T3 B5 White House Restrictions Fdr- Memos And Emails Re Elements Of Agreement Re Document Access-note Taking 036

Page 1 of 1

Mike Hurley From:

Philip Zelikow

Sent:

Sunday, January 04, 2004 6:41 PM

To:

Mike Hurley

Subject: FW: Draft Memo Clarifying Answers to Common Questions

Mike ~ FYI... Philip Original Message From: Philip Zelikow Sent: Sun 1/4/2004 6:37 PM To: Front Office Cc:

Subject: Draft Memo Clarifying Answers to Common Questions

Dan et al The need for this memo arises from my conversations with Jamie on Friday and with Bob Kerrey yesterday. Fred has reviewed the contents, since he is most familiar with the negotiating history. I'd like to hand this out tomorrow morning ... Also, for Dan, I'd like to give Kerrey a copy of the Arnold & Porter memo. It will help him .... I'm at the office and can be reached here or on my cellphone. Philip

1/5/2004

January 4, 2004 MEMO To:

Commissioners

From:

Philip Zelikow and Dan Marcus

Subj:

Answers to Questions About "Elements" of Agreement between the Commission and the White House

As commissioners have examined the proposal the Chair and Vice Chair will make to you on Monday, a few questions have come up.

Ql. If the Commission discovers a clue pointing them to the existence of some specific memo to any President that is of particular interest to us, and we do not already have access to the contents of that memo, can we still follow on that clue and make a specific request for it? Al. Yes we can. We are not precluded from following up on a particular lead. The agreement instead attempts to secure some finality and avoid a precedent for demanding such direct, advisory documents to the President, if another way can be found to get the Commission the information it needs. A specific request prompted by a cue of some kind is still allowed. For example, suppose that Berger or Rice were to tell us that they sent relevant memos forward that did not come from the staffer were otherwise outside our request. We can then request that document, if we do not already know what we need to know about it.

Q2. If the President made some annotation or comment on the memo, is the White House required to brief us about that? A2. Yes.

Q3. If the DCI or Secretary of Defense sent a memo directly to the President, will we be able to see it? A3. Yes, since we believe a copy of such a memo would invariably be given at least to the National Security Adviser (or his or her deputy, or the National Coordinator). It

would thus be covered either by DCI Document Request No. 16 or DoD Document Request No. 10 (both filed on 8 Oct 03). We have not yet seen a need to file any comparable requests to other executive departments. This agreement would not preclude filing such requests, as it is meant to cover future document requests to the EOF.

Page 1 of 1

Mike Hurley From:

Mike Hurley

Sent:

Friday, January 02, 2004 12:43 PM

To:

Warren Bass

Cc:

Mike Hurley

Subject: Dr. Z. Request

Warren: FYI, Dr. Z. is propping for Monday's commissioners' meeting. He said he hadn't heard back from us after asking us to mull over the proposed EOP deal. I told him my view was that the deal gives us substantially what we want, and that we can live with it. Warren, I don't think it's perfect and I do have a reservation or two, but overall, I think it'll get us what we need. Just wanted to fill you in. Philip needed an answer. See you Monday. Thanks, Mike

1/2/2004

Page 1 of 1

Mike Hurley From:

Warren Bass

Sent:

Friday, December 12, 2003 10:17 AM

To:

