U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Washington, D.C. 20530 December 15, 2017 Charlie Savage The New York Times savage@nytimes.com Re: FOIA No. FYl 7-070; N.Y. Times, et al. v. DOJ, No. 17 Civ. 1946 (S.D.N.Y.) Dear Mr. Savage: This letter partially responds to your January 28, 2017 Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request to the Office of Legal Counsel ("OLC"), seeking "all e-mails, memos, and other documents related to[:] 1. Office of Legal Counsel review of proposed Trump aqministration executive orders for form and legality, including during the transition period[;] and 2. Office of Legal Counsel review of other proposed Trump White House matters, including during the transition period," through January 28, 2017. As you know, the request is also the subject of the above-captioned litigation, and the request has been narrowed in certain ways pursuant to agreement through counsel. Since the last partial response, we have processed 213 pages of responsive records. We have eru;losed 28 pages with material redacted as exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemption Five, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), and pursuant to FOIA Exemption Six, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). For your information, Exemption Five exempts material protected by the attorneyclient, deliberative process, and presidential communications privileges, as well as the attorney work product doctrine and other privileges. Exemption Six exempts material the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. We have withheld the remaining 185 pages in full pursuant to Exemption Five, and in part pursuant to Exemption Six. We are continuing to process responsive records. For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist. You may contact Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Tinio, at 212-637-2774, for any further assistance and to discuss any aspect of your request. Additionally, you may contact the Office of Government Information Services ("OGIS") at the National Archives and Records Administration to inquire about the FOIA mediation services they offer. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Room 2510, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769. Although your request is the subject of ongoing litigation, and administrative appeals are not ordinarily acted upon in such situations, I am required by statute and regulation to inform you of your right to file an administrative appeal. You may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office oflnformation Policy ("OIP"), United States Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIAonline portal by creating an account on the following web site: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom of Information Act Appeal." Sincerely, /4//~ Paul P. Colborn Special Counsel Enclosures cc: Rebecca S. Tinio Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York Benjamin H. Torrance Assistant United States Attorney Southern District of New York 2 •@ll!l._o_Lc_,_______________________ From: Sent: To: (b) (6) (OLC} Monday, December OS, 2016 8:23 PM OLC) Subje ct: Attachments: Document ID: 0.7.13767.15847 (b) (5) doc Sent: ... To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Subject: RE: Executive Orders for OLC Review (Part 1) From: Monday, December 12, 2016 10:00 AM Thanks, Rosemary. From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole) Sent: Mondaw ecember 12, 201610:00 AM (b) (6) To·MQJUL< Subject: FW: Executive Orders for OLC Review {Part 1} First batch. As we discussed, all of these are a close-hold. Thanks. Document ID: 0.7.13767.59750 Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 12:02 PM (b) (6) To: Subject: RE: Executive Orders for OLC Review (Part 1) Terrific! Thanks. From:MG)l(DII Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 201611:47 AM (b) (6) " To: Hart, Rosemary {Ole)< Subject: RE: Executive Orders for OLC Review (Part 1} Rosemary,l'm~ I'm turning to~ were available to review. Thank you, WJIGJ] Document ID: 0.7.13767.58324 (b) (5 ) (b) (5) • rders. onthe and ext but thought you might want to have these two for whenever you duplicate Document ID: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: To: Subject: Att achments: One down! But we probably need to talk about a couple items tomorrow. Thanks so much! Document ID: 0.7.13767.58214 _ _o_Lc_1_________________________ (b) (6) From: (OLC) Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 3:47 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: RE: Executive Orders for OLC Review (Part 1) I'll be workingfrom home. Happy to talk whenever. From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole) Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 3:46 PM (b ) (6 ) To: OLC}< Subject: RE: Executive Orders for OLC Review (Part 1} • Thanks! I'll take a look. Are you here tomorrow? Or at home? (Doesn't matter, as we can email or call each other.} (b ) (6 ) From: (Ole) Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2016 3:41 PM (b) (6 ) • To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < Subject: RE: Executive Orders for OLC Review (Part 1} Here are two. I didn't have any comments on th,,MmJR I'm still working on the ltiJI&J)one. I'm happy to discuss! From : Hart, Rosemary {OLC) Se~ 20163:53 PM (b )(6 ) To:~ OLC} · Subject: FW: Executive Orders for OLC Review {Part 1) • Your 4 EOs are attached. Rosemary Document ID: 0.7.13767.49267 • duplicate Document ID: _ _o_L_c_)__________________________ Sent: (b) (6) (OLC) Thursday, December 15, 2016 7:21 AM To: Hart, Rosemary {O le) Subject: RE: From: Attachments: (b) (5) (b) (5) (12-11-2016) + 12-11-2016) + • 11 . docx (b) ( 5) I agree with both of your comments ( (b) (5) , and made corresponding changes and deleted the comments. From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) S e n ~er 14, 2016 8:19 PM To: ~ (OLC) Subject: (b)(5) ( 12-11-2016} +. Thanks for taking the first shot at this! A few nits and a couple of questions, in the attached. RH Document ID: 0.7.13767.48982 Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole) Sent: To: 12-11-2016} + Subject: Att achments: ill+rh.docx (b) (5) (12-11-2016) + wmm) This looks great. I had a couple of tweaks, and also noted an issue that could benefit from follow-up with Dan. I gave this to Paul to look at, given the language do that after you got in. Thanks! Rosemary Document ID: 0.7.13767.58015 inlU>ll!JI He wants to meet on this and I told him we'd Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:11 PM To: (b) (6) (Ole) Subject: Attachments: 2016).docx; ATT00002.htm; (b) (5) 16).docx; ATT00003.htm; 12-12-2016).docx; ATT00004.htm; ATTOOOOS.htm [l;JIOJ]: Please review the three attached orders. It would be great if you could have redlines back to me by next Tuesday. I'll stop by this afternoon to have a preliminary discussion about them. Thanks, Rosemary Document ID: 0.7.13767.37767 Document ID: Document ID: Document ID: Document ID: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Thursday, December 1 5, 201 6 1:12 PM To: Subject: Attachments: (b) (6) (OLC} New EOs (b) (5) (12-13-16).docx; ATTOOOOS.htm illi Would you please review the attached proposed EO? Thanks! Rosemary Document ID: 0.7.13767.48944 Document ID: {111 -mxm __ o _LC•) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (b) (6) From: (OLC) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:43 PM To: Hart, Rosemary {Ole) Subject: RE: IO)JtiJJ Yes-they're fine. From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Decemb-er 15, 2016 1:37 PM (OLC} Sent: Thursda (b) (5) On QNI.did you (b) (6) From : (b) (5) {OLC) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 20161:35 PM (b) (6 ) To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < Subject: Re: a B • (b) ( 5) One more question-- (b) (5) ? (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel (b) (6) On Dec 15, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Hart, Rosemary (OLC) <~ wrote: (b ) (5 ) Right- (b) (5) lllllllllllllff(OLC} From: Sent: ~ To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < Subject: USI Here' s the last one. 01610:48AM (b) (6 ) • (b) (5 ) (b) (5) ------------------·-- -- ----· Document ID: 0.7.1 3767.48873 - . « FIie: >> llllllllllllffi ~ Office of Legal Counsel IIIIIDDJIIII Document ID: 0.7.13767.48873 (b) (5) 12-11-2016)+. Clocx Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Thursday, December 1 5, 201 6 1:53 PM (b) (6) To: ,OLC} RE: MJ&JJ Subject: Only if it would be reasonably quick. I'll ask Steve next time we talk. (b) (6) From: (Ol e) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 20161:44 PM (b )(6 ) To: Hart, Rosemary {Ole) < Subje ct: Re: • Eil!JI (b) (5) is it something I should spend time running to ground if I'm not sure? (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser Office of legal Counsel (b) (6) On Dec 15, 2016, at 1:37 PM, Hart, Rosemary (OLC) ~ wrote: Document ID: 0.7.13767.48855 duplicate Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Sent: To: Subject: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} ·- Thursday, December 1 5, 201 6 1:54 PM RE: EOs for OLC Thanks! I'll check with Dan and Paul on schedules. From: (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 20161:52 PM (b) (6) To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) < Subject: RE: EOs for OlC " Yes, happy to review. I've also had a chance to look at your edits tothe WJI&J]order and am ready to talk with Dan and Paul whenever it's convenient for you. From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 1:15 PM (b) (6) " To· <= = = = ==== Subject: FW: EOs for OlC H-AJffiH tlDm: I would appr eciate it if you could review the first of these -the one assigned the nextthree Thanks! Rosemary Document ID: 0.7.13767.57951 tolG)Jljl and the ollllli (b) (5) I've Document ID: -tiJIUJ--(O_Lc.)__________________ (b) (6) From: (OLC) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 4 :55 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: RE: (12-11-2016) Attachments: These look good. I deleted the internal comments. From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 4 :38 PM To: OLC Subject: • -- another redline Sorry for the delay. I got interrupted several times. When talking with Dan about a couple of other things, I will be tied up for another hour, so no rush to get this back to me. We can send it tomorrow along with the others. Thanks so much RH Document ID: 0.7.13767.48733 (b ) (5) (b) (6) (OLC) From: (OLC) (b) (6) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 4:57 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: (b) (5) Attachments (12-13-16) (b) (5) Here are my comments on this one (b) (6) .docx (b) (5) . (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel (b) (6) Document ID: 0.7.13767.48727 IIDI From: MW•&M Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 4 :58 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Subje ct: RE: Executive Orders for OLC Review (Part 1) Att achments: (b) (5) 12-11-2016) + 11,docx Rosemary: Here's the order. I have a number of quest ions highlighted, (b) (5) some of which I could probably nail down with just a little more research (or a conversation with you or Dan). I can focus on those tomorrow morning but wanted to give you this draft in case you're planning to review tonight. (b) (5) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Sent: Monda , December 12, 201610:00 AM Document ID: 0.7.13767.57730 duplicate -mjm-.(o_L _c1______________________ (b) (6) From: OLC) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 7:31 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Cc: Koffsky, Daniel L (OLC) Subject: Re: - -(003) + rh 230 pm (b) (5) 12-11-2016) (b) (5) (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel (b) (6) On Dec 15, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Hart, Rosemary (O LC) < (b) (6) • wrote: (b) (5) From: Koffsky, Daniel L (OLC) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2015 6:16 PM (b) (6) • To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) IQW From: Koffsky, Daniel L (Ole) Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2016 6:12 PM To:~ Cc: ~ OLC) Subject: RE: + rh 230 pm Thanks. Document ID: 0.7.13767.48160 (b) ( 5) (12-ll-2015)+illl(003) (b) (5) From: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) Sent: Thursday, Decemb.er 15, 2016 5:52 PM To: Koffsky, Daniel L (OLC) Cc: Subject: (OLC) 12-11- 2016). (003) + rh 230 pm Dan: Here is what. or change. Rosemary Document ID: 0.7.13767.48160 nd I have come up with. Please let us know if you have anyth ing to add U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel Washington, D. C. 20530 November 30, 2017 Ian Bassin Executive Director