr. Stans. He did not say.
Senator Gurney. Did you get any impression from your conversa-
tion whether he meant the one or the other?
Mr. Stans. I had no such impression either way.
Senator Gurney. You mentioned, of course, a later conversation, I
think you said about 6 weeks ago, perhaps, with Mr, Kalmbach's
attorney
Mr. Stans. Yes.
Senator Gurney [continuing]. In which he told you that it was Mr.
Dean who had requested Kalmbach to raise the money. What about
in this discussion? Did his attorney tell 3^ou whether Mr. Kalmbach
raised the money to spend himself or whether he was raising it to pass
on to someone else?
Mr. Stans. In that conversation, Mr. Kalmbach's attorney told me
that Mr. Kalmbach had raised the money for the purpose of giving it
to a man named Tony. He did not give me his last name or any other
details, but he said it was for the purpose of paying legal fees for the
lawyers representing the defendants in the Watergate case.
Senator Gurney. He did not identify Tony beyond that?
Mr. Stans. No, he did not.
Senator Gurney. And you do not know who he was?
Mr. Stans. I do not know who Tony was.
Senator Gurney. The $350,000 for the White House and the reim-
bursement of $22,000 requested by Dean — ^I am curious about that.
Wh}^ should Mr. Dean be so uptight about restoring $22,000 to this
$350,000 fund if $22,000 was used legally, as I thought it was from the
testimony? Can you shed any further light on that?
Mr. Stans. Well, I can only shed this light, that in several discus-
sions with Mr. Dean, the desirability of having the $350,000 intact
seemed important to him.
Senator Gurney. Well, why did it?
Mr. Stans. For example, in November
Senator Gurney. November?
Mr. Stans [continuing]. Of last year. He handed me some bills for
polling by a polling organization — 1 believe it was Opinion Research
Corp. — and said that originally it had been the intention to pay those
bills out of the $350,000 fund, but that they wanted to keep the fund
intact and the bills did relate to the campaign, so it was perfectly
proper for them to be paid as expenses of the campaign, and he asked
that they be so paid. And on that authority, the bills were paid to the
polling organization.
Now that I understood to be for the purpose of keeping the $350,000
intact.
Senator Gurney. So in November 1972, from your discussion with
him, it would be your impression that the $350,000 was there at that
time?
Mr. Stans. That was my impression until he told me that another
$22,000 had actually been spent.
Senator Gurney. Did he say when?
Mr. Stans. I do not recall, no. I am sure he did not.
Senator Gurney. Did he say what for?
Mr. Stans. Well, I have to hedge on this, because I do not know.
I just assumed, since it was a polling fund, that it had been spent for
96-296 (bk. 2) O - 73 - 18
724
polling. But recently, I have learned, reading one of the depositions,
that it may have been spent for advertising.
Senator Gurnet. Another thing that puzzles me. My understand-
ing of this $350,000 is that it went to Haldeman. We have no direct
evidence on that, but we do know that Mr. Strachan — Haldeman's
aide — picked it up. Was it not your understanding that it went to
Haldeman?
Mr. Stans. I had no understanding on that, Senator. The trans-
action was really handled by Mr. Kalmbach and my knowledge about
it was entirely peripheral. At the beginning, I heard, as I testified
yesterday, that the White House wanted some money for polling pur-
poses to have to use in its discretion, and subsequently, I found out
that the money had been paid to the White House. But I really played
no part in that transaction, and I believe Mr. Kalmbach will take the
full responsibility for it.
Senator Gurney. You never heard at any time that Mr. Dean
received this money or had any part in the supervision of it, handling
of it, or disbursing of it?
Mr. Stans. No. I never understood that Mr. Dean was handling
the money.
Senator Gurney. Did you ever ask Mr. Dean at this time, or when
he asked for the $22,000, why he was handling the money? Apparently,
at that time, he must have had something to do with it.
Mr. Stans. I didn't ask him why he was making the request. We
had discussed the $350,000 on several occasions before— first, when he
asked me to pay the polling bills, and second, when we considered the
possibility of returning it to the committee. And I assumed that he
was in these discussions because of his position as counsel in the
White House.
Senator Gurney. Did you check with either Haldeman or Ehrlich-
man on this $22,000?
Mr. Stans. No, I did not.
Senator Gurney. Why didn't Dean go to the treasurer? The
treasurer is the man who I understand, from the testimony, was
making almost all of the disbursements with the exception of a few
cash ones we have talked about here. Why should he come to you?
Why shouldn't he go to the treasurer?
Mr. Stans. Well, again. Senator, I can only presume. We had a new
treasurer after Mr. Sloan left. Dean had very little contact with him
and I doubt that he even knew him. I think that is the reason he called
me.
Senator Gurney. You testified that you learned about the Water-
gate break-in, as I recall, in the newspapers? Is that correct?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Gurney. Now, of course, as you, as we all know, there was
great consternation when this happened and a flurry of conferences
and phone calls between the key people who were running the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President. Did you have any conferences or
phone calls on June 17 or 18 regarding Watergate with anyone?
Mr. Stans. I don't recall any conferences on the 17th, and I vv^as
not in the office on the 18th, So my answer would be other than the
possibility that I may have said to somebody, that is a silly thing to
do, based on the news])aper headlines, I had no conferences about the
details of the transaction.
725
Senator Gurney. Did you have an}^ phone calls?
Mr. Stans. None that my records show.
Senator Gurney. Do 3-011 recall any?
Mr. Stans. I do not recall anj'.
Senator Gurney. At some point in time, of course, you learned, as
we all have, about Watergate, the people who were the key people in
it and to the best of 3"our recollection when did j^ou learn about
Watergate and who were the key peo})le in it and from whom?
Mr. Stans. The first thing I learned about Watergate, to the best
of my recollection was on June 23 when I received a call from Fred
LaRue, as I testified yesterday, and he said: "Do you know Kenneth
Dahlberg?" ^ ' [
And I said: "Yes, I know Kenneth Dahlberg very well."
He said: "Well, did 3'"ou know that his contribution ended up in
the bank account of one of the fellows who was arrested in the
Watergate?"
And I said: "To the best of m\ knowledge Mr. Dahlberg didn't
make a contribution, particularly in that amount of money that you
mentioned."
He said: "Well, we had better talk about it."
So he came do\\Ti to my office and we re\'iewed the situation. I
recalled, of course, the circumstances under which Dahlberg had given
us the check, and we called Dahlberg on the phone and got him to
come to Washington to review the whole matter. That is my first
knowledge of the Watergate situation.
Senator Gurney. Did 3^ou ever discuss it \\dth John Mitchell at any
time near this point in time? That is June 17.
Mr. Stans. Well, I would be sure that I discuss' d this wdth John
Mitchell on a number of occasions and my records show that the first
time I talked to John Mitchell after the 17th was on the 23d when we
had lunch in his office. I am not sure what the conversation was about.
Whenever I met with Mitchell I usually had a list of five or six things to
talk about. I would not presume that we didn't talk about the Water-
gate. I am sure it was a subject of interest but certainly not about who
and when and wh}^
Senator Gurney. Did LaRue come to you in January 1973, this
3'ear, and ask you for the names of some of the larger contributors to
the campaign?
Mr. Stans. Yes; I reported that to the staff of the committee. He
asked me for the names of some contributors to whom he might go
for money for a White House project.
Senator Gurney. What was the project?
Mr. Stans. He didn't tell me.
Senator Gurney. Did you ask him?
Mr. Stans. No; I did not. Mr. LaRue again was a man of high
standing in the campaign. He had been assistant to John Mitchell.
There were no revelations at that time involving him in anything
and I had total confidence in anything Mr. LaRue told me.
Senator Gurney. Have you ever conferred with John Mitchell,
Magruder, Haldeman, Ehrlichman, Dean or anybody else on the cover-
up of Watergate?
Mr. Stans. I have no recollection of any discussion with anyone
about the coverup on the Watergate until after the disclosures that
have occurred within the last 2 months.
726
Senator Gurney. Have you ever discussed this Watergate affair
or any aspect of it with the President of the United States?
Mr. Stans. Only in the sense that the President and I met once
during the campaign and I had one telephone call from him, both in
August.
Senator Gurney. Both when?
Mr. Stans. In August of last year, in which he said that he was
aware of the fact that I was receiving considerable punishment in
the press for not answering their questions at the time. He said that
he appreciated the sacrifice I was making in that respect but the
matter would be over eventually, and he hoped that I could continue
to take it. It was a pep talk, in other words, and that was the substance
of the discussion over the telephone.
Now, in the subsequent meeting about 10 days later in his office
in the Executive Office Building I talked about some of the problems
on fundraising with him, the pending nationwide dinner which was
going to take place in September at which he was going to participate,
and matters of that type but there was no discussion of the Watergate,
of coverup or any subject of that type with the President.
Senator Gurney. Do you know from any information from anybody
else whether the President of the United States had any knowledge
of Watergate or the coverup?
Mr. Stans. I have absolutely no such information.
Senator Gurney. Thank you, Mr. Stans.
That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Inouye.
Senator Inouye. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Secretary, a few moments ago you testified that you had met
with Mr. Mitchell on June 23 and yesterday you suggested that it
was possible you met with Mr. Mitchell on June 24. The break-in
was on the 17th of June. On the 18th I believe all of the major papers
in the United States had banner headlines about the Watergate
break-in and you learned about that for the first time. Then, on the
23d of June you testified you received a call from Mr. LaRue, I
believe. Then, there were other banner headlines about moneys being
traced through a bank and hundred dollar bills all over the place
and the security chief of the Committee To Re-Elect the President
being arrested as one of those found in the Watergate complex. Last
week one of your associates, Mr. Sloan, testified that he was quite
apprehensive about an $81,000 cash disbursement to Mr. Liddy and
he testified that he conferred with you on this matter and wanted
some indication from you that Mr. Magruder was authorized to make
these cash payments. So you indicated that you would look into this,
and on June 24 you had a meeting with Mr. Mitchell, the Attorney
General.
Now, upon your return from the meeting this is what Mr. Sloan
testified to, and I am quoting from the testimony:
By "he" he means you, sir, "He returned from that meeting ^\^th
Mr. Mitchell and he confirmed that Mr. Magruder continued to have
this authority that I should pay these funds and with regard to my
question of concern about his purpose he said T do not want to know
and you do not want to know'."
Do you recall this, sir?
727
Mr. Stans. Before I answer that, may I say that ^dth respect to
the meeting \\-ith Mr. Mitchell on the 24th, I have checked my records
last night and I do not have any record of a meeting with Mr. Mitchell
on the 24th of June. Now, that does not mean that I may have met
him in the hall, the building, on the street, or even dropped in his
office, but I have no record of this meeting having taken place.
I did have lunch with Mr. Mitchell in his office on the 23d.
Now, with respect to the remark that was made after I checked
with Mitchell about the authority of Magruder to ask Sloan to make
payments to Liddy, I recall the occasion but that was not the whole
conversation, and I am not quite sure that it is entirely accurate but
it is the substance of what was said. But last week when Mr. Sloan
testified he also put that remark in a much larger context and that
context was much broader than the matter of payments to Liddy and
it was quite accurate. As I recall, he said the context was one of total
frustration that I had and he had with the spending program of the
campaign committee.
At that point we had received a budget of $34 million and it was
incomplete on its face because some items were not priced out. It
meant they were going to spend $40 million. I had argued when I
came on the committee and even before, that the campaign ought to
run, wdth the President in office, for $25 or $30 million. It was evident
we were in a situation in which the campaign committee was calling all
the signals, was making all the commitments. We really had nothing to
say about it, and it was one, as I said, of total frustration with the whole
situation. I threw up my hands, and I say that literally and I think
Mr. Sloan quoted that specifically, that we were just not going to have
an)' influence in this situation.
The remark I made, and I cannot quote it precisely, was something
to the effect that "I don't know what's going on in this campaign and
I don't think you ought to trA^ to know." We were the cashiers, we
received the money, and we paid the bills. They had the responsibility
for everything they did. If the}' did it right they got the credit. If
the}' did it wrong they got the blame and it did not seem that it was
incumbent upon us to question the propriety of any payment, whether
it was to Mr. Liddy or anybody else, and we did not.
Senator Inouye. Wasn't this rather uncharacteristic of your back-
ground, sir, as one who had received all of the honors that a certified
public accountant can ever hope to get, one who has been described
as having an accountant's mentality, one who is a stickler for details,
one who insists upon putting the right notes on the debit side and the
right notes on the asset side, that you would put up your hand and say
*T do not want to know?"
Mr. Stans. It was uncharacteristic of my background as an ac-
countant but it was not uncharacteristic of the responsibilities I had
in this campaign which had absolutely nothing to do wdth accounting.
My job was to raise an unbelievable amount of money, $40 million or
more.
Senator Inouye. And you were not curious about how these funds
were being spent especially since you read in the paper about the break-
in on the 18th, you heard about the accounts of the Dahlberg money
on the 23d, you read about it in the paper, and then you heard about
Mr. McCord being one of those arrested, weren't you a bit suspicious?
728
Mr. Stans. Oh, I must say, Senator, that in the sequence of dates,
it did not occur that way. This conversation that I had with Mr. Sloan
and the occasion of the verification of Magruder's authority took
place early in April, and the subsequent events obviously could not
possibly have been conceived by me or anyone else.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, you stated yesterday, that Mr.
Magruder told you sometime in May, I believe you said the latter
part of May, that Mr. Liddy was to provide security at the San
Diego convention. Did I hear correctly, sir?
Mr. Stans. Yes, that was about all I ever heard about Mr. Liddy's
activities except, as I said, when I came to the committee in February
I got intimations from someone that Mr. Liddy was using relatively
small amounts of cash in connection with the primaries.
Senator Inouye. So you provided funds to Mr. Liddy in May for
security activity in San Diego?
Mr. Stans. I did not provide Mr. Liddy any funds. The funds came
from the treasurer and came to him — came to Liddy, I believe,
before the time of my conversation with Magruder, indicating that
this was for convention security.
Senator Inouye. When was the conversation with Mr. Magruder?
Mr. Stans. Well, I really cannot pin it down by date.
Senator Inouye. The early part of May?
Mr. Stans. I have testified earlier that I think it was in the latter
part of May. It may have been in the early part of June. But it had
no relation to the timing of the Watergate developments.
Senator Inouye. Mr. Secretary, are you aware that the transfer of
the Republican Convention from San Diego to Miami was made
public on April 21?
Mr. Stans. I do not recall the exact date, but nevertheless, that
was what Mr. Magruder told me as to what Liddy had been using
the money for.
Senator Inouye. Was this not a major decision in which I am
certain you must have participated?
Mr. Stans. I had no part in the decision to move the convention
from San Diego to Miami.
Senator Inouye. Even when it meant the additional sums of mone}'?
Mr. Stans. Well, I think this is pretty good evidence of the fact
that the finance committee had very little to say in the campaign.
We knew that the convention in San Diego was going to cost a lot
of money. I had seen budgets indicating that it was going to cost $3
million because of structural changes to the building in San Diego
and so on. But we had no voice in that decision. It was a Presidential
decision and we in the finance committee accepted it as something
that had to be coped with.
Now, having said that, there was a separate committee that had
the responsibility of financing the convention. There was a separate
convention committee, and it had its own funds which were not part
of our responsibility to raise, except that as these things go, if they
had run short, I am certain they would have come to our treasury in
order to make up any deficit on the costs of the convention.
Senator Inouye. So you are testifying that in middle May or late
May, you were not aware that the party had changed its convention
site? ,
729
Mr. Stans. Oh, I am not testifying to that at all. I cannot put the
date, but I was aware of what was being said in the press and certainly
was conscious of that.
Senator Inouye. On July 1, or June 29, somewhere in that period,
Mr. Kalmbach called you and advised you that there was a very
urgent request for cash funds for a special purpose. Now, in the weeks
prior to that, questionable activities were being reported in the press.
Were you not a bit curious as to what these funds were going to be
used for?
Mr. Stans. Well, Senator, I think you — it is very easy for all of us
in retrospect to assume a lot of knowledge in the week following the
disclosure of the Watergate break-in. But this came step-by-step,
day-by-day, slowly. I do not believe that I had any knowledge of any
activities in connection with Watergate except that Mr. McCord was
one of those arrested and I did not know Mr. McCord. I was aware that
Sloan had made payments to Liddy; there was the possible connection
there. But it was not until the 28th of June, which is later than the
date 3'ou are referring to, that Mr. Liddy refused to answer questions
of the FBI and I discharged him, discharged him on advice of counsel
the minute I had heard about it.
Senator Inouye. On the 28th of June?
Mr. Stans. 28th of June.
Senator Inouye. 1972?
Mr. Stans. Yes.
Senator Inouye. And Mr. Kalmbach made the request on June 29?
Mr. Stans. On the 29th of June, the very next day.
Senator Inouye. And you were not a bit suspicious then?
Mr. Stans. I was not. I knew Mr. Kalmbach very well and he was a
man who had close ties in the White House, had had them for years,
including being counsel to the President. I trusted him implicitly as a
man of honor and integrity, and when he came to me and said he
needed mone^* for a special purpose, I had no reason to assume that it
was anything but proper.
Senator Inouye. The next series of questions I would like to inquire
into, Mr. Secretary, may sound a bit naive coming from a politician,
but I think it would be most helpful to the people of the United
States if we had some explanations. Many of us who spend much of
our lives in Washington have not been unaware of cash contributions.
Yesterda}^ you testified that "naturally, we wanted most of our
contributions in by April 7."
Mr. Stans. Did I say that. Senator?
Senator Inouye. Yes.
Mr. Stans. I would question the record on that, because there was
no chance that we could get most of our money in by April 7.
Senator Inouye. Was there not a mad rush to get as much as you
could b}' then?
Mr. Barker. Senator Inouye, could you refer to the page or some-
thing so we could check that if we might?
Senator Inouye. I am sorry. Let me put it his way: Was there a
mad rush to get as much money as you could before April 7?
Mr. Stans. Mad rush is not'^the correct word for it. It is a charac-
terization that really is not very fair.
730
Senator Inouye. Mr. Sloan has testified that in the last 4 or 5
days, they were just deluged, and I believe he used the word "ava-
lanche."
Mr. Stans. There is no question about that. There was an avalanche
of money in the last 5 days before April 7.
What I did when I took office on February 15 was to plan an effort
to reach as many people as possible among the larger contributors
and tell them the option they had of giving their contribution before
April 7 and having the right of confidentiality or giving it later.
Many people said, 'T do not care, I will give it later."
Now, there was an advantage in getting early money. Anyone who
has ever run for office knows that the early money is the hardest to
get. I took advantage of that opportunity to visit a number of cities
in the country, met with a lot of people, urged those who were working
with me in the States to make it clear that there was an option to the
individual contributor.
Senator Inouye. Why would a contributor desire, as you say,
confidentiality or anonymity?
Mr. Stans. Oh, there are a number of reasons, Senator.
Senator Inouye. Why don't we tell the people of the United States?
Mr. Stans. I would be very happy to tell the people of the United
States, because I think contributors have been very badly maligned
in their desire for confidentiality.
One is that sometimes it affects relationships with employers, with
unions. Sometimes, and this is, I think, the most important point,
it makes them a target. It makes them a target for a great many
other political campaigns. It makes them a target for charitable
drives of all types. And many people want to make their contribution
and not be that kind of a target.
Senator Inouye. Aren't we all targets for charitable drives?
Mr. Stans. Yes, but you are a much better target if it is known
that you gave $25,000 to Senator Inouye's campaign than you are
Senator Inouye. That will be the day.
Mr. Stans [continuing]. Than 3'ou are if that is not known.
Now, there are some people, frankly, who give to both sides, both
candidates. There are some like Mr. Dwayne Andreas, who is a close
friend of Hubert Humphrey and contributed to his campaign, but
was also a friend of the President and wanted to contribute to his
campaign. So he wanted anonymity.
The greatest disservice that is done to people is to assume that be-
cause a man wants anonymity that he has a secret, sinister motive in
doing so.
Senator Inouye. As an accountant, I am certain from your stand-
ards that you have applied to yourself, you must have questioned the
receipt of cash. I have been told that most accountants would like to
have everything clean and proper, that everything should be in
writing.
Mr. Stans. Well, let me answer that in two ways.
Senator Inouye. Is cash an important element in political elections?
Mr. Stans. I do not think it is an important element at all. I testi-
fied yesterday that the cash receipts that were taken in before I came
with the committee and after amounted to about 3 percent of the total
receipts of the campaign and that the disbursements in cash amounted
to only 2 percent of the total disbursements of the campaign. And
731
that includes the $350,000 that went to the White House. So cash is
Dot an important element.
Let me say this. Contraiy to what has been said on one or more oc-
casions, we did not prefer getting cash. We did not ever solicit anyone
to contribute in cash. It was the option of the contributors to give us
mone}" in cash. We had no need for it in substantial amounts, and as I
said yesterday, we put in the bank about half of the money that we
received in cash.
So the choice was that of the contributor and not of our committee to
receive mone}- in cash.
Senator Inouye. I notice that other Presidential candidates volun-
taril}' disclosed all of their contributions which were made prior to
April 7. Was there any reason for refusing to do so on your part, sir?
Mr. Stans. I think, Senator, there were some of the other candi-
dates for the Presidency who did not disclose the source of their con-
tributions. I do not believe that Senator Jackson made that disclosure
and I do not believe that Wilbur Mills made that disclosure and there
may have been one or more others that did not disclose.
We viewed the disclosure of contributions by some of the candidates
who had not received much money anyway as a political ploy in an
effort to try to force us to disclose. I have said yesterday that our
committee had no concern about disclosure except insofar as it affected
the rights of the individuals under the law and we didn't think we had
the right to waive the privilege for them.
So as a matter of policy, and I was joined in this by representatives of
the campaign committee and the White House, the conclusion was
reached that we would not make that disclosure.
Now, that matter is still the subject of litigation and we have not yet
disclosed the names of our contributors before April 7 except as to one
group of names amounting to about $6 million that we disclosed just
before the election.
Senator Inouye. As one who has been described as the most success-
ful political fundraiser in the history of the United States, would you
recommend to this committee that legislation be drafted to prohibit
the receipt and disbursement of cash in political campaigns?
Mr. wStans. Well, I am a bit ambivalent on that. I am not quite
sure. I think any finance chairman would welcome that kind of legis-
lation, because it eliminates one potential series of questions as to
where the cash came from and where it went. But I think you have
got to be ver}^ careful in drafting it to make sure that you don't destroy
some of the means b}^ which elections are carried on, because there are
times when you have to pay certain expenses in cash on the spot. You
have to have petty cash funds with which to pay small bills, and so
forth.
Carefully drafted, I would, as a finance chairman, say that it would
make life a little bit easier because we wouldn't have so many questions
to answer later on.
Senator Inouye. Yesterday and this morning, you have testified
that you had no reason to question the integrity or the reliability of
such associates as Mr. LaRue — you have described him as a good
person — Mr. Mitchell, or Mr. Kalmbach. When did you begin sus-
pecting that somethmg was wrong?
Mr. Stans. I didn't have any suspicions about any of these people
until after the disclosures in the press following, I believe it was March
732
23, when Mr. McCord wrote his letter. And gradually, step by step,
names were being drawn into the public print. I have no firsthand
knowledge of any of the activities on the part of those people. Most of
what I have learned is from reading the press and listening to tele-
vision.
Senator Inouye. Before Mr. McCord's disclosure by letter, do you
not recall seeing, for example, in the Washington Post all of these
articles which had appeared on the front page naming people such as
Dwight Chapin, naming people like Mr. Donald Segretti, and naming
others in high places and were you not becoming a bit suspicious by
then?
Mr. Stans. Well, of course, I read the Washington Post, as I read it
every day, but with the greatest of respect, and I presume this is'
going to cause me some trouble with the Post, I do not believe every-
thing I read in it. Now, the Segretti matter was not described as having
anything to do with the Watergate. I did not know Donald Segretti or
anything about him. If he performed any function it was described at
the time as having been in the area of sabotage of the activities of the
opposing candidates and not espionage. So, yes, I followed all thosei
matters. Senator, but I had no reason to believe that any of the people^
who were not in the first part of the Watergate were in any way in-
volved.
Senator Inouye. It is your testimony this morning that until March
23 of this year you had no reason to suspect that people like Mr. Kalm-
bach or Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman, were
possibly involved in the Watergate and its ramifications?
Mr. Stans. That is entirely correct. Senator.
Senator Inouye. As a member of the budget committee of the
Committee To Re-Elect the President, as a close associate of all of these
men, never once did they discuss these matters with you?
Mr. Stans. There was never any discussion with me about the
planning of the Watergate matter, the planning of any coverup of any
kind, and I was completely uninformed. I presume that this was be-
cause, as I said yesterday, our two committees operated in watertight
compartments. We had our job to do, and were not in on the planning
or strategy of any part of the campaign. I am very grateful that they
did not tell me.
Senator Inouye. Why is it that certain members of your watertight
compartment were notified-
Mr. Stans. Well, the only one
Senator Inouye [continuing]. About the handling of that Watergate
matter?
