 Telephone conversation between President Johnson and Joseph Alsop on November 25, 1963, at 10.40 a.m. How to put it on this one? Mr. President, your whole talk is on 2-1-7-1. Joe! Yes, Mr. President? I appreciate very much your call. Well, you know what I feel about you, and you know how I put it all in a lot on you. I'll fade it? Yes. Could you tell me how we're doing on getting Mr. Alsop for the President? They are talking on it. Do you know on what line? Because we have no, we didn't know. 2-1-7-1. Thank you. Today, probably right after the funeral, a state court of inquiry headed by the Attorney General, which will be, which he will have associated with him, one or two of the outstanding civil liberties jurors in the country, perhaps Jaworski, who represented the Attorney General and the Fifth Circuit Negro case, our head of the trial lawyers of America, our dean's story, Somebody from outside Texas. No. Somebody from outside Texas. No. When I have the FBI from outside Texas, but this is under Texas law, and they take all the, all the involvements, and we don't send in a bunch of, uh, uh, carpetbaggers. It's the worst thing it could do right now. You think so? I know. Well, we got the FBI doing anything that, if there's any question about Texas, uh, immigration, they got an FBI that is, uh, that, that, that's going to the bottom of it and press direct with the Attorney General. But paralleling that, is a blue ribbon state court of inquiry headed by the brilliant Attorney General and associated with him, somebody like St. John Garwood, Will Clayton's son-in-law, who was a brilliant spring court justice that's retired, somebody like Robert Stead and Pearl Harbor. And that's what the Attorney General's doing. Now, if we have another commission, hell, you're going to have people running over each other, and everybody agrees. Now, uh, I know that, uh, some of the lawyers, they thought of the Brewer Revenue Commission first, a justice. And we just can't have them lobbing against the president, uh, when he, when he makes these decisions. We decided that the best thing to do is to counter attack. Number one, to put an FBI in full force. Number two, to put the state in full force. Now, nobody, nobody, uh, uh, nobody lobbied me. I lay awake all night. They lobbied me last night. I spent, I spent the day on it. I had to leave Ms. Kennedy's side at the White House and call and ask for Secret Service and FBI to proceed immediately. I spent most of my day on this thing yesterday. I had the Attorney General of Texas lie in here. I spent an hour and a half with him last evening. I talked to the Justice Department lawyers and to the FBI, the FBI's of the opinion that the wisest, quickest, ablest, most effective way to go about it is to then thoroughly study and bring in a written report to Attorney General at the earliest possible date which they've been working on since 1230 yesterday. Number one, and they have information that's available to no one that has not been presented thus far and so forth. Number two, parallel that, we're having a blue-ribbon court of inquiry. In Texas. In Texas. Where did this thing occur? Ms., Ms. President, just, just let me give you a my, my political judgment on the thing. I think you've done everything that could properly be done. We just don't want to be in a position, I'll make this one statement and I'm through. I want to hear you. We don't want to be in a position of saying that we have come in to a state of an FBI that they pretty well accept. There's some outsiders and that their integrity is no good and that we're going to have some carpet-bag crowds. We can't haul off people from New York and try them. We can't haul off people from Dallas and try them in New York. I see that, Mr. President, but let me... They're constitutional. Right. Go ahead, now. Just let me make one suggestion because I think this covers, I think, I think this bridges the gap which I believe and Dean Atchison believes still exists. Dean and Bill Moyers are the only people I've talked to about it and Friendly is going to come out tomorrow morning with a big thing about a blue ribbon submission which he thought of independently. It isn't just the Department of Lawyers who are carrying on this. It's just things that happen to thought of a lot of people and you thought of more of the details than anyone else. Nothing. And I'm sure you're right, except there's one missing piece. I suggest that you announce that as you do not want the Attorney General to have the painful responsibility of reporting on his own brother's assassination that you have authorized three jurists, and I would suggest a Texas jurist and two non-Texas jurists by the FBI and produce a report to the nation for the nation. And after the investigation is completed so that the country will have the story and judicially reviewed outside Texas. And if you tell Bill Moyers to call up Friendly and if you get out such an announcement this afternoon, you're going to make a marvel when you've already made a marvelous start. You haven't put a damn foot one quarter of an inch wrong. And I've never seen anything like it. You've been simply marvelous in the most painful circumstances. But I do feel that there is that much of a gap. And I'm sure that if Moyers calls Friendly, you will have a terrific support from the Washington Post and from the whole of the rest of the press instantly. I was really shocked, though. No, you