1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-13; Part 1 of 3

Thank you. Thank you. Transcription by CastingWords

a select committee of the Senate to conduct an investigation and study of the extent, if any, to which illegal, improper, or unethical activities were engaged in by any persons acting individually or in combination with others in the presidential election of 1972 or any campaign, canvas, or other activity related to it. From Washington, NPAC brings you gavel-to-gavel videotape coverage of today's hearings by the Senate Select Committee and presidential campaign activities. Here is NPAC senior correspondent, Robert McNeil. Good evening. For the first time today, hot partisan political feelings erupted at the Senate Watergate hearings, an indication of how the temperature will rise as the parade of witnesses grows in eminence and notoriety. The witness all day today was the most prominent so far, Maurice Stans, the former Commerce Secretary, who raised the money for Mr. Nixon's re-election. Mr. Stanz was subjected to some of the toughest questioning yet seen in four weeks of hearings. Now, for those of you who may be planning to tune out shortly to catch the President's address on the economy,

there's no need to do so. We will stop our replay of the hearings in about 30 minutes to run the President's speech live and then come back to the hearings where we left off. You won't miss a thing, in other words. As Robin said, this was the first day of real heat between committee members. And it arose out of Senator Irvin's vigorous pursuit of Mr. Stans on several points, including a telephone conversation with the president last August. Now, you were not only a personal friend, but a political friend of the president, weren't you? Yes, I believe. And you wished him well. I certainly did. And you knew that under the Constitution, one of his principal obligations was to see that the laws be faithfully executed. No question about it. Didn't it occur to you that as a friend of the president, as one who wished him well and one who was endeavoring to secure his reelection, that you should have talked to the president about it 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. 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 there wasn't common knowledge at the time. I had nothing to tell the president that would have been unusual. Well, didn't all you did know engender in your mind a suspicion that maybe something was rotten in the committee to reelect the president? Mr. Chairman, I had no reason to suspect at that time and until March 23rd that there was anybody involved in this matter beyond McCord and Liddy. One of the beauties of having these hearings on television in their entirety is that when matters of judgmental controversy arise, we can all take a look and make our own judgments. Senator Edward Gurney, the Republican committee member from Florida, got very upset about Senator Irvin's questioning of Mr. Stanz and said so.

He called it harassment and said he didn't appreciate it one bit. Senator Irvin, a Democrat from North Carolina, then defended himself. And in all, it added up to an electrifying moment in the committee's proceedings, regardless of opinions on who's right or who's wrong. After it was all over, Peter Kay asked Senator Howard Baker to call the fight from his point of view. Senator Baker, do you think there was harassment, as Senator Gurney indicated, of Secretary Stanton? Oh, I don't think it would serve any purpose for me to characterize the committee's proceedings. I think that we're in a tension-filled situation. It not only has its impact and effect on witnesses, but it obviously has an impact on the committee. These are long, tedious proceedings. So I sign no blame. I simply think that it's important from time to time to keep a broader overview of what we're about and to renew our dedication to fair, even-handedness in the investigation of campaign politics in 1972,

which by its very nature includes an inquiry into all of the campaigns, Republican and Democratic. So I was especially pleased that the chairman very promptly and very quickly agreed that on this matter of the application of the 1925 law before April 7th, 1972, that we ought to examine the custom and precedent of Republicans and Democrats in that respect. And I expect that the committee will shortly issue a subpoena to do just that harassment or not the witness today baffled or at least frustrated some members of the committee the urbane former secretary of commerce with membership in the accounting hall of fame and a reputation as a stickler for detail persistently maintained that he did not have knowledge of what millions of dollars in campaign money was spent on that he knew nothing of espionage sabotage or any cover-up and that his finance committee had no say in policy decisions of the campaign committee. So the senators found some of that a little hard to believe,

but they never really dented him. Two experienced observers watched today's proceedings with us. They are David Austern, who is a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Washington U.S. Attorney's Office, currently a criminal trial lawyer and a professor of law at Georgetown University here in Washington. He's been joined by Herb Alexander, who is executive director of the Citizens Research Foundation and as such considered by most to be one of the country's leading experts on the whole area of campaign financing and spending. Gentlemen, I'd like to ask each one of you, from your own specialty point of view, what advice could you give the viewers in terms of what to look for tonight, beginning with you, David. The secretary stands as a superbly prepared witness. He has done his homework, and his attorneys have done their homework, and he is very familiar with the testimony of Mr. Sloan and other witnesses. And I think the viewers will observe that he constantly makes reference to it. Secondly, frankly and candidly, I think the questioning of Mr. Stanz at the outset