Mr. Stans. The only one who was informed so far as I know, was
Gordon Liddy, and we heard the story yesterday about how Gordon
Liddy came to be part of our committee. He apparently had a feud
with Magruder and Magruder suggested that he be moved to our com-i
mittee and, in fairness to Mr. Liddy, I will say that I thought he was a
good lawyer, and he worked hard as a lawyer. What he did on the side
was not in any degree within my knowledge.
Senator Inouye. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
I must say that, like you, I find these circumstances most re-
grettable because I still recall those days when we worked very
closely when you were Secretary of Commerce and my position on
73a
the Commerce Committee. But all of us have our responsibilities to
perform
Mr. Stans. I understand very well, Senator.
Senator Inouye [continuing]. Under difficult circumstances. Thank
you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Baker.
Senator Baker. Mr. Stans, there is still, after 6% years in the
Senate, some remnant of lawyer in me. I was trained in that profession
and practiced law for 19 j^ears as you were trained to be an accountant
and public servant.
It is axiomatic, I believe, that the stronger a witness and the more
logical and knowing his testimonj^, the more difficult it is to test
that testimon}^, and to try to establish the areas of conflict — if there
are areas of conflict — and the opportunity for corroboration— if
there are areas of corroboration.
All of this is b}' way of preface to sa}dng that the questions I am
going to put to you should not be interpreted as antagonistic nor
imph'ing disbelief, but rather, at least, a former lawyer's effort to
test some of your testimony against the testimony of other witnesses
that have appeared before this committee, interviews that have been
conducted by the staff on behalf of the committee and the circum-
stances in general. So, for the purpose of this inquiry, it is important
that you understand, the committee and others understand, that the
extent and scope of examination or the determination to dig for facts
does not infer disbelief in the testimony but rather as a legal device
to try to establish the circumstances before this committee. 1 am
sure you understand it.
Mr. Stans. I understand, Senator.
Senator Baker. I would like to start, if I may, by establishing
according to your records the number of times, the occasions, and
the circumstances when you met and conferred with any of the
so-called Watergate principals immediately prior to the break-in
into the Watergate complex housing the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters and the time immediately after June 17 when
that event occurred.
I have here before me entries or abstracts of entires from your
diary, as I understand it, and if you have that diary before you, I
would request 3'ou to give your attention to these items, January 17,
1972. Can you do that for me, Mr. Secretary?
Mr. Stans. It will take just a moment. We do not have the diary
with us, Mr. Senator. I believe a cop}' was furnished to the staff
and perhaps they can help us by letting me refer to it.
Senator Baker. Could we suspend for just a moment? Does the
staff have additional copies? If you do, it would be helpful to give it
to the witness and we can both go through it together. Could we have
the abstract of the original diary before either one of us?
January 17, 1972, 10 a.m., an entry I can't read — it looks like
"Finance Committee."
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Baker. Were you then the chairman of the finance
committee?
Mr, Stans. No, I was not.
734
Senator Baker. Were you Secretary of Commerce at the time?
Mr. Stans. I was Secretary of Commerce.
Senator Baker. January 25, 8:30 a.m., "1701 Pennsylvania
Avenue (all day)."
Mr. Stans. Yes, that turned out to be an exaggeration because I
did have other appointments on that day, but that is the entry.
Senator Baker. Were these campaign-related activities? I believe
1701 Pennsylvania Avenue was the headquarters of the Committee
To Re-Elect the President.
Mr. Stans. Those were related to discussions of the new law as it
then stood.
Senator Baker. The law that went into effect on April 7, 1972?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Baker. January 28, 9:30 a.m., the same entry, 1701
Pennsylvania Avenue?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Baker. January 31, "Hugh Sloan," is this Hugh Sloan, Jr.,
known also as Duke Sloan who appeared and testified before the
committee previously?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Baker. February 1, 4 o'clock, "Finance Group Arden," as
I can read the entry.
Mr. Stans. Did you say February 4?
Senator Baker. I am sorry, February 1, 4 o'clock is the entry
apparently — 4 p.m.
Mr. Stans. Yes, that is in brackets and I take that to mean since
I left for the airport at 3 o'clock that that meeting was cancelled.
Senator Baker. February 11, 8:15, "Breakfast with R. S. at
Watergate." Incidentally, of all of the synonymous phrases I could
have chosen, I think I would have chosen last your description of
your functions as being watertight. [Laughter.]
Mr. Stans. Touch6, Senator. What is the last date you are asking
me about?
Senator Baker. February 11, 8:15, "Breakfast with R. S. at
Watergate."
Mr. Stans. That had no relation to campaign ro.atters. R. S. was
Rocco SiciUano, the former Under Secretary of Commerce. I had
breakfast with him.
Senator Baker. Thank you, sir. February 14, 10 o'clock, "Sloan-
Nunn redirect." I can't read the last word.
Mr. Stans. That was a meeting with Sloan-Nunn regarding direct
mail solicitation of contributors.
Senator Baker. February 15, 11:30, Tom Evans, New York.
Mr. Stans. Yes, Tom Evans was not with the campaign at that
time. I would not be able to recall at the moment the subject of that
discussion. He did not join the campaign until July or along in there.
Senator Baker. February 22, 3:30, "Mitchell at Justice."
Mr. Stans. This is now after I had joined the campaign on February
15.
Senator Baker. Can you tell us about that conversation?
Mr. Stans. 1 can't tell you any of the particulars. It was a general
discussion with Mitchell. I think it was the first opportunity I had,
after joining the campaign, to sit down and talk with him about plans
in general, the spending programs, and so on.
735
Senator Baker. Was there any discussion of the Watergate or
related activities?
Mr. Stans. Absolutely not.
Senator Baker. Or of intelligence gathering?
Mr. Stans. No, sir.
Senator Baker. Or the form, matter, and type of fiscal control that
would be exercised by you over campaign expenditures?
Mr. Stans. Yes, I think that was discussed because I wanted it
very clear with Mr. Mitchell that we had precisely the arrangement
that I have discussed here.
Senator Baker. Did you discuss then the matter of the finance
committee meeting where, as Mr. Sloan described it, I believe, there
was a discussion of the authorization of larger expenditures by this
committee consisting of political types and finance types. Was that
discussed at the meeting with Mr. Mitchell on February 22?
Mr. Stans. Senator, I would appreciate it if you would repeat the
question. I didn't quite get the point.
Senator Baker. All right, sir.
It is my understanding that there was a committee made up of
representatives of the finance committee and of the political side of
the campaign that met periodically to discuss expenditures proposed
or made for the campaign. Is that correct?
Mr. Stans. That is correct. It was called the budget committee.
Senator Baker. Was the budget committee's formulation or func-
tion discussed with Mr. Mitchell on Februar}' 22?
Mr. Stans. I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if it were
because it was one of the matters of organization that was important
to me at the time.
Senator Baker. Drawing your attention to March 8, 4 p.m.,
"Robert," I can't read the words, "Chairman Richardson, Pres.
P-r-e-s," period.
Mr. Barker. Mr. Chairman, I think this is getting into an area
where we agreed not to tread.
Senator Baker. Then at your request I certainly shall not.
The next item is April 25 to Liddy. I will read off a list here and ask
you if you can comment on this list of appointments, Mr. Stans, since
the}' appear to be in sequence: April 25, 2 p.m., Liddy; May 1, 3:30,
Liddv; Mav 8, 10:30; and 2 p.m., Liddy; M^slj 23, 2 o'clock, Liddy;
May' 30, 10 o'clock, Liddy; May 14, 3:30, 4:30, Liddy. Since these
are all Lidd}' appointments and they are all in chronological order,
apparently, could you tell us what that group pf meetings with Mr.
Lidd}' was about?
Mr. Stans. Yes, Mr. Liddy by then was the counsel for the com-
mittee. He had been given a number of responsibilities to pursue as a
regular matter. I remember some specific subjects that came up such
as the contribution of a man in Chicago who wanted to give stock and
we had some considerable discussions with his attorney conducted by
Mr. Liddy over a period of time. I remember giving Mr. Liddy the
responsibility of seeing that everyone of the national and State com-
mittees had properly registered with the General Accounting Office,
had properl}' registered with the Treasury Department, and I was
following these matters with Mr. Liddy as the general counsel from
time to time, as the occasion warranted, in addition to the fact that
Mr. Lidd}' appeared at the dailj^ staff meetings.
736
In our staff meeting minutes of April 24, for example, there is an
item "Liddy is to continue foKowup of all States not yet registered
to submit a weekly list to Stans each Monday of all those not yet
done."
Another item "Liddy is to furnish vStans with a legal opinion on
anonymous contributions prior to April 7." He was the counsel for
the committee.
I have given to the committee a number of his legal opinions in
writing which indicate that he was quite active and our daily staff
minutes show a number of things that Avere assigned to him. It was
quite routine that I discussed all of these matters with him.
Senator Baker. There was no discussion of the Watergate or of
intelligence gathering?
Air. Stans. There was absolutely no discussion of that type.
Senator Baker. The next item is June 16, 1972, and there are two
entries, one at 11:30 in the morning, I take to be "Haldeman at the
White House." And the other 4 in the afternoon, "Liddy."
Mr. Stans. That was the day of a Cabinet meeting at the White
House also. I can't recall specifically the purpose of my meeting with
Mr. Haldeman.
Senator Baker. Was there any discussion of the Watergate?
Mr. Stans. Oh, absolutely not.
Senator Baker. Bear in mind, this was the day before the break-in
of the Democratic National Committee headquarters. There was no
mention of intelligence-gathering activities?
Mr. Stans. No, absolutely not.
• Senator Baker. Of the impending break-in later that night or early
the next morning of the Democratic National Committee head-
quarters?
Mr. Stans. No, Senator, absolutely not.
Now, I think I did testify yesterday that I saw Haldeman a few
times in the course of the year to discuss the size of the budget, the
amount of money that the campaign was seeming to cost and my
feeling of concern about whether we could raise that amount of money.
In the absence of any other information, I would tell you that the
best of my recollection is that that would be what we discussed on
June 16.
Senator Baker. What about the Liddy meeting on June 18 at 4
in the afternoon?
Mr. Stans. Well, I can give you one clue from my notations. I
cannot give you any precise recollection of the sequence of discussion.
But on June 14, in our staff meeting, it says "Liddy is to report to
staff every 3 days on the McGaw matter"
Senator Baker. On the what?
Mr. Stans. McGaw, M-c-G-a-w. He is the contributor who had the
legal problems in contributing in the form of stock. And there were a
number of other items that were charged to Liddy that day.
"Liddy is to talk to Yeutter re problem in Kansas.
"Liddy is to follow up filing requirements of Maryland gala and
D.C. dinner.
"Liddy is to follow up filing of 4804 forms by State" — that is the
Treasury form.
Senator Baker. Are these all notations from a meeting on the 14th
or 16th?
737
Mr. Stans. These are all notations from a meeting on the 14th.
The}^ are subjects that I would assume were discussed with Mr. Liddy
on the 16th, and possibly others, but certainly, definitely, positively
not Watergate.
Senator Baker. Did you see anything unusual about Mr. Liddy's
attitude or conduct at the 4 o'clock meeting on the 16th of June?
Mr. Stans. No. I did not.
As a matter of fact, Senator, Mr. Liddy was in the office for another
10 days after the 17th. He attended staff meetings. I had similar meet-
ings with him from time to time and he covered up his concerns ex-
tremeh' well. I had no idea that he was involved.
Senator Baker. You have already described for the committee,
under inquir}- from other Senators or the staff, about how you learned
of the Watergate break-in and the events immediately succeeding that.
The next item after June 17, the day of the Watergate entry, is June
19, Mr. Kleindienst. Is that former Attorne}^ General Kleindienst?
Mr. Stans. Yes, it is.
Senator Baker. Can you tell us about that meeting?
Mr. Stans. Yes, sir. In the preceding week, I had called Mr.
Kle'ndienst and asked for an appointment because we were having
difficulties with some personalities in Arizona in setting up a fund-
raising program. I asked for an opportunity to see him and talk to
him about those people.
Senator Baker. You did not talk to him about the Watergate?
Mr. Stans. No. Let me go further, Senator.
We never had the meeting. He called me on the morning of the 19th
and said he was too busy that day. He canceled the meeting, and I
solved my problem in other ways. We never rescheduled it and I
never did talk to Mr. Kleindienst.
Senator Baker. June 23 at 4 o'clock, Mr. Liddy; and June 28 at
5 o'clock, Mr. Liddy.
Mr. Stans. The earlier of those two meetings, so far as I know, was
entireh' routine, related to his legal matters.
The meeting on the 28th at 5 o'clock was when Mr. Liddy stopped
in the office to say goodbye. He had been discharged. He was preparing
to leave the office, came in and said he was very sorry to go, and I said,
*T am very sorry to see you go," and that was the substance of the
conversation .
Senator Baker. Did he protest his innocence at the time?
Mr. Stans. No, he did not.
Senator Baker. There are a number of other entries, but there is
one that I do not see on your diary, and that is the meeting with Mr.
Mitchell, I believe on the 23d or 24th of June. Did that meeting occur
and if so, where, when, and at what time?
Mr. Stans. There was a meeting with Mr. Mitchell on the 23d at
1:30 on my diary. It says "Lunch, Mitchell."
Now, since Mr. Mitchell never came to my office in the course of
the whole campaign, it must have been in his office, because I do not
recall that we ever went out to lunch.
Senator Baker. Mr. Stans, I apologize to 3'ou. I was reading from
a summary which did not show the Mitchell appointment. I am now
looking at copies of the appointment book on Friday, June 23, 1972,
at 12 o'clock through 1:30, it would appear. There is a notation of
lunch with Mr. Mitchell. I am sorry I misinterpreted that.
738
It is important that we inquire into that situation, I believe, Mr.
Stans, because here we are, a few days after the Watergate break-in,
after you have learned from newspaper accounts or from whatever
source of the involvement of people employed by your committee or
by the Committee To Re-Elect the President or otherwise. Is it my
understanding that you set up the meeting with Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Stans. I do not think you should have that understanding. I
do not know how the meeting was set up.
Senator Baker. All right, sir. Who was present at the meeting?
Mr. Stans. There is no indication in my records that anyone else
was present and I have no recollection on that point.
Let me say to you, Senator, this is the day in which I got my first
information that the Watergate affair involved transactions with the
finance committee. It was at 8 o'clock, as you see on the schedule
that day, that Fred LaRue came to my office to talk about the
Dahlberg check that had shown up in the records of the bank of
Barker in Florida. It was at 3 o'clock in the afternoon that Dahlberg
came to Washington, and at 5 o'clock that I had several meetings with
Mardian and LaRue.
I am sure that the substance of discussion that day in these meetings
was very largely related to that check and possibly to the Mexican
checks, although I cannot recall whether that happened on the same
day as the Dahlberg check.
Senator Baker. Was there any discussion with Mr. Mitchell of the
allegations being made by the press at that time of Republican
involvement in the Watergate break-in?
Mr. Stans. I have no recollection of the substance of the dis-
cussions. I just cannot tell you. I had many meetings with Mr.
Mitchell in the course of the time that he was with the campaign. As
I said, in each case, I had a list of four, five, or six subjects we talked
about that were current at the time, and I do not know which par-
ticular ones we talked about on any particular day.
Senator Baker. This was the same day, June 23, when I believe
Mr. Sloan went to the White House to, according to his testimony,
tell Mr. Ehrlichman of his concerns. Do you have any information or
knowledge of Mr. Sloan's conduct on this same day?
Mr. Stans. Well, shortly before 10 o'clock on this day, Mr. Sloan
shows on my calendar as having met with me. It was at that time that
he gave me his accounting for the cash funds and that we discussed.
I believe, the disposition of the balance that he had on hand. I am
not aware and was not aware at that time, of his discussions with
Mr. Ehrlichman or others and I learned about them from reading his
depositions.
Senator Baker. Did you have a meeting wdth Mr. Mitchell on the
24th of June?
Mr. Stans. The 24th was a Saturday. I had no recollection of any
meeting with Mr. Mitchell and my record does not show any. I had
several other meetings on that day. I was in the office, apparently,
a good part of the day, until, at least until early afternoon, but I
have no recollection or record of a meeting with Mr. Mitchell on
that day.
Senator Baker. Did you have a meeting with Mr. Magruder on the
24th?
739
Mr. Stans. Similarly, there is no record of it and I have no recol-
lection of it.
Senator Baker. Was there a series of meetings on the 24th with
Magruder, Dean, Mitchell, or any of the major figures in the campaign
or finance situation at that time, on the 24th? I think it is important
that you try to recall as best you can, Mr. Stans.
Mr. Stans. Well, Senator, I have no recollection. I can only go
by what my record shows and I do not want to be unfair, but I would
like to know what you did on March 24, 1972. I think you would have
a hard time remembering.
Senator Baker. I am certain I would.
Mr. Stans. And I talked to people like John Mitchell a great many
times in the course of the campaign and I have no doubt that some of
them did not get on my time sheets.
Senator Baker. I think it is worth digressing long enough to say
that anyone would have difficulty establishing what they did on a
particular day, but these are not ordinary and usual circumstances.
Mr. Stans. Correct.
Senator Baker. And we are dealing here with your best efforts to
reconstruct what happened at a critical time and juncture in these
proceedings. Now, that is why I urged you to give particular and
careful attention to what happened on June 24 vnih respect to, meet-
ings or conversations less formal than meetings ^^dth any of the princi-
pals in the so-called Watergate affair.
Mr. Stans. I have tried my best to reconstruct that situation. I
have gone through all correspondence and memorandums with all of
the jjrincipals that have been discussed in connection mth this matter,
and to the extent that they refresh my memory, I have testified to
them but I would have to say that I had many meetings with the
people that I considered quite routine.
I can only say to you mth absolute finality that I did not discuss
any espionage or sabotage operations with anyone prior to June 17
and I really did not learn about them except as I learned about them
in the public press.
Senator Baker. That anticipates most of the questions I could ask
on that subject with the exception of one thing. That is with whom did
you discuss the Watergate so-called coverup after June 17 and when
did you do it?
Mr. Stans. I did not discuss the Watergate coverup with anyone
after June 17 and I did not know there was a coverup until I read
about that in the press.
Now, I know of incidents that obviously, in the light of subsequent
events, had a relationship to the coverup. For example, the $75,000
that I gave to Kalmbach, I gave it to him in good faith, ^v\th. no
knowledge at the time, and I am sure that w^hen Mr. Kalmbach comes
before this committee, he will testify that he did not tell me what the
purpose of the money was for and would not tell me what the purpose
of the money was for. But except for an incident of that type, I had
no knowledge of a coverup activity that may have taken place.
Senator Baker. Did vou, Mr." Stans, at any time in June 1972
discuss wdth Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Magruder, Mr. LaRue,
Mr. Ehrlichman, or Mr. Haldeman, what happened on the mornmg
of June 17 at the Democratic national headquarters in any way?
96-296 (bk.2) O - 73 - 19
740
Mr. Stans. Some of those people whom you mentioned I had no
contact with at all during the year. For example, John Ehrlichman,
so far as I can tell from my records, did not meet with me during the
entire year. As to the others, I had no discussion on the Watergate
affair except the normal curiosity of discussion about news stories.
Now, let me put that in another perspective. To the extent that the
finance committee was involved in the news stories, it related to the
Dahlberg check, the Andreas contribution, the Mexican checks, and
the names of our contributors and matters of that type. These are the
things that occupied my mind and Mr. Sloan's mind, the activities of
the finance committee insofar as they related to public affairs during
that period. We were not involved, I made it very plain to the cam-
paign people, the finance committee people were not involved in the
Watergate affair, and there were no discussions about who did what, or-
why, or when, that I can recall at any time.
Senator Baker. At any time?
Mr. Stans. At any time, until the events were reported in the press.
Senator Baker. Well, after the events were reported in the press —
I do not want to keep knocking down the limitations that you seem
to be placing on this, but at any time after June 17, 1972, regardless
of when, at any time until this moment, had Mr. Sloan, Mr. Magruder,
Mr. LaRue, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Ehrlichman attempted
to tell you what happened vis-a-vis the Watergate break-in on June
17? Or the President?
Mr. Stans. Not at all. The issue of culpability, which I think is
what you are getting at, was never discussed with me by anyone.
Senator Baker. No; I am not really trying to get at culpability, I
am trying to get at communication. I guess another way to put it,
Mr. Stans, is did you gain all of your information about the facts and
circumstances that related to Watergate from newspaper accounts,
or did one of those gentlemen that I have identified and I will identify
again — Mr. Sloan, Mr. Magruder, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr.
Haldeman, Mr. Mitchell — did any of them at any time until this
moment tell you what happened at Watergate? Or Mr. Liddy or the
President?
Mr. Stans. My answer to that is "No."
Senator Baker. Thank you.
Mr. Stans, can you offer the committee now or at a later date — and
I know it is extraordinarily difficult to offer negative testimony or
or negative proof — but can you offer the committee any other sug-
gestions on how we might inquire into the meetings and your relation-
ships to them with these people that I have named — Mr. Ehrlichman,
Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Dean, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Mitchell?
I am thinking, for instance, of meetings at which other people were i
present so that we could verify or dispute this information. I am
thinking of other records, memorandums, or data that you might know
of that could buttress your accounts. I apologize once again for asking
you to try to prove a negative fact, but if there is other and collateral
information, I think the committee would like to have it.
Mr. Stans. Senator, we have made available to the staff of the
committee ah the files. They have examined my personal files; they
have all of the correspondence and memorandums that passed be-
tween me and the individuals you have named. I have given you the
best of my recollection on the various matters that I have been asked
741
about, and I think from here on out, the answer is that it is up to the
other witnesses that jou are going to call to tell what they know about
it.
Senator Baker. Thank you, Mr. Stans.
One or two other questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Inouye asked you about the conversation with Mr. Hugh
Sloan in which, according to Mr. Sloan, you told him when he inquired
about what was going on, or something to that effect, "I don't want
to know and you don't want to know." My recollection of your answer
to Senator Inouye's question was that you indicated a similar response,
something to the effect that, I do not know and you do not want to
find out, or something to that effect.
Either version of that, Mr. Stans, I think creates an inescapable
curiosity on the part of this member of the committee.
Why not? Why didn't you want to know or why didn't you want him
to want to know?
Mr. Stans. In the context in which the statement was made, which
was the context of the overall campaign, there was no basis by which
we could attempt to know the commitments made by the campaign
people. And I think this is the place for me to go back to the budget
and tell how it was operated, because I think there may be some mem-
bers of the committee and perhaps the jniblic who think that in the
budget committee meetings, we talked about whether or not we were
going to spend $25,000 with this organization or $100,000 with that
organization for a certain purpose. We never discussed in the budget
committee meeting where money would go, and I have furnished the
staff a copy of the budget which shows how it was broken down.
The first item is "Advertising, $12,153,000."
Now, within that, we might discuss whether some of that was going
to go to billboards, and the conclusion was that there would be no
billboards. There may have been and there were discussions about
how much to television as against radio, but not which station or
even at what time.
"Campaign Materials" was another item in the budget, $l)^milUon.
This was for the buttons and bumper strips and things that are part
of a campaign. But there was never any discussion in the budget
committee about who do we buy these from or when do we get them
delivered, that sort of thing.
There was an item in the budget of almost $7 million entitled "Re-
search and Planning, Direct Mail, and Telephone Operations."
Now, $4}^ million of that was for direct mail and $1.9 million was
for telephone operations. The discussions in the budget committee
were about which States shall we use for direct mail, and in this, the
campaign committee made the decisions.
There were discussions in the budget committee about which States
shall we use telephone operations in. There were questions raised such
as, why do a'ou need to have three pieces of direct mailing to every
householder "^in California; why couldn't you do it with two?
Senator Baker. Is this, Mr. Stans, what Mr. Odle probably was
referring to when he answered in response to Mr. Thompson's ques-
tion on page 33 of the Odle testimony —
With regard to Mr. Stans, was his role limited to raising money or did Mr.
Stans also participate in the decisions as to how money would be allocated!"
742
Mr. Odle. I think that Mr. Stans in the budget meetings certainly kept an
eye on where the money was going. He sometimes challenged expenditures. He
would say, for example, do we really need to spend this money on television ad-
vertising this week?
Is this the kind of thing you are describing?
Mr. Stans. That is the kind of thing I am describing and that is the
way in which the budget committee operated. At some times, a con-
cession would be made that we would take $100,000 out of polling
and put it into candidates support, for example, but I was never suc-
cessful in getting any reductions in the budget despite my letter of
May 10 to Mr. Mitchell, which is before us, despite all of my pleas,
despite the fact that I got quite irate at times, despite the fact that I
said, I don't think we can raise that amount of money. We were
against an upward situation and the ultimate, as I said yesterday,
was in excess of $50 million that was spent.
Senator Baker. Mr. Odle also testified, and according to the tran-
script, that "I would say that in budget committee sessions, his agree-
ment" — meaning your agreement — "was necessary before we could
allocate a great deal of money, say for television advertising the fol-
lowing week; yes, those kinds of major decisions."
Is that essentially correct?
Mr. Stans. That is essentially correct, and in principle it is the
basis on which we operated.
Senator Baker. Wliat about that $350,000 that went to the White
House? Did you have to approve that?
