Your article by Irwin F. Fredman entitled “The Presidential Follies” was most interesting, but in connection with incidents of which I have specific knowledge, it was inaccurate at the least but clearly defamatory in its conclusions as they relate to Maurice Stans, former Secretary of Commerce, and Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Nixon campaign during the period involved.
The objectionable and inaccurate language specifically referred to says, speaking of Watergate, “Secretary of Commerce Maurice Stans, who collected the money that made it all go , was fined five thousand dollars.”
Also, throughout the balance of the article, you lumped Stans together with those who were convicted of clear-cut Watergate offenses, for example, as one of “twenty-four directly linked to the White House.”
The only assumption that can be made from all this directly and forcefully suggests that Stans was a defendant and guilty of offenses in the Watergate matter itself. The facts established by the record are that he had no involvement in Watergate in any way, and any suggestion that he was a defendant or guilty of Watergate illegalities is totally erroneous (as any research of the record would disclose).
Stans resigned his Commerce post early in 1972 to become the Chairman of the Nixon Finance Committee. The offenses for which he was fined five thousand dollars were in that capacity and were based on technicalities which the court described as non-willful; they were totally unrelated to Watergate.