From: Kathy Ruemmler

From: Kathy Ruemmler Sent: Friday, October 17, 2014 7:40 PM To: jeffrey E. Subject: Fwd: Forwarded message From:= <mailto Date: Oct 17, 2014 3:39 PM Subject: To: < Cc: 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? </a The Comprehensivene=s of the Review: </a 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* </a (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 EFTA_R1_01652604 EFTA02517357 </=> --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 =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, 422. The White House Counsel believed 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.</=> --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..=A0 The 2 EFTA_R1_01652605 EFTA02517358 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.=C240 </=> (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> 40=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. Q=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) P=ess Secretary Jay Carney made clear that the White House Counsel conducted=a review and had not identified any inappropriate behavior on the part of =he White House advance team. <1=> 3 EFTA_R1_01652606 EFTA02517359 (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) =C2.2012, 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: 4k=A0 While=the scope of the investigation was limited to the conduct of the DHS 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." </=> (4) T=e DHS IG Report itself states: 40=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 </a 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 Washington, D.C. 20004-1304 EFTA_R1_01652607 EFTA02517360 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_01652608 EFTA02517361