Mr. Stans. Well, that came up before the budget committee, I
believe, had any effective operation, and as I testified yesterday, I
knew that the subject was under consideration. I learned shortly after
that the money had been paid to the White House; I had no objection
to it; I would have approved it had I been asked about it; and the
minor difference in recollection between me and Mr. Sloan as to
whether I approved it in advance or later is, I think, immaterial.
Senator Baker. Mr. Stans, you testified, I believe, that the $350,000
for the White House was intended for, as you understand it, polling
costs, polling operations, and other things. Why on earth — cash would
be the most awkward way on earth to take care of something like that.
Why wouldn't a check have been sent, an account against which the
White House could draw from those funds?
Mr. Stans. Well, I think this is a question that might well be worth
asking of other witnesses but I do understand that the White House,
and I get some of this from Mr. Haldeman's testimony and deposi-
tions, that the White House wanted to do some polling on its own to
check on the reports that it got from the campaign committee as to
issues and findings in certain States and they wanted to do it without
the knowledge of the regular polling organizations that were being used
by the campaign committee.
Senator Baker. Mr, Stans, let me, in the interest of time, with a full
understanding you are going to return and testify later on other
matters more intimately related to the structure of campaign financ-
ing, let me ask you a final question: In retrospect, and hindsight is
always 20-20, can 3^ou see any reason why we should not eliminate
cash transactions from the political system?
Mr. Stans. Well, we had that question just a minute ago. I think
when you say eliminate cash transaction in just those words, you wiU
743
run into a lot of trouble because j'^ou will even eliminate petty cash
funds for paying $3 for the delivery of a parcel — somethmg like that.
I think also the committee ought to inquire into the circumstances
of whether or not under certain conditions of elections, for example, it
is necessar}^ for people to have cash funds to pay certain types of ex-
penses to get people to the polls, and that sort of thing.
But as a finance chairman in the past, never again, I would have
welcomed that kind of legislation because it would have eliminated an
awful lot of the Cjuestions.
Senator Baker. It would have made it a lot easier for you to account
for the income and outgo, wouldn't it?
Mr. Stans. Not necessarily easier but just easier to eliminate the
suspicions that seemed to be associated with people paying in cash even
though it is legal tender.
Senator Baker. I can't help but note your voluntary statement that
you will never be a finance chairman again, I understand you didn't
want to be this time.
Mr. Stans. That is entirely correct.
Senator Baker. And I take it nothing has happened to change
your mind? [Laughter.]
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Senator Talmadge.
Senator Talmadge. Mr. Stans, I have had the pleasure of knowing
you for a great number of years. Your career is one of the most
remarkable success stories in the history of America : humble origins,
a hard working young man, certified public accountant at the age of
23 years, highly successful businessman. Secretary of Commerce,
Director of the Bureau of the Budget and, finally, the most effective
money raiser for an}^ political campaign in the history of the country.
M}' questions may be viewed as antagonistic but I don't want you to
think of them in that vein because I, too, am merely seeking facts
which I think the American people are entitled to know.
You, of course, are well acquainted with Mr. Sloan.
Mr. Stans. Yes, I am very well acquainted with Mr. Sloan.
Senator Talmadge. He testified before the committee last week and
there are certain direct contradictions between your testimony and
Mr. Sloan's. I thought Mr. Sloan was an articulate, able, and effective
witness. How do you regard Mr. Sloan's character?
Mr. Stans. I would like to say something about that and I welcome
the opportunity to talk about that. I consider Mr. Sloan a man of very
high character. He is able, he is a brilliant person. We worked very
closely together all through the time that he was associated with the
committee.
I had known him in 1968 when he worked on our campaign. He is
also sophisticated. He has spent more time in fundraising than I
have perhaps by a factor of two. He was in this campaign before I
was, and I don'\ consider it significant that there are a few matters
on which our remarks differ. We have agreed on almost everything that
we have testified about. There has been no disagreement in our testi-
mony except on two or three points. I think perhaps it would be a
matter of suspicion if there weren't some disagreements between us.
But the basic fact is that we do have high respect for each other.
We worked very closely together, and I want to repeat what I have
744
said before: the finance committee, in its isolation from the campaign,
had nothing to do with the events that you are investigating in this
hearing. Except for Mr. Gordon Liddy who was with us a relatively
short period of time, who was transferred over under circumstances
which have been described here, I am convinced that neither Mr.
Sloan nor anyone else connected with the finance committee had any
knowledge of these events.
Senator Talmadge. You would believe Mr. Sloan under oath?
Mr. Stans. Pardon me.
Senator Talmadge. You believe Mr. Sloan's testimony under oath?
Mr. Stans. I would believe Mr. Sloan's testimony under oath
except in the few cases in which his recollection is slightly different
from mine.
Senator Talmadge. It went substantially beyond recollection, I
may say. I think at one point he said you would have to check it with
Mitchell, $83,000 payment to Mr. Liddy, you deny that, don't you?
Mr. Stans. Oh, no.
Senator Talmadge. You did check it with Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Stans. I did check with Mr. Mitchell on the principle of
whether Mr. Magruder had authority to tell Mr. Sloan to make
payments to Liddy. I did not check with Mr. Mitchell on the amount.
Senator Talmadge. Mr. Mitchell authorized the payment?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Mitchell — no; he did not authorize the payment.
He said that Mr. Magruder is the man to talk to. "Mr. Magruder is
running the campaign and he is directing the expenditures."
Senator Talmadge. After talking with Mr. Mitchell, you told
Mr. Sloan to make the payments?
Mr. Stans. No, sir. After talking with Mr. Mitchell, I told Mr.
Sloan to check with Magruder to see whether he should make the
payment and Mr. Magruder said- — and Sloan said he had already
talked to Magruder.
Senator Talmadge. You deny also that you told Mr. Sloan about
$83,000 to Mr. Liddy, that you didn't want to know and he didn't
want to know what it was going for?
Mr. Stans. No, Senator, I don't deny a discussion on that subject.
I said two things: one, that it was not the whole conversation. Second,
that I am not sure the words are entirely accurate, and Mr. Sloan
himself has said, last week what I said here today, that that remark
was made in a context of total frustration with the campaign people,
and it was not related solely to the question of the payment to Mr.
Liddy.
Senator Talmadge. I believe you verified in the question asked by
Senator Baker Mr. Odle's testimony which was that your i)osition on
the budget committee was to maintain the expenditures at an
economical level?
Mr. Stans. To try, yes.
Senator Talmadge. To try.
Did you ever question why staff members such as Mr. Liddy and
Mr. Porter, Mr. Magruder were drawing off large sums of money?
Mr. Stans. Well, I never knew that Mr. Magruder had drawn any
money until long after it happened.
With respect to Mr. Liddy, I knew that he had been drawing some
sums of money. I understood they were relatively small. It had
something to do with the primary campaigns and that was the situa-
745
tion up until Mr. Sloan came to me with the statement that Mr.
Liddy had asked for a substantial amount of money.
With respect to Mr. Porter, I testified yesterday that I had heard
in February or along; in there that Mr. Porter had a safe with a sum
of money in it, that he was receiving money and disbursing it, that I
objected to that, and that Mr. Porter then stopped disbursing any
money. I learned last night that he did not disburse any money or
receive any money during the month of April and it wasn't until some-
time in May that he again received some funds. I was not aware of
those payments.
Senator Talmadge. Mr. Liddy attended 33 out of 39 staff meetings
of the finance committee August 6, 1971, to June 28 of 1972. He was
general counsel to the committee. He received an assignment, in fact,
on June 28, the day he was fired. Doesn't it seem rather incongruous
that Mr. Liddy, your general counsel, with whom you met daily, could
take large sums of money and not report the use of it?
Mr. Stans. Senator, Mr. Liddy was accountable in money terms
to the treasurer, not to me, and except for the limited knowledge
that I had about transactions with Mr. Liddy, I had no knowledge of
what he was doing with the money or how much he had gotten, and
I was as surprised as many other people when I found out that he
had received a total of $199,000.
Let me make a point here which has not yet been made before the
committee. As I read the testimony and depositions in various civil
suits the program for Liddy to receive $250,000, if it was approved by
anyone, was approved in March and apparently the $83,000, which
happens to be exactly one-third of $250,000, was paid to Mr. Liddy,
if it was paid to him, early in April.
The testimony indicates if you take into account the other money
that Mr. Liddy received, and the money given to him by Porter, that
he had spent $125,000 before that, before the Watergate espionage
program was approved. I have no idea what that was for, I had no
idea until I did the arithmetic that that was the case. But it would
seem to me that, and this answers one of vSenator Baker's questions,
that this is one area of the investigation that no one seems to know
anything about.
Senator Talmadge. Where in the budget did this program for Mr,
Liddy appear?
Mr. Stans. There was no item in the budget for the program of
Mr. Liddy that is identifiable. If the people who made the budget
had it in mind I do not know what item it would have appeared in.
Senator Talmadge. You testified yesterday, did you not, Mr.
Sloan told you on July 12 that he was approached by Mr. Magruder
and asked by Mr. Magruder to minimize the amount of money that
he had disbursed, is that correct?
Mr. Stans. I am not sure that I referred to the date of July 12
but I was told by Mr. Sloan that that had happened and that he
had — had told Mr. Magruder and others that he was not going to do so.
Senator Talmadge. Did that not raise suspicions in your mind
as a possible illegal or unethical use of the money that Magruder was
disbursing?
Mr. Stans. Senator, you do not mean Magruder, I take it. Could
you rephrase the question?
746
Senator Talmadge. Mr. Stans, did that not raise suspicions in
your mind as to the possible illegal or unethical uses of the money
that Mr. Magruder was disbursing?
Mr. Stans. No question about that but those suspicions began to
generate earlier than that, particularly on June 28 when Mr. Liddy
was discharged for failing to cooperate with the FBI.
Senator Talmadge. Did you testify yesterday in effect that your
whole purpose was raising money, that you did not take care of small
detailed items?
Mr. Stans. That is pretty much true. I mil not say that at times
I did not get into detail. One is always forced into that but my job
was to raise the massive amount of money that I could see was going
to be spent.
Senator Talmadge. I will ask the staff to give each member of the
committee and the witness and the court reporter a copy of these
documents for the purpose of identification.
Show Mr. Stans one, please, immediately, so he can be refreshing
his memory.
Mr. Stans. Yes; I remember these memorandums.
Senator Talmadge. That is a document you wrote, both pages?
Mr. Stans. Yes.
Senator Talmadge. Mr. Chairman, I ask that they be inserted
in the record at this point and appropriately marked as an exhibit.
Senator Ervin. Let it be marked as an exhibit and received.
[The document referred to was marked exhibit No. 30.*]
Senator Talmadge. I \\dll read part of it.
"It will be necessarj^ for us to establish a system of control over the
purchasing and distribution of all articles, such as bumper strips,
banners, pins, jewelry, and so forth," other details there. Page 2, "I
think we need a lapel pin for our 1972 contributors," et cetera. Would
that not indicate to you that you had more than a casual interest in
the operations of the campaign?
Mr. Stans. Let us take them one by one, Senator.
The question of accounting for the sale of articles like jewelry and
pins and so forth was a new one. We never did that in previous elec-
tions, we did not do it in 1968. It was customary for people running a
store front location to get jewelry and sell it and put the proceeds into
some purpose locally.
The new law changed that. It required us to account for every dollar
of receipts, and being aware of that I told Mr. Sloan by this memoran-
dum in the second paragraph, "I would appreciate it if you would
work with the campaign people in setting up a procedure for 1972."
Now, I did not consider, I do not consider, this a detail. I consider
it a rather important element in our responsibility to account to the
General Accounting Office.
Senator Talmadge. Now, that was dated February 28, 1972, was it
not?
Mr. Stans. That is correct, sir.
Senator Talmadge. More than 2 months before the new accounting
procedure contributions and disbursements went into effect April 7,
1972?
Mr. Stans. About 5 weeks, Senator, yes.
* See p. 906.
747
Senator Talmadge. Five weeks. Why would you consider going into
the matter of bumper strips and banners and pins and jewelry and so
forth, and there on that board is over $1 million in cash disbursements
unaccounted for?
Mr. Stans. I did not get the question, Senator.
Senator Talmadge. The question is [laughter] why were you
spending all your time worrying about bumper strips and right there
on that board you have got deposits of $750,000 and disbursements of
$1,777,000? You are considered to be one of the most able certified
accountants in America, whj' did you worry about bumper strips
instead of those funds?
Mr. Stans. Well, Senator, I suppose this is argumentative, I wor-
ried about bumper strips and jewelry. The accounting for proceeds of
sales of articles was an important responsibility under the statute,
Now, most of this material on the chart, as we have already learned
happened before April 6, only a few items on there happened after
April 6, and there was no responsibility under the law on the Treasurer
to account for that money but he was accountable for the proceeds
of sales of any jewelry or items of that type.
Senator Talmadge. And didn't you send out an interoffice memo on
May 3 stating that you were greatly concerned that thank you letters
to contributors be sent out within 48 hours of the receipt of the
contribution?
Mr. Stans. Yes, sir, I did consider that a very important function
of the fundraising effort to see that people were thanked very promptly.
Senator Talmadge. I will ask the staff to show Mr. Stans a copy
of the next document, and give a copy to each member of the commit-
tee staff, and I want to insert that into the record appropriately num-
bered and marked the next exhibit.
Senator Ervin. Let the document be entered as an exhibit and
marked with the appropriate number.
[The documents referred to were marked exhibit No. 31.*]
Senator Talmadge. Mr. Stans, do you admit writing that memoran-
dum also to Mr. Sloan?
Mr. Stans. Yes, sir, I do.
Senator Talmadge. In that you still are chastising Mr. Sloan be-
cause he did not deposit a check, I believe, for $1,000 from Mrs. Alice
Abel promptly enough, and get out a thank you letter promptly
enough. Is that the sum and substance of it?
Mr. vStans. Well, the sum and substance of it. Senator, is that I
received a check from this lady and — while I was in Omaha on May
12 — for some reason it did not appear on the sheet listing the contribu-
tions until June 1.
Now, I did receive from Mr. vSloan every day a report of the contribu-
tions received, and when I found out that that check hadn't appeared
on the report for 2 weeks as having been received, I was concerned
because it related to the question of whether we were behind in all of
our work in his shop. His reply was very clear that the check was im-
properly made out or returned for appropriate endorsement and de-
posited. I was not checking on a routine involving one transaction.
I was checking on whether or not the thank you letters were being kept
up to schedule.
* See p. 908.
748
Senator Talmadge. Then that raises this question, Mr. Stans: Why
did you allow Mr. Sloan, contrary to your explicit instructions, to
casually report to you only several weeks later the deposit of the
$25,000 check received from Mr. Dahlberg and $89,000 check in
Mexican bank checks?
Mr. Stans. Well, Senator, I fairly well covered that in my testimony
yesterday.
The fact is that I was not aware that the Mexican bank checks hadi
even been received until I got back from my vacation around the 24th)
of April. The fact also is that the record shows that, before I went on
that vacation, I left a memorandum of things to be done by the staff,
and one of the items was a request for Mr. Sloan to balance up his*
cash as soon as possible.
Now, Mr. Sloan had given those checks to Mr. Liddy, he followed
up with Mr. Liddy and I think his testimony is that he followed up
several times, and Liddy said, "It takes time to get that money back."
Mr. Sloan did get the money back in early or mid-May and deposited
it.
I think the followup was as thorough as we could have expected it
to be.
Senator Talmadge. But you got the Dahlberg check personally,
I believe, did you not?
Mr. Stans. Yes, it went through my hands, and I had it for ai
short time on the 11th of April.
Senator Talmadge. Mr. Stans, are you telling
Mr. Stans. I think. Senator, what j^ou are bringing out is the
difference in the function between the chairman and the treasurer.
I raised the money — he had no part in soliciting contributions. He
did the bookkeeping and the accounting and I had no part of that,
and once I turned a check over to Mr. Sloan, I had every reason to
assume that it would be handled in due course and only when I
learned abouth things that were not handled in due course — as that
Abel check — did I raise questions with Mr. Sloan about it.
Senator Talmadge. Are you telling us, Mr. Stans, that as a cer-
tified public accountant, a member of the Accountants Hall of Fame,
former Secretary of Commerce, and who further had been personally
selected by the President to be the Director of the Budget and di-
rector of the committee to raise $50 million for his reelection campaign
you intended all this money to be spent without any of your super-
vision and control?
Mr. Stans. No, I am not telling you that at all. Senator. I did
exercise some supervision and control. I got a daily report of all the'
contributions received which I looked over ever^^ day. I indicated tO'
the extent that I knew people personally their first names so that thei
letter of acknowledgement and appreciation would be a first-name (
basis.
I got reports from time to time, I had a daily staff meeting, I saw '
the summaries of the reports that were filed with the General Account-
ing Office. So I did exercise supervision but I did not. Senator, have
anything to do with the day-to-day work of the treasurer's office.
Senator Talmadge. Now, you realize that the reporting act went
into effect on April 7, 1972, do you not?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Talmadge. And a very stringent law?
749
Mr. Stans. Yes, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Tell us why you didn't report this Dahlberg
check from Florida. I don't believe you got it until the 10th of April,
did you?
Mr. Stans. Senator, I covered that in great detail yesterday; I
will be happy to review it again today. Because I think it is important
that everybody understand. This was a contribution which was
promised W Mr. Dwayne Andreas in March and before, and in March
he went to the trouble of getting the money in hand.
Senator Talmadge. I don't think you need to repeat that testimony
because a^'ou made that clear. But how do you consider that it could
avoid being reported when the check didn't get to you until the 10th
of April, do you take the position that it was constructively received
before you got it?
Mr. Stans. No, sir, I take the position that it qualified under the
definition of the contribution of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act,
and I would like to read the definition to you.
"The term 'contribution' includes a gift, subscription, loan, advance,
or deposit of money or anything of value and includes a contract,
promise, or agreement to make a contribution whether or not legally
enforceable."
Now, Mr. Andreas had made a promise, an agreement, to make a
contribution well before April 7. He had not only done that, he had
gone to the point of doing everything he could personally to make the
money available as a contribution.
It was clear to me and it was clear to lawyers with whom I con-
sulted; that that contribution was received as a matter of law before
April 7 even though it didn't come into our hands until the 11th and,
Senator, the Department of Justice has agreed with us in a letter of
January 11, 1973, from Henr^' Petersen, the Assistant Attorney
General to Wright Patman. It says:
The issue to be resolved is when the gift became effective as a matter of law.
From the evidence developed we are forced to conclude that for criminal purposes,
at least, we cannot prove that this contribution had been made after the April 17
effective date of this act and, accordingh^ have closed the matter.
Now, Senator, I fail to find any basis for criticism in the handling
of that transaction. I acted on the basis of legal ad\dce and it turns
out that m}' legal advice was good.
Senator Talmadge. You do not think a promise to contribute to a
political campaign is legally enforceable, do you?
Mr. Stans. No; but the statute says that it does not have to be
legally enforceable.
Senator Talmadge. I thought the statute said the receipt had to be
reported, even though the promise of the agreement does not have
to be.
Anyway, we will not argue about that further, but my certified
public accountant would certainly hold me to a greater degree of
accountability than vou would, I believe.
Mr. Stans. Let us go a little further into that. Senator, because
you have raised it and I think it is important that this be understood.
As of April 7, we had millions of dollars of commitments from people
to contribute. Many of these had been solicited by Air. Kalmbach as
early as 1971. I could have, under a literal construction of this law.
750
concluded that every one of those did not need to be reported when the
money came in, because it was a commitment before April 7. But I
adopted a very much stricter standard for the purposes of accounting
and it was that only in the case of a commitment where the individual
contributor had done everything possible to hand it to us would I
consider it a contribution under the second part of this definition.
Mr. Andreas had done everything. He wanted to make the contribu-
tion. He had it in hand. He put it in a safe deposit box for Mr. Dalberg
in his name. It would have been very unfair to him, it seems to me, not
to consider it so.
Senator Talmadge. I will not quarrel with you further about that,
Mr. Stans. You have been a man that I have admired greatly over a
long period of time. But it strikes me as being literally inconceivable
that you could spend the largest part of your time worrying about pen
labels and bumper stickers and not worrying about what happens to
large sums of cash that are being disbursed by these people for un-
known causes, particularly when the law is clear on stringent reporting
of disbursements.
Mr. Stans. Well, Senator, with the greatest of respect, that is
really not what I said. I worried about all of these things. I devoted my
time to them, I gave consideration to the handling of the accounting
for these various items. Mr. Sloan and I discussed them over and over
again and we exercised our best judgment on the basis of advice of
counsel.
Senator Talmadge. Thank you, Mr. Stans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no further questions.
Senator Ervin. The committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 2 p.m., this same day.]
Afternoon Session, Wednesday, June 13, 1973
Senator Ervin. The committee will come to order.
I am going to ask the witness questions about the exhibit testified
to by the witness, Sloan, entitled "Transactions as of April 7, 1972,
cash deposits and disbursements including committed items." This
has already been entered in the record as exhibit No. 20* and I ask that
this copy be handed to Mr. Stans.
This represents, as I understand, what Mr. Sloan, the Treasurer of
the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President, testified was the
cash receipts of the finance committee down to April 7, 1972, plus
such portions of those receipts that had been submitted for various
purposes.
If my arithmetic is correct, this shows the total cash receipts in
excess of $1 million — approximately $1,777,000, is that correct?
Mr. Stans. That is the figure on the statement, yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Well, is it a correct figure, approximately?
Mr. Stans. So far as I know from information that I have acquired
during the entire course of my chairmanship of the committee, it is
approximately correct.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Now, it shows that of this amount $750,000 was deposited, leaving
$1,027,000 of which Mr. Sloan testified he gave approximately an item
* See p. 891.
7S1
of $10,000 to Nofziger, an item of $15,000 to Stone which may have
been paid by checks rather than cash, leaving cash disbursement of
$1,002,000. is that approximately correct?
Mr. St.\ns. That would be the correct arithmetic, yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Now, this committee has authority under Senate
Resolution No. 60 to investigate every campaign contribution made
in connection with the Presidential campaign of 1972 or any campaign
preceding it. If this committee would call on you as chairman of the
Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President for a statement of the
persons who contributed this approximately $1,777,000 to the com-
mittee, could you give us such a statement?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, I would tell you that $233,000 of it came
from Mr. Kalmbach from the 1968 money that he turned over to the
committee, and approximately $1,500,000 came from contributors,
and given a little time I could, I believe, continue the reconstruction I
have underwa}^ as to who gave the rest of the money. I believe that I
could tell you w^here that money came from. From various records,
from discussions I have had with people, from my own recollection and
others I have been reconstructmg that detail of figures over a period of
time.
Senator Ervin. Well, are the records now in existence without
havmg to have them reconstructed that would disclose the names and
amounts of each contributor?
Mr. Stans. There are a considerable amount of records now in
existence that would show that, yes.
Senator Ervin. Why are there not complete records in existence
that would show that?
Mr. Stans. Well, at one time, Mr. Chairman, some of the records
were removed from the committee's files and destroyed.
Senator Ervin. Why were they destroyed?
Mr. Stans. They were destroyed because there was no requirement
that they be kept, and insofar as contributors were concerned we
wanted to respect the anonymity that they had sought and that they
were then entitled to under the law. We are talking now about contri-
butions before April 7, 1972.
Senator Ervin. Were they destroyed before or after the break-in?
Mr. Stans. They were destroyed after the break-in and I would
insist, Mr. Chairman, that there is no relevance between the two.
Senator Ervin. Well, in other words, you had no desire to hide the
records?
Mr. Stans. No; may I make the point here
Senator Ervin. Destroy and hide them?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sloan's accounting for these funds
were given to me on June 23. The only reason it was on June 23 was
that he was waiting for Mr. Kalmbach to come back from Europe to
check the figure of amounts paid to Mr. Kalmbach. This statement
was ready by Mr. Stone several weeks before the Watergate affair,
and he tendered it to me, and I said I did not want it until he had
checked out the figures with Mr. Porter, Liddy, and everyone else as
to how much they had received.
Senator Ervin. Well, those figures merely gave a summary of the
totals, did they not?
Mr. Stans. Yes; that is right.
752
Senator Ervin. They did not contain any record of the names and
amounts, the names of contributors and the amounts of contributions,
and it did not contain any records about how the funds were disbursed
and used, did they?
Mr. Stans. There are records that show the amounts of the con-
tributions and I have been able to verify and reconstruct most of those.
The only thing that is missing
Senator Ervin. I am not talking about the reconstruction, I am
talking about the record that Mr. Sloan gave you on the 23d of June,
6 days after the break-in.
Mr. Stans. That record, Mr. Chairman, to the best of my recollec-
tion, I destroyed.
Senator Ervin. You did destroy it?
Mr. Stans. Yes.
Senator Ervin. And you swear upon your oath that there is no
connection between the destruction of these records and the break-in
of the Watergate or any fear that the press or the public might find
out from these records what the truth was about these matters?
Mr. Stans. Well, let me speak only with respect to myself. I m\\
say to you that there was no connection between my destruction of the
summary sheets given to me by Mr. Sloan and the Watergate affair.
Senator Ervin. Well, it was quite a queer coincidence, was it not?
Mr. Stans. It would
Senator Ervin. Rather a suspicious coincidence that the records^
which showed these matters were destroyed 6 days later.
