EFTA02515587.pdf

From: Kathy Ruemmler Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 8:25 PM To: jeffrey E. Subject: Re: The whole thing is ridiculous -- they had to obtain the re=ord "under the table" because the last thing the Hilton wanted t= do is to voluntarily give over info implicating the privacy of their gues=s. The procedure for checking in prostitutes is hardly rigorous.4)=A0 On Fri,=Oct 17, 2014 at 4:20 PM, jeffrey E. <jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote: could have b=en the prostitute is pretty strong mitigation On Fri, Ruemmler «= href= target="_blank wrote: We don1=;t know -- could have been the prostitute, could have been the hotel clerk= On Oct 17, 2014 4:09 PM, "jeffrey E." =Itjeevacation@=mail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com> > wrote: hey, the lawyer letter said it was the prostitute that wrote down =he room number. ? ? thats a totally different spin=on the story, if it wasn't the hotel clerk who wrote it, =e how often do prostitutes lie as to which room they are head=d?? On =ri, Oct 17, 2014 at 4:07 PM, Kathy Ruemmle Looking now. On Oct 17, 2014 4:04 PM, "jeffrey E." =Itjeevacation@=mail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com> wrote: did you look at my edits? ote: =div class=" mail uote">On Fri Oct 17, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Kathy Ruemmler =span dir="ltr"><kathyruemmler@gmail.co wrote: =p dir="ltr">Yes, he does. Making some more tweaks. EFTA_R1_01649973 EFTA02515587 On Oct 17, 2014 3:56 PM, "jeffrey E." =Itjeevacation@=mail.com <mailto:jeevacation@gmail.com» wrote: does dach still deny it? important point. On Fri, Oct 17, 2014 at 3=39 PM, Kathy Ruemmle > wrote= Forwarded messa=e From: <Kathryn.Ruemmler@lw.com > Date: Oct 17 2014 3:39 PM=br>Sub ect: To Cc: My draft respon=e below. I tweaked the points slightly. Thanks, Carol, =or letting me know what the second phase of your story will emphasize.4k=A0 I wanted to share the below points with you on background which l=hope will 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? The Comprehensiveness of the Review:=u> On the morning of April 20, 2012, the US=S informed the White House that an individual associated with the White Ho=se advance team, Jonathan Dach, may have also had an overnight guest at hi= 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.=C2* (1) The White House Counsel immediately initia=ed an internal review of the entire White House advance team (both staff a=d volunteers) that had traveled to Colombia, including Jonathan Dach.4=A0 2 EFTA_R1_01649974 EFTA02515588 (2)The White House included Dach in the intern.' review even though he was a volunteer, NOT an employee of the White Hous=, 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. By contrast, the USSS personnel, full-time fed=ral employees, had significant and defined duties to protect the President=and to ensure that they did not make themselves vulnerable to security ris=s presented by foreign nationals. (2) The White House review was conducted =ursuant to by-the-book protocols, and took place over three days, Friday, =120, Saturday, 4/21, and Sunday, 4/22. The White House Counsel belie=ed that it 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: --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.</=> 3 EFTA_R1_01649975 EFTA02515589 --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.Q=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 Dach</=> Several weeks after the White House review was=concluded, the USSS provided the White House Counsel with a handwritten, r=dacted document that the USSS had apparently obtained from someone at the =ilton 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. (1) The log indicated only that a guest had visited a certain room number. The log did not contain Jonathan Dach.=804es name or signature. The White House determined separatel= by cross- reference to the hotel manifest that the room number was assigned to Dach. =/u> 4>=ACI (2) In light of this new information, attorneys from =he White House Counsel's office re-interviewed Dach and confronted=him with the hotel log. Dach continued to deny having a guest in his=room, and his denials were deemed credible. 4;0=AD (3) The White House was aware of no infor=ation corroborating the hotel log, and it was aware that on at least one o=her occasion, the USSS had determined that a similar 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 Disclosures4=> 4 EFTA_R1_01649976 EFTA02515590 The White House was forthcoming about the revi=w it conducted and its conclusion. (1) Press Secretary Jay Carney made clear that=the White House Counsel conducted a review and had not identified any inap=ropriate behavior on the part of the White House advance team. (2) White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler reite=ated that conclusion in a letter to Chairman Darrell Issa in November 2012= making specific reference to the hotel document that had been provi=ed by the USSS. (3) 2012, the DHS Inspector General made=clear in a letter sent to then- Chairman Lieberman that the USSS was aware =f a hotel log potentially implicating someone affiliated with the White Ho=se advance team: 4)=A0 While the scope of the investigation was limit=d to the conduct of the OHS personnel in Cartagena, we did find a hotel re=istry that suggests that two non-USSS 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." (4) The OHS IG Report itself states:=/u> 4>=A0 Based on our interviews and review of records,=we identified 13 USSS employees, one White House Communications Agency emp=oyee (an officer with the Department 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 Improper White House Interfe=ence At no time, did anyone from the White House su=gest to anyone in the USSS, OHS, or the OHS 016 that the OHS IG's =eport should not include reference to the White House advance volunteer, n=r did anyone from the White House give advice as to how other officials should answer questions =bout the matter. 5 EFTA_R1_01649977 EFTA02515591 Kathryn H. Ruemmler<A> LATHAM & WATKINS LLP 555 Eleventh Street, NW Suite 1000 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 Direct Dial: +1.202.637.2179 <tel:%2B1.202.637.2179> Fax: +1.202.637.2201 <tel:%2B1.202.637.2201> Email: kathryn.ruemmler@lw.com <mailto:kathryn.ruemmler@lw.com> 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 prohibired. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender=and delete all copies. Latham & Watkins LLP =C24> 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_01649978 EFTA02515592 =C24, 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> =C240 please note The information contained 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> =C24> please note 7 EFTA_R1_01649979 EFTA02515593 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 <1=iv> 8 EFTA_R1_01649980 EFTA02515594