Y l.l/2:SeriaI 13764
United States Congressional...
Government
Documents
T
1
B^")F "
1
F
*■
1
L :■.;
i
1 I
^=-,1
xj^-^^'^^ih^'^
.. oL? 4 ^5^«
100th Congress — 1st Session • January 6-December 22, 1987
Senate Report
No. 216
IRAN-CONTRA INVESTIGATION
APPENDIX B, VOLUME 23
DEPOSITIONS
United States Congressional Serial Set
Serial Number 13764
United States Government Printing OfTice
Washington : 1989
Union Calendar No. 277
100th Congress, 1st Session
S. Rept. No. 100-216 H. Rept. No. 100-433
Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the
Iran-Contm Affair
Appendix B: Volume 23
Depositions
Daniel K. Inouye, Chairman,
Senate Select Committee
Lee H. Hamilton, Chairman,
House Select Committee
U.S. Senate Select Committee U.S. House of Representatives
On Secret Military Assistance to Iran Select Committee to Investigate
And the Nicaraguan Opposition Covert Arms Transactions with Iran
November 13, 1987. -Committed to the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed.
November 17, 1987. -Ordered to be printed.
Washington : 1988
Bnittd States Senate
SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECRET MILITARY
ASSISTANCE TO IRAN AND THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
WASHINGTON, DC 20510-6480
March 1, 1988
Honorable John C. Stennis
President pro tempore
United States Senate
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. President:
We have the pleasure to transmit herewith, pursuant to
Senate Resolution 23, Appendix B to the final Report of the
Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran
and the Nicaraguan Opposition. We will submit such other volumes
of Appendices to the Report as are authorized and as they become
available.
Sincerely,
iLA\\AJu. U Utut^
vice Chairman
III
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
COVERT ARMS TRANSACTIONS WITH IRAN
UNITED STATES CAPITOL
WASHINGTON. DC 20515
(202) 225-7902
198£
The Honorable Jim Wright
Speaker of the House
U. S. Capitol
Washington, D. C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Pursuant to the provisions of House Resolutions 12 and
330 and House Concurrent Resolution 195, 100th Congress, 1st
Session, I transmit herewith Appendix B to the Report of the
Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair,
House Report No. 100-433, 100th Congress, 1st Session.
Appendix B consists of the depositions taken by the
Select Committees during the investigation. The contents of
Appendix B have been declassified fop-Yslease to the public.
United States Senate
Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance
To Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition
Daniel K. Inouye, Hawaii, Chairman
Warren Rudman, New Hampshire, Vice Chairman
George J. Mitchell, Maine
Sam Nunn, Georgia
Paul S. Sarbanes, Maryland
Howell T. Heflin, Alabama
David L. Boren, Oklahoma
James A. McClure, Idaho
Orrin G. Hatch, Utah
William S. Cohen, Maine
Paul S. Trible, Jr., Virginia
Arthur L. Liman
Chief Counsel
Mark A. Belnick Paul Barbadoro
Executive Assistant Deputy Chief Counsel
To the Chief Counsel
Mary Jane Checchi
Executive Director
Lance I. Morgan
Press Officer
VI
United States House of Representatives
Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms
Transactions with Iran
Lee H. Hamilton, Indiana, Chairman
Dante B. Fascell, Florida, Vice Chairman
Thomas S. Foley, Washington
Peter W. Rodino, Jr., New Jersey
Jack Brooks, Texas
Louis Stokes, Ohio
Les Aspin, Wisconsin
Edward P. Boland, Massachusetts
Ed Jenkins, Georgia
Dick Cheney, Wyoming, Ranking Republican
Wm. S. Broomfield, Michigan
Henry J. Hyde, Illinois
Jim Courter, New Jersey
Bill McCollum, Florida
Michael DeWine, Ohio
John W. Nields, Jr.
Chief Counsel
W. Neil Eggleston
Deputy Chief Counsel
Kevin C. Miller
Staff Director
Thomas R. Smeeton
Minority Staff Director
George W. Van Cleve
Chief Minority Counsel
Richard J. Leon
Deputy Chief Minority Counsel
VII
United States Senate
Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to
Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition
Arthur L. Liman
Chief Counsel
Mark A. Belnick Paul Barbadoro
Executive Assistant Deputy Chief Counsel
to the Chief Counsel
Mary Jane Checchi
Executive Director
Lance I. Morgan
Press Officer
Associate Counsels
C. H. Albright, Jr.
Daniel Finn
C. H. Holmes
James E. Kaplan
Charles M. Kerr
Joel P. Lisker
W. T. McGough, Jr.
Richard D. Parry
John D. Saxon
Terry A. Smiljanich
Timothy C. Woodcock
Committee Staff
Assistant Counsels
Legal Counsel
Intelligence/Foreign
Policy Analysts
Investigators
Press Assistant
General Accounting
Office Detailees
Security Officer
Security Assistants
Chief Clerk
Deputy Chief Clerk
Steven D. Arkin*
Isabel K. McGinty
John R. Monsky
Victoria F. Nourse
Philip Bobbitt
Rand H. Fishbein
Thomas Polgar
Lawrence R.
Embrey, Sr.
David E. Faulkner
Henry J. Flynn
Samuel Hirsch
John J. Cronin
Olga E. Johnson
John C. Martin
Melinda Suddes*
Robert Wagner
Louis H. Zanardi
Benjamin C.
Marshall
Georgiana
Badovinac
David Carty
Kim Lasater
Scott R. Thompson
Judith M. Keating*
Scott R. Ferguson
Staff Assistants
Administrative Staff
Secretaries
Receptionist
Computer Center
Detailee
John K. Appleby
Ruth Balin
Robert E. Esler
Ken Foster*
Martin H. Garvey
Rachel D. Kaganoff*
Craig L. Keller
Hawley K.
Manwarring
Stephen G. Miller
Jennie L. Pickford*
Michael A. Ray nor
Joseph D.
Smallwood*
Kristin K. Trenholm
Thomas E. Tremble
Bruce Vaughn
Laura J. Ison
Hilary Phillips
Winifred A. Williams*
Nancy S. Durflinger
Shari D. Jenifer
Kathryn A. Momot
Cindy Pearson
Debra S. Sheffield*
Ramona H. Green
Preston Sweet
VIII
Committee Members' Designated Liaison
Senator Inouye
Senator Rudman
Senator Mitchell
Senator Nunn
Senator Sarbanes
Senator Heflin
Peter Simons
William V. Cowan
Thomas C. Polgar
Richard H.
Arenberg
Eleanore Hill
Jeffrey H. Smith
Frederick Millhiser
Thomas J. Young
Senator Boren
Senator McClure
Senator Hatch
Senator Cohen
Senator Trible
Sven Holmes
Blythe Thomas
Jack Gerard
Dee V. Benson
James G. Phillips
James Dykstra
L. Britt Snider
Richard CuUen
Part Time*
Assistant Counsel
Hearings Coordinator
Staff Assistants
Interns
Peter V. Letsou
Joan M. Ansheles
Edward P.
Flaherty, Jr.
Barbara H. Hummel!
David G. Wiencek
Nona Balaban
Edward E.
Eldridge, III
Elizabeth J. Glennie
Stephen A. Higginson
Laura T. Kunian
Julia F. Kogan
Catherine L. Udell
Document Analyst
Historian
Volunteers
Lyndal L. Shaneyfelt
Edward L. Keenan
Lewis Liman
Catherine Roe
Susan Walsh
*The staff member was not with the Select Committee
the life of the Committee, provided services.
/hen the Report was filed but had, during
IX
United States House of Representatives
Select Committee to Investigate
Covert Arms Transactions with Iran
Majority Staff
John W. Nields. Jr.
Chief Counsel
W. Neil Eggleston
Deputy Chief Counsel
Kevin C. Miller
Staff Director
Special Deputy-
Chief Counsel
Staff Counsels
Press Liaison
Chief Clerk
Assistant Clerk
Research Director
Research Assistants
Charles Tiefer
Kenneth M. Ballen
Patrick J. Carome
V. Thomas
Fryman, Jr.
Pamela J.
Naughton
Joseph P. Saba
Robert J. Havel
Ellen P. Rayner
Debra M. Cabral
Louis Fisher
Christine C.
Birmann
Julius M.
Genachowski
Ruth D. Harvey
James E. Rosenthal
Systems
Administrator
Systems
Programmer/
Analysts
Executive Assistant
Staff Assistants
Catherine L.
Zimmer
Charles G. Ratcliff
Stephen M.
Rosenthal
Elizabeth S. Wright
Bonnie J. Brown
Christina Kalbouss
Sandra L. Koehler
Jan L. Suter
Katherine E. Urban
Kristine Willie
Mary K. Yount
Minority Staff
Associate Minority
Counsel
Assistant Minority
Counsel
Minority' Research
Director
Thomas R. Smeeton
Minority Staff Director
George W. Van Cleve
Chief Minority Counsel
Richard J. Leon
Deputy Chief Minority Counsel
Robert W.
Genzman
Kenneth R. Buck
Bruce E. Fein
Minority Staff
Editor/Writer
Minority Executive
Assistant
Minority Staff
Assistant
Michael J. Malbin
Molly W. Tully
Margaret A.
Dillenburg
Committee Staff
Investigators
Director of Security
Robert A.
Bermingham
James J. Black
Thomas N.
Ciehanski
William A. Davis,
III
Clark B. Hall
Allan E. Hobron
Roger L. Kreuzer
Donald Remstein
Jack W. Taylor
Timothy E. Traylor
Bobby E. Pope
Security Officers
Editor
Deputy Editor
Associate Editor
Production Editor
Hearing Editors
Printing Clerk
Rafael Luna, Jr.
Theresa M. Martin
Milagros Martinez
Clayton C. Miller
Angel R. Torres
Joseph Foote
Lisa L. Berger
Nina Graybill
Mary J. Scroggins
David L. White
Stephen G. Regan
G. R. Beckett
Associate Staff
Representative
Hamilton
Representative
Fascell
Representative
Foley
Representative
Rodino
Representative
Brooks
Representative
Stokes
Representative
Aspin
Michael H.
Van Dusen
Christopher Kojm
R. Spencer Oliver
Bert D. Hammond
Victor Zangla
Heather S. Foley
Werner W. Brandt
M. Elaine Mielke
James J.
Schweitzer
William M. Jones
Michael J. O'Neil
Richard M. Giza
Richard E. Clark
Warren L. Nelson
Representative
Boland
Representative
Jenkins
Representative
Broomfield
Representative
Hyde
Representative
Courter
Representative
McCollum
Representative
DeWine
General Counsel to
the Clerk
Michael W. Sheehy
Robert H. Brink
Steven K. Berry
David S. Addington
Diane S. Doman
Dennis E. Teti
Tina L. Westby
Nicholas P. Wise
Steven R. Ross
XI
Contents
Volume 23
Preface XXI
Richard, Mark M 1
Richardson, John. Jr 211
Robelo, Alfonso 46 1
Robinette, Glenn A 564
Rodriguez, Felix I 755
Roseman, David 811
Rosenblatt, William 883
Royer, Larry 995
Rudd, Glenn A 1 183
Rudd, Glenn A. (See Henry Gaffney)
Depositions
Volume 1
Airline Proprietary Project Officer.
Alvarez, Francisco J.
Allen, Charles.
Arcos, Cresencio.
Volume 2
Volume 3
Armitage, Richard.
Artiano, Martin L.
Associate DDO (CIA).
Baker, James A., III.
Barbules, Lt. Gen. Peter.
Bamett, Ana.
Bartlett, Linda June.
Bastian, James H.
Brady, Nicholas F.
Brown, Arthur E., Jr.
Byrne, Phyllis M.
Calero, Adolfo.
Castillo, Tomas ("W").
Cave, George W.
C/CATF.
Volume 4
Channell, Carl R.
Chapman, John R. (With Billy Ray Reyer).
Chatham, Benjamin P.
CIA Air Branch Chief.
CIA Air Branch Deputy Chief.
CIA Air Branch Subordinate.
CIA Chief.
CIA Communicator.
CIA Identity "A".
XV
Volume 5
CIA Officer.
Clagett. C. Thomas, Jr.
Clark, Alfred (With Gregory Zink).
Clarke, George.
Clarridge, Dewey R.
Cline, Ray S.
C/NE.
Cohen, Harold G.
Volume 6
Collier, George E.
Cole, Gary.
Communications Officer Headquarters, CIA.
Conrad, Daniel L.
Volume 7
Cooper, Charles J.
Coors, Joseph.
Corbin, Joan.
Corr, Edwin G.
Coward, John C.
Coy, Craig R
Crawford, Iain T.R.
Crawford, Susan.
Crowe, Adm. William J.
Currier, Kevin W
DCM, Country 15.
DEA Agent 1.
DEA Agent 2.
DEA Agent 3.
deGraffenreid, Kenneth,
de la Torre, Hugo.
Deputy Chief "DC".
Duemling, Robert W
DIA Major.
Dietel, J. Edwin.
Dowling, Father Thomas.
Dutton, Robert C.
Earl, Robert.
Volume 8
Volume 9
XVI
Volume 10
Farber, Jacob.
Feldman. Jeffrey.
Fischer, David C.
Floor, Emanuel A.
Former CIA Officer.
Fraser, Donald.
Fraser, Edie.
Fuller, Craig L.
Volume 11
Furmark, Roy.
Gadd, Richard.
Gaffney, Henry.
Gaffney, Henry (With Glenn A. Rudd).
Galvin, Gen. John R.
Gantt, Florence.
Garwood, Ellen Clayton.
Gast, Lt. Gen. Philip C.
Gates, Robert M.
Glanz, Anne.
Volume 12
George, Clair.
Godard, Ronald D.
Godson, Roy S.
Golden, William.
Gomez, Francis D.
Goodman, Adam.
Gorman, Paul F.
Graham, Daniel O.
Gregg, Donald P.
Gregorie, Richard D
Guillen, Adriana.
Hakim, Albert.
Hall, Wilma.
Hasenfus, Eugene.
Hirtle, Jonathan J.
Hooper, Bruce.
Volume 13
Volume 14
XVII
Hunt, Nelson Bunker.
IkJe, Fred C.
Jensen, D. Lowell.
Juchniewicz, Edward
Kagan, Robert W.
Keel, Alton G.
Kellner, Leon B.
Kelly, John H.
Kiszynski, George.
Koch, Noel C.
Kuykendall, Dan H.
Langton, William G.
Lawn, John C.
Leachman, Chris J., Jr.
Ledeen, Michael A.
Lei want, David O.
Lilac, Robert H.
Lincoln, Col. James B.
Littledale, Krishna S.
McDonald, John William.
McFarlane, Robert C.
McKay, Lt. Col. John C.
McLaughlin, Jane E.
McMahon, John N.
McMahon, Stephen.
McNeil, Frank.
Makowka, Bernard.
Marostica, Don.
Marsh, John.
Mason, Robert H.
Meese, Edwin IIL
Melton, Richard H.
Merchant, Brian T.
Meo, Philip H.
Miller, Arthur J.
Miller, Henry S.
Miller, Johnathan.
Volume 15
Volume 16
Volume 17
Volume 18
XVIII
Miller, Richard R.
Motley, Langhome A.
Mulligan, David R
Nagy. Alex G.
Napier, Shirley A.
Newington, Barbara.
North, Oliver L.
O'Boyle, William B.
Osborne, Duncan.
Owen, Robert W.
Pena, Richard.
Pickering, Thomas.
Poindexter, John M.
Posey, Thomas V.
Powell, Gen. Colin L.
Price, Charles H., II.
Proprietary Manager.
Proprietary Pilot.
Radzimski, James R.
Ramsey, John W.
Ransom, David M.
Volume 19
Volume 20
Volume 21
Volume 22
Raymond, Walter, Jr.
Regan, Donald T.
Reich, Otto J.
Revell, Oliver B.
Reyer, Billy Ray (See John Chapman).
Reynolds, William B.
Volume 23
Richard, Mark M.
Richardson, John, Jr.
Robelo, Alfonso.
Robinette, Glenn A.
Rodriguez, Felix I.
Roseman, David.
XIX
Rosenblatt, William.
Royer, Larry.
Rudd, Glenn A.
Rudd, Glenn A. (See Henry Gaffney).
Rugg, John J.
Russo, Vincent M.
Sanchez, Nestor.
Scharf, Lawrence.
Schweitzer, Robert L.
Sciaroni, Bretton G.
Secord, Richard V.
Shackley, Theodore G.
Sigur, Gaston J.
Simpson, Major C.
Sinclair, Thomas C.
Singlaub, John K.
Slease, Clyde H., IIL
Smith, Clifton.
Sofaer, Abraham D.
Steele, Col. James J.
Taft, William H., IV.
Tashiro, Jack T.
Teicher, Howard.
Thompson, Paul.
Tillman, Jacqueline.
Volume 24
Volume 25
Volume 26
Volume 27
Thurman, Gen. Maxwell.
Trott, Stephen S.
Tull, James L.
Vessey, John.
Walker, William G.
Watson, Samuel J., IIL
Weinberger, Caspar.
Weld, William.
Wickham, John.
Zink, Gregory (See Alfred Clark).
XX
Preface
The House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran
and the Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the
Nicaraguan Opposition, under authority contained in the resolutions establishing
them (H. Res. 12 and S. Res. 23, respectively), deposed approximately 290
individuals over the course of their 10-month joint investigation.
The use of depositions enabled the Select Committees to take sworn responses
to specific interrogatories, and thereby to obtain information under oath for the
written record and develop lines of inquiry for the public hearings.
Select Committees Members and staff counsel, including House minority
counsel, determined who would be deposed, then sought subpoenas from the
Chairmen of the Select Committees, when appropriate, to compel the individuals
to appear in nonpublic sessions for questioning under oath. Many deponents
received separate subpoenas ordering them to produce certain written documents.
Members and staff traveled throughout the United States and abroad to meet
with deponents. All depositions were stenographically reported or tape-recorded
and later transcribed and duly authenticated. Deponents had the right to review
their statements after transcription and to suggest factual and technical correc-
tions to the Select Committees.
At the depositions, deponents could assert their fifth amendment privilege
to avoid self-incrimination by refusing to answer specific questions. They were
also entitled to legal representation. Most Federal Government deponents were
represented by lawyers from their agency; the majority of private individuals
retained their own counsel.
The Select Committees, after obtaining the requisite court orders, granted
limited or "use" immunity to about 20 deponents. Such immunity means that,
while a deposed individual could no longer invoke the fifth amendment to avoid
answering a question, his or her compelled responses -or leads or collateral
evidence based on those responses -could not be used in any subsequent criminal
prosecution of that individual, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false
statement, or otherwise failing to comply with the court order.
An executive branch Declassification Committee, located in the White House,
assisted the Committee by reviewing each page of deposition transcript and some
exhibits and identifying classified matter relating to national security. Some
depositions were not reviewed or could not be declassified for security reasons.
In addition, members of the House Select Committee staff corrected obvious
typographical errors by hand and deleted personal and proprietary information
not considered germane to the investigation.
In these Depositions volumes, some of the deposition transcripts are follow-
ed by exhibits. The exhibits -documentary evidence- were developed by Select
Committees' staff in the course of the Select Committees' investigation or were
provided by the deponent in response to a subpoena. In some cases, where the
number of exhibits was very large, the House Select Committee staff chose for
inclusion in the Depositions volumes selected documents. All of the original
XXI
exhibits are stored with the rest of the Select Committees' documents with the
National Archives and Records Administration and are available for public in-
spection subject to the respective rules of the House and Senate.
The 27 volumes of the Depositions appendix, totalling more than 30,000 pages,
consist of photocopies of declassified, hand-corrected typewritten transcripts
and declassified exhibits. Deponents appear in alphabetical order.
XXII
Publications of the Senate and House
Select Committees
Report of the Congressional Committees Investigating the Iran-Contra Affair,
I volume, 1987.
Appendix A: Source Documents, 2 volumes, 1988.
Appendix B: Depositions, 27 volumes, 1988.
Appendix C: Chronology of Events, 1 volume, 1988.
Appendix D: Testimonial Chronology, 3 volumes, 1988.
All publications of the Select Committees are available from the U.S.
Government Printing Office.
XXIII
mimim
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE COVERT
ARMS TRANSACTIONS WITH IRAN
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
AND
SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECRET MILITARY ASSISTANCE
TO IRAN AND THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
UNITED STATES SENATE
Wednesday, August 19, 1987,
Washington, D.C.
Deposition of MARJ^ M. RICHARD, taken on behalf of the
Select Committees above cited, pursuant to notice, commencing
at 10:15 a.m. in Room 901 of the Hart Senate Office Building,
before William D. McAllister, a notary public in and for the
District of Columbia, when were present:
For the Senate Select Committee:
W. THOMAS McGOUGH, JR.
Associate Counsel
DAVE FAULKNER
For the House Select Committee:
PAMELA NAUGHTON
Assistant Counsel
Partially Declassified/Released on /'^^'^IC
ROBERT W. GENZMAN , under provisions of E.O. 12356
by N. Menan, National Security Council
82-732 0-88-2
UNCLASSIFIED
CONTENTS
Examination by counsel for
Page
House Select Conunittee (Ms. Naughton) 12, 21, 61, 74, 85,
89, 94, 113, 117, 119, 122, 144, 153, 156, 162, 170, 179, 191
Senate Select Conunittee (Mr. McGough) 3, 15, 23, 62, 75,
86, 90, 102, 115, 118, 120, 133, 147, 155, 159, 166, 173, 189
Richard Exhibits
Marked
48
53
67
81
102
104
132
140
UNCLASSIFIFO
UNCLASSIFIED
PROCEEDINGS
Whereupon,
MARK M. RICHARD was called as a witness and, after
having been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as
follows:
MR. McGOUGH: Let's go on the record. Let the
reflect that the witness has been sworn.
Mr. Richard, I'm Tom McGough from the Senate Select
Committee. Pam Naughton will be here in a moment. Dave
Faulkner is an investigator with the Senate Select Committee.
If there are any questions that I ask you that you don't
understand or would like me to clarity, please just stop me
and I'll be glad to do that.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q I'd like to start, if I could, by getting a little
bit of background. But first let me ask you if you'd state
your full name and current title.
A Mark M. Richard. I am deputy assistant attorney
general in the Criminal Division, Department of Justice.
Q What is your business address and business telephone
number?
A Department of Justice, 10th and Constitution 1
Avenues, N.w., wj^l^j^fjfnft flrt M^fTfVhone number, 633-2333.
imnr&wffiFfr'
SIlLASSinED
507 C Soot. N E
Vuhmroo. O C 20002
Q In your current position, what are your respon-
sibilities?
A I oversee three components within the Criminal
Division. Those three are the Internal Security Section, the
Office of International Affairs, and the Office of Special
Investigations, which is a component which focuses on
identifying and initiating legal action against ♦»» Nazis
living in the United States.
Q Against —
A Nazis.
Q Are you the only deputy, or are there other
deputies, Mr. Richard?
A There are a total of four deputies to the assistant
attorney general. Two of the deputies are career deputies,
and two are non-career deputies.
Q Who are the deputies at the present time?
A John C. Keeney is the senior deputy — he is a career
daputy; myself; Victoria Toensing — T-0-E-N-S-I-N-G; and Joe
Whitley. The latter tvro are non-career deputies.
when did you graduate from law school?
In 1967.
And from what law school?
Brooklyn Law School in Brooklyn, New York.
I understaf(|Kptl|ywf'0'iD(fv^^) ^^® Department of
Justice in 1967.
"mmm
UNCLASSIFIED
A That's correct — under the honor graduate program.
I have been with the department ever since.
Q In what position did you join the department?
A As a trial attorney.
Q In the Criminal Division?
A That's correct. I was assigned to the Fraud
Section as a trial attorney and essentially remained with the
section until 1976, when I was appointed chief of the Fraud
Section. And then in 1979 I assumed my current position.
Q Could you describe generally the duties of a trial
attorney in the Criminal Fraud Division?
A Well, at the time I had specific cases assigned to
me in various locations around the country, working alone or
with assistant U.S. attorneys out of particular U.S. Attorneys
Offices to develop investigations and prosecutions of various
white collar offenses falling within the jurisdiction of the
Fraud Section and to take these cases to completion through
grand jury and trial.
Q And then you became chief of that section in 1976,
is that correct?
A That's correct. In approximately 1972, following
several details of varying duration to U.S. Attorneys Offices
in Washington and in Louisiana, I was made chief of a newly
created major violators unit within the Fraud Section which
focused on interna
"tiWrttmnirifiY^^"-
#
'tK
. O C 20002
ONCUSSIFIED
In 1975 I was detailed to the then-deputy attorney
general-^ offige — deputy attorney general, excuse me — Harold
m
Tyler, where I served for approximately six months as trra "^
staff diragter'-feo a newly created white collar crime committee
headed by Judge Tyler.
And then in 1976 I was appointed to the position of
chief of the Fraud Section.
Q What was the next professional step?
A In 1979, the then-assistant attorney general in
charge of the Criminal Division, Phil Hyman, elevated me to
ray current position, although I did not at that time neces-
sarily have the same components under my supervision.
Q How long have your components remained as they are
now? How long have they been like that?
A Assigned to me or as —
Q No. How long have you been handling those three
components?
A I've handled our Office of Special Investigations
since its creation in 1979. With respect to the Internal
Security Section, I believe I assumed responsibility for its
oversight following the departure of Robert Keek, who I
believe^in 1980 [sicl. I have/^ovorainht responsibilities
WWtf
since that time
As for the Office of International Affairs, I think
if my memory serves me correct, in 1979 when it was created byi
UNCUSSIRED
Mr. Hyman, I assumed responsibility for its oversight and
remained responsible for their operations until, I believe,
approximately 1982 when Mr. Jensen, who was then the assistant
attorney general, assigned responsibility for that office to
then-Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Olsen.
At that period, I also was responsible for the
oversight of our General Litigation Section, primarily
because at that time we were functioning only, I think, with
three deputies rather than the current four. During this
same period I had additional oversight responsibilities for
our Narcotics Section, our Office of Administration, and I
think that's about it.
Q Let's take the three over which — were just dis-
cussed— Special Investigations, Internal Security, and
International Affairs. Could you tell me what the jurisdic-
tion of each of those was? Start with Special Investigations.
A As I said, they are responsible for identifying and
initiating legal action against former Nazis who are residing
in this country illegally.
Q Is that their only responsibility?
A Essentially, although they have from time to time
been tasked by the attorney general or the deputy attorney
general with related activities, such as focusing on the
question of U.S. government involvement in hiding Nazis after
World War II, such^^^ t^lP-Klaug Jar^ie matter, we've, also
jftfHi'^JfJtilYrirn
UNCLASSIRED
been tasked to try to locate and establish whether Joseph
Mengele is alive. And those types of assignments have come
from time to time to the OSI operation.
Q Let's turn to Internal Security. What's its area?
A Internal Security is responsible for overseeing the
administration of various internal security statutes,
including those relating to espionage, export control laws,
unauthorized disclosures of classified information, and the
operation of the Classified Information Procedures Act — the
so-called CIPA. Those are the primary responsibilities of
our Internal Security Section.
Q And in International Affairs?
A International Affairs is a support organization
that is primarily responsible for securing evidence abroad
for use by both federal and state prosecutors, arranging for
the extradition of fugitives to this country and handling the
extradition requests of treaty partners around the world,
negotiating treaties for extradition, mutual legal assistance
as well as prisoner transfers. Essentially, those are the
primary responsibilities of our Office of International
Affairs.
Q As a general matter ,|
Neutrality Act matters
A Well, specifically the Internal Security Section.
Q And how about Antidef iciency Act matters? And the
::::'tmOTEr
ONCUSSIFIED
subset of that may be Boland Amendment sorts of pronunci-
ations .
A I'm not sure those particular statutes have been
assigned, if you will. Certainly the Boland Act would not be
nominally assigned because of the lack of criminal penalties.
The Antideficiency Act, if I'm not mistaken, has some
regulatory penalties, but to my understanding its administra-
tion has largely involved, if you will, questions about its
import— largely involved only the Civil Division to deal
with. But there is a chart, if you will, of specific
assignments. I would refer you to that chart.
Q That would be the U.S. Attorneys manual?
What I'd like to do is run down some names and ask
you about your first contact with some of these people and
also the scope of your contact, if any. Some of the people
you may not have any contact with. The first would be Oliver
North. In your service with the federal had--what, if any,
contact, did you have with him?
A I recall two occasions where I've had contact with
him directly. One related to an effort to clear some
proposed anti-terrorist legislation that we at the department
had been very interested in. And a lot of this was post-Ed
Wilson inquiry. We had, as a result of our experiences in
the Wilson matter, come up with a variety of legislative
proposals which we were
rr^Tmi*(«ffl^H
dopted by the
10
UNCUSSIFIED
administration and submitted to Congress for action.
I would place that contact in early '84, and it
involved an attempt to resolve a dispute which had emerged
between us and the CIA with respect to one particular
proposal. I think it was four or five specific legislative
proposals that we had prepared, and one of them was causing
particular concern to the CIA.
MS. NAUGHTON! Can we get more specific on that?
Was that the provision to make it a crime to plot to kill
someone outside the United States?
MR. RICHARD: That's correct. This arose from our
experience, like I said, in the Wilson case, we had a series
of individuals in the United States who were planning to
assassinate — in that case I think it was Libyan dissidents
who were located in Europe or other places outside the United
States.
And we had particular difficulty asserting jurisdic-
tion under existing statutes for such activities. In that
piirticular case, we arguably had some jurisdiction only
because gratuitously some of the overt acts took place in the
District of Columbia, and we were able to use D.C. provisions
for dealing with solicitation? But I assume we regarded that
as merely gratuitous that it occurred there, and but for that
fact we would not have had federal jurisdiction over the
transaction
m^ hmm
11
UNCLASSIHED
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q What was Colonel North's role in the process?
A Well, as I recall, a meeting was called. Stanley
Sporkin was there and others, but I cannot identify them.
It's hazy. We were at the Old Executive Office Building. I
was seated in a fairly small office, and all I recall of this
was that there was something else going on because people
were constantly running in and out of the room. And there
was very little substantive resolution. After about a half
hour, the meeting seemed to terminate with, "Well, can't you
try to work it out with the CIA?"
There was major pressure, if you will, to have some
resolution because it appearec that there was--I don't know
whether it was a leak or an authorized statement that came
out of, I think, the White House announcing the fact that
there was this, I think, five or six chapter title proposed
anti-terrorism bill that was about to go up to the Hill.
Maybe I'm speculating somewhat. Maybe it was in
connection withT^tate of the union addressee. I don't
recall. But it was in the January context.
Q Do you recall any specific input that Colonel might
have had?
A No, other than "Can't you work it out?" He really
to be involved in something else at the moment.
I cannot, in terms of timing, tell you whether the
12
UNCUSSIFIED
1 proposed resolution that we had agreed on was accomplished
2 before the meeting or after the meeting. But we had — I
3 thought — worked out an arrangement whereby we provided the
4 CIA with a letter regarding the scope and applicability of
5 this proposed statute. And the thrust of our letter was that
/K6 we had envisioned that this particular proposal 44»*t would be
Ijf' 1 placed in Title XVIII in that portion.. >
8 MR. McGOUGH: Let the record reflect that Robert
9 Genzman, assistant minority of the House Committee, is in the
10 room.
11 MR. RICHARD: If I may continue.
12 MR. McGOUGH: Sure.
13 MR. RICHARD: We had indicated that we intended
14 this particular portion to go in the foreign relations
15 chapter of Title XVIII, which we at Justice had interpreted
16 as not applying to authorized government conduct. The CIA
17 was concerned that, as written, the statute would arguably
18 apply to authorized CIA activities.
19 MR. McGOUGH: You said there was a second meeting
20 with—
21 MS. NAUGHTON: Can I?
22 MR. McGOUGH: Sure.
23 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
24 COMMITTEE
"Is BY MS. NAUGHTON:
UNCIASSIHED
13
uNcusno
Q You said before that Casey had insisted on some
sort of express--
A That's correct.
Q — disclaimer on this. Was Casey personally, do you
recall?
A I certainly didn't deal with him personally on
this issue. My recollection is that Casey wanted assurances
that this proposal would not reach authorized conduct of the
agency. My information would have come from Stan Sporkin.
After we had devised this letter — and I think even
sent it over Lowell Jensen's signature--and had occasion to
discuss it with Mr. Sporkin and received clear indication
from him that this was acceptable, I subsequently learned
that DOD had gone to Mr. Casey and had voiced serious
concerns whether the letter was adequate to protect duly
authorized government conduct.
The agency had then taken the position that the
latter was not acceptable and that they would only go along
with an express provision in the statute exempting authorized
intelligence activities. The resolution, as I recall, was
that Lowell Jensen, who at this time was the associate
attorney general, felt that that was not acceptable. And
ultimately that particular provision was dropped from the
package. ■•. 2 j ^J J ., j
r provision was
mm
That's my recollection of the whole transaction.
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
'fie
19
20
21
22
23
24
15
UNCLASSIREO
Q You mean the whole provision which would have made
it illegal to conspire to kill someone — to conspire in the
United States to kill someone was dropped from the anti-
terrorist —
A That particular proposed legislation, yes. It was
excluded from the package transmitted to Congress. That's my
recollection.
Q when Sporkin or anyone from the CIA or DOD, for
that matter, voiced their opposition to those provisions, did
they give any specific examples?
A No. Their concern was that it wouldn't provide
sufficient assurances to protect their personnel and that
citing the letter would not provide the comprehensive
assurances that they were seeking that personnel — duly
authorized personnel — engaging in activities otherwise
covered by the statute would not fall within the statute.
The statute, as I recall, reached not only assassi-
nations and assaults and other types of physical violence
directed against individuals abroad. So it wasn't just a
question of prohibition on murder. It was a prohibition on
any assault, if I recall correctly!
Q And was the section concerned Just solely with CIA
personnel and DOD personnel or their assets as well?
A I don't recall it coming down to that kind of
specificity in the discussion. It was just more generalized-
it was a proniDition oi
UNCLASSIHED
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
HC.
25
UNcussm
him concerned about the personnel .
Q Did your letter, do you recall, refer just to
personnel--in other words, U.S. government employees — or did
it cover assets as well?
A I think it talked about duly authorized conduct.
I'm not sure that it focused on any particular classes of
individuals .
This letter is available — I mean, the materials are
available. I'm not sure if they were included, but if you
need it, I'd be glad to send it over to you.
MS. NAUGHTON: Okay. Thank you.
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q You mentioned in your answer that there was a
second conversation with Colonel North.
A Yes. That's correct.
This related to what I referred to as the^^^^B
^^H matter.
Q Let's set that aside for a moment, because I'm
going to come that. He'll talk about that in a little more
detail. And I'll just a note to ask you about Colonel
North's involvement with that.
Was that a single meeting that you were in?
A That's correct.
Q
Le meeting tnat you were
UNCLASSIHED
r
Any other contact with Colonel North that you--
I d©o,i* recallTthose two contacts. I must confess-
16
nmssm
I mean, I have attended so many meetings. I don't recall him
being in any other meeting, but it is possible.
Q Let me ask you about John Poindexter. When do you
first recall meeting Admiral Poindexter?
A Well, the first meeting--it 's hard to date other
than saying some time in '81.
And the context is a group that was established by
the White House to meet weekly to review outstanding informa-
tion that had been received by various agencies relating to
— pcrte«*-i*i possible threats against the security of the
president. It started apparently in response to information
indicating that Colonel Khadaffi had sent in or was attempting
to send in hit squads to assassinate the president.
And the White House, under Ed Hickey, who was — I
understood to be some special assistant to the president,
began to chair weekly meetings attended by a variety of
agency personnel. Justice had been asked to participate, and
my understanding was the Director Webster had asked that in
addition to the FBI sending a representative that the
Department of Justice also send a representative. In that
fashion, I was tasked by — I think it was Lowell Jensen, who
was then the ass_i_stant attorneY_qene£al , to represent the
department .
At these meetings, more often than not I went with
Jeff Harris, who was then a deputy associate attorney general
17
UNCLASSIHED
reporting to the associate attorney general, Rudy Giuliani.
I apologize for being so long-winded, but it was in
the context of those meetings that I first met Admiral
Poindexter. He attended a good number of the meetings. If
not personally, a representative of the NSC was always
present at the meetings .
So I met him in that context.
Q We're going to bring up in a few minutes a little
bit about the Wilson matter and whether that was discussed in
the context of those meetings .
Outside the context of those meetings did you have
any contact with Admiral Poindexter?
A I had, I recall, one meeting with him relating to
one aspect of the Wilson matter.
Q This was a one-on-one meeting?
A No, the senior assistant U.S. attorney responsible
for this particular aspect, Larry Barcella, was with me.
Q Can you put any kind of time frame on that?
^_ A ■?«*. Could we stop the record and discuss?
UNCIASSIRED
MR. McGOUGH; Sure.
[Recess
MR'. McGOUGH: While we were off the record we were
discussing the contours of the questions and answers that are
going to follow in order to avoid any disclosure of classified
information, and with the witness' permission I will try just
18
jlbK
DNCUSSIflEO
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
^
to lead hiro through a short number of questions.
BY MR- McGOUGH:
Q We were referring, when we broke, to a meeting with
Admiral Poindexter at which Mr. Barcella also attended.
Would it be fair to say that you were at that meeting to
request Admiral Poindexter 's assistance in an aspect of the
Wilson investigation that involved the State Department?
A That's correct.
Q I think at that point that's all we really needed
for the record at this point.
All right, then. Outside the Hie key subgroup and
the meeting with Admiral Poindexter that we just discussed,
did you have any other contact with Admiral Poindexter?
A I don't recall any other meetings with him.
Q Any phone calls or correspondence with him?
A I don't recall, except that — I don't recall any,
except that after Wilson was apprehended there was concern
because the individual who had used Wilson to--had apparently
on his ownTWithout authorization from the Department of
Justice composed a letter purporting to be from the NSC to
Wilson. And I had been contact, by a representative of the
NSC making inquiry with respect to this alleged letter. I
don't recall who initially attempted to reach me, but I think
I ultimately discussed the issue with an individual by the
name of Tanter — Ray Tanter.
iiMniA<;RiFiFn
19
ONCLASSIHED
Q Phonetic— T-A-N-T-E-R7
A Yes. Something like that. But conceivably--and
for that matter, either Colonel North or Admiral Poindexter
may have been trying to initially reach me.
Q Did you ever discuss — to your recollection — or
communicate with Admiral Poindexter on any Justice Department
investigation other than the Wilson matter?
A No, not that I recall.
Q Now, I'm going to also go down a number of names
which will be familiar to you, I'm sure. But my question is
really whether you had had any personal contact with them,
whether it be meetings, telephone calls, correspondence of
any kind, or anyone who represented — strike that — I was going
to say anyone who represented they spoke on their behalf — some
of these people who were represented by attorneys — someone
other than an attorney who was appearing who came to you on
their behalf or as an agent for them.
Richard Secord — have you ever had any personal
contact with him?
A I have never personally met the man. He obviously
was a target of what I call the Wilson investigation.
Q But you never had any personal contact with him?
Albert Hakim.
A The same category as General Secord
Thomas l^lines.
as General Secord.
IINClASSinFD
20
507 C Sotti. N E
UNCLASSIFIED
A Same.
Q Rafael Quintero.
A I've never met the man. He of course figured in
the Wilson inquiry.
Q Erich Von Marbad.
A He was a target of the Wilson inquiry.
Q Again, have you ever met him personally?
A No. No, I haven't met him.
Q Michael Ledeen.
A I have never met Michael Ledeen.
Q Have you ever communicated with him or exchanged
correspondence with him, spoken to him on the phone--to the
best of your recollection?
A I don't believe so. I forget your admonition with
respect to his attorney.
Q Well, maybe — what I wanted to do was — I know you've
met — you've spoken probably to attorneys who represented some
of these people.
A Yes.
Q Have you spoken to an attorney who represented Mr.
Ledeen?
A I don't recall. Let me, if I may, just explain why
I'm hesitant
I had occasion within 't"fie~last 18 months to address
a congressional inquiry regarding Mr. Ledeen which, if I
21
WUSSIflED
4
recall correctly, was prompted by articles which appeared in
Italian newspapers concerning his involvement with some--what
was then viewed as scandals in Italy.
And some questions were raised in the article
regarding Mr. Ledeen which prompted *he congressional
inquiries of the department concerning his security clearance.
It was something along those lines. I don't recall with great
precision, but I think I had occasion to prepare a proposed
response to that congressional inquiry based on some FBI
reports that were made available to me.
During the course of that, I have no recollection
of talking to an attorney, but on the other hand, if you tell
me who the attorney is that represented Mr. Ledeen, that may
be helpful.
Q I don't know the answer.
A That's okay. I have no specific recollection of
talking to the attorney, but I did handle an aspect of the
congressional inquiry at that time.
Q How about Theodore Shakley?
MS. NAUGHTON: Excuse me. Could I ask a question?
MR. McGOUGH: Of course
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q I've seen that correspondence, and what I wanted to
know was did the attorney general actually participate in any
of that? Did you discuss this issue with him?
course.
UNCIASSIRED
22
_ 1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
a CO.. MC
25
icussm
A I don't recall discussing it directly with the
attorney general. I recall the matter being at Ken Cribbs '
level. He was then, I think, counsel to the attorney
general.
And it was — I was asked to attend a meeting in his
office, and I believe present in addition to myself w»s Ken
Cribbs and Judy Hanunerschmidt , who was part of the attorney
general's staff. I just don't recall her specific title.
They had apparently — this congressional inquiry —
and didn't know how to respond to it. And they showed it to
me, and I -h^ suggested that it be sent to the Criminal
Division for normal processing, which is what I think
ultimately happened.
But I don't recall ever having occasion to discuss
it directly with the attorney general or anyone else, for
that matter.
Q Was Ellen Gersen present for that meeting?
A It's possible.
Q Did anyone at that meeting ever refer to any
meetings they had had with Michael Ledeen on any subject?
A I don't recall. It was more of a how-do-we-handle
meeting — how do we respond to the congressional inquiry? It
was from one of the intelligence committeesj
Q What I'm curious about is in the normal course how
this is handled. The Office of Legislative Affairs would
m
23
UNCUSSIFIED
normally, l imagine, route that to you as a matter of course.
A That's correct.
Q How is it that it got to Cribbs ' attention?
A I have no idea.
MS. NAUGHTON: Thank you.
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q I believe you were talking about whether you had
every-day contact with Theodore Shakley.
A Again, the answer would be no, although he was part
of the Wilson inquiry.
Q How about the Max Gomez or Felix Rodriguez names?
The same person, two possible names.
A I've heard the name. If I'm not mistaken, I first
heard it in the context of the Wilson inquiry, but maybe I'm
wrong .
Q But you've never had any contact with him?
A No.
Q Donald Gregg — have you ever worked with Mr. Gregg
or had any contact with him?
A I have no recollection. My only hesitancy is it is
not unusual to attend meetings, especially at the State
Oepartment-fa cast of thousands, where you at times send
around a sign-in sheet. But whether he is at a meeting that
I'm at--it's conceivable!
Q Let me turn — let's turn, if we could, in a little
out wiiei.neL^ ne is ac a i
'INClASSIRFn
24
jlb24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
'Ik 10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
■un Nooimta co.. mc.
«7CSm«. NE 25
Wuhuiroa. 0 C 2000)
"}//(
UNCLASSIFIED
more detail to the Wilson matter. And let's start, although
I don't think we'll tarry long at it, at the beginning and
when you first became aware that the investigation--that
there was an investigation being conducted and Mr. Wilson was
involved.
A Well, I would place it probably in '81, when the
papers were carrying daily revelations of massive CIA-related
illegalities, all revolving around Wilson and his associates.
And it was a tremendous media blitz on the Wilson-^illegal
activities thay were engaged in by the intelligence community.
At that time, as I recall, different aspects
seemingly were of interest to probably six to ten different
U.S. Attorneys Offices around the country. And we were
terribly disjointed, no one knowing what was going on.
And it was apparent to me that the matter was being
poorly handled, in my judgment. I expressed that observation
to both Lowell Jensen and Rudy Giuliani, who were then the
^ssociatetf — someone's got to ride herd on this because the
ailsgations were — if they were true — obviously very serious
but also suggesting that there was tremendous overlap in
investigations, one district targeting the other one's
witnesses, and the other one targeting the other's subject.
It was something that cried out for some coordinatior. . There
were--in addition to the U.S. Attorney problems, you had a
whole panoply of different investigative agencies all over
25
jlb25
_ 1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
©
^
18
5^
o^.
^^
^:
■usiwomwaco.
"^c
>07 C Simr, N E
25
UNCLASSIRED
the place seemingly not coordinating.
At or about the same time, I think the FBI came to
the departments ae-'-do something to bring this matter under
control in terms of setting up a comprehensive investigative
and prosecutorial effort here. Accusations, of course, were
flying all over the place with respect to government com-
plicity, CIA cover-ups, and what have you.
Ultimately a meeting of all interested agencies and
U.S. Attorneys Offices was convened. It was held in the
auditorium of the FBI. I kid you not, just in terms of the
number of interested parties.
I mean, it was really — it was just a bizarre
phenomenon. Because everything that was ever wrong with this
country was being attributed to Wilson. And everything wws a<
Wilson connection. And we just didn't know if there was any
substance or not to it. Obviously, I'm being facetious.
So there was a need to try to bring it all together
and coordinate the inquiries.
What emerged was my assignment to be responsible
for trying to pull it together and make some sense to the
investigation and prosecution. And that's how the Wilson
task force, if you will, came to be created.
Q Did you select a district or districts that would
act as the center of gravity or the lead in the investigation?
Or how did you--how did you bring it all together, I guess is
26
mmsim
_ 1 my question.
2 A Well, at that time the focus of the allegations, as
3 you know, were in the District of Columbia. And we had Larry
4 Barcella, who had, if I'm not mistaken, already brought down
5 charges against Wilson and others. There were several
6 ongoing inquiries that were based in D.C., but even those
7 inquiries--upon analysis, it was clear that the venue for the,
'^8 kinds of dofonooc that they were looking at was elsewhere.
9 So we brought in other districts as the information
10 began emerging. We brought in many districts — Houston, in
11 particular, Virginia, Colorado. We had resolved one aspect
12 of this in Philadelphia where we quickly established that
13 that was not a Wilson matter, if you will. And we began
14 tapping into other resources from those U.S. Attorneys
15 Offices.
16 There came a point in time when the FBI at my request
17 had, in effect, categorized all the Wilson allegations and
18 had come up with some 50 or 60 different transactions, if you
19 will, which in my judgment had to be examined during the
20 course of this effort. And they ranged from classical
21 bribery to espionage_^_ illegal exportation of guns, explosives
22 and the like.
23 I had — I did, in fact, convene" regular meetings of
24 both the key prosecutors and the key investigative agencies
25 where we would — well, let me back up. First I assigned out
27
UNCLASSinED
primary responsibility for all of these transactions to
different offices and prosecutors, based on what appeared to
be logical venue at that time as then known.
And then we would meet regularly — this is primarily
at the investigative stage--to ensure that each agency and
each U.S. Attorneys Office involved would know what other
agencies were doing and planning to do with respect to
developing their particular reBpenaiblc areas.
We also tapped into some Criminal Division attorneys
that were utilized to augment the U.S. Attorney complements.
I trust that's responsive.
Q There came a time in early 1982, I believe, when the
EATSCO aspect of the investigation was assigned to the
Eastern District of Virginia, is that correct? Can you tell
me what went into that decision and how it came about?
A Well, I think it was clear that for that particular
case, the venue was there. I mean, you had a defrauding of--
if anything — the Pentagon. And that was a logical place for
It was seemingly the kind of case that required, in
my judgment, someone with a white collar crime background.
It was more a paper case. And we were very fortunate to have,
in my judgment, someone I consider to be an extremely good,
accomplished prosecutor in the w^^t^, ficilV^iiinig_aj;£A^ Ted
Greenberg, who was in Virginia.
wnmm
28
jlb28
%
VK
wm&m
And looking around for alternative venue, on
reflection, I'm not sure it had some of the--that were in
Rhode Island and elsewhere around the country. I'm not sure
that there was any other TV>hat I would consider to b« logical
venue other than in Virginia.
Q Did Mr. Barcella in the District of Columbia
express dismay or any problem with that assignment?
A Well, Larry Barcella wanted to be the head of the
entire task force. He wanted to be responsible for all
cases. What Larry didn't appreciate was that he was not
well-liked in terms of his ability to get along with other
agencies and other prosecutors. To me, that was a--as being
able to coordinate this kind of multi-district effort.
Q Did--in particular regard to the venue on the
EATSCO investigation, did you discuss that with the people
who were then your superiors in the Department of Justice?
A I don't recall specific discussions, but I was in
close communication with the U.S. Attorneys Office in the
Diatrict of Columbia. In fact, they were very concerned and
almost insisted on being present at every meeting that Larry
had with us because they wanted to be sure that they were
apprised of what was going on.
Q This was who?
A I think at that JtJ|ne.^welJ.,^i^ was-^oe DiGenova l/
was the first assistant
'^
29
UNcussra
C
Q This was the U.S. Attorneys Office in Washington?
A John Hume, I think, was head of the Criminal
Division. He was very interested in making sure that he knew
what Larry was doing.
Q And Larry was in his office.
A Larry was in his office, yes.
Q Did you ever — leading up to that decision, did you
receive any input on that — on the allocation of that case to
the Eastern District of Virginia from anyone outside the
Department of Justice? Did anyone— did you solicit anyone's
opinion or receive anyone's recommendation as to whether that
case should be assigned to someone else out of the department'
A I don't recall. Those decisions, quite candidly,
as to where to assign the cases was, as I recall, largely
made by me based on my assessment of what we had inTthe
strength of a particular office, the venue, what else was on
their plate in terms of assignments, and what have you.
Q But no one from the NSC or from the White House or
the Department of Defense or State approached you or communi-
cated with you regarding that decision.
A I'm not even sure that they were aware of it.
Q Or the CIA — I should throw in that.
A Well, I mean I'm sure they became obviously aware
of it very quickly as to how we were
mean, it was no secret what we were doing
::ill:rii.<!!tin
30
jlb30
r
9
10
^11
E^
!^
S=> -
ARVomwaco
C Sc««. N E.
HC.
25
UNCUSSIFIED
But let me say the--position of Larry. Larry had
tremendous knowledge, certainly at the outset of this
particular case — knowledge that was of value. He had the
historical knowledge that was important. And I tried to
integrate him to the extent I thought appropriate in other
cases, including the EATSCO case and including the case in
Houston and even in the case in New York.
So tfe-^3 not a suggestion that Larry was cut out of
the process. He was aware and had, as far as I'm concerned,
ample opportunities to have input in critical decisions--in
fact •**»«., if you look at the record, participated in many
Eastern District grand jury sessions. But in terms of a
tactical judgment where to put this case, the record is there
Q Were you aware that at or about that same time —
that is, when the decision was made that venue lay in the
Eastern District of Virginia — that Mr. Barcella had been
approached by Michael Ledeen? Had you ever heard anything in
that regard?
A When you say approached, I'm not sure what you mean
Q That he had had a contact from Michael Ledeen
regarding the investigation.
A I don't recall that. Somebody at some point —
someone told me that Larry Barcella had purchased his house
from Ledeen, but I don't know when I heard this or from whom.
I don't recall--Michael Ledeen — I may have known that, but--
31
4''
?Ks
uNcussra
It doesn't ring a belli
Let me back up to what Qitg£ncl«d — it's important.
The original referral or contact with the individual that
subsequently assisted in inducing Wilson to leave Libya was
through the NSC Newspaperman Hersch brought this individual
to Allen, who was then the National Security advisor. And
With the representation -of this individual could somehow help
in obtaining the apprehension of Wilson, that individual was
subsequently referred over to the department.
But I don't think Ledeen was involved in that. I
just don't recall Ledeen being involved in the Wilson matter.
Q Let's return, if we could, to the Hickey subgroup
meetings, at which you said Admiral Poindexter was in
attendance — at some of them, at any rate.
A That's correct.
Q The Wilson case came up in the context of those
meetings on one or more occasions, did they not?
A That's correct. I would generally raise it only
wlMn the group was discussing events or upcoming events that
might trigger a reaction from a foreign power. And it was in
this context that I would mention a particular event which
might happen or we anticipated would happen in the near
future which, as I said, might spark a response from
foreign power
Q In the context of those briefings or in the
I said, mi
32
UNCLASSIFIED
information that you passed on to the rest of the group, did
Major General Secord's name ever arise?
A I don't recall his name coming up in the context of
those meetings. The only thing I could suggest is that there
was a secretary present in most if not all of the meetings
that took what I always assumed were minutes. I have never
seen them. And I would refer you to those minutes.
Q Whose secretary would that have been?
A I always assumed it was someone from Mr. Mickey's
staff. I don't have a name to offer.
Q Do you know if the minutes were ever transcribed?
A I don't.
Q Did you ever see any typed or written minutes of
the meetings after the meetings that occurred?
A I don't recall seeing them. It certainly was not
routine to distribute minutes or anything like that.
Q Let me return to the question. Actually, we hit it
right on the head. To your knowledge, was General Secord's
naae mentioned in the course of the discussion of the Wilson
case — at any point?
A I don't recall. The subject of Egypt on occasion
did come up. But I cannot recall ever specifically mentioning
General Secord, nor could I focus in on any event that was
going to occur that would have suggested a
raised it in the context of this meeting J ■' 1 ^ f J
FIED
33
M7 C SotTT N E
_ 1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
DO CO. MC.
25
UNcussire
But let
not somathinq t>\
say, if I may, that it was at this time
particularly secret about the EATSCO
investigation and the involvement of General Secord. We
had — I forget whether we instituted or recommended it — at any
rate. General Secord had been suspended as a result of this
investigation. I think there were numerous articles about
the investigation, its impact on Egypt, and what have you.
So the fact that we were investigating the general
was no secret at that time. We had briefed various congres-
sional committees about the matter. It was just something
that was Taare'iy public — going on.
Q Is it fair to say that as the investigation and
particularly the capture of Mr. Wilson played out that there
developed some tension between the FBI and some of the other
agencies or entities involved in the investigation?
A Well, one of the forces at work, if you will, that
led to the creation of this effort and coordination was the
ongoing tension between investigative agencies. And there
was a certain degree of tension between the FBI and Larry
Barcella.
Q What was _the_source ^f_that tension, as best you
could understand?
A Well, here you have — depending on how you wish to
look at a given transaction--you have agencies with a variety
of overlapping jurisdictions. A given transaction could give
the source of that tensJ
UNCLASSIFIED
34
UNCLASSinEO
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ICO.. HC
rise to FBI jurisdiction as well ATF, as well as Customs, and
what have you.
And I think you did have questions about the--you
know, what one agency was doing on one aspect and the other
agency feeling they should be the lead agency and what have
you. I mean, it's classical jurisdictional squabbles.
So part of the justification, if you will, i think,
for needing this coordinated effort was to reduce, if not
eliminate, this inter- jurisdictional problem.
Q Let's take about a five-minute recess here. I want
to clear up some things and stand up. Everybody stretch
their legs.
[Recess]
MR. McGOUGH: Let's go back on the record.
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q Speaking of the Wilson matter for a few more
minutes — in the course of the investigation, did you ever
laarn or hear about any interest in the investigation on the
pajTt of Erich Von Marbad?
A Well, he was a target of the investigation.
Q Were you aware of any attempt by Mr. Von Marbad or
anyone associated with him to i^y^ffjgf th^:^v^^JL^^on
through governmental channels?
A I don't know whether it was through Mr. Von
„- . . .-^ — u-_i. .._ T u.™ . ^»,.„no,.,.{„„ that I think
35
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
xm MMimM CO.. wc
t C Sorer. N E 2 5
UNCLASSIFIED
it was his attorney attempted at the outset to bring to the
NSC's attention what the attorney characterized as the
potential dire consequences on our relations with Egypt that
would flow from this inquiry.
If I recall correctly, Bob K4iM«, who was I think
then the general counsel of the NSC, was the one who was
handling it. The State Department was going to meet or was
pushing a meeting between the NSC and I think it was counsel
for Von Marbad. I believe so. And I think, if my memory
serves me correctly, we went through the ceiling and said no
meeting — don't meet with them. And if I recall correctly, we
were successful in cutting it off.
I must admit that my memory is vague, but I would
refer you to Jeff Smith, who's on Senator Nunn's staff, who
at that time was working with us — working with me very
closely — on the EATSCO matter. He was at the legal advisor's
office of the State Department. And I think this issue--he
and I worked together to turn off this effort, if you will.
Q In the course of your contact with the Wilson
investigation, did it ever--was there ever brought to your
attention any attempt to influence the investigation that you
felt was improper, be it on behalf of Mr. Von Marbad or
anyone else?
A Quite'cand'idly, 1 Rave no recollection of anything
that I would describe as undue influence or attempted
DNCUSSIFIED
1 influence. I obviously kept my superiors apprised of
2 developments. They were interested in different aspects of
3 the case. But they never, to my recollection, suggested
4 courses of action or vetoed courses of action that we wanted
5 to take.
6 So I guess the answer to your question is no.
7 Q Let's turn, if we could, to the hostage situation
8 and various plans — possibilities for rescuing them. Then
9 again, if we get into an area that you feel is still clas-
10 sified, let me know and we'll try to finesse it as best we
11 can.
12 But prior to the — do you have a recollection that
13 you wanted to add to the record?
14 A What would — I'm hesitating — going back to your last
15 question. One aspect of the Wilson inquiry which we looked
16 into was the relationship or possible relationship of Wilson
17 and associates with a senator. And there was concern
18 expressed because — or at least conveyed to me that I had
19 opened an investigation and commenced an investigation
20 without clearing it with my superiors that involved launching
21 investigation of the senator.
22 Q Was that investigation ultimately launched?
23 A Yes.
24 Q You say concern was expn
25 expressed concern to you about
1
:iNctESinEir
37
jlb37
50
00
UNCLASSIFIED
A It was more of a surprise that I had done it
without apparently clearing it or advising my superiors of
that effect. I'd be speculating that it was probably Lowell
Jensen, but I don't recall. It was what I regarded as a mila
reprimand for not following procedures, at least as they
perceived them.
Q Did he indicate that he had received a reprimand or
an input from anyone else that sparked his own approach to
you?
A There was some surprise being expressed that it was
done without knowledge of higher officials within the
department. It was a reprimand for failure to notify rather
than focusing on substance. At least, I interpreted it that
way.
Q We have to ask for the record who the senator was .
I assume — with the caveat this is a committee document which
will be classified as committee sensitive and would not be
released absent a majority vote of the committees. At least
that aspect — any aspect of it would have to —
A Well, it involved Senator Thurmond.
Q An alleged contact with Mr. Wilson.
A Not — I don't — if I recall correctly, I don't
believe directly with Kr. Wilson. It was his associate who
indirectly was trying to purportedly influence the senator ir
some fashion to accomplish some bidding on Wilson's behalf.
ONCUSSIRED
Q All right. Let's turn to hostage rescues, if we
could.
Prior to the revelations of the arms deal in
November of '86, I understand that you were involved in
several possible efforts to rescue or ransom or secure the
release of the hostages. Could you itemize the ones in which
you were involved. And we may ask you about some of the
others in a minute.
A Not in any particular order.
I But at any rate, the
Southern District was interested in acquiring some assistance
from Switzerland, and in that fashion I became involved in
working with the Southern District to accomplish their
prosecutive objectives.
So there came a point in time when Andre Serena,
who was then the assistant legal advisor at the State
Department, thought that it might be fruitful to explore the
possibility of — maybe we should go off the record.
MR. McGOUGH: For the classified stuff?
MR. RICHARD: Yes.
MR. McGOUGH: Let's go off.
[Recess ]
UNClASSinED
uNcussm
MR. McGOUGH: Going back on the record after we
have had the discussion about classified matters in the
context of hostage release or rescue plans.
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q Mr. Richard, let's refer to one you raised before
we broke,
)07 C Siren N E
I correct so far?
A That's correct.
Q And while the Justice Department gave its input on
the matter, the plan itself never really materialized.
A To my knowledge, it never did.
Q Let's turn to another incident of which — which we
discussed off the record. It involved, did it not, a
fugitive who was under indictment in the United States who--
again, through an intermediary — offered to set up a meeting
with Iranian official to discuss possible release of the
hostages. Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And the fugitive or his intermediary offered to do
UNCLASSIFIED
40
UNCLASSIFIED
)07 C Sum. N E
1 that in exchange for some consideration on the outstanding
2 criminal charges.
3 A Some unspecified consideration — yes.
4 Q Did the conversations — or did the discussions of
5 that proposal include, to the best of your recollection, any
6 mention or reference to what the Iranian official might want
7 in exchange for assisting in the release of the hostages?
8 A No. I don't recall if there was any specifics
9 discussed, and the notion was to sit down and listen to the
10 Iranian proposal, as I recall.
11 Q And again, that never — that meeting never came to
12 fruition.
13 A To my knowledge, it never did.
14 Q Then there was an episode involving a relative of
15 the fugitive we've just been discussing, of which — a proposal
16 of which you're general aware, is that correct, but that is
17 primarily the responsibility of Vicki Toensing in the
18 dapartment.
19 A That's correct.
20 MS. NAUGHTON: Could you— did we get on the record
21 approximately when this individual was indicted?
22 MR. McGOUGH: The fugitive we were_di^cu£^s_ing?
23 MS. NAUGHTON: Yeah.
24 MR. McGOUGH: Let's put it on the record.
"25 MR. RICHARD: I believe it was late '70's.
igitive we were aiscussim
UNCLASSIFIED
41
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
> CO . nc.
yn c Soth. n e
umvm
,1 I
i
MS. NAUGHTON: Do you know what the charges where?
MR. RICHARD: Illegal exportation of munitions and
other military equipment and violation of, I believe, the
munition control laws.
MS. NAUGHTON: Thank you.
BY MR. McGOUGH;
Q Now, there was an episode involving a representative
of the United States Customs Service that you indicated there
was not anything classified about. Could you describe your
connection with that?
A Yes. On one trip to London I had occasion to visit
with the Customs attache assigned to the embassy. It is n\y
practice to try to stop by when I am in a foreign capital and
visit with law enforcement people, time permitting.
On this occasion, the Customs attache brought to my
attention the fact that two sources of theirs had indicated
an ability to effectuate the release of the hostages. The
representation was that at that time, which I would place
probably in late '85 or early '86, these individuals had
information that there was, to begin with, one additional
American hostage that we were unaware of and that for
payments of certain monies that they could accomplish the
release of the hostages. The Customs Service, as represented
by the attache, was unc
information.
mf"
42
UNCUSSIRED
upon my return to the United States I discussed it,
as I recall, with the State Department and other members of
the Department of Justice and through exploration quickly
concluded that we were in all Hrkeiy [ale] dealing with a
scam. We referred it to the FBI for consideration of
possible criminal prosecution of these individuals for
attempting to defraud the United States.
That's my recollection of that incident.
Q All right. Let's refer briefly to two other
episodes or proposals. One — let's call it the New York
proposal and the other t.he Detroit proposal.
The New York proposal is an ongoing matter. Is that
correct?
A That's correct.
Q And the Detroit proposal is a recently closed
matter. Is that correct? The agency that had been brought
in in regard to the hostages has determined not to pursue it
further. Is that fair to say?
A It is my understanding that the matter is closed as
far as that agency is concerned. That's correct.
Q All right. Now, to your knowledge, in either the
New York matter or the Detroit matter was the NSC involved in
ONCUSSIFIED
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Are you aware of any proposal for an operation
43
jlb4 3
' C Scum. N E
irnmim
relating to the hostages that involved agents of the Drug
Enforcement Administration in an operational role?
A I was not aware of that. My only knowledge is
limited to what I read in the public media.
Let me, if I may, just go back and possibly amplify
or clarify a response I previously made with respect to
possible involvement in the NSC and these initiatives.
We have — at least with respect to the matters we
have been discussing — worked closely with the State Department
to coordinate these efforts. While I don't recall ever — let
me go back and stop at this moment and correct an answer I
already gave.
And that was with respect to these three issues
that were the subject of a memorandum that you were aware of.
There was a meeting at Ambassador Oakley's office concerning
all three of them. And if I'm not mistaken, at that meeting
there was a representative of--I have to assume--the NSC.
Q But you can't recall who that was?
A No.
Q Or what if any input that person had?
A I don't recall that individual mentioning anything.
Q Do you recall--can you put a time frame on that
approximately?
A I would certainly peg it to the date of the
memorandum, in that--give a take a week either side of the
iu recaii.--can you put a i
UNCLASSIFIED
44
.«c. I
25
UNCLASSIFIED
date of the memo.
Q And that's the memorandum that discusses or s^cs
forth an update on^^^^^^^^^^|ynitiative, the fugiti,^
initiative, and the Custvms initiative. Is that correc-7
A That's correct
Q Now, I think you were clarifying your answer vhen
you interrupted yourself --the point of qualifying your 5nswer
that to your knowledge t.'.e NSC was not involved in any ,£
these.
A Yes. My answer being a negative at that poiri; y,as
really designed to be liaiited to my contacts with them But
throughout this process I always assumed, I believe, t.^^
Ambassador Oakley or others at the State Department we;^ ^n
close contact with what I understood to be a White Hout^
group that was focusing on hostage-related issues.
Q In the context of hostage-related issues, die you
ever have any contact with Oliver North?
A I don't recall such contact, but during one vf the
incidents— whether it be the hijacking of the Achille •_,uro
or the TWA hijacking — I was on duty that evening and I ^ag
with the general counsel of the CIA a good portion of v^g day
and night.
Q Do you knoy ,ii ,it woul^ be Judge Sporkin?
A Yes
.""IMlFIEl
And there were many people in and out over a the
45
y)^ C Stren. N E.
UNCLASSIFIED
CIA at the time. I don't recall Colonel North being there,
but it's quite possible.
Q Were you aware that he was--as they say over at the
NSC — responsible for the hostage account, that he was
involved in hostage issues at all?
A I think I was aware that he was working on this
account in some capacity. It was my understanding that the
FBI had some ongoing liaison with him in some intrigue —
setting. They have a lot of acronyms that I really never
fully learned.
I do recall that we in the Criminal Division were
attempting during this time to participate in that process
because we thought it was relevant to us to directly be
present at these various meetings.
Q While we're on the subject of Colonel North's
account — or accounts — when, if ever, did you become aware
that he was also responsible for the Central American issues
at the NSC?
A I couldn't pinpoint that I was ever aware that he
was responsible for any Central American account. I knew
from media reports that he was heavily involved — or pur-
portedly heavily involved — in Central American activities.
But I couldn't pinpoint_ a ny^ specific time_tJT^at I acquired
this information.
Q Let's turn, if we could, to Central American
nt any specific time that
UNCUSSIHED
46
jlb46
50
oo
21
•«!^
s:^
22
^ -
23
^2>
24
MLLnMM«TMaCO
. MC.
107 C Sa«i, N E
25
UNCLASSIHED
issues, in particular investigations of Neutrality Act
violations or gun-running or efforts — let me put it this
way--efforts to assist the democratic resistance in Nicaragua
in particular.
Did there — was there ever a time when there was an
effort made to consolidate or coordinate investigations that
related to supplying the democratic resistance in Nicaragua?
A Well, when you say to coordinate those kind of
cases — there came a point in time in late — I think it was
mid- to late- '86 when there was Increasing congressional
concerns and pressures, if you will, for information regarding
pending inquiries.
I had, for one, been urging the Criminal Division
to pull it all together, if you will, because the cases of
interest in this area and the area I would define as one
relating to Nicaragua and the activities of the contras and
the activities relating to the Sandinistas — there was a
fragmentation within the division of responsibility, if you
will, over these cases.
Q Would they have generally come under your auspices
at all?
A Well, yes and no. I mean, part of the focus of
many of the inquiries was alleged narcotics violations, for
example. And those kinds of cases — if that was the principle
thrust of the case — would not, even though a subsidiary
47
jlb47
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
^^C7 21
CS 22
Co
'JNCLASSIHED
aspect might be a neutrality- type violation.
Likewise if it's a--you know--we had cases that
would seemingly span—fecom the area of arms violations
domestically, which can go to our General Lit Section. You
had assertions of fraud of some of the humanitarian programs
that would go to our Fraud Section. And if it was straight
neutrality, it would come under my bailiwick. So there was a
seeming to me, anyway, j»i fragmentation of responsibility for
an area that was of tremendous public interest.
Q But that--as far as the consolidation, that would
have been mid- to late-1986 when that began to gain momentum.
A Well, what happened — Bill Weld began calling
sessions, if you will, of interested parties, if you will,
trying to get — as I appreciated it — an overview of what was
in the hopper, if you will, regarding Central American
activities .
Q Was the Hasenfus crash the catalyst for that sort
of thing?
A No, I don't believe there was any particular case.
The catalyst — if you're looking for a catalyst, I think it
was the increasing congressional pressure for information. We
had a list of — coming from I think the Foreign Relations
Committee on the Senate side of 25, 30 individuals and
information about these individuals that the committee -rs <'t'^<7
25lraemanding to know their status. There** a lot of cross-
48
UNCLASSIHED
^,
cutting requests coming in from Congress.
And again there was the sense that — at least I had
the sense that nobody really knew what was in the works.
MR. McGOUGH: Let me show you — let's have an
exhibit market here as Richard Deposition Exhibit 1.
[The document referred to was marked for identifica-
tion as Richard Deposition Exhibit No. 1.)
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q This is a memorandum dated April 13, 1984 from
Stephen Trott to you and Vicki Toensing with our control
number J-4782 on it. It refers to the Boland Amendment and
requests a memorandum on that amendment.
Do you recall this memorandum?
A J««h. If I recall correctly, this was triggered by
one of many congressional requests for appointment of special
prosecutors. I'm not sure what the specific triggering?©*
titmX was.
Q Could it have been the mining of the harbors in — if
you look at the third paragraph, it says, "Richard Willard
and Ralph Tarr insist that 1341 means that if zero funds
were authorized for 'mining activity' etc. ..."
A I believe you are correct.
Q There's a — the second paragraph says, "What is the
effect of its expiration_on_ our groblem7J|_ _Do^you know what
that refers to?
49
1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UNCLASSIFIED
A I can only speculate again, but I would assume--and
it's pure speculation — that it's the question of the applic-
ability of any of the special prosecutiice bi44 . But I'm just
speculating.
Q To your knowledge, was this memorandum — not this
memorandum but this time frame that surrounded the memoran-
dum— the first time that you and your group became involved
with the Boland Amendment and its applicability to efforts in
support the Nicaraguan resistance?
A When you say the frame of time, probably so. I
would venture to say that this is in the ball park of when it
became an issue.
Q Did you and your division continue to monitor the
possible criminal implications of the Boland Amendment as it
went through its various phases?
A Quite candidly, when you say did the division
monitor the Boland Amendment — no, it didn't. As far as I was
concerned, it was a regulatory provision without criminal
penalties. So when you say monitor — the compliance aspect,
if you will — compliance with the thrust of the Boland
Amendment — quite candidly would not be something that as far
as I'm concerned would fall routinely inthe^ jurisdiction of
the Criminal Division.
Q Although in r984 that theory was being advanced,
was it not, by Mr. Willard and Mr. Tarr via the Antidef ictency
d fall routinely in the j
UNCLASSIFIED
50
ONCIASSIFIED
Act?
A Oh, yes. By all means. When you have a specific
issue that arises, obviously we would take a look at it. But
what I thought you were suggesting was that we in the
Criminal Division monitor the compliance with a variety of
congressional requirements.
Q No, I wasn't referring so much to monitoring the
compliance as I was to monitoring the evolution of the Boland
Amendment in its various manifestations to determine--to do
this sort of exercise periodically. By this exercise, I mean
that referred to in Exhibit 1.
A No, that I would probably say if it would be the
responsibility of anyone, Mary Lawton's office--the Intel-
ligence Policy Office — to monitor the evolution, if you will,
of the statute and its potential import.
This, if I recall correctly, triggered the first —
or triggered an analysis of the Antidef iciency Act and
followed on the heels of a meeting which I did attend. But I
believe it occurred between various assistant AG's in the
department .
Q Was there any decision — was there a decision made
at this time or at a later time as to which of the various
departments — various sections of the Department of Justice
would have primary jurisdiQtj.QA. o^et. Qoi4Jld.AQd Antidef iciency
Act violations?
imisiflfii
51
UNCLASSIHED
1 A I don't think it was assigned in that fashion--you
2 know, responsibility. The issue kept coming up in the
3 context of the applicability or non-applicability of the
4 special prosecutor's bill or the independent counsel's bill
5 being triggered by congressional referral, citing, among
6 other things — I don't think they ever cited the Antidef iciency
7 Act — but citing from the Boland Amendment.
Q Let's go, if we could, to an investigation in the
9 Southern District of Florida that's received a lot of
10 attention. It's been called a number of things. The
11 initial — one of the initial informants or sources of inves-
12 tigation was a fellow by the name of Garcia. It's also
13 been — I think down there it's referred to as the Costa
14 matter. You're nodding your head, so I think you know which
15 investigation I'm referring to.
16 A Yes. I'm familiar with the one you're referring to.
17 Q Can you recall what your first contact was or
awareness of it was of that investigation?
19 A Well, depending on how you define investigation,
20 the investigation that focused in Miami is an outgrowth of an
21 earlier investigation or a different investigation or a
22 segment of a larger investigation — however you want to
23 characterize it — involving the^ QlA^fy^^i,y^founder- leader by
the name of Posey. t||||j|
There was a Neutrality Act violation investigation
52
iMLLOi mrorrma co.. mc.
)07 C SoiT,. N E 25
Wuhiiifrao. D C 2000J
ONCUSSIREO
52
begun I think in about '84 or '85.
Q In what district, do you recall?
A I don't think--as you will find in many Neutrality
Act cases, the bureau will open an investigation and not
necessarily bring it iiranediately to the U.S. attorney's
attention. So I think the bureau had it focused in Alabama,
where Posey was headquartered. But I'm not sure that the USA
had been apprised of it. But the bureau, in Neutrality Act
violations, works closely with our Internal Security Section.
So I can't say that the USA at this point was necessarily an
integral part of the inquiry.
But in any event, that was ongoing. I think it was
triggered or it occurred about the same time a helicopter
involving Posey's operation--it was the downing of some
plane — excuse me — or craft and the killing of a couple of men
who were traced back to being members of the CMA, if I recall
correctly.
Q Here you aware of that investigation contempor-
anoous?
A Was I aware that there was such an investigation?
Yes. I was aware that it was ongoing.
Now, how does that tie into the investigation we
are here talking about — this part of it? In March of '86 I
received a memo--not a memo--what I call a buck tag.
MR. McGOUGH: What we're showing — we've got — I'm
3ucn an investigation i"
WCLASSinED
53
UNcussra
showing the unclassified version of it, which does not
include--or I'm having marked as a deposition the unclassified
version of it, which will not include the attachment to it.
It consists — the unclassified version consists of four pages
which had been used as a — were introduced as an exhibit
during Mr. Meese's testimony.
[The document referred to was marked for identifi-
cation as Richard Deposition Exhibit No. 2.]
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q And we have available for you the classified
portion, which is essentially all of the memorandum from Mr.
Revel to the deputy attorney general, if you would care to
i
review that. But again, because of the constraints what
we'll do is mark this as a deposition exhibit and refer to it
unless you feel it's necessary — if you want to review the FBI
memorandum .
Looking at Deposition Exhibit 2, is this the —
particularly page two — is that the buck slip to which you
wece referring a moment ago?
A That's correct.
Q Can you tell me, to the best of your recollection,
when you received that buck slip? Was that the first
indication you had that this investigation had surfaced in
the U.S. Attorneys Office in Miami?
A I believe so. The first contact that I recall with
ONCIASSIFIED
54
DNCUJJIflEO
the Southern District of Florida was triggered by this,
although I cannot say categorically that the FBI had not been
in touch with them on earlier occasions with respect to the
CMA aspect.
Q The memo to you is dated March 24 and reads, I
believe, "Please get on top of this. DLJ" — which would be a
reference to Lowell Jensen — is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q --"is giving a heads up to the NSC. He would like
us to watch over it." Am I right so far?
A That's right.
Q "Call Kellner, find out what is up, and advise him
that decision should be run by you." Is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q All right. Now, let's — first of all, let me back
up a moment .
Do you recall seeing a letter from Garcia's wife,
either to the judge involved in the case or to the Department
of- Justice essentially raising allegations about the cir-
cumstances of his prosecution?
A I don't recall seeing it, but I recall hearing
about it. I hate to assume for Mr_-_ Kellner ,^bi^t_I_cgf^ay
categorically I haven't seen it.
Q Is it possible that you had a discussion of that
letter with Mr. Kellner prior to March 24 of 1986, when yoi.
55
ONCUSSIFIED
saw the buck slip?
A Is it possible? Yes, but I assume he won't recall
it.
Q Would you have initiated that conversation — for
that conversation regarding a letter?
A On what basis would I initiate it?
Q I have no--
A When you say initiated, you're assuming I had the
letter. I don't recall doing that.
Q Do you recall initiating any conversation with Mr.
Kellner prior to receiving the buck slip as part of Exhibit 2
regarding this investigation?
A My answer is no, but you have to appreciate I can
be talking to Leon Kellner with great frequency over a
variety of issues and a variety of times. So I can't
categorically respond. I have no recollection of talking to
him about this matter prior to this buck tag.
Q It says that Mr. Jensen is giving a heads up to the
NSC' What did you understand that to mean?
A That he was alerting them — I mean, it makes sense
when you read the content of the classified attachment why
there would be, in my judgment, a need to alert the NSC. In
fact, I think a failure to alert the NSC, in my judgment,
would be foolhardy by the department , aivei^ the_ cpn^ent^ oj^
the classified document. I mean, I — I
56
UNCLASSIFIED
Q Without going into the details of the investigation
in the classified document, can you be a little more specific
about what it was about this investigation that you felt
merited a heads up to the NSC?
A Well, you're talking about a plot to assassinate a
U.S. ambassador. You're talking about a plot to attack U.S.
facilities and other embassy quarters of friendly and
unfriendly nations. I mean, this is stuff of potential
significance to not only the security of individuals and the
United States but in terms of tremendous foreign relations
impact, and since the FBI had alerted previously the State
Department, INS, Secret Service, and the whole — the other
interested agencies, it's natural that somebody in this
context better tell the NSC. Because I think it is something
that is particularly appropriate for the NSC to know about,
assuming you give any credence to the allegations.
Q In cases like this with the same sorts of implica-
tions, was it — were other briefings given to the NSC? Can
you recall any other case where a briefing was given> to the
NSC?
A Two weeks ago I briefed the NSC on a case involving
an ally. We were about to take enforcement actions that would
have tremendous ramifications on our foreign affairs. And
there was a full-blown mee
do you want to go back?
:::'::r»ll;Miii
57
1 Q But I mean, there were other occasions.
2 A What you're talking about is a law enforcement —
3 it's activity which by its very nature has potential sig-
4 nificant impact on the — obvious impact — on the security of
5 this country and how our foreign relations appears. To say
6 that somebody should not alert the NSC, I think, is foolish.
7 Who should be the one alerting them — that is an
8 issue I can't address.
9 Q Well, that's really the next question I wanted you
10 to address, and that is why would the deputy attorney general
11 be the one who would go over to the NSC to alert them? I
12 mean, if it's a matter of just briefing them on a matter
13 that's of interest to them, would that not be normally done
14 at your level or by the FBI or someone like that?
15 A No. By my level? No. I don't routinely brief the
16 NSC. I believe that I would request — I mean, it is atypical
17 for me to be in touch with the NSC except in the most unusual
18 circumstances.
19 The FBI — I can't speak for them in terms of routine
20 briefings and relationships with the NSC. Moreover, I can't
21 address what Is routine contact between the attorney general
22 or the associate.
23 But if I may, let me just say that sitting where I
24 sit, you have to appreciate, I think, that we are moving into
25 an area of international law enforcement. Law enforcement is
TuhmcuM. 0 C 20002
58
jlbSS
iK
M^9M»omiNocc
UNCUSSIHED
1 more and more impacting — directly and indirectly--on other
2 vital interests of this country in the international arena.
3 It's a function of a variety of factors, including the fact
4 that crime has become international. Whether it's narcotics
5 activities, terrorism, export controls, we are moving into
6 the international arena.
7 Moreover, just acquiring information abroad requires
more and more contact with foreign countries and what have
9 you. And our statutes that Congress is passing ■C'iuin dealing
10 with these issues are giving us more and more extra ter-
11 ritorial jurisdiction, so that we're constantly running into
12 this issue of dealing — or impacting on foreign affairs.
13 So quite candidly, this issue of coordinating law
14 enforcement with other vital equities of the government is
15 one that we'd better start facing up to.
16 I'm sorry if it sounds like I'm pontificating, but
17 I don't know — to just set it in context, I remember going back
18 wli«n I was testifying in the Billy Carter matter and one of
19 th« senators asked me how — why I felt it was important that
20 the attorney general notify the NSC of information we had
21 learned, and I asked the senator was he suggesting at that
22 time that the Department of Justice should not advise the
23 White House that the Libyan government had designed a plot to
24 infiltrate the White House? We should not advise the White
25 House of that fact? And I said in my judgment, that's
UNCUSSIFIED
1 irresponsible.
2 And I continue to adhere to that. You must set up
3 some realistic system of making sure that there is some
4 coordination.
5 Q Well, let me--was there — did you feel it was
6 unusual for Mr. Jensen to be the one to make that contact?
7 A I don't know, when you say unusual — I have long
8 felt that it's important for the attorney general to be — play
9 a role in NSC activities. I felt it's important to have what
10 I would regard as the Justice Department oversight into that
11 process.
12 Who should accomplish that? At what level within
13 the department? I don't know. I do not advocate that it
14 come down to my level. I think at my operational level — or
15 more operational level — you should try to minimize White
16 House contacts.
17 Q Are you aware of any other instances where the
18 d^^ty attorney general briefed the NSC on a pending inves-
19 tigation? By the deputy attorney general, it doesn't
20 necessarily mean Mr. Jensen. I mean anyone serving at that
21 point as deputy attorney general.
22 A I am not aware of any, but I would have to assume
23 that the White House contacts at the NSC level on spy cases,
24 whether it be the Pollard case, the Walker case--I would have
25 to assume that there is dialogue because of the nature of the
60
'^ ^^
UNCLASSIFIED
issues we're talking about.
Now, I can't attest to them, but I know, for
example, the NSC will be tasking intelligence agencies to
find out what is the damage being accomplished by certain
espionage cases that we are working. And in that regard,
there is a flow of information, if you will, for what I
regard as well-founded, legitimate purposes.
Who's accomplishing it? 1 can't say.
Q The buck slip refers to — the second sentence says,
"He would like you to watch over it." What did you understand!
your assignment was at that point?
A Again, in reference to the nature of the allega-
tions, to stay on top of it, to be familiar with the ongoing
issues as they emerged, and to ensure that the case doesn't
languish, that there is —
Q Does not languish.
A That it doesn't languish. That it moves ahead to
r«solution.
Now, I've regarded this, based upon the context,
notwithstanding the way the bureau may have captured it, that
the first of the threats, if you will, stemmed from the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hrelationship where we
information that that was a possibility^ coupled with the
targets identified. To me, th
mimm
61
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
>eo.. MC
liNCUSSIflEO
61
Q Interest by?
A I assumed upstairs. You know, the gravamen of the
NSC interest, the gravamen of the deputy's interest, the
gravamen of the FBI interest. This is an ongoing case, and
all of a sudden the FBI is coming to the deputy. Hey look.
Look what's going on. And you read the memo. Why is the FBI
coming there but for these points?
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MS- NAUGHTON:
Q Was it your understanding that this case came to
the attention of Mr. Jensen through the FBI or through the
NSC?
A No, no. I assumed it was the FBI to Jensen.
Q Do you have any basis for that assumption?
A I'm assuming that this was all being triggered by
the FBI to Jensen, by this memo that is attached. It's an
assumption based on the flow of paper, but maybe there's
another way.
Q You first received the memo as an attachment to the
buck slips, correct?
A That's right.
Q So you actually received them from Mr. Trott, is
that right?
A That's right.
UNCLASSIFIED
62
jlb62
^S» 2(
^
^
DC 2000J
ICIASSIREO
Q So when you received it, you did not know whether
or not Mr. Jensen had even seen it.
A Oh, I assumed so because the buck tag referred to
the fact that DLJ--Jensen — had already given the NSC a heads
up.
I assumed that because the FBI buck tag--the FBI
memo was addressed to Jensen, if I'm not mistaken, that this
was triggered as a result of the FBI memo to Jensen, whether
there was a meeting or whether it was Just Jensen reading
this memo and saying, "Here's what has to be done,' I can't
tell you.
Q Okay. So you don't know if it was a function of
Jensen knowing about the case and asking the FBI to do a memo
or it's a function of the FBI bringing the case to his
attention.
A I have no idea.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q The last line — the last two lines essentially ask
you to advise Kellner that decisions should be run by you.
what decisions did you understand that to mean?
A Decisions to prosecute or not prosecute.
Q The ultimate decision was then to indict or not to
indict. What about interim steps? That is, whether to issue
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
HC.
25
ONCUSSIflEO
grand jury subpoenas, whether to call certain witnesses,
whether to interview certain people. Did you consider those
the types of decisions?
A I really didn't--it's not something that I would
normally do, nor did I do it here — for me to run the investi-
gation. That's~I interpreted as keeping apprised of what
was going on, apprised of what they were doing, the way they
were going. And beyond that--the manual requires, at least
in a neutrality area, close coordination, but that's — I'm not
sure that I would have ever thought of— if you would take
this literally — I would have to run the investigation myself.
And certainly that's not what happened. That's not what I
considered I was being asked to do.
Q Would you assume that decisions meant the decision
to indict or not to indict?
A Well, certainly that. Certainly any major--you
know, if you're going to immunize the critical subject I
would want to know about it or something like that. If
you're going to take an enormous step, I'd want to know about
it.
Q Why— what was it about this case that triggered
that kind of supervision?
A Well, again, in the context— ^'s nSffhis case-
it's the context of the information in the memo.
Q Let me back up for a minute. I understand why-
64
UNCLASSIFIED
you've indicated why you were watching over and being advised
about what was going on.
But there's an addition later here, and that is
you're being asked now to say--to approve or disapprove
decisions made in Miami, specifically a decision whether or
not to indict. What was it about this case that made it
important that main Justice clear the decision to indict or
not indict?
A I can't answer. You're going to have to ask -Steve
Trott. I mean, you know, what was in his mind? I mean, I
can't tell you what was in his mind. I can tell you how I
interpreted it, and it's just--I'm not sure whether it was
triggered by--I'm not sure of the timing.
And I know we had a problem with Kellner wanting to
go with an open indictment at a point in time when we didn't
want him to go. We wanted to keep a particular indictment
sealed because —
Q Was this in this case or in another matter?
A No, but it — well, it related to our dealings with
UNCUSSIFIED
Now, whether that influenced Steve's decision--
Steve Trott's decision--! don't know. I'm not even sure
whether this is a Steve Trott decision or a Jensen decision.
But you're asking me to speculate whether I was
concerned that Kellner might go off on his own and do
Vuhuifion. 0 C
65
Jlb65
—
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
u
12
13
14
15
16
^
17
1
18
igi
20
21
22'
23
24
UNCLASSIFIED
something that would impact adversely ^^^^^^^^Hand
elsewhere--! don't know.
Q Did you consider it unusual that you were being
instructed to clear decisions like indict or not indict?
A Yeah. It was unusual. It was unusual. Again, I
just hark back to the unusual--what I regarded as the
sensitivity of--the allegations regarding threats to indi-
viduals at enemy installations.
Q Did you consider the Neutrality Act gun-running
allegations to be as sensitive as the —
A No.
Q Did you consider those to be at all sensitive?
A Not particularly.
Q If you look at the first page of the exhibit as a
buck slip--what appears to be a buck slip from you to some--
excuse me — tell me what it is. That's probably —
A It's a handwritten vacbaJL of where I am with
respect to a particular matter. It's Just my own reminder.
There are so many things that cross ray desk at any given
time. It just keeps me apprised of what I've done on a
particular matter.
Q It indicates that on March 26 you spoke to Kellner
and that the AUSA not back yet from New Orleans .
A Not back from New Orleans. Right.
Q And you understood at that point that Mr. Feldjnan
82-732 0-88-4
UNCIASSIHED
_ 1 had gone to New Orleans to do an interview. Is that correct
2 A That's correct.
3 Q Can you recall anything else about your conversation
4 with Mr. Kellner on March 26?
5 A Well, when I finally reached him, which I guess was
6 the 26th, he gave me a whole different perspective of the
7 case — one that was different and reflected in the FBI memo.
8 He indicated, as I recall, that the entire story was out and
9 the wire services had it, and basically what you had was
10 something being manipulated by a couple of reporters who were
11 dealing with — in this case — Garcia in an attempt to mitigate
12 an upcoming sentence that would be imposed on Garcia for his
13 involvement in some gun charges of his own.
14 He expressed skepticism and indicated that there
15 were assertions of all sorts of government misuse — well, CIA
16 involvement in this transaction, government illegalities, and
17 what have you.
18 Q Let me interrupt. Did you take any notes during
19 that conversation?
20 A I'm not sure. I have scratch notes of conversa-
21 tions. I'm not sure that they're necessarily dated with that
22 date.
?3 MR. McGOUGH: Why don't we^put those _with — your
24
CO.. MC
25
notes in as Exhibit 3.
Am I on the right track? Is that in fact your
67
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
>CO.. MC
UNCUSSIFIED
handwriting? It's a good start, because the way they come
over from —
MR. RICHARD: Can I take the Fifth on that?
MR. McGOUGH: You're going to have to.
MR. RICHARD: That's my scribble.
MR. McGOUGH: Now, it's two pages. Our control
number is J-5641 and J-5642, which we'll mark collectively as
Exhibit 3.
[The document referred to was marked for identifi-
cation as Richard Deposition Exhibit No. 3.]
MR. RICHARD: This is not the earliest — there
should be an earlier page. This is--that'3 got to be the end
of one of the later conversations.
MR. McGOUGH: Can you look at the second page? I'm
not sure — I'm not positive that the two are linked in time.
MR. RICHARD: There's a third page which is —
MR. McGOUGH: So a third page is missing. All
right, let's back up for a second here.
I think we're going to be on this topic for a
little while more. This might be a good time to break for a
half an hour or so for lunch before we turn to the notes.
Because once we get into these, we're going to be at it a
while, I think. Before XLlunaiag j.rw rhi.^m^h£ be a good
I will attempt to find — I will just go to this
68
jlb68
£3
UNCUSSIHED
1 portion of the file and attempt to find — it didn't turn up on
2 our — read off the record.
3 [Recess]
4 BY MR. McGOUGH:
5 Q Why don't we go on the record and indicate that
6 you've looked at Deposition Exhibit 3, which is two pages of
7 handwritten notes .
8 I believe you indicated that you thought there was
9 another page that's not here. I'd appreciate it if you'd
10 tell us what you believe what was on that first page and then
11 also go on to tell us what the two pages we do have are.
12 A As I recall, the first conversation I had with USA
13 Kellner, he related to me the fact that the AP had a story
14 based on Garcia 's statement largely to the effect that Garcia
15 had been set up to keep him from revealing the proposed
16 action that had been reflected in the FBI memo. And Kellner
17 described other portions of the story. He expressed skep-
18 tlcism about Garcia 's credibility and the validity of the
19 representations, if you will.
20 We proceeded to discuss what he was doing. I think
21 at that point he had the assistant travelling to New Orleans
-22 to interview Terrell. There was a conversation — I'm not sure
23 whether it was just devoted to the results of the New Orleans
24 visit or whether it was combined with the results of the
25 Costa Rican visit by the assistant and the FBI agent--but
jlb69
ONCLASSIFIED
«f
6
7
8
11
12
m
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-^^
: lam. N E 25
during that conversation he relayed to me the fact that
Terrell had essentially — that his information was hearsay,
that the individuals in Costa Rica were, again, walking away
from the story.
And Js-hear Leon's emphasis was that that was being
subject to some manipulation by Garcia to secure some lenient
treatment by the court and that it was being hyped up by a
couple of reporters who were out to make a lot of hay from
these allegations. In fact, I think he suggested that they
might — they may have even conopired the allegations or put
the seeds in Garcia 's mind, if you will.
The information reflected on the material you have
essentially corresponds with'^Leon Kellner'f' relaying it to me.
Q But not in a single telephone conversation?
A No. The notes that I have consist, I believe, of
about three pages, and I am not sure — well, I am sure that
they represent at least two conversations. Whether these two
pages you have is one conversation — I suspect it is, because
the last conversation I had with him on the telephone, was his
preliminary conclusion, which was the fact that he had
thought he had at best a weak gun case.
And his — the gravamen or the thrust of the conver-
sation was his lamenting the fact that it would be a case
^.r
that he would not normally bring. And he was concerned
because he would anticipate ±t being vilified by the media
70
^
jlb70
iJNCLASSIHED
£3
^ -
1 for not bringing a case.
2 And we agreed that he would — when the investigation
3 was concluded — that he would send up a prosecutive recommen-
4 dation which we would review and either agree with or
5 disagree with but that he was very much concerned about how
6 the media would treat him if he failed to find a prosecutable
7 case.
Q Can you put a time frame on that latter conversa-
9 tion? When is it that you're having this conversation with
10 him about the prosecutable case?
11 A I can only — I really — logic would suggest that it's
12 some time between June and October.
13 Q Was it after you had received — or main Justice had
14 received a memorandiam over Mr. Feldman's name laying out the
15 circumstance of the case?
16 A I can't say with any certainty. It may have been
17 prior to that, because there came a point that he had an
interim memo which he was going to send up — which he did.
19 And there was additional investigation that was required that
20 he intended to undertake.
21 And he was lamenting the fact that the case did not
look promising as a prosecutive vehicle, and the fact that he
anticipated a lot of criticism from the media — from Congress-
being directed at him for what appeared to be--what prosecu-
tive judgment he would be rendering. And he was very
71
jlb71
^-•' 2 3
24
>0,CS„^.NE 25
INCLASSIFIED
concerned about it.
Q when, if you can recall, did you first become aware
that there were allegations being made by some of the
witnesses who had been interviewed of government involvement,
be it CIA or NSC involvement? I note on one of your notes
you have Hull CIA.
A I think this — I think he--if I'm not mistaken,
right from the start there were these allegations. I think
Kellner had indicated that this was part and parcel of what
the media was asserting.
Q When you say that this was part and parcel, does
that include the NSC-Oliver North allegations as well?
A I'm not sure whether they were specific in that
regard. There was certainly wrong-doing by government
officials. Whether it was NSC specifically — it was certainly
CIA involvement, because CIA, as I recall, right from the
start was certainly involved in this plot, if you will.
I can't answer your question precisely.
Q Do you recall any discussion or effort by main
Justice to postpone a sentencing for Mr. Garcia?
A By main Justice--
Q Let me just give you a little bit of background.
There was a pleading filed in March of 1986 by — over Mr.
Feldman's signature to seek a postponement of an impending
sentencing proceeding for Mr. Garcia. And one of the
72
UNCUSSIFIED
allegations in that is that the day before, a call had come
in from main Justice asking for a postponement to explore
further apparently the possibility that Mr. Garcia might
cooperate.
A It may very well have come from me. I don't recall
it. I do recall that the sentencing was postponed. What I
thought — I don't recall specifically asking for the postpone-
ment, but I certainly — we wanted to explore Garcia 's coopera-
tion. He was the source of this information. So--
Q Is it possible — go on, I'm sorry.
A — I mean, I don't recall specifically asking,
"Let's postpone the sentencing," but it would certainly--it
would be a tactical move that I can see myself suggesting.
Q Would you have suggested it prior to March 26th or
when you saw that buck slip?
A I would have to say no, only because I don't recall
knowing about this until I got the material. And I called
Ksllner, so I would have to assume no.
But when was that, if I may ask? You said that
there was a pleading filed.
MS. NAUGHTON: Mid-March.
MR. McGOUGH: Mid-March. March 19th, March 15th--
something like that.
MR. RICHARD: I knew that there" was a postponement
of this. Then I have to assume that Kellner told me as part
n: nia-narcn. piarcn i»t
UNcussra
. D C 10002
73
KNMsra
1 of the briefing. He was briefing me. He was giving me the
2 update of what was going on. So he was bringing me into the
3 picture; I wasn't bringing him into the picture.
4 The fact that a postponement of sentencing occurred
5 so as to first explore a proffer of cooperation would be to
6 me a logical step to take. I don't--just the dates suggest
7 that I didn't do it. But it would be a logical step. If
8 someone said, "Should we?", I would say, "By all means."
9 BY MR. McGOUGH:
10 Q Was there anyone else in your section or under your
11 supervision involved in this matter?
12 A Well, the Internal Security Section was getting
13 reports all the time from the FBI and what have you. Whether
14 they were in touch directly with Kellner, I can't say. I'm
15 sure — I mean, if I recall correctly, the memo reflects
16 somewhat daily contact with the Internal Security Section by
17 the FBI on the matter. They were apprised of what was going
18 on.
19 Q Did you delegate responsibility for the case to
20 anyone in specific?
21 A When you say delegate — Internal Security was
22 responsible for following the case. It's the Neutrality Act.
23 They worked historical_lj^\^ry ^l^se^ wLth_the FBI. It's a
24 close relationship.
joTCVm.. Nt 25 Did I delegate specifically anything beyond that?
Wiriwroa. 0 C !O0D2
74
UNCLASSIHED
1 No.
2 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
3 COMMITTEE
4 BY MS. NAUGHTON:
5 Q Would it have been unusual for anyone in the
6 Internal Security Section to call the U.S. attorney as
7 opposed to calling the assistant working on the case?
8 A To call the U.S. attorney?
9 Q Yes. In other words, to call Mr. Kellner as'
10 opposed to Mr. Feldman.
11 A In answer to your question, no, I don't think it
12 would be unusual for, say, someone in the management staff to
13 call the U.S. attorney. I'm not aware that anybody did make
14 such a call. But in answer to your question, it wouldn't be
15 unusual for someone in a senior position to call directly the
16 U.S. attorney.
17 Q Well, as I recall, I think Mr. Marum — is that his
18 name?
19 A Tom Manim.
20 ' Q Tom Marum?
21 A He's the deputy.
22 Q He was sort of coordinating this.
23 A He does most of the neutralitx work at the Internal
24 Security Section
25 Q Did he tell you that he had spoken to either Leon
lost of the neutrality woi
UNCIASSIHID
75
UNCLASSIFIED
Kellner or Jeff Feldman?
A NO. I don't recall him ever mentioning any
contact.
Backing up to complete the record, there was a
meeting later in October in which Kellner was in Washington.
I-. not sure whether Marum was there, but the FBI was there,
internal Security, maybe Tom Marum was there-among other
things, to discuss the status of a case.
Again, I just don't have any recollection of this
before the buck tag date. But I-like I say, if there's a
question of a cooperating witness-should we postpone the
sentencing until we have interviewed the witness, obviously
I'd say do it.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. MCGOUGH:
Q Let's look at the notes, if you could. I know
it'll be a bit time-consuming, but given your handwriting, it
would be helpful if you could just read the notes to us so
that we have a clean record of what they say.
You're referring to the second page, now, of the
exhibit. DO you think they're reversed in time?
A I do believe so. Well, not necessarily reversed in
■"r".;:;;.:;T.BOTE..„..
76
iiNMra
page of what has been marked as Exhibit 3.
A "Court probation.
"Garcia 's wife.
"Allan Sam — lunatic — but used him to make" — well,
again, these are incomplete sentences, and I apologize for it
"12/85 — conviction on gun charge.
"public defender tells AUSA that in February '85
Miami Garcia, Carr, Thomas, Hall or Hull, Jones, Carter,
Carbo — meeting in Miami.
"Discussed blowing up three embassies, killing
Tambs, and gun-running.
Okay — "We corroborate" — I don't know — "with their
people in Miami.
"In 3/85 — Thompson, Carr — weapons to Costa Rica for
above operation. Carr and Thompson and two others arrested
in Costa Rica.
"1/7/86 — Garcia polygraphed.
"1/14 — inconclusive on assassination — deceptive on
Posay" — this again is Kellner relaying to me.
"January '86 — FBI asked that Carr and Thompson be
interviewed. Carr and Thompson deny participation. Admit,
however, guns. Heard of plot in jail.
"Garcia, Jose Cotin — 1/16/86 — FBI interviews.
Implicated in Zeal murder (provided murder weapon) . Refers
FBI to Terrell
lINnUSSIFlEO
77
Kmsim
"FBI interviews Terrell. Terrell confirms Garcia 's
story but" — well--"Terrell says it's all hearsay. 'Heard it
around.' Terrell say story.
"Frank Castro representing Ochoa at meeting, who
says to group would pay $1 million to kill Tambs . Believes
that Tarns and CIA had killed Corea. Corea killed at CIA
request.
"Terrell saying that CIA reps present at the
meeting" — representatives of the CIA were present at the
meeting. "Killing of Tambs, three embassies — U.S. /Honduras
and Costa Rica and Russian embassy and Costa Rica — making it
all look like Sandinistas. Castro says Ochoa doesn't care
who gets credit.
"Garcia — tentatively" — I assume scheduled-- "tenta-
tively on Monday" — crossed off — "Tuesday.
"Claiming that he be prosecuted because he wouldn't
go along. Tony Avignon visits Carr and Thompson.
"Worked for assistant public defender in Miami.
Tony visits Carr and Thompson. Tony Avignon says he also
worked for '60 Minutes'.
"Public defender believes it's all a CIA plot — CBS
has the story.
"Co-pilot--Vasquez--3on of gun runner.
^ "Summary--has case on gun charges--possibly
< CUT
Neutrality X*t violation.
\mm\
78
jlb78
UNCUSSIFIED
Co
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
O.. MC.
25
••Hull— CIA."
Like I said, scratch notes of my telephone conver
sation.
Q would this all have been one telephone conversation?
A I would venture to say yes, which— although it's
quite possible that it's not. And I say that because the
second page, where it says, "Has case on gun charges," I
specifically recall that conversation when he reached that
tentative assessment. That was later on in the process.
The earlier notes seem to suggest an earlier period
in time. So it is possible that this top page is in time
subsequent to the second page.
Q There was mention of lie detector tests. Did you
ever learn-or to your knowledge were the lie detector or the
polygraph results ever submitted to Washington for re-
interpretation or review-the Garcia polygraph material?
A Re-interpretation? There was an initial report that
I have seen indicating that he had passed the polygraph.
That was contained in a memo that I saw from Clark, who is the
head of the Criminal Investigative Division, to-
MS. NAUGHTON: Excuse me— of the FBI.
MR. RICHARD: -of the FBI, I'm sorry-to either
Buck Revel or Judge Webster. I don't recall.
There's a memo from Clark that pre-dates the memo
that was attached to the memo which went to Jensen-or was
79
jlb79
UNCLASSIFIED
79
addressed to Jensen. That memo characterized the results of
a polygraph different, if I recall correctly, than how it was
characterized in the memo to Jensen. I believe that--that
can be changed just looking at the memos.
But I don't recall it being resubmitted subsequent
to that point. Whether it had been done prior, I don't know.
But when you say — my understanding of the process
is that the field gafliiyJapher — the individual out in the
field--makes a tentative assessment and then sends the
results to Washington, where they are — I don't want to say
re-interpreted, but the final interpretation is made out of
Washington. That's my understanding. Now, I may be wrong.
Q Do you understand--or do you have any understanding
or knowledge as to how the results — the statement of the
results changed between the Clark memo and the Revel memo?
A No.
Q Did you know whether it was a matter of Mr. Clark
just having his facts wrong or someone else later looking at
the results and saying, "No. He didn't pass. It's incon-
clusive"?
A I can't — I mean, I don't know. But I hope you
appreciate — I don't credit much, in my experience, the
results of polygraphs. So to me it's not a critical element
whether someone says that the individual passed or didn't
pass. So it wouldn't bug me whether it said he passed or he
80
«Ncussife
didn't. I mean, it just wouldn't be of major consideration —
the results of polygraphs. That's my own view of the results.
Q Now, after your initial buck slip from Mr. Trott,
did you have any further contact with Trott, Jensen, or the
attorney general on this case that you can recall?
A I don't recall specifically discussing it with
either — I certainly didn't discuss it with the attorney
general. I have no recollection of discussing it with-
Jensen. I have no specific recollection of discussing it
with Steve Trott, but I would have to say I had to have
discussed it. I mean, just knowing my practice and what I
would normally do.
But I have, in answer to your question, no specific
recollection of doing so.
Q If you look at Exhibit 2, which is the actual buck
slip — or page two of Exhibit 2, which is the buck slip — I
think there's an indication on there — "See me" — circled in
the transmittal slip. Does that refresh your recollection?
A No, not really. I mean, I can't close my eyes and
picture a discussion with Steve Trott, but I am sure that I
would have. This is 3cm^|t|j^CL ^^AVBUl^ifiu^^n^ly ^^^^
kept him apprised of. UlllllLAuull I LU
There are so many things that I would and still —
keep an assistant attorney general aware of. I am sure I did
that.
81
jlbfll
0
vn CSowi. NE
UNCLASSIFIED
Q To the best of your knowledge, how many times did
you discuss the case with Mr. Kellner?
A Probably I believe three times on the telephone.
Probably.
And once in person, that one being in October when
we had — he was participating in a broader session, if you
will, as part of, I think, our efforts in October to try to
get a better grasp of all of these cases. And after that
session, which ended focusing on just one case — not this case
but a different case — after that meeting broke, I think we
began a discussion of the status of this case.
MR. McGOUGH: Let's have this marked as Exhibit 4.
This appears to be a list of individuals who attended a
meeting — the type of sheet you would pass around for a sign-
up.
MR. RICHARD: Yes.
[The document referred to was marked for identifi-
cation as Richard Deposition Exhibit No. 4.)
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q Scanning down the list of people there, you'll note
about midway or two thirds of the way down is Leon Kellner 's
name. Is this the meeting to which you were referring?
A There were several meetings convened by Bill Weld —
like I say--acro3s the board. This looks like a sign-in
sheet for one of them. I say that because if you notice the
82
jlb82
f
UNcujsife
participants include our Fraud Section, our Narcotics
Section. There are a variety of cases.
It was after a session like this where we ended up
essentially spending most of our time on the humanitarian aid
case.
Q When you say "we," you mean you and Mr. Kellner?
A The group--the entire group. We constantly tended
to get bogged down.
And after that meeting broke — and it was at the end
of the day — I recall grabbing the people — grabbing is the
wrong term — but suggesting, "Hey, look. Let's wait a few
minutes and discuss this case" — however you want to caption
it--the Posey case, the Costa case.
So of this group, the interested parties remained.
I don't think you'll find — if my memory serves me correct--
you won't find another sheet for that because it was a tag-on
to a meeting like this.
Q Who were the interested parties that remained for
that meeting?
A Myself, Leon Kellner, people from the Internal
Security Section were there. Now, if it's a tag-on to this,
I have to assume Tom Marum and Joe Tafe, the FBI — and I would
assume that was Gail Burton. In this case, you had — let me
see--George Van Balen. Al Seddon would be the logical one, I
think, at that time, because he is the principle unit chief--
jibnj
M
wussife
or I think his title is over at the FBI on Neutrality Act
issues.
So I suspect this type of complement, if you will.
Q You recall — I'm skipping a little in time — but do
you recall receiving the memo under Mr. Feldman's name in
June of 1986?
A That's correct.
Q And that memo at the end, I believe, concluded that
it was premature to issue grand jury subpoenas. Up until
that point, had you discussed with Mr. Kellner or anyone in
the Southern District whether or not the matter was ready to
be — that subpoenas should be issued in the case?
A No. I recall no discussion. In fact, I think if
you look at the attached FBI memo, I think their suggestion
was that it was at that time already in the grand jury. I
made the mistake of following that suggestion.
Q By issuing the memo that was attached to the buck
slip that came to you.
A Or the earlier one — the one — I'm not sure when I
got the earlier one, but it was a day or two earlier in date.
It was the Clark to either Revel or Webster.
There was a reference, I think, in just reviewing
the material at some point, because this — I noticed that it
represented that there was a grand jury either sitting or was
about to sit.
84
UNCLASSIFIED
Q When you got the Feldman memo, if I can call it
that--the memo that came out in June--at the end it said it
was premature to go to a grand jury and listed some reasons.
Did you find that surprising in light of the March memo from
the FBI saying that a grand jury was ready to go?
A I didn't pick the connection up, and that connec-
tion I only made recently, because the issue of going to the
grand jury or of not going to the grand jury, as far as I was
concerned, was never an issue until allegations surfaced that
somehow there was an attempt either to influence timing or
what have you.
So it was never, to me, a critical question whether
to go into a grand jury or not. It was a tactical judgment
that I would routinely defer to a USA. If he wants — he
thinks he needs to go into a grand jury — fine. If he thinks
it's premature — fine.
Q But you don't recall discussing it with him up to
that point.
. A He may have said — at that point, no. In October
when we met he was still saying, "Hey, it's just too early."
Nobody at the October meeting j«fas saying no, no, no. Get it
to a grand jury
Again, it was a tactical judgment.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
)ber meeting was saying n
UNCLASSIHED
85
^21
22
23
24
MLLin MVOKTMa CO.. HC
W7 C %mn N E 25
ONWSSIflED
85
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Could I clarify that?
In October, when he was saying it's still too early
to go to grand jury — when someone says go to grand jury, they
can either mean indictment or subpoenas .
A No, no. He was saying— at least I interpreted it--
he was certainly not saying, "I'm going to return an indict-
ment," or "It's too early to return an indictment." I didn't
interpret that at all.
What I interpreted it as was bringing substantive
witnesses before a grand jury for an interrogation. I'm not
even talking about using grand jury process. I'm talking
about bringing witness — fact witnesses in for questioning.
Q What about grand jury subpoenas? Would you ever
discuss with Mr. Kellner the timing or wisdom of issuing
subpoenas for things like bank records and so forth?
A No. Again, he may have mentioned that he was going
to do it this way or that way.
I mean, again, if — I didn't care one way or the
other whether he used subpoenas or didn't. It was not an
event We moment in my thinking. If he thought it was right
to use a grand jury subpoena, that's fine with me. If he
thought it was preij^f^j^^QJ^ _tactically unwise, that was fine
with me as well.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
86
jlb86
vmmB
nfK u
f
1 COMMITTEE
2 BY MR. McGOUGH:
3 Q After getting the memorandum in June, do you recall
4 following up on the matter at all or having any other contact
5 with the case until the October meeting you described?
6 A Well, again, I can't put the timing. There was a
7 point in time when I spoke to Kellner, and he gave me this
preliminary assessment. I can't put it before or after the
9 Feldman memo.
10 I have no specific recollection, but during this
11 period-- there are highs and lows with Mr. Kellner in my
12 dealings with him, meaning that he is very much involved in
13 narcotics enforcement in the Caribbean and South America.
14 This is a major priority for me, dealing with extradition
15 treaties, mutual legal assistance, the use of grand jury
subpoenas to acquire records ot- biuaClen the — doctrine
developed out of his district. Those are of critical
18 iaportance to me.
9 ^yv There was a point in time in this summer hstce where
20 I recall a trip to Colombia — or from Colombia — where he asked
21 me to stop by and talk to his staff about the situation
22 regarding Ochoa in particular. These are prosecutors who are
23 moving very aggressively against these international traf-
24 fickers at great personal risk. And they took issue with some
of the approaches we were tirying to take with the Colombian
87
jlb(37
4.
£?
M7 C SoHi. N E
UNCLASSIFIED
government .
Kellner asked me to meet with them and explain the
rationale that we were employing and which I did en route
either to Bogota or from Bogota. Could I have discussed it
with him at that point? Conceivably yes.
I would just stress this wasn't — at least in my
mind — a big-deal case. It looked like a case where you had
questionable witnesses, highly suspect motivations — something
that obviously had to be investigated that was being inves-
tigated. I didn't detect any unusual interest in my superiors
on the case, and to me it was largely being handled in a
routine, expeditious fashion.
It just wasn't something that I would remember or
feel that I was compelled to make detailed calendar notes.
Q Did Mr. Kellner come to you or forward to you or
give to you affidavits via Mr. Hull that made allegations
about either Senator Kerry or members of his staff?
A Yes. He called me up — I'm glad you reminded me of
it. He did call me up, and he said that he just received
this. Apparently this package had been sent to selected
members of the Congress as well to the U.S. attorney.
He said that it reflected all sorts of questionable
activities by the senator — let me retract — not by the senator
but by the senator's staff. And I think, if I'm not mistaken,
reporters themselves — attempts to influence testimony and not
ONClASSinED
(t!Z
1 suborn perjury and the like.
2 I think there probably could be a package available
3 to you of what the allegations were.
4 I said, "Send it up, we'll take a look at it." He
5 did. .
6 I forwarded it to Steve Trott with a noteTto be
7 handled — I think I gave him a couple of options along with my
8 recommendation. To wit, either refer to the Public Integrity
9 Section of our division, which has responsibility for
10 questionable activities by government officials, or before
11 deciding that, go interview Hull or try to get an interview
12 with him and see whether he's going to be willing to be
13 interviewed.
14 Steve Trott, I believe, sent it to Jack Keeney for
15 Keeney 's comments, and I believe ultimately it was decided
16 let's ask the FBI to go and see whether Mr. Hull is willing
17 to submit to interview now edsout this.
18 And we sent it to the FBI, and I'm not sure whether
19 the FBI made the attempt and if so, the results of it. I've
20 never seen a report on it.
21 Q Did you ever get back to Mr. Kellner on that at all
22 A I have to assume — I don^t recall specif_icair
23 telling him what we were doing.
24 Q Do you recall whether he sent them to you or
'"25 whether he delivered them in person?
ONCIASSIFIEO
A I think he sent them.
Q Do you recall him coming to your office — or being
in your office and discussing the affidavits with you?
A He may have. I mean, it's not unusual for--Mr.
Kellner was in Washington frequently — I mean, he's in touch
with a variety of officials — to stop by and say hello,
whether he did it — again, it's quite possible.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q What was his demeanor when he was talking to you
about this? In other words, was he very upset about the
political ramifications or this, or was he —
A The whole —
Q The affidavits and the problems with Senator
Kerry's staff.
A Hell, he was — I would describe him as feeling that
it vindicated his assessment that this was part of a situation
b«ljig manipulated by political forces where everybody had
their own agenda — in other words, was particulary pure from a
prosecutorial point of view. Garcia had his agenda — trying
to get out from under a situation, reporters trying to come
up with interesting stories, and Kerry's staff attempting to
discredit the actions oi-rJ-^ioji' ^ know who — the CIA, the
90
UNCLASSIFIED
1 So I think this was the further vindication of an
2 approach that Kellner was articulating beginning from day
3 one — that he had skepticism about this whole situation.
4 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
5 COMMITTEE
6 BY MR. McGOUGH:
7 Q Do you recall ever having any contact with anyone
8 other than Mr. Kellner in his office about this investigation?
9 Did you ever speak to Mr. Feldman?
10 A No, I don't believe so. I can't identify to you
11 the prosecutors I met with during that trip. I don't recall
12 speaking to them about this case. But it is conceivable that
13 one of them was Mr. Feldman. I mean, there were prosecutors
14 focusing —
15 Q Well, all I'm really asking you is whether you
16 recall discussing this case with anyone in that office other
17 than Mr. Kellner, like Mr. Feldman, Mr. Scharf — do you know
18 Larry Scharf?
19 A I don't know them. I may have met him, but I —
20 Q Mr. Gregory?
21 A I know Dick Gregory, but I don't recall any
22 discussion with him. _
23 Q Miss Barnett?
24 A I know of her. '^* ChTnlcshe used to work for the
25 Criminal Division. But I know who she is. The substance--!
91
leiASSIflEB
don't think — I think she's an administrative assistant or
something like that. I wouldn't discuss substance with her
in any event.
Q How about David Liewant, another assistant down
there?
A No.
Q There was a point in time when, in response to
press inquiries, main Justice issued a statement that there
was in fact no investigation being conducted in this matter
or that something — that it hadn't risen to the level of an
investigation. This would have been, I believe, in about May.
MS. NAUGHTON: I was thinking April.
MR. McGOUGH: April or May of '86— out of the
Public Information Office. Do you recall receiving any
inquiries like that or — just for your point of reference — the
people in the Southern District were quite upset when that
statement was issued, because it seemed to fuel the specula-
tion that they really weren't doing much.
MR. RICHARD: No, no — in answer to your question, I
have heard, as a result of your activities, this assertion.
I certainly didn't pick it up at the time, and I'm not sure
on what it was based. I can't answer.
I must confess, though, as you've seen, this whole
matter has had many names now. I don't knc
just a breakdown in communication oi
:":;i)mi»i
92
UNCIASSIHED
BY MR- MCGOUGH:
Q Are you--what, if anything, do you know about the
attorney general's contact with the case?
A Nothing. I have never spoken with him. I have no
idea other than confused media accounts of purported conversa-
tions between him and Leon Kellner. But I have no first-hand
information.
Q To your knowledge, did anyone in the Department of
Justice, or for that matter anywhere in the federal govern-
ment, indicate to Mr. Feldman — Mr. Kellner in substance that
he should slow his investigation or handle it in any way
other than the way in which he might normally handle an
investigation of that kind?
A I have never told him — I never told him to slow the
investigation. When any issues like that come up in any
case, that's a significant move. And it's something I think
I would remember.
I am sure, though, I have discussed the statutes
with him — possible applicable statutes. And in that regard,
I have no recollection what I said to Kellner regarding the
statutes. But I know normally when I talk to a USA about the
neutrality laws and their applicability, I always alert him
that they are tricky statutes and statj^J:§3^ thsLt j:eauj.£e_ a_
certain amount of research into them
Now, I can only speculate how I may have phrased
UNCUSSIFIED
it — what I may have said to Kellner. But I have no recollec-
tion of even discussing it with him--neutrality laws and what
have you .
Q So that answer is no, you did not indicate to him
that he should slow down the investigation.
A Slow down the investigation? No.
Q To your knowledge, did anyone else in the Department
of Justice or anyone else in the federal government indicate
to him that he should slow down the investigation?
A Mot that I'm aware.
Q Did he ever discuss any such requests with you?
A Let me say — well, I was going to comment that I
hadn't appreciated that there was any question about the
aBonymity-jof thinking in the Southern District of Florida
until this whole issue arose in late '86 — questions of
Washington suggesting going slow and what have you in any
regard. You know — the whole what-are-you-talking-about type
of rosponse on my part .
Q Did you ever discuss with Mr. Kellner the implica-
tions of the case in regard to any pending votes in the
United States Congress? Did you ever discuss votes about
contra aid with Mr. Kellner?
A There was — quite candidly, throughout this period,
there was always controversy on one aspect or another of the
contra matter.
I you ever aiscuss votes i
UNCLASSIFIED
94
UNCLASSIFIED
And really, I think again, from my perspective, in
dealing with something with — the administration issuing all
sorts of statements saying, "Look. The CIA is not doing
this. The NSC is not doing this. We were fighting by the
Boland Amendment. We're doing this. We're acting in good
faith in compliance with all laws." All this public dialogue
going on.
As far as I'm concerned, we do our investigations,
we take the investigation where the facts take us, and we
make the judgment, and then we take the heat when it's not a
particularly popular judgment. I mean, that's the approach.
MR. McGOUGH: That's going to conclude my questions
on this aspect of it.
Maybe Pam — I don't know if you have some follow-ups
on some of the things I didn't cover.
MS. NAUGHTON: Yes, I do.
MR. McGOUGH: But go ahead.
MS. NAUGHTON: I have a couple questions.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
UNCLASSIFIED
COMMITTEE
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q The memo that we've referred to as the Feldman memo
that came to you in June of '86 — was that generated for you?
In other words, did you request it or expect it, or did that
sort of come out of the blue?
95
ONClASSinEO
A No. It was in the course of a conversation that I
had requested Leon to keep my apprised — Leon Kellner to keep
me apprised of the status and developments.
And it was during the conversation — one of those
status discussions — that he said he had just received or he
has a memo giving a status report, which he would show me.
Which he did. ^
He also showed me a copy of a complaint filed by— a
civil complaint filed by the reporters, I believe, that were
central to this case.
But the memo was not prepared at my request, in
answer to your question.
Q Were you ever apprised by the FBI or anybody else
regarding any connection by Glenn Robinette or Secord in that
lawsuit or in this investigation?
A I don't recall having any discussions with the FBI
regarding this particular case.
I don't remember any connection with Secord. I
raaaaber just glancing over the complaint, and I think it was
kind of bizarre, but I don't recall whether there were
specific allegations involvina Secord. T ^"yUL J^fifd^ Y
lengthy, I guess you know yNl)[|\o5lr llll)
Q As long we're on Secord, you described some of
these meetings in an attempt to sort of gather up all the
contra-related cases. On October 17, the House Judiciary
96
«ws/fe
Conaittee-'-a majority of the majority members sent an inquiry
for independent counsel.
I realize that's not your shop, but were you aware
of that request, and were you aware of any results that the
Public Integrity Section came to regarding Secord's involve-
ment with the contra re-supply operation?
A The answer to the second part of your question was
no — I couldn't tell you what they concluded.
I have to assume I was aware that there was another
request and therefore appointment of independent counsel. But
in routine fashion, I wouldn't get involved in resolving those
independent counsel issues.
Q Well, I was just wondering if that was, for
instance, a subject of the October meeting with Mr. Kellner.
A No. In fact, I don't even think — I think there
was — wait, wait, wait — one moment. I don't see anybody here
even from our Public Integrity Section and certainly not Jack
Kamey. And I have no recollection of any independent
ctmnael issues coming up at these meetings.
Q Do you — were you aware that the assistant U.S.
attorney and the FBI were going to down to Costa Rica the
first week in April?
A
knew that they were there at a particular point in time.
Q Do you happen to know how many trips they took to
I don't know whether I was aware in advance. I
97
lb97
IINW«0
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
nc.
25
Costa Rica?
A I thought one, but they may have taken more.
Q Did you ever speak to anybody at the State Depart-
ment or any other agency regarding this case?
A I don't recall having any conversations with any
other agencies regarding this whole— I'm going through the
agencies. None comes to mind.
Q Were there ever any inquiries made, to your
knowledge, of the CIA regarding Mr. Hull?
A Inquiries by us?
Or you or--I understand —
No, no, no. From us to the CIA?
Yeah.
My understanding was that the CIA was denying any
relationship. I think that was from day one, as reflected in
FBI memos--that they were denying
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ there |
was no ongoing relationship.
Q When you spoke to Mr. Kellner the times that you
did speak to him, did he indicate to you that he was speaking
to anybody else in the Department of Justice?
A Kellner speaks to a lot of peoole at the department
I don't mean face
Q Well, I mean on this particular cas
: speaks to a lot of peoole at the
■-'UNCLASSIFIED
98
IINCUSSIFIED
1 A No, he never indicated —
2 Q He never referred to conversations with Mr. Jensen
3 to you or Mr. Trott.
4 A Concerning this case, no. But Mr. Kellner--he has
5 many problems which he deals with at that level, and he is in
6 touch with the Associate's Office, the Deputy's Office fairly
7 regularly.
8 But I have no knowledge on this.
9 Q But you never heard from either Kellner or from any
10 of those other people that they had been in touch on this
11 case?
12 A NO.
13 Q Have you spoken to either the attorney general,
14 Judge Jensen, Mr. Trott, or Mr. Weld about this case — let's
15 say — since November of '867
16 A Spoken in substance? No.
17 Let me go into the particulars. Certainly not the
18 attorney general. Jensen I haven't spoken to since he left
19 the department. Trott — no. I have spoken to both Weld and
20 Trott procedurally. I urged them to send this case over to
21 the independent counsel.
22 Those kinds of discussions — nothing about issues of
23 "Did you talk to Kellner or did you say anything?" I have
24 tried to avoid discussing it
"25 Now, I will add, if T may^-T'had a brief conversa-
iid you say anything <" i
icussm
99
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
m KvoffTMa CO.. mc.
;Sa«,.NE 25
iB(tMi. 0 c looo:
IINCias
99 I
tion only recently with Kellner about the case only after
believing that your inquiries were over, because I had — well,
I had been in touch with him on other matters . I avoided
raising this case. And it was really in the context of again
the accusations that he has had to deal with about being
influenced improperly and so forth. And he was a little
miffed at all of this.
But it's a long way around. I hope I have answered
your question.
Q Did he tell you anything new that he had not told
you previously?
A No. Well, he just — you know, this is crazy. He
wasn't influence in any way and that he only just said, It's
just crazy. "
I mean, I really didn't go into details. I don't
remember this conversation — well, what did you say, what did
I say--it'3 not that kind of a conversation. It was just--
you know — here we are.
Q It's my understanding — please correct me if I'm
wrong — that Mr. Kellner did not want the case sent to the
independent counsel, but as a point of fact the independent
counsel reviewed it and decided not to t^ke it. Is that
correct?
A I have no knowledge about his position. I know
we--I certainly urged it.
!!Nni h^mm
100
jlblOO
^
CO
CO
iH^gJ^oimmc
wuissro
1 Q That the independent counsel take the case?
2 A Yes. For — well — I was going to say for the same
3 reasons I urged independent counsel being appointed for the
4 whole thing.
5 I don't know Mr. Kellner's position on whether to
6 send it to the independent counsel or not.
7 Q I gather that until November 1986 you were not
8 aware of Oliver North's alleged involvement with this case or
9 Mr. Hull.
10 A when you say aware of it — I knew of allegations, i
11 mean, the allegations of North being involved were public--
12 yes on that regard.
13 Q Do you remember North's name coming up in connection
14 with this case?
15 A Yes. It was one of those--there was a long list of
16 names that were involved, if you will. And it was attributed,
17 if I 'correctly, to newspaper reports of his involvement in
18 contra activities.
19 Q Did Kellner specifically mention North or anyone
20 else at the NSC regarding this case?
21 A I have no recollection of it, except I would refer
22 you to the notes. Because I was scribbling down names, if
23 you will. And if he did, I assume it's on that first page
24 unless it's on the exhibit that you now have.
"S'S Q If you could give us then your arguments for
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UNCLASSIRED
wanting this case to be taken or assigned to the independent
counsel in December of '86.
A well, I had--by that time there were the allegations
of Washington interference, abuse, improper dealings. I knew
Mr. Kellner's view of the prospects of making the case, and I
wasn't aware that the evidence had improved in any marked way
since then.
And in terms of the credibility of the department,
I thought it was important, given the existence of the
independent counsel, that the ultimate judgment--prosecutorial
judgment — be made by a component that is above suspicion in
the context of this whole matter.
So anything that I perceived as being controversial
and arguably falling within the independent counsel's
jurisdiction, I had been urging go over there. Because--!
mean, I viewed this attantion as being designed to ensure
public confidence in the prosecutorial judgment being
rendered on a criminal matter. And that's my analysis.
Q Was my statement correct earlier that the indepen-
dent counsel then refused to take the case on?
A That's my_understanding^ That's correct. That's
my understanding.
Q Thank you. I don't have any other questions.
MR. McGOUGH: Let's take a look at a couple of
other exhibits and just get a fix on what they may be. The
' understanding. That's <
UNCLASSIFIED
102
DNCWSSIFe
first is Exhibit 5. Take a look at that, if you would, Mr.
Richard. Tell me what that is. Is it your handwriting,
first of all?
MR. RICHARD: I'd plead guilty to that.
[The document referred to was marked for identifi-
cation as Richard Deposition Exhibit No. 5.]
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q Can you give me some indication of what it refers
to?
A Again, this is scratch notes prepared, I believe,
following a conversation I had with the U.S. attorney in
Oklahoma.
Q Is that Bill Price?
A Bill Price. The date of December 11 suggests that
that's when I talked to him. I think he indicated that Bill
Handricks of our Public Integrity Section, who was then, I
believe, shepherding a lot of the Iran matters for the
division, had been in touch with him previously.
And this is the gist of the conversation I had with
Mr. Price and his briefing of me regarding an individual who
had been arrested and his possAb^^ MWoLv<
CIA/contra-related activities.
Q Now, about a third of the way down — the individual's
m&
103
yiUSSIRED
name was Weekly? Is that — am I reading that correctly?
W-E-E-K-L-Y?
A Yes.
Q About a third of the way down it says — if I'm
reading correctly — "Weekly posts on tape that he's tied into
CIA and Hasenf us . Said he reports to people reporting to
Buah." What does that mean?
A I don't know what the post means, but apparently
there was a tape recording. Let me, if I may, just take a
second to read through the entire page.
Q Sure .
A Okay. This is a matter which had just arisen in
the U.S. Attorneys Office. I was getting briefed. I think
ultimately we referred it to the independent counsel, if I'm
not mistaken. And I don't know what happened to it.
It's an individual who has been arrested and is
asserting — or there is a suggestion of a relationship to the
CIA and Hasenfus and the exportation of explosives to the —
countries .
Q And he's alleging or indicating to someone that
he's connected with the CIA and that he is reporting to
people who report to Bush?
A That's what he's asserting.
Q What is the current status, if you know?
A I cannot--as far as I recall, it was referred to
UNCUSSIFIED
104
jlbl04
UNCLASSIHED
the —
Q Referred to the IC.
A — to the IC, and I just don't know the status.
MR. McGOUGH: Let's take a look at Deposition
Exhibit 6. If the court reporter--are you collecting the
exhibits? We'll give them all to you.
[The document referred to was marked for identifi-
cation as Richard Deposition Exhibit No. 6.)
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q Now, I surmise that this is not your handwriting on
Deposition Exhibit 6. Do you recognize whose handwriting it
is?
A No.
Q Were you present at a briefing on or about 11/24/86
at which the Kellner situation was discussed?
A Who was present?
Q Were you present? This would have been Monday of
the — the day before the president's press conference.
A I don't recall any such meeting.
Q Let me ask you what may be kind of a general
conclusory question on this area, and that is to your
knowledge or in your opinion, was there anything about Mr.
Kellner's or Mr. Feldman's handling of the Garcia-Costa
investigation that you felt or feel was inappropriate?
A No. I've dealt with Leon Kellner now for five,
105
23
^24
iMLun Nvomwo co.. mc.
107 C Smn. N E 25
Wultuunn. 0 C 20002
UNCLASSIFIED
six, seven, eight years. I have the highest regard for him,
and I think he's a fine prosecutor. I have no reason at all
to question his handling of this case.
Q Let's turn to the Southern Air Transport matter or
investigation.
Shortly after the Hasenfus C-123 crash, did you
learn of an investigation by the FBI into the ownership and
operation of the plane that had gone down?
A Do you want me to do a narrative or just —
Q Yeah. I mean, is that a fair starting place, when
Hasenfus — as the place for your first contact with that
investigation?
A Yes. Do you want me to just give you a narrative?
Q Give me the narrative.
A Okay. The plane goes down on approximately October
8th or so — or 7th, maybe — of '86. And then there are press
reports of the department running an investigation into the
natter.
Bill Weld asked me--Bill Weld, the assistant
attorney general — asked me what I knew about it and at that
time I didn't know anything about the investigation.
I called Tom Marum, who was familiar with the press
reports of the investigation, but he was_ii2t familiar with
it An*^^*^-
And again, Tt' is' the practice that a Neutrality Act
106
UNCLASSIFIED
violation is generally run by the Internal Security Section
before even a preliminary is done, Just for concurrence of
the Internal Security Section that it's warranted. But no
such contacts had been made, according to Tom.
I called Leon Kellner. I asked him what's going
on. He was very — angry may be too strong, but annoyed--
because he was getting hit with all sorts of press inquiries,
and he knew nothing about the pending investigation.
Q Can you give me a time frame of your conversation
with Mr. Kellner?
A It would probably be the 8th or the 9th of October.
And as I said, he didn't know who authorized it,
but apparently there was FBI work at the Miami field office
level .
What next occurred at my request — I had to ask Tom
to find out what's going on, and Tom Harum sent over to me an
FBI teletype from the Miami office to headquarters — a copy of
that. And attached to it, he put a buck tag, and the buck
tag, if I recall correctly, indicated that Buck Revel at the
FBI — I forget the phraseology — was reluctant to or had
ordered that no further investigation be done because he —
Revel — apparently believed that it was a CIA operation.
Q Now, what — this is a buck tag from?
Tom to me.
Handwritten?
yNWSSlREO'
. O C 20002
107
jlbl07
'€
mm\m
A Maybe typed. It's just a — it's a transmittal
sheet, and it just —
Q Reflecting a conversation with Buck Revel?
A No, I don't believe it reflects the source of that
information other than the bureau. Tom Marum, I doubt very
much, would -b« talked with Buck Revel.
So presumably it would be Al Seddon or somebody
else at the FBI that Tom is getting this information from.
That memo comes over. I brief Weld on this.
Q Can you put a time frame on that?
A Again, all this is, I think, the same day.
Q October 8th or 9th?
A lC»*h. Uf^ .
Now, Tom had asked the bureau — the FBI — to question
the CIA about — you know — is there a relationship to the
operation, if you will, of the Hasenfus matter? What is the
relationship, if anything? That's where the matter stood on
that day, as I recall.
The next day, which I guess would be the 10th, I
get a call from Buck Revel asking me to come over to discuss
the matter. I mentioned that to Weld, who had asked me to
find out what's "j^JTyTn A^ ■J"iaiWWB«»'Britt°°'^ of what's
occurring.
I went over to Buck Revel. I met in his office
with him. And I believe he — well, another agent — I believe
wmm
108
01^3
UNCUSSIFIEO
his last name is Miller — Dennis Miller or something like
that, but he's, I think, assigned to their general counsel-
tjtpe office.
And Revel said — he explained, as I recall, that the
field office had gone off without headquarters' authori-
zation, which is contrary to — apparently to their procedure.
And they had begun a preliminary inquiry. And that's how the
matter got started.
And he began asking where I thought this matter
should go. I was skeptical about our jurisdiction. As I
appreciated the facts and from media and the letterhead memo,
we had a plane that had last been in the United States, I
think, three or four weeks before. It had gone down in a
foreign jurisdiction apparently loaded with arms, had an
American national — an American national was on board. But
that was it.
And I questioned — well, what is the jurisdictional
base? I maan, are we to assume that the arms that Hasenfus
was throwing out of the plane necessarily came from the
United States? And I saw this as a serious question, because
I couldn't believe the plane would take off and then sit
around for four weeks before discharging i^_^_5*£?° over
wherever it was — Nicaragua
So I approached the conversation of where do we go
from here with a certain amount of skepticism whether we had
:e aiscnarging its cargo c
ONCLASSinED
109
J1M09
^
^
^
19
20
21
^^
^
22
^
23
24
■ujH iw<MTwa ea.
MC.
)07 C Sum. N E
25
«uhii>ron. D C 1000]
UNCLASSIHED
sufficient bases for even a preliminary inquiry.
We began discussing what could be done, and he
says — and the discussion led me to believe that we could
resolve certain things. We could take a look at the airline,
the manifest, the last time it was there, and something
focusing on the airlinei.
And we had ultimately — by the end of the conversa-
tion, which lasted 20 or 30 minutes — we had — you know — let's
do some preliminary work to see whether we have a jurisdic-
tional basis for a full-blown inquiry.
I vaguely recall Buck mentioning that he had been
contacted by North, who was making an inquiry as to what was
going on. I don't know whether it was North or the NSC, but
I have in the back of my mind a comment that he had made
during the course of the conversation that he was--he had
received in an inquiry on that.
Q This was in the Cost conversation on October 10?
A That's correct.
And that's where we were at that time. I came
back, I briefed Bill Weld and Tom Mar\un, if I recall cor-
rectly. I don't recall mentioning it to Leon Kellner,
although logic would suggest that I would have also called
Kellner, but I have no specific recollection of doing that.
And that's where the matter stood until November.
Q Let me back up for a moment here before we go to
no
jlbliO
^ 17
. DC :oaa3
yNWSSIFlEO
November .
Can you be any more specific about what Hr. Revel
told you Oliver North had told him?
A I'm not sure it was as specific as Oliver North or
else something more general like the NSC — just that they were
asking again the same type of question that Bill Weld was
asking — what's going on? And that's the extent of my
recollection.
Q There was an inquiry from North — or the NSC,
rather — the provision of information or request to do
something or not to do something.
A That's correct. I have this generalized recollec-
tion that this was a prefatory statement that Buck Revel made
Q All right. So we go to the next step.
A The next — and here I may have my dates wrong. I
don't have any dates to offer.
But there came a point in time when I ^et a call
fzQB defense counsel for Hasenfus — Spaulding firm in Atlanta.
They were asking for some assistance from the Criminal
Division with respect to legal research and precedent and
opposition on a variety of legal issues.
And I called the State Department — Mike Cosack, I
think, in particular. He was with the Legal Advisor's
Office. I basically said, "Are you working with them? What
is our relationship to defense counsel?"
Ill
jlblll
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
^
0
0
ONCIASSIFIED
And he said, "Well, Hasenfus is a private citizen.
He's not a government employee, and we should treat counsel
as we would in any situation where an American national
abroad gets into trouble and hires defense counsel to
represent him in a foreign country," and basically that there
is no governmental relationship to Hasenfus .
And it was on that basis that we dealt with
Hasenfus' attorneys. We gave them good public record
information, but nothing beyond that in terms of assistance
and what have you.
Now, I'm having difficulty pinpointing when that
defense counsel issue occurred, but the next/e^^on that I'm
3f 'Tbccurrii
aware otfoccnrting on this matter is in November, when John
Martin, the head of the Internal Security Section, sent a
memo to Weld which, in the paper process, has to cross my
desk, attaching to John's memo a copy of a note from Judge
Webster to Floyd Clark, a memo reflecting a request from, I
think, the attorney general, requesting a delay of the
inquiry for ten days because of some pending potential impact
on hostage negotiations or something like that.
That was the first I was aware o^ that there was a
delay or that there was any request for a delay. I was not
familiar with this request. I showed it to Jack Keeney
because it concerned me no end that we were in the midst of a
request for a delay in a criminal investigation for reasons
112
_ 1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
^
#
#
ONCLSSSIFIED
that were not particularly clear to me. There was just a lot
of — this was a point in time where a lot of what is now the
Iran matter was becoming public, and it's just very confused.
And I was distressed to see this kind of memo.
I brought it into Mr. Weld. He shared, I think, ^^,vt.
concern and suggested I raise it with Steve Trott. John's
memo — John Martin's memo — had indicated that we, because the
initial request was only for a ten-day delay and that ten
days had long expired, that he — John — unless he heard to the
contrary would assume that it had elapsed and a request for
delay was no longer operative.
Q So by the time you saw it, the ten days had already
expired.
A Yes. I can't — let me see if I have a date. Well,
yes-- Judge Webster's memo apparently was dated October 31,
and this is something hitting my desk on the 12th of November.
Q And up until that point you had not been aware that
th«re was a request for a hold-up in the investigation?
A That's correct.
Coincidentally, John Martin and I were scheduled to
meet with Steve Trott that same day on, 1 think, the Walker
case — spy case. And Bill, aware of this, suggested that we
raise it with Steve at that time — Steve Trott — at that time.
Q Was Mr. Weld aware of the ten-day delay?
A He did not indicate any foreknowledge of that
113
jlbil3
llUtll MrOfTTM
ONCUSSIRED
delay. He appeared as surprised as I was.
At the meeting later that day with Steve Trott, I
took the occasion to raise it. I showed him John Martin's
memo and Judge Webster's memo.
My recollection is he tried to reach the director
to find out whether--! 'm sorry--to discuss the status and was
not successful. And he said he would get back to us.
Q Did Mr. Trott appear to have any prior knowledge of
the ten-day delay?
A Yes.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Did he explain to you what the purpose of the delay
was?
A I don't believe so. Other than that it was related
to our attempts to secure the release of the hostages .
Quite candidly, the memo — Webster's memo to Clark--
r«f lects hostages . But I must confess that in my own mind I
had thought they were talking about a trade for Hasenfus,
because at or about the sane time there were public reports
of Judge Bell, who was representing Hasenfus in Nicaragua,
talking about trades with the Nicaraguans. But I had this
notion of this connection, if you will, to the Hasenfus case.
At any rate, Steve Trott I do not recall going into
114
■MUSI mpotrrwa co . mc.
)07 C Sutn. N E 2 5
»u)un«oa D C :0002
Mmsim
any of the bases for the request.
Q I guess I'm not clear then, because you said
earlier that you were a bit concerned because all of the
public hoopla over the Iranian arms deal had of course come
to light in the past week or so. Did you not then connect
Webster's memo?
A The whole question of — I'm not sure how I can
answer. I recall in my own mind speculating that it was a
Hasenfus trade. Whether the--how that came up in the context
of what was going on publicly at that time, I don't recall.
I remember I was speculating that it was a Hasenfus trade.
I just — a request for delaying an investigation for
whatever reason is a serious question. Now, it's done.
There are legitimate enforcement reasons for doing it. But
in this context at this time, it just looked like a bad —
Q When did you first make the connection, then,
between the Webster memo in reference to hostages and what
was going on in Iran?
A I'm not sure. I would have to say after I learned
of the nature of it, I'm not sure that I connected it with
the hostages in Iran.
Q In other words, Trott did not tell you that.
A I don't believe he did.
EXAMINATION BY CflUMSeL J'OB XHfi. £E1IA1E_SELECT
COMMITTEE
mmm
115
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
H
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
W
22
23
24
ICO.. MC
25
WUXSIfiED
^
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q In your conversation with Mr. Trott, he indicated
that he would check with Webster.
A That's correct. He tried to place a call while we
were there. Judge Webster was not available.
Q The memo from — that Mr. Martin forwarded to you--
reflected that Attorney General Meese had initially requested
the delay from Director Webster, did it not?
A I don't recall — it's reflected in the memo. I'm
not sure whether it reflects that Steve Trott had asked Judge
Webster for the delay or the attorney general had asked for
it. I just don't recall the particular —
Q I guess my question is why would either Mr. — if it
were Mr. Trott who requested the delay initially, why would
he be checking with Judge Webster to see if it was okay to
lift the delay?
A No. But the delay had already been lifted. The
t«n days had expired.
The ten days had expired already by the time we
were talking with Steve Trott, and what I assumed was that
the call to Webster was designed to see how we resumed it--
-hew we resumed the inquiry.
Q Was there
that conversation?
rney general in
Oh, I believe Steve Trott had indicated that he had
116
)07 C Stren. N E
Ttihinftoa. O C 2000:
UNCLASSIFIED
requested the delay at the behest of the attorney general.
Q Was there any indication by Mr. Trott that he would
check with the attorney general to see if it was all right to
lift the delay?
A No, that's not ray recollection. My recollection is
only to check with Judge Webster to see whether the delay had
been lifted.
Q What happened next?
A I think, by and large, everybody knows of the-
events dealing with the Hasenfus matter that I'ra aware of.
Q In your discussiort with Mr. Trott, did Oliver
North's name come up in any way?
A I don't recall that.
Q How about the National Security Council as a whole?
A I don't know whether it was at that meeting or in a
subsequent conversation with Mr. Trott where I was led to
believe that all of this came at the behest of the National
Security Council. I don't believe that that was discussed on
the occasion of the meeting with John Martin and Mr. Trott.
Q Was there any discussion about why a delay was
necessary in the first place?
A No. No substantive discussion that I recall.
MR. McGOUGH: That's all I have.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOIL mE-UflUfiE SELECT
COMMITTEE
117
jlbll?
S
^
W7 C Sum. N E
UNCLASSIFIED
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Was that — was the Hasenfus case discussed at that
October meeting — that big meeting that Weld called regarding
the contra--
A There were two meetings that Weld had called. Both
of them got bogged down, I think, on both occasions on the
humanitarian case, if I'm not mistaken.
Q You don't recall any substantive discussion.
A No.
Q Were you aware of a parallel Customs investigation
of SAT?
A No, I wasn't until public revelations that appar-
ently there had been a parallel request made of Customs.
Q So the FBI — Revel — did not indicate to you that he
knew of a Customs investigation.
A I don't recall. He may have indicated that Customs
was doing their own investigation, or — I cannot say — he may
have mentioned it.
Q Did Trott mention it?
A No.
Q Do you know — as a matter of course, before a
Customs agent in the field can initiate an investigation — my
understanding is they focused on the plane as opposed to the
cargo. Would they also have checked with main Justice?
A They don't need our authority to investigate. The
118
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 I
I
10 j
11 I
12 I
i
13 i
!
14 i
I
15 I
-i
I
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
)07 C SaT«. N E
Wuhinffion. D C
UNCLASSIHEO
predicate, if you will, for the FBI, was a possible neutrality:
violation. The predicate for a Customs investigation would
be illegal exportation of equipment. i
Again, it's one of those parallel overlapping 1
jurisdiction. |
Q Did you during the course of this--now, this is, j
let's say, from October 6 until November 20 or so — speak to j
anybody at Customs, specifically Rafe Lopez or —
A Did I speak to him?
Q --or anybody about their investigation?
A No. I did not. I know these individuals, obvi-
ously.
MS. NAUGHTON: That's all I have.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q Let's turn to^^^^H||^^| When did you first
become aware of the^^^^^^^Hprosecution?
A Probably when he was in^^^B-probably went back
to '85.
Q You were aware — you were tracking the — you weren't
tracking — but you were aware of the prosecution fron
inception
A No. My interest was in connection with the
operation of the Office of International Affairs. I forget
J — but you were aware of the prosecution fjJJ'-it^
" —"-UNCLASSIFIED
119
jlbll9
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11 i
12!
13
14
15
16
17
UNCLASSIFIED
19
20
21
22
23
- I
24 j
CO.. HC. I
the sequence, but he had fled, and he was, I think, infl^l
And we were making some efforts to extradite or persuade the
o expel him. And it was in that connection, i
believe, I first had contact with the case.
Q Did there come a time when someone initiated or--
when there were discussions about giving ^^^^^^^| some
consideration on his sentence?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell me about that?
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q First of all, can we ask what he was indicted for
and convicted?
A He was indicted for multiple counts of conspiring
tofa« engaging efforts to assassinate flHHHHHj^^^^l
So I think he was charged with murder for hire
and related types of offenses. He ultimately plead to two
counts of murder for hire.
Q What was his maximum exposure?
A To what he plead to?
Yeah.
Ten years .
UNClASSinEO
And this was prosecuted again, I gather, out of the
120
jlbl20
^
^
^
^07 C SuCTi, N E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
H
12
13
14 t
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MC.
25
UNCUSSIFIED
A That's correct.
He was charged with others who were also charged, I
believe, with various narcotics offenses. I don't believe
ras specifically charged with the narcotics
offenses .
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q In response to my earlier question, you indicated
that there were in fact discussions of giving!
^^^Hsome consideration. Can you tell me how those were j
initiated?
A Well, I can only speak for myself, and I say that
because there were significant efforts made by persons with
the Department of Defense as well as those assigned to the
State Department who tried to secure preferential treatment |
for this defendant. Those approaches were, in my understand- I
ing, were made directly to the U.S. Attorneys Office way j ^
before we in Washington really became aware--at least to my ]
knowledge--of what was going on.
I think I first learned of this aspect of the
matter when Jim Michel of the State Department, who is
Elliott Abrams'--one of Elliott Abrams ' deputies, and I had a
discussion. I may have my timing wrong. I may have first
discussed it with Mike Cosack at the Legal Advisor's Offio
121
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14 1
I
15 1
16
17
18
19
20
21
wsjife
But at any rate, it was a dialogue that began
between myself, Mike Cosack, and Jim Michel. And it was a
very strange situation that we found ourselves in, because
including
individuals detailed from DOD to the State Department, were
seeking to secure M-^9m:reatment for i[^^^^^^Hnot neces-
sarily on behalf of their agency but as individuals. They
were seeking to make known their views.