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, the adjectives are yours.
Senator Ervin. Sir?
Mr. Stans. The adjectives that you are using, queer coincidence
and suspicious.
Senator Ervin. Don't you think it is rather suspicious?
Mr. Stans. No; I do not think so. Senator.
Senator Ervin. Do you think it is normal in this kind of thing to*
expect people who had records concerning outlays of campaign funds,
to destroy those records after five men are caught in an act of burglary
with money that came from the committee in their pockets?
Mr. Stans. On April 6 I asked Mr. Sloan to build up the records of
all the contributors and he did so. I asked him on April 10 before I
left on m}^ vacation to balance out his cash account. He did both of
those things pursuant to my requests.
Now, the fact that they came to me after the Watergate was pure
and innocent coincidence.
Senator Ervin. Well, why did you destroy the records?
Mr. Stans. For the reason I have already said, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Well you not only destroyed the prior April 7
records but you destroyed the records Sloan made you on June 23,
after the Watergate break-in.
Mr. Stans. I do not know what you mean by destruction of prior
records.
Senator Ervin. Well, do you not know that Mr. Sloan destroyed
his records as treasurer?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Sloan only destroyed, to the best of my knowledge,
one book of accounts as treasurer and that he did according to his own
testimony on the instructions of Mr. Kalmbach.
753
Senator Ervin. And that was the only book of accounts he had,
wasn't it?
Mr. Stans. No, he had hundreds of books of accounts.
Senator Ervin. Did you see them?
Mr. Stans. I have seen some of them since. I never saw the books
of accounts during the time they were being created.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Stans, do you not know that the records he
destroyed were the onl}^ original records he had in respect to these
cash accounts?
Mr. Stans. The record that he destroyed was so far as I know the
onl}' original record he had of these cash transactions, that is correct.
Senator Ervin. Yes. [Laughter.]
Mr. Stans. But, as I said we have been able to — Mr. Sloan has
been able to — reconstruct the expenditures by the accounts that you
have before you and I have been able to reconstruct the contributions
and we can account for the money I believe, quite accurately.
Senator Ervin. You have reconstructed the totals of the expendi-
tures. You have not reconstructed an}' records which show for what
items these expenditures were made, have you?
Mr. Stans. Now, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sloan has reconstructed this
list of expenditures, and I do not know the items for which these
expenditures were made. I have testified to that.
Senator Ervin. Well, don't you think it was very unwise on Mr.
Sloan's part to destroy the only original records the committee had
of cash amounts received and expended?
Mr. Stans. I didn't get your question. Senator.
Senator Ervin. Don't you think that it was very unwise on the
part of Mr. Sloan to destroy the only original records of cash receipts
and expenditures?
Mr. Stans. There were reasons at the time. In retrospect we would
have saved an awful lot of questions if we had kept them but we had
reasons which we believed were valid and which were based on legal
advice that we did not need to keep these records.
Senator Ervin. Was Mr. Liddy the one who gave you the legal
advice to destroy the records? [Laughter.]
Mr. Stans. Mr. Liddy was one of those who gave us legal advice.
I remind the chairman in all fairness that at the time Mr. Liddy
gave us the legal ad\ace he was in good standing as our counsel. There
was no reason to suspect him in any way, and he was doing a good job
as counsel. Now, I did get opinions from others including John Dean
and including Rohmer McPhee.
Senator Ervin. Why did you destroy the summary which Mr. Sloan
gave you on the 23d of June?
Mr. Stans. The summary which Mr. Sloan gave me?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Stans. I have testified before that I had it on my desk for a
few days, that I was interested in the names of the contributors be-
cause I wanted to be sure that we had a record of them. That I was
interested in the balance he had on hand and that I was not inter-
ested, it was not my concern nor interest, to know who the disburse-
ments had gone to. Mr. Sloan had balanced that all out with the people
who had gotten the money.
754
Senator Ervin. What I am asking you is why were you interested
in destroying the things you were interested in.
Mr. Stans. Because
Senator Gurney. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if we can have some
order in this hearing room.
Senator Ervin. I will ask the members of the audience not to
demonstrate their feelings.
Mr. Stans. For two reasons, Mr. Chairman, which I will try to
explain again: No. 1, it was possible to determine at any time from
remaining records and from the recollection of people who had given
that money.
No. 2, under the law, as we understood it, based upon advice of
counsel there was no requirement that we keep these records and, as I
testified yesterday the opinion of counsel was to the effect that we
didn't have to keep any records before April 7 that we didn't want to.
Now, we kept 99 percent of our records.
Senator Ervin. Except you kept no records of the cash receipts
and expenditures.
Mr. Stans. That is not quite correct, Mr. Chairman. We have kept
some records and we have been able from those records to reconstruct
what has happened.
Senator Ervin. Well, why destroy your previous records and why
destroy your subsequent records and reduce yourself to the necessity
of reconstructing something that you already had and destroyed?
Mr. Stans. Very simply, for the reason
Senator Ervin. It is too simple for me to understand, really.
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, for the reason that we were seeking to
protect the privacy, the confidentiality of the contributions on behalf
of the contributors.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Stans, was it your attitude and the attitude
of your committee that the American people are not entitled to know
who is making political contributions to influence the election of the
President of the United States?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me, I would like to
answer that in some detail, drawing partially on my testimon}' of
yesterday, at which part I believe the chairman was absent. The laws
in effect prior to April 7 relating to candidates for nomination did
not require any reporting of any kind, did not even require any
bookkeeping. We kept a lot of books nevertheless. Beginning with
April 7, they did require that all contributions be reported and we
made an honest and total effort to see that that was done. But with
respect to people who contributed before April 7, there were two
parties in interest: there was our committee and there was the con-
tributor. Our committee did not care whether those names were
disclosed or not, but we felt that we did not have the right to waive
the contributor's privacy. If he wanted to tell how much he gave,
that was his right, but it was not our right to say how much he had
given unless he wanted to.
Now, we were confronted with a political situation at the time in
which some of the candidates for President had released the names of
their contriTautors and we had to consider whether we wanted to do
the same thing. We met, we considered it, and we decided that we did
not, that we were not going to give away the rights to privacy of the
755
individual contributors who had helped in the campaign. That was
our decision.
Senator Ervin. In other words, you decided that the right of the
contributors to have their contributions concealed was superior to
the right of the American citizens to know who was making contribu-
tions to influence the election of the President of the United States.
Mr. Stans. We did not evaluate it in those terms. We evaluated
it in the terms that it was the Congress of the United States in 1925
that gave the option to a contributor to remain anonj-mous and that
we had no right to give away his anonjmity.
Senator Ervin. Well, Mr. Stans, do you not think that men who
have been honored by the American people, as you have, ought to
have their course of action guided by ethical principles which are
superior to the minimum requirements of the criminal laws?
Mr. Stans. I do not have any quarrel with that, but there is an
ethical question in whether or not I can take your money as a con-
tributor with an understanding on 3-our part that you are entitled to
privacy in that contribution and then go around and release the figure
to the public.
Senator Ervin. Well, all the law said, as 3^ou construe it, as your
counsel construed it, was that a'ou did not have to make a public
reporting of these contributions. The law did not require you to destroy
the records of those contributions, did it?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, the law did not even go that far.
The law did not even require us to keep any records during that period
of time, on the advice of my attorney.
Senator Ervin. But the law did not require you to destroy the rec-
ords you did keep?
Mr. Stans. No, of course not. That would be a silly proposition.
Senator Ervin. Well, do you think that men w^ho exercise great
political power, as 3'ou exercised it and as a former Attorney General
of the United States was exercising it and as other people engaged
in this committee work, that they ought to disregard ethical principles
and say they have fulfilled their full duty to the American people as
long as they keep on the windy side of the law?
Mr. Stans. Senator, I haven't said that and I would not say it. I
am saA'ing that I think we have to balance one ethical principle against
another, the right of privacy of an individual as against the right of
the public to know.
The Congress has recognized that there is a problem. That is why
it passed a new law. There was no reason that I know of why we should
have anticipated the date that law was effective. The Congress,
Mr. Chairman, gave us 60 days after the law was effective to operate
under the old law.
Senator Ervin. Yes; you had an old law which required you to
report contributions, did you not?
]\Ir. Stans. Onlv in the case of a general election.
Senator Ervin.' Well, Mr. Stans, you were sohciting and collectmg
millions of dollars in campaign contributions. Is that right?
Mr. Stans. Yes, I did.
Senator Ervin. Some of the people you solicited were even 3^our
friends, weren't the}^?
Mr. Stans. Yes, of course.
96-296 (bk. 2) O - 73 - 20
756
Senator Ervin. Didn't you feel some obligation to them to take an
interest in what was happening to the money they contributed?
Mr. Stans. Well, of course I did.
wSenator Ervin. In \'iew of 3'our position as finance chairman, didn't
you think that these people were relying on your taking an interest in
what happened to their money, at least to the extent that it was used
for legal campaign purposes?
Mr. Stans. I think the}^ had every right to assume that I would not
do anything in contravention of the law.
Senator Ervin. Well, now, outside of the $50,000 given to Mr.
Lankier, can you tell us what a single item that was spent in this
expenditure of $1,270,000 went for?
Mr. Stans. I can tell you about the only other item of which I had
knowledge at the time and that is the $15,000 that went at the request
of Mr. Clement Stone. Mr. Stone was a very large contributor, the
largest contributor in the campaign. He said to someone in the
organization, I don't know who:
I have given you all that I am going to give this year, but I want $15,000 of it
to go to a fund in Illinois that is dealing with vote fraud, and I think you ought
to be willing to give $15,000 of my money back for that purpose.
Now, I was aware of that.
Senator Ervin. For what purpose?
Mr. Stans. A committee in Illinois, the name of which I don't
recall, was dealing with a bipartisan program to prevent vote frauds.
Senator Ervin. So they took $15,000 of this to prevent vote frauds
in Illinois?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. Now, you know about the $50,000 to Mr. Lankier?
Mr. Stans. Yes, sir, and I testified about that.
Senator Ervin. Now, was that paid out in cash?
Mr. Stans. Yes; it was.
Senator Ervin. Will you please tell me why you disbursed $50,000
in cash to Mr. Lankier instead of by check?
Mr. Stans. It is my recollection that he asked for it in that form
because he wanted to mix it into the receipts of the party that was
being held in Maryland.
Senator Ervin. In other words, they were holding a fundraising
dinner in the Vice President's honor?
Mr. Stans. In honor of the Vice President.
Senator Ervin. Yes. And they wanted to make it appear that they
took in $50,000 more than they actually took in, didn't they?
Mr. Stans. They wanted to make it look more successful than it
apparently was.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
In other words, they wanted to practice a deception on the general
public as to the amount of honor that was paid to the Vice President.
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure this is the first time that
has happened in American politics.
Senator Ervin. You know, there has been murder and larceny in
every generation, but that hasn't made murder meritorious or larceny
legal.
Well, that was the objective, wasn't it?
Mr. Stans. That was the objective, yes.
757
Senator Ervin. Do you approve of tmng to deceive the public
about the success or lack of success of a fundraising dinner?
Mr. Stans. I gave it to the committee as a loan in consideration of
a commitment I had made some months before to give them $50,000
if they needed it or wanted it.
Senator Ervin. Well, the only thing they needed it for was to make
it appear that the fundraising dinner was $50,000 more successful than
it actually was, wasn't it?
Mr. Stans. That is correct, Senator.
Senator Ervin. So the}^ claimed the mone}^ to give back. In other
words, the onh' purpose of the $50,000 was to practice a deception?
Mr. Stans. So far as I know, that is exactly what was intended
and if you want to indict me for that, all right.
Senator Ervin. Well, that is almost on a moral plane, in my
judgment, with a vote fraud — not quite, perhaps.
Now, your committee not only didn't keep records, but it actually
undertook to conceal transactions, didn't it, wdth respect to campaign
contributions?
Mr. Stans. I am not sure what you are referring to, Mr Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Well, I am referring to the Mexican checks.
Mr. Stans. Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Well, you said you got a phone call from the State
chairman in Texas.
Mr. Stans. On April 3.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Stans. Asking me if it was all right for him to accept a con-
tribution from an American citizen who had money in Mexico and
wanted to give it in Mexican funds.
Senator Ervin. Now, did he give j^ou the name of the party?
Mr Stans. No, he did not.
Senator Ervin. Did it not occur to you that — well, I mil withdraw
that question.
How long was it after that, the 3d of April, that you received this
$89,000 in four Mexican cashier checks?
Mr. Stans. Well, I did not receive it and I never saw the checks.
It was received by Mr. Sloan on April 5, of last year.
Senator Ervin. And did you not receive it?
Mr. Stans. No, I did not. I did not receive those checks, they did
not go through my hands, and I did not see them until I was asked
to look at them in a deposition I gave in Florida at the time of the
convention.
Senator Ervin. Well, anyway, you told the State RepubUcan
chairman of Texas that it would be all right for your committee to
receive the checks?
Mr. Stans. Under the circumstances I described; yes
Senator Ervin. Now, there were four checks and they were cash-
ier's checks drawn to a payee who was an obscure Mexican lawyer,
was he not?
Mr. Stans. I certainly did not know his name; I did not hear his
name until months later.
Senator Ervin. And whether or not he endorsed them, it was a
rather illegible endorsement,
Mr. Stans. I had no idea. I never saw the checks at the time.
758
Senator Ervin. Did you not see them later?
Mr. Stans. Yes, I saw them in August.
Senator Ervin. What about their appearance in August when you
saw them?
Mr. Stans. I do not recall the endorsement, to tell you the truth.
Senator Ervin. Do you not know, Mr. Stans, that one way to
conceal financial transactions is to get cashier's checks so that the
name of the donor will not appear on them?
Mr. Stans. Well, I suppose anyone could do that; yes. I do not
know very many cases in which that happened.
Senator Ervin. Well, I think that we will find out some more,
perhaps.
Well, anyway, you had nothing to do with sending these down to
the bank account of Mr. Barker?
Mr. Stans. Absolutely not.
Senator Ervin. You did make an investigation later, did you not?
Mr. Stans. I did not make an investigation. I got the results of
other investigations.
Senator Ervin. Well, was the committee accustomed to doing
what they call laundering checks?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, I am glad you asked that question. I
have been waiting for it since yesterday.
Our committee did not launder any checks mth anybody. Our
committee did not send an}^ money to any foreign country to be
laundered and brought back to the United States — positively, period.
Senator Ervin. You did not send any anywhere?
Mr. Stans. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. You deposited all checks right in the bank here
in Washington?
Mr. Stans. We deposited all checks in the bank account of one
or other of our committees in Washington or in the States.
Senator Ervin. Well, the committee, and Mr. Sloan as treasurer
of the committee, was authorized by you to receive these four Mexican
checks; was he not?
Mr. Stans. It was not a question of authorization. He did it in the
orderly course of his duties. I did not know the checks were coming.
Senator Ervin. You had a phone call in which the State chairman
of Texas wanted to know if he could receive a contribution from an
American who had money in Mexico, did you not?
Mr. Stans. Yes, sir, but there was no discussion about the form,
as to w^hether
Senator Ervin. Well; anyway, the checks did arrive, you found
out later?
Mr. Stans. I found out approximately 2 weeks after, 3 weeks
after they arrived, that they had come.
Senator Ervin. And there was a bank in the building in which
your committee had offices, was there not?
Mr. Stans. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Did it not strike you as very queer that the checks
would not be deposited there but would be sent down to the bank
account of Mr. Bernard L. Barker?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, I did not handle those checks. It was
Mr. Sloan who received them as treasurer. He discussed them with
759
counsel because he was not sure how they should be handled. Counsel
recommended that they be returned to cash.
Senator Ervin. That was Mr. Lidd}-, the counsel?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Was Bernard L. Barker employed by the committee, the finance
committee, the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Stans. Not to my knowledge. I do not know Mr. Barker, I
never met him.
Senator Ervin. Well, these checks wound up in his bank account,
did they not?
Mr. Stans. I have no idea how theA^ wound up in his bank account,
Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. But you do know from your investigation that is
where they wound up?
Mr. Stans. That is where they wound up.
Senator Ervin. Yes, sir. And you also know from your investiga-
tion that they stayed there until April 24 and you know he deposited
not only these $89,000 in the four Mexican checks but at the same
time, he deposited the Dahlberg check of $25,000 which had been
received by you personally?
Mr. Stans. Which had been received by me personally?
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Stans. WTiich had been held by me for a ver}' brief time and
turned over to our treasurer who on his own discussed it with counsel,
and accepted counsel's recommendation that they be turned into cash.
Senator Ervin. And his counsel was Mr. Liddy, again?
Mr. Stans. His counsel was Mr. Liddy.
Senator Ervin. And the $89,000 in Mexican checks and the $25,000
Dahlberg check which you received all wound up at the same time
in the same bank account on the same day, did it not?
Mr. Stans. I am not sure about the same day but they all cleared
through the bank account of Bernard Barker.
Now, Mr. Sloan has testified, and I believe Mr. Sloan, that he got
the proceeds of those checks back that Mr. Liddy
Senator Ervin. Well, do you not call that laundering checks?
Mr. Stans. No, I do not call that laundering checks.
Senator Ervin. What do you call it?
Mr. Stans. I call it stupidity on the part of our general counsel.
Senator Ervin. Well, the truth of it is they wanted to hide it, did
they not?
Mr. Stans. I do not know what his judgment was. I think the only
man who can tell that is Mr. Gordon Liddy and I wish he would talk
because I think he would clear up many things.
Senator Ervin. What about ^Ir. Sloan?
Mr. Stans. Well, Mr. Sloan has been before this committee and
has testified.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Stans. He took the advice of counsel.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Stans, regardless of whether anybody wanted to
hide anything, can you imagine a more efficacious method to be de-
vised to hide something; than that?
760
Mr. Stans. Mr. Sloan has given a reason for converting the checks
into cash, that he could not deposit $25,000 or other amount of that
size in the account of a single committee without creating gift tax
problems for the contributor. Normally, contributions are divided
over a group of committees not to exceed $3,000 each. In this case
apparently, and I was not there, apparently Mr. Liddy recommended
that the checks be converted into cash so that the amounts could be
distributed over a number of committees. I am just quoting Mr. Sloan
on that.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Stans, you received the $25,000 Dahlberg check
yourself?
Mr. Stans. I received it on April 11 and gave it to Mr. Sloan.
Senator Ervin. And you gave it to Mr. Sloan?
Mr. Stans. And I explained the circumstances.
Senator Ervin. Did you give it to Mr. Sloan so it could be divided
up so that they could circumvent the gift tax law?
Mr. Stans. I have testified several times I gave it to Mr. Sloan and
told him of how it had been received and the intention of the contribu-
tor and asked him to figure out how to handle it.
Senator Ervin. Well, you were engaged in the business of dividing
up single contributions to 5^our committee in such a way as to defeat
the application of the gift tax law, were you not?
Mr. Stans. Senator, I think that is an improper phrasing. We were
not engaged in
Senator Ervin. What were you dividing them up for?
Mr. Stans. We did not normally divide up checks, that is the
problem
Senator Ervin. Well, you just stated that Mr. Sloan could not
deposit the $25,000 check received by you because if he did that it
would be subject to the gift tax law?
Mr. Stans. What I am saying and what I was saying in answer to
your earlier question is that in almost all cases the contributor divided
up his contribution by making it to different committees.
Senator Ervin. Well, the contributor did not divide up the $25,000
Dahlberg check, did he?
Mr. Stans. No, but it is evident that he wanted it divided up because
he wrote a letter later on criticizing us for not having divided it up.
Senator Ervin. Well, but, you said Mr. Liddy w^as instrumental
in getting it down to Mr. Barker's bank account, and it was not
split up into $3,000 deposits there. It was deposited $114,000 on 1
day, was it not?
Mr. Stans. The fact that Mr. Liddy sent it down to Mr. Barker's
bank account is still only a presumption because I do not know the
facts. They ended u]) going through Mr. Barker's bank account but
they could conceivably have gone through several other hands during
that time.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Stans, when your deposition was taken and
these checks were exhibited to you they bore the evidence they had
been deposited in the Miami bank, did they not?
Mr. Stans. Yes, they bore
Senator Ervin. So you do not say it is still an assumption or
presumption, do you, that they were deposited there?
Mr. Stans. No, I did not say that was a presumption. I said the
presumption I was not correct about was they went directly from
761
Liddy to Barker, and there may have been other people in the chain
of movement.
Senator Ervin. Now, on Ajn-il 24 Barker withdrew, you learned
later, as voii stated, from reading charges in the paper, that he with-
drew $25,000 of this money and at least $10,000 of it were in $100
bills. You learned that, did you not?
Mr. Stans. I read that in the paper, yes.
Senator Ervix. You know that under the law that the bank is
required to keep a record of the serial nimibers of bills when they pay
out more than $5,000 in cash at one time, do you not?
Mr. Stans. I am not conversant \Wth the provisions of that law.
I am not sure whether those provisions ever went into effect because
there were some provisions of that bill passed by the Congress that
were stayed by a court case in California and I am not sure whether
that bill ever went into effect.
Senator Ervin. Well, vou read in the papers subsequently, and
knew that on the 8th day of :May 1972, that Barker withdrew $89,000
from the proceeds of these checks from his Miami bank account,
did you not?
^Ir. Stans. I read that, yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And then you read after the Watergate hearing
that 53 $100 bills that had come out of this withdrawal were found in
the pockets of the four of the burglars that were caught redhanded
in the Watergate, did v'ou not?
Mr. Stans. I read something to that effect. I am not sure that
chain of connection was ever established or not but I did read that in
the paper.
Senator Ervin. Where was this $1,027,000 in cash that was not
deposited kept?
Mr. Stans. It was kept under the jurisdiction of the treasurer,
Mr. Sloan.
Senator Ervin. Well, was not part of it kept in the safe of your
secretary?
Mr. Stans. Well, Mr. Chairman, I discussed that this morning and
let me break it down into tw^o parts. Before April 7 when any money
came in I gave it to Mr. Sloan at the first opportunit}' and I only
used my safe in the event that Mr. Sloan was not available, to protect
the money until I could give it to him. As I said there was only one
occasion in which there vvas more than one contribution in that safe.
Now, after April 7 a different situation prevailed. We cleared out
all the money in my safe before April 7 w^hen I gave him the last of
the contributions I had accepted and, so far as I knew^ there was no
more money in that safe. However, I went on vacation on the 12th of
April, returned on the 24th and during that time Mr. Sloan decided
that he did not want to keep the money in his safe any longer. He had
it all at that time, so since he had the combination of the safe in my
secretary's office he moved the money into that safe. I did not know
he had done that until sometime in August when I testified as to one
thing and he testified to another, and we talked it over and I found
out he was using m}^ safe, the one in my secretary's office, for a period
of time.
Senator Ervin. How much money in cash did you and Mr. Sloan
have in the offices of the Committee To Re-Elect the President at any
one time?
762
Mr. Stans. I do not know. Mr. Sloan handled the cash and I do
not know how much was in it at any one time except on the days in
which I asked him for the figure or on the days in which
Senator Ervin. Well, tell us about the days on which you asked him
for the figures.
Mr. Stans. Well, occasionally, after I was aware that some contri-
butions had come in I asked him how much he had, and suggested he
make some deposits. That is how he made $400,000 in deposits prior
to April 7.
Senator Ervin. Yes, but there was over a million dollars he did not
deposit, that is what I am talking about.
Mr. Stans. Well, he did not have it because he had paid it out. Some
of these items, Mr. Chairman
Senator Ervin. He had it before he paid it out.
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, let us be fair.
Senator Ervin. I am trying to be fair.
Mr. Stans. Some of these items were paid out by Mr. Sloan before
I even got to the committee. Many of them were paid out without my
knowledge.
Senator Ervin. Well, this $350,000 that was put in a briefcase and
carried by Mr. Sloan over to Mr. Haldeman, that was there in cash,
was it not?
Mr. Stans. That was there in cash.
Senator Ervin. And all at one time?
Mr. Stans. Of course.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Stans. But I do not know what the total balance was at any
one time, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Ervin. Well, you do know that prior to the 7th of April,
at the time they started keeping it in cash in the offices instead of
putting it in the bank that there was a total of $1,777,000, approxi-
mately, in cash in that office?
Mr. Stans. Over a period of 12 months?
Senator Ervin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stans. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And the office was in a bank building, was it not?
Mr. Stans. Yes, it was.
Senator Ervin. And all you would have had to have done to make
it safe would have been for somebody to go on the elevator, go down to
the bank and deposited it in the bank, would they not?
Mr. Stans. That would be a very simple way to do it.
Senator Ervin. Why did they not do it?
Mr. Stans. I was not the treasurer, Mr. Sloan was the treasurer.
Senator Ervin. When did you become treasurer?
Mr. Stans. I never become treasurer.
Senator Ervin. You were the chairman?
Mr. Stans. February 15.
Senator Ervin. And the chairman, as I understand the setup, is
superior to the treasurer and the treasurer takes orders from him.
Mr. Stans. Well, that needs clarification too.
Senator Ervin. Clarify it please, sir.
Mr. Stans. The statute, in effect, fixes the responsibilities of the
treasurer very thoroughly as all the matters of handling money.
