T3 B7 Dialogue W Commissioners Fdr- Emails- Notes- Withdrawal Notices- Gorelick Tasking And Dialogue W Staff 099

rage i ui z.

Dan Marcus From: To:

Gorelick, Jamie [[email protected]] Sent:Sat 6/5/2004 5:25 PM Commissioners; Stephanie Kaplan; Ann Bennett; Antwion M. Blount; Dianna Campagna; Steve Dunne; Al Felzenberg; Graham Giusti; Barbara Grewe; Ellie Hartz; Karen Heitkotter; Stephanie Kaplan; Chris Kojm; Kasia Kozaczuk; Dan Leopold; Dan Marcus; Tracy Shycoff; Emily Walker; Garth Wermter; Philip Zelikow

Cc: Subject: Rolling comments Attachments: Excuse the blast email, but I didn't know how you want to receive comments. Comments on Chapter 1 This is a very helpful chapter and generally quite well done. I enjoyed the rhetorical flourishes at the beginning as the story opens. I have a couple of suggestions: * Make it clear that this chapter describes what we now know as opposed to what we knew at the time and that we will describe later what the government knew. This is a question that comes to mind throughout (e.g. at bottom of p. 9, where we discuss UBL's substantial worldwide network in 1998 and that he'd nurtured this network for 10 years. Did "we" know that? Another example would be what we knew about Rahman when he first came to the US (p. 12). Also, at 15, trainers "later" boasted - when? * Add context with regard to other terrorist groups, e.g., Hamas, Hizbollah, etc. First mention is now on p. 15. For much of the 1990s, they were thought to be the larger threat. As written for the layman, one could conclude that al Qaeda was the only such threat. * Given the indictment of Bin Ladin's brand of Islam, should we have a respected Islamic scholar review the opening section? I, for one, am in no position to evaluate it. If the staff is sufficiently confident of its accuracy in content and tone, I'd be happy to defer. * In the section on pp 5-6 that follows the statement that the Islamic world periodically saw surges of fundamentalism, it would be helpful to state how, if at all, the period you are describing differs from past such surges. * In several places, we discuss the ample supply of young men schooled in ignorance and hate (first reference on p. 7' see also discussion at p. 19 which begs for further discussion;description). It would be useful to discuss how these schools came to be, who funded them and why or at least make a reference to a later discussion of this, assuming one is planned for a later chapter. * In the section of Afghanistan beginning on p. 10, we minimize the US role in supporting the radicalized population that drove out the Soviets and then turned against the US. How confident are you in that judgment? Do we know whether the ISID tunneled money to UBL? If not, why do we say on p. 11 that the environment for UBL's efforts was ideal? * The various discussions of UBL's finances could be clarified some. At p. 12: was he using family money to support these businesses? At p. 21, how did the Golden Chain make him rich again? * Re the discussion of Somalia on p. 15, did we know at the time that the perpetrators were UBL connected? * Re the discussion of connections between UBL and Saddam, this is obviously of high sensitivity and we don't cite a factual basis for the assertion that UBL was willing to explore possibilities for cooperation with Iraq or for UBL's meeting the senior Iraqi intelligence officer. I think we need to be sure of the basis of our statements here. Also, the last to sentences of the the fourth paragraph re UBL approaching these governmentas as an equal seems a reach and of questionable relevance; please explain why we say this or omit. * Re the Sudan, on p. 17, we discuss role of UN sanctions. What, if any role did the US play in this? Also, is there any dispute around that the Sudanese told the US re expelling UBL, etc.? At p. 23, it would be worth noting that the expulsion from Sudan pressed for by the UN/US did indeed disrupt UBL's organization * On p. 18, the two examples do not seem to illustrate that his organization was haphazard, as suggested, but they do seem to illustrate that he was having money problems, so you might want to reverse the order. * Haven't tried to edit, but a couple of phrases/etc, you might want to look at: p. 12, "if so" he was rebuffed; p. 13 "BIF" undefined; p. 14 "there" referred to US; p. 17 "opera bouffe" will not be accessible to most readers; p. 18 "poorer" instead of "comparatively poor" Overall, a great start. Next installment from me tomorrow. Jamie Jamie S. Gorelick Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP 2445 M Street NW Washington, DC 20037 USA

http://exchange.9-l lcommission.gov/exchange/dmarc. ../Rolling%20comments.EML?Cmd=ope

6/6/04

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions SERIES: Team 3,9/11 Commission NND PROJECT NUMBER:

52100

FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107

WITHDRAWAL DATE: 11/18/2008

BOX: 00003

FOLDER: 0001

COPIES: 1 PAGES:

TAB: 2

DOC ID: 31205814

1 _ACCESS RESTRICTEDJ_|

The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: FOLDER TITLE: Dialogue with Commissioners DOCUMENT DATE:

DOCUMENT TYPE: Handwritten Notes

FROM:

TO: SUBJECT:

0

This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s): 9/11 Closed by Statute

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions SERIES: Team 3,9/11 Commission NND PROJECT NUMBER:

52100

FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107

WITHDRAWAL DATE: 11/18/2008

BOX: 00003

FOLDER: 0001

COPIES: 1 PAGES:

TAB: 3

DOC ID: 31205815

2

The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: FOLDER TITLE: Dialogue with Commissioners DOCUMENT DATE: 03/15/2004

DOCUMENT TYPE: Note/Notes

FROM: TO: SUBJECT:

