50 Iran-Contra Witnesses : Hearings to Open; Crucial for Reagan

Members of the special House and Senate panels investigating the Iran- contra affair, who on Tuesday will open the most explosive set of congressional hearings since Watergate, expect their inquiry to further embarrass--but not destroy--the presidency of Ronald Reagan.

The House and Senate investigating committees, acting together to conduct the hearings, will begin questioning the first of as many as 50 witnesses in televised sessions that are certain to produce a wealth of new information about all aspects of the arms sales to Iran and the diversion of profits to the Nicaraguan rebels.

The hearings are expected to continue four days a week for at least three months.

Even if the committee succeeds in its efforts to avoid partisanship, Reagan’s supporters acknowledge that it will be an extremely difficult period for the President as the panel picks though mounds of new evidence detailing how he undercut his own anti-terrorism policy by selling arms to Iran and how his enthusiasm for the contras was carried to improper--if not illegal--extremes.

‘Very Little’ Sides Can Do

“There is very little the Republicans can do to make the facts better than they are and frankly there is very little the Democrats can do to make them any worse than they are,” admitted Sen. Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H.), vice chairman of the Senate committee.

“Inevitably,” added Sen. George J. Mitchell (D-Me.), a committee member, “the revelations in the hearings will affect the President’s public standing.”

Comparisons with the Watergate investigation, which brought down the presidency of Richard M. Nixon in 1974, are inevitable. As with the historic Nixon inquiry in 1973, the Iran-contra proceedings will delve into issues that touch the heart of a President’s conduct in office.

Further underlining the parallel, the hearings will open in the same Senate Caucus Room where the late Sen. Sam J. Ervin Jr. (D-N.C.) presided over the Watergate inquiry. The Senate panel this time will be chaired by a former Watergate committee member, Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii).

Paramount Questions

As in the Watergate inquiry, the paramount questions at these hearings will be: “What did the President know and when did he know it?” Answers to these questions will be particularly critical in two broad areas:

--The apparently illegal diversion of Iranian arms sales profits to the anti-Sandinista rebels. Reagan has said repeatedly that he knew nothing about it, but opinion polls reveal widespread public skepticism over the President’s account, and evidence already on the record makes it clear that some of his closest advisers were deeply involved in the diversion scheme.

--Reagan’s role in the elaborate network set up to channel money and military aid to the contras from private donors and the governments of other countries at a time when Congress had prohibited direct U.S. military aid. At issue is the question of whether Reagan or others in the Administration went so far in their efforts to help the contras during this period that they engaged in improper or illegal conduct.

Evidence already amassed by the House and Senate investigating committees since they were created by Congress last January--including entries in Reagan’s own handwritten diary--indicates that the President was intensely aware of the efforts of his aides to encourage private citizens and other countries to contribute to the contras from late 1984 to late 1986 at a time when direct U.S. military aid was prohibited.

Non-military, or “humanitarian,” aid was not prohibited and foreign governments would not be subject to congressional restrictions. But it is not clear how all of the outside aid funds were used and legal and ethical questions have been raised about the extent of Administration involvement in thwarting the will of Congress.

New evidence on what Reagan knew about the diversion of Iranian arms profits is expected to come in the testimony of former National Security Adviser John M. Poindexter, who will appear before the committee in mid-June under a limited grant of immunity from prosecution. As Reagan’s top foreign policy adviser beginning in December, 1985, he is the man most likely to know what the President knew.

Trible’s Prediction

“If Poindexter says the President knew what was going on,” said Sen. Paul S. Trible Jr. (R-Va.), a committee member, “then we’re in for some tough days.”

Poindexter will be followed on the witness stand by his former deputy, Lt. Col. Oliver L. North, the energetic Marine who masterminded the contra supply network. One frequently quoted memorandum written by North while on the staff of the National Security Council states that the President “obviously knows” about the private fund-raising that was being carried out in his name.

While committee members do not yet know precisely what Poindexter and North will say about the President’s role, they say there is no indication so far that either witness will accuse the President of explicitly authorizing the diversion of arms profits or any violation of the law.

No Bombshells Expected

“We don’t anticipate any bombshells, but we don’t always know,” said Rep. Lee H. Hamilton (D-Ind.), who chairs the House investigating panel.

A knowledgeable source, who refused to be identified by name, said committee members had heard that Poindexter will tell the panel that he once gave the President a list of other countries--including Iran--financing the contras. But the source quickly added that such a list would not necessarily prove that Reagan knew about the arms profits diversion.

