 Now, as they say in the ring, we've shaken hands, let's come out fighting. On the Iran-Contras issue, Congress did pass a law forbidding military aid to the Contras, but your administration, or at least members of your administration, appeared to have done their best to circumvent the law in one way or another. I wonder, isn't what's happened here at least a violation of the spirit of the law on aid to the Contras? No, I don't think so, because while we didn't do anything in the nature of trying to continue ourselves sending aid down there, which would have been against the law, the since 1985, the Boland Amendment has permitted the Secretary of State, the approach to other countries to solicit help for them. And there is nothing in that law that prevents citizens, individuals or groups from offering aid of whatever kind they wanted to them. I think that if I could, let me, if I try to set the record straight and maybe other answers won't take this long or not, I think there's been a great misperception that has been created, even resulting in the term of Iran-Contra affair. The two are two separate ideas, but one of the perceptions is that I have been concealing things and now these hearings are bringing more and more out and going to express how much I know about the Contra situation. Well, for several years I've gone public. I've made it very clear to everyone how I feel about the freedom fighters. Incidentally, I use that term instead of Contra because Contra was the appellation that was laid on the freedom fighters by the Sandinista government as a term of derogation. And I have gone public. I have gone to the public and tried to get them to influence Congress to join us in which they finally did in helping the freedom fighters down there. Our goal is democracy in that country brought about by the people themselves. Now this misperception, let me just separate these two things. I've told you exactly how much I've gone public and will continue to do so for several years with regard to our need to be of help to those who are seeking freedom and democracy in Nicaragua. The Iranian situation, there was nothing in that and are engaging in that conversation that had anything to do with Central America. We received word through a third country that there were representatives from the Iranian government and just at the body of the citizenry who wanted to establish covertly a contact with representatives from our country to discuss how we could have a better relationship. It was very evident that they were doing this without the Homeini government's knowledge because their lives would have been in danger if they were caught doing this. So there, the first misperception that has been created that somehow we were doing business with the Homeini, not in any way, but we have been exploring every avenue we could for some time as to whether we could be of help in bringing out an end to that tragic war with Iraq which has cost a million lives so far. So I immediately said yes, let us get into that conversation and find out what they're proposing and what they want. Well, one of the first things that then came up was their request for something that they said would enhance their prestige particularly with their own military if they could achieve it, but also to establish the credentials of our representatives that they really represented the top of government in America and they outlined that as a sale of weaponry, some tow missiles, and some spare parts for their Hawk anti-aircraft missiles. My reply when that was relayed to me was we have a hard and fast rule that we don't do business with governments that support terrorism. Well, they pointed out that they as individuals were not supportive of terrorism, they gave some examples of things they as individuals had done in that regard, and they made it plain, they were talking about a relationship with our country that could take place in what they saw as a very probable new government in their country due to the ill health of the Homanie. Well, they gave us that provision and our reply was, well, wait a minute, we could suggest something that would be very great proof of your anti-terrorist position and that is knowing that there's a philosophical relationship between the Hezbollah and Iran, they could start using their influence to see if they could get our hostages freed that are being held in Lebanon by the Hezbollah. Now here again this idea that we set out to engage in an exchange of arms for hostages is completely untrue. Hostages weren't even mentioned in this first relationship. They agreed that they would try to do this and so the conversations went on. Now when a leak in a weekly paper in Beirut turned all of America's press and the world press loose on what had been going on, which we'd held covered with the idea of protecting the lives of the people we were dealing with and suddenly it was out in the open, my first plea to the press here was, please don't, don't even ask the questions, you can get some people killed and it could even include our hostages. Subsequently the attorney general looking in to make sure what our position was and there hadn't been anything that concealed in them came into me one morning and said he had received word that there was a memorandum of some kind that indicated that there was more money than the twelve million dollars we had received for our shipment of arms and that some of that money had been deposited in a Swiss bank account that reports had had been used for funneling money by others to the freedom fighters in Nicaragua. He said that he was going to dig deep and see what he could learn. He came back to me later in the day and told me that yes this apparently had happened that there was more money than the twelve million, some