Taskings from Jami Gorelick

This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s): 9/11 Classified Information

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions SERIES: Team 3,9/11 Commission NND PROJECT NUMBER:

52100

FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107

WITHDRAWAL DATE: 11/18/2008

BOX: 00003

FOLDER: 0001

COPIES: 1 PAGES:

TAB: 4

DOC ID: 31205816

3

The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: FOLDER TITLE: Dialogue with Commissioners DOCUMENT DATE:

DOCUMENT TYPE: Handwritten Notes

FROM: TO: SUBJECT:

Taskings from Jami Gorelick

This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s): 9/11 Classified Information

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions SERIES: Team 3,9/11 Commission NND PROJECT NUMBER:

52100

FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107

WITHDRAWAL DATE: 11/18/2008

BOX: 00003

FOLDER: 0001

COPIES: 1 PAGES:

TAB: 5

DOC ID: 31205817

2 _ACCESS RESTRICTED|_|

The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: FOLDER TITLE: Dialogue with Commissioners DOCUMENT DATE: 03/17/2004

DOCUMENT TYPE: Memorandum

FROM: Bass TO: Gorelick SUBJECT:

Bush NSC Priorities and High-Level Meetings

This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s): 9/11 Classified Information

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

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

Mike Hurley Monday, March 08, 2004 11:18 AM Dan Marcus Warren Bass; Alexis Albion; Mike Hurley FW: Berger

Dan, Per below, Jamie has responded to my message. It looks like Berger thinks the memo is in the Archives. produced it yet?

If so, why hasn't the NSC

Do we have to make a specific document request to the EOF to get this? Please tell us how to proceed. Thanks, Mike Original Message From: Jamie Gorelick Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 11:06 AM To: Mike Hurley Subject: RE: Berger Berger says one can ask the Archives. Would you prefer to talk with him directly on this? I only got in the middle of this because he called me after reading the Coll articles to say that there is other evidence, which he would like to see and which he thinks we should see, of the nature of the directive to the CIA. Original Message From: Mike Hurley [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 10:54 AM To: Gorelick, Jamie Cc: Mike Hurley Subject: RE: Berger Jamie, Got your message. We have not seen such a document, either at NEOB or at CIA. We'll try to track it down. Thanks, Mike Original Message From: Jamie Gorelick Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 3:41 PM To: Mike Hurley Subject: Berger Mike -Berger says he is certain that he sent a memorandum to Tenet in the /99-2000 period with interpreting instructions involving CIA efforts to get UBL. Could you ask the Archives to

ind it. He says that he saw it during the document review and assumed that we would have it. If we don't, we should try to find it. Thanks. Jamie

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

Philip Zelikow Sunday, March 07, 2004 7:01 PM Warren Bass; Mike Hurley Alexis Albion; Chris Kojm; Dan Marcus RE: Berger

Warren As if they were listening, Dylan called me this afternoon. They have another EOP 5 production. It will take them a week to get it all in, he thinks, but he has pulled some documents that he thought I might want to see asap. I thanked him and offered to come by the NEOB at 930 Monday morning. I'll try to bring my notes back with me, as I did on Friday. Philip Original Message From: Warren Bass Sent: Sunday, March 07, 2004 3:44 PM To: Philip Zelikow; Mike Hurley Cc: Alexis Albion; Chris Kojm; Dan Marcus Subject: RE: Berger Thanks for the heads-up; as you've seen from my memo, Jamie raised the same point with me on Friday. Like Philip, I don't recall seeing such a document, and I think it would have raised my eyebrows, too. It could, of course, be buried in the Clinton EOP 5 material; if I find it, I'll let you know. I should add that the EOP 5 material shows far more of Berger's handwriting than we've seen before; the fact that we're only getting such material this late in the game leaves me quite concerned that Berger's files have not been searched properly—which, in turn, makes it hard to be confident that we've gotten to the bottom of these sort of documentary questions. I hope we can push to ensure that the searches are being done with, as JFK used to say, "vigah." Warren Original Message From: Philip Zelikow Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 9:05 PM To: Mike Hurley Cc: Warren Bass; Alexis Albion; Chris Kojm; Dan Marcus Subject: RE: Berger Mike -I don't recall seeing such a document and think I would remember it. I'm reasonably confident it has not been produced at the NEOB or at CIA. I'm cc'ing Warren and Alexis to give them a chance to weigh in. We should ask the White House to see if they know where this might be. you follow up on this with our friends?

Dan M., can

Also for Dan: Jamie keeps having these ex parte discussions of substance with Sandy. It doesn't feel right. I don't know of other commissioners doing this with serving or former officials, leading to research suggestions, etc. On the other hand, a process that yields necessary information is good. way to handle this better?

Is there a

What if she is asked the following question someday, say in a confirmation hearing: Did you discuss the substance of your Commission's investigation privately with key officials you were investigating? How would she answer? She may need some of your gentle advice.

But you be the judge.