is somewhat ineffective by both Senators Barker and Talmadge. But there will be a marked difference when... Senator, you mean Senator Gurney. Senator Gurney, excuse me, and Senator Talmadge. Particularly, the viewers can watch when Senator Irvin takes over things, to say the least, pick up, and the question becomes far more effective. And finally, I think viewers might want to keep in mind, because Secretary Stanz does make reference to the fact that he made many acts and many decisions on the advice of counsel, that the fact that an attorney has advised you to do something, if the particular thing the attorney has advised you to do is illegal. The fact that you received legal advice is not a defense to the illegal act. Herb Alexander, what's your advice for the evening? I was struck by the extent to which there was discussion of cash. For many years, there has been reference to use of cash in political campaigns, but now we have a great deal of documentation

and efforts apparently will be made in the Congress to restrict the use of cash. I am also interested in the extent of accountability and responsibility in campaign financing. That is a moral accountability to the public for the use of money, cash, as well as other forms of money, an accountability and responsibility to the contributors, to the people who give over part of their income for the conduct of these campaigns okay thank you gentlemen we'll be back with both of them at the close of tonight's replay to discuss these and other subjects in more detail as we've been doing each evening we've broken down the testimony on an hour-by-hour basis and here is tonight's guide in the first hour Murray stands reveals that he learned that seventy five thousand dollars he gave to Herbert Kalmbach was to pay legal fees for the Watergate defendants he

He also characterizes his conversation with President Nixon sometime in August as a pep talk to counter the pressure Stans was under. In the second hour, Stans talks about the assignments he gave Gordon Liddy, describing him as a good lawyer. He said he was not aware of Liddy's after-hours activities. Stans said that he never discussed issues of culpability with top administration officials. In hour number three, Stans is still testifying, but Senator Irvin dominates the hearing. He asks why Stans destroyed records of cash contributions. Pursuing Stans, he asks if breaking up large contributions was an attempt to defeat the federal gift tax. In the fourth hour, Stans testifies that he never brought up the Watergate matter with the president because he had nothing to tell him. He adds that when Hugh Sloan returned from a White House meeting to air grievances, he did not criticize him. In the fifth and final hour, Stans makes a closing statement in which he criticizes the mire of unrelenting publicity that has been leveled at many of the large contributors to the Republican campaign.

Now to the hearings themselves, as Senator Irvin brings the committee to order. The committee will come to order. Senator Garney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stanz, you testified yesterday about four large cash payments that you either made or that you knew about. Did you make any other cash payments to anyone? And if so, to whom and how much and when? I made a note last night of the cash payments after April 7th, of which I had any knowledge. The first one was to Alexander Lankler in the amount of $50,000. There was one which I'm 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 traveling expenses that he incurred on behalf of the campaign.

So who is he? Max Fisher of Detroit was a co-chairman of the Finance Committee. Spent a great deal of his time in the course of the campaign working with the Jewish community in the United States. This had nothing to do with Watergate, as we know. No, nothing, whatever. Go on. Well, 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. Well, that was one of those four that I said. Yes, I do want to say one thing here. I misspoke myself yesterday and said that Gordon Strawn was the man who picked up that money.

Actually, it was Fred Fielding. You're talking now about the $350,000. No, I'm talking about the $22,000. Fred Fielding picked up the $22,000. Mr. Fielding works in the office of John Dean, and it was not Gordon Strawn at that point. Now, 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. What was that for? It was money that I had received in cash from a contributor, and I gave it to LaRue in part payment of the $30,000 that he had given to me so that 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 desirability 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 7th. I think that you did testify on this, but do you know what LaRue used the $81,000 for? I do not know what he used the $81,000 for. I understand, Mr. Stanz, that cash was kept in a safe in your office from time to time. Is that true? That's not true. That is not true? That is not true. There was no safe in my office. I'd 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 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 didn't 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 in 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 was that Mr. Sloan wasn't available. I would put it in overnight give it to them the next day. If it was a weekend, I'd put it in over the weekend and give it to them the following week. And to the best of my recollection, there was no time in 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 contributions in the safe that came in close together. That safe

was not used for anything but a way station for temporary periods, and 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 up the $81,000 and I handed $40,000 of it to Fred LaRue. Do you know of your own knowledge what cash disbursements were made by Sloan or anybody else? I did not have any knowledge of cash disbursements by Mr. Sloan at the time, other than the fact, as I testified yesterday, that Mr. Magruder had authority to direct Mr. Sloan to make payments. I did not know anything about the amounts of the individual payments made by Mr. Sloan. I did know, of course, about the $50,000 that he gave to Alexander Lankler

as I testified yesterday. I did not know at the time about any payments to Herbert Porter or to the White House beyond the $350,000 which we've testified to. 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 7th, except that I believe I had some knowledge about the $15,000 that he gave to Robert Athie at the request of Clem Stone to give to some law enforcement group in Illinois. Back for a moment to the $75,000 to Mr. Comback. At that time, did he tell you who asked him to get the money? No, he did not. And did you? He would not tell me. And did you ask him?

