The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. LEHRER: Good evening. Leading the news this Thursday, a jury found Oliver North guilty on three of twelve counts. His attorney said the verdict will be appealed. And Space Shuttle Atlantis was successfully launched at Cape Canaveral. We'll have the details in our News Summary. Charlayne Hunter-Gault is in NewYork tonight. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: We'll devote the entire Newshour tonight to the North verdict. We'll start with the detail and drama of the verdict with National Public Radio's Nina Totenberg, then reaction from Sen. Orrin Hatch and Congressman Tom Foley, Henry Hyde and Louis Stokes, all members of the Iran-Contra Committee. Next, Oliver North's friend, Any Messing, and John Nields, Counsel to the Iran- Contra Committee, and finally Columnist Anthony Lewis of the New York Times and Fred Barnes of the New Republic. NEWS OF THE DAY - NORTH VERDICT

MR. LEHRER: The Oliver North verdict is our program tonight. We will have a brief summary of the rest of the news at the end of the program. There were 12 counts at issue against North. The jury of nine women and three men found the former Reagan White House aide guilty on three, innocent on the other nine. The guilties came on charges of obstructing Congress, destroying government documents and accepting an illegal gratuity in the form of a security system at his home. North and his wife, Betsy, were smiling as they left the courthouse this afternoon. Later, he and his lawyer, Brendan Sullivan, talked to reporters at Sullivan's Washington Office.

BRENDAN SULLIVAN, North's Lawyer: Col. North has been subjected to the largest, most costly criminal investigation in the history of our country. A 16 count indictment was returned by a massive team of volunteer prosecutors. Four of the sixteen counts were dismissed prior to trial. Today nine of the remaining twelve counts were rejected by the jury, who returned "not guilty" verdicts. As to the three remaining counts, the jury's verdict was a disappointment. But the greatest disappointment is that Col. North and his family will have to continue in what is now a two and a half year old battle. There will be post trial motions filed. There will be an appeal filed. There are many extraordinary and unprecedented legal issues to address. We expect to prevail on the remaining three counts, and you can be assured that we will never abandon Col. North and his family in this legal battle.

LT. COL. OLIVER NORTH: I have just a very brief statement. That is that today's verdict by the jury here in Washington is a partial vindication for what has been for my family and me a very long and difficult process. Throughout this, my family and I have been sustained by the support and the love and the kindness and the prayers of the American people. Without them and their love and the grace of God, there is no way we could have endured the length of this ordeal. It was certainly our hope that this battle would be behind us by now but today's was not a complete victory. After more than two and a half years and over $40 million of our taxpayers' money spent on investigations, Congressional inquisitions, and now a special prosecutor who has likened me to Adolf Hitler, we now face many months and perhaps years of fighting the remaining charges. Nonetheless, we are absolutely confident of the final outcome. As a Marine, I was taught to fight and fight hard for as long as it takes to prevail. We will continue this battle and with the support and prayers of the American people, we will be fully vindicated. Thank you.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In a statement issued this afternoon, Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh said the 12-week trial had been well conducted and hard fought. He said the trial discharged the rule of law. John Keker, the attorney who led the special prosecutor's trial team, said he was satisfied with the outcome.

JOHN KEKER, Special Prosecutor: Some said our system of justice could not deal fairly, if at all, with this case. Some even said that it couldn't be tried. Col. North has been convicted of three very serious felony charges, obstruction of Congress, altering and destroying official documents, and accepting an illegal gratuity. The jury has spoken after a long and difficult trial and the principle that no man is above the law has been vindicated.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: The jury deliberated for 12 days before reaching its verdict. Lt. Col. North faces a possible ten year jail term if the three guilty counts are upheld on appeal. FOCUS - MOMENT OF TRUTH

MR. LEHRER: Now to Nina Totenberg of National Public Radio. Nina has been providing regular coverage of the trial to us, as well as NPR. She is back tonight to report on the verdict. First, Nina, what was it like in the courtroom when the verdict was actually delivered?

NINA TOTENBERG, National Public Radio: Well, the jury came in, they looked very tired, they did not look at Oliver North at all. Some of them looked, as jurors often do, quite upset from a 12-day deliberation period. They sat in their chairs. The judge, Judge Gesell, asked the foreman, Denise Andersen, if she had her verdict sheet. The verdict sheet was then handed up to the judge and as is Judge Gesell's practice, he read the verdicts on each of the 12 counts. And for the first minute or so, the verdicts were all not guilty. Interestingly, they were all not guilty in the area of Oliver North doing what he did to hide what his activities were in support of the Contras. It was when we reached the period of November 1986 when what had been a completely covert operation, covert even from the Congress, became public, and the whole Iran- Contra scandal, as it has been called, began to unravel in public, those activities were the activities that led to the guilty verdicts in part at least.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Let's go through those, the three. Obstructing Congress, what specifically did the jury find that he had done that was illegal?

MS. TOTENBERG: They found that he had aided and abetted in the preparation of false chronologies and the alteration of documents. And in that verdict, they found him not guilty as a principal. They found him guilty of aiding and abetting and I suspect that the jury felt that they were finding him guilty of a lesser offense, although the penalty was the same.

MR. LEHRER: There was no fact issue there, at issue, was there? I mean, he admitted that he had done this, is that correct?

MS. TOTENBERG: He admitted that he had done that, although he claimed that he really had not prepared a deliberately false chronology, that he was acting, in essence, at the lead of other people. The jury may have bought that, but they still found that it was something that was illegal.

MR. LEHRER: Now, the destruction of documents, similar kind of thing, correct?