of it in that account and we both agreed right then that before this gets exposed as it might that we expose it lest there be any charge that I was trying to conceal something. In the very next morning we took this up with the joint leadership of the House and Senate had them all in told them exactly what we had learned then went into the press room and told the White House press corps in there the same thing and the attorney general stayed for an additional hour answering their questions. Now that was all the information we had and the first time we had information that there was apparently more money received from the Iranians for our weapons than the cost of them and as I say we had received our twelve million the deal was closed as far as we were concerned. Now I've been waiting through all of these investigations that have been going on to find out where did that money come from, how did it get there, who was in charge of it, what did they do with it. Now I'm answering your question a long way simply because it's an opportunity to correct these misconceptions that have been foisted off on the people and continue to be foisted off. Do you mean that somehow you've had something to hide or that? That oh well every day the press in these last few days even and this with this joint committee the first thing that I hear on the TV news is that well it's becoming plain that I knew more and more about the contra aid than I had been I had told. Well as I've just explained here I don't have to know more about that I know all about that the only thing that I didn't know about and still don't have the full answer to is how did that figure with this honest effort that we made to make contact or to respond to the contact that was made with us by these Iranian representatives and where that money came from. Now this is why I'm going to the trouble to tell you all this no one's asked me about this they've just assumed and made charges and as I say we weren't doing business with the with the Homanie we weren't selling trading arms for hostages we had made this arrangement to sell those weapons with the idea that here were some people who might have an influence we don't have and could free our hostages that's a lot different than paying some kind of ransom in return for to the kidnappers for our hostages. With that response Mr. President I would assume that you still stand by the statement that you made that Oliver North is a national hero who was an agent in all of these transactions we're talking about and my question is if the judicial branch if the courts should find that North is guilty of criminal acts of one sort or another or any of his colleagues in this enterprise are so guilty would you pardon them as national heroes or would you expect them to suffer the consequences of your deeds? I think it is too early for anyone to answer an if question of that kind when I said to him and talking to him and calling when he left the service that I still saw him as a national hero well that was in response to the fact that he has medals for valor and for valorous deeds in the Vietnam War that established that fact. Now what may be developed you see the thing is that I was not kept informed as they went on in the negotiations with what now seems to be that it did just become then an effort that one side wanted more arms than the twelve million dollars worth that we'd sold them and that our people were trying to arrange deals just for the exchange of hostages. This I was not informed of. Because they are now testifying in these hearings that they felt sincerely in their hearts that they were obeying your instructions. Well I have heard some of and read reports of the testimony of Bud McFarland and I think he has done more to clarify the whole situation was taken place than has been done by all the hearings and investigations up till now and I have no quarrel with his honesty and what he has reported. I have a quarrel with the way again the interpretation that seems to be put on it by some in the media so that I think the people who watch the hearing will have a different impression than those people who don't watch the hearing but just get their reports through the evening news. One thing that Bud McFarland says was that during the most restrictive period of the Boland Amendment which was October 84 to late 85 that he felt you had a more liberal interpretation of what the NSC for instance couldn't do. What was your feeling about as you know it only the amendment only cited CIA and DOD and other agencies involved in intelligence activities. Yes. What was your understanding? My understanding was that then that was not restrictive on the National Security Advisor or the National Security Council going strictly by that then there was a subsequent amendment or change in the amendment that further opened it up the one that from back to 85 that said that the Secretary of State could go out and solicit help. So he was testifying accurately and it was a disagreement. I believe that the NSC is not an intelligence operation and it's simply an advisory to me and there is nothing ever been in the Boland Amendment that could keep me from asking other people to help them. The only restriction on me was that I couldn't approve a sending of help or arms myself out of our budget money. Mr. President, can I switch topics a little bit? Yeah. I didn't know the first one was going to take so long. Almost every one of your closest political advisors from your 1980 campaign is now in one sort of trouble with a law or another and specifically Michael Dever, Ed Meese, your Attorney General, Ray Donovan who's on trial as you know up in New York, Lynn Nofsiger, each of them has one problem or another. More than 50 officials in your administration over the past