763
accounting, disbursing, and reporting. The statute does not fix the
responsibilities of the chairman.
Now, Mr. Sloan had his responsibilities and I had mine and we
worked together very well.
Senator Ervin. You are talking about the statute but you know
you have an organization set up there that is independent of the
statute.
Mr. Stans. Yes, but we
Senator Ervin. And you did not have any statute requiring any-
thing then?
Mr. Stans. But we had a method of operation.
Senator Ervin. That is what I am talking about. Under the method
of operation 3^ou were Mr. Sloan's superior, weren't you?
^Ir. Stans. I was the coordinator for the committee and in that
sense I was superior to Mr. Sloan but he had his functions and respon-
sibilities. He consulted with me when he had a problem but he did his
work otherwise just as everyone else did.
Senator Ervin. And you gave him instructions from time to time as
to what he should do, did you not?
Mr. Stans. Of course, I did.
Senator Ervin. Here is a letter that Senator Talmadge called your
attention to this morning, on June 1, 1972, from you to Hugh Sloan
and it gives him the instruction that checks must be deposited imme-
diateh- and appropriate Usts prepared so that the thank-you letters
will go out at once. Doesn't that sound like an order?
Mr. Stans. I think it sounds like a strong suggestion.
Senator Ervin. You call it a strong suggestion. Well, I read infantry
regulations which said the request of a superior was equivalent to a
command and I would construe that to be a command myself.
Now, you say, did the Committee To Re-Elect the President and
the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President have offices in the
same building?
Mr. Stans. Yes, they did, separated by several floors.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Mitchell was the head of the other com-
mittee?
Mr. Stans. Until July 1.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Magruder was deputy under Mr. Mitchell?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. And 3^ou have told this committee, as I construe
your testimony, that Mr. Mitchell would not tell what he was going to
spend the money for and that you did not inquire. Is that correct?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, the whole understanding of the arrange-
ment was that it wasn't necessary for them in the campaign committee
to tell us what they were going to spend the money for except in the
major categories as discussed in the meetings of the budget committee.
Senator Ervin. And you did not have enough curiosity to inquire
as to what they were going to spend the money for?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, I did not have any time for curiosity,
I had to raise $40 million and I worked at a frenzied pace during the
entire period I was there.
Senator Ervin. Well, you did have some authority in determining
amounts of money that were to be expended, did you not?
764
Mr. Stans. Only in the aggregate by categories and I had very Httle
authority on that.
Senator Ervin. Well now you were a member of the budgetary
committee, weren't you?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. Now the budgetary committee was composed of
you and two other representatives from the Finance Committee To
Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Stans. Correct.
Senator Ervin. Who were the other two members?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Sloan and Mr. Nunn.
Senator Ervin. And who were the members of the budgetary com-
mittee from the Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Magruder, and, I think, Mr. Porter.
But I am not quite sure.
Senator Ervin. Well, you all met, did you not?
Mr. Stans. Yes, we met regularly.
Senator Ervin. Did you not confer about how much money you
were going to spend?
Mr. Stans. Yes, we did.
Senator Ervin. And you had some authority to say something about
how much money was to be spent, did you not?
Mr. Stans. I had no authority, Mr. Chairman, I only had the
authority to argue.
Senator Ervin. Well, you claim you were just a puppet of John
Mitchell, is that what you are claiming?
Mr. Stans. No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that
Senator Ervin. Well, Mr. Stans, I wish you would explain to me
the amount of the expenditures. You did say something about the
expenditures, did you not?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, as I said in my statement, and as I
testified this morning in some detail, the budget was broken down into
about a dozen items, and it is that which we argued about in the budget
committee meetings. An item of research and planning, direct mail and
telephone, $6,785,000. That included $4}^ million for direct mail,
$1,900,000 for telephone, and $180,000 for computer maps and so on.
Senator Ervin. Well, that was an overall budget, wasn't it?
Mr. Stans. This was in the overall budget.
Senator Ervin. And you agreed on an overall budget all at one
time, did you not?
Mr. Stans. Oh, no, we debated the overall budget right up to the
end.
Senator Ervin. You debated and redebated the same thing each
time?
Mr. Stans. Each time we met because I was tr3dng to get the
spending reduced.
Senator Ervin. If you had no authority in the matter, why did you
debate it?
Mr. Stans. Well, all the authority I had was to debate it.
Senator Ervin. Debate it.
Well now, did they not ever ask you your judgment about the
amounts that should be spend for this, that, or the other?
765
Mr. Stans. No. They presented figures to me, they presented
programs to me, and I was m a position of either agreeing or challeng-
ing and that is why
Senator Ervin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stans. That is wh}^ Mr. Chairman, I wrote the letter of May
10 to Mr. Mitchell. I sat in a number of these budget meetings, I
had made ver}" little progress in reducing the figures that were pro-
posed and I wrote a letter and said I think we ought to cut the budget
a fairly significant amount of money. I did not succeed. I think it is
well kno\\Ti that
Senator Ervin. Are you telling the committee that Mr. Mitchell
was the supreme authorit}' in that field?
Mr. Stans. No, I am not saying that at all. I am saying that the
budgets were prepared by the people under Mr. Mitchell who had
charge of the various functions. There were about a dozen different
divisions of the budget and each was under an individual. He prepared
his budget, he came in and argued for it, and I was in the position of
being the devil's advocate in every case and saying, "that is too much
money and the total is too high."
Senator Ervin. Now, how often did the budgetary' committee meet?
Mr. Stans. Beginning Labor Da}-, it was scheduled to meet eveiy
week. Before Labor Day, it met at somewhat irregular occasions.
There were fairly frequent meetings in April and Ma}^ and less fre-
quent meetings, I believe, in June, July, and August.
Senator Ervin. Well, wasn't it your function, among other things,
to discuss and debate and reach a conclusion wath the other members
of the budgetary commission as to what outlaj^s of money should be
made?
Mr. Stans. Yes, sir, that was the function. But I apparently wasn't
eloquent enough.
Senator Ervin. Can you explain to a simple-minded man like me
the mental processes by w^hich 3'ou can determine how much mone}-
ought to be spent for a particular project unless you know what the
project is?
Mr. Stans. That exactly is the kind of problem we had. We had
minimum specifications. The problem was not determining what the
project was in those terms; the problem was: "Do we need to spend
$12 million for television and radio advertising and another $4.5 mil-
hon for direct mail and another $1.9 million for telephone, or isn't
there an overkill and a duplication in doing all of these things."
Mr. Chairman, there is no j^ardstick by which you judge the neces-
sities of a political campaign. I w^as only arguing to keep the expendi-
tures down to the limits that I thought I could raise.
Senator Ervin. And you didn't take into consideration how much
was needed?
Mr. Stans. There is no such definition as how much is needed except
the subjective definition of the people who want to spend the money.
Senator Ervin. I don't know whether I understand your testimony
or not. Are you telling me in effect that Mr. John Mitchell was running
the show and you had very httle voice in it except to raise the money
that he w^anted to spend?
766
Mr. Stans. No, I am not quite telling you that. I am telling you
that in the budget committee meetings, I was not very successful in
holding down the level of spending.
Senator Ervin. Did they ever discuss the question in any budgetary
meeting about using any money for intelligence work?
Mr. Stans. I don't recall any discussions of that type.
Senator Ervin. Did you ever vote to authorize the use of any
money for intelligence work?
Mr. Stans. No. If you mean by that the kind of intelligence that
we are talking about in connection with the Watergate and so on, no.
Senator Ervin. Now, you say the President called you in August?
Mr. Stans. The President called me in August and I have checked
my record, and I believe the meeting I had with him was in September,
early September.
Senator Ervin. I will digress for a minute to say that you are
familiar with the power structure, the power as was in the White
House, are you not?
Mr. Stans. I believe I am.
Senator Ervin. And the man next to the President is Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Stans. One of the men next to the President is Mr. Haldeman.
Senator Ervin. And Mr. Ehrlichman was the other?
Mr. Stans. Yes.
Senator Ervin. And John W. Dean was a man who was subordinate
to both of them, wasn't he?
Mr. Stans. I don't know. I know he was counsel. I don't know
where he stood in the organizational structure of the White House.
Senator Ervin. You didn't put him ahead of Mr. Haldeman or Mr.
Ehrlichman, either one of them, in authority, did you?
Mr. Stans. No; but for all I know, he may have been on a par
with them. I just don't know.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, we have a vote in progress now and
I know we are going to have to leave. But you have raised some
interesting questions and I would like the chairman's attention just
for a moment.
I have not been a protector and I have not been a defender of any
witness, nor have I been a prosecutor, I believe, and I don't propose
to start that now. But it seems to me that the inquiry into two areas
on campaign financing deserves further inquiry. The chairman's
question of this witness as to whether there was a higher duty than
that required by the law under the Corrupt Practices Act of 1925 is
very interesting, particularly with reference to the method and manner
of accounting for cash contributions and cash disbursements and the
requirement of the law or the custom and usage by political parties in
disbursing cash.
The second question the chairman raised about whether or not the
dividing up of cash contributions into smaller sums for multiple
deposit is an attempt to defeat the gift tax as distinguished from
avoiding the gift tax.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in absolute fairness, if we are
going to inquire into something higher than the language of the law
or into custom and practice of politics in this respect, it is incumbent
upon this committee, and I so suggest, that the committee subpena all
of the records of the Democratic National Committee and all of those
candidates for nomination of either of the two major political parties
767
for a reasonable time preceding April 7, 1972, and subsequentl}'', to
shed light on exactly what the custom and usage in politics was. I
hope we will have witnesses here to discuss the manner of handling
cash and the manner of handling deposits in order to avoid gift tax
consequences before these hearings conclude.
Senator Gurney. Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate my
position, too, wdth the vice chairman's. I think we should look into
those things.
I would like to say some other things, too. The American public, I
don't think, understands how these hearings are conducted and I
don't want them to get the impression that the questioning of any
Senator here is found favorable by other Senators. I for one have
not ap])reciated the harassment of this witness b}" the chairman in the
questioning that has just finished. I think this Senate committee ought
to act in fairness.
Senator Ervin. Well, I have not questioned the veracity of the
witness. I have asked the witness questions to find out wdiat the truth
is.
Senator Gurney. I didn't use the word "veracity." I used the word
"harassment."
Senator Ervin. Harassment?
Senator Gurney. Harassment — h-a-r-a-s-s-m-e-n-t.
Senator Ervin. Well, I am sorry that in}' distinguished friend from
Florida does not approve of my method of examining the witness. I am
an old countr}^ law^yer and I don't know the finer ways to do it. I just
have to do it my way.
Senator Gurney. I didn't say that I do not approve; I just want
to disassociate m^^self from
Senator Baker. If the Senator will yield for just a moment, I
think it is, that it is important that we have this perspective. I don't
think it is right to go on into an argument. I understood the Senator
to say that he found favor with in}' suggestion that the documents of
the Democratic National Committee and those candidates for nomi-
nation of either of the two major political parties be subpenaed to shed
Ught on the custom and usage w4th respect to the gift tax and the
handling and disbursement of funds.
Is that correct?
Senator Ervin. Oh, 3'es.
Senator Baker. I thank my chairman.
Senator Ervin. I will timely' urge the committee to authorize me to
sign any subpena for any person that the committee wants to call.
Senator Baker. I thank the chairman very much.
[Recess.]
Senator Ervin. Mr. Secretary, you testified about Mr. Kalmbach
coming to you and asking you for, as I understand you to say, all the
money that 3-0U had available.
Mr. Stans. All the cash I could give him.
Senator Ervin. All the cash?
Mr. Stans. Right.
Senator Ervin. And you gave him $75,000?
Mr. Stans. Yes, I did.
Senator Ervin. Now, you said that was not out of campaign funds.
Did you mean by that that it was out of this special campaign fund
which had been set up for your use?
768
Mr. Stans. Well, I said it was not out of money that was the prop-
erty of the committee. The first $45,000 of it was money that had been
given to me for expenses which I had decided not to use. Thirty
thousand of it was money which had been offered by a contributor
but I didn't know I could accept it so I had not accepted it. I was
holding it in escrow as it were, pending a determination of whether I
could accept it or not. Those were the two funds that I gave to Mr.
Kalmbach.
Senator Ervin. Now $45,000 had been set aside for your use in
raising campaign funds, hadn't it?
Mr. Stans. It had been set aside, yes, for my expenses.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Now, at that time Mr. Kalmbach told you that it was a White
House project and the request was made on him by higher authority?
Mr. Stans. Yes.
Senator Ervin. But he refused to tell you what the money was for?
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. Now you later found out that that money was given
to a man named Tony to bring down to Washington to be used to pay
lawyer fees for the defendants in the criminal action before Judge
Sirica?
Mr. Stans. Yes, I learned that sometime in late April and May
Senator Ervin. Now
Mr. Stans. Of this year.
Senator Ervin. Don't you know that approximately $450,000,
either campaign funds or funds that were raised by people active in
the campaign, were given as funds to pay counsel fees for the attorneys
for the defendants in the criminal action and to pay their salaries and!
to take care of their families?
Mr. Stans. No, sir, I do not know that.
Senator Ervin. Do you know of anything except the $75,000 thati'
was used for that purpose?
Mr. Stans. That is all I know about it.
Senator Ervin. So we have a situation here in the criminal cases
where the Department of Justice, or rather prosecuting attorneys who'
were prosecuting the case, and to some extent counsel for the defend-
ants in the case, were being paid by people who were active in the
campaign, isn't that so?
Mr. Stans. Well, it depends on how much they were paid and what
the source of the money was.
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. Stans. And I really don't know.
Senator Ervin. Only to the extent of $75,000.
Mr. Stans. That is correct. And that was not known at the time.
Senator Ervin. Some very distingviished gentlemen maintain we
ought to leave it to the prosecutors and the courts to determine this
whole thing and the committee ought to close shop.
Now, as I understand it, you have no records showing that you had
a meeting with Magruder and Mitchell on June 24, 1972?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, I have something to add to what I
said this morning. I have no records showing that I had any meeting
with Magruder or Mitchell on June 24 nor do I have any recollection.
But because the committee put such emphasis on it, my counsel, on
his initiative called Mr. Mitchell's counsel who talked to Mr. Mitchell
769
to see if he had any recollection, and this is the report that I got back
which is qiiotmg Mr. Mitchell. There was a meeting sometime during
the day between Mardian, Magriider, and Sloan at which Mardian
was pushing Sloan and Magruder to find out how much mone}?" Sloan
had given to Liddy. I was not at the meeting and I did not know who
was at the meeting.
Then there was a second meeting the same day between Mardian,
Sloan, and Mitchell. Mardian got rough on Sloan because Mardian
did not find out from Sloan how much money he had given Lidd}'.
Again I was not at that meeting and I did not knoW' of the meeting
at the time it was held.
Then according to Mr. Mitchell's records at 3:40 there was a tele-
phone conversation between Mitchell and me. Whether he placed it
originally or whether I did, he did not know\ At 4 p.m. I met with
Mr. Mitchell in his office alone, no one else was present. Mitchell
told me that Sloan would not tell him how much mone}' Sloan had
given Liddy and asked me if I knew and I said I did not. That is all
that was said.
Now, I am gi\'ing you a report which is thirdhand, Mr. Mitchell
to his counsel to mj- counsel to me. As I said earlier, I have no recol-
lection of the meeting and no record of it and I still have no recollection
of the meeting but this is Mr. Mitchell's report.
Senator Ervin. Now
Mr. Stans. But it did not cover anything be^'ond the question of
how^ much money did Sloan give Liddy. It did not cover an}- of the
subjects that were alluded to in the questioning earlier as to whether
there was a full discussion of who was involved in the Watergate and
so on.
Senator Ervin. Now, ^^^thin a few weeks after the break-in 3'ou
knew that McCord, who had been eniployed as a security ofiicer by
the political committee, as I understand it, that is the Committee
To Re-Elect the President, had been arrested in the Watergate?
Mr. Staxs. Yes, I knew that the day after.
Senator Ervix. Then 3^ou found out from the press that four,
Barker and Sturgis and Gonzales and Martinez had money which
had come from the proceeds of checks of the committee in their
pockets at the time they were arrested and in their hotel rooms?
Mr. Stans. I knew that only from the press stories. I did not
know it of m^-self .
wSenator Ervin. Then a short time later you knew that Magruder
had paid substantially — or rather had directed Sloan, and Sloan, at
Magruder's direction, had paid substantial sums of money to Liddy.
Mr. Stans. Yes.
Senator Ervin. You also knew that Liddy had been charged with
complicity in the Watergate break-in?
Mr. Stans. Well, before that Mr. Liddy had refused to answer ques-
tions to the FBI and on advice of counsel I fired him.
Senator Ervin. Did you ask Lidd}^ anything about the matter 3^our-
self?
Mr. Stans. No. I did not because Mr. Mardian was handling the
whole of the legal matters involving the Watergate.
Senator Ervin. Well, Liddy had been serving as general counsel
of your committee?
Mr. Stans. Yes.
7tO
Senator Ervin. Why did not you ask him questions?
Mr. Stans. Because Mr. Mardian showed me a memorandum ad-
dressed to me stating that Mr. Liddy had failed to cooperate with the
FBI, asked my approval to fire him, and said, "Do not discuss the
matter with him" or do not discuss anything with Mr. Liddy, so that
was the end of it. I shook hands when Mr. Liddy came to my ofl&ce,
at the close of the day. I shook hands with him, said good-bye and
that was it.
Senator Ervin. And you knew that and, in fact, Mr. Sloan told youF
that he had so many misgivings about the money that he had been
giving to Liddy at Magruder's request that he was thinking about
resigning.
Mr. Stans. Yes. That happened right around the first of July.
Senator Ervin. And he first gave you that message by telephone,
did he not?
Mr. Stans. I am not sure. I think he gave it to me in person in the
ofl&ce.
Senator Ervin. Well, anyway, you told him to come and talk to
you in person about it, did you not?
Mr. Stans. That was somewhat later, that was 2 weeks later.
Senator Ervin. Yes. When he came to talk to you about his resign-
ing you told him that you had already informed the FBI that he had
resigned?
Mr. Stans. No, I did not tell him that but it evolved in that man-
ner. I was certain that Mr. Sloan was resigning, there was no question
but that that was his intention. He had not submitted it in writing
but when I met with the FBI I said Mr. Sloan had offered to resign
2 weeks ago and was undoubtedly resigning and that was the record.
Senator Ervin. Well, did not Mr. Sloan tell you at any time that
Mr. Magruder had sought to persuade him to commit perjury in re-
spect to the amount of money that had been given to Mr. Liddy?
Mr. Stans. Yes, he did. He told me that after he had had the several!
conversations with Mr. Magruder and after he had told Mr. Magruder
that he was going to tell the truth.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Stans, didn't all of this knowledge that youi
acquired one way or another about these matters that I have enu-
merated, engender in your mind a feeling that you ought to com-
municate or talk to the President about this matter?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, this did not all happen on 1 day, as you
know. It was a growing thing.
Senator Ervin. Yes, sir.
Mr. Stans. As one circumstance after another developed, it was
evident that it was entirely possible that Mr. Liddy was implicated in
this matter. There was no indication that anyone else was outside of
those who were arrested. Mr. Mardian had been appointed as the
counsel to investigate the situation presumably to report to Mr.
Mitchel and the President, and it was outside of my domain so I did
not go beyond, go any further.
Senator Ervin. You did know about Magruder since Sloan had told
you about Magruder trying to persuade him to commit perjury?
Mr. Stans. I had heard that from Sloan but Sloan had
Senator Ervin. Yes.
Mr. wStans. But wSloan himself had carried that story to others.
771
Senator Ervin. And you knew Mr. Mitchell had told you that Mr.
Magruder was authorized to direct Mr. Sloan to make these payments
to Liddy?
Mr. Stans. Yes, of course, I knew that.
Senator Ervin. You knew all of this before you talked to the
President in August, did 3'ou not?
Mr. STA.NS. Oh, yes.
Senator Ervin. Now, you were not onl}' a personal friend but a
political friend of the President, were you not?
Mr. Stans. Yes, I believe I was.
Senator Ervin. And wished him well.
Mr. Stans. I certainly did.
Senator Ervin. And you knew that under the Constitution one of
his principal obligations was to see that the laws be faithfully executed?
Mr. Stans. No question about it.
Senator Ervin. Did it not occur to you that as a friend of the
President, as one who wished him well and one who was endeavoring
to procure his reelection, that you should have talked to the President
and suggested to him that he come out and make it clear that he was
going to enforce the law regardless of what happened?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, the President had far more resources
than I did. It was known that the White House was conscious of the
problem. I had no knowledge that was not common knowledge at the.
time, I had nothing to tell the President that would have been unusual.
Senator Ervin. Well, didn't all of this engender in your mind a
suspicion that maybe something was rotten in the Committee To
Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Stans. \It. Chairman, I had no reason to suspect at that time
and until March 23 that there was an3^bod3^ involved in this matter
beyond McCord and Liddy.
Senator Ervin. There was Hunt who had worked and had an oflBce
in the same building in which you had an office, did he not?
Mr. Stans. I did not know Mr. Hunt. I know nothing about his
connection with the affair.
Senator Ervin. Did you not learn something about that shortly
thereafter
Mr. Stans. He was one of those indicted. No, I did not know any-
thing about Mr. Hunt until I read in the press and he was indicted.
Senator Ervin. And the fact that 3^ou had been told that Mr. Ma-
gruder had tried to persuade Mr. Sloan to commit perjury, did this
not make you think that Mr. Magruder was implicated in some way?
Mr. Stans. Well, it is entireh* possible that Mr. Magruder was, but
he was not indicted by the grand jury who had apparentl}' had the
entire story, according to Mr. Sloan's statement. I am not in position
to accuse people of crimes if the grand jur}^ does not find them in-
dictalt)le.
Senator Ervin. Well, I wasn't suggesting that. I was just suggestmg
as a friend and well wisher of the President that you might naturally
have exactly the same inclination which Mr. Sloan evidentl}- had that
something might be wrong, might be rotten in the Committee To Re-
Elect the President and if you feel like protecting the President, you
ought to call to his attention your misgivings.
96-296 (bk.2) O - 73 - 21
772
Mr. Stans. Well, Mr. Sloan and Mr. Magruder testified before the
grand jury, Mr. Sloan talked to people in the White House. All 1 can
say is that I saw no reason for my going any further with the President.
Senator Ervin. Well, you didn't have any feeling that there was
anything rotten in the Committee To Re-Elect the President that
ought to be investigated?
Mr. Stans. Beyond that investigation which was going on by the
FBI, by the grand jury, by the White House, and whatever other
sources were involved, I had no investigating mechanism and I did
not.
Senator Ervin. Were you questioned individually by the FBI?
Mr. Stans. Oh, yes. I had three meetings with the FBI plus the
one occasion when they came back for a few questions.
Senator Ervin. In other words, the information you did give the
FBI was not in the form of a written statement made by you?
Mr. Stans. No, it was not.
Senator Ervin. And how long was it after you had the conversation
with the President until the President announced that Dean had made an
investigation and that he could assure the American people that
nobody presently employed or then employed in the White House
was implicated in any way?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, offhand, I don't know whether that
announcement was made before or after the date that I had the meeting
with the President.
Senator Ervin. Now, you talked with the President personally in
September, you say?
Mr. Stans. Yes.
Senator Ervin. Did you discuss any of these matters with him?
Mr. Stans. No; I did not discuss the Watergate matter as such.
The President commiserated with me. He said, I know you are taking
a lot of punishment in the press and taking a great many accusations.
He said, you are doing a fine job, I hope that you will keep on working,
because this will all be cleared up some day and I am confident that
you had nothing to do with it. It was a pep talk, as I said.
I did take advantage of the occasion to say to the President, I
think we are spending an awful lot of money, we are working awfully
hard to raise it, and Mr. President, it is very hard to raise money for
a candidate who is 30 points ahead in the polls.
But that was the nature of the discussion.
Senator Ervin. Do you have any questions?
Mr. Edmisten. I have a couple of rapid questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stans, you have testified that part of the money that went tO'
Mr. Kalmbach was paid out of some Philippine National money audi
you said that, that had to be paid back?
Mr. Stans. Yes, sir.
Mr. Edmisten. Was that paid back by check?
Mr. Stans. No; that was paid back by Mr. LaRue in the same
form in which we received it, in cash,
Mr. Edmisten. Now, isn't it true, Mr. Stans, that shortly after
the break-in, Mr. Sloan went to the White House because he was very
upset about certain things that had allegedly happened and that he
did indeed go there, and that he talked to Mr. Ehrlichman and to Mr.
Chapin?
773
Mr. Stans. He has so testified. I had no direct knowledge of it
at the time.
Mr. Edmisten. All right. He returned to the committee and did
you not speak to him about his conversations at the White House?
Mr. Stans. I have no recollection of having spoken to him about
that. It is possible that somewhere along the line, he reported on those
conversations, but I don't recall it. Mr. Sloan may have a better
recollection on that than I do.
Mr. Edmisten. In quotes, do you recall "raking him out" about
that, maybe, criticizing him?
Mr. Stans. I didn't understand your question.
