Becca Jones

Grizzly 9
Reagan Trial Reflection:
Part 1: Reagans Biography

President Ronald Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois on February 6, 1911. Reagan was a well-known man for a number of reasons, even
prior to his political campaign to become president. Ronald Reagan, originally an American actor and politician, became the 40th President of the
United States serving from 1981 to 1989 (Ronald Reagan). Reagans success in the entertainment business can be seen as a big factor as to why
Reagan was so adored by the American public, especially when he was president. As Reagan decided to uptake a political position, leaving behind
the film industry, he made his stance as a Democrat but later on, in 1962, hopped onto the Republican bandwagon due to his true conservative and
business-oriented ideals. Prior to Reagans election as president, he served as the Governor of California for an extensive number of years. This led
up to his interest in becoming president. During Reagans first runnings for president, he did not win. However, he was successful during his next
attempts; eventually beating Jimmy Carter and becoming the 40th president of the United States.
President Ronald Reagan was adored by the entirety of the nation. In 1984, he was elected for a second presidential term, winning by a
landslide. His natural charm and charisma seemed irresistible to the common men and women of America. But Reagan and his involvement in the
Iran-Contra Affair, which occurred under his administration, added a questionable vibe to his laid back demeanor. The Iran-Contra Affair was a
political scandal where the United States secretly sold weapons to the country of Iran. The profit gained from these sales, was used to fund the
Contras; a rebel group in Nicaragua. This was seen an illicit issue of National Security on Reagans part, especially when considering the Boland
Amendment. The Boland Amendment was a document (signed by Reagan himself), that completely forbid anyone in the United States to provide the
Contras with any type of aid. When Reagan sold arms to Iran and gave the profits to the Contras, who were for capitalism, it clearly circumvented
this amendment. Reagan played dumb about the diversion of funds and regardless of legality, continued to support the Contras.
Oliver North, head of the National Security Council, is remembered for his contribution to the Iran-Contra scandal. Oliver North
clandestinely supported the marketing of arms from the United States to Iran. It is said that North accomplished this himself without Reagan
knowing because it had the possibility of assisting with the release of the American hostages, held in Lebanon. Norths actions and affiliations with
Iran and the Contras, with a justified reason or not, were thoroughly illegal and an unacceptable deed to have committed; especially by the head of
National Security. On trial, North then decided to publicly take responsibility for the idea of diverting the funds, to sustain the Contras and to protect
Reagans reputation. Consequently, following the investigation of Norths actions, Reagan fired North. Reagan saw Norths actions to completely
oppose his job of upholding National Security. As for Reagans fate, when looking at the trial case in real life, he was found guilty for a failed
leadership, breaking the Boland Amendment and afflicting himself with the Iran-Contra Affair. However, this did not damage Reagan's reputation or
exterior image. The people of American disregarded the outcome of the trial and continued their infatuations with Reagan; most of them probably
staying positive due to the fact that the fear instilling Cold War ended under Reagans administration.

Ronald Reagan. whitehouse.gov. 17 March 2015.

<https://www.whitehouse.gov/1600/presidents/ronaldreagan>.

