Dm B2 Adam Ciongoli Fdr- Emails Between Ciongoli And Zelikow 225

Mail:: INBOX: FW: Reply to Your Message on Joint Inquiry Access Issues

Page 1 of4

INBOX Compose Folders Options Search Problem? Help Addressbook Tasks Memos Calendar Logout

Open Folder

0.72MB / 476.84MB (0.15%)

to Your ... (6 of 22)

on

Move|co py

This message to yj

*®

Delete | Reply | Reply to AH | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source 1 Resume | Save as {Print Back to INBOX <1 ! Date: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 23:05:18 -0400 From: Philip Zelikow 4? To: dmarcus@9-11 commission.gov9 Reply-to: pzelikow@9-11 commission.gov 4P Subject: FW: Reply to Your Message on Joint Inquiry Access Issues

Dan —

As discussed in my previous message. Philip Original Message From: Philip Zelikow [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 11:02 PM To: 'Ciongoli, Adam' Subject: Reply to Your Message on Joint Inquiry Access Issues sAdam — As I promised on Friday, we are not seeking to examine either the hearing transcripts or the interview reports in the next day or two, and not until you have had a chance to check the material and talk to us about any concerns. Our Commission's next meeting is on Thursday morning, and commissioners have placed this issue on the agenda. Tom and Lee had arranged to talk to Porter tomorrow. Porter has declined to take their call at least until I have talked to Pat Murray, the HPSCI counsel. I've postponed the call at least until Wednesday to give everyone more time to consider the issues. And, of course, your concerns also must be appropriately addressed. On the material in the memo to Eleanor that I had not discussed with you •on Friday, you should know that I had not discussed them before with Eleanor either. That material seemed to fall into a set of miscellaneous pieces that could be tracked more usefully if detailed specifically in writing. So I passed them along with the major requests I had reviewed with Eleanor and with you, in the memo which I cc'd to you. After reflecting on the disclosure issue you mentioned over the phone, I've done some rereading, and have wondered about a proper noun used in one of our specific requests from a staffer's work files. If that's a good guess, we thought that — in the way we used it — this proper noun would not signify anything meaningful about either a thing or a person unless the reader already had the requisite clearances and background knowledge. But we want to be as careful as possible, and I'm very troubled that you felt this information might be suggestive. We

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index= 12

4/8/2003

Mail:: INBOX: FW: Reply to Your Message on Joint Inquiry Access Issues

Page 2 of 4

are certainly willing to redact this noun and be even more cautious in the future. I'm glad you're working this issue. Our original request for the Joint Inquiry material was provided in writing on February 13. You can see the results we have achieved so far after nearly two months. Our statutory deadline is now 13 1/2 months away. But we still believe a quietly cooperative approach will end up being more constructive and, ultimately, more effective. Philip

Original Message From: Ciongoli, Adam [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 7:50 PM To: '[email protected]' (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested) Subject: RE: National Commission Staff and Document Rooms at CIA, FBI, and NSA Phil Thank you for copying me on your letter to Eleanor. I think I need to clarify that while I don't foresee any problems regarding some form of access to the vast majority (if not all) of the hearing transcripts or interview reports, I thought I had made clear that I needed a couple of days to tie up some loose ends with regard to both categories before you would proceed. One of my conversations today has raised a couple of issues regarding at least one closed hearing, as well as issues related to a number of interview reports which I'd like to discuss before we get any further. I'll pass this on to Eleanor, as well, but as I thought I mentioned on Friday, I'd like an opportunity to resolve those before I "sign-off" for the Administration. If I wasn't clear on that point, I apologize. In addition, Section IV of your letter seemed to contain a materials we've yet to discuss at all,which I'd like to do can. I've been very pleased with our level of interaction Knowing what you will be seeking in advance of requests to makes my job much easier.

variety of as soon as we so far. the JICI

I'm happy to discuss first thing tomorrow, though I still have some fact-finding to complete after that. Thanks again for your consideration. Adam Original Message From: Philip Zelikow [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 8:17 PM To: Ciongoli, Adam Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'John Ivicic'; [email protected] Subject: National Commission Staff and Document Rooms at CIA, FBI, and NSA