In addition, we began receiving communications from
the^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hwas to the
president. I think he wrote to the court seeking some
consideration fori
Mr. Michel, myself, and Mr. Cosack had sojiie
discussions and along with^^^^^^^^^^B concluded that this
was crazy, that there was no basis for this, and that we were
going to oppose this kind of treatment for an individual that
essentially we have viewed and had publicly stated we viewed
as an international terrorist. So we were quite emphatic
about our position and were resisting these efforts, if you
will, to somehow get the gc^v^
treatment tol
WtMRffi""
22 That was our posture. We had a meeting with State
by ^^^^^^^^^^^^^H which affordec^^^
24 I opportunity to convince us that there were good and valid and
25 I legitimate reasons why we should as a government qo into
122
UNCUSSIflED
court and seek some consideration for this man.
Q Let me interject there.
What were the reasons given for
^^^^referential treatment?
A He was a friend of the U.S. He had helped the U.S.
Q Were they more specific than that?
A Veiry vague, very general. And we were never, to my
satisfaction, able to get any specifics.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Did you get a sense of whether this was all
retrospective or whether he was still working for us?
A Oh, no. I had assumed it was just for historical
relationships.
Q Did anybody from the agency attend?
A Again, this is where I come back to a cast of
thousands. There were many people there.
Q Well, at any rate, was the agency heard from in
this whole —
A I don't--I'm not aware that the agency waded in on
this. This was purelj-^^ a^DOD j.nit^ajt_ive^ as far as I could
tell.
So we listened, and State was most emphatic on this
one--no reason why to give into this —
123
jlbi23
^
^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 i
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MC.
25
UNCUSSIFIED
MR. McGOUGH: You say State was very emphatic?
MR. RICHARD: It didn't want it to go over.
MR. McGOUGH: Did not want to give preferential
treatment?
MR. RICHARD: Did not endorse it. The State and
Justice were walking hand-in-hand on this issue.
And it was a very peculiar situation, because in a
way DOD was not institutionally supporting it. But these
individuals were coining up and always prefacing their
positions as speaking as an individual and going from there.
And, in fact, the court was sympathetic and was
receiving information from individuals such as--
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q So these people^^^^^^^|were contacting the court
directly.
A Well, they were serving as character witnesses.
When there came a point in time after the plea, they were
writing in with pleas for leniency. I think I had a sense of
hearing they testified in his behalf.
So you have this series of pleas coming in from--l
wouldn't say DOD representatives, but individuals affiliated
with DOD, as well as the^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
And we were, as I
said, opposed to it. And the instructions to^^^^were just
proceed in a normal fashion, dispose of the case as you would
124
J1M24
0
.!*^
' C Sum N E
WUSJIBfD
normally, evaluate it in normal terms.
And ultimately a plea was entered, a sentence
imposed — I think for five years concurrent, if I'm not
mistaken — and the man ordered to surrender.
Then there came a point in time--I would say
probably around the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd of October--when I got a
call from Steve Trott, I believe it was, asking me to attend
a meeting with Buck Revel ^^^^^^^^^^^^Hthing over the
Executive Office Building. I forget whether it was immedi-
ately or first thing the next morning.
But I go over with Buck Revel, and we go into-- I
have to assume it was Oliver North's office. And present is
Dewey Clarridge, Oliver North, Abrams --Elliott Abrams--and an
individual who was introduced to me as a retired general.
His name was given. I have forgotten it, but I believe j
people have told me it was General Gorman. i
And the purpose of the meeting, as announced by I
Colonel North, was that
egarding this latest plea,
which seemed to be centered on the fact that^^^^^^^Hhad
since surrendered to begin serving his sentence.
It was unclear — I got the impression that^^^^^^
^^^|thought he was going to go in from one entrance and out
125
UNCUSSinED
the other entrance--you know, and out the rear.
Q Did you get this impression from North? Did you
have it before you went to the meeting? Let's put it that
way.
A Well, I got the impression that that was what was
t r i g g e r i n g ^^^^^^U^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
really holding him--that was the sense I had. Like any--he
didn't anticipate it — like he really thought, you know--
Q What I'm asking is from whom did you get this
impression? Was from reading ^^^^^^^^^^^^Hor was
from North told you?
A It's a valid question. Let me reflect on it.
I think that was mentioned at this meeting. Like
what did he expect? And maybe I said it, but it was like^H
^^^B^s I understood it from, I think, either Colonel North
or from the generaJ
And maybe I ventured to say, "Well, it
sounds like he expected to walk right out."
MR. McGOUGH: At any rate, was he sentenced and
then ordered to surrender at a later date?
MR. RICHARD: He had surrendered.
MR. McGOUGH: Bi^ it wasn't a matter of being
sentenced and bail, bond-
MR. RICHARD: The court had recommended ^^^^H Th«
government, as I understood, took no position at that point.
126
ONCUSSIFIED
but the court had recommended to the Bureau of Prlsons^^^H
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Was that at the defendant's request?
A Oh, yes. But the court endorsed it.
The designation by the Bureau of Prisons was that
the initial receipt was^^^^^^^^^| which is, I think, one
step up in security fromi
The purpose of the meeting, I guess, as articulated
by Colonel North, was to discuss!
Then Colonel North, supported by the general, began
also indicating that ^^^^^^^Hwas a friend of the govern-
ment— the U.S. government --had helped immeasurably the
military.
Had helped U.S. forces, was always available. Again, very
ambiguous, no specifics, l^it he was always ready to assist us.
A I always assumed
but I always thought it was
127
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
^n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
' C Sutn. N E 25
iifimim
Q Well, yeah, but did they ever refer to him in
particular —
A Particular function, responsibility? I don't
believe so.
The general just indicated to us that he was
helpful in accommodating our military. So this became the
theme, and it was a theme that North was articulating, and
the general was supporting tt. Dewey Clarridge concurred.
And what was probably the most surprising was
Elliott Abrams now concurred that we should do what we can
for this man, which, I must confess, I saw as a change in ^^Xl
State Department position. In all fairness to Mr. Abrams, he
indicated that he had to leave for another meeting. He got
up, but his parting remarks were, 'We should do what we can
to accommodate this man." And then he left the meeting.
I was asked what can be done for this man, and I
basically said, "Look. His defense counsel can file motions
to reduce. He's always free to apply for some immediate
parole consideration." I'm not sure whether I articulated
any other options at that time.
Then the issue came up — "Well, can you transfer him
Who asked that?
UNCLASSIFIED
I'm tempted to say North, because Colonel North was
128
jlbl28
£?
^
yilftSSIFlEO
doing most of thQ talking. General Gorman was just support-
ing. Buck Revel was very quiet, and I felt very much on the
defensive in this setting. This was — I just found myself in
this situation.
I told them — I said, "Look. This appears to me
to — anything we do for this man seems to undercut our position
that we have taken repeatedly that this man is an inter-
national terrorist. This is certainly not consistent with
the position we have articulated throughout the course^ of
this prosecution that this man is a serious international
terrorist and should be treated accordingly."
Buck Revel supported that proposition, and the
meeting ended up with — "See what you can do about transferring
him ^^^
I think I offered, as a possibility, because the
mission was to come up with a possible response^^^^^
that conceivably what we could do
was offer to brief ^^^^^^^^^^^^
he realize what he's
asking for? And maybe he doesn't appreciate fully the
mplications of the conduct engaged in by this man.
129
(INCUSSIFIED
I told them at the meeting that I would
take it back and discuss it with the Department of Justice,
and that's where we left it.
I think Colonel North remarked that he thought he
had enough]
It lasted all of 25 minutes or so.
I went back to the department. It's strange — I
don't know — 1 don't recall briefing Weld on it. I have to
assume he was in place at the time. He came in about this
time.
But I talked to Steve Trott, and he said he didn't
have any trouble with sending I
Q Had Trott indicated to you that he had had a
sinilar meeting with Colonel North?
A Not at that time. Subsequently, more recently he
had informed me of the fact that there was an earlier
meeting. I was not aware of that at the time.
I'm not sure of the timing here. I did speak to
^^^^^Band told him about the meeting and asked him his
views on sending him to^^^^^ and. he had no trouble with
that. It's the mood — the sentencing on_ the^r^eque^t^o jo^o_
^^^H, and he had no trouble wit
mcing on the request to qo to
"4!NIllASSlflEll]
82-732 0-88-6
130
uNcussra
I talked to, I believe, John Martin. He had no
major problems, as I recall.
And I got back to Weld, and he told me to call Norm
Carlson, head of the Bureau of Prisons —
MR. McGOUGH: He told you to call Norm Carlson?
MR. RICHARD: Yes.
And why I say that — if I may drop a footnote — I had
mentioned — when Steve Trott said that to me, I said, "The
last time I called Norm Carlson and arranged for a transfer
of a prisoner who had begun cooperating" — I transferred him
from a medium-security facility to a minimum-security
facility — "the guy absconded within a week." So I told
Steve, "I'm not sure whether my credibility is very high with
Norm Carlson. "
So Steve Trott said, "Well, tell him if he has
problems with it to have Norm Carlson call me."
So that was the gist of the conversation.
But I called Norm Carlson, and as I recall, he had
no problem with it, and as far as I know, the man was
transferred.
We never, as far as I know, went down and^^^^^^
And that's about where we are, as far as I
know.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
UNCLASSIHED
Did you ever get back to the NSC or State Depart-
131
Jlbl31
UNCIASSIRED
'*'
mant?
A No. I didn't.
Excuse me. There was one other aspect In this
narrative I didn't include.
I think right before the sentencing I received a
call from Judge Sofaer over at State. He had been contacted
by, the^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hof the
Department of Defense^^^^^^^^^H I don't recall the
who wanted also to Interject consideration for^^H
This, I believe, was prior to sentencing.
For some reason, the individual couldn't reach
anybody within the department of moment, and Judge Sofaer
asked me if I would talk to him. I did. And I basically
articulated what was our position with respect to providing
any consideration ^^^^^^^^^H That was it.
Q You never heard from hin again?
A No. He was just making a very strong pitch for
consideration. That was probably the most official DOD
presentation that I had received during this whole process .
MR. McGOUGH: Do you remember who it was that
Sofaer was speaking for?
MR. RICHARD: Sofaer-^he called me just to ask that
I call this individual.
MR. McGOUGH: But I mean who the individual was
ofaer — he called me just
ONCLASSIHED
132
jlbl32
^
^
M7 C Sam. N.E.
ONOLASSIFIED
that you were supposed to call?
MR. RICHARD: He was head of the J
for DOD.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Did he Indicate either where he had gotten his
information or what his connection was with]
A I never received from any source specifics other
than a friend of the government — a friend of the United
States or another government.
Q Just for the record , ^^^^B-do you know what
security facility it is? Can you just describe it for the
record?
A Well, it's a minimum- security facility.
there are perimeter security arrangements.
MR. McGOUGH: Let me show—mark this as Exhibit 7.
[The document referred to was marked for identifi-
cation as Richard Deposition Exhibit No. 7.)
MR. McGOUGH: They appear to be a couple of
133
UNCUSSIFIED
transmittal slips. The top one — both of them appear to be
dated October 2. And is that your handwriting at the top of
the first one?
MR. RICHARD: That's correct.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. MCGOUGH:
Q And for the record, would you read — it's dated
10/3/86, and %rauld you read that for the record?
A "Steve Trott, according to Jim Michel, agreed to
briefing. Verified SST"— that's Steve Trott — "send the
items," which I assume refers to — that we were authorized to
send the teletype. Do you want me to read the —
Q No, no. It's not necessary to read the text. But
the teletype that it refers to from Abraros was to go to whom?
A If I'm not mistaken, it was a teletype responding
There was a communication —
I — whether it was from^^^^^^^^^^^Bor Elliott Abrams
I don't recall.
Q How did this fit in time-wise with your meeting
with North and Abrams in that event?
A The communication?
Q This transmittal slip — October 2 — October 3.
A I assume that the meeting occurred, the cable was
prepared, sent it over to John Martin or he got it from — did
134
UNCLASSIHED
1 sand it over?
They weren't aware of this — at the time when they
were reviewing a cable of the developments — my proposal, for
example, we^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^and the
Steve Trott — agreed that that could be something we could do
They weren't aware
that it had been accomplished to send them to Abrams .
Q So by this time there had already been a decision
made to intervene with Norm Carlson?
A Yes. I spoke to — this is on the 3rd — on the 3rd,
my notes suggest that I called Norm Carlson. Now, I'm not
sure when physically the man was moved fron
Q But the letter and teletype from Mr. Abrams
appeared to indicate that Justice had intervened on
s behalf and recommended that he be sent to]
So that the draft that was sent over on October
2 would have stated that Justice had in fact intervened.
A I'm not sure whether it was put in terms of
intervention as opposed to — we have agreed to transfer the
man or the man is being transferred for convenience of the
I'd have to — I'm not sure it was couched in
terms of intervention.
MR. McGOUGH: What time — do you have a restriction
in the evening?
ave to — I'm not sure it »
UNCUSSIFIED
jlbl35
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I CO., MC
ONCLASSm
' C Stren. NE.
MR. RICHARD: No.
MR. McGOUGH: I think I've got maybe another hour
or so.
MR. RICHARD: I just would like to finish today,
but I'm prepared to go as long as you want tonight.
MR. McGOUGH: Do you need a break?
MS. NAUGHTON: I would like a break.
MR. McGOUGH: Why don't we do it now?
(Recess]
MR. McGOUGH: Okay. Let's get back on the record
and turn, if we could, to the Evans prosecution — the Souther
District of New York.
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q Prior to the revelations in November of '86 about
the Iranian initiative, were the defendants in the Evans case
alleging a government authorization or government policy
defense to their prosecution?
A I'm probably the wrong one to ask that question of.
My understanding was that they had consistently maintained--
at least with respect to the Iranian transaction8--government
authorization. But I would suggest you verify that directly
with the Southern District of New York.
Q What, if any, authority, supervision, or review did
you exercise over the Evans prosecution^
A Well, I had worked with the Southern District" of'
136
jlbl36
CO
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ONCUSSIFIED
)fl7 C Scrro. N E
New York in terms of their apprehension. The individuals had
been lured, if you will, to Bermuda, and it was a question of
how to accomplish their arrival in the United States when we
have to go through an extradition proceeding which not only
would be cumbersome but could pose some problems in terms of
the existing treaty and what have you. Our efforts were
designed to see if we could arrange for iaipCttirion to the
United States .
Q Were you involved in the pre-lndictment stage of
thafcase at all?
A I don't believe in a substantive way. I think I
was aware that it was coming down — that there was this ]
pending operation. But I certainly wasn't dealing in
substance with the Southern District of New York on how to
bring it down.
Q Prior to the disclosures about the Iranian Ini-
tiative, is it fair to say that the case did not — strike
that.
After the disclosures about the Iranian initiative,
did the case draw more of your attention as it related to
their defense of governmental authorization?
A Well, the case had that particular interest to me
because of what I'll call the tsraeli ronnection. And I have
been working quite closely on a variety of cases impacting on j
the government of Israel-^-or potentially impacting or i
. D C JOOOJ
137
jlbl37
UNCLASSIFIED
••^^ 20
•^C 22
mxai mpomtiQ co.. hc.
>07 C Stnn. N E 25
Wuhxiroa. 0 C 20002
involving the government of Israel In that regard, this
case was of interest because, if I recall correctly, several
of the defendants purportedly had priot israeli military
affiliation.
MS. NAUGHTON: Could we step back again? Could you
tell us what the indictment was and what the defendants were
charging? I believe there 17 defendants.
MR. RICHARD: That's correct. Not all of them have
been apprehended. There are a series of —
MR. McGOUGH: Has the indictment been unsealed as
to all of them, or do you know if they remain sealed?
MR. RICHARD: I believe that it is unsealed as to
all of them.
It's been a while since I looked at the indictment,
but what we're dealing with essentially are five conspiracies
to illegally export substantial arms without requisite
licenses .
The arms were going to a variety of — or intended to
go to a variety of foreign countries, including Iran, but not
limited to Iran. There were other countries, I believe, that
also were intended a«d users fer some of the conspiracy.
So that what you regard as the Evans conspiracy, I
think, is only a portion of the total case.
MS. NAUGHTON: Did any arms actually get shipped?
MR. RICHARD: I do not believe that anything
138
vmssim
arrived .
Is that responsive to your question?
MS. NAUGHTON! That's fine. It's mostly for the
record, not my curiosity.
MR. McGOUGH: We get so used to speaking about
these things as terms — I think you're right. We need a
little bit of background.
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q You were talking about the Israeli aspect.
A You asked about — my initial interest or focus of
the case was in the context of that issue, because I have
been, as I indicated, heavily involved in a variety of cases
impacting on- Israel
Q Can you put a time frame on that issue in the case?
A I believe in April of '86, if I'm not mistaken, was
the time when it was brought dovm, if you will — the arrests
were made and what have you. It was several months, as I
recall, trying to arrange for their entry into the United
States. But the case was--coinplaints were filed, I believe,
in about April of '86.
Q Now, after the disclosure of the Iranian arms
initiative, there were intensified efforts by defense counsel
to raise the government authorization of defense, if we can
call it that. And when did it first come to your attention
that these had been connected somehow--these defenses had
jlbl39
2
4
5
6
7
^
ONCIASSIFIEO
been connected with the Iranian arms sale?
A Well, I think from the start of the public revela-
tions, which I guess were beginning in Novembervof the
governmental initiative, the defendants in the Evans case
began citing this as further justification for what they were
asserting all along--was essentially government authorization
or belief that there was going to be government authorization.
If I'm not mistaken, there was no suggestion that they had
the government authorization, but they had reason to believe
a
they would havefat the time of the exportation.
There came a point in time, as I understood it,
where the court — Judge Sand in New York — was making inquiry
into whether there was a connection between the authorized
initiative and that which was before the court in New York.
And there had been previous representations, if I'm
not mistaken, made by the Southern District of New York to the
court that inquiries to appropriate federal agencies had
r«T<ealed that the activities embraced by the indictment were
in fact not authorized.
Q Let me stop you there for a second.
Were you involved in those original inquiries to
the various agencies?
A No.
Q Did you coordinate them? ]
A No. I believe that the Southern District either
ONCUSSIRED
140
jlbl40
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
20
21
22
23
24
DNMXIFe
directly went to those agencies or worked through our
internal security section to secure the information from the
relevant agencies.
Q And there came a time in or about November of '86
when the judge wanted something more in the way of a repre-
sentation from DOJ.
A Well, here it was a representation— thaA wanted
information as to whether there was a connection between the
mjidLUoad matter and the authorized government conduct, which
by that time was becoming publicly known and acknowledged.
As I recall, during this period I had been in touch
with Rudy Giuliani", the U.S. attorney, and his senior staff;
Denison Young; and, I think, Spanirdo Romano as well as on
occasion talking directly to the assistant. They telefaxed,
I think, to me a proposed representation that they were
suggesting be made to the court.
MR. McGOUGH: Let's mark this as an exhibit. This
ia Deposition Exhibit 8. My copy is mis-paginated. Is yours?
MR. RICHARD: ¥^i. No, I'm all right.
[The document referred to was marked for identifi
cation as Richard Deposition Exhibit No. 8.)
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q Referring to Deposition Exhibit 8, is that the
telefaxed proposal or an affi
I'CLASSIFIED
141
jlbl41
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MO CO.. ne.
E. 25
smssm
With some handwritten interlineations on it.
Yes.
And that would be your handwriting.
Part of it is. Part of it I believe is Bill
Q
A
Q
A No.
Weld's.
Q Now, this would have been transmitted on November
14, 1986. Is that right?
A That's the date reflected on the exhibit.
Q What steps did you take when you got this?
A Well, as I recall, I had earlier alerted Bill Weld
to the fact that this issue was facing the department and
■that I believe Bill Weld had informed me that the attorney
general was going to certify that there was no connection
between the two cases .
Q This was before November 14?
A I believe, if I'm not mistaken, that it was before
the receipt of the proposed Southern District language.
Q Which is dated November 14?
A Which is dated November 14. What I'm suggesting is
in point of time it may have occurred on the 14th but prior
to the receipt of the telefax.
I told Bill Weld that I thought that that was a
terrible error.
Q What was the terrible error?|
A To have the attorney general certify that there was
UNCLASSIFIED
142
isamsim
' C Sum. N E
•hinroo. D C 20002
no connection, because, quite candidly, as I evaluated the
matter, I couldn't understand how anybody at that point in
time would be in a position to certify that there was no
connection. Setting aside the ambiguity of what a connection
means — and I'm not sure to this day I know when you say there
is no connection what you are asserting — it appeared to me
that unless one had the most intimate knowledge of both sides
of the equation — to wit, the Evans case and all of its
nuances--as well as the Iran initiative along with all of its
nuances, how could anyone draw a conclusion that there was no
connection?
And I expressed this concern, I think, very
strongly to Bill Weld, because I thought we were going down a
path where inevitably we would be — the defendants would
assert that we were disingenuous with our certification if
fetors -lightest arguable connection showed up down the road.
And I was concerned about that.
I expressed it first to Bill Weld. I believe he
agreed with me. I think he raised it with Steve Trott. we
then — if I recall the sequence — we got the telefax, we went
over it, changed some aspects, and again sent it forward.
And I was again strongly urging that it not be made.
Q And when you say "sent it forward", you mean sent a
draft or a revision of tpis. teJ-etyoeact^S^^fiflrward to the
attorney general.
143
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ONClASSIflEO
A Well, I can only say that as far as I know, it went
up to Steve Trott. I have no knowledge of whether the
attorney general literally saw this proposed teletype — this
telex.
Q But at the time you sent this forward, Mr. Trott,
as you understood it, was aware of your reservations and
concerns?
A I don't believe I expressed them directly to him,
but I think Bill Weld had let him know my feelings.
MS. NAUGHTON: If I can interrupt you for a second.
I missed whose idea or insistence or whatever it
was to have the AG actually certify this as opposed to some
other official.
MR. RICHARD: Well, that was the point. I think
the Southern District had proposed it as their best desire.
MS. NAUGHTON: Had they proposed this to you?
MR. RICHARD: My recollection is that they had said
that's what they wanted — was the attorney general to certify.
And I believe that's the way I interpreted it — that they
wanted the attorney general himself to certify it.
And as it related to me, it was that there was a
willingness to make such a certification.
MR. McGOUGH: Was that related to you by Mr. Weld
MR. RICHARD: Yes
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
UNCLASSIFIED
144
UNCUSSIFIED
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.. MC
25
COMMITTEE
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q So Weld got back to the attorney general, and he
said he was willing to make such a certification?
A ¥ee*»>^
If I'm not mistaken, on this particular day when
the issue was resolved, there was a question. There were two
matters arising from active litigation in the field--the
Evans and a matter on the West Coast, where--I think it was
either San Diego or L.A. had a case — it was L.A. — before
Judge Wilson. And Judge Wilson was inquiring as to the
government's intent in light of the public revelations of the
Iran initiative.
The judge in that case had a convicted defendant
who was moving to set aside a conviction or a sentence. He
had been convicted for allegedly — not allegedly — but for
exporting illegally to Iran certain proscribed materials.
And the judge, in response to that motion, was
asking the prosecuting U.S. attorney for certain information
regarding the government's intended way to proceed in light
of these revelations. So we — and the USA out there had three
questions that he was seeking the answer to from the depart-
ment.
So both the Evans and this other~clse went upstairs
That is to say, I believe it was handled at an executive
145
jlbl45
^-*J
«ms«fl
MAUI KVOKTMO CO.. MC.
m^
meeting which the top management of the department holds
every morning. And I think it was taken up at that point in
time. And I believe that this was done prior to the receipt
of this actual proposal.
There was--if I'm not mistaken--there was nothing
written on the table, if you will, at the time that the
initial decisions were made. After the morning meeting,
which takes place fairly early in the morning, if my memory
serves me correctly. Bill Weld came back with responses for
L.A. and a response — or at least a way of proceeding--in the
Evans matter.
And it was in that context, if I'm not mistaken in
my sequence of events, that it was conveyed to me that the
attorney general was prepared to make the certification. And
that's where the matter stood.
And later that day, which was the 14th--a Friday--I
had occasion to be with Steve Trott, and I believe it was in
connection with another case — the Pollard case--there were
aoae developments on that — where Steve Trott called the
attorney general and asked me to accompany him to see the
attorney general on that matter.
We briefed the attorney general on that matter,
and — maybe somewhat presumptuously of me — I said, "Mr.
Attorney General, I want to raise the issue of the Evans case
with you because I think it '-a a horrendous mistake that's
146
WUSSIflfO
about to be made." And I quickly articulated the reasons why
I did not think that the department should make this kind of
certification at this point in time.
Apparently — and this I guess you'd have to ask
him — but my impression of his reaction was that he had by this
time — he was not going to make that certification, because he
quickly said — led me to believe that he was going to take it
up the next day — Saturday — with the National Security
Council. Now, I'm not sure whether he said National Security
Council or Admiral Poindexter.
And that's where the matter stood.
Q Did he say — obviously — correct me if I'm wrong--
your pitch is someone's got to know the full details of that
and — of the Evans case and the U.S. -sponsored Iran initiative
in order to make such a certification.
A If I may interrupt, the argument I presented to him
was a simple argument, and that is that you just don't know
all the proprietaries that may have been used or contemplated
by either side of the equation. And until you at least know
that, you're walking into a no-man's land in terms of
connections between the two
I hope you appreciate--at this point in time, I
don't think I appreciated that the attorney general had any
personal involvement in the Iran authorized initiative. So I
assumed he had no knowledge on both sides of the equation.
lO-man s iana xn terms oi
UNCLASSIFIED
147
IMIFIEO
Q Well, that's my question. Did he impart to you
any — either any knowledge of it or did he tell you that
someone was looking into the Iranian — the U.S. -sponsored
Iranian initiative?
A No, he just — he just basically said without
commenting on substance that it was going to be taken up with
the — either with Admiral Poindexter or the NSC the next day.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q How did you understand that would move in the
direction of solving the problem?
A Well, for one, I felt somewhat relieved because
the — it wouldn't be the Department of Justice making the
certification. It was the National Security Council, who I
assumed was intimately familiar with at least the Iran
initiative. They would be in a far better position than the
Department of Justice to come up with this broad certifi-
cation.
Q But only from the Iran initiative side of the
equation, which still had much less to do with the Evans case.
A I'm still troubled by that fact.
Q So Attorney General Meese Wf_aoiig i^o_g£ th? NSC
and Admiral Poindexter on the--case.
A I'm not sure whether he said he would go, but that
148
iifimim
1 matter would be taken up on —
2 Q What was the next word you were going to say?
3 A Monday, I believe, which would have been, I guess,
4 the 17th.
5 I think I probably either was out of town or late
6 because by that time there was agreement on a certification
7 to be offered to the Southern District of New York in
8 response to Judge Sand's request. I think I learned of that
9 after the fact.
10 I have seen some notations that indicate that the
11 certification finally was devised was in fact communicated to
12 the Southern District by Bill Weld directly.
13 MS. NAUGHTON: Did you have any part in drafting
14 that?
15 MR. RICHARD: I had commented on the draft that
16 came in from the Southern District without changing the
17 critical point. What came in from the Southern District was
18 not focused on the attorney general, though, but rather the
19 Department of Justice, which also was of more comfort because
20 originally I thought the attorney general personally was
21 going to certify.
2 2 BY MR. McGOUGH:
2 3 Q So you run it back on Monday to find that there was
24 some resolution?
MC.
2 5 A Yes.
Mmm
149
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
24
>07 C Su»»i N E 25
Vtlhiufsxi. 0 C I0C02
DNCWSWO
Q Did you attempt to determine — or did you determine
how that resolution had met your concerns the week before--in
other words, whether someone had in fact discovered once and
for all that there was no connection.
A Well, I was confident somebody satisfied themselves
that under some interpretation of the word connection that
there was none.
Q Did you know who had done that?
A I thought it was Admiral Poindexter, who was in
charge of making the final judgment to the Department of
Justice. Whether he tasked anybody at the NSC, I cannot say.
Q But the certification went out from Mr. Weld to the
Southern District.
A It was transmitted by Mr. Weld, but it was from the
Department of Justice and made reference to the consultation
with, I think, the NSC.
Q Were you confident that whoever was acting on
b«half of the Department Justice in that capacity had
sufficient understanding of the Evans case?
A Was I confident?
Q To make that representation^
A I was concerned, only because I was concerned that
someone would read connection extremely broadly. And I
wasn't confident that, given the broadest interpretation of
what Judge Sand was seeking, whether there was anybody in
UNCIASSIRED
150
UNCLASSIFIED
1 Washington certainly familiar enough with the Evans case to
2 assert that there — with conf idence--that there was no
3 connection.
4 Q Well, I guess what I'm driving at is when you saw
5 on Monday that Weld had made this representation for cer-
6 tification —
7 A If I may just interrupt you.
8 Q Sure.
9 A Weld didn't make the certification, weld trans-
10 mitted it to the Southern District.
11 Q When you saw on Monday that it had been transmitted
12 to the department, were you still uncomfortable with the
13 transmittal or by that time —
14 A Well, I'm concerned because it appears to me that
15 it's an area of potential problems. This was a certification
16 that was generated in good faith, but I was concerned without
17 some clarification, simply because I just don't know what the
18 word connection means in this context.
19 You have overlapping equipment, for example. If I
20 recall correctly, some of the equipment in the Evans case
21 consisted of TOW missiles. Is that a connection? If they
22 used the same certification mechanism, is that a sufficient
23 connection?
24 MS. NAUGHTON: Were you_ aware of the^ Khashoggi
25 connection with the Evans case?
UNCLASSIFIED
151
JlblSl
g
Mujii imtmita eo.. mc.
ONCUSSIflED
MR. RICHARD: I was aware that— when you say
connection—I was aware that Mr. Evans had a prior relation-
ship with Adnan Khashoggi. we haven't determined whether
that relationship extends to the operations involved in the
Evans case. But there was history of a proprietal relation-
ship.
All of those were concerns of mine.
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q Were you aware at that point that Mr. Khashoggi was
somehow involved in the Iranian initiative?
A I can't place it in time. I just — if nothing else,
in the abstract, I saw this as a troublesome area that either
should have been better articulated as to what the court was
seeking by way of assurances or at least some more systematic
inquiry should be accomplished before we made those represen-
tations.
Q As of Monday the 17th, did you express those
concerns — those continued concerns to Mr. Weld or anyone else?
A Well, I don't recall afterwards expressing the same
degree of concern. I was greatly relieved that the department
had at least gone out to the. NSC, who I understood had the
information, at least on the authorized Iranian initiative
and had sought their representations— affirmative representa-
tions to the extent that they were in a position to make
them--that no, they were aware of no connection. This
152
23
C24
>07CS<rtn. NE. 25
TMhiiiftoo. D C 20002
certainly alleviated a portion of my concerns.
I'm not sure that I continued to articulate ongoing
concerns on this point.
Q Did you feel that you had been cut out of the
situation?
A No, not at all.
Q On the 14th you screwed up your courage and raised
this with the attorney general sua sponte, and then on the
17th you came back and found out that essentially that while
the solution was a little bit better, it still didn't solve
the problem. Did you feel — did you follow up any more with
it?
A No. No, I didn't. I had, I think, expressed
concern over a period of time — I just can't put it in time--
in conversations with Denison Young about this problem.
Q After Monday the 17th, when you learned —
A Excuse me. If I may interject. My concern
continues to be there only because now you have independent
counsel generating information on the Iran initiative that is
not being shared with the Southern District of New York, to
my knowledge. So that now we're — at least as an abstract
proposition — in the difficult position of standing by our
representation but not privy to possibly new facts developed
by the independent counsel that wf undercut^ theJL^^ regresenta^
tion. This concern I have also articulatec
153
jibl53
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
'9fi\.
1
20
^
MafivoKTwaco
•It
>07CSa«i, NE
wussm
No, but I —
I just want to get at the facts.
That's right.
So basically it's in the nature of a pleading to
MS. NAUGHTON: Can I ask just about the representa-
tion?
MR. RICHARD: Sure.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q First of all, this is not an affidavit that someone
signed.
A
Q
A
Q
the court.
A I don't know whether it was just a statement on the
record or by — in a particular pleading.
I mean, the department would not, .*« my judgment,
tolerate erroneous representations to the court.
Q Oh, no. That's not my point.
My point is this: were this to be challenged--and
what I'm asking is did this go through your mind as well — not
just that that representation might be erroneous but that
someday someone may actually have to testify at a hearing or
a trial if either connection was found. And did you--did it
concern you that this person might have to be the attorney
general or Admiral Poindexter or someone of that stature?
154
. 0 C 20002
WMsm
A Well, yes it did certainly concern me. This was
one of the reasons why I suggested that this — initially a
certification, as I understood, coming directly from the
attorney general was crazy because it exposed him as a
potential witness. This was one of the reasons for initially-
objecting.
Q Did you articulate that concern to the attorney
general?
A No.
Q Did you articulate it to Mr. Weld?
A Yes. The question — you made a statement with
respect to the concern. I was concerned about raising it
with the attorney general. It was just in terms of the
propriety of it — I mean, we were not there discussing the
Evans case, and it was something that I had raised with my
immediate superiors.
It was in the context of deviating from the chain
of conanand that I saw myself, if you will, subject to some
criticism, because I had raised it with Bill Weld previously.
I knew he had taken it up directly with Steve Trott, and in
that regard, for me to jump over them and take it--you know,
mention my concerns directly to the attorney general was just
outside the normal chain of command.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL JOJ iHf:.,fi{aU^XE SELECT
COMMITTEE
IMM
155
jlbl55
^
^
Mftun nratmta co.. mc.
«)7CSOTn. NE 25
Vaahuidon. D C 20002
Mmsm
BY MR. MCGOUGH:
Q We're now coming up to the fact-finding weekend, as
its become known, starting — on the 20th, 21st — in that area.
Did you have any further contact specifically with
the Evans issue prior to the weekend of the weekend of the
21st, 22nd, and 23rd? I mean, did it come up again at any
meetings that you attended? Did you raise it again with
anyone that you can recall?
A No, not the certification issue.
I spoke regularly with the Southern District of New
York on the Evans case as well as other cases, and I would
not be surprised if the Evans case came up.
But in terms of going higher within the department,
I don't recall any further meetings that we had.
Q Were you aware that Mr. Weld raised the issue at
the staff meeting on the 21at?
A Which is?
Q Friday — the issue of the — whether the Criminal
Division should be involved. It came up, as I believe as Mr.
Weld's deposition, which has been released, indicated in the
context of the Criminal Division becoming involved in the
Iranian initiative side of the inquiry so that one person or
at least one division would have all the facts in both the
Evans situation and the Iranian initiative — exactly the point
you were raising before that someone had to understand both
156
■uun nronnta co.. mc.
SOJCStxm. NE 25
VututfVXl. 0 C 20002
liNcussra
sides of the equation.
Were you aware that Mr. Weld raised that issue at
the staff meeting on Friday morning the 21st?
A No. Are you sure it's the 21st and not the 14th?
Q The information read that it's the 21st.
A No. In answer to your question, I'm not aware. If
this is subsequent to the resolution of the Evans certifica-
tion, then the answer to your question is no. I'm not sure--
I was not aware that this became a new issue a week later.
Q Were you aware that the attorney general spoke to
Mr. Weld on the 24th? That was a conversation where the
attorney general said it's not accidental — or allegedly said
it's not accidental that the Criminal Division has been kept
out of this. There's a reason for it. Mr. Weld made the
statement — made a statement about water spilling on the
attorney general .
A No, I was not aware of that conversation.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Have you read
mmmw
Q It's my recollection — please correct me if I'm
wrong; actually I think I have it — that he stated that you
were present in his office when he received the call from the
157
jlbl57
- 1
^1
18
19
^
^
^^
17 C Sort. N E
eo.,^^
ONCLASSinED
attorney general .
A I may have — on the 20?
Q On the 24th. This would be Monday morning at
approximately 9:55 — right before 10:00 o'clock.
A I may have been in his office when he received the
call. My recollection is the first time I passed with
anything or^given any information regarding this issue is the
25th.
MR. McGOUGH: Now, this is — when you talk about
this issue — we're not talking about purely — we're not purely
talking about the Iranian initiative. What we're talking
about is the Evans — the interplay between the Evans case and
the Iranian initiative.
MR. RICHARD: I must confess. I have read the Weld
interview on this point, and I wasn't sure what was being
referred to, whether it was the Evans case or the Iran
initiative .
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q If I can for the record — page 22 is where he begins
a discussion of this. And the question was:
"Q On the 24th, did the attorney general call you in
regard to this subject?
"A Yes .
"Q Do you recall when that was?
"A Well, it was during a meeting I was having with my
158
jlbl58
*-<_f 19
S
ONCLASSIFIED
deputies. And those are often at 10:00 or at 10:30 a.m., so
I would say it was between 10:00 and 11:00 a.m."
And then he goes on to describe the call which Mr.
McGough just alluded to.
Do you recall either listening to Weld's portion of
that conversation or discussing the contents of that conver-
sation after he hung up?
A No, I don't. We have regular deputies' meetings.
Generally they do follow on the heels of his meetings with
the senior management.
I don't recall the Evans issue still being on the
front burner at that time.
We had — I am not sure of the arguments articulated
by Bill Weld to the attorney general with respect to the Evans
certification. I don't know whether he referred to questions
of proprietaries or both sides of the equation or what have
you. I'm just not sure how we phrased it to the attorney
general .
MR. McGOUGH: Do you recall ever being present when
Mr. Weld said over the phone to the attorney general something
to the effect that "I don't think you should try to carry too
much water on this thing. Some of it may spill on you"?
MR. RICHARD: I don't recall the specific comment.
It is the type of comment that Bill Weld would make.
MR. McGOUGH: But you don't recall being present
159
UNCUSSIFIED
when it was made.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Do you recall him ever alluding to or expressing a
concern that the attorney general was acting like a gumshoe?
A Well, the next day — and when you're talking —
Q The 25th?
A — the 25th — that there are a lot of discussions and
comments that I'm privy to--but not on the 24th.
Q I noticed you brought some of your calendars here.
Could you please check the 24th? Would that indicate to you
whether or not you had a meeting with Weld and at what time?
A I don't have my calendars here. These are only
just little calendars.
Q I believe those were provided to the committee. I
just don't have them with me.
A I had — beginning on the — I think it was the 25th — I
began trying, to the best of my discipline and ability, to
ka«p a log of some sort. But that began on the 25th.
I have nothing beginning on the 24th other than
following public media disclosures regarding the Iran
initiative.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. MCGOUGH:
UNCLASSIFIED
Let me — in that vein — let me take us back again a
160
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
a CO.. MC.
25
ONCUSSIflEO
little bit. And I want to talk about public disclosures of
the Iranian initiative.
Like most people in Washington, I suppose that you
were at least picking up on them now and again and were aware
that this was a breaking sort of story.
A Oh, yes. Very much so.
Q Did there come a time prior to November 25th when
you began to take a professional interest in the Iranian —
allegations about the Iranian initiative? Did there come a
time when you began to consider whether or not there were
possible criminal violations involved in the activities that
were being reported in the paper and if so, what if any role
the Department of Justice would be playing in those.
A Well, I was very much concerned about them — the
initiative, in particular the impact on potential— well, on
cases both concluded and pending.
Q But setting aside existing cases — in other words,
a*ttlng aside the impact of the initiative on existing
caaea — did you begin to consider whether the activities that
were being alleged to have occurred in the initiative itself
may have transgressed criminal statutes?
MR. RICHARD: Can we go off?
[Recess]
MR. McGOUGH: Let's go back on the_record.
BY MR. McGOUGH:
's go back on the record.
IINCUSSIFIED
161
ONCUSSIRED
Q Mr. Richard, is it fair to say that during the
period when you were reading about the Iranian initiative
leading up to November 25th that in your 0'.^n mind you were
speculating about the procedures under which these sales
might have been made and the legal requirements that might
have applied to them?
A Yes. I was very interested in how these transfers
were accomplished.
Q But did you discuss those speculations--to the best
of your recollection — with anyone else in the department?
A No, I was just following media revelations as they
occurred.
0 And did you do any independent investigation to
determine whether, in fact, there were violations of those
procedures or requirements?
A No.
Q When was the first time that you initiated those
sorts of discussions or involved yourself in those sorts of
discussions or analyses?
A As I recall, November 25th, I think, was following
the attorney general's press conference and the revelations_
of diversion of monies to the contras
I was with Bill Weld in his office discussing the
revelations when we were asked to proceed--! think first to
Steve Trott's office but ultimately ended up in Chuck
jnce ana tne revelations
UNCLASSIFIED
82-732 0-88-7
162
jlbl62
1
^ _
HC.
507 C Soett. N i
UNWSSIHED
Cooper's office, where we were asked to review the situation
and give a preliminary assessment of possible criminal
statutes that might be implicated.
Chuck Cooper was there along with--I think it was a
staffer for Mr. Cooper-- John McGuinness, I think his name
was. And we were given probably no more than a five-minute
factual run-down by Mr. Cooper, and he handed out what
purported to be a chronology — a classified chronology.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Do you recall how long it was?
A It was several pages.
Q Was it like a narrative chronology or just a date?
A I believe it was just dates. There was a slug--a
date, an event, a date, an event.
I recall that Mr. Cooper gave it to us to look at
but indicated that there was some question as to its accuracy.
We really didn't have much time, as I recall, to go
over the chronology, relying on the presentation of Chuck
Cooper and our appreciation of the facts as discussed both in
the media and in the attorney general's press conference.
We opined what criminal statutes might be involved
or that could be involved. And at that point the attorney
general convened a meeting which I did not attend; i was not
163
jlbl63
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
miMsim
163
invited to.
Q Excuse me. Could you give us a time estimate on
that first meeting in Cooper's office?
A It was late afternoon. I would venture to say
4:30, 5:00 o'clock at night.
The meeting with the attorney general occurred
probably around 6:00 o'clock. I remained outside the
attorney general's office. I had — was talking to a U.S.
attorney who — there were press reports indicating an arrest
with an Iranian connection, and I was trying to find out some
details about that which turned out to be not the case.
My recollection is that the meeting with the
attorney general lasted seemingly about a half hour or an
hour and then broke up.
MR. McGOUGH: Given the facts as you understood
them at that point, what criminal violations did you speculate
might have been committed?
MR. RICHARD: Well, there was a whole »4rO««h of
potential statutes, depending on how the transaction was in
fact structured or what was done to accomplish it. And there
was a lot of assumptions, if you will. How was the money
transported? what Customs violations were triggered as a
result of attempting to move currency without declarations?
Did that occur? Were bribes paid to foreign officials? I
mean, it just went on and on, all based on "what if".
164
jlbl64
^^ 19
C2^ 20
^ 22
24
JOT C SoTit. N E 2 5
Wuhmftoa. O C J0002
UNCLASSIFIED
And of course nobody at that time had the answers
to that. So you really just didn't know.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q If you can recall, what did Mr. Cooper tell you
during the meeting in the late afternoon of November 25th
about the November '86 HAWK shipment — how it came about?
A I'm not sure. I took some scratch notes. I don't
know whether they reflect that kind of specificity.
Q But what you have in your notes is "November '85-- IE
HAWK missiles transferred but ultimately returned."
A That would have to have come from Mr. Cooper.
Q Do you know if — do you recall if he said anything
else about that other than that they were shipped and they
were returned?
A I assume I put it down there only because I thought
it might be of some significance to the analysis of what
potential criminal statutes might have been triggered.
It was a very superficial factual presentation, and
I think, if I'm not mistaken, it was interrupted by one or
two telephone calls from other high-ranking officials to Mr.
Cooper giving him more details — I think State Department
officials.
MR. McGOUGH: Was it your general conclusion that
the chances that criminal statutes were transgressed were
remote, likely, 50/507 Could you — what was your feeling
165
ONCUSSIflED
coming out of the meeting? That it was a remote possibility
that there were crimes committed or that it was a likely
possibility or did you have a feeling at that point?
MR. RICHARD: My feeling was that it was something
that had to be investigated from a criminal point of view--
that there was no way you could easily draw a conclusion that
there was no criminality involved without a thorough analysis
of what transpired.
I was obviously familiar with the identifies of
certain of the participants, which made me very skeptical
about the integrity of the operation.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Who are you talking about?
A General Secord, I think, was identified as playing
a significant role. I think at that time also Mr. Hakim, Mr.
C
<lines.
Q Did you know Hakim from before?
A I knew of him, yes.
Q What did you know of him?
A That he was a shadowy character that played a
financial role in some of the transactions that occurred back
during the Wilson inquiry. I don't think we ever made
anything, but again he was just a very elusive figure.
It just made me--hai^taned m^concefn^^nowing
the individuals involved.
166
DNCUSSIfe
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q Did the meeting with Mr. Cooper conclude with any
sort of recommendation or resolution?
A Well, I think that — yes, to the extent that there
were arguable criminal implications of these transactions. I
think Bill Weld and I were categorical in our conclusion on
this point.
Whether a given statute may be implicated or not
was academic. But it was clear that there were potential
criminal statutes that were involved, especially with
diversion and a lot of questions about whose money was
involved and property rights and was there a theft of
government property, a misuse of government property — a whole
range of issues that came to mind, depending on what the
facts ultimately proved to be.
Q Was there any consideration or discussion at that
point of how the investigation might proceed as a practical
matter?
A The meeting with Mr. Cooper and Mr. McGuinness?
Q Yes.
A I don't believe so at all. It wasn't clear that
there was going to be an
Q Was there any discussion gi
! so at all. It wasn't clear that
— "-11HCUSSIF1ED
liscussion given to the — was the
167
)07 C Stitn. N E 25
Wuhmttoo. D C 20002
IINCUSSW
possibility of destruction of documents discussed?
A At that point?
Q At that point .
A I don't believe so.
Q Was there any discussion of the necessity of
securing documents or examining documents?
A Again, not at that stage. I don't believe so.
Q With the conclusion at the meeting with Mr. Cooper
on the 25th — did that conclude your role in the matter on the
25th? Did you do anything else that day with regard to that
investigation or diversion?
A I believe I remained at the department and talked
to Bill Weld after the conclusion of his meeting with the
attorney general. It's hard for me to identify precisely at
what time what was said.
When I learned about the role of Mr. Reynolds and
Mr. Cooper and the attorney general, I know from the first
time I learned about it I expressed concern about it. And I
expressed to it to Mr. Weld.
Q When did you first learn about that?
A I'm tempted to say the 25th — the time that I met
with Mr. Cooper.
Q By that role, you mean their role in the fact-
finding inquiry over the weekend?
that's correct.
UNCLASSIFIED
168
Wuhmroo. D C 2000!
ONCLASSIFIED
Q And what concerned you about that?
y^ A Well, I saw this as inevitably going toTcriminal
inquiry. I just didn't see how it would go in any other
direction, ultimately.
And there were a variety of issues that gave me
concern — one, the fact that these very high-level officials
would in fact be witnesses — conceivably fact witnesses — of
critical importance to any inquiry; the fact that from an
appearance point of view it suggested that in all probability
their conclusions would be questioned and their motives
examined, their objectivity examined.
I just felt that given the political situation--the
factual context in which we found it that the department
would be best served to get it into a more regularized
pattern and, in my experience with these highly charged
situations, to assign it to career, experienced prosecutors
to commence an appropriate inquiry.
And I appreciated many of the counter-arguments of
theirs. I felt, on balance, that it would be a mistake.
Q It was a mistake to?
A To play this role at this level--to have these
high-level officials play this role.
Q That being the role over the fact-finding weekend.
A That's correct.
MS. NAUGHTON: Who was making the counter-arguments ^
169
Ws
^
oirma co.. mc.
..NE 25
0 C 20002
UNCLASSIFIED
MR. RICHARD: Myself, in my own mind.
MR. McGOUGH: Like any good lawyer.
MR. RICHARD: No, I can appreciate the fact that
the attorney general wears at least two hats and that in the
context ofTneeds that he has to accumulate the facts. But
there, in retrospect, certainly it might have been better
served assigning someone to gather these facts and report
back to him rather than participate at his own level and the
levels of Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Cooper.
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q You said that one of your concerns was the appear-
ance of a lack of objectivity by Mr. Reynolds, Mr. Cooper,
and the attorney general.
Did you have any reason to doubt their actual
objectivity — that's Mr. Reynolds — any reason to doubt his
objectivity?
A None whatsoever. No.
Q Any reason to doubt his competence to handle the
investigation — to handle the fact-finding — the role that was
cast for him in the fact-finding weekend?
A The role as articulated by the attorney general?
No. I had no doubt--question his competence and ability to
do that.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
IINCLASSm
170
liNCUSSIflED
BY MS- NAUGHTON:
Q As long as we're on Reynolds, can I ask a question?
His official title is assistant attorney general to
the Civil Rights Division — or at least was at that time.
A Except that--I just don't know that for sure,
because I know he has assumed other duties as well.
Q Okay. That's what I want to ask you about.
In terms of the other duties, could you describe to
us what you know of those? I'm speaking in terms of the
November '86 reference rather than what he's currently
working on.
A Well, I don't know the timing. But he has assumed
the duties of counsellor to the attorney general — that's my
understanding — the role Ken Cribbs previously played.
Now, when--I can't place it in a point of time in
November .
Q The attorney general testified that Reynolds was
coordinating or somehow working on national security
projects — alluded to them and did not elucidate.
Do you know what those were?
A No, I don't know, but it's quite conceivable that
he had such assignments that I wouldn't know. I wouldn't
nave a need to know.
Q Was he perceived to be tl* °— '1°— VUJ<L number two man
at Justice?
rNffiM""
171
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
HO CO.. WC.
I 25
BNcussre
A No, I certainly didn't perceive--I saw him as an
individual who appreciated the confidence of the attorney
general, who was very interested in a variety of areas and
was called upon by the attorney general and others for his
counsel and was well-regarded.
Again, back to the response — you know, of my
concerns. I think I had articulated a question--why can't
Mary Lawton's office play a role at some point?
MR. McGOUGH: You mean at some point after the 2 5th
or some point leading up to the 25th?
MR. RICHARD: Why aren't they being utilized?
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Could you explain for the record what her office is
and what her background is?
A Well, she is the head of the Office of Intelligence
Policy Review and handles all Department of Justice matters
relating to implementation of the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act and is the principle component responsible
for formulating and commenting on national security issues
for the Department of Justice.
Q And that would include covert findings — covert
action findings?
A I'm not sure precisely what her role is in that
regard, but I do believe she has a role to play in that.
Q And could you just give us an idea for the record
I include covert iinoings-
UNCLASSIFIED
172
IHmFIB
how long, as far as you know, that you she has been with the
Department of Justice?
A Well, she was formerly with our Office of Legal
Counsel. She is a well-regarded attorney, has been with the
government — must be at least 20 years. She had been with us,
I think, for about 15 years, went into the private sector for
about three or four, and returned to the department--or
returned to government, I think, in about 1980 and assumed
her present duties when Richard Willard became head of the
Civil Division in approximately 1984, I would venture to
say — maybe earlier.
Q When she was in the Office of Legal Counsel, do you
know, was she — did she involve herself or write any opinions
regarding national security matters or intelligence matters?
A I believe so. I think at that time there was no
Office of Intelligence Policy Review, and I think she was the
principle — certainly one of the principle — senior attorneys
working in the area for the Office of Legal Counsel at the
time.
She was also very active in FBI intelligence and
undercover operations, commenting on the parameters of those
activities.
MS. NAUGHTON; Thank you.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR J^HE .S^liJ^JS^SELECT
COMMITTEE
COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SI
HASSA
173
WUSSIfJfD
BY MR- McGOUGH:
Q Let me expand on those questions I asked about Mr.
Reynolds in regard to Mr. Cooper and Mr. Richardson.
Did you have any reason to question Mr. Cooper's
objectivity or his experience — competence to handle the task
that had been assigned to him over the fact-finding weekend.
A No, not to question his competence. I mean, it was
apparent — to me, anyway — that he would be criticized, that it
would be regarded as being irregular, as being inappropriate
for him to assume what would be perceived by many as an
operational role more suited for operational type personnel.
And I was concerned that the public would see this
as a substitute for a different type of investigation, which
would draw the department into controversy.
Q How about Mr. Richardson? Same questions.
A Mr. Richardson — again, he is an extremely competent
attorney. And again, there is no question of competence or
if
capability. It's a question of given their positions^being
misconstrued as to their operational responsibilities to
gather this kind of information.
Q Do you think that each of the attorneys we've been
discussing have the type of experience that you believe might
have been desirable to do the type of document analysis--
interviews and analysis^ tha_t^<*as_r^yj.C5d.UJie£ the fact-
finding weekend?
iMim
174
jlbl74
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
■cBn mpcKvua co.. i
«)7 C Scrett. N E
WuJunron. O C 20OO2
ONCLASSIFIED
A Given their mission, I would say yes. t
what concerned me was that their mission would be I
mis-perceived.
Q How did you see that mission? I mean, you say
"given their mission". What do you mean by their mission?
A To basically find out what was--had transpired. To
determine what has to be done. The trouble is to conduct
interviews in this setting and in this context.
The concern I've always had is that it would be
viewed as the launching of a criminal inquiry by people who
normally do not engage in such activities, and thus it would
be perceived as being irregular. The fact that the attorney
general--tasked by the president or on his own initiative--
seeks to acquire relevant data to find out what has occurred
in order to make executive decisions is not inappropriate, in
my judgment.
But I think this distinction over time would be
lost on the public in general.
Q Based on what you know about the fact-finding
inquiry and the results that evolved over that weekend, was
there a point prior to November 25th that you feel the
Criminal Division should have been brought in?
A Well, it's hard to say. For the purpose as
articulated by the attorney general and others that was to be
served at that time based on their appreciation of the facts.
175
jlbl75
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
«?!
11
12
13
^14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ONCUSSIflED
there was no problem. I have no quarrel with what was done.
I don't take exception to the notion that we have a
confused set of facts. You try to find out what in fact
occurred. The difficulty was the information that they
generated suggested that what they were involved in may have
criminal implications. But it was the very product of their
efforts that revealed that.
Now we have the question of the ramifications of
their activities on a potential criminal inquiry, and all
that "hlowfi from that plus--you know, what concerned me was
drawing the department's credibility into question publicly.
Q On November 26th, do you recall speaking with Mr.
Weld from Milwaukee?
A tU»tr. 1 had gone out of town for the Thanksgiving
holiday, but I had urged before leaving that again the matter
be sent to the Criminal Division and assigned to career
people. And I periodically called in to Mr. Weld.
Q Did you feel that your recommendation was being
followed?
A At that point it was being considered. There was
no resolution, as far as I understood--you know, at that time
what was to be done. How any inquiry would be structured and
how the department intended to pre
stood, was still being consi
."-ICtfflfi
Did you ultimately at some point learn that a team
176
mmm
of Justice Department attorneys that included Mr. Cooper was
going to conduct the follow-up investigation after the 25th?
A Well, on the day after Thanksgiving, which was the
27th, I think.
Q The 28th.
A You're right—the 28th.
I think I was informed by Mr. Weld that a decision
had been made to send it to the Criminal Division. I think
when he told me that on the phone, I suggested that we
immediately issue grand jury subpoenas to all the appropriate
people at the White House to preserve the record and ensure
that everyone was on notice that there was an ongoing
criminal investigation and that there would clearly potential
obstruction issues if there were destruction or tampering
with pertinent records.
Q What suggested to you at that point that that sort
of precaution was necessary?
A Professional experience? I don't know.
Q There was no fact that came to your attention
between when you were brought into the case on the 25th and
your recommendation on the 28th that might have led you to
believe that possible — that these steps ought to be taken to
prevent destruction of records.
A I don't recall any specific fact. It just seemed
to me that any destruction or alteration of documents was a
177
107 C Sum, S E
Vuhincton. D C
mm\m
natural concern that we should have. I can't tell you what
suggested it to me.
Q Do you know what steps were taken--or what was Mr.
Weld's response, do you recall?
A Well, he told me that the attorney general decided
that grand jury should--subpoenas should not be issued, that
we can accomplish the same objective I was seeking to
accomplish through the sending of letters to relevant,
agencies .
Q Did you consider that an acceptable alternative?
A Acceptable? Well, part of my concern was antici-
pating a potential defense of individuals that they weren't
aware that there was an ongoing criminal inquiry. And
sending to an agency — protect your records--accomplishes a
portion of what has to be accomplished to protect and
preserve the records .
The conveying of knowledge, though, is easily
conveyed when someone is specifically hit with a grand jury
subpoena for records .
Q It was acceptable but didn't totally do everything
you wanted — would have liked it to do.
A Well, I mean--yes . ,>i4stjny own approach would have
been to issue the subpoenas.
Q Let me return to what I think — a questiorT that I
left dangling a little while ago, and that was did you learn
178
fimssm
that a team of Justice Department attorneys that included Mr.
Cooper was going to be supervising the investigation on
behalf of the department?
A When you supervising the investigation--the I don't
recall that it was that he was to supervise but rather be
part of the criminal investigative team.
Q Well, I'll accept that.
A No, I mean it wasn't that all of a sudden we were
reporting to Cooper — that was not my understanding--but that
there was the desire that he participate as part of — a member
of the team.
Q Did you have any problems with that?
A Yes, but they were subsumed by events, because it
was clear that — quickly that the way we should be going is
through the appointment of an independent counsel. So the
notion of constructing a viable in-house investigative team
quickly went by the boards in my mind anyway.
Q what were your concerns about Mr. Cooper partici-
pating with the team?
A Well, it became clear that the FBI felt very
uncomfortable with his role, ilil^^* ^A^A'^J^M^fihVi'^^ ^^'^Y
uncomfortable with our rol
There was seemingly suspicion across the board.
Anyone other than — at best — career people — you know, who-
could-they-trust type of atmosphere. And it was very
roromra""
179
«NCUS«0
difficult to learn what the bureau was finding, doing.
And it was clear right from the first, in my mind,
that the bureau was very reluctant to work in a constructive
fashion with the team that was being proposed. I don't think
they had any problem with the Criminal Division personnel,
but the whole role of Mr. Cooper and what it implied to them
gave them, I suspect, a lot of pause. Now, how high up that
pause went, I don't know.
MR. McGOUGH: That was as far as I was goin., to go
with the background sort of thing.
Pam, why don't you finish it up?
MS. NAUGHTON: Yeah, I had just really a few
questions on this.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q I gather — on the weekend between the 21st and the
24th, were you in Washington that weekend?
A The 24th of November?
Q November of '86 — yes.
A I believe so.
Q Had the attorney general asked you to take part in
the fact-finding inquiry that weekend, would you have done sol
A Oh, sure.
Q And had he asked you to instruct the people who
.ry tnac weexena, wouia yi
UNCLASSIHED
180
WUSSIflEO
work under you to do so, would you have so instructed them to
do so?
A Certainly.
Q If I can go back one minute to what we were talking
about in the Evans case-
Prior to November of '86 when the whole issue of
this certification to the court came up, did the attorney
general certify at any other court or was there other
discussion on any--on the Evans case or any other case -that
the attorney general should make such a certification?
A No, I don't believe so.
There was the West Coast case, where we had to make
some departmental representations to the court, but nothing of
that nature. I don't recall right off hand what those were,
but they didn't pose, at least to my knowledge, any--
Q To your knowledge, he was not personally involved.
A He was aware of it, or so I was led to believe by
Bill Weld, who took this up in his early-morning staff
meeting.
Q My question is specifically in a much earlier time
frame--let's say the summer of '86. Was there such an issue
raised?
A I don't recall any--in the summer of '86? I am not
aware of any.
Let nie--if I can go back just To^clarify something
jcall any--in the summer
UNCLASSIFIED
181
iiNcussro
that I said earlier that may be confusing. It was in
connection with the Evans case.
At some point Mr. Weld may have been urging that
the inquiry required — not required, but that should be
conducted for the Evans certification — be done by the
Criminal Division. That I don't know. If that's what he was
urging on the attorney general, which may be possible, that
may* explain some of the ambiguity that has arisen with
respect to my knowledge of what he is telling the attorney
general. That would make some--that is a possibility.
But I don't recall that being articulated — that we
should take over the investigation of both sides of the
equation. It certainly wasn't something I was advocating. I
don't know if that clarifies it or further confuses it.
Q Just for the record, the staff — senior management
group meeting that occurs at 8:30 every morning with the
attorney general — you are not part of that, is that correct?
A No.
Q So you were not present when Mr. Weld made those
comments .
A That's correct.
Q I want to skip ahead for a minute to December 1st
of '86, and this is right Jj^^tjrg _the _^e^isipn_to_ seek an
independent counsellor.
I took a note of our last interview with you, and
182
amssm
now I can't remember what it means. It's referring to
something that Jameson said, who is of course with the
counsel for CIA, regarding that the 1985 shipments didn't
occur. And this conversation apparently took place in Deputy
Attorney General Burns' conference room.
A There was one meeting on the — if I could just refer
to my notes for a moment — on December 1st. After a lot of
discussion, we are urging — we meaning Jack Keeney, myself--we
urging Bill Weld to recommend the appointment of special
counsel .
Now, I think we were favoring at this point a model
that had been previously used by the department pre-
independent counsel. What we were referring to as a eurrsnt
model is the appointment under existing authority of an
independent counsel appointed outside of the independent
counsel's statute. Because there was serious question in our
mind at this stage, certainly, whether the Independent
Counsel Act was being triggered by the facts then known.
MR. McGOUGH: Because of the covered person?
MR. RICHARD: The — person aspect, the confused
facts — I mean, a variety of questions arose as to the
applicability of the Independent Counsel statute to the
• ••- UNCLASSIFIED
And I don't propose to be an expert on the nuances
of that act or the prior department positions being taken
183
UNCUSSIFIED
with respect to the act, but I certainly felt that it was
appropriate to go for an independent counsel model and that
if there was any question as to the availability statutorily
of the Independent Counsel Act, that we still had authority,
independent of that act, to appoint a special counsel. And
we were urging that on Bill Weld.
There was a meeting on the first with the attorney
general — Burns, Bill Weld, with Cooper, Cribbs, Richardson, I
think Bill Hendricks of the Criminal Division, Allen Carver —
at which we expressed our views to that effect to the
attorney general. From that meeting — and the attorney general
listened and asked some questions and took it under advise-
ment.
From that meeting, we then proceeded down to the
deputy's office, where we met with some FBI agents, who were
there to brief us on the status of the inquiry on the first.
It was clear certainly there that the FBI had great reluctance
to reveal --
MS. NAUGHTON: Had what?
MR. RICHARD: --had great reluctance to reveal all
of the information that they were gathering. At least that
was the tenor of the meeting, if you will.
Now, in answer to your question: if it's all from
my notes of that meeting, I can only say that that's something
that they probably didn't mention
ly say that t
Mm
184
_ 1
2l
3
4
5
6
7
«
WNCUSJIflEO
I don't have the notes before me, but I don't
believe Mr. Jameson was at that meeting.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q If it came from the FBI, then, during an interview
with Jameson--
A I don't believe that Jameson--
Q Now, for the record again, your notes indicate that
on that date when the issue of Mr. Reynolds' meeting with Tom
Green came up, you and others were very much opposed to that.
A Yes.
Q Could you tell us why?
A Well, at this point in time, as I recall, the
matter was now with the Criminal Division, and we really saw
no justification for someone of that rank and position to be
present at what could be an extremely critical meeting with
an attorney for a major figure involved in the matter.
Q Were you actually present when Mr. Reynolds gave
his reasoning for a meeting with —
A I believe that occurred in a telephone conversation.
Q Were you present for the other half of that
conversation?
resent for the otner nait
UNCLASSIFIED
A Yes. I know we discussed it with Bill Weld and
strongly urged'Ho oppose Reynolds meeting at all. And we may
have opposed even the meeting. I don't recall that. But we
certainly, I think, were unanimous in our opposition to Mr.
185
50' C Su«t N E
Wuhmiion. O C 20002
Mmsim
Reynolds being present.
Q Were you present when — did Mr. Weld call Reynolds?
A I believe so.
Q And were you present?
A I think so, yes.
Q And after Mr. Weld was through with the conversa-
tion, did he explain to you what Mr. Reynolds' reason was?
A My understanding is that our arguments that he was
going to be putting himself into a position of being a
potential witness--that 's already done, so that is not a
particularly persuasive argument.
I think the agreement reached was that our attorney
would be present, which was a significant factor for us that
meetings with defense counsel would not be held absent the
presence of a Criminal Division attorney.
Q I know what I had a question about .
The subsequent application to freeze the accounts
made through Switzerland — were you — did you take part in that'
A Yes.
Q Where did you get the account numbers that were
used?
A Which applications are you_ referring_to? I mean,
to initially freeze the accounts?
Q These would have been filed. They're part of the
attorney general's exhibits — something like exhibit 60 or so.
■ou referring to? I mean,
UNCLASSIFIED
186
_ 1
2
■3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
a CO.. INC.
25
UNCLASSIFIED
A In answer to your question--
Q This would have been in mid-December or so.
A Well, we started our efforts to freeze the account
fairly quickly. I think it was early December.
Judge Sofaer and I had a conversation, in which I
think he suggested or questioned what are we doing. It was
agreed we've got to move to ensure that there i« no transfers
of monies. And we agreed upon an approach to accomplish that
as quickly as possible.
Now, at that time — at the initial stage where we
approached the Swiss — I believe we were given an account
number by Mr. Cooper. They had acquired an account number
during their efforts, I'm tempted to say, that was given to
the FBI either through Mr. Cooper or through the State
Department .
Q Well, no — this kind of point — did you personally
get it from the FBI? Let me start from scratch.
Did you author the document — the actual document--
the application?
A Well, I worked on it with people from our Office of
International Affairs. We stayed, I think, well into the
night, if I recall correctly, on some of the applications.
The FBI, myself, and the head of--one of our team leaders
was most familiar with the Swiss procedures --eft**y y
requirements .
UNCLASSIHED
187
iimsim
187
Now, where did we get the number? Depending on
which request you're addressing your question to, I would say
the FBI except for the first request. And the first request —
I think the State Department provided it.
I apologize — only because it was of no great moment
to me other than that we had the account.
Q Forgive my ignorance, but what's the reason for the
second request?
A Well, there were initial steps, if you will, that
were taken that were designed to accomplish the immediate
objective, which was to freeze the assets. That was the
immediate objective — to make sure that nobody was taking
money out of relevant accounts.
Judge Sofaer and I had discussed the best way to
approach this. And we had agreed that we would do it on a
multiple-track approach, going to the Swiss government on a
diplomatic route, to the ambassador in Washington, and then
following it up with a request in anticipation of a formal
treaty request.
We went this way thinking it was the quickest way
to accomplish our objective, and in my judgment it proved to
be that way, because we aat. it^ imnLecUaieJ.i__fiOien but not
under the treaty.
Now, this is an area that is difficult for me to go
nto because under the treaty, the responses coming back from
m
188
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
a CO.. wc.
25
WUSSIf/EO
the Swiss to us I'm not allowed to divulge to--
Q Let me ask some specific questions, and you tell me
if you can answer them then.
The request I particularly want to concentrate on
right now describes the--I guess the basis for freezing the
accounts as the possibility that it might be U.S. money.
A That's correct.
Q So is that your first request that you just
described--in other words, the basis for freezing the
accounts?
A The first request was based on a possible 1343
violation of Title XVIII, which was--if I'm not mistaken.
The next request included 1^41 and 641.
Q So the first one doesn't necessarily contemplate
U.S. monies, because it could be a fraud on anybody.
A That's correct.
Q But the second one did contemplate U.S. monies,
b«CAuse it was 641.
A The initial formulation of what to ask for, as I
recall, was my judgment based on what the FBI was telling me
they knew of from a factual point of view. We had to
predicate the request on known facti
Q Did you--other than the very first account number
that was presented in the first request, did you either add
account numbers or change account numbers in the subsequent
)f view. We had to
UNCLASSIFIED
189
jlbl89
_ 1
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I CO.. MC.
UNCLASSIFIED
M7 C Sunt. N E
25
requests?
A We added account numbers, but the FBI was at this
point coming up with the data--they were giving Os a«r9to what
they found as far as the accounts . We wanted to take the
action against any and all accounts, so as soon as we learned
of accounts, we would just constantly be sending in our
requests .
I was getting the data from the FBI . That was my
source of information.
Q Did you ever get any information from either the
Swiss or any other source that any of the account numbers
were incorrect?
Is that revealing too much?
A It is, under the treaty. I'm really--
Q That's fine.
MR. McGOUGH: While she's looking, let me just ask
you what I hope is going to be one quick question.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q Did you have any contact with a prosecution or an
investigation out of the Eastern District o^ Pennsylvania
into the machinations of an alleged Saudi prfnce by the
name--used a lot of different aliases, but the most common
one was Al-Masoudi— Al-Masou(i^ ||N| I uWirlrn
190
^/
liNcussm
A I don't recall, but periodically we would get
inquiries from the State Department about prosecutions of
various reported princes. And they're asking for status. I
don't recall this one.
Q Do you recall having any contact with Oliver North
or anyone at the NSC about such a person?
A No.
Q How about any — does the name Richard Miller or
International Business Communications mean anything to you in
that context?
A International Business Communications?
Q IBC.
A No.
MR. GENZMAN: Also the name Zadeh--Z-A-D-E-H, which
I believe was the name- he was prosecuted under.
MR. McGOUGH: Ho was prosecuted under Zadeh in the
United States Eastern District.
MR. RICHARD: And the charge?
MR. McGOUGHl Attempt to defraud the William Penn
Bank.
MR. RICHARD: William Penn Bank.
Gonjideiabl-y', only because it iS not unusual for me
to get these calls about would-be princes and connections
with various royal families and what have you. But it just
doesn't ring a bell.
lll\lfi!il.winFn
191
' C Sam. N E
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
"25
\!mmm
What I normally do is just inquire on the status
and pass that on to the State Department.
MS. NAUGHTON: I do have one other question, I
think.
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MS- NAUGHTON:
Q I'm referring you to your notes of December 1, '86.
And towards the bottom here it says — when it's talking about
Secretary Weinberger —
A At the bottom?
Q Where it says--it refers that Secretary Weinberger
said that the '85 shipments didn't occur. Do you know who
was talking or what they're talking about in that note?
A This is part — as I interpret my own notes — this is
part of the December 1, '86 FBI briefing which occurred in
the deputy's conference room. And this is the FBI conveying
thl8 information. I see earlier, incidentally, that they
make reference to George Jameson, so that confirms the
suspicif^ns that it was--
Q Do you recall the FBI telling you that Secretary
Weinberger had said that 1985 shipments did not occur?
A I can only refer to the notes — the fact that they
here suggest that the representation was made, but the FBI--
that this is what is emerging. Now, where they got it from,
192
jlbl92
BNCUSSm
I don't know.
MS. NAUGHTON: I have no more questions. Thank you.
MR. McGOUGH: I have nothing further to make. Bob?
MR. GENZMAN: All the points that I had have been
covered.
I thank you for your time, sir.
[Whereupon, at 6:12 p.m., the taking of the
deposition concluded.]
UNCUSSIFIED
193
ONCIASSIFIEO
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
I, William D. McAllister, the officer before whom
the foregoing deposition was taken do hereby certify that the
witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition
was duly sworn by me; that I am neither counsel for,
related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the
action in which this deposition was taken; and further that
I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel
employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise
interested in the outcome of the action.
William D. McAllister
Notary Public in and for the
District of Columbia
My commission expires October 15, 1989.
mmzm
194
Memorandum
UNCLASSIFSEO
J 3 ^/-'^£l
J 4782
Boland Amendment
April 13, 1984
Mark Richard
Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
Criminal Division
•Victoria Toensing
Deputy Assistant Attorney
General
Criminal Division
Stephen S. Trott
Assistant Attorney General
Criminal Division
Please contact Mary Lawton ASAP and prepare a memo on the
Boland Amendment. What it is, why it was passed, what it was
intended to accomplish, and when and why it expired (Sept. 83 ?)
etc.
What is the effect of its expiration on our problem?
Richard Willard and Ralph Tarr insist that § 1341 means
that if zero funds were authorized for "mining activity" etc.,
the expenditure of $1 violates the Antidef iciency Act. It is
a technical argument at best, with respect to a statute that
has never been enforced — or even thought of in this light.
Any thoughts?
Stay in touch with Lowell on this during my absence.
I^Declassilied/Released onJ^it«So
under provisions oi E 0- t23i5
K Jonnson. National Setunry Council
Sbq
UNCLI\SS\Ft£0
^-i^^v
195
2 ^i /^ '^/^ ^6.
Unclassified
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SUP
TO: (Nim.otne»tr>«Ool.ioomnumt)tf.
Iniltali
Oitt
i.
3.
4.
»•
Fl*
Now ind Ratum
Adproval
FofClevinc*
P«f Conv« nation
**«W-»d
Fo» Co<T»ctton
Pr»p«f« R«(>ly
ClreulM
SmM«
ConvnwM
invMtlgaw
Sign.tur.
JuriN
partially
Declassi*''
'^Jlt^
^^^^'^
-s^r
^^J
OO NOT uM tM« tomi ts t RECORD of acprevala, eooeurrancM.
PROM: lH»tm. org. trmool. Agtner/Fott)
GPO : 1985 0
OPTIONAL rORM 4yil*«. 7-7«)
LilASSIRFD
196
Mmmsi
R0UTIN6 AND TRANSMITTAL SUP
TO: (Namu.omettymOol.nomnumbf.
/ /niUalt Oi
Mm.^ tUC/tf<^AO
Coordlnailon
00
I NOT uM mia tonii » ■ oe/«non -* ^
• RECOflO of
«0M: m»m». org. trmbot. Agitcy/Pott)
STEPHEN S. -mOTT
ASSISTA^f^ ATTORNEY GENSWL
Room ^4o.— 8ldg.
Phon« No*
0RM4UII*».7-76)
197
l!NCUSS!FIEO
The Deputy Attorney General
March 20, 1966
Oliver B. Revell
Executive Assistant Director
Investigations
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
The entire contents of this memorandum are classified
Classified By G^
Declassify On: OADR
vN^iLftyi'.. j StU
198
KICUSSIRED
Rest o-^
Hpf
Uhcl >r) ih
^[V
^n^;r^ftj
ii'^i^f
199
UNCUSSIFIED
i 5 6 4 1
r<r>~M "^^
Partially DeclassifieO/Heleasw] on
under provisions ot E 0 12356
by K Johnson. National Security Council
ofiass
VNCLASSiFSED
200
UNCLASSIFIED
J 5642
f ■ !» il^—i.-^ t-l-lj flusxt ti_j ^ i/^T /^t-^—t
K^^Cc--- -. L,^-^ , ^Ui^ W , <^-^^2>- ';^-^-' .^-^-06-^ ^ /7^-^
Ci^^U^ '^*^ 'V^ ^.i — ^'c*..^ ,.*y<^ r.;t; «W^</ ■
G?!CLASSIF?E?
201
UNCLASSIFIED
Pailally OecUssiheil/Rpieasea on tbf<<<8
Johnson. Nanonal Swuiity Council
(^)
UMCLftSSlF'ttO
202
J 4123 .
UNCLRSSlFeED
Z^f^ZMd
:.D^ -
'_-*r^_tyiJ
.C4-2vnA3t»»7
:\/a
^ ^yuJjLt-^^^^
/V3<
-,^i,^^k...jk^ji^jOJlLMJM
%^
L Decias^i'isd/Peieasea on loFt^Bj
unoer provisions ol E 0 T2356
K Jonnson. Nauonal Secuciiy Council
UHCLASSIFSED
UNeiASSIFlEO
^ ^^ A**>^ /6 ^ey ivCyU>>*^
■ U^ ki^i^ A^T^ saw *?i«r2*>r
yvo a^vtJ£i.''^kj.«AJUJ jJUtjfe* .ma. u... ^J.yl«l«ta^;
(hdu^nkn, L^ /M^ U U^ iuiM^"
0 uM-dMSL-^J^ N'^^-/Uawv^4_^
Parisiiy Oeciasafieil/fleleaseo on 1 1 fee PP,
£0^\
iiNCLASSIF'EO
204
J 4614
1?i»(«»tMiRFtr
ROUTING AND TRANSMHTAL SUP
October 2, i?86
1. Mark M Richard
*■ /Pa^/jP^ a.<^<.<jLjib /wL^^>-~r
,J:?^-A^^.jtX^
k
jjjjf
^
Partially OeciassilwReieai
"lifeseS
tv
-g- /^.i7
7
We have reviewed the attached draft ""-
teletype and proposed letter from "v" -^-^
Assistant Secretary Abrams, and discussed
this matter with Roger Yochelson of OIA. ■ -.
We note two inaccuracies in A/S Abrams' ■-■
letter. First, contrary to the assertion
[ustice has not intervened
oehalf to recommend that -rs)
— ^^
the Government wasrf>0(>-.
Since then, we V" '^
ted nor opposed sending ^
"~ Second, although %lo
00 NOT UM th„ (orm I
\.\::^^i t'.r rr °"*"'™"'-' -'"~'^
rHOM: (Njm.. Of|. lymfc
Room No.— auji.
John L. Hart/nT"
Phon* No.
205
J 461 5
- 2 -
A/S Abrams represents that Justi
prepared to brief the|
on the evidence and legal process
case, we are not aware of any such plans
We understand that the attached
communications have not yet been sent.
We strongly urge that, before transmitta
A/S Abrams' letter and the draft teletyp
be modified to clear up these two points
\
mmmsi
206
J 4616
(;nolassifs£d
0«« in/, /»/
ROUTING AND TRANSMITTAL SLIP > ; -'/ li<^
OuiKling. AfrKy:Potlt
1. ^.X, M^tl„ (.h.c,^..;±.
Iniliali
Out
2. '" 'XJi^O'^tP
3.
a
yA-
« /Uv 7li*^K
Action
F'K
Note jno R«lufn
Fo' Claarsnca
P«r Conv«rMtion
A. qMu.5.(Kl
Pr.Mr, R,01y
C.rcul*!*
For vour lntortr.,t,on
S«>M«
Commanl
S„n„u,.
CX3 NOT uM mu form •> • BECOBO ol id
r0v«U c
cncur.,oc., O.,oo,.,..
FROM: (N.m.. orj .rmOO/. A8.nc,(Po.f;
Room No -Sidg
Phon» No
S041..Q!
OPTION
LF0«M411(I«. Tiei
yHClASSlfiO
207
UNCLASSIftEB
FACSIMlLf TRANSMITTAL
/V^tVcf^
NUMSE
(
8ER OF PA6ES: _^ '
e«clyd1ng cover t))«et}
DATE: _j///^
LL/jXMk-
MAHl 1 POSlTIOiy
AfilhtV. 1)IV1S]0»( I Uhir
xrourr
5 ^xim root) nunbtr}
niiwi ni
~ MISJHILI MACHINE ■
VERIFICATION NUMBER
3tfY
FftOM:
NAME I POSITION ■
AUNiY. mWsmw i unit .
Unlttd SUU( Attorney 'J Office
Southern Olitrlct of New York
SENDER'S FTS PHONE NUMBEF
Auumss (with room nunber}
One Stint An4r«»'i Pliw. tai. ^2-7
New York. Nev York 10007 ~
^AUIHIU HACHIM US NUh6»
(Auto«t1e)
662-917*
(212) 7S1.9178
MtMHlLJ HAJHINI
VERIFICATION NUMBER
662-1139
SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS:
3 i%
THIS SHEET MUST BE USED OH AIL TRANS-,SS,ONS THAT ORIGINATE FROM 5.O.N.Y. U.S. AHORNEY'S 0.
rOpciass.rie;)/ne'ejsK) onJl££«.6S' W ^^^
unitCf pronsK.'-.s oi E C 1235!) >w ^"^
}»nclassif;ed
208
UNCLflSSIfJED
J 4006
-^NQS ^ilB -s-n
This statement is aubmltted'ln response to the Court's
inquiry concerning the e«e=t on this case of recent .laclosures
concernln, th. authorized shipment by the United states of ar.s
to Iran. At the Courf. re.ue.t we address three issues: :, the
-rits Of the case. 2, bail, and 3, the scheduled trial date
MERITS OF THE rxtv
All Of the charges in this case arise out of the
defendants- schemes to .a., false statement, to the United •
States. The events discussed by the President late last weeK
have no bearing whatsoever on the illegality of plots to defraud
.the United States, as charged in Indictment ssss 8« Cr 38.
(LBS) .
The indictment charges three type, of crimes all
arising fro. the defendants- efforts to misrepresent to the
united states the intended destination of ar.s, which the
defendants in fact were attempting to sell to Iran. The first
five count, charge conspiracy to defraud the United States and
n.a.e false statements. The next .6 counts charge a scheme to
defraud the United States using wire and mail conununications
The last five count, charge that .ome of the defendants actually
-de false statement, to the Office of Munitions Control in the
Department of State.
The Department of Justice'i^^^l^;;^^,^ this case in
connection with the recent event. ^ di.cussed by Present .eagan
"U«".t^iS:!^^ ^''^^"^"^ >^^"3S last Thursday. The Department
havdvi^TJ^Cnited states Attorney, office that the.e events
taMb Oeciassiliedmeteasea oniZ_i_5^23
u„toBto.«onso.tO .2356
by K Jolinson. Nalional Zewu-.f Coiiiicil
UMCLRSSIF5E0
209
mussmEo
4007
»*i^V-ff
charged in the Indlcwent. The United States Attornc^^Of f Ice
i, Jurther advised that no exculpatory. 1^ Brad^ Jnaterials
exist by virtue of those «^^""- ^^=5^^^^^°^
previous statement/that A:here is nct^t^i^ p^^H^
def/ndits/were a/part /f any /of ficiiuJsa/ctioLd e4foAs by
the* United State/ to ship ary(aments/to fr»n-J
we would respectfully remind the Court that five
eeparate conspiracies or proposed arms deals are charged in the
Indictment. In connection with only one, the "vlanar
conspiracy,- did any of the defendants discuss or even suggest
during the undercover negotiations that the specific arms deal in
question had teen submitted to the United States r.overmrent for
approval and that the Government was considering it. As for that
propocal, that aeeertion that the propcial was ,.r>^Hnn»,l i»
demonstrably inaccurate and, in any event, unrelated to the
recent disclosures. I As for the remaining four conspiracies, the
defendants' assertions that the transactions were authorized are
also without foundation. They are speculative defense raised by
counsel only after the arrests. 1
Accordingly, the Government submits that the merits of
the case are not affected by recent disclosures and news reports.
All of the defendants are free on ball except the
defendant Albert riearmoy. We have agreed to a bail package for
Mr. riearmoy in view of his representation last week for the
..... .._„ •h.t he actually ha- 'n^-^. to deposit as security for
UHCLftSS\?:£0
210
ijHcimim , ,„„3
hi» release. Until last weak, Plearmov's counsel had not
pi«b«iiL«a rot Llie courl,'6 consiileiaLlon any bail conditions that
rlearmoy could meet.
We oppose any modification to the bail conditions
previously set by the Court for the remaining defendants. In our
view, the trial should proceed expeditiously as scheduled, and
the strength of the Government's evidence is unaffected by recent
disclosures.
TRIAL DATE
All pretrial proceedings should be concluded in a
timely fashion such that trial can begin as scheduled on February
2, 1987. In view of what Is described above, there if no basis
for additional discovery related to the recent disclosures.
Moreover, defendants cannot raise an apparent authority defense
Accordingly, as discussed in the Government's memorandum of law
in opposition to the defendants' discovery requests, defendants
are not entitled to information related to the recent
disclosures.
fr»
*V
lMCLASSiF:t3
211
iummi
DEPOSITION OF JOHN N. RICHARDSON, JR
Wednesday, July 22, 1987
U.S. House of Representatives
Select Committee to Investigate
Covert Arms Transactions in Iran
V3^^
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:30 p.m., in
room B-352, Raybum House Office Building, with Pamela
Naughton (Staff Counsel, House Select Committee) presiding.
Present: Piunela Naughton, Staff Counsel, Staff Counsel,
House Select Committee; W. Thomas McGough, Jr., Associate
Counsel, Senate Select Committee; emd Kenneth Buck, Assistant
Minority Counsel, Rouse Select Committee.
Also Present: Jack E. Perkins, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S.
Department of Justice. ^ _ , r.^/ooiBased on LZ^ —
212
UN(IH$»PT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
p^ "
»«•««» 19
CO 20
— . 21
S»^ 22
* "^ 23
MS. NAUGHTON: Could you state your full name?
THE WITNESS: John North Richardson, Jr.
MS. NAUGHTON: My name is Pam Naughton. I am
Staff Counsel to the House Select Committee to Investigate
Covert Arms Transactions with Iran.
MR. McGOUGH: Tom McGough, Associate Counsel to
the Senate Select Committee.
MR. BUCK: Kenneth Buck, Assisant Minority Counsel,
with the House Select Committee.
MR. PERKINS: Jack Perkins, Office of Legislative
Affairs, Department of Justice.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Mr. Richardson, could you tell us what your title
Q
is?
A
Of staff.
Q
A
It is Assistant to the Attorney General and Chief
What do your duties include?
I am basically responsible for the office
operations. Office of the Attorney General, and that includes
supervising a number of lawyers, the paper flow in and out
of the office, the schedule operations, travel operations,
and basically daily management of issues that are coming
through the office.
0 Just so I have the structure correct, at around
October-November of '86, Mr. Cribb was in your office.
213
Kenneth Cribb?
A Right.
3 0 Did you work for him or was that sort of separate?
^ A Yes, I did. He was Counselor to the Attorney
5 General and my reporting relationship was through Cribb to
6 Meese, although as a practical matter, I did a substantial
7 amount of my work without checking with him.
8 Q Now, could you tell us where you graduated from law
9 school?
10 A University of Virginia.
11 Q What year was that?
12 A -82.
13 Q What did you do after law school?
14 A I was Law Clerk to a U.S. District Judge in
15 Richmond, Virginia for one year.
16 Q Which judge was that?
17 A Dorsch Wariner.
18 Q Okay, and after that one year Clerkship with the
19 judge, what did you do?
20 A I joined the staff of the Counselor to the
21 President, Mr. Meese, when he was at the White House.
22 Q This was in '83?
23 A Yes, June of '83.
24 Q What did you do as Mr. Meese' s assistant at the
25 White House?
UNCLASSIFIEO
214
IRffiBSaBST
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
So 21
»^ 22
■t* ■% 23
^^ 24
25
A I was a volunteer in that office for the first
couple of months, and I basically worked as assistant to Ken
Cribb, who was Meese's assistant. In August, I was put on
the payroll and for the first probably six months, I worked
primarily on judi^5c.al selection matters, and preparing briefs
for meetings and reviewing incoming papers, helping to
organize them, and whatever projects Cribb gave me,
Q After that period of time?
A Then Meese's Special Assistant left the staff. I
was made Special Assistant and I guess my duties, the
responsibilities, increased. I became involved in more
substantivie matters, more meetings. I would attend
meetings and occasionally with Mr. Meese, take notes.
Essentially the same, but I guess doing more of that.
I became, when he was nominated to be Attorney General,
I was working on the confirmation document production,
working on those issues. I guess I also was, I was the
lawyer — Cribb and I were two lawyers on the staff, and
when, for example, when debate came along, I was tasked with
going through all of his documents to see if anything was
responsive. So I would take on projects like that, too.
Q During your years at the White House did you do
any staff work regarding Mr. Meese's role in the National
Security Counsel or NSPG?
A No. I saw paperwork occasionally but no staffing.
215
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
i
ZSZ
23
-**-'
24
llMl^l^iiG
as I recall.
Q Did you attend any meetings either on your own or
with Mr. Meese during that period of time at the White House
regarding funding for the contras, Nicaraguan resistance?
A 1 don't think so.
Q Did you participate in any discussions or any
meetings involving soliciting money from third countries to
support the contra movement?
A No.
Q Did you have anything to do while you were at the
White House with processing any form of findings for covert
actions?
A No. Again, I may have seen certain documents in
the safe if I were looking for something like that, but I
was not otherwise involved.
Q Do you know what your clearance was while at the
White House?
A I think top secret, but —
0 Code word?
A No. I think I would know and I don't, never knew
about code word until I got to the department.
Q When did you get code word clearance?
A Well, it was definitely after March of eighty --
let me think here — I came to the department in March of
IOC Tfc ....e er^m« *■ i mo mfi-fr that. I don ' t know precisely.
216
IWKI^RP^T
CO
Q Shortly after?
A After I had been at the department several months
over doing^^^^^HH^H^Band for a
when I took that task on, ?ti»fei Gailback in the office
continued to do the code word stuff that would come in^^H
^^^H I took those over — I am not just sure when it was.
It was a substantial period of time.
24
217
#\J
ts»#
?A^^
7
a!»*«
218
mmm
CO
00 21
0 Now, along this same period of time, in '85, early
'86, were you aware of efforts on the part of DEA agents to
be tasked with locating and/or extricating hostages held in
Lebanon?
A No.
Q When did that come to your attention?
A I am not sure. I know it was some substantial
period of time after the Iranian initiative had been made
public and —
0 Something after November of ' 86?
A Definitely after that, and it may ~ it could have
been later than that. 1 think I became aware of it when it
became a matter of general public discussion. that there had
been some sort of DEA assistance.
0 Did you have any discussions with the Attorney
219
Wtt^SlifiilT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Cfc^20
C<>21
^SC 22
c«^ 23
:-— ^ 24
A After I learned about it?
Q Yes.
A I don't think so.
I know he was briefed by Jack La^n, but I did
sit in on that briefing, other than to say something, I may
have said we need to find out what DEA did, or something
along those lines. He didn't have any detailed discussion
of it at that point.
Q Do you know of any discussions with the Attorney
General in which you either participated or were present at
which the subject was mentioned that private funds were being
used for this operation?
A Well, more recently, the last couple of months,
there have been discussions like that, saying where we have
learned some information about what DEA did and who was
involved, but back at that point, no.
I guess that is your question, back when we first,
when I first learned about it?
Q What I an getting at is, was it ever discussed at
any time between the Attorney General and anyone else in
your presence, including yourself, that private monies had
been used for this operation?
In other words, had been authorized to be used or
there was a discussion to the propriety or legality of it?
A There have been, there have been discussions about
220
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
*^*^ 19
g- ^ 22
S^ 23
24
UVEU^IclffiiT
that in the last two weeks, for example, but not before that
I recall.
0 What were the discussions in the last two weeks,
do you recall?
A Well, it was basically going over matters that
have been of public interest, preparing for his testimony,
and I asked from DEA General Counsel last week, the Chief
Coxinsel, documents that had been provided to the Hill so I
could inform Meese and inform the Attorney General about what
might be reviewed. So it was in that context.
Q Did the Attorney General tell you whether or not
he authorized the use of private monies for the DEA operations
A He did not tell ine that he authorized it.
Q Did he say he did not?
A I don't think he was aware of it. That is
obviously something that you should ask him, because —
0 Sure.
A There is no discussion of — that I recall -- of
his having authorized it.
Q I want to take you to a tine around March of 1986.
There is a case out of the Southern District of Florida, in
Miami, that is known by him at this time also. One is Garcia,
one is Corvo, and it has to do with basically two things,
an alleged assassination plot against Ambassador Tambs , and
o^-.«. «1 1«»r,.HfM^e nf nun rnnnino to the COntraS . The
221
uiieu»EfeT
investigation began sometime on or about December of '85,
and continued through '86.
Do you recall when this case first ciune to your
attention?
A No, I don't.
Q In March of '86, or thereabouts, do you know
whether or not you were aware of the case?
A I don't recall being aware of it. It is only
recently that I have been -- it is something that is
recognizable.
Q So, you don't think you learned of it until, shall
we say, after November of '86?
A Well, the question dealt with March of '86, right?
Q I am trying to get a handle on when you first
learned about the case.
A Okay. I think it is clearly after — I believe
it would be after November of '86. It may have been much
more recently, since the beginning of the congressional
hearings on this initiative.
Q Are you aware, or were you aware, or are you now
aware, of any requests by anyone on the staff of the National
Security Counsel for a briefing on this criminal
investigation?
A I was not aware of any requests at the time that
thev were made.
222
itOiftSglKST
00 19
Q Have you since come to learn NSC requested such
a briefing?
A I an not sure. I believe — I am not sure if they
did or not. There have been a number of subjects that
have been covered in prep sessions in the last week or two
with the Attorney General, so I am not familiar with the
details of it. I may have heard something along that dealt
with this subject, but I don't recall it, so I am really not
in a position to answer.
Q Moving along to the month of November '86. Were
you aware on. or about November 7 that Chuck Cooper was being
tsked to look into the legal raunifi cations of the Iranian
arms transaction?
A K believe I found out the tasking to Cooper fairly
son after it was done, and I think I found out from Cooper,
but I eun not positive. But I did know fairly soon after that
Cooper had been tasked to look into some of these issues.
I think it came up in the context of asking the AG about
making sure that we, OLC, is looking at some of these question
and the AG having said Chuck is working on that. Something
like that.
Q Was there any discussion at that point -- let's
say from November 7th until the 20th — regarding whether or
not the Criminal Division should taOce a look at it, being as
though the Arms Export Control Act and other Acts may be
wmmk
applicable?
A I don't recall any discussions suggesting that,
but 1 wasn't — I was not intimately involved in that during
that time period before the 20th.
Q Did the attorney —
A OLC would normally advise on matters like that, as
opposed to the Criminal Division.
Q I am not asking about advise, I am asking about
investigation.
A No, I don't think there was any discussion. I
certainly was not aware of any, present in emy discussions
where it was suggested Criminal Division investigate anything
6 Did the Attorney General tell you whether or not
he had asked Mr. Cooper to do this of his own volition, or
whether or not he had been asked to help with a legal analysis
by anyone at the White House or NSC?
A I don't know the answer to that. He didn't
explain the reason for doing that.
0 You don't know how it was initiated?
A Other than the Attorney General asking Cooper to
do it, no.
Q Mr. Cooper has testified that he prepared a book
of statutes for the Attorney General to review. Did you see
that book or —
224
0 Did it come through you or --
A I don't think so. 1 think he handed it to the
Attorney General.
0 And how is it that you came to look at it?
A I specifically recall seeing it over the course
of the couple of days before and during the weekend. Well,
I say I know during the weekend fact finding inquiry, I am
not sure about the days before. But I know I saw it over
the course of that weekend and afterwards.
0 Was there any analysis in the notebook or was it
something of compilation of statutes?
A I am just not sure. I think it was a combination
of statutes, but he had done, as I recall. Cooper had
provided a legal memorandum by the time of the weekend inquiry
and so whether that was in there, I don't remember.
I tend to think it was just the statutes, though.
Meese is very committed to looking at the law. He doesn't
like for you to tell him what it says, he likes to look at
the statute and all that sort of thing.
0 Were you aware whether or not the Attorney General
participated in drafting or reviewing any of the President's
statements that were made between the time period of say,
November 4th and November 2 0th?
A Can you give me a hint about what they would be?
n Won f-h* President aave a statement, I believe.
225
SKttHSSiFKS'^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
i^UJ 17
i±: 18
23
24
Yes. I just don't recall whether he did or not.
Do you recall getting any drafts from the White
on November 13th.
A That was that speech to the nation?
Q Yes. He had another press conference on November
19th.
A
0
House?
A I just don't remember. I know, I don't think we
got anything circulated formally. That is, through the
Office of Cabinet Affairs at the White House into our
Executive Secretariat.
Q If it got circulated informally, would it have
come through you?
A Most likely it would have come through me, because
there are standing instructions on our staff, which Meese's
personal secretary abides by as well, if a package comes in
it is normally kicked to me. So I probably would have seen
it, but I just don't recall whether one was sent or not.
He have done, as I said, we have done a couple of
speeches on a close hold basis where a text would be sent
over and come to n^ and he would take a look at it, but
actually statements were more on the point, but I just recall
it if these were one of them, I tend to think not, but I am
just not sure.
I know after the 25th of November, for example,
226
yHJHraWFr
OO 20
the President's statement on the 25th of November, Meese was
involved with, and I don't know, I know there was a statement
concerning -- I believe it concerned immunity in December of
'86, that I think he was involved with, but I recall those,
but I don't recall the others.
Q Moving then to November 20th, the Attorney General
was scheduled to spend most of the day at West Point. Do you
recall what it was that cancelled or changed those plans?
A It was basically I think twofold, but his reaction
to the President's news conference and the next — that was
a Wednesday night. The next day, Thursday, I believe there
was a meeting scheduled in Poindexter's office to review
Casey's testimony, and either Poindexter's testimony or
material he was going to use to brief members of Congress.
I think, I don't know if the AG called me
Wednesday night or if I found out first thing Thursday
morning, but he called and said that he was going to be
attending this meeting and that he would delay his departure
by I think it was four or five hours.
I believe he was scheduled to be in classes at
West Point teaching, and that sort of thing, Thursday
afternoon. He delayed it until a dinner function.
Q You made those arrangements?
A Well, I probably called our travel guy and said
fi-^ t-K-ie Ko^xiea >%o -i o r.n«- oninn tn 1 pava iin<-il " X" time.
227
w&im^
but I think the Army, I believe flew him up there, so it
was pretty simple. They were providing the plane. So I
think we delayed his departure time.
Q Does the Attorney General have a driver?
A Yes.
Q For all his transportation? That is from home to
office and meetings and so forth?
A Yes. If he goes out, he will frequently not use
a driver on the weekends, or unless he is going to a particula
function or something like that, but if he leaves the house
he normally has an FBI person with him and sometimes they
will go in his car, sometimes the FBI car, but for business
functions, he would be brought to work by the department
driver and taken to and fro.
Q When would it be he would have an FBI driver with
him?
A It may be on weekends. If say it is Christmas
time, if they are going to go out to get the tree on the
weekend or when he goes to chrjuoion Sunday, I think they
drive a family car and the FBI follows him to church. So it
sometimes, like in those circumstances, they would not, he
would not have an official driver. Most of the time, he does.
Q During the weekend of November 21 through the 2 3rd,
do you recall whether or not for that period of time, you
228
CO
mmm
' vehicle?
2 A I think he had, well I used the personal vehicle.
3 For example, when I went over to the White House to go through
^ Ollie North's documents, but I believe the AG had his driver
5 on duty that weekend. I recall after lunch on Saturday, his
6 getting into his department car and I could be wrong on that,
7 but that is my recollection.
8 Q Now, we were on the 20th and the delayed departure.
9 Do you recall, did you see a draft of Mr. Casey's testimony
10 prior to the meeting to review the testimony on the afternoon
11 of the 20th?
12 A I don't think so. I don't recall it if I did, but
13 I don't believe I did. .
14 Q Did you see it after that?
15 A I don't think so. I mean, I may have seen a
16 document, I may have seen a draft in Chuck Cooper's hand, for
17 example, but I don't recall having looked at a draft.
18 Q Were you at the session to review Mr. Casey's
19 testimony?
20 A No.
21 Q Did you speak to the Attorney General about it
22 after he returned from the drafting session?
23 A No. As I recall, he went straight from the White
24 House to I think Andrews Air Force Base and on up to West
9R Point.
229
mtifsm
COao
Q Do you recall when that was?
A Well, I made an inquiry to try to find out, and
this is more recently, and I think it was, I believe he had
wheels up at around 4:30 and/or 4:40, and so it is probably
— I think we estimated he left the White House around 3:30,
because at that time of day, it is probably 45 or 50 minute
drive out there. I think their takeoff had been delayed by
rain or something. It is in the 3:30 range.
Q Now, do you recall the Attorney General receiving
any calls from anybody at the Department of State on the
afternoon of the 20th?
A No. I just don't recall.
Q Do you know whether or not he spoke to Judge Sofaer
Legal Advisor from the State Department?
A I don ■ t know .
Q Do you know whether or not he spoke to Secretary
of State Shultz that day -- the 20th?
A I don't know.
Q Would those calls normally have come to you in
his absence?
A I think if the system worked, I would have been
notified that they had called, but I just don't know whether
I was or not. If he was not in the office a call like that
would be put on his telephone log and frequently if a Cabinet
official calls, I would return it and see if there were
230
uveuHb
20
C/O
anything that we could lend a hand on, although I don't
recall whether there was a call or whether I did that.
0 Do you know whether or not Deputy Attorney
General Burns received emy telephone calls from the
Department of State that day?
A I have been told since that day that he did. I
didn't know that he had then.
Q When did you learn that he had?
A I recall learning about it in the last several
weeks.
Q So it was not brought to your attention at the
time it occurred on November 20th?
A That is right. I don't recall it having been.
Q Did you speak to Mr, Burns eibout it after learning
about. it?
A No.
Q How is it that you learned then that that
telephone call took place?
A It may have been during congressional testimony,
which I was watching on TV, or it may have been from Chuck
Cooper.
0 Were you present when Deputy Attorney Burns spoke
to the Attorney General about this phone call?
A
up, I think we figured out that Meese probably took the call
No. I mean, I think a fewll^eks ago when this came
231
mtmim
C^1~.
oo
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q When you say we figured out, who is we?
A I asked a couple of my secretaries in the office
to figure out when Meese took off from Andrews, talked to
Cooper to see how long the meetings was in the White House,
and I guess Chuck Cooper indicated the approximate time of
the call or that information came from someone, and the
estimate was Meese was probably in the car when it happened.
Q So the Attorney General did not tell you about the
call I guess at any point and certainly not November of "86,
is that correct?
A I don't recall him mentioning it in November of
•86. He has mentioned it in the last several weeks.
Q Now, on the evening of the 20th, were you called
by anybody from the Department of Justice regarding the
discrepancies that had come up between the recollection of
Secretary Shultz and the statements made in the Casey
testimony?
A I don't think I was. I don't believe I was. I
believe I got a call. It might have been from the Attorney
General, or from the staff member who was in West Point with
him, indicating that -- probably from the staff member — but
indicating th*t he had had a conversation with Chuck Cooper
and that he was returning to Washington first thing the next
morning and cancelling the Friday leg of his trip, and I
believe I called that night, Bruce ZanXa, who is our travel.
232
nmssieiitrr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
££ 18
^-
^*^ 20
^? 21
S^ 22
23
he handled traveling arrangements for the Attorney General
to make sure everything was wired. I think I put him in
touch with West Point.
Q Do you recall when it was that the Attorney General
arrived back in Washington, D.C. on the 21st?
A I don't recall. I know in looking back at staff
meeting notes that — I don't think he was at the 8:30
meeting that day. So he may have arrived right afterwards,
but I think it was fairly early, at the start of most people's
day, a couple of hours after he normally begins.
Q Were you at the staff meeting on the 21st?
A I think so, because I believe I saw some of my
notes from that day.
0 Did anything occur at the Friday morning staff
meeting that is of relevance to the Iranian arms sales or the
Nicaraguan resistance?
A Well, there is an entry from my notes where the
subject is mentioned but there is nothing significant. I
don't think there was anything significant at the time and
now I don't think anything significant occurred.
MS. NAUGHTON: If you could _Bark this, please.
(Exhibit No. 1 was marked for identification.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q I am showing you what has been marked as Exhibit
No. 1 to this deposition. Are those your notes?
233
'DTIliCRMintO
A Yes.
Q Of the staff meeting?
A Yes.
0 And your notes indicate, do they not -- firstly,
do you know where the originals of these notes are?
A I believe they are in ray office's possession with
material that -- I think what we have done is kepi an
original of everything that is produced and they are I believe
with that. Although they have been searched in response to
other document requests in other matters from the Independent
Counsel Walsh and another matter. They have been reviewed
for relevant material for another matter, so I can't — I
provided to the Independent Counsel Walsh originals of most
of my notes, if not all, in this matter, and I don't think
I provided the originals of these notebooks to him, I think
I still have got them. They are one of two places.
Q We were told last Friday at the Department of
Justice that the originals were at the White House.
A Mo , no .
Q To be kept for Wedtech.
A Those are Meese's notebooks -only.
Q Your originals are then, where precisely would
they be?
A I can't tell you. I don't know. We have got —
we have got — there is a location in our office where we
234
mffiusstPti&T
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
^:^ 18
\±=1 19
CO 20
c::;s:s.
CJ^
have got all of these, all of the original materials. I
think they are put in one location to be made available for
inspection. What is it? I am not sure if they are physically
in the White -- what is in the custody of the White House are
Meese's spiral notebooks, handwritten notebooks in spiral
notebooks.
0 If we can then go to this exhibit, which is
obviously a redacted copy. Thre is an entry that says
"Weld" — which 1 assume refers to Assistant Attorney Weld
Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division,
is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And the reference teads "How long AG to carry legal
load alone — various agents involved. JJIB';" whom I assume
is Mr. Bolton, he is A^^"^£ant: Attorney General for the Office
of Legislative Affairs?
A Yes sir.
Q 'Response focus Cooper, et cetera — as develops,"
and then Weld again, "CRM Division,". *ihich I assume stcmds
for Criminal Division?
A Yes.
Q "Needs to be informed for intact on other cases."
A Yes.
Q Could you tell us exactly what those notes indicate
the discussion was?
235
wmssifliiT
A Okay, I don't have a specific recollection but
this is what 1 think they mean.
That Weld was mentioning that the AG should have
others involved in trying to figure out what statutes were
implicated by the transactions that we knew had occurred.
Q You are speaking about the U.S. sponsored Iranian
initiative arms transactions?
A Well, I am speaking of the Iranian initiatives
and I guess at that point, we didn't really know. I am not
sure when precisely I became aware enough to know there were
questions about what happened in '85 and who had sponsored
or approved, but it is that whole series of arms shipments
and initiatives in that regard.
Bolton pointed out that Cooper is already involved
in that, that his office has been the focus of this legal
review and Meese was not, that the department was formally
involved in doing that, Meese wasn't doing that alone. And
that then Bill's point. Weld's "point for second .entry is that
Criminal Division needs to be informed of for^ impact on
other cases. There were, as I recall, there are pending
arms shipment cases in a number of districts around the
country and he was just concerned that whatever legal
conclusions or factual development, I guess I think the
legal conclusions OLC was reaching were they were aware of.
Q When you say Mr. Weld mentioned the AG should have
236
\!SMSS»ET
C^
others involved, did he mention the Criminal Division?
A No, I don't believe this was — this referred to
getting the Criminal Division involved. I think it just
referred to generic comment that there are others that need
to be involved, the department needs to look at these legal
questions.
I guess he was not aware that OLC had been tasked
to do that, which is what the Bolton note indicates.
Q Did he indicate in any way concern with the
Attorney General acting as fact finder?
A I don't recall anything along those lines, no.
I think I would have — I don't have any specific, clear
recollection of this meeting, but I think something like that
I would have noted in my notes because this was what makes
me think the AG was not present because I wrote a note here
on the margin, AG, with an arrow and star.
That star cir<gled for me is an action notice
which hopefully I follow up on. That mefuis to me that I need
to tell Heeae about this conversation or this suggestion and
I think if there had been a concern raised by the AG that is
the kind of thing I specifically would have written down.
Q Was there any other discussion other than Mr.
Bolton's reply to Mr. Weld's comment?
A I don't recall any.
Q Since you indicated with a star it should be
237
ORKlWfffiE'
followed up, did you follow up on that?
A I don't recall doing that or not.
Q Did you tell the Attorney General about this
comment when he did return on the 21st?
A I don't recall whether — I don't have any
recollection of doing that or not doing that.
Q Did you tell him at any time?
A I don't recall. I just have no recollection of
such a conversation. I mean, I was not, I may have or I
may not have, I just don't recall, but this notation means
that this is something I think I should tell Meese about.
This is not a tasking to me out of the meeting that I have
action on Weld's behavior to inform Meese. That is what I
try to do. This kind of notation would not indicate that
I have been tasked to take this and be assured that it is
done.
Q Did anyone inform the Attorney General of Mr.
Weld's comments in your presence?
A I don't recall. whether they did or not. This
reference to things like this New York case, where there is
an arms shipment prosecution underway amd --
Q Well, let's get specific when you say this. Are
you referring to his last -- HMO! AOOirir'^'
imE
This last entry.
r»-iminai Division needs to be informed?
238
mmm!
?5 "
CO 20
^^ 22
~-^ 23
24
A For impact on other cases.
0 That refers to the New York case?
A Yes, that is what I believe.
Q The first reference, however, to the Iranian arms
shipments?
A Yes.
Q I wanted to be clear.
Now, when that meeting broke up, do you recall
whether or not this subject was discussed with anyone .
informally or as the meeting was breaking up?
A I don't recall. .
Q Do you know whether or-^ot the Criminal Division
prepared any research papers or irfeerials or memoranda on
the Iranian arms sales, the U.S. initiatives?
A Well, I have been told that they did and I saw
such a memo this week for the first time. I don't think I
knew until the last few weeks that they did. But apparently
such a memo was prepared, either over the course of this
weekend or this weekend in November of '86.
Q Who brought it to your attention that the Criminal
Division had prepared a memo?
A I don't recall.
Q Did Mr. Weld?
A I don't think so. It might have been Cooper or
e^l 4-nn K.i«- T Hnn • ♦• i-«»f»1 1 .
(infliji^asiiT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
S"
rT* 18
CO 19
i«^ 20
So 21
•^^ 22
23
24
Q Do you know where they received the information
that a memo had been prepared?
A No.
Q Moving along then to when the Attorney General
returned the morning of the 21st, when he first returned, did
you meet with him?
A I don't recall whether I did or not. 1 probably
did, but I don't recall whether I did.
Q And what can you recall that happened Friday
morning; the 21st?
A I~J3elieve that he went over to see the President
late morning, and I recall that we got together for lunch —
Cooper, Reynolds, Meese. I am not sure if Bolton was there,
but he may have been, and myself. And he told us how we
were, what the President had asked him to do and how we were
going to be spending the next couple of days.
Q Well, prior to the Attorney General's going to see
th« President, were you aware he was going to see the
President?
A I probably was, yes.
Q What did you know prior to that meeting taking
place, what did you understand was the purpose of that
meeting?
A I don't think I knew the purpose.
Q Well, you knew the Attorney General had cut short
240
llWCUCCiriHi,,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
S ''
CO 19
^ ■* 21
^^ ^
23
24
his trip.
A I surmised things, but I don't think he told me
what he was doing. I knew he was going over to the White
House.
0 You didn't know why?
A No. I assumed it was to discuss the topic of
special interest, which was the Iranian initiative. But I
don't recall whether I knew what problems there were or
not. There may have been a Friday morning meeting that I
attended. I just don't have any recollection of it now.
There may have been a note or something that would refresh
but I don't recall.
Q When the Attorney General returned from his meeting
with the President, what did he tell you about that meeting?
A Well, as best I recall, over the course of lunch,
he said that the President had asked him to conduct a
fact finding inquiry to try to determine what had transpired
in this Iranian initiative, that there seemed to be different
recollections of what had happened and that it didn't seem
that anyone was in a position or did know the full set of
facts, and there was going to be a NSPG meeting on Monday
and that the President had asked Meese to try to look into
the matter and see if he could put together a factual picture
on v^at had occurred.
241
yPifBF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.13
14
15
16
tHuT
OO 20
Cii^
Wednesday night he was concerned because I think the statement
about not, no third countries being involved, I think he was
concerned about the performance of the President and inaccuratu
statements being made, and he was concerned that he had not
been properly briefed or informed, and I gathered from the
lunch there had been a discussion, the meeting the day before
had resulted in the viewpoint that their people didn't seem
to know what was going on, and that the President didn't
have a complete picture of the facts.
Q When did he tell you that he was concerned about
the President's remarks at the President's press conference?
A I don't recall specifically. I don't know that
it was -- it was a poor performance in the press conference,
there seemed to be — this is my own impression — the
President seemed to be unsure about some of the facts, seemed
not to understand that question. A correction was issued and
Meese, I don't think we got into detail, but I think that as
I recall, he shared that impression.
Q But do you recall when he shared that inqsression?
A No.
Q Did the Attorney General indicate to you when he
met with the President, in what capacity he was setting
forth on this fact finding inquiry?
A I just don't recall. I don't recall that. I
don't think so.
242
yuiv^^ . itwgissifir
i
1 Q I guess my question is did he explain why it was
2 that he, Ed Meese, Attorney General, was going to be tasked
3 with finding the facts as opposed to a Don Regan or Mr.
4 Wallison or Secretary of State Shultz or someone else in the
5 Administration?
6 A I don't think he explained to us where the
7 President wanted this done. I think he told us we were going
8 to do this. It didn't seem odd to me, so I didn't ask about
9 it.
10 Q Did he explain whether or not it was the President
11 that tasked him with this or whether he asked to be able to
12 do it?
13 A He did not state which of those was the case. He
14 just said the President wanted him to do this or had asked
15 him to do this.
16 0 During that, I guess you met for lunch that day?
17 A Yes sir.
18 Q Do you recall who else was present?
19 A I recall Meese 2uid Reynolds, Cooper, Richardson,
20 I think Bolton may have been present, but I am not sure. I
21 know Bolton was present at a simular lunch the day before.
22 Q On the 20th?
23 A Yes.
24 Q Was part of this discussion at lunch surrounding
25 Mr. Casey's testimony?
UNCLASSIFIED
243
Take 2
T. .AS:mhl
fls myself
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
9f>
HNteASaflBlT
lUi-J
LA-
A Part of the discussion, certainly. It certainly
involved that, but we didn't have the testimony. It wasn't
a session to go over the testimony as I recall. I think the
two — again, I had not made myself intimately familiar with
the facts in that sort of thing at this point, but I, as you
recall. Cooper was reviewing some of the applicable legal
requirements, and Bolton was updating him on events that were
underway with the Hill, and I don't think that the testimony
was passed around and gone over, but I think it was, certainly
it was in the context of Casey going up the next day.
I think Bolton might have been at this lunch
Friday because at some point he debriefed us on, he sat in
on some testimony and took some notes, I think at some point
he debriefed tH&ese on what had happened.
Q Do you recall when he did that, what his statement
was regarding what Casey had told Congress regarding the
November 1985 Hawks?
A No, I don't recall that.
Q Now, as far as the lunch on Friday, can you tell
us what was discussed?
A Well, as best I recall, he explained that we were
going to be engaged in this fact finding inquiry, he discussed
who should be, who he should meet with and interview. I think
he put together a list. He asked if we could make, if our
schedules %*ere clear and that sort of thing, and that is all
244
mmB
I specifically recall.
When we got together over the course of the weekend
the small team we would review the state of play, what do we
know so far, what seems to have now -- these are the state
of facts as we know them thus far. That may have happened,
but I doh't specifically recall that happened or not.
Q Was there a discussion at that meeting of who was
to comprise the team?
A I don't recial any specific discussion about it,
no.
Q Was there any discussion of excluding anyone from
the inquiry?
A I don't recall 2my discussion about that either.
Q In other words , did the Attorney General mjike any
statement as to I pick you folks to do this because, or give
you any reasons for why these particular people were brought
together for an inquiry?
A No, I don't think so. I don't recall zmy.
Q Was there another nteeting bout 2:00-2:30 that
day?
A I don't have any separate recollection of it.
There may — I also — while you mentioned that, I think it
was at lunch he told me I should keep a log of the meetings,
of his schedule of the course of the weekend, what meetings
...^T-o Voir) an<i hr>w lona thev went and who was there. So there
245
mmm
may be a note that indicates there was such a meeting, but
I don't recall it.
Q Why were you to keep this log of scheduled
meetings?
A He didn't explain why. 1 assume so we would know
who we talked to and what order and for how long. I am not
sure, I think it was probably at lunch, but at this point,
lunch or 2:00 or 2:30 meeting, he basically -- the tasks were
assigned , that Meese would be the primary interviewer. Cooper
would be with him and would take notes.
This may have been right before the McFarland
interview, I am not sure of the time. He wanted me to keep
a log of events, what was done, when. I think Saturday
morning I learned that.
Friday night when I went home for — I asked for
the copy of chronology we had, so I could write and try to
become familiar with the facts, and I think Saturday morning,
he determined to send Brad and me over to look at documents.
So he ws sort of deciding who would do what and making a
list of people that should be interviewed, that sort of thing.
I think that was the nature generally of what was going on
at that point,
Q I gather Mr. Cribb was out of town at this point?
A Yes.
Q On this weekend?
246
wKumfflT
CO
Q On this weekend?
A Yes sir.
0 Was there any discussion of bringing him back to
help out?
A I don't think so. He would hate to interrupt
anybody's vacation anyway. I don't think that was discussed.
Q Was there any discussion at this point Friday
either at noon or if there was a subsequent meeting at 2:00,
sometime in early afternoon o Friday, of whether Tow missiles
that were the subject of the '85 and '86 transactions, any
of them had been redirected to the contras?
A I don't recall anything of that nature. I don't
recall anything having to do with the contras coming up in
this regard until Brad Reynolds passed me the now famous memo,
when wWyfere in Ollie North's office.
Q Is that a comment that you think you would have
remembered?
A Yes, I think I would have remembered that. The
reason I do is because when I was going through documents
there was mention in some of Ollie' s files of sending some
Tows to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1 That
mind like crazy. In fact, I asked him the follow-up question
about it in the interview and so I think, I am confident
I would have remember^ such a comment.
Q Do you recall at what point on Friday it was
247
0!!a«WP'
c:::si8
g*rf 22
^? 23
24
decided that someone ought to go over and look at the
documents at NSC?
A No. My first recollection of that was Saturday
morning.
Q As of Friday, you did not know you would be tasked
with the next day going to the NSC to look at dociiments?
A Well, that is right. I don't recall the
specifically. It may have been, but I first — ray first
recollection of knowing that was Saturday morning.
Q We have heard testimony, of course, from Admiral
Poindexter he received a call from the Attorney General
around 3 o'clock that afternoon on the 21st, asking him to
make documents available. Were you aware of that phone call
when it took place?
A I don't — well, now that you say that,- I tend to
recall that somewhere in my notes I wrote down a call between
Meese and Poindexter that day — 3; 05 or something — but I
recall the entry, I doh't recall the subject. It is not —
Brad Reynolds — I believe I an stating this accurately,
recalls, knowing that we would be looking at documents on
Friday, but my recollection is I don't recall that. Mine is
that it was on Saturday tnoming.
MS. NAUGaxeK»< If we can have this marked as
Exhibrt No; 2.
(Exhibit No. 2 was marked for identification.)
248
nmw
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
' » /Q
S:
^^ 23
^!^ 24
25
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
0 Exhibit 2 for the record appears to be a handwritte
chronology type log. It begins with 20 November, '86. Is
this in your hand, Mr. Richardson?
A Yes.
0 And is this the log that you kept that you were
describing earlier in your testimony?
A Yes. Although this, I don't think this was
contemporaneously kept. It was not. I think I put it
together from scrap, fro^scraps that I think you have as well.
Q All right. So, why don't we mark one of these
scraps now.
MS. NAUGHTON: Why don't we mark this number 3?
(Exhibit 3 was marked for identification.)
MS. NAUGHTON: We can mark this as Exhibit 4.
(Exhibit 4 was marked for identification)
MS. NAUGHTON: And this one is 5 and that
one is 6.
(Exhibits 5 and 6 were marked for identification.)
MS. NAUGHTON: This one is 7.
(Exhibit 7 was marked for identification. )
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q What I have tried to do here, Mr. Richardson, is
to put the items which appear to be logs or chronologies
together to both refresh your recollection and explain to us
249
miSMtBfflr
CO 19
J 20
;SSi» 21
«— ^ 22
23
24
25
~5
what some of your notes might indicate, so feel free to refer
to them as we go through them.
YOU mentioned you collected exhibit number 2 from
different scraps of paper?
A Yes.
Q Would one of those scraps of paper be exhibit no.
3. that one that is a two page document that starts off with
November 21, 11:30 to 12:15?
A Ves, I believe so.
Q Now, I assume that that note, November 21, 11:30
to 12:30, indicates the meeting that Mr. Meese had with the
President, right?
A Well, yes, but I think this — it doesn't
delineate when he saw the President, when he saw Don Regan,
or I think he saw Regan before he went in to see the President"
I am not sure how long the Regan meeting was. But that is
how long he was in meetings at the White House.
Q Did you ask him how long the Regan meeting was?
A I don't think so.
Q Did you ask him how long the meeting with the
President was?
A No, I don't recall, no.
Q If you would turn that page over then, the next
page of exhibit 3, this starts off 6:25 p.m.. AGC, JC, WBR,
JR, 21 November, update. Cooper.
250
2
25
mmm
1 A Right.
0 Was this made on the 21st of November?
3 A I think it was.
4 Q Can you tell us what this is, what your notes on
5 the piece of paper indicate?
6 A That entry I think at 6:25 p.m., Meese, Cooper,
7 Reynolds, Richardson, met on the 21st and that Cooper provided
8 an update or -- it might mean we gave Cooper and update. I
9 think it would have been the other way around. Probably that
10 is intended to show update from Cooper.
11 Then there is an arrow drawn to another circle
12 which says "6:30 add JRB," who is John Bolton --"legislative
13 update. Bolton out at 6:35."
14 He popped in and told us what was going on up
15 on the Hill. Then there was another arrow to a circle,
16 "Cooper out at 6:45." Which means Cooper left the meeting
17 at 6:45.
13 0 There is also another arrow saying Bolton, then a
19 star, called NSC. Tell us what that is.
20 A Okay. Well, what it indicates I think it says
21 call NSC Bolton in hearing. I believe there was a question
22 about our ability to get Bolton into the hearing that day.
23 That entry was probably made — I think the hearings were
24 Friday, so it would have been made early next day, but I am
not certain.
yfiCLftSSIFl[3
251
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
.11
12
13
14
15
17
~^23
24
25
ORttliSSIFIBT
I recall that there was the need to get the NSC
to get Bolton the list of people who could attend the hearing.
Q The name Sporkin appears. I assume that is
referring to CIA General Counsel Sporkin?
A Yes sir.
Q Was that one of the names to be interviewed?
A I think that is right.
Q And then further down there is VP.
A Office of OFC.
Q And —
A Says John Scfimidt, with an arrow to McGinnis.
Q **hat does that indicate?
A Well, Schmidt is in the Vice President's — he
is the counsel office over there. I am not sure what that
means. Probably that 5midt was to be in touch with McGinnis
but I don't recall on what.
Q Was there any discussion of the Vice President's
office then on the 21st?
A I don't recall any. What I tend to think this
means is that he was appointed contact who might have done
some work on some of the legal questions — Schmidt — but I
don't recall specifically what that is about.
Q What would :the connection be of Mr. McGinnis, who
I assume is John McGinnis, OLC?
A Yes sir. I don't recall. I can only speculate
252
iMSSSflBF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
^19
OO 21
-K«^! 22
^;* 23
"*'■ ' 24
25
that Schmidt may have worked on some legal question that
McGinnis was going to get up to speed on, or maybe Schmidt --
at some point, Chuck was trying to get John McGinnis to go
over to review some materials at either^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't
know if Schmidt was involved in getting him access to that.
I don't have any recollection of that.
Q And the other names that appeared -- Shultz, Casey
and Weinberger.
A Right.
Q I assume those would be names of people to
interview during the weekend?
A Probably.
Q Can you tell us why it was that Bill Casey was not
interviewed that weekend?
A I know the Attorney General did talk to him on
Saturday.
Q Was that an interview?
A I don't know how you would — how you would phrase
it. I was not present.
Q Well, to your knowledge, then, was Mr. Casey
interviewed that weekend?
A I know the Attorney General met with Casey Saturday
evening. I don't know how to characterize it, because I am
not familiar with the details of the discussion. I would
say, yes, he was Lntfixviewed emd information was, that he was
DWlllStHS'
asked some questions about this to add to the information,
but I don't know that — that was my assumption.
Q When the Attorney General reported back, did he
tell you that he had asked Mr. Casey if he knew there had
been a diversion of funds to the contras?
A No.
Q Did he report back that he had asked Mr. Casey
about November '85 Hawk shipments?
A I don't recall. I thinX he would have said some-
thing like. Bill doesn't remember this or doesn't think this
happened. That is the context in which it might have come
up. But I don't remember anything specifically that Casey
added or that Meese reported on the Casey meeting. I don't
recall knowing that he was going to see Bill Casey on his way
home.
Q But as far as those two subjects which I mentioned'
A No, the diversion I know he didn't say he asked
him about that. I would have remember that. The other, I
don't recall.
Q What I want to know though, is when you are
planning out these interviews, we have a very short amount of
time in which to do this — was there a discussion as to Mr.
Casey, as to whether or not the Attorney General would just
meet with him himself or did you plan on interviewing him at
a certain place and time?
1!»ASSIFIE0
254
SMttASSPIST
en ''
So ^
C-O 22
cj:>
A Well, as I recall it, something like Meese saying
I will see Bill Casey on the way home, so that took care of
touching base, interviewing Casey.
C Do you recall when he said that?
A No, I don't. I only saw him, I saw him at lunch
and probably talked to him on the telephone, but I think,
I don't think he was -- well, I can't remember if he was at
the department after we finished in Ollie North's office,
if I went back to the department and Meese was there. I just
don't remember. There is probably a note here somewhere that
would refresh my recollection. I don't remember when I
learned that.
Q When you put Casey's name down on that piece of
paper on the 21st of November, was it assumed then that he
would be someone who would be interviewed?
A Well, I don't recall if Casey is on Meese's list
from lunch.
Q On Friday?
A Yes, that would be the authoritative document,
because I don't have any recollection of these notes and they
are random notes at the bottom of a piece of paper. It
could have just been my thoughts about we need to be sure to
touch base with these folks. I just don't have any
recollection of that.
Q Now, exhibit 4 is simply a list of meetings and
255
ina^HffT
chronology. I don't have questions on that.
Except one. Towards the end of those documents,
referring to a meeting with Michael Ledeen on November 14
with the Attorney General. Were you present for that meeting
with Mr. Ledeen?
A No. I was supposed to be.
Q Was Mr. Gerson present at that meeting?
A No. Meese had asked me to sit in and the three of
us sat down and Lepeen said I would really — made apologies
and said I prefer to talk to you one on one. So I stepped
out. They were in there a few minutes, then I came in.
Meese told me what the meeting, he said all he wanted to do
was say this and he had made and he read to me from entries
in a notebook and told me what he had said, which was nothing
traumatic, I guess. He said something like he had been
involved in the initiative early on, that it was still a
viable initiative. That is my recollection of it. Talking
about the Iranian initiative.
0 Did he explain what being involved meant?
A No, I took it in a diplomatic sense. He had been
involved in establishing the contacts, but I don't recall
any explanation of it.
0 Is there any reason Mr. Lepeen wasn't on the list
of people to be interviewed? UNCLAuulriLl
A No. I don't recall any discussion about it.
256
HSft^JSilr
^ Q Exhibit no. 5, which is one dated the 25th of
2 November '86, you said -- I just have one question -- when
^ the Attorney General tells you, apparently at the bottom,
^ regarding a phone call he got from Prime Minister Peres of
Israel, saying that they did ship 500 Tows but Attorney
6 General got it wrong in his press conference regarding the
7 accounts to the contras. Did the Attorney General read this
to you from a note or were you present at the phone call, or
9 do you recall how you came to put this information on this
10 piece of paper?
11 A I do not recall. I don't see any references in
12 the note that Meese got it wrong in the press conference,
13 although this nay be different from what he understood in
14 the press conference. I guess that is your point.
15 Q I don't have questions on the remaining exhibits.
16 If we can get back to the 21st.
17 (Discussion off the record)
18 BY MS. NAUGHTON:
19 Q Now, after the early afternoon meeting of the
20 21st, what did you do?
21 A The McFarlai^ interview was under way?
22 Q Yes .
,„yNClllSSIFIE
23 A I don't remember what
24 Q Did you meet later to discuss what Mr. McFarland
25 had said?
257
mteme^
A This entry in exhibit 2 indicates that we got
2 together about 6:25, Meese, Cooper, Reynolds, Richardson.
3 That is when Bolton popped in for five minutes. McFarland's
interview results were probably discussed at that time
although I don't have a specific recollection of it now.
Q What else was discussed at that 6:25 meeting?
A I don't remember anything else particularly about
it. I do recall coming out of it with the feeling like I
9 ought to get my own copy of the chronology and try to become
10 familiar with the facts.
11 Q Did you do that:
12 A Yes. I think I took it home Friday night and
13 read it or stayed at the department late and read it. I
14 don't recall which.
15 Q Do you know what it is Mr. Reynolds did on Friday
16 afternoon?
17 A No.
18 Q So, it was not discussed — please correct me if
19 I am wrong — on Friday afternoon, about reviewing documents
20 at the National Security Council?
21 A I don't recall it, but as I mentioned, I think
22 Brad Reynolds does recall it, but I just don't.
23 0 Now, on Saturday morning, did you go straight to
24 the Department of Justice?
25
UNCUSSIFIEO
258
c=a
CO 21
'WWll^lflffir
0 Do you recall when you arrived?
A Yes, it was in the 9:15 range. I rememeber I got
there either just before or just after Brad had walked in to
Meese' sof fice and Cooper and Meese had just come back from
talking with Shultz and Charlie Hill.
Q Did they brief you on that interview?
A Yes.
Q Do you remember what they said about it?
A I don't remember in any detail.
Q Do you remember if you took notes of that?
A No, I don't remember. I doubt I did because Cooper
had been in the interview and had taken notes of the actual
conversations. So I don't think I did take notes.
Q At that point in time, though, after he briefed
you on the Shultz interview, did it come clear in your mind'
there was a discrepancy between what Mr. Shultz was saying
about the November '85 shipment and what Mr. Casey had
testified to, or the draft of Casey's testimony?
In other words, what I am getting at, Mr. Cooper
testified publicly regarding that discrepancy and how his
investigation began and so forth. Was that clear in your
mind prior to the time of reviewing documents at the NSC?
A I don't have a recollection of there being that
discrepancy between Casey and Shultz. I do recall that it
was unclear what had happened and who had known about it, and
259
imsseit
' who had known about it and authorized the '85 shipments, what-
^ ever shipments there were in '85.
"* My recollection was that there was a difference
^ between McFarlan/ and Shultz. I am not myself even now
5 intimately familiar with Casey's testimony then and I don't
6 know if Casey's testimony had been based on this Scime set of
' facts that McFarlan^ had put forward. So that the answer to
8 your question might be yes, but I didn't know of it in those
9 terms. I thought the difference was between McFarlan/'s
10 point of view, and Shultz point of view.
11 It was clear to me that what had happened in '85
12 was unclear and who had known about it or endorsed it was
13 unclear. That was the principal area at that point that we
14 were interested in, because of the legal significance of
15 what had happened.
16 Q So you understood that if those shipments were not
17 authorized there may be a violation of the Arms Export Control
18 Act, or perhaps some other law?
19 A Yes. I knew legal, knew legal significance would
20 attach to whether they were authorized or not and that we
21 would have to figure out if there had been a violation or if
22 another set of legal justifications would attach —
23 Presidential, for exeunple. Presidential authority, independent
24 of the statutes.
25 But that -was obviously a worse case scenario
UNCIASSIFIEO
260
mmsw
^ because that would posit a violation of one of the statutes.
2 Q What would?
3 A Well, I mean, if one relied exclusively on the
4 President's constitutional authority to conduct foreign
5 policy, for example, that as a justification that was a legal
6 justification that would only, would be a last resort, a
7 last resort, that, in other words, would you rely on the
8 statute first, if the statute had been violated that would
9 put us into a difficult situation. We didn't know if one had
10 been violated or not.
11 Q When you arrived at the —
12 A A caveat. Cooper had the main arrow on that. I
13 was a much more of a listener, note taking and trying to
14 find out what happened, so I am not even now intimately
15 familiar with those statutes.
■J6 Q When you arrived at the Department of Justice that
17 morning, I gathered at some point the Attorney General told
18 you would be going over to review documents?
19 A Yes sir.
20 Q When he told you that, did he tell you what it
21 was you were to look for?
22 A I believe, yes, I believe yes, I don't recall
23 him, I don't have a specific recollection of him uttering
24 the instructions but I knew when I went over there that our
25 interest was '85, and trying to determine if the U.S.
ne -cej-j. you wnat it
UNCiiSSIFIE:
261
llfffiLSSSIRffi'
Government role in the shipments, whether they were authorized
^ acquiesced in, or other~wise known about, and so I had that
3 clear understanding. I don't remember him actually saying
^ this is what you look for, X,Y,Z, but he might have done it
5 I don't recall.
6 Brad and I rode over together and we probably
7 talked about it in the car as well.
Q Did the Attorney General ever discuss with your
9 during this weekend his participation in the '76 finding:
10 A He probably did, but I don't remember specific
11 conversations about it. I do recall looking through his
12 schedules at some point and trying to determine where he was
13 in '86 and what meetings he might have attended of either the
14 National Security Council or the President or Poindexter.
15 Q Well, was this subsequent to January '87 that you
16 did this?
17 A No, I did that over the course of this weekend
18 review.
19 Q You looked?
20 A I looked at January ' 86 schedules over the course
21 of this November '86 weekend.
yNCLASSIRE
22 Q Why was that? vii v*-i iw*** * i s*:=.^-x*
23 A We wanted to see what, to try to determine the
24 answer to the question you posed — trying to learn if Meese
25 had been at any of these meetings when they occurred, that
262
imussiaiB
sort of thing. His recollection needed to be refreshed in
terms of precise dates and times. I am pretty sure I did
that over the course of this weekend. It is possible I did
it on Monday, but I am pretty sure I did it over the weekend.
5 Q Did he discuss with you his knowledge or lack of
6 knowledge of the either August or November '85 shipments?
7 A He did discuss with me his lack of knowledge of
8 the '85 shipments. That is, his lack of knowledge of them
9 at that time and I believe in January. I think he indicated
10 that he learned about them in November of '86.
11 But he clearly, he did, clearly didn't know about
12 them in '85, That was — I don't remember him uttering the
13 words again, but I have clear recollection that he was
14 unaware. What makes me think I might have done this schedule
15 on Monday as opposed to earlier is because, when North
16 indicated in our interview with him that there was early
17 December meeting and I went back to see if Meese had
18 attended, euid he had — he was out of the country at the time
19 so it well could have been Monday.
20 Q But I guess my question is did the Attorney General
21 say he never learned of the ' 85 shipments until November
22 ' 86 or until January ' 86 when he learned of the Iranian
23 issue?
24 A I have trouble separating out when he told me,
25 because I know he did not, he has told me recently, and I
ONCUSSiHI]
263
TJBKySSMfi
'' can't remember how far back dating back to November of '86
2 this had been, he had told me this, but he has told me that
3 he did not, does not recall learning about the '85 shipments
^ until November of "86 and that the January '86 was the first
5 time he learned about the initiative, the Iran initiative,
6 which involved these arms shipments and that his knowledge
7 of that in '86 was prospective.
8 Q Did he tell you after Mr. Cooper's testimony?
9 A He did tell me afterward, but he may have also
10 told me that before. I believe he did. I am pretty sure
11 that over the course of this -- I have trouble giving a sort
12 of photo snapshot in time back to November of '86 and
13 remembering certain things like this when I learned them,
14 at what time, but I feel pretty sure over the course of that
15 four or five day period, Meese was operating in the dark, as
16 if we had no personal knowledge of the '85 shipments that
17 was clear to us.
13 I don't know when he told me that but —
^9 Q Let's go from that angle. An important question
20 is whether or not the '85 shipments were authorized?
21 A Yes.
22 Q Correct?
23 A Yes.
24 Q As a matter of usual course, the Attorney General
25 would review findings, for instance?
imHSSIFIED
264
iffiASSiffiF
A That is not — he reviews some findings, he does
not review all findings.
Q Which ones has he not reviewed?
A Well, I don't know. The ones we don't see we are
not sure about.
Q Exactly how would you know he doesn't see very
finding?
A We made an inquiry recently of our office. When
he reviews a finding normally it would come from NSC to our
Office of Intelligence Policy anc^eview, who would review
it for its legality and kick it down to the Attorney General
12 with a memo.
""^ Now, that was done with considerable frequency
14 under Attorney General Smith, and I had a discussion with
Mary Bmj^irton, head of that office. The numbers of
findings dropped off under Meese and there are, she recalled
one specifically, and there may have been more findings
that we found out about after they had been signed by the
19 President and we did not have advance clearance
20
21
22 office would not be involved, but there is not a process
23 place for the Attorney General to review every Presidential
24 finding.
25 That is my understanding of it. We try to, but
That is conceivable that there are, that a finding
IS discussed at an NSC meeting and therefore,-DaTi^hfeon.' s
265
1
2
3
end 4
mhl
ms fls 5
PJtlgSffRBT
we don't find out about them all the time.
Q And the basis for your statement that you just
made is based on conversations with Ms*- Mary
Yes.
ICIASSIFIEO
266
ONffiftSSIFIffiT
:^ S-^
0 Is it based on any research with either the NSC or
the CIA?
A Yes, with the NSC.
Q With whom did you speak at the NSC?
A I have staffed that to one of my staff members,
Ann Ra-iiilyaB, who when we have got -- I got two memos, one
indicating the numbers of -- the findings have been signed
by the President from the NSC, and another memo from
Mary Lawton, a list that indicates departmental review
or advice on findings and I compared the two and not all of thje
things signed by the President were reviewed by the
Department and there is at least one that has specifically
been in our area, an area of departmental responsibilities
we found out about some months after the fact.
Q Did you discuss this one with the Attorney General
A That one finding?
Q Yes.
A I don't recall, he probably — he was probably
briefed on it, probably Ann Rondeau or Mary Lawton may
have seen it done after we learned about it. I don't have
a specific recollection of that.
Q I guess what I am getting at is, what you are
telling us is there is one finding that you know about from
the list given you at NSC.
Yes,
UNCLASSIFIED
CAS-2 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Ua,J 20
' 21
**'— * 25
ItKfiS^RIpT
>r"
iT/
Q That did not go through the Department of Justice
procedure for reviewing findings, correct?
A Actually, well, no. There is more than one that die
not, but what I am referring to is there is one that we know
we missed because we know we missed it, that is, they told
us after it was signed, they sent us a copy. There are
others of these that we have not received a copy of, but
were signed by the President.
Lawton's list would show me things she got a copy of,
but didn't know about in advance. The NSC list shows
everything signed. There is some on NSC list that aren't on
hers.
Q Do you recall how many more on NSC than on her
list?
A No, let me think here. Well, I did gross numbers,
and I assume that I can reveal these numbers -- but, there
were, as I recall, from the NSC list, there are a total of
^■findings since 1981 and I don't remember how these numbers
divide, but I believe^^Bwere not reviewed by the
Department and^^Bwere. This is 1981 through 1987.
There were a substantial number, in the half a dozen range,
in early 1981 which were not reviewed that may have
pre-dated Smith's getting in place. One of these findings
which I count amongst those that department review was the
January 17, 1986 finding on Iran. That did not show up
268
mH 20
oo
21
OO 22
■Sk*^ 24
"—^ 25
X
s^
in Mary's record. I don't know if a finding at NSPG or NSC
meeting was passed around which the Attorney General would
have seen then.
Q That is what I am getting at.
A I don't know those numbers.
Q Sixteen went through Lawton's office, you don't
know how many actually were reviewed by the Attorney General.
A That is right. But, I guess the point I am
trying to make is there is no — there was a tug of war, so
to speak, when Smith was Attorney General, with the NSC
feeling like Justice need not review every finding and the
Attorney General feeling like he did and towards — Mary
tells me toward the end of Smith's tenure NSC was beginning
to feel like they didn't need to and that Smith — she
told Smith about it and she thinks Smith didn't get into that
fight again since he was on the way out and Icbn't think
that right now there is, when I asked Mary this question,
do we see every finding, she said, well, we are supposed to,
but there is not a process in place by which, for example,
there is a concurrence block cover sheet on the findings and
Justice has to sign off.
But you are right in indicating that there may —
it is conceivable that there are other findings in the
January 17 category that Meese may have seen. She said
that, for example, on occasion Casey or someone would come ov^r
IMISSfflEBT
.^d^
5-7
and brief Smith orally on a finding and discuss it rather
than send it over and she would normally know about that.
So that number I haven't been able to determine.
I am aware of North's testimony that the Attorney
General reviews every finding so, in fact, that has caused me
to determine if that is true.
Q Are you saying Colonel North isn't totally
accurate?
A Well, I think his perception was probably that
that was done.
Q I guess we were on November 22 in the morning,
Saturday morning.
A Yes.
Q That was a major diversion there. The wrong word,
but we needed to cover that anyway.
A That is right.
I don't know if it is of interest;when a finding
comes over, Lawton reviews it for legality, she sends a
memo down, it would come to me. I would review it, ask
one of our lawyers to review it, walk it into Meese and
I recall in the last year-and-a-half since I have been in
this position of pushing paper, two or three, two probable
findings that were handled in that way. So, the volume
of business that we do in that formal process is small.
So I think the numbers of findings that have been signed
270
(iim^mT
%^
60
.S-5 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
iT''^ 18
— i-- 20
^^
e/O 21
^^23
■I "^24
25
in the last couple of years has declined, as well.
Q To your recollection, were any rejected by the
Department of Justice or opposed?
A I think they were. Well, Mary Lawton's notes
indicate there are notations such as "advised that a new
finding would be necessary", or "revision to a previous
finding would be necessary", or that a finding is "premature"
I gather because the activity is too far away or that this
is insufficient, something like that. So, but, it is
difficult to tell if the same thing was — if more
information was gathered and it was later put in place, I
don't have this kind of detailed analysis of them.
Q Once that goes forward from the Department, then
do you receive a corrected or amended copy of the finding?
A I don't — well, I am sure we don't always because
Mary had indicated to me and she is my source of information
on this, I don't think that NSC, I don't think we have
copies of the findings because my recollection of my
conversation with Mary is that they don't, NSC does not feel
comfortable about having copies of findings outside of
their files.
We have got Meese, her cover memo to Meese, I
recall one specifically more in the last year where he
wrote "concur" and initialed on her cover memo which she
retained but I don't think she retained the finding.
271
BJWASSIRffiT
^
^i
Q You don't necessarily know if your advice is
heeded?
A That is correct. Although, Mary may have back
and forth with either the CIA general counsel, for example,
on or NSC. Just not aware of it.
Q Back to Saturday morning. Do you have, aside
from trying to focus on the 1985 shipments, did you have
any other discussions as to what document you would be
looking for.
A I don't think so. My basic tasking from Meese
was to look through everything that they have got on the
Iranian initiative and see what you can piece together and
see what you find.
Q When did you know that Oliver North was the
action officer on the Iran initiative? In other words,
prior to this were you aware that his were the files to
search and that he would have the most information?
A I am sure I was before I went to the White House.
Q Did you know you would be conducting a
docximent review in his office?
A I probably — I don't know — I assumed that the
documents were — I assumed -- I guess I knew that he had most
of the documents or at least a substantial volume of documents
that we would review.
I also, before I got there, I figured that we would not
272
IIMM$»SI&T
^
^Z
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be sitting in Poindexter's office doing this. It is just --
Meese used to have that suite of offices, I know they are
two very small offices, the secretary's and Poindexter, with
a conference table and I assumed we would not be in there, so
I guess I figured we would be probably somewhere in North's
office.
Q Could you tell us then who made the arrangement
for you to actually go to the White House.
A As I recall. Cooper. Well, there was a discussion
that Brad and I would go to the White House to review
documents. Cooper called Paul Thompson, told him
Brad Reynolds and I would be coming over, then handed me
the phone to talk to Thompson to make arrangements and I
gave Thompson our names and I probably got our dates of/
birth and I don't remember if I parked in the White House,
I may have given him my license plate number, then told him
where we would meet and we went to the West Wing and met
Thompson and then he — well, with that phone call
completed, we got in the car, went on over, went up to the
West Wing, met Thompson, he walked us over to North's office
in the EOB .
Q Thompson met you in the West Wing?
A Yes. There is a West Wing basement office, which
is where I went and asked for Thompson and he came down.
I don't recall whether he walked us up to his office first
l)&iCIJC£inu__
273
iffiea^fi^'
0^
.^
or not, but I don't think so, I think we headed straight on
over.
Q Had you met Mr. Thompson before?
A I don't think I had. Although it is possible I had
seen him before when I worked in the White House, but I
don't think I had met him.
Q Had you met Oliver North before?
A Icbn't think I had, no.
Q Perhaps we put in the note already. Do either
you or Mr. Reynolds drive a Mercedes?
A That is Reynolds.
Q License number then and birthday?
A Yes, sir.
Q And that is what was given to Mr. Thompson to
gain admittance to the White House?
A I think that was given in for admittance on Sunday
morning because my recollection is I drove my car over
to the White House Saturday and Brad "rai^i^with me and
Sunday morning we met at the White House, but anyway, that is
correct, that is information I got to get him cleared in.
Q Now, when you got to Colonel North's office, were
the documents laid out or did you have to retrieve them from
shelves and so forth?
A My recollection is that when we got there Earl was
there, a number of file drawers were open, ajar, several
274
laffiRMffiT
8^ ^H
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
inches, I don't recall the documents being out on the table,
although I am aware of statements that they were, but I
don't recall them being out on the table. We explained what
we were interested in.
Earl said, well, these are the terrorism files, these an
all this and that, and he was pointing at the various file
drawers.
We said we want the files on the Iran initiative.
Thompson was still there and, as I recall. Earl went
behind North's desk and North's desk was in the rather
corner of his office facing out and there was sort of
an L-shaped along the left, there appeared to be book
shelves and seemed to be a book shelf on the left and he
went under there and got out a number of what I called
"read well" folders, but sort of fiber-board, dark red
folders and laid them out on the conference table. We had a
brief conversation.
Q Excuse me, Mr. Earl went like around
Colonel North's desk?
A Yes.
Q This would have been in the area of where
Colonel North would be seated if he were at his desk?
Yes.
Please continue.
UNCLASSIFIED
And Earl did that. Brad and I primarily talked
275
UNfll)IS$»»ET
&^
^
with Thompson but Brad had a conversation with Thompson,
I chimed in here and there, indicating what, reiterating
what documents we wanted to see -- we had already said
everything on the initiative in Ollie's possession that was
what Earl was tasked to provide. We also asked him for
anything that Poindexter had in Poindexter's or Thompson's
files.
Thompson responded that they really didn't have
anything, that when they had documents, reviewed documents
like this, they would send them back to the originating
office.
We asked that McFarlane's materials be produced.
Thompson said that there really wasn't much
McFarlane material left, there may be one box, but he
didn't think there was anything in there responsive; we
asked him to check and make sure.
We asked him also to make sure he didn't have
anything on this subject — and then I can't — I don't recai:
if we asked him to run a search through their formal
executive secretary system, I don't recall that. He might
have indicated that would not be a real source of information
because of the compartmentalized nature of the thing, I
don't remember.
Q Could you describe to us the System 4?
A I don't think so.
UNWSlilUti]
276
imtssififrr
>r" i^u
XS-ll 1
2
3
4
5
Q Document collection system?
A I don't think so.
Q If I can skip ahead one minute, I know you
went to the White House Tuesday morning, did you learn
about the System 4 at that time?
A No, I knew from my previous tour there, I had
seen documents that said System 1, 2, 3 and 4. To this day,
I don't know what a System 4 document is.
Q So, Mr. Thompson might have said something like
it wouldn't be helpful to go through.
A Yes, he may have. For some reason, I was left
under the impression that the main -- the formal
computerized filing system would not be a source of -- real
source of information and I don't know, if the extent to
which that was discussed or he said everything in this would
be in Ollie's files, it could have been that kind of
discussion.
But that does not — my reaction is that doesn't
stand out as a source of documents that we were
expecting to receive. It may have been just that he may
have indicated that everything in Ollie's files would be the
system, whatever is in the system would be a subset of that.
Q Did you ask Mr. Thompson to see a finding?
A I don't think so. I don't think so. I don't
recall that.
jlLASSIFlEO
277
WKU^IW^
m
^
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
»"v
' - 19
^^ 22
•^ 23
24
25
Q Did you see a finding?