Philip Original Message From: Mike Hurley Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 3:53 PM To: Philip Zelikow Subject: FW: Berger Philip, I just received this email from Jamie Gorelick. Are you familiar with the memo Sandy is referring to? I have taken no action, but could ask Alexis or Warren to run it down, if you agree. Please let me know how you wish to proceed. Thanks, Mike Original Message From: Jamie Gorelick Sent: Saturday, March 06, 2004 3:41 PM To: Mike Hurley Subj ect: Berger Mike -Berger says he is certain that he sent a memorandum to Tenet in the 799-2000 period with interpreting instructions involving CIA efforts to get UBL. Could you ask the Archives to find it. He says that he saw it during the document review and assumed that we would have it. If we don't, we should try to find it. Thanks. Jamie

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions SERIES: Team 3,9/11 Commission NND PROJECT NUMBER:

52100

FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107

WITHDRAWAL DATE: 11/18/2008

BOX: 00003

FOLDER: 0001

COPIES: 1 PAGES:

TAB: 6

DOC ID: 31205818

1

_ACCESS RESTRICTED j The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: FOLDER TITLE: Dialogue with Commissioners DOCUMENT DATE: 03/05/2004

DOCUMENT TYPE: Memorandum

FROM: Bass TO: SUBJECT:

Gorelick questions

This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s): 9/11 Classified Information

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

Page 1 of2

Mike Hurley From:

Philip Zelikow

Sent:

Thursday, March 04, 2004 4:49 PM

To:

Mike Hurley

Subject: RE: Commissioner Gorelick Interest in Follow-on Private Meeting with Dr. Rice MikeI certainly do not wish to offend you. Your service has been totally dedicated and conscientious. And you get trapped. The usual maxim is once bitten, twice shy. This sort of thing has happened before. My suggestion wasn't meant sarcastically. It was exactly the advice that I'd give myself, and meant quite literally. On the other hand, maybe I deserve a rebuke too for having written without having thought hard enough about how this would be received. In that case I am well rebuked. You certainly don't deserve extra grief from me. Sorry, my friend. Philip Original Message From: Mike Hurley Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 4:31 PM To: Philip Zelikow Subject: RE: Commissioner Gorelick Interest in Follow-on Private Meeting with Dr. Rice Philip, Your note really ticks me off. In the future, if you're going to rebuke me (unfairly in this case), I'd appreciate if you would do so privately, face-to-face, without cc'ing the front office. I'll take no further action on this. Original Message From: Philip Zelikow Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 4:06 PM To: Mike Hurley; Front Office Subject: RE: Commissioner Gorelick Interest in Follow-on Private Meeting with Dr. Rice MikeBased on the information available to me, I assured commissioners on Tuesday that the staff did not require a further interview with Rice. Team 3 had indicated no such interest and had not asked us to request or schedule such an interview. And still has not asked. So, not liking my answer, Jamie went directly to you to seek another. You may judge what she now thinks. One solution to such problems is to ask to think about questions before answering them. You can then note the questions with care and then answer them with equal care, in writing. Often a good policy with commissioners.

3/4/2004

Page 2 of2 Once you've noted your questions and judged their importance and her ability to answer them, you should formulate a recommendation for a further meeting with Rice. Philip —Original Message— From: Mike Hurley Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:06 PM To: Front Office Cc: Mike Hurley Subject: Commissioner Gorelick Interest in Follow-on Private Meeting with Dr. Rice Philip/Chris/Dan/Steve: •

At this morning's Team Leaders' meeting, one of the topics was some commissioners' interest in a second go at Dr. Rice.

•

Further to that, yesterday, Jamie Gorelick contacted me to ask whether I thought there were still questions to pursue with Dr. Rice.

•

Because I did not know the Front Office's position, I waffled. I said that I thought we covered a lot of ground in our 4-hr interview. I noted, however, that we probably could have drilled down more on the results of the September 4 PC—what was actually decided in that meeting?

•

Jamie asked me to jot down a list of other additional questions we could raise with Dr. Rice.

•

Warren and I kicked around what we might ask in a second meeting. Other than that, I've taken no other action, pending Front Office guidance.

•

As you're aware, Jamie, given her work on the PDB-review, favors a meeting with Dr. Rice, in large part I think, to raise PDB-related questions. Likely, she's interested in Team 3 input on remaining policy questions as further justification for another meeting.

•

My view is that, while I don't think another meeting is absolutely necessary, there are at least a few additional questions we could pursue, and it would be fairly easy for us to compile the questions. But I defer to others on whether a second session is warranted.

• •

I filled Dan Marcus in on Jamie's request this morning. I'd be happy to meet with you all to agree on how to handle this, as I think Jamie will expect input from Team 3 in the near future.

Thanks, Mike

3/4/2004

Page 1 of 1

Mike Hurley From:

Dan Marcus

Sent:

Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:56 PM

To:

Mike Hurley; Front Office

Subject: RE: Commissioner Gorelick Interest in Follow-on Private Meeting with Dr. Rice My hunch, like Mike's, is that Jamie (who missed the first Rice interview) and Richard and Tim want to walk Rice through the Aug 6 PDB in detail. I don't think that's necessary, but there are probably a few additional questions on the 8/6 PDB that we could ask. The other question is whether there are other PDB items we would want to ask her about. Obviously, Mike and Warren (and I) had no idea when we conducted the interview last month. I take it, Philip, you don't think there is anything important in the other PDBs to ask her about. But I don't know what Jamie thinks. I suggest that you and Mike or Mike and I talk to Jamie at some point about this. —Original Message— From: Mike Hurley Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 1:06 PM To: Front Office Cc: Mike Hurley Subject: Commissioner Gorelick Interest in Follow-on Private Meeting with Dr. Rice Philip/Chris/Dan/Steve: •

At this morning's Team Leaders' meeting, one of the topics was some commissioners' interest in a second go at Dr. Rice.