:Adam

-

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=12

4/8/2003

Mail:: INBOX: FW: Reply to Your Message on Joint Inquiry Access Issues Page 3 of 4 /9/11 Classified Information •

Following up on our helpful conversation on Friday, we promised to provide you with the names of staff we wish to be able to send out to these agencies to start reviewing and digesting the documents they originally assembled for the Joint Inquiry. / We will pass the necessary clearances to the agencies concerned before,' anybody shows up. At this time, they are as follows:

CIA: Douglas MacEachin, Kevin Scheidj_Lewis Moon, Ernest May, Philip Zelikow, and Chris Kojm. (All have^~laccess.)

FBI:

Michael Jacobsen, Zelikow, and Kojm.

NSA:

MacEachin, Scheid, May, Zelikow, and Kojm.

We will be adjusting this list as we complete security briefings for pcertain staffers, ascertain our ability to handle compartmented access |within these agency collections, and develop careful procedures for jjcopying and regulating access to the documents. The point here is to I'work out ways to preserve our 'need to know' restrictions as we sift :jthrough these documentary collections.

Any documents that we wish to copy for Commission files will be the object of an appropriate request. Any classified document or set of documents received by the Commission will be entered into a Commission registry to track these holdings and regulate access to such material.

Philip Zelikow

i'

h http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=12

4/8/2003

: miuiiimuun /\w;css issues anu lumuuuw s ^umiinssiuii meeting

rage i ui

INBOX Compose Folders Options Search Problem? Help Addressbook Tasks Memos Calendar Logout

Open Folde

0.78MB/476.84MB (0.16%)

INBOX: RE: Information Access Issues and Tomorrow's Commi... (1 of 21) CE

M'n»B, <-opy

f^his message to {g|

Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Print

Back to INBOX < |>

Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 19:14:15 -0400 From: "Ciongoli, Adam" ^ To:

'"[email protected]"' ^, "IPM Return Requested"©^

"'[email protected]'" ^, "Receipt Notification Requested"©^ Subject: RE: Information Access Issues and Tomorrow's Commission Meeting Cc:

Hi Phil-,

Sorry it's taken me a bit today to get back to you-

Here's what I've got:

1. Hearing transcripts:

There are 3 closed hearings (June 16/11 and Sept 12) that I need to review for unauthorized disclosures. I asked Eleanor yesterday for some time to review that, she said she needed to clear that and I have not-, as yet heard back from her. As soon as I've had a chance to review those-, we can talk about any potential concerns-, if they exist- In the meantime! there's no problem with you reviewing the other 7 transcripts and I'll convey that to EleanorAs we discussed-, there are 2 other hearings (October 1/lDth) that involve FBIdesignated sensitive material-, that should be limited to the agreed list of DSH cleared staff- Overall-, I assume that no one will be reviewing hearings unless they are cleared and need-to-know the subject based on assignmentI'd like to discuss your thoughts on notetaking-, particularly of the OctoberT/nth hearings2- Uitness interviews: There are 6 individuals (approximately 1M interviews) that I need to review for potential privilege issues- Those are the interviews of:

Hike Sheuer Cofer Black

Again! I've asked Eleanor for time to review these and have not yet heard back-

Among the 3DD-plus other interview reports-, there are numerous others that implicate very sensitive interests-i including source information. Acccordingly-, we would like to set up (quickly) an opportunity for the Agency and the Bureau to brief you and any other sta.ff who would be reviewing these reports before accessing interview reports- \'\, I assume that no one will bg.reviewing interview reports unl cleared and need-to-know the subject .based on assignment! and again-, I'd like to discuss your thoughts on notetaking.\. swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=l01&index=57&start=l

9/11

Closed by Statute

iviaii ..