six years has been forced to leave government under the cloud of some one improbity or another whether an illegality or an ethical problem. How do you account for this, sir? Well I could start off by saying that I think there ought to be quite a review of some of the restrictions that have been put on the appointment of individuals to government. There have been a number of people also that were willing to volunteer and give up at great sacrifice, give up handsome incomes and so forth to serve in government that have come to us before the appointment was finished and said no, I'm sorry, I would like to have done it, willing to give up all of that, but I'm just not going to go through this hassle that is imposed on anyone that is willing to serve in government. So you feel the standards are too high. Well and then also the thing now the restrictions that have been put on individuals when they leave the government, I think that these could stand review. Those restrictions don't apply to former congressmen and senators, but only to people who served in appointed positions in government. And I would call to your attention, well first of all, with Ray Dunovan, this was a case of an indictment that was brought after he had been cleared through all of the process here with regard to the contract business that he had, the construction business. Frankly, I have found him to be a man of great integrity. I am very interested in what might be the outcome of this, but the minute an indictment was brought, he of course resigned. You can't have a cabinet member who is under indictment. Now in some of the others I'd like to point out, Ed Meese, he is the one that is asked for a private investigator. And he doesn't appoint that private investigator outside judges do, and he is asked for it in order to clear his name. The same is true of Mike Dever, even though he was out of government. He asked for the same thing. So I don't think that there's, here and there, there have been a couple of cases of someone that something that was overlooked in all of the FBI investigation and everything came up of something out of their past that they considered to warranted their leaving government service. But I'm going to tell you, I think that we have got as fine a cabinet as has ever been appointed by any president. Could you follow up on that then? You're saying that the standards themselves, in many cases, are unreasonable. And these people, there's no pattern of people doing anything intrinsically wrong. It's just that for one reason or another, the standards for government officials and when they leave office have become unfair or unreasonable. Well, on that I think that it is so easy for something inadvertent to happen. You know, you could almost interpret this that if a person was a doctor and left government service, they could file charges against him. Even less than a year, he treated a patient that was still a government official. That may sound ridiculous, but it seems to me that it's as bad as that. If I could broaden this question a little bit. In recent months, we've had a series of questions about public ethics. We've had the people in public life or related to public life. We've also had the insider trading, fewer on Wall Street. We've had Jim and Tammy Baker. We've had the Marines in the embassy. We've had the Gary Hart situation. Is there something that's going wrong with public ethics or public morality? No, but I do think that there has grown up a kind of a cynicism in the part of the people because of some of these things. But I'd like to also point out that things that has kind of been going on for a long time, not only out in the other world and the business world, but in government too. But isn't it maybe also an indication of our own purity that we have been the ones that have been finding some of these things? It was just as when they were attacking the Secretary of Defense for $600 toilet seats and so forth. It isn't that we were suddenly the ones that were doing these things. We were the ones that were finding out this is what had been going on for a long time. You mean specifically your administration, finding these things? And I'm kind of proud of that. You know, maybe I could just use a little anecdote. Everybody accuses me of this anyway. But I remember back when I was on the mashed potato circuit, when I was the president of the Screen Actors Guild. And you know in Hollywood, if you don't sing or dance, you wind up as an after-dinner speaker. So personal appearances of mine would be making speeches. And what would I talk about? I did my own speeches. Well, naturally, I went out and tried to correct what I thought were the misconceptions about Hollywood. Hollywood didn't have public relations, it had propaganda about it. And I had located such facts that the divorce rate among Hollywood people was lower than the national average. The only problem was we had a few multiple marriage people that were of such stature in show business that they got a lot of attention whenever a divorce happened. Other things of that kind, that the church membership and attendance was tremendously high among the people of the motion picture industry. Well, I would make this kind of a speech when I was out there. And then one day something happened, another actor got in trouble for something or other, and a senator introduced a bill. And the bill was going to give Congress the right to license motion picture actors and actresses. And you couldn't be one unless you had a federal license. And I added that to my speech. With this line, I told that what he was advocating. And I said, I find it passing strange because there are three United States senators in prison at the moment and no actors. Is that a warning that if we're having another moral