•

Further to that, yesterday, Jamie Gorelick contacted me to ask whether I thought there were still questions to pursue with Dr. Rice.

•

Because I did not know the Front Office's position, I waffled. I said that I thought we covered a lot of ground in our 4-hr interview. I noted, however, that we probably could have drilled down more on the results of the September 4 PC—what was actually decided in that meeting?

•

Jamie asked me to jot down a list of other additional questions we could raise with Dr. Rice.

•

Warren and I kicked around what we might ask in a second meeting. Other than that, I've taken no other action, pending Front Office guidance.

•

As you're aware, Jamie, given her work on the PDB-review, favors a meeting with Dr. Rice, in large part I think, to raise PDB-related questions. Likely, she's interested in Team 3 input on remaining policy questions as further justification for another meeting.

•

My view is that, while I don't think another meeting is absolutely necessary, there are at least a few additional questions we could pursue, and it would be fairly easy for us to compile the questions. But I defer to others on whether a second session is warranted.

•

I filled Dan Marcus in on Jamie's request this morning.

•

I'd be happy to meet with you all to agree on how to handle this, as I think Jamie will expect input from Team 3 in the near future.

Thanks, Mike

3/4/2004

Page 1 of2

Mike Hurley From:

Warren Bass

Sent:

Tuesday, March 02, 2004 5:54 PM

To:

Mike Hurley

Subject: Rice follow-ups

Here's some possible follow-up questions for Rice. If you'd like more, we could also go back over the script and look for other areas we've missed below. The following represent the questions I was hoping to squeeze into the interview. Warren Rice Potential Follow-Ups Why no immediate push for more military options on taking office? Why didn't the draft NSPD go further than just calling for military planning? Did they ever discuss Clarke's rolling campaign of strikes? What became of the WMD consequence management commission assigned to the VP during the transition? The president said in May 2001 that he'd chair NSC meetings to oversee it. Why don't either of these happen? Was it possible to eliminate al Qaeda? Was setting that goal just bravado? She told us that senior directors were to ask for PCs or DCs at the morning meeting she chaired and that Clarke didn't ask then. But he asked repeatedly in notes and emails. Is she really saying she didn't get those? Is there any feedback loop between the spring/summer 2001 threat spike and the DCs going on? Isn't it odd to have the DC thinking about Afghanistan in the Sit Room while CSG reps are running around handling the crisis— and there's no link-up whatsoever between the two? Doesn't the 2001 scare make them want to speed things up? Why doesn't she ask the FBI or AG in summer 2001 to shake down FBI field offices for what they know? Did she think FBI was up to its CT task pre-9/n? Did she think it was sharing enough information? Did anyone ever complain? Did Clarke or anyone else in TNT discuss FBI unhelpmlness with her? Did she try to take any steps? Why can't she and Hadley get the CIA and DOD to stop arguing over Predator? Why doesn't the April 30 DC decision to rely recon flights in spring 2001 stick? What's the budget story? There's no evidence of a budget or Hill strategy to go alongside the draft NSPD. Moreover, as early as Feb. 6, TNT warns her that CIA needs far more money to go after al Qaeda. But there's no sign of her pushing for such a funding rise. What's going on here? Did she ever get a read-out from Westfields? Was she concerned about UBL's WMD interest? Did she think 1C collection on that subject was adequate? Why put "phase one" in the new Afghanistan strategy? Hadn't the Taliban already demonstrated that they weren't going to hand over UBL? And as for phase three, how were we going to be able to foment a coup? And how could we spur a rebellion when Rice and Hadley were so leery of Masood, the one guy in Afghanistan with a real antiTaliban fighting force? Was an explicit decision made to give up on the off-shore subs? Was the TLAM option just never going to work? What was the Feb. 9, 2OO1 briefing for VP Cheney on the Cole? The Washington Post reports that it concluded "without hedge" that al Qaeda was responsible. 3/2/2004

Page 2 of2

Did you ever hear of Rumsfeld's Sept. 9, 2001 threat to recommend a veto if the Senate tried to divert $600 million from NMD to military commanders' CT requests? Were you aware of the issue before Sept. 9? Why did POTUS suggest cutting FEMA's budget by $200 million in May? Team 4 says the 20+ new agents she says Treasury tasked to TF before 9/11 weren't there. Was she shown Predator video? Was the president? How did they react? Who are these Pashtuns we're trying to lash up with? Any names? Were you concerned that Masood might be wiped out in the spring 2001 fighting if we didn't help him, as CIA warned might well happen? Why doesn't the Genoa alert—with the clear consideration of planes as missiles—set off any alarm bells at NSC?

3/2/2004

Draft NSPD on al Qaeda was going to have to wait until it could be merged with the results of the Pakistan review being done by the DC...