JVD. iiiiumiauuii ^vuucss issues auu lumuiiuw s v^uiimiissiuu iviccimg

rage /, ui

3.Agency P.0-C • ' s My current list has just about everyone (I'm still waiting for Transportation). I can fax you that tonight-, or get you an electronic copy tomorrow- I know you've spoken to some of the POC's (FBI-, CIA). I'm trying to convene a conference call before C - O - B - Friday. If you could wait until then I think it would help both of us-, as I intend to make clear that they are to cooperate with you • I hope this helps in advance of your meeting-, and I'll be available tomorrow afternoon to talk (unless Eleanor gives me time to look at the material discussed above)best-. Adam Original Message From: Philip Zelikow Cmailto:pzelikow5n-llcommission-govl Sent: Wednesday-, April D1-, 5DD3 1:MD PM To: Ciongolii Adam Cc: dmarcusSn-llcommission•gov Subject: Information Access Issues and Tomorrow's Commission Meeting Adam -

I've been watching Saddam's statue come downNSC on Germany and Eastern Europe in November like another one to remember-

Recalling my work in the this day sure feels

But on to the day's issues:

The Commission will meet privately tomorrow-i beginning at T:QDTomorrow one of our commissioners will ask the Commission to promise to issue a public report in May on our progress with information access- I have also been confronted with following question: "In the three weeks that have passed since Andy Card's memo to agencies-i have you met with a single agency POC-i or even been given any of their names?"

I've developed a plan to address these concerns-i at least for tomorrow's meeting- I would like to preview these plans with you-i since they will not happen without your help-

1- I hope that today-i April T-, we will finalize an understanding with the Joint Inquiry on access to their material- On Friday-i April 11-. I would like to again visit their offices and survey all-i or almost all-, of the hearing transcripts and interview reports- I will try to map the compartments and issues associated with eachi so that I can direct the staff on who should see what- If you have a reserve o.n particular items-, I'll be glad to work that with you-i or work around them for the time being if the particulars are stubborn-

2- I hope that next week I can dispatch appropriately cleared staffers to begin reviewing both the above material and the existing agency document holdings at CIA-, FBI-, and N S A - At least for now-, the staffers

http://kinesis. swishmail.com/webmai l/imp/message.php?actionID=101&index=57&start=l

4/9/03

man '.: LIM>\JJ\. xvn: imuniituiun /\i;i;ess issues aiiu luiiiuiiuw s vAumiiissiuii meeting

rage j ui

d i s p a t c h e d to the a g e n c i e s w o u l d be those l i s t e d in my e - m a i l message of April b-

3. M e a n w h i l e - i I h o p e that l a t e r t o d a y you can g i v e me the names of all the agency POCs you have received so far. If you would prefer that I h o l d off on c o n t a c t i n g them-, just let me know when that would be OK.

4. Hy h o p e is that by next week we can be c o n t a c t i n g the agency POCs and arranging m e e t i n g s I n these m e e t i n g s w e w i l l talk t h r o u g h o u r l i k e l y n e e d s and start r e f i n i n g our r e q u e s t i i d e n t i f y i n g issues-, and the m o d a l i t i e s f o r access-

I am out out nf t-.ho n f f i r o i-prijy. but you can reach me via e-mail or on my c e l l p h o n e -I I

Philip

Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Print /

Back to INBOX <1 >

Move|Copyl T h i s m e s s a g e t °H

9/11 Personal Privacy

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=101&index=57&start=l

4/9/03

ivian .. iiNJD\^yv. r wu. ivc. iiiiumiauuu /\uuess issues auu luuiuiiuw s v^uimmssiuii ivieeiiiig rage i ui

0.98MB / 476.84MB (0.20%) Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2003 18:14:35 -0400 From: pzelikow@9-11 commission,gov^f To: [email protected]^ Subject: Fwd: RE: Information Access Issues and Tomorrow's Commission Meeting

Dan — CC'ing this to youWe've also closed out all our current issues with Eleanoryou •

