Meese Blames 2 Ex-Aides for Causing Outside Probe

Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III on Monday blamed two former key Justice Department officials for prompting an independent counsel to investigate him, charging that they acted incompetently in directing a preliminary inquiry into his case.

In what one aide described as “swan song” comments at the National Press Club, the departing attorney general made his first direct attack on former Deputy Atty. Gen. Arnold I. Burns and former Assistant Atty. Gen. William F. Weld, who resigned March 29 to distance themselves from Meese’s mounting legal problems.

“The evidence now shows that, if a competent and thorough preliminary investigation had been directed by the then-deputy attorney general and the former head of the criminal division, there would likely have been no cause for referral to an independent counsel,” Meese said in his speech.

He made his critical comments on the eve of the first public testimony by Burns and Weld about their decision to resign and subsequent meeting with President Reagan about what they regarded as the case against Meese. The two, now practicing private law, declined to comment on Meese’s allegations before their testimony today before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A Justice Department official who declined to be identified described Meese’s speech as “a preemptive strike designed to discredit what he knows will be critical testimony” from Burns and Weld. Meese denied that he was so motivated, asserting that he believed that “the facts speak for themselves.”

Last week, Meese attacked independent counsel James C. McKay’s conclusion that he had probably violated federal conflict-of-interest and tax laws on four occasions while serving as the nation’s chief law enforcement officer. McKay cited several factors for deciding not to prosecute Meese, but the attorney general contended that the outside prosecutor had acted unfairly in alleging the probable violations.

When asked for examples to support his contention that Burns and Weld had directed an incompetent preliminary inquiry into the allegations against him, Meese said that “no one talked to me” or to his longtime friend and former lawyer, E. Robert Wallach, before the matter was referred to McKay. Wallach has been involved in a number of questions about Meese’s conduct.

Agents Questioned Meese

However, present and former Justice Department sources familiar with the investigation said Weld, accompanied by an FBI agent, met with Meese on April 16, 1987, to urge that he submit to questions about the Wedtech Corp. scandal. Meese was questioned the next day by two FBI agents, department records show.

Burns, acting on the recommendation of Weld and the department’s public integrity section, referred the Meese case to the special court that oversees independent counsel operations the next month, and the judges assigned it to McKay.

Sources said Burns notified Meese of his decision to refer the matter on the weekend before he did so. They said that Meese had asked for more time but that Burns rejected the request. On the day he was to make the referral, Burns received a letter from Meese stating that he was asking for appointment of an independent counsel.

Nathan Lewin, Meese’s chief lawyer, said the agents who interviewed Meese on April 17 “beat around the bush” and failed to question Meese about the allegation by former Wedtech executives that Wallach had told them he would “fix” their legal problems with the attorney general.

Allegations Held Broader

But a former Justice Department official said the allegations involving Meese were broader than that, covering the possibility that he had accepted illegal gratuities and that he had “aided and abetted” former White House official Lyn Nofziger, who was convicted of conflict-of-interest charges involving his lobbying for Wedtech.

Meese was sharply critical of the allegations from the former Wedtech executives, who now are testifying as prosecution witnesses in the Wedtech case against Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.) and others in federal court in New York. They also are expected to be key government witnesses against Wallach, who has been indicted for racketeering, conspiracy and fraud in the Wedtech case, with the trial set for January.

“The original allegations (against Meese), made by criminals seeking to obtain lenience for their own crimes, should have been quickly investigated, found to be false and the whole matter brought to a prompt conclusion,” Meese said in his speech.

Guidelines Broken, He Says

He renewed his attack on McKay, saying his conclusion about Meese’s “probable” guilt had violated guidelines contained in the final report of the Watergate special prosecutor, issued in October, 1975.

That report rated as “most important . . . the notion of fundamental fairness for those who, after investigation, have not been charged with any criminal misconduct. This consideration is particularly important for a special prosecutor whose independence considerably reduces his accountability and who must be unusually sensitive to possible abuses of his power. . . .

“Where no such charges are brought, it would be irresponsible and unethical for a prosecutor to issue a report suggesting criminal conduct on the part of an individual who has no effective means of challenging the allegations against him or requiring the prosecutor to establish such charges beyond a reasonable doubt.”

McKay, whose office declined to comment Tuesday, has said he was carrying out his responsibilities under the 1978 Ethics in Government Act in issuing his 814-page report and detailing why he had decided against prosecuting Meese.