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. Did you check with anybody else, like Haldeman, Ehrlichman, or anybody else, whether you should pay the $75,000 to come back? No, I did not. At one point in your testimony yesterday, you made passing reference to the fact that you had received monies from time to time from Mr. LaRue. You didn't identify in what amounts and for what. Could you do that now? 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 year what did you do with this $30,000? at the time Mr. LaRue made the repayment I didn't handle the money at all he made it directly late in the year direct to whom Mr. LaRue made the payment to Anna Chenault to transmit to Lagda Mayo who had proffered the contribution to us in the first place I see 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, who I mentioned yesterday, 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's all I was able to give him. So he then had an accountability for a balance of $48,000. Late in May, Mr. LaRue 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. Did you confer at any time with John Dean on the $25,000 Andrea's contribution, how to handle it, the legality of it?

I don't 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 contribution had to be reported as having been received after April 7th or whether it could be treated as a contribution before April 7th, but only in terms of the principle of law. When was that discussion had with him about how to treat it? Well, I would have to assume that it occurred early in April of last year. I'm curious, why would you confer with him about it instead of the general counsel for the finance committee? 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're involved here, what we're involved with here is the question of the meaning of the Corrupt Practices Act definition of a contribution. very simply, and I'll 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, agreement or contract to make a contribution whether or not it's legally enforceable and it was on that language that I got the legal opinions and on that language that I concluded that the contributions received from several people whom we've discussed here were

contributions by law before April 7th. Did Mr. Dean ever tell you at any time that he was conducting an investigation for the president into the Waterhouse affair what a gate affair no I don't 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 yesterday you mentioned in your testimony that you heard that Liddy was receiving money, but you didn't identify from whom you had heard it. Do you recall? I really can't recall because it was in the early days of my service to the committee. It could have come from Mr. Combeck. It could have come from Mr. Sloan. I doubt that there was anyone else who could have told it to me. And my vague

recollection is that I was told that Lydia was getting small amounts of money from time to time in cash and that it was being used in the primaries. I don't have any other recollection of that, and I had no idea that the amounts were as large as they apparently were. Did you ever know about the $250,000 budget before the Watergate break-in? No, sir. I was not told by anyone about a $250,000 budget for Mr. Liddy. Back to these comeback monies again. in your initial discussion with Mr. Combeck 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 he didn't say did you get in any

impression from your conversation whether he meant the one or the other I had no no such impression either way. You mentioned, of course, a later conversation, I think you said about six weeks ago, perhaps, with Mr. Comback's attorney. Yes. In which he told you that it was Mr. Dean who requested Comback to raise the money. What about in this discussion? Did his attorney tell you whether Mr. Comback raised the money to spend himself or whether he was raising it to pass on to someone else. In that conversation, Mr. Kombak's attorney told me that Kombak had raised the money for the purpose of giving 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.

He didn't identify Tony beyond that? No, he did not. And you do not know who he was? I do not know who Tony was. The $350,000 to the White House and the reimbursement of $22,000 requested by Dean, I'm curious about that. But why should Mr. Dean be so uptight about restoring $22,000 to this $350,000 fund if the $22,000 was used legally, as I thought it was from the testimony? Can you shed any further light on that? Well, I can only shed this light that in several discussions with Mr. Dane, the desirability of having the $350,000 intact seemed important to him. For example, in November of last year, he handed me some bills for Polk.

by a polling organization, I believe it was Opinion Research Corporation, 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. It was perfectly proper for them to be paid as expenses of the campaign, and 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. So in November 1972, from your discussion with him, it would be your impression that the $350,000 was there at that time? That was my impression until he told me that another $22,000 had actually been spent.

Did he say when? I don't recall. No, I'm sure he did not. And did he say what for? Well, I have to hedge on this because I don't know. I just assumed since it was a polling fund that it had been spent for polling. But recently I learned, reading one of the depositions, that it may have been spent for advertising. Another thing that puzzles me, my understanding of this $350,000 is that it went to Haldeman. We have no direct evidence on that, but we do know that Mr. Straughan, Haldeman's aide, picked it up. Wasn't it your understanding that it went to Haldeman? I had no understanding on that, Senator. The transaction 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 purposes 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. Robert McNeil for the National Public Affairs Center for Television. Good night. From Washington, NPACT continues its coverage of hearings by the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. Here again, correspondent Jim Lehrer. Welcome back. As we go back to the hearings where we left off, Senator Gurney is asking Maury Stans about a $350,000 cash fund kept at the White House. Senator Gurney has a question about $22,000 that John Dean requested to replenish that fund. 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 dispersing of it?

no i never understood that mr dean was handling the money did you ever ask mr dean at this time in 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 well 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 secondly, 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 a counsel in the White House. Did you check with either Haldeman or Ehrlichman on this $22,000? No, I did not.