MS. TOTENBERG: That was an obstruction of Congress charge, destruction of documents, and again, this was in November of 1986, when Oliver North removed from the National Security Council and destroyed large numbers of documents. And that he was found guilty of.

MR. LEHRER: He admitted he did it, but his defense in that was what?

MS. TOTENBERG: His defense actually was that this was just a normal kind of destruction of documents, that he was simply cleaning up his office, he was preparing to leave, and in part, he was cleaning up the operation as he had been instructed to do by Mr. Casey, the head of the CIA. But he said that he felt that there was nothing wrongin what he was doing, that these were his documents that he was destroying. Now some of them were National Security Council documents. They were not his documents.

MR. LEHRER: And the jury obviously agreed with the prosecution on that. All right now the third charge on which he was found guilty was accepting an illegal gratuity related to his security system at his home.

MS. TOTENBERG: That's the security system that was paid for by arms dealer Richard Secord. That is the security system that Oliver North asked for false bills to be prepared to hide the fact that it had been paid for by someone else, and then he prepared in turn false letters that would falsely lead the reader to conclude that he was planning to pay for this system when, in fact, he was not going to do anything of the kind, and he admitted that under oath and said it was one of the stupidest things that he had ever done in his life. And the jury convicted him of it. It's interesting that the jury convicted him of one of each category of charges in a way, convicted him of obstruction of Congress, it convicted him of destroying documents, and it convicted of him of one venality charge, one petty crookery charge, for want of a better expression. But it seemed to be saying at the same time, we're not going to throw the book at him. This was the low man on the totem pole. So we agree he did something wrong but we're not going to buy all of it, we're not going to pile on.

MR. LEHRER: Is there a courthouse quick theory on why they did this, just because they didn't pile on, that's the courthouse theory?

MS. TOTENBERG: That's the courthouse theory, that they liked him enough not to want to pile on. There's another way to look at it as well, and that is that the jury didn't want to convict him of the things that at least arguably he was doing at the behest of his superiors when those were secret operations. But once the whole Iran-Contra affair had blown sky high, it isn't a very good argument to say I was protecting the secret inner sanctums of government when the secrets were on the front page and the Attorney General and the President were holding press conferences every day.

MR. LEHRER: All right. The process from here on, Brendan Sullivan has said first of all they're going to file some motions and then they're going to appeal it. He said it's going to take years, is that correct? Could it take years?

MS. TOTENBERG: It could take years, especially if it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. It will be interesting to see what kind of a sentence is meted out. The maximum possible sentence is 10 years in prison and a $750,000 fine.

MR. LEHRER: Now let's explain that. The ten is five on the obstruction of Congress, three on destroying documents, and two on the gratuity, right?

MS. TOTENBERG: On the gratuity. So altogether, it could be 10, but if you put these penalties together in the form in which they are usually imposed in this jurisdiction, the maximum normally possible would be about five years, and I think it would be very unlikely that even if Oliver North were to be sentenced to jail time that it would be much jail time. And then he would have to decide whether he wanted to spend much more than $750,000 appealing convictions for many years to come.

MR. LEHRER: Now the judge is the one that renders, unlike in some state courts, the judge who will pronounce sentence. And he will first have to rule on some motions, right, and then the sentencing process. How long is that likely to take?

MS. TOTENBERG: Well, the sentencing is set for June 23rd. Therewill be motions after that. I really can't tell how long that will take, but Judge Gesell is known for his efficiency so it shouldn't take all that long. He should dispose of those pretty quickly, and this should move on to the appeals process I would think by fall.

MR. LEHRER: Is it a correct reading of the two sides in this trial, just based on looking at the type we did, not elation, but satisfaction on the part of the prosecution, much disappointment on the part of the defense?

MS. TOTENBERG: I think there is considerable satisfaction on the part of the prosecution. I think obviously they would have liked to have won more charges. It must be a disappointment to them that they did not win one conviction on a lying charge, lying to Congress charge. That must be a disappointment.

MR. LEHRER: There were four of those, weren't there?

MS. TOTENBERG: There were five altogether really, if you include one of the obstruction charges which was based on lies. And that must be something of a disappointment to them, but I know that they were very skittish about this and they were not at all sure that they were going to win convictions on any of this. After all, they had a prosecution that they wanted to bring with witnesses, all of whom wanted to testify for Oliver North. They made their points, oddly enough, in the defense part of the case. So they were nervous and they were I think very satisfied that they won the conviction. I think it'll be interesting to see now we have a number of other prosecutions coming up, John Poindexter, the former National Security Adviser, and the two arms dealers, Richard Secord and Albert Hakim, and the CIA man, Joseph Fernandez, they've all been indicted and are awaiting trial. Poindexter is slated for the fall. It'd be interesting to see if we have any plea bargains now that there has been a conviction for the low man on the totem pole, the most popular, the best witness.

MR. LEHRER: For himself.

MS. TOTENBERG: For himself. Anybody who watched the Iran-Contra hearings knows that John Poindexter is no witness like Oliver North.

MR. LEHRER: Yeah. Back to Oliver North finally, how did you read his reaction to this?

