◆ SpookStack

fT EY OCT HU STG te tiene, x ® ? tA "tt would appear the United States Attorney was enc eavoring to ‘undermine'the Judge." Mr. Olney stated that he and other members of the Department could not understand why the FBI ° should be inferring that .the USA was endeavoring to undermine the Judge. JI told Olney that I couldn't believe that we would make such a statement and asked him if he had the memorandun in Question with him.. He did. JI read the paragraph which ts as follows: "In view of the foregoing, the United States Attorney has declined to discuss the requested investigation with the trial judge since he feels the Judge would not approve of the request and tt would appear the United States Attorney was endeavoring to ‘undermine! the judge. I told Mr. Olney that I couldn't understand his interpretation since tt appeared to me quite clearly that it was the United States Attorney at Newark who had commented that he _ was declining to discuss tte tnuestigation with the Judge because ~ [}]tt would appear to the Judge that the United States Attorney {;foas endeavoring to undermine the Judge and that our paragraph | tn the memorandum was merely indicating to the Department the reasons why the USA was declining to discuss the matter with the Judge. JI told Mr. Clney that I wuld immediately verify [Tere matter and let hin know. =. Ere Olney then broucht up the matter .caj tioned, oo "Unknown Subpet; i - Vietin; Extortion.” He —__ had with him our memorondum dated Movember 29, 1954, addressed / to Assistant Attorney General William F. Ton kins, which | onfirms to the Department the fact that I A tickler copyFo, e memorandum to Assistant Attorney General William F. Tompkins, as well as the cover memorandum dated November 26, 1954, concerning this matter, is attached. origins oRtAWe? ay) b-2 BO IME MED Ny ean pole # 9.2713 - Mr. Olney statec that he was not questio ing the } propriety of our inforning that we couid not offer hin \ov police protection nor tap his nes, nor was he presently contending that we should have conducted an allged intimidation i: lof Government employee investication or: the possibility of an obstruction of justice case. ~ 2