Lawrence Friedman Interview Transcript

Professor of Law at New England Law Boston

Specializes in American legal history
Interviewed on November 30, 2015 by the Iran-Contra Affair Group
GROUP: Do you believe that the exchanges the Reagan Administration constructed
were constitutionally correct? In other words, did their actions follow the law?
FRIEDMAN: By exchanges, I am assuming you mean arms for hostages. The question
is a complicated one: while the President under the Constitution has primary authority in
conducting foreign relations, he shares authority with Congress when it comes to national
security, and Congress under the Constitution has the power of the purse. This means that
the Boland Amendment was likely constitutional, but also that the President arguably
could seek other means of funding efforts he believed vital to the national interest.
GROUP: The Iran-Contra affairs showed the United States that we are in a sense,
forced to negotiate with terrorists because they are putting us in difficult situations.
Do you perceive the Iran-Contra affairs as a turning point in our views towards
terrorists and the Middle East countries?
FRIEDMAN: This is really a policy question and not a legal one, and Im afraid Im not
qualified to have an opinion on whether Iran-Contra represented a turning point in the
way the United States views terrorists or terrorist-nations.
GROUP: Even though the Iran Contra affairs were a negative sequence of events
during the second term of the Reagan Administration, President Reagans public
popularity continued to rise. Why do you think it continue to rise?
FRIEDMAN: Again, Im not a political scientist, but as a student of history I would say
that, in hindsight, Americans tend to be more forgiving than they might be in the moment.
GROUP: President Reagan and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev forged a
respectful relationship, which contributed to a peaceful resolution of the Cold War.
If Reagan was so good at negotiating with his charismatic attributes, why did he not
have the same success with the Iranian government?
FRIEDMAN: Let me ask you: knowing what you do about the Iran-Contra affair and the
players involved, how high would you rate its chance of success? From todays
perspective, isnt it a little difficult to believe this plan was even taken seriously?
GROUP: Oliver North was given lots of control during the Iran-Contra affairs and
opened up a way of aiding the Contras through airplanes later on in the process.
Why did North act so confidently when he knew this could be a disaster in the end?
FRIEDMAN: I bet he has the kind of confidence that doesnt allow for the possibility of
disaster to enter into his thinking but thats just a guess.

GROUP: Other members involved in the affairs constructed a coverup to save

Reagans face.
FRIEDMAN: You may know more about the facts than I do I suppose its possible,
though two separate investigations essentially cleared Reagan of knowing about all of
this.
GROUP: Do you consider Reagans involvement in the Iran-Contra affairs an
impeachable offense?
FRIEDMAN: The Constitution defines impeachable offenses as Treason, Bribery, or
other High crimes and Misdemeanors. Its up to the House of Representatives to
determine whether a given act qualifies as a high crime or misdemeanor. In other
words, that is a political determination, not a legal one.
GROUP: Many politicians and Americans regard President Reagan as the best
president of all time. Why was Reagans time in the oval office so transformative, or
radical?
FRIEDMAN: Perhaps it was neither transformative nor radical; in retrospect, Reagan
governed from the middle, and was lucky enough to be President as the Soviet Union
crumbled under its own weight and to receive the credit. Again, t