MS. TOTENBERG: It was, I must say, I have never been in a courtroom with less reaction. He was like a pillar of stone. There was no reaction, not a batted eyelid. His wife, when the guilty verdicts were read, leaned slightly to the side to the minister who was sitting with her. Other than that, there was not even just a flicker of emotion, nothing that we in the press could make anything of, nothing. He was absolutely. . .not even his bible. . .during the trial he had the bible on the desk with him. He didn't even have that today. There was no. . .anything special I can tell you about. The people who looked like the had been wrung through the ringer were the jurors.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Nina, thank you for today and for all your work during the trial. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Now to some reaction to the verdict we start on Capitol Hill with some of the members of Congress's Iran-Contra investigating committee. First, to Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah. Senator Hatch, was this a just verdict?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, [R] Utah: [Capitol Hill] Well, it was the least offensive verdict the jury could have rendered given Oliver North's forthright admissions that he made in open court. However, I don't think the prosecutors have anything to be glorious about. Out of the sixteen original counts, thirteen of them have been knocked out, and the three remaining, one of them certainly a trivial one, technical or a trivial one, one is a technical one. . .the destruction of NSC documents. It's a very technical provision in the code and the serious one, of course, was the one of the false chronology which seems to be a little bit inconsistent with the rest of the verdict.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But the least offensive does that mean just?

SEN. HATCH: Well, I don't think it was just to bring the case to begin with and I don't think that these other three convictions will stand up.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, we'll come back in a moment on some more of that. Congressman Louis Stokes is also with us, Democrat of Ohio. Congressman, was justice served in your view?

REP. LOUIS STOKES, [D] Ohio: [Capitol Hill] Well, I think once again that this case proves that the American system of juris prudis does work. I think it once again states the principle of our Constitution that no man is above the law no matter how high he reaches into the power of this nation. And I thought from that viewpoint that it was just.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. We'll be back in a moment with you. Congressman Henry Hyde, Republican of Illinois. Congressman, what's your verdict on the verdict?

REP. HENRY HYDE, [R] Illinois: [Capitol Hill] Well, I'm saddened, I'm disappointed, I'm not surprised. I think the odds against Ollie were pretty heavy. You have 26 Wall Street lawyers, a budget of over $13 million, FBI, IRS, I think the playing field was tilted against Ollie. I'm not comfortable with the jury. I don't think it was a jury of his peers in the sense that somehow they found 12 people in the District of Columbia that never heard of Iran-Contra. The media were saturated with it for well over a year and it kind of boggles the mind that 12 people never heard of it and they were sitting in judgment.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, we'll get back to that issue in a moment, but bottom line, your view on it is it was not a just verdict.

REP. HYDE: I'm not happy with it. I don't think justice in the macro sense was done. It may have been done...certainly he was guilty of accepting the gratuity to protect his wife and his family from threats, but that's not the sort of thing I'm proud that our government prosecuted him on.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. And Congressman Tom Foley is also with us, Democrat of Washington. Congressman Foley, was this a just verdict in your view?

REP. THOMAS FOLEY, [D] Washington: [Capitol Hill] Well, I've tried cases before juries and I've watched as a citizen how juries perform their duty and I think this jury has to be given great credit for obviously a very very difficult case on which to deliberate. They took 12 days, they considered it with extraordinary care, and I think it's very difficult to say that the jury's to be respected for returning verdicts of innocence and not guilty verdicts, and I accept that judgment, of course. And then, on the other hand, to say that they were not also pursuing conscientious judgment when they found the guilty verdicts. I don't have nor do I think anyone should have a particular animus toward any defendant. But the process is one in which we ask citizens to render judgment. This jury did its duty I think with great care and great consciousness and deliberation. The case is not over. There are going to be motions. Eventually the judge himself will have to decide if it comes to a question of sentencing how to take in all the matters before him in that judgment. There may be appeals that go on and we haven't reached the ultimate point. But I think at this moment we have to say that an American jury performed its duty with great care, deliberation and honesty.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: All right. Well, Congressman Foley and the other members of Congress, we'll be back in just a few minutes. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Yes. To those views, we will be adding the perspective of four others. John Nields, who was the Majority House Counsel during the Iran-Contra Committee investigation. What did you think of this verdict, Mr. Nields?

JOHN NIELDS, Iran-Contra Committee Counsel: Well, when I first heard about it, my reaction was that we had some kind of a compromise. But the more I've thought about it since I learned about it, the more I think that we're underestimating the jury. I think they held the prosecution to a very high standard and I think they convicted only on the counts involving the most egregious conduct and the most indefensible from North's point of view.

MR. LEHRER: Andy Messing, a friend of Oliver North's and the Executive Director of the National Defense Council Foundation, a Washington non-profit organization. Was it a fair verdict, Mr. Messing, for your friend?

ANDY MESSING, National Defense Council Foundation: Well, you have to look at it in perspective. A hundred million dollars was spent trying to do something to Oliver North, twenty-three million by Mr. Nields and Congress and the other sixty-five million by Keker and Walsh and collateral agencies like DOD, CIA, NSA, DEA, all collaborating with Mr. Walsh and company with over 300 people at his immediate disposal to make a case against North. So you have to put that in perspective. When you look at this, no matter what the jury verdict is you can't take away the fact that North was still an American hero. He still wound up shutting down death squads in El Salvador. He still wound up being a primary architect in the liberation of Grenada, he still wound up putting a bomb on Moammar Gadhafi, which reduced terrorism, he still got the. . .

MR. LEHRER: We'll get to that in a minute. What do you think of the verdict?

MR. MESSING: Well, the verdict remains to be seen...

MR. LEHRER: I'm talking about what this jury of 12 citizens did. Do you think it was fair? Do you think. . .

MR. MESSING: Well, like Congressman Hyde said, you know, on specifically that one issue of taking the gratuity, it's kind of hard to put yourself in his shoes when you've got Abu Nidal, the most tough terrorist in the world, going after him and his family.

MR. LEHRER: In other words, you don't think it was a fair verdict?

MR. MESSING: Well, I'm saying that things should be taken in context and now's the time for mercy. And let's get on with ruling the nation and not, you know, winding up, making another ideological contest out of this like it's been.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Fred Barnes, columnist for the New Republic Magazine. Did the jury do the right thing, Fred?

FRED BARNES, New Republic: Well, it's really hard to explain exactly what they did. I think it's contradictory in some ways, but the one thing that struck me about it is this. All Oliver North's conduct in dealing with Congress and so on when he was trying to protect the Contras in Nicaragua, the people he was supporting, that the U.S. Government was supporting, perhaps not with direct aid, he was vindicated on all those, all those charges were thrown out, and it's only things that came later that were either peripheral to the heart of the case, such as defense, accepting the gratuity, or else in things he did after the cover was blown and they were trying to hide what they'd done.

MR. LEHRER: Nina's point, the point that Nina Totenberg made, that it was after everybody in the world knew about it and he was still conducting himself in a way that. . .

MR. BARNES: Yeah, but I think these were not the most serious charges of all. Mr. Nields called them the most egregious charges. I don't know about that, but they're certainly not the most serious ones. In the heart of the case, he was vindicated.

MR. LEHRER: Finally, Anthony Lewis, columnist for the New York Times, who's with us from Boston, what's your view of this verdict?

ANTHONY LEWIS, New York Times: [Boston] Jim, when I hear people say that Col. North was vindicated, I'm rather amazed. It's a strange form of vindication to be found guilty on three felony counts. I think the jury sent a message. It's rather the same as the Watergate jury sent. It's a message to the executive branch that it cannot ignore Congress, that it is not, it does not hold full power, unitary power in the government, and that the end does not justify the means. It seems to me a very important message and a very clear one.

MR. LEHRER: And the fact that he was found innocent on the other nine charges, what message did they send there?

MR. LEWIS: I agree with Nina that there one can't be sure whether the jury was demanding a high standard of proof. I really don't know and I don't think anyone can know exactly why a jury voted yes or no on particular counts. I just think what will be left in the minds of Mr. Poindexter and future members of the executive branch is that it is dangerous to lie, dangerous to twist, to put it more accurately, in dealing with Congress, and dangerous to assume that you have the right in the executive branch to ignore Congress and treat it as somehow inferior. And that's important because the power of the executive is very great in this country.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Gentlemen, thank you. We'll be back in a moment. Charlayne.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Back now to our Congressional guests, Sen. Orrin Hatch, Congressman Tom Foley, Louis Stokes and Henry Hyde. Just to carry that forward, Congressman Hyde, did you think there was a message being sent here, the same message that Tony Lewis heard?

REP. HENRY HYDE, [R] Illinois: [Capitol Hill] I don't disagree that much with Mr. Lewis and I want to say that I do not deprecate the jury. I question whether it was a jury of his peers, but they had a very tough job to do and I thought the result indicates they did it seriously.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: When you say you question whether it was a jury of his peers. What was it a jury of if not his peers?

REP. HYDE: Well, I think a jury of one's peers would be people who are conversant with some of the major events of the day. I don't mean that they had reached any conclusions on the Iran- Contra, but I question people who had never even heard of it, whether they are an average person from the community.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman Foley, what do you think about that?

REP. THOMAS FOLEY, [D] Washington: [Capitol Hill] I think it's, this jury is again demonstrating what so many juries do, they try enormously hard to reach a fair and impartial verdict. And I think the indication that the jury appeared tired is something expected. This is a difficult responsibility we ask citizens to undertake. I think all the evidence is that this was a jury of great conscientious and sincere deliberation. Presuming that Col. North was innocent as they had to do and should have done, they did not find that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt his guilt on nine counts. They did find thatthat standard had been met on three others and I think it is a jury of his peers, yes.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about Congressman Hyde's point, that they said that they hadn't heard of it, didn't know anything about it?

REP. FOLEY: We try to find juries that haven't made preconceived judgments. That's the reason to try to find people who haven't already decided on the guilt or innocence before hearing the evidence. And this jury was impaneled on that grounds. Both sides have an opportunity to challenge jurors on the basis of their competence and ability. And this jury was selected in a process in which the defense participated, and I just think it's. . .I don't say that Henry is trying to do it, but I think we have to honor this jury for obviously a very tough responsibility.

REP. HYDE: Charlayne, can I say something?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Yes, sir.

REP. HYDE: I don't mean to deprecate the jury. I only fasten on one point that I think this was an unusual group of people that were utterly unconversant with a major story of about a year that saturated this town, but let me say this. Had Adm. Poindexter been able to testify, and he couldn't because he's facing his own trial, had Bill Casey been alive and been able to testify and even had President Reagan testified, I think North might have had a better shot at being acquitted at least on two of the three charges, and this wasn't available to North.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Sen. Hatch, let me come to you on this point about the jury and the outcome. What's your view on that?

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, [R] Utah: [Capitol Hill] Well, I'm not going to comment on the jury except to say that I believe that one of the questions that will be raised on appeal will be whether the jury selection process was an appropriate process and the rules laid down by Judge Gesell were appropriate rules. I personally do not believe that they were. I think that the important thing here is is that those who think this is such a victory, like the prosecutor in this case, ought to look at the thirteen counts, the guts of the whole thing that had been thrown out, which many of us have said would be. And how Tony Lewis can say that this proves you shouldn't lie to Congress when those counts have been thrown out of court except for the false chronology, which seems to be inconsistent with the rest, is beyond me.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you don't see the message being sent that he sees being sent?