won't. No, you won't. Just use the procedures you've got and add to those procedures a statement saying that when the FBI has completed its work, when it has completed its work, as you do not wish to inflict on the Attorney General the painful task of reviewing the evidence concerning his own brother's assassination, you have asked, including I would include the best judge on the Texas bench, American jurist beyond or individuals, Dean Argerson, for example, beyond any possible suspicion of their independence and impartiality to draw up a written report giving to the public everything of the FBI evidence that is relevant. And then you will have this written report, which is not Texas, which tells the whole story, which is based on the FBI evidence, which doesn't need to use the things that the FBI says can't be used, and yet will carry absolute convictions and will just be that little extra added to the admirable machinery you've already got that will carry complete convictions. How long yours, Joe, tell me that it's quite awesome. I agree with that, but in this case it does happen to be the killing of the President. Right. And the thing is, I'm not suggesting... Mind you, Mr. President, I'm not talking about an investigative body. I'm talking about a body which will take the... All the evidence that the FBI has amassed when they have completed their inquiry and produce a public report on the death of the President. That, I think, you see, that is not an interference in Texas. That is... Wait a second now. That is a way to transmit to the public without reaching confidence and in a way that will carry absolute conviction what the FBI has turned out. Why can't the FBI transmit it? Because no one, again, on the left, they won't believe the FBI. And the FBI doesn't write very well. Please, please, please cancel that. Well, I just wouldn't put it on Bobby and Nick Katzenback. I'd have it outside. It's unfair to put it on Bobby. It's unfair to put it on His own body. I would like that, in absolute conviction, this very small addition of the admirable machinery that you've already set up will help you, and I believe that it will strike the imagination of the country and be a very useful happy thing, happy thing. The man asks if you have two seconds this afternoon, for example, ask D'Nuchess, and he is the man to ask, I see all the arguments you make, and you're dead right, and my conception is completely wrong, but I do think that that additional feature is needed. I've talked to, I've talked to, I guess, after midnight last night with the, well I know how you must have been concerned about the truest civil liberties lawyer in this town in my judgment, the man has made the best arguments before the Supreme Court, and it was his worst mistake we could make. Now I see exactly what, how right you are, and how wrong you are about this idea of a blue ribbon submission. Now you see Kesson-Bach suggested that the lawyers at the Council of Manila just hit the ceiling, said my God Almighty. I see, I see, I see, I see that you're right, and that he was wrong. What I do, I see, I see, I see, I see that you're right, and that he was wrong. What I do, I call back to Kesson-Bach, and I thought he accepted. Well I, I don't know anything about Kesson-Bach as I haven't talked to him for three weeks, but, but I, what I am suggesting is not at all what Kesson-Bach suggested. I'm suggesting simply a device. Let me talk to Kesson-Bach for coming up with the result of the FBI inquiry in a way that will be completely coherent, detailed, and will carry unchallengeable conviction. And this carrying conviction is just as important as carrying on the investigation in the right way. And I worry about this post editorial, I'd like you to get a head on. I worry about post, period. Well I do too, but I'd like you, I'd like you to get a head on. And if you have, if you make this decision and have Moyers call friendly, okay, instead of being, you know, this is what we ought to do, this is what ought to be done, and then what you do being denounced is inadequate. They'll, they'll be plastered and will do you a tremendous piece and I'm sure that you will have the strongest possible support. It'll be thought that everything has been done the needs doing. And I, but I do think my own judgment is that there is that little missing piece and, and Dean may disagree and you talk to him. And I hate to interfere, sir. I only dare to do so because I care so much about you. And I have the deepest faith in you and I think you've been right and I've been wrong is the general conception. Not a question. That's not really my thinking. I'm not a, not experienced. I'm really, but I'm really honestly giving you his public relations advice and not legal advice. Well, I don't have the depth in the civil liberties picture that some of the folks that have worked on this with me. I had, I had a lawyer left my house last night after midnight. That's over there. Stank from A-Z-U after the Attorney General could service to make available everything. Well, I think you're, I think you're, I think, I, I repeat, I must not keep you. You'll be late getting into your trousers, but I repeat, I think your decisions have been 200% right. And I was wrong, but from a public relations standpoint, from the standpoint of carrying convictions, there is that missing piece which is easy to supply without infringing upon Texas's feelings or sovereignty.