Why didn't Dean go to the treasurer? The treasurer is a man who, I understand from the testimony, was making almost all of the disbursements with the exception of a few cash ones we've talked about here. Why should he come to you? Why shouldn't he go to the treasurer? 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's the reason he called me. You testified that you learned about the Watergate break-in, as I recall, in the newspapers. Is that correct? That is correct. 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 Committee to Re-elect the President. Did you have any conferences or phone calls on June 17th or 18th regarding Watergate with anyone? I don't recall any conferences on the 17th and I was not in the office on the 18th so my answer

would be other than the possibility that I may have said to somebody that's a silly thing to do or based on the newspaper headlines. I had no conferences about the details of the transaction. Did you have any phone calls? None that my records show. Do you recall any? I do not recall any. At some point in time, of course, you learned, as we all have, about Watergate, people who were the key people in it. To the best of your recollection, when did you learn about Watergate? and who were the key people in it, and from whom? The first thing I learned about Watergate, to the best of my recollection, was on June 23rd when I received a call from Fred LaRue.

As I testified yesterday, he said, Do you know Kenneth Dahlberg? And I said, Yes, I know Kenneth Dahlberg very well. He said, Well, did you 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 my knowledge, Mr. Dahlberg didn't make a contribution, particularly in that amount of money that you mentioned. He said, well, we better talk about it. So he came down to my office and we reviewed 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's my first knowledge of the Watergate situation. Did you ever discuss it with John Mitchell at any time near this point in time? That is June 17th.

Well, I would be sure that I discussed this with John Mitchell on a number of occasions. my records show that the first time I talked to John Mitchell after the 17th was on the 23rd 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 Watergate I'm sure that it was a subject of interest, but certainly not about who and when and why. Did LaRue come to you in January 1973 this year and ask you for the names of some of the larger contributors to the campaign? Yes, I have 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 and what was the project he didn't tell me did you ask him 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 have you ever conferred with john mitchell magruder haldeman ehrlichman dean or anybody else on the cover-up of watergate i have no recollection of any discussion with anyone about the cover-up on the watergate until after the disclosures that have occurred within the last two months. Have you ever discussed this Watergate affair or any aspects of it with the President of the United States? 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. Both when? 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 all their questions at the time. He said that he appreciated the sacrifice I was making in that respect. 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 of fundraising with him, the impending 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 cover-up, or any subject of that type with the president. Do you know from any information from anybody else whether the president of the United States had any knowledge of Watergate or the cover-up? I have absolutely no such information. Thank you, Mr. Stanz. That's all, Mr. Chairman. Senator Naube. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, this morning, a few moments ago, you testified that you had met with Mr. Mitchell on June the 23rd, and yesterday you suggested that it was possible you met with Mr. Mitchell on June the 24th. 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 23rd of June, you testified you received a

call from Mr. LaRue, I believe. Then there were other banner headlines about monies being traced through a Miami bank and $100 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 he wanted some indication from you that Mr. Magruder was authorized to make these cash payments. And so you indicated that you will look into this, and on June

the 24th, you had a meeting with Mr. Mitchell, the Attorney General. And upon your return from the meeting this is what Mr. Sloan testified to and I'm quoting from the testimony quote by he he means a user 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 his purpose, he said, quote, I do not want to know, and you don't want to know, end quote. Do you recall this, sir? Before I answer that, may I say that with respect to the meeting with Mr. Mitchell on the 24th, I have checked my records last night, and I don't 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, in the building, on the street, or even dropped in his office. But I have no record of that meeting having taken place. I did have lunch with Mr. Mitchell in his office on the 23rd. 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'm not quite sure that it's entirely accurate but it's 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 programs 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 at the time I went to the committee and even before that the campaign ought to be run with the president in office for $25 or $30 million. It was evident that 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 yesterday, that we were just not going to have any influence in this situation. The remark I made, and I can't 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 try to know. We were the cashiers. We received the money. We paid the bills. They had the responsibility for everything they did. If they did it right, they got the credit. If they did it wrong, they got the blame. And it didn't seem that it was incumbent upon us to question the propriety of any payment, whether it was to Mr. Liddy or to anybody else, and we didn't. Wasn't this rather uncharacteristic of your background, sir, one who has 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 words on the debit side and the right notes on the asset side that you would put up

your hands and say, I don't want to know? It was uncharacteristic of my background as an accountant, but it was not uncharacteristic of the responsibilities I had in this campaign, which had absolutely nothing to do with accounting. My job was to raise an unbelievable amount of money, $40 million or more. And you weren't curious about how these funds were being spent, especially since you read the paper about the break-in on the 18th. You heard about the accounts of the Dahlberg money on the 23rd. 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? Oh, I must say, Senator, that in the sequence of dates, it didn't 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 couldn't possibly have been