SEN. HATCH: I think there's a message being sent but it's a different one. I really believe that what happened here is is that the jury basically did not want to find Oliver North guilty, but if you read the instructions of the judge, if you know Judge Gesell, he looks like Moses coming down from Mt. Sinai, and the jury instructions were basically prosecutorial instructions. And I think they felt they had to find something here and so they chose the three least offensive charges and they found him guilty on those three. And like I say one of them is a technical charge that many people if you wanted to pursue it could be found guilty of. And the other one is kind of a frivolous charge. . .none of them never should have been brought to begin with, but this one certainly shouldn't have. . .the security fence, especially under those circumstances. And the one that is serious, I have to say, their decision seems somewhat inconsistent with the dismissal of all the other charges that were along the same line.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman Stokes, what message do you hear?

REP. LOUIS STOKES, [D] Ohio: [Capitol Hill] Well, I don't see juries trying to send messages. The jury was given specific instructions that they had to presume Oliver North innocent until they could remove that presumption of innocence by finding that he had committed these crimes beyond a reasonable doubt. It is beyond conceivability to me that this jury tried to do anything other than what they were assigned to do in the course of this trial. They spent 12 days away from their families, away from their jobs trying to do the job they were instructed to do. They threw out nine counts, determining obviously that there was not enough evidence to sustain those counts by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and so I think we look at the three counts where they did find him guilty. They found that he was an aider and abetter, even though he was not the principal in terms of the falsification of testimony being given to the Congress. They found that he had accepted an illegal gratuity, and they found that he had performed destruction of government property. So I think that's what you really look at.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, how do you look at the nine on which he was found innocent?

REP. STOKES: That there was not sufficient proof to sustain those charges.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Let me ask you this then. The maximum sentence, as we heard from Nina earlier, is 10 years and a fine of $750,000. What sentence do you think he should get?

REP. STOKES: Well, firstly, I don't have that prerogative to determine what his sentence should be. That lies exclusively within the jurisdiction of Judge Gesell. But I do think this, that. . .

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Do you think he should go to jail?

REP. STOKES: I think this, that Ollie North, in determining whether or not he goes to jail, the same standard should be applied to him that is applied to any other persons found guilty of three federal, violation of three federal statutes. I don't think there ought to be any special treatment given of Ollie North.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Then you would disagree with some members of Congress, all Republicans by the way, who were saying the President should pardon him.

REP. STOKES: Oh, absolutely. I don't think that these offenses are pardonable. And the fact that Pres. Reagan did not pardon him before he left office is indicative of the fact that he too agreed that he should not be pardoned.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman Hyde, let me just ask your view on that. What do you think should happen in terms of the maximum sentence allowable and the issue of a pardon?

REP. HYDE: Well, if I were the judge, and I'm sure not, I'd assess a $5,000 fine and I would not impose a jail sentence. If I did, it would be for a short term and I'd suspend it. I don't think Oliver North, winner of the silver star, two bronze stars, two purple hearts, who served his President as he thought he wanted to be served. heroically in my judgment, ought to go to jail.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What about the issue of a pardon?

REP. HYDE: Well, I think Ronald Reagan should have pardoned him. I'm not sure George Bush owes him a pardon because I'm not sure this, George Bush has that much connection with this. I would certainly be delighted is Pres. Bush would do so, but I would have preferred Ronald Reagan to have done it because it happened on Ronald Reagan's watch.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: How do you arrive at the $5,000 figure?

REP. HYDE: It's nominal. I think it acknowledges that he did accept a gratuity when he shouldn't have, he's acknowledged that, and so I agree no man is above the law, and that includes Oliver North. but nothing more serious than that.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Congressman Foley, your view on it.

REP. FOLEY: I'm not going to try to be the judge or the jury here. I respect the jury's decision and I respect the competence and ability of Judge Gesell if it comes to a sentencing, to. . .

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: What do you mean. . .

REP. FOLEY: Well, I mean, there are motions that could be made, obviously probably motions for a new trial, judgment notwithstanding the verdict and so on. So I don't want to presume the outcome of those. But if the judge is called on to sentence, he's one of the most respected federal judges. I have no desire personally to see Col. North go to jail. But that's not the question. The question is for the judge and ultimately the power of the President's pardoning power remains. The President can commute sentences, he can pardon. I think Pres. Bush and Pres. Reagan were both correct in allowing the judicial process to go forward and not pre-empt it.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But you heard Congressman Stokes say a few moments ago that he didn't feel that he should be treated any differently from any other citizen who had been convicted of a crime.

REP. FOLEY: I think that's right. And every other citizen comes before a judge. In this situation, the judge is entitled to take all the factors and circumstances into account before making any sentence.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: But on the matter of the pardon.

REP. FOLEY: On the matter of the pardon, I do not think it would have been right for Pres. Reagan or Pres. Bush to pardon Oliver North before trial.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And now.

REP. FOLEY: I think that they should let the process continue. I expect that they will.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Right. Sen. Hatch, your views on the sentencing and whether or not Col. North should go to jail.

