Contra Opinion Lawyer Didn’t See North Memos

The Reagan Administration legal opinion used to justify secret aid to the Nicaraguan rebels was written by a novice lawyer who conducted two brief interviews and never saw memos showing Oliver L. North’s direct role, according to testimony today at the Iran- contra hearings.

Bretton Sciaroni, counsel for the President’s Intelligence Oversight Board, stood by his opinion--found in North’s safe--that congressional limits on military aid to the Nicaraguan contras did not apply to North and the National Security Council.

The 35-year-old attorney was called as a witness by Republicans on the Iran-contra investigating committees. But Democrats took much of the day questioning his legal qualifications, experience and conclusions.

Sciaroni said the job was his first as a lawyer. He acknowledged that he had failed bar examinations twice in California and twice in the District of Columbia, and that he then took and passed the Pennsylvania state bar.

“I congratulate you for your candor,” said Rep. Tom Foley (D-Wash.).

Stands by Thrust of Opinion

Sciaroni said he stood by “the main thrust of the opinion” he wrote in 1985, even though he wrote it without being told of North’s wide-ranging activities to support and supply the contras fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s Sandinista government.

He maintained that the Boland Amendment passed by Congress in 1984 did not cover the National Security Council or North, the NSC aide fired last November, because the agency was not specifically named.

Rep. Henry Hyde (R-Ill.), a staunch Administration defender, opened his questioning of Sciaroni by telling him, “I like your opinion.” But Sen. George Mitchell (D-Me.) noted that under Sciaroni’s document, the Administration could have turned over covert operations to the Agriculture Department simply because that agency was not specifically named in the Boland Amendment.

House majority counsel John Nields introduced a copy of a 1985 legal opinion submitted to Hyde by a Republican staff attorney on the House Intelligence Committee. That opinion, a copy of which was sent to North by another NSC staffer, said NSC was covered by the ban.

Earlier testimony has indicated that North and others in his private contra aid network relied on Sciaroni’s legal opinion to justify their actions during the two-year ban voted by Congress. A copy of Sciaroni’s opinion, missing the caption which showed who wrote it, turned up in North’s NSC safe.

Sciaroni said he wrote the opinion after an investigation including a review of some written files, a five-minute interview with North and a 30-minute session with the NSC’s general counsel, Paul Thompson.

Sciaroni’s investigation and resulting classified opinion were prompted by newspaper accounts in the summer of 1985 that the NSC was giving advice directly to contra leaders in Central America.

Sciaroni said that North gave him “a blanket denial” of news accounts that he was involved in either raising money or providing military advice to the contras. He said Thompson also said there was no military support coming from the White House.

The lawyer said he was aware that there were piles of documents in North’s office but didn’t press to see them after being told by Thompson that they were “working documents.”