Page 1 of 1

Mike Hurley From:

Mike Hurley

Sent:

Monday, January 05, 2004 7:53 AM

To:

Len Hawley

Cc:

Mike Hurley; Dan Byman

Subject: Meeting with Jamie Gorelick

Len: See if you can arrange a meeting with Jamie Gorelick this week. Getting her perspective in a one-on-one would be helpful as you get into writing the report. I'd also suggest that before you meet with her, you, Dan Byman, and I get together to talk about key FBI/DoJ key issues, so we're clear on which way we want to take this portion of our piece. I've had some talks with Jamie in the past and have somewhat of a sense of what she's expecting. Dan has a good sense of how the Joint Inquiry approached FBI/DoJ and of what the policy angle to all of this is. Thanks, Mike

1/5/2004

Page 1 of 1

Mike Hurley From:

Mike Hurley

Sent:

Monday, December 22, 2003 9:32 AM

To:

Team 3

Subject: Some Points from Jamie Gorelick

At the holiday party, many of us had a lively conversation with Jamie Gorelick. She made a number of points of interest to Team 3 which I think we should pursue. She expects they will be covered somewhere in the report—not sure that they're all Team 3 issues, but at a minimum they are worth thinking over, maybe pursuing with other teams to ensure they get covered:

Len: • She stressed that the FBI got every nickel it requested for CT; its budget requests were never turned down. Warren and other colleagues: • Jamie believes that the CSG was not high enough level to really get agencies engaged. Clarke tried, but didn't have the juice. Only principals and deputies can really make agencies change their priorities. She noted that during the run-up to the Millennium p's and d's were hands-on, meeting daily, managing the effort. She notes that the same level of engagement was conspicuously absent during the 2001 summer of threat. Warren/Alexis: • Jamie urged us to get the transcript of Condi Rice's May 16, 2002 press briefing/conference. She thinks it is a key document. Do we have it? Mike

12/22/2003

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions SERIES: Team 3,9/11 Commission NND PROJECT NUMBER:

52100

FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107

WITHDRAWAL DATE: 11/18/2008

BOX: 00003

FOLDER: 0001

COPIES: 1 PAGES:

TAB: 7

DOC ID: 31205819

4 ACCESS RESTRICTED j

The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: FOLDER TITLE: Dialogue with Commissioners DOCUMENT DATE: 12/17/2003

DOCUMENT TYPE: E-Mail Printout/fProfs Notes)

FROM: Marcus TO: Zelikow SUBJECT:

SEIB Table of Contents

This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s): 9/11 Closed by Statute

WITHDRAWAL NOTICE

Page 1 of3

Mike Hurley From:

Mike Hurley

Sent:

Monday, December 15, 2003 8:46 AM

To:

Team 7; Team 8

Cc:

Mike Hurley

Subject: FW: Request from Commissioner Gorelick

For Teams 7 and 8: Jamie Gorelick asked me to highlight for teams that will interview Reno and Freeh issues related to heightened warning in spring and summer 2001: what circulars went to the FAA, state and local law enforcement etc. I forwarded her points in the message below. Philip forwarded similar points from Jamie for your Mineta interview. I provide this fyi. Mike Original Message From: Mike Hurley Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:36 AM To: Front Office; Team 2; Team 6; Team 4; Team 3; Christine Healey Subject: FW: Request from Commissioner Gorelick

Retraction: Please ignore portions of note below that imply Reno was still in her position in summer of 2001. Clearly she was not. I just got crossed up a bit when I meant to be referring to Freeh. Thanks, Mike —Original Message— From: Mike Hurley Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:12 AM To: Front Office; Team 3; Team 2; Team 6; Team 4; Christine Healey Subject: Request from Commissioner Gorelick

Please note action requests below For:

Philip and other colleagues who will be conducting the interviews of former AG Janet Reno and former D/FBI Louis Freeh

Subject: Commissioner Gorelick Request Regarding Reno and Freeh Interviews

12/15/2003

Page 2 of3 From

Mike Hurley

Date:

Friday, December 12, 2003

Jamie Gorelick called me yesterday and requested that those participating in the Tuesday, December 16, 2:30 pm interview of AG Reno ensure the following questions/issues are raised and nailed down. She also had specific suggestions for the Freeh interview. Philip, you may have already spoken to Jamie about the following. If so, my apologies for the duplication. Jim Steinberg in his interview—attended by Jamie-told us that there was a flurry of Principals' activity in the six weeks or so preceding the millennium—from midNovember through 31 December 1999. Jim said that Principals were meeting every day on Millennium Plot issues (PCs, Small Group, SVTS, etc.) Commissioner Gorelick's Request: Ask Reno the extent of her involvement in this period of extraordinary Principal's hands-on activity. • Please ask Reno about the extent of Louis Freeh's involvement in this meeting cycle. What were tasks assigned to the FBI/DOJ • Does Reno recall what threat "circulars" or "advisories" Principals directed— perhaps via the CSG-be sent to the FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, INS, state and local police? What details does she recall about actions the USG took to prepare for a possible millennium attack? The volume of threat rose to an extraordinary level during the "spring/summer of threat" 2001. What was the extent of Reno's involvement in Principals'/Small Group meetings during that period? Does Reno recall what threat circulars and advisories the Principals directed to be sent out to the FAA, Customs, Coast Guard, INS, state and local authorities, etc. during the spring/summer threat period? Jamie would then like us to analyze how these two important threat periods— Millennium and Spring/Summer of Threat 2001—were handled. What were the similarities? What were the differences? How did the volume and content of the threat circulars/advisories differ? What conclusions can we draw from how these periods of high threat were handled? Freeh: What was the extent of his involvement in management of/response to the

12/15/2003

Page 3 of3 Millennium Plot? Did he attend Principals' or Small Group Meetings? During both the millennium period and the spring/summer of threat. How did he follow through within the FBI? Jamie suggested that we get a day-by-day picture of Principals' management of these problems.