Mr. Edmisten. Did you "rake him out" about having that meeting
in the Wliite House?
Mr. Stans. Oh, absolutely not.
Mr. Edmisten. All right.
Now, do I understand it that your concept of Mr. Mitchell's role
in the whole campaign is that he chaired those meetings you spoke
about?
Mr. Stans. The meetings of the budget committee?
Mr. Edmisten. That is right.
Mr. Stans. Yes, we were really cochairmen of the budget com-
mittee, but I deferred to Mr. Mitchell. The meetings were held in
his office or near his office and in effect, I considered him the chairman
of the meeting.
Mr. Edmisten. So you viewed him as the man in charge, didn't
you, of the whole campaign?
Mr. Stans. Yes, but not in charge of the finance committee.
Mr. Edmisten. All right, but overall, you said that you really
had nothing to do vnih the campaign, that you considered him in
charge of the whole campaign process.
Mr. Stans. Yes, he was campaign director. That was his title.
Mr. Edmisten. All right. When you were approached about giving
some money to Mr. Liddy, you called up Mr. Mitchell, did you not?
Mr. Stans. I went to see him.
Mr. Edmisten. And I think yesterday in response to a question I
posed, you 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, before that, Mr. Mitchell had said to 3-ou, "He mil have to
ask Magruder because Magruder is in charge of the campaign and he
directs the spending."
Now, wasn't that incredible to you?
Mr. Stans. No, not in the context in which I understood it. What
Mitchell was sa^ang is that Magruder is the man who is handling the
details of the campaign, Magruder is the man who is working out the
programs, Magruder is the man who has the responsibility for directing
the spending.
When John Mitchell is before this committee, he can tell j^ou better
than I can what his function was, but I conceived his function to be
that of the political professional, the man who talked to the pohtical
leaders in a State and organized the campaign in a State, the man who
sought to bring about harmony in the campaign, and so on. I did not
774
conceive of Mr. Mitchell as the man who said, "Let's spend $745,000
for public relations." He was in on the discussions on that, but he
was the political professional, as I understood it.
Magruder was the onhand manager of the activity.
Mr. Edmisten. All right, Mr. Stans. My last question is this: I|
know that you have subsequently read about the so-called CIA in-
volvement of the Mexican transactions, but did you not have some
inkling of that at the time that the Dahlberg-Mexican checks came,
up? Did somebody notify you that there was a possible CIA involve--
ment, and, if so, who?
Mr. Stans. The stories I have been reading in the paper recently
have been a great surprise to me about the discussions between the
heads of the CIA and the FBI because I was not aware that any of that »
was going on. But there was one occasion when Bob Allen had com-
plained to me that the attorney in Mexico was being harassed, that
the FBI had demanded to know the name of his client, that this would
have breached his lawyer-client privilege, and that the FBI had
threatened him that if he did not tell them who the client was in this
matter, they were going to go to all the clients of the firm and find out.
Allen called me and said, "Does the FBI have that much authority
in a foreign country," and I said, "I do not know."
I talked to either Mardian or John Dean, I can't recall which one it
was, and asked them the question.
Sometime later, a day or two later, I got a reply. It said that ibi
appears as though this lawyer may be a CIA source and if that is the»
case, the investigation will stop at that point.
Now, that is all I heard or know about that situation. I can't place
that conversation in terms of a date. But I did get that one report.
The investigation did not cease and eventually was carried on until
I was told the investigation was over.
Mr. Edmisten. Do you know the basis of that statement that was-
the White House position?
Mr, Stans. Pardon me?
Mr. Edmisten. Do you know of any basis for the apparent White-
House position that there was CIA involvement?
Mr. Stans. No, I do not, except as you know, the White House wa&
getting the FBI investigation reports, apparently, and
Mr. Edmisten. Thank you.
Senator Ervin. Any other questions on this side?
Senator Talmadge. I have one, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Stans, I will ask you to get volume 10 of the testimony and turn
to page 1733. Do you have that?
Mr. Barker. Senator, whose testimony is that?
Senator Talmadge. This is Mr. Stans' testimony. Page 1733.
Mr. Stans. We do not have that, sir.
Senator Talmadge. Do you have another copy here?
Let me read an inconsistency in the testimony and ask you if you I
can clarify it, please.
On page 1733, this morning — I am quoting Senator Inouye.
Yesterday and this morning, you testified that you had no reason to question
the integrity or the reliabihty of such associates as Mr. LaRue — you have de-
scribed him as a good person — Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Kalmbach. When did you
suspect that something was wrong?
775
Mr. Stans. I did not have any suspicions about any of these people until after
the disclosures in the press following, I believe it was March 23, when Mr. McCord
wrote his letter.
Then, on page 1770 of the testimony, on hne 20:
Senator Talmadge. Mr. Stans, did that not raise suspicions in j^our mind as
to the possible illegal or unethical uses of the money that Mr. Magruder was
disbursing?
Mr. Stans. No question about that. But those suspicions began to generate
earlier than that, particularly on June 28, when Mr. Liddy was discharged for
failing to cooperate with the FBI.
Now, you have stated in response to Senator Inouye's question that
you had no suspicions until March 23 this year. You stated in response
to the question that I had asked you that your suspicions arose earUer
than that, but particularly on June 28.
So when did you first get suspicious that something was rotten in
Denmark?
Mr. Stans. Well, I think I can clear that up very easily. The first
quotation you recited was as to men like LaRue and Kalmbach and I
was not suspicious of them until sometime after March 23d. But my
suspicions as to Gordon Liddy began to grow shortly after the Water-
gate affair and that is the answer I was giving in the second part, so
far as I can get it from your quotation. These were different people.
Senator Talmadge. So you were suspicious about some individuals
earlier than 3 ou were suspicious about others?
Mr. Stans. I was suspicious about Gordon Liddy within the week
or 10 days that evolved after the Watergate disclosure, yes.
Senator Talmadge. But your early suspicions were not enough to
arouse more suspicions, is that correct?
Mr. Stans. Not as to the gentlemen you named, particularly as to
Mr. LaRue and Mr. Kalmbach, both of whom I held in very high
regard. And I do not think there was anything in the public press or
anywhere to point any fingers of implication at either of them.
Senator Talmadge. Thank you, Mr. Stans.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Montoya. Mr. Chairman, I just have one little clarifi-
cation.
Mr. Stans, you indicated in your testimony throughout that Mr.
Sloan was in charge of the money which was collected and the dis-
bursements of the money that was collected and that your primary
duty was to go out in the field and collect money and handle fund-
raising events.
Mr. Stans. That is correct.
Senator Montoya. Now, were you in California and Iowa on a
similar mission in early July?
Mr. Stans. Yes, approximately July 11 and 12, as I recall, yes.
Senator Montoya. And when had you left for that trip from
Washington?
Mr. Stans. Well, I had left for that trip on approximately July 5.
I went to Atlanta and several cities in Georgia. I went to Miami and
elsewhere in Florida, spent the weekend in Florida; from there to
California; from there to Seattle; from there to Portland ; from there to
Des Moines; and from there to Dayton, Ohio. I returned, I believe, on
the night of the 13th, about 2 o'clock in the morning.
77.6
Senator Montoya. Were you in touch on or about the 6th of July
with anyone connected with the White House or with the committee?
Mr. Stans. I was out of town, then. I do not recall any phone calls
until I got to Flroida. I had a phone call from Bob Mardian.
Senator Montoya. And what was that telephone call about?
Mr. Stans. About the importance of my going to California. Mr.
Mardian had been in charge of that region of States. There was a very
difficult budget problem with the California Campaign Committee that
had not been resolved and he wanted very much for me to go to Cali-
fornia and try to work it out.
Senator Montoya. That was the only telephone call with Washing-
ton or anyone connected with the CRP or with the White House on
that day?
Mr. Stans. Senator, I really do not know who I talked to. This is
only one I can recall, it was the important one because I tried to get
out of the trip, I wanted to go directly to Seattle.
Senator Montoya. To the best of your recollection, was that the
only call?
Mr. Stans. To the best of my recollection now, yes.
Senator Montoya. And to the best of your recollection, was the
conversation confined just to the very subject and urgency of going to
California?
Mr. Stans. It was confined to that subject and to the suggestion
that Mr, Sloan join me in California.
Senator Montoya. That is what I was getting at.
Now, who suggested to you that Mr. Sloan join you in California?
Mr. Stans. I think it was Mr. Mardian.
Senator Montoya. Did anyone else call you?
Mr. Stans. Well, you are testing my recollection now but I do not
recall anyone else telling it.
Senator Montoya. Had you requested that Mr. Sloan join you?
Mr. Stans. No; I had not.
Senator Montoya. Did you ask Mr. Mardian why he should join
you
Mr. Stans. I do not recall any discussion on that. He thought it
would be a good idea if Sloan were in California. It was one of our
biggest States. The budget problem was serious, and whatever his
reasons were for Sloan going along I do not recall them at this time.
I do not know that he even told me.
Senator Montoya. Did you ever use Mr. Sloan in California during
that trip for budgetary problems?
Mr. wStans. Mr. Sloan sat in the meeting.
Senator Montoya. Did he contribute anything to those meetings,
any input?
Mr. Stans. I do not recall that he did.
Senator Montoya. Did he stay with you in your room or in the
same hotel next to your room?
Mr. Stans. I think he was in the same hotel in a room somewhere
but I do not know where it was.
Senator Montoya. Did he discuss the fact that Magruder had
been trying to get him to perjure himself with you?
Mr. Stans. Well, I really do not know whether he discussed it on
that trip or not or whether that had come out earlier.
777
Senator Montoya. Well, 3^011 must have discussed something about
the Magruder involvement during that trip. Did you?
Mr. Stans. I do not think we did. I do not recall it.
Senator Montoya. Did you discuss anything about Watergate
with Mr. Sloan during that trip?
Mr. Stans. Well, again, I think there were some discussions with
Mr. Sloan toward the end of the trip but let me tell you what we
were doing.
We had a budget meeting with the California people that lasted
quite late. I flew that night quite late. It was midnight, before I got
to Seattle. The next day I had a series of meetings beginning with
breakfast, then private meetings, a luncheon meeting and a series of
other meetings during which time Mr. Sloan met with the treasurer
of the Washington finance committee. We left that afternoon late or
evening, I guess it was either late that evening or early the next
morning for Portland, Oreg., and I had a similar schedule.
Mr. Sloan again met and talked with the treasurer of the Oregon
State committee, so far as I can recall. We had a very busy time, and
it was not until
Senator Montoya. I know. Well, you had a little social conversa-
tion together, did you not?
Mr. Stans. Yes, we did but the one, the only ones I recall were
Senator Montoya. Did you socialize about Watergate?
Mr. Stans. Senator, I really do not recall. We talked about it, we
talked about it in terms of general interest, the nature of his concerns,
but I do not know anything fundamental or new that came out in
the course of that trip.
Senator Montoya. Do you mean to tell me that Mr. Sloan did not
express to you his concern about Mr. Magruder's attempts to get him
to perjure himself?
Mr. Stans. Well, I said Mr. Sloan had said that to me on one
occasion, I do not know whether it was on that trip or whether it
was before we made the trip.
Senator Montoya. Would you say that it was either on that trip
or before, one of the two?
Mr. Stans. I would be inclined to think so, yes, but I am not even
sure of that. I do not see how I can fix the dates of any one
conversation.
Senator Montoya. If you knew that and if he did that either on
that trip or before, why do you say that you had no knowledge of
anvthing disparaging about Mr. Magruder until March 23 of this year
of ^1973?
Mr. Stans. Well, I do not really think I said I had no knowledge
of anything disparaging about Mr. Magruder.
Senator Montoya. I believe that was your indication.
Mr. Stans. I said I had no knowledge about anything disparaging
about Mr. La Rue, Mr. Kalmbach and others but I did have in mind
what Mr. Sloan had told me. But Mr. Sloan told it to the grand jury
and as time went on it was evident that the grand jury did not think
that it was anything that they were going to act on, and that was as
far as I was concerned, the extent of ni}^ interest and concern.
Senator Montoya. Now, did Mr. Sloan divulge to you that he had
had a meeting with the attorneys, Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien
778
and informed them of the attempts on the part of Mr. LaRue that
he go before the grand jury and claim the fifth amendment?
Mr. Stans. I do not recall that Mr. Sloan ever told me that.
Senator Montoya. You were aware that he had met with Mr.
LaRue on the day he returned from the California trip, were you not?
Mr. Stans. Well, I really have no direct recollection of it. I have
heard his testimony later on to that effect.
Senator Montoya. He did call you on the telephone that night, did
he not?
Mr. Stans. He called me in Des Moines or Dayton, Ohio, before
I returned to Washington, yes.
Senator Montoya. And did you not tell him in that telephone
conversation that you said "Let us not discuss this on the phone. I
will be in the office."
Mr. Stans. He was talking about his resignation, and I said let
us not discuss this on the telephone. Mr. Sloan is a very valuable man.
I did not want to lose him. One of the reasons why I welcomed him
going on the trip, I wanted him to participate in the meetings, to hear
the discussions, to develop some of the enthusiasm of the campaign,
and I did not want to lose Mr. Sloan when it was evident that he had
concluded that he wanted to leave.
Senator Montoya. Well, actually, you were aware there were more
than 2 months between the time that Sloan talked to you and the
grand jury acted, were you not?
Mr. Stans. I would say something like that, yes.
Senator Montoya. Well, were you not aware of this?
Mr. Stans. I think that is about what all it was.
Senator Montoya. Thank you.
Then, if Mr. Sloan resigned to you and discussed his resignation
with you do I understand that Mr. Sloan worked under you and was
responsible to you for his acts as treasurer?
Mr. Stans. Mr. Sloan was responsible under the law for his acts as
treasurer directly in reporting to the Comptroller General but I was
the chairman of the committee, I coordinated its activity. Mr. Sloan
consulted with me, I consulted with him, and the relationship was
exactly that as I described it.
Senator Montoya. But in theory and practice, he did work under
you.
Mr. Stans. On the organization chart Mr. Sloan worked under me,
right.
Senator Montoya. Thank you.
Senator Inouye. Mr. vSecretary, in past scandals, political scandals,
such as the Teapot Dome scandal, the crime involved was the use of
money for personal gain or personal purposes.
Many have suggested that in the activity now under consideration
by this select committee, none of the funds were ever used for per-
sonal gain or personal purposes. Are you aware of any of the funds that
were under your control were ever used for personal purposes or per-
sonal gain?
Mr. Stans. I am not aware of anyone connected with either commit-
tee who profited financially as a result of any of these results other
than as a salary and normal reimbursement of expenses.
779
Senator Inouye. You can't quite be definite, can you, after you
told the committee that you were not aware of what the cash dis-
bursements were used for?
Mr. Stans. No, that is right. That is why I say I am not aware of
anything. Obviously some of it apparently went to the role of Mr.
McCord and Mr. McCord has testified that he got compensation for
quite a period of time after he was discharged.
Senator Inouye. Now, as the events have unfolded have you as
chairman of the Finance Committee To Re-Elect the President made
any attempt to investigate what uses these moneys were put to?
Mr. Stans. I am not sure which moneys you are referring to.
Senator Inouye. The cash disbursements.
Mr. Stans. The cash disbursements. I have not conducted an inde-
pendent investigation that could be described in those terms. I have
learned a great deal about these items, I have inquired into some of
them, and I am conversant with most of them by this time but not in
terms of ha\'ing made an investigation.
Senator Inouye. How would you respond to my inquiry by the In-
ternal Revenue Service if they became interested in the use of these
funds?
Mr. Stans. Well again it would be a matter of which funds. If I
look at the chart and go down the names, I would say that it would be
necessary for each of these people to justify his receipt and use of the
funds but I would not be in a position to know whether they could ac-
count for them properly or whether they would be taxable on them.
Senator Inouye. Now that there is a great possibility that some of
these funds have been used for unintended purposes, such as the
coverup, will you as chairman of the finance committee make an
effort to get the fund returned to its proper place?
Mr. Stans. Senator, I had not thought of that as a responsibility
until now.
Senator Inouye. Whose responsibility would that be, sir?
Mr. Stans. I do not know. I think I should discuss that mth counsel
and see whether there is a responsibility to recover any of those funds.
Senator Inouye. Do you think there is an obligation to those who
contributed?
Mr. Stans. I think it is a very valid suggestion and I thank you
for making it. [Laughter.]
Senator Inouye. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Senator Ervin. The audience will please refrain from laughter.
The committee has decided to, and 1 think this is satisfactory to all
members of the committee, that we will hold, if necessary, a session
on Monday. Of course we have sessions scheduled for Tuesday,
Wednesday, and Thursday of next week and if it is satisfactory we
will hold hearings Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, June 25, 26,
and 27. That is the last week before the Fourth of July recess, and if
there is no objection to that being done
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, before you recess, if that is your inten-
tion, may I have the opportunity under the committee's rules of a
closing statement.
Senator Ervin. Yes sir.
Mr. Stans. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee for your
consideration and for the opportunity to me to present my story for
780
the first time. I hope that it creates a picture of a very difficult under-
taking, a frenzied activity on my part and on the part of the finance
committee in tr^dng to meet the obhgation of the campaign. I have
done my best to recall from all the records 1 have everything to answei
the committee's questions but I am only human and I can only tell
what I know.
Now, I do want to say something about three elements: First, ]\
would like to talk about the people in the finance committee. Under the
conditions of separateness, and I won't use the term watertight ir
view of Senator Baker's comment this morning, but under the condi-
tions of separateness between the two committees, I am confident thai
no one in the finance committee, except of course Gordon Liddy, hac
any knowledge of or participation in the Watergate affair or any othei
espionage or sabotage activities.
When all the testimony is in in the course of your hearings, I an:
confident that you will find that everyone connected with the finance
committee has cooperated fully, and that all of them are innocent ol
any involvement. I want to say so particularly with respect to our twc
treasurers, Hugh Sloan and Paul Barrick.
Now much has been made of a few differences in recollection betweer
me and Mr. Sloan. That ignores all of the common ground betweer
our testimony and there is a great deal of it, and above all the dif-
ferences that have come out between the recollection of Mr. Sloar
and me really related to financial reporting rather than to any responsi-
bility for espionage or sabotage, not with regard to the Watergate
affair.
The second thing I would like to talk about briefly is about the
contributors. Among all of our committees in this campaign there
were about a million contributions received for the President and the
Republican Party. Some of them came from wealthy people, some oi
them came from people in the middle strata, and some from pooi
people. We received amounts from $1 or less up to a very large amount
in a million or more. I have always urged people in the course of my
travels and solicitation to contribute according to their means, ac-
cording to their ability to give, just as they pay taxes.
So it is true there were some large contributions, some very large
contributions. But the idea is being purveyed in some circles that no
one gives a substantial amount of mone}^ to a campaign without
buying something in return, without the expectation of a favor.
I think most of the members of the committee would agree with
me that that is vicious, that is a lie, and it is belittling to our self-
respect as a people.
I would like to give a couple of examples. Clement Stone of Chicago,
pretty well known now, gave $2 million to elect the President. He
gave a lot in 1968. He is a very wealthy man and he can afford it. He
believes in the President and knows him as a friend. Clement Stone
has never asked for anything from his Government or the admin-
istration in return. He has done it because he believes it is a public
service from a man of wealth.
I would like to give you another case: Ray Kroc is a man in Chicago*
who is responsible for the development of the McDonald hamburger
chain. I visited with him in Chicago in September for about 45 minutes,
I had never met him before. I talked about the campaign and we
discussed his success story.
781
Mr. Kroc said :
I On October 3, I am going to have my 70th birthday, and in appreciation for
ivhat I have been able to achieve I am going to give millions of dollars of my money
o charity.
I said :
Mr. Kroc, you are a beneficiary of the great American system and I am sure you
relieve in it. I have reason to believe that you think the President will help to
)ieserve that system and I would like to make a suggestion. When you get to
r)ctober 3 and make those distributions to charity, why don't you at the same
iiuG give $250,000 to help re-elect the President.
He did. There was no discussion in that meeting of anything else.
Xow, what happened after his contribution became known? First
lie press accused him of making the contribution so that he could
ntluence the Price Commission on matters affecting his company.
Secondly, he was accused of making the contribution so that he could
;et a lower minimum wage for the young people who work for his
,'ompany. He was insulted by these insinuations and falsehoods, they
■vere vicious and unfair, completely conjectural without any fact
whatever.
My point is there are many people like Mr. Kroc who believe in the
,'oimtry, who believe in the party, who believe in principles, and who
nay believe at a given time in a candidate. There are very few people
vho want to collect in return for their contribution, and the}- don't get
7ery far under either party that is in power, Democrats or Republicans.
I think the time has come to express more confidence in the honor
md integrity of our fellowmen, whether they are rich or poor, and stop
nanufacturing reasons to attack people who merely exercise their right
3f citizenship by making a political contribution.
I want to say one thing more about innocent people and I will be
finished. In the course of all the things that have happened since June
17, a lot of innocent people have been drawn through the mire of un-
relenting publicity, insinuations, accusations, charges. To name a few,
Kenneth Dahlberg, Dwayne Andreas, Robert Allen, and there are a
considerable number of others, who paid a horrible price merely be-
cause they participated in a campaign as a contributor or as a worker,
a price in time and in expenses and even in their reputations. There
have been ver}^ damaging effects on their businesses and on their per-
sonal lives. It is very unfair. Somebody has got to speak up for those
those people. So when the committee concludes its work and writes
its report, I hope it wdll make it clear that such people, and by name,
are innocent victims of this tragedy. I hope that people like Hugh
Sloan and others in the limelight of adverse publicity will be directly
cleared.
I put myself in that category. I volunteered or was drafted, whatever
the case ma}' be, because I believed in my President. You know by
now from what you have heard, but I know you cannot feel, the abuse
to which I have been subjected because of the associations I fell into.
All I ask, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, is that when
you wTite 3'our report you give me back my good name.
Thank you ver}^ much.
Senator Ervin. Mr. Stans, you were placed in a rather embarrassing
situation in being called upon by the committee to testify and that
was the reason that I stated that I commend vour lawyer for the very
782
excellent and very eloquent statement that he made in support of
your position. I am a lawyer and sometimes we law3^ers get a little
overzealous and all that, but I have a profound respect for the legal
profession, and I do not think a finer service can be rendered than for
an attorney to see that his client's rights are protected.
Notwithstanding the fact that owing to the existing situation it was
somewhat embarrassing for you to appear, I want to thank you on
behalf of the committee for appearing before the committee and]
testifying in substantial detail in connection with all the matters you]
were asked about.
Thank you very much.
Senator Baker. Mr. Chairman, if I may before the witness is
excused, I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the chair-
man and also express our appreciation to Mr. Stans for appearing as a
witness.
I hope now that with this phase of his testimony concluded, that
the concern about the involvement in testimony of other matters in
other forums has been dispelled, that we have not trespassed or en-
croached on other inquiries. We do not intend to put you in an em-
barrassing position. We do not intend to create for you problems and
difficulties. But we do not intend to do less than the very best we can to
get all the facts and to follow those facts wherever they lead us. I
think you have been very helpfu) in that respect and we thank 3^ou
for it.
Mr. Stans. Thank you.
Senator Ervin. It may be later the committee will recall you for
further testimony, not in connection with matters you have been
interrogated about but in connection with campaign contributions in
genera], but we will try to do that at your convenience as far as
possible.
Mr. Stans. Thank you.
Senator Ervin. Thank you very much.
The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at
10 a.m., Thursday, June 14, 1973.]
THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1973
U.S. Senate,
Select Committee on
Presidential Campaign Activities,
Washington, B.C.
The Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :05 a.m., in room
318, Eussell Senate Office Buildino;, Senator Sam J. Ervin. Jr. (chair-
man), presiding.
Present : Senators Er\dn, Talmadge, Inouye, Montoya, Baker, Gur-
ney, and Weicker.
Also present : Samuel Dash, chief counsel and staff director ; Fred D.
Thompson, minority counsel ; Ruf us L. Edmisten, deputy chief coun-
sel ; Arthur S. Miller, chief consultant: Jed Johnson, consultant;
David M. Dorsen, James Hamilton, and Terry F. Lenzner, assistant
chief counsels: Barry Schochet, Ron Rotunda, and Marc Lackritz,
assistant majority counsels : Eugene Boyce, hearings record counsel ;
Donald G. Sanders, deputy minority counsel : Howard S. Liebengood,
H. William Shure, and Robert Silverstein, assistant minority counsels;
Pauline O. Dement, research assistant; Eiler Ravnholt, office of Sen-
ator Inouye : Robert Baca, office of Senator Montoya ; Ron McMahan,
assistant to Senator Baker; A. Searle Field, assistant to Senator
Weicker : Michael Flanigan. assistant publications clerk.
Senator Ervin. I would like to state for the purposes of the record
that Mr. Magruder has appeared in person and by counsel in an execu-
tive session before the chairman of the committee and the committee
staff, and at that session he was required to testify notwithstanding
his constitutional privilege under an order of immunity entered by
Judge Sirica. For that reason I would like to reveal all the testimony
which Mr. Magruder has heretofore given to the chairman and the
committee staff and all of the testimony which he will give to the
Select Committee on this occasion, is given by him pursuant to an
order of immunity entered by Judge Sirica, pursuant to sections 6002
and 6005 of title 18 of the United States Code.