Call and I'll update

Philip Forwarded message from "Adam.Ciongoliausdoj.gov" Date: Thu-, ID Apr SOD3 lb:M3:50 -D4DD (EDT) From: "Adam.Ciongoli3usdoj.gov" Reply-To: "Adam-Ciongoli3usdoj.gov" Subject: RE: Information Access Issues and Tomorrow's Commission Meeting To: "'pzelikow31-llcommission.gov'" ! "IPM Return Requested"3 Do you prefer Phil or Philip (or doesn't it matter?) 1- Ply secretary should've sent over the POC list this morning. I have a meeting scheduled Monday (E to 3) to instruct them to cooperate with you- I'll follow up with you after that and then you can deal with them directly. £• I've been trying all day to get representatives from the Bureau and Agency available to brief you-, as I know you're eager~to get startedIt appears I'll have someone from CIA tomorrow morning-i and hopefully FBI as wellI assume you'd like to do this at your offices3- I spoke with Eleanor this morning-, and there is a vast quantity of information involved with these hearing transcripts. I am heading over tomorrow afternoon to start reviewing the 3 hearing transcripts and then the interview reports of the fl individuals we discussed yesterday. She indicated to me that each hearing transcript will take several hours-, so I've blocked off time early next week to try to get this done quicklyM - Ue still have not discussed your thoughts on notes on these categories of information (transcripts and reports)-, which we should do. Ue can talk about that in the morning if that works for you. 5- you are correct that one of the things I plan to address on Monday with the POC's is access to documents that they shared with JICI- Once I've had that conversation Monday afternoon-, I'll be in better shape to discuss arrangementsLet me know if there's anything else I can doAdam

Original Message From: Philip Zelikow Cmailto:pzelikowaT-llcommission-govJ Sent: Thursday-, April ID, EDD3 1:3M AM To: Ciongoli-, Adam Cc: dmarcus31-llcommission•gov Subject: RE: Information Access Issues and Tomorrow's Commission Meeting

7message.php?actionID=148&mailbox-INBOX&bodypart=$bodypart&index=65&uniq=105004/10/03

Mail:: INBOX: RE: POC meeting

Page 1 of 3

IN BOX j'Com pose Folders'-iOptions .Search. Problem? Help Addressbopk..Tasks Memps CalendaruLbgoutOpeiv Folder 1.19MB / 476.84MB (0.25%)

INBOX: RE: POC meeting (1 of 39

Move | Copy jThis message to |M [Delete | Reply | Reply to All ] Forward :| Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source [.Resume | Save as,[Print Back to INBOX Ot>] Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 19:12:59 -0400 From: Philip Zelikow ^ 9/11 Closed by Statute To: [email protected] if Cc: [email protected] Reply-to: pzelikow@9-11 commission.gov^P Subject: RE: POC meeting lAdam — jiOn the specifics, neither I nor anyone authorized to speak for the Commission has asked for DOD e-ma.i'ls. I offered earlier today to backbrief you on my meeting at POD, and that offer is still good. I also tried to phone you right.after that meeting and the one with CIA, as you may know. But I presume the| jtypescript request is the same one listed in my ,April 7 memo to Eleanor Hill, which was cc'd to you. You may remember ;;this particular request, because it was the one that had you worrying a bit about whether we had inadvertently disclosed classified information. In other words, we're not circumventing you.

Just the opposite.

That said, this is the second time in two days that you've raised this concern, and the second time I've asked you to explain their origin. So we should have the phone call at 9 tomorrow morning, and I welcome your constructive suggestion that we make this a daily habit. I'll be glad to call you. As to the final point, about the Commission determinations about the scope of its inquiry, I did not understand what you meant. We should distinguish two cases: 1. Commission findings about further investigation of the intelligence Ijcommunity, for which there is a prescribed process that cannot be jlcompleted until we have completed our review of the information compiled j|by the Joint Inquiry. Most of that information still awaits our review, at CIA, FBI, and NSA. As you know, we have not yet been able to begin that review, and there is also some information we have not yet reviewed at the Joint Inquiry offices. 2. Commission determination of the scope of its inquiry within the Ijstatutory mandate. Though it could do so, the Commission has not made [any determination to expand its statutory mandate. All our thinking to jjdate about the scope of the Commission's work on policy matters falls • jjwithin the existing mandate of the statute, as reflected in the scope of |the nine teams we've openly described to you and to others. Again, however, I appreciate your offer of a meeting between Tom, Lee, ;and some of your principals. Just let me whom you wish to involve from lithe administration, and we'll try to set it up.