For Warren: Please review your notes to see whether EOP/NSC documents reflect Reno's and/or Freeh's presence at PCs or Small Groups during the run-up to the Millennium and during the spring summer of threat. What were the issues on the table? What were the actions/tasks assigned to DoJ? To FBI? • Please ensure Philip and the rest of the interview team has that information in advance of the Reno interview. Thanks, Mike

12/15/2003

Page 1 of2

Mike Hurley From:

Mike Hurley

Sent:

Monday, December 15, 2003 8:40 AM

To:

Dana Hyde; Warren Bass

Subject: RE: Rice briefing

Dana, Yes, it is the same issue. Thanks, Mike Original Message From: Dana Hyde Sent: Monday, December 15, 2003 7:45 AM To: Warren Bass; Mike Hurley Subject: FW: Rice briefing

FYI re NSC issues; Mike, this is the same issue she raised with you, correct? Original Message From: Philip Zelikow Sent: Sun 12/14/2003 11:18 PM To: Jamie Gorelick Cc: Richard Ben-Veniste; Chris Kojm; Team 7; Team 8 Subject: RE: Rice briefing

Jamie ~ We are going to interview Mineta. I'm forwarding your good suggestions to Teams 7 and 8 for their preparations. Philip Original Message From: Jamie Gorelick Sent: Sun 12/14/2003 10:55 PM To: Philip Zelikow Cc: Richard Ben-Veniste Subject: RE: Rice briefing Are we going to interview Mineta? We should look at the Q&A on my question to him whether he had been informed of the heightened inteil in the run up to 9/11, which I recall he said he had not. We should determine what happened as the result of the CSG meetings that the FA A attended. —Original Message— From: Philip Zelikow [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:21 AM To: Gorelick, Jamie Cc: 'Richard Ben-Veniste (E-mail)' Subject: RE: Rice briefing

12/15/2003

Page 2 of2 Jamie Yes. It sounds like you are thinking of Teams 6 and 7. And I would be glad to talk to you about what those questions could be. The relevant FAA people have already been interviewed and have been getting those questions. You may remember from our August briefing on aircraft threats that we have been working on the aviation-related intel items for a while. None of the documents we are reviewing present any new information on that topic. Philip Original Message From: Gorelick, Jamie [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2003 10:42 AM To: Philip Zelikow (E-mail) Cc: Richard Ben-Veniste (E-mail) Subject: Rice briefing Philip I have a number of questions flowing from the documents we are reviewing and from the Rice briefing. Would it be possible to talk with those responsible for questioning Ashcroft and his subordinates, Freeh and his subordinates, Mineta and his subordinates, FAA, NSC personnel regarding the nature of the warnings/intell they received, the nature of the meetings that were convened and the participants, how those meetings and their levels compared to previous periods of spikes in warnings, how the FBI and FAA circulars that issued compared to what might usually be sent out (that is, were these special)? These are the questions that jump out at you from the materials we've been looking at and I'd like to make sure that the questions I have are being put to the folks we are interviewing. Thanks.

Jamie Jamie S. Gorelick Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202.663.6500

12/15/2003

Page 1 of 2

Mike Hurley From:

Mike Hurley

Sent:

Sunday, December 14,2003 8:23 PM

To:

Philip Zelikow

Cc:

Mike Hurley

Subject: Request from Jamie Gorelick

Philip, Per our discussion, Jamie Gorelick called me late Friday afternoon and raised the following points:

• Jamie asks (see her second paragraph below) that we make an official request for tables of contents for both the PDBs and SEIBs/NIDs produced between 1998 and September 20,2001 to allow us to determine the percentage of articles devoted to UBL, aQ, Afghanistan, terrorism, etc., In each publication. • Additionally, and I mentioned this to Kevin on Friday, Jamie wants to know whether the search parameters for our SEIB/NID request were the same as those for our PPR request. I 9/11 Closed by Statute

[She's concerned by this. In part, I think she wants to know what kind of warning high-level Senior Executives, though not ones sufficiently august to be on the PDB read list, were getting/seeing In the SEIBs/NIDs.

Philip, I haven't taken any action on her request. Just wanted to let you know that she called and that the above was on her mind.

Mike —Original Message— From: Jamie Gorelick Sent: Wednesday, December 03,2003 9:40 AM To: Philip Zelikow; Mike Hurley; Dan Marcus; Chris Kojm; Commissioners Subject: PDB review Philip and I had our first look at the PDBs yesterday. It is slow going as the material is dense and the conditions of our review/note-taking are cumbersome. I would just share one observation and make one request. The observation is that there is less overlap than you would think there would be between the SEIBs/NIDs, which we have a full-set of, and the PDBs to which we have limited access. Items included in the first group - which went to between a couple of and several hundred senior executives - were not necessarily included in the PDBs •

12/14/2003

Page 2 of2 - which went to fewer than 20 in the Cabinet and White House and vice versa. As a consequence, the full Commission and the relevant staff will not have an accurate idea of what the more senior group saw without the input from our review team. I am confident that we can accurately review the 'core group" and develop a factual basis for decisions regarding additional requests, but I just wanted you to know sooner rather than later that the thought that much of this issue would be mooted by our access to the SEIBs/NIDs is not, in my view, bearing out. Second, one of the impressions that emerges even from a review of the SEIBs is of the spikes in threat warnings. It would be extremely useful, therefore, for us to request the tables of contents for both the SEIBs and the PDBs, so that we can literally count how many articles or items were written about during each relevant period of time and therefore determine the percentage that related to terrorism, domestic and foreign; to Bin Ladin; to developments in Afghanistan and other areas of interest. This would provide us very important context and also enable us to answer the criticism that - because we limited our request to certain articles in the first place - we cannot evaluate what we are seeing. Given that we would not be asking for the substance beyond our current request, there should be little objection to such a request. I strongly urge that we make this request now. Jamie