conceived by me or anyone else. Mr. Secretary, you stated yesterday that Mr. Magruder told you sometime in May, I believe, I believe you said the latter part of May, that Mr. Liddy was to provide security at the San Diego Convention. Did I hear it correctly, sir? Yes, that is about all I ever heard about Mr. Liddy's activities, except, as I said, when I came to the committee in February, I got an intimation from someone that Mr. Liddy was using relatively small amounts of cash in connection with the primaries. And so you provided funds to Mr. Liddy in May for security activities in San Diego. Well, 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. When was the conversation with Mr. Magruder? Well, I really can't pin it down by date. The early part of May? 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. Mr. Secretary, are you aware that the transfer of the Republican Convention from San Diego to Miami was made public on April the 21st? I don't recall the exact date, but nevertheless, that was what Mr. McGruder told me as to what Liddy had been using the money for. Wasn't this a major decision in which I'm certain you must have participated in? Well, I had no part in the decision to move the convention from San Diego to Miami.

Even when it meant the additional sums of money? 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 it had to be coped with. Now, having said that, there was a separate committee that had the responsibility of financing the convention. It 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,

certainly they would have come to our Treasury in order to make up any deficit on the cost of the convention. So you're testifying that in middle May or late May you were not aware that the party had changed its convention site? No, I'm not testifying to that at all. I can't put the date, but I was aware of what was being said in the press and certainly was conscious of that. On July the 1st or June 29th or somewhere in that period, Mr. Kalmbach called you and advised you that there was a very urgent request for cash funds for special purpose. In the weeks prior to that, questionable activities were being reported in the press. Weren't you a bit curious as to what these funds were going to be used for? Well, Senator, I think it's 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 don't believe that I had any knowledge of any activities in connection with the 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 a possible connection there. But it wasn't until the 28th of June, which is later than the date you're 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 heard about it. On the 28th of June, 1972? 28th of June. Yes.

And Mr. Combeck made the request on the 29th of June? On the 29th of June, the very next day. And you weren't a bit suspicious then? I was not. I knew Mr. Kalmbach very well. He was a man who had very close ties with people 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 money for a special purpose, I had no reason to assume that it was anything but proper. The next series of questions I'd 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.

Yesterday, you testified that, quote, naturally, we wanted most of our contributions in by April the 7th. Did I say that, Senator? I would question the record on that because there was no chance that we could get most of our money in by April 7th. But wasn't there a mad rush to get as much as you can by then? Senator Inouye, could you just refer to the page or something so we could check that if we might? I'm sorry, but let me put it this way. Was there a mad rush to get as much money as you can before April the 7th? Mad rush is not the correct word for it. It's a characterization that really isn't very fair. Mr. Sloan has testified that in the last four or five days, they were just deluged. I believe you used the word avalanche. There is no question about that. There was an avalanche of money in the last five days before April 7th.

What I did when I took office on February 15th was to plan an effort to reach as many people as possible among the larger contributors and give them the option they had. of giving their contribution before April 7th and having the right of confidentiality or giving it later. And many people said, I don't care. I'll give it later. Now, there was an advantage in getting early money. Anyone who's ever run for office knows that the early money is the hardest to get. And I took advantage of that opportunity to visit a number of cities in the country, meet 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. Why would a contributor desire, as you say, confidentiality or anonymity? Oh, there are a number of reasons, Senator.

Why don't we tell the people of the United States? I'd 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 or 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. Aren't we all targets for charitable drives? Yes, but you're a much better target if it's known that you gave $25,000 to Senator Nui's campaign. than you 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 Andrews, who was 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. And the greatest disservice that's done to people is to assume that because a man wants anonymity, that he has a secret, sinister motive in doing so. As an accountant, I'm certain from your standards that you've applied to yourself, you must have questioned the receipt of cash. I've been told that most accountants would like to have everything clean and proper, that everything should be in writing. Well, let me answer that in terms of... Is cash an important element in political elections?

I don't think it is an important element at all. I testified yesterday that all the cash receipts that were taken in before I came with the committee and after amounted to about 3% of the total receipts of the campaign and that the disbursements in cash amounted to only 2% of the total disbursements of the campaign and that includes the $350,000 that went to the White House. So cash is not an important element and let me say this, contrary to what has been said on one or more occasions, we did not prefer getting cash we did not ever solicit anyone to contribute in cash it was the option of the contributor to give us money 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 money in cash. I noticed that other presidential candidates voluntarily disclosed all of their contributions which were made prior to April the 7th. Was there any reason for refusing to do so on your part, sir? I think, Senator, there were some of the other candidates for the presidency who did not disclose the source of their contributions. 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 hadn't received much money anyway as a political ploy in an effort to try to force us to disclose. Now, I've said yesterday, 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 7th, except as to one group of names amounting to about $6 million that we disclosed just before the election. As one who has been described as the most successful 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? Well, I'm a bit ambivalent on that. I'm not quite sure.