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=fc44ce43188e 16b4a419e2,.. 4/15/2003

Mail:: INBOX: RE: POC meeting

/9/11 Closed by Statute

Page 2 of 3

I look forward to talking with you/tomorrow morning, and I'm sorry that you're hearing bothersome things. • Philip

/

Original Message ; ' From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 6:.<07 PM To: '[email protected]' (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return Requested) Subject: RE: POC meeting / Phillip--

'

';

/

I've received a couple of call£ today raising requests for access to information that you and I have not discussed, such as DOD emails, a document created|^^^_^^^^^^| etc... I wanted to put two suggestions on the table: first, there may be some value in you and I have a morning call to discuss any new categories of information you'd like so that I can arrange with the relevant agencies, rather than having them call me after they've heard from you. I could talk tomorrow at 9am if that works for you. Second, I appreciate the 'heads up' that you've given me and others about areas beyond what was provided to the JICI that you believe will be of interest in the near term. I think, however, that before we go any further down that road, that there needs to be a discussion about the process by which the Commission will "determine" that such areas are appropriate for inquiry, as required by Section 604 (b)(2) of the statute. I anticipate that this is a conversation that will need to include Kean and Hamilton, as well as some of my principals. I am happy to arrange this as soon as feasible. I look forward to hearing from you. Adam Original Message From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 5:25 PM To: Ciongoli, Adam Subject: RE: POC meeting

Adam — Pursuant to our agreement, I have not had any conversations yet with agency POCs or conveyed any requests for information to any of them. I have only been arranging times to meet with them, starting no earlier than tomorrow, as we agreed. |i ;|So if any POC has received a request from the Commission for information, it did not come from me or from anyone authorized to speak for the Commission. I'm puzzled, so let me know what's going on, especially if it turns out that I need to talk with any members of my staff.

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=fc44ce43188el6b4a419e2... 4/15/2003

Mail:: INBOX: RE: POC meeting

Page 3 of 3

With respect to NSA, the only message for Karen Valentine is that I am also trying to meet directly and informally with Mike Hayden, who is an old friend. For now I've told my assistant to hold off on any meeting just with Karen. I from the Agency has arranged to see me at 10:30 tomorrow morning.This will double as both the briefing and an introduction to her as the POC. She did not -know what FBI's plans would be. I'm available from 10:30 on into midday, or at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow. I'm iihoping that the briefings can conclude in time to get back over to the Ford Building in the early afternoon and collect copies of interview reports. I can be reached by phone on my cell, [_ Thanks for the update!

!j Philip Original Message

•

i

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 4:28 PM i To: '[email protected]' I Subject: POC meeting I .

I met with the various Pocs today and gave them an outline of how we see this working, and I think they understand. One thing that came up was that a number of them had received requests for information that you and I had not yet discussed, or for time to meet withjyou (NSA). With regard to the former category (requests for information) I asked that they forward me until you and I have had a chance:to discuss them. Regarding the meeting with Karen Valentine at NSA; I told her I assumed it was a standard meet and get to know, and that She shouldn't be concerned. Obviously, if there's any substance yt>u want, letting me jjknow will help speed the process. \ am trying to arrange a briefing for you tomorro

you be available? Adam

9/11

Thanks.