A Well, I know I saw a finding on Tuesday. I
don't think I saw a finding in Ollie North's files
although Brad may have, but I don't think I did. I don't
recall one. Let me put it that way.
Q I have in my notes of your interview with us on
April 15 of 1987, that you recalled Mr. Thompson producing
the January 6 finding which has some notes in blue ink on it
A Yes, that happened Tuesday morning. I don't
want to jump out of sequence. On Tuesday morning when we were
at the White House, Meese asked me to make sure that a
system-wide search was conducted to make certain that no
document containing the diversion had gone forward to the
President in any form. And when I went in to Thompson's
office to ask for that, there were several folders of
material on his desk. I said, are these files on this, and
he said yes.
I said I would like to go through those, I said.
He said, fine. It was in there, I saw that finding.
Q Now I am confused.
A It surprised me, too, because he had said they
didn't keep them. That str^k^ me as odd, although not
being — I just have a nodding — la^^t an intelligence
professional, although I have dor|^^p)ork for that for two
years now, it seemed unlikely, but possible, that North,
278
WtttHSStfSli'
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
if he were reporting directly to Poindexter on this
initiative, that North was holding the file that
normally would be held by someone in Thompson's position
because I have been a staff officer for a while and normally
Meese, for example, normally has a working file of
active items that he has a couple of things that are at his
fingertips that would normally be kept by his personal
secretary or by me and that is why we had asked for that
material, but he indicated that they didn't have anything
of that nature, so I thought it was possible that North
had served that function and that Thompson just did not
retain paper.
Thompson's office was very small.
Q If we can stay on the same subject, we will have to
skip a little bit, but, Mr. Sporkin was interviewed sometime
on Saturday.
A I think that is right.
Q Do you remember if it was morning or afternoon?
A I don't recall. I don't recall. Might have been
late morning. I was not present and Meese and Cooper did
that.
Q At any rate, Mr. Sporkin did mention there was a
November 1985 finding, correct, that is vour understanding
IINCIASSIFIED
A I think that -- I guess that is right. I don't
279
*si/raw
^ ^?
2
3
4
5
recall that specifically.
Q I guess my question is, when you returned to the
White House on Sunday morning to complete your document
review, did you ask anybody there to see that finding?
A I don't think so, no. The only person there
Sunday was a young fellow who had been in Ollie's office for
been in his employ for six weeks or so. I don't recall.
Q Jock somebody?
A Yes, a red-headed guy.
Q Do you recall asking Commander Thompson at any
point to produce, or if there was a November or December
1985 finding?
A No, I don't think I did.
Q Did he volunteer that there was one?
A No. The first, my first reaction of their
being such a finding was from the North interview. I may
have heard it mentioned or referred to Saturday or Sunday
before that, but I reacll it from the North interview.
Q Do you recall whether Colonel North told you
that that finding had been destroyed by Admiral Poindexter?
A He did not say that. I recall that he did not
say that.
Q And did Commander Thompson tell you that that
finding had been destroyed by Admiral Poindexter?
He did not say.
ICUSSIFIED
280
IWISSHF
T
^ 70
Q Did Admiral Poindexter ever tell you or, to your
knowledge, the Attorney General that he had destroyed that
December 1985 finding?
A No.
Q Did Commander Thompson then leave you alone with
Mr. Reynolds to review the documents, this is Saturday
morning the 22nd.
A Thompson left, Earl remained, and I am trying to
recall, because I tend to think that Earl was at North's
desk for a part of the time and if not the whole time. He
might have gone upstairs to his desk. I don't recall. I
wrote Brad a note or two while we were sitting at a table
because he was in the room and North was in the room when
we were there, of course.
Q Why did you write the note?
A Well, I just didn't want to mention anything that
would be overheard.
Q Why not?
A One of the notes, I would have to see them, one
of the notes concerned Brad's suggestion that we might want
to just take all of these documents back to the Department
and go through them and I wrote him a note back saying that
is probably not a good idea.
I just didn't follow there was any need for them to
know the contents of our discussions. Also, didn't want
281
wmssiw^
^
CO 20
xKaroJ'
to begin a conversation with North or Earl. As far as I was
concerned, I was there to do documents and the interviewing
was to be done by Meese.
Q Well, Mr. McGinnis went to the CIA to conduct
interviews, correct?
A I know that to be the case now. I don't know when
I knew that. I knew I was not there to interview anybody
at the NSC.
Q I am going to ask that this be marked as the next
exhibit in order.
(Exhibit No. 8 was marked for identification.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q I am showing you what has been marked as Exhibit
number 8. I gather that these are notes that you took while
reviewing the documents on Saturday at the NSC; is that
correct?
A Yes. Let me flip through here.
Q Directing your attention to the last two pages
that you are looking at, are those the notes that you wrote?
A Yes.
Q To and from Mr. Reynolds?
A Yes, sir. They are the second and third pages
from the end. This one, the last page, I am not really —
I guess this looks like the last page, looks like notes I
took over there on Sunday, but I am not certain about it.
282
ilffiHfflfllffT
u
^
\s-\i 1
2
3
4
5
Q Could you please read those two brief notes into
the record and tell us which is "to" and which is "from"?
A Okay. The first note, it is the third page from
the end, '^re we going possibly to be open to attack if we
take custody out of NSC of these documents? E.g., if
anything, should turn out to be missing?"
Q And "should" is underlined.
A Yes.
Q Is that your note, Tom?
A That is my note to Reynolds.
Q What was his response?
A I think he shrugged, I think he just shrugged and
agreed that we wouldn't take — he had suggested it would be
easier to if he just took all this over to Justice and I --
this was a large volume of material and I was not comfortable
taking them out of the office where they were produced
because if we had misplaced a document or something like that
and it turned out to be an important one, we would, just
having gone through the move, I was worried about our
being subject to criticism for there being a missing
document.
Q And the next?
UNCLASSIFIED
A This did not contemplate in my mind that documents
were being destroyed. It was in the other direction. I
didn't know if everything had been produced to us, that is
ywumi^
75
>r
what that was about. The next one? This is the second
page from the end, "we could use night to catch up with Chuck
and I can come here early in a.m. to finish this. Then meet
you guys later in the day."
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fimmiB
284
BNftl^MdT
>^
7*/
" 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Now, the first note that you passed to him,
was that in the morning?
A This was probably pre-lunch, yes. And the
second note was probably after lunch when Ollie was in the
office.
Q So, when Mr. Reynolds found the famous diversion
memo, for lack of any other name for it, that was prior
to Colonel North coming to the office, is that correct?
A Yes. I think it was after this note but I
believe this note about taking custody of the documents was
pretty early in the search.
Q Could you tell us what you recall about that
event, that is.
A The diversion memo?
Q Yes.
A He either kicked me under the table or something
and we were sitting across from each other about the same
distance you and I are now, just a foot or two, and he
passed it over, directed me to at the top paragraph and
had an expression of this was a surprising entry. So I
read it and 1 gave a similar look back and I think I
probably said something like that didn't happen or something
along those lines, that's hard to believe that had
happened and passed it back to him and then that was it,
we did not discuss it at the time and 1 don't think Earl
KUSSIEIOL
285
llHKI\SS)Qii:T
%y
noticed anything particular about it. Every once in a
while I was going through some documents I would point
out something to him, that sort of thing.
But that was clearly the most interesting document
we had seen. I should add my statement was based partly
on the fact on page 1 of the document there was a handwritter
correction and that sort of thing. My first impression
was this is too spectacular to think it happened and there
is no reason to believe this is a final document so that sort
of incredulity was my reaction.
Q Do you recall if you had seen any other versions
of that?
A I did not. That referred to the contra
diversion?
Q No, any other version of that, version of that
memo.
A There were other memos that discussed the initia-
tive but I don't recall anything that looked like a version
of that.
Q Do you recall any other memos that mentioned
diversion?
A No.
Q Do you happen to know where that memo was in
terms of the other documents around it, in what file?
A No; Brad found it and I just don't know. I think
286
H
it was in '85 material because before lunch Earl had
not produced '85 files and in fact when we were leaving
we passed North in the hall and we told him that there
weren't any '85 files, he expressed surprise and said I
will get them out for you. So it was in '86 material
but I don't remember which files.
Q Do you recall when you were first shown the
material by Commander Thompson? Do you recall any files
in North's office regarding the Nicaragua resistance or
Central America?
A I did not see any. I don't recall — it's
conceivable that Earl said these are all the files having
to do with the freedom fighters but I don't recall that.
He did say these are terrorist files, this is a hostage
file. We said we want everything on the Iranian initiative
and because they pulled open one drawer and said these
are all the reports from the hostage ^^^^^^^^1, and that
had to deal with where they were and we said we weren't
interested in that. I don't thinX we discussed or saw
any files concerning that.
(Short recess.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Okay, back on the record.
Do you recall how soon it was after the
diversion memo was found that you folks broke and went to
yNCLASSIRED
287
mmm
lunch?
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A No. I don't remember precisely. I think there
was a substantial period of time after it was found before
we went to lunch.
Q Do you recall about what time you went to
lunch?
A Just from the note that I saw a minute ago, it
was Exhibit 2, which indicated 1:45 to 3:15. I do recall
it a late lunch, this wasn't noontime.
Q Could you tell, describe for us of the documents
that you wanted set aside or copies or somehow preserved,
for you, could you tell us how you did that procedure,
how you work that out?
A Well, as I recall, Brad was, I may have done this,
too, but I know he was using paperclips to mark them. I
tended to think I took over with me, but I may not, I may
have been using paperclips, I tend to use those yellow
stickums, they were marked one way or the other.
Q Were they put in a separate pile?
A I am not sure.
Q At any rate?
A This may have been turned sideways in the same
pile they were somehow delineated.
Q The ones that you wanted to copy?
A Yes, sir. |ift||
1,»/
288
URSIftW^T
&<r
Q Was this done, do you know, with the diversion
memo?
A I din't know. I am not sure what Brad did with
it.
Q Were any documents copied for you before you left
for lunch?
A No.
Q But I gather you had set aside some documents
for copying by them.
A Well, yes, we had marked some documents as being
ones we wanted to keep with us, take with us copies.
Q And when you left was Colonel Earl still there?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you recall that morning what discussion you
had with Colonel Earl, if any? I know you said you didn't
want to interview him. Did he make any comment?
A I don't think he made any comments. He may
have said something like let me know if I can get you
anything or be of assistance, but that was, other than I
think he indicated pointed out which documents were in
which files and produced the things behind North's desk,
that is it.
Q Did he participate in any conversations on the
telephone or otherwise in your presence that you overheard?
A I don't think so. I don't recall any.
!1
289
IRtMflfflr
>*"
He did have a conversation with Thompson.
Thompson asked him if he knew where Ollie was and Earl
said I have been trying to reach him, but I think he is
due in soon, or something like that.
Other than that, I don't recall any conversation
and I don't recall him taking any phone calls.
Mr. Thompson came in later in the morning asking for
Colonel Earl, that was when we arrived. I missed that earliei
Q Do you know whether or not Commander Thompson
left after escorting you to Colonel North's office.
A He left North's office, I don't know what he did.
Q Did you see him later that day?
A I don't remember. I don't recall seeing him
again that day, or Sunday, for that matter, but I may have.
This is Thompson?
Yes, Thompson.
What about Craig Coy, was he around that weekend?
No.
What about Admiral Poindexter? I gather you didn't
Q
A
Q
A
Q
see him.
A No, I didn't see him. I got the impression —
well, no, in fact, I guess it is more impression. North
talked to Poindexter. That is the impression I got when
North was there.
Q That was in the afternoon?
ONClASSintB
7^
290
owsasaBiST
>^
A Yes.
Q Do you recall what he said to Poindexter?
A I don't think so. Let me see. I made a couple of
notes at the bottom of one of these. No. I am not sure,
my recollection is after that North had a conversation with -
he had a conversation with an Israeli. I think he then
had a conversation with Poindexter. I don't recall.
I think he called over and said, is he still there
or something like that. Then he talked to someone. I
gathered it was Poindexter, but I don't know if he said
that was Poindexter.
Q When you and Mr. Reynolds left for lunch, did you
tell Colonel Earl you were going to lunch?
A Yes.
Q Did you tell him you were going outside the
White House complex?
A Probably. Meese had called and said he wanted us
to meet him at Old Ebbitt. I probably told Brad that in
Earl's presence. We may have said we will be back in about
an hour or something like that. I don't recall. You can't
eat in the White House, there are some machines in the
basement of EOB , but you can't eat in the White House mess
unless you are a member. I think he would have known that
we were not going to eat in the White House.
Q Was Alton Keel at the NSC on Saturday?
!!MClJiNMi-itis__
291
BNft^fflffiT
^
18
CSS
th^ 20
5*:^ 21
c^
A I don't know.
Q And did Colonel Earl mention what his lunch plans
were?
A No. I don't think so.
Q As I gather, as you were leaving to go to lunc^
you met Colonel North; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And how did you know it was Colonel North?
A I don't know. I guess Brad and I came out of his
office and we had walked probably five steps and I believe
he said something like where are you guys going or
something like that as a greeting and I don't know if
Brad had met him before, but I had not, and introduced
myself.
I think Brad introduced himself, too, now that I
think about it.
Q Then my question, how did you know that was
Colonel North?
A I guess he assumed that the two guys leaving his
office were the Justice guys and he introduced himself, as
I recall.
Q Did you tell him you were going to lunch?
A Probably did. He said where are you guys going,
have I missed it, or something like that, and we said, we
probably said we were going out and have a bite of lunch.
292
BNRlgSfflff'
to be interviewed?
then we would be back shortly.
I don't remember precisely.
Q Did he volunteer at that tir
A No, that was later.
Q Was there anything else said in that brief meeting?
A Brad told him, yes. Brad told him we had not seen
the 1985 material and that we wanted to see that when we got
back from lunch. What we were looking at was 1986 material.
Q What did North say?
A He said something like, oh, that should have been
in what you were given. I will be sure that you have got it
or I will find it, something to that effect.
Q Was that produced by the time you came back?
A Yes. I don't remember if it was on tbe table or
if he — I think it was — he had pulled it out and he said
this is the 1985 stuff.
Q Along those lines, in your document review of
1986 materials, you saw what we know now as PROF notes;
is that correct?
A I don't know. I may have. Now, I don't think
since the name PROF note had been attached, I don't think
I have gone back and looked at one.
Q Do you know whether or not either you or Mr.
Reynolds discussed with Colonel North whether _he had PROF
notes from 1985.
ilNCUSSIFlEe
293
itmimirr
6*"
:as-5 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
-™^ 18
±Z ^®
X3 20
sac 21
Lr> 22
g 23
24
25
A I don't think so. I don't recall any such
discussion.
Q Can you tell us what happened when you got to
Old Ebbitt?
A Well, Meese and Cooper were already there, as I
recall. They seated us shortly, and I think Meese began
by saying, all right, let's see where we stand and he and
Cooper reported on what they had been doing and I don't
remember independently what it was. Let me see if this --
I don't have an entry on my notes on Exhibit 2. But it may
have been the Sporkin interview that may have been after
lunch, I don't know, but they reviewed the state of
knowledge based on what they had learned and he said, well,
have you guys learned anything new, and I think we -- I
told him I had been looking through ^^^^^^^^^^^^| told him
one of two things that seemed to be of interest from those
and Brad did the same thing, and Brad said, oh, we found
another document which seems to indicate that funds might have
gone from this transaction to the contras, and I mean
Meese expressed great surprise. He visibly said something
like, oh, a curse word, and sort of squinted his eyes and that
sort of thing, and we said something like we haven't found --
Brad indicated we haven't found anything else to indicate
that happened, and Meese said, be sure you bring a copy of
that out when you come, and we said, we are marking things
294
ums»«ET
>«
^y
to copy, and I think that was it on that front.
Cooper may have said, there may have been
comment like if this happened, we have got a major problem,
but that was sort of obvious. But it was very, very much -
the context of the information was very much incredible
prospect and clearly uncertain whether this had occurred
or not.
Q Was it discussed, the fact that Oliver North
himself had the Central America account? Did you put
those two things together?
A No, I don't think so. I don't recall that, but I
don't think it was.
Although I am sure -- I may have known that and
the AG, I guess, he would have known that. I think I may have
known that because of when these matters have come up before,
Ray Duon, our staff who handles that sort of thing might
have said Ollie North handled this business.
So it may have been just a piece of knowledge that
we had, it wasn't openly discussed.
Q Now, just for the record, so we get a couple
things straight, I gather at that luncheon you did not have
copies of the memo with you.
A That is correct.
Q What else did you discuss after mentioning the
diversion memo and what you just related, what other subjects
emssiFiED
295
BNRISSfffflT
^ M
were discussed.
A Well, I thank that the ma^or things of interest
still focused on what was going on in 1985 and who did what,
whether this was authorized, et cetera. I don't remember
with any specificity what the contents of that discussion
was, but I recall that we, the diversion discussion, was
^ about what I have recounted, the basic information and there
8 may have been some statement that this will be a --
9 this obviously is a major problem, if this has happened,
''0 we need to find out if it has happened. There may have been
11 a mention that we -- North would be interviewed -- at the
12 bottom of this in the North interviews, something like that.
13 That was it on the diversion business and the rest was
14 spent talking about the arms initiatives and Chuck, for
15 example, he might have -- there were other things going on
16 like McGinnis having gone through^^HH^^^^^H and I
17 don't know if he was at CIA that day, but Chuck having some
point -- Chuck and Meese, I think, split up and did
19 some different things. So I am not sure what was
20 precisely we talked about, but it was other things.
21 Q How did you know that North had authored the
22 diversion memo?
mm.
23 A We didn't.
mmm
24 Q Why did you feel you should interview him?
25 A He was going to be interviewed anyway. This was
296
wsimm
f^
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
btd 19
CO ^°
0<5 21
> 22
!^I^ 23
25
found in his files and so the most likely person to have
knowledge about it was him out of the pool we had identified
thus far.
Q Was there a discussion at this point that
Poindexter should be interviewed?
A I don't recall that.
Q How about whether Casey should be interviewed?
A I don't recall there being a discussion about
adding anyone to the list or subtracting anyone from the
list or targetting the interviewing any differently other
than our having a clear understanding that this would be
something to question North about.
Q Was it decided whether to question anyone else
about it?
A It wasn't discussed in that context. We didn't
say, okay, now about the diversion, who do we question. It
was something found in a document that might or might not
have happened, next step to finding it out, get a copy of
it and ask North about it in his interview the next day. That
is as far as it went in terms of that point.
Q Was it discussed whether it shouldn't be mentioned
to people who were going to be interviewed?
A No, I don't think so. I mean, it was clear that
we weren't going to say anything about any of this to anybody
outside of our group of four. I don't recall that being
297
HNSMtHIST
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
end 2B 20
21
22
23
24
25
reiterated, but that was a very -- that was very clearly
understood. Meese might have reiterated it. I know at the
beginning of the weekend, it was made clear that — we,
three of us, were going to work in support of Meese 's
fact-finding inquiry, we were to talk to each other and
obviously -- I mean the potential significance of this
bit of information was not lost as a major development in
this fact-finding question.
Primarily for — at this point it was a factual
bomb shell and whether it could possibly have occurred or not
these are obviously to the President's two major and
independently controversial initiatives and so that was not
lost on anyone, there was no substantive discussion of it
at this point because we didn't know if this was just a plan
or a possible way to go or if it actually happened.
As just in percentage of conversation at lunch, this
was a small percentage, five minutes or less. Probably
five minutes. It grew in time over the course of the
next several days.
298
Bob Thomas
' -t-l
.«sr^
CO 21
mwH^fi^T
j<r
Q When you went back then to the NSC, was North in
his office?
A I think he was, yes, I think he was.
Q That would be at what, 3:00 probably, in the 3:30
range, 3:15 you said.
A That is probably right, when we probably left lunch
at 3:15. It was in that neighborhood there.
Q Did Colonel North mention to you where or with whom
he had had lunch?
A No.
Q When you did get back to the NSC, did you know
whether or not any of the documents that you had set aside for
copying had been disturbed in any way?
A No, everything, everything looked as we had left it.
Q One more question about the lunch, was it discussed
at lunch or even generally on the way over to the NSC that
something should be done to secure the documents?
A Well, we discussed getting copies of the documents.
Q But was there any discussion of securing them?
A Any what —
Q Being sure they weren't destroyed.
A No. There was no reason to believe that they would
be or that they had been for that matter.
Q Was Colonel North at his desk when ycu returned?
A Well you have to be, — to get into that office you
299
UNSkASSlEKKT
y:
U)
have to be let in because there is a vault on the door. He,
as I recall, I think he let us in. We rang the visitor's but-
ton and he went to his desk and we went to the conference
table.
Q I trust that you began to up your interview of docu-
ments?
A Yes. Earl was still there by the way. We asked
him, we told him we wanted to make copies of some of the
documents. He said fine. He said, do you know which ones?
Do you have some you know you want right now? We'll help
copy them. Yes, these we know we want. He and Earl helped
copy what we had up to that point. When that was done —
Q Colonel North and Colonel Earl helped you?
A Yes, that is my recollection. Then after we had
copied that group, I took over all the xeroxing from that
point on. Earl left at some point fairly soon thereafter and
North took a portion back behind his desk.
A So do you recall was it you or who copied the diver-
sion memo or would it have been Earl and North?
A I don't recall who copied it.
Q Well, did they copy everything that you had set
aside that morning?
A I think so. What I don't know if Brad held out the
diversion memo and then gave that to me to copy. I don't
recall when, who actually copied that memo.
!liaCli.<{.?lFJLn
300
0W8H^flf?:T
;«"
Q Now, I had one question of your notes here of the
documents that you had reviewed. You reference As underlined.
Is that a person?
A I think it looks like it is, yes. In entry nu.Tiber
1, there is the word beginning with capital A and then the
rest of it is blacked out, and K, and the rest of that is
blacked out. So, I probably was using the initials not want-
ing to write down the names because there seems to be, there
IS an aside and a quote, it is probably some individual.
These are, I think, notes'
Q Do you recall who that could have been?
A looked ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^| ^ could you
but — does the name ^^^^^ring a bell? That sticks in my
mind for some reason. I don't know who it was. It was some-
one in
Q Okay.
A I gather there was a^Bperson too, but I don't know.
After awhile I stopped taking notes on each document because
it became too time-consuming.
Q Now, if we could sort of take the rest of your docu-
ments and review a couple. I gather you didn't come across
any other documents mentioning diversion of the monies to the
contras;
That is right.
ilNCLSSSIFIED
Did you find any document which indicated that the
DttJH^I^IlT
M-
November 1985 Hawk shipment was authorized?
A Yes, well the document that contained the reference
to the diversion, I believe, the second paragraph it said
something like the U.S. Government endorsed the September 1985
shipment and that I specifically recall that one. Meese, in
fact, that was the principal angle of questioning that Meese
used on North when he showed him the diversion memo at first.
I specifically recall that. I don't, I tend to recall that
there was reference in, maybe, in^^^^^^^^^^^^f the Septem-
ber 1985 shipment being connected to actions on the part of
the United States but that is a fuzzy recollection. Nothing
else specifically stands out in my mind at this time, but
there may have been back then.
Q And of the comment regarding the Hawk shipment being
endorsed by the U.S., did you discuss that particular provi-
sion at the luncheon you had?
A Well, that was actually the September shipment. I
think those were TOWs.
But I don't think we did discuss that at lunch. I
don't recall but this is surmising because I had read only
the diversion section of that memo I think. I might have
looked at this section. We got the copy of this memo at the
end of the day and I know we went over it in great detail
with Meese before the North interview. We probably didn't go
--didn't go over it in that much detail, although Brad might
m\:\
302
IHKU^j^T
SLK-5 1
2
3
4
5
have mentioned it was in there, I don't recall. I know there
was a discussion about it on Sunday afternoon before North's
interview.
Q During your document review on Saturday afternoon,
can you try to recall, please, everything that North had to
say to you?
A Okay.
Well, I recall that he had a conversation, that is
in the note that made in Exhibit 8 at the bottom — Iguess
I will count the pages--bottom of page 7 I have written a G
in a circle, drawn a line across the bottom, received call
from Israeli code talk nephew and then a swiggle line said
lots came out, lots not, mos sens, not so still talking.
Then that was referred to a North call that he had with some-
one that I could tell was an Israeli because he said, did you
see, he referred to an article in the New York Times that day
or the day before that mentioned Kimche, he mentioned this
article in the New York Times to this gentleman on the tele-
phone. He said things like your government, everyone in your
government and my government is overreacting or panicking or
something like that. The code talk and nephew, he mentioned
a nephew, the code talks you don't remember if that I ran
across the code which had a key for names and that sort of
thing, I don't remember if he was using something like that,
but he mentioned Beethoven and composers, I think he might
!^l<;SlFlfJL.
UMA^WSlET
^
have told us that Poindexter was Beethoven or I saw that, I
remember that.
But he told him that a lot had come out about this
initiative already but a lot hasn't, that the most sensitive
things have not come out. I think that is what my note means
here so they are still talking.
There was another, second note I have got, Bremer
mentioned phone call. I am not sure what that is about.
He didn't — I just don't remember what that is about.
He mentioned the Ambassador on phone call but I can't remem-
ber more about it. I think, the only other recollection I
have got is that he placed a call which I thought was back
to the West Wing and asked for Poindexter after he talked to
the Israeli. He left the room one time to make a pot of
coffee. He offered us coffee, and I followed him out of the
room, went back while he made coffee. We talked about Marine
coffee and how bad it was and that his wasn't much better,
that sort of thing — and he came over and, this is over the
course of the three hours, I don't remember the sequence, but
came over at one point, sat down, and said, all right shoot,
let me know I'm ready to take your questions or I guess you
are ready to ask them, something like that. We explained that
we were just the workers who were going to go through some of
the documents and that the AG would ask him some questions
tomorrow.
limiASSIREO
304
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
yM«S
ET
1^
And, at some point there was a telephone call from
Meese and my recollection is that Meese talked to me about
setting up the time with North, he said, could you see if I
could do it in the afternoon instead of the morning because
that is church time with the family, we go to Roy Rogers
afterward, that sort of thing. That could have been a direct
conversation, but I think I was the person who talked to Meese
then talked to North.
Q Hold on for a second, was it a case of the Attorney
General placing the call, putting him on hold while he talked
to North and then speaking to him, or did you place another
call to the Attorney General?
A I don't remember.
n
'mmm
305
IM«MlfflBT
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A I tend to think. I put the AG on hold and asked him,
but I just don't recall specifically. I mean, it is possible
also that the AG called and aid, "Let me talk to--put Ollie
on," and that I overheard Ollie saying, "Well, could I come
in the afternoon." I mean I could be wrong on that; but
that's just my recollection.
At another point, he said something like--you mean
he was passing the time of day and he said something to the
effect that there aren't that many poeple around the govern-
ment who are at work at this hour like us that are working
these extra hours and that sort of thing. He may have said
something— I know at some point he talked about the initiative
and the purpose of it. He said people don't understand what
it is all about, but this was a broad-based initiative or
something, more of the diplomatic reasons. And he also — I
just remembered one thing and it slipped through my mind.
Q How about his remark of being a fall guy?
A Yes. He didn't use that phrase, as I recall, but
he did say something to the effect that— I mean, he was very
friendly and outgoing and— I mean he gave the appearance of
being relaxed. But he said something like well, I'm not
worried, in six weeks I'll be commanding a Marine battalion
of infantry troops, or something to that effect, that I won't
be--he knew he would not be long for this job, something to
that effect.
UNCLASSIFIED
306
«
96
SLK-2 1
2
3
4
5
6
/7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Anything that you can recall?
A The last thing I recall — I'm trying to think if
there's anything in the office. I know when we were leaving,
we walked out with him from the building into the parking lot,
and walked Ollie — Ollie got into his car, just like, as I
recall, just like a red and white wagon, a Bronco; and Brad
and he were talking about their daughters mutual interest in
horseriding and the strain that put on parents. I think
that's about it. I don't think there's anything--nothing else
I recall.
Q Did he mention to you that he had consulted with an
attorney, or that he had an attorney?
A I do not recall him saying anything to that effect.
Q Did he say that anyone had advised him to obtain an
attorney?
A No. I don't recall anything about that.
Q Did he ask either you or Mr. Reynolds whether or
not you thought he should have an attorney?
A I don't think so. I don't recall that, and I don't
think he did.
Q Did —
A These are the kinds of things I think I would remem-
ber, but I don't. I mean I can't be certain that they didn't
occur, but I think I would remember them if they did.
Q Did either you or Mr. Reynolds advise Colonel North
yMciij;sififiL_
307
mmm
97
to get an attorney?
A No. I certainly didn't, and I did not hear Brad
recommend that. I mean to give — the nature of the thing was
that there was a major political problem in terms of — it was
clear there was a major political problem with this initiative
having been made public and the policy seemed to run counter
to previously stated Administration policy, and it didn't
seem unusual at all to me to hear him joking about losing his
job. As being a — and I didn't know whether it is because he
was a proponent of or complementor of the policy. That didn't
seem unusual. There was not any flavor or feeling of he hdd
personal legal liability. Although, I mean, we were clearly
aware of legal problems for the Administration.
Q Do you recall what time you did leave in the company
of Colonel North?
A I saw a note here a minute ago that seemed to indi-
cate it was — yes. On Exhibit 2, it indicates 7:15, JR and
WBR depart NSC offices. That's probably about right. I don't
think it's contemporaneous, but that's probably about right.
Q Did Colonel North mention he was going home or did
he have another engagement that evening?
A I don't recall. I don't think he mentioned another
engagement. I mean, I think we — I recall him saying he lived
in Great Falls and I may have said, because they were talking
about the horses. I may have said I live in McLean, you have
308
UHttlfiSHlfeT
98
a long drive, or something like that; but I don't recall
knowing where he was going.
Q Did he mention any meetings that he had had or
planned to have with Robert McFarlane?
A No.
Q Did he make mention of Tom Green?
A No.
Q Did he make mention of Richard Secord?
A No.
Q Did he make mention of Albert Hakim?
A I don't think so. No. They were all mentioned the
next day during the interview.
Q Sure.
Now Sunday morning, do you recall when it is you
went to the Department of Justice?
A Well, I came straight to the NSC.
Q Oh, okay.
A From home. And I overslept because I got in there
later--! think we had Jock in there at 9:00 or 9:30, something
— we wanted him to meet us around there at that time. It's
just my recollection. And my note here on Exhibit 2 indicates
I got in there about 10:45. I stayed up very late the night
before.
Q By the way, when the copies were made of the docu-
ments you wanted, did you take possession of them?
OMCliSSlfJEL.-
309
u
99
A Yes.
Q Where did you put them?
A Well, I kept them in a pile next to me while we
were in the office. Then I think I got one of those legal
size fiberboard folders and put them in there when we left.
Q Okay. And where did you take them?
A Took them back to — well, I don't remember if I went
to the Department. I probably went to the Department after
leaving the NSC. And then I took them with me--I mean, they
were on me at all times. I took them home. I don't take
classified material home normally, but — I mean I locked them
in my trunk when I drove home. I took them inside and put
them under my bed. I lived in a one-room place at that time
so they were within arms reach. I am sort of paranoid about
classified material anyway.
Q I take it then you took them back with you when you
went back to the NSC?
A Yes. I probably had a litigation case going or
coming. I tend to recall that I did, with notepads and--
that's why I think I used stick- 'ems to mark my documents.
I think I had one of those with me.
Q Do you recall when it was you went from the NSC to
the Department of Justice?
A I think it was around mid-day. Let me see if this
refreshes ray — Exhibit 2, the note for 2 3 November indicates
iiSlASSlEIIL
310
SLK-6 1
2
3
4
5
100
12:40 to 2:00 p.m. that we met with Meese and Cooper, Reynolds
and myself. So we probably left there about 12:00, 12:30.
Q And during that meeting, you mentioned that you
went through the diversion memo?
A Yes.
Q Carefully?
A I think that we showed it to Meese for the first
time then.
Q Had you seen typewritten questions prepared by John
McGuiness?
A I think I saw them at this meeting, at this pre-Nort
meeting. I think Cooper went through them with Meese.
Q When did you first discuss the weekend inquiry with
John McGuiness?
A Golly, let me think. May have been Friday night.
I went down to see Cooper and knew that John was involved.
I didn't sit down and talk to John about what we were find-
ing or the state of play. I did not brainstorm with him or
share any information that I had gotten with htm. I know
there's a set a notes that I took after a conversation with
McGuiness, and I don't remember what day. Maybe Monday, where
he told me what he had learned at the CIA; and I am sure there
came a time when I knew John knew about the diversion pros-
pect and a fuller conversation was had, but that could have
been Tuesday as opposed to sooner. I don't think that I knew
iMyccjMD.
311
iiNsyi$sia£iT
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
McGuiness before this weekend. I knew Cooper trusted him and
that he was — is a very good lawyer and a very confidential
person to deal with this kind of sensitivity as well as
classified material.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q I show you what has been marked as exhibit nximber
9. Is this your note taken of your conversation with John
McGuiness on the 24th of November, 1986?
A Yes.
Q And it indicates 1:30. Is that when the conversa-
tion took place?
A Probably — yes. That's probably what that means.
Q Can you tell me what the first reference is to?
A The entry says, "Rumors at CIA extra money" — a
dollar sign — "paid to" — its Southern Air Transport. It says,
"SO Transport." and "funneled to Nicaragua."
Q Now when he hold you this, were you — in other words,
were you in his office or your office or was this part of a
bigger, meeting?
A I'm pretty sure this was one-on-one. I don't know.
We might have been in Cooper's office or we might have been
in my office. I don't know which.
Q Was Cooper present?
A I don't think so. I mean it's possible, but I
would tend to thinX not.
312
BNWSW^T
102
;lk-8 1
2
3
4
5
i<:g...^
Q Do you know whether or not Mr. -Mefiujaitss told you
that he had told Cooper this piece of information?
A I don't recall. If he had not, he certainly would
have the next moment I saw him because I mean he was reporting
to Cooper; so I think he was bringing me up to speed on what
he had found.
Q Did you bring this fact to the Attorney General's
attention?
A I don't recall. I may have. What is more likely
is that Cooper briefed me on what McGuiness learned at CIA,
or from talking to the CIA people. But I might have; I just
don't recall.
See, at this point, — well, this is a slightly
different twist on contra funding because it seems to indi-
cate the ruitiors at CIA were the money was funneled through
Sourthern Air Transport. But my basic point of view is that
well, we already know that money has been diverted from the
contras and this would go to the how — but I would think
Cooper was the one who would have briefed Meese on this.
Although I may have done it.
Q When McGuiness told you that this was a rumor at the
CIA, did you tell him at that point, well, we found a memo to
that effect at the NSC?
A I don't think so.
Q And did you tell him about the North interview:
yNCUSSIFIED
313
IMIWH'
103
A I don't think so.
Q Why not?
A I just was not telling anybody outside of the other
two, three people including the Attorney General that I was
authorized to tell people — tell things to. I knew that Chuck
was tasking John to gather certain kinds of information and to
look into certain legal questions, and I wasn't going to take
it upon myslef to share that information with anyone. Not
that I didn't trust — he may have known. I just don't remem-
ber. Cooper may have told him by this time, but I don't recall
But I'm pretty sure that I did not volunteer it.
Q Prior to the Attorney General's press conference of
November 25th, did you tell anyone at the Department of Jus-
tice or outside of the Department of Justice —
A No.
Q --about the diversion?
A No. The only possible person would have been
fKGUlKBss-, and I'm pretty sure I didn't tell him.
Oh, I take that back. I told Ken Cribb. Cribb
came back into town probably Sunday night. I don't know for
sure. Monday morning— actually , I think I called Cribb at
home Sunday night and said we are meeting with Meese at 8
o'clock or— I think it was 7:30, maybe, 7:30, a quarter to
8, we arranged to meet with Meese. I asked Ken— I said, you
should be at that meeting. I went and caught him in his
314
imi^RE^
office five minutes before the meeting and brought him up to
speed. I mean up to speed in terms of the bombshell prospect
not in every detail. And then I think Ken went — I believe h«
was in that pre-8:10 meeting, but I'm not certain. I think t
was. But Ken was added to the list of people who knew. i
better think for a minute so I make sure I don't miss anythir
else.
I think that is it. I did not tell anyone else be-
sides Cribb.
Q Are you sure? Or do you just think?
A I am pretty sure I did not. As I say HeGuineos is
a possibility, but — unless MeOuinogs has raised it with me,
I would not have raised it with him. Now he may have raised
it with me, but then I wouldn't have told him, so I would saj
that Cribb is the only one I told.
I don't think, for example, I told Meese's secretary anc
she was there all weekend. So I think that's right. I'm
pretty sure Cribb is the only one.
Q What about anything else outside of the Department
of Justice?
A No. I'm not married and I don't think I would hav«
told my wife anyway; but that would be the only possibility.
Q If we can go further now through Exhibit 9, rumors
about CIA. Then we have another CIA did not — please read
that.
315
IMH^ISr
105
A Second entry, "CIA did not use" — it says, "SO
Trans," T-R-A-N-S, which is Southern Air Transport — "in this"
—underlined this— "transaction (Nicaraguan or Iranian ship-
ments. ) "
Q What does that mean?
A I gather it means that the CIA did not use Southern
Air Transport. I^m not sure what "this* underlined refers to.
It may refer — I mean, it may refer to — in fact, it must--when
I look at the next entry which says, "All arrangements NSC
Bud November ' SS^^^^^^^Hand November '86 replenishment,
'.' I gather it refers to the — probably to the
November 1985 shipment. I hesitate because at some point, I
have the recollection that a Southern Air Transport crew
was used for something, but I don't know where that fits in.
That may have been 1986 shipments. But I think our attention
here was on November 1985, which was ^^^^^^^H the proprie-
tary.
Q Were you aware during this weekend that Southern
Air Transport was being investigated after the Hasenfus
crash?
A I don't think I was.
Q Were you aware of the call by the Rouse Judiciary
Committee members for an independent counsel to investigate
that?
A Well, I was aware of — let me think for a second. I
iiNnimiFiti
316
mmME
106
•LK-12 1
2
3
4
5
was aware of Congressional requests for investigations of
drugs, alleged drug smuggling by the contras. Now I don't
know if that's the same —
Q No. There is a request on October 17th, 1986,
following the shoot down of the Hasenfus plane at which a
majority of the House Judiciary Committee members asked for
a preliminary investigation into whether or not an independent
counsel should be appointed to investigate that particular
activity;
A Did they name an NSC member as the target?
Q Yes, it named North, it named Poindexter, it named
Casey, it named Vice President Bush and others.
A I was probably aware of that but not — I did not
think of it this weekend. I did not — I mean, I was probably
aware of such an allegation or a request. I would have seen
the letter when it came in to Meese; and I probably would have
known that something had been referred, but I don't think I
knew that the entity involved was Southern Air Transport or
that I put the two together.
Q I guess we skipped ahead to Monday morning. I
think those are the relevant things from the McGuiiiesb.
A Yes. Okay. There's a reference to fair market
value. We were trying to find out the price of the weapons.
Q What's that last line?
A "NSC paid (or intermediary for Israelis et cetera)
111
317
mw^
for Southern Airways."
Q Okay. If we can get to then I guess the North
interview.
A Yes.
0 I gather Colonel North came alone?
A Yes.
Q And this took place in the Attorney Generals 's
office?
A
Q
A
Q
A
Yes.
Were you the designated notetaker, as it were?
Yes.
You had decided that prior to the interview?
Yes. I mean, it had been decided for me, but yes.
I knew I was taking notes. Let me put it this way. I think
Cooper was tired of taking notes and Meese — he thinks I'm a
decent notetaker.
0 Well, you have one of the best penmanships of any-
one at the Department of Justice. I can tell you that from
personal experience.
A
Q
of you.
A
Q
Thank you. Except Meese 's, his is very neat, too.
In fact, sometimes it's hard to distinguish the two
Yes.
Did Colonel North mention at this interview mention
having consulted with an attorney or having an attorney?
UML^lflfJL
318
WKli^lRlr
108
•LK-14 ]
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A I don't think he did.
0 Was he asked if he had an attorney?
A No. I don't think he was.
Q Was he told he had a right to have one there?
A No. I don't believe he was. I should just, as an
aside, on any specific thing, if my memory can be refreshed or
corrected by looking at the notes, I sort of reserve that.
I go by recollection on this line. It may be incorrect in
some detail, but I think on those none of that happened.
Q Okay. I really did not have specific questions on
the interview.
A Okay.
Q But I think Tom does. If you want to jump in?
MR. McGOUGH: Want me to do them now?
MS. NAUGHTON: Yes.
BY MR. McGOUGH:
Q I only brought one copy of these because I didn't
intend to introduce them as an exhibit.
I wanted to go to that portion of the interview
where the Attorney General raised the subject of the diversion
A Right .
Q As I understand, the way the interview went at — it
proceeded on a general level and for some time, or at least
it didn't deal with the diversion for some time, and then the
Attorney General brought out the diversion memo and began to
llNClA.^SJHFft'
319
109
to go over portions of the diversion memo other than portions
referring to the diversion itself?
A Right.
Q Is that right? Fair to say?
A Yes. I mean — and I think — I mean, that was a tacti-
cal determination. He established that North had written
the memo and he drew his attention to what was genuinely
new information or — on the question of enforcement by the
U.S. Government of that September 1985 shipment which was
on page 1 .
Q One of my questions is was that a tactic discussed
in advance of the North meeting? When you had this rather
lengthy meeting before North C2une? Were there tactics dis-
cussed? How you were going to broach it?
A I don't recall that specifically. I do know Meese
was talking about what areas to cover; and using the typed
questions that Cooper had provided. He said, all right, we
want to go through the 1985 shipment; well, how the initiative
began; the 1985 shipments. Then talked to him about this memo
concerning the use of funds. But I don't recall him specific-
ally saying now — if he~he did say, now I will do the question
ing. And if you've got anything to add, you let me know.
But it was clear — I mean, it was very obvious to me once he
began the questioning what he was doing. You may know this,
but he had been a prosecutor for eight years in his early
KUSSlEe,„
320
|RtM\mi&T
no
SLK-16 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
career. So he's--he's a good questioner.
Did you know going into the meeting that the Attorney
General might have to leave early?
A I think I did. His wife was coming back from out
of town and he had to go pick her up at, I guess, the train
station or--either there or the airport. I think I knew,
but I'm not--I don't recall clearly.
Q Now there's been some indication, I believe Mr.
Cooper's testimony and elsewhere, that when Colonel North's
attention was drawn to the diversion paragraph that he was
surprised or appeared surprised. Do you concur in that assess
ment?
A Yes. Yes.
Q Can you elaborate on it in any way? Can you tell
me from what you drew that conclusion?
A Well, he--I mean, as I recall, his first--he first
said was this in my files? We said yes.
Q Let's back up for a second. When he said was this
in my files, was he referring to — was this at the point where
he was first shown the memo or only when his attention was
drawn to it?
A When it was drawn to the diversion. He had already
said he had written the document and that sort of thing. He
said you found this in my files? We said, yes. And he — I
mean, he was visibly surprised. Meese asked him if this took
!lmil«laL^„
321
SLK-17 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
era
24
25
'WNtL^tftt'
111
place. He said yes. And you could see him sort of then
recline back in the chair and I think that's about--that ' s
about it in terms of surprise. He was visibly surprised that
we had--that this had been fround.
Q Can you parse it out at all? Could you determine
here/hei_was_[ surprised that the memo he was looking at had a
reference to the diversion in it? Or was he surprised that
you knew about the diversion in general? Maybe I'm getting
a little too specific.
A Well—
Q What I am trying to find out was he surprised that
here is a memo he says he's written, and all of a sudden he
rears up and realizes there is a paragraph in there relating
to the diversion? Was that what surprised him that there was
a paragraph in there relating to the diversion?
A I would say both. He was clearly surprised we
had information about the diversion; and 1 think he was —
his reference to — this was in my files — indicated that he was
surprised that it was in the memo. I think it's both. I took
it as both anyway. I mean, he never said anything like, I
can't believe you found this. I thought I'd gotten rid of all
of these. He never intimated anything like that.
0 But something about that memo surprised him? That
was clear?
A Oh, no question. I mean I'm convinced, he had no
82-732 0-88-12
322
mmB
112
idea we were going to find anything that concerned the di-
version.
Q And it wasn't the fact that you had the whole memo?
A No. It was the diversion.
Q He was--it was the diversion paragraph that was
in there?
A That's correct.
Q This then was — looking at the notes-general conver-
sation, after the diversion was broached, about how much was
moved to Nicaragua, that sort of thing; and then the question
of who knew, I guess, and who approved, who approved the
diversion was broached?
A Yes.
Q Can you relate to me what you recall about how that
was raised and what he said about who knew?
A If I can look at those notes, it might help me
refresh my recollection.
Q Sure .
£ The one thing I remember without looking at the
notes is he said specifically the only three people who could
know are the following, which was Poindexter, himself, and
McFarlane.
Q Yes.
UNCUSSIFifP
A But, let me get to the point of — well, they talked
about where the idea came from. Then Meese asked him —
323
iweu^jEii^
113
SLK-19 ■)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Let's back up a little bit here. There is a refer-
ence here to, "if President okays something into working
files of," who is speaking here? Can you tell? And what is
that a reference to?
A The reference is to if the President okays a memor-
andum or plan, where does it go. That was what we were try-
ing to determine.
Q I think if you go back up, there is a reference here,
"AG, discuss with RK not with N."
A Neese said was this discussed with the President?
North's answer, not with North in the room, not when North
was present.
Q This was then the discussion of the residuals?
A Yes. North continues here, Poindexter-this is what
the notes mean on 15, Poindexter is the point of contact with
the President. Fortier was involved, too. When he became
principal deputy. Question: Do you know the amount? North
didn't know. Question: Was there any CIA handling of that
money? North: No. Don't think they know underlined. Some
may suspect. Was this an Israeli suggestion to sweeten the
pot? It was discussed with the Israelis to how they could
help generally, and that's North and Rabin. Don't recall
asking them. Thought the Israelis offered.
Q Now we have the line, "if the President okays some-
thing into working files of."
w tmm
324
BNttilSS^T
11^
Do you recall what that was a reference to?
A I don't have a specific recollection. From the
looks of the note, it looks like Meese asking if the President
okays something, what happens to it; and--normally I used a
dash to indicate the answer. And the dash, into working
files.
Q And this is as best you can understand the notes,
the Attorney General attempting to determine if there was
a written document indicating the President's approval?
A That's right.
Q And then the next line is again, "AG, if RR approved
it, you'd have it"? Is that more or less the question he was
asking North?
A Yes.
Q North said yes. Then there is a line, "don't think
it was."
A North did not think it was approved by the President.
Q Look at the next two lines. Would you read those
into the record?
A It says, "other files there. It could be in."
I think what it means is other files it could be in.
Question mark.
Q Was that the Attorney General asking North if there
were *any other files where such an approval might be located?
A Yes. I mean. North had said he didn't discuss it
325
ra«ffl»!pT
115
with the President. He didn't think the President had approv-
ed it. Meese was saying are there other files it could be in
besides yours that — to verify it didn't go forward.
Q In other words, the point of asking about other files
was to verify that it didn't go forward to Reagan; is that
right?
A Yes.
Q And then there is a trunk indicated — what does that
line say?
A The last line, there is a star that says, OLN will
check.
Q What did that mean?
A He said, — we didn't ask him. North volunteered,
I'll check, I don't think so, that it could be in any other
fiels, but I'll be glad to check. I just wrote that down.
We weren't expecting the report back.
Q Okay. But at least at that point — then it goes on,
there's some other things to be checked on this page; right?
Check if Israeli dollars got to Nicaraguans.
A Right.
Q What does that mean
A I don't know what that means.
Q Do you recall who was to check if the Israeli
dollars got to Nicaraguans?
A Well, I don't think it was— from looking at the note
„ ISLIiSSIflFi!
326
itrnftsstHiS'
116
SLK-22 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I don't think it was intended in that way. Because if there
were--I use a star and circle if there is some follow-up or
action item. I think this was a statement of information.
But I don't know who made the statement. It could have been
how would you check to see if Israeli money got to the Nicarag-
uans, but I don't know what that means. I don't recall.
Q The previous entry does have a star next to it '
indicating what you have called an action item?
A Yes.
Q Is that your understanding somebody was to do some--
thing as a result of that?
A Well, he said — he volunteered that he was going to
check.
Q Yes.
A I noted that. I don't think — I mean, I don't think
any of us every followed up with him to determine whether
there was additional paperwork in the system.
Q Did anybody say at that point or at any point to
Colonel North, no, don't go and check?
A No.
Q In other words, you didn't say don't go back to
the files?
A No.
Q And see if there is approval?
A No.
nil.
327
.K-23 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
L-4«i 18
DlfflfASSfRIlT
117
Q Okay. And to the best of your knowledge, no one
ever followed up to ask him whether he did, in fact, find an
approval?
A That's correct.
Q Would it be fair to say that at least at that point
in the interview, and by the end of the interview, that was
just left as an open item?
A Yes.
Q Okay. Did Colonel North mention any other files
that such an approval might be located in?
A I don't recall any other files, no, that he thought
it might be located in.
Did he indicate what other files he was going to
check;
A No.
Q I think that's all I have on the notes, Pam.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Did Colonel North indicate that he had spoken to Mr,
McFirlane that day?
A I don't think he did. No. Although he did not —
let me think for a minute. He did not have his car with him
at the Department and when we were done, he asked me for a
ride to get his keys at the White House and then to pick up
his car. And I was going to do it, and then Meese showed
back up from getting his wife. The interview was done. So
um^fpr
SLK-2 4 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Meese's secretary drove him first to the White House, where
she waited for him to run in and get keys, which I think he
said his wife had brought an extra set of keys in. I didn't
really pick up where he had lost or misplaced his keys; but —
I don't know if she brought them — if she went — if he picked
them up at the guard's gate or if he went to the office. But
Kathy, Meese's secretary waited for him and then drove him
over to pick up his car which he said was parked on the street
around K Street; and then she left from there. At some point
he may have had a conversation — North may have had a conversa-
tion with her and said, you know, I was over at McFarlane's
and my car is over there, would you mind dropping me off,
because at some point, it sticks in my mind, that his car
was near McFarlane's office.
Q This is Cathie Appleyard?_
A Yes.
Q Is that a common spelling?
UNCIASSIREO
A Yes. With a c and i-e, though for the Cathie.
Q After Colonel North left, what did you all discuss?
I assume--
A Well, the number one item was the confirmation of
the — of a diversion as it's come to be known, of a use of the
proceeds of the Iranian arms shipments to fund the contras.
There was a recognition of the need to find out
who else knew about this and whether this was an authorized
329
mttigsfffiffT
119
activity. There was discussion--! believe that night, but it
may well have been the next morning, of trying to determine
what--if this happened, and if it was an authorized activity,
what the legal ramifications could be.
MR. McGOUGH: You said if it was an authorized or
an unauthorized?
THE WITNESS: I said an authorized, but--I mean,
we were looking at, I guess, the first question was--if the
President authorized this, what is the — what are the legal
implications. We were obviously--there was a clear prospect
that it had been unauthorized as well, I mean unauthorized by
the President.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Excuse me. Did Colonel North say whether or not
Admiral Poindexter had authorized it?
A I don't think he did.
Q Was he asked?
ONCLASSIFIEO
A The implication was both of his supervisors knew
about it. He said the only specifically — the only people who
could know were Poindexter and McFarlane. McFarlane, as I
recall — he said McFarlane found out about it in May of 1986;
and so that— I don't think it was specifically said did Poin-
dexter authorize this plan; but his — it was clear that his
immediate superior knew about it. Oh, and Secord--we asked
later if Secord knew, and he said yes.
330
SLK-26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
L-l^l
18
Ut—
19
CO
CO
C-»
20
21
22
i^i^
HN8»$SPi|T
120
Q And also Mr. Hakim knew? Right?
A I don't know if he knew or not. I haven't followed
the hearings that closely.
Q No. I am asking you what Colonel North said?
A I don't think he metioned Hakim as knowing.
Q Did he mention that it was Nir's idea?
A My recollection is that he did. But I couldn't
point out to you exactly the section of the notes that deal
with that. But I think he did.
Q So he indicates that there were at least two other
(
peole outside of the U.S. Government?
A That's right. And he said that Nir may be — I think
it's Nir, the Israeli he named may be the only one in the
Israeli government who knew, if he had handled the transaction
himself. That is Nir. And he described the transaction.
As I recall, again without looking at the notes, that he said
he called Calero, told him to open up three accounts, got
three account numbers, and he gave the account numbers to Nir
who put money in the accounts. And my recollection of the
Tom Green call /meeting on Monday, that the import of that
was that North had told us about how the money changed hands
was not correct, that it had changed hands in a different way.
I don't recall specifically how, but I know you have someone's
notes on that.
Q When Colonel North left, was there a discussion as
SLK-27 1
2
3
4
5
CO
oo
t)mssR?ST
121
to what to do with the information that you had learned?
A On the--well, there was--I recall one on the diver-
sion yes. And the Attorney General said he wanted to talk
to the President about this and I don't know if it was Sunday
night or Monday morning, we met him again Monday morning at
7:30. And it--out of those two meetings, it was clear he
wanted to talk to the Vice President, the President, Don Regan,
and Poindexter. I think he talked to McFarlane about this,
too, because he met with him briefly Monday morning.
Q Did he indicate —
A Just to give this some context, at this point we
knew that this was a big deal and the question--! mean North
had said this layer of my supervisors know. Meese's immedi-
ate concern was does the President know about this? Was this
authorized by the President? And if he didn't, you know, this
was clearly the kind of policy call that he thought that the
President, if it happened, that the President should have
known about. So that was the immediate shift, and trying to
determine if the President knew about it and if it had gone
forward to him. So that's what he set out the next day to do,
talk to Poindexter, Regan, et cetera.
Q On Sunday, did Mr. Meese indicate what he discussed
with Mr. Casey the evening before, Saturday evening at
Casey's home?
A I just don't recall any — I don't have a recollection
UTOSSfiWT
122
SLK-281
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
of any report about what he talked to Casey about. North had
specifically excluded the prospect that anyone at the CIA
knew about the use of money from the Iran shipment to fund
the contras, and he had specifically said, and used the word
"could." The only ones in the U.S. Government who could know
about the use of those monies for the contras were Poindexter,
McFarlane, and himself.
Q But the Attorney General speaks to Mr. Casey prior
to the North interview?
A That's right.
Q But after the diversion memo was found?
A That's right.
Q My question to you is did Mr. Meese indicate what he
spoke to Mr. Casey about?
A I don't recall him mentioning that at the time.
He may have, but I just don't remember it.
Q Did he mention the visit of Mr. Furmark to Mr. Casey
indicating that investors in the Iran arms sale were about to
file suit?
A Did Meese mention that?
Q Yes.
A I don't know. I know North — Meese asked North if
there were any other problems, bombshells, that wasn't the
word he used but that was the import of the question, clearly
understood.. One of them mentioned by North was that there were
llHWSSlflB
MlWHr
123
SLK-29 .,
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
Ljuj
cr: ''
2r^ 21
^^°. 22
23
24
95
investors that were getting antsy about not having their money
and feeling that there could be problems there. But that's
the only thing I recall about that. I don't think I heard
about the Furmark materials until maybe Wednesday. Because
Casey sent them over to Meese--some Furmark memos with a
letter from Casey which — and I think they are dated the 25th,
which was Tuesday. I think I may have seen that Wednesday
morning. But I don't have any recollection of those before
then.
Q On Monday, did the Attorney General ask anyone to
do any further interviews? In other words, he was going to
go to the White House to see the Vice President and other
people about this. Did he task anybody else with doing any
other interviews?
A I don't remember him doing that. He certainly did
not task me to do that, but Cooper— I don't know if Cooper was
doing anything or not on the other front. He may have still
been in contact with the CIA on — I know that he was doing
things with the CIA general counsel for sometime. I just
don't know.
Q And was it discussed with the Attorney General
whether or not someone should go along with him when he spoke
to Mr. Poindexter and the others?
A I don't think so. I don't recall any such discussion
I don't think — I don't think there was one.
334
wMsm
124
SLK-301
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1 « f
n=:^ 19
CO 21
■>-~i 22
9«;
0 By the way, were you present when the Attorney
General spoke to Secretary Weinberger?
A I don't recall being present, but it's possible that
I was. This is on the telephone?
Q Yes.
A I don't remember. Being there or not being there.
Q Did the Attorney General discuss with you what
Secretary Weinberger told him.
A I don't think so. I mean, all I — and I can't place
this in time, but Meese's comments were that Cap doesn't know
--Cap doesn't really have many of the details on this, some-
thing to that effect.
Q Now once the Attorney General returned from ;±he
White House, did he tell you what happened? I gather he
returned sometime around noon or so? On the 24th?
A Let me see if I can remember from looking at--yes.
Well, it indicates in my notes. Exhibit 2 here, on the 24th,
that we had lunch from 12:45 to 1:30. Meese, Reynolds, Cooper
Cribb, and Richardson. But I have, in parentheses, check,
with an exclamation point. That may mean I either got the
time, the person — or the number of people wrong. But he had
a — I know he had — well, there is a notation here, 1:40, V.P.
I know he had a NSPG meeting at 2:00. This would indicate
he talked to the Vice President at 1:40. I tend to — I don't
have a note to this effect, but I tend to recall that he saw
UmSflWT
125
SLK-31 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
L.^. IB
19
•esc 20
c-:> 21
22
23
24
25
CO
--I know he saw McFarlane around 10:00 in his office and I
thought that was over at the White House to see Regan and the
President late morning. But he may not — that may have just
been Regan and Poindexter.
I don't recall anything out of that lunch meeting at 12:45
that day. He may have--I mean, at that point he might have
said well, I'll see the Vice President then and I will see
the President again at 4:30, something like that. It may
still have been fluid.
Q Did he tell you at the meeting with the President in
the morning that he had told him about the diversion?
A To this — I'm still not sure when — which--when he
talked to the President that day. I know he did at the end
of the day. But I don't recall him — I just don't recall any
lunch conversation on that day. Sorry to say. He may have,
but he may not have.
Q But, I mean, this was the big issue. Did the Presi-
dent approve it or not?
A Yes. I just don't remember it now. He may have
come in and said well, the President doesn't remember this.
But I just don't remember now. I mean it was clear by the
end of the day, it may have been at lunchtime that the Presi-
didn't think he had approved it or that he had never heard of
it and Regan had never heard of it and that was confirmed
later in the day. But I don't know. I can't say when that
UIWSfflEff
ET
126
SLK-32 ^^
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
So "
ST 22
23
24
25
conversation occurred. It was obviously the big topic and
it was obviously covered at lunch, but I just don't know the
content of the conversation.
Q Now--
A If I can just — I do know that when he came back at
the end of the day Monday, we knew that this had not been
authorized by the President for a certainty.
Q If I can go back, in the morning, to the meeting
with McFarlane?
A Yes.
Q Were you present at that?
A No.
0 To your knowledge was anyone present other than the
Attorney General and Mr. McFarlane?
A I don't know. Cooper might have been, but I don't
— it might have been just Meese and McFarlane. I'm not certain
Q Do you know why you were not present?
A I mean I was--I had not been in the first McFarlane
interview, so I didn't expect to be. I was the most junior
and least — to be blunt, least important member of the team.
So it didn't surprise me not to be there.
Q I am not asking you if you were surprised. I am
asking you if you know if there is a reason why you or anyone
else wasn't there?
A Oh, no. No, I don't. I mean, I know of no reason
337
yirassfflfpT
127
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
a^ 17
eg ^«
why I was excluded if that's the question.
Q Was there an expression on the Attorney General's
part prior to that meeting that he wished to speak to Mr.
McFarlane, the Vice President, Poindexter, and Regan alone?
A I don't think so, no.
Q Was there any discussion of whether or not he was
going to take notes of these discussions?
A No. I don't recall any.
Q Now I take it that you know —
A Vou know, we might at lunch, we might have talked
about — at some point either that morning or the night before
Meese told Cooper to find out when the Boland Amendment was
passed, and that sort of thing. It may be that there was a
preliminary discussion along those lines at lunch that day.
But that would be a reasonable guess on what — I know that was
covered Monday at some point.
Q Other than the early morning meeting with the
Attorney General and the lunch meeting, what were you doing
Monday?
A Well, we — 1 suspect that we probably had our formal
8:10 staff meeting, our 8:30 staff meeting. I could look at
his schedule and tell you for sure, but if you have that--but
we normally then spend the 9:00 to 9:30 or so timeframe with
our schedulers and that sort of thing. That may have been
done. I just don't remember. I might have been seeing that
leu^EiET
128
copy of the documents from the NSC was made, something along
those lines. I just don't recall.
Q Did you feel confident as of Monday that you had
seen all the documents you needed to see?
A Well, we had been through almost all of what North
had provided to us. We had not been through some files marked
11986. We had been through all 1985 material and
all the 1986 material marked White House memoranda or miscel-
laneous. So — I mean, I felt confident — I knew that we had
been through everything that had been provided to us. I
couldn't say that I thought every document that existed in the
government on the subject I had looked at, but — at this point,
— I mean the weekend tasking was get the facts, there's a
2:00 o'clock meeting on Monday. At this point, by Monday, we
had learned the facts and we hadn't pursued every detail, but
at this point, there is a major — I mean obviously what happen-
ed in 1985 was much less significant than the diversion; and
the attention was focused very — immediately on the diversion.
Cooper was looking into some of the legal questions. I'm not
sure what I was doing. I might have just been in my office
working or looking through some of these memoranda, but the
focus of things shifted immediately to Meese working at a
level with the President and the Vice President, Regan, Poin-
dexter, to figure out what happened and what this factual
revelation meant. So, I mean--my intimate activity in terms
SLK-35
CO
CO
uKt^ssraiET
of looking at documents and all that stuff had become a secon-
dary thing. I mean this was clear— I mean, there was a very
clear consensus Sunday night, reiterated explicitly Monday
morning. We've got to find out what happened, was this
authorized, and make this public; and so that is the track
that was moving very quickly and those other activities which
seemed much more important 24 hours earlier were much less
important at this point.
Q Why was it so important for it to become public so
quickly before you had all of the facts?
A Well, Monday was spent getting all the facts. That
is— I mean the important facts. Did the President know about
this? Who else knew about it? Those were the crucial things
at this point. It's pretty obvious that this was a major
development, that the Reagan initiative had already been the
subject of three weeks of very serious public debate and the
Administration was dealing with a serious foreign policy
problem. I mean, this is from my personal perspective. There
was also— I mean it was obvious that this development compound
ed that dramatically and— I mean Meese was conscious through-
out, that is throughout Sunday night when he and I had a brief
conversation and Monday morning when this conversation occur-
red that with this kind of development, all information had
to be gathered quickly and made public quickly, because this
—I mean, this is obviously— was going to create a problem
340
lIMniKCIOcn
130
SLK-36 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
■ « ' 18
'"'— 19
^— t; 21
^■p 22
— ^ 23
24
for the Administration and could only be compounded if it
were not made public. By public, I mean Congress to be
notified, because there had been--the three weeks preceding,
the debate had centered upon the nation — the failure to notify
Congress on the arms initiative; and I think that was the bas-
ic reasoning.
Q But my question is why go public so quickly? In-
other words, a decision was made to go public prior to,
for instance, informing the FBI what had occurred. The infor-
mation to go--the decision to go public and the going public
of the information was prior to interviewing many of the key
players in the Iran arms transaction. So my question was
what is it that triggered Tuesday noon as zero hour for when
it was going to go public?
A Well, I mean — I would see no basis for informing the
FBI, for example, as an entity. And all the key players had
been interviewed. I mean North had been interviewed. We
didn't track down Secord and Hakim or any of that sort of
thing. The President was interested, Meese was interested in
what do Administration officials know about this.
Q Was Mr. Casey asked if he knew about the diversion?
A I don't think — well, I don't know. The Attorney
General has said that he did not raise that with Casey before
the interview with North. But that it was discussed with
Casey, as I understand it, Tuesday morning at Casey's home.
341
K-37 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
£^^ 16
CO 19
^i*' 21
—- ^ 22
23
24
25
OffiEASStFlir
131
because apparently Regan had said something to Casey about it.
So — but it's obvious that with this kind of a devel-
opment, that this was going to cause a major political problem
for the Administration; and--I mean Meese, in the interview
with North, said we don't want anything that can even look
like a coverup. We want to get to the facts and get them to
the President and this was before knowing about the — getting
Meese--getting North to confirm the contra diversion.
So I think the interest was in — as this bombshell
was learned, it was to be made public as soon as possible,
because it would have been--if this had been made public by
someone other than the President, that would have added to the
problem.
0 So there was a concern of leaks as well?
A I mean I didn't — I know Cooper has tagged it as
a concern of leaks. I didn't view it that way. I guess —
I mean — I was concerned personally. I mean Meese was commit-
ted to getting this public as soon as possible. He didn't
say I want to get this public because x, y, and z. In con-
versations with Cooper, he said, you know, this thing could
leak out, et cetera. I said the key is to get the President
to make this public. And the President has — I mean, through-
out this, certainly since this time, has wanted to make —
get the accurate inforroation and msJte it known. This was
a major operation, a major policy initiative that blended
342
um^iiisi^
132
SLK-38 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
e
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
two very important and controversial policies together and
the President didn't know about it. So it's obviously-- I
mean in hindsight and it was clear to us at the time that
unless this was made public immediately, that it would create
even more problems for the Administration.
Q As you said, if someone else would have--were to
have mentioned it, if it were to come out by some other means
other than the Administration?
A Right.
Q Okay.
A I mean, with rumors — rumors at CIA about this and
that.
Q Monday afternoon, the meeting vith Green, I tate it
you were not involved in the
A That's right.
Q Did you receive a report about it?
A As I recall, yes.
Q And in that report, — when you received the report
about it, were you in the presence of the other tecim members
or was this--
A I think I was. I think Meese, Reynolds, and Cooper
and there may have been others present, too. I think I have
a note on that, but I'm just not sure.
Q Was it discussed then that Albert Hakim was — let me
back up. Mr. Cooper's notes indicate that they were told
•" UNCLASSIFIED
343
imiMibT
■esse
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
9S
that Albert Hakim was the guy who originated the idea of the
diversion, according to Mr. Green. Do you recall that being
state to the group?
A No. I mean, it may have been. I don't recall it.
Q Do you remember Mr. Hakim's name coming up?
A No. I don't recall it.
Q Now on Tuesday morning, you were tasked to go to
the White House to look at documents?
A Well, I rode into work with Meese Tuesday morning.
I live very near his house. So once in awhile, I just hop
a ride with him. That coincidentally happened to be one such
day. So I rode with him from his house. He stopped by Casey's
house. We went to the Department. He met briefly with Poin-
dexter. He met--we then grabbed Cooper. In fact, Meese
called Cooper from the car, and Cooper was still at home, and
said be in my office by X time.
Q When you stopped at Mr. Casey's house, did you take
part in that meeting or did you stay in the car?
A No. I sat in the car.
Q And do you recall how long the meeting was?
A My notes reflect, I think— well, in Exhibit 2, my
notes seem to indicate five minutes. 6:40 to 6:45 a.m. Might
have been a little longer. Actually it seemed a little longer
in hindsight, but five to ten minues, 1 would say.
While he was in there, there was a call placed to
344
uttsA^n'
134
SLK-40 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the car froni Don Regan--from the White House operator. I
told him he was in Casey's house. I think he called him in
there or we ran in with the message to Keese who called Regan.
I can't recall which.
Q Was Regan calling for Meese or for Casey?
A For Meese.
Q Why is is that you didn't go into Casey's house
with Mr. Meese?
A No particular reason. I wasn't asked to and I
normally wouldn't sit in on a meeting between Meese and Casey.
Q Did the person who placed the call for Mr. Regan
indicate what he wanted?
A No. I think it was a White House — the White House
operator and I tend to recall that Meese 's driver ran in--
ran up to Casey's door and said that Regan was trying to
reach him. As opposed to our directing the operator to
Casey's residence.
Q Did Regan place the call then to Casey's residence?
A I don't — I mean I think based on my recollection
that the driver went and told Meese that Meese placed a call
to Regan from Casey's residence.
Q But—
A They did talk, when they were in there.
Q They did not talk in the car?
A Right. Because when he came back, I said did you
yiLASSIFIED
345
SLK-41 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
uiffia»ie8ET
135
L.^
'^^^ 22
23
24
get Regan, as I recall; and he said yes.
Q Did he say what Mr. Regan wanted?
A No. I don't think he did. I don't recall that.
But he — Meese then placed a call to Poindexter who was not
in his office. He was in his car. So he reached him in his
car and he asked him if he could meet— Poindexter if he could
meet Meese at the Department.
Q When is it that you discovered that Regan had told
Casey about the diversion?
A Oh, at sometime substantially later. It could have
been in the last month. It was a statement to that effect.
I'm not sure that he did, I should say. I just— my recollec-
tion is that someone said that Regan had told Casey about it.
Meese may have said that. I'm not sure.
Q When the Attorney General got back into the car
after visiting with Casey, did he tell you what he talked
about?
A No. I don't think he did. And we were— Meese 's
driver and a FBI agent were in the front seat, so he — I mean
he didn't get into any details. I mean I would not have ex-
pected him to give me an update on the diversion of funds in
front of those— in front of his driver and the agent.
Q Were you present when Admiral Poindexter met with
Meese at DOJ?
A No. They met one on one and I was outside the door.
346
SLK-42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
E»UJ
17
Lju.
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UTOSSSfflffiET
136
Q Do you know how long that lasted?
A Well, my note here-again in Exhibit 2, indicates
it was about 15 minutes. Ten, fifteen probably.
0 Did you have any indication that Poindexter would
be asked to resign?
A I'm pretty sure that I knew after the meeting. I
don't know that I knew before. I just don't recall. But I
grabbed Cooper probably while the meeting was underway and I
think Meese pulled Cooper in and we talked briefly. I think
he said Poindexter is going to be resigning this morning, we're
going over to the White House. That's just my recollection.
It's not crystal clear.
Q Was there any discussion of Colonel North's being
resigned or fired?
A I don't think there was there at the Department.
Q Did you discuss that with the Attorney General or
did he discuss that with anyone in your presence?
A Well, we went — the next meeting was at the White
House with Regan and Wallison and Thompson and then Meese,
Cooper, and myself. I mean at some point before the press
conference--and I don't know at what point, this might have
been with Meese and Regan out of the room, I understood that
Poindexter would be requesting reassignment to the Navy.
Q Okay.
A 1 may have learned about Colonel North when I saw
347
SLK-4 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
CO 19
C<3
^20
S3f
21
22
23
24
«r
UllSOTBF'
137
a draft of the President's statement.
Q Do you know who wrote that?
A Yes. Let me think here a second. Well, after the
Regan-Meese meeting broke up, which was about 9:00 o'clock
when Regan and Meese went down to the Oval Office, Cooper and
Thompson and Wallison were tasked to write a statement. I
was tasked to go down to Thompson's office and look at docu-
ments. I cim not sure who penned it, but between the three of
them, they wrote one. Because I joined up with them later in
the morning up in Wallison 's office. They were going over a
draft.
Q There seems to be much discussion primarily amongst
Colonel North and Admiral Poindexter as to why Poindexter was
allowed to ask for reassignment and why North was summarily
discharged from the NSC, can you shed any light on that
decision making process?
A I was not present when that was discussed with Meese
and I don't know that Meese was a part of that. It's my
impression, purely an impression,, that — I mean, that was a —
just something that Don Regan and or his deputies had done.
I mean, I don't even--I got the impression, and I believe that
it may have been that day, I'm not sure when, that North was
not informed about this. And it may have just been an over-
sight on the part of Regan and his deputies. I don't recall
any specific discussions saying, all right, we are going to
wisaps&ET
138
SLK-44 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
End
SLK 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
do this to North and this to Poindexter. Although there may
have been out of my presence.
Q You were tasked with finding out whether or not any
of these documents got to the President.
A Right.
Q By some other system or some other manner?
A Yes.
Q What did you do to try to find that out?
A I went down to Thompson's office, told him that that
is what I wanted to do. He--and I described the nature of the
search and the need to search all the systems that would pro-
duce documents to the President. He said okay, we'll do that.
He came back at some point with a lady, his executive secre-
tary, and she brought me some documents that were responsive.
OllASSIHED
349
6:00
wmmw
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Do you remember what her name is?
A No, she looked to be about 50, with brown curly
or wavey hair, sort of short, but I don't remember her name.
She had some documents which I looked through, and I said,
"How have you searched' and she told me the six or seven
terms she used.
There were things like Iran arms shipment,
Nicaragua, contras, that sort of thing, and I questioned
her about it, saying, "Well, would this kind of document
show up on this search, and does your computer scan all
that kind of thing, and satisfied myself that this would
have been found, and she said, "We will make sure it is,"
which she did. And I don't think she brought me a second
load of documents, I think Thompson came in and said,
"That is all we found."
In that group of documents, I recall one document
that was relevant, which was minutes of an NSPG, I think,
a meeting where third country assistance to the Nicaraguan
resistance was discussed, and the Secretary of State
specifically was talking about it.
There was no mention in that meeting, in those
minutes, at least of the use of the arms shipment proceeds
to fund the contras.
Q Do you recall when that meeting was?
! anus snxpiueiit pi.v./1-ccus
ONMSSIFIED
350
bap-2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
tf' *) 17
JL « f
or ^^
So ^'
^ 20
y^ 21
23
24
25
«H8«SS|}iaF
140
A No, I did then, but I don't. We turned those notes
over, though. I tend to think it was sometime in 1986,
May or sometime in the spring, early summer of 1986, but
that is just the vaguest recollection.
In the meantime, I looked through Thompson/
Poindexter file, saw the findings of 6 January, saw a
document of -- at the time I looked quickly. There was
nothing that the President had signed other than the
findings.
I think a copy of the second findings was in
there, but I am not crystal clear. But there were a
number of documents which said, "Shred after reading,"
that sort of thing, which were scenarios of events
involving arms shipment, hostages. I took one page of
notes on these and one of the interests. Things that I
recall was that they expected Khomeini to be dead on a
certain date, and that — which was, I thought, was very
interesting. There were one or two other things.
I took a note in addition to the 17 January
findings in the 6 January finding, which was the words,
"third party," and one or two things like that. When I
finished that, I went up to Wallison's office and reported
to them that there was nothing else there that I saw, looked
over the statement. I made those comments to Cooper. He
said, "That is already being fixed." I don't remember what
351
bap-3
UTOBlSBfltST
141
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ia
La»Jl9
£20
CO 21
^» 22
it was, but it wasn't much, and then I think we were told
that we knew that NSC was going to meet with the
President, I think, in the Oval Office, and then the
Congressional Leadership was going to be briefed, and we
were told that we would be -- Tore Dawson, Regan's aide,
you and Cooper will be in the Congressional briefing.
And the next event that 1 recall was being in the
Congressional briefing waiting around outside the cabinet
room while they all showed up.
Q If we can go back to the documents, given by
Paul Thompson's executive secretary/ were any of those
System 4 documents?
A Don't recall. I did not focus on that. I might
have seen a System 4 up there, and it did not register
at all.
Q When you did see the finding of January 6, was
it in with other documents, or did he retrieve it separately?
A It was in the pile. Let me think here. He showed
it to me, but I tend to think that he showed it to me and
said here is this, and then put it down, and I went ahead
and went through other things. I think it was in a folder
by itself. I think it was the original.
Q Do you remember seeing ink?
A Blue ink. I think it was signed in blue ink by
the President, and it was — I don't know if the — what I
352
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
ijJLj 20
£b=21
0O22
3^3
^24
z:r::5 25
142
can't remember is if the editing was done on the original
or on a copy. I don't remember that.
0 Now, as of Tuesday morning, was it clear that
this was going to be the Presidential statement and the
Attorney General having press conference?
A Yes.
Q So the format was already established by then.
A Well, over the course of the meetings there it
may have come out of the 8 o'clock meeting or we might
have met Meese and Regan back in the office at 10:00
but I am not sure, but at some point over the course of the
meeting I knew before the Congressional Briefing, I knew
that we were going from that to a press conference; that
Meese would take the main lead in addressing the press.
Q The Attorney General mentioned in his presence
that the matter would be referred to the Crijninal Division.
A That is probably correct, I don't. I haven't
looked at the transcript recently. I did look at my notes
of the Congressional Briefing where he indicated that this
would be reviewed for any criminal liability.
Q When was that decision made?
A I don't know. I think that is my first recollection
of it, of hearing that. There had been discussions Monday.
There had been discussions after the North interview
Sunday night or Monday morning, that this presented new legal
353
mroiWF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
,.. 18
LO-J 19
C/O 21
:::;:> 24
25
problems, which I guess is an obvious enough conclusion,
and Cooper had undertaken to detennine and the example I
specifically remember is when the Boland Amendment was in
place, and if so, what are the implications of that for
this transaction. And I recall that there were, I believe
there was a conversation about that on Monday -- yes,
Boland was passed on X date.
I don't recall any discussion of — although
there may have been, Meese may have said something like
see what other laws are implicated by this, but I am not
crystal clear on when that was. I know Cooper would
probably be clearer because he was tasked to do it.
But, I know that on Tuesday, when we got back, it was
formally kicked into a criminal investigation.
Q Bringing Mr. Weld and Mr. Trott into this?
A Yes, sir, and he met with Webster and I think they
talked about getting -- I guess the first meeting was
with Weld, Trott and et al. He net with Webster about
having a team of agents put together that could work very
quickly on this.
Q Do you know whether this meeting was at the
Attorney General's impetus or Mr. Webster?
A Yes, I think he asked. I believe he asked Webster
to come over and meet him. I could be wrong on that. This
was a matter that they had discussed before.
354
MftSMBET
144
Q Were you present when they discussed it on Friday'
A No.
Q Was anyone to your knowledge?
A I don't think so.
Q Were you present when they discussed it on
Tuesday?
A No, not on Tuesday, not that I recall. Well,
let me take that back. I don't think I was, no. It is
possible. I don't know if I got an entry that indicates
that. This 25 November entry in Exhibit 2 indicates that
I was present in the meeting with Webster — 2:05 Meese,
Webster, Arnold Burns, Cooper, Richardson, Qribb, Reynolds,
and Trott joined the meeting at 2:20.
So I was present, 1 guess, when that — when they
decided it is time to go criminal. I don't recall that.
Q The meeting the next day, the large meeting when
representatives of the FBI were present and so forth,
was Mr. Webster present, do you recall?
A I don't think he was.
Q But are —
A I think Floyd Clark was present.
Q But you recall him there on the 25 meeting at
around 2:00?
'lUSSIFlEO
Has there a discussion then of securing the
355
WfflW
145
documents at the White House on the 25th?
A Yes, on Tuesday the 25th, Meese instructed
Arnold Burns to call Wallison and the reason is any time
there is communication between the Justice Department
and the White House on pending cases or such as it is
between the Deputy's office and the Counsel's office, to
call Wallison and make sure that they secured North's
documents, Poindexter's documents.
Q Do you know when that was actually done?
A I know it had been done at the end of the day.
My recollection is that there was a meeting again at the
end of the day, and where we were reviewing, I had been
tasked to draft a piece, written document, request a
document description of all these documents should be located
and held for the Hireau, and we were going over that at the
late afternoon meeting and —
MR. MCGOUGH: Would this be the 6:40 meeting?
THE WITNESS: Yes. I think Meese asked — Meese
said something — Meese said, "Have the documents been
secured," and Arnie said, "I haven't got through to Wallison,
or something like that, and he left the room and did so.
I recall he came back and said Wallison has already done
that, something along those lines, which makes me think it
was taken care of on Tuesday afternoon.
356
wmm^
146
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q The letter that you drafted, do you know when
that was sent?
A Well, it wasn't a letter. It was plain white
paper, a paragraph, describing the field of documents, and
I don't know when it was sent. I don't.
Q Who was in charge of sending it?
A I think it was to be an Arnold Burns to Peter
Wallison meroo, but I do not know if it was in fact
sent. I know that a group of letters were sent. I guess
this was — Wednesday was the day before Thanksgiving.
I think the letters went Friday to Cabinet officials asking
for documents on the subject, and I don't know if Wallison
instead got one of those letters to make the formal
request or if there was a nemo.
I just don't recall.
Q Who was in charge of drafting the cabinet letters?
A I don't know.
Q When was the possibility of appointing independent
counsel first discussed?
A I don't know that.
Q Well, at some point it was discussed in your
presence, I take it.
A It sure was.
f\ w.e it- Hiern<;<5*>(l with Trott and Weld when they were
357
yWGft^BfflET
147
brought in at 2 o'clock?
A It may have been. I just don't recall the first
time it was discussed. I mean, it was fairly soon after
this issue, after it became a criminal investigation,
because one of the first — we have had a number, a lot
of experience with these matters, and having independent
counsel investigations, and one of the early things on
the table was whether this first triggering mechanism had
been met. And I mean I recall discussions of whether
North was a covered person or Poindexter, and that sort
of thing.
I am not sure when they began. Not before
Tuesday afternoon, I am sure of that.
Q There was some discussion along those lines,
was there not?
A Yes, sir.
Q About appointing instead a "special prosecutor,"
that would be a part of the Department of Justice, but
sort of on a separate track. Do you recall that discussion?
A Well, I did not until you mentioned it. I
vaguely recall that. There was considerable discussion
about whether there was enough information or criminal
conduct and/or criminal liability to proceed with an
independent counsel, and there — I remember specifically
thinking that we weren't quite there even when the decision
358
nny^m
1 was made — Weld, I recall, had problems although he was —
2 he had produced a draft that cited every statute in the
3 code practically. There was a lot of concern that if we
4 followed the law, the independent counsel statute, we were
5 not in independent counsel territory based on facts,
6 and the laws that we knew, and someone, I think, surfaced
7 this as a concept that we will because of the political
8 climate, what you might want to do is look at appointing
9 someone to operate independently, but not within the
10 independent counsel's statute.
11 I don't think that was — my recollection it was
12 very much a passing suggestion and not an option one or
13 option two.
14 Q Do you know what the Attorney General's position
15 was Wednesday, the 26th?
•J6 A I couldn't —
17 Q Regarding the counsel?
18 A Well, I think his — I don't know as of Wednesday,
19 the 2eth. His view had been, as I recall, he had expressed
20 this view, this was — this probably was going to end up with
21 an independent counsel, but we based on discussions he got
22 out of it in terms of doing interviews and that sort of
23 thing, after we turned it over to the criminal side, and
24 it was in the mode of Trott and Weld coming up and saying,
lira rtn*- «->t»es 1 »uc . 4-hAe» farts."
.'.-•■ 'I c ...V. » «-
359
iimssm^
149
independent counsel, and that being the sort of terms of
discussion, and I don't think this other business was a
serious option.
But the conversation kept coining back to well, we
don't really have enough to proceed under the independent
counsel statute yet. Then Weld came in the first or
second day with a rash of legal theories that how one could
have criminally built ranging from conspiracy to violation
of civil law like the Boland Amendment was a crime to
all kinds of fraud prospect based upon not knowing who
did what with these amounts of money and where they went
or the intermediate theory of this was government money,
and it is fraud against the government.
So they had that kind of range of things. No
facts to back them up yet.
Q Once Mr. Cribb got into it, and when he returned
fr cat his trip and came back on Monday, and took part in
sevaral of these meetings, did you know whether or not
he took notes?
A I don't know whether — I did not know whether
he did or not.
Q Is it typical for him to take notes in such a
meeting?
A His typical approach was to take action notes so
he would have a list, and if he were to do something, he
360
bap- 12
imifflFipT
150
CO
1 would take a note down, but he did not take, as a rule,
2 meeting notes or that sort of thing.
3 Q Was there anyone assigned or anyone who
4 generally took such notes that you have described as meeting
5 notes in the Monday morning staff meetings, the preliminary
6 meetings or 8:30 meeting?
7 A Yes, I always took notes in the 8:30 meeting.
8 I have a spiral notebook that eventually — I regularly
9 listed it in spiral notebooks.
10 As an aside, these notebooks I bought with my own
11 money so that my attempt was to create a personal record
12 that I could take home and that would be of historical
13 and personal use so it would not be a document subject
14 to FOIA. So it was more of a — I took action items
15 on occasion in there, or occasionally on a yellow sheet, but
1g I was the principal note-taker.
iy Now, Meese occasionally took action notes out
13 of the 8:30 meeting. I have since learned, though, I
lig dlto't really pay attention. Occasionally people write
I
2Q down things they are supposed to do. Terry Eastland,
21 who is Director for Public Affairs and Randy Levine, who
22 is in the Deputy's office, he took more systematic notes.
23 I really wasn't aware of that. I don't think anyone at
24 the 8:10 meetings — there are only five of us in there --
25 takes notes. For a time I used to take 8:10 notes in my
361
IftltW^fipT
151
binder with the 8:30 meeting notes, but I stopped doing
that.
Q And regarding Mr. Bolton, these staff meetings
and these meetings that he attended on the 20th and
possibly the 21st, do you recall whether or not he took
notes?
A He does take notes. There are not comprehensive
notes like I try to take. He takes action notes, that he
has a small pad that will fit into the inside of the
coat pocket, and if Meese asks him to do something or
check up on something, he will jot it down.
Q Now, we are going to go through just a
few more documents.
MS. NAUGHTON: If you could mark this one next
in order, please.
(The document referred to was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-10.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Now, Exhibit 10 is a document taken from the
spiral notebook, dated 29 October 1986. Are those your
notes or the Attorney General'
A They are my notes.
Q This is the discussion of the requests by
the House Judiciary Committee members regarding independent
counsel to be appointed. If you could review that and tell
'' ONMSSIFIES
362
bap-14
UmSSIffitT
152
::sr23
rae what the discussion was.
A Okay.
Q Can you describe to us what that discussion was
about?
A Okay. It is not clear who is speaking for the
first entry because you can — I would have written
someone's name up here with a colon and made a point
here, then went on to these, so someone —
Q If I recall, for the record we have a redacted
copy.
A This is a redacted copy. Whoever has — the
redaction has also included the name of the speaker for
the first entry on the note. But it refers to a Conyers
letter, and independent counsel request. Our response —
this is me interpreting my notes — our response was to ask
for more specific information, if any. Then we would review
that information.
Then speaking to Terry Eastland — I would guess.
Well, I don't know this — speaking to Terry Eastland,
the statement put out a press advisory that there is not
"a preliminary investigation" to set the record straight,
public record.
That is, the letter that had been received had
not triggered a preliminary investigation, but instead we
had asked for more specific information. It may just
363
WUU^t&Br
153
be based on a press report, which occasionally would happen.
Then Weld says, "Let's just get the word out,
to make clear what our position is." And Eastland says,
"We will be sure to make sure certain large media know."
Then Cooper says, "There is lots in OLC on triggering
the Independent Counsel Act and the Neutrality Act."
That entry means that OLC has a lot of
institutional learning, legal analysis and opinions on
both questions, triggering the Independent Counsel Statute
and the neutrality and/or Neutrality Act.
Q Then there is a portion that is redacted.
A Yes.
Can you tell us what that was?
No, I have no idea.
Then, the subject is apparently —
Then —
We do have this on the sane subject, the
Q
A
Q
A
Q
portion .
A Right, it says, "Provide some briefs to Griffin
Bell on Neutrality Act." I guess that is to Griffen Bell
when he was Attorney General, but I don't know. Then it
says "others which are non-public are available."
Then there it says, "AG," with an arrow to
Cooper, "Do a FOIA analysis. OLC will work with Criminial
Division
llNrJIlSSIFlEO
364
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
^^
17
iJUi
18
19
So
20
21
22
23
24
Iral^lwclcir
154
Q What did that mean, do FOIA analysis?
A I think that referred to — well, I am not sure,
but my guess from looking at this is to determine if
OLC opinions are subject to FOIA. I don't know why one
would have that. But this here mentions non-'public opinions
available. He probably said would these be discoverable
to the public under FOIA.
I guess they could have been implicating a number
of things. Either a FOIA request had been received or
this line, they were saying how would we draw the line
under FOIA for whether to make this public or not. That
may have driven the decision about what documents to
release.
Q All right. Going through the rest of these
in no particular order, we could mark this Exhibit 11.
(The document referred to was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-11.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Exhibit 11 appears to be actually a little
drawing of a balance of scales. One says arms to Iran; the
other scale says intelligence to Iraq. It is on white
stationery. Do you know who drew that?
A The handwriting looks like the Attorney General's.
I don't know if he drew this or not, but it looks like
his handwritino.
365
0
155
Q At any rate you did not.
A No, I did not.
Q This could be marked Exhibit 12, please.
(The document referred to, was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-12.)
THE WITNESS: This was found in his office, by
the way.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Exhibit 11 was found —
A In the Attorney General's office, or files, I
should say. I am not sure whether it was in his office
or in his files.
Q Showing you exhibit 12, then, which again is on
White House stationery, it says at the top, "any other
facts." Is that your handwriting or the Attorney General's?
A The Attorney General's.
Q Were you present when there was a conversation
to this effect?
A I don't think so. This entry says, "any other
facts." That is Number one. Number two, problems,
"broke no laws, defensive weapons." It is possible that
that conversation occurred the morning of the 25th and/or
at some point when I was either present or not. It is
not dated, and I know that this was, again, found in the
immediate offices of the Attorney General, either in
366
.ap-18
UNtUSSHpT
156
there was nothing else to indicate what it was.
Q Were you involved in the document production
to the Select Committees?
A Yes.
Q And I take it then if this document was produced
to the Select Committees, it was thought to be relevant
to the investigation. In other words, this is not about
some drug case or something, is it?
A Well, we didn't know. When we found this,
when we looked at this, it said defensive weapons,
broke no law. We weren't sure what it meant, and it
wasn't in any particular file.
As I recall, it was in a pile of miscellaneous
material, so I am not sure.
I wanted to be sure to turn it over, emything
that was a question mark over.
Q The next exhibit to be marked is 13, please.
(The document referred to was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-13.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Directing your attention to Exhibit 13, then
says "Nicaraguan Angle.
"Contras funding.
WNCIASSIFIED
367
VNftAMfi&T
157
Q Is this your handwriting?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall when that document was generated?
A It was generated, as I recall, over the course
of the weekend, probably Sunday night, because it was
clearly after the North interview. Because the
information contained in entry 1 is all post North
interview.
Q Okay.
A It might have been Monday, but this may have
been one of the things I was doing Monday. I would
bet it was Sunday night, though.
Q Were these notes done in a meeting, do you know?
A I don't think so. I think they — I might have
been in a meeting, and I was writing this down on my own,
but this did not represent the discussions in a meeting.
This was representing my thinking and my organizing.
Q Did you show these notes to anybody?
A I don't think I showed them to anyone.
MS. NAUGHTON: If we could mark the next one
as Exhibit 14.
(The document referred to was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-14.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q And Exhibit 14, then, is a document with a heading,
UNCLASSIFIEO
368
bap-20
i/massw
158
1 "Wby? There is." Could you tell us when this document
2 was generated?
3 A This is my handwriting. I wrote it, I believe,
4 very late Saturday night or in the wee hours of Sunday
5 morning.
6 Q Did you write this at home?
7 A Yes.
8 Q And could you tell us what the discussion is,
g I guess, you are having with yourself?
10 A Yes, that is right. I was writing down
•J1 possible reasons for some of the things that were going on.
12 One, more extensive relationship with Iran, which I guess
13 I am restructuring, but I think that simply means to the
14 greater strategic opening rationale, Iran strategically
15 located, all that sort of thing.
1Q Number two, more extensive relationship with
17 Israel. I think that refers to the principal reason for
13 tlM initiative is trying to be cooperative and build our
ig bridges with Israel. As you can see, no weight assigned
20 to any of these theories, and they are marked, "theories."
21 Three, relationship with Nicaragua. Four,
22 cover own tracks, and this — do you want me to read the --
23 Q yes.
24 A The "cover own tracks" — drew strict limits
25 vis-a-vis arms, but McFarland present. North, others.
^mw
159
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
question mark, went beyond that, unauthorized agents in
September/November transactions.
Q These, I assume, are the 1985 transactions?
A Right. And this again, I showed these to no one.
These were me sitting down trying to think up what could
have led to all of this and the prospect was that the
President had, might have said no arms, but we will
explore the initiative and McFarlane and others went
beyond that and beyond arms in the things, and therefore
the September/ November transactions might have been
authorized by someone, but not the President, and that
they were trying now to cover their own tracks on the
September/November shipment in terms of authorization.
Number five, again, says, "Cover own tracks." Arms
deal with G, probably meaning Ghorbanifar, a loser, not
really with effective present prowess faction. That would
have — I guess 1 was thinking there that it was
d*|»cribed as stratigic initiative and that it was
described as strategic initiative and that sort of thing,
but it really turned out to be loser of the deal, not what
they expect, and now there was concern on that end.
Q You have a reference at page 4, September 1986
minutes. What is that a reference to?
A I wonder if that is a reference to the chronology.
Q It refers to minutes.
370
wmim
IfiO
A September -- what would have been in September 1986?
I don't know what that refers to.
Q I gather you did have your documents at home
with you. Were you looking through them as you were
writing.
A Gentlemen, I was flipping through the documents.
Entry four has a present footnote — McFarlane and Shultz.
Q Number six says?
A Six, "Reasons for secrecy, Soviet anxiety."
Again, it refers to minutes, September 1986 minutes.
Q Okay. And finally, seven.
A Seven says,- "Involvement of Vice President,
Regan, Casey, Poindexter, Tompson, CIA personnel^^^^H
Q What does that refer to?
A I don't know other than what it says. This may
have just been we should check the involvement of these
foUcs.
MS. NAUGHTON: Mark this Exhibit Number 15, please.
(The document referred to was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-15.)
THE WITNESS: I should just say if I had known
these were going to be preserved for posterity's sake,
I would have written more extensive explanations and not
have put down — I don't know if I would have put do*m all
371
bap- 2 3
IflKK^SE^
161
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
these sort of theories, but anyway —
Q I am mostly concerned with identifying and —
A I would like to know myself. Okay, Exhibit 15,
this is my handwriting. I think that the bottom half of
this where I have got numbers 1 through 4 are questions
that I wanted to ask North, and which were jotted down
during the North interview when other people were question-
ing him.
I have checked, I have got a check mark of
things which I believe represent that I asked that question.
Q So this document was generated, then, sometime
Saturday?
A Sunday afternoon.
Q Afternoon.
A These are contemporaneous notes taken during the
interview. You need to ask North this. And, it looks
to me like the top half was some existing document, s(^ne
existing notes. The bottom half I had flipped open as
writing down during the interview.
Q The reference ^°^^^^^^^^^^H ^o y°^
what that is a reference to?
A What comes to mind is I believe that there was
Q Provided to the Iranians?
372
TcPwwiHBt
162
A Well, either they or the Iraqis. Probably the
Iranians. Very fuzzy recollection of something like that.
But I think it was!
The entry above is intelligence exchange, so I think that
is probably what it refers to.
Q Then there is a reference to Ghorbanifar money.
A Then present other lost money.
Q Then there is a parenthetical, Casey. Apparently
Weinberger, Shultz, Vice President.
A There is another entry here that says Nicaragua
angle withan arrow, and it lists North, Poindexter,
McFarlane, Regan, Thompson, RR. And to the right of that
is Secord. I have checked off in front of the names North,
Poindexter, McFarlane and Secord.
I believe that indicates those are people that
we Knew about the Nicaraguan angle. Besides Regan, Thompson,
anA R.R., I have got a bracket with a question mark.
That means we don't know what these three know.
Then there is a third — second or third list
depending on how you are counting, says, "Casey, Weinberger,
Shultz, VP,"with a bracket on the side. We don't know what
they know either.
Q Was Paul Thompson ever asked if he knew of the
diversion?
h T ''on * ^ ♦•ViinV ^o ».,fl^.
373
iiNeumi^
163
1 Q Was there any discussion as to whether to ask him
2 or not to ask him?
3 A It was by time — I think that it had well
4 moved away from finding out everyone at that level who would
5 know. I don't think there was that discussion.
6 Q Then there was a reference to see McMahon,
7 Secord, Cave. Are those people that should be interviewed?
8 A That's how I would interpret it now, but I don't
9 know .
10 Q Were these notes taken again on your own or
11 at a meeting.
12 A These were my random notes of — I expect what
13 I did, probably have written down — this is my guess in
14 trying to reconstruct these — the top part of these were —
15 and I got a line drawn, top third, I think are things
16 I thought we might want to cover with North. I am
17 guMsing.
13 When we covered certain individuals, we checked
19 them off. I checked them off. The bottom third I know
20 was covered — I did during the North interview. The
21 middle third I am not sure about.
22 Q Okay. We could mark these two next in order, 16
23 and 17.
24 (The documents referred to were marked for
tc I identification as Exhibits 16 and 17. ^
374
bap- 2 6
IIIKlA%N<tE|ET
164
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Exhibit 16 appears to be a document, not dated.
Three areas vulnerable, apparently.
A Yes.
Q Abbreviation. Could you tell us when that document
was generated?
A No, I can't.
Q Are these your notes?
A These are my notes, both 16 and 17. Sixteen,
three areas of vulnerability, and I have only listed
one, which are the TOWs, 508 TOWs and the Hawks. And
the problem listed no reporting, AEC a violation, or if
acquiesced, Hughes, Ryan, no finding. This is probably
Sunday evening. Could be earlier, but I think it is
probably then, sometime over the course of the weekend.
Q Okay.
MR. MCGOUGH: To which transaction, if any, does
that relate?
THE WITNESS: The number one? The TOWs and —
MR. MCGOUGH: TOW 508.
THE WITNESS: September/November 1985, those two
transactions.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Okay, and the next exhibit, 17, which simply
says, "Tell R.R. , re Nicaraguan angle," right?
UNCLASSIFIED
375
ap-27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
1W8t*K!fffiF
165
A Yes. That is — would have this after the North
interview. This would have been — it is an obvious thing
to tell the President about it.
Q Well, do you recall first why you wrote that?
Firstly, did you write that?
A Yes, this is ray writing. As I recall, I had
a legal pad and I flipped over and wrote down Exhibit 16,
three areas of vulnerability and started on one. I don't
know why I didn't finish with the other two, and flipped
the page again, and tell R.R. re Nicaraguan angle.
When this was found, I think when I produced
this stuff, they were the first ten pages of a legal
tablet, and so Z assume pages were, as can be obvious
in reviewing them now, were scrap paper rambling thoughts,
that sort of thing. This is not a redacted document.
There is nothing else on the Exhibit 17.
The original of all of these, by the way, are in
tt0 hands of the independent counsel.
Q Do you have any of your original documents in
the hands of the Wedtech either independent counsel or
held at the White House for the Wedtech independent counsel?
A Are any of them being held?
Q Yes.
A Not of my documents. Only Meese's spiral
notebooks.
UNCLASSIFIED
376
WkfSSffB^
166
Q So all of yours are with the Iran Contra
independent counsel?
A Yes, except with the one category of the staff
meetings notebooks, I don't -- I am not sure where they are.
I think we have got them in our control room, but I am
not sure.
Q Now, were these exhibits, 16 and 17, taken at
meetings or again are they just your own thoughts?
A I don't recall. These may well have — if
I were guessing, I would say they were probably taken
during team meetings where we sat down and sort of were
reviewing the bidding where we stood thus far.
Q And ~
A They are probably my thoughts.
MS. NAUGHTON: If I could have these marked --
these exhibits marked Exhibits 18, 19 and 20.
(The documents referred to were marked for
identification as Exhibits JR-18, 19 and 20, respectively.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Okay, I direct your attention to Exhibit 18,
which is at the top marked "508 TOWs." Is that your
handwriting?
A Yes.
UNMSSIFIEO
Q Do you recall when you generated that document:
A No.
377
jap-29
WEUSSBift;'
Co 20
■S"*^ 21
Si^ 22
^^ 23
24
167
Q Was it sometime during the weekend?
A It might have been. I would tend to think, well
it was certainly after the North interview because of the
Nicaraguan angle mentioned, and it may have been — this
may be why Exhibit 16 only has one area because here it
breaks out number 2 is 508 TOWs and, legal problems
with those number two is Hawk shipment, and, three, legal
problems with those.
Three is Nicaraguan angle. So that makes me
thing it might have been Monday. Could even have been
Tuesday. I would guess it was probably Monday.
Q Then four is criminal prosecutions.
A Yes.
Q And five says, "Secord."
A Yes.
Q Do you remember why you are listing those, what
do you have in mind when you put these things together?
A Well, I don't know. I didn't know Secord until
the North interview. That helps date it as well. It is
clearly sometime after that.
Criminal prosecutions was not on the table until
late Monday or Tuesday, as if that refers to the criminal
li2Q5ility of the individuals involved in this. May be that,
I don't know. I think it would not refer to armed shipment
Ko^aiiee T ♦■ViinV T ur^>^^H K;«^ro wrS*-*-on ^ho«a t-Viat- w;*V. T
378
bap- 30
yifciBSBffiET
168
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think it tends to refer to criminal liability of the
individuals involved in this.
Q And Exhibit 19, which is entitled,
A That is my handwriting.
Q Now is this pursuant to a meeting or is it
pursuant to just —
A I think this looks like just a scrap note of mine
because one of the entries shows the lunch time on Saturday.
Q What the reference ^°^^^^^^^|^H ^°'
you recall?
A No.
Q And Exhibit Number 20?
A Twenty is also my handwriting. Miscellaneous
notes.
Q If I could look through them.
A Sure.
Q There is a reference to a date on the bottom,
21 November. Do you recall when all of these notes were
taken on the 21st of November.
A No, I don't recall that.
Q Okay. Let's start at the beginning, then.
A What makes me wonder, on the bottom left corner
it shows the Friday interview of McFarlane. That was the
21st, though. Right?
UNCLASSIFIED
379
•VQv-wBi^
169
A Maybe it was, I don't recall, though. I'm sorry.
Q The top says Sporkin.
A Right.
Q Upper right-hand corner an A.G. notes telephone
logs. Is that him instructing you to keep notes and
logs of weekend activities?
A I don't know. It might be, but I don't know.
Q Is there anything else that it could be a
reference to?
A Unless it is an instruction for me to check
notes or telephone logs, but I think that I would have listed
that differently. 1 think that is probably what it refers
to.
Q And then it says, "Monday."
A JRB.
Q That is Mr. Bolton?
A Yes .
It says A.G. —
Re law.
What does that mean?
on hill.
IINOLASSIRED
A I don't know what that means.
Q Then A.G. call Poindexter, Casey, Regan, Sporkin.
What is that a discussion of?
A Well, it is in the margin from that it says,
Sunday talk shows." I think this was to make sure that no
380
wmm
170
one from the Administration went on the Sunday talk shows
to talk about the Iranian initiative.
Q Do you know if those calls were made to —
A I think Meese called — well, I think he called
Regan.
Q For him to call these people not to appear on
the talk shows?
A Yes. I don't think he called all of them. I
think it was just Regan. In fact, the Regan entry may
refer to the Sunday talk shows, and the other two just
to making — that he wanted to make those calls, but I
don't know. This would, the next entry says, "Office
coverage for the OAG," which is our office on Saturday.
One with the AOG, one if the front office that refers to
our secretaries.
Q Moving down here, if you could dicipher these
tbsse notes for me.
Okay, right here.
UNCLASSIFIED
A This is a circle in the bottom. It says,
"Bolton debriefing on Senate Intelligence hearings present.
Bolton was present, and he gave a debriefing on the
hearings during the meeting at 2:25 on that day.
It also says with Casey, present, CIA something.
Don't know what that says. It says, "Armacost, Armitage."
wmstKer
171
1 Then, it says, "dash. House present, will get
2 Hyde debriefed."
3 As I recall, he was not permitted to attend
4 the House Intelligence Committee meeting, and said he was
5 going to try to get debriefed by Congressman Hyde.
6 Q Do you know if that occurred? Did he later
7 report?
8 A I don't recall whether that happened or not.
9 Q If we could mark that exhibit 21, please.
10 (The document referred to was marked for
11 identification as Exhibit JR-21.)
12 (Recess.)
13 BY MS. NAUGHTON:
14 Q Turning to Exhibit 21, are these your notes?
15 A Yes.
16 Q Were they made on the 25th of November?
17 A Yes.
18 Q If I could look at it for a moment.
19 A Sure .
20 These were taken by me when I was going through
21 documents and in Thompson's office.
22 Q Okay, my question is the third entry says, "Ollie
23 memo in mid file. Ollie brought over last night."
24 Do you recall what that is?
25 A No.
over i.asi;^ nignt.
UNCLASSIFIED
382
p-34
KWHSSflflF
172
Q Are you telling —
A I think the phrase, "Ollie brought over last
nigh," means that was a notation on the memo. Like Ollie
brought this over last night.
Q Do you know which memo that refers to?
A No.
Q Then the next reference is to JP memo to RR,
the 17th finding. Then, on the second.
A One of the things I found interesting that go
get Weir out revolutionary guard had to storm the building
and demand release of one hostage. It showed that they
aren't clearly in the pocket, but it is things like that
I thought were —
Q Now on the second page, there is --
A I corrected myself. It wasn't Khomeini dies,
it is Khomeini steps down on the 11 February. That was in
the plan.
Q On the second page it says Casey told 14 December
note. Do you recall what that is?
A Vaguely I do because there is a note in
there. It said something like Casey was told on 14th of
September — didn't say what he was told, didn't say. It
said — I can't remember precisely, but it said something
about Casey being informed about something on the 14th
of September.
383
UlffiBIWifflE
:t
173
Q Was this a handwritten note?
A I think, yes, it was.
Q Do you recognize whether it was Colonel North's
handwriting?
A No.
Q Did you ask anybody about that reference?
A No.
Q Did you get a copy of that note?
A No.
Q Did you get a copy of any of the documents that
you were shown by Mr. Thompson?
A No.
Q Have this marked Exhibit Number 22.
(The document referred to was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-22.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q And Exhibit 22 is, again, 25 November, 6:40 p.m.,
press update guidance. I want to ask you on the second
page ~
A This is my handwriting, by the way.
Q Thank you.
On the second page it says Weld, Secord, recently
criminal target.
A Yes.
Q Do you know was that the first time this was
ICUSSIREO
384
bap-36
HNSUSSii&T
174
brought to your attention.
A Yes.
Q Secord had been a criminal target before.
A Yes. I think he referred to, as I remember,
an investigation in late 1979.
Q Okay, did he say what about?
A Well, it remains in my mind something to do with
Wilson, but I don't remember if he mentioned it at this
point or if I heard that later.
Q Okay. If we could mark this Exhibit 23.
(The document referred to was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-23.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q The front page of Exhibit 23 says please note
that the attached document was typed prior to March 15,
1986.
A Yes, sir.
Q And the second page is a memo to the Attorney
General from MAM. Who is that?
A That is Marlee, M-A-R-L-E-E, Melvin. She was
confidential assistant personal secretary to the Attorney
General and this ceime out of her files. She is now a
special assistant. This came out of her files that she
maintained when she was confidential assistant, and so
page 1 indicating that it was typed prior to March 15, that
385
oveu^fls^T
175
is the date she changed jobs. So we deduce it was typed
while she was back in the --
Q Excuse me. When did she change jobs?
A It was in March of 1986. Probably early March,
but we —
Q And if you could please just read that short memo
she typed.
A Says EM, it is on Office of Attorney General
stationery. "EM, Oliver North's office said you agree
with Admiral Poindexter to see North today? Do you want
to meet with him after judicial selection at White House
and delay your departure for home? Or what? Meeting
should last 15 to 20 minutes. Contact Fawn at 395-3345, MAM,
12:30 p.m." Then there is a handwritten notation which
is Meese's handwriting says, "4:55, A with a circle,
Roosevelt Room, 4:50."
I would interpret that to mean Meese met him
aihead of judicial selection 5 o'clock in the Roosevelt room.
Q Do you recall when this judicial selection was?
A No, they are normally on Thursdays.
Q Did you ask Ms. Melvin about this note?
A I did. She didn't have any — it was not with
anything that would assist in determining what it meant
or what it was or when it happened.
Q All right, if we could mark this as Exhibit
386
bap-38
1
2
3
|)N8ttSaBBkT
176
Number 24.
(The document referred to was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-24.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Exhibit 24 is a document on the front of which
says, "This document cannot be dated nor can subject
matter to which it was related be recalled." Did you
draft this cover?
A I don't think so. I think that was done by ,
lawyers in the Office of Legal Counsel. But it might have
been done by one of the lawyers on our staff.
Q Do you know whether it refers to the statement
"nor can the subject matter to which it was related be
recalled," does that — who doesn't recall it? In other
words, who was queried? Do you know who was queried as
to whether they could recall it?
A I don't know. I might have asked the A.G. if
this meant anything to him, but —
Q The second page, for the record, is on American
University stationery.
A Right, apparently Office of the President.
Q Right. And the notes regard Adnan Khashoggi,
Robert Shaheen, S-H-A-H-E-E-N, and McFarlane has not seen
the memo of 20 March.
When you asked the Attorney General about this
387
bap
«N£M$KlflilT
177
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
did he recall this document?
A I don't know that I did. I probably did, but
because I tried to go through the unidentified notes
with him. I don't think he recalled it.
Q Do you know whose handwriting that is?
A No.
Q Was this found in this file?
A I know it was found in our office, I think. I
don't think it was in any particular file.
Q Do you know on what occasion that was at the
American University.
A No.
Q Other than what is an apparent from the page,
do you know anything about that?
A No, no idea.
Q Okay. If we could mark that, please. Exhibit 25.
(The dociment referred to was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-25.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q The cover of Exhibit 25 says, "This document, cannot
be dated nor can subject matter to which it is related be
recalled."
The second page of the document is on White House
stationery.
A Right.
UNCLASSIFIED
\p-40
mmm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
J, 18
1 19
CO
17E
Q Could you read the note?
A Yes, it looks like the Attorney General's
writing, and it says maybe we should contract the job out
to the Israelis.
Q And do you know when that document was generated?
A No, I don't. We had one other — the drawing of
the scales -- it is in the Roosevelt Room. The pads on
the tables are plain, so this would not be in the
Roosevelt Room meeting. I don't know what they do in the
Sit Room where they have the NSC meetings. It may be they
use these pads down there, and this was written and showed
to someone during a meeting.
Q Did you ask the Attorney General about that?
A I believe I did, and I don't think he recalled
anything about it.
Q And the next — finally, believe it or not.
Exhibit Number 26.
(The docioment referred to was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-26.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Okay, 26. Is that all in your handwriting?
A Yes.
Q Now, the top reference is Casey, Poindexter and
brackets, and says, "misstatements to Congress/."
A It means Senators. S-E-N-S.
389
vmmm
179
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Do you know when that document was generated?
A No. Although it is at the bottom, it is dated
24th of November with a lunch time. Then 1:30 to the
White House VP at 1:40.
My best estimate would be it had been done that
Monday the 24th. I don't know. I don't recall that.
Q The reference to Poindexter and Casey misstatements
to Congress, do you recall was this note taken during
a meeting?
A I don't recall.
Q Do you know when you wrote it down, what you
were thinking?
A No. I gather, trying to think back on Monday,
information learned over the weekend have been different
from information provided Friday, and that probably is
what it refers to, but I don't recall.
Q Was there a discussion at any time during the
weekend? Let's start with Thursday and work through
Tuesday; that there was a possible violation of law in
that Casey or Poindexter may have made misstatements to
Congress.
A No. There was no discussion about possible
violations of the law from that being done.
Q Was it discussed regardless of whether there was
violation of law that they had made misstatements.
390
yNftftssfl<tpT
18(8
oo
CJ^^
1 A I don't recall any discussion about there
2 having been misstatements to Congress, no.
3 Q You can't recall what made you write that note?
4 A No.
5 Q Did you read the transcript of the Attorney
6 General's deposition?
7 A No. I read the first paragraph of the deposition
8 with you, I guess. That is the only one I know of.
9 Q Yes. Do you know anybody who read it other
10 than the Attorney General?
11 A No. Steve Matthews may have read it, but I
12 don't know for a fact. I provided it to him. He is
13 keeping custody of some of those things.
14 Q Okay, those are all my questions. Thank you
15 for your patience.
16 EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE
17 BY MR. MCGOUGH:
13 Q Do you ever recall seeing Colonel North in the
19 Attorney General's office or visiting the Attorney General
20 at his office.
21 A No, but the one meeting that apparently occurred
22 which was January 6, 1986, was before I was Chief of Staff,
23 so I would not — I would not know — be in a position to
24 know that and to keep track of that. After March -- really
25 effective February of 1986, but in officially first part
391
ap-4 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
6
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
S 18
LJt— 19
O^ 20
«CC 21
CLO 22
»-^««5 23
24
25
^mmF
of March of 1986 I was Chief of Staff, and I would have
known.
Q There were references very early on in the
depostion t
and one that you believe
you saw. Was it only one that you can recall seeing
or might there be more than one?
A There might have been more than one, but I only
recall one.
Q Can you put any kind of time frame on it? I
believe they were talking about the fall of 1985 as being
possible — do you recollect it being in the fall of 1985?
A No.
Q Could it have been in 1986?
A It could have been 1986.
I took on new duties in March of 1986, as I
said, but I kept the^^fon portfolio for several months
until it just became — I just decided to put another
lawyer on it, and get them trained up. I think it was
certainly months before that occurred, and even still it
was possible, as I recall. I tend to recall this as a
rush sort of rush job, and on various sensitive or very
urgent things.
They would come, might come to my office, I
would handle it personally.
Q Do you ever recall being contacted by anyone
392
oap-44
HNIikSSIflilT
182
CO
1 outside the Department of Justice with a request that
a^^^^^^^^^^^^^B be
3 A Yes, well I was not, but I recall one incident
^ where such a call was made and Bill Casey called the
5 Attorney General about having expedited
6 and I spent Friday night until 1:00 in the morning with
7 Webster's guy, and then met Meese at the White House
8 Saturday morning early. He was at a breakfast or something
9 and got that down.
10 Q Do you recall did that relate at all to either
11 Iran or Nicaragua?
12 A I just don't recall. I don't remember what
13 the subject was. I could try to go and pick it out, but
14 I don't recall the subject.
15 Q Do you recall any time frame on it..
16 A Well, I know I still lived in McLean, but that
17 doesn't help us much. That means it was before January of
18 this year. So, no, I don't really.
19 Q Do you remember where the Attorney General was
20 the next morning.
21 A He was at the White House Hostage — a coffee and
22 doughnuts for a group that —
23 Q Was this an irregular enough occurrence to help
24 you fix it?
9K A Yes. sir. If it aooeared on a schedule, it mav
393
JlNfil &S£l£lt[U
IxDPLBfiiOREH'
183
well appear on a schedule, but it was probably some group
like Junior Statesmen or he does a lot with them. There
are several youth groups, kids coming in, interns and
that sort of thing. It may have been one of those.
I tend to think it was the Westpoint cadets maybe
in 1986, be my guess. I might be able to track that down.
Q If you could track that down.
A I will make a note.
Q Other than that incident where Mr. Casey called
to expedite ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^P can you any
other learning or any other cases where someone attempted
to expedite^^^^^l
A Well, by calling Meese or me, no. There were
a number of instances where client agencies were upset or
the FBI was concerned with the time lag and^^^^is a good
example, RPA.
Q Let's narrow it down. Do you recall learning
of any calls from NSC regarding I
A I don't think — I don't recall any. I don't
recall it out entirely, but I don't recall any. I did
not receive it, I are sure.
0 At one point in talking about the fact findings
weekend, you referred to the Iranian initiative or the
subject of your investigation as I have it written down in
ouo«-ps. the tooic of soecial interests f^lmost a<? if that
394
bap-46
IISeOBSFSFi'
184
were a code or designation that was used as a term of art.
Does that term have any significance?
A No.
Q It was just the way you said it.
A Iran initiative was the term of art.
Q You mentioned that the only person you believe
you mentioned or you spoke to at the Iranian initiative--
I'm sorry, of the diversion, during the course of the
fact finding weekend or up in the press conference was
Ken Cribb. Was the Attorney General aware that you had
told Ken Cribb about it?
A Yes, Cribb joined us as ny recollection. He
joined us at this 7:30 meeting on that Monday the 24th.
Q Was aware of you told Ken Cribb, that you were
going to tell Cribb.
A I don't think so.
Q Did that create any problems from the Attorney
General's standpoint?
A No, I may have told — I may have told Meese I
will brief Ken tomorrow morning. But I don't know. Ken
and Meese were very close. Ken was my superior, and there
was — that was not a surprise to Meese. He may have known
it in advance, but it would not have. It was anticipated
that Cribb would join the deliberations and the activities
the next day.
iJNClASSIfe
395
JJIJPl/iOcurirn
185
Q Did the Attorney General ever chastize either you
or anybody in the group of four for what he perceived to
be dissemination of the information about the diversion?
A No. Not that I ever heard.
Q Did it ever come to your attention that there
was-- did it ever come to your attention there was a
possibility that a member of the press had the story of the
diversion on the night of Monday, November 24th?
A No.
Q To your knowledge, did any member of the press
have information about the diversion?
A No.
Q That evening?
A No.
Q To your knowledge, when William French Smith
was Attorney General, was there a formal listed procedure
for findings being submitted to the Department of Justice?
A Well, I can answer based on the conversation
I had about a week ago with Mary Lawton, as I understand it
the rule with Smith was that they would come to the
Justice for clearance, but there was a continual back and
forth to be sure that they did.
Q To your knowledge, did Attorney General Meese
attempt to reassert that rule when he became Attorney
General?
!iNn!A.^.<vinFn
396
lap -jS
19
^ ^ 22
-^"'^^ 23
24
uNsusaenT
186
A To my knowledge, he did not. In fact, when I
handled findings, which I think I mentioned, I handled
two of them as Chief of Staff, it was not something he
expected, and just recently a couple of weeks ago whenever
I talked to Mary, he said, "You find what the findings
process and what the department's role is because--" So I am
pretty sure he did not assert any formal role in that,
although he sits on the National Security Council, and
there has been a continual desire on his part to increase
the formal participation of the department in national
security matters, so that their legal ramifications are
considered more routinely.
That is normally resisted by NSC. I don't know
that that — generically the answer is, yes, but I don't
think it ever rooted itself out in terms of saying I want
the finding to come here first.
Q At one point you referred to the Presidential,
President's alleged prerogative in the field of foreign
affairs as being, I think you put it, arrangement of last
resort in the context of the Iranian initiative and
finding, or lack thereof. Was it discussed in those terms
by the Attorney General and your group?
A No, it was put in, I should clarify, because it
was put in terms of what authority, what legal authority
<~;(n ho rolipd uDon for the President to undertake this
397
MkSSiiEflE'
187
activity, and there is explicit authority given certain
processes in certain other statutes.
Q The Arms Export Control Act and National
Security Act being two of them?
A Yes, sir, covert action, for example, Hughes-
Ryan you have to have a finding, but there is a school of
thought depending on which activities you are talking
about, that certain statutes, notwithstanding the President
has inherent constitutional authority to undertake
certain activities on behalf of the United States in the
conduct of foreign policy or other areas, and that if a
statute had been violated, just one thing that is discussed -
well, there is the President's inherent authority obviously,
if you have that up against a statute, it is difficult, more
difficult arrangements to make.
For example, there is a school of thought which
I happen to adhere to that the War Powers Act is an infringe-
ment of Presidential authority and the notations and that
sort of thing, so that is what I am referring to. There
are things that the executive branch out of comity had
tried to activate its practices to because they think
they are good ideas or that sort of thing and because it
is the law, but if push came to shove, there may be certain
circumstances where in spite of a statute, the President's
constitutional authority might be a basis for action.
398
^ap-50
tWttASgfPlffiT
188
Q Was that theory discussed in connection with
specifically Iranian initiative?
A It might have been mentioned, but the principal
area of focus was where these laws complied with and, if
not, we have got a violation of the law.
Q To the best of your recollection, did anyone
say it wouldn't be a violation because the President has
inherent authority to sell arms outside?
A No, I was thinking this more in terms of if
this had been an authorized diversion of — funds had been
authorized by the President, what would the legal posture
be, and this being one possibility, but it didn't
receive great attention because it wasn't-- we found out
immediately it wasn't authorized, and I think it might
have been in the conversation with Cooper as opposed to
Meese.
Q I have to ask this question. Was Oliver North
shredding documents while you were present in the NSC?
A No, he was not.
Q Can you state —
A I am glad you asked.
yilASSlFlf
Q Somebody had to ask.
A He was not. He was in the room with us almost
the whole time, excuse me.
Q Can you state with some certainty that North was
399
ap-51
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
fc»l.i
17
b±z
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
imsiMi'
or did not shred any docuraents anywhere in your vicinity
during the time that you were there?
A Yes, I aun certain. I am certain he did not.
Q Do you know where the shredder was located?
A Yes.
Q How far away from you?
A May I even draw you a map?
Q Yes.
A It won't be to scale.
Q Why don't we put an exhibit sticker on it and
mark this as the next exhibit.
(The document referred to was marked for
identification as Exhibit JR-27.)
THE WITNESS: Okay.
BY MR. MCGOUGH:
Q Just describe what we have got with Exhibit 27.
A There was a small suite of offices. Brad and I
were sitting at the conference table in Ollie North's
office. Ollie North was behind his desk. Outside his
office was another small office, two secretarial desks, a
few cabinets. Then there was a small room off to the
corner, with more file cabinets and the shredder, coffee
machine up on top of the table cabinets. Then in the main
office where the second door to the hall and Xerox machine,
and then over in this corner where I have aot wash marks
400
^ap-52
oo
17
CO
18
*
19
^ ^
^^
20
*^^
21
22
23
24
25
POUSStfiffir
190
is a stairway up to the second floor.
We are probably not more than a dozen feet or
20 feet from the shredder. Ollie did not leave the office
more than a couple of times that I recall, a couple of
three times. I went with hira to the coffee machine.
He wanted to —
Q Did you go with him purposely to keep an eye
on him or just was it a coincidence that you went with him.
A The principal reason for my end of things was
I didn't want him to serve me coffee. I just soon as do
it myself. So I walk over there with him.
Q You didn't feel a need to keep an eye on him
when he walked out of the office.
A No, no, not particularly. But, anyway, we went
back in there. I saw the shredder. I saw the shredder
again when we were looking at some of the files. The
bag was half or three-quarters full, but Brad, Ollie was
in the office with us most of the time.
Brad, from where he was sitting, could see the
entrance to a little room with the shredder. It is a very
small room. He would have known if Ollie had taken anything
in there. Both of us would have heard the shredder if it
had been turned on because we have a shredder, and I shred
my documents — I shred some of my things myself. But
I am very familiar with what the shredder sounds like.
401
<p-53
m^er
191
He has the same kind of shredder we have in our
office.
Q Could you tell whether this shredder was
operatable at that time?
A I couldn't tell. There was shredded paper in
the bag. It is a see-through bag underneath. I don't
know whether it was working or not. That shredder did
not go on while we were in the office. I am practically
certain of that. The only conceivable thing is if he
had slipped out with one sheet of paper and it had a two-
second blast, I think we would have heard that as well.
I don't think he had any intention of shredding
documents while we were there, to tell you the truth.
Q Have you discussed your recollection with
Mr. Reynolds:
And?
UNCUSSIFIEO
A He is even more firm in his view than I am. He
says he was sitting in a position where he could see Ollie
enter the room. There is no way he took a document in there
to shred it. I think he was confused. He was doing it on
another occasion.
Q Exhibit 8 — I can show you my copy -- this is
going to be a quick question. One of the notes that you
passed to Brad Reynolds* you underlined the word "should,"
402
bap- 5 4
HNSUSSmr
192
in the sentence, "If anything should turn up to be missing...'
Was there any reason for emphasizing the "should?"
A I think the way I would look at that now, I didn't
think anything was, so I emphasized if anything should be
missing, this would be better. I had no basis to think
anything was missing. I guess that is why I underlined
it to let him know just on the outside chance that we had
had a problem or misplaced something.
Q Am I correct in my time sequence that Colonel
North arrived for the first time as you were leaving
for lunch?
A Yes.
Q Did you keep a log or a list of the documents
that you wanted to have copied? I noticed partially
Exhibit 8 appears to be a partial log.
A It was not for that purpose. I did not keep a
log for the purpose of copying. I had intended after we
got back to the department to put together a log of
documents actually copied, but I didn't get to that in
the series of other events.
Q In the course of the fact-finding weekend, up to
the time of the Attorney General's press conference, do you
recall any discussion of the possibility that documents
would be destroyed or altered:
mumB
403
mmm
193
Q When you were briefed by Mr. Reynolds on Mr.
Green's conversation with him, did Mr. Reynolds tell you
that Mr. Green did not want or suggested that no disclosures
be made of the initiative because of potential danger to
people involved?
A Well, I recall Brad mentioning that he did not
think that the initiative should be disclosed.
Q Now, he, being. Green?
A He, being Green, because there were things we
didn't know or something like that, but I don't recall
it being linked to individual safety, but you know.
Brad took notes of that discussion and was present, so
ray recollection is not very much firmer on that.
Q Did Mr. Reynolds indicate to you that he had
indicated to Mr. Green in any way that the initiative or
the diversion would not be disclosed until they got back
to Mr. Green?
A I don't recall that it may not. I don't recall
at all.
Q You said you were briefed, I believe, in the
conversation at the same time as the Attorney General?
A I think that's right, yes.
Q At the point when — can you put a time frame on
that when you were briefed on that conversation?
A It was either at lunch or at that meeting at the
404
bap-56
az::^
oo
^^*D
19
^-^
^^j
20
^^3
^g^
21
=3
22
23
24
25
PMssjfleiT
194
end of the day, the 8 o'clock meeting on Monday, because
Meese was out of the office late morning until lunch time,
and then he was gone again from 1:40 until 4:30 or 5:00.
I recall that. Whenever that meeting occurred, the
next session we were together I think he debriefed.
Q At the time Mr. Reynolds made or briefed the
Attorney General on the meeting with Green, did the
Attorney General indicate any inclination either to
release it-publicly, the information publicly, or not to
release it publicly?
In other words, you had Mr. Green saying, "Please
don't release this information." What was the Attorney
General's reaction to that?
A I don't recall any specific reaction.
Q To your understanding, had a designation been
/
reached at that point to release the next day?
A I don't think — I mean one had not been
communicated to roe. I expected that there would be an
announcement imminently.
Q When did you first realize that the matter was
going to be announced at the time it was?
A Tuesday morning.
Q Did anyone consult or were you present at any
discussions or involved in any discussions of whether to
release it on Tuesday morning or Tuesday afternoon or to
405
iHNtassiHff
195
hold it for a few days?
A At the 8 o'clock meeting with Regan and Meese,
etcetera, they were talking in terms of making it public
that morning.
Q Were you present during that meeting?
A Yes.
Q And can you recall what the course of the
conversation was about the pros and cons of releasing
it that day as opposed to —
A It wasn't that type of discussion. The
discussion that Regan said, as we have talked, "We will
go down and see the President. We will have Poindexter
resign. We will present the President with the following
plan for sequence for events."
"The Congress, at this time, we will have a news
conference where the President will make a statement.
You will then brief the press. We will have a special panel
appointed to look into this," and they through out a
couple of names. It was that kind of thing, and this is
what they were going to go in and talk to the President
about as a plan of action.
I gather that the decision was actually made with
the President at 9 o'clock.
Q Moving to a little later that morning, when you
were assigned or asked to make a determination as to
406
bap-58
WKbTOIIW
196
when a meitio had gone to the President, when there had been
a Presidential approval, how much time did you consume
doing that?
A I wasn't asked to make that determination, but
it was to check the files and make sure that people's
memory that nothing had gone forward to the President
was not contradicted by a document.
For example, you might have seen -- I mean there
are documents in there where Poindexter writes, "brief to
the President orally," and dates it and signs it, and
Meese wanted to make sure that there was neither a formal
signature document or a document like that in the main
files. So it was more of a double-check to be sure we
don't have one of these in there.
Q And how long did you have to do that?
A Probably an hour would be my guess. I got the
clear impression, though, that they were not going public
until he heard back that there was no such document.
Q But you also got the impression, did you not,
that there was some urgency?
A Oh, no question, no question. In fact, I think
I knew the general time sequence by then.
Q The answer to this question is obvious, but did
you make any attempt to contact Colonel North and ask him
if he had followed up on his offer on Sunday to check the
407
enMW
197
1 files.
2 A None.
3 Q Why not?
4 A This was clearly beyond Colonel North at this
5 point. I was asked to check. North knew of no such
6 document when he was asked. We saw none in his files, and
7 I was asked to search the principal filing system.
8 Out of common sense, I wasn't going to call
9 North at this point and ask him if that had been done.
10 Q But he had stated —
11 A Yes, he did say he would check. I don't know
12 if he checked or not.
13 Q The point is no one ever got back to him.
14 A No one ever got back to him and I did the
15 checking Tuesday morning.
1g Q Did you ever tell anyone at the White House,
17 including Colonel Thompson, that Colonel North had said
13 he was going to go back in the files and look for exactly
19 that type of document.
20 A No, I don't think I did.
21 Q We can agree that the type of document that
22 Colonel North said he was going to look for on Sunday
23 afternoon was exactly the type of document you were ^oojc^in^
24 for on Tuesday morning.
25 A Yes. His actually probably was a more narrow
imeni: you were looKing
UNCLASSIFIEB
408
iKKifti^Wir
1 category of Presidential approval. I was looking for not
2 only that, but if it could have even been in a briefing
3 paper that had been given to or orally presented to the
4 President as a information matter.
5 Q I am a little unclear on Exhibit 5. This is
6 the one where somebody is covering their tracks. I was
7 a little unclear as to who they were, who was covering
8 their tracks. This is Exhibit 14.
g Who was covering who's tracks in item Numbers
10 4 and 5?
11 A. Well, I am not clear myself. In four I would
12 guess either McFarlane, North or Shultz. I would probably
13 think the same, McFarlane, North in Number 5.
14 In other words, whoever had been responsible for
15 the initiative, a failed initiative, or for an initiative
16 as in Item 4 that had exceeded their authority, so that is
17 probably the universe of people that I would be contemplating
18 McFarlane, Poindexter, Shultz, North.
19 Q Just one quick look, and I think I am done.
20 BY MS. NAUGHTON:
21 Q Can I ask one question?
22 While Regan and Meese were discussing on Tuesday
23 morning what has turned out to be the Tower panel —
24 A Right.
25 Q — who were the first neunes that were suggested?
UNWSSIflED
409
bap-61
WKMIEifiT
199
A Oy, boy, let me think.
Q Was Ron Brzezinski?
A I think so. I want to say Ann Armstrong, as well,
but I don't know. I know she is on PFIAB Pifabs.
Q At the time, were either Mr. Tower, Senator
Muskie or Mr. Scowcroft suggested?
A I just don't recall. The conversation was
something like, "and will announce the formation of a
special board with people like Brzezinski or Tower or
Armstrong." I don't really recall. The names were not
particularly central at that point. I don't really
know who picked them. I guess the President.
MR. MCGOUGH: That is all I have.
EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE
BY MR. BUCK:
Q I need to rehash the events of November 22 real
quick. When did you arrive at the NSC, particularly at
North's office?
A I think that was late morning. Let me see if I
have i t .
Q Refer to Exhibit 2.
UNCLASSIFIEC
A You know what is going to be helpful is the list
of — well, yes, when I arrived is different than when I
actually started the document review, because Exhibit 8,
it says 12:05 document starts, so that is when I actually
410
bap-62
HKtftSSitllT
200
sat down and started taking these notes. Also at the top
of Exhibit 8, it says, "arrived approximately 11:30,
Paul WBR to JR to North's office met Bob Earl."
Let me see if this exhibit sheds more light on
it. No, there is no mention of it in Exhibit 2. That
is my best guess there. It was late morning.
Q Let me get this straight. You arrived in
North's office around 11 o'clock?
A No, I think we arrived at the White House around
11:30, met Poindexter, headed over, talked about the
documents that we wanted. Earl brought them out and we
actually settled down to me taking notes at 12:05.
MS. NAUGHTON: You just said you met Poindexter.
THE WITNESS: I'm sorry, I meant Thompson, thank
you.
BY MR. BUCK:
Q When did you meet North?
A It was as we were leaving for lunch. We had
left the office and it was probably — and he was probably
10 feet away from the door on the way out.
Q I have got you at a lunch at 1:45, so you left
for lunch maybe about 1:30?
A Yes, I would say, a little later.
Q About an hour and a half of document review
before you went.
UNCLASSinEO
411
Um^llFT
201
A Yes.
Q Were you aware that the shredder, which you have
described in North's office there was not functional?
A No. I don't know whether it was or not.
Q At what point in time did you notice the shredding
machine? Did you notice it in the morning or the
afternoon?
A I don't know. I am sure I saw it after lunch
when North and I went into the — in to make coffee, but
I probably noticed it upon arrival, when Earl was pointing
out the different files and the drawers were ajar.
The shredder was right next to him, so I
probably noticed it then.
Q Were you aware of a second shredding machine
just outside of North's office?
A No.
Q And North was there when you returned from lunch?
A Yes. Earl might have opened it. North might
have been at his desk, but he was definitely in the office.
Q I take it North could have shredded documents while
you were out on lunch.
A Yes.
ONCLASSIFIED
Q Do you know how long a period that was?
A It would have been about an hour and a half,
roughly.
412
bap-64
[I^^BHkT
202
Q Do you recall seeing North at any time leave
the office that you were in with him, with documents?
A No.
Q And you said he left maybe a few times?
A A couple of times I would think. I know once
to do the coffee. I don't think he ever left with
documents in hand. He was working at his desk, but
there was very little papfer on the desk. He was reading
a newspaper, on the phone. I mean he didn't seem to be
going — he was not going through files or great volumes
of paper.
Q Did Thompson stop by and accompany North anywhere;
A Not that I saw.
Q Did you see anything that would suggest that
North was shredding at any time that you were in his
office?
A No, nothing.
MR. BUCK: I have no more questions.
(Whereupon, at 7:50 p.m., the deposition was
concluded. )
UNCLASSIFIED
413
U UNCLASSIFIED
2( ^(^ ^<f <^
jioj^SJ^ I^TAfg^ _ Mro-.
d^*
(9 i!£^
^ "/^>Tt^ Ai)' ^ d^
-£im
1
I Declassiliea/Reieased on 1 1^' CQ c D
under provisions ot E n ''''to
IINCUSSIFIEO
414
(hi. =3/ a/<i^ %
'^'^-W'^
ACr,Ai3,U)8tZ,CJC, j/i
/i(ro
U»-lt"
Air, K^€^
UH
It': If'
It" LU
A(r, re, r/i (H:if4UAAu)
A(r, uJ^, crc.^ ^/l
Dar
]''-r'
A(r, u)iJo.UeA
y^^afL
l^'- V
ni- afO.
t"'2
A(f, P.is. 0*^ifkr^ ^Umas,)
3t.5'*
A(T, tJt, M^aMMt.
Atr^-
C-^
IINSASSIFED
415
wmm
S^ChJcyf go
A/ 9***^
A^ ajc
]2'*-l'^ iov,tL
A(c, £.fC^ UiB/t, riB
AG- JjM^^j,^
/»^--3V
U}t^
^1^0*^ a— > Dcclassitied/Released on 1 1 FgS 8&
^ V" under provisions of E 0 12356
f\A -j^ ^ by K. Johnson. National Security Council
UNCUSSIFIED
416
UNCLASSIFIEO
Sat Z'2. A/ov ^^
V'-IO'^ ACT, c^c AO-^
vf jiS
U^ci I -3" A(r, uJe/^, cjc^j/L
uf
o^e, ^^^ (UfoJt ijsc i^i
UNCLASSIFIED
417
^. UNCIASSIRED
P3 Noif^
(4-^ ACT QHjt-)
UNOUSSinEft
418
iiNcussra
^.^-rjf^OAK. Ace, UJB/^j crc^TKC, J/i
ii/vCUSSIFIED
419
XS- a/ov ^(.
11
Mm%m
/5 Ijt'iAA^ ^V^ •
* art* /Kt; (jOU^tt^^ /h9, cTc^ jiC ^'^
U ^ Afr, AiB, Ssr^ TKc, UJB^^ C^C, V/f
- ^tAd lAiMU, C^^*^ MUL.)
ONCUSSiriED
420
UNCIiSSIflED
v/f Afw ^6
UNCUSSiFitO
421
2 ) /i'C-J^
ciiMoV
r-12,'^
12-
•*»
•V-^
4-r ^'^
^'^
yf -^ -j^*!?
1 Oeclassified/Reteed onJI Ftse^.
under pronsions oi E 0 i ^ J5()
Johiisun. Njlur^alS:' ', ,-n-.nr.l
S"62^
UNCLASSIFIED
422
^ M%riv^^\t
IaI^a' ►\W4pr
UNCUSSlFlfC-
423
(:
UNuLAooiritu
2 I A/c^e^r
(D
I. M
/Ot e3///o/ f)^.
Partially Declassified/Released on HFggPfi
- under provisrans of E 0 12356
by K Johnson, Naftonal Secunly Council
T inriiiii'rfiiMitVr j ■i^ii^i r.i3
>."^,c^^'
4^-
424
UNCLASSIFIED
-ONEIA
425
. ONCLASSIflEO
2.
TkMM. - AW. doUUUicK A(r, (LTC, Ik
Ah; arc, uJBK, J^s, J"/?
uNcussm
mmmmmmmmmmmmm
426
UNcussm
— * (pAUM' ^^htUi,AttA 4U/UW
^^*^«;Lm)i}^i
427
--— — DNMSSIfe
^ (a/ /^oi u)
/7 A/«vt: (D
3 /4Ajovi6= ^ f/^.- hk^ 4^
^ hint Lidiu, tkA a;//f(r' ,
O
0
® W
~iiNnr]Ki
428
-a€ CalU fauUe^ki, ^ -ryuiU o^ /hr Sfc
'■*** Declassified/Released on / / f&B P fr
under provisions of £0 jiiii~-^ *^
"VK Johnson. Na^onalSectyctncI
i
UNCLASSIFIED
429
!!N(1I/IS!!IFIED
2 S^o^ (f ^
^
w _^^^
■^'
H^ Dectassified/Released nn ' ' '"^^^O
under p(ovi;ior.s of E 0 "2356
I K Johnson, National Security Council
430
Z 1.AJ6^ i
ZZ A/o\/ tU
w
$9 A(r,CK,MrSft,^
Uj MJB<e {o'ly^ Air^CZC (fidr tS^
\d^.
'^^
^o^V*
A^i cMa^jU h^, %jA2., arc
■^Declassified/Released en ' / f^^ P fe
unoerorc.,sionsoieo liii ^^
^v^Jo.,so„.Na„ona,Sec4clnc„
^^^
MMPI mwji
431
ONCIASSIFIEO
"'■;sr; «v5'.
432
UNCIASSIFIED
Jo. ^ejijUt^ f^4% CcMl ^'. out J
—♦ ^000 rows T^^fjL^ -h Irm^ L, (j ^ Ir^
2^2- thzh^ak
433
llfflUSSIFiEB
IJNCUSSIFIEB
434
INDIISSIFIED
wussm
435
1^^ cooU use Ui^U ^
UNCLASSIFIED
436
BHClASSm
j A(jC I ^mm(j4 uri^- M.r^ t^oMf^<^ '\tii^6i^ ^H^A
^IIc'SvLl^- [ail c^iUAj a4hJ: -^Lf^
437
;u#t
XL.kHr' L^Kio^n
" OK W^nr* v<jW oojX vc^
Partially Oeclassitied/Released onJl^SJi &
unaer provisions of E 0 12356
by K Jotinson. National Sftcunly Council
yNCUSSiFifP
UNCIASSJFIED
^"^ :.if4
^1 Oa- i(o ! STAI^F
MTlr
1
i
9
under provisions ot E 0 12356
by K Jotinson, National Secunty Council
i
/^
«u^W^^^^
ONClilSSIFIED
1-1% him flii- flh '
\/veiU'
/. . '■
: I
440
wsmm
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
II
Declassified/Released on tOrgPCO
ndet provisions ol E 0 12356
Johnson, National Security Council
i: MPOsmoN I
i EXHIBIT I
nder provisions 0
Johnson, Nation;
mmm
441
N ie^o/^<i<^uju OiMjoJbi- C'<syi^«^
i-iDNCUSSIflo
2- J^dyfriJ^ u}fL6' yyyju^ Icm^hT--
(s^'^-Tto (PU, *Jt CIA JlMjn^) .
T^fel
"V K Johnson, Malional
Security Council
-IMASSIFIED
442
ONCUSSIFIED
^' (lo^t>f ovOrt 4racts ■•
Partially Declassified/Released on •0ffB_88
EXHIBIT
„,.„., „.„.,..„,.5 ot E 0 12356
Johfison. National Secunty Council
UNCLASSIFIED ""'''
443
/\ajauiL
— /D-fA^i^ ^ (^on OA^ (UaXo unM aJhpjz as-
5^; K'^K^X^
Partially Declassified/Released oni^^&tf 88
under provisions ot E 0 12356
by K Johnson. National Security Council
tM^^
444
UNCLASSIFIED
/Oc Cyij^
<^^^i^^ ^kSmAj^
(T) _T^Ws 50^/ W<xmAl^
: MPOSinON
I EXHIBIT
^^ Declassified/Released oni$.f^88
under provisions o) E 0 12356
by K Johnson. National Secuniy Council
M0^
445
iCUSSIREO
— T^XJU ^(l hJL'' Mii4A<LdMA«V OMofiL
offosmoN
EXHIBIT
fi 0cclassitied/Rei.3sed onJO^ASA
undef provisions o( E 0 )2i56
K Johnson. National Secunly Council
f«jy
UNCUSSiriED
446
UNCLASSIFIED
/
2. j4u4a.
ficBA
NsAuh
5 S^<W..-
W# Declassitied/RelMsed on >0>^tfflg
under provisions of E 0 12356
by K Johnson, National Security Council
IJNCUSSlFlEi
447
/^c />7^=
UNCLASSIHED
i^a, /t? _ ^'^
J/2-
J^
^^dh ©;/•
/v-^
N
'^*->^
[; ocposmoN
EXHIBIT
by K^ "'""'"''^ °' E 0 '2356
!)
448
Kb /> "if
^."^^
T(LZ
A(r-^ itfinfl. «*i ^ AC,'' UmT
_^L^^„^«.^/^/ /^- '-1^*-^
mf^m
449
yNCLASSIFIED
iM -r^ ^*^^' ^^ 2sivj^^
^lli£.W.^ <h*^ UU- MJU
untie, provi5io:.5 of E 0 )^J55 J T^ / ^^ ' ' "^^
by K Jonnson, \dlional Security
- 3,3^-^4^ rr
offOsmoN
^ ^ t^i^d^ r '"ssss
\mm\it^ ~^ '^
82-732 0-88-16
450
UNCLASSIFIED
ICUSSIFIED
451
(.**
iimssim ^««
SMMtr Declass.l,td/Relewd oniOfiC^^S 1 ^Skt\jL"niiL ' fOtlAm/^ /iiC I
unaer previsions 01 c 0 12356 [ , Y ^^Vl II
Dy K Johnson. National SKur.iy Council \j (j ^
^ ^irl OS (Ja}^ ULO-t CAM^
452
UNCLASSIFIED q
UNCLASSIFIED
453
MmmB
/S'^y^/vt P^
Marcri5?'i956'' ""^ ^"^^^^^ =•— ^ -s typed prior to
unriei (i,o«ibcnr,s oi E 0 123'i0
■' Jonnson National SeciMity Council
// PiS-SI
wmm
in
454
UNCLASSIFIED
Oliver North's office said you
agreed with Admiral Poindexter
to see North today?
Do you want to meet with him
after Judicial Selection at the
White House, and delay your
departure for home? Or what?
Meeting should last 15-20 minutes.
CONTACT: Fawn at 395-3345.
^- '^
J^'®^
12:20 p.i
under provisrnr,; o; f "i ■'-■-r-
< Jofiiir.on, ^a[,Qni ■-^^. ., '"
455
UNCUSSIFIEO
nor cIn\\e'°lu"S?e"ct'L"?r ^^ ^"^^
^t was related'4'"eL^^\^,^^° ^^^^
^^ Cecl3ssi(.ed/Rele3sed onlOFf ftflS
unoer provisions of F 0 12356
by K Johnson. National Security Council
UNCLASSIFIEU
456
ilUSSIFIED
THE AMERICAN UNIVERSTTY
WASHINCTON DC
Si^i
tz<
4400 Mimrhinrm Anaoe. N.W.. WaAia«Ma, D.C. 2001«
UNCUSSffi
457
UNCLASSIFIED
A^ '6VJe
nor cli%i°tT,Te"ctT.:°' ^^ ^^^ed
^t was rel.te,irU:tlltl'° "'''^^
1^ Oeclassilied/Released on /O^^^SS
under provisions ol E 0 12356
by K Johnson. Nalional Security Council
liiijss'nra
458
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
.r^xss^'^
^ iT. :5. : «.
^^^"^'-f^!5!i55?H!5P5W'?^Pi^^
UlUSSffl
- j»<-; ^ .■.Jig —
459
ONCUSSIFIED
/^j.^ ry^c
Cecias5i(ied/Rele3sed nn lOrCPQO
ndtr provisions Ot E 0 12356
Johnson, National Security Council
460
lied/Re!eased onjO££fi."8
un(iei Diovisions ol E 0 "2356
K Jotinson, National Stcuiity Council
Oiyisjf?:^^^^
461
mm. Qp PROCEEDINGS
CONFIDENTIAL
UNITED STATES SENATE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
SECRET MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO
IRAN AND THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
WCWSS(F(ED
i
DEPOSITION OP ALFONSO ROBELO C
CONFIDBN'^IAL
Partially Declassilied/Releasea cm ^O^** oa
under provisions ol E 0 12356
by K Johnson, National Security Council
Washington, D. C.
Thursday, April 23, 1987
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
SitfWhfpt ivporttn
444 North CapitoJStrwt
VVishingtonTbc. 20001 / )S af H '^'^^'^
(202)347-3700 cOP'r ^0
Nationwide Givcnat
UNCQSiiED
462
CR30686.0
BRT/sjg
UimSSIflED
UNITED STATES SENATE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
SECRET MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO
IRAN AND THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
DEPOSITION OF ALFONSO ROBELO C.
Washington, D. C.
Thursday, April 23, 1987
Deposition of ALFONSO ROBELO C, called for examination
pursuant to notice of deposition, at the offices of the Senate
Select Conunittee, Hart Senate Office Building, Suite 530, at
10:00 a.m. before JOEL BREITNER, a Notary Public within and
for the District of Columbia, when were present:
RICHARD PARRY, ESQ.
Associate Counsel
United States Senate
Select Committee on
Secret Military Assistance
to Iran and the Nicaraguan
Opposition
901 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D. C. 20510
KENNETH R. BUCK, ESQ.
Assistant Minority Counsel
House of Representatives
Select Committee to Investigate
Covert Arms Transactions with
Iran
H-419, The Capitol
Washington, D. C. 20515
ROBERT A. BERMINGHAM, Investigator
House of Representatives Select
Committee
Partially Oeclassitied/Reieased nn t J^W S8
under provisions ol E 0 12356
by K Johnson. Nanonal Security Council
202-347.3700 ^ Nationwide Coverage
463
mmmi
CONTENTS
WITNESS
Alfonso Robelo
by Mr. Parry
by Mr. Bermingham
by Mr. Parry
by Mr. Buck
by Mr. Parry
EXAMINATION
9
10
1]
12 ,,
13 I
"!
15 I
16 1
17
18
19
20
21
22
EXHIBITS
ROBELO DEPOSITION NUMBER
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
IDENTIFIED
31
32
liMSiEe
464
30686.0
BRT
mmm
Whereupon,
ALFONSO ROBELO
was called as a witness and, having first been duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION
BY MR. PARRY:
Q First, Mr. Robelo, I would like to thank you for
coming in today. It has been completely voluntary, there has
been no subpoena, and we appreciate the full cooperation that
you have given the House and Senate Select Committees in this
investigation.
