that he told the President about the use of intermediaries in the Iran Initiative. In response, President Reagan produced a two-sentence diary entry, which makes no mention of a conversation regarding the use of intermediaries. Similarly, in his request for Item 61, defendant asserts that the subpoenaed material might confirm the existence of a conversation between himself and the President regarding General Secord's role in the arms sales to Iran. However, the diary entries produced by President Reagan in response to this request do not record such a conversation, or Secord, or the possible use of intermediaries in the arms sales. Defendant is therefore not entitled to the material produced in response to Items 57 and 61 of the subpoena.
In response to Item 67 of the subpoena, President Reagan has produced several entries on discussions in the wake of the fact-finding inquiry conducted by then-Attorney General Meese regarding the dispositions of the proceeds from the arms sales, including the Poindexter and North involvements. Upon its examination of these entries, the Court has concluded that they contain no information to sustain defendant's contention that President Reagan knew of and authorized the diversion or other NSC activities in support of Contra military operations. Accordingly, the entries need not be made available to the defendant.
2. Efforts to Win Foreign Support for the contras.
A large number of diary entries the Court has examined relate to President Reagan's efforts to persuade third countries to aid the Contras. Defendant asserts that these efforts were an aspect of a quid pro quo program in which the Reagan Administration offered to grant United States military or economic assistance to these countries in exchange for aid in support of the military and paramilitary activities of the Contras. Defendant argues that knowledge of and participation by President Reagan in such a program would support the defense assertion that such assistance was either approved of, or was valid under the Boland Amendment, and that this would, in turn, support his contention that he had no reason to conceal the activities with which he is charged in the indictment which also relate to military aid to the Contras.
Most of the diary entries in this category do not discuss or in any other way support the notion of a quid pro quo. Some of the entries refer only to statements of support for the Contras by foreign dignitaries. These statements are too general and unspecific to shed light on the President's knowledge of, or involvement in, any quid pro quo program, let alone a program for military assistance.
A small number of entries discuss specific actions certain foreign leaders agreed to undertake to aid the Contras. However, here again, the entries do not indicate or even suggest that the aid was intended to, or would, in fact, support Contra military or paramilitary operations. Defendant's arguments regarding the relevancy of foreign assistance for the military and paramilitary operations of the Contras are therefore inapplicable.
A few of the diary entries are in a different category. Diary entries dated April 25 and 26, 1985, and produced in response to Item 29 of the subpoena, describe President Reagan's apparently successful effort to persuade a Central American government to release to the Contras a shipment of arms that had been seized by the military of that nation. For the reasons explained above, defendant is entitled to these entries and will be given access thereto.
Similarly, the diary entries responsive to Items 27 and 33 of the subpoena address United States military-type assistance to a Central American nation arguably in support of the military activities of the Contras or in opposition to their opponents. Defendant is likewise entitled to these entries, since they may show what types of aid President Reagan thought could legally be provided for the military or paramilitary operations of the Contras.
In his response to Item 46 of the subpoena, President Reagan produced a brief entry regarding a certain top-secret and extremely sensitive activity of the United States government. After reviewing the entry, the Court has concluded that the activity in question does not relate to any of the activities described in the indictment, and that it is therefore not relevant to the instant case.
3. Efforts to Win Domestic Support for the Contras.
A substantial number of entries deal with President Reagan's efforts to win domestic support for the Contras. The overwhelming majority of these entries address the President's efforts to persuade the Congress on this subject. Obviously, these entries are not relevant to the issues in this case, for defendant cannot, and does not, argue that the Administration's efforts to garner congressional support for the Contras led him to believe that the activities described in the indictment were legal.
A smaller number of the entries discuss meetings with, and speeches to, members of the public. All of these entries are both brief and general. The primary topic is almost invariably the occurrence of the meetings themselves; the subject matter under discussion is addressed only in the most cursory and non-revealing fashion. The entries do not record in any way that President Reagan urged citizens to provide direct support of any kind to the Contras, or that the President or anyone else present at the meetings raised the subject of the provision of such aid by members of the public.
Although the entries indicate that the President may have known that some private citizens had contributed funds to the Contras, there is no mention of any Presidential knowledge of specifics. Finally, nothing in any of the entries suggests that the President provided anything more than a policy-type speech, as distinguished from any specific request. The Court concludes that this is not a sufficient basis for a disclosure of the entries to the defendant.
President Reagan shall turn over to defendant not later than February 5, 1990, copies of all diary entries produced in response to Items 12, 27, 29, 33, 54, and 60 of the subpoena, as well as the following entries produced in response to Item 66: July 17 and 18, 1985; August 23, 1985; September 14-15, and 16, 1985; November 22 and 23, 1985; December 5, 7, 9, and 10, 1985; February 28, 1986; April 18, 1986; May 26, 27, and 28, 1986; July 26-27, 1986; November 7, 8-9, 10, 12, 13, 25, 28, and 30, 1986; and December 2, 1986.
If at or prior to the deadline specified above, the former President asserts the doctrine of executive privilege as a method of opposing the disclosure of these diary entries, or any of them, the Court will follow the procedures employed in United States v. Nixon, supra, and explained in the Opinion of December 21, 1989.
The remainder of the subpoena is quashed.