Mr. Magruder, will you stand up ? Do you swear that the evidence
which you shall give to the Senate Select Committee on Presidential
Campaign Activities shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Magruder. I do.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Magruder, will you state your full name and
address ?
TESTIMONY OF JEB STUART MAGRUDER; ACCOMPANIED BY
JAMES J. BIERBOWER, COUNSEL
]Mr. ^Magruder. Jeb Stuart Magruder, 4814 Fort Sumner Drive,
Bethesda, Md.
(783)
784
Mr. Dash. You are accompanied by counsel at this proceeding?
Mr. JNIagruder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Will counsel please identify himself for the record?
Mr. BiERBOWER. James Bierbower, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Dash. Mr. ]Magruder, what is your present position ?
Mr. Magruder. I am a consultant.
Mr. Dash. And are you a private consultant, do you have a firm
name?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, Metropolitan Research Services, and I am a
private consultant.
Mr. Dash. Prior to that position did you hold a position at the
Committee To Re-Elect the President?
Mr. Magruder. Yes ; I was deputy campaign director.
Mr. Dash. And prior to that time did you hold a j)osition at the
White House?
Mr. Magruder. Yes; I was special assistant to the President and
deputy director for communications in the executive branch.
Mr. Dash. Over what period of time did you have that position
at the White House?
Mr. Magruder. From October 1969 until May 1971.
Mr. Dash. Was it at that time that you went over to the campaign
activities for the reelection of the President?
Mr. ]Magruder. Yes; that is correct.
Mr. Dash. Can you tell us the circumstances which led you to take
on the responsibilities of the campaign?
Mr. Magruder. We had begim discussing the 1972 campaign in early
1971. Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Haldeman in particular were concerned
and responsible for the campaign at that early stage, and it was
decided that certain White House staff members and other indi\dduals
would begin the preparatory work for the campaign. It was agreed
that it would not be done at the White House but would be done out-
side and consequently, in May 1971, myself and a number of others
began the activities for the Committee To Re-Elect the President.
Mr. Dash. Who particularly made a decision that you were to go
over to be active in the campaign?
Mr. Magruder. I would consider it a joint decision between Mr.
Haldeman and Mr. ^Mitchell.
Mr. Dash. Now, what was your first position in the campaign
activities?
Mr. Magruder. Basically, I was responsible for planning and the
general administrative activities relating to what I might consider the
inside activities of the campaign — advertising, direct mail, telephone,
press and public relations, surrogate program, and the inside activities.
Mr. Dash. There came a time, did there not, when there was a more
organized Committee To Re-Elect the President and you held a par-
ticular position. Would you tell us about that?
Mr. Magruder. Yes ; that is correct. Approximately in ]March 1972,
Mr. Mitchell became campaign director. I was named chief of staff in
July 1972. When Mr. INIacGregor became campaign director, I became
deputy campaign director.
Mr. Dash. Briefly, Mr. Magruder, from the time you went over for
the campaign could you tell us what Mr. Mitchell's role was and what
Mr. Haldeman's role was ?
I
785
Mr. Magrtjder. "Well, from the beo;inning Mr. Mitchell was respon-
sible for the campaign and I reported
Mr. Dash. When you say "beginning,"' what date would you put that
on?
Mr. Magrtjder. That would have been May 1971. He was responsible
for the campaign. I reported directly to him. Mr. Haldeman was
basically our liaison, and his liaison activities were primarih- related
to him through ]Mr. Gordon Strachan at the White House.
Mr. Dash. Under whose directions did you operate in your role on
the committee ?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. Mitchell's.
Mr. Dash. What position did Mr. Gordon Strachan have from
January 1972 to June 17, 1972 ?
Mr. Magruder. He was staff assistant at the White House and he was
Mr. Haldeman's aide and liaison to our committee.
Mr. Dash. And how did he play that liaison role between the Com-
mittee To Re-Elect the President and the "WHiite House staff and
particularly Mr. Haldeman ?
Mr. Magruder. He played a very direct role with all of the members
of the staff, particularly myself and other senior members. He con-
solidated our work for Mr. Haldeman for whatever needs Mr. Halde-
man or the President needed the information from the campaign
committee. He received copies of all our documents and worked very
closely with us.
]\Ir. Dash. Would it be true, Mr. Magruder, that aside from any
direct contacts that Mr. Haldeman would have with you or the com-
mittee, that any communications the committee would have with the
White House would be through Mr. Strachan ?
Mr. IMagruder. Yes ; that is correct.
Mr. Dash. Xow, did there come a time when Mr. Gordon Liddy
joined your staff?
Mr. ]\Iagruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. When did that happen and how did this occur?
Mr. Magruder. In December.
Mr. Bn:RBO^\T:R. Mr. Dash, could he read a brief statement that we
overlooked — just very brief — since it fits in here ?
Mr. Dash. All right.
Mr. Magruder. Thank you. I did have a statement. I did want to
read it in the beginning.
I did help organize the Committee To Re-Elect the President begin-
ning in May 1971 and I remained there throughout the entire cam-
paign. Unfortunately, we made some mistakes in the campaign which
have led to a major national concern. For those errors in judgment
that I made I take full responsibility. I am, after all, a mature man
and I am willing to face the consequences of my own acts. These mis-
takes were made by onlv a few participants in the campaign. Thou-
sands of persons assisted in the campaign to reelect the President and
they did nothing illegal or unethical. As far as I know at no point
during this entire period from the time of planning of the Watergate
to the time of trying to keep it from the public view did the President
have any knowledge of our errors in this matter. He had confidence in
his aides and I must confess that some of us failed him.
I regret that I must today name others who participated with me in
the Watergate affair. This is not through any desire to implicate othere
786
but simply to give yoii tlie facts to the best of my recollection. Thank
you.
Mr. Dash. All right, Mr. Magruder, again, the question, did there
come a time when Mr. Gordon Liddy joined your staff and would you
tell us when that happened and how did this occur ?
Mr. Magruder. He joined our staff in December 1971. At that point
in time we had been needing the assistance of legal counsel in many
areas primarily in filing for 23 primary campaigns the President was
going to enter and relating to the new election law. Before this time we
had been using basically John Dean and his legal staff" to assist us, and
John was looking for an attorney, was looking for an attorney to assist
us. We had gone through a number of names and in December John
indicated to me — ^John Dean indicated to me that he had found an
attorney that was acceptable to the then Attoi-ney General, and he
brought G. Gordon Liddy to my office on a Friday early in December.
He discussed with me his legal abilities and the general counsel's activ-
ities and he also indicated that he would need an individual to engage
in intelligence-gathering operations; that he had considerable back-
ground in this area. Mr. Dean and I and Mr. Mitchell had discussed
the intelligence-gathering situation previously, and Mr. Dean brought
Mr. Liddy over for both those purposes and approximately a week
later — I think December i;^ exactly, Monday — he joined our staff' as
general counsel.
Mr. Dash. With regard to these intelligence operations which Mr.
Liddy now was going to undertake, could you give us some of the
context of the earlier plans on the intelligence operations that Mr.
Liddy was going to fill?
Mr. JNIagruder. In September 1971 we had a luncheon meeting, John
Dean called and asked me to join him and Jack Caulfield for lunch.
At that time they had envisioned a private investigating firm being
formed by INIr. Caulfield. They called the project Sandwedge and the
idea would be ]\Ir. Caulfield would leave the White House for this
private investigating firm and this firm would then be available then
for the Committee To Re-Elect the President.
In November 1971 it was indicated to me that the project was not
going to get off the ground and consequently G. Gordon Liddy came
into the picture after that.
Mr. Dash. When INIr. Liddy did come into the picture were you
aware of his prior relationships in the White House with the so-called
plumbers group ?
]Mr. Magruder. No; I was not.
Mr. Dash. Were you aware at all of his activity with Mr. Hunt and
others — ^the break-in at the Ellsberg psychiatrist's office?
INIr. Magruoer. No; I was not.
Mr. Dash. Who finally approved Mr. Liddy's position at the
committee ?
Mr Magruder. Mr. Mitchell.
Mr. Dash. AVhat, if anything, did Mr. Liddy tell you about an
intelligence operation that he was authorized to plan?
Mr. Magruder. The next week, the week he began work for us we
met on a Tuesday and discussed basically the new election law. At
that time he indicated to me that he had discussed a broad gaged
intelligence plan with members of the White House staff. He men-
787
tioned particularly Mr. Dean, He did mention other individuals but
I cannot recall tlieir names, and indicated he had been told he would
have approximately $1 million budget. I indicated to him at that time
that $1 million budget was a sizable budget and that he should prepare
the background documents necessary to just if 3^ this budget and that
he would then have an opportunity to present the budget to the Attor-
ney General.
Mr. Dash. Xow, did there come a time when Mr. Liddy did present
his plan to the Attorney General, IMr. Mitchell?
Mr. Magruder. Yes. In February I set up an appointment with
Mr. Mitchell and John Dean on February 27 at 4 in the afternoon.
Mr. Dash. On February
]Mr. ]Magruder. The first meeting was February 27.
Mr. Dash. May I refresh your recollection, Mr. Magruder, do you
mean February 27 or January 27?
Mr. Magruder. I am sorry, January 27, 1971. And we had a meet-
ing in Mr. ^MitcheH's office at 4 in the afternoon as I recall it.
Mr. Dash. "Who attended that meeting in Mr. Mitchell's office on
January 27 ?
Mr. Magruder. ]Mr. ^Mitchell, Mr. Dean, Mr. Liddy, and mj^self .
Mr. Dash. Prior to the meeting on January 27, did you know any
of the details of the plan that Mr. Liddy was going to present on that
day?
Mr. Magruder. No, I did not.
Mr. Dash. Could you describe in detail what occurred on January 27
in Mr. Mitchell's office ?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. Liddy brought with him a series of charts, they
were professionally done charts, and had color, some color, on each
of the charts. As t recall there were approximately six charts. Each
chart contained a subject matter and was headed by a code word. I
cannot recall many of the code words, the one I do recall is Gemstone.
I think one was called Target but I cannot specifically recall the other
code words. Each chart had a listing of certain types of activities with
a budget and. as I recall, there was one chart that totaled up the activi-
ties and the budget totaled to the $1 million figure that he had men-
tioned previously.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Liddy was presenting this in the form of a show
and tell operation ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Dash. "\^niat were the size of these charts ?
Mr. Magruder. As I recall, they were approximately probably the
size of the chart that is on the display stand.
Mr. Dash. Were they on an easel or display stand in the Attorney
General's office ?
]Mr. ]Magruder. Yes.
]\Ir. Dash. Do you have any idea where these charts were prepared
^ or who prepared them ?
I Mr. Magruder. No, I do not.
Mr. Dash. You say the charts dealt with various projects and they
had code names on them. Could you give us to your best recollection
what some of these projects were ?
Mr. ^Magruder. This was, of course, the projects, including wire-
tapping, electronic surveillance, and photography. There were projects
96-296 (bk.2) O - 73 - 22
788
relating to the abduction of individuals, particularly members of
radical groups that we were concerned about on the convention at San
Diego. Mr. Liddy had a plan where the leaders would be abducted and
detained in a place like Mexico and that they would then be returned
to this country at the end of the convention.
He had another plan which would have used women as agents to
work with members of the Democratic National Committee at their
convention and here in Washington, and hopefully, through their
efforts, they would obtain information from them.
Mr. Dash. With regard to these women
Senator Ervin. I am going to ask the audience to please refrain
from laughter or any kind of demonstration.
INIr. Dash. With regard to the use of these women as agents, did
this involve the use of a yacht at Miami?
Mr. INIagruder. He envisioned renting a yacht in Miami and having
it set up for sound and photographs.
]\Ir. Dash. And what would the women be doing at that time?
INIr. Magruder. I really could only estimate, but
INIr. Dash. Based on his project, from your recollection. What did
he indicate?
Mr. Magruder. Well, they would have been, I think you could
consider them call girls.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall any project dealing with a mugging proj-
ect involving demonstrators?
INIr. Magruder. I do not specifically recall that.
ISIr. Dash. Now, what was the total budget that he presented at
this meeting?
Mr. Magruder. Approximately $1 million.
Mr. Dash. How long did Mr. Liddy's presentation take?
]\Ir. INIagruder. Approximately 30 minutes.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Magruder, what was Mr. Mitchell's reaction, Mr.
Dean's reaction, and your own reaction when you heard this
presentation ?
Mr. Magruder. I think all three of us were appalled. The scope
and size of the project was something that at least in my mind was
not envisioned. I do not think it was in Mr. INIitchell's mind or Mr.
Dean's, although I can't comment on their state of mind at that time.
Mr. Mitchell, in an understated way, which was his method of deal-
ing witli difficult problems like this, indicated that this was not an
acceptable project.
Mr. Dash. And did Mr. Mitchell give Mr. Liddy any instructions
at the end of this meeting?
Mr. Magruder. He indicated that he would go back to the drawing
boards and come up with a more realistic plan.
Mr. Dash. So it would be true that Liddy, at least, left that meet-
ing without being discouraged from continuing to plan an intelligence
operation.
INIr. INIagruder. I would say he was discouraged, but he was given
the right to come up with a more reasonable plan.
INIr, Dash. Did you have any discussion with Mr. Liddy after the
meeting ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, he left with John Dean and I on our way back
to the committee and indicated his beino- disturbed because he had
789
assumed that everyone would have accepted this project at face value.
We indicated that certain of these things were inappropriate and
that he would have to redo them and come back at a later date.
Mr. Dash. Did you make any report of the meeting to anyone after
the meeting?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, I made a report to Mr. Strachan at the A^Hiite
House.
Mr. Dash. Xow. did you disclose everything concerning that meet-
ing to Mr. Strachan ?
Mr. Magruder. I do not recall at that meeting whether Mr. Liddy
had had these charts put into 8i/^ x 11 size to hand out. If he had, I
would have sent those over to Mr. Strachan. I do remember discussing
it. I do not recall in this meeting whether we had working papere and
so I can't recall specifically; I think just on the phone I discussed the
general nature of his proposal.
Mr. Dash. Was this telephone conversation with Mr. Strachan in
which you reported the general nature of the discussion consistent with
your general reporting to Mr. Strachan as you did from time to time,
matters that should get to the White House staff ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, everything that I did at the committee, every-
thing that we did was staffed to Mr. Strachan so that he could alert
other officials at the White House as to our activities.
Mr. Dash. Was there a second meeting on the Liddy plan, Mr.
Magruder?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, the following week in February, February 4,
as I recall, we met at 11 in the morning.
Mr. Dash. How did that meeting come about, who attended ?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. Liddy indicated that he was ready to discuss a
reduced proposal. I alerted Mr. Dean and he set up an appointment
with Mr. Mitchell and we reviewed a reduced proposal.
Mr. Dash. Where was this meeting?
Mr. Magruder. At the Justice Department.
Mr. Dash. Was it in Mr. Mitchell's office ?
Mr. ^LA.GRUDER. Yes. We met in Mr. Mitchell's office. He did not have
charts this time, but rather had
Mr. Dash. You mean Mr. Liddy did not ?
Mr. ^Magrtjder. Mr. Liddy did not have charts. He had them reduced
on 814 2f 11 pages and the scope was reduced considerably.
Mr. Dash. What was retained and what was out ?
Mr. Magruder. I cannot recall specifically what was in or what was
out. I do know that the discussion, after his discussion with us, related
only to the wiretapping and photography and not to any of the other
projects. They had been basically discarded.
Mr. Dash. I think you may have testified to this, but who was present
at this second meeting. Mr. Magruder ?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. ^Mitchell, Mr. Dean, Mr. Liddy, and myself. Mr.
Dean came in approximately 15 minutes or so late, but was there for
most of the meeting.
Mr. Dash. At this time, as you have stated, the project primarily
dealt with wiretapping and photographing. Were any targets specifi-
cally mentioned, either by Mr. Liddy or anybody at the meeting ?
Mr. Magruder. At that meeting, we did discuss potential targets, we
discussed the potential target of the Democratic National Committee
790
headquarters, primarily because of information we had relating to Mr.
O'Brien that we felt would be possibly damaging to the Democratic
National Committee. We discussed the possibility of using electronic
surveillance at the Fontainebleau Hotel, which was going to be the
Democratic National Committee headquarters, and we discussed the
potential of using the same method at the Presidential headquarters.
At that time, we did not know who the candidate would be, so it was
simply an indication that that would be a target of interest.
Also at that meeting, Mr. Mitchell brought up that he had informa-
tion as I recall, and I think it was Mr. Mitchell — it was either Mr.
Mitchell or Mr. Dean — that they had information relating to Senator
Muskie that was in Mr. Greenspun's office in Las Vegas. He was a pub-
lisher of the newspaper in Las Vegas.
Mr. Dash. Do you know his full name ?
Mr. Magruder. As I recall, Mr. Henry Greenspun, I think, or spun —
Greenspan or Greenspun, I think was his name. He is the publisher
of the Las Vegas newspaper.
Mr. Liddy was asked to review the situation in Las Vegas to see if
there would be potential for an entry into Mr. Greenspan's
Mr. Dash. Potential for what ?
Mr. Magruder. Potential for an entry into Mr. Greenspun's office.
Mr. Dash. Do you know what it was they were looking for in
Mr. Greenspun's office?
Mr. Magruder. No, I do not.
Mr. Dash. Do you know what the information was that Mr. Mitchell
mentioned concerning Mr. O'Brien?
Mr. Magruder. Yes. We had had information from reliable sources
that at the Democratic National Convention, they had a business
exposition. The business exposition was being put on by a separate
business exposition company. It was our understanding that the fee
the business concern paid to this business company was then kicked
back or partially kicked back to the Democratic National Committee
to assist them in the payment of their debts.
Mr. Dash. Aside from that kind of information, what was the
general information or general kind of information that you would
be looking for in these break-ins or electronic surveillance?
Mr. Magruder. Well, I think at that time, we were particularly
concerned about the ITT situation. Mr. O'Brien has been a very effec-
tive spokesman against our position on the ITT case and I think
there was a general concern that if he was allowed to continue as
Democratic national chairman, because he was certainly their most
professional, at least from our standpoint, their most professional
political operator, that he could be very difficult in the coming cam-
paign. So we had hoped that information might discredit him.
INIr. Dash. All right.
How did that meeting end? What was Mr. Mitchell's reaction to
this presentation at the second meeting?
Mr. Magruder. It still was disapproval or, let's say, I should say
we agreed that it would not be approved at that time, but we would
take it up later; that he just didn't feel comfortable with it even at
that level.
Mr. Dash. But again, would it be true to say that at least Mr. Liddy
was encouraged to continue in his planning?
791
Mr. INIagruder. Yes, I think that is correct.
Mr. Dash. Now, after this meetinfj, Mr. Magruder, did you report
to anyone about the meeting?
^Ir, ^Iagruder. Yes, I sent the documents that Mr. Liddy had given
us at the meeting to Mr. Strachan.
Mr. Dash. And again, was this in your normal course of using
Mr. Strachan to the White House staff people such as Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Magrtjder. Yes, I automatically sent all documents to Mr.
Strachan.
jSIr. Dash. And did those documents contain all of what Mr. Liddy
had presented at that meeting?
Mr. Magritder. Certainly, all of the specific discussion. They did not
contain, as an example, the discussion on targets, because that was a
discussion, and that was not in the documents.
]Mr. Dash. Did you liave a telephone conversation with Mr. Strachan
concerning that meeting?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, I indicated the general context of that meeting.
Mr. Dash. And did that include Mr. Mitchell's suggestions concern-
ing the Las Vegas mission ?
Mr. Magruder. I cannot recall specifically that point, but I would
assume that I probably discussed the key targets that we had discussed.
Mr. Dash. And that would include the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters and Mr. O'Brien ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Did you discuss the meeting with anybody else, either at
the committee or tlie White House ?
Mr. Magruder. I cannot recall discussing it with anyone else.
Mr. Dash. Was there any special role that Mr. LaRue played in the
Committee for the Re-Election of the President?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. LaRue was an adviser of Mr. Mitchell's. He was
a close friend of Mr, Mitcheirs. He had become a close friend of mine.
He was someone who worked with all of us. We all felt he had an
astute political judgment, and we worked very closely with Mr. LaRue
on literally all matters that concerned the committee.
Mr. Dash. Did there come a time after the second meeting that you
had some difficulty with Mr. Liddy, and Mr. LaRue played some role
in that?
Mr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Will you tell us about that ?
Mr. Magrudfj?. In approximately mid-March, I had requested cer-
tain things from Mr. Liddy, I think relating to his legal work as gen-
eral counsel, and they had not been forthcoming. I met liim, ran into
him on the third floor of our building, and asked him would he be more
cooperative in producing the w^ork that w^e needed quickly ? He indi-
cated some disturbance with me at that time.
I went upst ail's and w^as somewhat agitated, and asked him to come
upstairs and discuss this matter with me ; and at that time, Mr. LaRue
sat in on part of the meeting. At that time, we agreed that Mr. La-
Rue — Mr. Liddy would terminate from our committee completely at
first and
Mr. Dash. What was the difficulty that did occur, and what was the
altercation, if you can be a little more specific ?
792
Mr. Magruder. Well, I simply put my hand on Mr, Liddy's shoulder,
and he asked me to remove it and indicated that if I did not, serious
consequences could occur.
Mr. Dash. Was he more specific than serious consequences ?
Mr. Magruder. Well, he indicated that he would kill me. But I want
to make it clear that I did not, I do not regard that and I do not now
regard that as a specific threat. It was simply Mr. Liddy's mannerism.
I think he was indicating to me that he did not care for his relationship
with me. That was all.
Mr. Dash. "Wliere, actually, did this particular meeting with you
and Mr. Liddy occur ?
Mr. Magrtjder. The altercation or the meeting ?
Mr. Dash. The altercation.
Mr. Magruder. In the lobby of the third floor, the reception area of
the committee.
Mr. Dash. And thereafter, there was a meeting with Mr. Liddy,
and Mr. LaRue came up ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Where did that happen ?
Mr. Magruder. In my office.
Mr. Dash. What happened at that time ?
Mr. Magruder. Well, at first we agreed, Mr. Liddy and I, that he
would terminate from the committee all activities. Then we discussed
the intelligence gathering, and he indicated at one point that possibly
Mr. Hunt could become involved directly in this area, or that we could
cease any consideration of that. At that time, as I recall, Mr. LaRue
indicated that it would be best if we retained Mr. Liddy, at least in
that area. But he was not overly specific. He just thought it was best
that we keep things cool and not get too excited about the situation.
What we then agreed to was to terminate him from our committee
as general counsel, but retain him in the area of intelligence gathering.
Mr. Dash. Well, now, at the time Mr. LaRue was anxious to have
you keep Mr. Liddy in the intelligence gathering, did Mr. LaRue know
what Mr. Liddy was planning to do ?
Mr. Magruder. I think in — again, Mr. LaRue sat in on many of our
meetings, and he and I had and are still very close friends, and we
discussed, I am sure, in general terms, Mr. Liddy's proposal. I could
not recall a specific time, sitting down with Mr. LaRue, though, telling
him exactly what Mr. Liddy's proposal were.
Mr. Dash. By the way, did you know at that time that Mr. Hunt
was working with Mr. Liddy ?
Mr. ISIagruder. At that time — I think by that time, I had been
encouraged by certain staff members at the T\niite House to be sure
that Mr. Hunt was not employed by us directly, but employed by
Mr. Liddy. So I think I was aware at that time that he was.
Mr. Dash. A^Hiat staff members at the '\^niite House made such
encouragement ?
Mr. Magruder. ]\Ir. Howard, Richard Howard.
Mr. Dash. Who is Mr. Richard Howard?
Mr. ]\Iagruder. He was Mr. Colson's assistant.
INIr. Dash. What, if anything, did he say to you? What kind of
encouragement did he give you?
793
INIr. IMagritder. He indicated that Mr. Hunt had completed his
assignments at the "\Miite House, and since we were now engaged in
intelligence activities, he thought I would find ISIr. Hunt very valu-
able. I only met Mr. Hunt once, so I was not really quite sure in what
terms he would be valuable. So I indicated to Mr. Howard that he
should refer Mr. Hunt to Mr. Liddy and that ISIr. Liddy would
employ him. I did not know^ at that time that he and Mr. Liddy had
worked together before.
Mv. Dash. Now, also concerning this altercation you had with Mr.
Liddy and your decision to terminate his employment, did you receive
any communication from any other person from the White House
concerning Mr. Liddy?
Mr. j\L\GRi7DER. Yes, evidently Mr. Liddy, after he left my office,
went and saw ]Mr. Dean and then Mr. Strachan. I received a call from
i\Ir. Dean encouraging me not to become personally concerned about
Mr. Liddy, that I should not let my personal animosity and his get
in the way of the project. And then I went over to the White House
and was working with Mr. Strachan on normal campaign matters,
and he brought up the same subject and, as we walked back to the
committee — it was a Friday afternoon, I recall, and it was raining —
he indicated that although he had the same personal difficulties with
]Mr. Liddy, that probably Mr. Liddy was quite professional in this
intelligence gathering, and we should retain him in this area.