Before we start, I would like to explain that you
are giving your testimony under oath; the reporter will take
down your testimony and transcribe it. You will have the
opportunity, if you want, to review your testimony once it
has been transcribed, and make any corrections or if there
have been typographical errors or if you were misunderstood,
you can point that out to us if you choose to review your
testimony.
Please, just try to answer the questions as
accurately as you can. If you don't understand a question.
Partially Dpciassided/I !ieasea on '^'al^'O SS
unflef provisions olEO 12356
by K Johnson, Naltinal Sscuiity Council
Ac^FyLSlUwl*]*JWr
Naiionwide Coverage
800-336-6646
465
30686.0
BRT
ONCUSSiHED
1 let us know and we'll do our best to clear it up.
2 Can wc start with your general background. You
3 are presently a director of the United Nicaraguan Opposition;
4 is that correct?
5 A Yes. May I say just a few words? My native
6 tongue -- my native language is not English. I do think that
7 I speak it fluent enough to answer anything, but if I make
any mistakes, if there is something you don't understand,
9 please say so, so everything will be clear. Okay? I don't
10 need an interpreter, obviously, but I wanted to make that
11 clear, because there may be a lot of mistakes there.
12 My present pooition, I as a member of the
13 directorate of UNO; UNO is the acronym for the United
14 Nicaraguan Opposition.
15 Right now, there are two directors, is Pedro
16 Joaquin Chamorro, and myself. There is one vacant seat.
17 The director of UNO is the top executive authority
18 that has control on both the military and the political
19 struggle for the liberation of Nicaragua.
20 Q Does UNO incorporate the entire Nicaraguan
21 resistance movement at this time?
22 K No, sir. There are two other groups that arc
^ffliSaflEi
800-336-6646
466
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIFIED
1 outside UNO -that are of a certain importance. There are more
21 than two, but two that arc oC importance.
3 One is the southern opposition block, in Spanish
41 is called BOS, B like in boy, OS.
5 And then the Indian group called Misurasata.
6 Q BOS and Misurasata, neither group has
7 representatives in UNO; is that correct?
8 A For the time being, no. There are conversations
9 at this time to include it in what will be the Nicaraguan
10 resistance, we hope.
H Q I would like to briefly touch on these two
12 groups. BOS, the southern opposition block, who are the
13 leaders oC that group; do you know?
14 A They have a Cive-BC«ber directorate, but at
15 present the — I will say the key leader is Alfredo Cesar,
16 and, in Misurasata, the key leader is Brooklyn Rivera.
17 Q Are cither of those groups presently engaged in
18 Bilitary activities?
19 A Yea, According to what I know, both have minor
20 military activities inside Nicaragua.
21 BOS has about a^^^^^^^Bncn, aaybcl
22^^^^Hand Misurasata nav have up to^^^^^Hinside. And both
rand Misurasata nay have up to^H
Ace-Federal Reporter
Reporters, Inc.
202-347.3700 Naiionwide Coverage 800-335-6646
467
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIFIED
1
2
3
4
51
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
IE
19
20
21
oC these organizations did receive aid in the last 9100
million aid package. Each one of thcB got|^^^^^H each.
So is^^^^^^H each.
Q Do they coordinate in any way uith the larger
military forces of the FDN?
A No, sir.
Q Or the southern group?
A Well — Misurasata does not. BOS operates in the
same region of Nicaragua, in the southern part of the
Atlantic Coast. And, due to that, yes, they do coordinate
with the southern front of UNO.
Q In addition to your position as director of UNO,
you also have your own political party; isn't that correct?
A Yes, air. In March of 1978 I founded a political
party in Nicaragua with other young professionals in
Nicaragua, and I have been president of that party since the
foundation.
The na»e of it is MDN, which stands for Movinicnto
DcBocratico Nicaraguense. That party is part of UNO, that is
an alliance, and has been part of UNO since we organized UNO
in June of 1985.
Q Does the MDN have any ailitary functions?
iiNcussra
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
468
30686.0
BRT
1
2
3
I
41
i
61
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
I
17
18
19
20
21
22
mrnmn
A No, 3ir. The MDN is a political party with no
military structures. There arc members of the MDN who have
-- who are fighting inaidc Nicaragua, but, as part of other
forces like FDN forces, or in the southern front of UNO. But
the MDN, as such, has no military activities and no military
structure.
Q So the MDN is purely a political body?
A Yes, sir.
Q Do you have any involvement or are you a leader of
any of the military factions?
A According to UNO bylaws, the top authority in any
area of the struggle, any branch of the struggle, is the
directorate. So, according to the bylaws, I do have
authority and responsibilities. The fact is that, because of
my experience, which has always been in the civic-political
struggle, I have been kept fairly well informed of what is
going on. I, a few times, have looked at reports and budgets
about the military part. But I don't get involved in any of
the actual direction or the -- direction of the military
part. I am devoted mostly to political activities.
Q Do you have -- other than your general authority
over military operaljajptiia «s a,d4rcctor of UNO, do you have
1
itu
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
:02-347-370O Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
469
30686.0
BRT
UNCUSSIFIED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
i
14
15
16
17
U
19
20
21
any particular affiliation or communication with the forces
in the south? The forces that are not part of the FDN?
A Not on any regular basis, whenever I occasionally
see the people inside there, I do talk to thca but not on a
regular basis.
In the past, when the southern front was commanded
by Fernando "El Negro" Chamorrc
had more regular contacts. But not formal contacts. But we
did talk to each other more frequently.
Q Yes.
A He left several months ago, about, what, maybe
seven, eight months ago. Since then the contacts with any
people in the south have been more irregular.
Q What was the name oC Fernando Chamorro's group, or
military unit?
A It has two acronyms. It is ODN-FARN. UDN-FARN.
The "UDN- stands for Union Democratica Nicaragua,
I think it is, which is the political branch of his
organization. FARN stands for Fuerzas Armadas
Revolucionarias Nicaraguenses, the Revolutionary Nicaraguan
Armed Forces. That is the military branch that was part of
the southern front under his command.
UNCLASSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
20J.J47.3700 Nationwide Coverage 80O-336-6646
470
30686.0
BRT
UNCUSSIFIED
1| Q Were you ever affiliated with UDN-FARN?
2 A No, 3ir.
3 Q Maybe we should go back and trace your political
4l affiliations.
I
5j Starting with the formation of the MDN in 1978 and
6| going through the revolution and your present position, could
7 you just briefly describe your various political leadership
8 positions?
9 A Yes, sir. As I said before, MDN was founded in
10 1978, in March of 1978. Me becaac instrumental, and we were
11 the binding force to a larger coalition of political, labor
12 and private sector organizations that was called the "Broad
13 Opposition Front."
14 This broad opposition front was very important in
15 the overthrowing of Somoza.
16 I was instrumental to strike against Somoza, and
17 became involved in the insurrections against Somoza.
18 Due to my involvement in the broad opposition
19 front I was also a member of the political commission that
20 took — that was involved in the mediation of the OAS in
21 September of 1978. When the final insurrection against
22 Somoza took place in June-July 1979, then I was invited to
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
202-347.3700 Naiionwide Coverage 800-336-6646
471
30686.0
BRT
UNCMSSIHED
1 discuss the formation of the governing junta as a
2 representative of my party, the MDN. And I did join and
3 became one of the five members of the governing junta of my
4 country, Nicaragua, from July 19, 1979 to April 22, 1980,
5 when I stepped down and resigned and became active in civic
6 activities inside Nicaragua, as the president of my party,
7 the MDN.
8 Q Stop there for a minute. Why did you resign from
9 the governing junta?
XO A I was fully committed to the original principles
11 of the Nicaraguan revolution, being effective pluralism;
12 nonalignmcnt in foreign policy and a well defined mixed
13 economy.
i
X4 It was clear, as time went by, that these
15 principles were betrayed by the key force in the revolution
16 that controlled all the weapons, that was the FSLN.
17 So, due to this betrayal of the key principles,
due to the clear detour of the revolution out of these
19 principles and becaae Bore totalitarian linked with the
20 Communist regimes, became more Communist, controlled by the
21 Marxist-Leninist, I decided to step down. I saw there was no
role for me inside the government.
UNCLASSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
202-347.3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
472
30686.0
BRT
UNCUSSIFIED
11
1 Q You referred to the FSLN, that's the Sandinista
2 party?
3 K Ye3 . Called the Prcnte Sandinista dc Liberacion
4 Nationalc; FSLN, what is known as Sandinistas, now.
5 Q So, in 1980 it became apparent that they were
6 controlling the country and that they had their -- they were
7 opposing a totalitarian. Communist form of government and
8 that's the reason you stepped down from the junta?
9 A That is correct.
10 Q Where did your activities take you from there?
11 A I stayed inside Nicaragua, in civic opposition to
12 the totalitarian Sandinista regime, for almost two years,
13 until in March of 1982. The emergency law was imposed on the
14 Nicaraguan people by the Sandinista regime. This emergency
15 law put censorship on the press and on the — on radio, the
16 television was a monopoly oC the Sandinistas, and political
17 activities of parties were not allowed. I thought this had
18 closed, 30 much, the space inside Nicaragua, political space
19 inside Nicaragua, and on top of that my house was attacked by
20 mobs and I wasn't allowed to leave the country. Several
21 times they stopped me at the airport and there were several
22 attempts to kill me. So I decided to go to exile in Costa
JrcEWifpOWIMRflRriNc
202-347-3700
Naiionwide Coverage
473
30686.0
lINCUSSIflEO
12
1 Rica, with the key leaders of my party and to set the key
2 structure of my party, the MDN, in exile in Costa Rica.
3 I left Nicaragua the 23rd of March of 1982 and I
4 have not returned since then, to Managua. In exile in Costa
5 Rica, we set up our own organization, tried to contact
6 members and do the usual political activities that a party
7 does and we became, also, members of an alliance called ARDE,
8 where the key military leader was Commander Pastora,
9 p-a-3-t-o-r-a, and I was the key political leader in ARDE.
Iq\ For a period of one year, until May of 1983, all
11 our struggle was civic — or political, I should say. There
12 was no military activities under XRDE.
13 1 Q Can I interrupt there?
i
14 1 A Yea.
15 Q were there military activities taking place
16 elsewhere? For instance, in the north, at that time?
17 A Yes, sir. The FDN although I don't know if it was
18 called FDN at that time, but there were forces in the north
19 operating since March of 1982. In fact, the state of
20 emergency was "decreed"?
21 Q Decreed?
22 A ~ decreed by the Sandinista government because of
BtKUSSm
70fl* • * ^ Nationwide Coverage
Inc
800-336-6646
474
30686.0
DNCUSSIflEO
13
some military actions that took place inside Nicaragua, which
showed the presence oC these forces, military forces,
operating in the north.
Q Did you have any knowledge of who organized the
military forces of the north?
A Well, I do have now because it is public to an
extent.
It was a group of Nicaraguans, some of them former
members of the national guard and some former Sandinista
combatants that were already also disillusioned in —
disillusioned with the regime in Nicaragua. And they
received some help fro« the United States government and some
froB some^^^^^^Hailitary
Q Did ARDB, or the MDN, receive any help from the
United States ^^^^^^^^^|or other foreign countries, during
this period March of '82 through May of '83?
Froa^^^^^^H nothing.
FroB the United States sometime in May or June of
1982, through Commander Pastora,
I think it was in
itartcd receiving some financing!
UNCLASSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
202-347.3700 Naiionwide Coverage 800-336-6646
475
30686.0
BRT
UNCUSSiFIED
■money was pcraanently given to us
9 until May-June oC 1984 when two things occurred; one, the
10 U.S. Congress cut off the aid after the aining of the ports
11 ^^^^^^^Hand the the CIA and, two, due
12 the reluctant attitude of Coamandcr Pastora to join forces
13 with the north, we split. He kept the ailitary forces that
14 were inside Nicaragua, and I kept the political activities
15 that were under ay responsibility. I got in contact with
16 Adolfo Calero, and the Indians^^^^^^^^Hto create
17 uBbrella organization that was called, at that tiae, UNIR,
18 U-N-I-R. And that is the origin of what is now known UNO;
19 that evolved and was founded in June of 1985^^^^^^^^^^^
20 Q So there was a period froa June of '84,
21 approxiaatcly? Is that when you broke up with Pastora?
■■ ■ - UNCLASSIFIEO
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
202- 347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
476
30686.0
BRT
MlMSim
15
1 Q Until the formation of UNO, that you functioned as
2 an umbrella group under a different na«e, the UNIR?
3 A Yes. It was not as effective as UNO is now. It
4 was very loose. We didn't have offices or anything. It was
i
5 more a type of coordination, but the umbrella existed on
6 paper but did not exist in reality.
7 Q Throughout the period of your direction of ARDE,
8 what was the role of the MDN?
9 A Well, the MDN was the key political force in
10 ARDE. We did have a few members that got involved in
11 military activities in ARDE. By the way, the military
12 activities in ARDE started in May of 1983. Okay? But the
13 key role of the MDN was responsible for political activities
14 and the standing by political activities, publications,
15 seminars, missions to touch base with foreign politicians and
16 political parties; trying to group and organize the
17 Nlcaraguan exile communities, et cetera.
18 MR. PARRY: Can we go off the record for a
19 second.
20 (Discussion off the record.)
21 BY MR. PARRY:
22
477
UNCLASSIFIED
Vcvc^e- l<^
UNCIASSIFIEB
478
MlMSim
l>a^. n
UNCUSSIFIED
479
fimmm
Q Did you have any knowledge ot how Hr. Pastora was
procuring his aras, his weapons, during this tiae period?
A It was being aainly provided by the CIA.
Q And the aoney that he received was for food and
clothing? Is that what it was?
A It was aainly Cor food, transportation, the whole
apparatus of vehicles, and they did buy a £cw things here and
there that they thought that they could do better than the
agency like soae radio equipaent and soae sophisticated
cquipaent or things like that.
AcfT^deral Reporters. Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
480
30686.0
IINCUSSIFIEO
19
1 Q How large was the military force oC ARDE during
2 thia period?
3 A At the peak, that must have been May-June of 1984,
4 Conmandcr Pastora claincd to have about^^^^^^^^Bf ightcrs
5 inside Nicaragua. And he had control about of half the Scin
6 Juan River, that is the river that serves as a border between
7 Costa Rica and Nicaragua.
Q ^^^^^^^^^H^^Hdid you or you
9 have contact with other representatives of the United States
IC government?
11 A Usually I will have contact with the Aaerican
12 ambassador as well as the political attache in the embassy.
13 In the beginning the ambassador was — is it Frank
14 or Fred MacNeil? Ambassador MacNeil, whichever. And then it
15 was Ambassador Curtin Windsor. I had contacts and discussed
16 political matters and sometimes, also, the operation of the
17 hell
18 Q Any contacts with the NSC or with the White House
19 during this time period?
20 A With the NSC, I did meet — what was his name? —
21 A gentleman that now works with the Washington Times who was
22 in charge of Latin American policy there. A French name thai
UNCUSSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
■>02- 147-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
481
nnmsim
20
I don't recall.
(Discussion off the record.)
BY MR. PARRY:
Q Just before our break you were mentioning an
individual from the NSC that you had contact with during the
period prior to June of 1984.
A Yes, sir. Now I recall, his name is Roger Fontain
and that is the first person fro» the NSC that I met.
Later on, when the Kissinger Commission visited
Costa Rica in early 1984, I also met Colonel Oliver North and
he asked me to call him next time I was in Washington.
Q Is that the incident where he passed you a note in
a reception line?
A Yes. YC3. I was shaking hands with the people
that was inside the room: Dr. Kissinger, Ambassador
Kirkpatrick and others, and I shook hands with this gentleman
I didn't know and there was a piece of paper between his
hands and my hand where he has written "next time you are in
Washington please contact me, my name is Oliver North," and a
phone number and it was very embarrassing because I had to
shake hands with the next one and I didn't know what to do
with the piece of paper that was in my hand so I had to move
Ace-Fede
immB
Naiionwide Coverage
800-336-6646
482
30686.0
BRT
DNCUSSIflfO
21
1 it and put it in my pocket.
2 Q So that was your first contact with Oliver North?
3 A That was my first contact. I don't think I
4 contacted him in the next trip to Washington but in some of
5| my trips to Washington I did contact him. This must have
61 been in the middle of 1984 and I did pay several visits to
7 him during the second half of '84 and '85 and '86.
8 From July-August of '84 until sometime in the
I
9j middle of '85, if I don't recall it wrong, when there was no
10 U.S. aid, I asked Adolfo Calero to keep on providing funds to
11 cover the expenses of the political activities of ARDE, in H
12 Costa Rica. Being part of this UNIR, that is the first
13 umbrella organization. And this was very awkward and very —
14 it bothers me because, being a political leader, getting
15 money froa another political leader in Nicaragua, had the
16 effect of subordination to another Nicaraguan political
17 leader, Adolfo Calero.
18 So, because of this I complained to several people
19 that I wanted to get some direct assistance and in several of
20 the meetings with Colonel North we discussed this and he
21 expressed that he will look and see if he could help me —
22 help us out; "us" being, mainly, the political movements, an
UNCUSSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
:02- 347. 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
483
UNClASSra
22
organization that has stayed with mc in the split with
Commander Pastora, that took place in May of 1984.
Q Can we go back to that split?
A Yes, sir.
Q Your political organization split off from
Pastora 's military organization. Then there was — you
subsequently were united with other nilitary organizations;
is that correct? Fernando Chamorro's group — how did that
come about? Was he under Pastora and did he join your
faction that split tzou Pastora?
A In ARDB, at the beginning, there were six
organizations. Some of thea stayed with Pastora. Some of
them split into factions, and sobc of them stayed with mc.
The ARDE political, that stayed with me, was ray
own party, MDN, "Negro" Chamorro's organization as a whole,
UDN-FARN; a labor group that split, half of a labor group
that split called STDN, and a Christian Democratic
organization that also split, and part of it — most of it
stayed with me in the political activity.
So, at that time from May of 1984 until UNO was
formed in June of 1985, these four organizations became part
of ARDE and one of them, UDN-FARN, did have a military branch
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
202-347-3700 Naiionwide Coverage 800-336-6646
484
30686.0
BRT
inmim
23
but had very, very little military activities.
Q So you retained the name "ARDE" after the split
with Pastora; ia that correct?
A The split was such that there were two ARDEs . He
had the name "ARDE" and we had the name "ARDE," both had the
same names. This was very confusing.
Q And I talce it the funding you received first from
Adolfo Calcro had, subsequently, through Colonel North — was
intended for your entire organization, both the political and
the small military unit of Fernando Chamorro's?
A Not exactly. The one we received from Adolfo
Calero, yes. It was intended to maintain the four
organizations that stayed with me that had mainly political
activities and a little bit of military activities under
Fernando Chamorro.
The second part, the ones that I received after my
conversation with Colonel North, were mainly to be divided
into two organizations only, not four. Two organizations:
MDN and UDN; both being political. Okay?
Q And the UDN, again, was under Chamorro?
A Yes, sir.
Q But it was his political activity?
ONCDtSSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
202-347.3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
485
30686.0
6RT
UNCLASSm
24
A Yes.
Q Olcay.
A Because there was humanitarian aid coming already
whatever activities wc had^^^^^^^^^^^land the
humanitarian aid was enough to take care of the military
branch under him called "FARM."
Q In terms of their food and —
A Food, clothes, medicines.
Q Do you know during this time if they received
additional weapons or ammunition and how that was paid Cor?
A They could have received some small lots of
ammunition, coming from private people. But let me make —
let mc state that part of the commanders of Pastora, in May
of 1986, came back to UNO. UNO had been formed already, and
they came back to us and they had — the forces have
froi^^^^^^^Bto maybc^^^Vactive they were
very badly equipped.
Sometime after that, 1 think the first one being
in September of 1986, there were several flights.
Q September of '86? Or '85? .
■86.
UNCLASSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
486
30686.0
BRT
•86
UNCLASSIFIEO
25
Q Ju3t this past year?
A Yes, not too Car away.
Q AH right.
A Several flights took place in the second half of
■86. Let's put it that way. And they were mainly military
logistics, going inside Nicaragua for the southern front.
Q Did you have any comaunication with the private
benefactors, the persons making these air drops inside
Nicaragua?
A No, sir. I was inforaed only, a posteriori, about
everything that they received. And in general terms,
general,
Q Okay. You didn't have any role in communicating
what was needed in terms of military supplies for these
drops? You were just told after the fact that drops had been
e-Federal Reporters, in
a)2O47.3700
Naiionwide Coveraxe
487
30686.0
BRT
!f'
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
made?
A No, 3ir. I had nothing to do with the
implementation or anything.
Q Do you know who would have? Would Fernando
Chamorro have communicated the needs oC the military?
A Logically it will be either hi» or someone under
hia.
Q Do you know who he communicated with?
A I could imagine it would be someone from the CIA
Ibut —
You are just guessing. Did he ever indicate to
you who it might be?
A No. I wouldn't know for a certainty.
Q IS there anything to make you believe that the CIA
would have been the intermediary in communicating that
information?
X Yes. I thi
cally makes me believe that they
■^I^^niJT^ril^Ihl^h^ called the -patriotic Americans" in
these efforts to resupply the troops from the southern front
Q Do you have any idea of the total amount of
yNCLASSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc
488
30686.0
BRT
UNCUSSinED
27
1 materials supplied, the value of the military supplies that
2 1 were delivered?
3 k Delivered where? To the south? Or to the total
4 operation?
5 Q To the south.
6 A I think the south received between five and six
7 flights. These flights usually will be 8000, 10,000 pound
8 flight.
9| The material that was delivered there sometime was
10 ammunition. There were a lot of boots and uniforms, and
11 there were some weapons. And my guess will be that the cost
12 of that will be in the neighborhood of $20 per pound.
13 If that is the case, every drop will be about
14 $200,000, being five or six, will be in the neighborhood of
151 $1 million to $1.2 million.
I
16 Q Okay.
17 A Plus the cost of transportation that I understand
18 was in the neighborhood of $20,000 to $30,000 each, because
19 of the risk it involved. So you will have to add to the
20 previous total about 100-, $120,000 more, about.
21 Q All right. Now, do you know whether the materials
22 supplied that you have estimated to have a value of about
lINMlflED
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
202-347.3700 Nationwide Coveraop 800-^6-6646
489
UNCLASSIRED
28
$1.2 million, were those paid for by these patriotic
Americans? Or had they previously been purchased by UNO or
the FDN?
A It was a mixture of the two. It was not — it
wasn't UNO, because at that time UNO did not have any money
for military purposes.
Q Okay.
A It didn't have any military aid. So it could come
from only two sources .
What they, "patriotic Americans," or FDN who
bought it previously and it was in FDN warehouses. It could
well be that in one flight it could be so«e things from one
side, some things from another.
Q Do you thinlc there were some of each?
A Yes. I don't know where it came from but this is
what I have learned.
Q It could have been cither or both? Is that what
you are saying?
A That is correct. Either or both.
Q Do you have siallar knowledge with respect to the
total supply by the patriotic Aaericans? Not just in the
south.
UNCLASSra
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
490
30686.1
BRT
UNCLASSIHED
29
1 A I was told by Adolfo Calcro that the total amount
2 of flights were between 20 and 25. That being the case, and
31 applying the same arithmetic, that will be between $5 to $6
million in total, including goods and transportation costs.
5| Q What was the period of time of these 25 flights?
6 Do you know that'
7 A I only have knowledge of the ones in the south.
The ones in the south took place, I think, between June to
9 when the Hassenfus accident took place, that I don't recall,
10 Q Okay. Late October?
11 A Is that when that occurred?
12 MR. BUCK: October 5th.
13 MR. BERMINGHAMs October 5.
14 THE WITNESS: Until October ~ then.
15 BY MR. PARRY)
16 Q All right. Do you know the names of any of the
17 individuals involved in the supply effort by the "patriotic
18 Americans"?
19 A No, sir,
20 Q You didn't have any direct contact?
21 A No. AdolCo Calcro told me once, in late November
22 of 1986, that the person that handled all of these was
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
491
UNCLASSIFIED
30
Captain Cooper —
Q Okay?
A — who was the pilot in the plane that was dropped
down in — the Hasscnfus flight.
Q Did you ever discuss the supply operation with
Colonel North or any of Colonel North's representatives?
A No, sir.
Q, He never indicated any connection or control over
the "patriotic Americans"?
A In talks that we had, he indicated knowing about
it.
Q Okay.
A But, since I was not involved in it there was no
detail or anything.
Q Let's go back to the funding now.
A Yes.
Q Prior to money received from Colonel North, you
received money from Adolfo Calero; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall approximately the total amount of
money received through that source?
A Roughly 9600,000.
IMII
492
30686.0
BRT
mmw3
31
1 MR. PARRY; Can we raarlc this as the first
2 exhibit.
3 (Robelo Exhibit 1 identified.)
4 BY MR. PARRY;
5 Q Mr. Robelo, I'm going to show you a act of
6 documents relating to what wc believe are the funds you
7 received fro« Adolf o Calero. The first two pages are
8 compute^ printouts, based on bank records that Adolf o Calcrc
9 has provided to the com«ittee3. And the subsequent document
10 are the individual documents evidencing the various
11 transfers.
12 Would you look at these and first tell me if the
13 numbers on the computer printouts would show the dates and
14 amounts of the various transfers from Adolf o Calero 's
I
15 accounts appear to be accurate? j
16 A They appear to be accurate according -- to the
17 best of my knowledge, yes.
18 Q Now, the accounts that you had set up for
19 receiving these funds was in which bank?
20 A
21 Q And the name on the account was?
22 A I don't recall if this one is the same
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc
30686.0
BRT
ONCUSSIRED
32
1 I^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H account, or could be a personal account
2 under my name. I know about the others but not this one.
3 (Discussion off the record.)
4 THE WITNESS: Hhat we were talking about?
5 BY MR. PARRY:
6 Q You said you didn't know whether this was your
7 account or the private account —
8 A After seeing the records, it was clear that this
9 was transferred to an account, special account, under my name
10 ^^^^
11 Q So that was not the same account later used by
12 Colonel North?
13 A No. It is not.
14 1 NR. PARRY: Can you aark this as the second
15 exhibit?
16 (Robelo Exhibit 2 identified.)
17 BY MR. PARRY)
18 Q The other documents aarked as Exhibit 2, the othei
19 documents, are documents which you yourself provided to the
20 committees at an earlier date. Those are the documents
21 representing the the monies received through Colonel North;
22
.3 that correct?
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
494
30686.0
BRT
ONCIASSIFIEB
33
Yc3. These arc the credit notes ofl
|of cable transfers to the account of
Ithat were the result of my conversation
with Colonel North requesting direct financing of military
operations -- I'm sorry -- political operations of MDN and
UDN. The total amount being $225,000 minus cable cost
expenses that account for a few dollars each time.
Q How were those funds divided between MDN and UDN?
A At the beginning there arc some transfers that ar
larger than the normal $10,000 per month because we had run
into some debts and we wanted to clear that out.
Later on it will be 910,000 and it was usually
divided 50:50.
I say "usually" because in the beginning I don't
think it involved any of UDN-FARN; and also because at the
end, the fact that humanitarian aid was coming to UDN-FARN,
also meant that it stopped, earlier, that November of 1986.
In other words, in the last month it was not
divided. At the beginning it was not divided. But in the
middle it was divided half and half.
Q There appears to be substantial drop off in the
amount of funding you received throufllL^Colonel North as
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
495
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIHED
34
opposed to the funding received through Adolf o Calcro. Were
they both intended to finance the same operations?
A No, sir.
Q What was the difference?
A This -- the amounts received from Adolfo Calcro
were to sustain ARDE as a whole. That, as I mentioned
before, it is four organizations and a larger structure as
such.
These funds, from coaing — because of ay talks
with Colonel North -- was only to finance the political
activities of two organizations, not four. And had nothing
to do with ARDE as a coalition.
Q Did ARDE dissolve when UNO was formed?
A Yes, sir. ARDE Stopped operating when UNO was
founded in June of 1985.
Q Okay. Approximately at the same time. I sec the
last contribution through Calcro came July 3 of '85?
A Ves.
Q So that approximately coincides with the
dissolution of ARDE and the formation of UNO?
A Of UNO.
Q Is that correct?
AceTederal Reporters, Inc
496
30686.0
BRT
uNcussra
35
A That is correct. The money coming because of my
conversations with Colonel North that are in Exhibit 2,
started more or less at the same time UNO was formed and they
were intended only for political activities of the two I
organizations that I have mentioned.
Q Do you know how the other two organizations that
were in ARDE — did they continue in existence, continue to
receive funding?
A Yes. Only through UNO, whenever they were
involved in the structures or projects of UNO.
Q Okay.
A In the case of my party, the MDN, we kept a
separate office in San Jose, Costa Rica, that we still have.
And for party activities we use that office and most of this
money, received through Colonel North, the part that was for
MON, was used as party funds to cover political expenses like
rent, telephone bills, salaries for the receptionist, the
office administrator, the night watch; publications — we
have a bimonthly publication called Rescatc; some seminars of
members of ay party; some missions to foreign countries,
things of this nature.
Q Did you yourself rcceiva.^^^lary out of these
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
202-147.^700 Nationwide Coveraoe 800-556-6646
497
30686.0
BRT
funds'
mmm
1
2 A No, sir. I have never received any salary because
3 of my work as a politician. I have never received any salary
4 out of either my party or UNO or ARDE. I had ray own savings
5 out of my work in Nicaragua, and that's what I live from,
g Q^^^^^^^^^ think, has indicated that he received
7 money from Colonel North for his personal expenses and I
think Adolfo Calero has indicated the same thing, in terms of
9 a salary. But you never received that type of funding?
10 A No, sir. Never ever .^^^^^^Hmade it public to
11 us, the directors of UNO, in a meeting in May of 1986 in
12 Miami, that in order for him to cover his living expenses as
13 well as some political expenses, he was receiving some
14 money.
15 That is not the case in this money that
16 ^^^^^^^^^^^^Breceived. This is money for
17 organizations, specifically and mainly the MDN and in some
18 part, in a minor part, UDN-FARN.
19 Q All right. Do you — at this time, do you have
20 any outside interests, activities, to generate income for
21 supporting your family'
22 A Yes, sir, I do. I have a coffee farm in Costa
yiUSSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
498
30686.0
BRT
iMSSIflED
1 Rica that I bought many years ago. I have intcrcat in a
2 sugar mill. I have interest in —
3 Q In Costa Rica?
4 A In Costa Rica, yes. I have interest in a larger
5 coffee farm in Costa Rica. I have savings accounts in Costa
6 Rica, time deposits in Costa Rica where I live from.
7 Q And your family lives in Costa Rica at this time?
8 A Yes. My family in Costa Rica and I am divorced
9 and my ex-wife has a house and has her own living.
10 Q Prior to your exile from Nicaragua, what was your
11 business in Nicaragua?
12 A I am a chemical engineer and I have worked from
13 1961 until 1979 as an executive in an agribusiness complex
14 that produced cooking oil out of cottonseed and that had
15 investments in cotton plantations, banking as well as what I
16 have mentioned that I still have in Costa Rica that is a
17 product of that agribusiness complex.
18 Q Let's go back to the money supplied by Adolfo
19 Calero. Did he tell you what the source of that money was?
20 A Private donors that wanted to remain anonymous .
21 Q Did he indicate whether they were American
22 citizens or from foreign countries?
uHcussm
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
I 202-347. 3700 Naiionwide Coverage 800-336-6646
499
30666.0
BRT
38
1 X No, sir.
2 Q Did he indicate that he knew anything beyond what
3 he told you?
4 A He didn't indicate anything. Just mentioned
5 that. So I could not say if he knew or did not know.
6 Q He didn't give you anything —
7 A No.
8 Q You just assumed that they were private donor .
9 Did he Bcntion who raised the Boncy Cor him?
10 A No, sir. There were so«c names that were public,
11 like General Singlaub and other people but he mentioned the
12 fact that most of these contributors will want to remain
13 1 anonymous. Wanted to remain anonymous.
14 Q Again, with the money received through Colonel
15 North, did you understand anything with regard to the source
16 of those funds?
17 A Colonel North in one conversation explained that
18 these were foreign, private donors.
19 g So with the money in th^^^^Bac count, you
20 understood they were foreign private donors. The money from
21 Calero they were just private donors, could have been foreign
22 or —
vS^X^HrfEWLREPORTERS
Nationwid" Coverage
800-316-6646
500
30686.0
BRT
UNCUSSIFIED
39
1 A That is precise.
2 Q And when they say "foreign" they mean non-United
3 States, I assume?
4 A That is correct.
5 Q Beyond that did he identify the countries or the
6 individuals that were contributingl
7 A No, sir.
Q The first check in this Exhibit 2, or the first
9 wire transfer, comes from a John Ramsey; is that correct?
10 A That is correct.
11 Q Do you know anything about Mr. Ramsey, or how it
12 came about that he wired, was it 910,000?
13 A No. At the time I received this money I knew
14 nothing about who he is — who he was. A posteriori, now, I
15 received the visit of Rich Miller, the 9th of April of this
16 year. Hhen I asked him who John Ramsey was, he told me he
17 was an American contributor and he knew who he was. But at
18 the time that I received this, I honestly didn't — did not
19 read about this — just took knowledge and filed these credit
20 notes.
2l| Q This was arranged by Richard Miller? This
22 1
transfer?
UNClASSIflEa
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
202-347.3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
501
30686.0
BRT
i
40
X No. No. I don't know.
Q You don't know?
A I don't know.
Q What was your connection with Richard Miller?
K Richard Miller was introduced to ne by Colonel
North, cither in his office at the White House or else in a
telephone conversation and then later on I went to Miller's
office.,
Miller acted aorc like an adviser on visits to the
different -edia in Washington, like television and radio and
newspapers.
He did accompany me several tiaes to visit a
journalist or televisions or radio stations, and they did
■ake soae appointments for me.
When 1 say "they" it means the organization he has
with another person that I know fairly well, Frank Gomez.
Q Was it your understanding at the time that
Mr. Miller or Mr. Gomez had anything to do with the money
that was sent to youi^^^HH^^ account?
h NO, sir. My talks about this deal was only with
Colonel North.
Now, a posteriori also, I have seen here in the
UNCIASSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc
502
30686.0
BRT
UNCIASSIFIED
41
1 second and third transfer, the name "International Business
2 CoBinunications" appears.
3 Q Right.
4 K These were the two largest money transfers because
5 we had, as I had mentioned, previous debt that we had to
6 pay. Mr. Miller visited — visited me last April 9th here in
7 Washington, and asked nc to write an aclcnowlcdgment of this
8 money toeing received. I promised that I will acknowledge
9 that and give copies of these transfers — photocopies of
10 these transfers.
11 Again, I found that this money was coming from
12 IBC, only when I looked at my files in order to get these
13 records out in order to cooperate in this investigation.
14 I didn't pay attention to that when I received it.
15 Q Okay. So I take it that prior to April 9th of
16 this year, you had no idea that John Ramsey had any
17 connection with Richard Miller whatsoever?
18 A That is correct.
19 Q You didn't know that Richard Miller or Frank Gomez
20 were in any way connected with the funds being provided to
you^^^^^Bccount?
22 A I did not know at the time the funds were providcc
^mm§
503
30686.0
BHT
UNCussra
42
1 because I didn't look in detail on the credit notes.
2 When I looked for the credit notes, in order to
3 cooperate with the investigation, I found those names and,
4 since I have seen those names in the newspapers, then it
5 became —
6 Q After the deposits from International Business
7 Communications, there are deposits from Lake Resources.
8 Again, you didn't know who Lake Resources was or who had
9 control of that account?
10 A No, sir. I had no knowledge and there are three
11 deposits from Lake Resources, each one of 915,000 and I
12 didn't know who Lake Resources was. I know now because of
13 the publications in the newspapers.
14 Q All right. Subsequent to the transfers that
15 specifically identify Lake Resources there are some documents
16 that don't specifically identify the source. They cither say
17 "one of our clients" or "El Misao," do you know who the bank
18 was referring to or this document was referring to when it
19 says "one of our clients" or "El Mismo"?
20 A No. I have no idea. After the transfer from Lake
21 Resources, all of the rest don't have any identification of
22 who ordered these cable transfers. It only gives the name of
UNCUSSIHED
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
504
30686.0
BRT
uNcussm
43
and I
1 the bank.
21 In some cases it isl
i I
3| think, after seeing here it is really^
4i^^^^^^^^H Because the bottOR
5 a mistake here, it'
6 Some say"^
that 's^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^l some these come £roa
8 Suisse, Geneva. But all of them say by order of "El Mismo"
9 which, in Spanish, means "the same." So there is no more
10 information.
11 When I received this money and it was for monthly
12 resources, at that time I marked them down with the names of
13 the months that it corresponds with at the bottom. Like, in
14 here, in the third receipt I have "August-September." And
15 then it says, "October." "November." Et cetera.
16 There were some cases when there were delays, and
17 then two monthly installments will come in one, like the one
18 of the 25th of August of 1986 that covered July-August.
19 Instead of being for $10,000 it is for 920,000.
20 Q Has the last payment received that of November of
21 '86?
22 1 A Yes. The l^jt Ji^yflWV^MPtrrt^ncd November 4,
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
505
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIFIED
44
1986. According to my records, that is the November monthly
resource for the political organizations. However, in the
credit note it's the only one that has a reference saying
"October *86."
Q Since this last payment, either October or
November "86, how has MDN and UDN been funded?
A Well, UDN, I don't know. UDN, I don't know.
MDN has, in addition to this, received for quite
soBC time private donations from Nicaraguans. And, in fact,
everyone — every MDN member that is involved in any
political activities and receives, because of his work a
stipend, according to the magnitude of the stipend, has to
give a certain percentage to the party.
Q I see.
207-147-3700
Nationwide rovrraor
506
30686.0
BRT
UNClASSm
Q Has there any period oC time between "84 and '85
or '86, that the CIA said they could not provide you with
funds?
A Oh, yes. The CIA has not given funds to the MDN;
no funds during late '84, I aa sure. Nothing, I think,
during 1985. Maybe in early 1986 it has started, or the
■iddlc of '86.
Q I take it coinciding with the expiration of the
restrictions on the CIA under the Boland aaendaent; is that
your understanding?
A Yes, that's ay understanding.
Q Now, the Nicaraguans that are funding the MDN, I
take it these are all Nicaraguans in exile?
A Yes, sir.
wmm
507
30686.0
BRT
UNCUSSIRED
Q Prior to October 24th of '86, during the period of
the Boland a«end«ent, do you know if the CIA provided any
funds to the military operation in the south?
A No. Nothing. I know nothing — I know of
nothing.
First, fro« May of 1984 until May of 1986, there
was al«ost no military operations in the south because in the
split with Pastora, ComBandcr Pastora has retained most of
the forces so there was no military forces in the south.
Now, from May of 1984 on — from May of 1986, I
correct myself, on, there was some humanitarian aid. And
that took care of the nonlcthal part of the military
UNCLASSinED
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
508
30686.0
BRT
UNCUSSIREO
47
1 operations.
2 The military ones, as I have stated before, came
3 from what I call the Hasscnfus flights that took place and
4 they were the ones responsible for lethal logistics.
5 MR. PARRY: I'm just about finished with the
6 questions I have. I would just like to go back and ask you
7 about individuals and then I think these two gentlemen might
8 also have some questions. But let's go back to Colonel
9i North.
10 BY MR. PARRY:
11 Q You met him in early 1984 in connection with the
12 Kissinger Commission and he passed you a note.
13 Did you follow up with him solely because of that
14 contact or did other people recommend that you contact
15 Colonel North?
16 A Out of that contact I developed a friendship and,
17 usually when I came to Washington, I would pay a visit to his
18 office because of the reality that Colonel North was very
19 knowledgeable about Nicaragua; very knowledgeable about the
20 policy of the U.S. government, and his knowledge was not only
21 military but also political. And knowledgeable about the
22 resistance structure and problems. So it was a very useful
UNCUSSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
509
30686.0
BRT
UNCUSSIHED
1 person to talk to because of his knowledge.
2 Q So from that first contact the relationship
3 developed on your own initiative? You took it upon yourself
4 to contact him when you were in Washington?
5 A Yes, sir. Yes, sir.
6 Q Who else, working for Colonel North, did you have
7 contact with?
8 A Working for Colonel North?
9 Q Or who did you understand was working with Colonel
10 North?
11 A I understood first, Robert Owen.
12 Q When did you meet Robert Owen?
13 A I think I met him at Colonel North's office.
I
14 Lfcfs get these dates straight. Could I go off the record?
15 MR. PARRY: Sure.
16 (Discussion off the record.)
17 THE WITNESS: In March of 1985. He was presented
18 to me as a private citizen, helping Colonel North to get aid
19 for the Nicaraguan resistance from the U.S. Congress.
20 BY MR. PARRY:
21 Q After that how many times did you see Robert Owen,
22 and what was his role?
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
202-347.370O Nationwide Coverage 800-335-6646
510
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIFIED
49
1 A I saw Robert Owen several tiacs here during —
2 from March '85 to October "85. Usually at Colonel North's
3 office. Maybe a couple oC times outside his office.
4 Later on, when the humanitarian aid was approved
5 in September-October 1985, because of his knowledge about
6 Nicaragua and Central America, we requested from the
7 Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office, NHAO, that was
8 headed by Ambassador Ducmling, D-u-e-m-1-i-n-g, I think —
9 that Robert Owen be included in the personnel as an expert,
10 with expertise, or a man that will help us in getting the
11 humanitarian aid moving and getting it to Central America in
12 the best way.
13 Q So you recommended Robert Owen for the position?
14 A We, the three directors, did.
15 Q Prior to this time, though, you understood that he
16 was working for Colonel North?
17 A I understood that he was a private citizen
18 cooperating with Colonel North on Colonel North's efforts to
19 get aid for the Nicaraguan resistance.
20 Q Did he with V^u^^^^^^^^^^Hi 9^^°^ ^^<^
21 time he became involved with the humanitarian aid?
22 A No, sir. I don't recall. But he did meet with me
Ace-Federal REPORtERS. Inc.
202-347.3700 Mationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
511
UNCLASSIFIED
50
two or three times ^^^^^^^^^^vaftcr he became involved in
the logistics of the humanitarian assistance; yes.
Q What were the purpose oC his visltsi
A To give mc a report on how the humanitarian
assistance was flowing, both to the north and to the south.
Q Other than Colonel North, were any other
individuals involved? Did you have contact with, that were
involved with Colonel North?
A I mentioned that I met Rich Miller and Frank
Gomez.
Q All right.
A Both from IBC, through Colonel North. And that
they helped mc out in getting some interviews with
newspapers, television, et cetera.
Q Along that line, did you ever meet Mr. Channell?
A I met Mr. Spitz Channell in March of 1985, I think
it was. But not through Colonel North but through FDN. I
■et Mr. Channell at FDN headquarters here in Washington at
Jefferson Street in Georgetown, they used to have
headquarters .
I saw Mr. Channell a couple of times when we paid
visits to President Reagan and there were large gatherings of
Ac^'T^S^TIal' Reporters. Inc.
202-347.3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
512
30686.0
BRT
uNfiussra
51
1 people that supported the cause of the Nicaraguan resiGtance,
2 and Mr. Channcll was there; General Singlaub was there. But
3 these were more of a protocolary formal gathering where no
4 substance was discussed.
5 Q Did you ever understand that Mr. Channell had a
61 role in providing funding for the F0N or for the UNO?
7 K No, sir. My understanding was that he did
8 fundraising to have a political campaign to help the aid to
9 Nicaraguan resistance. But I knew of no direct funding of
10 UNO ~ to UNO, I mean.
11 Q This would have been for American political
12 campaigns? Is that what you understood his role was?
13 A Yes, sir. I did watch television advertising,
14 that was paid for by some organizations funded by the
15 organization of Mr. Channcll.
16 Q Were you ever told or did you ever understand that
17 either Mr. Miller or Mr. Gomez or Mr. Channcll were involved
18 in procuring weapons or arms for any Contra groups?
19 A No, sir.
20 Q No reason to believe that that happened?
21 A No. I had no reason to believe and I would have
22 not known because that's not the area that I had.
..UNCUSSiEP
Mannnwidf Tnv
800-336-6646
513
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIFIED
52
1 Q How about Jane McLaughlin, did you ever meet her?
2 A Yes. I met her at a reception put out by Polcmka
3 in one Washington hotel. I don't recall the name, for
4 Colonel Enrique Bermudez, from the FDN . We had met several
5 times to, in general, discuss the Nicaraguan resistance
i
el situation and to discuss how the aid to the Contras was.
I
7 Q What did you understand her role to be?
8 A She was an executive in Spitz Channell's
9 organization in charge of fundraising specifically for aiding
10 the resistance — aiding — for aid to the resistance, I
11 should say. Do I make myself clear?
12 She was an executive in Mr. Spitz Channell's
13 organization to do fundraising that will pay for political
I
14 i advertising or propaganda in this country to help create
15 favorable public opinion for the aid to the Nicaraguan
16 resistance.
X7 Q But again it was your understanding that they were
18 not raising funds for either «ilitary or nonmilitary aid
19 directly to the Nicaraguan resistance?
20 A My understanding was that she and the organization
21 she worked for were not fundraising for any military
22 activities and were not fundraising to help UNO directly.
Inc.
514
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIFIED
53
1 However, Spitz Channell's organization did have some
2 financing to IBC, where Rich Miller and Frank Gomez worked,
3 and they were helping ua doing some lobbying and with the
4 press here. So, indirectly through that service they were
5 helping us.
6 Q All right.
7 A On top of that, when Mr. Carlos Ulvert was the
person in charge of our UNO Washington office, he,
9 Mr. Ulvert, informed me that through a conversation with Rich
10 Miller, he, Mr. Ulvert, has received some funds to cover the
11 expenses of the UNO Washington office.
12 Q From Richard Miller'
13 A Yes, sir. From Richard Miller.
14 Q Do you know what the amount was?
15 A Close to 9100,000.
16 Q This was at what time?
17 A The first half of 1985.
18 Q Is that the only instance you know of? Or knew of
19 that money was coming directly from Miller — from Mr. Miller
20 to any of the Nicaraguan groups?
21 A Plus two small incidents, two small events when
22
they gave me some money.
uNoussm
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc
X) Nationwide Coverage
515
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIHED
54
1 Q Maybe we should talk about that. In addition to
2 the money that was put into th^^^^^Haccount which you
3 understood was arranged by Mr. North, were there any other
4 contributions of cash made to you or your group?
5 A Two incidents happened. One took place in, I
6 think it was April 4, 1984. Could it be '84? No, no, no,
7 no. I'm wrong. It has to be April 4, 1985. Yes, '85. It
8 has to be '85.
9 That was the first time when I act with President
10 Reagan and — yes, that's correct. A Lear jet was sent down
11 to Costa Rica to pick bc up. My understanding was that both
12 Colonel North and Rich Miller and his organization, had to do
13 with the contracting of that Lear jet that went down to Costa
14 Rica to pick me up. And my understanding is that they paid
15 for whatever coat that was.
16 Due to an accident that the airplane suffered,
17 when bringing me back in the Caribbean, we have to land in
18 Cancun in an emergency landing and I came very late for the
19 meeting with the President and without any sleep the whole
20 night before. They have made reservations for me at the
21 Hay-Adams, that is a very expensive hotel. And I complained
22 that I didn't have money to pay for that expensive hotel and.
Ace
mmw
516
UNCUSSIFIED
55
1 through Colonel North, one of hia assistants that I don't
2 recall gave rae an envelope with 9300, i£ ray memory doesn't
3 fail. I think it was three 9100 bills; three 3100s.
4 The second incident is sometime, it could be
5 earlier or later, I don't know. But I came to Washington to
6 lobby Congress and my plans were to stay here for only a few
7 days and I had to stay for three weeks at a hotel called
8 Ramada Renaissance on M Street and because of my credit card
9 hit the limit I was very annoyed and I requested from Rich
10 Miller to help mc. And he did send me eight traveler's
11 checks of 9100 each, totaling 9800 that I deposited in the
12 hotel account so I could stay for the rest.
13 Q Going the other way, were you ever asked to give
14 money to Colonel North or to Richard Miller or any of these
15 people?
16 A No. Never.
17 Q Do you know if any of the Nicaraguan resistance
18 groups were ever asked to give money to any of these people?
19 A No. Never.
20 Q How about General Secord, have you ever met him?
21 A No, sir. Never.
22 Q You mentioned you had met General Singlaub. What
Ace-Tederal Reporters, Inc
517
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIFIED
56
sort o£ contact have you had with hi«?
A I had met General Singlaub two or three times in
my life.
The first tiaie was in Miami when ho invited me for
dinner with several other Nicaraguans at the Viscount Hotel
to discuss an event where the several Nicaraguan leaders of
the resistance will get together and where my name was
includc;d without my previous consent.
After that, I think I had met General Singlaub
twice in the White House on these protocol gatherings with
President Reagan and in those cases we only said hello.
Q You haven't had any communications with him
regarding military supplies or —
A Never ever.
518
30686.0
BRT
Q How about the State Department? Hhat contact have
you had with the State Department in Coata Rica, other than
the ambassador?
A Hell, I usually talk to the political attaches
there. I talked to Mr. Charles Harrington who works there,
and who is continuously asking me to meet with visitors from
Congress and others. And I have met with the political
attache. I don't recall his name.
Q How about Elliot Abraas . Uhat has your contact
been with Elliot Abrams?
A Whenever I come to Hashington it is almost certain
that I will pay a visit to Mr. Abrams and discuss with him
the U.S. policy towards Nicaragua. We usually will meet with
several of his staffers and assistants. i
Q Mould you discuss the same things with Abrams that
you would with Colonel North?
A I will say my discussions with Mr. Abrams are
Ace-Tederal Reporters, Inc
519
30686.0
BRT
UNtlASSffl
58
usually more on the political side. With Colonel North,
because of his background we did get involved in more of the
military strategy. In broad terms, but military. With
Elliot Abrams we seldom discussed any military matters
because it's not what they handled.
Q Did Elliot Abrams ever know about the funding that
you were receiving through Colonel North?
A I don't know.
Q You never discussed that with him?
A Never ever.
Q Did you ever discuss the patriotic Americans
supply network with Elliot Abrams?
A I don't recall ever discussing it.
Q Did you discuss those things with anybody at the
State Department?
A No.
MR. PARRY: Okay. I don't have any more
questions.
MR. BERMINGHAMt I would take a few minutes, if I
might
uNtussra
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
ym.Ml.Mnn Nannnwide Coverage 800-336-6646
520
30686.0
BRT
(imnssffl
59
EXAMINATION
BY MR. BERMINGHAMt
Q There has been a lot of publicity about the
airport — air atrip John Hull at Santa Elena; John Hull's
former aircraft, the Santa Elena air strip, a group of Cuban:
allegedly active in Costa Rica. What is your view or
knowledge of those?
A I have met Mr. John Hull, H-u-1-1 — right?
Q Yes.
A Several times. He's an American who has a farm ir
Costa Rica. I have been on his farms
Later on I have not seen any of — I have not seer
Mr. Hull — I don't think I have seen him in maybe the last
three years.
Q' Do you think he's been inactive in the support of
the Democratic forces?
A He has always been a man that is willing to help
the struggle — the Nicaraguan resistance. I know nothing
about activities in his farm that has to do with Cubans.
Only very broad rumors, in Costa Rica, about some Cubans
Ad
PORTERS, InC
521
30686.0
BRT
ifiussro
60
1 there. And that's not — that is not in recent months but
2 several months ago.
3 Q Let me ask you about the air strip at Santa
4 Elena. Did you have any involvc«ent in that?
5 A Which one is the one in Santa ElenaJ
6
7 Q Yes.
A I only know what appears in the Costa Rican
9 newspapers.
10 Q One last question Cor the record. There has been
11 a lot of talk about drugs playing a very important part in
12 the raising of funds. Would you like to make a statement
13 about that Cor the record?
14 A Yes. I know oC no people involved in ONO that had
15 any connections with any person involving drugs.
16 Now I know oC people in -- one person who is in
17 BOS, in the southern opposition block, who, because of a
television program in CBS called 57 Best, says that I have
19 some involvement in late 1984 with a drug dealer that is in
20 jail in Miami. But no one Crom UNO organization have I ever
21 known oC being involved in anything that has to do with drug
22 traCCicking.
B
AcWederal Reporters, Inc.
522
30686.0
BRT
WlftSSW „
1
2
3
4
5
1
«!
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Q You State no one in UNO. Would you say, other
than this man in BOS, would you know about any other from any
organizations?
A I do remember one incident, a long time ago, when
I was in ARDE, that a Nicaraguan in link with the struggle in
the south, by the name Sebastian Gonzales, had to flee Costa
Rica to Panama because he was accused by the Costa Rican
authori.ties of being involved in drug trafficking.
He lives in Panama and has lived in Panama for the
last two years at least. And he was not directly involved in
the struggle but he was a Nicaraguan exile with some contacts
with Commander Pastora.
Q But when you were active in the Costa Rica with
ARDE and the other organizations you saw no funds coming in
of drugs or knew of no drug operation? I
A Never ever. No, sir. Never. I
MR. BUCK: I had some questions. *
MR. PARRY: I had just one question that occurred
to ne.
referred to
30686.0
BRT
people by code names.
Do the naaea "Spark" or "Clutch" have any
significance for you?
A What?
Spark, S-p-a-r-k?
No.
Or Clutch, C-1-u-t-c-h?
No. What is that, my code name?
Might be. I don't know.
No.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. BUCK:
Q Have you ever heard of the code naac "Green"?
A I met with Jane McLaughlin two or throe weeks ago
and she said that "Green" was the code name for Oliver
North. But I have known about that code name only recently.
Q Did you — do you remember a conversation with
Jane McLaughlin in which she asked you about your
organization receiving Singlaub-typc aid?
A At one time she was very surprised because she
asked me the assistance that Spitz Channell's organization
was giving to us and according to my knowledge there was no
ce-FederalReporters, Inc.
524
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIFIED
63
[
1 such aid. And she was very surprised.
2 I do recall it, not in detail, but yes. Because
3 she was surprised. What do you mean we arc not helping you?
4 I said no, you are not helping us. Maybe you arc helping us
5 the same way General Singlaub's organization is helping us
6 but nothing oC significance. Because I knew nothing about
7 private funding.
8| I would like to add one thing that may be ot
9 interest to you. In August ot 1985, at a meeting ot UNO
directoratc^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^lwhere AdolCo
Arturo Cruz, and myself were present ,^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^1
12 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H we came to an
13 funds, irrespective of the origin, should be channeled and
14 controlled by the directorate in a collective way. In other
15 words, would not be individually controlled but collectively
16 controlled among the three of us.
17 In subsequent meetings that usually were every
18 month, I will say September, October, November, December 1985
19 and maybe January of 1986, I asked Adolfo Calero, who was the
20 one mostly involved in the handling of private funds,
21 especially with my previous experience of receiving money
22 from him, what was the situation of funds coming to —
UHCUSSIHED
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
525
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIFIED
64
1 private funds coming to help the cause? And the answer, in
2 each and every one of those meetings of the directorate,
3 was: I have received no funds and there is no money
4 available to be disbursed by the directorate.
5 I interpreted this as Adolfo not wanting to share
6 that responsibility with us and I gave up asking him more
7 about that.
8 Q Would you have known about weapons that would have
9 been delivered to your — to a military group associated with
10 the southern front or military groups associated with the
11 northern front?
12 A I did know, as I have expressed, of some air drops
13 that were made to the southern front and they usually will
14 inform mc of how many bundles and how many pounds. I did not
15 receive any report on the details of what those bundles
16 contained.
17 Q What I'm wondering is, you mentioned that you
18 believe they were paid for by private donors.
19 A Yes, sir.
20 Q And we have Mr. Channell raising money from
21 private donors. But at this point in time you have not made
22 a connection between Mr. Channell "s activities and the
PORTERS, Inc.
526
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIFIED
65
private donors and military air drops?
K No. I did not make such connection. Besides
that, my understanding was that Mr. Channcll's fundraising
was devoted mainly for political campaigning in the United
States to move the public opinion in this country in favor of
Contra aid.
Q Uho told you that or how did you develop that
opinion?
A Because I saw the advertising that appeared in the
television continuously and I saw how he was doing publicly
these moves to change the public opinion. And I honestly
didn't think of any links that he may have with providing
funds for weapons or military logistics.
Q So, when you saw him with Colonel North, again
your assumption was that he was helping out in a political
sense and not —
A I don't recall ever seeing Spitz Channcll with
Colonel North. But in the large meetings with the President
I don't recall ever seeing Spitz Channell in Colonel North's
office.
MR. BUCK: Okay. I have no more questions.
MR. PARRY: Just one.
AcE-Fi
TERS. Inc.
527
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIFIED
66
1 THE WITNESS: There's always a last one.
2 EXAMINATION f
3 BY MR. PARRY:
4 Q What is your opinion of the efficiency of the
5 private supply network? How did it operate? The airlifts?
6 A It became evident after the drop of the Hassenfus
7 flight, because of the documents the crew carried and because
8 of the pattern that they flew, that this was not a very well
9 prepared and secure and effective operation. To the
10 contrary, it became evident that it was very unprofessional.
11 But I didn't know nothing at the time of the flights.
12 Q Prior to the Hassenfus, you hadn't heard
13 complaints?
I
14 A No, Sir.
15 Q Anything about the ammunition not matching the
16 weapons that were dropped? Things like that?
17 A Maybe once or twice Commander Chamorro told me
18 that they had dropped materials that were not of use to the
19 troops. Not necessarily not matching but maybe sometimes in
20 excess of what they really need, so it only meant more weight
21 to the insurgents.
22 Q Were they always dropped in the right spots?
UNCIASSIRED
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
•)n7-U7.17nO
528
30686.0
BRT
UNCLASSIRED
67
A oh, no. There were tremendous problems because
there will be drops that will not coincide with the dropping
zone. In many cases there were bundles that were lost
because o£ not dropping in the proper zone.
Q Fernando Chamorro would communicate this to you?
A Yes, sir.
Q Did you ever meet anybody named Max Gomez or Felix
Rodriguez?
A No, sir. Never.
Q Rafael Quintcro?
A No.
MR. PARRY: Olcay . No more questions.
(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the deposition was
concluded. )
UNCLASSro
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
529
CERTIFICATE OP NOTARY PUBLIC &
JOEL BREITNER
, the officer before whom
the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify
that the witness whose testimony appears in the
foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that
the testimony of said witness was taken in shorthand
and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under
my direction; that said deposition is a true record
of the testimony given by said witness; that I am
neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by
any of the parties to the action in which this
deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not
a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel
employed by the parties hereto, nor financially
or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.
My Commission Expires 8/14/90
UNWSSW
530
B'TOSSffl
Partially 0aclas5ilied/Rel«3sed nn 3 fe^gS
under provisions o( E,0 12355
by K Johnson. National Security Council
UNCIASSIFIEO
REPE=5ENCE
SANK TRANSACTIONS
Report Da
ts: 1-13-3-
Ccurce
Tra-sact ion
deference
nate
Bank
jT.e: -
100 7
"/pe
NuniDer
"Oil!
Numcer :
A-noun-
Acczu^t n;
^-OCCIBLE .-Wf-EJBI
^^1
■:-4-2c: -.35
ealan.re;
wire Deoosi'-.
?_ .000.04 5.00
DoT'j-ent
r ooc.o^^.'?-
0288-"
- - -
■701-{
^^^^^^^^1
C3-01.-84
Pa lanes:
1007
wi.-s r^eDosi*-
50 .04 5.00
C oc'jiTient
NumSer :
50 . 04^ . " ■
08-13-34
Balance:
1007
Wi'-e [leoosit
100 .090.00
Doo'-ment
Nunibe" :
50.045.00
0312-9
03-29-34
Balance:
1007
Wire Deoosit
150, 1 35.00
Document
Number:
50.04 5.00
0312-15
10-0<5-84
Balarice :
1007
Wire Deooei!-
175 . 130.00
Document
Number:
25,045.00
0307-?
10-18-94
Balance:
1007
Wire Deposit
200.225.00
Doc'jment
Number :
25, 045. on
11-05-84
Balance:
1007
Wire Deposit
265.270.00
Document
Number ;
65. 045. I :m
0305-8
11-19-84
Balance:
1007
Wire Deposit
300,315.00
Document
Number:
35.045.00
0305- .8
12-06-84
Balance:
1007
wire Deposit
375,360.00
Document
Number:
7 5,04 5.00
03U0-10
01-04-85
Balance:
1007
Wire Deposit
410.405.00
Document
Nunioer :
35,045.00
02-08-85
Balance:
1007
Wire Deposit
445.450.00
Docunien t
Numoer :
35.045.00
02-28-85
Balance:
1007
Wire Deposit
430.485.00
Document
Number :
35.035.00
0294-20
03-26-85
Balance:
100 7
Wire Deposit
515.520.00
Documen t
Number :
35,035.00
029 1 -2 J
:2A.i^ -
531
MUSSIFe
X 0/.49
BANK
REFERENCE
TRANCAOriONC
i^eport Date
: .-i:-37
Source
Transaction
-vpe
Reference
Numoer Am'
ount
04-26-85 100-
^1.-= Deposit
550. 555.. .0
Oocun.enr NuniCer :
35.035.'iO
32^y-3i
05-21-85 100-
6a 1 area :
Wire CeooEi'
Document Numoer :
25. 035. CO
0"" -03-85 i:.24
Balance :
^■. re Depos: :
&00,635.00
Document NumDer :
25.045.00
:ii9-7
Account Name: ^^|
1 (8004)
03-05-36 1024
Balance :
Ohecu
37.418.CCCR
Document Number:
37.418.00CR
Q120-1
04 -01-80 1024
Balance:
OhecU
120,736.C0CR
document Number:
33.366 ...OCR
0117-1
Account Name: H|
(3005)
08-09-34 130?
8alance:
Oeposi t
2.300.00
111
Document Number:
(8007)
106
Document Number:
2. 300.00
03 12-?
Account Name: ^^|
07-11-34 1007
Balance :
Deposi t
4.000.00
4,000.u0
0318-3
-cccunt Name: ^H
HH^H
08-27-85 1024
Balance :
Deposi t
4.093.00
113
Document Number:
4 . 093 . 00
0152-23
Account Name: ^^H
HHP
08-26-85 1024
Balance:
Deposit
7,500.00
120
Document Number:
• .500.00
0152-33
Account Name: DHL
(8014)
07-10-85 1024
Balance:
Deposi t
29.95
101
Document Number:
29.^5
01b9-4i
mmm
532
BNCIASW
/C fto^^. f<.y
Agosto 10, 1994
n\^
Muy senores nuestros:
Por medio de la presente les autorizamos a debitar nuestra
cuenta <=°'^^^^"^€^^^H^H||^|^H 1<3 <^s
USS50,000.00 para que se sirvan efectuar la siguiente trans-
ferencia:
a) ^^^HBQ|H|HHHM|
Partially Declassified/Released on 3 f-^^ 68
under Ofovlsions ot E 0 12356
by K Johnson. National Security Council
iffiUSSIflEO
533
lINOUSSIflED
;jf /^i^^^y
']\^
Agosto 28, 1984
Present
Muy senores nuestros:
Por medio de La presente les autorizanos a debitar nuestra cuen-
ta corriente^^^^^^^^HH la cantidad de US$50,000.00 para
que se siryan efectuar la siguiente transferencia:
ily Declassified/Released on 3i^B&'R
under provisions 0fE0l2356 vaaH^I
< Johnson, Nal/onal Secunt/ Council i F % E M '
\'
mm
534
UNCUSSIFIED
^c Jc^lfV
Julio 30, 1984
Presents.
Muy senores nuestros:
Por medio de la presents les autorizamos a debitar nuestra cuen-
±3. corriente ^^^^^^^^^^H la cantidad de USS50,000.00 para
que se sirvan efecfjar la siguiente trans ferencia:
120
b) Para crSdito de Cta. Especial U.S. Dolares No. I
Partially Deciasatied/neleased on.'" ".- •">•
undei ptovisions ol E.O 12355
^ ^-^
Partially Declassified/Released on 3A£^g8
under provisions of E,0 12356
by K Johnson, National Security Council
535
/i^ OJr^H
Preser.te.
;s r.uestros;
69^
For T^edio de la presente ^^^^^o^^^no^^i dec i ra;
tidad de 'JSS25 , 000 . 00 para que se sirvan efectuar
la siguiente transferencia :
a)
b) Para credito de
Cta. Esoecial U.S. D61ares r<o
Partially Declassified/Released on 3 fcak
under provisions of E.O 12356
by K Johnson. National Secuniy Council
536
Mssm
/<f- CJ~t
690
Octubre 18, 1994
cJ
'resente.
Muy senores nuestros:
Por medio de la presente les autorizamos a debitar
nuestra cuenta '^^'^'^isn^^'mHmHH^^H ^^ can-
tidad de USS25,000.00 pa^^qu^s^^^^?a^eTectaar
la siguiente transf erencia :
b) Para credito de
Cuenta Especial U.S. D61ares #
Partially Declassified/Released on 3 /-c^R
under provisions ol E 0 12356
by K Johnson, National Security Council
mm\m
537
UNcussm
S^oxi <Fv
,83
Noviembre 5, 1934
Muy sefiores noestros:
Por .Tiedio de la presente les autorizamos a debitar
nuestra cuenta corriente^^^H^^^^m|||^|^H la can-
tidad de rjs$65, 000 . 00 para que se sirvan efectuar
la siguiente transf erencia :
a)
b) Para credito de :
Cuenta Esoecial U.S. D61ares No
Partially Oeclassided/Released m3±66^
under provisions o( E 0 12356
by K Johnson, National Security Council
538
ONCUSSIHED
/f /V^n/'f 7
67S
Noviembre 19, 19S^
Presente.
Estimados senores:
Por medio de la preser^^ai^o^^amo^a ustedes debitar nues-
tra cuenta corr iente|^^|^^^m||^^|^p la cantidad
USS35,000.00 para transferirse a:
1) Banco :
.2) Para pagarse a;
3) Cuenta nGmero ;
c/-
Partially Declassified/Released on^££^8i
under pcovisions ol E 0 12356
by K Johnson, Nalional Security Council
Cuenta Esoecial t'.S. D61ares
\>^tentamente^ /
UNWSSinED
539
l'5fl||
0 66S
Diciembre ^, 1'
'resent
Estimados senores:
Por medio de la present^autor^amo^a ustedes debitar nues-
corrienteHmi^^^^^miH la cantidad de
USS 75,000.00 para transferirse a:
1) Banco
2) Para pagarse a: Cuenta 'Especial
3) Cuenta nQmero
Partially Declassitied/ReleaseO on >/-t?^ftfl
lEO 12356
I Security Council
under provisions c
OilASSIRED
540
DNCUSSIHED
V s7'^'v pr~
0 564
:nero 4, 1095
Presente.
Estimados senores:
Por medio de la preser^^^^o^^amo^^i us tedes debitar nues-
cuenta corr iented|^|^|^^|^|^| la cantidad dc
US$35,000.00 para transferirse a:
1) Banco-
2) Para pagarse a:
3) Cuenta nQmero : Cuenta Esoecial Mo.
Panially Declassified/Released on 3 ^g « 86
under provisions o( E 0 12356
by K Jonnson. National Security Council
mmm
541
♦^SJ-v
HNCUSSIFO
^ ft.i^^
Febrero 8, 1935
0 537
Presente.
Estimados senores;
Por medio de la presente autorizar
tra cuenta corriente|
USS35, 000.00
a ustedes debitar nues-
la cantidad de
56 a r
1) Banco-
2) Para pagarse a: Cuenta Especial
3) Cuenta nQmero : No.
.^6
Partially Declassified/Released on_J_£e558
undtr pfovistons of E 0 12356
by K Johnson. National Security Council
■M
542
ONCL/ISffD
Z^Fz.L'?^
^,
Febrero 28, 1985
0 519
Presente.
Estimados senores:
Por medio de la preser^^^^^o^^amo^^i ustedes debitar nues-
corriente ^^^H^^HH|^^|H la cantidad de
USS 35,000.00 p^^^tr^T^e^^^^a :
Banco : ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H
2) Para pagarse a:
3) Cuenta nCmero : Cuenta Especia]
Partially Declassified/Released on J/^d/SSg
under provisions ol E 0. 12356
by K Johnson. National Security Council
mmm
543
mssm
1
.".arzo 26, 1995
^9^
Estimados senores:
Por medio de la preser^^ai^or^amo^^i ustedes debitar nues-
tra cuenta corriente ||m||HHmH|^ la cantidad de
US $ 35, 000. 0 0 p^^^tr^is^^^^s^^^
2) Para pagarse a: Cuenta Especial Mo.
3) Cuenta nGmero :
Partially Oeclassitied/Released on 3>t-iJi8S
under provisions of E.O 12356
by K Johnson. National Security Council
UNCLASSIFIED
544
UNCLASSIRED
^c^pRf:,-- ^
0 451
.^bril 26, 19S5
'resente.
Estimados senores:
Por medio de la preser^^^^o^^amo^^i us tedcs debitar nues-
tra cuenta corriente m^Hmmpi^m la cantidad dc
US$ 35,000.00 par^^^^T^^^^^^^^
1 ) Banco
Para pagarse a: ^^^^^^^^H
3) Cuenta nQmero : Cta. Esoecial ?)oJ
Pariialiy Declassided/Released on 3(<.3 6'&
under provisions ol E 0 12356
by K Johnson. National Security Council
UNCLASSIFIED
545
UNCLASSIHED
'.ayo :i, 1935
0 428
'resente.
Estimadcs senores:
Por rTiedio de la prescr^^^^o^^amo^^i us tcdcs debitor nuc
cuenta corr icn tc H|HHI^HH^H ^^ cantidad dc
USS25,OCO.OO para transferirse n:
2) Para pagarsc a
3) Cuenta nGmero : Cta. Dolares
Partially Deciassiried/Released on J/'£'S8f>,
unaer provisions ot E 0 12356
by K Johnson, National Security Council
fNCUSJIflEO
82-7S2 0-88-19
546
immim
jclI b"
578
J 'J 1 1 o 3 , 19 3 5
'resente.
Estimados senores:
Por medio de la present^a^or^amo^^i ustedes debitar nues-
tra cuenta corriente |^HH||^Hm||||m|| la cantidad de
USS 25,0 0 0.00 para tr^^r^^^^^^^
1) Banco
for further credit to
Para pagacse ^ = ^^^^^^^^|
3) Cuenta nGmero : Cuenta Especiall
Pariiaily Declassitied/Released on J£M38
under provisions o( E 0 12356
Sy K Johnson, National Security Council
liNSlASSIHED
547
UNCLASSIHED
I^O^M S^
0250
I
Partially Declassified/Released on.
under provisions c
ht£>8&
EO 12356
Secunty Council
ONClASSIFIED^^'v • '
:l
548
INSTRUCCIONES RECIBIDAS OE
ORDEN DE PAGp No_
ot^rden de
por cuenij dt
por U tumt d*
PSSIFIED
^^o. 312330
X 0 2 5 \'^^'
1753
Idas.
I PSt9.985^ (
U.'D<.Ufii...« IIU
jVX mii/novi.cii.ii*os ocHijr.,. y ..u.-o cc;;
00/100,- ^
' qu« liquidjmot y p^ganioi
( ntreditindo Ij cuenu cornemc del Benehciano ^o.
( ) baio eJtricta ideiiliticacion /
EJECUTADA EL
TC:
'♦9.75'
'c '♦96.753
7^-85V /
iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiii:GO(U}n!UiiiiiiioiwiiuDiS!
iiiiiiii||iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiifnitr
yiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinlrfilTn^iiii!!
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiuutii^ii
Ftrma dc(loj) ben
||||lllHllllll'!ll!llllllll!'Hpl'IM'i:"';i:' ' ■' /
Allli;<JaiJlflll«JBtll8iWWflW>W}fi|lCWIi;Mii^la.:T:/'£i
illilliiiiliiiiliiiililiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifiOWiii!(75/^o.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitJiiii/MiHiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiMniiiiiiM
iliiliniiiiliiWfiniirMiiiiiiii'.iniiiii'M;!' ■mi:.'
anitiaP'iii'ti I'i'M ii'inii' ,■'■'■
NOTA OB CREOITO
xxKXx 310.;>00
N2 72985
4CllCO(TAOO M
///COMPOISADO///.
1_
Lnp Dujt. CX lll«l . UOllOOd 11-U
Partially Declassified/Released on 3^^£S£8
under provisions o( E 0 12356
by K Johnson. National Security Council
mmm
549
NCIASSIFIED
^Jo 313439
tolAX.
X 0 2 5 2
, u:,ix)LAa;:si veu.tikuevs/Jiil/ novz.ci.jirt;, -■:,t.::7,\ ccs
UE|29.970,ooi<^ 00/100 \
INSTRUCCIONES RECIBlQAS DE
TT-20'»9.-
poc cuentj d<
por l< luma de
qut liquidjmos y pagontos
XXIcreditando la cuenia coinente del Bern
( I baio esincta ideniilicocion
EJECUTAOA EL
•c 50,35 ''£l.
' ■ ^■-■llilllll!lllllillll!ll)IIIIIIIIHIllllllllillll!liilillllllllllllll!lllllllli;i:h::'i!
iin'n>:i>iiiiiiiiiiii:iiiiiiiiiiiaiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii|!n;{BiijiitiMi;^>iiui:iniiiiiiiiiiiiiini!ii,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiH ;>
iiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii numh(mm\mumid.Qfi'/m\mi\vn^/9m9\\mmm^^^
iiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiinijiiiiiiiii! "-' M. .^(^i/icifl,
.|,,ii,II,|IIIII|,|I,,|,,||.,|m;, ■i:i!iiiiii:'i:;::50/'lO0_^-
i:!r:ii|i||iii!'^llliiii:!
COPIA CLIENTS
'^
SOTA DE aiEDITO
310.300
N9 736Q4
CREDITADO
3 UECUCIOH DE NUi:STRA-OHDar DE PACO NO. 313^39./
|| L4 IVUA DC
cou*o Y>:iWTmnL7EHIL NQYMII^
aruIM
It 1:
\±
limp. Hum. C>i. >ii« . Xtoiood 1>41
Pariially Declassilied/Reieaseo' on 3/g^
under provisions ol E/0 12356
by K jQlmson, Naliooal Secunly ^unc.l
550
UNCLASSIFIED
31
INSTRUCCIONES RECIBIOAS D
OROEN OE PAGO No^ ''^
d. ordende INTL BU3INEG3 COKMUNICATIONi/
IDi.H
:izx
por cuenia do
por la tuma de
/,,
1*29.970.00/ i PCLARZS: VEIMItjULVE MIL'^ .\OV„;:l;.:..C.^
53
f que liquidamoi y pafj
^'S^crediiaiido li
liiiiiiiimiii
COPIACLIENTE
NOTA DE CREDITO
XXXX 310.300
N2 73297
.CREOITaOOku »»racl4lili
EJECUCION DE OP Na3142Qa. SEGUN —TALLE ADJUNTO (JUUU'li
,°^IMTINUEVE MIL NOV/cllHJ^feKf^NTA CON 00/100-x-x- i J29.97C.oo
lap. Uun. cu iiiu . xBuma ■ n-n
Partially Declassified/Released ml>f3S€
under provisions ol E 0 12356
Dy-K Johnson. Nalional Security CauncH
551
UNCLASSIFIED
INSTflUCCIONES REClBlDAS OE
22.10-45
at£CZT saxssi - aavrs.'
OROEN DE PAGO No.
rden de
pof li lumi d«
y qu« hqutdamoi y pogamoi
( 'Facreditjndo li cuenta
( I baio eilrico identifier
ZA i021.92^8-O%3/6..
UXZ BSS0DRCZ2 Z1IC«^
IDW— /
No. 3 1 4
353
315.000,00// DOU8B81 qOWC£ Mllj^OM CO/10^''-
0,/54
EJECUTAOA EL
4l TC
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!i!iiiiniiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiii
52,20/ °.,c 783.000.00./
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinjoiiiiiTiniTiiiniiiiniii
""'ili|'"iii|M|iniii!iMi|!in'
iiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiy
iiiiiiiniiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii/fi
■|M|H'iC0>fWai6>tDO4/ii':
COPIACLIENTE
y/f-S
Y
"lllli:!!!!!!!:
liliilliil'iHII'i'!!'" :'Pii"iiii"iiii;
NOTA OE CREDITO
xnxx 310300
N9 76156
WKDCIOH IS NOISTaA O.P. Jl'tSjS,/ SD 7AV0B.
QPIHCl MIL OOW 00/100. »
CUENTA N'
I ,15.M0.UO«-
" 2 2 OUT 1985 j,o^;
t^. D<«. CL uitt ■ aoiioaa . iMi
Partially Oedassilied/Released on 3/^£-g6H
undet pnjKisions o( E 0 12356
PEussitf*
552
UNCLASSIFIED
INSTRUCCIONESRECIBIOASOE: CE2SIT 30XSSI • a0I£VX/^
TEUX./ /
Lka U^OBCXS ZNc/
|15.000.«^/DOULHSSi vBCTCS MIL
No. 315198
ROEN DE PAGO No.
|J« Offlen da
por cutnta d«
' qu« liquidimos y pagjmoi
( '^aertdinndo Ij cuenia corri'-nii dtl Btnafiei.
( I ba|0 Mincu identidcacidn
/ 15-11
JECUTADA EL / , „
T.c. 52.W ^c 786.750.
15-11-45
00~
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiyimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiffi^mmftfflKii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii^iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiifliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
rfiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
UW"
'''ll"l|HI||ll|IIH|IMI
IlllljIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIWIIIIinillllllllllllilllllllllllllllllli'!!!:!!!!
iiiiiiiijiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiwiiiiiiiiiiilini!ii;i!iiiiiiiiuii!i iiiiiiiii:
mg^mM
COPIACLIENTE
<:^Sv^
¥
iUliii
iiiliU
///
NOTA OE CRSDITO
310300
NO 76294
ACBCOITAOO CDW
, I - wicocioM a mBSTiu_o,p. .3 15,15a A^w^jtAvoa . •
-'y H^'^pmcs MIL ooH 00/100
!■•- !><«■ CM. UIM ■ MQUOeid
Partially OeClassitied/Released on 3Fi£S$8
undfer provisions ot E 0 12356 '
iy K liohoMn, Malnnai Sfiriirity Pniincil
553
iSNSlliSSinEB
INSTRUCCIONES REClBIOASOE
08-1-86
CU£DX7 SOIS.SZ OUi£VS.
No:315973
■' 0256
zx 11189250059,^
""" Id... y
'•""<*• , ^^^ , D.;0LA2i:i» CQTG^CE MIL tlCVCCICXTJS CChc.^JT--, v U':Z zzn
'0S|1*» .985,25 / ]/ 23/100-K-x-Ji- \
por U sumi dt
' qua liquidarMoi y tMgamoi
bcrediundo \t cuenta cornente del B«n«ficiano No
( I tMjo istricu idemificacion
NOTA DE aUCDITO
xxxx 310.300
N9 76689
Hmmat ACRCDITAOO aiai
EJECUCION DE OP Na315973. SEGUN. DETALLE ADJUNTO
"•"^."SaTORCE mil NOVECIENTOS OCHENTA Y UNO CON 25/lOC-x-x-
< 1^.961.25
554
NSTRUCCIONES RECIBIOAS DE:
20003188,/
OROEN«^€^qft-NeO« CUiHTi-
at ordtn d«
por cutnta dt
por li luinj d*
NCUSSiriED
No.316104
lolex.
• 0257
^WDOuai:. J Di-z hil c6n 00/100
Y qua lin<iid«moi y pagjmot
( T^ciediUndo la cuenta cornenia d>l Saneficiario No.
( I baio tttricta identificacion
EJECUTADA EL.
17-1-86
53^.300,00
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiNijiimmjiiiili
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnmimti^iliiml
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;)iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
CWIACLIENTE
IllllllillllillSillllllll!:!:!:.;;::::.:;:!
Illllllllllllllllllllllllllllll'JIilll!
lll!llllllllllllll|lilllllllllMil;:;
||||liMii!ll!itiii"Mii|ii" ■ ':•■■
NOTA OE CKEDITO
ta
NO 7697E
«CltCOlTAOO mm
] J EJICUCXOH DI HUE8THA OJ JieiO^*./
.5 oocjuui put WTT. now 00/100
J CUEl
Panially Oeclassilied/Released on 3>fif&8at I
uni)er_£roy.isionsjlXQ.1235€. .. , 11
67T<'Jotinson.'Na"lionaiSecunIv Council W
566
mmmi.
ORDEN DE P4G0N0.
dt otdin dt tl alsae
t«l«x.
0258
pot cutniu d«
por li .um, d. q<i9.9Sl.y>
n / U-LOUHi-i NBtVE MIL BOVtClti'TCS KliiJir^ T OI.w -C:i .
_j ( 50/100 ;
y qut liquidamos y lugomos
( ^^crediundo li cuenta cornente del
( I bajo eitricu >dent><icacian
19-2-86
EJECUTADAEL , ,__.
..TC. 53.70/ ..ri^^^
Il1lirillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllili>llililii:ii:l!:':n!
1)1111111111111
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinTiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiTiTiiiiiiiiriiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiu^
lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIjllllllllllllllllllllllllll. illllHIII!l!!llli:'l
COPIA CLIENTE
^■
C_,^
NOTA DE CREDITO
N9 77493
icaKOlTADO m m
EJECUCZON Dl NUESTBA OP 316601«/ "
I Mrausa
: or»j«a HTTCTt HTT. HOVrnTKHTa
. CM. ui« • miem ■ u-^^riiaily Oeclassitied/Released on 3/t
under D'Ovisions ot E 0 12356
liffiJSSIFlEO—
556
INSTRUCCIONES RECIBIDAS OE:
CRZOIT £DX6SE CCJt>fE«
OROEN Oi.^AGQjfjf^
d« orden de
por cutnia dt
pof U sumj dt
aA03l892<»80796^ < E
IcsnO.OOO.o/ ']/ 0fi2OI^^« M" J^/CQB OO/lpO
UNCUSSIFIED
No.317038
ttlcx.
0259
Y qut liquidjmoi y pigainoi
( ^icreditando la cuenta corrienie del Benaliciario No
( I baio tttncu idtntidcacion
EJECUTADA EL
21-3-86
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiniiiiimiiiiiiimiimiiiiili
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinrmlfflimiliiirfi
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
4^ay^';MM^!;pi^!;i^a';:ig
COPIACLIENTE
NOTA DE CIUfJ)ITO
N2 7752:
> C R S O I T * O <
EJECUCION DE NOESTRA OP
.^°^'j:i'-j::rj:rr[rzjum'j&
ub». Quu. cu iiiu ' xQiiooa ■ a-4
Partially Declassified/Released dn 5 /g'ygffg
under provisions of E 0 12356
by K Johnson, NalionatSecuiUy-GoMci
10/000. PC
■mm
557
01-5-86
INSTRUCCIONESRECIBIOASDE: CUZOlt SOISiiS 0E5EV2,
ZJiO^J092«>70636./
OROEN DE.PAGO No.
por cuinK a*
per l« sums d«
ld«a«
iassio»ooo,o/ j(
nCDOUUISii Dli^ WyCON 00/100
Hll/cOl
02^0
' qu« liqutdamos y pagjmos
I XHcreditando l> cuenta ccinente del Bcntliciario No.
( ) iMjo esincu idcutificacion
,(i^^^i■
38C
EJECUTAOAEL , ^
^iT.c. ^J ..jc 5'>7.500.o/
y
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiuimuiuiiiyiiiii]
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiihniTtnfniiniiiimiTrniinrTiiifiiWTiiiiiiiiiiii
COPIACLIENTE
iitia»Biiconiioo;,(»
iilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiit'
iilliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii;iiiniii!iii'''r:
llll|lllllllllilini!ii:lllllllli!:iiii'i'i ■ '■
y
NOTA DE C3l£Ont)
N9 8065
CBIDITADO
5 oocmn DIES HIL CON 00/10»
EJECUCIOW DE NOESiaA OP 317736./
Partially Oeciassitied/Released on_i£ifiif I
unoer provisions of E 0 12356
by K Jorinson. Naljonal Secyril^ Cjiincji.
558
09-6-tt
INSTRUCCIONESRECIBIOASpE; CiUEDlt 8WSSE OiatVI
U 060*92'»81596./
OROEN Ogf A££y^
d« ordin dc ldta«
por cutnta d«
por U tum« d«
pstlO.OOO.oo/
]<
UNCUSSIfi,
OSDOLABiil DIZZ tOyCOa 00/100
279
tftlcz.
0261
Y qu* liquid.i Jt ¥ pjgonioi
1 Ticreditando \t cuenta corrieins del Beneficiano No.
( ) ba)0 tstncta identificacion
EJECUTAOAEL
09-6-8^
T.c. 55,10 %\c 551.000,0.
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
iii^^BiS;'.;r..,^M
lllllllllilllllllllllllllljlllllllllllllllllllllllllllijllllllll!i::iilll!>llli
COPIACLIENTE
r
.iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiipiiii
'liilTiiiniliinliffliinnni
ifiiMiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiijKiii
|M1I||||IIH!0QISI1|1WU1>|4PIH
IIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIipilllllllllllllllllillllllillh'il
iilllililliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!:!'::
iiininciiiiiiiiiiiiitiiiini!!iii!!;!im':L:"
itiiiiiiiiiniiiiiinrtirTni;iTTTr!:ii!'rx':r ";
H|ll'l"l|ll||ni:i|ll'i;i|i!Mn,._;;^ y.
NOTA DE C31E0IT0
N2 79127
HBoa ACRCOITAOO <n w
EJECUCZON D£ NUESTSA OP 318279 •/
559
0>7-86/
UNCLASSIFIED
INSTRUCCIONES RECIBIDAS 0£:
ORDEN DE^i^fj^^Ua
No. 318733
teXex.
^ 0262
p«i,.um.d. ^9.9ai,?0/ |( 50/100 )
t qu« hquiditnoi y iJjjamoi
( JfferediUndo Is cuenia corrnnn del Barn
( I lM|0 tstricu ideMtidcacion
EJECUTADAEL
.ITC. 55,70
l!li;i!|i|!!!l!r
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinintliliiitiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiH .
iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiin
' |iiiiitiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiia^n]iuiiiji''ijiMimiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiii'iiiiiiiiiiiiMn//
i|i|!i||M|i|in!'|l||l|;MniFqryw!^fffffl^iri|||iiii|||l!|liM'u;uiMM|:r
COPIACUIENTE
f
CA''
NOTA OE CIIEDITO
3060-00
N9 7957
,CREDITADO
EJECUCIONDI NUESTSA OP 318733./
55^
Ia« OlML CO
Partially Declassiliea/Releasel
under provisions ol E C
&y K .Jonnson. Uatonal Secuuty
iC^ iClASSIFIEB
560
INSTRUCCIONES RECIBIDAS OE:
ORDEN DE PAGO No.
d.ord«ndt EL MISMO
lUZH
2S6>e6
CP.EDIT SUISSE GENEVE^
0822-9250-137/6
UHCUSSim
No. 319559
TZLIX
^ 0261
por cutnta dt
»or la luma dt
KO.CCC.
00/ I \
tOLARZCiVElKTE MIL^aN CC/lCC-x-x-
I qua liquidamoi v pagamot
( ^^crtdiundo la cuenta cornenta del Benaficiano I
1 I bajo astncia identilicacibn
Firma dalloil bcneln
EJECUTAOA EL
25-8-86
Tc. 56.30 »Jei>i26.ooo.ooy| •"^^V:^^'":.^;;;:.?;'^"'''
olon.ajCin minon clento^ ''•^^^^^•^■/"litLHflfflfTllllt^^M^iTirifRmilllllllllillllllllllilillllllllll
lilulllllfll
Hiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii:i;iiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiii
iiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiimiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilii
COPIACLIENTE
iiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!
iiiililiiiiiiiliilliiiillliiiiliiniiiiiiiniii
iiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiniiii!iiiii!iii'iiiiiii:!':ii
iiiiiiiiMiiiiiimiw«;wwHf'tii!Unii-
NOTA ne CREDITO
xxxxx 306000
N2 79532
iCREOITAOO to:
EJECUCIGN DE OP Nt319559
VEINTE MIL CON OO/100-x-X'
CUENTA N
llMt C*l ]ll«a KDlllXM 13 U
Partially Declassified/Released nn 3 f(:&'.
under provisions ot E 0 12356
by K Johnson, National Security Council.
NCLCTOr
561
Ali.or Ji
INSTRUCCIONES RECIBIOAS-OE
08-9-86 TO
CBLOIX i^UiH GU^
OROEN OE PAGO No. 2*090592501316./
d« ofd«n d« •! "iMW
por cu«ntj d« *»•■• /
fTTTTTZ^ n / 0:-DOLAa:Jl DIIX WL COS 00/100
I os<io.ooc,oo/ I \ y
por la sums dt
>
qut liquidamoi y (xjamot
(*¥jcrediljndo Ij cusnta corn
( ) b4|0 titncu idaniificacion
„.„. 9-9-66 /
.iTc 56.65/ %|c 566. 500.00/
EJECUTADAEL
colones ; qulniBTitoaT^
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlfilllllllllllllllllll
iiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiMiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiliiiiiiiniiliiiiiilliiiiiiiilllii
iij.ii;nH..!iii!iiiiiiniiii!:iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
'iiiiiiiiii '"'iiaiiiliM^lil^'
n;iiiiiiiiiini!iiiiinnrrwTif|^riiTigfff|ii
iiilliiiiii
iiiiiiini
iiiiiiiii!:
COPIACLIENTE
NOTA DE CREDITO
xxxx 306000
N2 79592
CBEOITADO an M
EJECUCION DE OP N« 31 9802
PartiaHy Oeclassitied/Released on 3 fe^(g8
under orovisions of E 0 12356
by K Jotinson. National Security Council
562
07-ao-8^
IINCUSSIFIED
No, 320273
STRUCCIONESRECIBIOASDE: .
CglOXt BUlStZ OUiCVJ
VIZ
u .om. d. I 03110.000,0)9 I (^ 0-DOUIRE2 1 DIE* WL CO! 00/100/
vi« liquidamot y pigamoi
( ^citdiundo \* cutnta cornentt del B«ne;
( ) tM|0 eitricia identificacibn
>V ^69.000.0/-
56,90-^
lllllllllllllllllilillllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
iiiiiiii!iiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii1iiiliiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiuffiMi
llllllllllllllll
telox.
X 0265
^PIACLIENTE
lililiilillilii!!"!;;:'.
Ill|lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllimilllllllllllllllllllll|llllllllllllllllllll!!!!ll:
!iHiiiiiii!ii:iiiiiliiiliiiiilliiillllllllmlllilliilliiiiOiiwnillli!ii:i:i<iiiiiiiiiiiiii:iii
llllllllllllllll illliiiillliiiiiiiiijjillllliiimiiniiiiilllliniiliiiiii''iiniiiiii!iiiiiii'iin
in|i|iiM|nMi!iiiifi9W<BW^^>>^ni'Hi|l!n||!|lRltttr-^
^
NOTA DC CRSDITO
NS 18810
CXRTIFICACIOK-
3060.00
kCRSOITAOO a N IcnMbl* <
EJECUCZOM 01,
L4 SUUA oa
l^ll!li:j!i^.^^i! L J^Q^iiSge , I
Partially Oeclassiliea/Rcleased on 3 ^
Ui». DM. e»i. UKi micau unoe, provisions ol £ 0 12355
bw K Johnson. National Security Council
563
0W11-66 /
.NSTRUCCONESRECIBIOASOE: C8SDIT SDIS^
ZJL 110392500866./
OROEN DE PAGONo.
•1 tlamo . Bsrt OCTUBBi: 86
d« orden d«
por cutnta dt i,
por la tuma d«
PStlO.000,00 ."] ( OSUOULBtSl tUZ Utt/COM 00/100
qua hquidamoi y pd9ai<K)i
( M Jcrtdiundo I) cuenia cornanta del Benificiano No
( I b<|0 aitricu idantidcacion
EJECUTADAEL
05-11-86
"TC. 57.20/ %!C 572.00O.ooy
COPIACLIENTE
rttm. N? »>i I
NOTA UE CREDITO
" N2 18958 '™^'
kCBSDlT ADO m m (
3060-00
— fartiaKy Declassified/Released on_
ofEO 12356
Security Council
EJKOCIOH DI MUCBTBA OP 520728./
[)|^ "OIB ICL een 00/100
CUENTA N1
■icussinE
564
565
UN^ASSIF'^D
UNITED STATES SENATE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
SECRET MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO
IRAN AND THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
DEPOSITION OF GLENN A. ROBINETTE
Washington, D.C.
Friday, March 27, 1987
Deposition of GLENN A. ROBINETTE, called for
examination by the Senate Select Coinmittee on Secret Military
Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition, at the
Senate Hart Office Building, Room 901, at 10:30 a.m.,
before DAVID L. HOFFMAN, a Notary Public within and for the
District of Columbia, when were present:
JOHN D. SAXON, ESQUIRE
Associate Counsel
Senate Select Committee
Hart Senate Office Building
Room SH-901
Washington, D.C. 20510
On behalf of the Committee.
MARK H. TUOHEY, III, ESQUIRE
Attorney at Law ,e^x-, »•>
Pierson, Ball & Dowd ^'' . - D?-la3!if;H/ Release' on J.8££iiL
1200 18th Street, N.w. jnder provisvjr^ of Lj '2?^^
Washington, D.C. 20036 by •■B^, Natiof.:.. oecurit, Council
E-rcDCWU. tEPOriTEns mc
UfRUKSIlPlED
566
UNOl^Sy^UD
TABLE OF CONTENTS
'i Glenn A. Robinette
!| By Mr, Saxon
tCC-rCMIItL l«CPO«Tt«S INC
EXAMINATION
IDENTIFIED
11
12
12
13
19
UN(MSSM'fED
567
UMCUSSIfftO
•CE^CDCML «tPO«TE«S IKC
Whereupon,
GLENN A. ROBINETTE
was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Mr. Robinette, would you state for the record,
please, your full name.
A Glenn A. Robinette.
Q Your address, sir.
A 3265 Arcadia Place, N.W., Washington, D.C.
Q Could you tell us by whom you are employed, sir.
A I am self-employed.
Q What would be the name of the entity under which
you do business?
A Glenn Robinette & Associates.
Q What is your business address?
A The same as the home address .
Q What is the nature of the business that Glenn
Robinette & Associates engages in?
A I do security consulting, consulting on security
UitS^I(S^j?^E3
568
UNCkftSSAHiD
ltCl-flOt»U. DEPOHTEIIS INC
type projects.
Q Could you elaborate a bit on that?
A Yes. Individuals, businesses or companies
require advice and guidance on physical security, personal
security, technical security.
Q Okay. Do you or did you ever have any relatives
who worked for the Federal Bureau of Investigation?
A No, I did not.
MR. TUOHEY: Off the recrod,
(Discussion off the record.)
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Mr. Robinette, I'd like to inquire into matter
which has received some public notice within the last few
weeks involving a security system installed at the home of
LTCOL Oliver North.
First question, do you, sir, know LTCOL Oliver
North?
MR. TUOHEY: I object to the question on the
grounds of privilege, and I instruct my client not to answer.
Now, you can leave this on — you can leave it on the record.
How is it best handled for you?
MR. SAXON: I do not care whether you assert
ijNetfts^i^^i^
UNeiASStPtED
!l
Ijprivilege on behalf of your client. I see no reason to go
1
through the process of having him do it. I would, however,
^like to ask the questions which I would have otherwise asked. —
MR. TUOHEY: Fine.
MR. SAXON: — for purposes of ascertaining where
privilege does and does not apply.
MR. TUOHEY: Why don't we do this then, to make it
I simple. I will just say we assert the privilege in response
to the question, or do you want me to object? Whichever is
easiest. It is going to be a transcript for the Committee. I
Will object and assert the privilege.
MR. SAXON: Okay,
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever met Colonel North?
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question; assert the
privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever done any work for Colonel North?
MR, TUOHEY: Object to the question; assert the
privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever done any work on behalf of or as a
yN0ift^|J?3
570
UM€tftSStBt9
favor to Colonel North?
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question; assert the
privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever had a conversation with Richard
Secord? Did you have a conversation with Richard Secord
sometime in the time frame of late spring or early summer
1986 regarding Colonel Oliver North?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever spoken with a Mr. Ben Chatham of
Automatic Door Specialists?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
MR. SAXON: That objection would be as to any
conversation of any nature?
MR. TUOHEY: Yes. Yes, it would, although, it
would make it easier for my client and I to respond, John,
if you are going to go beyond the time frame at issue , which
I guess, based on what's public, a matter of public record,
the period of 1986 through the present — if your question is,
have you ever had a conversation of any kind with an
individual other than during this period, we might have a
>CI'fEDCIML I1EI><J«T€«S, INC
Uifl6|EASStFtcD
571
UNeiftS^FlED
different response.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever had a conversation with Mr. Ben
Chatham of Automatic Door Specialists about doing any work
for Colonel North?
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question and assert the
privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever had any conversation with Mr. Chatham!
regarding doing any work for an associate who press reports
suggest — an associate of yours whom press reports suggest
would have been Colonel North?
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question; assert the
privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever had a conversation with Mr. Chatham
regarding doing any work to install a security system at
703 Kentland Drive, Great Falls, Virginia?
MR. TUOHEY; Object to the question; assert the
privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever been to 703 Kentland Drive, Great
UNGL^Stf^ED
572
uNe^)ts^r;i3
Falls, Virginia?
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question; assert the
privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Do you know, sir, who lives at 703 Kentland Drive,
Great Falls, Virginia?
A MR. TUOHEY: Same question.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever met Mr. Chatham at a private home,
a private residence for a job that Automatic Door Specialists
was to do?
MR. TUOHEY: Other than what has been previously
described?
MR. SAXON: That's correct.
MR. TUOHEY: Other than the address you've just
given or including?
MR. SAXON: Including.
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question and assert the
privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever told Mr. Chatham that a party living
at 703 Kentland Drive was an associate of yours?
uNei^sffitd
Kl-nOiHtL DEPOIITEIIS
573
UHCll^SSiiltO
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question; assert the
privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever receive an invoice from Automatic
Door Specialists for a job done at 703 Kentland Drive,
Great Falls, Virginia?
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question; assert the
privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever call Mr. Ben Chatham of Automatic
Door Specialists upon receipt of an invoice and ask him to
meet you for dinner?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you, in fact, ever meet Mr. Chatham for dinner
at a Japanese restaurant in Silver Spring, Maryland, or, for
that matter, in any other restaurant?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you, over dinner with Mr. Ben Chatham at a
restaurant in Silver Spring, Maryland, present him an
envelope with cash in the amount of $2173?
UH€Lft$^RED
574
UN6tll[SSIFA^3
MR. TUOHEY: Sarae objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever called Mr. Chatham of Automatic
Door Specialists with regard to servicing a home security
system, gate intercom at 703 Kentland Drive at Great Falls,
Virginia, after such time as the system was installed?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever discussed with Mr. Chatham, apart from
the job referenced in Great Falls, Virginia, doing business
with him overseas?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever discussed with him doing business
in the Far East or other parts of the world, which you are
not at liberty to disclose?
MR. TUOHEY: Sarae objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever discussed with him doing business
overseas involving electronic devices on buildings?
MR. TUOHEY: Sarae objection.
ICErEDCXL DtPOITCaS
ViH£U^^?*t^
575
UNOASS^P
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever discussed with him doing business
overseas, in which his employees would require government
security clearances?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
MR. SAXON: I would like to present to you some
documents, which I would ask be marked in order as Deposition
Exhibit 1, 2 and 3, and ask you to refer to, if you would,
Mr. Robinette, Deposition Exhibit 1, which is a proposal
submitted to Glenn Robinette & Associates by Automatic Door
Specialists, presented by, if you look at the authorized
signature block, Mr. Benjamin P. Chatham. This is the date
of June 17, 1986, and I would ask you if you have ever seen
that before.
(Exhibit 1 identified.)
MR. TUOHEY: On the basis of what has been
previously asserted as the objection by Mr. Robinette, more
specifically under the Fisher Doctrine, we respectfully
decline to answer the question on the grounds of privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q I would ask you, Mr. Robinette, if you could
verify for the committee whether that is, indeed, your
CI-fEOe*U. UPOtTE*! INC
liN6lASS»F;ED
576
UtRHASSIFlED
tCE-FEDCUl l)EK»Tt«S
signature at the bottom of Exhibit 1.
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection as just made.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q I would ask that you look at what has been marked
as Deposition Exhibit 2, which is a letter on the letterhead
of Automatic Door Specialists to Glenn Robinette & Associates,
signed by Benjamin P. Chatham, dated July 7, 1986, and ask
you if you have ever seen that letter before. i
(Exhibit 2 identified.) '
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q I would ask you if you have any confirmation of
the facts asserted in that letter.
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q I would ask you then to look at Deposition Exhibit
3, which is an invoice from Automatic Door Specialists,
Job Invoice No. 2747, billed to Glenn Robinette & Associates,
and ask you if you've ever seen this invoice.
(Exhibit 3 identified.)
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
uHeti^^t^
577
UNeElfSStHED
BY MR. SAXON:
Q I would ask you if you have paid the amount circled
on that invoice of $2173 to Automatic Door Specialists.
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection. John, are we
entitled to have a copy of this or not?
MR. SAXON: Yes. There's a copy unmarked as to
deposition exhibit number, and those are for your purposes,
and those are for you.
MR. TUOHEY: Thank you.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Mr. Robinette, I referenced at the outset that
some of the matters I have inquired about have appeared in
public, for which reason I would like to ask you some
questions about some newspaper articles. I will give you
these as your copies to have and take with you.
The first newspaper article, which I have asked
be marked Deposition Exhibit 4, is a story from the
Washington Post of March 17, 1987, by George Lardner, Jr.,
with the headline, "North Given Gift of Home Security: A
$2,Q00 Gate."
CExhibit 4 identified.)
UNSEeSPlED
82-732 O-88-20
578
UNetltS^HED
BY MR. SAXON:
Q I would ask you first if you are familiar with,
or have any knowledge of that Washington Post article.
MR. TUOHEY: While I would, reflexively, based on
DtPOtTCIIS INC
jj the context of this deposition, assert the privilege, I want
to be sure that I am doing it accurately.
MR. SAXON: Do you need a moment to read the
article?
MR. TUOHEY: If your question is, has Mr. Robinette
read the article, he can answer it.
If your question is, is he familiar with the
contents reflected therein, that is a different question.
MR. SAXON: All right. Let me take them in order
then.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Mr. Robinette, you see the article in front of you.
Have you read that article, sir?
A Yes, I have.
Q Can I ask you if there is anything in that article
which you find to be inaccurate?
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question and assert the
privilege.
UK§ERSSI??ED
579
UNa^SflFlED
ll BY MR. SAXON:
Q Can I ask you, then, whether you can confirm any
.1
'I of the facts stated in that article and attributed to you,
!i
Sir.
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you, within the last month, spoken to George
Lardner, Jr., of the Washington Post?
MR. TUOHEY: You may answer that question.
Have you spoken to Mr. Lardner?
THE WITNESS: Subsequent to this?
MR. TUOHEY: No, in the last month at all, have
you spoken to Mr. Lardner?
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell him you heard about Colonel North's
security problems with "terrorists and people like that" in
a Northern Virginia bar one evjning?
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question and assert the
privilege, and I will object emd assert the privilege to
each and every question regarding the contents of the
interview, although you can ask them, John.
IjNgkftS^iF^ED
580
UNClASSlf^D
Kci-ttottAi. UK»iin. INC
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner that Richard Secord told
;' you of Oliver North's difficulties, after Colonel North was
ii
ij publicly linked to aid for the contras?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner that you were a "security
consultant"?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner, 'General Secord told me
to talk to him," meaming Colonel North? Continuing the
quotation, "I think there had been some things put in the
mailbox, potential explosives. And there was also some
concern about cars driving onto the property."
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner that the bill for this
job was "around $2,000"?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Leurdner that you paid for that
UNeEltSS'i^'iD
581
UHCl^Stf^^^
bill upon receipt of the invoice, in cash?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner, "I considered it worth
it as perhaps a business venture"?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner, that you hoped Colonel
North would steer some business your way?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner — excuse me. Did you
suggest to a reporter that you had in mind putting in more
gates for North's friends and neighbors?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner, you did not regard
paying for the gate in cash as "a very unusual deal. I
pay in cash for a lot of things"?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection?
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner that you still expected
UNCtftssyr.Eo
582
UHefPSSfFED
expected Colonel North to pay you back one day?
MR- TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner of Colonel North, "He'll
pay. I look at it as simple business. He's a hell of a nice
guy.
Very nice family. Super kids. He just wasn't able
aCCfEOMU KCroHTEIIS
to come up with the money"?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner that you met General
Secord through Thomas G. Clines?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner that you have known
Thomas G. Clines for than 30 years?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Lardner, of our committee, "They
must think I've been moving money"?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
MR. SAXON: I'd like to invite your attention and
that of your counsel to Deposition Exhibit No. 5, which is
b?KtflS$irED
583
UNeiRSS«FtEO
a newspaper article in the Chicago Tribune on the date of
March 18, 1987, by Mr. Michael Tackett and William Gaines,
with the headline, "North Financial Aid Arranged by Secord.
(Exhibit 5 identified.)
BY MR. SAXON:
Q I would ask you, sir, whether you have read that
article before.
MR. TUOHEY: Have you read it?
THE WITNESS: Yes, recently.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Thamk you.
Did you ever talk with either Mr. Tackett or
Mr. Gaines?
A Yes.
Q Could you tell us which? Mr. Tackett?
A Yes. Mr. Tackett.
Q Mr. Gaines?
A No.
Q So you talked only with Mr. Tackett.
Did you ever tell Mr. Tackett that you paid
$2000 cash to a contractor to install a security system
for Colonel North?
UN€t«SSr,ED
584
UNC^I^tHED
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that you have billed
North for work but have not been paid?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Could you tell us when you billed Colonel North?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that General Secord
approached you last spring to the effect that Colonel
North was concerned about security and a possible terrorist
attack on his home or his person?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that you called North
and said you would arrange to have a security system
installed?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that you paid a contractor
$2000 in cash and billed Colonel North for the work?
»CI-f€0€«n HtPOHIEKS
unayissifcED
585
UNeiltSSfRED
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that Colonel North had not
yet repaid you?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that you were a business
associate of Mr. Clines"?
MR. TUOHEY; Same objection. '
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that Mr. Clines
introduced you to General Secord several years ago?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that you denied any
impropriety in paying for the gate?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that you exchanged letters
with Colonel North about the debt?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
UN{a.ftS8fflED
UNOI^S^ED
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that you expected to be
paid by Colonel North?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that Colonel North
indicated in his letter to you that he was strapped for cash?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever received a letter from Colonel
Oliver North?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett of the security system
and its installation, "It's an innocuous thing"?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever tell Mr. Tackett — excuse me —
"It's just a remote control gate"?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever tell Mr. Tackett, speaking of
Uim<fi8SlfJED
587
UNOL^SfftED
Colonel North, "He told rae he was really concerned about
terrorists. He was concerned about his kids and all"?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever tell Mr. Tackett that you told North
that the security gate and the intercom system would help
protect his family and home?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
aY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever tell Mr. Tackett that you believed
the installation of the gate at Colonel North's home might
benefit your own business.
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
aY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever tell him, "I was hoping to get more
business. He volunteered if I wanted that if I wanted to
use the gate as a reference for other business, he wouldn't
mind"?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever tell Mr. Tackett that Secord approached
you about helping Colonel North?
ICtftOtHAL ItWtTEIS mC
UN€ift^fik:D
588
UNtUS^HED
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever tell Mr. Tackett, "Secord said here's
the phone number. Call him up," meaning Colonel North?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever tell Mr. Tackett that after the gate
was installed. Colonel North wrote you a letter thanking you
for your concern for his family? i
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever tell Mr. Tackett that you had no
other business dealings with Richard Secord?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you tell Mr. Tackett that you and Thomas Clines
had been business partners in several business ventures in
conjunction with one of v^iich you're codefendants in a breach
of contract suit on appeal before a federal appeals court in
in Richmond, Virginia?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Can you tell us anything that you did tell
*CC«0««l *CK)IIT»S INC
UmSkASS^HEO
589
UlAaASSirSED
Mr. Tackett in the conversation which you have previously
acknowledged?
MR. TUOMEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Can you tell us anything that you told to
Mr. Lardner in the earlier conversation you've acknowledged?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Mr. Robinette, were you ever employed by the
Central Intelligence Agency?
MR, TUOHEY: You may answer that.
THE WITNESS: Yes, I was.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Could you tell us the approximate dates of your
employment?
A 1951-1971.
Q Cein you tell us the nature of your work for the
agency?
MR. TUOHEY: John, I'm going to object, not on the
grounds of self-incrimination privilege, but on the grounds
that Mr. Robinette, when he retired from the Central
Intelligence Agency, signed an agreement that he would never
UH^ASSii
590
UmilASSIFIED
disclose the details of his employment. I can formalize
that in a national security type assertion, but for the
moment, I am going to instruct the client not to answer the
question.
MR. SAXON: Let me say for the record, that this a
cleared deposition. Our court reporter is cleared at the
secret level. I am cleared at top secret and compartmented
information. Whether that assists you in revising your
previous answer, I don't know.
MR. TUOHEY: It does not assist me today. It may
assist me at a further discussion down the road, and I would
have to review the terms of that agreement before I advised
my client.
MR, SAXON: Okay.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q If you can't describe the exact nature of your
work for the agency, could you state for the record your
position or title at the CIA for any or all of your positions?
MR. TUOHEY: I believe the same objection would
apply at this point. I will review the agreement, the
security agreement that was signed by my client, and at a
future date, maybe we will be able to discuss this, but for
tci-fcociuu. •CPOireiis
U^ASS^flED
591
UN^ItSSIFltD
the moment, I am going to have to instruct him to respectfully
decline to 2mswer the question.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Are you now employed by the Central Intelligence
Agency?
A No, I'm not.
Q Have you been employed by the agency since leaving
in 1971? I
MR. TUOHEY: I instruct the witness not to answer !
the question on the grounds of privilege.
MR. SAXON: Privilege as to security?
MR. TUOHEY: Yes.
MR. SAXON: That objection would likewise apply
to the question: have you ever done any work on a contract
basis for the agency, since leaving in 1971?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever done 2my work as a security
consultant for the United States Capitol?
MR. TUOHEY: You may answer.
THE WITNESS; No.
itroiiTiiis IMC
UNfikftS^JflED
592
UNCiA&SlEIED
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever done any work as a security
consultant at the White House?
A No, I have not.
Q Have you ever done any work as a security consultant,
after leaving the agency in or for clients in South Africa
or doing work in South Africa?
A No, I have not.
Q The same question as to the Middle East.
MR, TUOHEY: I an going to instruct my client not
to answer the question, on the grounds of his Fifth Amendment,
privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q The same question as to the State of California.
MR, TUOHEY: As to all client questions, since his
retirement from the CIA --well, I will listen to each one,
but as to California, while that's very general, and I admit
that to you, it's very general, I am going to err on the
side of caution and advise him not to answer the question,
on the grounds of privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever done any work, since retiring from
«C£^EO£«»L ItPOITEHS
UKtl^SSlfltB
593
UN(n.ASSIFt£D
tcE-rcoMAL nnmtn mc
the CIA, security work, on the premises of or involving
aircraft hangars?
MR. TUOHEY: I am going to object to the question
and instruct ray client not to answer.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you done any work as a security consultant
involving security fences?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you done any work as a security consultant
involving radar devices, in general?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q A specific question, as to Central America.
KR, TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q The same question regarding nuclear power plant
security in South Korea.
MR. TUOHEY: You may answer that question.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever had any involvement with a business
UNSL^SH^iED
594
UNetftSSIHED
entity entitled EATSCO?
MR. TUOHEY: I object to the question and instruct
my client not to answer.
MR. SAXON: On what basis?
MR. TUOHEY: Fifth Amendment.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever been interviewed by law enforcement
authorities or authorities within the criminal justice
system at either the state or federal level, to include
prosecutors, with regard to EATSCO?
MR.- TUOHEY: May I consult my client?
MR. SAXON: Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. TUOHEY: The question is whether he was ever
interviewed by a law enforcement official of any type with
respect to EATSCO?
MR. SAXON: That's correct.
M1^, TUOHEY: I'm going to instruct ray client not
to ftnswex the question on the grounds of privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Let me narrow it then and ask whether you've ever
been interviewed by authorities regarding EATSCO, who are at
UMSfeASSaJHED
«CI-fEO€«»l «EPO«TE«S INC
595
UNeE/(SS(PlED
the state level?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Same question as to federal law enforcement
authorities.
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
RY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever testified before a grand jury !
investigating matters involving EATSCO?
MR. TUOHEY: You can answer that question.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Can you tell us whether that was a federal or state
grand jury?
MR. TUOHEY: Do you know?
THE WITNESS: I don't know. I know where it was.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Cam you tell us that?
A Virginia. Alexandria, Virginia.
Q Northern Virginia?
A Yes.
0 Can you tell us anything a±iout the nature of that
iccrcocui acKiaTC*: mc
UiS^Ul^S^iED
596
UNd'ftSSffltO
testimony.
ICI-rCMUl «tPO«TEIIS IKC
MR. TUOHEY; I'm going to object to the question
on the grounds of privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Could you tell us the approximate date of that
testimony before the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia?
MR. TUOHEY: You may answer the question.
THE WITNESS: The reason I'm acting vague, is
damn -- that ^- I'm going to guess, subject to ray trying to
scratch my' head — with records — '82 or '83. I cim sure
it's a matter of record. It seemed to me it was hot.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Thank you. Do you know an individual named Thomas
G. Clines?
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question on the grounds
of privilege and instruct the witness not to answer.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever done work for Mr. Clines.
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Are you familiar with Systems Services
International. Inc?
UNCuasyiJED
597
UMCtRSSfftO
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Do you have knowledge of Systems Services
International, Inc. paying a fine in 1984 in the amount of
5100,000?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever been involved with a business
arreuigement , whether totally private or on behalf of an
entity or agency of the United States Government to sell
arms to Mr. Somoza in Nicaragua?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Do you know Erik von Marbaden?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
HY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever worked for or with Mr. von Marbaden?
MR, TUOHEY f Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON;
Q Do you know John Sinlaub?
MR. TUOHEY: You may answer that.
THE WITNESS: No.
li^J^S^^s'^^
Cf-rCMtU XPOITEIS INC
UNCiAS^lF^D
BY MR. SAXON:
Do you know Robert Dutton?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Have you ever worked for or with Mr. Dutton?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Do you know Richard Gad?
MR. TUOHEY: You may answer that.
THE WITNESS: No.
BY MR. SAXON:
Do you know Albert Hakim?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Have you ever worked for or with Mr. Hakim?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Do you know Robert Owen?
MR, TUOHEY; Same objection.
m. SAXON;
Have you ever worked for or with Mr. Owen?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
U^flSSlf!ED
599
UNCEH^^llD
BY MR. SAXON:
Do you know Richard Secord?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Have you ever worked for or with Mr. Secord?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Do you know Robert Lilac?
MR. TUOHEY; Same objection.
at MR. SAXON:
Have you worked for or with or met Mr. Lilac?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Do you know Theodore Shackley?
MR. TUOHEY; Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Have you ever worked for or with Mr. Shackley?
MH. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Do you know Rafael Quintero?
MR. TUOHEY; Same objection.
aCE-fCOUM. nCPQITEIIS mc
UK€tftSi^lf}E3
600
UHClftSSIFftO
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever worked for or with Mr. Quintero?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Do you know Carl Channel?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever worked for or with Mr. Channel?
MR, TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Do you know Mr. Felix Rodriguez, also known as
MeLx Gomez?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever worked with Mr. Rodriguez, either
with or for hin> under that name or that of Mr. Gomez?
HR, TUOHEY; Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON;
Q Do you know Mr. Richard Miller?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON t
Q Haye you ever worked for or with Mr. Miller?
UHSIJ§§\?'^'
tCI-rCDCMU. HEKITEHS
601
UNa^SHlED
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Do you have any knowledge you have gained, other
than from general news accounts, regarding activities on
hehalf of the United States within the period from 1981 to
present, to sell, transport or ship arms, directly or
indirectly to Iran?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection. ;
BY MR. SAXON: |
Q Do you have any independent knowledge gained
separate and apart from press accounts, dating to roughly
late November 1986, regarding efforts to supply arms,
ammunition or other military equipment to the opposition
forces in Nicaragua, otherwise known as the contras?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Do you have any independent knowledge, other than
that gained from general news accounts since the post-Novembei
'86 period regarding efforts to divert money from the profits
gained from the sale of arms to Iran to the opposition forces
in Nicaragua, otherwise commonly known as the contras?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
ACI^EDCtU •troiTt«S INC
UKil^ll^^^JED
602
UNDI^SH'IED
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Do yoa have any independent knowledge, gained
apart from general news- accounts; regarding American hostages
held in Lebanon?
MR. TUOHEY: You may answer that question.
THE WITNESS: Would you say that again, please?
I'm listening closely, but I miss.
BY MR, SAXON: ,
Q If I need to restate it fiirther, just tell me. I
Do you have any knowledge, independent of general
news accounts regarding American hostages held in Lebanon?
A No , I don ' t .
Q Do you have any knowledge — excuse me. Let me
rephrase that.
Have you ever worked for or with Global American
Resources?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever worked for or with Transworld Arms,
Inc.?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
UNetftSS^F5E0
UK^li'^SR^''-
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever worked for or with Edwin Wilson?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection. Well, let me just
say this for the record. Mr. Wilson and Mr. Robinette were
in the Central Intelligence Agency during some of the same
years. My client, in response to your question, would
testify that he has met Mr. Wilson, has never had any
professional dealings with him, has never worked on any
project in or out of the Central Intelligence Agency with
him, but if he saw him in a room, would he know who he was,
yes. But he's had no relationship. And since that name has
special character in this city, given his activities and
criminal involvement, I want my client to answer those
questions directly without an assertion of privilege.
So you may ask anything you like about Mr. Wilson.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Do you know Mr. Edwin Wilson?
A Yes, I do,
Q Apart from the period of your employment at the
Central Intelligence Agency, have you ever worked for
Mr. Wilson?
No, I have not.
U
Hf^JlS«'«
604
UNClASSimD
Q You never swept an office for Mr. Wilson in
Washington, D.C.?
A To ray recollection, no. I had been requested.
That was one of the things he asked me. I was trying to
reraember. I did an adjoining suite.
Would that have been on K Street in Washington,
D.C.?
A Uh-huh.
Q Would that have been at the request of Mr. Wilson?
A 1 doubt it. I dealt directly with the principal
who occupied, it, an entirely different compamy.
Q So if I understand your testimony, you never swept
an office owned, used or rented by Mr. Wilson, immediately
after federal authorities had entered into his suite and
engaged in activities which led Mr. Wilson to believe that
they might have bugged his office?
A No, sir. But I can recall him asking me to do
that. And it might have been at that breakfast up at the
Dniyersity Club. I may be wrong on that, but it's a long
time ago, but no, sir.
Q Have you ever rented a space from Mr. Wilson?
A No.
tCC-rCOCML «CfO«Tt«S INC
UN£tftS^lriED
605
UKCLISt^r^tD
tCI-flMliU. •fro«TC>S iHZ
Q Have you ever done contract work for Mr. Wilson?
^j A No .
il
Q With regard to all previous questions asking whether
|| you have done work for Mr. Wilson, have you also ever done
ij work for amy businesses which he owned or was associated with?
ij A No .
Q Have you ever swept offices which were for
corporations owned or associated with Mr. Wilson?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q Have you ever worked for or with Udall Corporation?'
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question. I instruct
the witness not to answer on ground of privilege.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever worked for or with Udall Research
Corporation?
MR. TUOHEY: Seuoe objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever worked for or with Udall Resources,
Inc., S.A.?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR, SAXON;
Q Have you ever worked for or with Systems Services
li»;HASSV5£^
606
UNdftS^ft^tD
II International? . ^
' MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
•CKWTCIIS INC
I Q Do you have any knowledge, independent of general
I news accounts, of Project Democracy?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever worked for or with Corporate Air
Services?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON;
Q Have you ever worked for or with Intercontinental
Technology?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever worked for or with IBC?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection,
ay MR, SAXON:
Q Har/e you ever worked for or with Stanford
Technology Corporation?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
^set<\^'^^^^'
607
SA^CON:
BY MR. SA^CON
Q Have you ever worked for or with Lake Resources?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you ever worked for or with Southern Air
Transport?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did Thomas Clines ever employ you in any way, in
order to help incriminate Edwin Wilson?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
Can we just finish one thing
(Discussion off the record.)
THE WITNESS: Would you say it again? I am
certain of my answer, but I want to be sure I understood your
question.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q I apologize for an unintentionally vague question.
A It sounds clear, but it sounds odd.
Q Have you ever been employed by or worked for
or with Thomas G. Clines in an capacity in which he instructed
you, suggested to you or importuned you to, in any way.
UN£l6S^^r«£0
KE-rCOCIiU. aCKITEHS INC
UHa%SS1?^^
ME-FEMIUU. «CPa>TCIIS
incriminate Edwin Wilson?'
A No.
Q Do you know a woman by the name of Charlene Brill?
A Yes.
Q Can you tell us how you came to know her?
MR. TUOHEY: Object to the question on the grounds
of privilege; instruct the witness not to answer.
BY MR. SAXON: j
Q Can you tell us for what period of time you've |
known Ms. Brill?
MR. TUOHEY: Same objection.
MR. SAXON: That would be the objection under the
Fifth Amendment privilege 2uid not going to security?
MR. TUOHEY: Yes.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you work with Ms. Brill while at the Central
Intelligence Agency?
MR. TUOHEY: Seune objection.
MR. SAXON: I'm sorry. Which?
MR. TUOHEY: Fifth Amendment.
EY MR. SAXON:
Q Did you ever sweep an office for Bob Gray in
u»iiyvsr^*t^
609
yjHa^SStf'^t^
Washington, D.C.?
MR. TUOHEY: You may answer that.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Have you given any testimony in the matters which
have become known as the Iran-Contra Affair before the U.S.
House of Representatives?
MR. lOOHEY: You may answer that.
THE WITNESS: NO.
BY MR. SAXON;
Q Have you been contacted by anyone employed by the
U.S. House of Representatives in this matter?
MR. TUOHEY; I will state for the record that a
bureau agent contacted my client last evening from the
Special Prosecutor's Office and encouraged him to come down
and discuss matters. I have not talked to him, but my
client advised the agent that he l:vet^ counsel, and that I
should be contacted. There's been no contact from the House
side.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q Do you have any documents which were requested
under the Committee's subpoena of March 16, which you have
US?'^tfSS
ErCMDU •E'OITOS INC
610
unafissfftto
brought with you today?*
MR. TUOHEY: 'John, I have documents in my
possession which ray client has given to me.
MR. SAXON: Pertaining to matters subject to the
subpoena?
MR. TUOHEY: Pertaining to matters subject to the
subpoena, which I have examined carefully.
I have concluded that in each and every one of
those documents, the Fisher Doctrine of implied self-
authentication would permit me to, and I do so assert the
privilege on my client's behalf with respect to those
documents.
BY MR. SAXON:
Q So you have no documents to present to the
Committee today?
MR. TUOHEY: Correct.
MR. SAXON: I believe that completes the questions
that I would have at this time.
Is there further statement that you or your client
would wish to make?
MR. TUOHEY: No. Other than to say, we're prepared
to be present, and it is not necessary for you to issue a
U|lt;^|.^S^??T:3
UC-fCMMI. lltPO«TE«S.
611
UNtWS^f^tO
formal subpoena. If you will call rae, I will have my client
prepared to meet any mutually convenient dates.
MR. SAXON: For purposes of public testimony? Is
that what we're talking about?
MR. TUOHEY: Whatever. You don't need to subpoena
my client from this point forward. You can call me or
notify me in writing, although it is not necessary to do it
in writing. I will waive any formal requirements of a
subpoena.
J4R, SAXON: Very good. Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the taking of the
deposition was concluded.)
Glenn A. Robinette
U»^(^dSI'^'tO
612
CARDKCY S«curity-Sy«Jt«ms
CX)RO-MATIC Automatic Doors
STANLEY Parking Gat* & Fence Controls
UN
am
132 Washington Boulevard
Laurel, Maryland 20707
Bait. 301-792-4090 Wash. 301-953-7900
Automatic Ooor Specialists
SOPOSAl. SUBMiTTto rO
Glenn Robfnette and Associates
966 - 5873
June 17. 1986
3365 Arcadia Place. NW
Private Residence
STATt »N0 :i» coot
Jashinton. O.C. 20015
jOe LOCATION
Kentland Drive, Great Falls, Vi
•ginia
Automatic Door Specialists (ADS) will automate the existing gate using an Edko
Medium Duty Swing Gate Operator. To accommodate automation of gate, ADS will remove
existing wooden gate post, replace it with a metal post painted white.
In conjunction with automation of the gate, ADS will provide one Multi-Elmac
Receiver and two Multi-Elmac Single Button Transmitters to operate gates from an
automobile.
ADS also will install an Aiphone Intercom consisting of an IBG-IGD Master Station
inside the front door, and IBG-IHD Additional Master on the upstairs bedroom, and an
IB-DA Door Station on a post outside the gate.
ADS will install intercom wiring through existing conduit and will obtain power
from existing box in the yard near the gate location.
Quoted price doesnot include price of permits, if needed.
GUARANTEE - Material & Equip. - 1 yr. Labor - 3 mo.
flr l^rapOBr hereby to furnish material and latxjr — complete in accordance with above specidci ions, for the sum of
Two thousand one hundred fifty-four
2,154.00
ent to ee mad« as follows
1% discount / 20 day. Net 30. A U service charge will be charged 30 days
after the date of the invoice.
Arrr ptanrp of ^rapoaal - rt,, aw., one. .o«.i.cat.on,
ana conditions art latiiiactory ana are nereoy acceplea You are auinoruea Signalu'
to do the worh as soeciied Payment
j2A Q^^-^ 'Te- 5,,n.,ui
^/^
m«nt wtil IM made «s outhnto aOc
^-"^ -
613
^^ ^O^- A 0268
SPECIALISTS
July 7, 1986
Glen Robinette and Associates
3265 Arcadia Place, NW
Washington, DC 20015
Dear Mr. Robinette:
Attached is an invoice for $ 2,173.00. This amount represents the
original $ 2.154.00 contracted for, plus $ 19.00 for an additional radio
transmitter.
Mr. Robinette', Automatic Door Specialists appreciates the business
represented by this invoice. If we may provide additional assistance to
you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me. ^. .
_ Very truly yours,
AUTOMATIC DOOR SPECIALISTS
UKCIRSSIFP
614
mm^^^'
ilv 27647
AUTOMATI
in WiSHIMTOH IO«(V«n
,a*>TUND 20707. 43S7
DOOR CONTtOU
SICUIITY CARDS
rARKINO OATIS
¥^^
'/-Vf7
si?
UMCLRSS5
5- r.i;
615
UMCLASSlF'.tJ
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC & REPORTER
I, David L. Hoffman the officer before whom
the foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify
that the witness whose testimony appears in the
foregoing deposition was duly sworn by me; that
the testimony of said witness was taken in shorthand
and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or under
my direction; that said deposition is a true record
of the testimony given by said witness; that I am
neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by
any of the parties to the action in which this
deposition was taken; and, further, that I am not
a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel
employed by the parties hereto, nor financially
or otherwise interested in the outcome of this action.
ly^/
Notary Public inoij^d for the
District of C^Mimbia
My Commission Expires 6/30/90
UKClftSS)F!P?)
617
^^^r i : TR:^S(^iPi^F^RbrCEEI^
SELECT CGtSIITTEB TO INVESTIGATE COVERT
ARtlS TRAUSACTIOMS HITU IRAN
0. S. ROUSE OP REPRESENTATIVES
—and—
SELECT COIflllTTBB ON SECRET MILITARY ASSISTANCE
TO IRAN Al«) THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
UNITED STATES SENATE
l^NCUSS/FI£D
Oaposltlon of GLENN A. ROBINETTB
WashingtoDf D, p.
June 17, 1987
Pages 1 thru 85
MILLER REPORTING COMPANY. INC
■ . B07 C iPt. W.1.
: WiAlnttan.D^ 20003
by a »ko, NdkMd SeJwfty^aiiAbarr-
618
UNCLASSIFIED
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE COVERT
ARMS TRANSACTIONS WITH IRAN
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
and
SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECRET MILITARY ASSISTANCE
TO IRAN AND THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
UNITED STATES SENATE
Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, June 17, 1987
The deposition of GLENN A. ROBINETTE, called for
examination in the above-entitled matter, pursuant to notice,
in the offices of the Senate Ethics Committee, Room 220, Hart
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C, convened at 10:41
a.m., before Pamela Briggle, a notary public in and for the
District of Columbia, when were present on behalf of the
parties :
UNCLASSIFIED
I
619
pb2
UNCLASSIFIED
APPEARANCES:
On Behalf of the Select Committee on Secret Military
Assistance to Iran and Nicaraguan Opposition of the
United States Senate:
PAUL BARBADORO
Deputy Chief Counsel
jtEWygTH BALLEM, S t a f f-eomrS^lT
JOHN R. MONSKY, Staff Counsel
Room 901
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.
On Behalf of the Select Committee to Investigate Arms
Transactions with Iran of the U.S. House of
Representatives: , .i^ r P
GEORGE W. VAN CLEVE, ?n^->^-^''-*^
Room Vl-^, U.S. Capitol
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
On Behalf of the Witness:
MARK H. TUOHEY, III, ESQUIRE
Pierson, Ball & Dowd
1200 18th Street, N.w.
Washington, D.C.
Also Present: Thomas Polgar
UNCLASSIFIED
620
pb3
UNCUSSIFIED
CONTENTS
WITNESS
GLENN A. ROBINETTE
By Mr. Barbadoro
By Mr. Van Cleve
NUMBER
GR-1
GR-2A-B
GR-3
GR-4A-B
GR-5A
GR-6A-B
GR-7A-F
GR-8A-E
GR-9A-B
GR-IOA-B
GR-llA-B
EXAMINATION
EXHIBITS
FOR IDENTIFICATION
UNCUSSIFIED
621
UNCUSSIHED
UNdlASSIHED
PROCEEDINGS
Whereupon,
GLENN A. ROBINETTE
was called for examination by counsel for the Plaintiff and
having been first duly sworn by the notary public, was
examined and testified as follows:
MR. BARBADORO: Mr. Robinette, it's my understand-
ing that you intend to rely on your Fifth Amendment rights
and not to testify to the committee in this or any other
proceeding unless you are ordered to by a court and granted
limited use immunity. Is that correct?
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
MR. BARBADORO: I want to give you now copies of
orders obtained from the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia for both the House and the Senate.
These orders compel you to testify and grant you limited use
immunity .
I give you a copy of these orders and also have
them marked for the record.
[Robinette Deposition Exhibit Nos .
GR-1, 2A-C, 3, 4A-B, 5A-B, 6A-B,
7A-F, 8A-E, 9A-B, lOA-B and llA-B
were marked for identification. )
For the record, we are satisfied with
^ MiwpfMMeM of LO. 12356
i4li b. I Mm, Nalwiil Security CouncM
MR. TUOHEY:
both orders and we intend to proceed accordingly.
622
UNCLASSIRED
MR. BARBADORO: Thank you, Mr. Tuohey.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q Mr. Robinette, I want to get right to the point
here and start in asking you questions about what you did
with Richard Sscord in 1986. And let me first ask you, did
there come a time in March of 1986 when you were hired by
Richard Secord to do some work for him?
A That's correct.
Q And do you know the date that you were hired by Mr.
Secord?
A No, it would probably be the last week of March; in
that time period.
Q I want to show you Exhibit GR-1, which is your
calendar for the year 1986 and ask you to look at it and turn
your attention to the month of March of 1986. In reviewing
that calendar, I see only one meeting with Richard Secord in
March, and that was on March 19.
Could you look at that exhibit and tell me, was
that the date where Mr. Secord hired you?
A I see it. I can't accurately testify as to the
19th, but it certainly is in that time span of the last — the
latter part of the last week of March, to my recollection.
Q That <=^^^^tfM#|f ^1 /ff^Vffi^l^ reflects the fact
that there was a meyliyfL fWmll 11^14^ *'ith you, Secord,
623
UNCUSSIFIED
Tom, which would be Tom Clines, correct?
A Tom Clines, yes.
Q And Chi-Chi, which would be Chi-Chi Quintero; is
that right?
A Are you reading the same thing I'm reading? Yes,
excuse me, I'm sorry. I apologize. I was looking below. it
says Hoyt. I'm sorry.
Yes, that's Chi-Chi Quintero.
Q Do you recall meeting with those people at Mr.
Secord's office on March 19, 1986?
A No, I don't, but I'm sure I did.
Q Would Tom Clines and Chi-Chi Quintero have been
present on the date that Mr. Secord hired you to do work for
him?
A To my recollection, I doubt if Mr. Clines or Mr.
Quintero knew anything of General Secord's hiring me at that
time.
Q So you don't think that you would have been hired
at that meeting on the 19th?
A If I was, I don't think they would know it. It's
the kind of conversation, knowing General Secord, that he
wouldn't necessarily discuss it in front of them.
Q Do you know what the purpose of that meeting was on
March 19th?
itiynrK^inpn
and then something
UNCIASSIHED
about an attorney in South Carolina — his name is Hoyt —
regarding a bill, something pink slip. And I can't recall
what pink slip means. It probably has something to do with
payment, or I don't know.
Q So you can't remember what the purpose of that
meeting was, correct?
A No, but it looks like social to me. Dinner and
drinks .
Q I'n any event, you recall that you were hired by Mr.
Secord some time in March of 1986, correct?
A Yes.
Q What were you hired to do?
A I was hired to conduct research and investigation
on allegations being made against General Secord.
Q Can you describe in general terms what those
allegations were?
A Yes . General Secord commented that there were
people unknown to him who were saying that he was involved in
drug trafficking and arms shipments and generally illegal
type activities.
Q And what kind of investigation did he want you to
do of these allegations?
A He said he didn't know who these people were, and
he wanted to know if I could find out who they were and their
background and why-tlipy^giu^d J)V'Ba2iiia-i*^®'® derogatory.
iilMli'tfM]til*n "' '"
625
UNCLASSIFIED
statements about him.
Q And how much did he propose to pay you for this
work?
A Originally we discussed it and I think we said
$3,000 a month, but I asked for $4,000 a month plus expenses.
Q And he agreed to pay you that amount?
A Yes, he agreed.
Q And when did you start actually working for him?
A Probably the first week of April.
Q Do you recall when you first got paid?
A No, I don't recall but probably toward the end of —
middle or end of April.
Q And that would have been for work you did for him
during the month of April and March?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall whether you were paid by check or in
cash?
A I think cash.
- Q After the first cash payment you received from Mr.
Secord for this work were you later paid by check for some of
the work you did for him?
A Much later in the year.
Q Take a look at Exhibits 2-A, B and C
A Yes, I see them.
Q Those are checks
• -•■Ml k
oWflWft
tanford Technology
626
UNCLASSIFIED
Trading Group International account, correct?
A Yes, they are.
Q They are made out to you?
A Yes, they are.
Q And they are signed by Richard Secord?
A Yes.
Q The first check is dated June 9, 1986, correct?
A Yes, it is.
Q And the second check is dated June 26?
A Twenty-four.
Q Twenty- four. And the third check is dated?
A August 11.
Q August 11. Are these checks that you were paid by
Mr. Secord for the investigative work you were doing for him?
A Yes, they are.
Q And that is for work that you did in the months of
May, June and July of 1986?
A Yes.
- Q Did you continue to work for Mr. Secord after July
of 1986 on this investigative assignment?
A Yes, I did.
Q How were you paid for the work you did after July
of 1986?
A By cash.
UNCLASSIFIED
Q When you were paid in cash, did you sign any
627
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
107 C Joitt N E 2 5
UNCLASSinED
receipt for the money that you received?
A No, I did not.
Q And did you keep any record of the cash payments
you received from Mr. Secord?
A No, I did not.
Q For how long did you continue to receive these
payments?
A I was paid up through, I think, November maybe
December '86, and they stopped. And then in March of '87 i
received one payment of $2,000.
Q And that $2,000 payment, was it in cash or was it
paid by check?
A That was a check, I believe.
Q Did you do investigative work for Mr. Secord for
which you were not paid?
A I continued through January, February — March was a
partial payment, it was $2,000 instead of four. And I think
I probably stopped just about early April.
Q And you have not yet been paid for that work,
correct?
A No. I had told him in, I think, early January that
I realized he had a lot of problems, newspaper articles and
so forth, and would undoubtedly have other expenses, and that
I was willing to continue on a time available basis — my time
available--to recej.yg .iiL^^44W'JVlf*i|f'*^Ainvestigations that
miwiwtncn"""'
628
IINCUSSIFIEO
I had initiated.
And then in March I spoke to him along the same
lines, but told him that if he had any available funds they
would be appreciated. And I don't recall his exact words at
that time, but he said this was the best he could do at that
time and gave--I think he had his girl give me a $2,000 ,
check. I don't remember receiving it, but I got a $2,000
check.
Q rfow much money does General Secord owe you for the
investigative work that you performed for him?
A Well, if we put it around $4,000 a month up until
mid-April it would be maybe $15,000, $14,000, something like
that. But if he were to come into some funds and there
wasn't so much problem, controversy, I probably would ask him
for it. But I don't think I would pose that question to him
at this time.
Q Do you still expect to be paid for the work?
A I don't know.
Q Are you saying that you don't intend to ask General
Secord for the money at this time because you don't think he
has the money to pay you?
A That's right.
Q And if he does at some point have the money to pay
you, you intend to ask him for it? |||Lin| i|00lPlf*l\
A Yes, because I have billsUl lULnOuiri Lli
629
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~ 24
jum tmomma eo . mc
r C Scmt. N E * -'
UNCUSSinED
Q Let me turn to a different subject. Did there come
a time in the spring of 1986 when General Secord talked to
you about installing a security system at the residence of
Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North?
A That's correct.
Q Could you look at your calendar, Exhibit 1, and
from that calendar can you identify the date when General
Secord first talked to you about installing the security
system?
A Yes, I can.
Q And what's that date?
A It's the latter part of April, April 29, 1986.
Q Now where were you when he brought up the subject
of the security system?
A I believe in his office in Virginia.
Q Was anyone else present at that meeting?
A No, I was in his room, in his suite in Virginia. I
Q As of that date had you ever met Lieutenant Colonel |
Oliver North? !
A No, I had not. * |
Q Had you ever spoken with him? I
A No, I had not. i
Q Had you ever heard his name mentioned before?
A I think I had heard it mgntipned, _yes
Q Who had mentioned it?
nentioned, yes.
UNCLASSIHED
630
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~ 24
UNcussm
A Probably General Secord or Mr. Clines.
Q What did they say about Lieutenant Colonel North?
A That he was working in the White House, and
probably identified him at that time as being with the
National Security Council. And being a very hard worker,
that type of thing.
Q Let's go back to the 29th, and can you tell me as
best you can remember what General Secord said to you in that
meeting about the need for a security system at Colonel
North's residence?
A General Secord described, mentioned that Colonel
North had been experiencing threats to his home. And specifi-
cally mentioned one in which lights were being shined on the
house at night, which frightened his wife and family espe-
cially when he. Colonel North, was not there, because as I
understood Colonel North was frequently not at home.
In addition, they had received phone calls and
threatening phone calls, I believe sugar in the gas tank,
flattened tires and unknown packages in the mailbox, which is
external to the house.
Q What do you mean by unknown packages?
A Packages not sent by the post office department,
but packages that have been--boxes of some type that were put
in there by persons unknown, which it was interpreted could
be threatening such as a bomb.
631
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~ 24
xw iMXimitu CO.. ac
t C Sum. N E
DNMSIflED
Q He didn't say that Colonel North had received a
bomb though, did he?
A No, he did not.
Q But collectively, the matters that I've just
identified resulted in a feeling of severe uncomfortableness
by Mrs. North and Colonel North for their family.
Q Did General Secord also say something about the
fact that Colonel North was frequently away from home?
A t don't know if he did at that meeting, but at the
next meeting it certainly came up that he was--and certainly
Mrs. North told me that subsequent to this meeting.
Q Was there any discussion at this April 29 meeting
about the concern about terrorists?
A The word terrorist might have been used at the
April 29 meeting, but subsequent it was used.
Q Did General Secord say anything to you at this
April 29 meeting about the kind of security system that he
wanted you to have installed?
- A No, he knew that I was familiar with security, all
phases of security and he deferred to me to go out and look
at the property and make some recommendations .
Q Did he say anything at this meeting about who was
going to pay for this system?
A No, he did not.
Q What else did he say at the meeting about the
UNCUSSIFIED
632
security syst
UNCUSSIRED
A That's about all that I can recall.
Q After he told you about the need for a security
system, what did he do?
A He asked me if I thought I could handle it, and I i
agreed. And would I agree to handle it; yes, I would. And I
i
he then said he would call Mrs. North to make — to identify me |
and make arrangements for a meeting with Mrs. North.
Q And did he call Mrs. North while you were at his
office?
A Yes.
Q what did you do after General Secord called Mrs. j
North? I
t
A I then called Mrs. North, it seems to me within 45 |
minutes later to identify myself and get an agreed time for a
meeting with her.
Q And what was said in your telephone conversation
with Mrs. North?
A I identified myself by name telling her that I
think she had recently heard from General Secord and that I
was coming out there to look at her property, the possibility
of implementing some security procedures to protect the
family.
Q And what was her reaction
A Very brief, but yes, and she would meet me the next
ICUSSIFIED
633
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UNCLASSIFIED
day. And we agreed on a time.
MR. BARBADORO: Off the record.
[Off the record. }
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q Mr. Robinette, when did you go out to the North
residence?
A I went out the next day, April 30th.
Q What did you do when you got out to the residence?
A Met with Mrs. North, introduced myself and briefly
asked her a few questions about what had happened out there,
specifically about the lights that were shining from the
house--shining from the road. And asked her permission to
walk around the house and the property.
Q In general terms can you describe the North
residence, the property and the area in which the residence
is situated?
A It's located in Great Falls, Virginia. It's a two-
story house situated in the middle of a plot of ground with
houses on each side and a woods to the rear. There's a fence
enclosing all the property. Not a secure fence, just simply
a fence to keep the animals from getting out. They had two
horses at that time.
Had a built-in garage. Fairly rural area, wasn't
well traveled out there.
How big is the lot?
VNCUSSIFIED
634
507 C Umi. N £
UNCLASSIFIED
A I'm going to say an acre. I'm guessing on that.
Q How far back is the house from the street?
A The roadway--let 's see, the house sits back off the
public highway about 250 feet.
Q And how far away are the houses on either side of
I
the North house? !
A Probably an equal distance of 200 to 250 feet.
Tell me what happened once you got inside the house?
During this visit?
Yes.
I commented that I spoke to Mrs. North. She
described to me that — in response to my questions she
described that, yes, she had experienced on several occasions
lights — someone a topping :Cn^.tito. ro^ .j«|jid»-ynd- LIoshi^iQ ,:„
lights fe^^SHSBMI^use at night. Colonel North was not home
and it certainly frightened her.
I can't recall at the moment whether it also
occurred when Colonel North was home. But she did describe
in response to my questions that Colonel North didn't usually
arrive until around midnight every night at which time she
fixed him dinner. But there had been occasions — in addition,
there had been occasions with threatening phone calls. She
made no reference to the^^^^t^^e^ ^ij^uf^Jif sugar in the
gas tank.
Q After speaking with Mrs. North, did you walk around I
635
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~ 24
MTCSoif. NE 25
DNCUSSm
the house?
A Yes, I did.
Q And after looking at the house and speaking to Mrs.
North did you draw any conclusions about the kind of security
system you would need to install at the house? i
A Yes, I did. It didn't take too long because it's a
I
fairly standard residence, and it became quite obvious that j
security at the house would be difficult because of the j
family lifestyle; four children and two horses and dogs and
cats.
Q What effect did the fact that he had children, dogs
and cats have on the kind of security system that you planned
to install?
A Well, if you were concerned about someone entering
into the property within the house at night and you had the
security system on, you would normally have some sort of IR
beams, intrusion alarms that would go off, would be alerted.
But the best you can do under the circumstances with children
running around at night and dogs and cats is to simply wire
the doors and the windows with the hope that the system would
be turned on and that if someone forced their way through the
window or the door, at that time an alarm would go off.
Q Is it safe to say that because of the animals and
the children you felt that a passive system rather than an
active system ^"^o^v^£'9>'VJM"^>''^^AIf IPA infrared beams
636
UNCLASSIFIED
would be required for the house?
A Yes. I felt also that Mrs. North, who appeared to
be extremely concerned about her children, would be able to
carry a portable transmitter, something very small that as
she walked through the home or out in the back of the
property that if she was accosted or alarmed at some point
that she could press this wireless transmitter which in turn
would automatically set off an alarm.
Q D'id you describe for Mrs. North the kind of
security system you were thinking about?
A I probably touched on it, but I perceived that she
wasn't personally interested in the details. I think she
would be more responsive to simply knowing that a system
existed.
Q What else happened at your visit to the North
residence?
A That's about the extent of it. I think I left
after about 45 minutes.
. Q Did you on a later date meet with Colonel North to
discuss the security system?
A Yes, I did.
Q And from your calendars can you determine when that
(ting occurred?
A Yes, I can.
Q When was thati
UNCUSSIFIED
637
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~ 24
aujM iWuaiiM CO.. wc
>07 C Stn- ■ N £ ^ ^
UNCLASSIRED
A That was on May 5th, 1986.
Q How did that meeting come about?
A I believe between May 5th and the time that I'd
been to General Secord's I reported back to him that I'd made
the visit and I had a general idea what I thought would be
useful, but it was necessary in my experience, that the user
know what was contemplated. And I suggested that General
Secord either tell Colonel North that which I would tell him,
or General Secord and I meet Colonel North.
And on the 5th of May, General Secord and I did- go
to Colonel North's office at 7:00 or 7:30 that night.
Q Was it General Secord who arranged the meeting with
Colonel North?
A Yes, he did.
Q The meeting occurred at 7:30 on May 5th?
A Yes, it did.
Q And it was at Colonel North's office, correct?
A Yes, in the Old Executive Office Building.
Q And you went to the meeting with General Secord?
A Yes.
Q Who else was present in Colonel North's office when
you got there?
A When we walked in, I believe 'FlWmftn^WS there in
the outer office. And then General Secord and I walked into
the inner office, which I recall was to the right of the
638
vamsm
outer office. And we sat down, and that's the only person I
recall seeing at that time.
Q What happened at the meeting?
A The meeting was brief. I think it took about 30
minutes and told — General Secord introduced me to Colonel
North, told him that I was the man that had surveyed the
property and--had surveyed Colonel North's property and that
I had some proposals for equipment that I wanted to discuss
with him, with Colonel North.
Q What happened then?
A I summarized very quickly what I thought would be
useful considering the family lifestyle that they had. And
in addition, I suggested that if he concurred that I would
also attempt to put in a visual surveillance system of the
mailbox in an attempt to — the mailbox and the mailbox area in
an attempt to identify who was leaving the packages at night
and perhaps who was pausing on the highway to shine lights.