The Protect Democracy Project FO IA. protectdemocracy@gmail.com Re: FOIA No. FY17-135; Protect Democracy Project v. DOJ, No. 1:l 7-cv-815 (D.D.C.) Dear Mr. Bassin: This letter partially responds to your February 15, 2017 Freedom oflnformation Act ("FOIA") request in which you sought five categories of "records created between January 20, 2017 and the present" regarding Executive Order 13769. As you know, the request is also the subject of the above-captioned litigation. Since the last partial response, we have processed 285 pages ofresponsive records. We have enclosed 123 pages of, with material redacted as exempt from disclosure pursuant to FOIA Exemption Five, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), and pursuant to FOIA Exemption Six, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). For your information, Exemption Five exempts material protected by the attorneyclient, deliberative process, and presidential communications privileges, as well as the attorney work product doctrine and other privileges. Exemption Six exempts material the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. We have withheld the remaining 162 pages in full pursuant to Exemption Five, and in part pursuant to Exemption Six. We are continuing to process responsive records. For your information, Congress excluded three discrete categories of law enforcement and national security records from the requirements of the FOIA. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(c). This response is limited to those records that are subject to the requirements of the FOIA. This is a standard notification that is given to all our requesters and should not be taken as an indication that excluded records do, or do not, exist. You may contact Matthew Berns of the Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, at 202-616-8016, for any further assistance and to discuss any aspect of your requests. Additionally, you may contact the Office of Government Information Services ("OGIS") at the National Archives and Records Administration to inquire about the FOIA mediation services they offer. The contact information for OGIS is as follows: Office of Government Information Services, National Archives and Records Administration, Room 2510, 8601 Adelphi Road, College Park, Maryland 20740-6001, e-mail at ogis@nara.gov; telephone at 202-741-5770; toll free at 1-877-684-6448; or facsimile at 202-741-5769. Although your requests are the subject of ongoing litigation, and administrative appeals are not ordinarily acted upon in such situations, I am required by statute and regulation to inform you of your right to file an administrative appeal. You may administratively appeal by writing to the Director, Office oflnformation Policy ("OIP"), United States Department of Justice, Suite 11050, 1425 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20530-0001, or you may submit an appeal through OIP's FOIAonline portal by creating an account on the following web site: https://foiaonline.regulations.gov/foia/action/public/home. Your appeal must be postmarked or electronically transmitted within 90 days of the date of my response to your request. If you submit your appeal by mail, both the letter and the envelope should be clearly marked "Freedom oflnformation Act Appeal." Sincerely, ~J~ _Jr,:- Paul P. Colborn Special Counsel Enclosures cc: Matthew Berns, Trial Attorney Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 2 Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: F "d Document ID: 0.7.12561.54194 13 2017 1:07 PM (b) (6) To: Subject: J FW: ,OLC}; -,m-,-,-m•. . ..- (b) (5) Document ID: 0112561 .54194 Document ID: 0112561 .54194 -l;Jll!J-_o_Lc.)