Debevoise Debevoise Plimpton LLP . 801 Avenue, N.W. Impton Washington. D.C. 20004 +1 202 383 8000 March 24, 2017 Donald F. McGahn II Assistant to the President and White House Counsel The White House 1600 Avenue N.W. Washington, D.C. Dear Mr. McGahn: I represent Sally Quillian Yates and write in reference to the attached correspondence. Ms. Yates has been invited to testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). The Committee has indicated that its investigation will cover topics including the following: ?Russian cyber activities directed against the US. election, potential links between Russia and individuals associated with political campaigns, the US. Government?s response to these Russian active measures, and related leaks of classi?ed information.? In addition, Committee staff has informed me that questioning will focus on January 2017 communications regarding concerns about the conduct of a senior White House of?cial. As I have informed the Committee and the Department of Justice, Ms. Yates is willing to appear voluntarily with two other former intelligence of?cials. In answering the Committee?s questions, Ms. Yates obviously will not disclose any classi?ed information, nor will she provide any information that she believes could interfere with any ongoing criminal or intelligence investigations. In the attached correspondence to the Department of Justice, I indicated that Ms. Yates is not, and should not be, obligated on privilege or other grounds to refuse to provide non?classi?ed facts about the Department?s noti?cation to the White House of concerns about the conduct of a senior White House of?cial. I noted further that requiring Ms. Yates to refuse to provide such information is particularly untenable given that multiple current senior administration of?cials have publicly described the same events. Donald F. McGahn II 2 March 24, 2017 The Department of Justice indicated in the attached response that any con?dentiality equity in this information belongs to the President and that Ms. Yates does not need separate consent from the Department. It is unclear whether the presidential communications or deliberative process privileges could apply to the referenced information. In any event, any claim of privilege has been waived as a result of the multiple public comments of current senior White House of?cials describing the January 2017 communications. Nevertheless, I am advising the White House of Ms. Yates? intention to provide information in the manner described above. If I do not receive a response by Monday, March 27, at 10 am EDT, I will conclude that the White House does not assert executive privilege over these matters with respect to the hearing or other settings. Regards, A. w: David A. O'Neil Enclosures