Mitchell predicted that new damage to the stature of Reagan’s presidency will come as the American people hear the story of the affair in greater detail. What will emerge, he said, is a portrait of a President with little respect for the rule of law.

Even without a statement by Poindexter that he authorized anyone to break the law, Mitchell said, “not only did the President not execute the law, he deliberately participated in ways to circumvent the law.”

Private Gifts to Contras

Sunday in New York, where he addressed the American Newspaper Publishers Assn., Reagan was asked about comments Saturday by Lewis A. Tambs, the former U.S. ambassador to Costa Rica, who said that during his tenure he received orders from the White House to help the contras illegally.

“With regard to whether private individuals were giving money to support the contras, yes, I was aware there were people doing that,” Reagan said. “But there was nothing in the nature of a solicitation by the Administration to my knowledge of anyone to do that.”

He added: “All I knew was that there were people raising money to be of help to the contras just as people have done that for other causes in other countries.”

The President said he had “no detailed information.”

“I did know, and the people I met with, I met with to thank because they had raised money to put commercials on television urging the Congress to support the contras.”

Reagan’s Defenders

Republicans on the committee, such as Rudman, are expected to argue in Reagan’s defense that the contra funding restrictions imposed by Congress were “very ambiguous” and that nothing carried out in the name of the President clearly violated the letter of the law.

But the issue of what the President knew is not the only major question still to be answered by the hearings. Another central issue is: Where did the all of the money go?

Previous investigations by the Senate Intelligence Committee and the presidential commission headed by former Sen. John Tower (R-Tex.) were unable to trace the flow of funds through a labyrinth of secret bank accounts and shell companies created to mask these dealings from public scrutiny.

According to Inouye, the special committee’s investigators have successfully traced the route by which millions of dollars were secretly funneled into the coffers of the anti-Sandinista rebels, including about $10 million derived from the sale of arms to Iran. The only major gap remaining in their effort to trace these funds, sources say, is that committee investigators still cannot determine what happened to $10 million donated by the Sultan of Brunei.

Patriotism and Profiteering

Sen. William S. Cohen (R-Me.), a committee member, said the evidence will show that most of the private American citizens who were recruited by North to participate in shipping arms to the contras and to Iran--such as retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Richard V. Secord, the lead-off witness at the Iran-contra hearings--were motivated by “a mixture of patriotism and profiteering.”

It is now apparent that elements of the contra-supply network existed long before the Iranian arms sales--even though public attention was focused on the network only afterward.

For that reason, the House-Senate hearings will focus first on the contra supply network, going back to the early origins of the program in 1982, before turning its attention to the better-known tale of U.S. weapons sales to Iran in late 1985 and 1986.

After both topics have been fully aired, the committee will review the question of whether laws may have been broken by the Reagan Administration in carrying out both the Iran and contra initiatives.

Witness List a Secret

Although the official witness list is still a closely held secret, the committees are expected to hear publicly from only a fraction of the more than 300 persons who were interviewed privately by the staff.

Only two key witnesses have not yet been interviewed. Under an agreement with independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh, Poindexter was not interviewed privately until this weekend and North will not be heard in closed session until mid-June.

The first two public witnesses, Secord and former National Security Adviser Robert C. McFarlane, who preceded Poindexter as Reagan’s chief aide on foreign policy matters, will be testifying without immunity from prosecution. Although McFarlane has previously told his story in other congressional hearings, it will mark the first time that Secord has not taken the Fifth Amendment when asked to testify.

Secord, who volunteered to cooperate after investigators had obtained many of his financial records from Albert A. Hakim, a business partner, is said to be eager to tell how he directed a number of companies that funneled money and supplies to the contras besides serving as an important conduit for money generated by the Iranian arms sales.

Secord: Nothing to Hide

“Gen. Secord feels sincerely that he has nothing to hide--that he has done nothing wrong,” said Sen. Inouye.

While some witnesses may also face criminal charges, the Iran-contra hearings are not expected to focus on specific acts of wrongdoing by individuals--a key distinction between these proceedings and the Watergate hearings. Instead, the committees will spend most of their time exploring the wisdom and propriety of the Reagan Administration’s decision to supply arms to the contras and to Iran.

“The real intent is to inform the people how the policy was made,” Cohen said.

But partisan tempers are likely to flare whenever the hearings touch on Administration support for the Nicaraguan rebels--one of the most divisive issues in Congress over the past decade. Even though the leaders of both parties have pledged to avoid partisanship, “You have to be crazy to think that politics can be separated from these hearings,” said another Republican, who refused to be identified.