Q What kind of visual surveillance system did you
have in mind?
A At that time it was either going to be a still
camera that would be operated electronically each time the
mailbox was opened, or it would be a wireless video camera.
In either case, both would maintaif A f Sf 2J^4 °i ^ho stopped
or who opened the mailbox door.
I had some tentative plans for maybe having it^also
mssifii
639
UNCUSSIRED
be operated from the house, but that was tentative because I
didn't think that either Mrs. North or Colonel North would be
able to turn on the camera in times of emergency.
Q What happened after you described the kind of
system you had in mind to Colonel North?
A He said, okay, that sounds good. Let's get
together when you have more firm— when you've formulated your
plan.
Q As of May 5th, had you contacted any contractors
about installing this system?
A I think 1 contacted more than one. But there was
really one firm here in the Washington area that I had
previous experience with and knew the personnel as being
extremely reliable. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^I^^^H^^^I
^^^^^^^^^^^^H And I felt that to
because of their ability and reliability.
Q What is the name of that company?
A The name of the company is VATEC.
Q A» of May 5, had you obtained an estimate of how
much this security system was going to cost?
A No, I don't believe so because I hadn't — I don't
believe so because I don't think J.^ad^firmed up in my mind
just what I was going to have.
Q Was there any discussion at this meeting on May 5
about who was going to pay for the security system?
Ili'OTsSlFIED
640
MT C Sunt. St
WUJSIFIEB
A No, there was not.
Q Did General Secord say anything else at the meeting
other than to introduce you to Colonel North and describe to
Colonel North the fact that you were the one who was working
on the security system for him?
A No, he did not.
Q Was anything else said at the meeting other than
what you've described?
A Nothing that I can recollect.
Q When did you meet with Colonel North again?
A Let's see, that was on the 5th. I met with Colonel
North on the 10th of May at approximately 10:30, Saturday.
MR. BARBADORO: Let's go off the record for a
second.
Q
A
Virginia .
Q
A
Q
A
Q
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Wh«re did this meeting take place?
It took place in General Secord 's office in
Who arranged this meeting?
General Secord.
Was General Secord present at the meeting?
Yes.
Was anyone else present, other than you and Colonel
North and General Secord;
ssent, otner tnan you ana
UNCUSSIFIED
641
BNCWSSIFIfD
A No.
Q What happened at this meeting?
A This was an opportunity for me to tell Colonel
North, in more detail, just what I thought they should have
at the house. And I, in turn, related what I thought they
should have.
Q Could you describe for us, in general terms, what
the system was that you had in mind?
A Yes, it's pretty much as I mentioned earlier.
There would be — the doors and the windows would be alarmed
n case anyone attempted to force their way in there. There
would be smoke and heat detectors. There would be the
portable transmitter, one or two, which Mrs. North could
carry around, and perhaps one of the older children, or even
Colonel North.
There would be external lights shining on the
property that would come on at night in the event of an
alarm. I believe there was an audible alarm, I believe. I
can't remember whether that was installed or not.
In addition, there would be an audible signal
installed in one of the vehicles in the event that Mrs. North
or one of the children was using the car and there was an
attempt to kidnap them or force them off the road, I felt
that a loud sounding ,^ijen_ or whistle would scare the people
away.
ig siren or whistle would
UNCUSSIHED
642
»; C SoiTt. N E
UNCUSSIFIED
Also, there would be a radio control system at the
front gate so that when Mrs. North came in or went out, the
gate would always be closed and she or anyone else, with
these two transmitters, could open the gate without having to
get out of the car. They would always be in the car.
And lastly, there was a discussion at that time,
that I was still looking into a video type, or pictorial type
of coverage of the gate and the mailbox. I hadn't really
defined that at that time.
I also described, lastly, that this whole system
would be connected to a central station alarm company that
would receive signals 24 hours a day, every day of the year,
and that when an alarm was received they would contact the
authorities to send them out.
Q So the way the system would work is that if the
alarm went off in the house, it would also ring at this
company who could notify the police, correct?
A Correct.
Q At this point, you were planning to have VATEC
install the entire system, correct?
A Yes , I was .
Q Had you obtained an estimate from them as of May
10, as to how much this system was going to cost?
A I don't believe so. I think it was shortly
thereafter, very shortly thereafter.
I/NCI ilWiFiFn
643
UNCLASSIFIED
Q From your own experience, in working in this area,
did you have a rough idea as to how much you thought the
system would cost?
A I thought the system would be about $10. to $12,000.
Q Let me ask you, was there any discussion of how
much the system would cost, at this meeting on May 10?
A Yes, there was.
Q Could you describe that discussion?
A Yes, I don't recall who instigated the question or
the subject of the money, whether it was Colonel North or.
myself, but the result was that Colonel North commented that
he'd like to keep the price between $8,000, $8,500, that he
was a poor colonel and he wanted to try to keep it around
that figure.
Q Mr. Robinette, was it you who first raised the
figure of $8,lto $10,000, or was it Colonel North?
A I think it was Colonel North.
MR. BARBADORO: Let's go off the record for a
second .
(Discussion off the record.]
[The reporter read the record as requested.]
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q Mr. Robinette, during the break, you've had a
chance to speak to your counsel. Do you now wish to correct
an answer that you had earlier given?
UNCUSSIRFD
644
UNCUSffD
A Yes, I do.
Q Please go ahead.
A We were discussing the approximate costs of the
system. It's my recollection that I stated the cost would be
around $8,000 to $8,500 and, in response to that. Colonel
North said fine, keep it around there, I'm on a poor colonel's
pay.
Q Let me just make sure I understand your testimony
then. Earlier, I asked you if you had a rough estimate of
the cost of this system, and you answered between $8,/and —
Do you want to correct
between $10, and 512,000, excuse
that answer as well, or do you want to stand by that answer?
[Counsel and witness conferring.]
THE WITNESS: At the time, we're talking now of
Saturday the 10th of May, the figure that I quoted was $8,000
to $8,500.
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q The figure that you quoted to Colonel North?
. A Yes, to Colonel North, yes.
Q My question then ia if you thought it was going to
cost between^lO^fand 12,\ why did you quote to Colonel North a
figure between 58,000 and $8,500?
A There was some debate in my mind about this
monitoring system, which may or may not be used at that gat
I didn't think I'd ultimately use it.
ICUSSIFIED
645
UNCIASSIHED
Q So you decided to give Colonel North an estimate in
the low range of what you thought the system would cost?
A I felt if we implemented the security system as I
had described, I didn't think we'd really need the video
system.
Q The second point of clarification, at this meeting
on May 10, who was it that raised the question of how much
the system would cost? Was it you, or did Colonel North ask
you about How much it would cost?
A I think it was me.
Q And when you said that you thought the system would
cost between S8,000 and $8,500, what was Colonel North's
reaction?
A He stated, as I had said a few moments ago, okay
keep it around that figure, I'm on a poor colonel's pay.
Q What else happened at that meeting?
A That's about the extent of it. It was a very short
meeting. I got the impression that Colonel North and General
Secord were meeting for other reasons and my participation
was really very small.
Q Did there come a time when you made a down payment
to VATEC for the security system?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q Take a look at Exhibit 3, which is a check from you
to VATEC in the amount of $6,000.
I/NCI IW/FIFD
646
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
■UK) —pomwu CO.. nc
i07 C Sow. N E 25
UNCDISSIHED
A Thank you.
Q Do you recognize that check?
A Yes, I do.
Q Is that the down payment that you made to VATEC?
A Yes, it is.
Q That check is dated May 19, 1986. Is that the date
that you made out that check?
A Yes, it is.
Q 'What did you do with the check after you made it
out?
A I believe I personally gave it to a representative
of VATEC, who came to my home.
Q Had work started on the system as of that date, or
was that down payment required before work was to begin?
A As I recall, I don't think work had actually
started. I had made a trip or two back out to Mrs. North's
but no, I don't think work had started.
As I recall, they wouldn't start the work until
they had — they couldn't order the equipment until they had
money .
Q When you made out this check to VATEC, you were
using your own funds, correct?
A I was using my checking — yes.
Q Did you subsequently look to someone for reimburse-
ment for this down payment?
ONCLASSIFIFn
647
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ONCUSSIRED
A Yes, I did.
Q Who did you look to for reimbursement?
A General Secord.
Q When was that?
A Either on that day, the 19th, or on the 20th.
Q Did you go to General Secord's office to get the
reimbursement?
A Yes, I did.
Q How much did you ask General Secord for?
A To my recollection, it was $7,000.
Q Why did you ask him for $7,000, in view of the fact
that the down payment you made was for $6,000?
A The additional $1,000 was for expenses that I had
incurred in looking into this system.
Q Is it fair to characterize that $1,000 as part of
your fee for the work you had done in connection with the
security system?
A I think so.
Q When you asked General Secord for the money, did he
give it to you?
A Yes .
Q Did he pay you by checJ^pX-in cash?
A He gave me cash.
Q Where was he when he gave you the cash?
A I believe he was in his office, in his suite.
648
UNCLASSIFIED
Q Where did he get the cash from?
A I don't know where he got the cash from. To my
recollection, I was sitting at a desk, sitting at his desk,
sitting in front of his desk, and he leaned down and either
took it from a drawer or took it from a case.
Q Did he count the money before he gave it to you?
A I don't recall.
Q what was the denominations of the bills that he
paid you in?
A I can't actually recall today.
Q Did General Secord express any surprise when you
went to him for reimbursement for this security system?
A No, he did not.
Q — Hx^^^l^ad any previous discussions with General
Secord about Tn^Tact that General Secord was going to pay
for this Miraiuutr?
A No, I did not.
Q Why did you look to General Secord, rather than to
Colonel North, for this payment?
A I was working for General Secord. He was the one,
in my opinion, that had assigned me the task and that was the
natural — in my opinion, that was the natural place to go.
Q So even though you installed the system at Colonel
North's house, you looked to General Secord for payment
because he was the_Qr\e^tiiat Ud^tlife^UCu to install the
filiM'k^6ii'lt«"
649
UNCUSSIFIED
system, correct?
A I did. I did, yes.
Q What did you do with this cash that General Secord
gave you on either the 19th or the 20th of May?
A I took it home.
Q I want to show you Exhibit 4-A and 4-B. Exhibit 4-
A is your bank statement for the month of May and Exhibit 4-B
is a deposit slip.
gxhibit 4-A, the bank statement, reflects that
there was a deposit to your account of $7,000 on May 20. -Is
that the deposit you made with the cash that General Secord
paid you?
A Yes, it is.
Q Exhibit 4-B is a deposit slip in the amount of
$7,000. Is that also the deposit slip for the $7,000 deposit
that you made with the money General Secord gave you?
A I'm sure it is.
Q When you went to General Secord, to seek reimburse-
ment for this down payment, did General Secord say anything
to you, that you should go to Colonel North and ask him for
the money?
A No, he did not.
(q) And General Secord never said anything to you about
him getting the money from Colonel North to pay you, did he?
A No, Genera
iiriorisi^^tcitrit
anything to me
650
UNCUSSIHED
about doing that and, in fact. General Secord never told me
that he. General Secord, would pay for the system.
(^ And he never told you where the money was coming
from, to pay for this system?
A No, he did not.
Q Is it fair to say that as of May 19, when you made
this down payment to VATEC, that you were expecting that
VATEC would be the sole contractor for this system?
A Yes, it was, at that date, yes.
Q At some point, did you make a decision to use
another contractor for a portion of the system?
A Yes, I did.
Q What part of the system did you decide to give to
another contractor?
A The remote control, the electronic gate.
Q What caused you to decide to give the electric gate
contract to someone else?
A I thought that VATEC 's proposed charges for the
electronic gate were high and I also had some impression that
maybe it was a type of installation that they weren't able to
do easily and cheaply.
Q When did you first receive an inaUiuawnt from VATEC?
A I think I got a verbal estimate from them sometime
in June, mid- June, early June.
Q Wouldn't vou have received an estimate fr^nTthem
il estimate from them som
UNCUSSIRED
651
pb34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
iiNcussra
prior to making the down payment on May 19?
A Probably, yes.
Q Do you recall what that estimate was?
A I believe it was around 11-something, 12-something.
Q Did that first estimate you got from them include
the electric gate?
A I don't recall right now.
MR. TUOHEY: Excuse me.
[Witness and counsel conferring.]
[Discussion off the record.]
[The reporter read the record as requested.]
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q Mr. Robinette, 1 had asked you if that first
estimate you got included the electric gate. Your answer was
that you couldn't recall. Have you had a chance to think
about that answer?
A Yes, I have. That was a verbal estimate that was
given to me by a member of VATEC.
Q Did it include the electric gate?
A Yes, it did.
Q It's fair to say that the estimate would have been
substantially higher than VJ'rf l^i -^ ^_ ^i included the gate?
A Yes, it would.
Q When did the installation of this system begin and
when was it completed, approximately?
652
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
' i
10 I
^'!
12 I
13 I
14 i
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UNCLASSIHED
A It Started sometime in May and ended in early July.
Q The dates you gave me, does that include the
installation of the electric gate by the other contractor?
A Yes, it does.
Q What is the name of the contractor that installed
the electric gate?
A I think it's Automatic Gate.
Q Did Automatic Gate require a down payment before
they installed the system?
A No, I don't believe they did.
Q Did there come a time when you made final payment
&
to VATEC and also final payment ~»r the automatic door
company, for the work that that was done for you?
A Yes, there did.
Q In looking at your calendars, can you determine
when it was that you made that final payment?
A Yes, I can.
Q When was that?
' A July 10, 1986.
Q Can you describe the circumstances in which you
made these payments?
A Yes, I spoke to both contractors, who agreed to
meet me at noon at a restaurant in Silver Spring and I timed
it so that I would meet one contractor at one point and the
other contractor at a second point, so. that there wouldn't be
IniKi iKhifiFH
653
any
IINWSSW
:ing of the two contractors.
Q How did you plan to pay them, by check or with cash?
A No, I was going to pay them with cash.
Q Where did you get the cash from, to pay them?
A Cash that I had accumulated and kept in my home.
Q Please take a look at Exhibit 5-A, which is an
invoice from the VATEC Corporation. Have you seen that
exhibit before?
A I've seen it recently. It was shown to me.
Q That is an invoice for the security system that' was
installed at the North residence, correct?
A That's correct.
Q In the upper right-hand corner, it bears an address
of ^^^^^^^^^M property and that's the North residence,
correct?
A That's correct.
Q It also says payment received 7-10-86. Is that the
date that you made final payment to VATEC for the work done
on the system?
A Yes, it is.
Q By looking at the invoice, can you tell the amount
of the payment that you made on July 10?
A Yes, I can.
Q What is the amount that you paid VATEC on that day?
A 55 70. IIMPIflCOirirn
654
UNCIASSIHED
Q You had earlier made a down payment of S6,000,
correct?
A Yes.
Q So what was the total amount that you paid VATEC
for the work that they did at the North property?
A 511,703.
Q Please take a look at Exhibit 6-C, which is an
invoice from Automatic Door Specialists. Have you seen that
before?
A Yes .
Q That invoice is for work that Automatic Door did
for you installing the electric gate at the North property,
correct?
A That's correct.
Q And that invoice reflects that that work was done
at the North residence, correct?
A That's correct.
Q It also states that payment was made on July 10,
1986, correct?
A That's correct.
Q Is that when you paid Automatic Door?
A That's correct.
)u Day them for the work
iClASSIFIED
Q How much did you^ajr^hem fc'^^h_^_work they did?
A 52,173.
Q You paid them in cash at the restaurant on July 10,
655
UNCLASSIRED
correct?
A Yes, I did.
Q So if you paid VATEC 511,703 and you paid Automatic
Door Specialist S2,154, the total cost of the installation of
the system was 313,857. Does that sound right to you?
A I accept your addition.
Q In any event, it's approximately $14,000?
A Yes, it is.
Q Mr. Robinette, you testified that you used your own
funds to make these cash payments on July 10, 1986?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you subsequently seek reimbursements from
somebody for these funds?
A Yes, I did.
Q who did you go to for reimbursement?
A General Secord.
Q On July 10, you paid approximately $7,800 to these
t%«) contractors. How much money did you seek from General
Secord?
A Subsequent to this date, I asked him for ap-
proximately S9,000.
Q Why did you ask him for ^S.9_,0QiJ_whprvXflvu^Jlflifli1&nts
to the contractors were $7,800?
A My expenses, gas, time, telephone.
Q Your fee and your expenses?
jSMir
656
UNCUSSIFIEO
A Yes.
[Counsel and witness conferring.]
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q How long after July 10, 1986 did you go to General
Secord and ask him for reimbursement?
A I don't recall the exact date.
Q Do you remember when it was that you got paid?
A I received a check.
Q In August, 1986? Does that sound right?
A Yes, if I saw the check, I'd probably recognize it.
MR. TUOHEY: Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.)
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q Let me show you Exhibit 7-F, which is a cashier's
check in the amount of $9,000?
A Yes.
Q Have you seen that before?
A Yes .
Q That check is made payable to you, correct?
A Yes, it is.
Q And it bears the notation that it is from CSF
Investments, Limited?
A Yes, it does.
Q And the date of the check is August 20, 19861
A August 20, 1986.
UNCLASSIFIED
657
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UNClASSra
Yes, it is.
What did you do with that check?
I put that in an account at Merrill Lynch.
Mr. Robinette, is Exhibit 7-F a copy of the check
Q Is that about the time that you received the check,
sometime shortly after August 20, 1986?
A Yes, it is.
Q Is that the payment you received from General
Secord?
A
Q
A
Q
you received?
A Yes.
Q Does the back of the check bear your endorsement?
A Yes, it does.
Q And that's the check you received from General
Secord for the reimbursement for the payments you made plus
your fee for the security system, correct?
A Yes, it is.
Q Between the beginning of May and the time when the
system was paid for, did you ever go to Colonel North and
seek reimbursement from him?
A No, I did not.
Q Did you ever send Colonel North a bill for any of
the work you had done on the security system during this time
period?
A NO, I did not.
ONCUSSIFIED
658
UNCIASSIRED
Q Did General Secord say anything to you, during this
time period, that suggested that he was obtaining the money
he was paying you from Colonel North?
A No, he did not.
MR. BARBADORO: Let's go off the record for a
second.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q Mr. Robinette, do you recall making any other
payments in connection with the security system?
A Yes, I do.
Q What payments did you make?
A I had to pay the Central Station Alarm Company and
I had to pay VATEC for electrical work that was done.
Q
A
Q
A
Q
VATEC?
A
Q
A
Q
How much did you pay the alarm company?
I believe it was $90.
What was that payment for?
Services for, I believe, a six month period.
What were the payments and how much did you pay
I paid VATEC the $90.
And they forwarded it to the security system?
Yes.
You also mentioned making other payments to vatec,
It CO tne security sysLt
UNCIASSIHED
659
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
-,. I
UNCUSSIFIED
^2 I
■MLLW nvomwta eo.. mc
»- c Sut.t St. 2 5
A Yes, I paid VATEC S140 to go fix, repair that
electric gate. It was faulty and the company would not
acknowledge that it was their problem.
Q Did you seek reimbursement from anybody for these
payments?
A No, I did not.
Q Why not?
A I don't recall why. It was a small amount and I
just felt that I had been paid for it.
Q I want to move ahead to November of 1986 and ask
you about a date that's now familiar to everybody, November
25, 1986. That was the date that Attorney General Meese held
his press conference and announced that the funds from the
Iran arms sales were diverted to the Contras and also
announced that Colonel North had been removed from the
National Security Council staff.
Let me ask you, where were you on November 25, 1986:
A I was in Costa Rica.
Q What were you doing there?
A Doing some — continuing with my work with General
Secord on research investigation.
Q When did you return to the United States?
A November 29, 1986.
Q At some point in December, after you returned from
UNCLASSIRED
Costa Rica, did you receive a telephone call from Colonel
660
UNCLASSIFIED
North?
A Yes, I did.
Q When did you receive that phone call?
A My recollection is not — it seems to me it was
shortly thereafter.
Q Are you reasonably certain that it was sometime in
December, before Christmas?
A Yes, very much so.
Q What did Colonel North say to you, in this phone
call?
A We passed the time of day for a moment or two and
said that -- he mentioned to me that I had not sent him a
bill for the —
Q Give me his exact words, if you can?
MR. TUOHEY: On that particular issue?
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q On that issue.
A To my recollection, it was something along the
lines of a very friendly comment, like hey, you know you
haven't sent me a bill for that work, security work that you
did at my house. How about sending me the bill.
Q What was you]
A I said yes,
Q What was the tone of his voice?
A He was very friendly, I thought in a good frame of
:::riNCUSSlFl[D
661
MTCStretT NE
UNCLASSIFIED
mind, considering that at that period of time he was having
what I considered major personal difficulties.
Q At the time you received this call, you knew that
Colonel North had been removed from the National Security
Council staff, correct?
A Yes, I did.
Q And you knew that he had hired a lawyer?
A Yes, I did. !
Q You also knew that he was being investigated by the
FBI, correct?
A I assumed he was being investigated by not only the
FBI but a number of federal agencies.
Q When he called you in December and asked you to
send him a bill for the work you had aone, did you expect him
to pay you for the work?
A I didn't really know, but I doubt it.
Q You knew that you had already been paid for the
work by General Secord, correct?
A Yes.
Q Were you surprised that he called you in December,
several months after the work had been completed, and for the
first time asked you for a bill?
A Yes, I think I was surprised
Q It's fair to say, Mr. Robinette, that you knew why
he was asking you for this bill, correct?
VNCUSSm
662
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Huan RVoxTwa co.. w^
UNCLASSIRED
A I think so.
Q And he was asking for this bill to cover himself
because he was under investigation by the FBI and other
federal agencies, wasn't he?
A Yes, he was.
MR. BARBADORO: Let me just go off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
[The reporter read the record as requested. )
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q Mr. Robinette, did you think that Colonel North was
asking you for a bill because he wanted to pay you the money
that he owed you for the security system?
A No, I didn't.
Q Isn't it true that you thought, at the time, that
Mr. North was asking for a bill because he wanted to cover
himself because of the federal investigation that was then
ongoing, correct?
A I can't respond exactly to Colonel North's thinking,
but I think he felt that possession of a bill would be
helpful to him.
Q I'm really interested here, not in Colonel North's
state of mind, but in your state of mind. Your state of mind
was you assumed that you were being asked to provide a bill
that could be used to cover the installation of the security
system, correct'
iiNdi hmm
663
UNCUSSIFIED
A Yes.
MR. BALLEN: Why did you assume that?
THE WITNESS: Because he had not been billed.
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q Isn't it true there are several reasons why you
assumed it? You assumed it because the system had been
installed months ago and Colonel North hadn't come to you at
the time and requested a bill, correct?
A Correct.
Q You also assumed it because you had sought and '
obtained payment from General Secord for the system, correct?
A Correct.
Q And you also thought it was true because of the
circumstances at the time, where Colonel North was under
investigation when he asked you for the bill, correct?
A Correct .
MR. TUOHEY: Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY HR. BARBADORO:
Q After you received this phone call from Colonel
North, what did you do?
A I typed up an invoice, probably within several
days, within one to two days of his phone call and mailed it.
Q Mr. Robinette,- let me show you Exhibits 9-A and 9-B.
A Yes, I have them.
IINfllASSIFIED
664
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
XMK KVOMTWO CO.. MC-
CSimiNE 25
iiNcussm
Q Are those invoices that you prepared after this
December phone call with Colonel North and then sent to
Colonel North?
A Yes, they are.
MR. TUOHEY: Paul, I'm not nit-picking, but he
prepared an invoice, xeroxed it, and then typed a note.
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q Exhibit 9-A is an invoice dated July 2, 1986,
addressed to Colonel North for the security system in the
amount of $8,000, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And Exhibit 9-B is a copy of that invoice with an
additional note written on the bottom, dated September 22,
1986, correct?
A That's correct.
Q Is it fair to characterize Exhibit 9-A as a first
notice and Exhibit 9-B as what is intended to be as a second
notice?
A That's correct.
Q Mr. Robinette, did Colonel North ask you to send
him a bill or did he ask you to send him copies of bill?
A In my recollection, he said send me a bill.
Q What you sent to Colonel North, however, was a bill
dated July 2, 1986 and a second notice which was the original
bill with an additional "°^s, '^fl'^^^f itfifeft 22 typed on it.
665
UNCLASSIRED
correct?
A That's correct.
Q Why did you send him a first and second notice,
instead of just sending him a bill?
A I selected the dates because the first date of 2
July was approximately when the equipment was -- the install-
ation was completely finished. And the second date of 22
September was when the installation was working satisfactori-
ly-
Q Mr. Robinette, my question is what was your purpose
in sending him these two pieces of paper?
A To help him, to assist him.
Q In wh?t way?
A Because he hadn't been billed.
Q Again, you weren't expecting Mr. North to pay you
for this system, correct?
A No, I was not.
Q And there was a reason why you sent him a first
notice dated July 2 and a second notice dated September 22,
wasn't there?
A Yes.
Q Tell me what that reason was?
A I responded in response to his request and those
were the dates that I felt represented the true status of the
equipment for the installation.
IIMPI ACCIClcn
666
IINCUSSIFIEO
Q Wasn't it your purpose to provide him with a
plausible explanation as to why he hadn't paid you as of
December, 1986?
A I don't think so, but it was to provide him with
documentation.
Q Exhibit 9-B, the note that you wrote and dated
September 22, 1986, says "Oilie, due to my schedule, I have
not found time to follow up on my paperwork. As you can see
from the dates, I'm sure that you have had the same problem.
Please remit when you have time."
When you said I have not found time to follow up on
my paperwork, that wasn't correct, was it?
A No.
Q That was a deliberate misstatement?
A Yes.
Q What was the purpose in making that deliberate
misstatement?
MR. TUOHEY: Do you understand the question?
THE WITNESS: I think so.
MR. TUOHEY: Excuse me.
[Witness and counsel conferring.]
MR. TUOHEY: Can we take a break?
■Recess .
BY MR. BARBADORO:
UNCUSSIRED
Mr. Robinette, I'm going to ask you some questions
667
UNCLASSIRED
about these two exhibits, some of which I've asked you
before, but I'm going to try to put it all together here.
Let's start with Exhibit 9-A. Exhibit 9-A is an
invoice dated July 2, 1986, correct?
A That's correct.
Q Mr. Robinette, you did not prepare this invoice on
July 2, 1986, did you?
A No, I didn't.
Q You prepared it in December of 1986, correct?
A That's correct.
Q The invoice states that it is for the installation
f the security system that you installed at Colonel North's
house, correct?
A That's correct.
Q The amount that you are billing Colonel North is
$8,000. That amount is not what the system cost, correct?
A That's correct.
Q That amount is an incorrect statement of what the
system costs, right?
A That's correct.
Q I want to turn to Exhibit 9-B, which is a copy of
9-A except for a note on the bottom, dated September 22.
That date is incorrect, isn't it? You didn't prepare that
note on September 22, did you?
A That's correct.
UNCLASSIHED
668
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 i
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. MC.
25
UNcussm
Q You prepared that note in December, didn't you?
A That's correct.
Q Indeed, you prepared the note at the same time you
prepared the first exhibit, dated July 2, 1986, didn't you?
A That's correct.
Q So that date is false, right?
A That's correct.
Q In the note, you say "due to my schedule, I have
not found time to follow up on my paperwork. " When you said
that, that was not true, was it?
A That's correct.
Q When you mailed these bills to Colonel North, you
mailed them at the same time, didn't you?
A That's correct.
Q When you mailed them to him, did you mail originals
or copies? You mailed copies, didn't you?
A Yes, I believe so.
Q Can you explain why you made all these misstatements
in these two exhibits and why you mailed copies to Colonel
North, rather than original bills?
A At that period of time. Colonel North was in what I
considered a great deal of — having experienced a great deal
of problems and troubles and I thought that documents --
[Telephone ringing ] [J NClASSIF IlD
[The reporter read the record as requested.] |
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
UNCLASSinED
THE WITNESS: And I thought that possession of
these documents would be helpful to him.
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q How did you think the possession of these documents
would be helpful to him?
A Colonel North had not been billed for the system
and had not paid for the system. Possession of these
documents would indicate that payments were expected.
Q It would give Colonel North a plausible explanation
to anybody who might ask as to why he hadn't paid for that
system himself?
A That's correct.
Q Did you hear from Colonel North after sending him
these bills?
A I didn't hear from him by telephone but shortly
thereafter I was surprised to receive two documents from
Colonel North, in response to these bills.
Q Take a look at Exhibit 10-A and 10-B.
A Yes, I have them.
Q Are those the letters you received from Colonel
North in response to the bills you sent him?
A Yes, they are.
Q HOW long after yQ)i ^SPS- l}i!!L the_bins^ did you get
these responses?
A I'm only able to guess, but I'd say within a week.
670
tlNEUSSIflEO
Q
A
Q
copies?
A
Did they come together or did they come separately?
They came together.
Do you recall whether you received originals or
I think I got copies.
Q Before I get into these, I want to just go back to
the two bills you sent. Can you describe how you sent these
to Colonel North, the two bills. Exhibits 9-A and 9-B?
A How I mailed them?
Q Yes.
A Yes.
Q Please do that.
A I mailed them to Colonel North's attorney. I
selected the attorney's address rather than his home address
because I didn't think he's get them. I knew his attorney,
knew of his attorney, his name had been in the paper and I
knew the office and the location.
Q Did ycu double seal the bills?
A Yes, I did.
Q So that the outside envelope was addressed to the
attorney and the inside envelope was addressed to Colonel
North, correct?
A That'
Q Back to the responses that you got from Colonel
North, the first one. Exhibit 10-A is a letter to you from
'■— UNCUSSIflEO
671
UNCLASSIFIED
Colonel North dated May 18, 1986. Did you ever receive this
letter from Colonel North on or about May 18, 1986?
A NO, I did not.
Q So the first time you ever saw this letter was in
December, 1986, correct?
A That's correct.
Q The second letter is again from Colonel North to
you and is dated October 1, 1986. Did you ever receive this
letter on or about October 1, 1986?
A No, I did not.
Q The first time you saw this letter was in December,
when Colonel North sent it to you?
A That's correct.
Q I want to read from the second paragraph of Exhibit
10-A and that paragraph begins "It is my understanding that
the full system will cost approximately $8,000 to $8,500."
Mr. Robinette, did you give Mr. North that understanding in
May of 1986, that the security system would cost between
$8,000 and $8,5007
A Tes, I did.
Q I will continue, "That it can be installed quickly"
did you give Mr. North, and I'm asking you did you give Mr.
North the impression that the system could be installed
quickly in May of 1986?
A I believe so.
UNCLASSIFIED
672
UNCLASSIFIED
Q I will continue reading, "And that we have two
options for reinbursing you for the expenses: one, loan of
the equipment for a period not to exceed the expiration of my
active service in the United States Marine Corps (June 1988).
At that time, we will make our home available for commercial i
endorsement of your firm and the equipment, without fee."
Did you ever present Colonel North with this option
No.
A
I
Q You never offered to loan him the security equipment ]
until he ended his active service with the Marine Corps, did
you?
A No, sir, I did not.
Q And he, in turn, never offered to make his home
available for commercial endorsement of your firm and the
equipment without a fee?
A No.
Q The second option he describes in the letter states
that he will "make payment in full for the equipment and tht
cost of installation in 24 equal monthly increments, commenc-
ing on the date that the installation is completed and fully
operational . "
Did Colonel North ever offer to make payment for
the system in 24 monthly payments
A No, he did not.
Q In fact, he never offered to pay you for the
UNCUSSIFIED
673
wtmm
installation of the system, isn't that right?
A That's correct.
Q I will turn to the second letter, GR-IO-B and read
from the third paragraph of that letter. Colonel North says
to you, "Back to the point, your note of September 22, it was
our understanding that we were going to go ahead with the
first option for first reimbursement, that is commercial
endorsement of your company and the equipment when I retire
from the Marine Corps in 1988. "
You've already testified that you never offered
Colonel North that option. Is that right?
A That's correct.
Q So you never had agreed with Colonel North that he
could have the system in exchange for him making some kind of
commercial endorsement of the company and the equipment when
he retired from the Marine Corps?
A That's correct.
Q At the bottom of the note, what is apparently in
Colonel North's handwriting is the P.S. "Please forgive the
type, I literally dropped the ball." Do you know why he
added that note to the letter?
A I have no idea.
Q The typeface is a little bit different on this
letter than it is on the letter dated May 18, 1986. Do yovj
know why the typeface appears to be different?
UNCLASSIFIED
674
UNCLASSIFIED
A No, I do not.
MR. TUOHEY: Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q What did you do with these letters after you
received, Mr. Robinette?
A I just — these two letters from Colonel North?
Q Yes.
A Came as quite a surprise and I just threw them in
my drawer, file drawer.
Q Did you ever tell General Secord that you had sent
bills to Colonel North and that you had received some letters
back from Colonel North?
A Yes, I did.
Q When was that?
A Sometime in this same time period of December.
Q What was General Secord 's reaction?
A Very noncommittal. Just simply yes, okay.
Q Did General Secord express any surprise that you
were sending Colonel North a bill in view o£ the fact that
General Secord had already paid for the security system?
A No.
Q Did he tell you it was wrong to send Colonel North
bill?
A No, he did not.
uNcussra
675
UNCLASSIFIED
Q When was the next time you spoke with Colonel North?
A I believe March 16th, 1987.
Q And that's when he telephoned you, correct?
A That's correct.
Q And what did he say in that phone conversation?
A Said he hadn't seen me in some time and let's get
together for lunch. I had suggested a commercial restaurant
downtown and he said, no, that wasn't a good idea because of
the publicity about him, and he suggested his attorney's
office the next day.
Q And did you agree to meet him?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did ycu also hear from--strike that.
Before going to lunch on the 17th of March with
Colonel North, did you hear from General Secord?
A Yes, I did.
Q And he called you as well, correct?
A Yes, he did.
Q What did General Secord say to you?
A He called in regard to a newspaper article that had
been published that day.
Q Tell us what the newspaper article was about.
A It was in regard to the security installation at
Colonel North's residence that I had participated in and made
reference to an interviey. ^Bl«r*«4ftilPI'Pw(.ew that I had
iisi(*iirc?l0fft'
676
UNCUSSIFIED
had. General Second commiserated with me. He said sorry
that I was involved and getting notoriety, and wanted to get
together to talk. I told him that I was coming downtown that
day the 17th, March 17th to meet Colonel North and he
suggested meeting a time right after that.
Q What happened when you got to Colonel North's
lawyer's office that afternoon?
A The day before Colonel North had asked me to lunch
and also to bring the documents which I then had in my
possession.
Q So in his telephone conversation with you on the
16th, Colonel North asked you to come to lunch at his
attorney's office and he asked you to bring with you the
bills and the letters concerning the security system, correct?
A That's correct.
Q Now please continue and describe what happened when
you got to lunch.
A I met in a conference of — his lawyer's conference
room. It was a very brief luncheon, very brief meeting of
about 40 minutes. We discussed the family, his children. He
made two telephone calls. And then asked if I had the--if I
had brought the documents with me. I said, yes. He said,
let's go upstairs to see my attorney.
Q And which attorney did you go up_tp^seeT
A \ nentleman named Barry Simon.
IIELASSIEIED
677
yn C imn. N I
mmm
Q And what happened when you got to Mr. Simon's
office?
A He introduced me to Mr. Simon and left; Colonel
North left.
Q And tell us what happened when you met with Mr.
Simon.
A Mr. Simon and I had a brief informal discussion
about the building and security. And then Mr. Simon raised
the question, did you bring some documents down. I said,
yes. Can I see them? Yes, I showed them to him. He asked
if he could make copies, and I said, certainly. He attempted
to give them to his secretary who was not at the desk, and he
went and made copies .
He returned shortly thereafter — I'd say within
three to four minutes — returned my copies to me and had his
copies in hand. He sat down and glanced at them and said
something along the lines, you did prepare these, or you
prepared these, correct? And I said, that's right.
And that was about — and just about at that time
Colonel North came back into the office. I perceived the
meeting was over and Colonel North took me back out of the
office to leave.
Q Where did you go after leaving the attorney's
office?
A I then went over to meet General Secord at the
go alter leaving tiie ai-uu
UNCUSSinED
678
UNCUSHD
Capitol Hilton Hotel at 16th and K.
Q Did Colonel North come with you?
A No, he did not.
Q What happened when you got to the Capitol Hilton?
A I went in the bar. General Secord was not there.
He did arrive within 10 minutes. We both had ordered drinks,
or I had ordered a drink earlier. He ordered a drink. He
commiserated again with me about the newspaper article
expressing some sympathy that now my name was in the newspa-
per.
Q Did he say anything to you about the bills?
A Yes, he did.
Q What did he say?
A The subject of the bills came up and he said, well,
you sent him bills, didn't you? And I said, yes. He said,
well, fine, you don't have anything to worry about. You did
right — you did the right thing.
Q What else was said at that meeting?
A That was about it. He appeared to be in a hurry
and he left shortly thereafter.
Q Have you spoken to Colonel North since this meeting
on the 17th?
Q Did you
Sullivan?
"miKsra
ttorney Brendan
679
UNCLASSIFIED
A Yes.
Q When was that?
A That was on that same day. Later, almost within 15
minutes of Secord's leaving.
Q And what did Mr. Sullivan say to you?
MR. TUOHEY: Let me just interrupt, if I may, Paul.
Just one thing. Just so it's clear, I think Glenn ought to
describe the circumstances. My understanding is Sullivan
didn't know where he was, and I don't want to be unfair to
somebody.
MR. BARBADORO: Let's go through that.
THE WITNESS: But I do like the idea, did you get a
call or I would have forgot.
BY MR. BARBADORO:
Q What were the circumstances under which you
received this call from Mr. Sullivan?
A Shortly after General Secord left I received a call
on my beeper. And my beeper is a display type which shows
the number. And I called it and it was Brendan Sullivan's
number who is Colonel North's attorney.
Q And what did Mr. Sullivan say to you?
A He might have commented about the newspaper
article, just commiserating. But he said that he wanted me
to--he wanted to tell me a couple of things, which he did.
He said, don't cover ^OE-QPlSffl -Noptb^ Jjs'jj^ big boy, or
680
iiNcussm
something to that effect, or he's a big man. And tell the
truth. And the third was, he suggested I get an attorney.
MR. BARBADORO: Let's go off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
MR. VAN CLEVE: Let the record reflect that we've
reconvened and Mr. Ballen has stated that he does not have
any questions for the witness at this time.
Mr. Robinette, I do have some questions.
EXAMINATION
BY MR. VAN CLEVE:
Q Let me start out by asking you, sir, today we did
not go through the normal biographic details, but I want to
have this fixed in my mind for other purposes.
How old are you?
A Sixty-five.
Q Okay. And you have been employed — you left the
Central Intelligence Agency about how long ago?
A I left in 1971.
Q And have you had regular employment since then?
A No, I've worked part-time or self-employed.
Q And I believe you testified earlier today that you
went to work for Richard Secord sometime in March of 1986?
A That's right.
Q Had you ever previously worked for Richard Secord'
A No.
UNCIASSIRED
681
UNCLASSIFIED
Q
Or for Thomas Clines?
A
No.
Q
Or for Edwin Wilson?
A
No.
Q Now I believe you also testified that you were paid
a substantial part of your total compensation from Mr. Secord
during 1986 was money you received in cash; is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q Would it be fair — this is just an estimate and I
don't want to hold you to this — but to say that it might have
been as much as $25,000 in cash?
A Yes.
Q Possibly $35,000?
A Yes-
Q Had you, during your prior self -employment from
1971 through 1986, had you ever before been paid by a client
in cash?
A No.
- Q Whose idea was it that Mr. Secord would pay you a
substantial part of your total compensation in cash?
A The subject was never discussed. I don't know. It
must have been his idea, I guess.
Q Is it your testimony that it seemed natural to you
to receive $35,000 in cash^a^fter having^ never ^een paid that
way before? iiiviii r^ili]
682
VNCUSSIFIED
A No, but I didn't question it.
Q You didn't ever ask to be paid in check?
A No, I didn't.
Q And you were never asked for a receipt of any kind
by Mr. Secord?
A No, I was not.
Q And you have no written records of the amounts that
you were paid; is that correct?
A No, I do not.
Q Now I believe you did testify that you received
$16,000, a total of $16,000 in the form of checks during
1986; is that correct?
A Yes.
Q And was the sole purpose of those payments compen-
sation for your fees and expenses in connection with your
work for Mr. Secord?
MR. TUOHEY: Let me just correct something, George.
There are two checks for five and one for six, which is 16.
But there's also the check for nine. Did you clarify that
they viel^mo^ for Secord?
MR. VAN CLEVE: I'm sorry, perhaps I misspoke.
THE WITNESS: It's apples and oranges.
BY MR. VAN CLEVE:
Let me back up here. Exhibit 2 for the deposition
contains three checks; one in the amount of $6,000 and two in
Pb66
M> C Satn N C
_ 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
I CO.. HC.
25
vNcussn
the amount of S5,000 each. And my question was, is it your
testimony that the sole purpose of those checks was to pay
you for your fees and expenses on behalf of work you did for
Mr. Secord?
A That's correct.
Q And that work was totally unrelated to the instal-
lation of a security system; is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And I believe you testified previously that at some
point in late April 1986 you were approached by Mr. Secord
and asked whether or not you could help to provide a security
system for Oliver North's home?
A That's correct.
Q And that you're not sure, if I understood your
testimony correctly, whether or not the subject of terrorist
threats against Colonel North came up at that time or later;
is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q But it did come up at some point?
A Yes, it did.
Q Can you tell us what was said to you on the subject
of terrorist threats against Colonel North?
A Yes. It was described to
Q Or his family.
Q It was described to me that Colonel North had^
UNCLASSIFIED
684
)07 C SntR. N I.
UNCLASSIHED
experienced a number of unusual circumstances at his house
and that he was concerned for himself and his family.
Specifically the name of Abu Nidal was mentioned as a
principal terrorist represented a threat to Colonel North.
And that since the North residence was frequently — since
Colonel North was not at the North residence frequently, he
wanted some kind of protection for his family.
Q Were you ever given any specific information about
the nature of these threats or the reasons why--you're a
former Central Intelligence Agency officer. Were you ever
told what type of information might have supported the idea
that there were threats being made?
A NO.
Q Were you ever told anything else about that subject?
A No.
Q Were you told that at one point there had been
guards posted at the North home?
A Yes, I was.
■ Q And will you tell us what you were told on that
subject, please?
A Yes, I believe Colonel North told me at one of
those meetings; early meetings that there had been two guards
stationed or assigned to his residence and that they stayed
in the built-in garage area. And that his experience with
them was not satisfactory.
685
UNCLASSinED
Q From what you were told, were you able to determine
whether these guards were private guards hired by the Norths
or guards provided by the federal government?
A No, I was never told that.
Q And were you told about what time the guards had
been stationed there? Would it have been about this same
period of time?
A I'm gathering it was prior to my entrance on the
scene.
Q But in the recent past previous to that?
A In the recent prior time.
Q You were told that the experience that they'd had
with the guards had been unsatisfactory?
A Yes.
Q Was that suggested to you as a reason why they
needed a security system?
A NO.
Q To replace the guards?
"A No, I don't think so. No, it was not suggested to
me.
Q Were you told at that time — this would be in the
spring of 1986 — that at one point Colonel North's family had
actually physically been removed from their home in response
to earlier threats that had been madj
A Not that I recoiled
"""ICLASSinED
686
UNCiA$sra
Q Now when you set out to design the security system
for the North home, this would have been probably in the
beginning of May 1986?
A Correct.
Q Was the design a design that was left pretty much
up to your expert judgment?
A Yes, it was.
Q And if I understood correctly, the basis of the
design was an inspection of the North's home, together with
your conversations with Mrs. North, together with conversa-
tions you had with Colonel North about what kind of security
they were looking for; is that correct?
A That's correct.
Q And I believe you told us earlier today that when
you met with Mrs . North she described a variety of problems
the family had had at home, that they had gotten packages of
unknown origin, that there had been sugar put in gas tanks of
cars that were 200 feet off the road and so on. Does any of
this sort of thing, based on your professional experience,
sound the like the kinds of things that terrorists do?
No.
Does it sound like.v.
WSSIFIED
Q Now the security system that you designed, was it
•signed to protect against vandals or was it designed to
687
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21 i
UNCLASSIFIED
protect against terrorists?
A It's primary value would be against vandalism, but
I would hope it would be a deterrent in some way to terrorists
who might attempt to force their way into the house, at least
she would get an alarm.
Q But would a —
A And she could, of course, then easily alert help
with the built-in system.
Q I know this is a difficult question, but in terms
of a private home, protecting a private home against a
potential terrorist attack with limited resources available,
would the kind of system that you put in have provided
reasonable protection?
A Against terrorists?
Q Against that kind of an attack?
A It would give them some prior notice, prior alert
that someone was forcing their way into the house, whether it
was a terrorist or a good guy or a bad guy. It's just simply
a — perhaps it was something to help Mrs. North's peace of
mind. But as you know, protecting against terrorists is a
very difficult job. Certainly the U.S. government has a
iad experiences.
Sure. Let me sharpen this question a little bit.
24 iobviously, the Norths did not have unlimited resources. They
^^j!!!rTr''"' 2 5 I couldn't spend the kind of money that you would spend to
NCLASSilK":
688
UNClASSinED
protect the United States Capitol.
A Yes.
Q But taking that into account, were they receiving
protection really against neighborhood vandals? Or weren't
they receiving something considerably more sophisticated that
would, in fact, allow some warning against a potential attack?
A The latter, yes, what you had described. Protect-
-some early warning against a potential attack. Ideally, if
the home style had permitted it, there should have been
something put in the grounds so that as people, as individuals
came through the open fence and they walked through this
several hundred feet, the house would be alerted that someone
was walking there.
But when you have children, dogs, cats and horses--
you have to try to marry a reasonable protection system into
a lifestyle. And their lifestyle was typically family. You
couldn't restrict them in any way and have the system operate
reasonably well .
Q Okay. I believe you told us the other day — and I
don't mean to hold you to this, but my notes reflect that
when you described the situation the other day you told us
about your meeting with General Secord in late April in which
he described to you the possibility that you would undertake
this job. And you told us, if my notes are accurate, that
initially ar least you thouaht Sl'lf .Ull ■W'lt'^ would be paid
689
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
«NM«D
for by Colonel North; is that correct? That you had an
impression that that would be the case?
A It was a completely — it was an assignment completely
detached from what I was doing for Colonel North— I'm sorry,
for General Secord, pardon me. And I would assume that this
was Colonel North's need for some professional assistance and
I didn't know who was going to pay for it at that time.
Q You did know that Colonel North was a government
official?
A Yes.
Q And you're a former federal government official
yourself, right?
A Yes.
Q Turning to the meeting of May 5th, which I believe
was the sort of first meeting you had with Colonel North
himself about this. You gave him a general set of recommen-
dations. He indicates, as I understand your testimony, that
he wants to meet again.
I believe you testified that at that meeting there
was no discussion of price; is that correct?
A At that meeting, yes.
Q He didn't say, for example, that he couldn't afford
to spend more than a certain amount or anything like that?
A Not to my recollection at that meeting.
I believe yo
."AVlKMrfli*ll
I want to confirm
690
UNCLASSIHED
73
this for the record, that in your view North clearly was the
one who was making the installation decisions; what would go
into the system, what would not go into the system?
A I felt it was his — well, it didn't seem unusual to
me. Yes; yes, in response.
Q He was the client, in effect, for this job, wasn't
he?
A Yes, it was his house.
Q Right, I understand. Secord had come to you, but
he appeared to be the client for the job; is that right?
A [Nodding affirmatively.]
Q Now at the May 10th meeting — and we've gone over
this a little bit earlier this morning, but I want the record
to be as clear as it can be on this subject. This is the
meeting where there is discussion of the price for the system
and you give him sort of a final configuration.
A Yes.
Q And my question to you is, who brought up the
question of the cost of the system? What is your recollection
on that point?
A I think I brought that up.
Q Now within about 10 days or so between May 10th and
May 19th you got at least some estimates for a significant
part of the total job frj
A Yes.
mmmw
691
uHCUSsra
Q And these estimates came in a lot higher than the
$8,000, $8,500 that had been discussed at that May 10th
meeting. Is it a fact that you never consulted with Colonel
North after the May 10th meeting about how much the system
was going to cost?
A Yes, that's correct.
Q Instead, you did check back with General Secord to
see if the higher estimate was acceptable to him; is that
correct?
A Yes, I believe I mentioned it to him, yes.
Q And I believe you told us that at all times you
looked to Mr. Secord for the payment?
A That's correct.
Q So both in terms of approving the estimates and in
terms of payment, you looked to Secord for the payment?
A Yes.
Q And you don't know whether or not there might have
been some arrangement between Secord and North; is that
correct?
A No, I do not know. General Secord never mentioned
anything like that to me.
Q Now as a former federal employee, did it occur to
you that there might be a problem if General Secord was
paying for the installation of this 3\
A No, it did not occur to
inraiiED
692
UNCLASSlFIEir
UNCLASSIRED
Q So you thought it was okay for federal officials to
accept large gifts from other people for this sort of thing?
MR. TUOHEY: If we were in a deposition I would
object to that question as argumentative.
MR. VAN CLEVE: I can rephrase it, but I'm asking
based on his prior experience as a federal employee.
THE WITNESS: I have to say, yes, I don't think
federal employees should get, whatever your word, large gifts
or whatever it was .
BY MR. VAN CLEVE:
Q I mean, based on your current understanding, that
is what happened here, isn't it? You've told us that Colonel
North has never paid a penny for' this system. That it cost
$14,000.
A I thought you were talking of at that time in March
or April or whatever.
Q I can say it as of the middle of May, if you like.
I can say it as of the present, if you like.
Q Whichever way you prefer.
Q I was initially interested in your state of mind at
the time because clearly you were dealing with Mr. Secord in
getting his approval, looking to him for payment, and yet you
ow whether there was any arrangement.
So I was asking, at the time, what was your state
25 I of mind about this? I mean, did you think this was a
693
UNCUSSIFIED
76
I perfectly proper arrangement?
A Yes.
Q And why was that?
A Because I didn't think there was anything wrong
with it at that time. I didn't know what arrangements had
been made or were being made.
MR. TUOHEY: Off the record for a second.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. VAN CLEVE:
Q I want to turn now to the period after November'
25th, Mr. Robinette. I'd like to ask you to try--and maybe
looking at your calendar will help you a little bit to place
in time some of the events a little more precisely. I don't
know that it will be--do you have a copy of the calendar?
A Yes, I do.
Q I don't know that it will be material today, but it
may be material at a later point.
A Okay.
Q I believe you told us that on December 9th that you
were interviewed by the FBI?
A December 10th.
Q My apologies . On December 10th you were interviewed
by the FBI. And as I recall your testimony o;f the interview,
you said that you were asked generally about the Iran arms
sales, some questions ^^i^\^Mi?^99tf§^r%^^'^ about your
mai
694
UNCLASSIFIED
relationship with Secord; is that right?
A I think so. You know, the best thing is to look at
their records or show them to me or something.
Q I can just tell you that whether we have them or
not, I have not done that and haven't had a chance, and I'm
not going to pursue it in detail.
Were you asked about Colonel North at that inter-
view?
A I could have been. But again, I don't have a clear
recollection of what they asked. They spent about an hour at
my home .
Q I'm not trying to put you on the spot, I'm just
trying to see what you remember.
A I can only answer--
Q You don't remember?
A No.
Q Okay. Now my notes reflect that you told us that
on December 11th you then got a phone call. Was it December
nth?
A Yes, it was. It looks like 12:00 from the agent.
Q So this would be the next day?
A Next day.
Q And it was a follow-up call by one of the agents
that had interviewed you the day before; is that —
A Yes.
UNCLASSIFIED
695
UNCUSSIFIED
Q And my question is — and I apologize for that sort
of lengthy introduction — did the phone call from Colonel
North come before or after the FBI had interviewed you in
December?
A That was asked yesterday. I can't recall.
Q You don't have any way of placing the phone call in
time?
A No, I notice my appointment calendar for December
is rather blank. I don't know whether it was me or what,
because I usually have a lot of notes on there. But I don't
know. There's no way for me to reconstruct that in my memory.
Q Now we went over some of this ground and I am not
at all interested in having the record be different on this
point than it already is. But I believe you told us that the
reason that you changed--you made out two bills that you put
false dates on them and so on — that one of the reasons was
that you wanted to protect Colonel North?
A That's right.
' Q Mr. Robinette, you didn't know Colonel North at all
before May 1986; is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And you've never had any social dealings with him?
A That's correct.
Q And you really don't have any way of knowing much
about his performance in the qovernment, do you?
1^ iiiiAi if*0%inrw%,
UNCLASSIFIED
A Personally, no.
Q So other than by general reputation, you really
don't know Colonel North?
A That's correct.
Q Why would you want to protect him?
A The few times that I did see him, I was impressed
with him. In addition. General Secord had talked — had
commented to me about Colonel North. And I think Colonel
Dutton had commented to me. And I know Tom Clines had
commented to me, all in the same lines, along the same lines
that Colonel North was a super hard-charger, a workaholic,
and a never-give-up type.
Another point that would affect my actions was I
was extremely impressed with Mrs. North and the family and
the lifestyle, and the problems that she as a mother and a
wife had to put up with. She had a pretty tough time out
there with Colonel North always working and she having to do
a lot of things on her own.
Q Now you knew it was important to General Secord to
continue his relationship with Colonel North, didn't you?
A No.
Q No?
A Are you speaking in regard to those notes, those
bills-
UNCLASSinED
697
UHtmSW
I
A No, I would have--no, my concern with — my actions
with the bill was primarily for Colonel North. Now as far as
important that General Secord continue with Colonel--! don't
know. I don't know what they were doing. I don't know if it
would be important or not.
MR. TUOKEY: Let me ask a clarifying^ Are" you
asking whether or not a secondary motive or an alternative
motive in preparing these bills was to protect General Secord?
MR. VAN CLEVE: That's part of the question.
THE WITNESS: I think that's true to a degree, but
I don't know--that's true to some degree. But my primary
objective was Colonel North.
BY MR. VAN CLEVE:
Q Have you ever asked General Secord whether he's
received any kind of payment from North for the system?
A No, I've never asked him.
Q Even after the stories were in the paper and you
met with him on March 17th, that subject never came up?
A Never asked him. It just never came up.
MR. VAN CLEVE: I have a couple of additional
questions. I don't mean to be unnecessarily personal. But
bearing in mind that this is an executive session and that I
have not personally had the time to do the background review
that we would normally _(4p_ here. _ _I hope^ counsel will bear
with me.
698
UNCLASSIFIED
MR. TUOHEY: Off the record.
[Discussion off the record.]
BY MR. VAN CLEVE:
Q Mr. Robinette, have you ever been arrested?
A No.
Q Have you ever been indicted by either a state or a
federal agency?
A No.
Q And I take it that you have never ple^d guilty to
any charge that would amount to a felony?
A No.
Q Would you please tell us the nature of the lawsuit
that you're currently involved with down in South Carolina?
A He's suing us for failure to --
Q Who is he?
A A fellow who is a principal in a firm. The firm is
named Sisco and his name is Mario Salvador and he's suing for
failure to meet terms of a contract.
- Q Are there any allegations that claim fraud in the
business relationship?
A I don't know. He had a lengthy number of -- you
mean about us or about me?
Q Yes. You or your business partners?
A No, not that I know of but you have to look at
their records. I'm not being evasive, I lust don't recall
m not being evasive, Ilw
iiupi ftooidcn
699
UNCUSSinED
82
Q How much money is involved in the lawsuit?
I'll take an approximate number. How much is the
claim being made against you?
A I think he wanted $750,000 or we promised to pay
him over ten years, or something like that. I might now be
right on that. Somebody's been down there, I know. The
attorney said.
Q That may be, sir, but I can tell you for what it's
worth that they haven't been talking to me.
I am struck by the fact that you appear to have
voluntarily decided, in December 1986, that you were going to
go out of your way to try and protect Colonel North while he
was under investigation, as you knew, at the time by various
federal agencies and officials. As I understand your
testimony, you did that purely out of a disinterested
personal concern for Colonel North and his family, is that
correct?
- A That's correct.
Q Obviously, the testimony you are giving here today
is going to have just the opposite effect when it's given in
public, isn't that so?
A Opposite effect?
Q I think it's fair to say that this testimony is
going to be very «^3'"*gi"3 ,*^iL,*^°l°Ji?ik ffflff |»|t®" ^^'^ given in
700
iimsim
public, isn't that so?
A Probably, yes.
Q Did it occur to you, in December of 1986, that you
might end up across the table, where you are today?
A No.
Q Why not? Didn't you think that federal inves-
tigators were going to be pursuing this matter?
A If it didn't occur to me, in December 1986, that's
why not. it didn't occur to me.
Q Mr. Robinette, you've spent a considerable part- of
your career as an intelligence' officer, isn't that so?
A Yes.
Q Surely you're aware of the investigative resources
available to the federal government, aren't you?
A Yes.
Q Do you mean to tell us that when you backdated
these bills, it never occurred to you that anyone was going
to figure this out?
- A No, I probably wouldn't have done it. As everybody
says, in hindsight, they wish they hadn't done something.
MR. VAN CLEVE: I have nothing further right now.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:15 p.m., the takiQfl. flf _the
deposition was concluded.
[Whereupon, the witness having been
701
pb84
UNCLASSIFIED
advised of his right to read his
deposition, waived signature.]
UNCUSSIFIED
507 C Suttt. N E
702
pb59
wusjife
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC
I, PAMELA BRIGGLE, the officer before whom the
foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the
witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition
was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was
taken by me and thereafter reduced to typewriting by me or
under my direction; that said deposition is a true record of
the testimony given by the witness; that I am neither counsel
for, related to, nor employed by any of the parties to the
action in which this deposition was taken; and further, that
I am not a relative or employee of any attorney or counsel
employed by the parties hereto, nor financially or otherwise
interested in the outcome of the action.
fdpi^ Ikt^^L
PAMELA BRIGGLE
Notary Public in and for the
District of Columbia
My Commission expires May 14, 1990.
UNCUSSIFIED
703
(Rol^/vei^
lOOTH COHOKEsi'' RESOLUTION f-j,/
1ST SESSIOM ^
of the Senate Select Coramlttee on
Secret Military Assistance to Iran
and the Nicaraguan Opposition
To iianunize from use in prosecution the testimony of,
and other information provided by.
Glen A. Robinette
June 4, 1987
MR. IMOUYZ, the Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on secret
Military Assistance to Iran and the Kicaraguan Opposition,
submitted the following resolution to the CoimUttee, which
approved it by unanimous vote of its eleven members on
the 4th day of June, 1987.
Whereas, the Senate select Conniittee on Secret Military
Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition is con-
ducting an investigation under authority of Senate Resolu-
tion 23, 100th Congress, and will conduct proceedings to
receive testimony and other information;
Whereas, the Select Caenittee may require Glen A. Robinette
to testify and provide other infotmatlon at its proceedings;
Whereas, Glen A. Robinette has refused i a testify or provide
other information at proceedings of the Select
Coaalttee on ground of self-incrimination; and
Whereas, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $S 6002 and 6005, a committee may
seek, by two-thirds vote, a court order immunizing testimony
and other Information provided by a witness from use in
prosecutions other than for perjury, giving a false state-
ment, or otherwise failing to comply with the court order:
Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the Select Committee on Secret Military
Assistance to Iran and the Nlcaraguan Opposition, pursuant to 2
u.s.c. it ^BSDia; ana ^oar, aireccs cne Senate Legal Counsel to
apply for a court order inwunlslng froa use in prosecutions the
testimony of, and other inforaatlon provided by. Glen A.
Robinette at proceedings of the Senate Select CooBlttee on Secret
Military Aasiatance to Iran and the Nlcaxaguan Opposition.
704
^//.'
~ //2-5;cnro to SAT {c^jyr. r'r^-orAt /I
. .. _ <^^^^^ )
Cmo.I C^uz/C -^rs^ U^ it^^ li' ^uijj/,)
705
S^ TO
iLEX MANftGER . 72£3
ig t»leK: 08399
GENEVA AUGUST 20TH, 1986 ;
ATTN nRS nORABlA
PLEASE ISSUE A CHECK IN THE AMOUNT OF
USD 9 000,--
TO THE ORDER OF G.R. ROBINETTE
AND HAIL IT DIRECTLY TO :
G.R. ROBINETTE
3265 ARCADIA FL NW
■WASHINGTON DC 20013
TEST KEY NO 151
THAN* YOU IN ADVANCE
tEST REGARDS
CSF INVESTMENTS LTD.
•• Start o< re.pon.. ..
•♦ Telex sent 16:03:33
DATE: 20/08/86
TIME: 16:03:33
REF: 08399
02T 421434
23421434-
.^ : AUG 20 1003
t214r.4 &LICBAN1-
428463 CSF CM
CI
426663 CSF CM
421434 &LICBANK
•• End o*
e< 6?.-7>
706
1^1 1 Cf JC.'f fl.\tw^\itj
F-
^
•v^^
-L 2z /.u. ;s jsi
''."i'^.OO (-'
:ttl
P. 3 no;: i.., .:n
iMi-;i/,.i:.Tj:: 5-:, ,r.
.rv
TCP
h
707
r
3 5
X
-
U (J u u
a- (M rvj (V
Kl O O IT
o
<0
■ .- f
in Ki lo ' a
IP
r i .
r^ o 45 »•
w
o . •^"^ *
in
, ■
!; 1 t •
O"* 1^ ^
1
|t c :
s
1
1 {
J
«
£_
.
^^X.0~0-O.O.O.O.A
<0
<0«<D«><DOC«CO
c
er
cecoccoooe
o
— r.^r?u-ru-?craJ-^rN> J J J
— s-
2_
oruru/\jrurur\j(\jru(\j
C1
<5 c?
(M
I
•
-:i
o o
o o
i
o o
ff-
o o
M
t^
1^
If
r r
h.
As
6 <\)
4 V
II
x> -^
\ • \ % •»»•
O-fOroo — ou-iin
ru
O
1
<D <T a- o \r or^ r~
fXJ
i.
1^ e « IP o- IT \/> fCi
^
«J
11
K100— Mfoa-nj
tn
m
Si
•3000 «joa-o-
m
Is
— 1/^ * O- — f^ — <0
<o
ll
O
Jl
li
•2<
2
«
lo
r»
>-
If
bJ
K
»-
Z
u
<
o
ec
.
ixocqcq: OEZaa:
-»
UJ
UJUJUJUJ hJ<UJUJ
<J
>
oooo oaoo
o
xoc ac <r ocoaco:
b.
oooo OIOO
o
a
j
3
'^'^zszxszzz
«J
i
UJUUJUJUJUJ UJUJtiJ
z
-1
srxriiirrri
<
<
-
-1
o
J
Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.Q.<jaaQ.
m
—
X^-D,0^-O^-0-0>O
j>
i
a<o<o«j<D«3<oa3(Deo
_
,^
708
208G23
,.R. KSIHETTI
Republic National Bank of New York ^
4S2 Fllir) A«tnut • N*«r York, Nto York 10011
t/10/t6
^„ . . „,J 9,000.00 ^S> xg
«« H» TOUK MSUItl
C S F iNl^TUEWrS LTP
\i\ ."^^ nn
9,000. QO
\
ItUCOMMilSiON
unAMOUXT
^, 000. 00
6x. 6?-7E
709
710
?3 a§.
! 5
! i
./^s.
711
<
>
-
„-
;
-
-
c
;
-
T
.-.
i
^
>-
«.
S
1
':^'^/ " ^ >■::"'■-
."I ; -
- ^ -
X ~> ::
e
o
e
1
1
1
i . ■ i
1 "
1 -1
1 i 1
1
1 ^
1 1 1
s
r
s
i
.
—
Is
''
i
5
-V
-
II-
'"■
CI
£
—
i
o
c
0
.
1
,5
r
■N
i
>
i
^
-
-| '
'
M
I
1
1 ~
■ :-:
1 ■
g
i
**
„
s
*
°
1
712
713
r-
■ !
^ , , i •
1
7
1
1
\ 1
^1
; 1
1
J
1 1 !
-} -_
i i ^
-' 1 i '1
:! i 1
I
1 1
'1
1 '
1 1 '
J L
1
' 1 !
714
2^^^
e
5
- < c
a
c *•>-■
1
s
1
s
f
i
fc>
[
i
i_
.
r
i
0
£
-
-
'.'
■
t
1
1
1
i
1'
I
!
1
1
715
Glenn Robinette & Assocuites
lliS ARCADIA PLACE. NW R B 262
WASHINCrON. DC JCOU
2 July 1986
Lt. Col. Oliver North
703 Kentland Drive
Great Falls, Virginia 22066
For Installation of Security Equipment, Systems
Services at 703 Kentland Drive, Great Falls, VA.
(This equipment should prevent any further problems for
you and the family. Please call me if there are any questions
about the operation of the systems and/or any other matters
regarding protective security)
Many thanks
>^
716
Glenn Robinette & Associates
R B 263
LC. Col. Oliver North
703 Kentland Drive
Great Falls, Virginia 22066
For Installation of Security Equipment, Systems and
Services at 703 Kentland Drive, Great Falls, VA.
(This equipment should prevent any further problems for
you and the family. Please call me if there are any questions
about the operation of the systems and/or any other matters
regarding protective security)
Many thanks
>^
22 September 1986
Ollle,
Due to my schedule I have not found time to follow up
on my paper work - as you can - -e from the dates. I'm sure
that you have had the same problem. Pl€3se remit when you
have tim*.
Many thanks I
717
R B 261
L^Col Oliver L. North t
703 Kentland Dr.
Great Falls, Va . 22066
18 May 1986
Dear Mr. Robinette
-sr^flar"f„' ?-«.f!"f^^"ed your
y system ..^ ."^ '° "Polite
z syacern at our hn.i«— .■ - f . _
--. .*«w .JL r^e re-ent t^t-k ►'■I "" '^^'^ house in Grea
fron home, „, would very"uch Lnrec"'?"^- "'' f"^"^"^ absent.
- -cord wu. ..e .er™r -e^Sl-u-^ri: o:r 'LsTm^:?!^,--
If 13 my understanding that th« f,,ii
thft^^'^K^*^^ 58000-8500; thit it can'h""° "'^^ ""
"" "• ""' ^-° --°" ^" "--"i" ^o!'?^^''?he^-=--,:-
1. Loan of the equipment for > n.-j j
expiration of my active service ^f„?? "?'^° '""'^ ^he
Corps (June 1988) at wh?^h ► *^**" United States Marine
available for commercial -nHli"" "® "'^^ '»*'<• 0"r home
equipment withouriee; or """ °^ ^'""^ ^^^ "d the
2. Payment in full ?«- ..w
installation in zi eaual Ln?^,'^"""' '"" '"" "" °f
the date that the inlt^lUtion LV""T"'' "^^"cing on
operational. -i-iation is completed and fully
Given our current financial
alternative if this is st ill%menlh?r' ►"* """^"^ prefer the first
particularly concerned :;oi t^^a ^roPthe^K^f^- ' '"
unfortunate media visibility my oositiL h =hildren given the
aforementioned terms are stiu acr.nt k? " g«"era(ed. If the
to have you commence work as son^ ! " ^°" ' "« """ll ii^e
course, prepared to ^ign an endorse P""'"!'" "• are, of
require more than t'^i-'let ?er'"L°l:StcIt L°n"or;ur°rnt^'nr
•^•vb^
Oliver L. North
718
264
"iivjr L. North
703 KjntUnd Dr.
Falls Chjrch, Va.
2206S
O-jar Gljnn,
c»ll«- -'" '° '"-'P ""»i"3 -.ach oth.r on pho;^:
Tha
Sjpc
yodr company and thv -.qjip„.^nt „h 1 =°°«"-^ =■<: " 1 ^ndorsara-.-nt of
- school, and XaU ,oln, .tTryl.t^'lZ'.-Vl'.ll't lUl^l'^'^
Plaasj advisj soonasc. i dop't wanr «« . . ,.
I don'c -anc to hava to rasort trh^n? " "'■' ="''5''"= '"o" " bu
-ay homa from work at night "th!r^' "^ '" stations on ™y
719
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
=-FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECRET
MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO IRAN AND
THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
The United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510,
Applicant.
Misc. No. 87
-OLi-
ORDER
Upon consideration of the application by the Senate
Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the
Nicaraguan Opposition, and upon determining that the procedural
requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. S 6005 have been satisfied,
it is, this 15th day of June, 1987,
ORDERED That Glen A. Robinette may not refuse to
testify, and provide other information, at proceedings of the
Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran
and the Nicaraguan Opposition, on the basis of his privilege
against self-incrimination, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED That no testimony or other information
compelled under this Order (or any information directly or
indirectly derived from such testimony or other information)
may be used against Glen A. Robinette in any criminal case,
except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or
otherwise failing to comply with this Order.
United States District Judge
720
V-^ UNItED STATES DISTRICT COURT
'* FOR TITE district OF COLUMBIA
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECRET
MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO IRAN AND
THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
The United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510,
Applicant.
Misc. No. 87-
APPLICATION FOR ORDER IMMUNIZING TESTIMONY AND
OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GLEN A. ROBINETTE
1. The Senate Select Committee on Secret Military
Assista-nce to Iran and the Nicaraauan Opposition applies to
C-r-
this Court for an order, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. SS ^OOi l?uJ _
- ■';; -^ '
6005, immunizing from use in prosecutions testimony, and other ^
information provided by one of its witnesses. Glen A. ^ "2
Robinette, at proceedings of the Select Committee. "^
2. Senate Resolution 23, 100th Cong. 1st Sess., 133
Cong. Rec. S575-78 (daily ed.. Part II, Jan. 6, 1987),
established the Select Committee and authorized it to conduct
an investigation into transactions to provide arms to Iran
and into the use of the proceeds from those transactions.
3. Senate Resolution 23 authorizes the Select
Committee to hold hearings, conduct depositions and require
answers to interrogatories; issue subpoenas for obtaining
testimony and documents; and apply for immunity orders under
18 U.S.C. SS 6002 and 6005.
721
»-«*■ ..i^^^it^
4. q^-.tfune 4, 1987, by a unanimous vote of its eleven
members, the Select Committee adopted a resolution directing
the Senate Legal Counsel to apply for an order immunizing
testimony and other information provided by the witness at
proceedings of the Select Committee. The Select Committee's
resolution is attached as Exhibit A.
5. It is anticipated that the witness will invoke his
constitutional privilege against self-incrimination.
6. In accordance with 18 U.S.C. $ 6005 and 28 U.S.C.
S 594(a)(7), we notified Independent Counsel Lawrence E..
Walsh on June 4, 1987, of the Select Committee's intention to
request this order. A copy of the notice to the Independent
Counsel is attached as Exhibit B. On June 4, 1987, we also
notified the Attorney General of the Select Committee's
intention to request this order. A copy of the notice to the
Attorney General is attached as Exhibit C. A certificate of
service of Exhibits B and C is attached as Exhibit D.
7. We have been authorized to represent to this Court
that neither the Independent Counsel nor the Attorney General
will request this Court, under 18 U.S.C. S 6005(c), to defer
the issuance of an immunity order for this witness.
722
723
'^J i--Tj|&&^-'^
a 'ts ••( «i)niM?.iiM S
■: ••='»r;-JT!iE.SAFECEn ^
^
■» 5^
724
•^t^
Oliv-r L. North
703 K.-ntland Dr.
Falls Church, Va . 22066
1 Occ 86
D-.-ar Gl-jnn,
security arrang-.mvnts at th-' hoas-! r T ^^^ Pl'-'^'-'d with th-.
looking in on B-tsy and th-- cirlc'' .k" H^° Srat-.^fal for your
school and .y h.ctlc ..cT^ol^'^l^^^tl t^^^'l^^.^'l ,\\
^^rlt.^^i^- wn:.r^V°J ^l^^^ f .. It was our
option for r-.i,„bursvm-..nt - ?hat is !L ^-'^^ T"^ "^'^ ^^""^
your company and th-.- --quipm'nt wh!; ""™;'^=ial -'ndors-.^m-.nt of
Corps in 1988. if chat il n^l r-tir- from th-.- Marin-
no3.th-..r and talk Shil " w- a%r;;.%^"^:"""<^i"3, --' ----'^ to g.t
- school, and Xait going n^^^'^^Vl' ^ lUiJ^r^
:'^:n.t^2rirtn;;r;o ;-^o;:\rh:ir ^° '■- =°^^^^ -°" - -^
way hom-.^ from work at night lit J°r^^ ^^ ^^^ stations on my
Warm regards.
6x. G'R- /c;^
t/.7/?7 r?*
725
LtCol Oliver 1. North, USNC
'03 Kentland Dr.
Great Falls, Va. 22066
18 May 1986
Dear Mr. Robinette
KstlfraMon^fTsl°u"L'frsysr:rae^".^°J^^^ ^° %^P«^^- ^^«
I. Loan of th«
?;j!n!t! '"-^"ii ^°^ '^^ equipment and the cost of
the dite thrt\"H •^''"^^'"°"'^^^ increments commencing on
oSeratiJnIj! ''' ^"«^-ll"^on is completed and full/
Given our current financial situation, we would prefer the first
ni't"''^'^? '^ '^^' ^" ^''^^ amenable to your companj! I am
particularly concerned about the saf^tv of i-h« ^hiT^ ■
unfortunate media visibility ;y%::f;;o^1argen%' e"? ^^^th:'^
tn h.^! ^"^'^ '*™^ "^ ='^^^ acceptable to ?ou , we would 1 ke
rnu.tl ^^^ commence work as soon as possible! We are, of
course, prepared to sign an endorsement contract now if vou
require more than this letter as indication ofour intent
Oliver L. North
7M
t.jn(?i
726
I Glenn Robinette & Associates
326S ARCADIA PIACE. NW
WASHiNcrroN oc 2001s
2 July 1986
Lc. Col. Oliver North
703 Kentland Drive
Great Falls, Virginia 22066
For Installation of Security Equipment, Systems and
Services at 703 Kentland Drive. Great Falls, VA. 58,000.00
(This equipment should prevent any further problems for
you and the family. Please call me if there are any questions
about the operation of the systems and/or any other matters
regarding protective security)
Many thanks I
727
Clinn Kohinette & Associates
i2iS ARCADIA PLACE NW
WASHINCTON DC ^15
2 July 1986
Lc. Col. Oliver North
703 Kencland Drive
Great Falls, Virginia 22066
For Installation of Security Equipment, Systems and
Services at 703 Kentland Drive, Great Falls, VA. $8,000.00
(This equipment should prevent any further problems for
you and the family. Please call me if there are any questions
about the operation of the systems and/or any other matters
regarding protective security)
Many thanks 1
>^
22 September 1986
Ollie,
Due to my schedule I have not found time to follow up
on my paper work - as you can see from the dates. I'm sure
that you have had the same problem. Please remit when you
have time.
Many thanks 1
728
\,'-V
CARDKEY SecurO^iCyatems
OORO-MATIC Automatic Doori
STANLEY Parking Gate & Fence Controls
6Bfe —
'-'^^^ — ^^^^ Bait. 301.7<
132 Washington Boulevard
Laurel. Maryland 20707
Bait. 301-792-4090 Wash. 301-953-7900
Automatic Door Specialists
HOK3SAL SUBUITTtO TO
Glenn Robinette and Associates
3365 Arcadia Place, NW
966 - 5873
L5S5_..
Private Residenrp
nr. STATE «No ZIP coot
Washinton. D.C. 20015
Kentland Drive, Great Fall'
OATl Of Pt«i
Automatic Door Specialists (ADS) will automate the existing gate using an Edko
Medium Duty Swing Gate Operator. To accommodate automation of gate, ADS will remove
existing wooden gate post, replace it with a metal post painted white.
In conjunction with automation of the gate, ADS will provide one Multi-Elmac
Receiver and two Multi-Elmac Single Button Transmitters to operate gates from an
automobile.
ADS also will install an Aiphone Intercom consisting of an IBG-IGD Master Station
inside the front door, and IBG-IHD Additional Master on the upstairs bedroom, and an
IB-DA Door Station on a post outside the gate.
I ADS will install intercom wiring through existing conduit and will obtain power
from existing box in the yard near the gate location.
Quoted price doesnot include price of permits, if needed.
^^^^C^
GUARANTEE - Material & Equip. - 1 yr. Labor - 3 mo.
Br ^ropOBr hereby to furnish material and labor — complete in accordance with above specificaions . tor the sum ot
Two thousand one hundred fifty-four
2,154.00
Plymant to b« made as follows:
U discount / 20 day. Net 30. A 1% service charge will be charged 30 days
after the date of the invoice.
•n \ Cofnp^fiMdc
l^rpptanrp of PrapoBol -tm. ao
and conditions are satisfactory and are hereby accep
Oalt ol Accaoiance ff?'* jAtf^t.^^. '' T^
-A
729
SPECIALISTS
imOTOM sou
• ••0 JO'O'
July 7, 1986
Glen Robinette and Associates
3265 Arcadia Place, NW
Washington, DC 20015
Dear Mr. Robinette:
Attached is an invoice for $ 2,173.00. This amount represents the
original $ 2,154.00 contracted for. plus $ 19.00 for an additional radio
transmitter.
Mr. Robinette, Automatic Door Specialists appreciates the business
represented by this invoice. If we may provide additional assistance to
you in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Very truly yours,
AUTOMATIC DOOR SPECIALISTS
730
^«f '^^
AUTOMATIC DOOR SPECIAIISTS
IjrWtSNINfiTONIOntVAlO
UUIB, MAITUM 20707-4397
2764^- -r
JOS INVOtd
DOOR CONTROU
SfcuRnr CAios
rARKINO GATfS
Glman Robln«ct« aod AaBociates
3365 Arcadia .--ta^g m
^Tll^
is.uii ',^a, D.
Prlvf KMid«Qc«. K>ntland Drlv.. fir>^,; f,;|„ y^
731
LAUREL. MARVLMC 20707 --^*-
PYMT RcvD
u ir^ \v^ ls
3166
3 2o5 Arcade^n^'laceT M.w.
Vasninaton. D.C. 20015
X. — ftlarm System Anr^ .^^r ^],t,
J-: Electrical Work.
06/20/86
J369
Kent land_Drive_Proper c Y_
Materials
Net -- 30
gj.oa;
1.25(
2,88( 00
SUB-rOTAL
^ess Down PYll^
TOTAL DUE;
? 7.567
4.136
$11.703
? -^.'^l
'^Mufyow
ufo(f7 77^
732
vATET.. INjC^Q^^ Zn\-ED
\ZZ LA'FAYeTTE AVENUH!
LAUREL. MD 20707
9 5 3 O057
KR. GLENN ROBINETTE
3265 ARCADIA PLACE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20015
JULY 10, 198 6
DEAR MR. ROBINETTI
COFt
PER YOUR REQUEST, THE, FOLLOWING IS A SIMPLIFIED TECHNICAL
EXPLAINATION OF THE SYSTEM DESIGNED AND INSTALLED BY "VATECINC
AT THE NORTH RESIDENCE IN THE GREAT FALLS AREA OF FAIRFAX COUNTY
VA.
IN ORDER TO MEET SOME SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS WE BOTH FELT WERE
NEEDED TO ENHANCE THE PROTECTION OF THE AFORKENTIONED PROPERTY, I
DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED A SYSTEM TO DO CERTAIN OPERATIONS BOTH
MANUALLY AND AUTOMATICALLY.
THE BASIC SYSTEM CONSISTS OF A WIRELESS !-JLr.?r. SYSTEM WHICH
PROTECTS THE HOUSE EY DETECTING UNAUTHORIZED ENTRY AND MOVEMENT
WITHIN THE HOUSE WHILE ARMED. THE HOUSE IS ALSO PROTECTED FROM
FIRE BY THE INSTALLATION OF THE "SMOKE DETECTORS". OUTSIDE
LIGHTS, USING THE LATEST ADVANCES IN TECHNOLOGY, WE.RE INST.ALLED
TO INCREASE THE PROTECTION. IT IS A WELL KNOWK FACT THAT THE
GREATEST DETERANT TO BURGULARS AND VANDALS ETC., IS THE PRESENCE
OF LIGHT. THESE LIGHTS ARE ARRANGED SO THAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR
CONX^NIENCE AND ARE CONNECTED SO THAT AN ALARW BY THE SYSTEM
TURNS ALL LIGHTS ON UNTIL THE AI,ARM IS TURNED OFF BY THE OWNER.
THE SYSTEM IS ALSO CONNECTED BY THE PHONE TO A CENTRAL STATION
WHICH CALLS THE PROPER AUTHORITIES WHEN THERE IS AN UNAUTHORIZED
ENTRY, FIRE OR OTHER KIND OF EMERGENCY SITUTION, 3Y SPECIAL
ELECTONIC CODE.
I ALSO HAD A SPECIAL ELECTRICAL CIRCUIT INSTALLED AT THE FRONT OF
THE PROPERTY NEAR THE GATE TO PROVIDE A MEANS BY V.-HICH VARIOUS
CEVICES COULD BE OPERATED BY STANDARD "AC" LINE VOLTAGE. I MADE
SURE 3Y MY SPECIFICATIONS THAT CERTAIN SAFETY PRECAUTIONS WERE
INCORPORATED SO AS TO MAKE THAT CIRCUIT MORE RELIABLE.
THE WORK ALSO INCLUDED THE INSTALLATION OF A SIREN IN ONE VEHICLE
TO BE USED AS A DISTRESS SIGNAL.
t/.7/f9 JUi
733
IN THE ONITED STATES DISTRICT COORT
-- FOR. THE DISTRICT OP COLUMBIA
HOOSE SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE
COVERT ARMS TRANSACTIONS WITH IRAN
O.S. House of Representatives
Washington, O.C. 20515
Applicant.
ORDER
Misc. NO. S7- ^'^
FILED
JUN 1 5 1937
CLE'JK. U. S. DISTRICT COURT
DiSTRICT OF COLUMBIA
On consideration of the application by the House Select
Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran and
the memorandum of points and authorities, and exhibits, in
support thereof, the Court finds that the procedural requisites
set forth in 18 U.S.C. S 6005 for an order of the Court have been
satisfied. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that Glen Robinette may not refuse to provide any
evidence in proceedings before the House Select Committee to
Investigate Covert Arma Transactions with Iran on the basis of
his privilege against self-incrimination, and it is
FORTHER ORDERED that no evidence obtained under this Order
(or any information directly or indirectly derived from such
evidence) may be used against Glen Robinette in any criminal
case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement,
or otherwise falling to comply with this Order.
■1-
6^. G-^-ilA
734
FURTHER OabBRED That this Order shall become effective
June IS, 1987.
Onrlted States District '5ud
Onrited States District '<fudge
Dated: June 15, 1987
-2-
Unlted States District Court
tor th» District or Coluxbu
A THUS COPY
JAMES r. DAVSy. rLIRK.
Deputy Cler^
735
Wher^Te, the Select Committee respectfully requests
that this Court issue an order immunizing from use in
prosecutions testimony and other information provided by Glen
A. Robinette at proceedings of the Select Committee.
Respectfully submitted.
Of Counsel:
Arthur L. Liman
Paul J. Barbadoro
Mark A. Belnick
UDu..
Michael Davidson
Senate Legal Counsel
Ken U. Benjamin, Jr.
Deputy Senate Legal Counsel
Morgan J. Frankel
Assistant Senate Legal Counsel
Susan B. Fine
Assistant Senate Legal Counsel
642 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-4435
Counsel for Senate Select Committee
on Secret Military Assistance to Iran
and the Nicaraguan Opposition
Dated: June 15, 1987
736
UNITED "-STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECRET
MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO IRAN AND
THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
The United States Senate ) Misc No Ri-J}*f
Washington, D.C. 20510. ^°- ^^-fSU
Washington, D.C. 20510,
Applicant
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN
SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR ORDER IMMUNIZING TESTIMONY
AND OTHER INFORMATION PROVIDED BY GLEN A. ROBINETTE
The Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance
to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition is applying to this Court
for an order immunizing testimony and other information which
will be provided to it by one of its witnesses. Glen A.
Robinette. The application is presented pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 6005 which provides, in relevant part:
S 6005. Congressional proceedings.
(a) In the case of any individual who has
been or may be called to testify or provide
other information at any proceeding before
either House of Congress, or any committee ... a
United States district court shall issue, in
accordance with subsection (b) of this section,
upon the request of a duly authorized representa-
tive of the House of Congress or the committee
concerned, an order requiring such individual to
give testimony or provide other information which
he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his
privilege against self-incrimination, such order
to become effective as provided in section 6002 of
this part.
(b) Before issuing an order under subsec-
tion (a) of this section, a United States district
court shall find that —
(1) * * * *
737
(2) in the >case of a proceeding before a
committee or a subcommittee of either House of
Congr^^»- . . . the request for such an order has
been approved by an affirmative vote of two-thirds
of the members of the full committee; and
(3) ten days or more prior to the day on
which the request for such an order was made, the
Attorney General was served with notice of an
intention to request the order.
(c) Upon application of the Attorney General,
the United States district court shall defer the
issuance of any order under subsection (a) of this
section for such period, not longer than twenty
days from the date of the request for such order,
as the Attorney General may specify.
This law provides the mechanism by which a witness before
a congressional committee receives "use immunity" for testi-
mony. The immunized witness remains subject to prosecution for
the transactions ajsout which he or she testifies if the govern-
ment sustains the burden of proving at trial that it did not
use the immunized testimony or its fruits in the prosecution.
See Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441, 459-62 (1972).
Because the court's inquiry on an application for an immunity
order is narrow and its tests are mechanical, the application
may be decided ex parte without a hearing. Ryan v. Commis-
sioner of Internal Revenue, 568 F.2d 531, 540 (7th Cir. 1977),
cert, denied, 439 U.S. 820 (1978).
Section 6005 sets out the two requirements for an immunity
order, both of which have been met.i' First, "in the case of a
1/ The Select Committee may apply for this order prior to
summoning the witness to testify or provide information at one
of its proceedings. In re Application of United States Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (Cammisano), 655 F.2d
1232, 1236-38 (D.C. Cir.), cert, denied, 454 U.S. 1084 (1981).
738
proceeding before a conunittee ... the request for such an order
has been ap^oved by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the
members of the full co'mmittee. " 18 U.S.C. § 6005(b)(2). The
Select Committee's resolution (Exhibit A to the application),
shows that the Committee approved this request for an order by
a unanimous vote of its eleven members on June 4, 1987.
Second, "ten days or more prior to the day on which the
request for such an order was made, the Attorney General was
served with notice of an intention to request the order." is
U.S.C. $ 6005(b)(3). Under 28 U.S.C. $ 594(a) and (a)(7), an
independent counsel has, for all matters within his prose-
cutorial jurisdiction, "full power and independent authority to
exercise all investigative and prosecution functions and powers
of the ... Attorney General ... includ(ing] ... for purposes of
sectionO ... 6005 of title 18, exercising the authority vested
in ... the Attorney General." The testimony and other
information sought to be compelled from the witness is within
the investigative and prosecutorial jurisdiction that the
special division of the District of Columbia Circuit has vested
in Independent Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh. In re Oliver L.
North, et al.. Div. No. 86-6 (D.C. Cir. Division for the
Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels, Dec. 19, 1986).
The accompanying certificate (Exhibit D) shows that Independent
Counsel Lawrence E. Walsh was served with notice of our
intention to request this order (Exhibit B); notice to the
739
Independent Counsel was ^iven on June 4, 1987, which is "ten
days or morej>tior to" today.!/
Accordingly, the Select Conunittee requests that the Court
issue an order inununizing the testimony and other information
which Glen A. Robinette will provide at proceedings of the
Select Committee.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Davidson
Senate Legal Counsel
Ken U. Benjamin, Jr.
Deputy Senate Legal Counsel
Morgan J. Frankel
Assistant Senate Legal Counsel
Susan B. Fine
Assistant Senate Legal Counsel
642 Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
Of Counsel: (202) 224-4435
Arthur L. Liman Counsel for Senate Select Committee
Paul J. Barbadoro on Secret Military Assistance to Iran
Mark A. Belnick and the Nicaraguan Opposition
Dated: June 15, 1987
2/ On June 4, 1987, we also notified the Attorney General
(Exhibit C) in the event that he believes that notice should
also be provided to him notwithstanding 28 U.S.C. S 594(a)(7)
740
t?
f
SELECT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE COVERT
ARMS TRANSACTIONS WITH IRAN
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
and
SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECRET MILITARY ASSISTANCE
TO IRAN AND THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
UNITED STATES SENATE
Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, June 17, 1987
The deposition of GLENN A. ROBINETTE, called for
examination in the above-entitled matter, pursuant to notice,
in the offices of the Senate Ethics Committee, Room 220, Hart
Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C, convened at 10:41
a.m., before Pamela Briggle, a notary public in and for the
District of Columbia, when were present on behalf of the
parties:
^- /( V'^
741
pb2
APPEARANCES :
On Behalf of the Select Committee on Secret Military
Assistance to Iran and Nicaraguan Opposition of the
United States Senate:
PAUL BARBADORO
Deputy Chief Counsel
KENNETH BALLEN, Staff Counsel
JOHN R. MONSKY, Staff Counsel
Room 901
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.
On Behalf of the Select Committee t
Transactions with Iran of the U.S.
Representatives :
) Investigate Arms
House of
GEORGE W. VAN CLEVE
Room H-149, U.S. Capitol
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C.
On Behalf of the Witness:
MARK H. TUOHEY, III, ESQUIRE
Pierson, Ball & Dowd
1200 18th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Also Present: Thomas Polgar
742
pb3
ym C Soot. NX
CONTENTS
WITNESS
GLENN A. ROBINETTE
By Mr. Barbadoro
By Mr. van CI eve
NUMBER
GR-1
GR-2A-B
GR-3
GR-4A-B
GR-5A
GR-6A-B
GR-7A-F
GR-8A-E
GR-9A-B
GR-IOA-B
GR-llA-B
EXAMINATION
EXHIBITS
FOR IDENTIFICATION
743
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
— FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE ON SECRET
MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO IRAN AND
THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
The United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510,
Applicant.
Misc. No. 91-p2J^
FILED
JUi\ 1 5 1937
ORDER CLE^'<. u s 0'-"^"^^ COURT
DISTRICT Oh- COLUMB^ "
Upon consideration of the application by the Senate
Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran and the
Nicaraguan Opposition, and upon determining that the procedural
requirements set forth in 18 U.S.C. S 6005 have been satisfied,
it is, this 15th day of June, 1987,
ORDERED That Glen A. Robinette may not refuse to
testify, and provide other information, at proceedings of the
Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran
and the Nicaraguan Opposition, on the basis of his privilege
against self-incrimination, and it is
FURTHER ORDERED That no testimony or other information
compelled under this Order (or any information directly or
indirectly derived from such testimony or other information)
may be used against Glen A. Robinette in any criminal case,
except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement, or
otherwise failing to comply with this Order.
United States District Cc-jrt
for the ris'.T-loc of CjI
t:.:^ A^,.:.^
TP.'JS zz.'i '^ " United States Distf.ict Judge
JAiES F. :a;jy,
Dv^auty Clerlt
744
MICHAEL OAVIOSOM
SUSAN S riNC
HBtal States Senate
lOexMio-riM
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST
ORDER CONFERRING IMMUNITY
The Honorable Lawrence E. Walsh
Independent Counsel
555 13th Street, N.W., Suite 701
Washington, D.C. 20004
Please take notice that the undersigned, as
representative of the Senate Select Committee on Secret
Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition,
will request the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. $ 6005 and
2 U.S.C. SS 288b(d) and 288f, to issue an order immunizing
from use in prosecutions the testimony of, and other
information provided by. Glen A. Robinette at proceedings of
the Select Committee.
#.1J
Michael Davidson
Senate Legal Counsel
642 Senate Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-4435
Dated: June 4, 1987
MICHAEL DAVIDSON
<ENU I
745
BnitDl States ^mtt
ofnci Of SiMATt iioAi couNsa
NOTICE OF INTENTION TO REQUEST
ORDER CONFERRING IMMUNITY
TO: The Honorable Edwin Meese III
The Attorney General of the United States
Washington, D.C. 20530
Please take notice that the undersigned, as
representative of the Senate Select Committee on Secret
Military Assistance to Iran and the Nicaraguan Opposition,
will request the United States District Court for the
?\^,'^o^S*^ °^ Columbia, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 6005 and
?ro; •' 288b(d) and 288f, to issue an order immunizing
from use in prosecutions the testimony of, and other
ih- c"f''^?V°''''^^'^ ''y' '^^®" '^- Robinette at proceedings of
the Select Committee.
4ichael Davidsc
Michael Davidson
Senate Legal Counsel
642 Senate Hart Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-4435
Dated: June 4, 1987
746
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on June 4, 1987, in accordance with 18
U.S.C. S 6005(b)(3) and 28 U.S.C. S 594(a)(7), I caused to be
hand delivered to The Honorable Lawrence E. Walsh, Independent
Counsel, and the Honorable Edwin Meese III, the Attorney
General of the United States, notices of the intention of the
Senate Select Committee on Secret Military Assistance to Iran
and the Nicaraguan Opposition to seek an order conferring
immunity upon Glen A. Robinette.
Mu^.
u..
Michael Davidson
Senate Legal Counsel
EXHIBIT D
747
748
A;'^ ' "■ „"i^'
Aji.,^;^,y^
P M
'I*
^Ta
'^o;
f ^ • . ■ • 1 ■
C ^« i I : Z ' "
749
''^^s
"h
750
'■-n.-:
%
Sff
'Js
/7,.
2 8 5 0 5 5
41
» . , .««... f f o.
%
/•■• -I :j ■ _
j
e«-424
1
. 2:
f
p
751
'^■■^l^i^^
•^?
752
I
753
r-
754
^*^>^'^-*.-^^.r>>.*^1fc.^^
•■"■■:«''-???3»i>3*?«-^
#
■'^£:ii^<i':'i:.-^''-\^'l'^'fjl^ffifl'^-_jy2^-i.r--..'^.-:^.,'- - . .- . ^. ^ .,j, .. .-
-» (' r'tf<:e e«
GLENN A OCSINETTE
WASniMSTCH. 0 C .^OOlt
]S'
ttaaMBMCAM
*:o5i,ooooi.i.: 5 ^o^ ait- -i /oooo70oooo/_
755
tWfrBBK"*"7Pf7
OF PROCEEDINGS
CONFIDENTIAL
UKITED STATES SENATE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
SECRET MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO
IRAN AND THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
DEPOSITION OF FELIX I. RODRIGUEZ
■ Declassified/ReleasMl nn QoAiq lAp
under provisions of E.0. 12356
2, Reger, National Security Council
57/ s
Washington, D. C.
Friday, May 1, 1987
UNCLASSlRONRDSmiAt
fUifnjX
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
Stetwtype Reporten
444 North Capitol Street
Washington, DC. 20001
(202) 347-3700
Nationwide Coverage
800-336-6646
COPY NO.
756
UNCLASSIFiED
7680 01 01
iF'kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ii 22
UNITED STATES SENATE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
SECRET MILITARY ASSISTANCE TO
IRAN AND THE NICARAGUAN OPPOSITION
DEPOSITION OF FELIX I. RODRIGUEZ
Washington, D.C.
Thursday, Aoril 30, 1987
Deposition of FELIX I. RODRIGUEZ, called for
examination pursuant to subpoena, at the Hart Senate Office
Building, Suite 901, at 10:35 a.m., before Michael G.
Paulus, a notary public in and for the District of
Columbia, when were present on behalf of the respective
parties:
PAUL BARBADORO, ESQ.
Deputy Chief Counsel
United States Senate Select
Committee on Iran and the
Nicaraguan Opposition
- continued -
G^GlilSSSFPEO
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
202-J47-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
757
7680 01 01
^'kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNCLASSIFIED
TOM P.foLGAR, ESQ.
RICHARD CULLEN, ESQ.
RICHARD ARENBERG, ESQ.
uwcussiF'in
Ace-Federal Reporters
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
202-347-3700 Nitionwide Coverage 80O-336-«646
758
7680 01 01
^'kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
U
I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
GNCLASSIF'.EI
WITNESS
Felix I. Rodriguez
By Mr. Barbadoro
CONTENT
EXAMINATION
EXHIBITS
gmcUssif;eo
Ace-Federal Kepori
Reporters, Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
759
7680 01 01
^^^kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.A. 22
i;NCLASS]F:g9
PROCEEDINGS
Whereupon,
FELIX I. RODRIGUEZ
was called as a witness and, having been first duly sworn,
was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION
BY MR. BARBADORO:
0 Mr. Rodriguez, you received a letter from
Colonel North in September of 1985, did you not?
A Yes, sir, I did.
0 When did you receive that letter, exactly?
A It was dated the 20th and I received it on the
29th.
0 you have provided the committee with a copy of
that letter, correct?
A Yes, sir, I have.
0 Can you tell rae in general terms what that
letter asked you to do?
A It was basically to set up a logistical asoect
of the Nicaraguan freedom fighters resupply network. The
letter actually said only to be able to produce maintenance
at the area where I was able to help in Central America.
^ fl UIcHpSotoA iStorters. Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80O-336-«646
760
7680 01 01
^"ikepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^ 22
INCLASSIFIlD
Q Did this letter ask you to provide storage
facilities for ammunition and humanitarian' aid?
A No, sir. Not at that time.
Q It only asked you to provide maintenance
facilities?
A Right. Space in the area where airplanes could
be serviced on a week basis and two or three different
types of aircraft.
Q What did you do after you received the letter?
A I talked to the proper people that I was asked
to contact and that I knew and had good relations with and
acquired the okay to go ahead and use that area for
maintenance of the aircraft. On the following day I
notified Colonel North over the telephone that it was a go.
0 Did Colonel North give you any instructions at
that time?
A In the letter he said that the individual who
was going to help me to set this up will call me or contact
mo and identify himself as coming from Mr. Green.
0 Did you ever receive a call from someone who
identified himself as working for Mr. Green?
A Yes, I did, sir. I received a call, I would
v'^Xc^^flAolTERS.
Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
800-336-6646
761
7680 01 01
^'kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-^ 22
yi^CUSSlFSED
say, approximately (witness reviewing notebook) — i would
say it was the 14th of December 1985. I received a call in
my room at the air base where I was and the individual that
I knew from before identified himself as coming from
Mr. Green.
0 Who did you know this individual to be?
A Raphael Quintero.
0 What did the person say to you in the phone
call?
A He identified himself and then he said if I
could arrange the arrival of a Boeing 707 from Europe —
the way he described it was it was bringing heavy stuff",
and if I could keep it in the area of my responsibility. I
said I would check with the local people and to contact me
later. wWhich he did, and I was able to get the okay from
our friendlies in the area to go ahead and receive this
aircraft with the heavy stuff we had assumed was military
equipment.
Q Did he ask you to provide a facility to store
the material brought in on it?
A Yes. He asked me if it was possible for me to
store it in the area. It was possible in local facilities
»<^TERS. Inc.
Nationwide Coverage 80O-33*-«46
762
^ji^'i;iMSSiiF^£0
7680 01 01
W-kepaulu3 1 to store it, which we did.
2 0 When did the aircraft arrive?
3 A The aircraft arrived on the following day, which
4 I believe was on the weekend, a Saturday, and it was a
5 Boeing 707 from Southern Air Transport.
6 Q What did the plane contain?
7 A The plane contained mainly, if I recall
8 correctly, hand grenades, 81 millimeter mortar rounds, 60
9 millimeter mortar rounds, ammunition of different calibers,
10 and perhaps some 40 millimeter rounds. There were several
^ 11 shipments later on. So I am taking all that arrived could
12 have been on that plane. The other three eventually did
13 all arrive with this type of equipment. Some C-4
14 explosives, detonators and primers, etc. It was
15 approximately 88,000 pounds.
16 0 What did you do with the material that was
17 brought in on the plane?
18 A The material that was brought in was stored in a
19 local facility belonging to a local officer of the area.
20 0 Did you meet with Colonel North in December of
21 1985 in Central America?
22 A Yes, sir. Colonel North visited the area where
^^lit^yM;^^!^:
f>C)RTERS. Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
763
7680 01 01
^^kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
» :;
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^ 22
N0LI\3S!F:ED
I was working on a helicopter program, on December 30,
1985, if I recall correctly.
0 How did he get to Central America?
A He arrived, I believe, in a Jetstar aircraft.
0 Who was with him?
A My understanding Is It was to coordinate the
legal humanitarian aid approved by Congress, and aboard
that aircraft was^HH^^^L I had known him before when
he was number three man for Ambassador]
^^^^^^H There was^^^^^^^^V, who was from
the agency. During that meeting were also present the
Ambassador^^^^^^^^^^l^^^^^^^^^^^^H h Is
officer, if I recall correctly, andj
and myself. Probably
but I'm not sure.
0 In general terms, what was discussed at that
meeting?
A If I understand correctly, they were having
problems with being able to bring In humanitarian aid into
secause of some kind of political situation and
they thought of the possibility of temporarily usinq^H
uNC^USSira.
TERS. Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
764
UNoiajsirea
7680 01 01
^'kepaulus 1 ^^^^^^1 ^° have there the humanitarian aid that was being
2 approved by Congress. They wanted to make sure that
3 nothing was stolen or lost and they had to create a balance
4 and check type of situation on everything that arrived and
5 departed from there.
6 Q Up to that point had any humanitarian aid
7 arrived at your location in Central America?
8 A No, sir.
9 0 At some point after that did humanitarian aid
10 arrive at that location?
11 A Yes, sir. Later on, in the beginning of 1986,
^ 12 there was an LlOO from Southern Air that did carry some
13 Butler buildings to be built for this purpose. And also
14 some humanitarian aid, I believe, came along on the same
15 aircraft.
16 0 Was that in January of 1986?
17 A To the best of ray recollection, it was January
18 17 when the first flight arrived, and I told you that later
19 on I would provide you with more details.
20 0 During the entire time that you were down there,
21 that being 1985 and 1986, how many flights of humanitarian
^ 22 aid arrived?
Ace-Federal Reporti
Reporters, Inc.
Nationwide Coveraje
765
7680 01 01
B kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^ 22
oNOLfloSlfrfeD
10
A I cannot really be sure at that time. There
were not many. Maybe two, maybe less, maybe three. I will
be able to answer that question after I go back to Miami
and look at some notes that I may have, to be accurate.
0 Where would the humanitarian aid be stored?
A It was supposed to be stored in that warehouse
that was being built, the Butler buildings.
0 During 1985 and 1986 did more lethal aid arrive
at your location?
A Yes, sir. In 1986 there were several 707s
coming from Europe, also for Southern Air, that arrived in
the area. At one point two aircraft came in one day after
the other, which I believe to be the 25th and 26th of May.
It was also military equipment, and approximated between
88,000 and 90,000 pounds apiece. Same type of material
that I already described before.
0 In total, how many flights of lethal aid were
brought Into your location?
A To the best of ray recollection, there were
somewhere between five, probably six, but not much more
than that. I will try to provide more accurate records
later on.
ii^oysaiE*.^^.
PORTERS, Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
766
i^:^;u^
11
7680 01 01
^Hkepaulus 1 0 Do you have an estimate of the total number of
2 pounds?
3 A Yes, sir. The estimate that we believe we had
4 in the warehouse for military aid did not go over 500,000
5 pounds.
6 0 Do you recall a meeting again with Colonel North
7 in Central American in April 1986?
8 A Yes, sir. I recall a meeting with the colonel
9 on April 20, 1986.
10 0 How did Colonel North get to Central America on
11 that occasion?
^ 12 A He was using the same aircraft he had used
13 before, the Jetstar, and he arrived the 20th of April into
14 this friendly country, and he was accompanied by retired
15 General Secord, Dick Gadd, all the members of the crew that
16 had been recruited for the resupply operation. There was a
17 meeting held at that location. ^^^^^Bjfrom the FDN came
18 to discuss the aid to Nicaraguan freedom fighters.
19 0 What did you understand General Secord' s role to
20 be in this resupply operation?
21 A General Secord seemed to be the individual in
22 charge of all the operation itself as far as personnel was
U ■ t' I. MwilJlftAl!ri(EPORTERS. InC.
Nationwide Coverage
767
7680 01 01
^'kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^ 22
unola3sif:ed
12
concerned and the logistics in the program. He was the one
who controlled the individuals who came on that plane.
0 Prior to this meeting had you had any
discussions with General Secord over the phone.
A Well, I realized later on that I did have a
discussion with the general over the telephone over an
incident of a mechanic that was brought into the area where
I was, a conflicting type of situation.
0 Can you describe that incident?
A Yes, sir. One day we were called by Mr. Gadd,
if I recall correctly. They gave us a name, which I have
now forgotten, but I am sure that you have it. It Was an
individual who was going to be working for us as a mechanic
in this project. He arrived. We sent a couple of people
to pick him up at the airport. They really could not
recognize the individual, so they returned.
Later on this individual called from the hotel.
When they picked him up they said it was hard to recognize
him because he looked pretty old, that he could be going
into a nursing home.
This individual came to the house that we had
provided for him. The first night he drank 24 beers; the
m
:poW-ERS. Inc.
202-)47.3700 Nationwide Coverage g00-}}6-«646
768
uNOLAoSIf'ED
13
7680 01 01
^'kepaulus 1 sacond night he drank 36 beers. He told one of our kickers
2 working^ in the project that he was told that this was a
3 money-making operation, that he had fixed one plane in
4 l^mP at one time was doing contraband in Mexico for
5 $5,000 in one night; and he also fixed drug planes in
6 Puerto Rico, from Colombia.
point ^°^<^ HBI^BHHv ^h°
8 brought me the information, I didn't even want to meet him
9 or have him know what the operation was about, and tried to
10 prepare his return to the United States on the following
^ 11 day.
12 After that I did call Colonel North, to his
13 telephone in the White House. I started explaining to him
14 the circumstances of this individual and my decision to
15 send him back immediately without further explanation what
16 the program was. He said to me here is the man you have to
17 talk to .about it, who was in charge of that, if I
18 understand correctly. Or similar words. He put on the
19 phone a man he identified as Dick. At the beginning I
20 thought it was Mr. Gadd, but later on I realized he was
21 General Secord.
^22 I explained the situation to the general in a
Ace-Federal RS^orte
'ORTERS. Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage unn-UA-^fc.
769
680 01 01
nlkepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
gnclassif:eo
very strong voice like he has, and he told me he would take
care of it. At that point I told hira I was sending this
individual back to the states, and he agreed to it.
0 Did the mechanic end up being sent back to the
United States?
A Yes, sir, and I don't think he ever knew what
the operation was all about.
0 Let's go back to the April 20 meeting. What was
the purpose of that meeting?
A The purpose of that meeting was trying to
coordinate with the FDN the support to the north front also
and explain to|HHthe use of these aircraft. The TON
was apparently very unhappy with the type of aircraft,
because of the poor condition of it and low speed of the
aircraft, and also the small capability of carrying
equipment in it. They thought it was taking a lot of risk
in one of these aircraft to resupply their units. It would
carry cargo of probably less than 5,000 pounds, and the 12 3
less than 10,000 pounds in reality when you have to fill
them up. He explained his concerned and that the FDN
fighters were not willing to fly this type of aircraft.
He was told by Colonel North that they had
Ij^A^'^S^^^^^ers. Inc.
■mi.-ui.-i-IOD Nationwid* Coverige 80O-33«-«646
770
7680 01 01
^^kepaulua 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
GNCLflSS!Fvr>
professional people who had done it very successfully In
other parts of the world and they would prove to the PDN
that these aircraft were adequate for the job and at the
present time there would be a U.S. crew flying there, that
there were European crews being prepared to come in and
eventually train the Nicaraguan pilots to do the job
afterwards.
0 When ^mH complained to Colonel North about
the condition of the aircraft did Colonel North give an
explanation to^^^^H as to where the aircraft had come
from?
A Yes, sir. WhenJUH^I told the colonel why
not give him the money to buy more decent aircraft than
these Colonel North explained to him there was no money
involved in this transaction, that these aircraft were a
donation to the freedom fighters, and that If he had the
money he would have bought for them a C-130> since he
didn't. It Is better to have this type of aircraft than
nothing, and we will provide whatever he was getting as
donations from people.
0 Mr. Rodriguez, could you describe what your rol<
in this resupply operation was In general terms?
mn
ORTERS. Inc.
771
■NCLASSIF'ED
16
7680 01 01
^'kepaulus 1 A My main thing, which I self-imposed on myself,
2 in the area was to help the local people with the
3 helicopter concept to eliminate the communist guerillas in
4 the area.
5 0 That was working with the host government; is
6 that right?
7 A Yes, sir.
8 I do strongly support the Nicaraguan freedom
9 fighters after losing my native country to communism, and I
10 was all for supporting Colonel North in the effort to help
11 these people.
^ 12 0 What support did you give to this effort?
13 A Basically, I was the main liaison with the host
14 government in the area and was responsible for getting ID
15 cards on the base to come in and out, and to coordinate the
16 clearance to leave the air base on the missions and back,
17 and the arrival and departure of material in that area.
18 0 At some point did you decide to end your
19 involvement with the resupply effort?
20 A Yes, sir, I did.
21 0 When was that?
^ 22 A That was shortly after this meeting that Colonel
n^03cftS&lF^^TE»^' Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
772
7680 01 01
W kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
[UNCLASSIFIED
17
North came to the area. I hate to say* but I had known a
lot o£. these people who came to be known to me as time went
by in this process, and I was not very happy with the
caliber o£ personnel involved in this operation. I felt
that the background of these individuals would eventually
create a problem not only for the Nicaraguan freedom
fighters but for the administration.
0 And that was the reason that you decided to
leave the operation?
A Yes, sir.
Q What did you do when you made this decision to
leave?
A I went to the host officer that I had originally
talked to to help me. I told him that I was tired, that I
had been away from my family for over a year, and the
program that I was involved in with the helicopters was
working properly and I was going to leave.
At that point he told me he felt that my
presence in the area was important and that I should stay.
I agreed with him that 1 would return later on and explain
to him all of the details if I finally decided to leave the
(Jl'^^jLfi^j^jin 16-'
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
a)2-347-370O Nationwide Coverage 800-336-«646
773
UNCLASSIFIED
7680 01 01
>cepaulus 1 I "-lent to see the ambassador in the afternoon.
2 He had .no idea that I was involved in the military aspect
3 of it. He knew -that I had participated in the humanitarian
4 aid program. None of this did I express to the
5 ambassador. I just told him the same thing I told my
6 friend, that I was tired and that I had been away from the
7 family too long and I was going to leave the area, and that
8 I was also tired from begging for airline tickets from a
9 friend of mine to be able to commute back and forth from
10 that area.
11 At that point the ambassador saw that I was
12 doing a good job with the helicopter concept in the area,
13 that I should stay. He asked me to stay. He asked me for
14 my address and telephone number so that we could maintain a
15 personal relationship? that he appreciated it the same as I
16 did.
17 I also told hira that I was planning to come to
18 Washington soon to visit the vice president. I had
19 requested the meeting in order to brief him on what I done
20 in a little bit over a year in the area, my results with
21 the helicopter concept, and also explain to the vice
22 president the reason I was going to leave the area.
yMQy^iFML
5. Inc.
Nationwide Coverue 8<»-3J6^64*
774
bNCLASSIFSED
7680 01 01
i^ kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
19
Did that meeting with the vice president take
Yes, sir. That meeting took place on May 1,
Before that meeting you met with Colonel North,
0
place?.
A
1986.
0
correct?
A Yes, sir, I did.
0 Could you describe what happened in your meeting
with Colonel North?
A Yes,, sir. I asked to be cleared into the White
House a little bit earlier. I basically told him the same
thing I had said before. I explained to the colonel that I
was tired, that I wanted to leave, and that I was planning
to leave at that point in time to express it to the vice
president. He told me that my help was very needed and
useful in this program and that he knew that all soldiers
get tired and I should consider staying; to go ahead and
take two weeks vacation but stay in the program. Which I
did not agree with, and I said I was still leaving.
At that point I left, because my time was
getting close to my meeting with the vice president. I
came down to the second floor. At the time, if I recall
UHfiLASSlM.
rERS. Inc.
202-347-37Q0 Nationwide Coverage 80O-336-«646
775
^UU^^
20
7680 01 01
m 'tepaulus 1 correctly, the vice president was acting president since
2 president Reagan was in Japan or somewhere.
3 So we went to the other side of the White House,
4 Mr. Gregg, Sara Watson, his assistant, and myself, and we
5 met the vice president, who was with Nick Brady, former
6 senator. He told me he wanted the senator to stay since he
7 was very much interested in Central America and had been on
8 the Kissinger Commission.
9 So we had the meeting from approximately 11:30
10 in the morning until 12:00 noon.
11 0 In that meeting did you describe what you had
^ 12 done in implementing your helicopter concept?
13 A I explained to the vice president from the
14 beginning of my arrival in the area the problem I
15 confronted in establishing my concept until I had the good
16 luck of capturing ^^I^H^^^H, and from then on had a
17 lot of support from the local individuals. I explained to
18 hire the statistics that I had been given on the reduction
19 of the guerillas since I had been in the area and how good
20 the concept was going.
21 I also brought an album with pictures on the
1^ 22 concept that I was doing with helicopters, etc.
^^yssifS
Reporters. Inc.
Nitionwidt Coveraic
776
7680 01 01
^'Icepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^ 22
UNCLflSS!F"EO
21
In the middle o£ that meeting one o£ his aides
came and requested thatH^^^^^^^^^Hwanted to step
in for a moment to say hello. The vice president said that
he was already late for another appointment, but this
individual insisted. So he said only for a short time.
The Ambassador came in accompanied by Colonel North.
Colonel North stayed in the background. The ambassador
said hello to all of us and then asked the vice president
to use his influence in getting me to stay!
He explained to the vice president he was very happy with
what I had done there, and as long he was arobassador^^^H
^l^^^^ffor me to stay in there and continue to help.
0 Had you told the vice president that you were
planning to leave at that point?
A No, sir, I didn't. So I really believe that the
vice president didn't know what the hell he was talking
about. I guess we all have feelings, and I, of course,
felt good that the ambassador would do that, and I made the
mistake of not following through with my decision.
I didn't mention emything to the vice
president. I want to make sure to stress that at no point
in time did I mention to the vice president anything else
Ace-Federal Reporti
Reporters, Inc.
Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
777
yNOLASSiKtiD
7680 01 01
22
<cepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
that I was involved in.
0^ You didn't tell him anything about your efforts
with the resupply?
A Not to him. Only a member of his staff.
0 So you decided at that point that you would
continue to work in Central America?
A Yes, sir. I figured out that eventually the
agency would take over this project and the best thing that
could happen is that it would be gone and the agency would
take care of the operation and that would be the end of
this program.
0 So you returned to Central America and continued
to work with both the host government in implementing your
helicopter concept and with the resupply operation as a
liaison to the host government; is that right?
A Yes, sir, I did.
0 Did you attend a meeting in the Old Executive
Office Building with Colonel North in June 1986?
A Yes, sir, I did. June 25, 1986.
Q How did that meeting come about?
A I was called in the area where I was in Central
American on June 23rd by Mr. Quintero, and he told me they
u^La^sjfm
5, Inc.
Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
778
UNCLASSIFIED
23
7680 01 01
" -kepaulus 1 were reorganizing the whole program and they wanted me to
2 go up to Washington on the 25th for a consultation with
3 Colonel North and Mr. Dutton.
4 0 Did he tell you why they were reorganizing the
5 program?
6 A He just mentioned they were reorganizing the
7 whole thing. He didn't quite go into detail.
8 0 What happened when you got to Washington?
9 A I talked to Mr. Dutton on the 24th, in the
10 evening, and we agreed to meet at the Marriott Hotel on the
^ 11 25th, about 11:30, if I recall correctly. We had the .
12 meeting with Colonel North from 12:00 noon in the White
13 House. So we went to the White House.
14 On ray way there I was curious to find out from
15 him who actually brought him aboard this program, so I
16 asked him before we got into the White House door. He told
17 me that, it was General Secord.
18 He was cleared immediately and mine was
19 delayed. I don't know if it was done purposely or not.
20 0 That is, your clearance to get into the Old
21 Executive Office Building?
22 A Yes, sir.
UNQl^ira
TERS. Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
779
7680 01 01
Mp^kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
I also had requested a clearance, since I was in
Washington, to go into the White House at 1:30 in the
afternoon in order to be able to pick up some pictures that
were taken on May 20th between a general friend of mine and
his wife with the vice president. They asked me to come
around at that time. So I called my friends up there to
get me cleared since ray clearance was being delayed already
for about 10 or 15 minutes.
So I went with Mr. Dutton to the third floor, to
a new office that I didn't know, that Colonel North had
moved into. And that's where we had the meeting.
0 What happened at the meeting?
A When we first came in Mr. Dutton gave me the
pamphlet or paper that he had done with the organization of
the program.
0 Can you describe what was on that piece of
paper?
A It was sort of a nice organization of the whole
resupply network with names and coordinators and
supervisors. It looked very organized. And my role in
that was a liaison between his group and the host
government in the area.
\cE'-hEDERAL Reporters.
Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
780
7680 01 01
^ikepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
A. 22
UNOLASSIFIcO
25
0 This was a diagram of the structure of the
operation; is that right?
A A diagram of responsibility for every post.
0 And you were listed as the liaison to the host
government on that diagram?
A Yes, sir.
0 What did you do when you were presented with the
diagram?
A I smiled and I gave it back to him.
0 What was your reaction when you saw what they
had envisioned for you on this diagram?
A Not much. My speculation was that they thought
the Congress was going to approve the aid to the Nicaraguan
freedom fighters and they were preparing a schematic for an
operation running and going and trying to get a contract
from the Central Intelligence Agency to provide part of the
resupply to the Nicaraguan freedom fighters.
0 Had you heard any discussion among the employees
of the private benefactors about the possibility that the
CIA would contract out this service to this organization?
A Yes, sir. Most of the pilots were very
confident that they would get the contract to continue with
m.
Inc.
ationwide Coverage
781
7680 01 01
^^1 kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
» ;:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^ 22
UNCLASSIFKO
26
the program if the Congress approved — like it did — the
aid to the Nicaraguan freedom fighters.
Q What happened next in that meeting?
A We went into a meeting between Mr. Dutton,
Colonel North and myself. Colonel North started by telling
me ~ he referred to Mr. Dutton as Bob — "Bob here has
told me that you have been very helpful to the crews down
there and the pilots have suggested that you become part of
this organization. So we have suggested that in your role
as liaison you be paid $3,000 a month." To which I
explained to the colonel that I was retired and I was not
able to receive a salary per se. Only operations
expenses.
He also told me right after that that he wasn't
too sure that could be done, even me being the liaison,
because he had information that I was a security risk, that
I used to talk too much over the telephone, on open lines,
and also on an amateur radio that I had in my area in
Central America.
Q What did you tell him when he told you you were
a security risk?
A If you will excuse my wording, sir, I told him
Inc.
Naiionvkide Coveraae
782
7680 01 01
^-kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
» ;:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
ft
UNCLASSIFIED
27
that if he thought I was a security risk he can stick this
goddam operation — fuck it. I didn't want a goddam thing
to do with. And I asked him to show me where I had been a
security risk in all of this. He explained to me that the
Freedom of Information Act prohibits people from releasing
names, etc. So I asked him how he learned about it. He
said, well, there is only one American in the area who
talks over the telephone that we know of and who has an
amateur radio.
To that I told the colonel that I would sign to
him a release from the CIA, from the FBI, from the National
Security Agency, and the National Security Council where
they will have access, and even if they wamt to publish in
the past, in the present and in the future any
conversations I might have had over the telephone or any
other means that would prove I have been a security risk or
put in jeopardy any operations I have participated in.
To that he lowered his face and he made some
notes, and he didn't mention about that anymore.
0 What happened then?
A During the conversation Mr. Dutton mentioned
that he had $1.5 million with which he had to buy one
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
202-347-3700 Naiionwide Covenge 800-336^646
783
7680 01 01
W kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
k 22
Unclassified
28
aircraft. We had to be careful not to spend too much
money, ^because the money would also have to take care of
all the maintenance for one year of the program, and
salaries and all expenditures to run the program for one
year.
At one point in time I told the colonel that I
wanted to talk to him alone. He was looking at the
hearings that were taking place that day. Actually, my
understanding is during that day eventually the aid to the
Nicaraguan freedom fighters was approved by Congress, the
$100 million. He looked at the TV and he said "Those
people want to get me, but they cannot, because the Old Man
loves my ass."
0 When he pointed to the TV set Congress was on
the TV?
A Yes, sir. They were discussing the Nicaraguan
freedom fighters aid.
I told him I wanted to talk him privately. I
had learned through other sources — I don't know whether
it was true or not, but I had reason to believe it could
have been true — that a boat had arrived in|
before that and that the manifest was retrieved by the
eim; KfPCJRTERs. Inc.
Nitionwide Coverage 80O-33*-664«
784
UNCLASSIFIED
29
7680 01 01
^<kepaui*J* jH^I^^H^^^^^^Hand they were
2 grenades In there for the Nlcaraguan freedom fighters that
3 were bought at $3.00 apiece and being sold to them at $9.00
4 apiece. The gentleman who was supposed to receive the
5 money for that was Tom Kline.
6 At that point I sort of recognized the part of
7 the old group of Mr. Wilson, with whom I used to friends
8 many years before. I had separated for ideological reasons
9 in 1979. I explained that to Colonel North. I actually
10 told him when we were alone, "Look, colonel, you will never
11 find any guy more dedicated or honest than I am in this,
^ 12 but there are people stealing here. My understanding is
13 there are hand grenades being bought at $3.00 apiece and
14 sold for $9.00, and it amounts to 100,000 hand grenades.
15 This is going to be worse than Watergate and is going to
16 destroy the President of the United States."
[7 To that, he told me it was not true, that Mr.
18 Kline was a patriot, that he was not buying any type of
19 equipment; they were all donations, and he didn't touch any
IP money in that.
2yTi I also explained the age of some of the 81
/22 millimeter rounds that were built in 1952 or 1954. They
DiiGi^ra
RS, Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
785
7680 01 01
^'kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
_ 22
UNClASSiriED
were very old. He told me that when they were a donatioa
he could not control the age of it.
He also explained to me if I said this to
anybody they would deny it, that he did carry a letter from
the President of the United States to the Government of
I where he requested the rate, and all of these
materials f rom^^^^^| are a donation and we didn't pay a
cent for it. Since I have been told by a lot other people
that we were buying the equipment, at that point I decided
I better terminate the conversation, which I did.
0 At some point during that meeting did you
discuss a letter that you had brought with you concerning
the condition of the aircraft?
A Yes, sir. There was an incident with one
C-123. Almost everybody got )tilled because of poor
navigational equipment.' They were off ten miles south in
territory going toward a mission and they hit
the top of a mountain. They actually had wood inside one
of the engines, which was completely destroyed, and there
was damage to the bottom of the 123 aircraft.
Right after that Copilot HJ^P^rote a very
emotional letter explaining all the problems with the
Ace-Federal Reporters,
Ace
202-347-3700
Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
786
7680 01 01
^Pikepaulus
IWEIiSSIFIED
31
aircraft and the special situation of why he got involved
in that operation, by pride, but it would never happen
again. It was a very emotional letter that I got a hold
of, and I gave it to the colonel.
0 Was Mr. Dutton in the room when you gave the
letter to Colonel North?
A Yes, sir, he was. When the colonel was reading
the letter he looked at me and said, 'This is a joke." I
said, "No, sir. I don't think it is a joke when almost all
of those people got killed the day before they wrote that
letter."
He showed the letter to Mr. Dutton and asked him
if he knew anything about it. Mr. Dutton told him that,
yes, he knew but he didn't feel it was important to bring
it to his attention.
Colonel North told him that this type of
situation if given to the press would create a helluva
problem for the program, to which Mr. Dutton answered that
who was the one who wrote the letter, had been
promoted to chief of maintenance for the program and his
salary had been increased tremendously starting the next
month and he would not pose a problem.
w&mm
TERS. Inc.
NMionwide Coverage
787
7680 01 01
9'kepaulus 1
2
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
UNCLASSiHtO
32
0 Mr. Rodriguez, at some point in August you used
a plane to fly from Miami to Central America and as a
result oC that flight you were accused of air piracy. Can
you explain that incident for us?
A I'll try, sir. Just before the last part of
July or the very beginning of August I had I
^^^^^1 friend of mine who stayed at my house who wanted me
to stop by to say hello. So I took the opportunity that a
friend of mine was flying on a private aircraft from where
I was to Miami. I had the understanding from the pilot
that was in this operation that a C-123 was being prepared
to return to the area where I was.
0 This was one of the private benefactor 123s?
A Yes, a 123 that was stationed at Southern Air
Transport.
So I flew to the Miami area and spent some time
with my family and]m^H||. I discussed on that
weekend with Mr. Quintero that I was planning to fly this
aircraft back to where I was. I believe it was on the 4th
of August.
Mr. Quintero explained to me that there were
some medicines for mountain leprosy that had to be waited
MNtUSSffl
PORTERS. Inc.
Nationwide Covcrase
788
7680 01 01
^■^kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNCLASSIFIED
33
upon to be flovm into our area. It was meant for the
Nicaraguan freedom fighters.
My understanding from previous conversations was
this was just a big box and that it could have been sent
locally, and to me it was big waste to hold a C-123 loaded
with spare parts that were badly needed down there, and the
expenditure of the crews and the hotel just for that box.
I explained that to Mr. Quintero. Mr. Quintero told me it
was not just a case of a box, but that it was a half plane
full of medicines.
At that point I called Mr. Gene Stevenson from
Southern Air and explained to him the situation. He told
me that they had enough spare parts, or close to enough
spare parts, to fill a C-130 to our area. He said he would
consult with Mr. Langton from Southern Air. He thought it
was more convenient to go ahead and make the flight that we
already had programmed with equipment on it, and when this
medicine arrived it would be cheaper for the program to
lease a C-130 from Southern Air and fly the rest of the
maintenance equipment that we had waiting there plus the
medicines into our area.
So I asked him to make sure to clear it, and he
UNCUSSIFli
TERS, Inc.
Naiionwide Coverage
789
7680 01 01
B^kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
did.
UNCLASSIFIED
So we did depart on the 4th of August for my
area, when we laoded there seven hours later, which it
would take that piece of junk to get there, I was told sort
of in a joking way that Mr. Quintero had called and said,
"Do you know what Max did? That man has stolen a goddam
aircraft." We were laughing, because the pilot said, "We
didn't steal anything. It was all authorized and
everything."
So the instruction that he gave to the people
down there was not to unload the aircraft but to refuel it
and just take personal things out and fly it right back to
Miami the following day.
Since all the equipment that was on board was
strictly spare parts for the aircraft that we had in that
area, I gave instruction to go ahead and unload the
aircraft.
That evening I had dinner with my friend at his
home. Mr. Quintero called. He said the airplane was ready
to return and he was told that it was unloaded on my
instruction, and he asked to talk to me.
When he talked to me he told me in Spanish, "Are
wmm
RS. Inc.
Nationwide Coverage g0O-336-«646
790
7680 01 01
^^'Icepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^ 22
tEussro
35
you with me or are you against me?" So I explained the
best I. could. I said, "Look, this is not a situation of
being for or against anybody. The spare parts are needed
badly here, and we unloaded. Unless you are telling me the
whole program is finished."
So he told me that is exactly what happened.
"The whole program has been terminated. I will be down
there in three days to close all the houses. You tell all
the pilots and the personnel there that they don't have the
blessing from anybody from up here, that if they do touch
or fly any of those aircraft it will be without our
authority, that there will be no payment for them, no
insurance for them, no gas or any more money at all, and
they will be on their own."
0 This is a call from Raphael Quintero, correct?
A Yes, sir.
I felt very strongly in support of these people
which are inside Nicaragua. I contacted^^m^^^^ who
I trust, one of the kickers in the program. I asked him if
he could find me a crew that will fly for free. I
explained to him the circumstances. He said he personally
would do it; he would check with others and let me know.
iL RtpoRTERS, Inc.
-i47-37O0 Naiionwide Coverage 800-336-6646
791
7680 01 01
^Wkepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^ 22
UNCUSSIFIEO
36
He called roe later. He said, "I have found Mr.
Bob Sawyer" — who was later killed in the 123 — "who will
do it for free, and also]
So I could count on this crew to be able to
continue to resupply these people. My purpose was to be
able to maintain the supply to them until the agency was in
a position to continue the aid to the Nicaragua freedom
fighters.
I contacted my local friend who was in charge of
the base. I explained to him the circumstances that we
were going through and asked him if he would provide the
fuel from his end to be able to maintain this operation.
This gentleman, who feels very strongly for the Nicaraguan
freedom fighters because he sees very clearly it is in the
best interest of his country, agreed to continue the supply
of fuel on his own.
At that point^^^^^^Btold me he
believed that if I did talk to the people most of them
would cooperate and fly on this mission. They were not
mercenaries. They needed money, but they respected and
supported the program.
So I called a meeting. I don't know whether it
)RTERS. Inc.
-347.3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
792
7680 01 01
^ ° kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
.«. 22
UNCUSSIFIED
was the same night or the following night or later, but I
did hold a meeting and expressed what I had been told to
them so they were very clear that they no longer had the
blessing from their group, from their people, that the
operation, as far as I was told, was terminated, the house
was going to be closed, and that they would have no
salaries or no insurance policy for their families, and it
would be their responsibility if they flew any of those
planes.
I explained to them as best I could that I had
lost my native country to communism, and I knew what it
meant for these people to be down there without any
supplies for an extensive period of time until the agency
could take over the program.
I realized that they needed money for their
families to live on, but if any of them could afford a
month or two in this program it would be greatly
appreciated by a helluva lot of people.
Cooper was present, Hasenfus was present, and a
lot of the other pilots, and they all agreed that they
would continue to fly the operation for free.
So I asked my friend to contact Mr. Quintero and
'l^porters. Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80O-336-«646
793
UNCLASSIFltD
38
7680 01 01
kepaulus 1 explain to him that if he wanted to call that was fine, but
2 he would not be closing any base at this point in time,
3 that their group was willing to fly this mission for free
4 and I had been able to find the fuel to continue the
5 operation until the agency could take over.
6 0 At some point did you receive a telephone call
7 from Don Gregg?
8 A Yes, sir. I also had the understanding that
9 somebody else received a call down there and was told that
10 I had stolen the aircraft. And there was also a pending
11 suit by the owners of the aircraft. It was not quite clear
12 whether it was against me or the local people there.
13 So I received a phone call from Mr. Gregg in my
14 room. Mr. Gregg had been away during all of this time with
15 the vice president outside of the United States. I think
16 he was just approached upon his return. He told me on the
17 telephone, he said, "Felix, do you know anything about a
18 stolen aircraft and a suit?" I said, "Don, I have a
19 general idea."
20 He said, "Ollie has approached me. He said
21 there is a stolen aircraft down there. That could be very
22 embarrassing to the government." He didn't explain any
ITERS, Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80O-336-4646
794
7680 01 01
^^kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^ 22
UNCUSSIFIED
39
details. He said, "You could be instrumental and help in
getting the aircraft released and it would be a great help
for the U.S. Government."
My understanding at the time was, and I still
believe, he had no idea what he was talking about. He was
just being used to use his influence auid friendship with me
to release this aircraft.
I discussed this with another friend locally
that had also been called about getting the aircraft
released. My idea at that point in time was that these
people probably learned that they were not going to get the
contract with the agency and they were just trying to move
out everything they had. It infuriated me quite a bit. I
explained to my friend, I said, "Look, there is no way I am
going to go to my friend here to release his aircraft for
these son of a bitches to steal another aircraft that might
be worth a half a million dollars.
So I did approach ray friend. I said, "Look, we
have been doing this without charging anything to these
people because we believe in this cause. They might have a
legal way to retrieve this aircraft." Because they had it
registered, I was told, in Panama. "But if that is the
n
VL REPORTERS. InC.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
795
f680 01 01
^ikepaulus 1
UNCLASSIFIED
40
case, you have been providing space and support totally for
free because you believe in it, and if they want to take it
out legally, and they do have the means to do it, go ahead
and charge them for landing fees, guarding the aircraft,
painting the aircraft, loading and unloading the aircraft.
There's a substantial amount of money that we can use to
buy a decent aircraft for the Nicaraguan freedom
fighters." To which he agreed, and he gave me permission
to go ahead and use his name in this proposal.
0 This is a discussion with your friend in the
host government?
A Yes, sir.
0 What did you do after you got the call from Don
Gregg?
A I also considered in my mind that the aid to the
Nicaraguan freedom fighters was already approved by
Congress and it would not be appropriate at this time for
me to approach Mr. Gregg and explain to him the situation
of these things. I was concerned that part of the program
could be taken to this group of people which I didn't
consider that well intentioned. So I decided to go to
Washington and explain to Don my concern about the
mmm
Ters, Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80O-336-«646
796
UNCLASSIFIED
41
7680 01 01
kepaulus 1 possibility of these people getting part of the contract
2 with the agency, and also a situation that could be very
3 embarrassing for everybody, and I was pretty sure that he
4 didn't know anything about it.
5 So I called him over the telephone.
6 Q Let me stop you. You were concerned that these
7 people might get the agency contract and you didn't think
8 that they were the right people to have the contract; is
9 that what you just said?
10 A yes, sir.
11 0 You were also concerned that these people might
12 pull the aircraft out before the CIA could get back into
13 funding the operation and therefore the contras would be
14 without a logistics system to resupply them until the CIA
15 got back in; is that right?
16 A That's absolutely correct.
17 Q Tell me what you did.
18 A So I asked Don if I could meet with him at the
19 White House. This was, I believe, a Wednesday, So I could
20 fly on a Thursday all the way to Washington and meet him on
21 Friday. He agreed and said he would clear ma into the
22 White House at 9:30. So I flew into Washington.
UMAMa.c
Nationwide Coverage
797
7680 01 01
V'icepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNCIASSIFIEO
0 What day is this?
A I was to arrive and talk to him August 8, 1986.
0 What happened when you got there?
A I went to his office in the White House. He was
there. I don't know if Mr. Watson was there at the very
beginning. He later was. I started with telling Don that
I wished I never had to come to him under these
circumstances to explain this, but that I had learned of
this operation down there where Colonel North was involved
and he was using people that if known by the press, because
of their past background, with Wilson, etc., it could be
very embarrassing to the administration and everybody.
I also explained the condition of the aircraft
to him and explained my concern about possible corruption
in the program since I had been told, even though I didn't
have any concrete proof it, that hand grenades were being
bought at $3.00 apiece and sold to the contras for $9.00
apiece.
To that he was extremely upset. He picked up
the phone, even though I asked him not to, to bear with me
and not tell anybody. But he picked up the phone and
called upstairs to North's office. He was not there, but I
Rs. Inc.
Nationwide Coverage 800-336^646
798
UNCLASSIFIED
43
7680 01 01
kepaulus 1 understand that he did talk to Bob Earl. He started
2 telling him, "My friend Felix is here and what he is
3 telling me is outrageous. You should come down here and
4 hear what he has to say. He has mentioned the name of Tom
5 Kline, and goddamit, he's a dam snake. He doesn't have to
6 tell me anything about who he is."
7 He didn't want to come, but eventually Mr. Earl
8 came down. He tried to appease everybody, that it was best
9 to not really create a problem at this point in time.
10 0 Did you explain to Mr. Gregg about how you had
11 been brought into this operation?
12 A No, sir, not at this time. I explained to him
13 the problem that was going on down there and that I had
14 become aware of it.
15 Q Do you recall telling him about the conversation
16 you had with Raphael Quintero where he said he was working
17 with. Mr, Green?
18 A I don't recall if I did or not. I might have.
19 It was a long conversation and it was a long time ago.
20 0 Did you tell him that Ollie North was associated
21 with this Wilson group and that that is what concerned you?
22 A Yes, sir. I am sure that he was also aware of
Ul
)ERAL Reporters, Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
799
7680 01 01
^Bnlkepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
•
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
^ 22
UNCLASSIFIED
th« individuals. Not that they were with hire, but he knew
the Individuals by name and their reputations.
0 Did you mention Secord's name In the meeting?
A Yes, sir.
0 Did Mr. Gregg appear to recognize who Secord
was?
A I just went on with all the names. The one that
he made the most out of was Kline when he was mentioned.
0 So you mentioned Kline and Secord. Did you .
mention Qulntero also?
A Yes, I did, sir.
0 He at least appeared to recognize Tore Kline
immediately as somebody that the government shouldn't be
dealing with) Is that right?
A Absolutely.
0 Do you remember whether you mentioned Mr. Gadd's
name In that meeting?
A Yes, I did. I thlnJt I mentioned Mr. Gadd In an
Incident that I heard from Mr. Qulntero, saying that two
guys were working, who I never met but only heard by name,
on the runway in^BllH °"* *'*' actually making a
$100 a day and the other was making $150 a day and Mr. Gadd
llNCUSSlfi[B
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
202-347-3700 Nuionwide Coveraj* 800-336-«646
800
7680 01 01
^^'kapaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
• ;:
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
UNCLASSIFIED
45
was charging them $400 a day £or one and $450 a day for the
other. It was a substantial profit to him or whoever for a
considerable period of months.
0 So you told Mr. Gregg that Gadd was overcharging
for these employees that were working at the airstrip in
A Yes, sir.
0 Did you mention Mr. Dutton's name in that
meeting?
A I probably did, but I really can't be specific.
I cannot recall whether I did or not.
0 How long did you meet with Mr. Gregg before'
Mr. Earl was called on the phone?
A As soon as I started reporting the names to him
he almost immediately picked up the phone to call Mr. Earl,
but he didn't come down until a considerable time later.
0 Before he called Earl did you tell him what this
was with the private benefactor resupply operation?
A I really don't know exactly how I put it. My
main concern was that they would not get a contract.
0 you were concerned that they not get the CIA
contract to supply the contrasj is that right?
l]Ni;iASS!FI[!l
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80&-336-4646
801
UNCLASSIFIEB
46
7680 01 01
V^kepaulus 1 A Basically, yes. If the press got a hold of it,
2 with the reputation that these people had, it would be a
3 disaster for the national security adviser to the president
4 to have people who had connection in the past and being
5 publicly exposed in problems with Qaddafi and Wilson, etc.
6 0 Did you tell Mr. Gregg that in that meeting on
7 August 8?
8 A I think I mentioned it. Yes, sir.
9 0 What did Don Gregg say to Earl on the telephone?
10 A Basically what I told you at the very
11 beginning. He said that he had heard this thing from "my
12 friend Felix, and he mentioned Mr. Kline's name," and he"
13 could not figure out how they could use people like that
14 and he wanted him to come down to listen to my story.
15 0 Did Mr. Earl come down to Mr. Gregg's office?
16 A He eventually came.
17 0 What happened then?
18 A I gave him part of my concern, and he just tried
19 to appease me. He didn't make much recommendation one way
20 or the other. Just to be calm, take it easy. He didn't
21 say much more th2m that, if I recall. All those things I
22 don't recall at this time.
lUSSKIED
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
802
7680 01 01
•<kepaulu3 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
UNCLASSIFIED
47
0 Was the problem resolved at that meeting?
A I later learned that Mr. Gregg called a meeting
to pass my concerns to other people. If I recall
correctly, after what I read, he called a representative
C
from the state Department, from the agency and the NS/ to
express ray concerns about the whole program so that they
would take appropriate action. I don't think he believed
that the Office of the Vice President would get involved in
something like this, but that he should pass it on to
people who could do something about it that would be
involved in this program. But he was not.
Q After this meeting did you return to Central •
America?
A Yes, sir, I did.
0 What happened with the private benefactor
resupply effort after that meeting?
A After they reconsidered the situation they did
send a message down there that the owners of the aircraft,
the way they put it, were willing to continue the effort of
resupply until the agency would take over the program but
to be very clear that the aircraft did not belong to the
Nicaraguan freedom fighters, that they belonged to a
mmm
PORTERS, Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
803
7680 01 01
V>^kepaulus 1
uNCLASSIflEO
48
private company, and as soon as the agency took it over
they were going to pull every single aircraft out with
them.
0 Did resupply flights continue after that point?
A Yes, sir, but it did continue with a Nicaraguan
guard on board to make sure the aircraft were not stolen.
That was the young guy that got killed on the October 123
crash.
0 He was on those flights to make sure that the
pilots didn't take the aircraft away; is that right?
A Absolutely.
A.
0 Where were you when the f^senfus plane went
down?
A I was in Miami.
0 How did you learn about the crash?
A My friend, ^H^^^H|^ft from the area
these flights were being staged called me over the
telephone and told me that the flight was overdue in
returning. We had pretty well timed how much fuel they had
and how long they could have stayed in the air. I asked
him to make sure. It was a different area and a
possibility that they could land on an emergency basis, and
UNCUSSIFltD
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
804
UNCLASSIFIED
49
7680 01 01
'kepaulus 1 if he found out it wasn't that way, try to start a search
2 over the ocean area.
3 I f61t that this was the beginning of a big
4 problem. Since I was not on talking terms anymore with the
5 colonel, I felt that somebody in Washington should know of
6 this incident. So I called Sam Watson. I had not
7 discussed this with him before. I just told him that it
8 was my understanding that a Nicaraguan resupply plane was
9 lost and had either gone do%ni in the ocean or probably shot
10 down in Nicaragua.
11 I later learned through the press that he did
12 pass this information to the National Security Agency and
13 the White House situation room.
14 On the following morning we heard over the
15 Havana radio that the plane was shot dovm inside Nicaragua
16 and there was one prisoner. So I called him again to pass
17 this information to him.
18 0 When did you return to the Central American
19 country after the H^senfus incident?
20 A After that I didn't return until February 11,
21 1987.
22 0 The resupply operation completely ceased at that
L REPORTERS, Inc.
202-J47-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
805
UNCLASSIFIED
7680 01 01 VllUI-nUUII ILU 50
^ikepaulus 1 point; is that right?
2 A Yes, sir. After the H/^senfus crash the
3 operation completely ceased. I don't know what happened to
4 the owners of the aircraft who so badly wanted the
5 aircraft. The aircraft that was in Southern Air was asked
6 to be flown immediately into Central America, and if I
7 understand correctly, it was flown intomUmwith no
authority ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^B. Apparently the
9 wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible, and it was
10 confiscated
11 0 Mr. Rodriguez, the last thing I want to ask you
12 about is payments that you received from this resupply
13 group. Can you tell me what money you received from them?
A I was infl^Hm^with no pay from anybody.
15 Soon after the arrival of Mr. Quintero he came to us and
16 said that there was an operational fund fori
17 myself and himself of $1,000 per month to be used
18 operationally for us, for food and expenses or bringing
19 people to dinner, etc. So we took that during that time as
20 an operational expense.
21 So after I returned the offer was made to me to
22 be part of the resupply effort. I forgot to mention that
WSiJ
LPORTERS. Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 80O-336-«46
806
7680 01 01
'kepaulus
UNCLASSIFIED
51
during that meeting with Colonel North and Mr. Dutton in
the White House after a while Colonel North told me he
wanted me to sign a contract with Mr. Dutton to that
effect. He asked me why I didn't want to be part of the
organization. I told him I had done it so far and I didn't
need to be paid for it. He- told me that I have to think of
my family. Which didn't make me feel any better, because
nobody had worried about my family before. He told me to
9 get together with Bob and write my own contract, but please
10 sign a contract with him. Which I did not.
11 When I went back to Central America my friend
12 ^^^^^fcame to me and said, "Look, Mr. Cooper has received
13 a specific instruction from Mr. Dutton not to pay you
14 anything because you are not part of the organization, but
15 Cooper insists that you were very, very helpful, and he
16 wants to pay you the $3,000 a month."
17 I told him, "Look, I cannot receive it. I don't
18 want the money. I don't need it here."
19 I^^^^^^^B told me, "Look, if you don't take it,
20 it will be another $3,000 these guys are going to be
21 making."
22 So at that point he convinced me on that basis.
yNWSSIFIEfl
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
202-347-3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
807
UNCLASSIFIED
52
7680 01 01
^ikepaulus 1 So instead of getting my friends from Miami to support my
2 trips in here and back and forth to Miami, and my food
3 expenses, which I never received any amount of money or
4 other support fron the local ^^^^^^H I did receive the
5 $3,000. I want to state that I did not sign the receipt.
6 H^H^^Hsigned the receipt for me. So legally if I
7 wanted to claim that I did not receive any money they could
8 not prove it, because the receipt is not signed by me. But
9 I did receive the money. I acknowledge it here
10 officially. There is no way I'm going to lie here or any
11 other statement.
12 0 So you received SI, 000 a month from
13 approximately January until June and then in June, July
14 A It wasn't effective until the following month,
15 after the meeting in the White House.
16 0 So it would be in July, August, September that
17 you received $3,000?
18 A Yes, and probably October.
19 0 Then after the H^senfus plane went down —
20 A After the H^senfus plane, I received, which I
21 did not sign a receipt for, $2,000 from Mr. Quintero for my
22 expenses to leave the house. Since the press was sort of
llNCUSSiFP
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
202- 347- 3700 Nationwide Coverage 800-336-6646
808
7680 01 01
'kepaulus 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
UNCIASSIFI[D
hanging around my house all the time, I took the family to
the Keys for the weekend and stayed out of my house for
over three weeks. He suggested that I leave the country,
but I did not. I just stayed in the Florida area.
0 That is all the money that you received from
this operation, correct?
A Yes, sir. I handled the money on the fuel
account. I felt it was important to keep a record of it,
but it was in my hands never more than a few hours. I
guess one time 24 hours. When I received it I turned it
over to the local friends and received a receipt from them
and kept very clear records of dates, aircraft, gallons,
price per gallon. You have a copy of all of that.
0 You have given us a copy of all those receipts
and your records for the fuel expenditures; correct?
A Yes, sir, I have.
MR. BARBADORO: That's all I have. Thank you
very much, Mr. Rodriguez.
THE WITNESS: You're welcome, sir.
(Whereupon at 11:35 a.m. the deposition was
concluded.)
UNCUSSIFIED
Ace-Federal Reporters. Inc.
Nationwide Coverage
809
yNOlASSIFIED
CERTIFICATE OF NOTARY PUBLIC & REPORTER
I, ."I'ichael G. Paulus, the officer before whom the
foregoing deposition was taken, do hereby certify that the
witness whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition
was duly sworn by me; that the testimony of said witness was
taken in shorthand and thereafter reduced to typewriting by
rae or under my direction; that said deposition is a true
record of the testimony given by said witness; that I am
neither counsel for, related to, nor employed by any of the
parties to the action in which this deposition was taken;
and further, that I an not a relative or employee of any
attorney or counsel employed by the parties hereto, nor
financially or otherwise interested in the outcome of the
action.
Ily Commission Expires
February 29, 1992
:Jotary Public in and for the
District of Columbia
811
DEPOSITION OF DAVID ROSEMAN
Wednesday, June 10, 1987
U.S. House of Representatives,
Select Committee to Investigate Covert
Arms Transactions with Iran,
Washington, D. C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:00 p.m.,
in Room B-352, Rayburn House Office Building, with Patrick
Carome, Staff Counsel, presiding.
On behalf of the House Select Committee: Patrick
Carome and Bruce Fein.
On behalf of the Senate Select Committee: Timothy
Woodcock.
On behalf of the Witness: Kathleen A. McGinn,
Assistant General Counsel, Office of General Counsel,
Central Intelligence Agency.
^iliCi Oeclassifie'i/Release-' nn JIJ>^87
under 3-oyis;jn' of E.U. 12r56
by IHA Nationa; Security Coufld ^ -^"^ T -r
812
T
1 MR. CAROME: If we could have the Notary please swear
2 in the witness, and if you could state your name for the
3 record on the record.