SEN. ORRIN HATCH, [R] Utah: [Capitol Hill] Well, of course, with regard to these sixteen counts, thirteen have been dismissed. Once the diversion of funds count was dismissed, the remaining twelve counts, they would never, I have yet to meet a prosecutor at the Justice Department who would have brought any of those twelve counts under their current guidelines. So what I'm saying is I regret that Oliver North has been convicted on three of these counts even as I've described them. But I believe a fair-minded appellate court will throw them out. But I say to Pres. Bush, and I agree with Henry Hyde, Pres. Reagan should have bitten this bullet and he should have pardoned North and spared this country of the now approximately $60 million in taxpayer funds that have been used through this whole process to do this. That's about $20 million a count when you think about it, 15 million of which was spent by, or 5 million a count by the Special Counsel. And I think that Ronald Reagan should have bitten that bullet, but I hope that George Bush will himself now put this behind us. I think most American people, most people in this country would be overjoyed to have this mess put behind us. It's been filled with pettiness, been filled with a lot of vindictiveness and frankly, I agree with Henry Hyde, Oliver North served this country well, he was trying to do his job the best he saw it, he was trying to fulfill his mandate from Pres. Reagan and frankly he made some mistakes and my gosh, we all realize it, now why persecute any of these people any more?

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: So you think that the President should pardon him now?

SEN. HATCH: Well, now that the diversion of funds count is gone, I couldn't blame Pres. Reagan or Vice Pres. Bush or certainly now Pres. Bush, I couldn't blame themfor not pardoning as long as that count existed because they would be existed of trying to cover up.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Right.

SEN. HATCH: Right now, I think with that count gone, and clearly the major counts with a verdict of acquittal and really just one very technical I think frivolous count and the other one, though serious, nevertheless, inconsistent, I think it would be very very good for George Bush to pardon Oliver North and put this behind us. I think the American leadership would accept that, I think it would show strong leadership, and I think he ought to pardon the others as well and get this behind us.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Well, gentlemen, thank you all for being with us. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Back now to our other four analysts, former House Iran-Contra Counsel John Nields, North friend and Executive Director of the National Defense Council Andy Messing, Fred Barnes of the New Republic, Anthony Lewis of the New York Times. John Nields, do you think it is time now to put Iran-Contra behind us in the way that Sen. Hatch just suggested?

JOHN NIELDS, Iran-Contra Committee Counsel: Well, I think it would be good for this country to have Iran-Contra put behind us as soon as possible. Obviously, we can't do that because Adm. Poindexter's indictment is still outstanding and it's a virtual certainty that that will go to trial. But I think that we have had a lot of Iran-Contra. We have had a verdict today. We seem to in this country take almost all of our important issues to court eventually, we took this one to court, we have a verdict, and I agree with Anthony Lewis that if it reflects anything, it reflects a rejection by the jury and our judicial system of dishonesty in government, and I think it would be good if the Iran-Contra affair were put behind us as soon as possible.

MR. LEHRER: Do you think Oliver North should go to prison?

MR. NIELDS: I don't think I should say on that subject. The sentencing is up to the judge. I would hope that he imposes a merciful sentence but a just one.

MR. LEHRER: What's your view on that, Fred Barnes? Should Oliver North go to jail?

FRED BARNES, New Republic: Oh, I think it'd be outrageous if he were sent to jail. I think you could give him something like 1000 hours of community service, working on Capitol Hill, rehabilitating Congress convicted on ethical counts, something like that you might try, but I'd be surprised if Judge Gesell ordered him to jail and also. . .

MR. LEHRER: Why would that surprise you?

MR. BARNES: Because the guy's a first offender, and I just don't think their grounds are. . .certainly, Judge Gesell knows that these are the lesser accounts. These are not the serious constitutional issues that were earlier involved in the case. And secondly, though George Bush can do something other than just pardon Oliver North, if Judge Gesell did sentence him to jail, he could commute the sentence, which would mean that he would have accepted the jury's verdict, the jury, there would have been a trial where new information actually did come out and he wouldn't have short circuited the whole judicial process and yet Oliver North would not go to jail.

MR. LEHRER: And it would help put the case behind us?

MR. BARNES: Well, I think pretty much this thing is falling behind us anyway. There's not great national concern over what documents might not have gotten to the Iran-Contra Committee, although I think they ought to find out why those particular documents didn't go there. Really, we have one thing left, the Poindexter trial, but the big one was the Oliver North trial. And that's gone and I think people will start to put it behind them.

MR. LEHRER: Anthony Lewis, in Boston, several people have now mentioned the cost of all of this, the cost of the Congressional hearings, the cost of the independent counsel's investigations, the cost of the trial. Has it been worth it?

ANTHONY LEWIS, New York Times: [Boston] Oh, I think so. I felt a certain irony in Sen. Hatch and others harping on the cost because the reason to harp on it I suppose is to suggest that the odds were against Col. North, that there was this vast weight homing in on him. Well, in fact, what we have to remember went on in this case, and not in the case so much as in the facts, is that the executive branch, the President and those who worked for him, did things in secret, exercising tremendous power, power which dwarfs the question of that money, power to take this country into secret wars, to make deals with a country that we had labeled a terrorist regime. Those things were rejected by the American people. And I find it strange, indeed, ironic that conservatives like Sen. Hatch. . .I don't mean to pick on Sen. Hatch particularly. . .but there is a notion now that we see conservatives defending whatever the executive branch does. Historically, that's really strange because they used to care about the abuse of the executive power and I think they should now. And Sen. Hatch just said now after all Oliver North was probably acting under the instructions of the President or carrying out his wishes, of course that's true, but Judge Gesell correctly charged the jury that we don't allow the Nuremberg defense in this country, we don't allow people to say I just followed orders. When you break the law, you break the law.

MR. LEHRER: Sen. Hatch has departed us but Andy Messing has not. How do you respond to what Anthony Lewis has said?

