Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidenti...
01:22:13 - 01:23:38
Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). The second half of that memorandum is entitled "Complaint for Libel, Stans versus O'Brien." What did that mean?
John Dean. Well, that was an action being filed, a counteroffensive, again as part of the counteractions that were being requested as a result of its occurrence that before an amended complaint had been filed with the district court that the amended complaint, which charged Mr. Stans had funded the Watergate incident with the $114,000 checks for Mr. Barker was alleged in the complaint of the amended complaint. The amended complaint was distributed to the press before it was filed, so it had no privilege. I do not know if it was ultimately filed or not, but based on that, the Re-Election committee lawyers thought they had a very good libel action for using the processes in that manner.
Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). Was that suit, in fact, filed?
John Dean. Yes, it was.
Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). Do you know who filed it?
John Dean. The Re-Election committee lawyers filed it on Mr. Stans behalf.
Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). Do you know what the present status of that litigation is?
John Dean. That is still in litigation. All of these cases have been consolidated in, I believe, in Judge Richey's court.
Senator Howard Baker (R Tennessee). Here in the District?
John Dean. Yes, here in the District.