Re:

This email may contain material that is confidential, privileged and/or attorney work product for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any review, reliance or distribution by others or forwarding without express permission is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

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=l 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, =/20, 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 cross-reference log did not to contain the hotel Jonathan manifest Dach.=804es that the room name number or signature. was assigned The to White Dach. House =/u> determined separatel= by

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:

=A0

=AO

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 DHS IG Report itself states:=/u>

=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.

does dach still deny it? important point.

Yes, he does. Making some more tweaks.

did you look at my edits?

Looking now.

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??

We don1=;t know -- could have been the prostitute, could have been the hotel clerk=

could have b=en the prostitute is pretty strong mitigation

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