ANDY MESSING, National Defense Council Foundation: Well, Mr. Lewis and people like him and people in Congress have been ducking the macro issue and dealing with the micro issue. And the macro issue is a constitutional issue. Who has the right on foreign policy, the executive branch or Congress? If that had been addressed forthright and completely, we would not be sitting here today quibbling about the macro issues that are involved, important macro issues, but, nevertheless, the micro issue was never adjudicated. And the President has jurisdiction over foreign policy and this was never addressed. So I find it ironic when people talk about how North trampled the Constitution by doing all these things in secret and how the President shouldn't have done this and how the President shouldn't have done that. Clearly in the Constitution it cites that the President has the authority to do foreign policy matters and that Congress has advice and consent. If the media and the Congress had addressed this early on, instead of fueling this ideological debate, I found it interesting that we had two Republican conservatives against two liberal Democrats on this show, and that's the way you're going to see the reaction of this country. The liberals will go see, see, and the conservatives will go, you know, nine were dropped and two were dropped before this trial even started, because the fundamental issue here has not even been adjudicated, and that's the constitutional issue. It should have been addressed and there's a grave fault on the part of the people who were looking at this thing. They should have been looking at the macro issue.

MR. LEHRER: Tony Lewis, your reaction to that.

MR. LEWIS: Well, there it is. Mr. Messing has been describing a Constitution different from the one that James Madison and his colleagues drafted in Philadelphia in 1787. They said then and they meant that they had been through a situation in which one person had the power to declare war. That was George III. And they didn't like it. They said that very directly in their deliberations, and that's why they gave Congress the power to declare war and Congress the power to appropriate funds or not appropriate funds for foreign policy, and Congress the power to decide to confirm treaties and confirm Ambassadors. It brought Congress in with the President because the framers of our Constitution didn't trust putting all power in one set of hands. I. . .

MR. MESSING: That's why we have an election every four years and the people elect a President of the United States who provides a platform on foreign policy. So don't try to just say that it's some person in a vacuum that has no ability to be called to task because the American people could have thrown Ronald Reagan out in 1984 and they didn't. And there's a system. . .

MR. LEWIS: And during those four years. . .

MR. MESSING: That's right. And during those four years he was affecting foreign policy. He liberated Grenada. He did a lot of things that the American people approved of. And unfortunately, there are a lot of media elitists that don't interpret it that way and that's their fault and you know, you can't fault them; they're polarized.

MR. LEWIS: The American people did not approve of the secret dealings with Iran by any means and we don't have a four year dictatorship in this country.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Messing, let him finish, please. Yes, go ahead.

MR. LEWIS: I was just saying it isn't a question of approval; it's a question of constitutional values. The Constitution's framers didn't set up a system in which a President is a dictator for four years and we get one chance every four years to undo or change his policies. It set up a balance of powers, checks and balances. Where are the conservatives? Congressman Hyde, please speak up.

MR. MESSING: You're twisting your words. It's very clever of you.

MR. LEHRER: Let me ask Fred Barnes a question. Mr. Messing said a moment ago and I was going to ask the question, from a public point of view, from the public's point of view, the people going into this who thought Oliver North was a hero and those who thought he was a bum, is this verdict today likely to change anything?

MR. BARNES: I don't think it's going to change anybody's mind at all. And if Oliver North got a chance to go on television for another week like he did before, he could probably win lots of new fans, but he's not going to have that chance again. I think people are pretty well stuck in their opinions. I've talked to a lot of people just since the verdict and everybody's opinion, including my own, was totally predictable.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, John Nields, that everybody went into this with a predictable opinion?

MR. NIELDS: Not quite. First of all, I'd like to say the macro issue in the Iran-Contra affair was not who has power over foreign policy. The macro issue in the Iran-Contra affair was dishonesty, and that is an issue on which Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals, don't disagree, and I think it's one of the reasons it was important to have this issue adjudicated in a non-political forum, a court of law, which is what just happened. And I believe that lots of people will think Ollie North was a hero, and I'm sure many aspects of his life he was. And he should get credit for that. But nobody is going to think he is a hero for dishonesty. And I think when the dust settles over time. . .

MR. LEHRER: Now when will that be?

MR. NIELDS: It may be a week, it may be six months, it may be a year. But I believe when it does, the fact that there is a jury's verdict of guilty of crime arising out of the Iran-Contra affair is going to have an effect. . .I'm not saying it's going to convince everybody...but it's going to have an effect. And I think I've detected an effect on people's opinions that has resulted from the simple fact of the trial and the publicity surrounding the trial.

MR. LEHRER: You disagree with that, Fred.

MR. BARNES: No. I think the publicity of the trial did affect some people but didn't really change their ultimate view of Oliver North. They either liked him or they didn't like him based mainly on his testimony before the Iran-Contra Committees and it was an opinion set particularly when Mr. Nields was interrogating Oliver North.

MR. LEHRER: But this question of honesty, Mr. Messing, you heard what Mr. Nields said, is the idea that it's okay to be dishonest if it's for a good purpose, for a higher purpose. Now that's what people who support Oliver North believe.

MR. MESSING: I just wrote a paper where I talked about in a democratic Judeo Christian based society that black and gray propaganda is not tolerated, so I'm in for white or the truth in that regard. It's very important to always tell the truth in a democratic society. With regard to dishonesty, I agree 100 percent. This is an issue of dishonesty, but let's look at where the dishonesty is. It has to do with people who would not come to grips with this foreign policy issue, and no matter how this New York Times reporter tries to interpret his version of the Constitution, the Constitution clearly states that the executive are the ones that implement foreign policy and the legislative branch are the ones to do the advice and consent. In the past decade, especially since the fall of Vietnam, there's been a reinterpretation of how the legislative branch should be involved in foreign policy issues. And as long as we have this confusion, we'll have more Iran-Contra messes, and that's the unfortunate part about this.