Closed by Statute

i j

i 9/11 Personal Privacy

Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Print

Back to INBOX <3E>

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?Horde=fc44ce43188el6b4a419e2... 4/15/2003

ZVJD: runuw up

rage i ui ->

INBOX Compose Folders Options Search Problem' Help Addressbook Tasks Memos Calendar Logout

°pen Foide

1.41 MB / 476.84MB (0.29%)

INBOX: RE: Follow up (1 of 41)

C®

Mnx<0 , ropy

[ThTs message to g}

Delete | Reply | Reply to All | Forward | Redirect | Blacklist | Message Source | Resume | Save as | Print Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2003 22:43:54 -0400 From: phhjp Zelikow ^ To:

Back to INBOX

[email protected]^

^c: dmarcus@9-11 commission.gov^ Reply-to: [email protected]<^ Subject: RE: Follow up Adam --

Thanks for this helpful reply. Our meeting today with State went well. Same sort of preview about policy documents as with DOD- We also mentioned post T/ll documents -up to the present day -- if the documents have retrospective evidence about 1/11. lile also emphasized visa/immigration/passport-related documents and issues- Further we are interested in understanding the situation in the field at a few critical and illustrative foreign posts prior to T/ll-i such as Islamabad-! Riyadhi and Berlin. They asked about whether we wanted access to e-mails. We waffled-i uncertain about how useful that would be during the time periods we are focusing on. We'll cross that bridge later. As for modalities-i we focused on the now familiar reading room approach-! but without permanent work stations at State- Just a small area to sift through documents and determine what we request for copying and bringing back to the Commission- Like DOD-, they promised to respond next weekThey mulled about whether they want us to give them a written request-i but began realizing some of the downsides of that route and said they would think about it some more. On the CIA-. FBI-i and NSA reading rooms-, you mentioned two points:

A global process regarding security briefings for staff prior to initial access. Why don't we just agree that staff going to any agency shouldi on arrival for the first time-i receive whatever orientation or security briefing that agency would like to give themNotetaking. This came up with CIA- We agreed that CIA could review notes before we take them away-i only in order to insure that the notes are properly classified- This seems to make sense in other settings as uel 1 • If you talk to CIA you may tell them that I've personally reviewed all the (11) Joint Inquiry interview reports we've received so far-i to make sure they are properly classified. There are several cases where I've felt obliged to upgrade the level of classification or add more codeword designations- This was one of the concerns they previewed to me-> and they had a pointYou should also know that we have added our nun internal marking to further segregate and restrict access to I [material that deals with a particular active type of Agency operations- Thg..[~""] designation has been used to cover a great deal of material beybna thati and we have

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/!rnessage.php?index=l 41 9/11 Classified Information

4/17/03

yjuau ;. IIN.DV^A. XSJD: ruuuw up

rage z ui

9/11 Closed by Statute | people who need to have access to the relevant HUMINT but do not have a •: need to know about this other area of Agency operations- No one at the ;.

Agency has asked us to take this further step-, but we consider it

;\;\p

—---Original Message

From: Adam.Ciongoli3usdoj.gov Cmailto:Adam-CiongoliSusdoj-govJ Sent: Thursday, April 17-, 5D03 t,:15 Pfl

To: Philip Zelikow (E-mail) (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPH Return Requested) Cc: Eleanor H i l l (E-mail) (Receipt Notification Requested) (IPM Return

Requested) Subject: Follow up Phillip-, as discussed this morning: 1- I have reviewed the following interview reports which I have no problems being shared with you:

I .. I^30/DS (there are 2 on this day) - there is an unresolved issue with her 11/2D/D2 which I'm going to ask for guidance on-, so if you could hold off on that one. Hike Sheur fl/12/02 and 1Q/2/05 interviews - there is an unresolved issue i with his 7/3/02 which I'm going to ask for guidance on-, so if you could '; hold off on that one-, as well]- 11/5/02 interview! no problem reviewing that one-.

though there is a very sensitive source info reference. 2-with regard to the clearance issue-, the 3 letter code has now been classified (I learned today). NSC has indicated to me that they have every intention of clearing you-, Kean and Hamilton. If you could tell me who told you there might be a problem-i I can break any jam that might be gathered. Both the June Ifith and Sept- IB hearing include this info-, and the June 11th may. My associate-, Howard Nielson-, should be able to review those by early next weeki which I hope will correspond with clearances• 3- I spoke with CIA-, FBI-, and NSA about reading rooms today-, and I've asked them all to make materials available on a rolling basis- I think there would be some value to us talking about a global process regarding security briefings for staff prior to initial accessi as well as notetaking issues- I'm out of the office tomorrow-, but could try to catch up with you at your office by phone if you tell me when a good time will beas always-, let me know if anything else comes upthanks-, adam 3.