Mr. Dash. Did ]Mr. Egil Krogh ever talk to you concerning either
Mr. Liddy or Mr. Hunt?
Mr. ]\Iagrtjder. Mr, Krogh did talk to me about Mr. Liddy, and
mentioned to me a number of times we should keep tight control over
liim but he was very effective.
yir. Dash. Did you know at any time of Mr. McCord's participa-
tion in Mr. Liddy's plan?
Mr. ]NL\GRiJDER. No.
Mr. Dash. After the February 4 meeting in Mr. Mitchell's office,
when the plan was not still approved, did there come a time when any-
one else at the White House urged you to get the Liddy plan approved ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes. Mr. Charles Colson called me one evening and
asked me, in a sense, would we get off the stick and get the budget
approved for Mr. Liddy's plans, that we needed information, particu-
larly on Mr. O'Brien. He did not mention, I want to make clear, any-
thing relating to wiretapping or espionage at that time.
Mr. Dash. But in that discussion, did you get the impression your-
self that he knew w^hat the Liddy plan was ?
Mr. Magruder. Again I want to be careful. I knew Mr. Hunt was a
close friend of Mr. Colson's, he had been referred to me earlier by
Mr. Colson. I did make the assumption that he did know but he did
not say that he did know but he did not say that he was aware of the
specifics and never did say that to me at any time.
Mr. Dash. Would Mr. Colson be one of those persons who would be
in line of communication to whatever Mr. Strachan was communicat-
ing to the Wliite House ?
Mr. Magruder. I think Mr. Strachan worked closely with Mr.
Colson, but his line of command was through Mr. Haldeman.
794
Mr. Dash. Was anybody present when you received that telephone
call from Mr. Colson ?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. LaRue was.
Mr. Dash. Were there any further contacts that you had with Mr.
Colson's assistant, concerning the call that Mr. Colson made to you?
Mr. Magruder. Mr. Howard and I were fairly good friends. He had
worked for me at the White House, and a number of times we discussed
the general intelligence-gathering situation, and he did indicate what
he thought was the professionalism, particularly of Mr. Hunt, and the
need to gather this information. But I would like to make it clear there
was a general, I think, atmosphere in the White House and the com-
mittee of the need to gather information. This was not necessarily
information that would be gathered illegally.
Mr. Dash. Were Mr. Howard's discussions with you also urging you
to try to pursue the Liddy plan ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Now, did there come a time when you had a third and
final meeting with Mr. Mitchell on the Liddy plan, on or about
March 30,1972?
INIr. Magruder. Yes, we had. There had been a delay in the decision-
making process at the committee because of the ITT hearings. Mr.
Mitchell was on vacation at Key Biscayne. I went down to Key
Biscayne, Mr. LaRue was there, and we met and went over approxi-
mately 30-some decision papers mainly relating to direct mail and
advertising, the other parts of the campaign.
The last topic we discussed was the final proposal of Mr. Liddy's
which was for approximately $250,000. We discussed it, brought up
again the pros and cons. I think I can honestly say that no one was
particularly overwhelmed with the project. But I think we felt that
the information could be useful, and Mr. Mitchell agreed to approve
the project, and I then notified the parties of Mr. Mitchell's approval.
Mr. Dash. What was the form, by the way, of the memorandum
or decision paper that was presented to Mr, Mitchell at this meeting ?
Mr. Magruder. It was unlike our normal decision process where
we had an "approved, disapproved, comment" line at the bottom. It
was simply the same 8I/2 x 11 blank sheets typed up with the basics
of the plan, the number of people he would have to hire, the number
of electronic surveillance equipment and amounts he would have to
purchase, and so on, and I used a system which I think Mr. Reisner
has discussed where I made three copies of each document that I would
discuss with ]\Ir. Mitchell, one copy went to Mr. Strachan for Mr.
Haldeman.
The other two copies I brought with me to Key Biscayne, I gave
Mr. Mitchell the one copy, he did some markup on some of it, I cannot
recall what he marked on these papers, indicated his approval, did
not indicate it in any formal sense by initialing it or writing. Just
indicated the project was approved.
Mr. Dash. Now, on the project prior to going down to Key Biscayne
you would send over a copy to Mr. Strachan?
Mr. Magruder. ]\Iy formal position with Mr. Mitchell was we would
send over key papers before we discussed it with Mr. Mitchell, so if
there was any questions in those papers Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Strachan
could get back to us their opinion on a subject.
795
Mr. Dash. All right.
Now, this quarter-millioii-doHar project you say Mr. Mitchell
approved in Key Biscayne, what was that project specifically as you
recall ?
Mr. Magrtjder. It was specifically approved for initial entry into
the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington,
and that at a further date if the funds were available we would con-
sider entry into the Presidential contendere' headquarters and also
potential at the Fontainebleau Hotel in Miami.
Mr. Dash. AVhen you returned to Washington, Mr. Magruder, did
you communicate to anyone that the Liddy plan on the quarter million
dollar budget was approved ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, I attempted to reach Mr. Liddy while I was
at Key Biscayne because he had indicated time problems. I was unable
to do so, so when I came back to Washington I indicated to Mr. Eeisner
that Mr. Liddy's project had been approved and would he notify
Mr. Liddy ^ I called Mr. Strachan and indicated to him that the project
had been approved, and I indicated to ]\Ir. Sloan that Mr. Liddy would
be authorized to draw $250,000 over the entire period of the campaign
but that he probably would need a sizable amount of that initially.
Mr. Dash. Now, when you sav that project as approved included the
entry of the Democratic National Connnittee headquarters and per-
haps other entries, did that also include the use of electronic surveil-
lance or bugging ^
Mr. Magrtjder. I am sorry ?
Mr. Dash. When you said the project that was approved in Key
Biscayne
^h\ Magruder. With ]\Ir. Strachan I discussed it in detail.
Mr. Dash. I am not referring to Mr. Strachan but the project Mr.
Mitchell approved in Key Biscayne. I think you said the project
included an approval of the entry into the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters. Did it also include use of electronic surveillance
and bugging^
Mr. 5Iagrlt)er. It included electronic surveillance and photography
of documents, photographing of documents.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Sloan was told what ?
Mr. Magruder. That Mr. Liddy was allowed to draw $250,000.
Mr. Dash. But Mr. Strachan was given a fairly complete report on
what was approved.
Mr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall Mr. Sloan questioning an initial large sum
of money, $83,000 which Mr. Liddy requested after the approval of
the plan?
Mr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. Could you tell us what happened and how that was
resolved ?
Mr. Magruder. Well, he had called me and said that Mr. Liddy
wanted a substantial sum at that time, I did not recall the amount, but
Mr. Sloan indicates it is $83,000 and I would assume he is correct. I
indicated that Mr. Liddv did have that approval. Mr. Sloan evidently
then went to Mr. Stans.*:\Ir. Stans went to Mr. Mitchell. :Mr. Mitchell
came back to me and said why did Goi-don need this much money and
I explained to him this was in effect front-end money that he needed
796
for the equipment, and the early costs of getting this kind of an opera-
tion together. Mr. Mitchell understood, evidently told Mr. Stans it had
been approved and the approval was complete.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive, Mr. Magruder, any progress reports
after the approval by Mr. Liddy ?
Mr. Magruder. No, I did not.
Mr. Dash. Did you know that there was to be an entry in the Demo-
cratic National Committee headquarters?
Mr. Magruder. Well, I assumed that it would be. I did not know
s])ecifically when Mr. Liddy would do that, as I recall. I do not re-
member that he discussed the exact date with me, no.
Mr. Dash. Well, do you recall a discussion that you had with
Mr. Liddy concerning an effort to enter the McGovern headquarters?
Mr. Magruder. Yes. I think after the, as I recall, it was after the
first entry of the DNC headquarters, Mr. Strachan and I were in my
office and Mr. Liddy came in, not in a formal meeting sense, just came
in and indicated that he had had trouble the night before, that they
tried to do a survey of the McGovern headquarters and Mr. Liddy
indicated that to assist this he had shot a light out. At that time both
Mr. Strachan and I both become very concerned because we under-
stood from Mr. Liddy that he would not participate himself nor
would anyone participate in his activities that could be in any way
connected with our committee.
Mr. Dash. Now, after this entry into the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters, which you have testified to before this committee,
which occurred on May 27, or around Memorial Day weekend of 1972,
did Mr. Liddy report that to you ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes.
Mr. Dash. And what did Mr. Liddy tell you when he reported that ?
INIr. Magruder. He simply indicated that he had made a success-
ful entry and had placed wiretapping equipment in the Democratic
National Committee.
Mr. Dash. Did he report to you at all that he had a monitoring
station at the Howard Johnson motel across the street?
Mr. Magruder. INIy understanding, my recollection was that he had
it in the truck somewhere but I guess he did not. That is, my recollec-
tion was that it was in the truck but I gather it was in the Howard
Johnson.
Mr. Dash, Were you aware at any time of Mr. Baldwin's participa-
tion in this?
Mr. Magruder. No, sir.
JSIr. Dash. When did you get any of the fruits or the results of
this bugging and photography operation ?
Mr. Magruder. Approximately a week, a week and a half after
the initial entry we received, I received, the first reports; they were
in two forms, one was recapitulation of the telephone convereations.
They were done in a form in which you would know they were tele-
phone convei'sations but they were not direct references to the phone
conversations. And the second, photography, the pictures of docu-
ments that they had taken at the Democratic National Committee
headquarters.
]\Ir. Dash. Was there any special feature about these photographs?
797
Mr. Magruder. Well, the famous fingers were on the photographs,
the rubber gloves with the fingei-s.
Mr. Dash. Now, the documents from which you say the capitulation
of the telephone conversations — where were they placed and what was
the form of those documents ?
Mr. Magruder. They were under the Gemstone stationery. You have
seen it since I have.
Mr. Dash. Well, perhaps you can identify this for us.
Mr. Magruder. I can see it. I have not seen it since June 19.
Mr. Dash. Take a look at this exhibit which has been entered into
the record. Is that the form of the document ''i
Mr. Magruder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. Do you recall seeing an envelope of this kind ?
Mr. Magruder. I think that it did come in that form. I remember
seeing the envelope. I can't recall whether the Gemstone material did
come in that envelope, but it could have very well.
Mr. Dash. Xow. you say you received it in two installments.
Mr. Magruder. Yes, sir.
Mr. Dash. And did both installments include the typewritten tele-
phone convei"sations and photographs ?
Mr. Magruder. As I recall, they both included that.
Mr. Dash. Did you show these so-called Gemstone materials with
the photographs, to anybody ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, I brought the materials in to Mr. Mitchell in
my 8 :30 morning meeting I had each moi'ning with him.
Mr. Dash. At that time, where was Mr. Mitchell's office located?
Mr. Magruder. He was now in the campaign, and he had an office
in the campaign committee and he had an office in his law firm, and
we would meet in either office depending on his schedule, and at that
time, I showed him the documents, and I think as Mr. Reisner has
discussed, I also had two files. He, as I recall, reviewed the documents,
indicated, as I did that there was really no substance to these docu-
ments, and at that time, as I recall, it was at that time he called
Mr. Liddy up to his office and INIr. Mitchell indicated his dissatis-
faction with the results of his work.
Mr. Dash. Well, did he tell him anything more than he was dis-
satisfied. Did he ask for anything more?
]Mr. ^Magruder. He did not ask for anything more. He simply indi-
cated that this was not satisfactory and it was worthless and not worth
the money that he had been paid for it.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Magruder, did he mention anything about the fact
of the O'Brien information, he did not see any O'Brien telephone
Mr. Magruder. There was no information relating to any of the
subjects he hoped to receive, and Mr. Liddy indicated there was prob-
lem with one wiretap and one was not 2:>laced in a proper phone and
he would correct these matters and hopefidly get the information that
was requested.
]\Ir. Dash. Did you show these documents, the so-called Gemstone
documents, to Mr. Strachan?
^lv. Magruder. As I recall, because of the sensitive nature of these
documents, I called ^Ir. Strachan and asked would he come over and
look at them in my office rather than sending a copy to his office.
798
as I recall I only had one copy of these documents. As I recall, he
did come over and look over the documents and indicate to me the
lack of substance to the documents.
Mr. Dash. Now, in fact, Mr. Magruder, Mr. Liddy, Mr. Hunt, and
others did go into another break-in of the Democratic National Com-
mittee headquarters in the early morning hours of June 17, 1972.
Where were you when this occurred ?
Mr. Magruder. I was in Los Angeles, Calif.
Mr. Dash. Were you aware that this break-in was to take place?
Mr. Magruder. No.
Mr. Dash. With whom were you in California?
Mr. Magruder. I was with Mr. Mitchell, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Porter,
Mr. INIardian ; and we had a number of political activities in California
that weekend.
Mr. Dash. What took place in Los Angeles when you first learned
about the break-in?
Mr. Magruder. Well, I was at breakfast at the Beverly Hills Hotel.
There were a number of us, probably 8 or 10 of us at breakfast; I
received a call from Mr. Liddy and he indicated to me I should get to
a secure phone, and I indicated to him there was no way I can get to a
secure phone at this time. He indicated there had been a problem the
night before. I said well, what kind of a problem or something of that
type, and he indicated that our security chief had been arrested at the
Watergate, and I said you mean Mr. McCord, and he said yes. I think
I blanched to say the least, and said, "I will call you back immediately
on a pay phone to get more detail," and I did tliat. I went to a pay
phone and called him back, and he gave me more detail wliich was
simply that the five people had been apprehended at the Watergate,
and that Mr. McCord was among the five.
Mr. Dash. Now, did you report that back to anybody ?
Mr. Magritjer. Yes, I first talked with Mr. LaRue and indicated the
problem, and Mr. LaRue then talked to Mr. Mitchell, and then Mr.
Mitchell and Mr. LaRue and I discussed it again together. We knew
that Mr. Mardian who was there was a closer friend of Mr. Liddy's
than any of us, and Mr. Mitchell asked Mr. Mardian to call Mr. Liddy
and ask him to see the Attorney General, the current Attorney General,
Mr. Kleindienst, and see if there was any possibility that Mr. McCord
could be released from jail.
Mr. Dash. Do you know what happened as a result of that call ?
Mr. Magruder. My understanding is that they went out to the Burn-
ing Tree Country Club, where Mr. Kleindienst was playing golf, and
Mr. Kleindienst rebuffed Mr. Liddy and Mr. Powell Moore, who was
with him.
Mr. Dash. Mr. McCord was not released ?
Mr. Magruder. No, he was not.
Mr. Dash. Did you call Mr. Reisner or Mr. Odle from California?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, later that day. We had numeious conversations
that day. We were trying to come up with a statement that Mr. JNIitchell
could make if he was asked in a press conference, and later release that
statement. I discussed with Mr. Reisner the need to take certain files
from my office. We were concerned about the bieak-in from our own
standpoint because of Mr. McCord. We could not understand why
Mr. McCord was involved in the situation, and we thought that maybe,
799
since this break-in was done in a ratlier amatenrish way, that possibly
there was some doubk^-aii:ent activity going on here, and we were
honestly concerned about our own files.
I did ask Mr. Reisner to remove certain files — my advertising file,
the budget file, our strategy file, and the (remstone file. Then 1 talked
with him and Mr. Odle, and Mr. Odle took the Gemstone file home.
Mr. Dash. Did you talk to anybody else from California ?
Mr. Magruder. Well, yes, I talked to Powell Moore, as I recall. I
cannot recall any other specifically
Mr. Dash. Did you call Mr. Strachan ?
Mr. jMagruder. Oh, yes, I called Mr. Strachan that evening.
Mr. Dash. What did you tell Mr. Strachan ?
Mr. Magruder. I told him — of course, he knew no more than we
knew. He knew that they had been apprehended, and we had a problem
and just discussed in a sense that we had a problem, and we did not
quite know what to do about it. At that time, we had heard that there
was some money at that time found on the individuals, and we had
hoped that it was money that had been found at the Democratic Na-
tional Committee, but unfortunately, it was our money. So we, in effect,
just discussed the problem. We had no answ^ers, obviously, at that time.
Mr. Dash. Did you receive a call from Mr. Haldeman?
Mr. Magruder. Yes. The next morning, on Sunday, I received a call
from Mr. Haldeman. He asked me what had happened. Again, I told
him basically
Mr. Dash. From where was he calling?
Mr. Magruder. Key Biscayne, Fla.
He just asked me the basic background of the break-in and what
had happened. I just told him what had happened. He indicated that
I should get back to Washington immediately, since no one in any
position of authority was at the committee, and to talk with Mr. Dean
and Mr. Strachan and Mr. Sloan and others on Monday to try to find
out what actually had happened and whose money it was and so on.
Mr. Dash. Now, you did return to Washington ?
Mr, Magruder. Yes, I did.
Mr. Dash. And would you tell us briefly, but as specifically as you
can, what you did as soon as you returned to Washington and who you
met with ?
Mr. Magruder. Well, on Monday, I met with Mr. Dean, Mr. Strac-
han, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Liddy. Mr. Liddy and I did not really have too
much to say to each other. He said he had goofed, and I accepted that
on face value. There really was not much to discuss at that time.
I determined from Mr.' Sloan that the money was our money, not
someone else's money.
Mr. Dean and I discussed the problem in terms of what we were
going to do as to Mr. Strachan and I.
Mr. Dash. Did you have a meeting on that evening, the evening of
June 19, Avhen you came back to Washington, in Mr. MitchelPs apart-
ment ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes, Mr. Mitchell flew back that Monday with
]Mr. LaRue and Mr. Mardian. We met in his apartment with Mr. Dean.
That would have been Mr. Mitchell, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Dean, Mr. Mar-
dian, and myself; and the general discussion again was, what were
we going to do about the problem? It was again, we had very little
800
information. We did not, of course, know what type of investigation
would then be held. And we talked about types of alternative solutions.
One solution was recommended in which I was to, of course, destroy
the Gemstone file. So I called my office and
Mr. Dash. That solution came up as a result of that meeting?
Mr. Magruder. Well, I j;hink yes, it was generally concluded that
that file should be immediately destroyed.
Mr. Dash. Now, as to Mr. Dean's participation, by the way, in these
meetings, was Mr. Dean operating on his own, or what was your
understanding of Mr. Dean's role at these meetings?
]Mr. Magruder. INIr. Dean was the person who had worked with us
on many of these legal mattere. He had brought Mr. Liddy to the
meeting. He was a close associate of ours through Mr, Mitchell, and,
of course, all of us knew Mr. Dean very well. And he was one person
from the White Hoaise who worked with us very closely. It was very
natural for Mr. Dean in this situation to be part of our meetings at
this point in time because of his association and of his background.
Mr. Dash. And would he, from your understanding, be represent-
ing any White House interest at these meetings?
Mr. ]\Iagrijder. I think you would really have to ask Mr. Dean that
question.
Mr. Dash. Now, did you instruct Mr. Reisner to destroy any other
files?
jNIr. Magruder. As I recall, I asked Mr. Reisner to cull through
my files, pull out any sensitive material that could be embarrassing
to us. There was the suit that was placed against us by the Demo-
cratic National Committee that asked for immediate disclosure. As
I recall, we all indicated that we should remove any documents that
could be damaging, whether they related at all to the Watergate
or not.
Mr. Dash. Mr. Sloan has testified before the committee, Mr.
Magruder, that shortly after your return and after the break-in, that
you asked him to perjure himself concerning the amount of money
that ']Mr. Sloan had given Mr. Liddy. Could you state your own
recollection of that discussion with Mr. Sloan?
Mr. INIagruder. Well, the first discussion — we had two meetings on
Monday. The first meeting was when I detennined from him that the
money was our money, and we discussed that in his office. And he
came up to m}- office, and in attempting to allay his concerns or to
help him in some sense, give some advice, I think, we talked about
what would he do about the money.
My understanding of the new election law indicated that he would
be personally liable for cash funds that were not reported. These
were not reported funds. So I indicated at that meetinc; that I thought
he had a problem and might have to do something about it.
He said, you mean commit perjury? I said, you might have to do
something like that to solve your problem and very honestly, was doing
that in good faith to Mr. Sloan to assist him at that time.
Now, later we met three times, twice that week and once after he
returned from his vacation. That was on the subject of how much
money had been allocated to Mr. Liddy. Now, L in thinking of about
7 months from the time w^e authorized the funds to the time of the
November election, I thought that Mr. Liddy should have received
801
somewhere between $100,000 and $125,000, approximately. That was
my guesstimate.
Mr. Porter indicated that he had distributed alxiut $20,000 or $;iO,000
to Mr. Liddy, so I assumed that Mi-. Sloan prolnibly distributed some-
where under $100,000.
Now, I will fully admit that I had hoped that the figure was as low
as possible and we all hoped that it was low. Mr. Sloan would not tell
me what the figure was. He refused to tell me the figure. He said, I
cannot tell you the figure.
I said, just tell me what it is so we can work on the solution of this
problem. If we do not know how much you gave Mr. Liddy, how can
we determine what the money went for?
On the third meeting, he and I went out and had a couple of drinks
and he still would not discuss the facts of this situation with me. I did
not at that time or in any of those meetings ask him to do anything
relating to money other than tell me what the figure was and that I
hoped it was a low figure. And I certainly did hope it was a low figure.
But I had no problem accepting a higher figure, because I thought we
could work something out relating to any figure within reasonable
limits.
I think the real problem was that he knew it was $199,000 and I was
aghast at that figure, because there was no way Mr. Liddy should have
received that much money in that short period of time. It was only
2% months since its approval.
Mr. Dash. Now, ]Mr. ^yiagruder, you said you needed some of this
information to work out a solution. Is it not true that sometime after
the time you returned to Washington from California and during the
months of. say, June, July, or August, that there came a time when
you agreed to make up a story about how the break-in and the bugging
took place and who was involved ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes. I want to state here, though, that there was
never any feeling on my part, no one asked me to do an\i:hing. I per-
sonally felt that it was important to be sure that this story did not
come out in its true form at that time, as I think did the other partici-
pants. So I want to make it clear that no one coerced me to do anything.
I volunteered to work on the coverup story.
Mr. Dash. But on your volunteering to work on it, who participated
with vou without coercing vou in the w^orking up of the fabricated
story?
Mr. Magruder. Well, there were, from the time of the break-in to my
second grand jury appearance and then actually into my third grand
jury appearance in September, a series of meetings. These meetings do
not appear on my calendar because they were ad hoc meetings, they
were not planned meetings. They were mainly held in Mr. Mitchell's
office. The main participants typically were Mr. Mitchell, Mr. LaRue,
jSIr. Mardian, and iSIr. Dean, although many other people met in these
meetings. Much of the meetings would be on subjects that were
perfectly. I think, acceptable to discuss.
You know, it is very hard for me to pinpoint exactly when and how
we came up with the coverup story, but it became apparent, when we
found out the sums were in the $200,000 range, that we had to come up
with a very good story to justify why Mr. Liddy would have spent that
amount of money on legal activities.
802
Mr. Dash. What was that story, Mr. Magruder, that you finally
came up with ?
Mr. Magruder. What we did was we simply took factual activity
that we had asked Mr. Liddy to do and we exaggerated to a great
extent the amount of money spent on those activities to the tune of the
$230,000.
I asked Mr. Porter to, would he be willing to work with us on this
coverup story and, as he has testified, he indicated that lie did.
So he took care of, in effect, $100,000 and I took care of, in effect,
$150,000 by indicating that ]Mr. Liddy had legal projects for us in the
intelligence field, and we worked over this story with Mr. Mitchell,
Mr. Dean, Mr. LaRue, and Mr. Mardian, although Mr. Mardian has
participated to a much lesser extent with me than the others did. My
primary contacts on the story were Mr. Dean and Mr. INIitchell.
Mr. Dash. All of these persons that you have named — you finally did
arrive at the story and they knew in fact what actually had occurred ?
Mr. Magruder. Yes ; they did.
Mr. Dash. Could you tell us why the story required that the break-in
involvement be cut off at Mr. Liddy and not at you ?
INIr. Magruder. Well, there was some discussion about me and I
volunteered at one point that maybe I was the guy who ought to take
the heat, because it was going to get to me, and we knew that. And
I think it was, there were some takers on that, but basically, the
decision was that because I was in a position where they knew that
I had no authority to either authorize funds or make policy in that
committee, that if it got to me, it would go higher. ^\Tiereas Mr. Liddy,
because of his past background, it was felt that that would be believ-
able that Mr. Liddy was truly the one who did originate it. And, of
course, it was true, I think, that Mr. Liddy did originate the plan,
was basically the one who did come up with these ideas in specific
terms.
We felt that was more believable than somebody like mj^elf who
did not have any background in this area authorizing these kinds of
sums of money and authorizing this type of program when it was
known full well throughout the committee and Wliite House that I
had no such authority.
Mr. Dash. Now, did you tell this story that was developed to
Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien, who were representing the
committee ?
Mr. Magruder. After July 4, Mr. Mardian brought Mr. Parkinson
into my office and said to me that he would like me to tell the true
story. I said, "You mean the true story" — which — you know, at that
time, we were dealing in a number of stories, and he said, "No ; I want
the true story."
I then for 2 hours, I think, told Mr. Parkinson the true storv.
Mr. Dash. But later, you 
TVNews
OpenLibrary