Mike Hurley

From: wbass@9-11commission.gov
Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 4:54 PM
To: team3@9-11commission.gov
Cc: frontoffice@9-11commission.gov
Subject: NSC notes update

TeamSmates--
Just a quick update: on Oct. 30, 2001, Dan Marcus and I went over to NEOB to
review my notes on the NSC and White House documents found there. We also made
some trims and modifications.

Dan and I agree that the notes in their current form fall within our agreement
with the White House: they do not contain unreasonably lengthy quotations, and
they do not effectively recreate the documents. We conveyed that understanding
in a useful meeting later yesterday afternoon with Brian Cunningham, as well as
flagging some potential snags mentioned below.

Per Dan and Chris Kojm's OK today, I've had those notes sent forward to the
White House for approval and transfer to 2100 K St. This includes my notes on
EOF 2 documents in the Clinton period (1998, 1999, 2000-01), and my integrated
notes of EOF 2 and 3 documents in the pre-9/11 Bush period.

This latter set of pre-9/11 Bush material includes notes on several

particularly sensitive "Special Access Documents," which the White House can
approve now but will keep in EOF custody pending a specific showing of need for
them by the Commission (i.e. to write or use in a way related to our
interviews).

Dan and I have agreed that the White House should have my Clinton EOF 2 notes
and my Bush EOF 2 and 3 notes (minus Special Access Document notes) back here
by the time I return on Nov. 17. For the record, it's clear from our meeting
that the White House does not entirely buy our view of the guidelines.

Dan noted a few particular areas of concern amid the notes, which we discussed
with Brian Cunningham:

1. An unusually lengthy quotation in a non-NSC-generated document, related to a

sensitive issue of particular importance to Team 1. We believe that the
slightly lengthier-than-usual quotation is justified by the issue's importance.
Moreover, the horse is out of the barn--that same quote has already been
cleared by the White House in an earlier round of handwritten notes and is
already sitting in our safe.

2. Another non-NSC-generated document, produced at NSC request but originated

by the State Department, involving a historical chronology of particular
interest to Scott. This document is factual, not deliberative, and it's not
particularly sensitive. If the White House for some reason feels compelled to
give us a hard time here, we can simply get it from State.

3. Drafts of NSPD-9. Dan agrees that my notes here do not effectively reproduce
the documents, but they do contain significant detail on a draft document--an
obvious area of executive-privilege concern. If the White House contains to
feel ginger here, as they well may, perhaps we can just stick a pin in this
issue--leave it to the lawyers to work out, have the White House black out
those sections of my NSPD-draft notes they find worrisome, and just get the
rest of the notes back here for us to start working on. I've suggested this
tactic to both Dan, Chris, and Cunningham.

4. "Sound bites." Among our Special Access Documents are some particularly
vivid notes offered by one of our more candid protagonists, and Brian
Cunningham expressed a White House unease about letting us have such "sound
bites" (his term). I was powerfully unconvinced. These documents are among the
best we have, and I recommend in the strongest possible terms that we ensure we
ultimately get back the notes on them. I've taken a few more direct quotations
here than usual, simply because the documents are so important and, well,
quotable. Again, this isn't a fight we necessarily have to have now; this a
Special Access Document issue, so we wouldn't have those notes over here until
we make a particularized showing of need anyway.

One last point about the end of the saga: upon the notes' return, the White
House may wish to arrange with us some guidelines about access. Dan was
obliging on this score and is planning on drafting some thoughts in the near
future. For now, the old operative guidance holds; Team 3 may see my notes, and
we can discuss them among ourselves, but we should continue to be acutely
sensitive about keeping an eye on them and avoid making copies. Notes will be
shared with other Team Leaders on a need-to-know basis, possibly approved by
the Front Office. Per Chris, Dan, and Steve, I've passed some terrorism- financing
excerpts from my 2000 Clinton EOF 2 notes to John Roth but done
nothing further. (More Team 4 material from 1998-99 should be arriving here
shortly.)

Hope that's useful.

Warren