Adam G - Ciongoli Counselor to the Attorney General 150 Pennsylvania Avenue-, NU Washington-, DC 50S3D

(202)

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?index=141

4/17/03

Page 1 of 2

..MaikrINBOX: RE: Issue Update: CIA 2.79MB /-476.84MB (0.59%) Date: From: To: Cc: Subject:

Wed, 23 Apr 2003 15:48:30 -0400 (EOT) "[email protected]" $ '"[email protected]"' 4f, "IPM Return Requested"© 4f "'[email protected]'" #, "Receipt Notification Requested"®^ RE: Issue Update: CIA

Phillip, I just left this information on your mobile phone voicemail, but as I said in that message, I'm following up in writing.

1. I [.should be talking with you shortly. There should be 15 boxes of documents available for review by Friday. the other 10 boxes are archived and I am optimistic that we'll get those available next week. The 15 boxes is a pretty substantial volume of pages, so I am hoping that you're people will not be held up any further while the other 10 are obtained and reviewed.

2.1 |also .told me that the index to these boxes (all 25) is about 50 pages, intends\to messenger that to you tomorrow, for your review.

He

J3. With regard to the documents held by the JI, your understanding is the same as •(mine that our agencies do not have a "ready-made" set, and it would be much llquicker if we can get the JI to give you access to theirs, as I mentioned to you 'Monday, we're, still txying to work through that with them, and i obviously appreciate your thoughts in that regard, rest assured we will resolve this as quickly as possible. best, Adam Original Messuage * From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, April 23, \2003 7:58 AM To: Ciongoli, Adam Cc: [email protected] Subject: Issue Update: CIA

Adam -

Though our discussions at CIA yesterday were positive, we are still not actually able to examine a single document there, for the following reasons:

1.1 l-has only been able to review a co.uple of boxes to address your concerns, The documents, she has identified far your review have not been pulled; the boxes are not in a pla-ce where we can examine, them.

2. What would be more useful to us than examining the boxes is to examine the indexes of their contents - the''-t.ables of\Cpntents for them. ,.J~ [says she needs your permission to let us examine the.se index documents and asked me to make this request to you. • . V. ... • '9/11 Closed by Statute

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/niessage.php?actionID=148&mailbox=INBOX... 4/23/2003

Page 2 of 2

:: INBOX: RE: Issue Update: CIA

3. The boxes tend to contain more sensitive internal material, such as operational cables. The finished intelligence reports are not there. Copies were given to the Joint Inquiry without additional copies being retained in the 'reading room1 at CIA. So:

A) We can't examine the list of those documents either in order to determine what we actually might want to see, without your permission; and

B) CIA would naturally prefer that we get the copies from the Ford Building, rather than have us request them and have them make copies all over again.

On this last point: In discussing this matter with Eleanor I gained the impression that the agency had retained copies of the documents they provided to the JIS. That is apparently not the case at CIA, and mainly not the case at FBI either. Hence we would have to do the request process again. Further, I had the impression that Eleanor's problem related to the digital storage of the documents, mixed in a database with privileged material. But I've now been told that the JIS also still has the hard copies of the documents they took back, which are boxed (and with the contents indexed).

I hope you will convey to | |, your permission to let us examine the relevant index documents so that we can then identify documents we wish to pull from their boxes, once they have reviewed them. And I'll weigh in with Eleanor to recount my discoveries and concerns about the' documents held by the JIS. Meanwhile I hope |that, with your permission, we can \begin to examine the CIA index documents so ;'that we can identify the documents we need to see either from the JIS boxes or in fresh requests from CIA.

Philip

9/11

Closed by Statute

http://kinesis.swishmail.com/webmail/imp/message.php?actionID=148&mailbox=INBOX... 4/23/2003