I think any finance chairman would welcome that kind of legislation because it eliminates one potential series of questions as to where the cash came from and where it went. But I think you've got to be very careful in drafting it to make it sure that you don't destroy some of the means by 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. Yesterday and this morning, you've testified that you had no reason to question the integrity or the reliability of such associates as Mr. LaRue. You described him as a good person.

Mr. Mitchell, or Mr. Combeck, when did you begin suspecting that something was wrong? I didn't have any suspicions about any of these people until after the disclosures in the press following, I believe it was March 23rd, when Mr. McCord wrote his letter, and gradually, step by step, names were being drawn in to the public print. I have no first-hand knowledge of any of the activities on the part of those people. Most of what I've learned has been from reading the press and listening to television. Before Mr. McCord's disclosure by letter, don't you recall seeing, for example, in the Washington Post, all of these articles which appeared on the front page

naming people such as Dwight Chapin naming people like Mr. Donald Segretti and naming others in high places weren't you becoming a bit suspicious by then? Well of course I read the Washington Post as I read it every day with the greatest of respect and I presume this is going to cause me some trouble with the Post I don't believe everything 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 those matters, Senator, but I had no reason to believe that any of the people

who were not in the first trial of the Watergate were in any way involved. And it is your testimony this morning that until March the 23rd of this year, You had no reason to suspect that people like Mr. Combeck or Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Haldeman or Mr. Ehrlichman were possibly involved in the Watergate and its ramifications? That's entirely correct, Senator. as a member of the budget committee of the committee to reelect the president as a close associate of all these men never once did they discuss these matters with you there was never any discussion with me about the planning of the Watergate matter

the planning of any cover-up of any kind and I was completely uninformed. I presume that this was because as I said yesterday, our two committees operated in watertight compartments. We had our job to do. We were not in on the planning or strategy of any part of the campaign. I'm very grateful that they didn't tell me. Why is it that certain members of your watertight compartment were notified well the only one at the head of that watertight compartment the only one that was involved in the matter so far as I know was Gordon Liddy and we heard the story yesterday as to how Gordon Liddy came to be part of our committee he apparently had a feud with McGruder and McGruder suggested that he be moved to our committee 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. I thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. I must say that, like you, I find these circumstances most regrettable because I still recall those days when we worked very closely when you Secretary of Commerce and my position in the Commerce Committee but all of us have our responsibilities to perform so I'm certain you understand sir thank you very much Mr. Secretary thank you Mr. Chairman so after a series of questions from Senator Inouye Mr. Stans remained firm in his statement that he was completely uninformed about any Watergate cover-up and in a moment it it will be Senator Baker's turn. Public television's coverage of the Watergate hearings will continue after this pause for station identification. Unabridged coverage of these hearings

is provided as a public service by the member stations of PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

From Washington, NPACT continues its coverage of hearings by the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. Here again, correspondent Jim Lehrer. All right, in hour number two, the vice chairman of the committee, Senator Howard Baker of Tennessee, is now going to ask Mr. Stans to go over his diary to see what people he met with as finance chairman.

Also in this hour, Stans will be questioned about possible conversations about who is really to blame for Watergate. Mr. Stanz, there's still, after six and a half years in the Senate, some remnant of a lawyer left in me, where I was trained for that profession and practiced law for 19 years, as you were trained to be an accountant and a public servant. it's axiomatic i believe that the stronger a witness and the more logical and flowing his testimony the more difficult it is to test that testimony and to try to establish the areas of conflict if there are areas of conflict and the opportunities for corroboration if there are areas of corroboration. All of this by way of preface to saying that the questions I'm going to put to you should not be interpreted as antagonistic, nor implying 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 circumstances in general. So for the purposes of this inquiry, it's important that you understand and that the committee and others understand that the extent and scope of examination or the determination to dig for facts does not imply belief or disbelief of testimony, but rather is a legal device to try to establish the facts and circumstances for this committee. I'm sure you understand that. I understand, Senator. I'd like to start, if I may, by establishing, according to your records, the number of times, the occasions and circumstances under which you met and conferred with any of the so-called Watergate principles immediately prior to the break-in into the Watergate complex, housing the Democratic National Committee headquarters, and for the time immediately after June 17th when that event occurred. I have here before me entries or abstracts of entries from your diary, as I understand it.

And if you have that diary before you, I would request you to give your attention to these items, January 17, 1972. Can you do that for me, Mr. Secretary? I will, sir, just a moment. We don't have the diary with us, Senator. I believe a copy was furnished to the staff, and perhaps they can help us by letting me refer to it. Could we suspend just for a moment? Does staff have an additional copy of this? If you do, it would be helpful to give it to the witness, and we can both go through it together. If you have the abstract or the original diary, either one will be satisfactory. January 17th, 1972, 10 a.m., and an entry that I can't read.

