The revelation of the intertwined scandals captivated Americans. Between the fall of 1986 and the fall of 1987, more than seven out of 10 Americans watched some of the televised congressional hearings about Iran-Contra. But once it became clear that Democrats would not impeach Reagan, public interest waned. Unlike Watergate, when a smoking gun tape implicated President Richard Nixon, to many, the 1980s scandal seemed a blur of byzantine Cold War diplomacy, opaque Swiss bank accounts, and a large cast of forgettable middlemen. The country boxed up the ugly affair and stored it in the attic of its memory.
It did so even as the scandal persisted and investigators indicted dozens of administration officials. In 1988, Reagan’s vice president, George H.W. Bush, won the presidency, and throughout his entire administration, those responsible for Iran-Contra dodged the political and legal consequences of their actions. Defendants in Iran-Contra cases benefited from a Bush Administration that refused to make many documents available to the courts, thus forcing prosecutors to pare back their charges. This allowed most to escape justice in criminal court.
On, Christmas Eve 1992, after Bush had lost his reelection race, the lame duck president pardoned all of those still facing legal jeopardy from Iran-Contra.
That conclusion—as well as the Reagan administration’s lack of concern with legality—confirmed the erosion of core democratic norms, including separation of powers, rule of law, judicial independence, consent of the governed, and trust. In its final report, the Democratic-led congressional investigation committee sounded the alarm about the impact of Reagan officials’ widespread disdain for democracy: “Constitutional process is the essence of our democracy and our democratic form of Government is the basis of our strength.” A privatized war was “a prescription for anarchy in a democratic society” they argued and the diversion of funds was “the path to dictatorship.”
But, crucially, unlike during Watergate, these conclusions weren’t bipartisan. In fact, Republicans dismissed them. One conservative lawyer cynically called the criminal charges against North—lying to Congress, obstructing inquiries, and accepting an illegal gratuity—“nothing you couldn’t charge a hundred other people with in this town.”
Some congressional Republicans came away from the hearings convinced that their own institution should further encourage a “unitary executive” that bullied not only Congress but also all executive departments. “There was no constitutional crisis, no systematic disrespect for ‘the rule of law,’ no grand conspiracy, and no Administration-wide dishonesty or coverup,” concluded Republican Congressmen and Senators in the now-famed "Minority Report." Instead, many Republicans in Congress were frustrated by their own institution’s legal right to restrain the power of the executive.