Part 2: Trial Recount

The Reagan trial began with me sitting as a courtroom observer, watching the jury selection take place. The prosecution and defense attorneys started with
their questioning of the six initial jurists. Each answer given by the jury member was crucial to each layer. With each answer given, both lawyers could get a general
feel on each jurors political and ethical values, providing them with an idea as to if they already had a predetermined idea in their as to who was guilty and if they could
be favoring sides or not. After all, each attorney is simply looking to build a jury that will vote for their cases. The jury members were asked a set of questions,
including: Liberal or Conservative? Is a leader responsible for his peoples actions? What is your opinion on American intervention upon foreign countries? Were
Americas founding fathers pimps? Do you like our school? Should taxes go up? Communism or Capitalism? Is the final result more important than the journey to
get there? Should a leader know everything going on in their administration? Should we have the right to bear arms? After these questions, along with others were
proposed to the line of jury members, it was time for the lawyers to excuse jury members using their preemptive dismissals. We know that when jury members are
excused, it is because either the prosecution or defense side did not see them as beneficial to their case. For this trial, after the first round of questioning ended, jury
members 5 and 6 were excused and swiftly replaced; position 5 being filled with myself. A set of similar set of questions were given to us and then jury member 6 was
excused, again. This spot was filled, questioned quickly and dismissed, once again. Finally, on the fourth round of questioning, the attorneys claimed to be satisfied
with the jury. We, the jury members, were sworn in and then the count(s) was introduced. The count was that Reagan had a Failure in Leadership: Resulting in the
Iran-Contra Affair and Violation of the Boland Amendment.
While watching the events of the trial unfold, it became very clear that every witness was of great significance to support each attorneys case. However, it
was clear that certain witnesses were more composed, prepared and sophisticated than others. To prove my point, Daniel Ortega, aiding the prosecuting attorney,
brought a lively testament to the table. He kept the audience engaged with his fun accent and clearly passionate answers. With each question that Ortega was presented
with, the defense case was shaken. Ortegas aggressive tone and bold answers became a factor as to why the jurys verdict ended up being completely hung in the
middle. Ortegas spoke frantically of his perception and advocating for human rights and how the Contras were the opposite. They were brutal and when Ortega went
into detail, it provoked emotions that made you know that humans should never be violated in the way that the Contras were doing so. When analyzing the defense
witnesses, I can say that Oliver North made a convincing performance. North was persistent and clear with her answers. She did not change them or contradict what
she was saying. Although North may have been a little repetitive, I believe it only bettered her attorneys case because everything she said really stuck with you. She
was able to answer each proposed question in a calm and collected sense. She continued to strengthen her attorneys case by taking the blame for the diversion of funds
and by reminding us that all Reagan wanted in this situation was our hostages to be released from Lebanon.
A number of nit-picky questions were asked by the jury, like: Did Reagan care to look into the situations at hand? If so, did he make any attempts to take
action? How reliable is the information of the witnesses? Is the fact that this trial is occurring proof that Reagan was a questionable or poor president? Was Reagan
truly clueless as to what was going on? If so, is that his fault? Did Reagan authorize the ability to break the law to get what he wanted? The deliberation to these
questions help make up the final verdict, which ultimately ended up being tied. Members from the jury praised the prosecuting side for being persistent and engaging.
We also really enjoyed the closing statement made by the prosecuting attorney. However, we believe that the prosecuting attorney asked a number of unnecessary
questions that did not benefit their case in anyway. As for the defense, we complimented them for their cross-examination skills, participation with over-the-top
costumes and their short and sweet statements. To improve, we mentioned the fact that the defense attorney seemed to let go of a lot of opportunities for questioning or
contradictions.

Part 3: Jury Deliberations/Trial Evaluations

When identifying the people making up the jury, it was clear from the start that there were going to be a lot of things discussed. The jury
deliberation segment of the trial was where the jury shared thoughts on how the overall trial went, how much preparation we believe was put forth by
the witnesses, how each specific attorney did and other individual opinions. When our class arrived to jury deliberation, an innumerable amount of
questions and clarifications were made, (look to previous page). Throughout all of this we still couldnt come to a solid decision of if Reagan was
guilty of being a failed leader, which we know, lead to violate the Boland Amendment and create the Iran-Contra Affair. Our class had a hung jury
with three members voting Reagan guilty and the other three advocating for Reagans innocence.
Personally, being apart of the jury, I found myself to believe that Reagan should have been convicted and found guilty. When identifying
the actual court case, Reagan was found guilty and I completely understand why. On March 4, 1987, Reagan returned to the airwaves in a nationally
televised address, taking full responsibility for any actions that he was unaware of, and admitting that "what began as a strategic opening to Iran
deteriorated, in its implementation, into trading arms for hostages" (Iran-Contra affair). This quote proves that Reagan had knowledge of both
situations occurring in Nicaragua and Iran; yet he still decided to be dishonest about it. Some people, including Reagan himself, claimed that he had
no knowledge of the situations at hand. Reagan declared that the United States was involved in the marketing of arms to Iran only because Lebanon
was holding American citizens hostage. Reagan tried to affirm us by telling us that we received our hostages back only because of the marketing of
arms to Iran. In addition, during the trial, Reagan declared countless times that he (personally) did not care about the profits we were gaining from
the selling of these arms. He was solely worried about freeing our citizens and assumed that the profits we were making were going into a neutral
trust fund account. However, they were not, and I think he knew that. All profits were going to the Contras, Irans enemy. Reagan relied on people
under his administration to not allow the funds to be diverted elsewhere and to practically do his job for him while he approached presidency with his
hands-off or macromanaging strategy. Later on, North, who admitted to moving the funds, pleaded that he did not tell Reagan of the diversion of
funds to protect him. But personally, its hard for me to believe that Reagan could be completely be oblivious to 30 million dollars that was missing
from a neutral trust fund and with the Contras instead. I believe that this entire situation was extremely uneducated, especially on Reagans part
when you look at the big picture, but even more uneducated when you consider the establishment of the Boland Amendment and how he so easily
decided to go against it or provoke those who were working for him to. This can completely be seen as a failure in leadership because Reagan was
not checking up on those working for him. He broke a federal law and he lied to the American public about marketing arms so he could give profits
to those in Nicaragua, who we were forbidden to help (by Reagan!)

