Reagan Assails Meese Report as ‘Unwarranted’

President Reagan on Tuesday dismissed as “unnecessary” and “unwarranted” a highly critical report on former Atty. Gen. Edwin Meese III by the Justice Department’s internal ethics office and said that it was the work of his longtime associate’s “political enemies.”

Reagan “thinks the attorney general has always acted properly in carrying out the conduct of his office,” said White House spokesman Marlin Fitzwater, adding that he had spoken to the President about the report.

Atty. Gen. Dick Thornburgh, calling “the matter closed,” also gave Meese the benefit of the doubt on one of the report’s findings, saying that he does not believe that Meese intended to act unethically in a controversial financial transaction.

Got Copy in Advance

The long-awaited document, issued after Thornburgh held up its release and gave Meese’s lawyers a copy in advance, charged that the former attorney general violated presidential and Justice Department standards of conduct on several occasions and said that disciplinary action would be justified if he were still in office.

Reagan’s disavowal of the report and Thornburgh’s reservations are a rare instance of Administration leaders publicly disagreeing with findings by the Justice Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which oversees compliance with internal ethics regulations.

At a press conference, however, Thornburgh disputed Reagan’s view that the report was done by Meese’s “political enemies.” He said that he does not regard Michael E. Shaheen Jr., head of the ethics office since it was created in December, 1975, or his staff as being political enemies of their former boss.

At the same time, Thornburgh declined to say whether he would retain Shaheen in the sensitive office, which in the past has issued reports criticizing such prominent attorneys general as William French Smith and Benjamin R. Civiletti. “I’m not going to make any comment on personnel decisions,” he said, adding that there was “no hidden agenda” in his response.

Thornburgh defended his decision to hold up public release of the 61-page document and to provide Meese’s lawyers an advance copy so that they could prepare a response for distribution at the same time. In conducting its internal ethics investigations, the office has not in the past taken such steps for the subject of an inquiry.

Thornburgh said that he thought giving Meese’s lawyers this opportunity was “only fair.”

‘Entitled to Some Peace’

He added that, with the report’s release, “I think Mr. Meese is entitled to some peace, and we’re entitled to get on with the business of the department.”

Nathan Lewin, Meese’s lawyer, branded the report as “patently unprofessional and flagrantly irresponsible.” He took issue with the methods of Shaheen’s investigation as well as with its findings. He said that Meese was denied any chance to present his side to the office before the report, based on an earlier independent counsel’s criminal investigation of Meese, was formulated.

Independent counsel James C. McKay concluded last summer that Meese probably had violated federal conflict of interest and tax laws, but he chose not to prosecute him. Meese then resigned as attorney general, contending that he had been “vindicated.”

Log of Contacts

The department Tuesday issued, along with the ethics report, a 45-page log of contacts between Meese and his longtime friend, E. Robert Wallach, a San Francisco personal injury attorney whose relationship with Meese drew the report’s sharpest criticism.

Wallach, along with Meese’s former financial adviser, has been indicted by a federal grand jury in New York on charges of defrauding Wedtech Corp., a now-bankrupt Bronx defense contractor, in a racketeering scheme that allegedly included attempts to influence Meese on Wedtech’s behalf.

The log, covering contacts between January, 1981, when Meese came to Washington as counselor to the President, and April, 1987, when Meese was attorney general, records Wallach making suggestions on Cabinet, judicial and Justice Department appointments, seeking jobs for himself and giving Meese a glowing self-assessment.

For example, on March 26, 1981, according to the log, Wallach wrote: “Ed, despite our friendship, I am not sure you realize the extent of my own involvement in the world which we used to call Geopolitics.”

On Oct. 26, 1981, Wallach described in a letter his role with Meese as “an intensive support role, low profile but significant, drawing on my talents for organization and leadership to accomplish tasks. . . . “

On Nov. 30, 1981, Wallach suggested in a letter to Meese that then-U.N. Ambassador Jeane J. Kirkpatrick replace Richard V. Allen as Reagan’s national security adviser and that Wallach take over the U.N. post.

On March 17, 1982, Wallach left a message with Meese’s office that he wanted Meese to meet with several partners at Arnold & Porter, a powerful Washington law firm, to talk about Wallach, according to the log. There will be a “minimum of five people up to 10, and it should be held out of the White House,” the Wallach message said. Later, Wallach, in a letter to Meese, discussed his need to become attached to a law firm to earn money.

Arnold & Porter’s managing partner, Jim Jones, did not return a reporter’s call about the log entries. There is no indication in the log of any action that Meese took in responding to Wallach’s requests and recommendations.

On May 8, 1985, Wallach wrote Meese that he felt superior as “both a lawyer and a person” to candidates for Justice Department jobs and included a suggestion that he become Meese’s chief of staff.

In the report, Shaheen charged that the Meese-Wallach “friendship dictated government action.” On other points, the report said that Meese violated ethics guidelines by handling telecommunications matters while holding stock in regional Bell companies and failing to pay all of his taxes on time.

Relaying Reagan’s comments on the report, Fitzwater said: “I would say he has two reactions. One is that this report was unnecessary, partially because Mr. Meese has not been in the office for some time, and partially because . . . it’s unwarranted.”