4 MR. MALLON: I am a Notary for the District of Columbia,
5 My name is Charles Mallon.
6 Whereupon,
7 DAVID ROSEMAN, ""^
8 having been duly sworn, was examined and testified as
9 follows:
10 EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE
11 BY MR. CAROME:
12 Q Would you please state your name for the record?
13 A Yes. My name is David Roseman.
14 Q And what is your current oceu^tion?
15 A I am an attorney with the Central Intelligence
1g Agency and I serve as Chief of the Intelligence Law Division
17 at the Agency
^Q Q And how long have you been Chief of the
ig Intelligence Law Division?
20 A For a little more than one year.
2^1 Q You started in that position when?
22 A Approximately April of '86.
23 Q Why don't you just briefly tell me your
54 educational background, starting with college^ and the
25 positions which you've held since graduating?
niSSIElEIl
813
UHSa^Blft^T
A Certainly. I graduated from George Washington
University in 1970, and graduated from Georgetown University
Law School in 1973. I took the bar in 1973 in the State of
Maine and became a member of the bar, in Maine, in 1973,
and I began my legal career as an Assistant Attorney General
for the State of Maine.
I was in that position until 1980 when I got my
position with the Office of General Counsel at CIA. I
started at CIA as a position as a generalist, meaning that
I received assignments from a number of different divisions,
and within a year I was assigned to the Intelligence Law
Division and was subsequently named Deputy Chief of the
Intelligence Law Division.
Q And what time did you first become a lawyer in
the Intelligence Law Division?
A That would probably have been in 19 -- well, it
was within a year of my entering on duty with the Agency,
which was, I entered on duty in July of 1980, so it would
have been some time I think in 1981 that I began to work with
the Intelligence Law Division.
Q And your first position in that division was
what? '*' ^^ -1% '^
A I, at that time there was a Chief of the division
and I was — I simply served as his assistant, and to the
extent that there was additional work, which there always
IINClASSIFIEfi
814
25
isaissiffiBr
1 was, above and beyond what we could handle, it was assigned
2 out to other attorneys who were considered to be generalists.
3 Q Okay. And in or around the time of November
1985 what position were you holding?
A November 1985, I would have been the Deputy
Chief for the Law Division.
Q And is that the same for the period in or around
January 1986?
A Yes, that's correct.
10 Q And what were your general duties in that
11 position';
12 A My duties as Deputy Chief — well, let me
13 describe first what the — the overall responsibilities of
14 the division.
15 The division has primary responsibility for
15 handling questions relating to Executive Order 12333, which
■(7 deals in large part with collection ut j^ian^^ion and
retention and dissemination of information on U.S. persons,
19 and it also contains guidelines on the limited Agency
20 activities within the United States. These are guidelines
21 under Attorney General approved procedures. That's the
22 primary role of the division.
23 The division also handles questions involving
24 the Intelligence Oversight Board,
As Deputy Chief of the division, of course, I
UMCLASSIHEIU
815
mmm
received my assignments principally from the Division Chief,
whose name is Bernie Makowka; and in Bernie's absence, I
would serve as Acting Chief.
Q Okay.
MR. CAROME: It occurs to me that there is a
brief introduction I should have probably given at the start
of the deposition which I might as well do now.
Just for the record, my name is Patrick Carome .
I'm Staff Counsel for the House Select Committee to
Investigate Covert Arms Transactions with Iran. It is
possible that a staff counsel to the parallel Senate
committee is going to be joining us in this deposition
midway through.
Both of the committees were established pursuant
to resolutions and have various enacting roles. The Central
Intelligence Agency has previously been provided with copies
of our resolution and rules; and, just for the record, I
have earlier, before we started today, have provided you
with copies of both of those things.
The mandate of the House committee is to
investigate the circumstances surrounding the Iran affair
and also the U.S. involvement with the contras , and this
deposition is being conducted purmaaa* tc^fciujse rules.
BY MR. CAROME:
Q Turning now more to the substantive matters that
•l^^^QilL.
816
1 I want to cover, when was the first time — strike that.
2 The Intelligence Law Division is not normally
3 involved in the preparation of covert action findings; is
4 that right?
5 A That's correct.
MR. CAROME: The record should reflect that we
7 have just been joined by Bruce Fein, who is an attorney with
8 the House Select Committee.
g BY MR. CAROME:
•JO Q Is it correct, Mr. Rosemem, that the Intelligence
•J1 Law Division is not normally involved in the preparation of
12 covert action findings?
13 A That is correct.
Q In 1985, did there come a time where you working
on a covert action finding?
A Personally I was not involved in 1985 in working
on — let me step back, because the times — we got involved
on the Iran finding on 2 and 3 January 1986 and were involved
with another , ^^^^^H^^^^^^BH^finding, which may have
been in late 1985, so let me correct that.
Q You were involved in preparation of a covert
22 -action |ipHnt;^ 1985; is that right?
yj A It probably would have begun in late 1985, in
„. late December of 1985.
24 ^
When you say you, you mean my role personally?
Muma
817
m^^
1 Q That's right. I'm speaking of your role
2 personally.
3 A Yes.
4 Q And what did that finding that you were involved
5 in, in 1985, deal with:
6 A To the best of my recollection, we were involved
7 in a finding dealing with^^^^^^^^^^^B And have not
8 reviewed that finding, so that's the best recollection I have
9 at this time.
10 Q Did that finding deal with any partedculay-^
countries?
12 A I do not believe so.
Q And when you say "we were involved," who besides
14 yourself was involved in t ha tE^^^^^^^^^^^^H finding?
15 A It would have been, I am certain, Bernie Makowka,
1g the Chief of the division. It was myself and Gary Cole, who
^j was one of the attorneys working for us, assigned -- one of
1g the attorneys assigned to Intelligence Law Division,
Q Is Mr. Cole an attorney who reported directly to
you at that time?
A Yes, that's correct. To me and, or actually
22 directly to Bernie as Division Chief, but to me if you want
to say through the chain of command.
Q And is it correct that thii
finding was the first finding that you were ever involved in?
IIEUSSIEIEIL
818
lINEft^RIt^
1 A Well, to say the first finding that I was ever
2 involved in, I have been involved over the years in questions
3 related to findings, covert —
4 Q Let me see if I can be more specific with the
5 question.
6 Was that the first instance in which you were
7 ever involved in the drafting of the actual finding itself?
8 A I believe so; yes.
9 Q Was that also the first instance that you're
10 aware of in which the Intelligence Law Division was involved
•jl in the actual drafting of a covert action finding?
12 A Well based on my knowledge, what I know at this
13 point in time, the answer is no. Because I understand that
14 Mr. Makowka was involved in drafting what has been referred
15 to as the mini-finding of, I believe, November 1985. As to
1g whether or not Mr. Makowka has been involved in other findings
17 prior to that time, I do not know
^g When I say involved in, I should say the saime
^g thing, actually drafting. Because he, as well as I, have
2Q been involved over the years in a number of questions related
to covert action programs or special activities.
Other than one^^^^^^^^^^^Vfinding
findings that did pertain to Iran that are really the subject
of our investigation —
A Um hum
MAMP
819
mwm
ET
1 Q — are you aware of any other covert action
2 findings prepared by the Intelligence Law Division?
A No, I am not.
4 Q I take it that there did come a time where you
5 became involved in the preparation of a covert action finding
6 relating to Iran?
7 A That is correct.
8 Q And when did your involvement begin on that?
9 A My involvement began on that I would say on
10 2 January 1986.
11 Q And how did it begin?
12 A Well, I recall that our Division Chief was on
13 leave, or going on leave in the end of 1985 and —
14 Q Who was the Division Chief?
15 A Mr. Makowka.
1g Q And he asked Gary Cole and myself to finish the
17 drafting and the work on th^^^^^^^Hjj^^H finding by,
•J8 believe he probably said by the end of — by 31 December or
19 30 December, whatever the last working day of the year was;
20 and he indicated that that was something that needed to or
21 should be sent up to the General Counsel as quickly as
22 possible.
23 Mr. Cole and I did the work on that finding, and
24 in preparing the finding itself, in part because we had not
25 previously drafted "lindings ourselves and in part because
lUUSSiElL:
820
ll^MF
10
1 our practice is to do the most thorough legal job we can, we
2 contacted — I believe we would have contacted George
3 Jameson or — it was either George Jameson or Ernie
4 Mayerfeld, who may have been counsel — whoever was counsel
5 for the DO at that time who ordinarily dealt with these
6 kinds of matters, or it might have been George Clarke, who
7 George Jameson or Ernie Mayerfeld, I believe, reported to.
8 We contacted them to get background paperwork
9 on preparation of findings and the proper format and who it
10 goes through within the Agency and who it goes through
11 outside of the Agency, so that we could do the best possible
12 job on that.
13 Q Is your work on this matter all happening toward
14 the end of December? Is that correct?
15 A Yes. I'm referring now to the
16 'finding, which is a lead-in to your question as to how we got
17 involved or how I got involved in the Iran "finding.
18 Q And the activity you've just described took place
19 the last 10 days or so of December?
20 A I will say within the last 5 or 10 days in
21 December.
22 Q Do you know whether or not the activities you
23 were just describing on the^^^^^^^^^^^^^Hfinding were
24 related to a meeting that Mr. Makowka attended at Colonel
«c North's office on
>n Christmas Eve, 1985?
820
821
1 A I'm sorry . Could you repeat that?
2 Q Are the activities on the counterterrorism
3 finding that you have just described related to a meeting of
4 Mr. Makowka and Mr. North on December 24, 1985?
5 A To my knowledge, they were not related.
g Q Were you aware of that meeting?
7 A I might have been aware generally of the meeting,
but not of the substance or the specifics of tne meeting.
Q In other words, Mr. Makowka may have come back from that
meeting and said to me, I just met with Ollie North, or, I
just had a meeting at the White House; or he may have said,
Dave, I'm going down this afternoon to the White House to a
meeting with Lieutenant Colonel North, something of that
nature.
However, on certain matters as the then Division
Chief, the General Counsel would deal with Bernie Makowka
directly and not with me. Because we operated on a need-to-
know principle in certain sensitive matters, the General
Counsel would deal with the then Division Chief and it would
be — that information wouldn't be shared with me.
Getting back to our preparation on the
finding leading into our involvement in the
Iran finding, we finished that work, the work on the
■finding, on a timely basis. We presented
that Finding to the General Counsel, and I recall that the
iimjissiBfi
822
jiwtissffiiT
12
1 General Counsel was very, very pleased with the work we had
2 done, both substantively and the timeliness of our response.
3 And that probably would have been, we turned that in I will
4 say either the last day in December or the first working day
5 in January of 1986.
Q That would have been January 2nd, I believe.
7 A Probably January 2nd. But I recall that we
8 would have — I will — my best recollection would be that
we turned that in the last part of December 1985.
10 Q Could I just ask, did the
11 fcnding bear any relationship to discussions that were going
12 on in the Office of General Counsel about an enterprise
13 theory for prosecution of terrorists?
14 A I am aware of the enterprise theory that was
15 discussed at that time in the office. I can't recall that
1g specifically but I don't believe so. I don't believe it
^j dealt with that. But I really cannot recall, though, with
^g any specificity.
Q We have just now gotten up to the January 2nd
time frame —
A That's correct.
Q — and I think you're going to —
A That's right.
Q — begin to tell us what it was that brought you
25 into the drafting of the Iran finding.
llimSSIEI£lL
rn
823
'^(iSSii)i&'
1 A That's correct.
2 On the 2nd of January, and this would have been
after we completed our work, at least our draft work on the
4 ^^^^^^^^^^^^H finding, the General Counsel called me into
5 this office and said, in effect, that he was very pleased
6 with the work that we had done and that he had another matter
7 that was of extreme sensitivity and that he wanted me to
work on it.
g And he then described this next matter and it
10 was this, it was the finding related to — it was the
11 so-called Iran finding.
12 Q So this was described to you in a meeting in
13 Mr. Sporkin's office; is that right;
14 A That's correct,
,J5 Q And you are fairly certain this was on
1g January 2nd; is that right?
A I'm fairly certain only because I have reviewed
the two Iran findings, amd one is dated 2 January and one
is dated 3 January. And my recollection is that Mr. Sporkin
said that this was another finding that needed to be
prepared, and needed to be prepared expeditiously.
And I recall that we, Mr. Cole and I, prepared
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 that finding by close of business that day
Q All right. If we could turn to what it was that
Mr. Sporkin said to you in this first meeting on the subject
824
1 of the Iran finding.
2 A Yes.
3 Q What did he tell you needed to be done?
A The best that I can recall on that is that, as
I said, he called me into his office and said that there was
a matter of extreme sensitivity and he wanted me to work on
that. And he described the matter as —
MR. CAROME: Could we go off the record for just
a second?
10 (DiscussionF of f the record.)
11 MR. CAROME: Back on the record.
12 The record should probably reflect that Tim
13 Woodcock, from the Senate staff, has just joined us.
14 MR. WOODCOCK: 25 minutes late.
15 BY MR, CAROME:
16 Q Mr. Roseman, you were just describing what it
17 was that Mr. Sporkin said needed to be done, and X believe
18 you were just about at the point to describe what type of
19 project the finding was to relate to.
20 A Yes. My recollection on this, I should add, is
21 in large part based on my reviewing the finding itself
22 because, obviously, whatever was contained in there or most
of what was contained in there was based on what Mr. Sporkin
had told me.
MR. CAROME: Why don't I have a copy of the
imCliSSlQEL
825
lilSWfi
ET
15
finding, the draft finding, marked as an exhibit, and I will
put it in front of you so you can look at it.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(A document was marked Deposition
Exhibit DR No. 1 for identification
BY MR. CAROME:
Q Mr. Roseman, I show you what has been marked as
Exhibit 1. It has a CIIN number 1119, and it's a document
dated January 2, 1986, and it appears to be a draft finding
on Iran.
A Mr. Sporkin basically said that we were, or words
to the effect that we were, the U.S. Government was trying
to establish an initiative or open a line of communication
with the moderate elements in Iran and that we, in order
to, you know, in furtherance of that -- in furtherance of
that goal a Finding needed to be prepared to support the
sensitive special activity or covert action.
Q What was said about the types of activities that
would be taken? What did Mr. Sporkin say at that meeting
on those subjects?
A Other than to tell you generally what I've just
described, I really can't — I can't recall specifically
any specifics of what he said at that point in time.
Q Let me see if I can ask you a few specific
questions on things that might have come up to find out
HMCliS£IEtEa
826
yfWSfflSBET
1 if you have a recollection whether they came up.
2 A Yes. There is one thing that I did just
3 remember, but why don't you go ahead.
4 Q What is the one thing that you remember?
5 A I remembered in part because — it's Mr.
Woodcock.
Q That's Mr. Woodcock.
A Yes. I have previously been interviewed by
g Mr. Woodcock and at the close of -- towards the close of that
10 interview, Mr. Woodcock asked me whether there was any
11 discussion during my meeting with Mr. Sporkin about the
12 Israelis being involved in this, whether Mr. Sporkin
13 mentioned that to me. And I had not previously mentioned
14 that in my interview with Mr. Woodcock, and I said at the
15 time that that sort of jogged my memory a bit and that I
recall that that was mentioned. I am not certain about that,
but I recall that that — that Mr. Sporkin may have said
something along the lines of, you know, this is -- in part,
the sensitivity of this is due to our working with our
allies on this including, or our ally Israel or our allies
including Israel.
Q Do you recall what he said on what specifically
Israel had to do with the activity?
A No, I do not. And it may have just been in
terms of sensitive project. That may have just been the
iMi&^lElEL
827
^^WSk'
_^_ 17
nature of it.
Q Did Mr. Sporkin say that arms or any other types
of material would be delivered to Iran?
A I presumed that he did because that is all
contained -- the finding states that — the finding, or part
two of the finding, if you will, the second paragraph of
the finding, states that we would, the U.S. Government would
provide arms, equipment and related materiel to the
Government of Iran. And I recall that when we, that when
Mr. Cole and I submitted this draft finding to Mr. Sporkin,
which I believe would have been on 2 January, that Mr..
Sporkin made, at least initially there were only minor
changes made.
So I would -- I could only assume that in our
initial discussion he mentioned that this finding included
arms and equipment and related equipment.
Q Did Mr. Sporkin say anything in this initial
discussion about hostages and that one objective of the
activity contemplated was release of hostages?
A I really do not recall that.
Q You have no recollection of the subject of
hostages being mentioned?
A No, I do not. But we, you know, again the
finding talks in terms of our activities done in part to help
protect against terrorist activities directed against U.S.
\\m h^^mn
imctiiissiEiiifeT
18
1 persons. It's possible that he may have mentioned that. I
2 do not recall it.
3 But clearly, one of the purposes of the finding
4 was to help protect against terrorist acts directed against
5 U.S. persons, U.S. property, U.S. interests.
Q Did Mr. Sporkin say anything about an earlier
finding relating to Iran?
A I don't believe that he did. If you're referring
9 to the finding that Mr. Makowka — I later learned that
10 Mr- Makowka worked on in, I believe, November of '85, I
11 do not believe that Mr. Sporkin mentioned that earlier
12 finding to me at that time or any previous time or subsequent
13 time,
14 Q When did you first hear anything about the
15 November 1985 finding;
^g A I can't give you a specific date but I assume it
iy probably would have been in November or December of 1986
,|Q when the news became public about the whole Iran initiative.
19 But I do not believe that M(^. Makowka ever discussed that
20 finding with me.
2< And again, let me clarify. Mr. Makowka may have
22 said to me something along the lines of I'm working on a
very sensitive project for Stan or I had to stay late last
night working with the General Counsel, but that would have
been it.
IMASnL
lllTOSfflFirET
19
If he had been instructed by Mr. Sporkin not to
discuss the specifics with me, he would not have, nor would
I have asked. And that is our practice, certainly in our
division.
Q And I take it that in late 1985 and early '86
you heard nothing about a 1985 finding being signed relating
to Iran; is that right?
A I believe that's correct.
Q Did Mr. Sporkin mention Oliver North's name in
the initial discussion with you?
A He might have mentioned it to me . I will say
that Mr. Cole and our secretary and myself certainly knew
that he was bringing the 2 January or the 3 January finding,
the 3 January redraft of the White House, and certainly
my understanding was, my belief was that that was going to
Oliver North.
Q Did you know who North was at that time?
A Generally I knew who he was. I never had any
dealings with him myself. I knew that he was a senior
official in the National Security Council and seemed to be a
person who wielded a fair amount of power in the National
Security Council, but that was the extent of my knowledge of
Mr. North.
Q In what sense was it evident to you that Mr.
North wielded a fair amount of power?
iiNr.us<;ifiEJi
830
wmm
20
1 A In the sense that his name had been mentioned on
2 a number of occasions at office, division chief meetings.
3 Q Who would mention his name?
4 A Oh, possibly George Clarke, who, as I said
5 earlier, had responsibility in covert action areas. Possibly
6 the General Counsel.
7 Q What do you know about the relationship between
8 Mr. North and Mr. Sporkin at or around that time?
9 A I know nothing of the relationship between those
10 two gentlemen.
11 Q You knew that they would have meetings and phone
12 calls, didn't you?
13 A Well, certainly I knew that they had — again, as
14 I said — as I said earlier, not to repeat all of that, my
15 understanding was that Mr. Sporkin was going down to see
16 Mr. North to bring this finding. Either Mr. Sporkin had
17 said that to me directly, that he had to get down to the
18 National Security Council or to the White House, or I
19 surmised that.
20 Q Were you aware of any interaction between North
21 and Sporkin prior to January 2nd?
22 A Nothing specific, other than what I just said to
23 you. His, Mr. North's name I recall had been mentioned at
24 division chief meetings.
25 Q Did you ever see North at the CIA?
UNHAmitL
831
A No, I did not.
Q Have you ever met North?
A No, I have not.
Q Have you ever spoken to him on the phone?
A No, I have not.
Q Did Richard Secord's name come up in this
initial conversation with Mr. Sporkin?
A No, it did not.
Q Did Secord's name come up in any discussions you
had on this subject in January of '86?
A No, it did not.
Q Have you ever met Secord?
A No.
Q Have you ever spoken to him on the phone?
A No.
Q Was anyone else present during this initial
meeting with Mr. Sporkin and yourself?
A I'm not certain about that. The Deputy General
Counsel may have been present at that meeting.
Q And who would that have been? Who was that?
A That would have been Mr. Dietel.
Q What is your best recollection on whether or not
Mr. Dietel was present?
A As I said, I'm not certain. If he were present,
he was almost entirely or entj.rely__in__ijjst a — just present.
m\
yiw.ww^
22
•J The instructions I was receiving and the discussion was really
2 with Mr. Soorkin
3 Q Anyone else present for this meeting?
4 A No. Mr. Cole was not present at that meeting,
5 and Mr. Cole assisted me in drafting this finding, the
3 January finding.
Q I want to get to that, but I want to see if there
is anything else we can learn about the first, January 2nd
Q meeting.
About what time of day was that meeting held,
do you recall?
A I think it was held either late in the morning
or around the lunch hour, or perhaps early afternoon, in
that time frame. I knew -- 1 think we had several hours,
you know. Mr. Sporkin, again, told us that he needed
something back expeditiously, and he either said this or the
implication was he needed it by close of business that day.
And I know we had several hours to do it.
Q Did the subject of whether or not there would be
advance congressional notification of the finding come up
during this initial discussion with Mr. Sporkin?
A In reviewing the 2 January and the 3 January
finding, I see the 2 January finding talks about notification
to the committees. The 3 January finding has alternative
language. That subject came up. Whether it came up
ML&SSIflEIL
833
UIKi^ffi^T
23
on the first, or in my initial meeting with Mr. Sporkin or
the meeting the next day, I don't remember.
I think it might have, it might have come up in
the initial meeting and it might have come up along the lines
of this is just a sensitive matter, but I'm not certain on
that point.
Q I take it that it was clear during this
discussion, this initial discussion that the objective of
what Mr. Sporkin was asking you to do was to get a finding
prepared; is that right?
A ' That's correct.
Q Did you discuss whether or not there should be
a finding or was it clear right from the start that there
needed to be a finding?
A No, we did not discuss whether from — we did
not discuss whether there should be a finding. We did not
discuss any policy implications on the finding. It wa s a
matter of the General Counsel saying to — it was a matter
of the General Counsel giving me instructions to prepare
this, and then my reviewing section 501 of the National
Security Act and preparing the finding in accordance with
the statute and in accordance with the previous documents
that I have mentioned to you that we had located.
Q Did Mr. Sporkin in the initial discussion say
anything about the National Security Council and its role in
\e National security ijouncu
Mime.
834
im^HP'
24
1 its role in the contemplated activities?
2 A I do not believe so. I'm fairly confident he did
3 not.
4 Q Did you understand that the activities under
5 consideration were to be carried out by Central Intelligence
6 Agency people?
7 A That wasn't discussed but that would have been
8 my understanding. The executive order. Executive Order
9 12333 states that the agency within the United States that
10 will ordinary carry out what Executive Order 12333 defines
11 as special activities, or what's more commonly known as
12 covert action, is to be carried out by the Central
13 Intelligence Agency unless the President specifically finds
14 that another agency is more fully — is better suited to
15 conduct that kind of an activity.
Ig So my understanding would have been that this
nee Agency carrying this
17
18 out.
Q Did Mr. Sporkin give any indication to you at
that first meeting or any other time —
A Um hum.
Q — that there had been an earlier shipments of
arms to Iran that the CIA had been involved with?
A No, he did not.
MR. FEIN: Did he indicate whether private
mamL
835
OlTOKSStBIST
25
parties would be involved in the covert action contemplated?
Since that was a part of the drafting evolution —
THE WITNESS: When you say private parties
involved in — did you say private parties —
MR. FEIN: Yes, I did.
THE WITNESS: — involved in providing arms?
MR. FEIN: Well, in the overall covert action
that was the subject of the finding.
THE WITNESS: Well, with regard to providing arms,
I don't recall that there was any discussion of that. There
presumably was discussion of private parties in the sense
that the 2 and 3 January findings refer to working with
individuals; for example, working with individuals and
organizations both within and outside of Iran and liaison
services and other foreign government entities. So in that
general sense, that was probcibly mentioned that there would
be, you know, the finding should be written to include not
only working with another government but with a liaison
service or individuals or organizations.
But, as I said, there was no discussion on
using private persons, to the best of my recollection, to
provide arms to the Iranians.
BY MR. CAROME:
Q Did Sporkin, in this initial discussion, say
anything about who within Iran was to be the recipient of
UMPi i^^Ol
836
IRfti^ftSr
^ _^ 26
1 arms?
2 A I don't recall. I can only say that in reviewing
3 the 2 January finding and comparing it with the 3 January
4 finding, the 2 January finding refers to providing arms to
5 the government of Iran, whereas the 3 January finding refers
to providing arms to moderate elements within the government
7 of Iran, or moderate elements within Iran. I don't have the
3 3 January finding in front of me.
Could you repeat that one, please? Repeat the
IQ question?
^1 Q- The question was, was there any discussion at
this initial meeting with Sporkin on the subject of who
within Iran was to be the recipient of arms?
A Okay. I can't recall whether at the initial
meeting that discussion came up, but certainly during one
of the meetings that subject was discussed, or that subject
was, Mr. Sporkin said you — yes, that subject was discussed.
Q And what did he say on that subject?
A He — I can't remember specifically, but it was
along the lines of the finding should be drafted or needs to
be drafted so that we, so that we provide arms to the
moderate elements in Iran, or in the Iranian government.
And I do not recall that there was much discussion on that.
It was a wetter of Mr. Sporkin as the General Counsel giving
me instructions as to how to draft, how to prepare this
IMASSIQEL
837
mmm
finding.
Q Mr. Sporkin said that this was a highly
sensitive matter, is that right?
A That's correct.
Q Did he explain to you why it was sensitive?
A I don't recall. But I do recall at the time
that he, the whole subject was — I do recall that at the
time that I was called in by Mr. Sporkin and he mentioned
the subject matter it seemed to me to be a very, an
extremely sensitive kind of subject in the sense that we
were establishing an initiative with the Iranian government.
Q And why would that be sensitive?
A Because at the time we did not^relations with
Iran. That was my perspective.
Q Was one of the factors that made it sensitive
at that time the fact that any public disclosure that the
United States was initiating relations with Iran would be
a political fire storm if disclosed to the public?
A Could you repeat that again, please?
Q Was one factor contributing to the sense of
sensitivity of this matter the fact that public disclosure
of the subject would cause a political fire storm?
A I do not know what Mr. Sporkin was thinking but
that was not a consideration of mine. It just seemed to be
to me that this was a — that, you know, Iran was a terrorist
ICUOTEi.
W85IFW
28
1 or is a terrorist — was and is a terrorist nation or nation
2 that supports international terrorism, and that we did not
3 have relations with Iran, and that this was an initiative
4 to establish relations, and in that sense, in a foreign
5 policy sense, if you will, it seemed to me to be very
6 significant and something that was very sensitive.
7 MR. FEIN: Well, isn't it true that those who
8 are related to the Shah in the United States in the
9 aftermath of the Khomeini takeover were summarily executed
10 in that, if they were moderates who it was publicized, in
11 Iran, were making contacts with the United States and that
12 fact was leaked, they could be summarily executed? So the
13 whole effort to establish a link with the moderates would
14 collapse because any publicity would be the demise of the
15 moderates in Iran, since there is no indication that the
16 Ayatollah himself has changed colors like a chameleon.
17 THE WITNESS: I don't know the answer to that
18 question.
19 BY MR, CAROME:
20 Q Did Mr. Sporkin say anything about the fact that
21 the weapons to be provided to Iran were to be used in the
22 Iran-Iraq conflict?
23 A Again my recollection is based on what's contained
24 in the finding, and I would presume that he did state that.
25 Q You have no independent recollection of the
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
m^^
29
1 discussion of use of the weapons in the Iran-Iraq war?
2 A Well, I do — I have, I have a, some recollection
3 that in these, that in this discussion or in these
4 discussions with Mr. Spor)tin that we — there was concern
5 that the weapons not be used against U.S. interests, and
6 that's reflected in the finding.
7 Q Was it also evident that the weapons would be
used against Iraq?
g A As I said, from reading the finding, I would
have to assume that that was something that was discussed.
Q How long did the first meeting with Mr. Sporkin
10
11
12 last?
A It may have lasted, more or less, 10 to 15
minutes.
^g Q And what happened after the meeting?
A Well, before the meeting closed, having worked
on a previous|^^^^^^||inding with Mr. Cole,
have initiated this or Mr. Sporkin may have initiated this,
but I certainly didn't, I certainly on something like this
would not have had Mr. Cole assist me on this without getting
specific authorization from the General Counsel.
So I may have said Mr. — I may have said,
Stan, do you want me to work on this alone or do you have
any objection if Gary Cole works on this with me; or Stan
may have said, you can do this alone or with Gary Cole. It's
840
IWSBISSieiilT
30
1 not to be discussed with anyone. It's not to be discussed
2 with anyone else.
3 But it was clear, my orders were clear that I
4 could work with Gary Cole but that this was not to be
5 discussed with anyone else within or outside of the office.
And your question was, what was the process after
that? I immediately called Gary Cole and described this,
described as Mr. Sporkin had described it to me, and the two
9 of us sat down and drafted this. We may have actually sat
10 down together and drafted it or we may have worked
11 independently or divided it up, you know, one person working
12 on one paragraph, one person working on the other.
13 Q Did Mr. Sporkin indicate to you that you should
14 complete a draft of the finding before the end of the day?
^5 A I think that he did. That certainly was my
16 understanding, and I recall that this finding was submitted
17 to Mr. Sporkin by the close of business. If it were not by
■jg close of business, it would have been -- well, it's dated
19 2 January. I'm assuming that it was done by the end of that
20 ^^y •
Q Did Mr. Sporkin say anything in the first meeting
about how soon the contemplated activity was to occur?
A No, he did not.
Q So that afternoon, I take it you and Mr. Cole
25 sat down and began working on the drafting of what became
841
mms
31
Exhibit No. 1; is that right?
A That's correct.
Q And what sources did you draw on to prepare this
first draft finding?
A I would say we drew on three sources. We drew
on the information, the directions that Mr. Sporkin had given
to me, number one. Number two, we drew on the previous
materials I mentioned at the outset of this deposition --
other findings and related papers, and the proper formatting
of those types of findings. And, number three, we drew on
the language of section 501 of the National Security Act of
1947 to ensure that the finding was consistent with that —
consistent with that language and fell within the parameters
of that statute.
Q And by the end of the you —
A And I should add we also certainly referred to
the Hughes-Ryan amendment, the so-called Hughes-Ryan
amendment .
Q And you completed the draft by the end of the
day, is that right?
A I believe that we did.
Q In looking at the draft I see that there is a
sentence at about the middle of the page that refers to
provide intelligence, counterintelligence, et cetera, to the
identified potential alternative leaders.
iiAinn^siflfo,.
842
m^!^
32
1 A Um hum.
2 Q What do you recall Mr. Sporkin saying on the
3 question of providing intelligence to alternative leaders?
A Well, he might have said, and he probably would
have if there is that language in this first draft -- he
probably said that the U.S. Government was attempting to
establish relations with more moderate elements within Iran
or within the Iranian government. But I don't believe that
9 he said anything substantially beyond that.
10 Q He must have said something along the lines of
11 we're going to provide these elements with intelligence,
12 is that right?
13 A He might have or this — no, this draft is dated
2 January 86. It's possible that Mr. Cole and I presented
him with the draft and Mr. Sporkin revised it, and then this
was printed out on our typewriters as the 2 January 86
finding at the end of the day.
So it's possible that the language that Mr. Cole
and I gave to Mr. Sporkin is not exactly what you see here.
Q I see.
A In other words, we may have gone back towards
the end of the afternoon and said, Stan, here is a draft,
and he looked at it and made some changes in it and then gave
it back to us for retyping.
Q Do you recall that's the way it happened? That
UJUCUmLl
843
W^^>1^
33
you presented Mr. Sporkin with a draft on the 2nd?
A You've asked me that before and I ~ to the best
of my recollection, I think we did.
Q So you recall having taken a draft back to Mr.
Sporkin later that day, is that right?
A Yes, I do.
Q Do you recall doing that personally, actually
walking it up to his office?
A Yes, I would have done that.
Q And did you have any conversation with Mr.
Sporkin at that time?
A I, I'm not certain but I don't believe so. I
believe that I probably showed him the draft and waited in
the office, either in his office and/or in my office,
waiting for him to give me any further instructions; and I
would not have left that evening I'm certain until the
General Counsel said that's fine for tonight.
But I don't recall whether we had any further
discussion at that period of time or whether it was a matter
of handing the General Counsel the draft and having him
review it and make whatever changes he might want to make
in that.
Q This draft that's marked Exhibit 1, do you recall
or can you tell whether that is what you and Mr. Cole
originally drafted;
WUISSIQLL
844
uimsswi^'
34
1 A It certainly is — I can't, as I said before, I
2 can't say with certainty that this is exactly the draft that
3 we gave to Mr. Sporkin and that there are no changes. But
4 this certainly had most of the elements of what we did;
5 in other words, we didn't give him a piece of paper and
6 Mr. Sporkin totally revised it — Mr. Sporkin totally
7 rejected our work and revised it and came up with this.
8 Q And you can't recall anything that Mr. Sporkin
9 would have told you at the time you presented him with this
10 first draft on the 2nd; is that right?
11 A No, I really can't. I would be speculating if
12 I tried to do that.
13 Q You don't recall him saying, you need to make
14 these changes in it, at that time, do you?
15 A Well, I'm not sure. You know, there are obvious
16 changes between the 2 January and the 3 January draft and
17 I am not certain whether he said that evening on 2 January,
18 I want some additional changes, or whether he called me back
19 into his office again on 3 January and asked us to work on
20 that again.
21 In fact, my best recollection of this was that
22 I provided the draft to Mr. Sporkin and that he made some
23 changes and — when I say my best recollection, my initial
24 recollection of the scenario was that I provided this to
25 Mr. Sporkin and he made some changes, and then he went down
IMiHSSlEe^
845
m&iMi^
to the National Security Council that first evening; however,
the records don't reflect that, so I assume that I'm
incorrect on that.
Q What you assume is incorrect is that Sporkin
didn't go down to the White House until January 3rd; is that
right?
A That's right. The records reflect that he did
not go down on the 2nd and that he brought the 3 January
finding down on the 3rd, and I have no reason to doubt the
record on that.
Q Is it possible that you didn't present the first
draft to Mr. Sporkin until the following morning; namely,
January 3rd?
A That's possible but I believe it's highly
unlikely. When the General Counsel indicated that he wanted
something of this nature done, done quickly, I can't imagine
that Mr. Cole and I would have left the office until that
would have been done. And I'm sure our secretary -- I know
our secretary would have stayed regardless of how late that
was.
Q And Mr. Sporkin would have stayed that late, too?
A Well, that would depend. If we finished at
nine o'clock at night, he might not have stayed. But again,
I don't — I believe that we, as I said before, I believe we
provided this to him the first evening.
'mASSlElElL
846
BNBII^IW'
1 (A document was marked
2 Deposition Exhibit DR No. 2 for
3 identification.)
4 MS. McGINN: Can we go off the record for a
5 minute?
6 MR, CAROME: Sure.
7 (Recess.)
5 BY MR. CAROME:
g Q What happened, Mr. Roseman, with respect to the
10 drafting of this finding on January 3rd?
11 A • As I just said — (pause) — it was, we either
12 completed the drafting on the 2nd or on the 3rd of January
13 Mr. Sporkin called me in and asked me to redraft the finding,
14 in part.
Q I show you what has been marked as Exhibit 2 .
A Yes.
Q Did you play a role in the drafting of this
Exhibit 2? Do you recognize this document?
A I -- yes, I do recognize the document.
Q What is it?
A What is thi-s document?
Q Yes,
A It's a finding, dated 3 January 86, dealing with
Iran.
And you played a role in the drafting of this.
wmm.
847
ONJa^WFT
WW-. . ^^
is that right?
A Well, what I recognize, really — specifically
what I recognize is the alternative language at the outset
in terms of "essential to limit prior notice" to the
committees or directing the DCI to provide notice to the
committees. That language I specifically recall.
The other language, I have no recollection
between the — let me rephrase that. With regard to the
body of the finding, I don't recall specifically what was
done in the first draft versus the second draft.
MR. CAROME: Could we go off the record for just
a second.
(Discussion off the record.)
BY MR. CAROME:
Q Just so it is clear, you do recall being asked
by Mr. Sporkin to include something on alternative language?
A Yes, I definitely recall that.
Q And when did Mr. Sporkin speak to you about that
subject?
A I am not, I cim not certain on that, but I do know
that — I am not certain when he asked me to draft
alternative language in the finding. The alternative
language dealing with notification to the Congress. However,
I am certain that that subject was discussed.
Q And what did he say on that subject?
wuma,
848
imu^er
1 A Well, he asked me to draft alternative language.
2 Q Did he say why that was to be done?
3 A Well, I don't recall specifically but I presume
4 that the discussion was along the lines of this matter is
5 extremely sensitive and under section 501 of the National
6 Security Act under certain limited circumstances prior notice
7 to the committees is not — may not be required and so we
should draft alternative language.
9 Q You recognize that that was at least highly
10 unusual that not notifying Congress would be contemplated;
11 is that' right?
12 A Well I am not the expert on that subject because,
13 as you said at the outset, we, the Intelligence Law Division,
14 doesn't otdinarily get involved in drafting findings. But
15 my sense was certainly that that was the exception rather
15 than the rule.
17 Q Did Mr. Sporkin indicate who would be the person
18 to choose between the alternatives on the question of
19 notification?
2Q A No, he did not.
Q And with respect to the body of the January 3rd
draft —
A Um hum.
Q — am I correct that what you say is that you
don't have a recollection of what caused these changes to be
849
16
21
m^m
1 made?
2 A No, I do not.
3 Q You have no such recollection?
4 A That's correct.
5 Q I see that one change is the addition of a
paragraph number 2 referring to obtaining from them
intelligence.
Do you recall where that idea came from?
A No, I do not. In fact, as I said, I don't recall
10 whether, specifically in the body of this, how the final
11 drafting came about.
12 Q You are not sure whether or not you even played
13 a role in the changes between the — to the body of the
14 finding between the January 2nd and January 3rd draft; is
15 that what you're saying?
A I'm not certain. I would assume that I played
17 some role in that.
Q And any changes that are made here are either
19 the result of suggestions or directions from Mr. Sporkin or
20 his own direct edits; is that right?
A That would be correct, yes. I think the way you
22 have just phrased it is the most accurate way of
23 characterizing this.
Q The second line of this, of the descriptive
portion of the January 3rd finding, refers to selected
utmffiL.
850
Uim^HEF
foreign liaison services. Do you know what that is a
reference to?
A No, I do not, except to reference my earlier
statement that I recall that there was a reference made to
Israel.
Q Do you recall any reference to any other
countries besides Israel?
A No, I do not.
Q That same second line of this description of the
January 3rd finding refers to third countries, in the
plural. •
Do you know whether additional countries besides
Israel were contemplated, even if you don't know the
identity of those countries?
A No, I do not. And with regard to the answer I
just gave to you, when you said "selected foreign liaison
services," I'm not certain whether the reference to Israel
was with regard to foreign liaison services or third
countries. It was just possibly a reference to Israel.
Q Other than Israel, you don't know what either the
phrase "liaison services" or "third countries" could refer to,
is that right?
A That's correct.
Q What else happened on January 3rd relating to this
finding that you know of?
ui^lAMlEL
851
mms
41
1 A Again, as I've stated before the best of my
2 recollection, if I worked on the finding on the 3rd, then I
3 continued drafting or redrafting, making suggested — making
4 changes that the General Counsel had suggested; and the only
5 other thing that I know that went on, based on my review of
6 the record, is that the record indicates Mr. Sporkin on
7 3 January brought the finding down to the National Security
8 Council.
9 And when I say the record indicates that, that's
10 a cover sheet that I believe our secretary would have
11 prepared to deal with handling of a Top Secret document.
12 (A document was marked
13 Deposition Exhibit DR No. 3 for
14 identification.)
15 BY MR. CAROME:
Q Mr. Roseman, I show you what's been marked as
Exhibit 3 and ask you is the front page of Exhibit 3 the
18 cover sheet that you just described?
19 A Yes, it is.
Q And that is the source of your understanding that
Mr. Sporkin took this to Mr. North on January 3rd; is that
22 rights
A Yes, that's correct.
Q Do you have any information independent of this
cover sheet that that's what took place? Did Mr. Sporkin
iiMQiiimi.
852
m^^
42
1 tell you that that was going to happen on January 3rd?
2 A I presume that he — he may not have mentioned
3 Mr. North, but I presume that he told me, or me and Mr. Cole,
that he was going down to the White House. I'm fairly
5 certain of that.
6 This reference here in Exhibit No. 3 really
7 confirms what my understanding was, at least insofar as
8 Mr. Sporkin's going to the National Security Council
Q What was Mr. Cole's role in the preparation of
10 the January 2nd and January 3rd drafts?
11 A • Well, as I think I've explained before, Mr.
12 Cole's role was essentially to assist me in drafting those
13 findings, getting his direction from me based on what Mr.
14 Sporkin had told me.
15 Q Did the three of you, that means you, Mr.
16 Sporkin and Mr. Cole, meet together on this matter?
17 A I don't recall that.
^Q Q If we could just briefly review the other pages
19 to what is Exhibit 3. The second page is something that is
20 marked "dummy copy." Do you know what that is?
A A dummy copy is the way we deal with certain
very sensitive documents in our, at least in our OGC
recordkeeping system. In other words, the full text copy
will go to the actual recipient, and may go to some other
recipients, but a dummy copy is put into what's called our
25 recip
llNfiUSSlHEIL.
853
ifflSSIfiS'
43
1 signer files, which is a record of everything an attorney
2 has drafted.
3 A dummy copy would be put into our OGC chrono --
chronology file — would be put into, perhaps, the OGC
5 registry; but it is done so that very sensitive matters are
not spread out, if you will, throughout the office.
Q Does this dummy copy page reflect that any of
your own files were going to receive a copy of these
materials?
A Well, to me the dummy copy says -- distribution:
original. Colonel Ollie North; ICA subject file, copy 2;
OGC chrono, dummy copy; ILD opinion — if your question was
would I receive that, personally I don't have control over
the ILD opinion files but that would be within my area.
And "GDC Signer" would be Gary Cole, signer.
Q And why was he the signer of this document?
A It could have been one of two reasons. The
secretary could have assumed that he did more of the actual
drafting or the secretary could have simply made a choice
between him and me.
Ordinarily, the secretaries will put the, will
put in the signer --will put a memo in the signer of the
attorney who has done most of the actual drafting. However,
that is not a hard and fast rule.
Q Did Mr. Cole do most of the drafting of the
IIUCltSSKlEL.
854
1 finding? The draft finding on January 2nd, January 3rd?
2 A I think he may have done the actual drafting.
3 I think he may have done a bit more, but I recall it was
fairly equal. We both played active roles in that.
Q And the next pages appear to be, first, the
January 3rd draft, marked "draft"; and the January 2nd
draft, marked "draft"; and the last page is an undated
document which is actually a copy of what appears to be the
g November mini-finding.
10 Is it correct that you did not see this last
■J1 page at any time prior to November 1986?
12 A That is correct,
13 Q Once the finding had been taken down by Mr.
14 Sporkin to the White House, did you hear anything more about
15 the finding?
,|g A To the best of my recollection, I did not.
17 Q Do you recall speaking to Mr. Sporkin about the
13 finding at any time after it had been taken down to the
White House on the 3rd?
A No, I do not recall having done that.
Q Did you ever hear anything in January or February
of 1986 about whether or not the finding you had worked on
had been signed?
A Certainly not from Mr. Sporkin and, no, nothing --
when you say did jab^^tf^^VViVIPtrfV'^^^^ nothing. The
mmm'
855
m^ms!^
only subsequent discussion or discussions that I would have
had on that would have been with Mr. Cole and with Mr.
Makowka when Mr. Makowka returned from — he was either on
leave at that time and/or had been ill. And when Mr. Makowka
came back I'm certain that I briefed him on this, and I'm
certain that Mr. Cole and Mr. Makowka and I on one or more
occasions among the three of us said has anybody heard
anything about the finding? And the answer, as I recall,
nobody knew anything more. Certainly Mr. Cole and I didn't.
Q Did you ever ask Mr. Sporkin , "What happened with
respect to the finding we had worked on"?
A I don't — I do not believe that I did.
Q Were yofl^tware of «5^eting« tSat vxe g^g on
on the subject of providing arms to- Iran during "January
•86? " - ■ = ' - J:.
out 0^he offi«e-f<^^ period of
A Yesf there was
Q And what were the dat«»- that you were out of the
office? , :-^ '^^^ "1_.5"- -^ -^ ~.
A z- WelV I'm at_l,iftAt: certeni^that t--**«« o^t of the
office the week of 6 Jairaary. ^-^^
a_ iFoxL.All of that week? _.r
A YesT --- "^
856
m^im
1 Q Were you aware that Mr. Cole participated in
2 meetings on the subject of the finding and related matters
3 during that week?
A Yes. I was subsequently made aware of that.
Exactly when I don't recall, but subsequently I was made
aware of that.
Q And what did you learn about those meetings or
meeting?
9 A Well I had a copy -- well let me backtrack.
10 When the — after November of '86, when the Iran
11 initiative became public and we received requests from
12 various, you know, the Independent Counsel and the
13 committees to review our files for documents, at least at
14 that point in time I reviewed my files, of course, and one
15 of the documents that I located in my files was a draft of a
•jg memo-, which I believe was dated 6 January 86, from Betty Ann
■J7 Smith to George Clarke, on arms transfer.
■^Q Q And you understand that that was the subject or
ig a subject at the meeting or meetings that Mr. Cole
participated in the week of January 6th?
A I am not certain but I believe that it was.
Q Did you have any discussions on that subject
during January of '86?
A No. In fact, you know, what may have happened
was that when I returned the following week Mr. Cole may have
liliiciji.OTm„.
857
ONtmEifiT
1 given me a co^^^' that memo and indicated tliat he was
2 involved in a follow-up meeting. I probably retained that
3 memo because it was of interest to me, the legal analysis on
4 foreign military sales, not in terms of any Iran initiative.
5 I retained that document I am certain just because it had
6 reference to statutes and some legal analysis on a number of
7 different statutes.
Q In any of your discussions that you participated
9 in in January of '86, were you ever told that freeing hostages
10 was one of the objectives of the activities to be undertaken?
11 AT don't believe so.
12 Your question was, was I — could you go over
13 your question again?
14 Q The question was, did you ever learn in
15 January of '86 that freeing hostages was one of the
16 objectives of the finding?
A No. I don't believe that I ever learned that.
Q In January '86 did you ever come to learn what
the NSC's relationship to the finding was?
A Other than what I have previously stated here
21 the answer is no.
Q I'm not sure of what you're referring to.
A Well, in other words, knowing that Mr. Sporkin
brought the finding down to the National Security Council,
other than that fact, no, I have no — I was not told about
iiiiicysfiigj^&».
858
imssRi^
1 what role the NSC may have played in all of this.
2 Q The activity that kept you out of the office
3 during the week of January 6 was a management course; is
4 that right?
5 A That's correct.
Q And not only did you hear nothing more about the
findings that you had worked on in early January, you also
heard nothing about a January 17th, 1986 finding; is that
9 right?
10 A That's correct; I heard nothing about that.
11 Q ■ Do you recall writing a note to Mr. Makowka on
12 the subject of the drafting of the finding in early January?
13 A I can't recall specifically having done that;
1^ however, when Mr. Makowka would be out of the office for a
15 period of time, say, several days or a week, if I for some
reason was not going to be in the office on the day he
returned, my ordinary practice would be to dictate a note to
the secretary, just going over a whole list of all of the
activities that came to our division in the last few days
or in the last week or in the last month, however long Mr.
Makowka might have been out.
-_ In fact, prior to my interview with Mr. Woodcock
I had thought of that. That there might be something in that
note, and asked my secretary to — or asked our division
secretary to review division files, review her own, you know.
IINiHMlfJL.
859
nR»$smT
1 her own files. She even reviewed her own steno notebook and
2 she couldn't find any such note. So I may have written one
3 and I may not have.
4 Q But you're satisfied that an adequate search
5 has been done for that and one wasn't located; is that right?
6 A Yes, I am satisfied.
7 MR. FEIN: Could I interrupt for just one second
and go off the record;
g (Discussion off the record.)
10 BY MR. CAROME:
•J1 Q ■ Other than the drafts of the findings we have
12 already looked at today
13 A Um hum.
14 Q — are you aware of the existence of any
15 documents that relate to the drafting work in early January;
^g A Drafting work on these findings?
17 Q That's right.
A No, with the qualification that I indicated
earlier, that Mr. Cole and I had used some other background-
type of papers to assist us in drafting these types of
findings. But that's the only other.
Q Did you take any notes of your discussions with
Mr. Sporkin?
A Yes, I did.
Q And did you keep those notes?
llIiltliOTElL
860
mi^tiir
50
A No. I would have discarded those notes pretty -
at the time we drafted this or pretty shortly thereafter.
Q Was that because Mr. Sporkin said something
about not keeping papers on the subject?
A No, he said nothing of that sort. He said
absolutely nothing of that sort. That was just a matter of
practice, if you will. Just taking notes down on what
-somebody is giving instructions on and doing the assignment,
and the notes have no independent value.
There was nothing unusual in discarding those
notes in connection with this particular matter than in
connection with any other matter I would have hemdled.
861
T5
] c\ci,es S I —- S 3i
'^
862
IJiKIASaElii&T
1
2
3 Q Let me turn back to the point at which you became
4 involved in drafting the January 1 — excuse me — January 2
5 and 3 finding. I was not present at the beginning of this
6 deposition but I recall from our interview that as a member
7 of the Intelligence Division of the Office of General Counsel
8 it was not a usual thing for you to be involved in the
9 drafting of a finding; is that correct?
10 A That's correct.
11 Q' And when you had this task brought to your domain
12 you sought guidance from earlier findings; is that correct?
13 A 'That's correct.
14 Q Had you known about a November finding on the
15 same subject, then, presumably, you would have used that as
1g well; is that correct?
17 A Presumably we would have.
1g Q But you did not use that, is that correct?
A We were not aware of the November finding and
we did not use the November finding.
Q Let me turn to the two findings that have been
22 marked Deposition Exhibits Nos. 1 and 2. If you would direct
23 your attention to both of those.
24 The finding that is dated January 3, Deposition
25 Exhibit No. 2, contains a reference to providing training
l^MHiSSlElEll
863
BH8R^»T
55
and guidance to the moderate elements. Do you have any
understanding as to what that meant?
A No, I do not.
Q That does appear to be a change from the previous
day's effort, but I gather you have no understanding as to
whether that meant U.S. personnel might go to Iran or what
they might be training the moderates to do?
A No. I have no understanding of what that term
meant.
Q Do you have any idea where it came from?
A ' It could have come from another finding that
Mr. Cole and I had used as a -- used in assisting us in
drafting this. It could have been Mr. Sporkin's addition.
Those are two possibilities.
Q You have no independent recollection, however,
I gather?
A No, I do not. It could have been Mr. Sporkin
saying to us add in the word "training" or making some
suggestions, but I have no recollection on that at this time.
Q The January 3 finding. Deposition Exhibit No. 2,
also uses the term, in the second paragraph, "establish
contact with the moderate elements."
A Um hum.
Q At the time this finding was drafted did you have
any understanding as to whether contact had already been made
1
ng as to whether contact naa
llUtUSSlBQL
864
^KSStPKlT
56
1 with the moderate elements or whether this was something
2 prospective?
3 A My best recollection would be that this was
4 prospective.
5 Q And what would you base that recollection on?
6 A I base that recollection on the language of the
7 finding here. I would really be purely speculating if I said
8 that, you know, in my discussions with Mr. Sporkin that he
9 had indicated that there had already been any contact. I
10 have no recollection of that.
11 Q ' You, I believe, probably were already asked this
12 in the deposition but let me —
13 A Let me just clarify that last point. Obviously,
14 the discussions went along the lines, something along the
15 lines of we are trying to establish, establish initiative,
•jg something along — you know, or we had tried to make efforts
to do this.
Q When you say obviously, you're gleaning that from
19 the language of the finding, I gather?
2Q A Yes, I'm gleaning that from the leuiguage of the
21 finding.
22 Q Did you have an understanding as to whether the
arms and equipment that are referred to in Deposition Exhibit
No. 2 refer to any particular kinds of arms; whether, say,
anything from handguns to missiles were contemplated?
llNOii^ElElL
865
isj^ffir
57
A No; I don't believe that any of that was discussed
with me.
Q The initial finding that was drafted —
A Urn hum.
Q — Deposition Exhibit No. 1, refers to providing
arms to the government of Iran. That contrasts with
language in Deposition Exhibit No. 2 that refers to providing
arms to the moderate elements.
A That's correct.
Q Did you have any understanding as to how you
could provide arms to the moderate elements that would not
ipso facto be provided to the government of Iran?
A No, I had no understanding of that. And in fact,
that particular point puzzled me and I recall discussing
that with Mr. Cole, and I recall that it puzzled him
somewhat, too.
Q Let rae try and sharpen the point a bit.
Presumably, if something as low power as handguns are being
provided, then you might be able to provide those to a
moderate faction within Iran and not have it go to the
government of Iran; is that correct?
A I would be just — I would merely be
speculating on that.
Q Okay .
A I'm not an expert on the Iranian hierarchy.
tiiiiciiiimiL.
866
m«5Si«iir
58
1 Q I understand. I'm trying to make a point of
2 contrast here.
3 If, however, you provide a missile or a series
4 of missiles, that's the kind of item that it is going to be
5 hard for a moderate group to hold unto themselves, just in
terms of common sense. Would you agree with that?
7 A I would have to agree that it would be more
8 difficult to deal with a missile than with a handgun.
Q Okay. Now the reason I asked for that, or tried
10 to make that contrast is to see if that would assist your
11 recollection in this conversation that you had with Mr. Cole
12 as to why it was that you thought there would be a problem
13 providing weapons to a small faction that would not ipso
14 facto go to the government.
.^5 In other words , did you have an understanding as
1g to what kind of weapons would be involved, given that you
■J7 focused on that problem?
.fg A It's possible that we did but I think unlikely,
^g and certainly now I have no recollection of that.
I might add that you talked about common sense
before and that, you know, it may have been that at the time
common sense led us to think that if this was being used in
an Iran-Iraq conflict it would be more than handguns.
Q That certainly would be an exercise of common
sense.
^^.^nwlifc^Wfe
867
iaisw
A Yes.
Q The January 3 finding has the alternative
language in it, which you have recognized, on notice to
Congress.
A Um hum.
Q It contains in the first alternative a delay of
notice by the President until he shall otherwise direct.
Is that right?
A That's correct.
Q Now, if the law requires that a finding, notice
of a finding can be delayed, however, Congress is to be
notified in a timely fashion; is that your recollection of
the law?
A Section 501 states that Congress will be kept
fully — currently informed of intelligence activities which
specifically include significant and anticipated
intelligent activities, which under the Hughes-Ryan amendment
includes covert action or special activities.
The law then says that — and it uses this
language. If says, if — well it says, I believe, in
extraordinary circumstances where it's — in extraordinary
circumstances to protect the vital interests of the United
States where it is essential to limit prior notice, prior
notice may be limited to, or notice may be limited to, and
there are eight senior officials in Congress: the chairman.
ii^ii;^^^
UlffiEASSIFISlT
60
1 you know, ranking minority member of the Intelligence
2 Committees and four others.
3 But there is another section of another ~ I
4 believe it's Part B of that section of the National Security
5 Act that says, if there has not been — if the President has
6 not provided the notice as required under subsection (a) ,
7 which was the section I was just referring to, the President
will provide a timely — a full report on a timely basis to
9 Congress of that.
10 Q The reason I asked that question is that the
11 formula used in this first alternative, which is "until I
12 otherwise direct," is really quite indefinite in the time
13 period.
14 Do you recall where it was that particular
15 formula came from?
1g A No, not specifically. I do know that Mr. Cole
17 and I reviewed the National Security Act very carefully to
18 make certain that this alternative language was consistent
19 with the requirements of the law.
Again, I am — this is speculation, but it may
have been that Mr. Sporkin asked that that language be put
in or it may have been language that Mr. Cole and I drafted
ourselves.
Q Do you think leaving it that indistinct is
consistent with the law?
lICLiSSlEiti
61
A I beTieve'tliat this was consistent with the law
when we drafted it, as I said earlier; and as I have just
said, we made every effort to review the statute and ensure
that this type of language met the requirements of the law.
And there was nothing in here, or there is nothing
on the face of this nor nothing that was brought to our
attention at that time that would have indicated that
notification would have been — notification" would not. have
been provided for a period of time.
Q Is it your understanding that notice can be
delayed indefinitely?
A As yott two gentlemen have pointed out earlier,
we are not the experts on special activities and covert
action in Intelligence Law Division, so I would have to
defer to other — others in my office who have that
responsibility and that expertise on that precise question.
Q So the answer would be you're not really sure,
is that correct?
A I would rather let my answer stand as I have just
stated it.
Q There is another point of comparison in these
two exhibits. Deposition Exhibit 1 and Deposition Exhibit 2,
that I'd like to draw your attention to.
The final paragraph of Deposition Exhibit No. 1
provides that the^ asaistanre^ smd the^ is a wide variety of
'mi
r^jnig^^iwn
870
URBEIiSStPtllT
62
1 existence, to Iran will be terminated if the U.S. Government
2 learns that this materiel is being used for purposes other
3 than the furtherance of Iran's war effort against Iraq.
4 That language contrasts with language in the
5 second version of the finding, January 3, which states that
6 these materiels are limited in their use essentially to the
7 Iran-Iraq conflict. This assistance will beycontinued if
8 the U.S. Government learns that these elements are misusing
9 or intend to misuse this assistance for the purpose of
10 reinstituting terrorist actions against U.S. persons,
11 property or interests, or otherwise.
12 Do you recall how that transformation occurred?
13 A No, I do not recall that.
14 Q Did you have any understanding at that time as to
15 whether, if the moderate elements used this materiel to, say,
15 repel a Soviet invasion, that that would have been considered
17 inconsistent with the purposes of this Jinding?
ig A I'm sorry. Repeat that question, please.
19 Q Had the Iranian moderate factions used the
20 materiel that they were going to receive under this initiative
21 to repeil, say, a Soviet invasion, would that have been
22 inconsistent, in your view, with the purposes expressed in
23 either of these two documents?
«. A We really did not discuss any hypotheticals or
25 ^"y
scenarios at that time as to when the assistance would be
IIMCliRRlEP.
871
«
cut off. I do recall that, you know, a clear thrust of this
was to help prevent terrorist acts against the United States,
against U.S. citizens, U.S. property, any U.S. interests.
Q What I'm driving at with this question, and
hoping perhaps to refresh your recollection on the point,
if there was conversation on this point, is whether the
Soviet Union was considered to be a military threat that
needed to be addressed in either of these documents when
you were called upon to draft them?
A I do not recall that the Soviet Union was
discussed with regard to either of these documents.
Q In any way, shape or form, is that correct?
A That's correct.
MR. CAROME: Tim, can I follow-up with something
on that sentence?
MR. WOODCOCK: Yes.
FURTHER EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE
BY MR. CAROME:
Q That last sentence in the January 3rd version
of the finding, which is Exhibit 2, refers to reinstituting
terrorist actions.
Was there any discussion to the effect that the
elements receiving these weapons had previously engaged in
terrorist actions?
A Well, if you're referring to Deposition Exhibit
** TTOlAwilJptPlP«Tk
872
1 No. 2, and you just said the elements receiving these weapons.
2 I, to my knowledge — I mean, I have no knowledge that prior
3 to this finding anyone was — any moderates or anyone in the
4 Iranian government were receiving any weapons.
5 Q No. My focus is on the word "reinstituting , "
which seems to suggest that there had been terrorist actions
and the goal here was to avoid reinstitution of such
terrorist actions by these people. And it seems to be that
9 the reinstituting under discussion here is by the elements
10 receiving the weapons.
11 And I am wondering if you can recall, having
12 focused on this point, any discussion on the question of
13 whether or not the elements receiving these weapons had
14 previously engaged in terrorist acts.
15 A It's possible that there was discussion about
15 dealing with moderates who were acting somewhat more
17 moderate now, somewhat more civilized. But again, to say
that that kind of discussion went on with any kind of
19 certainty is pure speculation on my part.
Q You said that you came to understand at this
time that one goal of the activities contemplated was to
control or stop terrorism; is that right?
A That's correct.
Q Now that goal doesn't seem to appear — I withdraw
JUSSL
873
mmm
65
A Yes, that is — I believe that is stated in both
findings.
Q And do you recall what Mr. Sporkin said about
how the reduction of terrorism fit in with the activities
contemplated here?
A Not specifically. I think I've, you know,
answered that in terms of that there was an interest there
in curtailing terrorist activities against the United States.
FURTHER EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF THE SENATE SELECT COMMITTEE
BY MR. WOODCOCK:
Q ■ Do you recall any discussion of having any
commercial entity or private citizen play a role in the
transferral of weapons or the acceptance of monies from Iran
and putting this policy into effect?
A No. I recall no such discussion.
Q Did you have any understanding as to whether the
United States was going to deal directly with Iran or was
going to use any kind of a screen in its dealings with Iran?
A No, I do not, other than to reference my earlier
statements about recalling that there might have been a
reference to Israel. But other than that, no discussions of
third parties. I'm fairly — I'm very confident that there
was no discussion of private U.S. persons or U.S. groups or
corporations being used to channel this.
Q Or private citizens from any area of the world?
I IvURITb X^Drfwi t*t
874
URcuSSSflHW^
66
A Or private citizens; that's correct.
MR. WOODCOCK: I don't have any more questions.
FURTHER EXAMINATION ON BEHALF OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE
BY MR. CAROME:
Q Just one small point —
A Sure.
Q — to clean something up.
You talked earlier about a1
finding that had been worked on in late 1985, isi that right?
A Yes.
Did you ever learn whether or not that
finding was signed?
A No, I never learned the result of that finding
either.
MR. CAROME: I don't have anything more. We can
go off the record.
(Whereupon, at 3:02 p.m., the taking of the
deposition was concluded.)
WU&ClflCJi,^
875
.^/
f
mf
2^^^<^
ion 652
-gn Assisrancg Act of ig^i'
-ea, _Concer n J nq Opera c Ion r
jTnci
Ot.'er tJ
•pepoi
e^L.u -1-
SCOPE
Iran
DESCRIPTION
foreign liaison f^vfJ^' f"*^ r^'^ selected
government en?Ue to iclenJif;^ '°f'^^"
r::s:;nri?fr"T^"v"----'---"ve
??:ti".r:n:;; :;:::.;";;.,"• -"».'.-:'o,
The White House
'•'ash ington, O.C.
■'ate: 2 January 1986
Uki
CXxaJ ^//f
- S t C RE
876
: DEPOSITION
? EXHISIT
I -hit --^2.
Finding PurBU«nt to Stction %%\
r rnnTT»TM^Tm-mT7iTTn»nLi3j
jEmiji3iirhm-prTiT?rTT«'i^TT»inf^
;TrrwnT7T-rT-gT:>r>rMfT
DRAFT
I b«c«by find that tht following operation in a fortign
countcv (inclading all support nacaaaary to such operation) ia
importLnt to th« national aacurity of tha Onltad Stataa, (and
due to^ts aitraaa^aansitivity and aacurity rlaka, I dataraina
it ia aMontial'tb Halt prior notica, and dlract tha l^iractor
of Cantralvlntallifanca to rafrain from reporting thla Finding
to tha Congress «s provided in Section SOI of the National
Security Act of 1947, aa amended, until I otherwise direct.]
-or-
(and direct the Director of Central Intelligence, or his
deaignec, to report thia Finding to the intelligence conittees
of the Congreas purauant to Section 501 of the National
Security Act of 1947, aa aaended, and to provide auch briefings
as necessary.]
SCOPE
Iran
)E^
DEiOtlPTIOH
Work with Iranian elemeAts, groups and individuals,
selected foreign liaiaok servicea and third countries,
all of which are ayapathetic to O.S. Governaent
interests and which do kot conduct or support
terrorist actions directed againat O.S. persons,
property or interests, cor the purpose of:
(1) establishing a aorC aoderate governaent in Iran,
and (2) obtaining f roa kbea aignificant Intelligence
not otherwise obtainabW,-^o deteraine the current
Iranian Governaent 'a intentiona with respect to its
neighbors and with respect to terrorist acts. Provide
funds, intelligence, counterintelligence, training,
guidance and coaaunieations aasistance to theae
eleaents, groups, individuala, liaiaon aervices and
third countries in support of these activities.
EsUblish contact with the aore aoderata eleaenta
within and outside the Governaent of Iran tb eatablish
their credibility with that Governaent by pM
provision of eras, equipaent and related Matarlel to
these eleaents on condition that these aateciV* ^«
Halted in their use essentially to the Iran- Itaqi
conflict. This asaiatance will be diac«)tinued if the
O.S. Governaent learna that theae eleaabts araj
Blsuslng or intend to aisuse this aaai/Unce, for the
purpose of reinstituting terrorist actions against
O.S. persons^, property or Interests, yhr otherwise.
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Date: 3 January 1986
■'^y ^^tetrJjEIlaJ^^
877
878
UL" AS:";f!Ei
d::-S6-5oo3i
3 .'a.-uary 198 6
D
U
M
M
C
0
p
Y
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Date: 3 January 1986
Distribution:
Original - Col. Oil North (copy 1)
1 - ICA Subject file (copy 2)
1 - OGC Chrono (dummy copy)
1 - ILD Opinion file -(dummy copy)
1 - GDC Signer (dummy copy)
OGCR TS 0801-86
copy 1
r ^ -»
Partially Declassified /Released on.^^^i^-:i]li']
under provitjns of E.3. 1235?^
by S. Reger, f;:tiGr!a! Security Council
djxv^//;
lji?si/iioifl£
879
UUiimodii
c^ <W>'^'^ xf^ Pr^.Jinq Pursuant to Section 662 of
^.■^>_"^^ T.-.e Poreign Aaslatance Act of 1961
-cN-^-
, .v,v"' . :;^'' ^ wPdertancn py tr.t Central Intelligence
i'^ aC'''^.,Av'*^ " Agency in Poreign Countries, Ot.-er
BRAFt
3
^\ - J^"'''" ,j,\v"''' Those Intended Solely for t^.e Pjrpcse
■^"'' "■■ <:^ of Intelligence Collection
I hereby find that the following operation in a foreign
country (incl-ding all support necessary to such operation) is
irportant to t.-e national security of the United States, land
due to Its extrene sensitivity and security risKs, I determine
• t IS essential to li.-nit prior notice, and direct the Director
of Central Intelligence to refrain from reporting this Finding
to the Congress as provided in Section 501 of" t"he~ Nat ional
Security Act of 1947, as amended, until I otherwise direct,]
-or-
[and direct the Directoc of Central Intelligence, or his
designee, to report this Finding to the intelligence conunittees
of the Congress pursuant to Section 501 of the National
Security Act of 1947, as amended, And to provide such briefings
as necessary. )
SCOPE DESCRIPTION
Iran Work with Iranian elements, groups and individuals,
selected foreign liaison services and third countries,
all of which are sympathetic to U.S. Government
interests and which do not conduct or support
terrorist actions directed against U.S. persons,
property or interests, for the purpose of:
(1) establishing a more moderate government in Iran,
and (2) obtaining from them significant intelligence
not otherwise obtainable, to determine the current
Iranian Government's intentions with respect to its
neighbors and with respect to terrorist acts. Provide
funds, lntelliqenc«, counter in:elligence, training,
guidance and communications assistance to these
elements, groups, individuals, liaison services and
third countries in support of these activities.
Establish contact with the more moderate elements
within and outside the Government of Iran to establish
their credibility with that Government by the
provision of arms, equipment and related materiel to
these element* on condition that these materials be
limited In their use tsaentlally to the Iran-Iraqi
conflict. Thla aatlitance will be discontinued if the
O.S. Government learns that these elements are
misusing or Intend to aliuse thia assistance, for the
purpose of rtinstltutlng terrorist actions against
O.S. person*, property or Interests, or otherwise.
The White Bouse
Washington, D.C.
Oats: 3 January
<^xr/j^//S'
880
i^
\v-
3|»c^f;
^~ri
i^
As
•■-ed, Cone
<v^^
■sse r-ten^Trt
^ ■"■ - to Section 6g2 o
196
rninq Opera t ion 3
t-ent.-al Intelirjince
0 1 .- e r T
^^ITTT
[r. Countr i
SoTeT^
T^
an
gence Col,
• e P u r so s e
ion
•ry (including all
■ •-port ant to trie national
t^e following operation
sjppcrt necessary to
SCOPE
Iran
DESCRIPTION
work with individuals and organizations both
foreign liaison services, and other foreign
government entities, to identify, develop and
promote the advancement of moderate alternative
leaders in Iran. Provide intelligence,
counterintelligence, communications assistance
and funding to the identified potential
alternative leaders to promote the
?r.'n^\'f rr' °^* """^ moderate government in
Hif2,-r^ "^ "''"" ^^' threat of terrorism
directed against U.S. persons, property and
interests. Protect and support these
operations by conducting a program of
deception, unilaterally and through third
countries, which may include the use of all
torms of propaganda.
Provide arms, equipment and related materiel to
the Government of Iran to assist in its
military operations against Iraq in order to
encourage to curtailment of terrorist activity
directed against U.S. targets and interests.
This assistance will be terminated if the U S
Government learns that this materiel is being
ased for purposes other than the furtherance of
Iran's war effort against Iraq.
The White House
Washington, D.C.
"■ate: 2 January 1986
<:ZxrAJ ^//^
(^
881
Fi
ndmq Pur
s-ar: to Sec
tior
1 662
of
f-e
For
e
A3
s : s tance
Act of 1561,
AS
Ar.e-ded.
Cor,
cer
n
C =
era t ions
V-der ta«.e- =
Y -■
e Ce'
'. t r a
1 In
tel
i<^e.-
ce
Ac
e r c V ; -. F
or sign Co.- t
r .es
;, ct^
■er
T ' a n
-
se
: -
te-ded Sc
lely for f-e
Pur
00 se
of
Ir. te
ence
LZ
. .ect:on
I .'■.ave Seen 5r:efed on t.-.e efforts being rrade by private
parties to obtain t.-.e release of Americans held hostage in the
Middle East, and hereby find that the following operations m
foreign countries (including all support necessary to such
operations) are important to the national security of the
United States. Because of the extreme sensitivity of these
operations, m the exercise of the President's constitutional
authorities, I direct t.T Director of Central Intelligence .lot
to brief the Congress of the United States, as provided for in
Section 501 of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended,
until such time as I may direct otherwise.
Icstage
Middl.
Reset
! East
Part
ially Declassifi";
'iv.te: p.v
by :. R=;er, '
;oie3Sc(i craaVM^'^'ti
DESCRIPTION
The provision of assistance by the
Central Intelligence Agency to
private parties in their attempt to
obtain the release of Americans
held hostage in the Middle East.
Such assistance is to include the
provision of transportation,
communications, and other necessary
support. As part of these efforts
certain foreign material and
munitions may be provided to the
Government of Iran which is taking
steps to facilitate the release of
the American hostages.
All prior actions taken by U.S.
Government officials in furtherance
of this effort are hereby
ratified .
The White House
Washington, D.C,
drx/y "^/^o
m^m^^
882
£r&NOGRAFHIC MINUTBB
ijiiravlse
Not for I
iEr^
%;<
/87
rm-nfc ' ifiF I — COPIES
UJS. ^yUSE OF BEPBESENTATIVBS
t
W
Partially Declassified/Released on.
under provisions ol E 0 12356
V^ by K Johnson National Security Coi
•l-l an85
omci OP ra> CLBK
OflMiCOadal
yHClASMB....^-^-
884
Dotson/drg
Take #1
BNttASStPKlT
DEPOSITION OF WILLIAM PAUL ROSENBLATT
Friday, September 25, 1987
U.S. House of Representatives,
Select Committee to Investigate
Covert Arms Transactions with Iran,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:10 a.m.,
in Room B-336, Rayburn House Office Building, Pamela
Naughton presiding.
Present: Pamela Naughton, on behalf of the House
Select Committee.
Robert Genzman, on behalf of the House Select Committee.
Thomas McGough, on behalf of the House Select
Committee.
Also present: Elizabeth B. Anderson, on behalf of the
Partially Declassified/Released on /4J<^fV ■ 88
under pfovisions of E 0 12356
by K Johnson. National Secutity Council
Witness
• MBm VLJBWl I If IMLff Ifl
DNfiEASSIffir'
Whereupon,
2 WILLIAM PAUL ROSENBLATT,
3 was called as a witness on behalf of the House Select Com-
* mittee and having been duly sworn, was examined and testified
5 as follows:
6 EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUoE SELECT
7 COMMITTEE
8 BY MS. llAUGHTON:
9 Q Could you state your full name for the record.
10 A William Paul Rosenblatt. R-o-s-e-n-b-l-a-t-t.
11 Q Could you state your title please?
12 A Assistant Commissioner Enforcement, United States
13 Customs Service.
14 Q My neime is Pamela Naughton, Staff Counsel for the
15 House Select Committee to Investigate Covert Arms Trans-
16 actions with Iran. I would ask those present in the room
17 to state their names and title.
MR. MC GOUGH: Thomas McGough, Assistant Counsel
to the House Select Committee.
MR. GENZMAN: Robert W. Genzman, Associate Minority
Counsel to the House Committee.
MS. ANDERSON: Elizabeth Anderson. I represent
Mr. Rosenblatt.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Now, Mr. Rosenblatt, we interviewed you a while
Hvlib Afflfiit w&F
886
UNSaSHREfl^'
1 ago on basically three different areas, and I want to go
2 through those in perhaps a little more detail today. Hope-
3 fully, we can take these areas chronologically, but complete
the subject matter before we turn to another.
The first issue I would like to turn to, and I
hope this is the correct chronological order, is the Maule
Aircraft investigation, and it is M-a-u-1-e. If we can
start with a couple preliminaries first, could you tell us
in your capacity what your functions are at Customs?
10 A As the Assistant Commissioner for Enforcement, I
11 am responsible for all enforcement investigative matters as
12 it relates to the jurisdiction authorized by the Customs
13 Service in various United States codes. There are approximate-
14 ly 4 00 laws that we enforce.
15 Q This enforcement would include criminal prosecutions:
16 A Criminal and civil, yes.
17 Q Now, prior to the investigation concerning Maule
fg Aircraft, did you have any contact with Colonel North?
A No.
2Q Q Could you tell me how this particular investigation
21 came to your attention?
A Approximately middle to latter part of August,
maybe even beginning of September, I had occasion to be in
the Commissioner of Customs, William VonRabb's, office, at
which time he mentioned to me that he had a conversation with
ImlwwWKfh^
887
WiSSKIilT
^ Colonel North relative to an inquiry made by Colonel North
2 on Maule Aviation, and the way the Commissioner put it to
3 me, that according to Mr. North, or Colonel North rather, we
^ were being very heavy-handed in our investigative pursuit
5 of the case in the Atlanta, Georgia area, and, therefore,
6 the Comiiiissioner wanted me to look into it to determine
7 whether or not Colonel North's contentions were accurate or
8 not.
9 Q Did the Commissioner tell you what Colonel North
10 had told him?
11 A In substance. I don't believe in verbatim — the
12 Commissioner and I do not operate that way that we would
13 state verbatim the conversation.
14 Q Did the Commissioner tell you Colonel North's
15 concern was over the substance of the investigation or of the
16 manner in which the agents were going about the investigation?
17 A The manner in which the investigation was being
18 conducted.
19 Q Exactly what do you mean when you say manner?
20 A In other words, being too aggressive in conducting
21 their investigation.
22 Q Where was the investigation taking place?
23 A I believe in what I consider the Atlanta, Georgia
24 area.
25 Q Which region is that for Customs?
umiissKm
wsmm
1 A The Southeast Region.
2 Q Who is the Customs person in charge of the South-
3 eastern Region?
4 A The Regional Commissioner is George Heavey.
5 Q Would you spell that?
6 A H-e-a-v-e-y.
7 MS. ANDERSON: At the time.
8 THE WITNESS: Oh, at the time? Edward Kwas at
9 the time.
10 BY MS. NAUGHTON:
11 Q Could you spell that, please?
12 A Edward and then K-w-a-s.
13 Q Do you know what Commissioner VonRabb's relation-
14 ship had been with Colonel North up to this time?
15 A No, I don't.
1g Q- Did the Commissioner ever speak to you about
Colonel North's involvement or connection with General
Singlaub?
19 A Not that I can recall.
2Q Q Do you recall any discussion of a helicopter
21 purchased named Lady Ellen?
A That I recall.
Q What can you tell me about that?
A Apparently, there had been some conversation between
25 the Commissioner and either General Singlaub or possibly
17
itNiliSSMEft'
Colonel North, I am not sure which, relative to the Lady
Ellen. Customs had detained the helicopter in the South
Florida area, I believe Fort Lauderdale. We were determin-
ing, based on that detention, whether or not State Department
had issued a license for the exportation of that helicopter.
We subsequently determined that it had not been, a license
had not been issued, and, therefore, the Commissioner was
advised of that, and I believe General Singlaub was subse-
quently advised, I did not personally advise him, I don't know
who did, that a license was required.
I subsequently found out that a license was issued
for the exportation of that helicopter by, I presume. General
Singlaub.
Q The exportation office, not the issuance of the
license?
A The license was issued for the exportation of the
helicopter.
Q Do you know what Colonel North's connection was
to this helicopter?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you know if he communicated to the Commissioner
the desire for a license to be issued?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you know if he had any input?
A I do not.
iiMpL nooinrn
890
UNSHSSWHT
Q Now, could you tell us how it is the Maule
investigation began, what precipitated the investigation?
A To the best of my recollection, I believe it was
CBS News had a segment of a news broadcast wherein it inter-
viewed a pilot who claimed to have ferried aircraft from
Maule toJ
The Department of Justice was watching this iV
broadcast, and on the basis of this broadcast, requested
Customs to conduct an appropriate investigation.
Q Were they ferried into^^^^^^|or into Nicaragua
Q At any rate, one of the things you wanted to
determine from the investigation was whether or not it had
been ferried into eithei^^^^^^^or Nicaragua?
A That is correct.
Q Was Joe Tafe the person at the Department of Justice
that asked Customs to look into the case?
A I am not absolutely positive. I know in our
initial discussion, I probably used the name of Joe Tafe,
since that is the individual I am most familiar with over
at the Department of Justice, to get involved in these matters
It could well have been some other individual. I wouldn't
891
necessarily know that detail because it would come over in
writing and go directly to our Strategic Investigations
Division.
Q Now, what kind of aircraft was it that was the
subject of this investigation?
A It was my understanding the«-e were — nomenclature
was Super Piper cubs or Seneca Piper aircraft.
Q Can you tell me what type of aircraft that is?
A I am not absolutely positive, but I gather they are
single-engine high-wing aircraft.
Q Now, could you tell us precisely what violations of
law would Customs be looking at in this type of investigation?
A Basically, there would be two segments or sections
of law we would be concerned with: one. Arms Export Control
Act, whereby these aircraft would have what we call military
hard points that require a State Department License; secondly,
whether or not there was some special equipment on it, such
as a STOL kit, S-T-O-L, which stands for short takeoff and
lemding equipment, which would require a Commerce Department
license.
Looking back on this, of course, there is also the
aspect of a foreign asset control license to an embargoed
country such as Nicaragua. We were fairly confident right
from the inception that the aircraft was practically in-
capable of having what we call military hard points put on it,
HbIvi) AAKfEiEuT
892
25
llflliU^Mr
not beyond the realm of possibility, but not probable,
2 because of a variety of technical aspects. So, basically,
3 we were dealing with two areas, whether or not it required a
4 Commerce license or — and/or required a license from the
5 foreign assets control because of an embargoed country.
Q Also, if on the form the actual point of destina-
tion was erroneous, in other words, if the plane actually
was intended to go or did indeed go to Nicaragua but a
9 different end-user or different point of destination had
10 been put on the government form, would that also have been
11 a falsifying?
12 A Yes, we could have gone after that too.
13 Q When you say hard points, would such a hard point,
14 for instance, be a gun mount?
15 A Yes, that would be correct.
18 Q After Commissioner VonRabb asked you to or told you
17 about his conversation with North, what did he ask you to do
18 about it?
19 A Just to look into it and ascertain whether our
20 people were being over-aggressive about the investigation,
21 and the general nature of our investigation and our pursuit.
22 Q And did you call Colonel North?
23 A I did later that day, the same day.
24 Q Had you spoken to him ever before?
A No.
UNCLASSIEIEj).
UNtnm!^^
10
Q What did you tell North when you called him?
A That I was calling him in connection with his
conversation with the Commissioner relative to the Maule
investigation.
At that time, he thanked me, and he indicated that
our people were being very aggressive and were asking for
all kinds of records from Maule relative to the shipment of
these aircraft. He indicated at that time that the Maule
people were good guys and that we were basically, these are
my words, not his words, that we were barking up the wrong
tree.
At that time, I indicated, I said, well, are our
people being overly-aggressive, or exactly what was wrong
with our people's conduct? And he said, no, you know, our
people had been courteous, but that we were demanding all
kinds of records from Maule, and I indicated to him, I
said to him, look, the easiest way for us to determine any
violations of law, and I went into the potential violations of
law as I have already done with you on the exposure and what
we needed to do was get documentation as quickly as possible
and photographs of these aircraft so we could determine
whether or not there was a STOL kit on these aircraft, which
would require a license, and also shipping documents and
invoices, purchase orders relative to these four aircraft.
It was at this time, he indicated to me that one
Hmn^iFiPfiT
BNRIffifffBT
11
of the aircraft had crashed, it was located
and that the other three were over^^^^^^^^| being used
for shipments of medical supplies and other humanitarian
purposes.
And I said, well, if that's truly the case, then we
would be able to clear this matter up rather rapidly if he
could provide me, since he had offered to provide me, the
documentation that I had enumerated earlier in my conversation
with him.
Q Well, did his volunteering of the information that
one had crashed and two were ^^^^^^^^H and so forth —
A Three .
Three were ^^^^^^^^B
A Yes.
Q - Were any i
A One crashed
Q Did he say it crashed
A The best Z can remember, it crashed and was in
Whether crashed in^^^H^Hor
can't tell you.
Q Did he impart this information to you during that
very first phone call you had with him?
A As best as I can recollect, yes.
Q My notes of our interview indicated that he
volunteered that information to you at a subsequent
a total of four.
rtiJHlitl HwilTffnhrl^n
895
"TOd^^BISiT
12
conversation, but, again, this is your deposition, and this
is what is going to be on the record. So, to the best of
your recollection, was this all a part of that same initial
conversation?
A I think you are correct, I think it was in the
second telephone conversation we had about it, because it
was also during that period of time he offered that one of my
f
agents could go down and see the aircraft, and that's where
we got into him detailing to me where the aircraft were
located.
Q If we can step back to the first conversation, did
he tell you that the planes were b-?ing used to carry medical
and humanitarian supplies?
A That is what he indicated to me.
Q Did he mention who actually purchased the aircraft?
A No, I don't recall him mentioning that, no.
Q If we can explain the term, "Maule", is that the
name of a company or the neune of an aircraft?
A That's the name of a company.
Q What does the company do, to your knowledge?
A Manufactures and builds aircraft, assembles air-
craft.
Q Maule was not the purchaser of the aircraft, it
sold it to someone else?
A That is correct.
Um&££[i:tfA
T
896
14
l]NI!fii$Slfl!F
13
1 Q Colonel North did not give you the name of the
2 individuals or corporations that purchased the aircraft?
3 A No. I didn't think he would know that information,
that is why I was asking for the purchase orders, the invoices,
5 the documentation associated with a sale, particularly this
6 sale of four aircraft.
7 Q In any of your conversations with Colonel North, did
8 he ever mention Richard Secord was involved with this air-
g craft?
10 A Not that I recall.
•J1 Q Do you want to go off the record?
12 A Yes.
13 (Discussion off the record.)
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
15 Q If we can go on the record.
^g Would you answer that question and tell me what you
said off the record?
A To the best of my recollection. Colonel North did
not mention Mr. Secord 's name at that time. However, later
on, when I acquired some records from Colonel North, I
happened to have observed the name, Secord, on one of the
documents provided to me.
Q And did he provide you the documents sometime in
November of 1986?
A Yes. My best recollection of that would have been
IJIJIU ikCCiClCftn
nfflD UJlMrlKITr
897
wmwip'
November 17, the morning of November 17, they were picked up
by my Enforcement Assistant at my direction after I had a
telephone conversation with Colonel North.
Q Could you explain to me when -- at the time that
you first made the phone call to Colonel North, what did you
understand his job to be at tl.<i NSC? Who did you understand
that he was?
A That he was a — my impression was he was a high-
ranking official within the National Security Council.
Q Did you know what it is he did there?
No.
Do youlwhat accounts he had?
No.
Do you know what his — did he explain to you what
his involvement was at all in this whole issue of this air-
craft?
A No. But that's not unusual for me to get calls or
even a Commissioner to get calls in our capacity, nor was
it unusual for me when 1 was working in the field as a
special agent in charge to get a call from different indi-
viduals. Sometimes they were businessmen, sometimes they
were congressional staffers, making inquiry about a case or
making representations about individuals or corporations.
It's not the first time I have heard the term
"good guys" by people that would call up and make an inquiry
Tnilii MtMUtir
82-732 O-88-30
wsmm
15
' about an investigation being conducted by special agents of
2 U.S. Customs.
3 Q Did Colonel North tell you how he learned this
^ information?
5 A No. However, let me qualify my answer. During the
6 course of tuat initial conversation and the subsequent con-
7 versation, it beccune obvious to me that somebody in Maule
8 had communicated either directly with Colonel North or through
9 an intermediary. Otherwise how would he know our people were
10 conducting an investigation?
11 Q Did you discuss any other case with Colonel North
12 on that initial conversation?
13 A No,
14 Q We will discuss later on what I will refer to as
15 the Kelso case.
16 Did you discuss that with Colonel North during that
17 initial conversation?
18 A Not at that time, no.
19 Q At that point, that first conversation, had a grand
20 jury subpoena actually been served to Maule?
21 A No.
22 Q Did you and Colonel North discuss the service of
23 such a subpoena?
24 A No.
25 Q After speaking with North, what did you do?
MMin HjiawVAIill 1 1
899
INRIOTSBr
16
A Subsequent to speaking with Colonel North, I called
Mr. Leon Guinn, who is the Assistant Commissioner for En-
forcement, Southeast Region, inquired about the case, the
Maule investigation specifically, asked him what the status
was. He informed me that Maule Aviation officials had been
uncooperative in the course of our investigation and that the
special agent and the special agent in charge were discussing
with the Assistant U.S. Attorney assigned to the case, or
at least the Assistant U.S. Attorney, and our people were
10 discussing the matter about going for a grand jury subpoena.
11 I indicated to Leon that I had a i»rce whereby I
12 thought I could expedite the investigation and make a
13 preliminary determination whether we had a violation or did
14 not have a violation and how much more we should pursue this
15 matter. I would like to pause here in my deposition to
16 point out to you, we have gotten — we, the U.S. Customs
17 Service -- has gotten a lot of allegations about various
18 materials being sent to the contras. Principally, we got
19 these leads from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
20 invariably when we pursued them, the allegations were either
21 unfounded or it was difficult, if not impossible, to pursue
22 them, because you would have to go into Nicaragua. Our agents
23 were just not allowed into Nicaragua.
24 So I indicated to Mr. Guinn, if he had no objections
25 I would like to utilize this source and see if we can get
imryjiocicicn
VnilLnodnflinir
900
25
ONttKSSIPIlii'
17
1 these documents to make a determination of whether to pursue
2 it and how intense we should pursue it.
3 Q Did you tell Mr. Guinn who your source was?
4 A No, I did not.
5 Q Any reason why not?
6 A I didn't think he needed to know.
7 Q Did Guinn, in effect, tell you that Maule Aircraft
8 was stonewalling the investigation and not being cooperative?
9 A Yes. I have already indicated that. That's the
10 term I used during our interval. I think I basically said the
11 seime thing, they were being very uncooperative.
12 Q When is the next time that you communicated with
13 Colonel North regarding this investigation?
^4 A I would say a couple weeks after my initial tele-
15 phone conversation with him, because I had not received any
^Q documents or any call from him, so I pursued the matter by
17 calling him —
1g Q If I can stop you there for one second, did you
19 ever send any written materials to Colonel North, any notes,
2Q any letters, anything of that type?
21 A NO.
22 Q Other than the documents provided to you on this
23 investigation, did he send to you any memoranda, letters.
24 notes, any documents?
A No. We are jumping ahead now. Other than what
iiM^ni MnTwfi ■vrwTi
901
Mmm^
we have discussed at our initial interview.
Q That he delivered on November 14?
A Well, he or — what is his name — Owens
delivered. I don't want to jump ahead. You have to guide
this thing.
Q Did you make any contemporaneous notes during any
of your conversations with Colonel North?
A No.
Q Did you make any notes afterwards or any memoranda
of your conversations with Colonel North?
A No.
Q Did you keep any logs which would indicate when you
spoke to Colonel North?
A The only thing that I kept was the telephone number
for Colonel North's office and also the telephone number for
Mr. Owens and the name of the firm, if you will, or the name
that Mr. Owens gave to me for his particular position there
too.
Q You said approximately two weeks later you called
North to ask him where the documents and photographs were.
What did he tell you about them?
A That he was still trying to obtain them from Maule.
This is when he offered to have me send an agent down^^^^^H
because that was one of the require-
ments I wanted with respect to our initial conversation on it,
902
''VpL/IWnTHr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
because this would
a gil^ejus a good idea whether or not it
had a STOL kit, also whether or not it had hard points. He
was a little apologetic he had not gotten the documents to
me during the intervening two weeks. I reiterated that the
sooner we got the documents, the sooner we would be able to
make a determination. And if he could get the documents, then
we would be proceeding with our investigation.
Q Had Colonel North told you that all of the planes
had been exported to
A I am not positive, but I recollect that there was a
reference to]
Q And he told you one had crashed, but he was not
sure where, is that correct?
A Yes, I am not sure where it crashed other than he
stated it had crashed, it was ^^^^^^^^^H Based on what
one would assume, without asking a follow-up question, that
it had crashed ^^^^^^H^^H Technically, from the way
you are asking me the question, it could have crashed any
place, and someone could have ferried it over and put it in
Q As far as you understood, the remnants of the
airplane —
A Yes, the remnants of the airplane were)
IIVIIUI 0IIMHJLIII
VNSU^IRiSr
A He used the term "crashed" with me, okay?
Q And the remaining three were
A
Q Did he mention to you how it crashed?
A No.
Q Did he offer to arrange for your agents to view
the aircraft in Central America?
A Yes. And I asked him whether this had to be done
openly or otherwise, and he said, no, it could not be
openly, and I said, well, we can't get involved in that,
and I just courteously asked him to get the documents and
photographs I had requested in my initial conversation with
him to me as quickly as possible.
Q Did he explain to you why your agents would not be
able to go down there overtly and check into the embassy and
do things according to regular procedure?
A No. And I didn't ask him.
Q Did you find this to be suspicious?
A It is an interesting phenomena. There is times
when various agencies that are stationed in foreign countries
will say, "Gee, we have no problem", and sometimes the
embassy will say, "No, we don't want you down" or vice-versa,
the embassy has no problem but the agency may have a problem
with us coming down, and we have to work all these things
out.
ilAlCIAJUMOn
904
24
oNuLmJainni
21
1 I didn't find it unusual that he wouldn't explain
2 it. You have got to remember that I am — I ,was somewhat
3 conversant with current events about^^^^^^^^^Bthe
4 Nicaraguan matter, and if he said that he had — my agent
5 would have to go down ^^^^^H^^H not in the official
6 capcwity as an agent, I assumed there had to be a reason
7 that he was knowledgeable about, and since he was with the
8 NSC, I had to respect that.
9 Q Did Colonel North, after this conversation, which
10 is approximately two weeks after the first, and mid-Sep-
11 tember, did he ever call you again about this investigation,
12 or was it always a matter of you checking back?
13 A As it relates to this investigation, it was always
14 me calling him.
■J5 Q And then after that second conversation, do you
15 recall if you called him again? This would be after mid-
•J7 September.
13 A Relating to this investigation?
19 Q Yes.
20 A Yes.
21 Q Do you recall approximately how many times?
22 A I would estimate, it had to be either three or
23 four times, I can't tell you exactly was it three or four.
but it was one of the two.
25 Q During this period xl time, were you also in contact
nnjiiBi_miiniuili 1 1
905
DNtOtSSIPilT
with the Southeast Region telling them what was going on, or
were they inquiring what they could do next, that sort of
thing?
A I would say approximately three to four weeks after
my initial telephone conversation with Mr. Guinn, we were
having a telephone conversation about other Customs matters,
and this issue came up. And as a result, I am confident
that it stimulated my making the third phone call, if you
will, and, once again, when I called Colonel North, he was
very apologetic this time that he had not gotten the material
to me, he told me once again he was going to get right on it.
And I would say that this had to be near the end of September
by this time.
There was subsequent conversation with Mr. Guinn in
a conference call, and this would have been in November, I
would say mid-November, whereby we had a conference call,
he and I, along with Clark Settles, who was a special agent
in charge in Charleston, and both of them were inquiring
about the investigation, and I said, gee, I am surprised that
you don't already know, I already told Strategic to notify
you to continue the investigation, and I related to him at
that time that based upon the documents submitted by my
source and upon review of those documents, that they were
very shallow, they were not responsive to answer the questions
that needed to be answered to determine whether or not a
wiiuUiiiffi rililf 1 1
906
DNSmKftT
23
1 violation had occurred, that I had sent those documents up
2 to our Strategic Division and that their case agent from
3 Atlanta had reviewed them, along with the Division Director
* in Strategic, and we all agree that they, they did not
5 address the issue, and they were going to continue to conduct
6 the investigation.
7 Q That was sometime in mid or late November?
8 A It was mid-November.
9 Q Now, between that time, then, from late September
10 until mid-November, did you continue to try to get the docu-
11 ments from Colonel North?
12 A Yes. Like I said, there had to be some time in
13 October, and I am not sure, probably middle of October, that
14 I called again specifically about this Maule investigation.
15 Q If I can freeze you in time for a moment of that,
16 let's say October of 1986. In October of 1986, if you had
17 been told the name Richard Secord, would that have run any
18 bells with you at all concerning other investigations?
19 A Yes, the name, Richard Secord, not only in con-
20 junction with the investigation, but it was a name appearing
21 in the paper, so I was feuniliar with the name, Richard
22 Secord.
23 Q When it was appearing in the paper, was that in
24 connection with possible contra supply programs?
25 A Yes.
innii.ffuiMiiijifP
907
VttOU^fflEfiT
24
Q Do you ever recall discussing the Maule investiga-
tion with Colonel North at the same time or in the same
conversation which you were discussing the Southern Air
Transport investigation? I know we are jumping ahead a
little bit.
A I am not absolutely positive of this, but I think
that at one time when I was discussing the Southern Air
Transport, I had mentioned to, or not only mentioned, but I
reiterated to Colonel North that I was still waiting for the
documentation on the Maule, and I wasn't as courteous as I
was in the previous conversations because I was getting very
exacerbated because we are talking six to eight weeks, and I
still don't have documentation. I was put out.
Q Now, in early November, I believe, you were
visited by an attorney from the Public Integrity Section of
the Department of Justice named Ralph Martin, who had been
assigned to review contra-related cases and review of the
House Judiciary Committee's inquiry to appoint Independent
Counsel to study the whole problem after the Hasenfus crash
in October of 1986. Do you recall that meeting?
A Yes.
Q Do you recall what Mr. Martin asked you about?
A He asked — he had a letter that contained a, quite
a few names in a letter, and he asked me whether or not I was
familiar with some of those names, or any of those names.
■nrD ikVrtiiJiiii'
908
WitHiSaaElT
25
1 Q Okay. Now, who was the letter from?
2 A I think it was from Congressman or Senator Kerry
3 going over to the Attorney General.
4 Q Did that list of names include Richard Secord?
5 A It may have. I don't recall. I mean, for me to
6 look at that letter, with all the names on it, I don't keep
7 all these names in my head. That meeting, by the way, so we
8 get it on the record, it was not only Mr. Martin, but there
9 was another attorney there as well. There were people from
10 my office there specifically —
11 Q Excuse me, when you say another attorney, you mean
12 from the Department of Justice?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Was that Marshall Jarrett?
15 A It could have been. I just don't remember the
^5 n£une .
^7 From Customs, Rafael Lopez, who was our Branch
18 Chief for Munitions, as well as Gary W-a-u-g-h, who was our
19 Strategic Division Director — Branch Chief, rather. At the
20 time I asked Ray to make sure they go against all the names
21 against our files, and as I was out of town, I was going down
22 to the Southwest, as well as overseas as best I can recollect
23 now, 1 wanted to make sure that we were responsive to Mr.
24 Martin's inquiry and whether or not we had any active
25 investigations or any kind of inquiries or anything like that,
■tlllBLJIlUilTIHiJIP
909
inm^M^
26
I wanted that to be responsive.
In my absence, a memorandum was prepared by Mr.
Lopez, signed by Mr. Lopez, going over to Mr. Martin with
the result of our inquiry against our indices, whether or not
these names meant anything to us.
Q Aside from the names, did Mr. Martin inquire about
any ongoing investigations you had relating to the contras?
A Yes. And I believe again Mr. Lopez discussed with
him whatever investigations we may have had. I believe he
was talking about active investigations. And as I have
already stated in this deposition, there was a number of
allegations over the course of the last several years about
arms going down to the contras and arms going to the
Sandinistas that they were compelled to check out. In most
of the cases, I would say invariably they proved to be un-
founded.
Q Did you tell Mr. Martin anything about the Maule
Aircraft investigation?
A No, I did not.
Q Why not?
A Because Ray Lopez could just have easily have
talked to him about that.
Q Did Mr. Lopez know about your communications with
Colonel North?
A No, he did not know about my communications with
Hm&SSiflFBT
910
eNRKSSffPT
27
1 Colonel North, but they were aware that I was dealing with
2 a source in hopes to get information; that had no bearing
3 on whether or not we told Martin whether or not we had an
4 investigation. It was no secret that we had an investiga-
5 tion, that was open and above board.
Q You didn't tell Mr. Martin about the Maule investi-
7 gation, is that correct? You left that to Mr. Lopez?
8 A I am not saying I did or didn't. I don't recall
g if I did or did not mention the Maule. I could well have.
•JO If I didn't, it wasn't because I was holding something back,
11 it was an open investigation on our inventory that would be
12 easily discernible if the Maule name came up or insofar as
13 asking whether or not we had an active investigation. That
would be something that would be known not only to me but
also to my Branch Chiefs and Division Directors.
Q In answer to my question, do you remember
17 specifically discussing the Maule investigation with Mr.
Martin?
A At this time, no, I do not remember, but I want to
maJce sure it is clear on the record that if the Maule
investigation had come up in the context of our conversation,
Mr. Martin would have been advised.
Q Would you have told Mr. Martin — well, that is
speculative. Did you tell Mr. Martin about your conversation
2- with Colonel North regarding this investigation?
911
DNIiEASSIHffiT
28
A No.
Q Regarding the Southern Air Transport investigation,
was that discussed with Mr. Martin at this meeting?
A It may have been, because -- if you could refresh
my memory with respect to the date you are talking about,
Mr. Martin came over to my office, it would be helpful.
Q I believe it is around November 2.
A If it is November 2, then I believe the SAT
happened around October 5, if I am not mistaken. So if they
were pursuing that, that — I cannot believe it would not
come up in our conversation, okay? And if it did, even if
it didn't, I would have indicated we were conducting an
investigation, which we were.
Q Do you recall whether or not you told Mr. Martin
about your conversations with Colonel North regarding the
SAT investigation?
A I don't recall, but in all likelihood, I probably
did not say anything about my conversation with Colonel North.
Q When you say you probably did not, on what would
you base that statement?
A I don't recall Colonel North's name ever coming up
in a conversation, in my conversation with Mr. Martin.
Q Mr. Martin did not bring it up?
A No.
Q You did not bring it up?
llfilN.NBu1llCtr
912
ONKimiirr
29
1 A No.
2 Q Was there any discussion with Mr. Martin regarding
3 the Kelso case?
4 A I don't recall. I don't believe so. I can't
5 believe that would come up, because I did not perceive that
Kelso case as a contra matter. Okay? If you want to get
into it, we can get into it, but it will be out of sequence.
To me, that's more of an informant situation, okay, vis-a-vis
9 allegations of counterfeit money and narcotics allegations
■JO relative to the Drug Enforcement Administration, and the
•)•) status of Kelso, subsequent to all that and him going to
12 this farm or ranch and going back to the United States, you
•J3 know, I happened to be in Costa Rica, but I don't see that
14 fitting into the Kerry inquiry.
Q When you received the documents from Colonel North
on November 14, is that the first —
A Go over that again. When I received the documents
from?
Q Colonel North.
A What date?
Q Fourteenth.
A The 17th I believe I said.
Q Did they indicate that Udall Corporation was in-
volved in the purchase of the aircraft?
A Within the documents I recall seeing the name.
onutiKMiirUwr
913
mmsm
1 Udall, on a piece of documentation. What that documentation
2 was, I do not recall at this late date.
3 Q Is that the first time that you were aware that
4 Udall was involved in the Maule Aircraft investigation?
5 A In the Maule Aircraft investigation, yes.
6 Q In other words, Colonel North did -ot tell you
7 about Udall?
8 A No, ma'am.
9 Q Now, the story regarding the Iranian arms sales
10 broke on or about November 3 or 4, 1986. I believe you told
11 us in your interview on or cibout November 10, you discussed
12 your concerns regarding Colonel North's activities with the
13 Commissioner, is that correct?
14 A That is correct.
15 Q Can you tell us why you discussed it and what you
1g discussed?
•J7 A That would bring us back to the telephone conversa-
18 tion that I had on or about October 29 or 30.
19 Q With whom?
20 A We are talking about SAT, are we not?
21 Q No. Let me rephrase my question. When you went
22 to speak to the Commissioner on November 10, were your
23 concerns centered around the SAT investigation or the Maule
24 Aircraft investigation?
25 A Primarily the SAT. And my conversation that I had
UiiifiUS&iHE&ai
914
KNftASSIPKST
31
1 with Colonel North on or about the evening of October 29 or
2 30.
3 Q Okay. Then let me — let's stay with Maule, and
4 let's skip ahead.
5 A I don't want to mislead you, that doesn't mean I
didn't mention to the Comr.issioner abou# Maule.
Q Sure.
A That wasn't what drove me to meet with him and
discuss my conversations and dialogue with Colonel North.
10 Q I understand. You agreed with the Commissioner,
11 correct me if I am wrong, to meet with Mr. Kimmet and dis-
12 cuss the issues with him, is that correct?
13 A It is not a question of agreeing, this is what the
■J4 Commissioner advised me, told me to do. It is not a question
15 of agreeing.
■\Q Q Can you tell us who Mr. Kimmet is?
•J7 A He is the General Counsel, United States Treasury
1g Department.
ig Q Now, when was your scheduled meeting to be with
20 Mr, Kimmet?
21 A The 17th, around 3:00, 3:00, 3:30 in the afternoon.
22 Q Did you talk to Colonel North the morning of
November 17?
A Yes. I already indicated I did.
Q Regarding the Maule case, what, if anything, did
u&tALiicciaciu
uiniPflfSEVcttfrr
915
WKIASDIfiei^
32
1 he tell you?
2 A I initiated the phone call in an effort to obtain
3 the documents that I had requested back the end of August,
4 beginning of September on Maule, and I was, quite frankly,
5 surprised during that conversation that Colonel North said
6 he had ^he documents and that he was waiting to give me the
7 documents. I indicated to him that I had a pretty busy
8 schedule that day, and I would like to send over my Enforce-
9 ment Assistant to get a copy. He said, well, you could have
10 the original. I told him, no, I did not want the originals
11 of the documents, that I wanted the originals of the aocuments
12 to be given to the investigative agent by Maule and that I
would like to have a copy.
Arrangements were made between Colonel North and
myself to have my Enforcement Assistant go over and pick
up a sealed envelope which later turned out to be a copy of
documents — I presume a copy of documents, and as I said, I
reviewed them, and subsequent, not that same day, maybe that
evening or later, and then sent them up to my Strategic
Investigations Division with word I wanted the investigation
to resume.
Q What, in your opinion, was deficient about the
documentation that Colonel North had provided?
A It did not clearly show what I would consider
iiMpi Apcinrn..
vniiLfKKDtiiiiir
916
UlHISSHiierr
33
1 purchase orders, and particularly destination of the air-
2 craft. There were no photographs included in the package,
3 which I believe were vital to determine whether or not a
4 Commerce license was required.
5 Q Did the documents indicate who all of the purchasers
6 were? That is, there were four aircraft —
7 A I don't recall.
8 Q Now, when you discussed this with Colonel North on
9 the morning of November 17, did you tell him that you had
10 talked to the Commissioner?
11 A No.
12 Q Did you tell him that you were going to meet with
13 Kimmet?
14 A No.
15 Q Any reason why you didn't?
15 A I didn't think it was very prudent since — you
17 recall, in our earlier discussion, I indicated to you when
18 I talked to Colonel North on the evening of October 29 or 30,
19 when he was out of the country, that I asked him when he
20 came back that he and I and the Commissioner had to get
21 together. When I called on the 17th, it was obvious to me
22 he had been in town for some time and for some reason had
23 not contacted me or the Commissioner about getting together.
24 My main concern was that I wanted to see if I could
25 get the docviments that he had indicated that he would get to
i)nln.ftiRirn^^
917
17
22
lltJmEF
34
1 me for the Maule investigation. Therefore, when I called
2 him on the morning of the 17th and I, in my conversation
3 with the Commissioner on the 10th of November, where he
4 directed me to meet with Mr. Kimraet to discuss this whole
5 matter and get some advice from him, it beccune clear to me
6 that some of my concerns may have been somewhat valid if the
7 Commissioner was asking me to go over and discuss the matter
8 with Mr. Kimmet. I may not have any subsequent conversation
9 with Colonel North from that point on, and I didn't feel I
10 had any obligation letting him know Customs business about
11 this matter and how I was going to resolve my uneasiness and
12 concerns and my lack of getting this documentation I had been
13 promised six or eight weeks ago.
14 Q Do you know whether or not Colonel North intended
15 to call the Commissioner? Did he express any intent, or did
1g you suggest he do so at the end of that conversation?
A You mean the conversation of the 17th —
^g Q Of the 17th of November.
19 A No.
2Q Q I guess I asked two questions. Your answer is no
21 to which question? Did he express any intent to call the
Commissioner?
23 A No, he did not.
24 Q Did you suggest that?
25 A No, ito did not.
imA^lflPfiT
918
omwMWffT
35
1 Q Did you suggest he call the Commissioner?
2 A No. I did suggest — as I said, just to reiterate,
3 when I talked to him the evening of October 29 or 30, I
4 indicated to him let's get together.
5 Q You don't recall such a thing on November 17?
6 A No.
7 Q Was that the last conversation you had with Colonel
8 North?
9 A I believe it was. I was just trying to think psat
10 that date. I just don't recall ever having a conversation —
11 a face-to-face or telephone conversation with him since.
12 Q By the way, did you tell Colonel North about your
13 visit with Mr. Martin from the Department of Justice?
14 A Not that I recall.
15 Q Let's tie that up. After your conversation with
15 Colonel North on the 17th, and you reviewed the documents
17 that had been provided to you from him, what did you do
18 with regard to the Maule investigation from that point on?
19 A As I said, I forwarded those documents up to the
20 Director of the Strategic Investigations Division, indicating
21 that I did not believe that the documents were responsive or
22 worthwhile and that if he concurred, and that is when he
23 mentioned the case agent from Atlanta happened to be in, I
24 said, if you guys agree they are worthless, go conduct the
25 investigation and resume the investigation, whatever course
4)ranLfMRriiiuOT
919
mmm'
36
1 that they normally would.
2 Q And that would include the issuance of grand jury
3 subpoenas?
4 A If they elected to go grand jury, fine.
5 Q To your knowledge, did the Independent Counsel
6 assume jurisdiction over this case ir. January of 1987?
7 A Yes, he did. I don't know if it was January, but
8 they did since we are on the record.
9 Q That concludes the examination I had on that
10 investigation. I will turn it over to my colleagues.
11 BY MR. MC GOUGH:
12 Q Mr. Rosenblatt, I think it would be helpful to
13 take a minute or two to put your background on the record
14 if we could. How long have you been with the Customs Service?
15 A Since 1964, August of 1964.
16 Q And what position did you start with Customs?
17 A I Ceune into the U.S. Customs Service as a Customs
18 investigator, GS-5, in New York, New York.
19 Q What I want to do is get a quick overview of the
20 various places and positions you have held with Customs
21 since them.
22 A In 1966, I was promoted to special agent; in 1967,
23 I was reassigned to the Los Angeles Special Agent in Charge
24 Office where I became a group supervisor in Los Angeles, in
25 1970. In 1972, I went to San Francisco as the Assistant
IMpjAOOirinv
iinue.n!Ktffll!itfr
920
25
UNfiH^FtlffT
1 Special Agent in Charge of Enforcement. We underwent a
2 reorganization in 1973, so I was converted from the Assistant
3 Special Agent in Charge to an Assistant Regional Director
4 for Enforcement.
5 In 1974, I was reassigned to our Headquarters. In
1976, I was promoted to a Branch Chief in Headquarters. In
the latter part of '78- '79, I was selected or appointed as
the Division Director for our Currency Investigation Division.
In 1980, I was selected as the Regional Director
10 of Investigations for the Southeast Region, Miami Region it
11 was called at that time. We underwent another reorganization
12 in 1983, and at that time I was — the Regional Director
13 concept was abandoned, and I beccune the Special Agent in
14 Charge of our Miami Office.
15 In November of 1985, I was selected as the Assistant
16 Commissioner for Enforcement, which is my present position.
17 Q Thank you. You mentioned, in response to a question
18 from Ms. Naughton, that you had seen General Secord's name
19 in the press and at various times during the events we have
20 been talking about in relationship to contra resupply efforts.
21 Is that a fair characterization?
22 A Well, allegations of that or contentions of that,
23 yes.
24 Q Did you have any familiarity with the name, Richard
Secord, outside what you saw in the press in that context?
imiOitED.
921
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
OWttSSfflffi'
38
1 A No.
2 Q Were you familiar with any alleged involvement by
3 General Secord in the Edwin Wilson affair or the EATSCO
4 affair?
5 A Peripherally. I had heard his name mentioned in
chat, but in what context, I don't know.
7 Q I guess what I am trying to establish is if the
name, Richard Secord, had been mentioned to you in September,
1986, what, if any, connections you would have made with that
name? Would you have recalled his connection with Wilson
or EATSCO?
A No.
Q Just with the contra supply articles?
A Yes.
Q Had you also seen articles at or about that time
relating to Colonel North's involvement in the contra re-
supply efforts?
A I don't recall seeing Colonel North's name in the
media until November, possibly October, October-November
timeframe. I don't remember seeing Colonel North's name in
the paper in September, August.
Q Moving to the meeting with Mr. Martin, you said
he ran down a list of names.
A Contained in the letter were a quantity of names.
I don't recall if it was a listing or contained in paragraph
IMASJUfti^
922
11
(INSBISaRW^
39
1 form in series, various names. But there were quite a number
2 of names, I recall,
3 Q Was Colonel North's name one of those?
4 A Gee, I don't recall that. Let me put it this way,
5 I would have found that strange. That would have been
6 something I would have remembered.
7 Q I would like to get a clear picture of the meeting
8 itself, if I could. There was you, Mr. Martin, another
9 attorney from the Justice Department — and Mr. Lopez, whose
•)0 exact position is what;
A He is our Branch Chief for Munitions.
^2 Q Now, was there a general question directed to you
and Mr. Lopez about contra investigations? In other words,
<4 did Mr. Martin or his associate ask for an itemization of
« active contra investigations?
.•g A To my best recollection, no. I mean, we discussed
*j the letter from Congressman Kerry — SenatorJ
^Q Q Senator.
.iQ A — Senator Kerry, it was quite a lengthy letter,
to the Attorney General relative to the allegations of the
government involvement and various people involved in the
contra effort.
I got the impression from Martin and his colleague
that the meeting that I was having with him was of a general
nature to explain to me what their line of inquiry was.
mmB
wmsm
The details, insofar as responding to their line of inquiry,
would have to be handled by those that worked for me. I mean,
I do not have — I don't go to these meetings and have all
this information at my fingertip.
Once I understand what the meeting is about and
the line a given person has taken, I will make sure they are
hooked up with the right manager in Headquarters to provide
the information.
Q Let me get this straight. Was it your understand-
ing that the meeting was supposed to determine what active
investigations the Customs Service had going on the subject
of resupply of the contras?
A No, it wasn't. We do not — as a matter of policy,
we will not give Congress active investigations, and I think
the attorneys from the Department of Justice were well aware
of that.
Q Was it your understanding the meeting was to answer
the inquiries made by Senator Kerry?
A That is correct.
Q Specifically with regard to the Maule investigation
and the SAT investigation, 1 am not sure I understood whether
you felt those investigations weren't responsive to Senator
Kerry's inquiry or whether you felt it was Mr. Lopez's obliga-
tion to bring those up, which ~ why didn't they come up at
the meeting?
riirUsi RKunfiiEV
924
BNBPASaflffiT
41
1 A Because they may not have been contained in
2 Senator Kerry's letter. If they were — first of all, the
3 way the question was posed to me earlier was as if I did not
4 discuss it with them, and I am not sure that is a correct
5 representation necessarily, if it was in the letter and it
pertained to the line of questioning, it would have been
7 discussed there. I mean, I did not keep notes.
8 I believe Mr. Lopez did and followed it up with,
9 as I said, a memorandum to comply with the inquiries that
10 were being made by Mr. Martin.
11 Q At any rate, to the best of your recollection,
12 Colonel North's name was not mentioned at that meeting.
13 A I don't — no, I don't recall it.
14 Q Now, you mentioned how you handled congressional
15 inquiries, but this wasn't really a congressional inquiry,
1g was it? This was a Department of Justice attorney —
iy A That is correct, but it was obvious we were talking
13 about being responsive to a congressional inquiry.
19 Q Was it explained to you that this was an attempt
20 to determine whether there should be an Independent Counsel
21 appointed or sought by the Department of Justice?
A Yes, that was. That doesn't mean we would not
discuss open investigations with these attorneys. The Maule
investigation and the SAT investigation were quite active.
2g particularly the SAT.
HvHvliSniciiifr
925
MfliaSSIREF
42
Q I think you said that by the time you spoke with
Colonel North on November 17, and later in the day, and
Mr. Kimmet, you had determined that it would not be prudent
to continue to talk to Colonel North about those matters,
about the SAT and the Maule matters. Is that a fair character
ization?
A Yes.
Q And to the best of your recollection, November 17,
the morning of November 17, or before the meeting with Kimmet
on November 17 was the first time, or the last time that you
spoke with Colonel North?
A To my best recollection, yes.
Q Can you state categorically that you never dis-
cussed your meeting with Kimmet with Colonel North?
A Absolutely.
Q You categorically state that you never discussed
your meeting with Kimmet with Colonel North?
A That is correct.
Q How about your meeting with Mr. Martin, did you
ever discuss your meeting with Mr. Martin with Colonel
North?
A That was already asked, and to the best of my
recollection, no.
MR. MC GOUGH: That is all I have.
MR. GENZMAN: I have none.
(Recess
tmU^HdDlrUb'PT
926
LYDA fls
DOTSON
10:40 a.m.
md
BNttfiSIFIfflT
1 BY MS. NAUGHTON:
2 Q Before we get to the next subject, I had a couple
3 of quick, perhaps unrelated questions.
^ Do you know anything about A-l-m-a-r Industries in
5 Chatsworth, California?
6 A It is hard for me to answer. It just doesn't come
7 to mind. That doesn't mean some of my people might nol- have
8 said something about Almar — shifting through all the
9 information I get in a dav in my position. It may not
10 have been of consequence. I want to be honest. Since I am
11 sworn, I don't know how to answer that question. I just don't
12 recall.
13 Q Specifically in conversations with Colonel North,
14 do you recall discussing Almar?
15 A Not to my recollection.
16 Q You never ';^ave him any information, or he never
17 inquired?
18 A No.
19 Q Did Colonel North ever discuss with you any
20 cases regarding drug smuggling into Central America or from
21 Central America into the United States?
22 A No.
23 Q Did he ever discuss with you the seizure of a C-123?
24 A The only conversation I had with Colonel North
25 relative to a C-123 was the SAT, October 25 crash.
mnaASsiFiEs^
927
UNCBk^Flt^T
Q Did he discuss with you the seizure of any
aircraft by Customs, I mean specific aircraft?
A No.
Q If we could move, then, to what I will refer to
as the Kelso matter. When did the Kelso matter come to your
attention and how did it come to your attention?
A I would say approximately September, sometime in
September is the closest I can narrow it down.
Q Of 1986?
A "86, yes.
Q How did it come to your attention?
A I was advised by my Special Investigations Division
Correction, I am sorry. There was a cable that came in from
the Ambassador, Ambassador Tambs of Costa Rica. It was a cable
that was very critical of Customs conducting investigations
and having informants in Costa Rica without the Embassy
knowing about it.,,
Q Was this cable sent to the Commissioner?
A It was sent to the State Department. I believe
the Commissioner was an addressee on it. It was a multiple
addressee-type cable.
Q How did this come to your attention?
A In two ways. Reading the cable, and also the
Commissioner indicated that he was quite concerned about this,
and simultaneously we were getting telephonic reports from our
HMi:US£[f¥fiT
928
mmsm
Assistant Regional Conunissioner for Enforcement, Larry La Dodg(
in New Orleans, relative to the allegations set forth in the
cable.
Q When you say Larry La Dodge in New Orleans --
A That is our South Central Region.
Q Had he evei. been assigned to Portland?
A Yes. He was the Resident Agent in Charge in
Portland, Oregon.
Q Do you know when it was he moved from Portland to
New Orleans?
A Not exactly, but I would say in early '86.
Q Now, what did Larry La Dodge tell you concerning
the statements by Ambassador Tambs and the concerns expressed
by Ambassador Tambs?
A I spoke to Larry La Dodge about this, but my
information and what I am about to tell you comes from several
different sources. There is no possible way at this late date
to discern which came from who, because I had discussions with
the Commissioner, discussions with my personnel in the
International Enforcement Branch, as well as Larry La Dodge.
Q With whom would the special investigations
discussion have been?
A At the time, I think it would have been Peter
Ballanon and Ronald Smith, that is to the best of my
recollection.
■IHInI iI'lAiTlff^Oi Of
929
UNHASSKICrr
Q Did you take any notes of any of these conversations
on the Kelso matter?
A No.
Q Did you write any memoranda or correspondence on
them/
A I didn't, but my staff did.
Q Did you review that?
A Yes.
Q What was the purpose of that documentation?
A Well, basically we had to respond to the Ambassador's
inquiry via the cable.
Q And was that done? Did you send something back
to the Ambassador?
A I think we did. But I also talked to the Ambassador
personally about it.
Q
A
Q
How soon was that after you read the cable:
You mean the incoming cable from him?
Yes.
A I want to say probably within three weeks.
Q Why don't we take it step by step, chronologically?
A That is going to be very tough.
Q Okay. After you received the cable and you were
also receiving information from Larry La Dodge by telephone,
could you tell me within a space of a couple of days what you
came to learn about Mr. Kelso?
■iilw I L wiVm^Kfxtrn
IHiStA^flK^T
A Kelso, also known as Williams to us, at that time
his name was Williams.
Q Richard Williams?
A Richard Williams, and another individual whose name
I cannot recall at the time.
Q Is it Brian Caldwell?
A Yes, it would be. , They were working as informants
for Larry La Dodge. Apparently, Mr. La Dodge had received
communications from one of these two gentlemen by telephone
that they had uncovered a counterfeit operation in Costa
Rica, and there was other information that the informants
wanted to provide.
Q Did they also provide |rug information?
A You asked me to do this this way -- other
information they wanted to provide, but they did not
feel comfortable doing it over the phone. It related to the
narcotics and drugs in Costa Rica.
My information was that Larry La Dodge felt
responsible for paying some expenses that had been incurred
by Jthese informants previous to this time. In conjunction
with the information about counterfeiting operations, Larry
coordinated with the Secret Service as well as our Customs
attache in Panama, who is responsible also for the country of
Costa Rica.
Arrangements were made for one of the New Orleans
41Ni:i&!L<UFm.
931
ONt^SSISEKT
agents to travel through Mieiini down to Costa Rica to meet up
with the informant and the Secret Service, so that we could
provide first-hand information to the Secret Service about
this alleged counterfeit money operation.
When our agent got to Miami, he called and learned
that the Secret Service personnel were leaving Costa Rica.
Because of their activities in Costa Rica, they felt that it
would be better for the Secret Service agents at that time
to leave the country and come back at another time.
Our agent proceeded nevertheless down to Costa Rica
to meet with the informants ,. ostensibly to debrief them and
also to pay them the money that Mr. La Dodge felt was owed
to them.
Our agent being relatively inexperienced in dealing
in foreign countries, did not wait until our attache or one
of our Customs representatives met with him in Panama — not
in Panama, one of our reps or the attache from Panama met up
with him in Costa Rica. He did not check in with the Embassy.
H&- immediately met with the informant, paid the informant
1 and to some extent debriefed the informant.
This took place over the weekend when our Customs
representative from Panama met with our agent from New Orleans
in Costa Rica, our Customs representatives immediately realized
the error, made contact with the Embassy and met with DEA and
briefed DEA personnel on the meeting that our New Orleans agent
mmssm
932
gUjll^ffiBT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
had with these two informants. Ostensibly, these two
informants made allegations of corruption by members of the DE/:
Our personnel went back to their respective location
and, as I understand it, within a matter of days, the Costa
Rica authorities got information, allegedly got information
that these two individuals were passing themselves off as
Customs agents, and that one of them had a gun.
Costa Rican authorities advised DEA of this, and asked
DEA if they would want to go along. It is my understanding
that the Costa Rican authorities, along with one or more
DEA agents, knockud on the door of Willieuns, Kelso, and
proceeded to question him and advised them that there were
comments about them purporting to be Customs agents and having
a gun.
From there, the story gets a little hazy, but
apparently these two individuals were told to get out of the
country and/or taken in for questioning and subsequently
released.
Nevertheless, as it relates to Kelso-Williams,
made his way to a farm that apparently was owned by John
Hull. After leaving the farm, he then finds his way back to
the Denver, Colorado area.
Q Is this information you learned shortly after
getting the cable and learning about the case, or are we
lUiicuyi^iep.
ONMSa^tilT
talking about a longer period of time?
A We are talking about the cable, but the business of
the farm came from the informant to Larry La Dodg^ to my
people to me, if you can follow all that. Paralleling this
at the same time is that I am hearing, while this is going on,
I would say about a week or 10 days after the cable, I begin
to hear about a letter that is going from the Costa Rican
President, allegedly, to the White House praising this
informant --
Q Caldwell, as opposed to Kelso?
A Right, but they are intertwined. And also,
laudatory remarks or comments about Larry La Dodge, who obviousjly
is supposed to be managing this) his informant^
Q Can you tell me who you heard about the letter from?
A I am hearing this from Larry. There is supposed
to be some kind of letter. He doesn't know about it first-hand
but he is hearing about some kind of a letter.
I presume Larry heard it from one of the two informan:s
Now, I am then getting phone calls from Gary Hilberry, who was
the Special Agent in charge of the Denver office, and Larry is
also talking to some of my people Who are also filling me in,
about Kelso resuming allegations that he is working for an
intelligence agency.
Let's pause here and let me give you some background,
if I may? Mr. Kelso was arrested and convicted in Denver for
ll^lLi«[L
934
UWffl^RI^T
Customs violations relating to arms to Iran. I believe he was
put on probation.
Q Was it Iran or Iraq?
A I was told Iran. It would have been Iraq. Let me
rephrase it. I was told to the Middle East. He was on
probation and he wanted to work for the Denver office while
he was on probation.
Our Special Agent in charge went to the U.S. Attorney
who went to the Judge, and the Judge said no. So, Kelso, which
is his real name, apparently fades from the scene and strikes
up a relationship with Larry La Dodge when Larry was still the
resident agent in charge in Portland.
He presents himself as Williams. Of course, when
Larry La Dodge makes inquiries about a Williams, we do not find
anything derogatory in our informant files, nor of course do we
hook him up with Mr. Kelso from the Denver office.
Q Did Larry LaDodge enter him as an informant, a
source?
A I am pretty sure he documented Williams, but not the
other gentleman. One of them was unregistered.
Q That is what I eim getting at. Was one a subordinate
of the other?
A Yes, exactly.
Q Do you know which was which?
A I am not positive, but I think Kelso/Williams was the
ini^Mn Uni A^rililii I
935
mm&
52
documented source and the other one was the undocumented sourci
Q Do you know whether or not La Dodge put Williams'
name through the indexes'
A I don't know that personally. I presume he did,
but that is an assumption.
Q What you just told me about how his name would not
check out with Kelso is an assumption on your part?
A Yes, but I think it is a valid assumption. If we
document Kelso under his true name and if he comes in with
an alias as Williams, it is not going to bang up against
a card in there on Kelso.
Q Did you ever see any documentation regarding Kelso
as a source?
A It is not something I would personally see.
Q So, you never saw any payments to Kelso reflected
in Customs documents?
MS. ANDERSON: Can we clarify that as Kelso as a
source under the name Kelso?
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Either name.
A No. There are different levels of approval and
the kinds of money approved for Williams would not come close
to my level of approval.
Q They were small amounts?
A They have to come to my office over $10,000. So we
rnrliiLDnO Hit LUn
UttSIA^flg^T
1 are talking about sums under $10,000.
2 Q Do you know what sums the New Orleans agent took
3 with him to Central America?
4 A I think between $1,000 and $1,500.
5 Q Do you know how it was broken down between Kelso
6 and Caldwell?
7 A No.
8 Q I guess I stopped you at that point where Williams
9 becomes an informant for La Dodge.
10 A Right.
11 Q This is in 1984 time period?
12 A I am not sure. It could have been '84 or '85. I am
13 not sure.
14 Q All right.
15 A It is evidence now that — well, let me backtrack.
16 During Kelso's trial in Denver, he claimed that he was working
17 for an intelligence agency. That could not be substantiated
18 by our office in checking with the intelligence community.
19 Now, I am jumping back to where Kelso is back in Denver after
20 the Costa Rican incident.
21 Q If we could put sometimes on this, the Costa Rican
22 incident is maybe July or August of 1986.
23 A We 1 1 , no .
24 Q Do you know how long he was in Central America?
25 A I don't know. But in talking to Larry, I got the
MlASfUnilfir
937
mmm
impression that Kelso/williams had been in that area for
some time. It wasn't just that he was down there visiting for
a week.
Q That is what I am trying to pin down.
A But this incident did not come to my attention
until sometime in September.
Q I understand. Now, he is back in Denver in the
fall of 1986.
A Right.
Q Can you tell me what you know about that?
A This is coming to my people through Gary Hilberry,
Special Agent in Charge in Denver, that Kelso/Williams is
being represented by a former U.S. Attorney by the name of
Snow, and that Snow is beginning to believe Williams' contenticjn
of working for an intelligence agency.
Apparently, Snow gave Williams advice to begin
making tape recordings of all his conversations with government
officials, including a tape, I understand, between him and
Leirry La Dodge, along with other tapes allegedly made between
Kelso/Williams and his so-called intelligence contact.
Gary Bilberry's concern was that in again doing
checks through the intelligence community, either using the
name of Kelso or Williams, nobody is corroborating the
contentions made by Kelso/Williams. However, Gary is very
concerned after listening to these tapes that he acquired
istening to these tapes tha
MUSSIM.
938
imsgiflEitT
• access through an Assistant U.S. Attorney by the name of Black
2 Apparently, Snow gave four or five tapes to Black to review.
3 Mr. Hilberry reviewed those tapes and wanted to
4 prevent any embarrassment to the United States Goverment
5 if, in fact, Kelso/Willieims was working for the intelligence
6 community. It was at that time I decided to explore the
7 potential, since we were getting negatives, to just ensure
8 we had covered all bases, I felt I would get a^old of
9 Colonel North to see if he could find out anything, because
10 maybe I was getting -- maybe people were getting stonewalled
11 by somebody in the intelligence community.
12 Q The tapes that Mr. Hilberry told you about, did
13 he tell you their contents?
14 A No. He just said that based on the contents that
15 he was very concerned, that one could almost make a case from
16 these conversations , that there was some connection between
17 Kelso and some member of the intelligence community.
18 I have known Gary Hilberry a very long time. He is
19 now our Special Agent in Charge of New York. He is not an
20 alarmist. Therefore, I paid attention to what Gary said and
21 figured we would explore the only other area that we had,
22 which was through the National Security Council.
23 Therefore, I called Colonel North. This is when
24 I came into contact with Rob Owen.
25 Q Do you recall approximately when you called Colonel
iim^s^inf;!}..
imsiiKiT
North?
A To the best of my recollection, it is probably
sometime in September. It was a matter, or no more than
two weeks after this thing began to bubble up, the report
of the incident and finding out from Gary Hilberry.
Let's say two to three weeks is the best estimate I can give
you, again to my recollection, sometime in September.
Q Why Colonel North as opposed to someone else?
A Because I didn't know anybody else at the NSC.
Q Was it your understanding that Mr. Hilberry
had already gone through the normal channels and liaison
people that you had established with the CIA and other
intelligence agencies for this purpose?
A Gary went through our headquarters channel. The
way we pulse, if you will, the intelligence community would
be through our headquarters. If the field would do it, they
would only get local feedback.
My objective was to save any potential embarrassment
to the government. By that, I mean, if in fact he was
and there were agencies denying it, then I wanted to make sure
I and the Commissioner and the Treasury Department were aware
if I got a kickback from the NSC that, yes, in fact, he was
associated with a given agency.
Up to this time, we were being told no, and I wanted
to be sure I knew about it, and the Commissioner and Treasury
■■WIIIB KTWnj P U HI 1 1
940
UNfiH^flffi^T
' knew. To make a long story short. Colonel North, Rob Owen
2 both assured me that they did not know Williams and nobody
3 else knew Williams.
^ Q Let's not make a long story short. Let's go through
5 it, if we can. You called Colonel North, and I presume told
" him something about the Kelso matter.
7 A That is right.
8 Q Did you use Kelso or Williams?
9 A I think I used the name Williams.
10 Q When you told Colonel North about it, did he express
11 familiarity with the subject?
12 A Yes. I gave the name Williams, and he said Kelso.
13 We were having a fine time on the telephone keeping the names
14 straight. He knew it from other source, which he did not
15 identify on the telephone. He was aware of this. I went
16 through the whole story with him from beginning to end. The
17 Costa Rica business. It beceune obvious to me from our
18 conversation that he was aware of it.
19 Because he was aware of it, I then went into the
20 business about the letter, the so-called letter. You see,
21 I was trying to kill two birds with one stone; one, to find oui
22 about the letter and the authenticity of the letter; and, two
23 find out if NSC knew anything about this connection between
24 Kelso/Williams and the intelligence agency, as Kelso claimed.
25 Colonel North indicated he was extremely busy, but
imnmiEL
941
HNSbASSIclkl:'
he was going to have Rob Owen call me.
Q When you mentioned the letter, was Colonel North
familiar with the letter or was that news to him?
A It was not news to him. As I recollect, it was
not news to him. He said, "I don't think that letter is
authentic." It was clear to me that he wanted me to deal
with Rob Owen on this matter.
Q How did he bring the name of Rob Owen up to you?
A He just told me he would like me to disucss the
whole matter with Rob Owen.
Q Who did he say Rob Owen was?
A Institute of Terrornsm, on Subnational Conflict.
Q Is that what Colonel North told you, or did someone
else tell you that?
A That is what Mr. Owen told me.
Q I am interested right now about Colonel North.
A He told me to talk to Rob Owen, and I assume Owen
was associated with his office. Until such time as I met with
Rob Owen and he told me he was with the Institute on
Subnational Conflict working with Colonel North.
MR. McGOUGH: Does your book reflect whether he
gave you a telephone number or an address?
THE WITNESS: No, I don't have that here. It falls
right under Ollie North's office number, and then underneath,
Rob Owen, Instiute of Terrorism, on Subnational Conflict. The
uiiHlbnwItttirT
942
wstmsk
1 Owen called me.
2 BY MS. NAUGHTON:
3 Q Owen called you, you did not call him?
4 A Not at that time, no. Subsequently, my office got
5 a number. It is probably in our office Rolex, I don't know.
6 Q When you had the initial conversation with North
7 about Kelso/Williams, did you tell him he was an informant
8 for Customs?
9 A Yes, I told him he was a source.
10 Q Did you also discuss Mr. Caldwell with Colonel North?
11 A No. Only as it related to the letter now. That was
12 not my pursuit.
13 Q The purpose of the call was not to tell him he
14 was an informant?
15 A No. You are missing my point. You recall the
16 so-called letter to the White House. That was one purpose,
17 but my main purpose was to find out whether Kelso/Williams was
18 working with the intelligence community because of the tapes
19 Gary Bilberry had and the potential for embarrassment.
20 Q Did you tell Colonel North about the tapes?
21 A No. I don't believe I did. I retract that. I
22 did tell him that Kelso/Williams had made some tapes and was
23 threatening to go to the media about his connection with the
24 intelligence community. But it was in passing. My conversatic
25 with Colonel North about this area was very short. I could
i4iumfi€ieiCD<
m
WWBlSStRffiT
tell that he was busy, that he wanted me to deal with Owen,
that Owen could help me in this matter.
Q How soon after your conversation with Colonel North
did Owen contact you?
A I think either that day or the next day. He said,
"Come on over and meet with me." It was at that time I went
through the whole story with him again. He began to smile
during my relating of the story, and then later on in the
conversation, when we got to the business of the letter, he
told me that — up to this time, I had not seen a copy of the
letter — told me that it was a phony. He provided me with
a copy of the letter.
It turns out to have been signed by allegedly some
Captain in Costa Rica, going to the White House. I believe
you have a copy of that letter.
Q Did you get a copy from Owen of the letter?
A Yes.
Q Did Owen say where he got it?
A No.
Q Did you ask him?
A No. It was also at this time that Owen provided me
with a copy of a letter, that I got the impression was written
by John Hull. Initially I believed it was to Owen. Later,
I changed my supposition that it was probably written to
Colonel North.
lvlTlil.niil!ll P LuiP I •
944
md 19
nrnagtRBF^
Contained within the letter was a discussion about
Kelso/Williams coming to Hull's farm.
Q What did the letter say about that?
A I would rather let the letter speak for itself.
Q We don't have a copy of that letter.
THE WITNESS: Can we go off the record?
(Discussion off the record.)
MS. NAUGHTON: On the record.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q After reviewing the letter, the handwritten letter
that you believe John Hull had written, and reviewing it in
Mr. Owen's presence, did you and Mr. Owen discuss the
contents of the letter at all?
A To the extent that we were both sure that the
individual referred to in Hull's letter was the same
individual that I was making inquiry with Mr. Owen, that it was
Kelso/Williams. I asked him, how do you think Kelso got
from Hull's farm over into Denver? He didn't know.
The reason I asked that question, when you read the
letter, it indicates that some officials came on the farm in
the middle of the night or in the early morning hours, and
took Kelso away.
Q When you say officials, is that officials of the
Costa Rican Government or the American Government?
A Of the Costa Rican Government. That is why I pose
IHitlLAiItflBEfr
945
UNStASMlT
1 the question to him, gee, how did he get to Denver if they had
2 taken him away? He didn't seem to know any more than I did.
3 We got back on the main point of me making the
4 inquiry about Kelso/Williams, and whether he was with the
5 intelligence agency. I had never heard of John Hull. The
6 only portion of che letter I was interested in was as it dealt
7 with Kelso.
8 Q Was the first you heard of John Hull in connection
9 with this matter?
^Q A With any matter. I never heard of John Hull prior
11 to that.
^2 Q Did Rob Owen tell you who Hull was?
13 A No. He indicated he was a friend of Colonel North.
14 Q That Hull was?
15 A Yes.
1g Q Did Owen make any representations that Hull was paid
17 by NSC?
18 A No.
Q Did Owen say what his relationship to Hull was?
A No.
Q When did Owen tell you for whom he worked, this
Institute on Terrorism?
A Owen didn't necessarily tell me that the Institute
worked for -- you see, I called up Colonel North. Colonel
North asked me to deal with Rob Owen. Based on that, I drew
iHiif IT nOuvrfDil'i 1 1
946
mmm
the inference, maybe incorrectly, that he was a part of
Colonel North's or the NSC staff. When Owen introduced himself
and gave me the title, I thought it was a segment of the
NSC.
Q This Institute?
A Yes, this Institute was a portion of the NSC.
Q Did he give you a phone number when he gave you
that?
A Yes, but it is in our office.
Q Did you ever call it?
A Yes. Like a number of places in Washington, they
answer it with the telephone number, at least they did when I
called.
So, they didn't say Institute of blah-blah-blah.
No. They said the niimber, whatever that was.
Did you tell Owen during that visit about the tapes?
I eim not sure I told Owen about the tape in that
initial meeting.
Q Did you meet with him on any other occasion?
A Not meet with him, but I did talk with him on other
occasions. I believe when I talked to him by phone, that we
had these tapes. You see, there were four or five tapes,
and then the number grew to around six or seven. After we had
exhausted all possibilities that we could do, and I was not
getting any positive reaction from Owen that they were coming ub
imASSMd'T
947
ii6blSSffl»T
with anything more than what we had, I discussed with Gary
about sending some tapes down or bringing the tapes down, so he
and I — Gary could sit down with Owen and play the tapes and
see if he recognized any voices.
I am coming from the standpoint that I believe Owen
is part of the NSC.
Q Did Owen tell you he spent time in South America?
A No, it never came up. I got the impression he had
been there, because of some of the things he indicated about
Costa Rica, but when you say worked in Costa Rica as opposed
to a visit or vacation, that never came up.
Q How was it then that Owen would be able to recognize
voo-les?
A Not just Owen. When I gave it to Colonel North
or Owen, within the NSC if they played the tapes, they might
have recognized voices that might have been familiar to them.
Just because I was giving it to one individual, we were looking
to use the NSC as a vehicle to determine whether or not the
allegations made by Kelso/Williams were accurate.
Q As far as the tapes themselves, what was your
understanding regarding whether or not you could use them or
whether or not any agreements had been made to keep them
confidential?
A I don't understand your question,
Q Okay, let's start from the beginning. The tapes.
iMUS&lHf&rp
948
mmm
1 take it, were made by Mr. Kelso?
A Yes.
Q And he at some point gave them to Mr. Snow, his
attorney?
A That is right.
Q Mr. Snow gives them to Mr. Black, the Assistant
U.S. Attorney assigned to the case?
A Right.
Q And Black gives them to Mr. Hilberry, the Special
Agent in Charge of Customs?
A Right.
Q Do you know if there was any agreement between them
to keep the tapes confidential?
A No, I am not aware of any such agreement. You would
have to ask Mr. Hilberry.
Q Mr. Hilberry told you of none?
C
A Yes. As far as I am oncerned, even if there was
an agreement, if the purpose of giving us the tape from U.S.
Assistant Attorney Black, who got them from Snow, they are
looking to verify Kelso's story.
So, it does no good to help us determine if we cannot
discuss it with people within the government.
Q Did you discuss with Owen anything else in that
meeting that you had with him in your office, other than what
you have just related?
HMfyiUjOinrn
>i1iP fCwnttrgfr
948
949
UKS^ASSIflKT
A No, the President's letter, the Kelso thing was
the only thing we were talking about.
Q And you are not sure if you discussed the tapes in
the face-to-face meeting or the subsequent phone calls?
A I am not sure, but again, that is my recollection, we
did not discuss the tapes. I wanted to see xf they could do
it based on the information we had on Kelso: Name, date,
birth, that kind of business. No, I was not mentioning anythinjg
about tapes to him, because it had not heightened until about
a week or two afterwards. I got a call from Gary that he was
very concerned about the tapes at that time.
Then when I dealt with Owen over the phone, what
had he found out, nothing yet, I would like to get together
with you, with Owen along with Gary. Our schedules just
conflicted. At one juncture, the latter part of September or
probably October some time, I was out of town and I believe
Owen went out to Denver -- I am sorry, I take that back, he
called Gary in Denver, he didn't go out to Denver. I gave
Gary authorization to go ahead and talk to him, but limit
his discussion on the Kelso matter, on any other matter vis-a-
vis the intelligence community.
Q I am sorry to interrupt you, but as long as we are
on the subject, are you sure that this authorization was given
to Hilberry sometime in September, or would it be in October?
A I think it was in September. It could have been
iMlllB fOlllwfTIlflTI
950
Wlti^BHF
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
October. It was after my phone call, it was a follow-up.
Q Did Hilberry ever tell you he had even spoken to
Owen prior to your authorization?
A No, not that I recall. I would have been disturbed.
If Owen called out there to talk to Gary to try to get to the
bottom of it, I am not that kind of manager. If I know two
people are trying to get it straightened, it would not bother
me, because I would expect Gary would fill me in on any
conversations he had.
But if Owen called up out of the blue without me
saying something to Gary, Gary would talk to him but very
guarded and probably would have said, "I need to talk to
Mr. Rosenblatt, I will get back to you."
Q Prior to your meeting with Rob Owen, did Hilberry
ever tell you he had spoken to Rob Owen?
A No. He did not know Rob Owen.
Q Then we go to this period in which you are telling
Hilberry now, probably sometime in October, that he could go
ahead and discuss the Kelso matter with Mr. Owen; is that
right?
A Yes, to try to ascertain whether or not he was with
an intelligence agency.
Q What happened as a result of that?
A As far as I know, they had one or two phone
conversations. After I discussed with Owen about the tapes.
UmASSlFKfia^
951
DNttftSStPlffiT
he became interested in having a meeting. It just did not
work out in our schedules. By this time, I had asked Gary
to send a copy of the tapes down to me. I never even got
around to listening to the tapes.
Q Do you know if they were in Spanish or English?
A I know that Gary Hilberry doesn't speak Spanish,
so based on that, they would probably be in English.
Q Did he say that he had personally listened to the
tapes?
A Yes, Gary had listened to the tapes. I then asked
in a telephone conversation I had with Owen, whether or not
he thought he could recognize any of the voices that
purportedly were of intelligence types that were talking to
Kelso/Williams, and he said possibly. This is where I
authorized my office that if Owen personally came to the offic
and presented some kind of identification, that he was Owen,
they could give him the tapes, which was subsequently done.
Q Were you at your office when Owen came by to get
the tapes?
A No.
Q Were you told by anyone in your office that he had
indeed picked up the tapes?
A Yes.
Q Do you know how soon it was after he got the tapes?
iHiTUri iMbVHvRffln
952
DOTSON/md
fls LYDA
11:30 am 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
IINDK^m^
A A couple of weeks. They were in my office for a week
or so before I even let Owen know we had tapes.
Q Did you have a subsequent conversation with Owen
regarding what he had discerned from listening to the tapes?
A No.
Q So, he never got back and said anything about them?
A I assume that by not hearing from Owen or Colonel
North that they were not coming up with anything positive.
I do recall in possibly my second conversation with Owen, when
we were talking about him picking up the tapes, that as far as
they could determine up to that point in time, that Kelso/
Williams did not work with any intelligence agency.
So that was just a reaffirmation of what we already
found out. Which in some respects, we had failed. We had done
as best we could, and the last-ditch effort of Owen and NSC
people listening to this tape to see if they could discern some
familiar voice, we had covered all our bases and if there was
a release by Kelso or his attorney. Snow, we did the best we
could.
Q After your initial conversation with Colonel North,
in which he told you to deal with Rob Owen, did you discuss
the Kelso matter with him again?
A Not any more after that. I don't recall it ever
coming up again.
Q So, he never, in essence, called you back to say he
uMpi Acoinrn
vim HnMnnnr
953
tntftASSiEST
checked with the CIA or anybody else?
A No.
Q To your knowledge, did Kelso have a passport in the
name of Williams?
A I don't know.
Q Were you told anything else about his travels other
than his trip to Costa Rica?
A No.
Q Did La Dodge indicate to you whether or not Kelso
had been a productive informant; that is, whether or not they
had made investigations based on what he said?
A Productive from the standpoint of they had provided
information which he had in various enforcement actions. Whethjer
the information resulted directly in arrest procedures, I do
not recall it.
Q When Kelso went to Costa Rica, did he go with La Dodgje 's
permission?
A As far as I know, no. You would have to ask
La Dodge, but my understanding is La Dodge was just as
surprised when they showed up in Costa Rica, and then suddenly
he is -- like I said, they ppjid him, the two of them,
between $1,000 and $1,500, primarily because of the phone call.
It is something that in this whole matter about trying to deal
or trying to handle, control or management informants who clain
to be intelligence types could lead to a lot of problems, and
mrailb nCnnlviljDT
954
iifffiasaBiiT
right now we have, as a result of all of this, we have a
prohibition of dealing with or even conducting any
investigations with informants who claim or profess to be
with the intelligence agency, and we find out, well, we
couldn't find out whether they are or not.
We are not going to deal with folks like thac, becau:
it gives them a chance to go wherever they want and have
control.
Q Now, did La Dodge —
A La Dodge told me that he never authorized that
Kelso or the other sub-informant ever go down to Costa
Rica.
Q Was it La Dodge or was it the attache who told
the DEA agents ^^^^^^^^^^|about Kelso's activities once
everything hit the fan?
A Both the Customs representative from our Panama
office, as well as the Customs agent from La Dodge's office
sat down with the DEA personnel^^^^^H^^^and related,
sunnnarized, however you want to — discussed what the
informant had said, to include the allegations of corruption
by DEA officials
Q Did they do that on your instructions, or was that
their own idea to tell DEA about the allegations of corruption
in their midst?
A That was their idea. They didn't do that on my
imaimEiFJL
955
HNtt/MPF
72
instructions. I didn't even know about this until after
they had come back; so, there was — let me put it this way:
My office knew that this agent was going down and we had the
Customs rep from our attache's office in Panama going over
there.
Q Was one of these DEA agents' name^^^^^l
A I don't know.
Q Do you know their names?
A No, I do not.
Q You referred to a conversation you had with Ambassadc
Tambs , you said it occurred maybe three weeks after the cable
had arrived. Did you call him or did he call you?
A Neither.
Q How did this communication —
A He was in the United States for a visit, I guess,
with the State Department, and he was doing a courtesy visit
to the Commissioner, and since the Commissioner wasn't in,
I was, so we met.
Q And did you discuss the Kelso matter at all?
A Primarily from the standpoint I apologized profusely
that it happened, and I assured him that these informants
had not gone down there with our approval, and if they had,
we would have definitely let the Embassy or the Ambassador kno^
about it, and all I was doing there for about 15 minutes was
apologizing profusely, assuring them it wouldn't happen again
(nWu HTcSfif^triifr
956
immw
73
1 Q When you made the representation they hadn't gone
2 with Customs' approval, was that based on the assurance you
3 had received from Larry La Dodge?
4 A Yes.
5 Q From anyone else?
6 A Who else would there be other than the Comptroller?
7 Q What was Ambassador Teunbs' concern about that? What
8 did he tell you?
