John Roberts should be questioned about his involvement in Iran-Contra (well maybe not)

According to Secrecy News, which I found via a link from Atrios, this was a different John Roberts. I should have been more cautious.

I'll be shocked with joy if this becomes an actual issue, but Supreme nominee John Roberts should be asked about what he knew about the Iran-Contra scandal.

According to Chapter 13 of Lawrence Walsh's "Final Report of the Independent Counsel for Iran/Contra Matters," Iran-Contra heavy Carl R. Channell said Roberts was aware of White House approved illegal fundraising for the Contras of Nicaragua. Specifically, Channell says it was a John Roberts who put him into contact with Frank Gomez and Richard Miller for the purpose of raising money to support Contra activities:

[Channell] was referred [by White House political director Edward Rollins] to White House political aide John Roberts, who in turn directed him to Miller, a private public relations consultant who ran a firm known as International Business Communications (IBC). According to Channell, Roberts told him that Miller and his partner Frank Gomez ``are the White House -- outside the White House.''

If what Channell said is true, Roberts not only knew about illegal Contra fundraising, but helped facilitate it.

Why is this important? Well, conventional wisdom will say it likely isn't in this era when involvement in the Iran-Contra Scandal is less a scarlet letter than an impressive section for the resume. Why should it be important? Because it says a lot about whether Roberts believes he is above the law. More importantly, it has everything to do with what restraints he believes can be placed on the war making powers of the executive branch and/or to what extent he is willing to enforce those restraints.

Comments

[jillian]

Excellent! Excellent! I have called both Boxer and Feinstein and asked if perhaps they could look into this and let the questioning begin!

[Doctor Biobrain]

Wrong Roberts. Wah-waa.