Jamie S. Gorelick Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202.663.6500

12/14/2003

Page 1 of2

Mike Hurley From:

Mike Hurley

Sent:

Sunday, December 14,2003 8:15 PM

To:

Kevin Scheid; Doug MacEachin; Gordon Lederman; Warren Bass

Cc:

Mike Hurley

Subject: FW: Requests from Commissioner Gorelick

Gentlemen: I sent you the note below earlier today. Before doing anything on It suggest we speak to Philip. I spoke to him about this tonight, and he said he had already explained to Jamie why he thought the table of contents Idea was not a particularly good one. • Bottom line is that Philip has already been in communication with Jamie on some of this stuff, so we should ensure we don't get our wires crossed. Mike —Original Message— From: Mike Hurley Sent: Sunday, December 14,2003 2:24 PM To: Kevin Scheid; Doug MacEachin; Gordon Lederman; Warren Bass Cc: Mike Hurley Subject: Requests from Commissioner Gorelick

Kevin, Doug, Warren, Gordon, and Warren: • Please see the note (below) that Jamie Gorelick sent to Commissioners and the Front Office on December 3. I think I forwarded this to Kevin and Doug at the time, though I'm not sure. • Jamie asks (see her second paragraph below) that we make an official request for tables of contents for both the PDBs and SEIBs/NIDs produced during out periods of Interests to allow us to determine the percentage of articles devoted to UBL, aQ, Afghanistan, terrorism, etc. • Additionally, as I mentioned to Kevin on Friday, Jamie wants to know whether the search parameters for our SEIB/NID request were the same as those for our PDB request.! 9/11 Closed by Statute

I She's concerned by

12/14/2003

Page 2 of2

this. In part, I think she wants to know what kind of warning high-level Senior Executives, though not ones sufficiently august to be on the PDB read list, were getting/seeing in the SEIBs/NIDs. • Kevin: Per our discussion on Friday, could you address Jamie's question about the SEIB/NID search and find out what she really wants on this? • Kevin/Doug: What about her request for tables of contents for the PDBs and SEIBs? I'm assuming she's talking about from 1 January 1998 - 20 September 2001. Mike —-Original Message— From: Jamie Gorelfck Sent: Wednesday, December 03,2003 9:40 AM To: Philip Zellkow; Mike Hurley; Dan Marcus; Chris Kojm; Commissioners Subject: PDB review Philip and I had our first look at the PDBs yesterday. It is slow going as the material is dense and the conditions of our review/note-taking are cumbersome. I would just share one observation and make one request. The observation is that there is less overlap than you would think there would be between the SEIBs/NIDs, which we have a full-set of, and the PDBs to which we have limited access. Items included in the first group - which went to between a couple of and several hundred senior executives - were not necessarily included in the PDBs - which went to fewer than 20 in the Cabinet and White House and vice versa. As a consequence, the full Commission and the relevant staff will not have an accurate idea of what the more senior group saw without the input from our review team. I am confident that we can accurately review the "core group" and develop a factual basis for decisions regarding additional requests, but I just wanted you to know sooner rather than later that the thought that much of this issue would be mooted by our access to the SEIBs/NIDs is not, in my view, bearing out. Second, one of the impressions that emerges even from a review of the SEIBs is of the spikes in threat warnings. It would be extremely useful, therefore, for us to request the tables of contents for both the SEIBs and the PDBs, so that we can literally count how many articles or items were written about during each relevant period of time and therefore determine the percentage that related to terrorism, domestic and foreign; to Bin Ladin; to developments in Afghanistan and other areas of interest. This would provide us very important context and also enable us to answer the criticism that - because we limited our request to certain articles in the first place - we cannot evaluate what we are seeing. Given that we would not be asking for the substance beyond our current request, there should be little objection to such a request. I strongly urge that we make this request now. Jamie

Jamie S. Gorelick Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202.663.6500

12/14/2003

Page 1 of 1

Mike Hurley From:

Mike Hurley

Sent:

Sunday, December 14, 2003 1:27 PM

To:

Front Office; Team 3; Team 2; Team 6; Team 4; Christine Healey; Len Hawley; Dana Hyde

Subject: Additional Question/Issue Raised by Commissioner Gorelickfor Reno and Freeh Interviews

On Friday, December 12, Commissioner Gorelick asked me to ensure that staffers explore the following question/issue in the upcoming interviews of former AG Reno and former D/FBI Freeh: Senior officials at the NSC have said that the Millennium crisis was the lone time that the FBI told the NSC what they were doing. The first time Freeh actually provided any details/specifics of FBI actions in response to the threat. Before that, the White House got nothing from the FBI—and was told that they were being deliberately kept out of the loop on grounds of propriety. • Is this true? Why was FBI not more communicative after the Embassy bombings in 1998? • What do Reno and Freeh have to say about this? • Berger and Steinberg met biweekly with Reno and Freeh. But Steinberg didn't know about the sealed indictments against UBL. Please pursue these issues in the Reno and Freeh interviews. Thanks, Mike