9 A It is not like his concern, it would be any
10 Ambassador's concern, having U.S. citizens or, particularly
11 U.S. citizens, but informants of an agency in a country
12 without the Ambassador or his designees knowing about it,
13 particularly, you know, "in dealing with a narcotics matter
14 in a foreign country."
15 You asked the question before relative to whose idea
16 was it to tell DEA about the allegations of corruption by
17 DEA persons, some of the DEA personnel
18 don't have investigative authority overseas relative to
19 narcotics investigations.
20 It is part of the agreements that we have that
21 we fill in DEA about narcotics information. One may believe
22 it is not prudent to tell the very same office ^at the
23 allegations were on about and relate those allegations to them
24 but at the time when you relate this information, you go to
25 the office supervisor there, the information as far as I recal
iiN£iE^iR8.
957
(llfllfASSIFPT
was not about the office supervisor himself, it was about someone
working for him. ^
Q Did you discuss those allegations with Ambassador
Tambs?
A No.
Q Did he express he was aware of them?
A No.
Q Did Tambs mention the name John Hull?
A Not that I recall. I just don't remember it coming
up.
Q Other than expressing a general concern as an Ambass-
ador about this —
A More or less a courtesy visit.
Q Did he give you any specific information as to what
was going on down there?
A No, not at all.
Q Did the name Tomas Castillo ever come up? Tomas
Castillo, that is an alias, was]
^^^^VciA.
A I don't recall. That is not a name I remember.
Someone could have bounced that name, I could have read it
— it is not sticking with me. It doesn't mean anything to me.
Q And aside from his name, were you ever told or did
you ever get any indication that]
^^^Hhad been involved in the Kelso matter?
fWiJnUM- MtnlTI uZVTI
958
md 7
ONKASSfflBT
A No.
Q Are you familiar, in connection with this, with the
name Warren Treece?
A No.
Q I want to ask you a question regarding the letter
from the aide to President Arias, whether or not the letter
is genuine is not relative to our inquiry, but did you know
anything about the supposed assassination plot that had been
foiled by Mr. Caldwell?
A No.
Q When the Customs agent, who I gather from New Orleans
went down to Costa Rica to debrief Caldwell, is it my understarjd
they had already been debriefed by the Secret Service agents?
A No. That was the whole purpose, to hook them up.
Q And then the Secret Service agents decided not to go
to Costa RioaP
A Well, you see, they were in Costa Rica, my
understanding is they had an operation down there that was
somewhat successful, and there was — what we call in the
profession some heat, and they thought it was, at least this
is what was told to me, they thought it would be prudent
to leave Costa Rica for a while.
Q So that the connection between Secret Service and
Kelso --
Never took place.
iUHlH>flSLuHvWXB"'
959
OlffiEASSIFHT
Q Why did the DEA agent then go to Costa Rica as
opposed to just sending a money transfer?
A Why did the DEA --
Q I am sorry, the Customs agent go to Costa Rica?
A Because we have to get signatures for monies we give
to informants, plus you don't conduct briefings over the
phone, other information such as the DEA allegations,
allegations against DEA. You do that personally.
Q But was there any discussion of perhaps just
giving them money to get them into the United States and
debrief them?
A No. It would be much more expensive for both of then
Q Did the agent who paid them, who went down to Costa
Rica — what was that person's name?
A I don't have it with me. I am not trying — I just
don't remember the name.
Q He was a Special Agent.
A Yes.
Q Works for the New Orleans office?
A Yes. I believe we are reassigning him up to
Headquarters.
Q Did he ever check in with the Embassy after his
meeting?
A Oh, yes. This is when the Customs representative
arrived, and they then checked in with the Embassy and discussdd
1IEIE£1FJ£[L
960
BWItigSllW
the matter with the DEA personnel there.
Q Did you ever speak to anyone at either the
State Department, the Defense Department, DEA or the CIA
about the Kelso matter?
A Did I?
Q Yes.
A Personally, no.
Q Do you know whether or not, and this is subsequent
do you know Kelso /Williams indeed was an asset or source to any
U.S. intelligence agency?
A No, as far as I know, he is not.
Q Do you know whetlier or not he is an asset or source
for any U.S. law enforcement agency other than Customs?
A No, I do not.
Q Aside from the cable from Abrams in your visit with
Tambs , was there any other communications between Customs and
the State Department regarding the Kelso matter that you are
aware of?
A That I am aware of?
Q Yes.
A Well, I am not personally involved or aware of -- it
is obvious my people had discussions with the State Department
as a result of the Tambs cable. But, other than that —
Q Kelso, the record reflects Kelso surrendered in
January 1987 in Denver to authorities. Were you part of those
■iWliTfc Ir^i^MrUYliii
961
md 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
negotiations?
A No.
Q Were you aware of them at the time?
A I was aware there were negotiations going on.
Q What were you told about them?
A That there were negotiations going on. I mean,
he was, he had returned — my understanding is that the -- ther
was a warrant, there had been a warrant issued for violation
of his probation, and that when he came back, there was a
question of whether or not he was working for an agency or
not.
And until that matter could be cleared up, the
U.S. Attorney had pulled that warrant — okay — to make
sure, and I gather he reissued it -- okay -- after he
has assured himself there was no connection, and apparently
in January of '87, he turned himself in in conjunction with
the violation of probation.
Q From whom did you get this information?
A From my people upstairs who had probably talked
to Denver.
Q Were you informed that Kelso was concerned about his
safety?
A No.
Q Did you discuss the assassination plot against
President Arias with La Dodge?
WffiiiL fciipVI • iiiJI 1 1
962
KNttitSStFEl'^
A No.
Q Do you know what his involvement was?
A No. La Dodge just laughed at the whole letter.
Q Okay. Because he had nothing to do with it?
A He didn't know anything about it.
Q Didjvknow anything about the plot or letter?
A Either way. Was there such a plot?
Q Aside from allowing Owen to check out the tapes,
did anybody else in the Customs office in Washington listen to
the tapes or review them?
A I don't think so.
Q I am going to ask you about a couple names in
connection with this and tell me whether or not they ring a
bell.
William Chandler in Colorado?
A No.
Q Mel Cutler, Costa Rica?
A No.
Q Tom Welsh in Panama?
A No.
Q Scott McDaniels?
A No.
Q Tony Whitfield?
A No.
Q How about Mr. W-a-f-f-a?
MfiuLliiliHI uUU I •
963
MmsF
A No.
Q Alexander Zuniga McNulte?
A No.
Q Al Miller, who was in the State of Washington?
A Now -- was it Miller or Martin? One of the names Gaijy
Hilberry mentioned to me Kelso claimed to be talking to in
Washington was a Martin or a Miller. That is the extent I
recognize either one of those names.
Q Was this person supposedly a CIA —
A An intelligence contact.
Q Did you ever check that out —
A We didn't have any information to check it out,
because Kelso wouldn't give us the telephone number other than
the location up in Washington. That came through the attorney
up in Washington. But they were not providing us with any
numbers.
Q Did you discuss that with either North or Owen?
A I discussed that with Owen.
Q And what did he tell you?
A He had never heard the name.
MS. NAUGHTON: Thank you. I think that is all the
questions I have on that area.
MR. McGOUGH: I have none.
e
MR. GKNZMAN: I have none.
(Discussion off the record.)
iNtiiknciuintLilrn
964
md 13
BNttWH'^
MS. NAUGHTON: Back on the record.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
Q Now, let's go through the Southern Air Transport
investigation, in other words known as SAT. On October 5, 19861,
a C-123 carrying Eugene Hasenfus crashed, and from there began
an investigation of that plane, I believe by U.S. Customs.
Can you tell us what office opened that up and for
what reason?
A Our Special Agent in Charge of the Miami Office opendd
up an investigation as a result of a request from my office,
who got requested, received a request from the State Department^.
Q Do you know who in the State Department?
A No, I do not.
Q Do you know what office?
A The Office of Munitions Control.
Q What was going to be the predicate of the
investigation?
A Two areas; the first relative to any arms or
munitions that would require a license upon export from the
United States to another country; and, secondly, with respect
to the aircraft itself and two aspects thereof, one dealing
with whether or not the aircraft was a military configuration,
hard points again; and, number two, whether or not it needed,
even if it was not a military configuration, whether or not
it required a sojourn permit.
WfVlU fti irn ff lull I •
965
mdl4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
DNStASSIPiBT
Q Could you explain what you mean by a sojourn permit?
A A permit that would be issued by the Department,
by the State Department to allow the aircraft to depart the
United States and be utilized in transporting items from
other countries, from one country to another country, since it
was a U.S. -registered aircraft.
Q If such a permit is not granted, what is the
penalty?
A It is a felony.
Q So, there are criminal sanctions?
A I think it is 10 years, and there is a fine, I
am not sure of the amount of fine.
Q Now, as to the export of arms, is that something
that would fall under Customs' jurisdiction?
A Yes. The Arms Export Control Act.
Q NOW, were you aware of a parallel FBI investigation
into alleged Neutrality Act violations concerning the
aircraft?
A Was I aware at what point in time?
Q I assume at some point you were aware of it, as we
all are. When did you first become aware of it?
Q When -- subsequent to my initial conversation with
colonel North relative to the investigation, I called and spok^
to Mr. Leon G-u-i-n-n, Assistant Regional Commissioner for
Informants, Miami.
wmm
966
iiNomfiEeT
Q And he told you there was a parallel FBI —
A That the FBI was conducting an investigation as well
Q I take it that once your office basically authorized
the investigation, the Miami office took steps to carry that
out.
A That is correce.
Q Can you tell us what they did after receiving that
initiative from your office?
A Not in detail. In general I can, if that is what yoi.
want.
Q Yes.
A They began to determine the ownership of the C-123,
and they ascertained through FAA records and possibly other
records that this aircraft was purchased by Southern Air
Transport from a firm, which I will call an aircraft brokerage
firm, if you will, that the aircraft had an interesting historj
to it; it was an aircraft that had been utilized by the Drug
Enforcement Administration with a cooperating individual by
the name of Barry Seals that was flying these aircraft at one
time, and that the aircraft was sold to Southern Air and that
payment of approximately $465 or $485,000 was made against an
account in Southeast Bank, and according to Mr. Guinn, they
had obtained a cancelled check from Sun Bank in Orlando.
And on the reverse side of the check, on the back of
the check, it had Southern Air Transport, and Udall, U-d-a-1-1,
ntiuLKIImrlMlpr
967
BNttHSSIFEB'^
on it.
Q On the back of the check, are you referring to an
endorsement?
A Yes.
Q Now, do you recall how soon after the crash and
the investigation was initiated that you received this
information from the Miami office?
I would say it was either on October 9 or 10.
Was that before you talked to Colonel North?
Subsequent.
After you talked to Colonel North?
Yes.
So, you learned about Udall after you talked to
A
Q
A
Q
A
Q
North?
A Yes.
Q Let's put the North call into context. Did you call
him or did he call you?
A He called me.
Q And what did he have to say? Excuse me, what is the
date?
A Again, October 9 or 10.
Q What did he say?
A He sounded very anxious. He was very concerned about
our investigation of this particular aircraft, that he was
assuring me that these were again all good guys, and he
IMU&imR'/r
968
md 17
tlNtU^ffiBr
categorically stated that we were barking up the wrong
tree, that this airplane did not have any weapons, any arms
whatsoever when it left the United States. That was the gist
of his conversation, I mean with respect to that, that aspect.
He also indicated to me that he had learned that
we had served a subpoena asking for all the records for
Southern Air Transport, and that this was a very sensitive
area, and he just wanted to know generally what we were doing,
and I told him, I said, "Look," I called him Ollie at that tim^,
I said, "I discussed with you," and this is where the Maule
investigation came up, I said, "The best way for us to
get to the bottom of this is to get the information as quickly
as possible."
I informed him that this was a State Department
request to conduct the investigation, and what for. When I
got into the area of the airplane, the hard points and the
sojourn permit, I got the impression that he was taken aback
by this area of concern on our part.
I think he was just focusing on our jurisdiction beir^g
limited to arms export. He assured me in that initial
conversation that the aircraft was perfectly legal, again, I
reiterated to him that we were going to have to conduct the
investigation, that I thought personally speaking, issuing
a subpoena for all the records of SAT at this time was a littlt
bit much, but I said each agent has his own way of conducting
Hmi^lEfiT
Mmi^
an investigation.
I indicated to him that my main focus was on
determining whether or not the C-123 was, and the people on
the aircraft were involved in any violations that I had
enumerated during that conversation with him.
And as far as I was concerned, our focus was going
to be on the C-1 F-23, whether there were any arms or ammunition
being exported without a license, and relative to the plane,
hard points or needing a sojourn permit.
He, like you, asked me what that was all about,
and I explained to him. He just said there was -- there was
no reaction one way or the other, he jurt kind of absorbed it.
And I indicated to him that the thing I was going to be talking
to Leon Guinn about was to focus on the investigation of
the C-123. That was the substance of our discussion.
Subsequently, I called on Guinn, that is when I
was informed what Leon Guinn' s, the special agents were doing.
I learned the previous day a subpoena had been issued, it is
obvious that is what precipitated the call.
Q Can we stop for a moment and describe the subpoena?
Was it administrative?
A It was an administrative subpoena. Under --
Customs has the authority or the Special Agent in Charge to
issue an administrative subpoena under the Arms Export Control
Act,
mmm
970
moumer
' Q And that does not require Grand Jury action?
2 A No.
3 Q That is within Customs itself.
4 A Yes.
5 Q What did Mr. Guinn tell you the subpoena covered?
6 A He told me it covered the world. I said, look, we
7 were requested to conduct an investigation on the r-123. I thi i
8 because of the publicity on this particular case, and the
9 importance of it, that we ought to focus on the C-123, and let's
10 determine if there are violations involving the C-123 and
11 whether any of the SAT officials were part of any violational
12 activity.
13 I said, once we determine that, we can always expand
14 our investigation beyond that. But to me, it would have been
15 better off we focus on it. He had no problem with it.
16 He and I have known each other a long time, and he says, that
17 is great, that sounds acceptable to me.
18 Again, I never mentioned to Mr. Guinn that I had any
19 conversation with Colonel North. I didn't think it was
20 necessary for him to know that. But then, again, Guinn is
21 no dummy. I don't think he ever for one moment thought that I
22 had been talking to Colonel North or anybody in the NSC.
23 That is part of my job, is to take a look at these high
24 priority sensitive-type cases, and I just asked him to focus on
25 this so we could rapidly make a determination.
'WUd.fiuii liiMLifn
971
TOiBSraT
And the reason I did this, I think that if our
agents continued to go the course that they were and try to
get this monumental quantity of documents, we would be sifted
through all kinds of documents not necessarily focusing on
what the State Department initially asked us to do, to find
out if there was a violational activity.
And I thought it would make our case a lot easier
if we found violational activity as it related to the C-123,
that it would make it a lot easier for us to sustain any
further investigative pursuit we wanted to do with respect to
the total company.
Q And you talked to Guinn then. Did you resolve that
a new subpoena would be issued or procedurally —
A I left that up to him. We didn't get into a new
subpoena, old subpoena, but it is obvious if you are going fror
a very broad, sweeping inquiry through a subpoena, and if you
wanted to narrow it down, you would have to issue another
subpoena.
As it turned out, and as I understand, I don't know
this to be a fact, because it was related to me, the case
agent got the flu or was down a couple weeks, and a second
subpoena was issued for records, very narrowly, specific to
the C-123.
I came to leanH subsequent that that was issued on tl^e
29th, October 29, that second
972
URfiEAS^il'^
1 Q After your first call from North and your subsequert
2 conversation with Guinn, did you get back to North and tell
3 him that the focus had been narrowed?
4 A No, no. He called me a second time.
5 Q When was that?
6 A Oh, maybe several days later. I believe he called
7 me a couple days later. Because at some point, I did inform
8 him that we are continuing the investigation, and we are
9 focusing on it, focusing on the C-123. And he again
10 reiterated, he assured me he had double-checked and there were
11 no arms on that plane.
12 Now, by this time, I had been assured 99 percent by
13 Guinn that their investigation up to that point led them to
14 believe that there were no arms that went on that aircraft,
15 at least from the United States.
15 So, of course, I deduced since there were weapons
17 allegedly found on the plane when it crashed, obviously weapon;
18 were put on subsequent to its departure from the United
19 States.
20 And Mr. Guinn informed me that they were concentratiig
21 on the aircraft itself, particularly with respect to the !
22 sojourn permit.
23 Q What was North's reaction when you told him that?
24 A Somewhat noncommittal. I mean, I made it quite
25 clear to him that we were pursuing the investigation. At no
uy£U£sra.
973
m^ssiffi^
90
time, I want to make this perfectly clear, at no time in
connection with this case or with the Maule case, did North
ever ask me or — nor did I take anything that he said to
suggest that he wanted the case, you know, stopped, squashed,
whatever you want to call it.
He was just expressing concern that — I got the
impression he wanted to set us straight we were wasting our
time and barking up the wrong tree. But as I informed him on
the Maule case, I informed him as well on this one that we were
going to pursue it in what I called a very focused manner,
and if we came up with violations, so be it.
Q Did you discuss anything else during that
conversation?
A Other than what I talked to you about?
Q What is the next thing that developed in the case?
A The next thing that I heard was, I had been trying
to piece this together ever since the thing broke, and this
goes back to October 29 or 30, because I am not sure which day
it is, either a telephone message was left on my desk on
the 29th or 30th, or I got a call at my home to call a Bob
Earl, is it? Bob Earl. Of course, it had the number and of
course, that is the security number to the White House
Situation Room into NSC.
Anyways, I called -- you know, at home I called,
and I was informed that Earl wasn't there, but a Craig Coy was
UnuLituiliMvC'T
974
10
UNttigglPIIST
' there, and I talked to Craig Coy that evening, and I want to
' say that was around 9-ish, there around.
3 Q What date are we on?
* A Either the 29th or 30th of October. I want to say
5 the 30th, but, you know, because we are on the record, either
° the 29th or 30th. And in my conversation with Coy, he
7 indicated that ^he had talked to Colonel North and that they
8 were very concerned about my people being all over SAT, and
9 that I had agreed that we wouldn't conduct an investigation —
immediately, I interrupted Mr. Coy, and I said, I don't know
11 who you are, but if Colonel North is concerned, I want to talk
12 to Colonel North.
13 He said, "Colonel North is not here, he is not in the
14 United States." I said, "I don't care where he is at." I said
15 "Get a^old of a number, get cPhold of Colonel North, tell h
16 I want to talk to him. "
17 I terminated that conversation, and I immediately
18 called down to Leon Guinn at his residence, and I asked him,
19 I said something to the effect, what we are doing on SAT that
20 is different from what we discussed earlier in the month?
21 He said, nothing. He said, we are conducting an
22 investigation as you and I discussed. He said, I think maybe
23 another subpoena was issued. I can confirm it. He said, I
24 think we issued one yesterday. Immediately, bells go off in
25 my head saying, now I understand the telephone call.
•nniii- mn/n mZvP
975
BNGUSStPiBT
Leon, I think — I think Leon and I terminated our
conversation and he called me right back to confirm that the
previous day, our agent had served the administrative subpoena
on SAT. I said, fine, go ahead, continue.
He said, you realize that they have 10 days, two
weeks to respond to the subpoena. I said, fine. You know,
very nonchalant. And I guess it was about five minutes later
I got, I had a second conversation with Craig Coy, who gave
me a long-distance, out-of -country phone number.
Q So, Coy called you?
A Yes, he got back to me . I guess we went through —
anyways, I got the number, I thankedtiim, and then I proceeded
to use my credit card and call the number, I did not save the
money, maybe I should have, I didn't save it —
Q Do you know where it was?
A It would be a guess on my part. Only because I
had to go through a hotel clerk. If I had to pin it, I would
say it was either in Europe or the Middle East because of the
accent.
I went through the desk clerk, I guess you would call
him, I got aliold of Colonel North, and it was about 3, 3:30
in the morning when I talked to him, I woke him up obviously,
and I identified who I was, and I said, yes, he said, what are
you doing? And I said, what do you mean what am I doing?
I said, I told you we were conducting the investigation on the
Mm™ HTtMfllWr
976
25
WKl/Milir
1 C-123.
2 He says, we are right in the middle of a lot of
3 sensitive business here, I am trying to get some packages
4 out of here, and I don't need — he said, look, we are
5 conducting investigations on the C-123. I said, as you know,
6 there are other agencies that may be investiydting it. You
7 are going to have to deal with that. I said, we served a
8 subpoena, we are going forward.
9 He didn't seem to have a problem with that. Okay?
10 Then he said, well, you tell Coy, okay, to take care of -- or
11 do something about these other agencies, the FBI. Okay?
12 I said, all right. He said, by the way, Ollie, when you get
13 back, I would like for you and I and the Commissioner to get
14 together.
15 The reason I said that, or when I heard the term
16 "packages," I became concerned. I took that term to mean
17 that we were talking about more than all this stuff about
18 Maule and the SAT investigation.
19 He said, fine, and we terminated our discussion.
20 I then called Coy up, I told Coy that we have served another
21 subpoena, we intended to continue our investigation of the
22 C-123. And we, according to — that — not according, but
23 Colonel North wanted me to pass a message to him about these
24 other agencies that might be investigating SAT, to including
the FBI, and take care of whatever has to be done.
UMfitiiS^H^lEST
977
tlNttilSSIFIE§T
He said, okay, he will take care of it, and that was
the end of that conversation. Now, our Commissioner was out
of the country at that time, and I put it on the top of
my list to discuss with the Commissioner.
Unfortunately, the Commissioner was not coming back
until like the weekend or the 7th, the 7th or 8th, and we
N.a conf erence/scheduled) a'^yways at his farm, a management
conference. It was on the 10th, which was, I believe a holiday.
Q That is November 10?
A Yes, of '86. While at the conference, I related
to the Commissioner that status of the SAT investigation and
the Maule and the fact I had not gotten the documents, and
that in conjunction with the SAT matter, my conversation that
I [aph with Ollie and that I felt very uncomfortable with what
was going on.
Q Why?
A I had never heard of anybody in the National Security
Council becoming directly involved in trying to get
packages out of another country — meaning hostages -- from
an operational standpoint.
Q Did you understand him to say hostages when he said
packages?
A Yes. That is what came to my mind immediately.
They were trying to get some people out of there, some hostage:
out. And when he said, I became concerned, I want you to cleai ly
mmfs&
978
MISSIfKiT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
understand nothing of illegality, it is a concern that I had
that the Commissioner was aware of it, that the Treasury was
aware of what was going on here and that, you know, we were
being asked in conjunction with this -- okay -- in essence to
be circumspect in our investigation of Southern Air.
And I had gotten this phone call, if you will,
from Cny and also my conversation that certain sensitive
things were going on relative to SAT, and -- in conjunction
with getting these packages out. That is far different than
somebody making an inquiry about the manner in which we are
conducting an investigation or expressing their concern that
there were a bunch of good guys and there was no violation
activity, we are getting into a whole other arena.
Q What is it that North said when you called him at
his hotel overseas that made you think that what he was doing
regarding the package was in any way related to SAT?
A I didn't say that.
rrliifJn Miliill iiLifTi
979
mmsm
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q That's sort of what you are inferring.
A No, you are inferring that. What I am saying is
we have got an investigation on SAT, Colonel North makes a
representation about packages, and be circumspect in our
investigation of SAT as both of them were related. Okay?
I don't know what that relationship was. I mean, I could sit
then and sit here now and do a lot of surmising.
Q No, what I am asking you, at that point when you
were talking to the Commissioner, in your mind, had North
connected the two? In other words, the way you related the
North conversation, he has woken up and says, "Well, I am
trying to get these packages out and I am busy here. I
don't quite understand what made you connect that remark to
the SAT investigation.
A First off, we start out our conversation about
my people being all over SAT, and he is involved in — and
SAT is involved with him, I gather in very sensitive — in
NSC operations involving getting packages out.
Q That's my question. Did he say that?
A He talked about packages. I know he is NSC. He
didn't say NSC.
Q I know that. Did he say SAT was involved in
sensitive operations?
A No, he did not. He said it is sensitive. Okay?
He didn't say involved in sensitive; it is sensitive.
umi^Br
980
VttK/l^tG^
97
1 Q Were you concerned they could be related?
2 A Exactly.
3 Q And you expressed that?
4 A Well, that is why I wanted to meet — I wasn't
5 going to discuss this over open, long-distance lines, and he
6 wasn't in a position to get to a secure phone. So that's
7 why I waited. I figured it is NSC, it can't be all that bad,
8 so the first, the clear opportunity then we had to get
9 together was down at his farm on the 10th in conjunction
10 with the management conference.
11 Q Okay. By then, of course, the story had broken.
12 A Had it?
13 Q In the media.
14 A All right.
15 Q Well, the hearings had shown that the newspaper
16 accounts of the arms shipments to Iran came out on the 3rd
17 and 4th of November, and by the 10th, it was pretty well
■J8 steam rolling along. Did you discuss those stories with the
19 Commissioner at that point?
20 A Yes. Obviously, we did about Iran. All right?
2-j There wasn't anything in the paper about hostages at that
22 time that I recall. Do you?
23 Q I am not the one being deposed. What did the
24 Commissioner have to say when you expressed these concerns?
25 A He could understand. He said, "Yes, I understand
IffttuiitUDDnr 1UV 1 1
981
HMMir
98
your concern." He says, "This is bothersome", and he said,
"The best person for us to talk to about this would be Bob
Kimmet", because Bob Kimmet, who is our General Counsel for
the Treasury Department, was at one time General Counsel for
NSC.
I indicated to the Commissioner, "Do you want r.^
to cancel my trip abroad?" Because he was going along the
Southwest border to do a bunch of visits. And he said, "No,
but be sure before you go out of the country", or wherever
I was going at the time, and I would have to go back to my
calendar to look, that I make an appointment with Mr. Kimmet.
I called Mr. Kimmet personally from my residence
that evening, which was the 10th, indicated to him I would
like to have an appointment with him, it was very important,
the following Monday because that would be the first day I
.■ould be back in the office. He said, no problem, we'll
just have our secretaries work it out.
So I called my secretary the next morning and
indicated for her to call Mr. Kimmet 's secretary and get me
an appointment for sometime Monday afternoon. Usually when
I am away for a week Monday mornings are unbelievable. So
it was set up for, to the best of my recollection, either a
3:00 o'clock or 3:30 appointment on the 17th.
Q What is the next event then that happens?
A I went over and talked to -- well --
IIHBkAS&IFl^T
982
ONttASSWr
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Nothing happened from the 10th to the 17th?
A No.
Q You didn't speak to Colonel North?
A No.
Q You may have testified to this already, but when
you spoke to Colonel North on the 17th. did you call him, or
did he call you?
A I called him. Reference to the Maule.
Q Did you discuss Southern Air Transport?
A No.
Q Did you speak with Mr. Kimmet on the 17th?
A Yes, I did.
Q Did you relate to him the same concerns you related
to the Commissioner?
A Yes.
Q I gather you discussed with him Maule and Southern
Air Transport?
A And Kelso.
Q And Kelso?
A All three.
Q What did Mr. Kimmet tell you?
MS. ANDERSON: I don't think he should do that.
That is privileged. That is attorney/client.
MS. NAUGHTON: I am not sure of that, but it is
not that important, so I won't --
IITftPT
983
imSSBEItr
100
North;
MS. ANDERSON: I don't want him to answer it.
MR. MC GOUGH: I don't have any interest in pursuing
MS. NAUGHTON: Okay.
BY MS. NAUGHTON:
After talking to Mr. Kiminet, did you talk to Colonel
No.
A
Q After talking to Mr. Kiminet, did you talk to the
Commissioner?
A Yes.
Q What did you discuss with the Commissioner?
A I related to the Commissioner my discussion. I
thought it was going to be a private conversation between
myself and Mr. Kimmet, but Mr. Kimmet elected to have one of
his assistants in the office as well taking notes. They
indicated to me, which I relayed to the Commissioner, that
they were going to forward something to the Justice Department
about what I had relayed to them.
Q Did the Commissioner tell you what the purpose of
that would be?
A Pardon me?
Q Why forward that to the Justice Department? For
what?
A The Department of Justice, the Department of
HMfib&SfilHE&T
984
mmm
101
Treasury was going to forward a letter, if you will, setting
forth my information, if you will, so the Department of
Justice would have it. Basically, the Commissioner just
listened to my reporting of what I told him. Basically, he
knew what I told him, and that they were going to forward.
I later found out that Treasury did forward a
letter to the Justice Department. I have never seen that
letter. It has been relayed to me a couple times at different
interviews, hopefully the last of a long list.
Q Prior to your speaking to the Commissioner on
November 10, did you discuss the Southern Air investigation
with him prior to November 10?
A No.
Q Do you know if he was being apprised of it by any
other means?
A No, I might have casually mentioned one day --
when I say casually, we were conducting an investigation on
the SAT, but I don't believe I ever mentioned anything to
the Commissioner about Ollie North's phone call to me.
Q Do you know whether or not Colonel North talked
to the Commissioner about the SAT investigation?
A I have no knowledge of that.
Q Did the Commissioner tell you he talked to North?
A No.
Q Do you know whether or not Secretary Baker ever
IltUU UICIQUL
■nniD HjvMinfinii
985
BMMRfflT
102
discussed it, the investigation, with Colonel North?
A I would have no way of knowing.
Q Do you know whether or not he ever discussed it
with Attorney General Meese or anybody else?
A North?
Q Secretary Baker, Secretary of the Treasury.
A No. I don't have any first-hand knowledge of that.
Q I am not saying were you present. Did anybody
tell you that Baker had been contacted by Attorney General
Meese?
A This is hearsay. Shall I give that?
Q It is fine.
A On hearsay, I had heard at some social function,
when I say social function, associated with the job, that
Attorney General Meese indicated to Secretary Baker that he
wanted to talk to him later on in the day or some subsequent
time relative to an investigation that Customs was conducting.
I have also heard, again it is hearsay, that
Secretary Baker never received a follow-up call or had a
conversation in conjunction with that.
Q I take it there were no inquiries made to you from
the Secretary's office regarding the case?
A Absolutely none. To me or the Commissioner.
Because if the Commissioner had gotten, I would have gotten
It.
im)£SKer
986
m&mw
103
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Q Did you ever have any conversations with Admiral
Poindexter regarding any of these three cases we have dis-
cussed?
A No.
Q Do you know whether or not Adniiral Poindexter con-
tacted anyone at Customs regarding any of these meetings?
A I don't have that knowledge. Again, if the Com-
missioner had been contacted by Admiral Poindexter relative
to this case, I am fairly confident that he would share them
with me. Or at least the mere fact that he had a conversa-
tion, maybe not necessarily the details.
Q Now, I believe the second subpoena had been served
on September 29. Do you know when a third subpoena was
served?
A I do not know whether that was a grand jury subpoena
or an administrative subpoena, because that whole investiga-
tion now is under the Independent Counsel. So insofar as
what has been going on in that investigation, once we ceased,
at the direction of the Independent Counsel, I have no
knowledge of that case.
Q Was there any attempt on the part of attorneys for
SAT or for executives from SAT to contact you or any of the
agents' supervisors to try to deal with the problem of the
subpoenas?
A Nobody from SAT — let's go back. Your question
Hniv/RiSmfifh'
987
1 was any attorneys, right?
2 Q Or the executives themselves.
3 A Nobody ever contacted me. Now, whether or not
4 those same persons that you just named attempted or success-
5 fully contacted any supervisor or manager in the Southeast
6 Region, I would have to defer, because I would no;, have
7 knowledge. I don't have knowledge of that. I would have to
8 find out.
9 Q Now as to the FBI investigation, did, first of all,
10 did you discuss the SAT investigation with anybody at the
11 FBI either in October or November, 1986?
12 A No.
13 Q Did you know in either October or November in 1986
14 of any similar attempts or similar conversations by Colonel
15 North or Admiral Poindexter to have the FBI investigation?
16 A I do not know whether Colonel North or Admiral
17 Poindexter or anybody went to the FBI. I would not have
19 knowledge. That would be something between them — between
19 those two parties. That is assuming that it did happen. I
20 do not have any knowledge.
21 Q So Colonel North, for instance, or Commander Coy
22 never imparted any information about the FBI investigation
23 to you, is that correct?
24 A That is correct.
25 MS. NAUGHTON: I think that is all the questions
itiit$:i>i^jfiFiT
988
mmm
105
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I have.
BY MR. MC GOUGH:
Q Mr. Rosenblatt, you referred to the Maule investi-
gation and SAT investigation, to Colonel North's remarks the
involved individuals were "good guys".
A Yes.
Q I want to probe a little bit what you understood
that to mean. There is at least two possible meanings; one,
they are good guys who wouldn't break the laws, and the other
is they are good guys in the sense they are government
operatives. And what I want to get at is when he said the
words "good guys" —
A Your first definition.
Q Just the first?
A Yes.
Q The first being that they were people who would
not break the law.
A Yes.
Q Did you understand it to have any implications
when he said that they were good guys working for the govern-
ment?
A I did not infer that.
Q Let me just close the set a little bit here, if
I can. You talked about various matters today. Are there
any other matters in which you had contact with Oliver North
rtlllilil JA^xilHUtJV '
989
BlfflUfflSfftffir
at all?
A
Q
A
Q
A
Other than the areas we have covered today, no.
Have you ever been in Oliver North's office?
Yes, once.
Can iou give me the circumstances of that?
Well, it was in connection with trying to follow
up with the Maule investigation and getting some of the
documentation. Up to that time. Colonel North was just a
voice over the phone. So I seized upon the opportunity to
go over to his office, made an appointment, and went over
and met him. It was a very brief meeting. If it lasted
more than ten or 15 minutes, that was a lot.
Q That was in the context of the Maule investigation!
A Yes, the Maule — by that time, I think it was in
October, it would have been about the Maule and the SAT. It
probably was about the SAT as well.
Q Do you recall any of the discussions you had
subsequent to that?
A No, just general. Again, my purpose over there
was to get the documents, again.
Q Did you see anyone else in Colonel North's office
when you went there?
A I saw a secretary there. There were some other
folks in and out.
Q Did you know anyone who was in and out?
tiMlllA^ZJMflp
990
ittumw
107
A The only person I remembered was Buck Revell.
Buck Revell came out of his office. I arrived there five
minutes later. Buck Revell came out of his office, we said
hello, and he departed.
Q Did you have any substantive discussions with Mr.
Revell?
A No.
Q Do you know why he was visiting Colonel North?
A I don't know.
Q Did you talk to Colonel North about the fact Buck
Revell had just been in there?
A I didn't think it was any of my business.
Q Has Colonel North ever been in your office?
A I don't believe so.
Q Have you ever met with Colonel North outside his
office?
A No.
Q Other than that one face-to-face encounter in his
office, have you ever met with him at all?
A No.
Q Other than the package of information on Maule
that he sent over to you, did you exchange any other
correspondence or documents?
A No.
Q Do you still have the credit card information, the
UWili HnTin rlrili I ■
991
iifmssFiEr
billing information on the phone calls that you made on
October 30?
A No. The possibility of getting that now at this
late date is almost impossible. They retain it for six
months. Unless you are more successful than we are as
investigators, you are going to have a hard time retrieving
it.
Q You mean from the phone company?
A That is right.
Q My question is, do you retain them for tax purposes
or anything like that?
A No.
MR. MC GOUGH: That is all I have.
BY MR. GENZMAN:
Q Regarding the telephone conversation on October 30
when North was overseas, when he talked about trying to get
some packages out, was this in the same context as the SAT
investigation?
A Yes.
Q You inferred he was trying to make the link between
the two subjects?
A Yes.
Q Did he say anything more specific about SAT and
any link it had with the packages?
A No. I inferred, or I got the impression that
mA&SHiKfirp
992
URBftSSBftT
109
^ whatever he was attempting to do with the packages, to some
2 extent it was predicated on the involvement, if you will, of
3 SAT.
4 Q Were you thinking at that point about the subpoena
5 which asked for all of the SAT records?
6 A Yes. It began to make me wonder whether my choice
7 of focusing on the C-123 might have been imprudent at that
8 time.
9 MR. GENZMAN: I have nothing further.
10 MR. MC GOUGH: Let me return for a minute to the
11 phone records.
12 BY MR. MC GOUGH:
13 Q The credit card that you used, was it a personal
14 credit card, or was it the Custom Service's?
15 A Custom Service.
16 Q So the bill would have been sent to the Customs
17 Service?
18 A Yes.
19 Q Do you know whether those bills are retained by
20 th« Customs Service in that form?
21 A I don't know.
22 Q Do you review the bills each month?
23 A Either myself or my staff review the bills. But
24 I don't believe that they are retained for a very long period
25 of time as long as we check off on it.
MUM flpcjnrn
993
HMJ^ffffiBfr
Q Who in your staff would know that?
A Mr. Paul Pulitz.
MR. MC GOUGH: That is all I have.
MS. NAUGHTON: Thank you very much.
(Whereupon, at 12.55 p.m., the select committee
was adjourned.)
imj^e^
82-732 0-88-33
994
9&5
flfRNOGSAPmC MINUTBS
V
Committee Hcaringt
HA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
w
WNCUXSIHEO -..^u^-cc-
\ mOm pravWom of CO. 12354
KAHE! HIRH41002
uNtuissra
RPTS CANTOR
DCHN GLASSNAP
DEPOSITION OF LARRY ROYER
Thursday. Hay 21, 1987
House of Reprftsantativas>
Select Comnittee to Investigate Coverl
Acms Transactions uith Iran,
Hashinfton, O.C.
The Select Committee met. pursuant to call, at 6:00 p.m..
in Room B-3S2> Rayburn House Office Building. Joe Saba
(Staff Counsel. Select Committee) presiding.
Present: joe Saba. Staff Counsel, House Select Committee
Vernon H. Houchen. Counsel for witness; Hon. Paul S. Tzible,
United States Senator from the State of Virginia; Cameron
H»lmas. Associate Counsel. Senate Select Committee; Don
Semstein. Investigator. House Select Committee; Robert U.
Genzman. Associate Minority Counsel. House Select Committee;
and Richard Cullen. Counsel to Senator Trible.
UNClASSra
997
QNOASSIFIED
NAHKi MZX1I41002 UllUUlWII ■•>■' pAGZ
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
3U
35
36
37
38
p39
5 uo
KR. SABi' Foi tha z*eozd. counsel undazstands that
tha zapoztaz ia a notazy public In tha Stata oi Hazyland,
and I hava no objaction to this zapoztaz adninistazing the
oath ioz puzposas of this deposition and no objaction to the
fozn oi tha oath. Would you please adminlstez the oath?
[Hitness suozn. ]
Whazaupon.
LARRY ROYER,
was called as a witness by counsel ioz the House Select
Connittee and having been duly swozn was examined and
tastiiied as iollows:
EXAHIKATIOK BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. SABA:
fi Hould you please stata youz naite, youz addzess?
A Lazzy G. Royez,
Decatuz, Illinois.
fi Could you please state youz occupation?
A I an an industzial plant liqtuidatoz. and a used
equipment daalaz in pzocess e^uipaant.
S Bziaily give us youz pzoiassional backgzound.
A I hava been an industzial auctioneez quite a iaw
y*«Z9, and I buy and sail machinazy ioz tha puzposa oi
making a pzoiit.
P. And when did you oommanca that business?
^>r J, ^fp7
UNCUSSinED
' FO»Mum <A EO. 12356
ftf a flik», NaiioMi Security Coun
UNcussra
KAHE: HIR1t4l002 UllUL Hill lirir 1 1 PACE 3
A Hy conpany is Equipment Removal and Search and was
fozned in early 1983.
e And prior to 1983?
A I was in the real estate auction business and
industrial auctions.
e And was this business at all times in the State of
Illinois primarily?
A Primarily.
S Can you please tell me how you came to Know General
Adarholt?
A I met General Aderholt through an attempt to
provide a service to liquidate Braniif Airlines when Braniii
Airlines was in trouble.
2 Hhen was that?
A '82 probably. 1982.
e And did you do any business with General Aderholt
following meeting him?
A On the Braniff Airline thing? Only the point that
we had him do a consulting and writing the plan, and ha was
paid for those services.
e Old you have occasion to travel with General
Aderholt?
A Yes. I have traveled with General Aderholt to
Guatemala once and to Thailand twice.
e Did you travel anywhere else with him outside the
UNCussra
999
NAn£:
7S
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
8X
85
86
87
8{
8<
90
91
92
93
914
95
96
97
98
99
::::.JNCIASSIFIED
No.
8 Hhen did you travel with him to Guateuala?
A I think I travttled with him in 1985 or 1986.
S And what was tha purposa of the trip?
A Ha was going to introduca m« to peopla that he knew
down there who may have needs for used machinery in the
sugar cane industries.
2 And did he introduce you to such people?
A Yes, he introduced ma to two cane sugar operators.
fi Do you recall their names?
A Roberto Aleous oi Salto Corporation, and Widman--!
don't know his first nam* at the present time — who is a cane
producer and processor.
2 Did General Aderholt introduce you to any other
businessmen in Guatemala?
A If so — no, I don't think so. I really don't think
so .
fi Sid you hava occasion to pursue any business other
than that related to sugar cana equipment in Guatemala?
A Sugar cane related then to alcohol for fuel use . I
think that Is basically what we talked about. Ue talked
about a lot of possibilities, what could be done in
Guatemala, but basically processing equipment. Z think.
S Were you Involved in any way in General Aderholt 's
UNCLASSIFIED
1000
UNCLASSIFIED
NAHE: HIR1U1002 llllll.l U.A.Airiril PAGE S
100
101
102
103
10<4
105
106
107
108
109
1 10
1 1 1
1 12
113
1 1M
1 IS
1 16
1 17
118
119
120
12
122
123
12>l
efforts to provide medical assistance to residents in
Guatemala?
A Hone whatsoever.
Q Here you involved in any military, paramilitary
activity in Guatemala?
A None whatsoever.
fi Since 1982, have you done any business directly
with General Aderholt?
A I sold him or helped him buy a printing press, a
small little project oi about 42500 from a company in
Illinois.
e Approximately when?
A 1983-'8((, in there sometime.
& Hhat was the approximate value of the printing
press?
A The selling price was «2500, but we come to find
out that the value now is nothing. It is a junk piece of
machinery, never operated.
e Since that time, have you transacted any further
business with General Aderholt?
A No. I am getting a forkllft donated from a good
pzooesslng company to his air commando unit for help in
lifting and loading these medical supplies down there, but
that Is all.
Q Have you obtained that forkllft?
UNCUSSIFIED
1001
NAHE
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
1U0
mi
1U2
1H3
1I(((
1145
me
1U7
11(8
m9
HIR1U1002
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE
A No, not yet.
2 And from whoa would you obtain the forXlift?
A Well, I will try to get it from some good processor
that will just give it for the help.
2 This is to be donated?
A Donated, right.
2 And if you are successful in obtaining a donation,
to whom would the donation be made?
A To Aderholt's air commando group.
2 And do you Know the destination of the item?
A Probably Fort Walton Beach. Florida.
2 And why that place?
A That is where he headquarters out of, so I assume
that is where he wants it.
2 Have you or are you engaged in the performance of
any services or procurement for General Aderholt related to
military or lethal equipment for any purpose?
A None whatsoever.
2 Did you have occasion to meet General Richard
Secord?
A Yes.
e Can you tell us when and the circumstances?
A During our work with the Braniff Airline
liquidation proposals, I was in fort Walton Beach, Florida,
and on a specific weekend, some weekend. General Secord and
UNtlASSm
1002
NAME: HIR1i(1002
UNCIASSIHED
PAGE
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
1614
165
166
167
166
169
170
171
172
173
17U
his ulfe, Joanna, came to visit Ganeral Aderholt, and I was
introduced to him at that time.
2 Do you recall the time?
A '83, I think it was, '82 or '83.
2 Was it at a time when General Secord was still on
active duty?
A Yes.
2 And following that meeting with General Secord in
Florida, did you have occasion to see him afterward in 1983»
A I don't think — I saw him then^aiter he retired from
the military. I invited him to come to New Jersey and visit
with some friends of ours, and then he and I traveled to
Europe on a five-day vacation together.
S When was this?
A In '83, in October I think of <83, yes, '83,
October of '83 probably.
e Did you transact any business with General Secord
in 1983?
A Ho. I don't think so. I don't believe I did.
Q When did you first visit General Secord following
his retirement from the military?
A I really don't know. I think in '8t4. I remember
coming out to General Secord's office, his first office, and
I think Z was there a couple times.
Q Do you recall approximately when was the first time
ONCUSSiFIED
1003
HIR1I41002
yiiCLASSIFItO
PAGE
you had occasion to visit hiii in his offica?
A Ko, I don't. I raally don't.
2 Can you describe the cizcunstances where you cane
to aeet Hr . Don narostica?
A Hr . narostica was acting as a supplier oi capital
for a coapany that was going to be formed in Sterling,
Colorado, and when I was called to Denver to finalize the
sale of equipaent to a fallow by the naae of Wesley Holraes —
2 When was this?
A In early '86, I guess, and Narostica was supposedly
the aan who was going to furnish the capital, raise the
capital for this venture, and that is whan I first aat Don
Harostica.
2 And did you transact that business with Hr .
narostica?
A Yes .
2 What was that business called?
A First Aaerican Sterling Hills.
2 And what was the nature of the business?
A Fish aeal, processed to sake fish aaal.
2 Did it involve General Secord?
A Ho.
2 Albert HaKia?
A Ho.
2 Stanford Technology Trading Group, Inc.?
ifimim
1004
NAME: HIR1II1002
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
21 1
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
22
222
223
22<4
msm
k Mo, nona.
S Did Hr. Harostica propose any additional business
ventures to you?
A Yes. He proposed several business ventures to us.
e Could you nane those ventures?
A He proposed ventures that we describe now as
American Arms, Ceretech International, a timber logging
operation called Cuinault timber project, and a
pharmaceutical project called Bio Fine.
2 Directing your attention to the project called
American Arms, can you tell us how this project Has proposed
and what came o£ it?
A Harostica told me that there was a company in Salt
Lake City that was manufacturing an automatic weapon, that
company needed iinancial help, it needed marketing. It was
in bad financial condition, and they needed somebody to help
them.
e What was the name of this company?
A American Arms, Salt Lake City. So Harostica
invited — he gave me the information on the thing. I called
General Seooxd and wanted to take a look, have him take a
look at this weapon to see if it had any possibilities.
e Hhat information did Harostica give you on American
Arms?
A Probably gave me some projections of what the
UNCLASSIHED
1005
UNCLASSIFIED
•" uniiUooinLu ■■•■ •
weapon was capable of doing, projections of if we could
nanufactuie some, how much it would make.
At that point in time. I don't think there was much
said about projections of dollars or anything until we
finally met, after our meeting with the Gofi in Salt Lake.
S When did you have that meeting with Gofs in Salt
Lake?
A I don't know. I would have to look.
[Discussion off the record.]
THE UITNESS: The first of Hay, 1986, or
thereabouts .
BY HR. SABA:
a Who are the Gofs?
-P
A The Gofs were the major stockholders and managers
of American Arms. Inc.
2 And you met with which Gofs?
A Don narostlca and myself met with both the father
and son in Salt Lake City.
Q What is the relationship of Hr . Gof. Sr . and Mr.
Gof, Jr. to American Arms?
A Halt a minute. I have got to correct that. I
think, if my memory serves me right. Richard Secord and I
waza th« ones who met the 6o£s in Salt Lake City.
Q So if I understand you. is it correct to say
following the receipt of information about American Arms
UNCUSSIFIED
1006
KAHE: HIR1(41002
25U
255
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE
250 fron Harostioa, you conveyed that iniornation to Hr . Secord?
251 A That is correct.
252 fi How did you convey the information?
253 . A I think I probably talked to him on the phone, and
then maybe mostly telephone conversation, and I invited him
to come to Salt Lake City to take a look at the weapon.
256 S And did he come to Salt Lake City?
257 A Yes, and I met in Salt Lake City, and ue went to
258 American Arms and looked at the weapons.
259 S And whom did you meet at American Arms?
260 A Both Junior and Senior Goif
26 1 fi And what was their relationship to American Arms?
262 A The general managers and stockholders and probably
263 founders of American Arms.
26M fi And what did they tell you?
265 A Hell, they are. of course, trying to sell us on the
266 merits of their weapon.
267 2 Hhat is their weapon?
2 68 A They manufacture an automatic machine gun called
269 the Aaarioan-180, with a laser sight, fires a 22-round at a
270 high rata of speed, like 1800 rounds a minute.
271 e I would show you this brochure which will be marked
272 Exhibit 1.
273 [The following Document was marked as Royer Exhibit
274 Ho. 1 for Identification.]
UNCIASSIHED
1007
HAHE: HIR1141002
UNCLASSIFIED ..
t*xxxxxxxx COHHITTEE INSERT x**»»**»»
UNCLASSIRED
1008
UNCLASSIHED
NAME: HIRIUIOOZ ^|fULf*^lJII ll_U PAGE
277 BY HR. SABA:
278 fi Can you identify the brochure?
279 A Yes. It is a brochure of American Arms at Salt
280 Lake City, reflecting the American- 180 weapon that ue were
281 interested in.
282 Q Directing your attention to the exhibit, are the
283 weapons depicted in the brochure those that you discussed
284 with Mr. Gof?
285 A Yes.
286 e Further directing your attention to the brochure,
287 could you explain the picture on the page which we will mark
288 for purposes of this deposition Royer 1-A?
289 [the Following Document was marked as Royer Exhibit
290 Ho. 1-A for Identification. J
291
29 2 «*x*x**xxx COHMITTEE INSERT »*»*»»*»»
UNCUSSIRED
1009
UNCLASSIFIED
NAME: HIRIUIOOa ^|^UbriVWll ■^■»' p^gj
293
29M
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
3014
305
306
307
308
309
310
THE HITKESS: You will hava to rapaat that.
BY MR. SABA:
e I am sorry. Could you describa for us tha waapons
depicted here?
A There are three weapons, basically the same model.
Only one oi them is a gold-plated, very good collector's
item. The second one is a stainless steel or a chrome, and
the third one is a high-gloss blue, which is more or less a
production model of the weapon.
e Did you discuss all three of these weapons?
A Yes.
e Directing your attention to what we will call Royer
Exhibit 1-B, can you describe tha picture depicted, what is
depicted in the picture hare?
[The Following Document was marked as Royer Exhibit
No. 1-B for Identification.!
**«««*«««« COMMITTEE INSERT
VNCUSSIFIED
1010
UNCiAssra
NAME: HIR1(I1002 U|lULnUwll IbW PAGE 15
311 THE HITHESS- That you ara pointing to?
312 BY HR. SABA-
313 e Yas.
3m A Is a briafcasa with an automatic weapon installed
315 inside the brieicasa . it was intended to be sold to drug
316 eniorcenent agencies and govexnment oiiicials that need
317 protection.
318 2 Has this also discussed?
319 A Very little, very little.
320 B But it was discussed?
321 A Yes, but I never showed any interest in that, and I
322 don't think General Record did much either.
323 S Following the meeting, what occurred?
32(< A He discussed the possibility with the Gofs, and
325 then we left and went to Denver, and I think we stayed all
326 night in Denver and met Hr . Marostica the next morning, and
327 we discussed the possibilities oi investing in trying to do
328 something with American Arms.
329 2 How would this investment be accomplished? To be
330 more clear, what were the financial terms of the investment?
331 A Because of the new law that the President was going
332 to sign, we knew that we had to get as many receivers as we
333 could bull;)^ before he signed that law, and we wanted to--
33(4 nR. CULLEK: Let the record reflect what a receiver
335 is.
UNCUSSIFIEO
1011
UNCLASSIFIED
KANE: HIR1>I1002 UllUkrlWII IbW PAGE
336
337
338
339
3M0
3U1
3X2
3143
3^^
3US
3X6
3U7
3X8
3<49
3S0
3S1
352
353
3SU
355
356
357
358
359
360
BY HR. SABA:
fi Yes> could you dsscriba a zeceivax?
A It is a part of an automatic weapon that gAnezally
contains a sarial nuaber, and has tha tziggez capacity and
the changing of tha shell, what I know about it, but
basically it is tha part that has tha sarial number on it
that is important to tha identification of tha weapon.
2 Could you continue explaining the terms of the
itmant.
A He wanted to get these weapons or the receivers
made so that we could convert these weapons that were legal
weapons to sell to the people, you know, collectors. Ha
wanted to sell those weapons as collectors' itiams, and would
command a very high price, because once they ware sold,
there would be no more of them ever sold to individuals for
collectors' items. It was going to take about *1 million to
do this project.
General Secord said that he could arrange through
some of his contacts to gat us tha necessary beginning
funding to gat tha receivers started.
fi How much was that funding?
A Ha talked about «150,000.
ft Is it correct that General Saoord than was to
provide «150,000?
A He was going to arrange to gat us tha *150,000 so
UNCUSSinED
1012
UNCUSSIFIED
KANE: HIR1>41002 U I 1 Ul-ntJll 1 1 1111 PI^QE
36
that we could nak« tha sTooo racaivazs. yas .
362 S Whan you say us, who do you maan:
363 A Tha partnarship that via ware going to fom, and we
36^ talked about forming it. Ha did iorm, started to fotn a
365 partnership called Trl Anerican Ams, which would have been
366 narostica, Sacord and myself.
367 HR. SABA: I show you a document which we will mark
368 Royer 2.
369 (The Following Document was marked as Royer Exhibit
370 Mo. 2 for Identification.]
371
372 *x«»x*«x*x COnniTTEE IKSERT *«x««»**x
UNCUSSinED
1013
ONcussra
NAME: HIR11410O2
373 BY HR. SABA:
37U . e Ara you iaiBillar with this document?
375 A Yes, I an familiar with this document.
376 e Could you please describe what you understand it to
377 be?
378 A I understand this to be a proposal that American
379 Arms gave to us to try to build some magazines, IjOOO
380 magazines, to complete 280 American- 180s that they had in
381 stock, and it was a proposal that they had presented to us
382 which we turned down.
383 e Why did you turn it dot
38>l A He didn't want to invest any more money in that
385 situation. He wanted to get--we already had 460,000 invested
386 in it. He didn't want to go any further.
387 MR. SABA: i show you a document marked Royez 3.
388 [The Following Document was marked as Royer Exhibit
389 No. 3 for Identification.]
390
391 xxxxxxxxxx COHIIITTEE IMSERT
ifimim
1014
MAKE:
392
393
394
39S
396
397
398
399
UOO
1401
(402
U03
ton
itOS
U06
1407
■408
(409
(410
(41 1
(412
U13
m(4
(41S
me
HIR1(41002
UNCUSSfFIED
PAGE 19
BY nR. SAB&:
2 Ar« you faniliai with this docunent?
A I am not so familiar with tha first two pages. I
don't think I have a copy of anything like this. I don't
think so. I may have, but I don't think I do . I am
familiar with the third, fourth, fifth, sixth pages of the
document, and I an familiar with the authority of
partnership to open a deposit account. I am familiar with
that, and I know why this promissory note — but I have never
seen it before.
S This was not meant to be stapled to that document.
It is not part of the document.
So you are not familiar with the first two pages?
A I don't think I am. I know what it is saying and
things, but I don't think I ever got a copy of that, and it
is addressed to General Secozd, and it is not carbon copied
to me, so I don't think Z have it.
e But you are familiar with the remainder of the
document?
A Oh, yes.
2 Could you explain your understanding of the
remainder of the document entitled "Memorandum of Agreement
Bertween American Arms, a Utah Company, and Tri American
Arms, a Partnership'*?
A He were going to fund American Arms with *1S0,000
UNCLASSIRED
1015
UNCUSSIFIED
NAME: HIRimOOZ W ■ * W»«i IW Wi 1 ifcl^ PAGE 20
U17 to nake 5^00 zeceivers, and it was to be a loan and secured
U18 by tha raceivers, in which I pinned down the cost of the
419 receiver. I see here there is an interest — will carry eight
U20 percent--! don't know who is supposed to pay that, I don't
>42 1 remember, and what the price of the weapon was going to
(422 cost, and it was telling ouz goal of trying to produce these
■423 57000 weapons before the President oi tha United States
U2i( signed a new law limiting the manufacture of receivers, and
>42S we were to receive a certain amount of shares in American
<426 Arms for loaning the money and such.
'427 C And do you recognize your signature at the bottom
■428 of the page?
il29 . A Yes.
■430 e And do you tall us that is youz signature?
M31 A My signature? Yes.
M32 e Following your meeting with Hr . Harostica in
>433 Denver > what oecuxxad?
■43*4 A Hi thin a i^^ days, Harostica received the money
■435 that General Secord goj^lined up.
(436 fi How much monay was that?
*437 A «150,000.
•438 S And do you Know the data of tha transfer of those
1439 funds?
>4U0 A Around tha 15th of Hay.
(4(41 e And do you know to whoa tha funds vara transferred?
iifimim
1016
NAME:
>4>42
i4K3
uus
tme
uu?
1448
UU9
450
1451
1452
1453
14514
1455
■456
US7
1458
1459
1460
1461
1462
1463
1464
U65
1466
HIR1141002
UNCUSSIFIED
PAGE
A To Don Marostica in Sterling, Colorado. I don't
know whathac it went to Tri Amarican Arms or to him, but to
Starling, Colorado, Commercial Bank of Sterling, Colorado.
2 Do you know if the money uas transferred to an
account in the name of Tri Amarican Arms?
A I don't know for certain, but I would assume that
it was Tri American Arms. I think he probably had it set up
by that time .
e And how did you understand that these funds came to
be transferred?
A I don't understand your question.
e Uhose money did you understand it to be?
A Hakim had lined it up. I am sure that Hakim had
lined the money up. and Secord had helped him line it up. I
understood it to be money coming from a Swiss source.
e When did you understand that?
A Early in the situation, very early, the day that he
said that Secord says that I have some connections that I
can get the money over here, and I will go back and see if X
can get it, and in a few days it was there.
ft Uas the money loaned to Tri American Arms?
A Yes.
a Is there any document recording the loan?
A No.
fi Are there any terms discussed concerning the loan?
UNCLASSIFIED
1017
t»67
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
49
vNcussm
KANE: HIR141002 lllll.l U.AAiriMI PAGE 22
A Well, tha gentleman terms uere that once the
weapons were made, this money would be part of a cost of
goods of the project, and that money would be refunded to
whoever loaned the money.
e And how did you come to understand this?
A We discussed it in Denver.
Q Was this discussed with Mr. Harostica?
A He was there, sure. It was startup capital, and
startup capital always is repaid.
fi What did you understand to be the contribution of
each of the partners to Tri American Arms?
A Well, the contribution was that Harostica was to
handle the books and the administrative parts of it. Secord
was to do the selling, marketing the thing, and I was to be
the man who made sure that the weapons and everything were
manufactured and worked with the Gofs .
fi And where would the weapons be sold?
A This first initial bunch was to be sold as
collector items here in the United States. Any of the
weapons that would qualify as legal weapons here in the
United States.
e Who would have the responsibility for selling them?
A Secord was going to head up all marketing, and the
Gofs would help them in that, but the collector's item thing
was something that you just basically had to advertise them
UNCUSSIFIED
1018
UNCLASSIRED
KAHE: HIR1U1002 IJIlljLHlltll 11 111 ''^'^^ ^^
t(92 in cartain magazines, and they would sell themselves.
^93 Q And, again, how many units would there be?
U9<4 A He weze planning on making 5\000.
U95 2 And following the completion of the manufactuze of
1496 the SMOOO, would additional weapons be made?
U97 A He thought that it could be an ongoing business.
(498 He felt that the weapon was a very good antiterrorist unit.
M99 it was a good police unit, and i£ we could get the marketing
500 in line, that, yes, it could be sold to small countries,
50 1 third-world countries, police agencies.
UNCLASSIHEO
1019
^umim
MAHE: HIRimOOZ
502 DCHN GLASSKAP
503
SOU S Has thaza a discussion of which countries?
505 A Ko. Ihird-wozld, antltazzorists was what it was.
506 That is what tha waapon was dasignad for.
507 e Kara countries in tha Middle East mentioned?
508 A Mo. We were not into that part of it first. The
509 first thing was to get these weapons made for collector/^
510 items.
511 e And following your meeting in Colorado with Mr.
512 narostica and Mr. Secord, what happened next in connection
513 with Tri American Arms?
f
51U A The Gofs immediately contracted to have the
515 receivers manufactured around tha 15- 16th of tha month, in
516 there somewhere, about the 19th the President signed the
517 bill, which really had no bearing on the situation at this
5 18 time because soma of them, whatever ones were made at that
519 time ware ready to be sold as collector'^' items, and then
520 the ATT cauie in right away and seized all of the receivers
52 1 at Aurora, Colorado, and all of tha weapons and things in
522 Salt Lake City in American Arms offices.
523 fi Did you understand tha receivers had been
52<« manufactured prior to the 16th of nay?
525 A Old I understand that tha receivers had been
526 manufactured?
UNClASSra
1020
,.. ONcussra
NAME: HIR1(l1002
527 e
528 A Our 2J000?
529 e Yes.
530 A I don't think so, bacausa I don't think they would
531 make them until the check was issued, and the check, as iar
532 as I know, was issued on the 16th of Hay.
533 fi And in connection with the issuance oi that check,
53(4 was theie any security obtained irom American Arms?
535 A Yes, American Arms gave us a security agreement in
536 the receivers that were being manufactured.
537 fi How many checks were given to American Arms?
538 A 'as far as I know, two. two checks each ioz «30,000.
539 fi Following the raid by ATT on the GofPoperation/
5M0 what occurred next in respect to Tri American Arms
5<(1 participation with American Arms?
5(42 A I called narostica and said we need to go to Salt
5M3 Lake City. We went out there and surveyed the situation.
514U American Arms people ware telling us this was not a big
5U5 deal, wa would have the receivers back in a short time,
5>46 trying to gat us to, you know, be calm about it. and so we
5U7 waited fox a while. Then American Arms came back with a
548 proposition that helped the cash flows and helped us gat
5149 soae of our money back, that thay had about 200 and soma
550 weapons that they wanted to tool up for and complete them,
551 and we could sail them and try to recoup some money, but we
UNcussm
1021
. UNCUSSfHED
KAHE: HIRimOOZ VllU|.riUUII ILII ^^''^ ^^
552 backed away iron that. We said that we wanted to wait and
553 see what the Gois could do with ATf before we got involved
5514 in any more. There were too many problems.
555 e In your planning for the transactions, was there
556 any discussion of potential profits, including breakdowns of
557 the cost of the weapons, the profits anticipated by Tri
558 American arms and its three partners?
559 A Yes, there were profit projections, there were cost
560 projections. That is how you go into a project.
561 fi Were these reflected in any writings?
f
562 A The Gofs had a lot of projections and things, and I
563 think that flarostica had some, and I don't seem to have any
561 of those projections in my files or things, but I just know
565 that if I can manufacture a weapon for «335 and I can sell
566 it as a collectoij's\y item for »2500 and I can sell sTooo, or
567 2^000 of them, it is a pretty lucrative situation.
568 MR. SABA: 1 want to show you a document which will
569 be Royer Exhibit M.
570 (The Following Document was marked as Royer Exhibit
571 No. U fox Identification.]
572
573 «*«*«««** COHHITIEE IKSERI ««««««x**
VNCLASSm
1022
NAME
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
581*
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
59M
595
596
597
598
HIRmi002
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 27
BY MR. SABA:
Are you iamiliar with this docunant?
It is my writing/ X balieve it is, yes, okay.
Could you explain the document to us?
Well, two phases.
Let me call your attention, if I may, to the lower
left-hand corner of page one of the exhibit. Could you
please read the writing within the box?
A ''Don, Richard and Larry''.
And who do you understand those individuals to be?
Don Kaxostica. Richard Secord and Larry Royer .
And the number below the names?
Is i«, 200, 000.
And what did you understand that number to
represent?
A I have no idea until I read the document.
(Discussion off the record. )
BY HR. SABA:
e Hr. Royer, just to confirm and clarify the record,
the writing on the exhibit is your writing?
A Yes.
e Returning to my question, could you explain the
number ((,200,000 in the lower left corner of page one under
the names, Don, Richard S. and Larry?
A Is that four million? Is that the difference? If
UNCLASSIRED
1023
NAME: HIRim002
UNCIASSIHED
PAGE 28
599
600
601
602
603
60(4
605
606
607
608
609
610
6
612
613
611
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
we sell Hj^OOO weapons at $1800. 7.200.000. the cost is «250,
or ♦! million in cost, the margin was 6.2 million, the use
of money was ior 200.000. There is about six million left
over. Thirty percent of that went to American Arras for
licensing, or however we worked the thing out. and would
leave approximately «H. 200. 000 in profit to Tri American
Arms .
e And this profit would be divided among the
partners?
A Yes.
e Equally?
A yes, one-third, one-third, one-third,
fi Could you explain the »200,000 number against which
is written the words "Payback" and then in paren "money
use' ' ?
A Money use. Somewhere, if we were going to borrow
»1 million, there would probably be, at that time interest
was up. I don't know if it was that high, but there could
be that amount of money charged for the amount of dollars
that we needed until we got the weapons manufactured, so it
would be Interest money somewhere.
e So you understand this to be interest money against
thm ♦! million cost per unit?
A Right,
fi Do you understand that number to be connected with
iinmsim
1024
UNCLASSIFIED
K\ni- HIR141002 UliUknUlJII ILU page 29
624 the ♦150,000?
625 A You axa saying it is »1S0,000, would it draw that
626 typa of interest?
627 2 Ho, I an asking if you understand the *200,000 line
628 here to be connected in any nay with the *1S0,000 which Mr.
629 Secord obtained for the partnership?
630 A Well, it would all be part of the million. In
631 other words, if there is ^50,000 in there now, then there is
632 ^850,000 that would have to come in yet, so the total cost of
633
63>4 2 Directing your attention to the second page, could
635 you explain the item at the top of the page depicted as item
636 2. assignments?
637 A Yes. This kind of says who is responsible for
638 getting what done in the project, and I would like to put on
639 record that this is just actually notes of what I am
6U0 thinking of how this thing is going to go down. I mean, how
611 to try to structure it, how to get it.
612 S Are these your own ideas?
6(43 A Basically. I think they are. You know, I do a lot
6UU of note-writing and things, and X don't know where this
6M5 thing — when Z did this, sometime early on in the project.
646 fi He Hill get back to that, but could we stay with
6(47 the page? Directing your attention again to this same item
648 number 2, assignments, I understand that the name ''Dick''
wmm
1025
HIR1I41002
reieis to who
mmm
k Ganeral Secotd.
2 And tha word following tha nana?
A Capital.
2 And how do you undazstand that?
A He was zasponsibla for raising tha capital.
2 Directing your attention to tha bottom of the page,
titled ''Objectives oi Phase 2''. could you explain the
entries there please?
A If we are going to do this project, we are going to
attempt to tie up all tha worldwide marketing rights of
American Arms. They needed somebody to do the marketing.
We thought we could do it. Stock in American Arms, wa ware
going to get stock in that corporation, and we felt that
theiz laser was not quite done yet, and that we would
probably use the laser that was built offshore.
2 Uharaabouts?
A I think Korea is where.
2 From whom would you procure it?
A That I don't know. I just know that General
Sacord, from his experience, felt that there were better
lasers available in the marketplace that were made out of
this country, and we would control all tha marketing, and
license, maybe have some other plants in other parts of the
world. It is strictly trying to figure out how to do this
UNCLASSIFIED
1026
KAHE: HIRIUK
674 thing
UNCUSSIFIED
675 . e Diracting youx attention to paga thzee, can you
676 axplain to us why the started item under the caption
677 indicates no domestic sales projected?
678 A No. In reading this. I don't know. It doesn't
679 seem to make sense> but I don't know why.
680 fi Directing your attention to the next line, can you
681 explain the entry "l7ooo-1/500 Saudi and Gulf States"?
682 A Evidently somebody had come up with a figure that
683 there was a possibility that maybe we could sell this amount
68U to the Saudi or Gulf States.
n
685 e And the next line, UJOOO contra?
686 A Somebody has said that maybe there is a possibility
687 of selling them, some to the contra movement.
688 Q Could you tall us who this somebody might be?
689 A I don't know. It could either have been tlarosticai
690 it could have baan Saoord. It certainly wasn't me, because
69 1 I don't know whether we could sail them down there or
692 whether we couldn't.
693 e But you prapazad this documant. corzaot?
6911 A Yas.
695 fi And is it your statement that these entries were
696 tusgasted by someone else?
697 A Yes, yes.
698 fi That these entries are not your original idea?
UNCUSSIRED
1027
UNCIASSIHED
HA«E: HIR1U1002 IJ| IWU* »*'*'■"■ ~"^ PAGE 32
699
700
701
702
703
70i»
70S
706
707
708
709
710
71 1
712
713
71U
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
A Ko . You know, the note I think about this thing, I
think probably it was maybe a recap of the meeting that ue
had in Denver.
2 Could the somebody who suggested the contras and
Saudi Arabia also be the somebody who suggested the lasers
on page two?
A Yes.
e Could you explain the entry underneath which states
'•25 percent commission, based on ♦nooo per unit — ''and then
in numbers ' '«1 . 375 , 000 ' • ?
A Somebody was going to be paid a commission for it,
and evidently it was Stanford Technology that was going to
be paid the commission of 25 percent. Stanford was going to
act as the marketing unit for this .
fi Who did you understand Stanford Technology to be?
A Richard Secord and Albert Hakim.
e Following the raid of the ATF on the Goff
operations, what steps did you take next in respect to your
security interest in the receivers in connection with the
«60,000?
A Th»t I took or that Tri American Arms took?
fi If you have knowledge of Tri American Arms' action,
than Tri American Arms.
A Hhat steps did we take to secure ourselves?
e Did you take any steps to secure?
UNCLASSIFIED
1028
UNCLASSIFIED
KANE: HIRI'41002 Vl 1 VlBrlllUII ILLI PAGE 33
72«
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
73i»
735
736
737
738
739
7U0
7U
742
7143
7«HI
7US
7U6
7U7
748
A Well, we uent to Salt Lake to see what the
situation was .
Q Hho went to Salt Lake?
A narostica and myseli after the raid, and there just
wasn't much — the only way that we could get any security back
was if the AIF would release the receivers, and they were
not going to do that. X don't know that there were any
legal steps taken in trying to recoup, because there just
wasn't nuch of a place that we could go, that I recall. I
don't know if narostica did, or what. This is getting back.
I don't know, I don't remeaber.
2 Directing your attention again to Exhibit 2.
A Yes.
fi In view of the raid, could you explain to us why
there would have been a proposal following that for
additional funds?
A Well, they had. as I recall, sone seniautomatic
weapons there that were partially finished, and they needed
•'X'' nunber of dollars to get those to where they could
turn them into cash, and they came with the proposal to us
to try to get us to advance the money to make these weapons,
and we never did do it. We felt that there was too many
problems, Richard and I did, there were too many problems
with American Arms. We wanted to stay away from it.
e Was this document and the arms that are discussed
UNCLASSIHED
1029
MAHE: HIR1141002
UNCLASSIFIED
7U9 in the document discussed between any of the principals of
f
750 Tri american and the Gofs between the 19th of May, 1986 and
751 July, 1986?
752 A Hatostica cane up with that program, and they
753 talked to me a couple of times on the phone, and they put it
754 in writing, and it died. We weren't going to go any
755 further.
756 2 What occurred after July, 1986 in respect to
757 American Arms?
758 A It pretty much laid in limbo. American Arms people
759 kept trying to get their assets freed from the ATF. They
760 kept trying to get us to help them more, and we wouldn't do
76 1 anything. We said that we thought that they should sue ATF.
762 We stayed away from it.
763 In the meantime, on the ATF, we severed the
7614 relationship. We dissolved Tri American Arms, and then
765 because we had *60,000 invested there, I was trying to get
766 it straightened around. I took a friend of mine in there to
767 take a look at it, who is a fellow that tries to look at
768 problem companies, and we looked at it again and tried to
769 help them get it straightened around, and we couldn't do it.
770 So we just abandoned the project.
77 1 fi Old you have an occasion to discuss Tri American
772 Arms in early July in a meeting with Hr . Zucker?
773 A Yes, but very lightly. He didn't talk much about
UNCLASSIHED
1030
UNCUSSinED
HXnZ- HIR1tt1002 Vl lULflUUll ILU ^^'^^ ^^
77t American Arms. Thare was vary littla convarsation about
775 Anarican Arms.
776 e Old you hava a discussion eoncarning tha «60,000
777 that had baan put with American Arms?
778 A In July?
779 fi Yas.
780 A In tha maating in July? I don't remember. If
781 thara was anything about American Arms, it was a very light
782 convarsation. a vary light convarsation. Ha ware more
783 interested in Ceretech and the wood project. There wasn't
78<4 much talk about the American Arms thing. It was Kind oi
785 tabled.
786 e Could you describe for us what we have called so
787 £ar the wood project, commencing when it first came to your
788 attention, and how it was brought to your attention?
789 A We were working with a group of people in Ceretech
790 National, and one of Ceretech's people recommended that I
791 talk to a fellow by the name of Ed Herman, who had great
792 experiences in logging and timber in the Korthwest.
793 e Hho in Ceretech suggested that?
79it A Richard Finke .
795 fi And Hr . Finke —
796 A Recommended that I talk to Ed Herman, who was a
797 friend of his and a logger and had great experience in the
798 logging industry.
Mmsm
1031
HIR1U1002
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 36
2 &nd nr . Fink« is connected with Ceretech?
A Ceretech, right.
S Do you know what his connection is with Ceretech?
A President and founder of Ceretech International.
2 And where is Ceretech located?
A Belview, Washington.
2 Please continue.
A And so we talked to--Heritan cane in and gave me a
proposition about a tinber project that was owned by the
Federal Land Bank in Spokane. The property was located on
the 2uinault Indian Reservation, and we thought it had soae
possibilities.
2 Hhat Is the tine period that this conversation is
taking place in?
A This would have been June that he approached me,
nay or June, June probably, in Denver.
BY HR. CULLEM=
2 1986?
A 1986, yes.
BY HR. SABA:
2 And did he discuss this with you alone?
A Heman?
2 Yes.
A Mo. He discussed it, the original was Harostica
and Finke and myself, and maybe a fellow by the name of Paul
WUSSIflEO
1032
NAME: HIR1<t1002
PAGE 37
821* Barnhoff and Mrs. Barnhoff. I think, wars at tha tabla.
825 e And this was at a maating in Danvar?
826 A This was in tha Clarion Hotal in Danvar.
827 e In Juna. 1986?
828 A Probably Juna of 1986.
829 2 And uas any proposal mada in writing at that
830 maating?
831 A No.
832 e And following that maating, what did you do in
833 raspact to tha proposal mada? Did you discuss it with Mr.
83U Harostica?
835 A Discussad a lot of tha things with Harostica at
836 that tima. Ha talkad about tha wood projact. Wa than want
837 to Saattla.
838 2 Has it contamplatad that tha projact would ba a Tri
839 American Arms projact?
840 A Yas. Ha had soma monay sitting thara. Yes, it was
8m going to ba a venture with Harostica. Saeord and myself.
8«t2 2 Did you discuss it at that tima with Hr . Saeord?
8M3 A Somatima within tha near future, I talkad with
8>4(4 Saeord about it, yas.
8'«5 2 Uas it by telephone, ox was that in a meeting?
8t6 A Probably by telephone.
8'<7 2 following the meeting at tha hotel in Denver
848 concerning tha wood projact, what event occurred next in
UNCLASSIFIED
1033
ONCUSSIFIED
NAME: HIR1(41002 UllvLnUwl' " '" ^'^^^ ^^
furtheranca odE that project?
HR. HOLMES^ I didn't get who was present.
THE WITKESS' Who was present in the iirst meeting
about the wood?
MR. HOLMES' The wood project you were talking
about.
THE HITMESS: Harostica, Ed Herman, Richard Finke,
Paul Barnhofi and Hrs. Barnhofi.
BY HR. SABA:
2 Who are the Barnhoifs?
A They are acquaintances oi Finke.
2 Do they have any further connection with this
project?
A The wood project? Mo. not that I know of.
llfKIMSim
1034
NAME: HIR1141002
863
6&H
865
866
867
868
869
870
87
872
873
87U
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
SSU
885
886
887
UNCLASSIFIED
RPTS THOHAS
DCHM BUIHTERO
7=00 p.n.
A H« went up to SaattlA.
e Who is wa?
A Marostica and I. And ua talkad with the Federal
Land Bank.
2 When did this meeting at the Federal land Bank
occur?
A Had to be sonetine in June. He talked with the
representative of the Federal Land Bank, Harostica, and gaw
then a proposition.
2 Hhom did you speak to?
A Fellow named Hayne Parris. And, from there either
that day or the next day, we went to and attorney with FinkK
and Herman to discuss the point of trying to open some
negotiations with the land bank.
2 Who was that attorney?
A An attorney by the name of Sandy Irickson.
e For clarity, you understand this attorney to be ohm
aoquainted with Mr. Finke and Herman?
A Right. It ended up we paid the bill but that is
what we understood, wa talked about this project, narosticax
offered «2S,000 out of TrilAaarican Arms to show the land
KNMSIflfl)
1035
VNCUSSIFIEO
NAME: HIR1<41002 Vl I ULfllJlJ 1 1 1 1 II PAGE MO
888
889
890
89
892
893
89M
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
90i(
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
bank that we had good faith of trying to negotiate with them
to buy the property.
S And was *25,000 provided?
A Yes, they took «25,000 out of TrilAmerican Arms and
it was deposited in the Erickson escrow account in Belview,
Washington.
2 Has that sun discussed prior to that time with other
partners in TriJAmerican Arms, Hr . Secord?
A Ko.
2 Please continue.
A Then we had a meeting on July 1, 2. and 3, and
Albert Hakim.
2 I am sorry, could you return to the meeting witR the
attorneys, Erickson. Did anything occur after that meeting
by way of documentation of that *25,000?
A Ko, no, narostica was handling that. He handled all
that paperwork.
There should be, I hope there was documentation, but I
can't recall.
2 Following the meeting at the Federal Land Kank, what
happened?
A Then the 1st of July —
- e 1986.
A Yes, Bill Zuckez and Albert Hakim and myself, my
son, Narostica. met in Seattle to review and look at
IINCUJSIflfD
1036
NAHE:
913
9m
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
92tt
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
93M
935
936
937
HIR141002
UNCUSSIFIED
PAGE
investment possibilities into these projects Harostica had
brought to us .
2 Had you previously met Albert Hakim?
A Yes, ue met Albert Hakim several times and I met hin
oraetirae before July in Washington.
e Do you recall the first time you met him?
A Mo, I don't. Mo. I don't.
C Has it following your initial meeting with General
Secord?
A Yes, I met Albert Hakim through General Secord.
e Has that at a time after General Secord had retired
rem the military?
A Yes.
S Do you recall how many occasions you met Hr . Hakim.
A How many occasions?
e Yes, prior to July 1986.
A naybe two times, three times.
e Hhere did these meetings take place?
A Either basically here in Washington, D.C.
e And during those meetings had you discussed the
terms of the TrlJAmerican Arms participation in American
kzmul
A Some. some. Richard and myself, we had already
gotten involved in the Trllmetloan Arms and Richard was
acting for Albert, he was getting the money through Albert
UNCLASSIFIED
1037
938
939
9U0
9i»1
9U2
9U3
9Ut*
945
9146
9M7
9>48
91S9
950
951
952
953
95U
955
956
957
958
959
960
96
962
MiMsim
Hint- HIRI'41002 Vlllfl Hal.liriFII PAGE H2
and Albart knaw about it, and I an sura that thay had
dlscussad it, and whan ua uaia hara in Washington it was
looking into ail four of thesa basic projacts, and than ue
andad in Saattla to try to raally zaro in on thosa four
projects, and that is how Zuckar got brought ovar.
2 Had you praviously mat Mr. Zuckar?
A No, this was tha first tima I mat Zuckar.
2 How was Kr . Zuckar introducad to you?
A As tha financial man who would provida tha financing
as a bankar. as a lawyar, as a Swiss bankar. That is how ha
was introducad to ma .
e Hhat transpirad at tha maating?
A Hall, wa want through tha projacts and Finka brought
all of ^^M paopla in from Caratach and thay triad to tall
us what Caratach can do and what tha potantials ara and
avarything. And than wa brought tha land bank paopla in; we
talked to tham about tha wood project; wa talked a little
bit about tha arms situation, vary little, wa basically were
interested in Ceretech and tha wood deal at that time.
fi Has there any decision to go forward with the wood
deal?
A There was a decision at that particular meeting,
yc«, I think we were going to get and, I think the decisions
was to hire an attorney, get started, getting some things
set up in Seattle, so we could see we could successfully run
UNCUSSIFIED
1038
uNcussm
PAGE 1*3
NAHE: HIR1141002
963 a cruisa, to se« what the potentials weia out thai
96U e Hho was Hx . niiacla?
965 A Hr. Miracle was an attorney that Bill Zucker got for
966 us in Seattle.
967 2 Did he taKe part in the meeting with Hr . Zucker j
968 those first two days of July?
'6' * I think he was there one tiae . I think he came into
970 the meeting — no, I don't think he did. Ko . Ho, I don't j
971 think-- !
972 e Was Mr. Erickson there?
973 A Hr. Erickson was there and there was quite a little
97M discussion about who Erickson was actually representing.
975 Hakim told him that he was no longer representing
976 Triymerican Arms, that he was representing the Finke
977 people — and said that he would hire our own counsel out
978 there.
979 e And in connection with the wood project, were
980 documents prepared by Hr . Hiracle.
981 . A Most all docximents had been prepared by Mr. Miracl*
982 and Harris.
983 S I wish to have this entered, labeled as Royer
98K Kxhibit 5.
985
986 identification: 1
987
iThe following document was marked as Exhibit Royer-/ for
UNCIASSIHED
1039
\iHimm
NAME' HIRItlOOZ Ul IIJI H|1| llrl F 1 1 PAGE U>t
COHHITTEE INSERT xx«*x*xx«
UNCUSSIHED
1040
mfmm
KAn£: HIR1U10
989 [ Recess . 1/
990 HR. SABA: Back on the record.
991 BY HR. SABA:
992 e FolloHing the July meeting with Hr . Zucker and Hr .
993 Hakim, was a proposal made by TrilAmerican Arms to the
99'* Federal Land Bank concerning the project?
995 A Yes, sir, we started, we started negotiations with
996 the land bank. Hakim, abruptly broke them off.
997 fi When?
998 A Right after we started.
999 2 He said I don't want any part of it; we axe done. s<
1000 he broke the thing off.
100 1 I talked him back into it and so we got back into it
1002 negotiations and the basis of the thing was to conduct a
1003 cruise, get an agreement, some type of agreement with the
100U land bank, so that we could get on to the property and
1005 conduct a cruise, see what the volume of wood and things
1006 were there. I, through my connections with some people I
1007 know at Boise Cascade, hired a consultant.
1008 S What was the name of the consultant?
1009 A Fellow by the name of Hill Lawson. And at this tin<
10 10 we got the agreement with the land bank to be able to go in
10 11 and conduct a cruise, and see if the property was worth *5 . '
10 12 million. That is what we did.
1013 2 What were the terms of the proposal, do you recall?
ONCLASSra
1041
UNCLASSIFIED
KA«E: HIR1I41002 V • ■ V*»l •*' ^^ ■ ■ ■ ^ PAGE U6
10 1 1* A To tha land bank?
1015 2 Y«s.
1016 A Which proposal?
10 17 I want to — Harostica mada a proposal that uas innediately
1018 thrown out.
10 19 2 Hhan was this?
1030 A Early on, July in there, sometime.
1021 After we made the dissolution of the partnership we had —
1022 S Hhen was the partnership dissolved?
1023 A I have to look. Off the record, I would have to
102<4 look.
1025 e As a practical matter, how did that partnership come
1026 to be discovered?
1027 A Through an agreement that Harris, Hiracle and Orr
1028 made with Harostica, with a signed agreement, but I think it
1029 was like in August or September when that happened. There
1030 is a point in time when Harostica stepped out then I started
1031 working the situation.
1032 2 Old you understand the time when Harostica removed
1033 himself to be August 1986?
10314 A I oan't, it is probably August in there some time
1035 when he removed himself.
1036 fi Hould you say there came a time when the wood
1037 project was not being pursued by the partnership called
1038 TrilAmerican?
:ilAmeri(
UNCUSSIFIED
1042
KAME
1039
10140
lom
1042
10>43
10UI
10MS
101(6
1047
1048
1049
10S0
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
106
1062
1063
HIR141002
2 Approximataly when did that--uas that tima?
A Probably August, August, July or August, yes.
8 So that any proposal nade subsequent to August 1<
uas not a proposal to the land banX of TrjlAmerican Arms?
Bank.
Ye
Mmim
PAGE 47
It was/'^a proposal by TrilAnericans Arms.
After August'
After that uas then Hakim and Royer and Secord.
What entity made the proposal to the Federal Land
A The corporation called, SRH Corporation.
2 What did the initials stand for?
A Secord, Royer, Hakim.
2 Are you aware of the state of incorporation of SRH?
A Yes, sir.
2 What?
A Washington.
2 What?
A State of Washington.
2 What is the purpose of> the stated purpose of the
corporation?
A If we could negotiate a situation with the land bank
aird buy the properties, SRH would be the legal entity which
would hold the title to the land and would take to operate
the timber operation.
ilNCUSSIFIED
1043
NAME:
106U
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
lOSM
1085
1086
1087
1088
HIR1(41002
Q
A
UNCUssra
PAGE (<8
Hho were the officers of SRH.
Secord, Royer, HaKin, Hizaele.
Hho prepared the corporate document?
Harris, Miracle and Orr.
And did SRH cone to have a bank account?
I think we had a bank account set up in a Canadian
2 So you recall the nana of the bank?
A No, I don't.
e Why was the bank in Canada chosen as opposed to a
bank in the United States?
A Zu'ckar selected that, and I don't know why.
e I will show you a file, the entirety of which is"
marked Exhibit 5, and a document within the file which we
will call S-A. I will ask you to look at the document and
tell me if you recognize it?
A Yes.
S If you would describe the document, your
understanding?
A This is a letter from Miracle to Secord and Royer in
which it says that to, it says Burt Weinrich. who is an
attorney for the land bank has accepted our proposal as of
Oo^obez 15.
A signed copy of that agreement will be delivered to me
tomorrow. So, it is whan they have accepted our proposal.
UNCUSSIFIED
1044
HAKE
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
109M
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1 100
1101
1 102
1 103
1 lOtt
110S
1 106
1 107
1 108
1 109
1 1 10
1111
1 1 12
1113
: HIR1141002
UNCLASSIHED
PAGE 149
2 Could you briefly dascriba that your proposal on the
basis of the letter and its attachnents?
A Briefly--
fi To the bast of your ability.
A Well, basically, we said we would look at it at 5.7,
we would give then —
C 5.7?
A nillion dollars.
fi Dollars?
A Yes.
S United States dollars?
A Yes. This is what they are asking.
fi This is what you understood to be the price of the
land?
A Yes. And the paynent would be a million dollars
down and then we would, the land bank would finance the rest
of it, carry it over, we would pay off as it was harvested,
we have so many days to conduct a cruise, to find out if
actually what the land bank was telling us was true, and
then we would cone back and try to renegotiate the situation
as compared to the cruise.
e So is it fair to say this is a proposal by which SRH
would purchase the land subject to the condition of the
cruise ?
A Yes, that is correct.
UNCLASHD
1045
NAnE= HIR1(«1002
VNCUSSIHED
PAGE SO
111S
1 1 16
1 1 17
I 1 18
II 19
1 120
1121
1 122
1123
1121*
1125
1 126
1127
1128
1129
1 130
1 131
1132
1133
113U
1 135
1136
1 137
1138
fi And in order ior you to hava access to the land to
maKa the cruise was it necessary for you to have this
proposal be accompanied with a deposit?
A Yes.
e What uas the amount of that deposit?
A «100,000.
2 Uas that deposit made?
A Yes.
e Hhexe did it cone fom?
A It came from Zucker.
e Hou did it come, can you explain the mix of that
money, the movement?
A It came as a — as I would understand it. it was just
to cone out of Switzerland, to some bank in Washington,
maybe it came through a bank in Kew York. I don't know the
wires, it came from Switzerland to this escrow account.
e Grays. Grays Harbor Title Company is the account to
which it came?
A Yes.
e And did you understand this to be in the State of
Washington?
A Yes.
fi Was the money coming from Zucker directly to Grays
Harbor?
A Yes.
wmm
1046
UNCLASSIFIED
NAME: HIR1<41002 Ull Ut-nftltll I II II PAGE
1139
1 1140
1141
1 11*2
1 1143
1 mu
1 ms
1 1146
11147
1 1(48
1 149
1 ISO
1 151
1152
1153
1 154
1 155
1 156
1 157
1158
1159
1 160
1 161
1 162
1163
Q Bid it pass through th« SRH account?
A I don't think so. I don't know, but I don't think
it did.
2 What was the understanding between Mr. Zucker and
SRH concerning the «100,000?
A I reaily don't know. That was discussed between
Hakim and Hiracle and Orr. All I knew this is what we had
to have. Miracle or Zucker. Hakim handled that deal. I
really don't know what it was.
C And, in connection with the million dollar cash
payment required to purchase the land, where would that come
from?
A Zucker, as I understood it.
S And what did you understand, would that come through
SRH?
A That probably would go into the SRiH and then would
be paid to the land bank.
C In fact, was that million dollars ever paid?
A Ko, no.
2 Hhat were the terms by which Hr . Zucker would
provide that million dollars to the land bank so that SRH
might acquire the land?
- A Number one, we had to get the selling price down and
we had to get the operational rights of logging in line so
that it would be practical to do it. and once we agreed to
UNCLASSIFIED
1047
KANE:
116(4
1 165
1 166
1 167
1 168
1 169
1170
1 171
1 172
1173
1 174
1175
1176
1 177
1178
1 179
1 180
1 181
1 182
1183
1 1814
1 185
1 186
1 187
1 188
UNCLASSIFIED •
:iiRi>4ioo2 iiivibI u.^Mririi page 52
buy it, then Zucker was going to iutnish the capital ior the
situation.
B Under what terras would Hr . Zucker provide that
capital?
A I don't know. I don't know what the actual workings
of the things would be, what terns. X do know that he was
going to, that we had to assign so many shares of stock of
SRH Corporation to gat the loan connitnent, but what the
terms were, I don't think we ever had them worked out that
far yet.
S I show you a document marked Exhibit 5-B?
A Yes.
8 How do you understand the letter, and the document
enclosed with the letter?
A As I understand that, we had to assign —
8 Could you tell us to whom the letter is addressed?
A To me .
e Date?
A Kovember 18, 1986.
C It is from?
A Haloolm Harris .
e Hho is with?
A nixacle. ouz law firm. And it Is the loan
commitment for ♦S million, U.S. dollars, to SRH Corporation.
2 Who is making the loan commitment?
UNCDISSinED
1048
1189
1 190
119 1
1 192
1 193
1 1<
1195
1196
1197
1 198
1199
1200
1201
1202
1203
12014
1205
1206
1207
1208
1209
1210
12'
1212
1213
csr.
UNCUSSIFIED
PAGE 53
2 Do you know--
A A Swiss corporation.
Q Do you know CSF the lettar to stand for Canpagnie de
Servicas Fiduciaries; uhat did you understand CSF to be?
A A company; the abbreviations for a company.
fi Who did you understand the owners of the company to
be?
A Zucker.
fi Who told you that?
A He gave me a card.
2 Hhat did he say?
A It says that ha is with the company.
2 Did the card say he was > did you understand him to
mean employee of the company?
A I really didn't understand all what Zucker was, but
I felt that ha was. I knew he was a banker, I knew he was an
attorney, Iv|naw he was a citizen of the United States over
there, and in Switzerland. I didn't know whether he was one
of the owners of the company, worked for the company, but I
knew ha was a capital, what you call it, investmant--
e Hould it be fair to say you didn't know who is owner
of' the entity?
A I didn't know who the owner of that entity was, only
I assume I felt that Zucker had control.
UNCLASSIFIED
1049
NAME
1214
121S
1216
1217
1218
1219
1220
1221
1222
1223
122(t
1225
1226
1227
1228
1229
1230
1231
1232
1233
123U
1235
1236
1237
1238
UNCUSSIHED
HIR1K1002 III1III M.l.linrilPAGE 5>4
8 Turning to th« loan comaitmant agraament, was it
evar axecutad finally?
A Ho.
2 Why not?
A The Iran-contxa affair broka and everything stopped,
and everything stuck, off the record.
e Concerning SRH, what did you understand to be the
duties of the officers of the company?
A The duties of the officers of the company?
I was basically going to run the operation with our people
out there that we were going to put in.
2 Did you know that you would hire local people?
A Yes. we would have a consultant out there and a
logging superintendent to watch our logging operation.
2 What would Mr. Hakim do?
A Hell. I don't think wa had discussed that much yet.
C nr . Secord?
A -=ftw«w«tt discussed that that much yet?
e Did you understand Hr . Secord to have any duties at
all in respect to SRH?
A Only serve as President of the corporation.
S Hould nr . Secord share in the profits of the
corporation?
A Yes.
S What would his profit share be?
UNCUSSIHED
1050
KAHE:
1239
IZUO
12>41
12<42
1243
12>4i4
12<45
12K6
1247
12>48
12149
1250
1251
1252
1253
1254
1255
1256
1257
1258
1259
1260
1261
1262
1263
(INCUSSIFIED
HIRK41002 wif ULrlUtjiriril '''^^^ ^^
A I think it would be a third, a third and a third.
Third, -^ird ior Secord, a third for HaKim, and a third for
m« .
e And SRH would btt required to employ individuals in
the area?
A Yes, wa would.
e It was the intent to work the land?
A Yes.
8 To harvest the timber?
A Yes.
2 Then to resell the timber?
A Yes.
Q Were you going to process the raw logs in any way?
A Ho.
Q How many employees would that require, did you
anticipate?
A One bookkeeping person, an officer manager, which
would be our consultant to Mr. Lawson. was going to be
employed by us. and Hz. Herman who would be our field
representative, very few.
fi Hheze would the working capital for the operation
come ^^f*?
. - k Ha were going to. well, if this loan commitment came
through we had plenty of working capital. This would pay
itself off in 117 weeks. It has good cash flow.
UNCLASSIFIED
1051
UNCUSSIHED
KAME: HIR1i4l002 VIlULnUUll ILII ^'^^^ ^^
126U 2 Raturning to the Exhibit 5-B. is it your
1265 undAzstanding that the work, that the capital, rathaz the
1266 loan, would be paid off in such a way that the iizst three
1267 years the borrower shall pay interest only?
1268 A Yes.
1269 fi What was the rate o£ interest?
1270 A I don't know. I don't remember.
1271 e And following that, how was it to be paid off?
1272 A Z would have to look at the document, whatever it
1273 says, but I think it would be ballooned and paid oi£ within
^2^U three years probably, about. I don't know. I would have to
1275 look at the document. I don't remember.
1276 e Just for the sake of the record, to be clear, is' it
1277 your understanding that CST made a commitment of «5 million
1278 to SRM. that if the transaction were consummated, the money
1279 would pass to SRH which would use that to purchase the land
1280 and for working capital?
1281 A That is correct.
1282 e That that money would be paid off first interest
1283 only for tha first three yeazs> and principal thereafter?
128<4 A The Interest for the first three years and then the
1285 principal.
1286 fi With the interest percentage not yet agreed upon?
1287 A Whatever the agreement says. I don't know.
1288 e And that company would be operated primarily by
wiAssra
1052
UNGLASSinED
HAHE: HIR1U1002
1289 youzselfi
1290 A And ouz people that we would hire out there.
129 1 e And the people that you would hire. And that you,
1292 Hr . Secord> and Hz. Hakim would shaze e<iually in the profits
1293 of the company?
129U A That is correct.
1295 2 What did you anticipate those profits to be?
1296 A Depending on the market, pzobably a couple million
1297 dollazs.
1298 2 In the fizst yeaz , how did you come to calculate
1299 that?
1300 A By multiplying — by the amount of boazd feet, thousand
130 1 of boazd feet that could be hazvested pez month, times ihe
1302 cost would give us what ouz gzoss should be. "^eze is 50
1303 million boazd feet out theze.
13014 Q Do you recall there being any documents executed
1305 concerning any security intezest CSf would have foz its
1306 loan?
1307 A Yes, theze is a document that was pzepared to give
1308 stock of SRH to the flduclazy oz the development
1309 cozpozation.
1310 e Hhat pezcentage of the stock would be given to CSF?
1311 .A I don't know. I do not zecall. I do not know. I
1312 know I have zead something like 29,000 shazas would be or
1313 79,000 shares, some figure of shares was going to be given
i/Ncussra
1053
UNCLASSIFIED
NAME: HIR1I41002
131i» to them as security.
1315 s You understood that to be the security for the *S
1316 nillion.
1317 All right, I would like to show you a docuaent which we
1318 will label Exhibit S-C.
1319 A I would like to point out about the time that these
1320 reports reached me, this is when the whole thing blew up.
1321 We had it that far, and really didn't get a chance to work
1322 with all that export thing and so that is why I am vague on
1323 a lot of that stuff.
1321 HR. CULLEN: Hhat is it that blew up?
1325 THE HITKESS: Whenever the Iran-contra thing started
1326 and Zucker backed off.
1327 BY MR. SABA'
1328 e I show you a document marked Exhibit 5-C. Could you
1329 describe it generally?
1330 A This was sent from niracle, Harris, Miracle and Orr
1331 to Dr. Willard Zucker, and it is about the loan commitment
1332 and about the draft and they are talking about making the
1333 loan commitment, about the action in lieu of board of
133U directors consent.
1335 2 It refers, does it not, to an enclosed draft consent
1336 of- action in lieu of meeting of shareholders and directors
1337 of SRH Corporation?
1338 A Yes.
UNCLASSIHED
1054
UNCUSSIRED
Hxnz- HiRi(iioo2 UllllLmJlJII ILLI page 59
1339
1340
1341
1342
1343
1344
134S
1346
1347
1348
1349
1350
1351
1352
1353
1354
1355
1356
1357
1358
1359
1360
136
1362
1363
2 And does it not contain in the proposed draft terns
uhazeby such shareholders and directors would consent to a
grant of shares to csr in connection with its loan of »1-1/2
million?
A Yes.
2 Is this the «1-1/2 million that uas used initially .
for the cash dounpaynant for the land?
A I do not know. I do not know what they are referring
to. Mr. Miracle would have to answer that question.
2 All right.
I want to zatuzn again to tha issue of the oiflcazs and
shareholders so that I understand what would Mr. Secord do
to share one third of such anticipated substantial profits
as you have described?
A Act as president in this particular venture. Hr .
Secord wouldn't be doing very much, he has already done what
he needed to do is brought the people to the table that
needed to put the deal together. There are certain players.
Heuas one of the players that could do that.
2 Is it your intention at the present time to go
forward with this transaction?
A No, not that one.
2 You have no intention to go forward with this
transaction?
A I don't think it will everj^ fly.
UNCLASSIFIED
1055
UNCUSSIHED
HXnZ HIR141002
13614 S Why?
1365 A Publicity.
1366 e Could you elaborate?
1367 A nyself, personally, we axe going to try to )\ake that
1368 thing work, but as SRH Corporation, I don't think we/ever
1369 get it, I don't think we can get the land back to deal in
1370 good faith with us because of all the publicity which has
137 1 been around this situation. I think it is a dead thing. I
1372 think it has got to be revitalized some other way. I
1373 haven't figured it out yet.
137«i HR. HOUCHEH: Tell them how they refer to it?
1375 THE HITKESS: Iran-Gate Forest. You can't believe
1376 the things the press has done to us out there.
1377 MR. HOUCHEKi 1 .ey say it is swampland and no
1378 timber, and they are buying it.
1379 BY HR. SABA:
1380 e What became of the «100,000 deposit with Grays
1381 Harbor Title Insurance Company?
1382 A Around January 5th the —
1383 HR. CULLEN> '87?
138i« THE HITKESSi '87.
1385 Our project or option ran out and we did not, could not
1386 eome to an agreement with them so we asked the money to be
1387 returned and the money was returned to Hlraele. Harris.
1388 niracle and Orr.
DNCUSSIflfl)
1056
1389
1390
1391
1392
1393
139(4
1395
1396
1397
1398
1399
1*«00
moi
11402
1(103
1(40^
1(405
1(406
1(407
mo8
mo9
1(410
1(41 1
1(412
1(413
HIR1(41002
UNCUSSIHEO
PAGE
They took out some substantial attorney fees and sent the
rest of it back to the Stanford Technology, or Stanford
Trading, or back to STGGI.
BY HR. SABA:
2 I show you Exhibit S-D, is a letter dated January
20, 1987. Could you describe the letter?
A It is a letter from Harris, our attorneys, Harris,
Miracle and Orr, to Albert Hakim. Richard Secord, and Royer.
It says instructions received from Royer regarding
«100,000.
S Is it your understanding that the contents of the
letter accurately reflects the disposition of the «100,000
deposit it made with Grays Harbor?
A Yes.
2 I want to ask you a few questions concerning some
companies and some other persons. Are you aware of a
company called Brunati Company?
A Yes.
e And are you familiar with its principal?
A Yes.
e Hhat is the name?
A Aaelio Brunati.
e And aza you familiar with a corporation called ASH?
A Yes.
e And what does ADH stand for?
vNcussm
1057
UNCLASSIFIED
HiRiuiooa
A Archer Daniel Midland.
2 What is your relationship with Mr. Brunati or
Brunati Company?
A Richard Secord and I have been looking into this
company to maybe represent them here in the United States.
They are a high-tech waste management company, and we have
talked with them, at great length about being their North
American distributor.
2 Are you ianiliar with a corporation called
Transworld Arms?
A Trans?
2 Transworld Arms?
A Ho. Transworld Arms, no.
U
2 Are you familiar with a company called Forway
A
Industries, Incorporated?
A Yes, sir.
2 Will you explain how you are familiar with this
company?
A Xaerican Arms, we brought American Arms into the
ro|Zway to take a look at their weapons to see what it would
cost for F^way to manufacture that weapon.
2 Who is we?
. - A I don't remember Secozd or Button or —
2 Who is «r. Dutton?
A Works for Mr. Secord.
UNCLASSIHED
1058
NAME! HIR1U1002
UNCUSSIRED
PAGE 63
1U39
1(tt(0
mu
114143
1UMt4
IMMS
1>4146
114147
1I4M8
114149
1450
IMS
lusa
11453
msu
11455
11456
1457
mss
11459
11460
11461
11462
11463
e When did you first —
A Visited us to send them to that company.
fi How did you become aware of Forway Industries?
A Somebody, Secord or Hakim or Dutton. said that they
knew of a company that could possibly build that weapon.
& What weapon?
A The American 180.
S And when did this someone mention this to you?
A Four or five months ago.
Q Can you be more specific?
A Over what month?
Q Yes.
A Let's see, I would say the first of the year.
February, maybe in there some time.
8 And what is the weapon?
A It is an automatic weapon that fires 22 rounds of
ammunition.
C Hhat did this someone tell you about this Fa3fway
Industries?
U
A I was told Forway had the capabilities of doing this
type of manufacturing.
fi Hhat was the proposal made to you in respect of
F«tMay?
f
A None, just send Gofs in and see if this weapon, just
a fact-finding thing, go in and see if the weapon could be
HNCUSXIflfD
1059
mada .
HAM: HiRimooa
1I46U
mes
1(466
11*67
VNCUSSm
PAGE 6t«
1H69
m70
m?'
m72
1473
1474
1475
1476
1477
1478
1479
1480
1481
1482
1483
1484
1485
1486
1487
1488
e Som«one askad you to contact tha Gofs?
A Ko, I don't know what you ar« saying; som«one, yes.
yas. somaona told ma but X don't think that I contacted tha
Gofs on that situation.
2 Who did?
A I think Bob Outton did.
2 And did you and tha Gois naat with anyone iiom
^ways?
A I did not.
U
Q Did you have any activity with Forways?
A No.
2 What was your involvement?
A Hith Footways?
2 Yes.
A Hone. I was only waiting to see if they could make
the weapon.
2 Hhy were you contacted?
A Why was--
fi Hhy ware you tha one to be contacted by Fotways?
A Hall. Button said that ha knew that they had done
soma defense work; had security there; it would be a good
pl«oa to try to do it; wa would Ilka to do it on the East
Coast.
2 So it was Hr . Dutton who contacted you concerning
WSXIflED
1060
fWMSS/flfl)
HAHE= HIRim002 |||ff |.| f| \ \ |L II H P»GE 65
1U89 T^MAys]
1490 A YttS. I think so.
149 1 S Your understanding was that Button was an «mploy«tt
1492 of Stanford Tachnology Trading Group, Incorporatad?
1493 A Yas.
1494 e And that is in Vianna, Virginia?
1495 A Yfts.
1496 S And Hr . Button than contacted you approximataly in
1497 January of 1987; is that corraot?
1498 A Closa.
U
1499 e And ha siiiply Infornad you that Forway Industrias can
1500 maka tha Anarican 180?
1501 A No, ha said, ha didn't know, ha wanted to know, ha
1502 thought maybe that they could and that we wanted them to
1503 come in and discuss the possibilities of them making that
1504 weapon and what it would cost and try to make —
1505 e Did he ask you to attend such a meeting?
1506 A Ko, I don't think so. I think I was going to attend
1507 the summary meeting but we never did get to that.
1508 S When was that meeting to have been?
1509 A February, March, some time in there.
1510 ft Do you know if such a meeting took place?
1511 . - A I don't think a summary meeting ever did.
■P
1512 fi Do you know if the Gofs, in fact, met with Mr. Dutton
A'
a
1513 or anyone from STTGI concerning Forway Industries?
"fmim
1061
KAHE
1511*
ISIS
15
1517
1518
151'
1S2I
1521
1522
1S23
152(4
152S
1526
1527
1528
1S29
1530
153
1532
1533
1S3>4
1535
1536
1537
1538
HIR1<41002
A
S
UNCUSSIFIED
PAGE 66
such a meeting
Ho.
I think they did.
But am I correct in saying that you did -^p attend
2 Other than what is a telephone call from Mr. Dutton,
or was it a letter?
A I don't know.
e How nany tines did Mr. Dutton contact you about
u
Foiway Industries?
A A couple, just making the arrangements to get the
Gois there .
■P
2 »nd then you contacted the Gofs?
A Probably, yes, I probably talked to them a couple of
times during that period oi time.
2 Hhat did you say to then to interest the Gofs in
F«way industries?
A Hell, at that time, we had tried to rearrange the
structure of this thing.
2 what thing?
A Oi this American Arms problem. And. myself and a
couple other business associates were going to try to
reorganize American Arms, and we were going to try to get
th« weapon manufactured, and we would be responsible for the
manufacturing of the weapon, and Stanford Technology would
only access the market,^ they were no longer involved in any
UNCLASSIFIED
1062
UNCLASSIFIED
KAME: HiRimooa Ul lULillJljII iLlJ ^^''^ ^"^
1S39 type of try to taka over, or any reorganization, or putting
15t0 any capital in or anything else, myself and ny other
ism business associates were going to do that.
15>42 e Do you Know what the target, the production target
ISUa was for the weapons?
15>4>4 A What was the production target?
15>45 fi How many weapons did they intend^ to produce?
15146 A There are all kinds of projections, some guys say we
IS^? could sell this, some guys say we could do this^ the knew
ISUS group was going to try to build a few weapons and take them
15U9 into the marketplace and see how many we could sell; it is
1550 easy to project. The best thing to do is build some and put
1551 them in the marketplace.
1552 e X wish to show you a document which will be Exhibit
1553 6.
153(4 [The following document was marked as Exhibit Royer-6 for
1555 identification: ]
1556
1557 xxxxxxxxxx COMMITTEE IHSERT xxxxxxxxx
UNCLASSra
1063
UNCUSSIFIED
HXnZ HIR1(41002 U|l||| Hal.lirirll ^'^'^^ ^^
1558 BY HR. SABA:
1559 a Axa you familiar with this document?
1560 A I am not, not familiar with tha document, but
156 1 evidently I may have gotten this. I may not have gotten
1562 this. I understand what all is there because I did get a
1563 special report on Dutton and--
156U e And is it correct that on page 3 of the three-page
1565 document you are shown as having been copied?
1566 A Yes.
1567 2 Can you describe the document for us?
1568 A It is an outline of Forway's capabilities of
1569 manufacturing the weapon. It is an outline of Gof^"^ response
1570 of trying to get something off the ground and get it going.
157 1 2 It is a memo to Mr. Secord from Mr. Dutton, dated
1572 January 12. 1987; correct?
1573 A Correct.
15714 2 Is it your understanding that Stanford Technology
1575 Trading Group International, on whose stationery this
1576 exhibit is typed, would only act as marketer for the
1577 product?
1578 A That Is correct.
1579 fi Turning to page 2?
1580 A Yes.
1581 2 Can you explain the second bullet concerning a 120-
1582 day clock on 1 February 1987, for a production sample June
"fmm
1064
UNCUSSIFIEO
MAKE: HIR1<41002 VI | VLflUlllI ll II PAGE 69
1583
158U
1585
1586
1587
1588
1589
1590
1591
1592
1593
159U
1595
1596
1597
1598
1599
1600
1601
1602
1603
160U
1605
1606
1607
1987? What was the intention of that timeframe?
A Vhan you start a project and you start you need to
have a finish time and we felt that if we could get started
by February 1 that by June 1 our first production sample
should be ready.
e And you would expect that to occur by June 1987; is
that correct?
A Yes.
e Moving to the next bullet, the item on the same
page, your understanding was that it was intended that there
r
be a production run of 1^000 American 180-n-25. 3^000
magazines, 2f000 winders?
A I don't know, that is not my understanding. That is
what this says. I don't know.
e Has it your understanding there would be a run of a
substantial number of 180-n-25s?
A That is what this says. I am not saying that we
would build IfOOO of those. I won't. That is what the
report says.
S How many would you have expected?
A Twenty.
e Hhy 20?
A You can't eat those damrlthings, you have to sell
them. So, I would say, build 20 of them for demonstrators,
that is.
*t^JS/flf/|
1065
UNCLASSIFIED
HiRimooa UllULfilJllll II IJ ^^'^^ "^^
Q Where was it expected these would be sold?
A Anybody who can legally buy them.
u
C Did you have any further connection with Forway
Industries?
A No.
S In discussing the meeting with the Gofs that Hr .
Outton was proposing, what did you tell the Gofs?
A You have to as/that again. I don't understand it.
S I am asking what you would have told the Gofs that
might have induced them to be interested in the project?
A This project?
S They did attend a meeting?
A Yes.
e So you were successful in having a conversation with
them which led to their having a meeting?
A Ha were, at this point prior to the January meeting,
were, myself and another fellow, was going to try to
structure a complete buy-out of American Arms and just buy
them out, buy the patent, buy the whole thing.
And they were, the Gofs wexe going to go to work for us as
consultants, and we wanted, we told them actually to come to
u
New Jersey to talk to rorway, to see if they did know what
they were talking about, see if they could act as
consultants to build a weapon; and that is why they came.
2 Mho is "us"?
WUSXIflEO
1066
NAME: HIR1U1002
UNCLASSIFIED
1633
163U
1635
1636
1637
1638
1639
16140
16t4l
16142
16143
1614 14
16145
16146
1647
16(48
1649
1650
1651
1652
1653
1654
1655
••Us,'' rafarring to what?
8 You said that a group that you referred to as ''us'
■F
would acquire American Arms and that Gofs would work ''for
us ' ' ? Who is ' 'us ' ' ? I
A A new company which would get hcaded--Frank Lucero
was asked by me to go in and see i£ he could get this
company restructured and if we could get it restructured we
would go out and raise capital to buy this company out. So
''us,*' I don't know, it would be investment capital.
2 Would this someone be Mr. Secord?
A No, this would be i^^ people right here in the
United States that would invest in something like that. ' We'
had some people we thought might do that.
f
e If that was the case, why did the Gofs go to see Mr
Dutton and you did not participate in that meeting?
A Because I was tied up. Dutton was wanting to, we
told Dutton as part oi the Stanford Tech and the market
thing to take care of this thing out on the East Coast.
fi Why would Stanford Technology wish to be involved?
X To sell the weapons and to understand that this
thing could work right. There is a working together
relationship.
wmm
1067
HIRim002
RPTS CAHTOR
DCHH GLASSNAP
[8-00 p.n. 1
pmsm
2 Do you know a Nancy Morabia?
A Nancy who?
2 Horabia, M-o-r-a-b-i-a.
A I don't think I do.
2 Ron Martin?
A Maybe. Fouruay, I don't know.
2 Would Martin hav« ba«n involved in a purchase from
or a shipaent of weapons iron American Arms?
A I do not know. X have no idea.
2 Do you knoM Mr. Maztln, or do you know who he is?
A When you said Ron, I thought maybe there was a guy
at Fourway by the name of Ron. Wait just a minute. 1£ that
is not him. then I don't know him.
2 Do you know a Rafael Sulntero?
A No.
2 Do you know a Richard Gadd?
A No.
MR. SABA: I have no further questions for the
moment.
MR. CULLEN: Could we take a break for a second.
I Recess . 1
WNCUSSIflfO
1068
WSSIFIEO
N&HE: HIR1U1002 wl ll/Lftlltjirir II PJ^QE 73
168
1682
1683
168U
1685
1686
1687
1688
1689
1690
1691
1692
1693
169U
EXAMINATIOK BY COUNSEl. FOR THE SENATE SELECT
conniTTEE
BY MR. HOLHES:
8 nz . Royer, my nana is Cameron Holmes. I an
Associate Counsel with the Senate Select Committee on Secret
Military Assistance to Iran and the Kicaraguan Opposition.
I would like to go over a few details with you
about the American arms deal. First I am going to hand you
what is now marked as Exhibit Kunber 7 to your deposition
and ask ii you can identify that.
[The Following Document was marked as Royer Exhibit
Ho. 7 for Identification.]
«*««««««*» COMMITTEE IKSERT xx**«xxxx
wmm
1069
UNCUSSIFIED
HknZ- HIK1U1002 lllllll niltJII ILU PAGE lH
1695
1696
1697
1698
1699
1700
1701
1702
1703
170U
1705
1706
1707
1708
1709
1710
171 1
1712
1713
17m
1715
1716
1717
1718
1719
THE WITNESS: yes, sir. This is a waiver and
tttimination oi partnership between Don Harostica, Larry
Royer and Richard Secord.
BY MR. HOLHES:
2 Titled ' 'Waiver and Termination of Partnership^ ,;
sir?
& Yes.
fi Drawing your attention to the last page, is that
your signature?
A Yes, sir.
fi And that of Secord and Marostica?
A I think that is Harostica's . I assune that is
Secord's.
2 You got an original of this for youz file?
A Yes, X think I have, not an original, but I have a
copy of it, I an sure I do.
2 And you discussed it with Mr. Secord and Mr.
Harostica at that tine?
A Yes, I an the one that set the deal up, negotiated
it.
2 Hhen was this docunent finally signed?
A I would have to look. I don't know.
2 It was in January of 1987, wasn't it?
A Probably, yes.
2 So up until January of 1987, you were still at
UNCUSSIFIfD
1070
ilNCUSSIFIED
HXnZ- HIR1<4l002VI1ULnUU|| ILU ^'^''^ "^^
1720 laast tachnically, although not in brotherly love, partners
1721 with Secord and Marostica?
1722 A That is the time it took to get it signed, yes,
1723 that is correct.
172<4 2 And after that point in time, you and Mr. Secord by
1725 virtue oi this agreement became the holders personally oi
1726 all of the former assets of the partnership, is that right?
1727 A Yes.
1728 e So the 430,000 note, for example, that American
1729 Arms still owed to Tri American Arms, the partnership,
1730 became the assets of yourself and Hr . Secord personally,
1731 right?
1732 A Yes, I guess so.
1733 C And Harostica no longer had an interest in those
173(4 moneys?
1735 A That is right.
1736 e And the same would be true of the «50,000 that
1737 Ceretech owed the partnership, is that right?
1738 A That is correct.
1739 e And those are your assets now?
1740 A Yes.
17(I1 ft So whan you were dealing with Fourway Industries.
17112 you had a personal stake in the outcome of the future
17U3 success of American Arms, because it was only through some
17UU future success that they were going to be able to pay back
UNCLASSIRED
1071
1745
17U6
17U7
1748
1749
17S0
1751
1752
1753
1754
1755
1756
1757
1758
1759
1760
1761
1762
1763
1764
1765
1766
1767
1768
1769
MAKE: HIR141002 Iflllll IJA \ IMK II P»GE 76
the «60,000 to you and Mr. Secoi
A That is cotract.
e You got into Fouruay through Hakim and Secotd, is
that correct?
A Yes.
2 And they told you that they had had previous
dealings with Fouruay in the manufacture of out-of-
production military parts?
A I can't recall that that is what they said. I
can't recall that that is what they said, no.
fi Did you understand that that is what Fourway's
business uas? I
A Yes.
Q They are sort of a specialty machine shop I
operation? '
A That is correct.
2 They do custom jobs?
A That is correct.
2 Primarily in the out-of-production military
industry?
A That is correct, and that they had government
security and as such would probably be an ideal company to
t»lk to about building the weapon.
2 And you stayed in touch with Secord because you had
a financial interest in the Fourway project going forward?
nnmim
1072
JNcussm
1770 A Yes
1771 Q Did you undarstand that Fourway was also approached
1772 to manufactura the laser sight attachment to the American
1773 Arms weapon?
177t« A I don't Know about the laser, no. The laser that
1775 American Arms had?
1776 S A laser sight. Answer that question iirst. Here
1777 you aware of any discussions with Fourway about
1778 manufacturing any lasers?
1779 . A No, I was only interested in manufacturing the
1780 weapon, not the laser. Ko, I was not.
1781 2 Did you know about any such discussions?
1782 A Ho, not that I can recall.
1783 fi So if Hr. Secoxd was engaged in discussions about
178U manufacturing a laser sight that would fit the American Arms-
1785 180, it was without the knowledge of you?
1786 A Connected with Fourway?
1787 fi All right, answer the question first in connection
1788 with Fouxway.
1789 A I am not aware of Seoord or anybody talking to
1790 Fourway about making, fabricating any kind of a laser for
1791 the American.
1792 fi And since you made a distinction with Fourway, were
1793 you aware of his conversations with anybody to manufacture
179(4 any laser sight?
lINtWXWl)
1073
UNCUSSIFIED
NAME: HIR1<41002 IJI1III Hilallriril PAGE 78
1795 A I aa aware that Ganaral Sacotd has been looking
1796 into aanufactuxing of a las«r and developing a laser, but
1797 that is about all I know.
1798 e Were you aver told that that laser or that any
1799 laser that he was looking into would fit the American- 180 ?
1800 A Yes, probably. I don't think the laser has been
1801 developed.
1802 e I would like to take you back to Exhibit >4 to your
1803 deposition, the handf-written notes. These notes were
18014 written by you, as you have testified before?
1805 A Yes.
1806 2 These were prepared as speaking docunents for the
1807 aeeting in Denver, isn't that correct?
1808 A I beg your pardon?
1809 2 You prepared these as reference points for the
1810 aeeting in Denver that you had between yourself, Mr. Secord
1811 and nr . nazostica in Hay, 1986?
1812 A Pzepazed in advance of that aeeting?
1813 2 Yes, isn't that right?
18114 A I don't know. I do not know if it was before,
1815 after, during. I don't know.
1816 2 Let ae ask you if it isn't true that you brought
1817 th«se to the aeeting and showed thea to Hr . Harostica at
1818 the Clarion Hotel in Denver in early Hay of 1986 with Hr .
1819 Secord.
UNCLASSIHED
1074
UNCLASSIRED
HXm HIR1141002 -»■ - w— . -wwiB ■■■■# pjQj. 75
1820 A I don't know. I have no idea. Somauhere they
1821 showed up> but I don't know where we used then.
1822 2 So you have no basis on which you would dispute
1823 that assertion?
182U A I have no basis to?
1825 Q To dispute that assertion.
1826 A That I had them in Denver?
1827 2 Right.
1828 A I nay have, yes.
1829 2 After the neeting in Denver, you had sone written
1830 and spoken conversations with Mr. Hakin about the progress
1831 in Mr. narostica's search for business opportunities, did
1832 you not?
1833 A Yes.
183>4 2 And thereafter, on about June the 23rd, 1986, you
1835 net with Hakin and Secord in Vienna, Virginia.
1836 A And Harostica.
1837 2 And Harostica?
1838 A Yes.
1839 2 Has anybody else present?
18>40 A Z don't think so.
18141 2 It was yourself, Secord, Hakin and Harostica?
1842 . A Z think that is all was there.
18(43 2 And one of the purposes of that neeting was sort of
18'4U preparatory to the neeting in Washington with Mr. Zucker?
WSJIfe
1075
UNCUSSIFIED
NAHE: HXR1U1002 wllULflUUII ILU PAGE 80
18U5 A Correct.
^6'*6 2 And you discussed the various opportunities that
18U7 uere than on the table as partnership opportunities, is that
1848 righti
1849 A That is correct.
1850 fi Aiter that meeting. Mr. Hakim prepared a memorandum
1851 and copied it to you describing those opportunities, didn't
1852 ha?
1853 A Yes.
185(4 HR. HOLHES: I am handing you what is marked as
1855 Exhibit 8 to your deposition.
'8S6 [The Following Document was marked as Royer ilxhibit
1857 Ho. 8 for Identification.!
1858
1859 *M*»M»MMMM COHHITTEE IKSERT
fiffmim
1076
UNCUSSIFIED
NAME: HIRimOOZ U I 1 U'-'^l ■■■■■■■'■ ^'^^^ ^^
1860 SY MR. HOLMES:
186 1 2 Is that tha memorandun of Hakim memoxializing the
1862 discussions in Vienna, Virginia on June, 23, 1986?
1863 A Yes.
186i( 2 Did these points accurately reflect the
1865 conversation there in Vienna, Virginia?
1866 A I beg your pardon?
1867 2 Did this memorandun accurately reflect the
1868 conversations that the four of you had had in Vienna,
1869 Virginia?
1870 A That is correct.
187 1 2 You have had an opportunity to read the entirety of
1872 Exhibit nunber 8 now?
1873 A Yes.
187>4 2 And it does accurately reflect the meeting of June
1875 23?
1876 A Yes.
1877 2 I gather from this document that the intention of
1878 that meeting was to use the partnership, Tri American Arms,
1879 as sort of a holding company. Is that the terminology that
1880 was used?
1881 A Yes, from that document Harostica decided some type
1882 of holding company would be started.
1883 HR. HOLMES s I am handing you what is marked as
1884 Exhibit Number 9.
^mmm
1077
UNCUSSIRED •■'
NAME: HIR141002
1885 [Tha Following Docuaent was markad as Royer Exhibit
1886 No. 9 iox Identification. ]
1887
1888 Xinxxxxxxxx COMMITTEE IKSERT ««««xxxxx
uNcussra
1078
UNCLASSIFIED ■.
NAME: HIRimOOZ UllULnUtlll II II PAGE 83
1889
1890
1891
1892
1893
189(4
1895
1896
1897
1898
1899
1900
1901
1902
1903
19014
1905
1906
1907
1908
1909
1910
1911
1912
1913
BY MR. HOLMES:
2 And With the exception of the handwritten notes at
the bottom of the page, I will ask you if you recognize that
as a dlagzan prepared by Mr. Dutton to reflect the same
concept of holding company at about the same time, June 23,
1986.
A I don't Know if I have ever seen this. I can't say
that I recognize that.
2 You don't recall it?
A I don't recall it.
S Let me ask you if, after having read it, it
accurately summarizes the discussion as to the structure of
what was being talked about at the June 23 meeting?
A Yes, basically, yes.
S The structure as it was then planned was that the
so-called holding company, titled STT6I Holding Company by
Mr. Dutton, but in reality named the Tri American Arms
Partnership, was to have general control and oversight over
the four projects under discussion, those being American
Arms, Inc.; Ceretech, International. Inc.; Xrl Red Cedar
Associates, Inc.; and Bio Fine Pharmaceuticals, is that
right?
A Yes.
Q Mr. Marostica is assigned the comptroller role in
each case, is that right?
UNCIASSIHED
1079
UNCLASSIHED
NXnZ: HIR1<t1002 VllVknWII liaV PAGE 8U
1914 A That is right.
19 15 2 And you ar« in tha salas and maikating role in each
1916 case, is that right?
19 17 A Right. Wall, yes, okay.
19 18 e And nr. Hakin is assigned donestic international
1919 distributors ior each oi the four projects.
1920 A That is correct.
1921 fi Hith regard to Bio Fine Pharmaceuticals, was there
1922 a business plan prepared and subititted by Bio Fine
1923 Pharnaceuticals that you had access to through Mr.
192U Harostica?
1925 A Yes. I had ai^ still have a business plan.
1926 e You didn't bring it with you?
1927 A Ko. because Z testified earlier that Z presented
1928 that to Albert Hakin to look into an investaent situation
1929 for it.
1930 2 Z understand.
1931 A And so Z didn't bring it. They have nothing to do
1932 with Bio Fine whatever.
1933 2 Bio Fine business opportunities is now in your mind
193U no longer?
1935 A That is correct.
1936 fi At the time that it was under consideration as of
1937 June 23. 1986, when this diagram was prepared, and this
1938 memorandum. Exhibit Kumber 8, was prepared listing it as
UNCUSSIHED
1080
UNCLASSIFIED
NAnE= MIR1>t1002 UllULflUUll IkU ^''^^ ^^
1939 project H, th« business plan contamplatad a substantial
19U0 invastaant in Bio Fine, in order to obtain a return on
1941 capital, is that right?
1942 A If you bought new nachinery, yes.
igMS S The plan at the time was to buy new machinery,
19'«i4 obtain a building and a lease, pay salaries for technicians,
19>45 doctors, the people necessary. Is that right so far?
19(46 A That is correct.
19U7 S And before any return on investment was to be
1918 realized, the total investment of about «2 . 1 million was
19U9 contemplated, is that right?
1950 A That is right, with that plan.
1951 2 Yes.
1952 A That plan had a lot of fat in it.
1953 e I understand it wasn't implemented.
195>4 A Yes.
1955 e As to Ceretech International, Inc., it also had a
1956 business plan, is that right?
1957 A Hot very much a business plan, no.
1958 fi It didn't have a big fat formal business plan like
1959 Bio rine, but it had a notional plan among the parties at
1960 the meeting on June 23rd.
1961 A That is correct.
1962 S And it also required a certain investment of
1963 capital prior to any realization of return, is that right?
UNCussm
1081
UNCUSSIRED
NAME: HIR1>«1002
196U A That "is right.
1965 S And its investment o£ capital was to run about »1.5
1966 to *2 million, is that right?
1967 A I don't know that it was that much. I really
1968 don't. I think that —
1969 e Hhat figure do you recall as the total outlay
1970 before a return on investment started to defray the
1971 necessity of additional —
1972 A As I stated earlier, I was never for this project,
1973 and these guys jumped around from ''X'* number of dollars to
19714 triple ''X'* number of dollars, and if we had ever really
1975 gotten into it. I think it could have been done for «>(00,000
1976 or «500,000 to get it really started.
1977 S What was the number that was being discussed?
1978 A Oh, the Ceretech people were wanting the moon.
1979 They wanted a lot of money.
1980 2 Hhat was the number that they wanted?
1981 A A couple million probably, «1 million-and-a-half in
1982 there somewhere.
1983 2 Kow the Tri Red Cedar project is another name for
198U what you have been calling the wood project or the Quinault
1985 timber project, is that right?
1986 A That is right.
1987 S And American Arms is what we have been discussing?
1988 A Yes.
UNCIASSIHED
1082
NAME:
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
199U
199S
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
201 1
2012
2013
DNCUSSIFe
HIR1(41002 Lllllll M.l.^inni PAGE 87
2 Drawing your attention on Exhibit 8 to paragraph
nuabar ona . notad ''Project A'', that is a ona-paragraph
discussion of American Arns, isn't it?
A That is correct.
S And nr. Hakim, as the writer of this, has listed
out as American Arms products the American-180 system, that,
is the automatic weapon we have been discussing, right?
A That is correct.
S Laser locK sight?
A Correct.
2 That is the sight that fits on the machine gun?
A tlanuiactured by American Arms.
2 Security briefcase.
A Yes.
2 That is the briefcase that you have pointed out —
A That is correct.
2 --in Exhibit 1 previously, is that correct?
A Yes.
2 And also the quad mount 180 weapons system.
A Yes.
2 Now, the quad mount 180 weapons system is the one
that you have mentioned earlier, is that right, that you
mentioned earlier today?
A Yes, I think I did, yes.
2 Handing you what is marked as Exhibit Number 10, I
wmm
1083
UNCLASSIFIED
HAHE: HIR1U1002 %||lVkllWl« •••■»■ piQj gg
2om
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
will ask you ii you can idantify thasa salacted pages as
having coaa iron tha promotional matarials givan to you and
-P
Hx . Haxostica by tha Gois in connection with tha products o£
Aaarican Arms.
[Tha Following Documant was marked as Royer Exhibit
Ho. 10 for Identification.]
COHniTTEE IHSERT «««xx«««x
UNCLASSIFIED
1084
UNCUSSIFIED
HAnZ- HIR1U1002 WllUlBrlUUII ILU ^'^^^ ^^
2022 THE HITHESS: Nope, X hava never seen this piece.
2023 BY m. HOLHES:
2024 & What was your understanding of uhat the quad mount
2025 system consisted of?
2026 A Hell, I have seen it, but I have never seen this
2027 piece of literature, but I understand what the quad is. It
2028 is four automatic weapons that will fire simultaneously.
2029 2 Do these pages accurately depict what you have seen
2030 as the quad mount system of American Arms?
2031 A No, it is completely different. That part is all
2032 completely different, as it is today, what I have seen.
2033 That drawing does not look liKa what the machine looks like.
203>4 Q Uhat is different about it?
2035 A It looks to me like it is encased, and the one that
2036 I have seen is not encased. There is no case or video
2037 camera. No, it doesn't look at all like what I have seen.
2038 e Mhat did you see?
2039 A I just saw four automatic weapons mounted on a
20(40 tripod that, once fired, they fire all at once or one at a
20(4 1 time or two at a time, three at a tine, nothing like any of
20U2 that.
20(43 fi Drawing your attention to page number six, the
20(4U sKmleton oi the system, is that what they looked like that
2045 you saw?
20U6 A This looks to me like they are lined up all on the
UNCUSSinED
1085
UNCLASSIRED
NAME: HIRIOIOOZ VIlVI-llWVII IkV PAGE 90
20>*7 sane leval, right?
20148 2 It appears to be that way to na .
A
20>49 A The one that ia turn -made is two up on top and two
A
2050 out on the side.
2051 2 I see> so the configuration is different.
2052 A The configuration is different. The prism is about
2053 the same.
20SU 2 This is the operational guts of an American- 180?
2055 A Yes.
2056 2 And what the quad mount is. it is four American-
2057 180s lined up in parallel, right?
2058 A Correct.
2059 2 The difference that you are seeing is that these
2060 are all next to each other. You are saying that they are
2061 now two on top and two below?
2062 A Yes.
2063 2 And you have never seen a system that was actually
206<4 encased in this nloe-looking casement?
2065 A Ko.
2066 2 The one now manufactured is to be used in the same
2067 Kind of applications, isn't it, as mounted to a permanent
2068 structure on page 1<4?
2069 .A Or a moving, a mobile.
2070 2 So one application is mounted to a permanent
2071 structure, and another possible application is mounted to a
UNCLASSIRED
1086
iCLASSIRED
NAME: HIRI'41002 limi | ||\V|LILII PAGE 91
2072 moving vehicla?
2073 A Ox an airplana.
207U 2 You u«ra nodding. Is that a y«s?
2075 A Y«s.
2076 e And this is an all-tarzain vahlcltt on page nuaher
2077 9. Is that somathlng that is still contenplatad as a
2078 possibility?
2079 A A lot oi Inaginary wozk thaza. I don't know
2080 anything about it.
2081 e You showad us a bzochuza oi a snail ccait. I an
2082 going to hand you what is now aazKad as Exhibit Kuiibar 11,
2083 and an internal portion that is now marked Exhibit number 11-
2084 A.
2085 [The rollowing Docunants waza marked as Royar
2086 Exhibit Ho. 11 and 11-A for Identification.!
2087
2088 MXMXXxxxMX COMMITTEE INSERT
UNCLASSIFIED
1087
UNCUSSIFIED
NAME: HIR1<41002 UllUkflUUII ILU ^'^^^ '2
2089 BY HR. HOLHES =
2090 S First l«t's talk about Exhibit Kumbar 11 in its
209 1 antiraty. This is your American Arms file that you brought
2092 with you. is it not?
2093 A That is correct.
209<( e And it contains the various documentation that you
2095 have kept relating to the American Arms project?
2096 A That is correct.
2097 fi Exhibit Number 11-A is a brochure contained within
2098 Exhibit 11 depicting a one-manual — light aircraft, is that
2099 right?
2100 A That is correct.
2101 e And could you explain what this brochure is doing
2 102 in your American Arms file?
2103 A American Arms was manufacturing a quad mount
2101* machine gun that they say would mount on the wing of this
2105 particular unit, and consequently when I was in Salt Lake
2106 City, they gave ■• one of these brochures. It was just
2 107 something that showed a potential of what you do with the
2108 quad mount.
2109 fi And American Arms is examining, I suppose, the wing
2110 structure of vehicles like this, so that they can figure out
2111 how to attach it and operate it from a vehicle?
2112 A Z imagine, but Z don't know what American Arms is
2113 doing any mora. Z don't even know that they are in
UNCUSSIFIED
1088
2nu
21 15
2116
21 17
21 18
2119
2120
2121
2122
2123
212t4
2125
2126
2127
2128
2129
2130
213
2132
2133
21314
2135
2136
2137
2 138
ONCUSSIFIEO •'
S At tha ti»« they explained this to you, this is the
Go*S talking to you?
A Yes.
2 I gather this was at your first neeting in Salt
LaKe City in April or Hay of 1986?
A That is correct.
e And you brought this to the attention of Hr . Secord
and Mr. Marostica?
A Harostica — well, yes, yes, I took it to the
attention of Secord and Harostica was with me.
e Did you have occasion to discuss the possibility of
marketing the quad mount liter on with General Secord?
A General Secord never did think much about the quad
mount .
2 Didn't you talk about giving General Secord the
right to push the quad mount with the U.S. Army to develop
it?
A naybe talked about it, but he shut it off
immediately. Me said he never did become interested in it
as a quad.
HR. HOLMES: Let me show you what is marked as
Exhibit Number 12.
[The Following Document was marked as Royer Exhibit
Ho. 12 for Identification.!
UNCUSSIFIED
1089
UNCIASSIHED
MAME HIR141002 IIIUI.I UA.Airil II PAGE 9U
COHHITTEE INSERT *x*xxxxxx
UNCLASSIFIED
1090
UNCUSSinED
MARE: HIR1(t1002 Ul lULfllJlJl I I L I J PAGE 95
2114
21i|2
21U3
2mu
21i45
21ti6
2147
211(8
2m9
2150
2151
2152
2153
21514
2155
2156
2157
2158
2159
2160
2161
2162
2163
21614
2165
BY MR. HOLHES:
e Doas that reftssh your racollaction about
discussions that you had with Mr. Harostica with ragard to
having Sacord push tha quad mount system with tha U.S. Army?
A Lat's saa, what doas that say? ''Giva Ganaral
Sacord tha right to push through tha proposal. '• What is
that, proposal to tha U.S. Army to davalop — that is not my
writing. I don't know anything about it.
fi Isn't it trua that Ganaral Sacord actually
contacted tha U.S. Army and askad tham about tha studies
that they had dona of tha Amarican-180?
A I don't know if ha contacted tha U.S. Army.
e Who do you know that he contacted?
A I don't know. I could not name it, but I think that
ha at one time talked to someone who tested the weapon.
Whether he was a U.S. Army personnel or who he was, I don't
remember that. Z can add to that that there was a report
written by someone who tasted the weapon. Maybe that is
all, tha extent oi how far we want with it.
e Did you keep in touch with Mr. Sacord after you had
beoome aware of tha ATF raid, about tha future of the
iaezican Arms project?
A Constantly.
fi Did some of your communications take the form of
telexes?
UNCIASSIHED
1091
UNCLASSIFIED
HIRIUIOOZ UllVknWII Ikl/ PAGE 96
A Probably.
8 And did he reply by telex on occasion?
A Probably.
S Hhere are those telexes now? The ones that you
received from hiit and sent to hia?
A I would have then in my file, telex file maybe,
incoming, outgoing files.
e Mould you be good enough to supply those to the
committee after you arrive back home?
A Sure.
2 I hand you a collection of telexes now marked as
Exhibit Number 13, and ask if you can identify those telexes
back and forth between you and Mr. Secord, between July of
1986 and October of 1986.
[The Following Documents were marked as Royer
Exhibit No. 13 for Identification.] "*
*««««««««» COMHITTEE INSERT
WNCUSSIflfl)
1092
NAME: HIR1<t1002
UNCuiSsra
PAGE 97
218t4
2185
2186
2187
2 188
2189
2190
2191
2192
2193
219U
2195
2196
2197
2198
2199
2200
2201
2202
2203
220U
2205
2206
2207
2208
THE WITNESS: Yes. The first ona, July 23, '86, I
aa reporting to Sacord a proposal by Aaerican Azns to finish
up a certain amount of semiautomatics , and to manufacture
some magazines, and that ue would have to try to invest
•'X'' number of dollars. We didn't have the money so we
decided not to go along with the project, and also talking
about waiting on the land bank to see about their side of
the commitment.
The next one, July 25, I say I see clouds on the
horizon with American Arms. I am trying to get a good
working relationship with the Gof s . I am trying to get
security of the 291 weapons to protect our *60,000
investment, and I am trying to get the licensing rights, and
I was working on that, trying to get ourselves in a secure
position.
BY HR. HOLMES:
e Licensing rights would have been of use to Fourway
Industries, is that correct?
A Oh, this is way before Fourway ever even was ever
mentioned.
e The idea of getting the licensing rights was born
b«iore the idea of going to Fourway, is that what you are
saying?
A Yes. You needed the licensing rights before you
could really move with it. He had to get control of what
UNCLASSIFIED
1093
UNCUSSIRED
HIR1I41002 Wi^WteltWWIl ll-M PAGE 98
coapany if we w«r« going to do anything with it. Kow
reorganization —
S you are referring nou to the fourth page of Exhibit
Hunber 13. for the record.
A Yes. I brought in a nan by the name of Frank
Lucero, who has — his business is buying and selling and
reorganizing companies, and he and I worked together on a
lot of projects, and I wanted him to take a look at this
profound mess that American Arms was in and give me an idea
of what it was going to take to gat this thing restructured,
and this yias his report, and it was a pretty bleak report.
It was going to cost a lot of money, a lot of things. He
had to go at it in a diffnrent direction, and so this was
the beginning of our bailout of American Arms. The fifth
one--
fi Excuse me, that is the fourth page, I believe.
HR. HOUCHEKi Yes, that is right. The last one was
actually the third.
THE HXTNESS> Okay, this is the fourth. I have to
read this one. This, again, is another report from Lucero
to me and for Secord, what we have got to do if we are going
to try to go ahead and do anything with American Arms.
BY m. HOLMES:
fi This is dated what date, sir?
A I don't know. October, the 28, 1986. If the
UNCUSSIFIED
1094
UNCLASSIHED
NAME: HIR1U1002 UllULinUUII ILU PAGE 99
223U
2235
2236
2237
2238
2239
22U0
22K1
2202
22((3
22>(U
22^5
22116
22117
22118
22*49
2250
2251
2252
2253
225<4
2255
2256
2257
2258
ptoduction was eight, you could produca and sail these
things, it is a vary lucrative venture, but aitar you look,
and you look at the numbers and things, you think okay, now
how can ua get into a business like this with a very minimum
amount of capital involved, and test the market?
2 You were looking at this point at strictly the
international market, is that true?
A That is right, except the semiautomatic. There
could be a market here in the United States for the
semiautomatic .
e You didn't even have fourway look at it. You
didn't even have that possibility.
A Of what?
fi Semiautomatic.
A Mo, I think we only looked at the automatic at that
time. You have to first find out the reason wa had Fourway.
what is it going to cost to manufacture the weapon? Where
can we get 20 of them made to go out into the marketplace
and test the market? That is what I wanted to do.
S Hho was Frank Luoero to you?
A Frank Lucero is a man that I use as a business
consultant to help me raise capital. He is a venture
oapitalist, and a good man. knows how to look into these
situations. That is basically why we bailed out of this.
fi Where did you first meat Frank Lucero?
UNClASSra
1095
UNCUSSIHED
HiRi>4ioo2 UliULnUUII ILU ''^'^^ ^'^^
A Through tha machinery businass, equipaant business.
2 What is his yfin business?
A Well/ what ha is, I would call hiB a venture
capitalist .
2 Does he have a business that he goes under?
A Basically not any more. I think he sold everything
that he owns right now. He will buy a company, either get
it on its iaat and sell it, or he will buy a company and
liquidate it.
2 What is WUTCO?
A I don't Know, something in Georgia. I think that
is something oi Western Union.
2 Where does Hr . Lu^aro reside?
A In Pennsylvania.
2 Where in Pennsylvania?
A That is close to Harrisburg, some little town out
there. I think the company that he has almost finished with
right now is located at Kyerstown, Pennsylvania.
2 Isn't he involved with the Brunadl deal?
A Ko.
2 Have you been involved in other business
arrangements with Hr . Lucero in the past?
A We are getting involved in some, yes.
2 What are they?
A One is the liquidation oi a plant that he has up in
UNCUSSIHED
1096
UNCLASSra
HAME^ HIR1U1002 |II1I|L niJljl I I LU PAGE 101
22814
2285
2286
2287
2288
2289
2290
nyarstown. Pennsylvania, that he owns. I an going to
liquidate that. That is basically it right now. I am
getting tired.
The other one he and I are going to try to
structure, we are going to try to put that thing together,
and we have worked on that. I think we can do it if we
don't gat too nuch sore press.
UNCLASSinED
1097
UNCLASSIFIED
HIR1(41002 UllULiriUilll lkl# PAGE 102
RPTS THOHAS
DCHN PARKER
[8 = 145 p.n. ]
BY HR. HOLMES:
Q And fiz . Lucaro uas discussing «nt«ting that
business as a iinanciar, I assuae.
A That is right.
e Not as an opaxating paxson.
A Ko, to halp raisa tha capital fox it.
e Lat ma show you what has bean naxkad as Exhibit
Kunbax 1U. This is a Talax to you fxom Hx . Lucaxo, dated
Octobax 30> 1986. Tha SLC opaxation ha xafaxs to is tha
Salt LaKa City opaxation: is that coxxaet?
A Yas.
& Thii
A Yas.
fi And whan it xaiaxs to tha sacond paga of this
docunant to taking it oif shoxa. had you discussed that
possibility with Hx . Lucaxo bafoxa?
A Yas. wa had.
ft Has that in connection with the possibility at this
U
point In tlna of having Foxway Industxlas involved?
A No> wa wouldn't have taken it off shore if we wexe
a
going to have Forway do it. There is a possibility you
could have the thing Bade anywhexe in the world.
UNCUSSIFIED
1098
NAnr. '
2316
2317
2318
2 I 1'>
2 J2U
a32
2322
2323
2 :< 2 '(
232S
2326
2327
2328
2329
2330
2331
2332
2333
233M
233.S
2336
2337
2338
2339
23M0
H 1 R 1 4 1 0 0 2
UNcusme
I'AOi: 103
fi 1 uouH Uk« lo ,«,., you b.ok to EMhiblt Nurab.t 6.
Do«« It i«fi«ih your r.coll.otlon to know th»t Hr . Luo.ro
h«« b«an oopl.d by Mr. Dutton In thi» ii*iio to Mr. S.oord.
k th«t la tight baoausa 1 hava brought Luoaro Into
tha piotura to look at tha thing and ■•• if u* oan maka It
ily ao ha Is involvad In looking atrlotly «• a ilnanoiai
oonaultant t.lllng na uhat to do, hoM to do It.
a Mr. Lucaro laiara to a plant In Latin Amarloa In
thl. lalan, EHhiblt Numbar \H . Uhat dl.ouaalona hava you had
with Mr. Luoaro about a manu tao tur Ing capability In Latin
Amarloa .
A kona in Latin Amarloa, paaalng oommant, nothing.
Aa iar aa I am oonoarnad thla thing la daad, thla Amarloan
l^tnu thing.
0 la that trua alao oi Mr. Luoaro?
A I think that, yaa, I think ao. I don't think that
urn ara going to do anything Mlth Amarloan /|rma. It oan't ba
lavlvad Thara la too much dabt.
a Hhan Mr. Luoaro Mrota to you, '*I Mould auggaat
parta mada oil ahora in a oountiy Ilka Bramll whara I hava a
plant noM, or loMar uaatarn Europa,*' uhat did you taka that
to maan at tha tirna?
A I taka it to maan that you knoM if Ma ara going to
do It Ma oan althar do it hara In tha Unltad Stataa or h*
oan li MS aca going to do It m* oan go off ahora to Btasll
iinmsim
1099
MAHE>
2341
23U2
23M3
23UU
23145
23146
23147
23148
23U9
2350
2351
2352
2353
23514
2355
2356
2357
2358
2359
2360
2361
2362
2363
236(4
2365
HIR1i4l002
mmma
PAGE 10M
or to uhaxAvaz and hav« tha waapons manuiacturad .
2 Uhat plant did Mz . Lucaro hava that ha raiazrad to
in Brazil?
A Ha has a food procasslng plant.
2 It has a nachlnlng capability.
A Ko. No.
2 It is capabla oi naking parts.
A No, Brazil has a aachina capability, but not his
plant .
Q I saa . So ha was suggastlng that you go to Brazil
not bacausa oi his plants, but bacausa ha had contact.
A Ha had contact in Brazil, right.
fi It goas on to suggast that for U.S. dollars,
i500,000, approxlnataly ^50,000 plus 250,000 ovar tina , plus
P
41 Billion for a naw company, about 200,000 cash plus
4800,000 raquirad ovar a yaar which would includa lina of
cradlt oi about 4200.000. invastnant would ba 41.5 million,
cash naadad about p^^m^ tfi million.
A That is corract.
fi Ara thasa tha tarms that you undarstand that you
and ha wara intarasting in trying to salvaga arms on Octobar
307
A That is what it was going to taKa at that tima .
fi At that tima this point in tima Hr . Sacord is fully
awara of all thasa nagotiations .
"Ncussffe
1100
NAME:
2366
2367
2368
2369
2370
2371
2372
2373
237U
2375
2376
2377
2378
2379
2380
2381
2382
2383
238M
2385
2386
2387
2388
2389
2390
mmm
A Y«S, six, but
fi As a mattar of fact, thasa racords waza from Ht .
Sacord's offlca.
A H* was, bacausa if u« avar did gat revitalizad ua
uantad Sacord to do tha natkating.
Q YoM waza copying Saoord with tha discussions
batuaan you and Mr. —
A I had to usa avarybody to try to advisa hot* to gat
it. Wa got «60,000 invastad and wa uantad to try to racoup
it soma way, so I uantad Mr. Saoord to kaap on tha markat
and and Luoaro to figura out hou ua could gat tha thing
fundad, and that is basically uhy I uas kaaping avarybody u|
to spaad.
Q Okay. I had a fau quastions as ua uant through
your tastimony that I uould lika to ravisit for a momant.