crisis or there's talk of one today, that are you warning, in fact, not to try to legislate morality again? No, no. I am for morality, upholding the morality. In fact, I wish there was more of a thought in our schools. I think that this whole thing, the desperation to make sure that we separate church and state in our places of education has led to value-free education, which means that teachers don't teach what they're teaching with any idea of saying what is morally right or wrong. Well, I think that kids want adults to tell them what's morally right or wrong. So no, not that. But I was just pointing out that this I have seen before, evidence of this question that you just asked here, that suddenly, are we somehow a den of thieves here? Well, no, we're not. And I think we've got a very high moral limit. Mr. President, you gave a speech recently on another question of values, democratic values, saying you'd like to see elections tried in Nicaragua. Does that mean that you would commit to abide by the results of such an election if the current regime were to win a fairly supervised election and we would cease to support any resistance efforts against that government? Yes, we would have no quarrel then. But this is the thing that's wrong. This is a government that seized power by force. It was the only group in the revolution against Samosa that was an organization, the Sandinista organization, a communist organization. The other revolutionaries there, even those who were leaders and so forth, were just individuals that had joined in on this. And immediately that the revolution was over, taking advantage of the fact that they were organized, the Sandinistas took power. And they very quickly got rid of the other revolutionary leaders, either by execution or by exile, or just drove them out of any position that they might have. And so, yes, from the very beginning, our goal has been democracy in Nicaragua brought about by the people. And I have to tell you that the freedom fighters, at one point when we were trying, and with the help of the church, trying to bring about this kind of a democratic solution, they agreed to lay down their weapons and to join in this kind of a movement. It was the Sandinista government that refused to join in what had been proposed. They are not about to risk the power they've seized by submitting it to a vote of the people. And I've never known any other government administration in any other country that ever would either. But if we can bring about this thing, the where and with, just what you mentioned, with enough international supervision to ensure that the people are fairly treated, just as was done in El Salvador. And could I call to your attention that in the El Salvador situation, the opposition to our wanting to help the bringing about of democracy there was attacked as we're attacked today. And that time the people were attacking us were in support of the guerrillas that are still fighting that democratic government after three elections have been held. And our communists supported and backed and backed by the President Nicaraguan government. So this is what we want, democracy. I want to clarify one thing that you said, Mr. President, you said that you didn't believe the Boland amendment applied to members of the NSC. So are you saying in other words that there was nothing to forbid, say Oliver North or anyone else, from working with or knowing about what Dick Seacourd was doing as long as the NSC itself wasn't directly involved? Was there nothing wrong with him helping Richard Seacourd and his group either raise money or arrange for arms to be delivered? Oh, I don't know how to answer that without legal counsel here as to what we can do. If we're talking about giving guidance to someone who wants to contribute and support the freedom fighters and telling them what's the phone number or the address and how to do it, I don't think there's anything wrong with that. To my knowledge... That is what the hearing and the independent cast are sorting out today. Yes, that's what they're sorting out. And to my knowledge, nothing has been established yet as being illegal. Bringing people to the White House and having administration officials appear before them and give them pep talks, that's fine. The people who came to the White House were brought in here for me to thank because those people brought with them some television spot ads to show me that they had raised money to buy television ads to influence the Congress and to be supportive of our position. Well, that was a little unusual. But we have other groups that do that that go out of their way to try and... Things like tax reform and everything else to try to influence the Congress. They're getting plenty of lobbying of the other kind. And so, yes, there were two meetings with groups and that's what they were here for. And I thank them. Thank you, all. Thank you. Thank you. Stand up and if you have 15 or 20 more questions, we didn't have to. Well, we certainly do. Maybe 30. Well, thank you very much. Well, thank you very much. Thanks a lot. Appreciate it. I haven't been able to stay in my soul so for several months. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. You bet. You're going to have a press conference now? You're going to have a press conference now? That's what they're going to ask us when we get out of the press conference. We're going to have our own stake out outside. In a while. While this hearing is going on, I don't think so. I think it just kind of adds to the whole circus atmosphere. Oh, really? All the way through to the hearings. Well, I've made a final decision as to how long, but I don't think right now, the way things are, there could be any good done. They'll be sorry to hear that. Thank you. That's it.