THE IRAN-CONTRA HEARINGS : Excerpts: “You Are a Part of the Family”

\o7 WASHINGTON\f7 —  Following are excerpts from testimony Wednesday by Iranian-born businessman Albert A. Hakim and Assistant Secretary of State Elliott Abrams before the congressional committees that are investigating the Iran-contra affair:

Opportunity to Profit

(In his opening statement, Hakim attempted to explain the reasons for his involvement in the Iran-contra affair.)

As will become clear during my testimony, my participation in this matter was the result of a variety of motives. Not only was I presented with an opportunity to help my country, the United States, and my native land, Iran, but at the same time I had the opportunity to profit financially. As a businessman, I never pretended to undertake the tasks I was asked to perform for philanthropic purposes. . . . At the same time, I never would have gotten involved in these efforts if I had thought them illegal or contrary to the policies of the United States government.

(Committee counsel John W. Nields Jr. questioned Hakim about several accounts that received deposits from the proceeds of arms sales to Iran.)

Question: The last account is the “Button account,” it has $200,000 in it. . . . Is Button short for something?

Answer: Actually the complete name is “Belly Button.”

Q: Does it refer to a person?

A: Yes, it does.

Q: Who?

A: Lt. Col. (Oliver L.) North.

Q: Now can you explain the circumstances surrounding the setting up of an account for Lt. Col. North?

A: I must start by saying that, when I established this account, Lt. Col. North had absolutely no idea about this. . . . I had become extremely fond of Lt. Col. North. To me, he’s an amazing person. He--I noticed something (about) this man. . . . He’s got two loves: One, his country--and to a point that is, in my mind, the biggest satisfaction that can be given to him (is) if he would enter into an environment (in which) he could get killed for his country. I sensed that so many times. And the other love that he has is his family. . . . I witnessed him being torn apart between these two loves.

But coming back to how this thing came about: I came up with the idea that Ollie had to be insured . . . and I had also learned through scattered discussions . . . that Ollie was not spending time at home and he was not attending to his family, to his kids’ education and so forth. And I had become emotionally very attached to Ollie, still am, and I really love this man. I talked to Richard, Gen. Secord. . . . I thought it would be wise to set aside $500,000 . . . as a benefit for Ollie. I recall that Richard opposed this figure. . . . I came up with a figure of 200 (thousand). Gen. Secord made no opposition to this. . . . I figured that the interest on $200,000 could cover a good part of a child’s university education.

Q: Did you tell Col. North that you’d set this money aside?

A: I cannot recall having ever told Col. North that I have set money aside for his family’s benefit. But I do recall . . . (saying) to him: “Ollie, you are a part of the family for as long as one of us is alive. You need not to worry about your family.”

Q: . . . Did you ever take any steps to get some part of this money, or any other money, into his possession for his children’s education?

A: I consulted Mr. Zucker (Willard I. Zucker, an associate of Hakim). . . . We came to the conclusion that Mr. Zucker . . . (would) contact Mrs. North, without mentioning my name, to tell her that there is a certain person who admires her husband and wishes to help out with the university and educational expenses of the children. . . . I was told later that Mr. Zucker did call Mrs. North and, as a result of that, a meeting took place . . . to see if he could find a proper way of getting the money in some sort of fashion . . . to North’s family. And the bottom line of that investigation was that he could not find a proper way to do it.

Q: Now, Mr. Hakim, I have to ask you this question: Since you testified that you told Mr. Zucker not to mention your name, were you attempting to compromise Mr. North without his knowledge . . . ?

A: My intention was only to help. I had no other intentions. . . .

(Nields questioned Hakim about how $14 million in surplus proceeds from the Iranian arms sales were used.)

A: My understanding was that the income from these transactions were to be used to primarily assist the contras and also try to make the so-called, the enterprise that we had created self-sustained. . . . The impression that I got was from the remarks that Gen. Secord made to me, that basically came from such remarks as: “You don’t know what Ollie will need next, so we have to have money available.”

(Sen. Warren B. Rudman (R-N.H) had the following exchange with Abrams.)

Q: I can think of a lot of people in government that I would believe could have that ball thrown by them at high speed, but to put it in the parlance of football, you know, Ollie North ran around you, he ran under you, and he ran over you. And I found it rather difficult to understand why it took you so long to decide that he had betrayed you. . . . I understand your reluctance to say that, but you certainly were betrayed, if you are telling us the truth . . . and I happen to believe you are telling us the truth, you were horribly betrayed. I think hanging you out to dry is putting it politely, Mr. Abrams.

A: Well, I don’t know what to say, Senator.

Question of Trust

(Sen. David L. Boren (D-Okla.) questioned Abrams about previous testimony in which Abrams said he had apologized to a congressional committee for having previously given misleading testimony.)

Q: Is it correct that you’d given us the impression in your testimony yesterday that you wanted to come back . . . and rendered an apology to the committee. . . . Is that correct?

A: No, no. . . . It was the committee that called me back.

Q: Did you render an apology at that point?

A: I didn’t really feel--no, sir. I didn’t feel there was anything to apologize for until I saw the testimony (from the earlier appearance).

Q: Did you voluntarily render an apology then?

A: No, I was actually, frankly, I was stunned by some of the testimony. I had no memory of it.

Q: The apology, just for the record, actually occurred on Page 83, out of 116 pages of the transcript that day. . . . I’m afraid that the impression was created yesterday that you’d been worrying between these hearings, and that you came that day with a heavy heart, wanting to, in essence, render an apology to the committee. And I have to say that the apology did not come until near the end. . . . We have to rebuild trust, and we have to rebuild some sort of partnership between the Congress and the executive branch. . . . Now do you think that you can rebuild that kind of trust, given your own record? Do you think you are in a position to take a leadership role in rebuilding (that) kind of trust. . . . Do you think that you can play a constructive role in the future?

A: I do, Senator. I think, perhaps more importantly, the secretary (of state) does. . . .

Q: I have to say to you--and I’m sorry to say this--that as one who feels very strongly that we must begin from this point forward to rebuild a bipartisan foreign policy, particularly in Central America . . . that I’m afraid there’s too much in the record at this point for you to be able to effectively play that role. . . .

A: Thank you, Senator. I just--if you’ll give me the privilege of replying--I’m sorry you feel that way.