Iran-Contra affair. wikipedia.org

19 March 2015.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IranContra_affair>.

Part 4: The Trials Significance

I believe that there should be a limit on the amount of power a president can hold. If there were not, the present-day three branches of government, would be
rather futile. In order to keep a balance in power, I propose that it is necessary for the president to consult with a majority of the branches before making large-scale
decisions. You see, I believe that peoples motives should always be questioned, especially if they are coming from someone like the president or any other significant
government official. If we were to become oblivious to the actions made by such people, it could result in the upbringing of an uninformed society. Also, another flaw
in our relationship with governmental power is that when people are obsessed with a president (or anyone for that matter), they often can become blinded by their
admiration for them; making them feel as if the person could do no wrong. This could be seen in reality when Reagan was put on trial for in fact, failure in leadership.
People who saw Reagan as innocent, (even after the evidence of him being guilty was presented), continued to be blinded by their favoritism to Reagan. A number of
people favored Reagan because the during his administration, the Cold War had ended. This was really important to people because the Cold War was a time period
where an immense amount of fear was instilled in the American public. In addition, those who saw Reagan as innocent, most likely advocated for him stating that
Reagan was only doing what was necessary for the National Security and the protection of America. In Modern-Day time, I think that people fail to see this conflict as
a scandal because it happened so long ago.
I believe that a president, or any leader, should be held accountable for the actions of his country, at least to some extent. The actions of the people are
somewhat influenced by the leader in the first place. If we have a leader, someone to guide us, why wouldnt they take responsibility for the things that the people
theyre guiding do? A leader is someone who represents the country. I dont think that it would be suitable for them not to take the blame when something goes wrong.
But I do understand that a single person does not have the ability to control millions, but I believe that their job is to try their best by setting guidelines and specifics as
to what is acceptable. For example, if a president or leader presents general motivation to the public, to accomplish something questionable or illicit, I completely
believe that this would fall onto the responsibility of the leader, if something were to go wrong. Reagan, being a macromanager, asked Poindexter to address a problem.
Poindexter and North accomplished the task, but not under without breaking the law. Perhaps Reagan was not aware that Poindexter would break the law but I think
that if this was of any consideration to Reagan, he would have communicated to the men clearer or specified that, of course, breaking the law was not an okay thing to
do. After all, leaders are suppose to inform those who look up to them. This trial was interesting and more complex. I believe it couldve gone either way. Some argue
for Reagans innocence because Poindexter and North were acting on behalf of themselves to try to accomplish what Reagan asked of them. Some could also argue that
Reagan is guilty (like I would) because Poindexter is looking up to Reagan and therefore, Reagans is responsible for his actions. The Iran-Contra Affair can be seen as
a huge scandal because it occurred due to a single branch of government stepping past their boundaries. A number of people in Reagans administration threaten the
separation of powers by taking too much for themselves; arms were sold to Iran, money was diverted to the Contras and laws were broken.
Throughout Reagans administration, you could see the people abusing the governments separation of powers left and right. If a single branch attempted to
take over, the system would crumble. The three branch system was made thoughtfully and with purpose. Those who framed the constitution, forming our current
government, kept in mind the idea of checks and balances and created this complex arrangement of power to prevent a dictatorship. We were and are still are trying to
avoid a centralization of powers by living through a codependent organization. We, as Americans and as humans, do not want a single person to have such large
amounts of power.