◆ SpookStack

A I I (} 5 Qs OL, + "it would oppear the United States Attorney wae enceavoring to ‘undermine'the Judge.” Mr. Olney stated: that he and other embers of the Department could not understand why the FBI * should be inferring that the USA was -endeavoring to undermine the Judge. I told Olney that I couldn't believe that we would make such a statement and asked him if he had the memorcndun 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 it 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 tre investigation with the Judge because it would appear to the Judge that the United States Attorney jas endeavoring to undermine the Judge and that our paragraph in the memorandum was merely indicating to the Department the reasons why the USA was declining to discuss the matter with the Judge. JI tole Mr. Clney that I wuld immediately verify the matter and let hin know. Er. Oln then b t the natter.ca; tioned, - "Unknown Subset; a - Victin; Extortion." He _ had with him our m rondum dated venber 29, 1954, addressed to Assistant Attorney General William F. Ton kins, which onfirms to the Department the fact that, ye 4 tickler copy?oy e memorangum to Assistant Attorney General William F. Tompkins, as well as the cover memorandum dated Novenber 26, 1954, concerning this matter, is attached WonieianS oRTAME? An? bez anys nen yy aan fle # 9-273 - Mr. Olney stated that he was not questio ing the propriety of our inforning that we couid not offer hin \nv Police protection nor tap his nes, nor was he presently contending that we should have conducted an allged intimidation of Government employee investication or the possibility of an obstruction of justice case. - 2-6