Randy Bellows Interview Transcript

Fifth Attorney hired by Lawrence Walsh

Currently a Federal Judge in Alexandria, Virginia
Interviewed on December 5, 2015 by the Iran-Contra Affair Group
GROUP: We understand that you were a part of the investigative team, headed by
independent counsel Lawrence Walsh, that investigated illegality in the Iran-Contra
affairs. What was your role? Who did you investigate, and what?
BELLOWS: I was the fifth attorney hired by Judge Walsh. (We called him Judge Walsh
because he had been a federal judge at an earlier time in his life.) I don't know how
many attorneys we ended up with but it was probably close to 25 or 30. Each attorney
was part of a team. My team gathered records and did interviews to gain a full
understanding of the role of the United States government in supporting the Contras in
Nicaragua. I worked closely with federal investigators to gather and analyze records and
conduct interviews.
My title was Associate Independent Counsel and I worked for Judge Walsh for just one
year, from 1987-1988. I left to join a law firm and then left that job after a year to
become a federal prosecutor in Alexandria, Virginia. I remained a prosecutor until I
became a judge in October 2002.
GROUP: In your opinion, was the scandal an impeachable offense for president
Reagan? Why/Why not?
BELLOWS: First, this question was outside my area of responsibility, so it is not a matter
that I studied. There are two important questions that would have to be answered: First,
as was said in Watergate: What did he know and when did he know it? In other words,
did President Reagan know everything his subordinates were doing? Second, does the
conduct rise to the level of an impeachable offense? I was not a part of the investigation
that focused on these questions so I won't be able to answer your question. (I haven't had
the opportunity to read Judge Walsh's book, Firewall, but I suspect he does address these
questions in the book.)
GROUP: Do you think that the exchanges between the U.S. and the Contras and
Iranians were a violation of constitutional law?
BELLOWS: It was argued that the support given to the Contras constituted a violation of
what was called the Boland Amendment, but there was always a serious issue as to
whether this conduct constituted a profound policy disagreement between the Executive
Branch and the Legislative Branch of government or actually constituted criminal
conduct. I did not view it as a violation of constitutional law.
GROUP: In your opinion, should more of the accused have been convicted/punished
more harshly? Was justice served?
BELLOWS: Prosecution of various individuals was very challenging for a number of

reasons: (1) It was a highly-disputed question whether the conduct, even if proved, was
criminal; (2) Congressional hearings made it difficult to prosecute individuals who had
been granted immunity in return for their testimony before Congress, because the
prosecutors had to establish that their evidence was not tainted by exposure to immunized
testimony; (3) The Independent Counsel statute, which essentially created a prosecutorial
entity outside the Department of Justice, was problematic, especially in terms of
assigning ultimate responsibility for the determination of what types of sensitive
information could be used in a public trial. I understand that there were additional
prosecutions (long after I left the Independent Counsel's office) for obstruction of justice
and other charges, but I don't really know the facts and circumstances and can't comment
on that. The question "was justice served" is a question I really can't answer. The
Independent Counsel was in office for seven years; I was only part of his staff for the first
year.
GROUP: What are your personal leanings on the morality of the Iran Contra Affair.
Do you think the action taken by the United States in secret were acceptable and
necessary for the aid of the Contras, or was it backhanded and wrong?
BELLOWS: That's a great question, but it is better put to a policymaker, such as a
member of Congress, rather than a prosecutor. A prosecutor is given enormous authority
but his or her job is also limited in scope: it is to determine if crimes were committed,
who committed them and whether there is admissible evidence to prove the case in a
court of law. When the underlying crime is, for example, a bank robbery, it is very easy
to resolve the first question (was a crime committed?) It becomes much more difficult in
a case where Congress and the Executive Branch are clashing on both policy and means.
GROUP: How do you think the scandal affected Reagan's legacy and public opinion
of him?
BELLOWS: I believe his legacy is secure as the President who helped end the Cold War.