MR. LEHRER: Anthony Lewis, what's your view of Mr. Nields' point about honesty?

MR. LEWIS: I would agree with it. I thought it was eloquently stated. I want to say something also, if I may, Jim, with apologies to Mr. Nields and perhaps to the Congressmen, the members of the Iran-Contra Committee, I think this trial also shows, and Mr. Nields said this, how important it is to have this kind of matter dealt with by law rather than by politics, which incidentally was the same thing that happened in Watergate. Again, with apologies to the Committee, I have to say that Col. North's counsel, Brendan Sullivan, ran rings around the Committee, really treated it contemptuously, and got away with it all, wasn't called to account. You can't do that with Judge Gesell. Judge Gesell ruled that courtroom and allowed the facts to state themselves and be judged on the merits.

MR. BARNES: Could I state something about this question of honesty?

MR. LEHRER: Yes.

MR. BARNES: One of the things that struck me about the jury's verdict was this, that in all the charges, and there are three, four, five of them, of making false states to Congress, Oliver North's defense was, well I was doing it for a higher cause and also my superiors okayed this. Judge Gesell completely undercut that defense of this so-called Nuremberg defense, saying you can't use that argument, and I think everybody assumed that Oliver North was going to get convicted on those counts, but the jury didn't convict him on those counts at all. If you can read any message from it, you could read that they thought it was okay for him to lie for the higher cause of protecting the Contras who the U.S. had helped put out in the field in combat.

MR. LEHRER: In a word, Fred Barnes, a better verdict because it came from the courts rather than it came from Congress today.

MR. BARNES: I don't think there should have been a prosecution in the first place.

MR. LEHRER: So it doesn't make any. . .

MR. BARNES: I think you criminalized what is basically a political dispute.

MR. LEHRER: All right. We leave it there on that continued note of disagreement, gentlemen. Thank you all four very much. NEWS SUMMARY

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In other news today, Pres. Bush broke his silence on an issue that arose in the North trial. He emphatically denied arranging a deal to expedite aid to Honduras in exchange for that country aiding the Contras. Direct aid was prohibited by law at the time. Responding less than an hour before the North verdict after a White House meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, the President had this to say.

PRESIDENT BUSH: Honduras, there was no quid pro quo. Everybody that attended the meetings says there was no quid pro quo. And for those who suggest there was, the onus is on them. The word of the President of the United States, George Bush, is, there was no quid pro quo. The records of the meeting demonstrate that there was no quid pro quo.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: Later at a joint news conference with Prime Minister Mulroney, President Bush said that he was prepared to negotiate with the Western allies over short range nuclear weapons in Europe. But he said he would not accept total elimination of the weapons. Earlier, U.S. intransigence over the issue threatened major discord at the upcoming NATO summit in Brussels.

MR. LEHRER: The Space Shuttle Atlantis finally took off this afternoon. All went smoothly following last Friday's postponement due to a faulty fuel pump. NASA officials said they had to wait out some poor weather conditions today. Launch came at 2:47 PM, just moments before the launch window would have closed. Here's how the last few seconds went. [VIDEOTAPE OF LAUNCH]

MR. LEHRER: The primary mission for the four man/one woman crew will be the deployment of the Magellan space probe this evening. It's a robot craft which will make a 15-month, 806 million mile journey to the planet Venus. Its powerful radar system will map the terrain of Venus. That planet has long been considered a mystery because a dense cloud cover makes its surface invisible from earth. The Atlantis and its crew are expected to return to earth Monday with a landing at Edwards Air Force Base in California.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: In Beijing today, tens of thousands of students defied the government and staged a peaceful rally marking the 70th anniversary of the country's first student movement. There were also smaller demonstrations in several other cities. Louise Bates of Worldwide Television News narrates this report.

LOUISE BATES: The police lined up early for yet another confrontation. But however well disciplined, many doubted their hearts were really in it. As the crowd made its way toward the square, the leadership's response to the demonstration seemed as muddled as ever. Should the students be accommodated or crushed? Such attempts as were made to stop people getting into Tiananmen failed. The square filled up quickly and began to echo once more to the now familiar slogans, above all the insistent demand for democracy. The students paraded the banner of their unofficial union, which has been leading the protests and which the government refuses to recognize. In the absence of clear direction, the police put up only token resistance, their lines crumbling easily. It seems that whatever else the leadership wants, bloodshed is to be avoided.

MR. LEHRER: Back in this country, the Surgeon General submitted his resignation today. Dr. C. Everett Koop told President Bush he will leave his post July 13th. He has said in recent interviews he plans to do some writing and television work on health issues. In his seven years as Surgeon General, Dr. Koop paid special attention to an anti-smoking campaign and an AIDS education program.

MS. HUNTER-GAULT: And finally in California today, the State Supreme Court upheld Proposition 103, that is, the insurance rollback initiative which was passed by California's voters. It was challenged as unconstitutional by the insurance industry. Today's ruling means that auto, property, and liability insurance rates in California must be rolled back to 20 percent below November 1987 levels. Exemptions would be made if the insurers could prove the rates denied them a fair return. Good night, Jim.

MR. LEHRER: Good night, Charlayne. We'll see you tomorrow night. I'm Jim Lehrer. Thank you and good night.