It looks like Finance Committee. That's correct. Were you then the chairman of the Finance Committee? No, I was not. Were you Secretary of Commerce at the time? I was Secretary of Commerce. January 25th, 8.30 a.m., 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, Perrins, all day. yes that turned out to be an exaggeration because i did have other appointments on that day but that is uh that is the entry were these campaign related activities i believe 1701 pennsylvania avenue was the headquarters of the committee to re-elect the president those were related to discussions of the new law as it then stood. The law that went into effect on April 7th, 1972. That's correct.

January 28th, 9.30 a.m., the same entry, 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue. That's correct. January 31st, Hugh Sloan. Is this Hugh Sloan, Jr., known also as Duke Sloan, who appeared and testified before the committee previously? That's correct. So, February 1st, 4, Finance Group Arden, as I can read the entry. Did you say February 4? I'm sorry, February 1st, 4 o'clock is the entry, apparently 4 p.m. Yes, that is in brackets, and I take that to Maine, since I left for the airport at 3 o'clock, that that meeting was canceled. February 11th, 8.15, breakfast with RS at Watergate.

Incidentally, of all of the synonymous phrases I could have chosen, I think I would have chosen last the description of your functions as being water type. Touche, Senator. What is the last date you're asking me about? February 11th, 8-15, breakfast with RS at Watergate. That had no relation to campaign matters. R.S. was Rocco Siciliano, the former Undersecretary of Commerce. Thanks. And I had breakfast with him. February 14th, 10, Sloan, none, re, direct. I can't read the last word. That was a meeting with Sloan and none, re, direct mail solicitation of contributors. February 15th, 1130, Tom Evans, New York.

Yes, I was. 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. February 22nd, 330, Mitchell at Justice. uh this is now after i had joined the campaign on february 15th can you tell us about that conversation i can't tell you any of the particulars it was a general discussion with mitchell i think the first opportunity i had after joining the campaign to sit down and talk with him about the plans in general, the spending programs, and so on. Was there any discussion of the Watergate of related activities?

Absolutely not. Or of intelligence gathering? No, sir. Or of the format and type of fiscal control that would be exercised by you over campaign expenditures? 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. 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 22nd? Senator, I'd appreciate it if you'd repeat the question. I didn't quite get the point. All right, sir. It's 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 by the campaign. Is that correct?

That is correct. It was called the Budget Committee. Was the Budget Committee's formulation or function discussed with Mr. Mitchell on February 22nd? 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. Drawing your attention next to March 8th, 4 p.m., Robert, I can't read the word, Chairman Richardson-Prez, P-R-E-S, period. Mr. Chairman, I think this is getting into an area where we agreed not to tread. then at your request, I certainly shall not. The next item is 425-2-Liddy. I'll read off a list here and ask you if you can comment on this list of appointments, Mr. Stans, since they appear to be in sequence. 425-2-PM-Liddy, 5-1-3-30-Liddy, 5-8-10-30-2-Liddy,

523, 2 Liddy 530, 10 Liddy 514, 330 430 Liddy Now since these are all Liddy appointments and they're all in chronological order apparently could you tell us what that group of meetings with Mr. Liddy was about? Yes, Mr. Liddy by then was the counsel for the committee. He had been given a number of responsibilities to pursue as a regular matter. I remember some specific subjects that came up, such as a contribution of a man in Chicago who wanted to give in 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 every one of the national and state committees had properly registered with the General Accounting Office, properly registered with the Treasury Department, and I was following

these matters with Mr. Liddy as the General Counsel from time to time, as occasion warranted, in addition to the fact that Mr. Liddy appeared at the daily staff meeting. In our staff meeting minutes of April 24th, for example, there's an item, Liddy is to continue follow-up of all states not yet registered he is to submit a weekly list to stands each monday of all those not yet done another item lydia is to furnish stands with a legal opinion in writing 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 were assigned to him. It was quite routine that I discuss all of these matters with him. There was no discussion of the Watergate or of intelligence gathering?

There was absolutely no discussion of that type. 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 at 4 o'clock in the afternoon, Liddy. 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. Did it relate to the Watergate? Oh, absolutely not. 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, of the impending break-in later that night or early the next morning of the Democratic National Committee headquarters? No, Senator, absolutely not.

Now, I did testify, I think, 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, at the best of my recollection, is that that would be what we discussed on June 16th. What about the Liddy meeting on June 16th at 4 in the afternoon? Well, I can give you one clue from my notations. I can't give you any precise recollection of the sequence of discussion. But on June 14th in our staff meeting, it says Lydia is to report to Stans every three days on the McGaw matter. On the what? 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 Yiter, Ree, Problem in Kansas. Liddy is to follow up filing requirements of Maryland Gala and D.C. Dinner. Liddy is to follow up filing of 4909 forms by states. That's the Treasury form. Are these all notations from a meeting on the 14th or the 16th? These are all notations from a meeting on the 14th. They are the subjects that I would assume were discussed with Mr. Liddy on the 16th, plus possibly others, but certainly, definitely, positively, not Watergate. Did you see anything unusual about Mr. Liddy's attitude or conduct on the 4 o'clock meeting on the 16th of June? 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 meetings with him from time to time, and he covered up his concerns extremely well. I had no idea that he was involved.

