Conversation 045-121

Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

Hello.

Will I see you tonight?

I was just debating about whether to go or not.

I better change if I'm going, I guess.

I plan to.

Coming to dinner?

Yeah.

Yeah, I haven't changed yet myself.

What I was going to say is that since the Senate thing, it seems to me, I've just been thinking a bit about it myself, is that we, of course...

In appointing you, I have, of course, named an individual of impeccable and unimpeachable, as to use my terms, respect in this area, with the authority to do what you want.

What you, of course, might do is to indicate your desire to discuss the matter with congressional leaders or to name a new head of the criminal division.

Now, I don't know what your thought about it.

Well, I've been chewing it over some.

It certainly would have been no point in pointing me to the Department of Justice and my leading defense and so on with all the problems that that now creates unless I were in some way to exercise some responsibility.

You have.

That's right.

So you can do—but what I mean is, as I said in my talk, you—and with you, you can—if you want somebody, that's your prerogative.

Right, right.

The thing is, if you just had the man, if you got the man.

My present thinking is that I should name somebody, but that I should take the position with the Senate committee in the confirmation hearings.

not, as Attorney General, conscientiously abdicate responsibility.

And that they would have to understand that the contribution of the outsider lay in evidence that his own integrity would contribute.

Well, that's true.

To not rest on the property that is insulated.

Well, and you can't just insulate it, because basically, Elliot, we look to the Attorney General.

You are basically the man who is responsible.

You are the Attorney General.

I do think that the replacement of Peterson would make sense.

You know what I mean?

But the point is, one way you might finesse it, it seems to me, would be to find your man there and say,

a man in charge of this.

He's a new man and he will have, you know, the responsibility, but reporting directly to you.

Something like that, or I don't know.

Yeah, that's about the way my own thinking runs.

It comes to a point with the committee where they, you know, where the insistence is that not only be placed in charge, but that he be wholly insulated and that I have no role at all.

Then the whole thing is sort of pointless in terms

Of course.

And incidentally, it's the sense of the Senate, and that does not, of course, that does not control us, as you know.

I mean, we can... Bob Heard called me a little while ago on this, and he, I take it, is a member of the Judiciary Committee, and seemed to be sitting

effect that the committee would want some sort of assurance as to what I was going to do on this, and presumably it would include the terms and conditions under which the man acted.

I told him that it wasn't my idea that even if I did name such an individual that it would be on the basis that I was

bring myself entirely from the whole matter.

You can't.

No, no, no.

As Attorney General, I think what they're really talking about basically is the Peterson problem.

He is the man in charge now, and they feel that since he is, they seem to think, some think they've lost confidence in him.

But I think the way you could do it is simply to say, I've applied as head of the criminal division to supervise this

thing, this man, and then that's that.

I mean, I— You wouldn't necessarily have to be head of the criminal division for all purposes.

If you were sitting directly with me on this, I might be able to get somebody to do this, for instance, who has his prime responsibility in the public interest, who wouldn't want to have to handle all the business of the criminal division at all.

I see your point.

That would be another way.

I'm not trying to tell you how to do it, but let me say that you have absolute authority to do that, and I would—

I would tell the committee you have every intention of appointing somebody who will have responsibility, but you assume, as Attorney General, the primary responsibility.

I think what this suggests is that I did go see Nebraska yesterday afternoon.

This question came up, but I got no pressure from them.

the mildest of indications that maybe it would be a good idea.

But no—nothing that said, unless you do that, we don't think that we—yes, confirmed or anything like that.

I think maybe what I ought to do now is go back to them.

Yes, Roska had already thoughtfully

and has gone forward with a luncheon for all the Republican members of the committee on Thursday.

But I think I might go back to Eastland and touch base with Fruska and get their feel for the impact of this resolution, because it would certainly be a—they have to understand that I would not

take the responsibility of the attorney generalship and have some guy running around as a special prosecutor who wasn't even talking to me.

Who wasn't—exactly.

And that—well, that just won't wash, so— Wash it off.

I think what I can do is go back to them and make sure they understand that.

Right.

And that basically there isn't any question about having somebody who will take the responsibility

for conducting the—doing it, but under your direction.

Yeah.

I mean, under—I mean, you are the attorney general.

That's the point.

Yeah.

That's the point.

Thank you very much for calling.

Well, anyway, I just wanted you to know that I thought about it.

I haven't got any good answer, but— No, it's helpful to— It's part of the battle, and the—I might get Bill Rogers, talk to him, get his views on it.

He's probably got some good ones, but he thinks that—I'm sure that—

I know that you, as Attorney General, should, you have the responsibility.

I already did talk to him about that.

What's he say?

That's exactly what he said.

I see.

But that was before the resolution had been adopted.

Yeah.

I think the point now is that

the committee be under no illusion that, you know, to put it the other way around, that I be sure I have substantial support in the committee for this approach.

Even if Bob Bird doesn't go along, he's only one man.

That's right.

So I guess that's what I'd better do.

And you'll work on that tomorrow, will you?

Yeah.

Good deal.

Oh, you should be at the dinner tonight, absolutely.

Sure.

Thank you.