You mantionad a trip to Europa that you took with
yoursalf and a famala friand and Mr. and Mrs. Sacord in
1983.
A tlr. Saoord.
fi Hou about Hrs. —
A No.
fi
A
fi
A
Just Hr. Sacord?
Yas.
Okay. Hhat placas uara visitad on that tripi
London, England and Italy.
UNCLASSIFIED
101
UNCLASSIFIED
HIR1<t1002 PAGE 106
fi That was a iiv«-day tip?
A Yas, basically.
fi Was Hr . Sacord on vacation oe was ha working?
A No, ha was on vacation, and I invitad him to go,
and I just invitad hin to go, wantad him to go, uantad to
taka hin as I said in piavious tastimony. I was wanting to
saa if ha could work out somathing with him to rapcasant us
in son* oountiias sailing machinaiy.
Q Uas He. SacoEd with you at all tiaas on that trip?
A Mo, ha lait foE a day. Ha stayad bahind in London
foE a day, I think, and than ha mat up--wa mat up again in
Italy sonawhata, Roma oe--
e That was tha naKt day?
A KaKt day oe day aitas. somathing lika that.
fi So ha was with you?
A Host Of tha tima.
fi FouE of tha iiva days?
A Yas .
fi Did He. SacoEd raly on you to finanoa this trip?
A Yaa, I financad that tEip.
I gathaE you took it as a businass axpansa?
Yaa, I offatad to do it.
And you would hava Eaooxds Ealating to tha tEip, I
fi
A
fi
assuma .
A
UNcussra
1102
HIR1M1002
UNCUSSinEO
PAGE 107
NAME
2<416 . fi Is it possibla that that trip was in April of 1983
2U17 and not Octobar of 1983?
2m8 A I don't think so bacausa when I cana back, I cane
2(t19 back and left right fron Hew York and went to Minnesota to
2(420 an auction. It was colder than billy hell. I think it was
212 1 in the fall. I don't believe it was in the spring. I am
2U22 almost sure it was in October.
2<«23 e From what point in the United states did you
242U depart?
2>425 A Newark.
2426 e Newark?
2427 A Yes.
21428 fi And you left with Hr . Secord?
21129 A Yes.
2430 e On the same plane"
2431 A Yes.
2432 e And you arrived back in which airport?
2433 A Newark.
2434 S Hr . Royer. you mentioned a fish meal business that
2435 you and Mr. Harostica were involved in. I wonder if you
2436 have heard of a business known as Grain Feed Fish Limited.
2437 A No.
2438 fi Have you ever discussed with Hr . Secord the
2439 possibility of either of you investing in a business that
2440 engaged in the farming of fish?
UNCLASSIFIED
1103
UNCLASSIHED
HIR1U1002 VIlVtMlWII Ikir PAGE 108
A Sacord had asked ne on occasion what would it cost
to put up somathing like that, but very vaguely, nothing, no
serious negotiations or anything at all.
e What negotiations were there? You'^aid there uere
no serious negotiation/. Here there any negotiations?
A No . In fact, what would it cost to — I was building
a plant in Sterling and Secord said to na , ''What does a
plant like that cost?"
e What period of tine are we talking about?
A When I was building the fish plant in 1986, 1986.
the spring of 1986, what would sonething like that cost, and
I told hiB and that was about the end of it.
e Do you know whether ha avaz visited any other fish
farn businesses with an eye toward investing?
A Mo, I don't know.
fi The aoney that Hr . Zucker obligated CST to supply
to the tinber venture, the *S Billion three-year obligation,
what was the business contingency plan in the event that the
obligation caused soaebody to rely on the obligation and
then the obligation was withdrawn?
A Back up. Do that again.
e Suppose Hr. Zucker had decided in Bidstreaa he
dMn't want to go through with the deal and the Federal Land
Bank N««suadi you and SRH^ what was youz business contingency
A *'
plan to defend yourself froa that possibility?
UNCUSsra
1104
UNCLASSIHED
NAHE: HIRIUIOOa PAGE 109
21466 A You at« saying if wa got haliway in tha projact and
2U67 Zuckar backad out, and — I don't undarstand. In othar words,
2468 if ha comaittad tha monay, ua uata in tha projact. It couldi
2i«69 salf-liquidata it out.
21470 S If ha spant soma of tha aonay and than changed his
2U7 1 mind, what protactad you from a laH^'*^* ^V *^* Fedaral Land!
2U72 Bank for braach?
21473 A That is you would hava to talk to Hiracla and Orr
2«47M about it, I don't know.
2U75 2 You don't know.
2476 A No.
2177 e It was navar discussad.
2i|78 A Kavar discussad.
2>479 e Thara was nothing in writing that protactad you
2(480 from that possibility.
21481 A I don't think so. I don't know.
2482 2 Tha monay that Zuckar provided to Sacord for tha
21483 first ^5,000 American 180's, what was the interest rata on
2>48i4 that monay.
21485 A I don't know. I do not know.
2*486 fi Did you ever discuss it?
2U87 A Ho, I don't know.
2>488 e Was there any security for that investment by
2(489 Zucker and Sacord?
2(490 A I don't know.
wussra
i
1105
HAHE: HIR1141002
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 110
Z"*?! 2 You never had discussed that with Secord or Zucker.
2(492 A No. Hakin would know that.
2493 2 Is there any written document that guaranteed
2494 Secord's repayment to Zucker oi that money?
2495 A I do not know.
2496 2 You never discussed that.
2497 A Ho.
2498 2 As to the ♦100,000 offer necessary in the /ood
2499 project, was there an interest rate involved in the lending
2500 so-called of that money by Zucker to the project?
250 1 A I do not know.
2502 2 Was there any document that styled that a loan?
2503 A I don't now.
2504 2 Was there any guarantee on paper that that loan
2505 would be repaid to Zucker?
2506 A I don't know.
2507 2 None of these things were discussed.
2508 A The repayment, no, I don't think there was— because
2509 we sent the money back to STTGI.
2510 2 What actually happened, it went back to STTGI.
2511 A Yes.
2512 2 So in fact Zucker didn't get his money back.
2513 A That is right, I don't know. As far as I know it
2514 went back there and what happened to it after that I don't
2515 know.
UNCUSSinED
1106
bNCUSSIHED
NAME: HIRmi002 UllULllUUII ILU PAGE 111
2S16
2S17
2518
251
252
252
2522
2523
2524
2525
2526
2527
2528
2529
2530
2531
2532
2533
2534
2535
2536
2537
2538
2539
25140
a And as the one-third interest holdef\ SRH, you were
not concazned that SR^H had sent one, soneuhat less than
*100,000 to a third party and not back to the person who had
originally loaned it.
A I was taking my instructions from Hakim what to do.
2 You never discussed that with Zucker.
A Hakim or me .
2 You never discussed that with Zucker.
A No.
2 So you understand that Hakim spoke to Zucker, in
other words.
A I understand that Hakia spoke for Hakim. He said,
•'Send it back to Stanford Technology.*'
2 You started off with the assumption —
A I don't know.
2 With the understanding that as Zucker mmmm^ then
you took Hakim's word for the proposition you should send it
to Hakim.
A If Hakim told me send It there, that is where I
said to send it.
fi So in —
A Hakim can handle Zuokez.
fi That Is my point. You ware leaving Hakim to handle
Zucker .
A Yes, sir.
BNiussra
1107
NAHE
25U
25t(2
25U3
aSUM
25(«5
25U6
2SU7
251)8
25149
2550
255
2552
2553
25S<«
2555
2556
2557
2558
2559
2560
256
2562
2563
256U
2565
UNCLASSIFIED
HIR1I41002 UllUI_ni1a1ll II II PAGE 112
2 I assuna what Haklii-<j3iid went for Zuckar, too.
A That is right.
S Hhat was tha writtan undarstanding by which you.
Mr. Sacozd and Hr . Hakim wara going to split tha procaads o£
the SRH Inc., ona-third, ona-third, ona third?
A Writtan?
2 Yas.
A A gantlanan's hand shaka.
2 Was thara any stock in that company avar sold.
A Sold? Ko.
2 Was thara any issuad?
A I don't know. I do not hava stock cartiiicatas .
no. I don't think wa got around to that.
2 You did styla it a corporation as opposad to a
partnership .
A Yas, sir, it is a corporation, and tha
stock — niracla and Orr would hava to tall wara that stock
was. I don't know whar* it urns. I don't hava it.
HR. HOUCHEN: Tha ganaral rula whan lawyers set up
a corporation like this is thay issue the stock and probably
keep it in tha stock book without delivering it to the
owners .
BY HR. HOLMES:
2 On tha record they would certainly discuss it with
you when they decided to issue the stock and have you have
UNCLASSIFIED
1108
ONCLASSIRED
MAHE: HIR1U1002 ^^.--i_^ P^^^ ^^^
2566
2567
2568
2569
2570
2571
2572
2573
2574
2575
2576
2577
2578
2579
2580
2581
2582
2583
2584
2585
2586
2587
2588
2589
2590
ona-third of it.
A Yas, six.
fi Thay didn't do that in this casa.
A Thay discussad it that wa would hava a third, third
and third.
e Of tha stock.
A Of tha stock.
e So it was plannad to hava stock.
A Yes.
fi That was tha machanisn by which you wara going to
divida tha procaads?
A That is right.
5 That was what ha —
A As ha said, tha stock is probably in tha stock book
in Washington.
6 You didn't hava any anployiiant contract with SRH?
A No.
2 Your intarast was antiraly —
A Stock.
e A stockholdar's intarast.
A That is right.
S Yas.
A Yas, sir.
e Kow you hava rafarrad ma to Hr . Hiraela for tha
possibility that thara ara raeozds ralating to SRH. Ara you
iffmim
1109
UNCLASSIRED
Kknt HIR1141002 VllWbf tVWil IkM PAGE UK
2591 willing to waive tha attorney/cliant privil«g« on behalf oi
2592 youzseli and SRH so we can inquire oi Hr. Hizacle what it is
2593 that SKJI has?
259U MR. HOUCHEN: I don't know it is his pzivilega to
2595 waive. He is a stockholder. He is not the stockholder. In
2596 fact, I wouldn't know as I sit here whether he has any stock
2597 although I believe he does have.
2598 BY HR. HOLHES =
2599 8 As a comnunication between yourself and Mr.
2600 Miracle, are you prepared to waive the attorney/client
260 1 privilege so we can ask Miracle about those coamunications?
2602 A I don't know. He would have to answer that.
2603 HR. HOUCHEN: I don't think so. I don't think that
2601 they would do you any good, to be truthful. I think you
2605 would have to have a waivei" of all stockholders before
2606 Miracle and anybody in the firm would talk to you or divulge
2607 any records. Larry is willing to if the others are.
2608 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
2609 HR. HOLHES: You are aware from watching national
2^610 television what our position is on the others.
2611 how. No, what is your —
2612 HR. HOLHES: Secord told us no thanks.
2613 THE WITNESS: You know I think everything on the
2614 corporation is right here in this file.
2615 HR. HOUCHEN: That isn't quite so, so don't say
UNClASSinED
1110
UNCLASSIFIED
MAHE: HIRim002 ^ PAGE
2616
2617
2618
2619
2620
2621
2622
2623
262(t
2625
2626
2627
2628
2629
2630
2631
2632
2633
263>4
2635
2636
2637
2638
2639
26>40
sonathing that isn't so. Tha truth of tha mattar is you
undaxstand thaxa aza lawyers who start a corporation, and
thay keep tha export books and they keep all your stuff, and
they never even let you see it and that is probably what
happened out in Washington.
You don't have the export book, right?
THE WITNESS: All I have is this paper.
MR. HOUCHEN: Did you ever see then?
THE WITNESS: Ko .
HR. HOLMES: For the record, you are referring to
the file exhibit 5-D.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MR. HOLHES: I am interested not only in records
which apparently stocks not in this file, but also in
communications which by their nature are not in this file.
THE WITNESS: I understand.
BY HR. HOLHES:
S You aza declining to waive tha privilege?
A I would do it if the rest would.
2 You testified that whan the Iran-contra
investigation began, everything stopped. I would like to
Know what comnunications you had with Hr . Secord about the
in.vastlgatlon and when you first had such a coaaunication.
A Ask the first part of that again,
fi All right. I an refazzing you back to part of your
immim
nil
UNCUssra
NAHE: HIR1U1002 tJllUl.nUUII Ibl/ PAGE 116
26t(1
26(42
26143
26Mt4
2645
26X6
26H7
26(48
26(49
2650
2651
2652
2653
265(4
2655
2656
2657
2658
2659
2660
2661
2662
2663
266(4
2665
testinony earlier, in which you said that whan the
investigation started everything stopped, you were referring
to the /ood deal.
A Yes, sir.
2 I would like to know when you first discussed the
investigation with Hr . Secord.
A X never did really dicuss the investigation with
him. X was more concerned with how we were going to get
this with Zucker pulling out, how we were to get it
financed, and X was really--have not really been concerned
with the investigation until you guys got me in here. X
have been watching it on television. X was not concerned.
X was only concerned in trying to get this company
restructured and how we could get it financed again.
That is why X brought Lucero into the act.
S X want to know when you first had a conversation
with Mr. Secord in which the fact of the investigation was
brought up.
A The fact of the Investigation?
e Hhmt was going on there was such a thing.
A It was just oommon knowledge. X don't know whether
he asked me. whether he told me the investigation.
Kv«xybody in the world knows the investigation is going on.
e Start from the other direction. You have talked
about the fact of the investigation with Hr . Secord, have
KNCUSSIflffl
1112
NAHE: HIRIKIOOZ
2666
2667
2668
2669
2670
2671
2672
2673
2674
267S
2676
2677
2678
2679
2680
2681
2682
2683
268i(
2685
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
UNCUSSIFIED
you?
A Yes.
Q He has been in constant communication with you in
relation to at least to these business dealings ovei the
last since--
A Ho, sir.
2 since Hay 1986.
A No. sir. U« have never discussed anything about
the investigation o£ any of this stuff, none of it.
2 Let me get you straight. You are telling me that
in spite .of all the times you have talked to rir . Secord on
the phone, and in person since Hay of 1986, that it has
never come in these conversations that he was under
investigation in the Iran contra —
A Constantly, sure. We know — I knew he was under
investigation, sure.
2 Taking the first such conversation, I would like to
know when it took place.
A I have no idea when the first — when it started. X
meian, he is a friend of nine and I knew that he was being
investigated. Everybody was, but X don't know what it--
e Hhen did you first find that out from him, when did
it- first ooae up?
A I have no idea when it first broke. That would be
whenever press men in the United States started talking
UNCUSSIFIED
1113
UNCUSSIFIEO
NAME: HIR1K1002 VllULnUUll ILU ''**^^ ^^^
2691 about it and evsrybody stactad asking quastions.
2692 fi Approxinataly when was that to tha bast of your
2693 racollection?
26914 A I imagine avetyona seemed it seemed like a long
2695 time ago. I don't know whan it was. I don't know what you
2696 are--I would be mora than happy to answer if I knew what you
2697 are wanting me to say, what you want me to answer.
2698 e I want you to tall me what conversation you have
2699 had with Hr . Sacord about this investigation.
2700 A Very. very, very little, honestly. You guys have
270 1 had Mr. Secord hare. Even his wife can't talk to him. I
2702 haven't talked to him since. I am mora interested in
2703 keeping the projects afloat.
270<4 a There was a tlma in Saptambar 1986 whan you had
2705 under discussion in Exhibit 5 a deal with Federal Land Bank
2706 in which tha figure. *5 . 7 million, was being discussed;
2707 isn't that right.
2708 A Yes. sir.
2709 S At that point in time you. Hakim and Secord ware in
27 10 the process of getting a Canadian bank account with SRM
27 11 through Hlraola; is that right?
2712 A That is correct.
2713 S Aftaz that time, you had a than^currant loan
2714 commitment from CSr to cover that deal, right?
2715 A Correct.
UNCUSSIFIEO
1114
l/NCUJSIflHl
NAME: HXRimooa *^^*1UUI| 11 11 ^^'^^ ^^'
2716 .2 Than thera cane a tisA aitsz that, in which th«
2717 loan conmitmant was no longar opazativa, Mz . Zuckat had
27 18 withdrawn it, right?
27 19 A That is right.
2720 2 How did you iirst laarn that ZucKar's raason for
2721 withdrawing that was tha Iran investigation?
2722 A How did I laarn that?
2723 S Yas.
272M A I think Sacord probably told aa .
2725 S Hall, I wondaz if you could tall ma about that
2726 conversation.
2727 A Ko, no. I would say that it would go sonathing
2728 lika this. Look, Zuckaz is backing out, because oi tha Iran
is a»lUi3 out, and so hare we sit. Uhera
2729 controversy. Ha __ _^
2730 do we go iron here?
2731 e That the first time you heard about the Iran
2732 contzovezsy fzo» Hr . Secozd?
2733 A Pzobably zlght in there.
273M fi When did it take place?
2735 A I don't know in what— this is 1987. It took place
2736 when it blew, when was it?
2737 fi Let's look at Exhibit S-C. Exhibit 5-C is a letter
2738 d«ted Moveaber 7, 1986, and it zefezs to a draft of a loan
2739 commitaent agreement by which CST agrees to loan up to «5
27140 million to SRH; is that zight?
VNCUSSIFIED
1115
l/NCUSXIflffl
MAnE= HIR1(41002 ^^ « VIbTIIJIJII ll 11 PAGE 120
27m A Corract.
27i»2 e So at this point in tiaa, Hov«iib«r 7, 1986, th«
27<43 loan coniiitaant was in tact and you had not yat haard fiom
27UI4 nr . Sacord about an Iran invastigation: is that zight?
27>45 A I would assuna that is cotzact.
27U6 e On January 5th, 1987, tha *O0,000 daposit, what was
27tt7 laft oi it. was raturnad to SIIGI: is that right?
271*8 A That is corraet, right aitar January Sth.
27M9 S So wa hava got it batwaan Novanbar 7th and January
2750 Sth.
2751 A .Dacambar is probably whan it want sidaways,
2752 sonatina in Dacanbar.
2753 e Approxiaataly whan?
27SU A I don't know.
2755 S Do you zanaabar raading anything in tha nawspapers
2756 about Hr . Sacord prior to your convazsation with hin on the
2757 phona about tha Zuckaz loan coniiitnant?
2758 A Kawspapazs?
2759 e Ko, do you zanaabar raading anything in tha
2760 nawspapazs about tha Izan^contza invastigation linking it to
276 1 Mr. Sacord prior to tha tina that Mr. Sacord told you that
2762 Zuokar was pulling out?
2763 .- A Z don't know. I zaally don't know.
276U 2 Hhat did Sacozd say whan ha told you Zuckaz was
2765 pulling out? Hhat was his axplanation?
UNCLASHD
1116
UNCUSSIFIED
NAME: HIRIUIOOa UllWMlUUII mLbU page 121
2766 A It was vary vague. It was lika he just said
2767 because of the Iian problen Zuckez is pulling.
2768 Q This was pretty important? This was a pretty
2769 important time?
2770 A Yes, sir.
277 1 2 You were standing to make several million dollars
2772 from it.
2773 A Yes, sir. if Richard Seeord says that this guy is
2774 pulling out, why should I set there and say why. I have got
2775 a girl friend like that who wants to know every little
2776 detail, why?
2777 He says he is pulling because of the Iran
2778 situation. It is going to be impossible to make a deal with
2779 him, and I said, ''Okay, I understand.'*
2780 S Why would Hr . Zucl'er care whether Mr. Seeord was
2781 under investigation?
2782 A I don't know.
2783 e Did Mr. Seeord explain that to you?
27814 A No.
2785 2 Why would the fiuinault timber investment be any
2786 worse because Congress is investigating some contras and
2787 some missiles in Iran?
2788 .- A I don't know. I do not know.
2789 Q He never told you why?
2790 A No, and I do not know.
UNCUSSIFIED
1117
VNCUSSIFIED
NAME: HIR1(41002 WVkriULIIIII II PAGE 122
2791
2792
2793
279i«
2795
2796
2797
2798
2799
2800
2801
2802
2803
280it
2805
2806
2807
2808
2809
2810
2811
2812
2813
28111
2815
e What connttction is thttte betuaen Mr. Zucker's «5
ailllon and tha Iran invastigation?
A I don't know.
Q Did Hr . Sacoxd avar axplain that to you?
A No.
2 Did you avar ask him to axplain it to you?
A Ho.
2 Is that bacausa you assumad it was tha nissing
Boney?
A Bag your pardon?
fi Is that bacausa you assumad that «5 million was
soma of tha missing monay?
A na? Assuma that?
e Yas.
A Ko, I didn't. Hhat missing monay? What missing
monay? Ko, no. I got--wa had a loan commitmant from CSF.
avidantly .
e nr. Royaz. ara you awaza that CSF has an equity
:ion in
X Ko.
U
e Did you avar discuss tha aquity holdars in Forway
A
Industrlas with Hr . Sacord?
A Ko .
fi With Hakim?
KNCUSSW
1118
UNCUSSinED
NAME: HIRItlOOZ ll|ll|| ll.A.lirir 1 1 PAGE 123
2816
2817
2818
2819
2820
282 1
2822
2823
282M
282S
2826
2827
2828
2829
2830
2831
2832
2833
283M
2835
2836
2837
2838
2839
28U0
2 Did th«y «var tall you thay uara part ownars oi
csr?
A I thinK Button had told ma at ona tima that Zucker
was involvad in it> but I didn't know that.
2 Mr. Hakin spaaks fox Hi. Zuckar, cotxact.
A In sona mattars, ox usad to. I don't know if they
do now ox not.
8 I supposa wa will hava to find Fix. Zuckax to find
out.
A I iraagina you hava to ask Hr . Zuckax and Hx . Hakim.
fi How, if you waxa in a joint vantuxa, how did you
U
saa youx position in tha Torway's opaxation?
A
A Mona .
e So you wara simply halping along in oxdax to help
gat youx investment in Amaxican axms back.
A If we zestxuctuxad Amaxican 9xms we needed someone
to manufactuxa tha weapons, whathax we manufactuxed it hexe,
u
ox off shoxe, Thailand, Koxaa, Bxazil ox whaxe, Forway was
one of possibilities of manuf actuxing tha weapon.
e As of that point in tin* you waza still engaged in
tha hope tat least that SRM and tha fiuinault timbex deal
would go through; is that right?
A Xas.
fi So you wexe —
A I am still hopeful I oan gat it put back togethex.
UNCLASSIHED
1119
UNCLASSIFIED
HiRi«ioo2 vliULrlUUII ILU ^'^^^ ^^'*
fi You uttia partners in a manner of speaking with
Sacord and Hakia through the device of the one-third, one-
third, one-third share holding.
A In the «ood deal?
2 In the SRH.
A Yes, SRH hi
Q That was ny next question. Why wouldn't Secord
tell you that Zucker had an equity interest in the company
that you and ha are contracting with to try and make back
you^and his personal investment?
A I think Dutton told me — let ma say this. Richard
Sacord was very busy at those times and there is a lot of
times we didn't discuss those type of th.tngs . I didn't
care. I could care less who made that weapon. As long as
we were going to buy it, I wanted somebody to make it, and
U
id to ma that Fozway ouj
A
'Tine, let's get them out there.''
He want out there and took a look at —
e STTGI was still going to ba in a market position
U
under the Forway arrangement, wasn't it?
i Hhoavar manufactured it, it, STTGI. would be the
■anuiactuzaz or would be the marketer.
e Thay aza still going to have the same mazkat
arrangements .
A That is right.
uNtiAssra
1120
UNCLASSIFIED -
NAHE: HIR1U1002 Ul 1 IfLHlllliri I 1 1 PAGE 125
2866
2867
2868
2869
2870
287 1
2872
2873
287U
2875
2876
2877
2878
2879
2880
2881
2882
2883
288U
2885
2886
2887
2888
2889
2890
a Referring you back to Exhibit Nunber U to your
deposition, on page 3 you previously testified that this 25
percent conmission based on the one thousand per unit
notation, is your notation that SXTGI was going to be
getting 25 percent commission; is that right?
A Yes, sir, that is what it says.
2 This notes out a «1, 372, 000 commission to STTGI in
the event that this particular number of units described to
the Saudis and contras is sold at «1,000 per unit is that
how this was arrived at.
A That is probably right, correct.
e Okay, is this 25 percent commission to SXTGI going
to be paid before or after the one-third, one-third, one-
third split that was split amongst yourself personally; that
is, Richard Secord and Don Harostica?
A I think it would be common practice that the sales
commission is an expense of the company, so they would be
double dipping so to speak.
2 Okay, so. just so I understand you. STTGI goes out
and sells ,say^ 1 .000 units.
A They are entitled to 25 percent commission. If
there is «500 left over. Harostica would have gotten a
third, and I would have gotten a third, and Dick Secord
would have gotten a third.
2 And in your mind, at least under the discussion
uNcussra
1121
NAn£ =
2891
2892
2893
2894
2895
2896
2897
2898
2899
2900
2901
2902
2903
29011
2905
2906
2907
2908
2909
2910
291 1
2912
2913
291M
2915
HIRmi002
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 126
that ensuad with this Exhibit Nuiiber 4, that it wouldn't
hav« nada any diiietance whathar you wara sailing to the
Saudis ox contxas oz anybody alsa in tha world, just whoever
they sold it to.
A It would certainly make a difference.
2 ny question is, does it make a difference who tha
customer is as far as their commission? They get the 25
percent commission whether they sail it to person A or
person B?
A Yes, I would think, and unless as long as they sold
it legally to people that--if ha wara manufacturing tha
weapon in the United States, and tha department.
C I am not asking whether you wara licensing illegal
sales. X am just asking how you intended to split the
money .
A Sure if they go out and create a sales they should
be able to be entitled to 25 percent commission. These are
just bare bona notes.
e I understand that, and Z understand that tha sales
navax took place. Hhat Z am getting at there was no
discussion among tha three of you that the sales to the
contras would be on any different basis than the sales to
tha Saudis that wara contemplated.
A Z don't know. I would say, no. X don't really
know why this contra thing is in there. Z don't know. I
UNCUSSIFIED
82-732 0-88-37
1122
UNCUSSIFIED
KANE: HIR1K1002 UllULnUUll ILII PAGE 127
2916
2917
2918
2919
2920
2921
2922
2923
292U
292S
2926
2927
2928
2929
293
293
2932
2933
293(4
293S
2936
2937
2938
2939
29(t0
raally don't know.
f
e Didn't tha Gofs show you a nuabar oi exportation
license applications for the American 180?
A You are saying sales that they actually made?
Z License applications so they would be qualified
legally to sell abroad.
A Show me that?
2 Right.
A I don't know.
e Do you recall seeing a collection of such
documents?
A They showed me so much paper work you need a
shredder to get rid of all of it. I don't remember what all
they showed me .
fi Did you aver discuss the formation of SRH with Don
narostica?
A No.
e ^ow SRH was formed.
A After, ox during tha time wa ware trying to
dissolve our partnership with Karostioa.
e Yas, during tha time you ware in the process of
dissolving your partnership.
A Yas, sir.
e But prior to tha time that was actually dissolved.
A Bag—
UNCUSSinED
1123
UNCLASSIFIED
HIR1141002 Wl IVkllWVII IbW PAGE 128
2 Prior to tha tlm« it was actually dissolv«d. that
is a yes?
A Ytts. that is tha ansuar.
2 Why did you not tall Don Harostica, your partner,
about your iormation of another partnership, SRH, to exploit
this same business opportunities of being the fiuinaultf ^ood
project.
A I told narostica--Kneu exactly that ue were--we had
agreed a long time before written things, written contract,
that he--that we were going to separate. He had probably
three, two and half months oi^ trying to get the money — some
of this money sent back to ma. Okay.
fi You have told ma that you never discussed SRH with
Don Harostica.
A I don't think I hrva aver discussed it. Kone of
his business .
2 Do you know whether Sacord did?
A Probably not.
2 And youx position is it was none of his business?
A As fax as I was concerned. As fax as I was
conearnad, Haxostica was now no longax a part of this group
txying to put these projects together. He knew it and I
kiMM it. Saoord knew it, and everybody knew it.
2 After tha raid by Air on tha government sand the
Colorado machine shops that ware pxoducing your reserves.
UNCUSSIFIED
1124
UNCLASSIFIED
KAME HIR1U1002 UllULHOuiriLlI '^^ '"
2966 did you discuss the ATF raid with Hr . Secord?
2967 A Saveral timas .
2968 2 I think you testified that, ''He thought they
2969 should sue Air. ' '
2970 A Yes. Secord and I both felt that American arms
2971 should sue ATF.
2972 2 Didn't you in fact solicit money from Harostica to
2973 fund the law^suit against ATF?
297i| A Yes, I did.
2975 2 Seventy-five hundred dollars for each partners was
2976 your proposition?
2977 A Yes.
2978 2 And Secord uas~
2979 A Secord was to put up seventy-five. I was going to
2980 put up 75 hundred and Harostica. No, he didn't. He
2981 wouldn't do it.
2982 2 Harostica wouldn't do it?
2983 A No, that is right.
298«l 2 Have you ever heard of a company called Hydra, H-Y-
2985 D-R-A?
2986 A Hydra?
2987 2 That's right.
2988 A No.
2989 2 Have you discussed with Secord or Hakim their
2990
source of lasar/^&^ft^ equipment?
MUSSIFIEO
1125
NAME:
2991
2992
2993
299t«
2995
2996
2997
2998
2999
3000
3001
3002
3003
300<4
3005
3006
3007
3008
3009
3010
301 1
3012
3013
SOlU
3015
UNCUSSIRED
PAGE 130
I think you tastifiad that it was your
understanding that Sacord was going to obtain altarnata
laser JaTtiit? aquipmant for tha Anarican 180 in tha
marketplaca. Was that your understanding at that time?
A Yes.
2 And that you thought ha night ba able to getttfBjP it
in Korea.
A No, I didn't know whara ha was getting it. I don't
think I testified to that.
e Xou don't recall testifying that he wanted to use a
laser built in Korea?
A I recall that they were not satisfied with tha
laser that American aras was building and that they had a
possibility of getting another laser that they were trying
to get developed. I don't even know if they got it
developed yet or not. Hhichavax laser cane out best was the
one that was going to go on it.
fi Hhan did you last talk to Don Harostica?
A A couple of days ago, three or four days ago.
S Old you call him or did ha call you?
A Ha called ma first.
a Hhan was that?
A Oh, sometime last week.
fi Hhere did ha call you?
BHtlASSlFe
1126
UNCLASSIFIED
MAKE: HIR1(«1002 VllWkrlUwII ILU PAGE 131
3016 .ft At my offica.
3017 S Hhat was said?
30 18 A Th« Sana old thlng^ you always say what is
V
30 19 happening, wants to know what is going on and basically just
3020 wanted me to tell him what was going on, and I don't
302 1 zemember what we talked about in that conversation.
3022 S You had just recently seen the story oi the
3023 Suinault timber project on national TV. hadn't you?
302(( A The first conversation, no. Me called me — what's
3025 happening, everything is honky-dory. He is our buddy. He
3026 is this; he is that. That night television. Harostica is
3027 sitting there on television telling the world all about his
3028 alter ego.
3029 The next day I call him up and I said —
3030 e Let me get the timing down. Your iirst call, you
3031 are telling us a call that occurred on the day that
3032 Harostica appeared on the evening news?
3033 A Yes.
3034 fi So it occurred after Kr. Seoord's testimony was
3035 completed?
3036 A Evidently, yes.
3037 e And you were aware at the time Hr . Secord's
3038 testimony was completed that he had testified about the
3039 TriJAmerican arms partnership?
30<40 A Yes.
IINCUXSIHEO
1127
UNCLASSIFIED
MAKE: HIR1U1002
301*1 RPTS CAKTOR
30((2 OCHN GLASSNAF
30(t3 (9: 30 p.m. ]
301* i«
30U5 2 And how did you first become auare that he had
30«*6 testified about that?
30U7 A I was in Salem. Massachusetts, and I got back, flei
30U8 back to Decatur., my secretary said ''Xou have just made
3049 national news," and that was on what, Friday, the last
3050 Friday, Thursday or Friday.
3051 a And did you have any conversations with Hr . Secord
3052 after that?
3053 A Ho, not until the first of the week. We talked
3051* about it a little bit.
3055 2 X gather that there was a phone conversation?
3056 A With Secord?
3057 S Yes.
3058 A Probably.
3059 S Is it possible that you came to Washington, O.C.?
3060 A That I came to Washington. D.C.?
3061 . fi You said it was probably a phone conversation. I
3062 aa wondering how it could be other than a phone ^
3063 conversation. Did you coae to Washington. D.C. otTcone to
3061* Decatur? How did you meet?
3065 A I was in Washington. D.C. We picked Washington.
UNCLASSIRED
1128
UNCLASSIFIED
NAHE: HIR1(l1002 VllVLnUUII ILU ^''^^E 133
3066
3067
3068
3069
3070
3071
3072
3073
307U
3075
3076
3077
3078
3079
3080
3081
3082
3083
308<4
3085
3086
3087
3088
3089
3090
D.C. during tha time that Sacord was testifying. I navat
did saa hiii< but I usad his ofiica for anothar maating,
anothar business naating.
Q This was whila Sacoxd was testifying?
A Yes. I never even seen him.
e When you say his office, you are talking about the
Vienna. Virginia office?
A Yes.
e And I assume that he knew you ware doing so?
A Yes.
fi And how did he know you were doing so?
A Probably Dutton or one of the secretaries told him.
or I told him. I don't know. I am welcome there any time I
want to come in.
fi You called ahead to let him know you would be
dropping in for a maating?
A y^s. They knew. In fact, X think Dutton picked me
up that day.
fi Who did you meet?
A I met — Z can't tall you his name, a fallow from
Korea, and Hz. Lucero, to talk about a couple of things that
we were thinking about doing in Korea, if we can get
something worked out.
fi Was this fellow from Korea the same Korean fellow
who was involved in the fiuinault timber deal?
mmm
1129
UNCLASSIHED
HAME: HIRimOOZ
3091 A No.
3092 & Hho did th« iallow itoB Koraa raprasant?
3093 A Himself. He is wall -connected in Korea and in
309M making oi--Z am wanting to build a mixar, a big iood mixer
3095 out of stainless steal, and so I am talking to him about
3096 that.
3097 Q Hho is the parson from Korea?
3098 A I can't tall you his name. X don't Know his name.
3099 I have got it at home. Ku somebody. Thay all sound alike
3100 to ma. I can get it for you.
310 1 2 Is his name Park?
3102 A Hho?
3103 2 Park?
310)4 A Not that I know of. Z don't think so.
3105 8 All right. He is representing himself, and what is
3106 his role in the possibility of your producing a food mixer?
3107 A To find a fabricator in Korea to do that.
3108 e And Mhat is Hr . Lucaro's role in this?
3109 A Mr. Lucero wanted to talk to him about a chemical
3110 project of soma type. I was busy on the phone after I got
3111 dona with my thing, I didn't even sit in on that, so X don't
3112 know anything about it. Something to do with the
3113 mMiufactuxlng of chemicals, which Lucero does do soma
311>4 chemical work. Ha are looking for an agent to represent us.
3115 fi And this is an arrangement that you and Lucero had
UNCUSsra
1130
wswo
KANE: HIRim002 ^^V 1 VLniJlJir ■■ 11 PAGE 135
3116
3117
31 18
3119
3120
3121
3122
3123
31214
3125
3126
3127
3128
3129
3130
3131
3132
3133
31314
3135
3136
3137
3138
3139
31*40
arxangad to me«t the Korean in advance?
il Yes.
2 Has anybody else present?
A Ko> not during that conversation, no.
S I am not talking about during a particular
conversation. I wanted to know who was in the building at
any time while you were having this conversation.
A Dutton was there, and one o£ the secretaries was ii
the same ofiica.
S Hhich secretary?
A Joan.
2 Joan Corbin?
A Yes.
e And Dutton was never present during any business
conversation?
A Ko.
2 Was Luceio present for any of your conversations
with the Korean?
A Yes.
2 Does he have any interest in youx food mixer
project?
X No.
S Has ha sitting as a financier?
A Just sitting.
2 Or a friend?
UNCIASSIHED
1131
UNCLASSIFIED
HARE: HIR1U1002 Ul 1 UbflUUI I ILU ''AGE 136
3141 A Just sitting.
3142 fi Does the Korean knou Mr. Hakim?
3143 A I think yes, I think he does.
3144 e How do you know he does?
3 145 A Because Hakim is the one that recommended that this
3146 man would make a good contact for us.
3147 fi So this is Hakim's Korean connection?
3148 A Evidently. He knows, they know each other.
3149 2 What is the scope of the Korean opportunity that
3150 you were talking about? What are we talking about in terms
3151 of dollars?
3152 A The scope of it, it could be a very good business,
3153 because food mixers in this country are very very expensive,
3154 very^ very expensive, and so you are talking 100-foot cubic
3155 mixer that would cost 40,000 in this country could probably
3156 be made over there for VC and sold for substantially less.
3157 So it could be--you could sell 50 mixers a year at 25,000 a
A
3158 shot, so it is a pretty good thing. It is a pretty good
3159 deal.
3160 2 And Hr . Lucero's deal, were you there for that?
316 1 A No. I know nothing about what he was talking to
3162 hi* about.
3163 S What happened after the meeting?
3164 A Lucero and I — let's see, I went to--Lucero and I went
3165 back to his plant in Pennsylvania, which I am getting ready
UNClASSra
1132
UNCLASSIFIED
3167
3168
3169
3170
3171
3172
3173
317M
3175
3176
3177
3178
3179
3180
318
3182
3183
3184
3185
3186
3187
3
3189
3190
NAIIE: HIR141002 w ■ • wkl ILV&^II ■■ ■■. page 137
3166 to do sone work in liquidating a bunch of machinery out of
thaxtt .
e This is the Myers plant?
A Hyerstown.
S Hyerstown plant. And you drove back there?
A Ho, flew to Philadelphia and drove a car back out
in there that night.
C Had you flown out here?
A Yes.
fi FroB Decatur?
A Yes.
fi How long were you in Washington, D.C.?
A Just that afternoon, in and out, in to that
meeting, into Philadelphia, drove a car, got in there at
midnight into Hyerstown, stayed with him until about 4=00
o'clock the next day, caught an airplane to Salem,
Hassachusatts, where I looked at five machines in a bakery
that I am going to sell for a guy, back on a plana back
Friday into Decatur, walked in and said ''You have been on
television. • •
e You do business out of Secord's office on a fairly
regular basis than?
A Hall. no. not regular, no. but I do. when I have
something to do on the East Coast. I am welcome to use his
office and say to a guy meat ma there. It is a good central
UNCLASSIFIED
1133
UNCLASSIFIED "
HAHE: HIR141002
3191 spot.
3192 2 Isn't it trua, you have stationary with his address
3193 on it?
319<4 A That is correct.
3195 2 And the nana on the stationery is yours?
3196 A AIR.
3197 2 You have your nane on the stationary?
3198 A Hy nane personally?
3199 2 yes.
3200 A Ko, I don't think so.
320 1 2 Hhat is the name on the stationary, the business
3202 name?
3203 A American International Resources.
32014 2 AIR?
3205 A AIR.
3206 2 Is there a company in existence anywhere with that
3207 name?
3208 A Ko, not now.
3209 2 There was?
32 10 A I think yes, we had it inooxporatad in Illinois.
32 11 2 Hhan?
3212 A During the Braniii days whan there was the
3213 liquidation.
32 lU 2 It was incorporated to conduct the liquidation oi
3215 Branlii?
UNCUSSIRED
1134
UNCLASSIHED
NAHE: HIRIKIOOa V1 1 Vl>f1l#tlll ll_IJ PAGE 139
3216 . A Yes.
3217 fi This Is the deal you were doing with —
3218 A General Aderholt.
32 19 Q And uhat became of that corporation?
3220 A Kothing. It is just dormant. I only use it--what
322 1 did you call that? Hhat did you say I use it for?
3222 HR. HOUCHEN: As an alias.
3223 THE HXTNESS s An alias.
322i( BY MR. HOLMES:
3225 S Could you explain to me uhat you mean by the use of
3226 the AIR Corporation as an alias?
3227 A In buying of machinery, and if I tip my hand — I try
3228 not to tip my hand and let people know that I am from
3229 Decatur, Illinois, because every time they — some people, if I
3230 am trying to buy a certain machine, they think I am trying
3231 to buy it for two big industries in Decatur, and they up the
3232 price, and so if I am trying to buy it for those people, I
3233 use an alias of saying this is Larry Royer from AIR, and I
323U kind of get around those price hikes.
3235 e And Hz. Secord makes his office available for you
3236 to do that? '
3237 A Yes.
3238 .-SI assume that since your address for AIR is Hr.
3239 Secord's office address that he gets mail there?
32t(0 A He gets mail there?
UNCLASSIREO
1135
Hknz
32(t
32112
32i(3
32M(|
3215
32116
3247
32>48
32U9
3250
3251
3252
3253
32511
3255
3256
3257
3258
3259
3260
3261
3262
3263
3264
3265
HIR1U1002
vnmsm
PAGE mo
fi For you?
A For ma?
& Y«s.
A Onca in a uhila. onca in a graat whlla.
2 And ha forwards it to you?
A Yas.
e And ha probably gats phona calls thare ior you
occasionally?
A Onca in a graat whila> yas.
e And tha sacratarias must ba instructad to pratend
that you ara actually thara and will taka a massaga and call
back?
A Yas.
e So it is a mail drop.
A Yas. that is good. That is a good way, yas.
2 How long hava you usad Sacord's offica as your nail
drop?
A Oh, a coupla yaars.
e Doas ha gat anything for it?
A No.
a Just good will?
A Good will. Tha girls gat a box of candy at
Chxiatmas.
e I would lika to raturn to tha point in tima whara
you raturnad to Dacatur and laarnad that you had baan on
UNCLASSIFIED
1136
UNCUSSIFIED
KANE: HIRK41002 PAGE lUI
3266 national telavision in tha fora of Sacord's tastimony. Did
3267 you talk to Sacord aftar that?
3268 A Lat's sae, that was Friday, probably talkad to him
3269 middla of tha naxt waak. I had my problems fighting off tha
3270 local prass aftar that, so X didn't raally have much tima to
3271 talk to anybody. Ho, I didn't. Ha was testifying bafore
3272 another committee . and I don't think I talkad to him until
3273 tha middla of tha week.
3274 e And that was tha phone conversation, or was that in
3275 person?
3276 A tfad to be a phone conversation.
3277 S Have you seen him in person? You didn't see him
3278 that time in Washington, but from the time he testified,
3279 have you seen him in person?
3280 A I saw him this morning for a little bit.
3281 fi Back to the phone conversation, the first phone
3282 conversation from the time of his testimony, what was said
3283 in that conversation?
328«i A What conversation? Which one?
3285 e Approximately the middle of tha week after you
3286 laarnad about his testimony.
3287 A I can say that basically anything we have aver
3288 t*lkad about during these conversations Is saying, "Dick,
3289 how are you, are you holding up okay? Are you getting some
3290 rest?" And you know Dick Secord is not a talker, and I
UNCUSSIHED
1137
UNCIASSIHED
HAHE: HIRimOOa — - - w— - -w W-- -»» pjgg ,^2
3291 learned that many yeats ago. I don't pry into him. I don't
3292 ask him anything, and that is the way I do it.
3293 Q So you had a phone conversation with him
329M approximately mid-week aiter the Friday that he finished his
3295 testimony?
3296 A Probably. What did I say in that conversation?
3297 S Was the word ''Iri American'* ever brought up in
3298 that conversation?
3299 A Tri American? Yes, yes, it was.
3300 fi Well, I wonder ii you could tell us about that.
3301 A I think what I told him was that ior the record I
3302 was giving Marostica a little chewing for talking to the
3303 press so much. I thought he was out oi line. I said^ ''I
330U think you will have your opportunity to go to Washington and
3305 tell the story to the proper people, and you shouldn't be
3306 telling it to the press."
3307 2 Xou were reporting a conversation that you had with
3308 narostica to Secord?
3309 A Yes, I did.
3310 e Let's return to that conversation in a minute.
3311 What exactly did you tell Secord about that?
3312 A Just about what I told you there.
3313 a What did he respond?
331U A Very little. Listens more than talks.
3315 e Z want to know what he said. The line didn't go
UNCLASSIFIED
1138
UNCLASSIFIED
NAnE= HIR1(41002 VllVknWII I1.V PAGE 143
3316 daad, right?
3317 A I think tha only thing h« says is that '"I can't
3318 iiguta Marostica out''/, and that is about it. That is all
3319 he said.
3320 e Nothing alsa? Has thara any other conversation
332 1 about any part oi his tastiiiony?
3322 A Uhosa tastinony, Sacord's?
3323 e Right.
332M A Not that I know oi, not that I reaambar.
3325 2 Now let's return to tha Harostica conversation that
3326 you are reporting to Secord. Whan did that conversation
3327 take place?
3328 A Conversation with Harostica?
3329 e That you ware reporting to Secord.
3330 A It was about the middle of the week.
3331 2 That was a phone conversation, correct?
3332 A Yes.
3333 2 What was said between you and Harostica in that
333U conversation?
3335 A That is tha second conversation?
3336 2 Mo.
3337 A Tha first conversation? There was nothing really
3338 s»id in that conversation. Then Friday aight or that night
3339 Harostica appears on television. He told ae ha hadn't
3340 talked to anybody, he had not talked to anybody on the
UNCUSSIFIED
1139
.UNCLASSIHED
KAnE= HIR1U1002VI1VknWUII IbU PAGE 1MU
331(1 conmittaa. Ha liad to me all tha way through.
3342 e Ha told you ha hadn't talKad to anybody on tha
33>«3 comalttaa?
33tiU A Ha had told ma he had not talked to anybody.
3315 e On the committee?
33U6 A On the committee. He told me he had not talked to
33>(7 tha press, and all oi a sudden at 6 = 00 o'clock here he is
33(18 sitting on television. I am furious with tha guy. The guy
3349 lied to ma.
3350 e So you called him up?
3351 A .1 called him up the next day.
3352 e What did you say?
3353 A I told him, ''How coma you lied to ma? How coma
335<4 you are talking on television? Go tell it t9» the stor^r over
I
3355 here. You are going to have to tall it in Washington some
3356 day, but why are you muddling tha whole thing up in the
3357 press?"
3358 e Hhat did ha say?
3359 A Ha denies everything. Ha didn't talk any business.
3360 Ha didn't do anything. Ha is telling everybody Secord has
3361 got a million dollars. He wasn't talking ^ business. The
3362 hall he wasn't. He was talking everything. All Harostica
3363 wa« trying to do was to show everybody that ha was in tha
336«* big time*, and Z was a little bit upset, and I wasn't trying
3365 to tell him to shut up or anything else. I was just saying
UNCLASSIFIED
1140
NAHE:
3366
3367
3368
3369
3370
3371
3372
3373
3374
3375
3376
3377
3378
3379
3380
3381
3382
3383
338it
3385
3386
3387
3388
3389
3390
UNCIASHD
HIR1<41002 llllllal U.lalll 1 1 U PAGE 1(45
that, ''I think you ought to go tall it to th« proper people
and not tall it to the press. '•
2 And then you told that to Secord?
A And I told that to Secord what I had told him.
e When did you talk to Secord next?
A After that conversation I told him that?
fi Yes.
A I don't know when I talked. When would that have
been? That would have been Wednesday or so oi last week,
Thursday. I think I talked to Secozd on Saturday again.
e ,And that was a phone conversation?
A Yes, no more than ''How are you?'*
Q What was said in that conversation?
A ''How are you? Are you getting some rest?'' He
are friends. Ha don't talk business all the time.
fi By Saturday, had you been contacted by anybody from
the committee?
A I had been contacted —
e from either committae. House or Senate?
A Ha had contacted ma.
e You are pointing to Don Remstein here?
A Son. yes, and I was going to ask you whan you
st«ztad, did you try to call ma? Hera you the one that was
calling me? There were two people who triad to get a hold
of me, and I was traveling. Hare you the other one?
UNCLASSIFIED
1141
UNCLASSIFIED
KANE: HIR1<41002 Ul lULlllJlJI I ILII ^'^''^ ^'*^
3391 2 I was trying to call you, yes. I was the one you
3392 navar called back.
3393 A I tried to call you back. I called him back.
339M Didn't I? Three times.
3395 e Did you report that to Hr . Secord?
3396 A That what?
3397 e That you had talked to Hr . Remstein?
3398 A I told him on Saturday, I think, that I had
3399 been — that they had been talking to me, that ha had been
3(400 talking to me.
3M01 fi And what did ha say?
3(402 A He said they have bean talking to everybody, and
3U03 then whan I got a subpoena, Z told him, Z said, ''I hava
3(40(4 baan subpoenaed*', and ha says^''Thay are subpoenaing
3(405 everybody.*' That is about all ha said.
3(406 HR. HOUCHEN: You didn't actually get a subpoena.
3U07 THE WITKESS: Hell, I said— no.
3<408 HR. HOUCHEK: Ha agreed to coma voluntarily. Ue
3(409 knew what it was.
31*10 BY HR. HOLHESt
3>t11 e You knew you had a subpoena in your future?
3412 . A I said ''I have been subpoanaad( ' , / and he said,
3(413 ' '-Thay hava subpoenaed everybody.''
3(4 1(4 fi What did ha say?
SHIS A That Is it.
lINMSIfe
1142
UNCLASSIFIED
NAME- HIR1<41002 lllllll Hllllll II II PAGE m7
3U16
3«»17
3X18
31419
3U20
3U21
3422
3M23
3(42(4
3U25
3>426
31427
3(428
3(429
3(430
3(431
3(432
3U33
3(43(4
3(435
3(436
31437
3(438
3U39
3(4140
2 Nothing mora?
A Nothing ffloza.
Q The words Tzi AitArican nav«z came up?
A In that conversation? Ptobably not.
S The word "'tinber'' never came up?
A I don't thinX so. I really don't know. I talk to
a lot of people every day. X don't know.
Q Keren' t you concerned about exactly what it was
that Hr. Harostica was saying?
A Any time somebody talks to the press about me and
about my friends I am concerned.
2 Did you talk to Harostica again after the time you
called him up and you were mad after seeing him on national
TV?
A Yes, that is when I told him, ''I just saw you on
television, you are talking on TV, and you are doing this,
and you are doing that.'*
2 You didn't call him up just to tell him he had been
on television. Don't you think he knew that?
A I called him up to give him a good chewing and
saying ''What the hell are you doing messing with the
press?'* ny point is that I told him that I didn't think he
should be talking to the press. I think he ought to be
talking to these people and you.
2 ny question is whether you have talked to him again
UNCLASSIFIED
1143
UNCUSSIRED
HiRimooa
since that tima .
A Hava I talked to him again since then? X don't
think so. The last time I know that he said that he was — the
conversation was, ''I think you ought to tell it to the
proper people instead of telling it to the press/" f ./ and he
says ''I have been subpoenaed by the U.S. Marshals. They
have been here, and that I an supposed to go in Thursday^',
or something like that.
Q Hhen was the last time you talked to Harostica?
A How come he gets the U.S. marshals and I didn't?
fi When was the last time you talked to Mr. Harostica?
A That was it, and I don't know what day that was.
What is this, Wednesday? I would say it was the end oi the
week. I don't know.
2 I am having a little problem with your chronology
because I have got you talking to Secord aiter you talked to
Harostica in response to seeing Harostica on TV.
A Any time you forget your father and mother to take
them to a wedding. I have trouble, the same thing. I don't
know what days I talked to him.
ft Th« events happened, you saw Harostica on TV, and
you oalled Harostica, oorrect?
A Next day.
ft And then you called Seoord, excuse me, you told
Secord that you had given Harostica an ass chewing, right?
UNCLASSIFIEl
1144
UNCLASSIFIED
HknZ- HIRIUIOO
3U66 A Yas.
31467 2 I want to Know if you ovor callad Harostica again.
3U68 A ny girlfriend called firs. Harostica. The only way
3U69 you can get these things done is through these girls, you
3170 know that, and only talking to —
3H7\ fi I should have called your girlfriend.
3U72 A That is right.
31173 Q She would have told ne .
31474 A She is in a good nood now. She won't be bad. I
3U7S tried to get her to explain to Mrs. Harostica^f^on is only
31476 going to hurt hiaself, that the press is going to turn
3>477 around and bite him, and that is my opinion. I don't Know
3'478 what your opinion is.
3>479 fi This is something you had asked your girlfriend to
3t«80 do?
3148I A Yes, talk to Carol, try to get Don toned down to
3M82 quit trying to stir all the bullshit up all over the United
3>483 States and let him come and tell it to the proper people.
3(4814 Hzs. Harostica agreed. She said,''! agree, because every
3>485 time he says something, they say it is black: he says it is
3486 white, and I am upset with him too.'*
3487 fi Here you listening to Mrs. Harostica?
3488 & Xo.
3489 fi This is what your girlfriend told you?
3490 A Yes, and then the next day I then called Harostica
Mmm
1145
UNCUSSIFe
HIR1141002 " '^"^ "WVII 1^1/ PAGE 150
to see ii it soaked in, and it didn't.
fi Okay, so you have got your girlfriend calling Hrs .
Harostica.
A Right.
2 And did you--
A Did I break the law?
2 I am just asking the questions. Then did you
report that conversation to Seoord? ''Hey, I have had my
girliriend call Carol Harostica. and this is what she
said' '?
A I don't know if I told him. I don't know if I did
that or not. I really don't know. I honestly don't know
whether I did or didn't tell that to Richard.
2 Then you called Harostica the next day. and what
was said?
A I think that day I said—
2 Hhat day are we talking about now?
A Whatever day, the last conversation I have had with
Harostica.
2 And hoM long ago was that?
A Hhat is today, Wednesday?
2 This is Thursday.
A Today is Thursday. It may be either the last of
the week or the first of this week. I tell you what day it
was. It was before, because I kind of laughed that he had
UNCLASSIFIED
1146
UNCLASSIFIED
HAHE: HIRim002 w • «^"-" ""— ^ —■ PAgj ,51
3516 gotten subpoanaed and I hadn't, and what day did you tell me
3517 that that was, the day I was going to be subpoenaed?
3518 . HR. REHSTEIH: I think I called you on Monday.
3519 THE WITNESS: Monday, all tight, that is the date,
3520 and so what I told Harostica —
3521 BY MR. HOLnES=
3522 fi Let me get this straight. You got a call from Mr.
3523 Remstein.
352t A Late in the aitetnoon.
3525 e And then you called Maxostica.
3526 . A Ho, I talked to Harostica that aotning.
3527 e You had already called Harostica?
3528 A Yes.
3529 fi What did you say to Harostica and what did he say
3530 to you?
3531 A Hell, he just denied everything, that he wasn't
3532 doing all the things that I told hia that he was doing in
3533 talking to the press, and I said ''I an not trying to tell
35314 you, to put words in your mouth ox anything like that. You
3535 can do that, but I am saying don't talk to the press.''
3536 And. £uxthexmoxe, I said to him at that time, "I
3537 think you axe a fiduciary o± this group, and I think you are
3538 vlK>latln9 iiduciaxy xesponsibilities , and I am going to look
3539 into it, and Secoxd is going to look into it.'*
35>t0 fi And how did you know that Secoxd was going to look
UNtUSSIFIED
1147
WNJuss/fe
NAHE: HIR1H1002 "^W PAGE 152
3Sm into it?
35>42 A Becausa sometime during that time, we had discussed
aswa that just briefly. Secord had told me, ••! think he is
3SU14 violating ^fiduciat»s^i»VLi_? in one of the conversations
35>45 over the week or so, because all of the press was coming
35(46 from Harostica. Marostica had the whole West Coast. You
3SM7 ought to see. You have probably seen them. You have got
351(8 maps.
UNCUSSIFIED
1148
ilNCUSSIHED
MAKE: HZR1U10(
35U9 DCHN GLASSNAt
3550
3551 2 Explain this idaa of fiduciary rasponsibility to me
3552 as you undsrstood it when you ware talking to Mazostica.
3553 A He was handling all of our money, and he was doling
355M it out, and I believe he has a fiduciary, and we are looking
3555 into it to see if he does. I am going to sue him.
3556 Q I want to know where you got that word. I don't
3557 know if you caught that last — you said if ha does, you are
3558 going to sue him? |
3559 A I may.
3560 e Hhere did you get this belief? Is this from
3561 Secord, yourself, or what?
3562 A From both of us. Hhy is ha doing this, we are
3563 talking. Hhy is it of such great interest to him to go play
3564 into the press' hands? You know, all of a sudden —
3565 fi Did you tell Harostica that you and Secord were
3566 going to sue him if you felt that —
3567 A Ho, no, I don't know. I don't know that I said
3568 that I was going to sua him, but I told him, you know, we
3569 are looking into the fact that if ha is a fiduciary, we may.
3570 I don't think I used the word "suaf'l but we may bring
3571 ao-tlon oz something.
3572 e Bring action is just another word for sue, isn't
3573 it?
UNCUSSIFIED
1149
UNCUSSIRED
HIR1U1002 VllVkflWII lkl# PAGE 15H
. . A It is the Sana thing. It sounds a littla easier.
r
it. than sue?
fi Did the Mord ''jail'* evex coae up in that
conversation?
A The word '•jail[''y That he was going to jail or I
was going to jail or something like that? Ko.
2 That if he was in Switzerland, he would go to jail?
A Yes. that is correct. You reaenber more about this
than I do. That is right. I said that ii he was a
fiduciary in Switzerland, he would go to jail. They would
have him in jail over the weekend for doing what he has
done.
e And where did you get that piece of news?
A Secord.
2 Hhat did Secord tell you with regard to that?
A Hell, he says that is the way fiduciary deals work.
Over there It is very tight, and if you are a fiduciary and
if he is a fiduciary, he has violated it. Like in
Switzerland, he says they would have you in jail in a couple
of days .
fi This was an important point for Secord. I gather.
X Z don't know that it was an important point. I
tlrink we were both very disgusted at a guy that got us in a
bunch of god-damn deals that I worked a year and a half
trying to get them straightened up.
UNCLASSIRED
1150
KAHE: HIRK41002 Ui lULnUulrlLU ^'^'^^ ^^^
3599 Q Hhy is Secotd so ptotectiva of his secrecy?
3600 A I don't know. It is not secrec4fe. It is statj^
3601 the facts correctly.
3602 8 Did Secord tell you when he was talking about
3603 fiduciaries that he intended to file papers resisting the
360<4 examination of the Swiss records of his Swiss fiduciary?
3605 A Ko, he has never told ne anything of what he
3606 intends to do or anything. I
3607 e Hhat did Harostica say when you told him that if he
3608 was in Switzerland, he would go to jail?
3609 A A little pause, and, you know, what do most people
3610 say?
3611 HR. HOUCHEN: Not in Switzerland.
3612 THE UIIKESS: Yes.
3613 BY HR. HOLMES:
361M 2 What did he say?
3615 A Don has got a mind of his own.
3616 S I just want to know what he said.
3617 A I don't remember. I don't think he said anything
3618 to that. I have a tendency, when I am mad, I don't let the
36 19 other guy do too much talking, and I was very upset with
3620 him.
3621 ^ fi And the purpose of this call was to let him know?
3622 A And I don't listen to what they are saying. I am
3623 trying to put my words in.
UNCLASSIFIED
1151
UNCLASSIFIED
HIR1(41002 VI IVkfflWII ILU PAGE 156
.2 So the purpose of this call was to let him know you
uexe upset?
A That is tight.
2 And that Secord uas upset?
A That is right, that everybody uas upset. Everybody
J/
was upset. The press, they lov^it. He played right into
their hands. They say, ''Do you understand that Larry Royer
said this"' and he said, ''Ho, I didn't understand thai
blah, blah, blah, and the way it goes. You know how it is.
Q I don't know how it is.
A .Yes, you do.
e Do you know of an organization known as Century
Arns?
A No.
fi Have you ever heard of a nan naned Hanny
Higginsberg?
.^
A Manny Higginsberg. Nanny Higginsberg, if it is the
sane Hanny, A#^an arns deal/ in Canada.
fi That Is the man.
A That is the nan?
e How do you know Hanny Higginsberg?
A Hr. Secord told ne that ha knew Hanny Higginsberg
aird that he could, if we narket it, could help us market the
semiautomatic 180. the kind of a guy that maybe had a lot of
contacts in dealer organizations to market to a dealer
Mmm
1152
NAME:
36U9
3650
3651
3652
3653
365(4
3655
3656
3657
3658
3659
3660
3661
3662
3663
366U
3665
3666
3667
3668
3669
3670
367
3672
3673
HIR1141002
istimm
PAGE 157
organization this 180, and tha only reason--Hanny
Uigginsb«r9> X just zemamberad that nama . I navaz nat tha
guy, only haard it threa or four tines.
Q Whan did Sacord tell you that?
A A long, long time ago.
Q This was very early on?
A Very early on when wa ware looking at —
fi Getting him into the American Arms deal?
A Right, where the markets are, what is the potential
of marketing it.
2 Has it your understanding that Secord thought that
nanny Higginsberg was limited to just the semiautomatic
version?
A Yes.
C Why wouldn't he be able to sell overseas any
version that he wanted to?
A The only thing that I remember about the guy in
Canada was the marketing of that semiautomatic weapon
through a dealer network that he has probably got set up.
S Old you ever talk with nanny Higginsberg?
A No, wouldn't even know how to get hold of him.
Have to call the fiueen. I don't know where he is at.
a Old Secord tell you any more about his dealings
with Hanny Higginsberg?
A Ho.
UNClASSinED
1153
HAHE: HIR141002
UNCIASSIRED
PAGE 158
367H
3675
3676
S Hava you «var heard iron Sacord or anybody else
whather Sacord is engaged in any aras transactions other
than the ones under investigation to the contras or to Iran?
^nmsim
732 0-88-38
1154
UNCUSSIflfi)
MAKE: KIR1I41002 IlilAl lAAaa.. PAGE 159
3677 RPTS THOHAS
3678 DCHN PARKER
3679 (10:00 p.m. ]
3680 A No.
3681 2 To tha contras or to —
3682 A No. nothing of that i^ transaction. No. Dick
3683 Secozd and I only discussed what hft and I ar« involved in
368(4 and our friendship and that is it. Other things he does
3685 were not discussed.
3686 fi During the sunner of 1986. in particular, say. froB
3687 July to September, were you ever aware in any way that Mr.
3688 Secord was engaged in selling a shlp_J.oad of arms?
3689 A No. I knew things were going on but I never asked
3690 and I never was told, and I didn't want to know.
3691 Q How did you know that things were going on?
3692 A Well, he was a very busy man and there were. I have
3693 been in several times when there were phone calls that woul<
369<4 take him away from what we were talking about and this and
3695 that and he was always going downtown. Government people
3696 were calling him wanting to. so I did know something, but I
3697 didn't want to know.
3698 e During the period of April 1986 through January
3699 1967 how many times— let's take it right up to today, how
3700 many times have you been in Washington. D.C.?
3701 A How many times I have been?
UNcussra
1155
HIR1U1002
Right.
IINMSIflED
PAGE 160
A Oh, five or six timas mayb« .
2 Okay. One oi those was June 23
at the time oi Secord's testimony.
A Testimony last week?
2 Right.
A Yes, I was here last week.
2 When were the others?
A I can produce the records
were .
One oi those was
I don't know when they
2 Would you do so?
A Yes, sir.
2 'the only other thing I want to talk about is your
conversation with Mr. Secord this morning. Where did that
take place?
A I stopped at Stanford Technology office.
2 And who was present?
A Dutton, Secord, and Joan, and VaMweiJ.
A
2 Your attorney?
A Yes, six.
2 What was said?
A There was very little said. He was mostly on the
plTone with his attorney. Hr . Green, talking about a
statement that Senator Rudman had made, and he wasn't there
even when we got there. Dutton came and got us and he went
UNcussra
//ss
1156
UNCLASHD
MAHE: HIRim002 I IIHI .1 U A-AIF I F 1 1 PAGE 161
3727
3728
3729
3730
3731
3732
3733
37314
373S
3736
3737
3738
3739
37U0
37U1
37U2
37*43
37i4i4
37145
37U6
37147
37148
37149
3750
3751
in and was listaning to tha radi<
e But Dutton mat you at tha airpott.
A Yas. sir.
fi And brought you to tha of f ica .
A yas, six.
2 You had callad him in advanca .
A Yas, I can't afford cabs in this town. It is a
long way and tha only cabs I can afford is in Salam,
nassachusatts. That. i.»~.chaap.
fi You cana in to Dullas. right?
A Yas. sir.
e So Dutton Bat you at Dullas and brought you to tha
offica?
A Yas, sir.
e Than what?
A And so, raally I don't know uhara Dutton want. Ha
callad our officas to find out what was all going on.
Hithin probably 35 or UO ninutas Richard caaa in. I
intxoducad hia to Mr. Rouchan. Ha want in his offica for a
littla whlla. Ha listanad and I want in and sat down and
than Kudaan was talking about soaathing that Richard took
Issua with, and ha callad Graan and Graan was going to talk
t» RudMan about ttt) than wa want to lunch and no soonar than
-fta want to lunch, at tha Sharflton. want back to tha offica,
pickad up our briaf casas and caaa down hara.
UNCLASSIFIED
1157
UNClASSra
HIRI^IOOa llllULnUVII ■I-*' PAGE 162
You had called and said coma in at 3=00. He didn't
have tol^much tine.
e You told me everything except what I asked. I want
to know what was said.
A Nothing.
fi You went to lunch and never said a word to the guy,
and he never said a word to you?
A I }^ to put what we said on the recordl^ Qii the
lecozd, please.
e On the record.
A He wasn't talking about anything. Tall him off the
record, and I will tell you what X said, then I will go back
to the record.
2 Tell me in general terms. ,
A I was discussing my girl^f riend<3rywas completely the
whole thing.
fi The entire conversation?
A That and do you know anything else we discussed?
fi Wait a minute, your lawyer is not here to testify.
A Okay, we talked. I don't know what all we talked
about. I tell you we talked more about my girl^Jriend and
■y problem with her than anything because Richard knows her.
S Let's start--
A We did not talk and get into oahoots what I was
going to come down here and say, if that is what you are
VNCUSSIHED
1158
NAHE:
3777
3778
3779
3780
3781
3782
3783
3784
3785
3786
3787
3788
3789
3790
3791
3792
3793
379H
379S
3796
3797
3798
3799
3800
380 1
UNcusno
HIR1tt1002 WlllfLniJllll II II PAGE 163
insinuating. I an a big boy and can say what I want to say.
e li all you uant to do is talk to Hr. Sacord about
your girl-friend, why couldn't it hava waited until after
your testinony today?
A Because, we were going to go home in the morning.
I will not see him again. Our plane schedule brought us in
here at noon, so I wasn't going to set in the bus station
somewhere. I got a nice office I can go to.
e You are telling me that you met with Hr . Secord
this morning. Hhen did your plane arrive.
A One, 12:30, 1 o'clock.
Twelve thirty.
Yes, sir.
And you had lunoh with him.
Yes, sir.
And who else was at lunch, your attorney and who?
And Rich and I.
Just three of you?
Yes, sir.
It never came up about anything having to do with
any business deals that you have had with him?
A I talked a little bit about the /Hood deal.
S Okay, what did you talk about?
I thought it was going to go down the tubes, and
Richard talked about their World War II service.
A
iinmim
1159
UNCLASSIFIED
HIR1U1002 UllULnUUII iLII ''*°' ^^'*
Richard talked about ha and Dutton a long tima ago went over
there and followed through the book of going to where what
the Battle of the Bulge was . We basically--that was it at
lunch .
We went back to the office, picked up our brief
cases and Richard brought us down here and dropped us off^
and he went somewhere else. He dropped us on the wrong
side. It was a long walk across.
2 You discussed nothing else.
A As long as you had hia in he should have known
where to drop us.
2 You discussed nothing else about business financial
relationship in any way, shape or form.
A Hot today. You can't believe that?
2 When you answer a question with, ''not today,'' it
implies to me maybe you have recently, but not today. Is
that the case?
A Yes, we talk about things all the time.
2 Okay. When was the last time you talked about--
A We talk all the time. We had private enterprise.
He were talking.
2 When was the last time you talked about finances?
A About what?
2 Anything financial.
A The last time was something about the Wood deal
CNcussife
1160
HAHE:
3827
3828
3829
3830
383
3832
3833
383(«
3835
3836
3837
3838
3839
38U0
38U1
3842
38U3
38>4(4
38(45
38U6
38M7
3848
3849
3850
3851
HIR141002
today.
UNCUSSIRED
e Baiora that?
A Bafore that, raally not vary such, slnca tha
testimony and things hava bean going on. You have him being
a very busy man.
e Not vary much is a littla bit too ^SmSm ±or. ne . I
want to know whan was tha last time prior to today.
A I don't know what I talk to hiii about. Tha biggest
thing I talk to him about is giving Harostica a chawing out.
I hava not raally talked to —
8 Let aa ask you what phona are you using whan you
talk to him?
A I use 428-9282, area coda. 217, a business phone.
e Any other phone?
A I use — yes. if X am out somewhere I want to call hit
and talk to him. I use the public phona. I
fi In tha last two weeks have you talked to anyone on
a phone other than on a business phone?
A I hava talked to hia probably from my girl friend's
house.
e Hhat is her phone number?
A It is unlisted.
. a I want to know it.
A Do I have to give him her phone number?
HR. HOUCHEM' Yes.
BNCUSSIfe
1161
HIS
■■ UNCU
ssra
^^^^^^^^ PACK 166
THZ HITNZSS'
BY HK. HOLMS'
e Any othar phona?
A Th* only othttx thing I nay hava talkad to him on my
iathar 's phona in Dacatur/ Illinois,
e In tha last two waaks?
A nayba.
fi What is that phona numbax?
A ^^^^^^^^^P
e
A
2
Uhata Is it locatad?
In Dacatux, Illinois.
All thxaa axa in Dacatur.
HR. HOLHKS' No mora quastions.
BY HR. SABA'
2 I want to ravisit two axaas oi aaxliax discussion,
going back to oux discussion concarnlng Ganaxal Adaxholt. I
ballava you tastifiad that you Mara in Guatamala on two
occasions .
A Yas.
S And only ona occasion with Ganaxal Adaxholt.
A Yas. six.
ft During your two visits to Guatamala, did you hava
oonvarsatlons with anyona concarnlng anything othax than
aqulpmant ralatad to sugar.
A I dlscussad with somabody that tha ilxst tlma I was
nnmim
1162
HIR1M1002
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 167
KAHE
3877 down there, uith a contractor fabricator about building a
3878 food nixez and Robert, too. was the one uho set that up fo
3879 me. I don't even know the man's name.
3880 The guy didn't have the bricks and things to do tl
3881 job so that uas — other than that, that was it.
3882 S Did you meet with anyone at the U.S. embassy?
3883 A Did I meet in Guatemala?
3884 I don't think so. Ho. Guatemala, no. No.
3885 e Where in Guatemala did you visit?
3886 A Guatemala City.
3887 2 On either of your two visits were you in any othe:
3888 place?
3889 A I flew in a helicopter to the sugar mill of
3890 Roberto, which is out somewhere. I don't know where it is
389 1 I went to the sugar mill^ and to the little town that is t
3892 ancient town that the earthquake destroyed, Antigua,
3893 something like that.
389(4 & Whose helicopter was this?
3895 A Roberto.
3896 2 This was his private helicopter?
3897 A Yes.
3898 fi Did you visit any other Central American countries
3899 A No.
3900 2 And were you involved in support to any military
3901 group, whether officially; that is under the Armed Services
UNcussm
1163
IINCUSSIFIED
HIRIMIOOa VllULffll/Ull ILU ^'^^'^ ^^^
oi a pazticular countzy, or a paranilitaty group?
A No.
S Hhat alsa did you undazstand th« fork lift ua
discussed to b« for?
A To load donatad nadicina to tha air conmando units.
All this nedicina is donatad to tha air conmando units or
what thay gat or whatavar thaiz group is.
C Whosa group?
A Adarholt.
2 Air ^oniiando unit?
A Yas> air coitaando unit ratirad, air comitandos down
thara that is ratirad. hava an association and whathar thay
work undar tha auspicas of that group, but thay gat nadical
supplias donatad to than and thay ara distributing than in
Guatamala in tha highland of Guatamala, and all this stuff
conas in haavy cartons and things and thay hava baan loading
then by hand .
Adarholt is saying, "Fine, find na a fork' lift,"
and thay don't hava any nonay. It is all volunteer. I an
trying to gat a oonpany that will donate a fork lift to
than.
S Old General Adarholt explain tha nature of this.
Mhat is it called, this organization?
A Tha Air Connando Association. That's all I know.
That stuff goes in one ear and out the other.
UNCLASSIFIED
1164
NAHE: MIR1(41002
UNCLASSIFIED
3927
3928
3929
3930
& Ara th«s« Afflaticans?
A Yas> sir, all xatixad nilitaxy man.
e And thay--
A Alx Foxca Commando/
f
UNCLASSIFIED
1165
HIR1(41002
UNCUSSIFIED
PAGE 170
DCMH aUIKTERO
fi And thay hav« an ait force, they have an opportunity
in Guatemala?
A They have a program of medical assistance down
there.
& Are you aware of their providing anything other than
medical assistance?
A Ho.
Hon do you knoH they provide medical assistance?
Because that is what they told me.
HJio told you?
Aderholt.
Did you speaK to anyone else about it?
Hhen I was down there a couple of their air
commando^ guys were there vetting ready to take supplies
out, a container was coming in and they are getting ready to
take supplies and distribute them.
2 Do you recall their names?
A Mo, I don't,
fi Here these Americans?
A Americans .
fi Hhen were the supplies coming?
A Hhen?
fi Hhere, into where; a port or airport?
A The container, probably a port, I assume.
UNCLASSIFIED
1166
KAME: HIR1141002
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 171
3956 S Hhat did they tell you was in the container?
3957 A Medical supplies.
3958 2 How would they get medical supplies to the
3959 destination?
3960 * Very difficult, small airplanes, very difficult to
396 1 get them up in that area, very difficult job.
^'*2 fi Were they provid^ help by Guatemalan /ovarnmental
3963 airlines or forces?
396U A I do not know.
3965
e In the course ofVour conversation with General
3966 Aderholt, did you have occasion to hear the name Raphael
3967 fiuintero?
3968 * Ho. never. Only time I ever heard that name had
3969 been on television and read it in the newspapers.
3970 fi Do you know if Hr . Hakim mentioned any connection
397 1 with General Aderholt?
3972 A No.
3973 e You mentioned thatrx
397M A I didn't even think that Hakim and Aderholt know
3975 each other.
3976 e You mentioned you met General Secord at General
3977 Aderholt home in Florida. Following that event, did you
3978 know of any connections between General Secord and General
3979 Aderholt?
3980 A Did I know connections?
UNCUSSIFIED
1167
DNcusxro
NAME: HIRItlOOa
3981 fi Yes
3982 A Thosa men have be«n connected all their military
3983 years.
3984 2 So they have continued their business in their
3985 retired years?
3986 A Sure, they are friends, dear friends, fought
3987 together.
3988 2 Have you been involved in their business between""?--''''^
3989 General Secord?
3990 A When the two of them are together in business, no.
399 1 2 Do you Know what types of businesses they engage in?
3992 A Ho.
3993 2 Have you taken holidays with General Aderholt
399U subsequent to that holiday that you have testified about in
3995 1983?
3996 A Holidays, vacations?
3997 2 Yes.
3998 A I didn't go on vacation with him, I went to Thailand
3999 twice with him.
■4000 2 I aa referring to the meeting at his home in Florida
"4001 in early 1983?
>4002 A No.
t003 - fi When you were with General Aderholt in Thailand, did
UOOM he mention his continued business with General Secord?
<4005 A No, I don't think so. They are friends, they talk.
UNCLASSIRED
1168
UNCUSSIFIEO -
HAM. HIRI.,002 UllbLflOOiriLU ''" '""
U006 e Hhat did you undarstand thaxa business to be?
•1007 A Z didn't. They were just fziends. I didn't know
tOOS they had businesses together, don't know^^Mwgs they have
■4009 businesses together.
U010 fi Have you had any occasion since 1983, to be involved
1011 in a transaction which provides support to any other group
4012 in Central Anerica other than General Aderholt medical
*t013 assistance?
i»0 1U A Ko.
U0 15 . S Has it been limited entirely to this forkliit that
>t016 we discussed?
4017 A Yes.
>4018 fi You haven't been involved in any type oi supply to
140 19 the contras?
M020 A None.
■4021 a Here you aware that General Secord had an| operation
■4022 involving support ior the contras.
4023 A Not until lately when this thing all —
(402M fi You haven't been involved in any business whatsoever
4025 involving sales or support or anyway involved with the
4026 oontras.
4027 A None, none whatsoever.
4028 S Referring to Exhibit 4, page 3> can you explain
4029 again to me why you would have written ''contra''?
4030 A I don't know; I really don't know.
UNCDISSIflED
1169
UNCLASSIFIED
NAME: HIR1<41002 IJI lljlHtlfjl I 11 11 ^J^GE 17i|
U031 HR. HOUCHEK: Don't answer any mora questions about
14032 that nonsense. You have gone over that three tines. That
4033 is enough.
UOSM HR. SABA: i have had a--
4035 MR. HOUCHEK: He told exactly what he remanbers of
U036 it, now we are going to badger hin about this.
•♦037 HR. SABA: I have two different answers.
M038 MR. HOUCHEH: You don't have two different answers.
4039 HR. SABA: I do.
4040 HR. HOUCHEH: You are not going to get a third.
4041 Don't answer anymore questions about that.
4042 HR. SABA: What is the basis--
4043 HR. HOUCHEK: He have been here for eight hours,'
4044 over eight hours straight. You have asked this nan about
4045 this^ about a aeao that he wrote. It has no significance in
4046 this hearing that I can determine, which is also true of
4047 most of the other exhibltsP^
4048 H^^fiKB^ ^Hevertheless we have sat here apparently
4049 and hopefully figuring we would be finished some time. We
4050 have been up since 4:30 this morning.
4051 HK. SABA< I am sympathetic to you all, of your
4052 problems in terms of the hour. However, this memo, that
4053 w»zd and my questionin|h/to the essence of what We are doing
4054 and I have the right to ask the question and X believe I
4055 have a right to the answer.
UNCLASSIHED
1170
UNCUSSinED
NAME: HIRimOOZ UllVkrlVwII IkW PAGE 175
i»0S6 . MR. HOUCHEH: I an tailing you ha is not to ansHet
<4057 it again. Ha has answazad tuica at laast, and probably three
U058 or iour tines. You go on iron there.
14059 HR. SABA: off the record.
14060 [Discussion off the record.]
1406 1 MR. SABA: j would like hin to answer the question.
^062 HR. HOUCHEK: I told hiity^ill not answer your
4063 question again. i^
14064 MR. SABA! I understand. My choice here is to les^veV'^
4065 that and take the issue to the Chairnan of the House
4066 Connitte^.
4067 MR. HOUCHEN: Do that.
4068 HR. SABA: In which case the possibility is that ha
4069 will be found in contenpt of the oonnittae.
4070 MR. HOUCHEK: He Will see.
4071 MR. SABA: \\\ right. I will ask a different
4072 question. Ma will go back on the record.
4073 (Back on the record.]
4074 HR. SABA: Are you asserting a privilege in
4075 connection with the last question I asked?
4076 HR. HOUCHEN: I an assarting that this question has
4077 baen asked and answered on at least two and probably three
4078 o9«asions.
4079 There is one word in this memo that ha has already
4080 testified that ha wrote sonatina prior to the dealings with
UNCLASSIRED
1171
UNCLASSIFIED
NAME HIRim002 lll«l.l UAAiriril PAGE 176
U081
14082
U083
1«08I4
4085
<4086
U087
14088
(4089
14090
M091
U092
(4093
H09I4
U095
14096
4097
4098
4099
4100
4101
4102
4103
4104
4105
Aaexican Arns. You have ask«d -a^PF c«F*atttdly about this
ona word and what ha raiiambsrs, and ha has told you what ha
ramanbats; and that is anough.
BY HR. SABA'
e HoH did you coma to writa it?
A li I raally knaw I would tall you. but I don't know.
I don't know.
2 In tha vantuza it was intandad that Ganaral Sacord
would ba chazgad with aazkating avants. and this particular
saction of tha mamo daals with mazkating.
A Yas.
e And tha nuabars compliant salas of 4/000 at a
caztain pzica which would ylald initially a eoaaission on
STTGI; is that cozzact?
A Yas.
fi And following tha daduction of that coanission
pzofits in that sala would ba dividad foz tha thzaa paztnazs
in TzilAaazican Azas .
A Right, oozzaot.
e And it was youz anticipation, fzoa paga 2 of tha
axhibits thosa pzofits. would ba *4 . 7 aillion--! aa sorzy,
cozzaction. paga 1?
. - A I don't know. I would think that if thosa figuras
waza cozzact, that is zight — basad on tha fact that tha
4
UNcussro
1172
ONCLASSIFIED
KANE: HIR1U1002 tJI 1 UkflUUI I ILIJ PAGE 177
>4106
U107
■4108
U109
141 10
4111
Ml 12
m 13
41 14
41 15
41 16
41 17
41 18
41 19
4120
4121
4122
4123
4124
4125
4126
4127
4128
4129
4130
wa could gat it fox «200, but so iar ue havan't baen able to
gat tha pcica to «200. That is «351 right now. So tha
figures ara--things look good on paper.
Q You have found it at *325 to be an attractive
proposition?
A And these being, particular ones being trophy guns.
2 And it was a proposition which was attractive enough
to continue even after the ATf raid in pursuing it with
Fdiways?
A Trying to get our money back, really trying to get
our money back. yas, it is attractive, sure, if you can
sell weapons it is an attractive situation.
2 And it was tha intention to sell weapoTis to tha
contras .
A Ko, I don't know that, I have no idea, you have to
ask somebody else that. I don't know, I am not in charge of
the marketing.
2 So the person in charge of marketing would determine
to whom they were being sold?
A Yes.
2 And the calculation hare is based on that marketing?
A Yes.
2 And the person charged with marketing would be
General Sacord.
A That is correct.
mmm
1173
UNCLASSIFIED ..
HAHE: HIRimOOa Ul lULnUlJII ll_IJ PAGE 178
U131
m32
14133
<413U
U135
(4136
•4137
•4 138
14139
»4ll40
41(41
(41U2
(41143
(4114(4
(41(45
(41(46
(4147
(4 1(48
(41(49
(4150
(4151
U152
141S3
(415(4
m55
fi I hav« no iutthar quastlons.
SENATOR TRIBLE: Mr. Royar, uhan you raiaxrad to
Sanator Rudnan baf oraAyou wera looking my way. Ara you
mistaking ma as Sanatoz Rudman?
THE WITNESS: No. no, I was not, I know who you ara,
Sanator .
SENATOR TRIBLE: You wara looking for confirmation,
it was Indaad Sanator Rudman.
THE WITNESS: Yas .
SENATOR TRIBLE: Hhan was tha last tlma you talkad
to Albart Hakim?
THE WITNESS: Novambar, probably, Dacambar,
Novambar, Octobar-Novambar .
SENATOR TRIBLE: How about Hr . Zuckar, whan was tha
last tima you spoka to Hr . Zuckar?
THE WITNESS: July of 1986.
SENATOR TRIBLE: How about Nr . Graan, Hr . Sacord's
attornay?
THE WITNESS: I hava navar talkad to Hr . Graan.
SENATOR TRIBLE: TrliAmarlcan was a partnership of
sorts, two. thraa partnars, Hr . Royar, you, Hr . Sacord and
Hr. narostlca> is that corract?
THE WITNESS: That is oorraot.
SENATOR TRIBLE: Albart Hakim was not a partnar?
THE WITNESS: Albart Hakim, as I understand it, was
UNtUSSIfJfll
1174
NAME
mse
4157
««158
i«159
((160
it16
(4162
(4163
(416(4
4165
4166
4167
4168
4169
4170
4171
4172
4173
4174
4175
4176
4177
4178
4179
4180
HIR141002
UNCUSSIHED
PAGE 179
a paitnex, is a paitnaz with S«co£d and Sscord and Hakin,
Sttcotd would ba reprasanting Stanford Tachnology Trading
Group. I don't know if that answarad your quastion, but one
would ba, ona would ba raprasanting their company.
A third of that company would be Sacord, Hakim, Stanford
Tach, is the way it was.
SENATOR TRIBLE: You have described TriJAraerican,
have you not, as a partnership?
THE WITNESS: Bag your pardon?
SENATOR TRIBtE: You have described TrilAmerican as
an antarpri&iM^^hzaa partners?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
SENATOR TRIBLE: Those three partners are yourself.
General Seeord, and tlarostica?
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
SENATOR TRIBLE: There is an exhibit whose number I
don't know, which purports to ba the determination of that
partnership which bears three names, Royers, Seeord, and
Harostlca?
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
SENATOR TRIBLE: that is Exhibit No. 7?
THE WITNESS: That is correct.
SENATOR TRIBLE: Mo where do I see the name Hakim.
THE WITNESS: That is right.
SENATOR TRIBLE: Hakim was not a partner of this
UNCLASSIFIED
1175
UNCLASSIFIED
NAHE: HIR141002
4181 enterprise?
THE HITHESS: Legally, not a partner, no.
UNCUSSIHED
1176
UNCUSSIHED
HAHE: HIR141002
m83 RPTS CANTOR
4 184 DCHH GLASSHAP
U185 [10 = 30 p.n. ]
>4186
4 187 2 I undarstand that your attornay at least has grown
U188 inpatient about questions about Exhibit Number "4. I want to
<*189 return to Exhibit Number ^. I was not here for some oi the
4190 earlier questions, and, again, I will not prolong this
4 19 1 proceeding unduly. Who is the author of this?
4192 A I wrote that.
4 193 S And what was the purpose of this document?
4 194 A I don't know whether it was a summation of a
4 195 meeting that we had in Denver or if it was going rin notes
4196 for a meeting that Secord, Marostica and I had. It is just,
4197 as you can see, there is no typewritten things from it on
4 198 any records. It was a handwritten document for some type of
4199 notes.
4200 2 Is it fair to say that it represents a summary of
4201 the discussions that you and Hr . Secord and Harostica had
4202 about this enterprise?
4203 A Yes. I would think it is probably a summary more
4204 than a prep for a meeting.
4205 e And Hr. Harostica said that Exhibit Number 4 was a
4206 primary source of discussion at a meeting you and Secord
4207 attended with him to discuss the American Arms, would you
UNCUSSIHED
1177
UNCLASSIFIED
KiHE: HIR1>41002 V I 1 VIbTIU wll I kU PAGE 182
t«208 disagzaa with that?
4209 A Thosa pap«rs thaza? I would probably not disagrea
4210 with that. no. I would say that.
42 11 e According to tha projactions sat forth on Exhibit
4212 Numbar <4, tha paztnarship aKpactad tha possibility of
•4213 profits of »«J.2 ■illion, is that corract?
U21U i That is corract, on thosa trophy guns.
t215 fi Ua can say, can wa not, that paga two of this sama
(t216 axhibit indicatas a discussion of IjSOO to Saudi and Gulf
U217 Statas and naxt UIOOO, and tha word ' ' contraf ']. y Tha
4218 docuitant raflaets that.
4219 HR. MOUCXZN: Sinca ha wasn't hara, go ahaad and
4220 answar that.
422 1 THE HZTNESS: Yas .
4222 BY HR. TRIBLE =
4223 e What doas this docuaant indicata or projact as the
4224 profit margin froa tha sala of thasa saita aras in Exhibit
4225 KuBbar 4?
4226 A In what paga? Tha sacond paga?
4227 Q I aa asking you to intarprat. "^ aa asking you to
4228 tall aa about that doouaant that you praparad^ Z just hava
4229 a eoupla aora quastions.
4230 A Tha front part of it is tha projactions on tha
4231 trophy guns, if wa can gat it bafora tha Prasidant signs tha
4232 bill. Tha sacond part is who is rasponsibla for what, tha
uNOissra
1178
HAHE
4233
(t23t4
4235
U236
14237
4238
U239
U2t(0
124'
42U2
42K3
4244
4245
4246
4247
4248
4249
4250
425
4252
4253
4254
4255
4256
4257
HIR141002
UNCLASSIFIED
PAGE 183
assignaents, tha objactivas.
fi That Is actually paga thr«« now.
A That is two. HOH paga thz«« —
e Halt a ainuta.
A Yas.
HR. HOUCHEK: Thay ara nuabazad.
BY HR. TRIBLE!
e I aa sozzy. I hava a diifazant nuabazing schaaa.
Two. than, cazzias two subhaadings, ' ' asslgnaants ' ' and
'objactivas of ia«
"Plj
two, is that cozzact?
A Yas.
e And tha thlzd paga, siz.
A Yas.
e This is a sapazata tzansaction, than, izoa tha
tzansactions othazwisa contaaplatad in this docuaant?
A Yas. I would say that this is potantial,
pzojactions o£ salas tha iizst yaaz, and what happans if u»
gat no doaastio salas, if tha Pzasidant signs tha bill.
Than aayba wa can sail ''X*' nuabaz to Saudi and Gulf
Statas. Hayba wa can sail 4(000 to tha contzas.
fi And what was tha pzofit aazgin anticipatad fzoa
thosa salas?
i Appazantly *1^000, that would aaka it ♦TSO aftaz
salas ooaaission, and this papaz says that tha waapon can ba
built foz ♦250. It can't ba, but that would ba «500 apiaca.
uNcussra
1179
HIR141002
UNCUSSIRED
PAGE 1814
HAHE
U258 and if wa sold iiv«, that would ba S.OOO of th«it would ba
I42S9 what. «2.5 Billion would ba th« profit.
U260 fi So what is tha profit then par waapon?
<«26 1 A If tha waapon could ba nada for «250, and aftar
>4262 salas comaission, and wa sold tham for *1^000, now that is
((263 lasars and avarything on thara. wa could aaka a round «500 a
1426M unit.
■4265 S Par waapon?
U266 A Par waapon.
U267 BY m. HOLMES:
4268 e naka thaa for «250 and sail for «11000?
— •
(«269 A Ha can't aaka thaa for •250. Ha cannot gat than
■4270 nada for *250. That is what that projaotion — thasa ara just
•4271 beginning things. Tha cheapest we can find yat is\351.
14272 e Taking your figurt or 250 and selling for 1^000. it
14273 is profit of*7S0. isn't it?
I427U A No, you are giving «2S0 up in 25 percent sales
■4275 eomaission.
4276 e So profit—
•4277 BY MR. IHBIE =
•4278 fi Tha gross profit would be?
14279 A Seven-hundred-fifty, and salas comaission would be
4280 2S0, so wa would have a round 500 profit.
4281 fi And once again the coaaission conteaplated here
4282 goes to whoa?
mmm
1180
UNCLASSIFIED
HAKE: HIR1I41002 |l|ll||| Halilll || 11 PAGE 185
14283
(428(4
4285
14286
4287
4288
4289
4290
4291
4292
4293
4294
4295
4296
4297
4298
4299
4300
4301
4302
4303
4304
4305
4306
4307
A Well/ in this particular instanca, if Sacord's
gxoup, Stanford lachnology, was going to do tha marketing,
they uould get it, and if ue would have gone into this,
Richard Secord's group would have been the marketing people.
HR. TRIBLE: I thank you.
HR. SABA: Just to finish, let the record show that
the witness came voluntarily and that we appreciate his
patience and that of his counsel as well.
HR. HOLHES: And also it ought to reflect that you
have a further obligation under subpoena, and that is to go
back home and gather the documents we have discussed and now
are evident to you are relevant to the inquiry, and supply
them to us as rapidly as possible.
HR. HOUCHEN= You are talking about telex and
telephone?
m. HOLMES: Yas, the telexes, the telephone
records, and I believe there was one other category.
THE HIIKESS: Trips to Washington, D.C.
MR. SABA: I have telex, travel, telephone.
THE WITNESS: Travel to D.C. and what do I do
about telephone? What is that?
HR. HOUCHEN: To see when you called.
TRK WITKESS: Hera?
MR. HOUCHEN: Sure. You have got Secord's number,
if you called it, it will show on your bill.
UNCLASSinED
1181
UNCUSSIFIED
NAME: KIRItlOOZ
"SOS (Hhareupon, at 10:M0 p.m., th« daposition in the
■4309 abova-antitlad mattar was concludad. ]
UNCLASSIFIED
1182
1183
^^^fH^r^X^^^iCi
H£ARB*4<
Bcfbret
S«l«ct Co^V^f*
HillC«r7 AsVitft
UNITED S
f2a2V fi2S^SJ
1184
UNH.fmFI£D
DEPOSITION OF GLENN ALLAN RUDD
United States Senate
Select Committee on Secret
Military Assistance to Iran and
the Nicaraguan OoDOsition
Washington, D.C.
Deposition of GLENN ALLAN RUDD, a witness herein,
called for examination by counsel for the Select Committee,
the witness being duly sworn by MICHAL ANN SCHAFER, a Notary
Public in and for the District of Columbia, at the offices
of the Senate Select Committee, 901 Hart Senate Office
Building, Washington, D.C, at 4:08 p.m. on Tuesday, June 16,
1987, and the proceedings being taken down by Stenomask by
MICHAL ANN SCHAFER and transcribed under her direction.
3eclassified/Rsleas.^d off JADfce:
'"ier provisions of E J. 123-6
^^B, Nation:! Secji.i; Council
WmsiflED
1185
UNBfatSSirifD
APPEARANCES :
On behalf of the Senate Select Conunittee:
JOHN SAXON, Esq.
On behalf of the House Select Committee:
JOSEPH SABA, Esq.
ROBERT GENZM.AN, Esq,
ROBERT KREUZER, Esq.
115 Annex I, The Capitol
House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 226-4026
On behalf of Defense Security Assistance Agency;
JEROME H. SILBER, Esq.
General Counsel, DSAA
Department of Defense
Washington, D.C. 20301
1186
vfiimmB
Deposition of:
GLENN ALLAN RUDD
By Mr. Saxon
By Mr. Kreuzer
By Mr. Saba
Rudd No.
1
2
3
4
CONTENTS
Examination by Counsel for the:
Senate House
4
35
38
X H !_ B I_ T
Page
15
26
38
41
IfNCUWlED
1187
mmmm
Z.5.°^§.5.°i^Gs
Whereupon,
GLENN ALLAN RUDD
a witness herein, was called for examination by counsel for
the Senate Select Committee and, having been first duly sworn
by the Notary Public, was examined and testified as follows:
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE SENATE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR, SAXON:
State your name for the record, please.
Glenn Allan Rudd.
That's R-u-d-d?
Yes.
And what is your position, sir?
Deputy Director of the Defense Security Assistance
A.
&
A.
ft
A.
Agency
ft
A.
ft
ft
A.
ft
A.
ft
A.
Otherwise known as. DSAA?
Right.
And how long have you been in that position 1984.
And from 1930 to 1984, were you director of operations:
Yes.
And from 1979 to 1980, were you comptroller?
Yes.
And to whom do you report?
To Lieutenant General Gast
cr^0r
UNCLASSIFIED
1188
mmm
Q. He is the director?
A. Director of DSAA.
51 Can you take a moment and tell us what DSAA does?
A. DSAA is responsible for the program direction of
the security assistance and foreign military sales program
worldwide. It also participates with the Department of State
in defending the security assistance budget on the Hill, but
its primary job, I would say, is program direction and program
management.
& Mr. Rudd, when I say we met with you earlier or talked
with you earlier or you told us before, let me say for the
record, what I have reference to is the fact that Roger
Kreuzer was present along with myself. We interviewed you
May 7th, 1987, in your office, and you also had present
Mr. Jerome Silber, the General Counsel of DSAA; is that
correct, sir?
A. Right.
Ql So if I say "as you told us before," that's what I
have reference to.
A. Okay.
Q. But let ne begin by asking you about the 'time period
in late 1985 and any discussions that you would have been party
to with regard to the provision of Hawk missiles for Iran, and
I have in mind here in particular something that was called
a point paper that Dr. Henry Gaffney, the Director of Plans
r. Henry Gaffney, the Di
IINClA££lHFn
1189
wmmm
for DSAA, prepared.
What can you tell us about that time period and any
involvement in those issues?
A. Well, at the time that he prepared the point paper,
both General Cast and I were on temporary duty out of town.
I returned in late November and had, to the best of my
recollection, one meeting on that general subject, with Rich
Armitage, who is Assistant Secretary of Defense for
International Security Affairs.
I recall that both Hawk and TOW were discussed at
that time; that the primary thrust of the discussion with
Armitage had to do with the legal ramifications of providing
either Hawks or TOW's or both directly to Iran.
Q. Do you know when you are able to date that meeting
with Mr. Armitage?
A. I would have thought that it was the following week
after I returned from temporary duty, which would have put it
around Thanksgiving week of that year. But it could have been
later. It could have been a little bit later.
& And tell us specifically who said what to whom in
that meeting?
A. Okay. I have a very vague recollection of that
meeting. As I said, the discussion turned on the legal
ramifications of providing the missiles. We talked about the
notification requirements to Congress of section 36(b) of the
1190
unSSSSfied
zjia.-' s sjx^zrt :.-.
ZiZ Z^-^—Z^S-ZZ
2 ,
L Tzs.- s. T.'g z&sz. zt sv rsccllecT-i-^n., :.3
a
3
S. Tss.
< -7
l«
4.
=ii- I T>s -.A...f.~ii -jz ->.-s sixca i^d 're s^ys ;:.r vzs 5c«l Jc^i
2a
:r 5- le£3- if r
2-
23
1 Aid iL-i 7-;; :>5lis-= -i^.a- ^-t^s vsj j
UN£US£JFIED
1191
UNI^SaFIED
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3
5 14
i 15
i .6
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
exp-cratcrj' srage cr sc-et
A. Ch, yes, iefi-:.- = _y.
1 3c ycu renerxer a-y di3c-^33;:rr.s ii't u. vr.e-her =Trzs
could be provided tc Ira--. =3 par- :f 3eruri-y 23313-=.-;=?
i Well, I'd 3ay zr.az ve r.ad rr di3 :u33 z'- = z. zr.s.z
fra.-e'--cr:<, yes. As I said, semr- jf r . ssr-icr. fl4 cf li
assisza-ce ar.d fcreir- =ilizary sales i- sc=e vay rr ar.r-l-er
; Vas Ira- ar -l-.at -i=e elirirle zz receive seriri":.
assistance?
i I c--ess 1 wculd say i- rstrrspect yss , -l-.ey prrcar
were. They had not received ar.y. They weren't eligible re
receive security assistance. T^.ey cculd ha-.-e been eligible
fcr fcreicn military sales en a cash basis. They hadn ' - , ci
course, received a.nv naterial since 1?5 3
3-3 __ '-3. =-
3ut 1 guess I would say t^iat en a cash sales casis
nobody had said they weren' t. eligible.
i When you discussed the prcspect cf na:<:ing a reprrt
to Congress under tne prcvisicns cf 36 ib of the .=vr-s Expert
Control Act, do you recall what, if anytime. Secretary
Araitage said about the issue of Cc.ngressicnal notification?
.\. There -as a general discussion, which could have
been initiated :ust as -ell by ne as by hia, that obviously,
if this was going to take place it would be highly classified
and a report to Congress ir.der section 36 (b' would not exactly
li'MrMr^^MTfra
1192
UNGEAIfilFltD
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
% 9
^ 10
i 12
8^ ,3
o
z
2
S 15
z
o
2 '*
o
< 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be covered.
g. Was there any discussion of whether the dollar
thresholds would have been exceeded for reporting to the
Congress?
A. I don't recall anything in that meeting, no.
Q. Because at that point, if I understand your testimony,
there was no discussion of specific numbers, is that correct?
A. I did not know of any numbers at that time to the
best of my recollection.
Ql I believe you told us before when we interviewed you
that there was discussion about the possibility of the
President being able to waive that reporting requirem.ent under
section 614.
A. That would be 614. I speculated on that. I didn't
get a legal opinion on it.
0. And is that everything that you can recall about
that meeting, to the best of. your recollection?
A. Yes.
Q. I believe you told us the next day General Cast
returned from his trip, is that right, sir?
A. To the best of my recollection, he was out of town
then and he must have come back very shortly thereafter.
Q. And did you brief him on this meeting with Mr.
Armitagei
UNCUSSiFiED
1193
UNfflMSSIFIED
10
Q. Do you recall what you said or what he would have
said in response?
A. No.
Q. Do you recall if Dr. Gaffney was present?
A. No. If not, I would know that Hank debriefed him
separately because he knew things that I didn't know about
that series of meetings.
Ql Okay. You told us before, if this helps refresh
your recollection, that Dr. Gaffney was present and that Dr.
Gaffney showed General Cast the Hawk point paper that he had
prepared. Does that sound correct?
A. It very well could be.
MR. SILBER: Don't try to be consistent with what
you may have said before. Just tell him what you know now.
THE WITNESS: Well, I'm trying to remember.
MR. SAXON: I understand that.
MR. SILBER: Inconsistency is all right.
THE WITNESS: It very well- could have been true.
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
Ql Did Secretary Armitage give you any background on
the Iran initiative? Did he talk about a draft NSDD that
Bud McFarlane, the national security adviser, had sent to
Secretary Weinberger earlier in the year?
A. No.
Ql Was there anything in the discussion with Mr. Armitage
1194
iWSSIRBED
n
that would suggest that these transactions, discussions, about
Hawks and TOW s was related to the hostages?
A. I'm not sure about that one, because I've got it
mixed up with the Koch one, where I know that there was. I
just can't recall.
CL Okay, that's fine. If you can't recall that in
the discussion with Mr. Armitage, that's fine.
Was there any indication to you from any other source
that we, the United States Government, was in the process of
rethinking its Iran policy or reopening relations with Iran?
A. No.
Ql In your opinion, would Iran have been eligible in
late 1985 for FMS sales?
A. Yes, if the President said sell.
ft What would have been your view in terms of U.S.
policy in late 1985 as to whether the United States could ship
arms to Iran if anyone would, have asked you? what would you
have told them?
A. You mean with respect to whether it was a good idea?
ft With respect to policy and legality, whether we
could ship arms to Iran or not.
A. From a policy point of view, it made no sense at
all.
ft Why would you say that, sir?
A. Well, since our relationships with Iran were very
uNayu&iFitD
1195
UNCIKSIWIED
12
poor, of course. Even though they had released the hostages,
we were not on any kind of negotiating terms that I knew of
that would warrant sales.
As far.-as law goes, I'm much less definite on that.
I leave that to the lawyers. There was no law that said we
could not sell to Iran.
Q. 1 believe you told us before that under our statutes,
if we can't make a sale ourselves to a country, then we can't
approve a third country sale under the Arms Export Control
Act. Is that an accurate statement?
A. That's correct.
Q. And under section 3(d) of the Arms Export Control Act,
if our policy does not permit direct sales to a country, then
does the law prohibit third party transfers?
A. Yes.
0. Are you aware of any third country approaching DSAA
in 1985 regarding shipments to Iran?
A. No.
0. I'm sorry. Any recipient country of U.S. assistance
approaching DSAA about shipments to Iran as a third country?
A. No.
MR. SILBER: DSAA and not all of DOD .
THE WITNESS: If it was 1985, I wasn't even aware of
DOD.
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
UHfiUSSIFIED
1196
UN§Efl^lF8ED
13
Ql All right, sir. Did you think to raise any of these
issues with Mr. Armitage in terms of the wisdom or desirability
of our shipping arms to Iran?
A. No. I may have thought about it, but I didn't do it,
because he's an assistant secretary of defense and well able
to think of that kind of thing for himself.
Q. Prior to your discussions with Noel Koch on TOW's,
which we will come to in a moment, were there any other
discussions between the Gaffney point paper and the session with
Mr. Armitage?
You briefed General Gast a day or so later. Is there
anything between that period and when Mr. Koch approached you?
A. No.
Ql And that would be with regard to botlx Hawks and TOW's?
A. That's right, there was nothing.
Ql Now, what can you tell us about any discussions with
Noel Koch regarding TOW missiles?
A. Okay. To the best of my knowledge, the meetings —
and there were at least two, maybe three — occurred in early
February of 1986 at his request.
Ql Why do you date it early February of '86^
A. Because during our interview I looked at the
calendars. I knew that I would not have been talking to Koch
about the subject if either Armitage were in town or Gast were
in town. And the first time I could place them both out of
UNfitASSIFIED
1197
UII6U8SIFSED
14
town was in early February of '86.
Q. And you say that because you assume he would have come
to you in your capacity as being acting director?
A. Exactly. And he, as the acting ASDI --
MR. SAXON: Let's go off a second.
(Discussion off the record.)
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
Q. Mr. Rudd, let me capture on the record a few things
we have just talked about. I indicated to you that in our
interview sessions with Noel Koch and subsequent deposition
sessions, of which we had two, he indicated that the logic that
you have used in trying to date this makes perfectly good
sense, but that it's wrong, in that he did not go to you in
your capacity as acting director of DSAA, but in a way that's
complimentary to you, he went to you because he needed some
information about TOW s and TOW pricing, and he knew that you
could get it and get it right and get it quickly for him; and
that, likewise, he did not go to you in his capacity as acting
assistant secretary of defense in the absence of Mr. Armitage,
but in fact he had been tasked by Colonel North specifically
to come up with some pricing data on TOW missiles, 'and
availability and the like, for which reason he does not date it
at that time period.
Now, I'd like to show you for the record what we
have just been looking at and have that marked as Deposition
[jMciAfiAirgpn
1198
i^lWIK/fa
15
Exhibit 1.
(The document referred to was
marked Rudd Exhibit No. 1 for
identification. )
MR. SAXON: Some pages from the desk calendar or
appointment book of Noel Koch.
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
Q. I would ask you to look at the entry on January 7th,
a Tuesday, in which it happens that Noel Koch at that
particular time, according to his notation at the top, was
acting assistant secretary of defense. But it shows that on
January 7th there was a meeting at 2:00 o'clock with Hank
Gaffney, there was a brief interruption, he met again with
Gaf fney.
And then again, it says, at 2:44 there was a meeting
with Glenn Rudd.
As best as you can. recall, does that make sense, that
you met with him on that day?
A. It does.
Q. If you look then at the next day, the next entry with
your name I believe is on Thursday, January 9th at 1:00 p.m.,
we have Mr. Koch meeting with Glenn Rudd. Is that correct as
you read that?
A. Yes.
Q. I believe we look at the next day, on Friday,
UNfiM^lEim
1199
liNft&JEB
16
January 10, we see that at 2:40 there was a meeting that Mr.
Koch had with you. And beside 2:40, it has the name Glenn
Rudd .
Then if you look on Tuesday, January 14th, there is
a meeting at 10:52 that Mr. Koch has with Glenn Rudd.
Are you able to recall any other period in this time
frame when you would have met over the course of a week or so
four times with Mr. Koch?
A. No.
0. Now, while I don't want you to feel obligated to give
us an answer that you don't believe is correct, would you
accept Mr. Koch's characterization that these discussions took
place in this period in January, rat.her than in the first ten
days of February?
A. Yes, based on the information that you have showed me,
I would accept that.
Ql Okay. Let's go thpn to actually what transpired in
these discussions with Mr. Koch. The first time you meet, what
happens? Did he call you?
A. Yes.
Ql And did you discuss things over the phone or did he
say, come to my office?
A. Yes, I went to his office.
Ql And what do you recall transpiring when you got
there;
UNCLASSIFIED
1200
s
j
o
7
i
6
o
z
^
a
z
o
CO
3
<
20
21
22
23
UN6[ASSIF!ED
17
A. He indicated that he was searching for information
with respect to the legalities and the practicalities of the
U.S. replacing 4,000 TOW, basic TOW missiles, if Israel shipped
4,000 basic TOW missiles to Iran.
Qi Do you recall there being any discussion of a price
tag for those 4,000?
A. He indicated that the deal was being considered, was
4,000 TOW missiles for $12 million.
ft And I believe you told us before that you immediately
questioned the $12 million for 4,000 TOW's because that would
work out to about $3,000 per ton, is that correct, sir?
A. Yes, that's right.
Ql And did you indicate to him what you thought might
be a more appropriate- price for a TOW?
A. I think at that meeting I said I would go look and
see what prices we had ever sold basic TOVJ's for. I knew it
was more than — I think I may have said it would be double
that and more, or something like that.
Qi All right, sir. And then at that first meeting do
you recall anything else being discussed?
A. No.
0. You then went back to your office and began to check
on TOW prices, is that correct?
A. That's right.
Q. Was there then a subsequent meeting that followed
]lN£US»Fitd
1201
UNttABSIFIED
18
shortly thereafter?
A. Based on this, there were three more, although I
certainly can't remember all three of them, what was said at
each one of the three, because I didn't think there had been
that many.
0. But at either the next meeting or one of these
meetings shortly thereafter, you had gotten some data on TOW
missiles and you communicate that back to Mr. Koch, is that
correct?
A. That's right.
Q. What did you find, do you recall?
A. Well, I looked for two things. One was, did the
Army have 4,000 basic TOW's available that it could supply from
its inventories without a world of hurt, and the answer to that
was yes.
And I looked to see what was the cheapest that we had
ever sold a basic TOW for, and to the best of my recollection
it was about $6800.
Q. And to whom had we sold that basic TOW?
A I think that one was to Israel.
Qi And had that been some years before?
A Oh, yes, because we had not recently sold any basic
tow's. We had been selling I-TOW's.
Qi To make sure that we have the record clear, that
figure of $6800 was for the basic TOW and not for l-TOW's or
1201
1202
UN6EA8aF!ED
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
^ 10
T "
i 12
d
" 13
o
z
£ 14
2
S 15
z
o
« 16
o
< 17
18
19
20
21
22
23 I
24
25
TOW-II'S?
A. That's right. Now, I have not gone back and rechecked
that number since we met before in May. That's still the best
of my recollection, but I think it's close.
Ql All right, sir. At that time, had Mr. Koch told you
to check for basic TOW's?
A. Yes, specifically.
Q. When you told him that the cheapest we had sold a
basic TOW for was about $6800, do you recall what his reaction
was?
A. No. I don't think — it wasn't surprise or shock
or we've got to do better or anything like that. I was focused
more on, again, the practicalities of providing 4,000 basic
tow's to Israel under a straight FMS sale to replace what I
knew would be a transfer to Iran if it were to go through. So
I wasn't focused on the price except to tell him that's way
off.
Ql Did you tell him that there was no way you could
provide 4,000 TOW's for $12 million, and in fact if you do the
arithmetic would be some other figure?
A. Yes.
Ql Do you recall what that figure was, or whether you
gave him a ballpark?
A. Ballpark. The ballpark, I said it would depend on
whether we priced it for the replacement price of an I-TOW,
[iNfiMSSIFSFn
1203
UN(^SSlFSED
20
which would be somewhat over 8,000, which would make the deal
a little bit over $30 million; that if we sold them out of
stock without replacement, we had a certain latitude to reduce
the price for age and condition, but there was no way we could
possibly go that low.
Q. So as I recall it, you said —
A. Not under FMS.
Qi It would have been somewhere in the neighborhood of
$25 to $30 million for the basic TOW, for 4,000 of them; and
if there were a price discount due to the shelf life <. " some
of these old TOW s which had been in the inventory a while, the
price could come down below that?
A. I never thought through how much or tested it or
anything else, but there was that provision in the accounting
manual which would provide a reduction for age and condition
if they were not to be replaced.
Qi But you made clear_ to Mr. Koch that by no means would
it get down, you thought, as low as S12 million?
A. Yes, I'm sure I did. Again, that's not where I was
focused.
It's the accounting manual which lays out how you
price FMS sales.
Ql Did Mr. Koch tell you there was a $12 million ceiling
on this transaction?
A. Not to my recollection.
UMCtAS£iE!ED
1204
l^NQfcAgSlFlEO
21
& Did you get the sense it was an amount of S12 million
that was being worked with or looked at?
A. Well, he told me that was what was being considered,
was 4,000 tow's for $12 million. I just said no way.
0. Did it happen, then, that you had a discussion with
Mr. Koch about the issue of Congressional notification?
A. Yes.
0. Did you tell him that if you couldn't get the price
down below the $14 million as the threshold, that the Congress
would have to be notified?
A. Probably.
Q. Do you recall any discussion to the effect of, if
the Congress were notified the Israelis were buying basic TOW's,
that it would be transparent to the experts on the Hill, because
they knew that Israel was already buying TOW-II or I-TOW
missiles?
A. Yes, I initiated that. You're correct up to the
point where you say they were already buying I-TOW or TOW-II.
I'm not sure that they were buying those, but if they were
going to buy a TOW they certainly would have bought I-TOW at
least, and probably TOW-II.
Q. So if someone were on the Hill and made aware that
the Israelis were buying basic TOW, what did you tell Mr. Koch
would be the possible inference they would draw?
A. That they were replacing a shipment they made to
UNPOilSSiFiF.l
1205
UNW9WJIF2ED
22
Iran-
gi Did you say Iran or did you say some other country?
A. I'm sure I said Iran in that case, because I think
it was clear to me by that time that that was the thought
process.
Ql Do you recall any discussions in this session with
Mr. Koch about hostages?
A. I recall that he did mention the hostages.
0. Did he say this matter had VJhite House interest?
A. He did.
Ql And did you inquire further into that?
A. No.
g. You didn't ask him who at the White House?
A. No. I think he said NSC, I think.
n At this point, did Mr. Koch mention General Powell?
A. No.
Ql Did he mention Secretary f-Jeinberger?
A. No.
Ql And did he mention any issue of a presidential finding
pursuant to which these transfers might take place?
A. No.
Ql When you made the assessment about the threshold of
$14 million and the Congress would perhaps have to be notified
and that might appear transparent to certain people, did you
then offer a judgment or any recommendation about the modality
lUli^iBGMItnrn
1206
UKI^I^IFIED
23
of transfer if the intent of the White House were to give TOW
missiles to Iran?
A. Yes. I said the only possibility of covering,
keeping the transaction secret, would be through black channels.
Q. And what does that mean?
A. That means for CIA to buy them and ship them.
Q. From the Army?
A. From the Army.
Q. And then the CIA could transfer them abroad?
A. That's right.
CL Do you recall any response that Mr. Koch gave you
to that suggestion?
A. Not really. Certainly, I think he, as I recall — no,
I don't recall whether he agreed that it was — it just didn't
make any sense to do it through FMS channels. I don't know
whether he said that or not.
Qi Was there a point at which Dr. Gaffney gave you any
input on pricing data or availability of TOW missiles?
A. I don't recall that he did during that stage at all.
I don't recall any involvement with Hank.
I got my information on basic TOW prices 'out of our
controller shop, out of reports from there, without telling them
why. I got my information on availability of Army assets from
Bill Jackson, who I think by that time had a pretty fair idea
why I was asking it. . But we didn't talk about it much.
L'l«MSS'F"Fn
1207
UNttA&SIFIED
Qi Who is Bill Jackson?
A. He's the deputy chief of military assistance for the
Army on the Army staff.
Q. Was there a point of which you worked up a point
paper similar to the point paper on Hawk missiles to Iran
Dr. Gaffney had done back in November of '85, with regard to
TOW missiles for Iran in early '86?
A. There was not in early "86. I talked to Hank just
today about that, and he recollected for me, and I think he's
right, that in the meeting with Armitage, that he had worked up
a point paper which had to do with TOW's that — and as best I
can picture it — there was only a little bit of information
about TOW'S.
Most of the information was about the legal process
I talked about, you know, 36(b), section 614, and so forth.
And I believe at this stage that we gave that point paper to
Rich Armitage.
(Discussion off the record.)
.MR. SAXON: Let's go back on the record.
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
Q. Mr. Rudd, to the best of your recollection was there
a point paper worked up by anyone in this time period we're
talking about with regard to the TOW's, that would be either as
a TOW paper for Mr. Armitage in late '85 or for Mr. Koch in
early '86?
HUfifefifi&WEa
1208
UNttA86IFlED
25
A. After discussing this with Gaffney today, I am
convinced that there was a TOW paper which at least discussed
TOW. I recall it discussing legal matters, more than TOW.
That was prepared for Armitage in '85.
There was no paper that I'm aware of that was prepared
for Koch in '86.
0- And the paper that was prepared for Armitage, do you
recall who would have prepared that paper?
A. I believe that Gaffney prepared it.
Qi And do you recall having ever been given a copy of
that paper by Dr. Gaffney?
A. I think probably the original.
MR. SILBER: I'm sorry, which paper? The Hawk paper?
THE WITNESS: No, he's talking TOW.
MR. SAXON: That's correct, the TOW paper.
MR. SILBER: That you saw the original of, Gaffney 's
TOW paper that he had written?
THE WITNESS: Again, it discussed mostly legal matters,
not TOW'S.
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
Q. And were you given that to transmit to someone or
did he just show it to you?
A. He said today — and I would not argue — that I took
it and I gave it to Rich.
0. All right. I'd like for you to look at what I will
[ N.Uflfi«i:"rn
1209
UN(ftftft§)Fl£0
26
ask be marked as Deposition Exhibit 2, which is a handwritten
note on the letterhead of the Office of the Assistant Secretary
of Defense for International Security Affairs. This is a note
prepared by Noel Koch last spring, which I believe he dates
some time in April when he's trying to recall some of these
transactions.
(The document referred to was
marked Rudd Exhibit No. 2 for
identification. )
Q. I don't ask you to vouch for the accuracy of anything
that's contained in it, but I would direct your attention to
numbered item 4. It says "TOW paper locked in RLA safe;
wouldn't let Rudd keep copy."
Now, what Mr. Koch has told us in his deposition is
that "RLA" stands for Richard L. Armitage; and he explained
that it was his understanding that Mr. Armitage had the point
paper, he locked it in his safe, and did not let you keep a
copy.
To the best of your recollection, does that seem to
be an accurate statement?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall giving Mr. Armitage the TOVJ point
paper .-
I don't, but I think I did.
Do you recall ever having asked for a copy of itl
1210
«HiMI?»'^«
27
A. No.
Q. Do you recall Mr. Armitage ever saying you could not
have a copy of it or would not be allowed to keep a copy of it?
A. He may have said something to the effect that there
would be no copies.
Q. Do you recall ever discussing this issue of a TOW
point paper which you provided, you believe, to Mr. Armitage,
discussing that with Mr. Koch at a later date?
A. No.
Q. Now, after you had your discussions with Mr. Koch in
which you provided him the best price data you' were able to
come up with on TOW s and you discussed the issue of
Congressional notification, you discussed the issue of whether
the way to effect such a transfer would be for the Army to
transfer them to the CIA and for the CIA to perhaps sell them,
did you at that time have any working notes that you had come
up with with these prices and data?
A. I had a handwritten paper which had the inventory.
Army inventory, of basic TOW, I -TOW, TOW-II.
Ql What happened to those notes?
A. I through them away some time in the summer of '86.
0. Long before these matters became public?
A. Yes.
0. And did you do anything after providing Mr. Koch
this information and h.
t>l*At you have just
1211
UN6iA^F!ED
28
testified to and which I just recounted, did you have any
involvement with the TOW issue?
A. No.
0. Did you keep track after a while to see if there had
been any TOW s moving around the world?
A. I would say yes, that we got
reports from time to time on arms transfers moving. I looked
with some interest as to whether there were any TOW s moving.
But the only thing that I ever saw that looked like it might
possibly be tied into it was when the Israelis were captured
in Bermuda and put in jail in Bermuda.
MR. SILBER: Arrested.
THE WITNESS: Arrested.
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
Ql At any point, did Mr. Koch ever tell you that this
had to be done in a way to prevent the Congress from being
notified?
A No, I wouldn't say so. I think it was as clear to me
as to him that if it took place at all, it should take place
under absolute secrecy.
ft When you got with Mr. Koch in subsequent 'meetings,
either the second time or later when you met with him on these
issues, did you get the impression at some point that the
Israelis were involved in these transactions?
A There was no question, because the whole course of
1211
MNCUfii^lFIFn
1212
UNCLmSSIHED
discussion had to do with providing TOW s to Israel to replace
tow's that they would ship to Iran.
I also got the impression that there were Israelis
involved in negotiations to release the hostages.
0. Just so we make it clear in the record, the discussion
with Armitage in late '85 were for direct sale to Iran, is that
correct, sir?
A. Correct.
0. And then the discussions with Koch, the destination
was Iran, but the discussion was going through Israel?
A, Israel would ship, we would replace.
gi Was it your sense at any point that Mr. Koch was
sort of shopping around in order to find the most favorable
way to do this?
A. Oh, sure, I think so, if he was going to do it at all,
I mean, if it was going to be done at all.
Qi In your discussion with Mr. Koch, did he ever mention
the name Colonel Oliver North, Lieutenant Colonel North?
A, No.
ft Did he erver mention that he had been involved in
negotiating with the Israelis on the price for TOW -missiles?
A. No.
ft Did he ever mention the ncune of Abraheim Ben Yosef?
A. No.
ft Did he ever mention the name General Menachim Meron
UNCLA£SiFIFD
1213
UNCMSSFSED
30
of the Israeli Ministry of Defense?
A. No.
Ci Did you receive any instructions for any kind of
follow-up or execution from Mr. Koch?
A. No.
Q. And is it your recollection that at any time after
your discussions with Mr. Koch that you briefed General Cast
on these matters?
A. I'm not sure. I may have. I guess in placing this
in January instead of February, I would say there was more
likelihood that I did than I had thought when we met before,
because I told you I took a trip very quickly thereafter, but
there was nothing to act on.
I may have and I may not have.
Q. Let me see if I can help in that regard, and I have
no independent information on whether you did or didn't. But
you've had these discussions, with Mr. Koch, if we are to believe
his testimony and his records. And as we've tried to, with
everybody's best efforts in mind, date these events, you would
perhaps have been discussing these matters with Mr. Koch at
the same time that General Gast was present.
So you would not have had the normal, he comes back
into town, I brief the boss on what's transpired. But these
are fairly sensitive matters and it involves topics, as you
said earlier, there may have been an embargo, there may have
i/NCUSSJFIFi)
1214
UNCif^lED
31
been some legal complications with notifying the Congress.
Does any of that refresh you in any way as to whether
you went over that ground with General Cast after any sessions
with Mr. Koch?
A. No, it doesn't. I'm not sure. I brief him on almost
everything, but I may not have on this one, because I knew it
was highly, highly sensitive.
Q. Did Mr. Koch ever tell you on whose authority he
was acting or who had tasked him with this mission?
A. He only mentioned the NSC.
gi You do think he mentioned the NSC?
A. I think he mentioned the NSC during one of the
meetings, that we had NSC interest. That did not make it a
reality. I mean, I didn't know that it was going to happen.
Q. And to your knowledge, prior to these matters becoming
public were you ever made aware by Mr. Koch or anyone else that
any arms had gone to Iran?
A. No.
Q. Did you ever see him on any subsequent matter and
ask him, oh, by the way, Noel, whatever happened to that thing
they were talking about?
A. (Nods negatively.)
Q. Your answer is?
A. I didn't, no.
Qi When we talked with you before, you mentioned
tamed witn you oerore. yi
UNCyilfS^D
1215
UN(^WSTFIED
32
unauthorized third party transfers. This was in our interview
session which Mr. Kreuzer and I had with you.
Tell us what you mean by unauthorized third party
transfers and how that works and whose approval is needed, and
so forth, in the normal course of DSAA's business?
A. Well, as I said, section 3(d) of the Arms Export
Control Act precludes us from — precludes the State Department
from approving a third country transfer to a country that we
would not sell to directly. It's State Department's authority
to approve or disapprove third country transfers.
If a country is not eligible for sales, then it's
also not eligible for third country transfer. Conversely, if
it is eligible for third country sales, then I would assume
the President could make such a country eligible; if there was
no law that said it wasn't, then it would be eligible for third
country transfers.
Q: Let me ask you about the approval process for there
to be a transfer from a recipient country under FMS sales to
a third party or to a third country. Suppose we sold TOW
missiles to Israel under an FMS sales agreement. There would
be a contract, would there not, which contains a provision —
in fact, I think it's numbered paragraph 9 — that says the
recipient country must get the approval, as a condition of this
contract, of the United States before they transfer to another
country; is that correct
UNCU^SIFIED
1216
UN^SlFIED
33
A. That's right.
Q. And does that contract indicate whether that approval
must be in writing?
A. Yes, it would be.
gi It does say that it must be in writing?
A. I would think so. I don't know. I haven't read it.
MR. SILBER: Are you referring to (b)(9)? There's
an (a) section and a (b) section.
MR. SAXON: Yes.
MR. SILBER: The purchaser's obligations.
THE WITNESS: I think the answer is yes, it has to
be in writing.
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
& And the approval, as I understand it, in the statute
rests with the President, but by executive order he has
delegated that to the Secretary of STate, right?
A. That would be right.
0. Are you aware of any requests — this v7ould not have
come to you in DSAA, but since you deal with and talk with
State Department officials on these matters regularly, are you
aware of any request that was made to the State Department in
late 1985 or early 1986 for approval by the Secretary of State
of transfers by Israel of Hawk missiles or of TOW missiles to
Iran?
UNCLASSIFBED
1217
Uffi^KI^IFIED
34
ft What are the penalties for violating the prohibitions
on third party transfers?
A. I'm not sure what the statute says on that, except
that unauthorized transfers have to be reported to the Congress.
I'm not sure that there's a specific penalty in the statute of
what happens once it is reported to the Congress.
ft Does the potential exist for the recipient nation to
be shut off completely from future sales?
A. Yes.
MR. SILBER: That of course could be done as a matter
of policy.
THE WITNESS: That's the potential, yes,
MR. SILBER: You understand?
MR. SAXON: Sure.
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
ft From time to time since 1982, have you seen reports
that alleged or speculated that Israel was selling arms to
Iran?
A. I've read about it in the papers.
ft I believe when we talked with you before you gave us
an exeunple, turbo-fan blades for F-4 engines, is that correct?
A. Well, what I said was that, as a part of Operation
Stealth or as a part of our own suspicions, that we reviewed
Israeli contracts — Staunch, that's Operation Staunch. Israeli
contracts are provided to us for financing, and we reviewed
UygU^IFIED
io.Tio n fio Af\
1218
UNCL^SffiED
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
them with the objective of seeing that they met Israeli
requirements and were not just being bought for sale to anybody,
including Iran.
We particularly looked at the fan blades, as you
said.
Q. To the best of your knowledge, was there ever any
conclusive proof that the Israelis were selling arms to Iran?
A. No, we didn't establish anything.
Q. Is it fair to say, though, that both at the State
Department and at the Pentagon the issue of arms sales to Iran
during this time period was one that concerned you as policy
makers?
A. Yes.
Q. And by mentioning Operation Staunch, is it your
testimony that there was an Administration policy that we would
put pressure on our allies not to sell arms to Iran?
fl. Oh, yes.
MR. SAXON: I think those are all of the questions I
have on the topic of Hawk's and TOW s to Iran. There are one
or two other miscellaneous things I want to address. So let me
see if Joe, Roger, or Bob have anything further. '
EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE HOUSE SELECT
COMMITTEE
BY MR. KREUZER:
gi Can we go back to the time of, say, approximately
1219
UNCIsl6l»flED
36
6 December '85, when you think possibly you may have met with
Mr. Armitage. Is it your recollection that a TOW point
paper similar to Dr. Gaffney's Hawk point paper was in
Mr. Armitage' s possession at that time?
Did you give it to him or was it given to him by
somebody else? Do you recall his having the point paper?
A. I think I gave it to him. And again, I say it
mentions TOW s because Hank said it mentions TOH's, and I will
accept that. I don't recall what it said about TOW s at all.
I do recall there was considerable discussion on the legal
aspects of the transfer that was in the paper.
Ql Now, in this discussion — is Mr. Armitage an
attorney by training?
A. Not to my knowledge.
Ql And are you an attorney?
A. No.
Q. But you were discussing the legal aspects as you knew
them between yourselves?
A. As best we could.
Q. From previous, maybe, experience?
A. That's right.
Ql And the objective of the TOW point paper or whatever
point paper this was — we'll say you don't specifically
remember it being TOW, but whatever point paper it was — was
there an indication that this was going to be used for
liAICtAAftlFBFn
1220
UNI^^STFIED
37
something in the near future by Armitage?
A. I didn't know.
0. He didn't say anything about that?
A. No.
Q. But it was a completed paper? It was in final form?
It was neatly typed or prepared, it was signed?
A. That's right — no, it wasn't signed. 1
Ql But it was a point paper, a standard point paper?
A. That's right. I recall in paragraphs that I recall
it at all.
Q. Was he talking about — did Mr. Armitage discuss
whether or not the paper was supposed to have a positive flavor,
a negative flavor? Did he make any comments on what kind of
terms it was to be couched in?
Did he suggest who wanted it, who had requested it?
A. No.
CL As far as the legal aspects of it, do you recall
generally, was the discussion about policy or statutes or all
of those things?
A. I recall it as being what would be the legal
ramifications of a direct sale to Iran of Hawks or TOW* s . Now,
I don't think that paper, that particular paper that we're now
discussing, mentioned Hawk at all.
Q. Just TOW'S?
A. Yes. But the discussion had to do with Hawk and TOW,
iailAliAit#irirt>
1221
UNCLffimED
as I recall.
Ql Do you recall that the paper discussed anything about
reporting sales that exceeded a certain dollar threshold?
A. I'm sure that section 36(b) was mentioned in it, yes.
Ql You saw Dr. Gaffney's point paper on Hawks?
A. I saw it, but I haven't read it for quite some time.
Ql Could you assess whether or not this paper resembled
that point paper on Hawks in format and approach?
MR. SILBER: Do you want to show him a copy of the
Gaffney paper to refresh his recollection?
MR. SAXON: Let's go off a second.
(Discussion off the record.)
THE WITNESS: I think Hank prepared both of them, so
I suspect the answer is yes.
MR. SABA: We're going back on the record now.
BY MR. SABA:
Q. Mr. Rudd, we have placed a document before you which
will become Exhibit 3. It is called "The Hawk point paper."
(The document referred to was
marked Rudd Exhibit No. 3 for
identification. )
Ql We ask you to review it and tell us if you are
familiar with it.
«NC[^IFIED
1222
uriiEER^iFiED
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
gi And how are you familiar with it?
A. I was aware of it, have been aware of it for some
months, and I am familiar with it in detail. I have again
recently read it,
Q. Do you recall if, on or about the 25th or 26th of
November 1985, upon returning to the office from a leave, if
Dr. Gaffney, who had been the acting director in your absence
and in General Cast's absence, briefed you about a request he
had received to provide information concerning Hawk missiles
to General Powell? i
A. I don't think that he said anything to me about
Colin Powell. I think he briefed me. I don't recall any name.
I know that Colin was involved, but I don't know that he said
that,
Ql Do you recall that the week of the 19th of November
you were in Hawaii at a conference?
A. Right.
Ql And this would have been upon your return from that
conference in Hawaii?
A. Yes.
CL And thinking back on the days after your 'return, you
recall that Mr. Gaffney briefed you on the matters discussed
in this point paper?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you give us your best recollection of that
UNOA&SIFIED
1223
UNGUnmiED
40
briefing? Did he provide you a copy of this paper?
A. No.
MR. SILBER: By "provide" you mean give him a copy?
THE WITNESS: I'm not even sure I read it at the
time.
BY MR. SABA: (Resuming)
Ql Did he tell you of the existence of a point paper?
A. Not that I can recall.
Ql Do you recall what he told you about the matter?
A, I am only barely sure that he briefed me at all. If
he said he did, he did. But I don't recall any discussion with
him on it.
Ql All right. Calling your attention then to the first
week of December 1985, can you tell me if there ceuae a time
when you received a request to participate in the drafting of
a paper concerning the provision of TOW missiles to Iran?
A. I'll accept either, that Armitage asked me to draft
a paper and I had Gaffney draft it or that somebody asked
Gaffney to draft a paper and he drafted it and I reviewed it
and gave it to Armitage. I think the last one was the case,
but I'm not sure.
0. Is it possible at that time that someone provided you
or gave you the document in front of jou marked Exhibit 3 as an
example of what was required?
A. I don't recall. It's possible.
IJIHajLueirirTk
1224
UNttAISIFIED
41
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
0- Do you recall any cut and paste effort where you
might have taken this point paper on Hawks and plugged in some
new figures and borrowed some language and done what we would
all think of as a cut and paste effort, sort of a hurried, under
the gun effort to get something finished?
Does that refresh you in any way or does that ring
true in any way?
A. That is not my recollection of it. That's not my
recollection of it.
My recollection of it is a different format, more
concentrated on the legalities, with a little information at
the top on TOW availability, nothing on the policy aspects
that's on the second page of this.
MR. SILBER: You think it was a one page paper?
THE WITNESS: I think it was two, but I'm not sure.
MR. SAXON: Let me ask that this be marked as
Exhibit 4 and give you a copy of this, Mr. Rudd, and give you
a moment to look at it. These are the handwritten notes in
his daily log of actions he is working and requirements, that
Dr. Gaffney maintains in the normal course of his business.
And I would ask you to flip over if you would and
look at the entry at page 55, 6 December '85, and you'll see
that in the upper left hand corner.
(The document referred to was
UNCLASSIflED
1225
uii«li§9fiw
42
marked Rudd Exhibit No. 4 for
identification. )
3Y MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
Q. I would ask you to look at the precise listing that
says I-TOW, TOW-II, TOW-II replacement price, weight, lead time,
and so forth, and ask you to read that.
A. Okay.
gi Then you will see the number of 3300, which Dr.
Gaffney tells us is a quantity of TOW missiles that he was
looking at and asked to work on, and a figure of $11,000, which
is the price he plugged in for I-TOW or TOW-II replacement.
A. It would be TOW-II replacement.
Q. And I simply ask you if any of these figures look
familiar and if you recall any discussions with Dr. Gaffney
about any of these figures?
A. Unh-uh.
ft That's a no?
A. That is a no.
ft Do you recall him giving you any information along
these lines that you might have then transmitted to Mr.
Armitage?
A. It's very possible that the paper that we have
established existed had these numbers in it, that's possible.
That's why I don't think I prepared the paper.
ft But your best recollection today is that these
UNCUL&StflFn
1226
UNCISlSaflED
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
n
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
particular entries have no real meaning'
A. No,
BY MR. SABA: (Resuming)
gi Just to review, and I apologize if the question has
been asked you, in testimony before the DAIG General Powell
indicated that in late 1985 he had been provided information
concerning price and availability of TOW's, and he indicated
that he had been provided several prices.
He named DSAA in particular. Were you the person to
whom he addressed any inquiries concerning TOW's or Hawks?
A. No.
Q. To your knowledge, did you provide any information,
either directly to General Powell or through another person,
concerning pricing for TOW's or Hawks in this period?
A. Well, I think I will — again, I believe that the
paper that was provided to Armitage had TOW information in it
and very well could have had, the price and availability of the
tow's in it, yes.
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
Ql And I believe you already testified that you did
provide the TOW pricing data to Mr. Koch?
A. Well, I certainly did that in what we've proved to
be January, I guess. But I never provided anything to Colin
Powell, not as I recall now.
BY t-lR. SABA: (Resuming)
liNfiUSSIFSED
1227
1
2
UNll«ro\F»tO
44
Qi Whether in November or December of '85 or January of
1986?
A. Never, never talked to Colin Powell.
Q. Mr. Rudd, can you tell us if in the normal course of
events someone at the NSC wanted to obtain pricing information
and availability of TOW s and Hawks, who would they call at
the Department of Defense?
A. Well, in the normal course of events, depending on
how high the level was that wanted it and who made the phone
call, they very well could call right to GSA and say, you know,
what's the price of a TOW.
Qi Would DSAA be the likely agency to whom an inquiry
would be directed?
A. Either directly from NSC or indirectly through the
chain, yes.
Qi The inquiry would not more likely go directly to the
Army?
A. No, not from NSC.
Qi Are inquiries from NSC received routinely concerning
pricing and whereabouts of weapons?
A. Oh, no, I wouldn't say so.
Qi In your experience at DSAA, how many inquiries coming
from NSC about price and availability of weapons do you recall?
A. None specifically. I imagine there may have been
phone calls staff officer to staff officer. Very infrequently.
JlNfiUSSlFBFn
1228
UN6EA66IFIED
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
^ 10
i 12
8^ ,3
o
z
£ '4
2
S 15
2
O
Q
< 17
18
19
20
2'
22
23
24
25
& So perhaps from your point of view, at this time
this was a very unusual event?
A. Oh, sure.
0. This was a very unusual course of business.
Have you ever had access to the paper which
Secretary Armitage eventually came to acquire on the TOW s in
December of '85?
A. Did I have access to it? Yes, I think I handed it
to him.
Qi Did you keep any copies? Do you have access now?
A. No. I have no idea where it is.
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
Ql Have you made any inquiry to Mr. Armitage about the
existence of the TOW paper?
A. No.
QL I've got a couple questions for you about security
assistance and what, for lack of a better term, let me call
quid pro quo arrangements with the recipients of security
assistance. And what I've got in mind is to leave the Iran
side of the Iran-contra affair for a moment and ask a question,
too, as we did when we interviewed you before, about the
contra side.
Are you aware of any effort in your capacity as the
deputy director of DSAA in recent years for the United States
Government to use security assistance as an inducement or a
iiyMnimririirn
1229
UNCmStflED
46
reward to the recipient country for that country's having
provided aid to the contras during the period when United
States Government funds were prohibited for such aid?
A. No.
Q. Are you aware of any effort by a recipient country
or a would-be recipient country of security assistance to try
to use that nation's aiding the contras as leverage to extract
from us security assistance?
A. Would you repeat that? My mind wandered. I think the
answer is no, but —
Ql I apologize, it was a big verbose.
Are you aware of any efforts by recipient nations of
our security assistance or those countries that would like to
receive it to use their aiding the contras during the time
when the United States couldn't due to the Boland amendment
as a lever to try to extract from us security assistance?
A. No.
Q. Would your answers of no on both counts encompass
the recent discussions about the provision of F-5's to
Honduras?
A. Would they encompass them? Oh, sure.
Qi To the best of your knowledge, there has been no
effort for the United States to link our providing aid either
as a reward for the Honduran government's helping the contras
or as an inducement for them to do so?
JiuejidAfiiiffin
u*>
1230
UNCtmSSIFIED
47
g 16
a
< 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
A. No,
Ci Are you aware of any effort, through FMS sales or
other forms of security assistance, by the United States to
get equipment, arms, to the contras by having a recipient
country inflate their request and then we would provide them
more than they need and some portion of that would go to the
contras?
A. No, other than what you mentioned as a possibility
back in May.
Ql And I believe you and Mr. Silber were going to check
into that, and what did you find in that inquiry? Let me say,
we've been provided that by Mr. Silber, but for the record we
could have a statement of what was found.
A. I think that what was found — and you can affirm
this, Jerry — is that we didn't even make a sale to
during that period.
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
Qi That's correct. We had asked you about allegations
that had been raised by a Mr. William T. Goldman, retired Army
warrant officer, who said that he recalled during the time
period that he was part of the military operation known by the
code name Yellow Fruit that he had seen a concept paper in
1982 or '83 which talked about inflating FMS sales to
and then some portion of what was provided would be
diverted to the contras.
UNCUSfilFIFn
1231
UNfflCftSSIFIED
48
We asked you to look into that, and you're saying for
the record that you found that we have not even sold anything
through FMS sales t°§HHIHi^
A. During that period of time.
MR. SILBER: That's not to say that there wasn't a
concept paper.-
BY MR. SAXON: (Resuming)
ft Let me ask you as my final line of questions, have
you spoken with any investigating authorities about these
matters other than your appearance here today and the time when
Mr. Kreuzer and I interviewed you some weeks ago?
K Yes. I was interviewed by a gentleman from the
Special Prosecutor's Office.
ft Judge Walsh's office, the independent counsel?
K Yes.
ft And when was that?
K I'm not very good at dates. What was it, about two
weeks ago, maybe three weeks ago. Yes, three weeks ago.
ft Have you spoken to anyone else regarding these
matters?
A. NO. I talked to Dr. Gaffney today.
ft Have you been —
K And I talked to Rich Armitage yesterday morning very
briefly.
ft Who initiated that discussion?
liNMdAftlEim
1232
UN6[«^IFIED
49
A. He did.
& And what was the nature of it?
A. He was trying to recollect the events of what turned
out to be December the 7th and what had been discussed.
g. And what did he say?
A. His point, which he and I agreed on and apparently
Gaffney did not agree on, was that both TOW s and Hawks had been
discussed, and that the avenue of sale that was discussed at
the time would be direct to Iran.
He did not mention this TOW paper at the time, and I
did not either, because until Gaffney talked to me today I had
totally forgotten it existed.
Ql To the best of your judgment, was there anything that
you would construe in Mr. Arnitage's approach that would
suggest he was trying to get you to shade or color your
testimony in any way?
A. Absolutely not.
0. Has there been anyone else within the Department of
Defense who you have discussed your testimony here today with?
A No.
Q. I believe that that's all that I've got. Joe?
MR. SABA: That's all I have now.
MR. GENZMAN: I have nothing, thank you.
MR. SAXON: Let me say for the record, fir. Rudd, that
we appreciate your being here today. You have done so
iiNifiififigkiEn
1233
UN(»g(8SIFlED
50
voluntarily. Your testimony has been very helpful to our
Committees, and we thank you very much.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(Whereupon, at 5:34 p.m., the taking of the instant
deposition ceased.)
Signature of the witness
SIGNED AND SWORN TO before me this
day of , 198 .
Notary Public
My Commission expires:
UNetM^FIED
1234
UHCUSSffltO
CERTIFICATE OP REPORTER
I, MLdial Arm Sehafer, the officsr before vtuan the foregoing
d*posltion was ta]c«a, do beraby certify that tha witness
whose testimony appears in the foregoing deposition was
duly sworn by Be* that the testimony of said witness was
taken by me to the best of my ability and thereafter reduced
to typewriting under my direction; that said deposition
is a true record of the testimony given by said witness, -
that I am neither counsel for, related to, nor employed
by any of the parties to the action in which this
deposition was taken, and further that I am not a relative
or employee of any attorney or counsel employed by the
parties thereto, nor financially or otherwise interested
in. the outcome of the action.
NOTARY PUBLIC ^
My Commission expires February 28, 1990
UNCLASSIFIED
1235
(Slexifvl X'uJcl
£r^\y\loU ^ ±
M^
1236
1 ^^f^
(5^
1237
)?uO» Sx *< 2.
\<^-^ DXL
OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
INTERNATIONAL SECUniTY AFFAIRS
FRICA REOION
Eaitlalli OecUisI :^/felr It «r^-^
tv.'
;•^^.
,i?ffe;>^-^'-i^r^t^?^- • ■.:;:^;-
1238
^■.A^.",
DEFENSE SECURITY ASSISTANCE AGEMC
T^e cd^O^cl^ciQl Hoiking poin^-s"
A<d7"n3^iracrW;T>5AA, on or
-|4^e reavc3^ O? Noel koc:.h
gco^ Oan. Collr^ PcNoellCrfW^
^'ab^ -b Gen. 6^o^<zH.
■mmm0>
9Mn
re:;- s a . e
i-iter.dei f:
coul.
added i
charse!
be replaced, so
idable difficulties/.
sales , includinc,
ec. 3 of the AECA.
es of S14 million
or indirect to a
nclassif ied (except
ot take place until
vs can be waived for
transfer has no such
given in any case.
dered through Israel
ken into o or J
tice .
a against splitting
, the spirit and the
and all .Administra-
consultation v
counterija:
Her
It is conceivable that, upon satisfactor
Chairmen Lugar and F^scell and their minority c
they might agree to splitting the sale into sma
packages .
Korea) would have to be tcli t
.ould not have to
The custorer countries f'JXE an
their deliveries had been rescheduled, but ^
tell ther v>hy . he would not want to charge t..e... r.o.e .o. i--
deliveries .
e^ aeiiveries . -^
Declas;i(iPd/R.':.s<!i on^^L^=:itil21__
under prv'siori :f E.0, 1235G
fy 8. R^s^r, N-icr.:; Jscuri^y Council
tliMfflW
1238
1239
n.mm
Hawk '-lissiles
Missiles are available right now, suitable for foreign sale.
There are 164 missiles at Red River Arsenal - "" intended for ■
UAE and 8" for Korea. Seven of these are intended for tests,
but the tests can be foregone.
The missiles at Red River Arsenal cost 33??, 000 apiece. This is
not necessarily a firm price, and replacements could cost as -auch
as S43","00 apiece.
Thus, the total bill for 120 missiles would be S36-52.3 million.
To this, applicable charges would have to be added (\RC cost,
administration charge, packing and transport charges, plus
storage ) .
The missiles for Korea and UAE would have to be replaced, so
DSAA will need the money to replace them.
The modalities for sale to Iran present formidable difficulties:
-- Iran is not currently certified for sales, including
indirectly as a third country, per Sec. 3 of the AEC.^.
-- Congress must be notified of all sales of $14 million
or more, whether it is a direct sale or indirect to a
third country. The notice must be unclassified (except
for some details), and the sale cannot take place until
30 days after the notice. The 30 days can be waived for
direct sales, but the third country transfer has no such
provision, and notice must still be given in any case.
-- Thus, even if the missiles were laundered through Israel,
Congress would have to be notified.
It is conceivable that the sale could be broken into 3 or 4
packages, in order to evade Congressional notice.
-- While there is no explicit injunction against splitting
up such a sale (subject to check...), the spirit and the
practice of the law is against that, and all Administrat lor
have observed this scrupulously.
-- It is conceivable that, upon satisfactory consultation witJ
Chairmen Lugar and Fascell and their minority counterparts
they might agree to splitting the sale into smaller
packages .
The customer countries (UAE and Korea) would have to be told that
their deliveries had been rescheduled, but we would not have to
tell ther. why. We would not want to charge ther nore for later
i
li^k:
202365
1240
moMm
■e political drawbacks are equallv f orr.idable :
If Iraq ever found out, they would be greatly irritated.
Their sources of supplv are nore readil>- accessible than
Iran's, however, so there would be no effect in that
respect .
Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States would also be
irritated and alarmed.
If Israel were used as the laundering country, they would
be greatly encouraged to continue selling to Iran, and to
expand their sales.
If the sale became known, all bars would be removed from
sales by such countries as Spain, Portugal, Greece, UK,
Italy, and FRG, countries who are only barely restrained
from overt, large sales to Iran now.
In short, the risk is that of prolonging and intensifying
the Iran- Iraq war, while seriously compromising US influence
over Israel and other countries to restrain sales to Iran.
m^m
202366
1241
.500
v/Co;s^?
^Mcvo 60 1 legally ^
S^^^ >40^ oH^ cojM^
yTQ.^»tf+^0'^>'
^ucU &<- ^4
t i^'*^ ^
.i-:..
:oclas:i(l?d/RJ3dsed o^lfat"*-")^ \^frt -
under prcvisiors of E.0. 12355 |
fy B. Rr.'-cf, !::'Jcr.-l S»curi^ CotTTCl?
1242
missm
ifi
!
» r
•V
BIXMIMT I
under prcvisiori cf E.0, 1235G
ty B. RcZEr. Ii:ticr.;l -"curi.y Cou.ici'
1243
DEPOSITION
EXHIBIT
under prrv'sions '• £.0. I235G
!l^s^-
'n
310^1
S»»^ 7
1244
:aNorti[5|
1245
UNCUSSIFIED
•31 ^- ^- -
-*r
declassified /Rtl3jsed on^jQiLlSSi-
undir provisions o{ E.0. 1235G
_ty B.J?c?ef. H:;ier:l Security Counci!
1246
fSb-JBCSSj
1247
RUDD, GLEN A. (See joint deposition with GAFFNEY, HENRY.)
dy
1248
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
illllll
3 9999 06313 227 6
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11