You've already described for the committee, under inquiry from other senators and the staff, about how you learned of the Watergate break-in and the events immediately succeeding that. The next item after June 17th, the date of the Watergate entry, is June 19th. Mr. Kleindienst, is that former Attorney General Kleindienst? Yes, it is. Can you tell us about that meeting? Yes, sir. In the preceding week, I had called Mr. Kleindienst and asked for an appointment because we were having difficulties with some personalities in Arizona in setting up a fundraising program. I asked for an opportunity to see him and talk to him about those people. You did not talk to him about the Watergate? 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.

June 23rd at 4, Mr. Liddy, and June 28th at 5, Mr. Liddy. The earlier of those two meetings, so far as I know, was entirely 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 had he was prepared to leave the office came in and said he was very sorry to go and I said I'm very sorry to see you go and that was the substance of the conversation did he protest his innocence at the time no he did not there are a number of other entries but there is one that I do not see on your diary and that's the meeting with Mr. Mitchell I believe on the 23rd or the 24th of June did that meeting occur And if so, where, when, and at what time? There was a meeting with Mr. Mitchell on the 23rd 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 Mr. Stanz, I apologize to you I was reading from a summary which did not show the Mitchell appointment I'm now looking at copies of the appointment book On Friday, June 23, 1972 At 12 o'clock through 1.30 it would appear There's a notation of lunch with Mr. Mitchell I'm sorry I misinterpreted that It's 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. and is it my understanding that you set up the meeting with Mr. Mitchell I don't think you

should have that understanding I don't know how the meeting was set up all right sir who was present at the meeting 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 of the Finance Committee. It was at 9 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 Mardin 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 can't recall whether that happened on the same day as the Dahlberg check. 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? I have no recollection of the substance of the discussions. I just cannot tell you. I had so many meetings with Mr. Mitchell in the course of the time that he was with the campaign. As I said, on 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 particular ones we talked about on any particular day. This was the same day, June 23rd, 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? 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. Did you have a meeting with Mr. Mitchell on the 24th of June? The 24th was a Saturday. I have no recollection of any meeting with Mr. Mitchell, and my record

doesn't 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. Did you have a meeting with Mr. Magruder on the 24th? Similarly, there is no record of it, and I have no recollection of it. where there are 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's important that you try to recall as best you can, Mr. Stan. Well, Senator, I have no recollection. I can only go by what my record shows, and I don't want to be unfair, but i'd like to know what you did on march 24th 1972 i think you'd have a hard time remembering

i'm certain i would and i 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 well i i think it's worth digressing long enough to say that anyone would have difficulty establishing what they did on a particular date, but these aren't ordinary and usual circumstances. Right. And we are dealing here with your best efforts to reconstruct what happened at a critical time and juncture in these proceedings. Now, that's why I urged you to give particular and careful attention to what happened on June 24th with respect to meetings or conversations less formal than meetings with any of the principals in the so-called Watergate affair. And I have tried my best to reconstruct that situation. I've gone through all correspondence and memorandums with all of the principles that have been discussed in connection with this matter. And to the extent that they've refreshed my memory, I have testified to them. but I would have to say that I had many meetings with people

that I considered quite routine. I can only say to you with absolute finality that I did not discuss any espionage or sabotage operations with anyone prior to June 17th and I really did not learn about them except as I learned about them in the public prints. that anticipates most of the questions i could ask on that subject with the exception of one thing and that is with whom did you discuss the watergate so-called cover-up after june 17th and when did you do it i did not discuss the watergate cover-up with anyone after june 17th and i I did not know there was a cover-up 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 cover-up.

For example, the $75,000 that I gave to Kahnbeck. Gave it to him in good faith with no knowledge at the time. And I am sure that when Mr. Kahnbeck 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 incidents of that type, I had no knowledge of the cover-up activity that may have taken place. Did you, Mr. Stanz, at any time in June 1972, Discuss with Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Sloan, Mr. Magruder, Mr. LaRue, Mr. Ehrlichman, or Mr. Haldeman what happened on the morning of June 17th at the Democratic National Headquarters in any way.

some of those people to 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 didn't meet with me during the entire year as to the others I had no discussion about the Watergate affair except the normal curiosity of a 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 and 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 campaign people that 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. At any time? At any time, until the events were reported in the press. Well, after the events were reported in the press, I don't 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. Thank you.