Fired Meese Aide Disputed by President

With pressure building for the ouster of Edwin Meese III, President Reagan expressed “complete confidence” in his embattled attorney general Tuesday and suggested that there is “more than meets the eye” in Meese’s firing of his chief spokesman.

Terry H. Eastland, who headed the Justice Department’s Office of Public Affairs, announced Monday that Meese had dismissed him because he has not been more aggressive in defending the attorney general from criticism.

The President, who made his comments during an afternoon press conference, did not explain what he meant when he alluded to the Eastland dismissal, but Meese told reporters that Eastland’s explanation was “a bunch of baloney” and that he had discharged him simply because it was time for a change in leadership.

Tells of Meese Meeting

Despite the statements by Reagan and Meese, Eastland insisted in an interview Tuesday that, when he met with the attorney general last Friday, Meese “expressed his desire to have someone in my place who could more aggressively support him against any and all criticism now and possibly to come.”

“While I certainly believe I have defended him to the best of my ability, exercising good judgment and acting in a manner consistent with the obligations of the office, Mr. Meese concluded that my efforts have not sufficed,” said Eastland, a conservative who has been a staunch defender of the attorney general.

Other sources in the Justice Department, who declined to be identified, supported Eastland’s version of what happened.

The firing of Eastland, who is popular with other Administration conservatives, touched off renewed calls for Meese’s ouster, including an editorial in the politically conservative Washington Times.

The newspaper, a strong supporter of Meese in the past and a favorite publication of the President, declared that Eastland’s firing “makes it clear that the embattled attorney general has decided to defend his reputation at all costs.”

The newspaper praised Eastland as a Meese loyalist who had blocked “get Meese” attempts within the Justice Department itself. Meese should resign, the editorial said, because his “attempts to vindicate himself have destroyed his department.”

The department has been in turmoil since March 29, when Deputy Atty. Gen. Arnold I. Burns and Assistant Atty. Gen. William H. Weld, head of the criminal division, quit out of concern that Meese’s continued tenure was damaging morale and effectiveness.

Eastland’s firing triggered the resignations of two subordinates in his office: William A. Schambra, Meese’s chief speech writer, who quit Monday, and Ron Tomalis, a special assistant in the public affairs office, who left Tuesday.

One source of Meese’s trouble has been independent counsel James C. McKay, who was appointed by a special court to investigate involvement by high government officials in a contracting scandal involving Wedtech Corp., a Bronx, N.Y., defense contractor.

McKay has been investigating Meese’s role not only in the Wedtech matter but also in connection with a proposed $1-billion Iraqi oil pipeline project. He is expected to file a report later this month that will provide embarrassing details of the attorney general’s actions.

Some Administration officials have suggested that once the McKay report is made public, Meese might resign and cite the report as evidence that he had been absolved of criminal wrongdoing.

But so far Meese has shown no inclination to resign, and nothing short of a criminal charge apparently would move Reagan to oust his longtime friend and associate.

Reagan, who has consistently defended Meese despite all of the investigations and calls for his resignation, was confronted almost immediately at his press conference Tuesday by a pointed question about the Washington Times editorial:

“Mr. President, now that the conservatives, personified by the Washington Times, have jumped ship on Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese, . . . are you still backing Meese and have total confidence in him? Or are you going to ease him out?”

“No, I have complete confidence in him. . . . “ Reagan declared. “There have been a great many allegations made but nothing has been proven, and I have seen no evidence of any wrongdoing on his part.”

Declaring that there have been too many cases “in which accusation or allegation is taken to mean conviction,” Reagan said that “in this land of ours, you are innocent until you are proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And nothing has been proven.”

Asked if allegations short of an indictment might require Meese to step aside, Reagan said:

“I think that for him to step aside would be what he himself once said--that he would then live for the rest of his life under this cloud, but with nothing that had ever been proven.”