12/14/2003

Tasking from Jamie Gorelick Try to find the circulars that CSG sent to FAA and Transportation during November and December 1999 during millennium plot. Were these the same as those that were sent during the summer of threat (2001). Documentary record. We need to ask for this. Mike Hurley

Page 1 of3

Mike Hurley From:

Lorry Fenner

Sent:

Friday, December 12, 2003 6:03 PM

To:

Mike Hurley

Cc:

Kevin Scheid; Christine Healey

Subject: RE: Request from Commissioner Gorelick We had an interview this week with a senior from NSA who said they tried to get Freeh to discuss/work on information sharing (domestically and transnational^) on terrorism and to start a discussion of reviewing laws and policies on how to integrate intel and LE - they were rebuffed pretty strongly both times. Can give you more detail if you want to pursue a line of questions as to specifics. —Original Message— From: Mike Hurley Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:40 AM To: Peter Rundlet; Front Office; Team 3; Team 2; Team 6; Team 4; Christine Healey Subject: RE: Request from Commissioner Gorelick Peter, Thanks. I caught my error. Mike Original Message From: Peter Rundlet Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:31 AM To: Mike Hurley; Front Office; Team 3; Team 2; Team 6; Team 4; Christine Healey Subject: RE: Request from Commissioner Gorelick It is important to note that Janet Reno and Louis Freeh were no longer in their respective positions during the Summer of 2001. Reno left January 20, 2001 and Freeh left at the end of June 2001. Original Message From: Mike Hurley Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:12 AM To: Front Office; Team 3; Team 2; Team 6; Team 4; Christine Healey Subject: Request from Commissioner Gorelick

Please note action requests below For: Philip and other colleagues who will be conducting the interviews of former AG Janet Reno and former D/FBI Louis Freeh Subject: Commissioner Gorelick Request Regarding Reno and Freeh Interviews From

12/12/2003

Mike Hurley

Mike Hurley From: Sent: To:

Christine Healey Thursday, December 11, 2003 6:46 PM Mike Hurley

Subject:

FW: Contact w/ Commissioner Gorelick

Here is the message I mentioned. Original Message From: Philip Zelikow Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 8:09 AM To: Sam Brinkley; Stephanie Kaplan Cc: Front Office; Team 2; Team 6 Subject: RE: Contact w/ Commissioner Gorelick Sam --

Let's take this as a staff tasking. Coordinate your response with Team 2, which may also have a copy of Dr. Rice's May 2002 press briefing, and with Team 6, then to me for final review. Keep it short. (Also, the Rice summary is strongly influenced by the language of the Aug 6 PDB, which Jamie and I have now seen. You'll get the debrief on that soon, I hope.) Philip Original Message From: [email protected] tmailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 6:25 AM To: Stephanie Kaplan Cc: Front Office Subject: Contact w/ Commissioner Gorelick Stephanie, Jamie called and asked us to do a comparison of the aviation security documents distributed by FAA prior to the Millinium and the summer of 2001. She has focused on a Rice news conference (spring of 2002, I think). She indicated that you had a copy of the transcript. Do you have the document? Thanks. Sam

Page 1 of 1

Mike Hurley From:

Jamie Gorelick

Sent:

Wednesday, December 03, 2003 9:40 AM

To:

Philip Zelikow; Mike Hurley; Dan Marcus; Chris Kojm; Commissioners

Subject: PDB review Philip and I had our first look at the PDBs yesterday. It is slow going as the material is dense and the conditions of our review/note-taking are cumbersome. I would just share one observation and make one request. The observation is that there is less overlap than you would think there would be between the SEIBs/NIDs, which we have a full-set of, and the PDBs to which we have limited access. Items included in the first group -- which went to between a couple of and several hundred senior executives - were not necessarily included in the PDBs - which went to fewer than 20 in the Cabinet and White House and vice versa. As a consequence, the full Commission and the relevant staff will not have an accurate idea of what the more senior group saw without the input from our review team. I am confident that we can accurately review the "core group" and develop a factual basis for decisions regarding additional requests, but I just wanted you to know sooner rather than later that the thought that much of this issue would be mooted by our access to the SEIBs/NIDs is not, in my view, bearing out. Second, one of the impressions that emerges even from a review of the SEIBs is of the spikes in threat warnings. It would be extremely useful, therefore, for us to request the tables of contents for both the SEIBs and the PDBs, so that we can literally count how many articles or items were written about during each relevant period of time and therefore determine the percentage that related to terrorism, domestic and foreign; to Bin Ladin; to developments in Afghanistan and other areas of interest. This would provide us very important context and also enable us to answer the criticism that -- because we limited our request to certain articles in the first place -- we cannot evaluate what we are seeing. Given that we would not be asking for the substance beyond our current request, there should be little objection to such a request. I strongly urge that we make this request now. Jamie

Jamie S. Gorelick Wilmer, Cutler & Pickering 2445 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037 202.663.6500

12/3/2003

Jamie Gorelick •

Steinberg made clear that Louis Freeh didn't provide info until...

•

Raise this with Dick Clarke. What was he getting?

•

SEIB parameters. Same as PDB.

•

Did they search for everything on UBL?

•

Was there a seamless web 5 or 6 months out from 9/11?

•

Issue of SEIBs and PDBs. Ask Kevin to address this. Forward earlier email.