Bush Retains Griffin Bell for Iran-Contra

President Bush retained former Atty. Gen. Griffin B. Bell as his lawyer in the Iran-Contra investigation Wednesday and dismissed as “stupid” any suggestion that his pardoning of key defendants in the case made it appear that government officials are above the law.

Bush has asked Bell to help him obtain a transcript of the sworn statement he made to Iran-Contra investigators in 1988 and to take full charge of his defense if independent counsel Lawrence E. Walsh pursues the investigation after Bush leaves office Jan. 20, the White House said in a statement.

The President had asked for a copy of the statement for the purpose of releasing it publicly. Walsh so far has refused to provide one.

Bell, former President Jimmy Carter’s first attorney general, had endorsed Bush’s unsuccessful bid for reelection and recently spent the night at the White House as Bush’s personal guest. Bell also performed various services for the Ronald Reagan and Bush Administrations.

Yet Bell is a longtime Democrat and by joining the case he becomes the latest in a series of prominent Democrats who have sided with the President over Christmas Eve pardons of former Defense Secretary Caspar W. Weinberger and five other Iran-Contra defendants. Former President John F. Kennedy named Bell to the federal appeals court bench, a post he held for 15 years before coming to Washington with Carter.

Although many Democrats have sharply criticized the pardon, two leading lawmakers--House Speaker Thomas S. Foley of Washington and Defense Secretary-designate Les Aspin of Wisconsin--told the White House weeks ago that they would not oppose the pardon, sources have said.

Walsh greeted news of Bell’s involvement by saying that he was “glad the President will have the advice of an able lawyer who understands both litigation and the rule of law.”

Bush first asked for a copy of his sworn statement when he announced the pardons, saying that he wanted to release it even though “no impartial person has seriously suggested that my own role in this matter is legally questionable.”

The White House statement, released after Bush departed for Somalia to visit U.S. military forces there, said the President “hopes that Judge Bell’s efforts will further his goal of putting his sworn testimony about the Iran-Contra matter before the American people.”

Prosecutors, however, are highly reluctant to release sworn statements of witnesses while investigations are under way. Mary Belcher, a spokeswoman for Walsh, said that lawyers “are continuing to evaluate our ability to release this information in light of grand jury secrecy rules.”

Belcher also noted that prosecutors are still investigating the contents and recent disclosure of notes Bush kept that relate to the Iran-Contra scandal, in which the United States sold arms to Iran in an effort to free American hostages and the proceeds from the sales were channeled to support anti-government rebels in Nicaragua.

The inquiry into the notes, Belcher said, “is not yet at a point where we can act on his request” for a copy of his deposition.

The White House did not reveal the existence of the notes to Walsh until Dec. 11, five years after the independent counsel’s office asked Bush to turn over any relevant Iran-Contra materials.

Failure to reveal the notes sooner prompted Walsh last week to describe Bush’s action as “misconduct” and to declare that he is a “subject” of the investigation, a specific term which means that his activities are under study in a criminal investigation. Walsh’s accusations, and those of many congressional Democrats, have put Bush on the defensive. The President, however, has not responded to questions about the pardon and he ended a press conference Wednesday after answering just one inquiry about the subject.

Asked about claims that the pardon gave the appearance that government officials are above the law, Bush replied:

“No, it should not give any such appearance. Nobody is above the law and I believe when people break the law that’s a bad thing. I have read some stupid comment to the contrary,” he said, emphasizing the word “stupid.”

“But the Constitution is quite clear on the powers of the President, and sometimes the President has to make a very difficult call and that’s what I’ve done,” he said. Walsh had said that the pardon “undermines the principle that no man is above the law” and that it completed “the Iran-Contra cover-up,” which he said had been continuing for more than six years.

In an interview last week, Walsh said there were gaps in the notes, which Bush apparently dictated daily beginning in November, 1986, and that some missing periods coincided with significant actions being taken by the independent counsel. He would not elaborate.

Discussions about the missing sections are being conducted by Walsh’s lawyers and Chester Beach, the attorney in the White House counsel’s office who notified the independent counsel of the existence of the notes on Dec. 11.

It appears increasingly unlikely that failure to turn over the notes earlier will lead to any legal action, partly because it has been difficult to fix responsibility for the delay. Instead, the matter probably will be discussed prominently in the final report that Walsh must produce on his investigation.