Influenced by North, McFarlane Testifies

Robert C. McFarlane, former White House national security adviser, dismayed prosecutors Wednesday by saying that his testimony at Oliver L. North’s Iran-Contra trial was “colored” by North’s “riveting” appearance before televised congressional hearings on the scandal.

But McFarlane was unable to cite any instance of how his statements as a principal prosecution witness were shaped or changed by testimony from North, his National Security Council subordinate during the Administration of former President Ronald Reagan.

McFarlane appeared as the first witness at a federal court hearing to determine whether North’s televised testimony, given under immunity guarantees, affected his 1989 conviction. In a 2-1 ruling last year, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals here set aside North’s conviction for obstructing congressional efforts to uncover the scandal and accepting an illegal gift on grounds that prosecution witnesses may have drawn on North’s televised testimony.

U.S. District Judge Gerhard A. Gesell made clear that he was unhappy with the appellate court’s action, saying that it had placed him “in a bucket of feathers.” Gesell indicated that he believes Michael Bromwich, associate independent counsel, had failed at Wednesday’s session to meet the prosecution’s burden of proving its witness was not influenced by North’s testimony.

Directing Bromwich to provide a written analysis as the hearings continue today of how information was developed independently of North’s testimony, Gesell said that the matter of North’s conviction must be resolved promptly.

“It certainly isn’t fair to Mr. North, who has been dangling around here for years,” Gesell said, looking at the former Marine lieutenant colonel who sat bolt upright at the foot of the defense table throughout the daylong hearing.

McFarlane repeatedly said during the hearing that facts he testified to at North’s trial were based on his own first-hand knowledge of the Iran-Contra events and on documentary evidence that prosecutors introduced.

But, at the same time, he said “the way I portrayed them (the facts) was surely affected by that (North’s) testimony.”

At another point, McFarlane, his voice rising, told Bromwich: “Watching four days of riveting testimony by a man who was like a son to me, how could I not be affected? I’m not alone. . . . Ask tens of millions of Americans.”

Later in the hearing, McFarlane said: “My responses were colored by what I heard in Col. North’s testimony, I think inevitably.”

Bromwich, contending that he was “surprised” by McFarlane’s statements about being “affected,” won Gesell’s permission to seek to impeach his testimony and question him as a hostile witness. At one point, Bromwich accused McFarlane of seeking to end the North case “right this second.”

“Look, I’m telling the truth like I have for 200-plus hours,” McFarlane shouted.

Bromwich asked McFarlane whether he had recently requested a meeting with independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh “to ask him to spare you the misery of this hearing.”

“That’s false,” McFarlane said.

“Isn’t it true that you requested a meeting with Judge Walsh?” Bromwich asked.

“Because I respect him,” McFarlane said. “If he knew what’s going on, where the goats get it, he might rethink what’s going on here. . . . I don’t believe corrections to our political system can be done in a courtroom.”