Mike Hurley

Subject: PZ

Got a call on my cell this morning from Philip, Mike—thought you'd want a quick read-out. 1. He asked for a recommendation on holding the Simon and Cressey interviews at NEOB. I said that there weren't many specific documents I wanted to walk either of them through (especially Simon), so I wasn't sure it was necessary. Also, I told him we have quite limited time with them both. I'm not sure we'd want to lose time in an interview with them reading over documents and saying, "Hmm..." (This was the argument for having them review documents before the interview.) I also said I was a little concerned about, say, a tape recorder conking out far from home. The argument about limited time seemed the one that most persuaded him. 2. I said I wasn't sure the same logic held for Clarke, with whom we have far more time. 3. He said we were close to a resolution on the withheld EOP 3 Clinton documents—on the brink of an agreement, he said, that would give us "access" to all of them. He provided no more details but asked me not to tell anyone about this (except you) for fear that word of the deal would somehow get public. He said Kean and Hamilton knew what was going on, and Gorelick, too. He wasn't sure if she'd told other commissioners, but he didn't want us to tell anyone else that anything was up—and seemed especially concerned that we'd tell Tim Roemer. In other words, Philip was afraid we'd tell Tim, who'd tell the press or the families. I told him that Tim's meeting with us was for next Friday. (For what it's worth, I continue to hold by the policy that if commissioners ask us questions, we should answer 'em, and then report the conversation to the FO—which is also their policy.) 4. Philip suggested we talk later today about getting him some of our preparatory work for Simon and Cressey. I'm doing up questions this morning. 5. He also suggested that we focus our efforts on gaps in our knowledge—in the policy stories we don't yet understand—to avoid wasting each others' time. I think this is fair, although I think it's worth spending time on things we think we know, too, lest we find out we've only got a piece of the story. Good luck, and let's chat when you're back. Warren

12/12/2003

Mike Hurley From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject:

Dan Marcus Sunday, December 07, 2003 4:43 PM Mike Hurley Alexis Albion; Gordon Lederman Re: McCarthy interview

By the way, as I mentioned to Mike and Warren late Friday, we have worked out a deal with WHCounsel on notes of interviews of WHouse people which -- while we're not crazy about it -- is the best we could do. Your notes will remain for 24 hours to be reviewed, for classification purposes only, by Bill Leary the longtime career NSC recordfs manager, who will not discuss their substance with anyone else at WHouse. In addition, if WHouse rep during interview identifies matters that he believes are subject to "no notes" or "escrowed notes" rules, we will take notes (unless we agree no notes are appropriate) on separate sheet of paper and resolve any disagreement later. Quoting [email protected]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

Thanks Dan.

Will do.

Mike Quoting [email protected]: > > I told Bellinger late Friday that Gordon would substitute for Kevin > at both > the > McCarthy and Sturtevant interviews. In both cases, Gordon, you > should go first (try to stick to no more than half an hour) and then > leave because they may > insist on their crazy two-interviewers-at-a-time limit. Hopefully, > Mike, they'll be relaxed about the limit during that first Lederman > half hour, when the questioning won't touch on sensitive documents > and meetings. > One of you need sto call in clearance info to Bellinger's > office first > thing Monday. 456-9111.

Date: November 25, 2003 From: Mike Hurley 9-11 Commission To: White House/NSC reviewers Monday, November 24,1 gave Dylan Kors 3 sets of my notes for review: • • •

CMH Camp David Briefing Book Notes CMH Post-9/11 Notes Michael Hurley NSPD Notes

This morning, November 25, while reading documents in the NEOB, I added a couple of pages of notes to the Post-9/11 Notes set; and a page or two to the Michael Hurley NSPD Notes set. I have given those 2 (now complete) sets to Colin and asked that they be taken to the reviewer and that those two replace for review the two (CMH Post-9/11 Notes and Michael Hurley NSPD Notes) given to Dylan yesterday. [Note: I made no changes/additions today to the CMH Camp David Briefing Book Notes, so the version you have from Monday, November 24 is the correct one to be reviewing.] I would deeply appreciate if you could review the notes I have taken today. I advised Tom Monheim on Friday, November 21 and Dylan on November 24 that it would be most helpful to have the notes in my K Street Commission office by no later than Wednesday, November 26, as I am under a tight deadline. They both thought the request reasonable and doable. Thus, you should be reviewing and getting back to me tomorrow (Wedenesday, November 26): • • •

CMH Camp David Briefing Notes given to Dylan on Monday CMH Post-9/11 Notes given to Colin on Tuesday Michael Hurley NSPD Notes given to Colin on Tuesday

Please let me know if I can do anything to assist. Many thanks for your help. Mike Hurley 202 331 4077