EFTA02515402.pdf

From: Kathy Ruemmler Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 8:08 PM To: jeffrey E. Subject: Re: Looking now. On Oct 17, 2014 4:04 PM, "jeffrey E." =Itjeevacation@gmail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com> =rote: did you look at my edits? On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Kathy Ruemmler > wrote: Yes, he does. Making some more tweaks. On Oct 17, 2014 3:56 PM, "jeffrey E." =lt;jeevacation@=mail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com» wrote: does dach still deny it? important point. <=div> On Fri, Oct =7, 2014 at 3:39 PM, Kathy Ruemmler wrote: From: Subject: To: ■ C=: My draft response belo=. I tweaked the points slightly. </=pan> Thanks, Carol, for let=ing me know what the second phase of your story will emphasize. I wa=ted to share the below points with you on background which I hope wi=l help provide you with the proper factual context for your story. If you have specific questions after reviewing this =aterial, would you please send them to me by email? < / = > EFTA_R1_01649726 EFTA02515402 The Comprehensivene=s of the Review: <1=> On the morning of Apri= 20, 2012, the USSS informed the White House that an individual asso=iated with the White House advance team, Jonathan Dach, may have also had =n overnight guest at his hotel room. The USSS characterized this information as a "rumor" that USSS=personnel who were in Cartagena had learned during the course of the inves=igation into improper conduct of USSS personnel. </=> In response, the White=House Counsel requested that USSS provide her with any information that the USSS uncovered suggesting that White House =taff or volunteers may have engaged in inappropriate conduct on the trip.=C24, <1=> (1) T=e White House Counsel immediately initiated an internal review of the enti=e White House advance team (both staff and volunteers) that had traveled t= Colombia, including Jonathan Dach. </=> (2)Th= White House included Dach in the internal review even though he was a vol=nteer, NOT an employee of the White House, who </=> --had no security clearance or access to sensitive or classified informatio=, --had no responsibility for Presidential security, and, --was not subject to any disciplinary action by the White House because he =as a private citizen and not an employee. <1=> By contrast, the USSS =ersonnel, full-time federal employees, had significant and defined duties =o protect the President and to ensure that they did not make themselves vu=nerable to security risks presented by foreign nationals. </=> </=> (2) T=e White House review was conducted pursuant to by-the-book protocols,=and took place over three days, Friday, 4/20, Saturday, 4/21, and Sunday, =122. The White House Counsel believed that it 2 EFTA_R1_01649727 EFTA02515403 was important to conduct the review immediately upon receiving the info=mation — again, at that time, characterized as a rumor -- from the=USSS and to do so thoroughly and expeditiously: <1=> --every person who went on the trip was separately interviewed regardless o= whether they were White House employees or volunteers, including Dach;=/u> --e-mails, hotel manifests, and any other relevant information in the White=House's possession were reviewed and analyzed to see whether the d=cumentary evidence corroborated or contradicted the people who were interv=ewed --the White House Counsel further requested that the USSS continue to provi=e any information relevant to White House staff or volunteers.</=> --Dach was interviewed by attorneys in the White House Counsel's Of=ice and denied bringing a guest to his room. Dach agreed to be inter=iewed and answer questions, even though he was under no legal obligation t= do so, and the White House had no legal authority to compel him to answer the questions. -- As the USSS was conducting the investigation in Columbia, which was a se=urity/personnel investigation relating to its own personnel, they agreed t= share anything relevant to White House personnel with the White House.40=A0 The USSS did not share any of its own investigative work product with the White House (i.e., interview memor=nda), which is standard and appropriate protocol. -- The White House Counsel's office collected and evaluated a=l of the evidence that it could obtain within its legal authorities. The Evidence about =ach Several weeks after th= White House review was concluded, the USSS provided the White House Couns=l with a handwritten, redacted document that the USSS had apparently obtai=ed from someone at the Hilton Hotel. The USSS represented that a hotel witness said that the log showed when ov=rnight guests had stayed at the hotel and in which room they had stayed.=C2* 3 EFTA_R1_01649728 EFTA02515404 (1) T=e log indicated only that a guest had visited a certain room number. =The log did not contain Jonathan Dach's name or signature. =C24, The White House determined separately by cross-reference to the hotel manifest that the room number was assigned to Dach. =/u> 4>=A0 (2) In light of this new info= mation, attorneys from the White House Counsel's office re-intervi=wed Dach and confronted him with the hotel log. Dach continued to de=y having a guest in his room, and his denials were deemed credible. </=> 40=A0 (3) The White Hou=e was aware of no information corroborating the hotel log, and it was awar= that on at least one other occasion, the USSS had determined that a simil=r hotel log had falsely implicated a USSS agent. The was the only information that the USSS every=provided to the White House related to Jonathan Dach or any other person a=sociated with the White House advance team. </=> White House and DHS=Public Disclosures </=> The White House was fo=thcoming about the review it conducted and its conclusion. (1) Press Secretary Jay Carney made clear that the White House Counsel conductedra review and had not identified any inappropriate behavior on the part of =he White House advance team. (2) W=ite House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler reiterated that conclusion in a letter =o Chairman Darrell Issa in November 2012, making specific reference =o the hotel document that had been provided by the USSS. (3) =C24,2012, the DHS Inspector General made clear in a letter sent to then•C=airman Lieberman that the USSS was aware of a hotel log potentially implic=ting someone affiliated with the White House advance team: *TAO While=the scope of the investigation was limited to the conduct of the DRS perso=nel in Cartagena, we did find a hotel registry that suggests that two non-=SSS personnel may have had contact with foreign nationals. Although allegations related to the no=-USSS personnel were outside the scope of the investigation, one of these =mployees is a Department of Defense employee affiliated with the White Hou=e Communication Agency and the other, whose employment status was not verified, may have been a=filiated with the White House advance operation." <1=> 4 EFTA_R1_01649729 EFTA02515405 (4) T=e DHS IG Report itself states: Q=A0 Based=on our interviews and review of records, we identified 13 USSS employees, =ne White House Communications Agency employee (an officer with the Departm=nt of Defense), and one reported member of the White House staff and/or advance team who had=personal encounters with female Colombia nationals consistent with the mis=onduct reported. </=> Allegations of Impr=per White House Interference </=> At no time, did anyone=from the White House suggest to anyone in the USSS, DHS, or the DHS OIG th=t the DHS IG's report should not include reference to the White Ho=se advance volunteer, nor did anyone from the White House give advice as to how other officials should answer questions =bout the matter. Kathryn H. Ruemmler=/b> LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 1000 Washin•ton, D.C. 20004-1304 http: www.lw.com <http: www.lw.com > This email may contain mat=rial that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the=sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribu=ion by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibi=ed. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender=and delete all copies. Latham & Watkins LLP 5 EFTA_R1_01649730 EFTA02515406 =C24k please note The information co=tained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client pr=vileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for JEE Unauthorized use= disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is str=ctly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this commu=ication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e=mail to jeevaca=ion@gmail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com> , and destroy this communication and all copies thereo=, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved </=iv> =C24k please note The information co=tained in this communication is confidential, may be attorney-client pr=vileged, may constitute inside information, and is intended only for JEE Unauthorized use= disclosure or copying of this communication or any part thereof is str=ctly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this commu=ication in error, please notify us immediately by return e-mail or by e=mail to jeevaca=ion@gmail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com> , and destroy this communication and all copies thereo=, including all attachments. copyright -all rights reserved </=iv> 6 EFTA_R1_01649731 EFTA02515407