___________________ (b) (6) From: Sent: {OLC) Friday, January 13, 2017 4:54 PM (b) (6) To: (OLC) (b) (5) (b) (5) RE: Subje ct: Att achments: (1-13-2017)--Clean (llfl.docx Here it is. Good luckl Fr om: Sen- : Frida To: • (b) (6) Janua • OLC) 13, 201712:31 PM (b)(6) OLC) < Subject: FW: • (b) (5 ) I'm sorry to drag you in on this. The hope ls to get it to Rosemary today. can we discuss how to divide up? From : Hart, Rosemary {OLC} Se n ~ 10:47AM To: IIIIIIIIIIIIIWl(OLC)< Cc: (b)(6) - Subject: FW 11 DN• let me know if you need help on this. (Should we pull RH Document ID: 0.7.12561.23238 in on this?) (b) (6) From: OLC) (b) (6) {OLC) Sent: Friday, January 13, 2017 6:21 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Cc: Subject: Attachments: FYI, for jumping in on this. Document ID: 0.7.12561.6924 (b) (6) {OLC) (b)(5) (b)(5) (b) (5) 1-13-2017)-- Thanks to - Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Saturday, January 14, 20171:36 PM (OLC} To: Subject: - Update!! Thanks! Will be able to look at it fairly soon. (b )(6 ) From: (OLC) Sent: Saturday, January 14, 20171:35 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < Subject: RE: Here are comments on t he revised version. From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Sent: Saturday, January 14, 201712:16 PM To: OLC}< (b)(6) Subject: RE: - Update!! • Excellent. Thanks. (b) (6) From: {OLC) Sent: Saturday, January 14, 201712:02 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < Subject: Re: Yes, I can do this shortly. (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser ~ unsel IIIIIIIIIVmUIII On Jan 14, 2017, at 10:14 A.i\.1, Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < (b) (6) . wrote: • See new redline from Steve. Please use this one -sorry. I hope it won't take too long to transfer your comments - and maybe some have been addressed in the attached version. Would you be able to turn this around today? Thanks, Rosemary Document ID: 0.7.12561.6887 Document ID: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 4:20 PM (b)(6) To: Subject: RE: (b) (5) ,OLC} - Update! ! Thanks for checking. I had to do a conference call on~ now inputting my edits. I'm about halfway through. _ From: ~ Sent: S~ have turned back to this and am OLC) 4:18PM To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) < Subject: Re: I'm a:>suming you got tied up on other matters, but I wanted to be sure I hadn't missed this. (b) (6) On Jan 14, 2017, at 2:46 PM, Hart, Rosemary (OLC) ~ wrote: Am preparing a redline back, which I should be able to send in the next 15-20 minutes. Document ID: 0.7.12561.6867 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .8867 Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 5:20 PM (b) (6) To: ,OLC} 1-14- Subject: Attachments: (b) (5) Copy of I 2017)-t-- Here it is, just as you are getting ready for dinner and (b)(6) SORRY! Everything is going more slowly than I' d like, and I kept getting interrupted with m)J&JJ Document ID: 0.7.12561.6847 1-14- 002) + rh.docx (b) (5) (b) (6 ) (OLC) (b) (6) From: OLC) Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 5 :23 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: Re: Copy of 14-2017) Don't worry! I know you are slammed! (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel (b) (6) Document ID: 0.7.12561.6830 1- --mjm--.0.L.c1______________________ From: (b) (6) (OLC) Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 5:37 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: (1- RE: Copy of I 14-2017) I'm sorry for not having this straight, but Document ID: 0.7.12561.6829 (b) (5) ? -mlm--.(O•L •C •)______________________ (b) (6) From: (OLC) Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 6:01 PM To: Hart, Rosemary {O le) Subject: RE: Copy of 14-2017)-t Attachments: Copy of 2017)+. (1- (b) (5) (002} + rh+. (1-14- docx Here ls a revision. I've deleted the internal comments that required no follow up, and have otherwise highlighted in yellow my responses/edits. I'm happy to discuss. (b) (5) Document ID: 0.7.12561.6835 Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 6:05 PM (b) (6) To: Subject: ,OLC} 1- RE: Copy of 14-2017) Ok. I had j ust started- caught me in time! (b) (6) From: OLC) Sent; Saturday, January 14, 2017 6:04 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < Subject: Re: Copy of + rh (1-14-2017)+1- Ok--don't look at the doc I j ust sent. I will fix this and resend. (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel (b) (6) On Jan 14, 2017, at 6:02 PM, Hart, Rosemary {OLC) ~ (b) (5) Document ID: 0.7.12561.6809 I wrote: 002) -a·a-~(0-LC~)_______________ (b) (6) From: {OLC) Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 6:12 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: (1- RE: Copy of 14-2017) ' Attachments: (b) (5) Copy of 2017}+. (002) + rh+illdocx With that change made. Sorry about that! Document ID: 0.7.12561.6813 (1-14- uplicate Document ID: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 6:17 PM To: (b) (6) Subject: Got it. Thanks for looking at this so quickly! Document ID: 0.7.12561.6810 (OLC} (1- duplicate Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Satur day, January 14, 2017 6:39 PM (b) (6) To: Subject: ,Ole) RE: questi on ............ . Got it. Thanks! (b) (6) From: (OLC) Sent: Saturday, January 14, 2017 6:36 PM To: Hart, Rosemary {OLC) < (b) (6) Subject: RE: questi on... ......... . From: Hart, Rosemary {OLC) Sent: Sat urday, January 14, 2017 6:29 PM To: OLC}< Subject: question .... ..... ... . > (b)(6) • Question: Not sur e I underst and this addition: I am he re at(tiJIG)]ifa call is easier. duplicate Document ID: 0.7.12561.6790 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 (b) (6) OLC) (b) (6) From: {OLC) Monday, January 16, 2017 1:49 PM Sent: (b) (6) To: (Ole) RE: Immigration EO Subje ct: (b) (5) Att achments: {1.16.16)+. Near Final docx (b) (6) Sorry for all the confusion. Rosemary said she was (b) (6 ) From: (OLC) Se n ~171:42PM To: ~ (OLC} , Subject: Re: Immigration EO (b)(6) . Not right now, no. (b ) (6 ) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel 1 mment of Justice 1 • :DI On Jan 16, 2017, at 1:39 PM, (b) (6) (OLC) wrote: Are you working on something else now? (b) (6 ) {OLC) Sent: Monday, January 16, 20171:40 PM To: OLC) < Subject: Re: Immigration EO From: Ok. Let me know if you need help! (b) (6 ) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel Department of Justice Document ID: 0.7.12561.28075 (b ) (6) • (b) (6) On Jan 16, 2017, at 1:3S PM, (b) (6) {OLC) < (b) (6) (b) (6) · · wrote: Nope; if you' re not, don't worry about it. (b) (6) From: Ole) Sent: Monday, January 16, 20171:38 PM To: OLC) < Subject: Re: Immigration EO Hey, I'm not sure if I missed an email, but this is the fi rst I've heard about it. Should I be working on it? (b )(6) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel Department of Justice (b) (6) {Ole} (b) (6) and am back to focusing on this. Are you working on it? If so, should we chat about where things stand? l'matllU,ilfF Document ID: 0.7.12561.28075 -IDIE--_o_Lc.1____________________ {OLC) (b) (6 ) From: Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 2:08 PM (b) (6) To: Subject: Ole) RE: Immigration EO (b) (5) Yeah. can you also From: (b) (6) Ole) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 2:05 PM To: Ol e} ,. Subject: RE: Immigration EO From: (b) (6) (b )(6 ) • OLC) Sent: Monday, January 16, 20171:51 PM To: (Ol C)< (b) Subject: RE: Immigrati on EO (6) · (b) (5) Document ID: 0.7.12561.27949 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .3949 •@Jl!J._o_Lc_)______________________ (b) (6) From: OLC) Monday, January 16, 2017 2:41 PM Sent: (OLC} To: Subject: Sounds good. (b )(6) From: (Ole) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 2:39 PM Give me 5 minutes. I'm going to send you the doc back with a draft comment. (b) (6) From: {Ole) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 2:39 PM Ole} < Exactly. (b) (5) (b) (6) (Ole) (b) (5) Oddly, though, 1111 This raises the question(b) (6) From: (OLC) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 2:26 PM OLC < Document ID: 0.7.12561.27952 (b) (5) · From: (6) Sent:Monda Janna 16 To: Su Inject: I believe the attached are ail Document ID: 0112561 .3952 -,OJQ!lalll.(o_L_c1..._____________________ (b) (6) From: (OLC) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:56 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole} Cc: (b) (6) (OLC) (b) (5) Subject: (b) (5) Attachments: Near Final (1.16.16)f i l docx RosemaryIn the course of our discussion, attached comments. again as reflected in the draft. - -- Document ID: 0.7.12561.27703 (b) (6) From: Sent: (OLC} (b) (6) Monday, January 16, 2017 3:58 PM (b) (6) To: Subject: {OLC) Read: {OLC) (b) (5) Your message To: ~ Sub~ Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 8:55:47 PM (UTCt00:00) Monrovi a, Reykj avi k was read on Monday, January 16, 2017 8:57:07 PM (UTC+-00:00) Monrovia, Reykj avi k. Document ID: 0.7.12561 .27690 .,.l!J._o_Lc_)_____________________ (b) (6) From: (OLC) Monday, January 16, 2017 4:10 PM Sent: (b) (6) To: {Ole} (b) (5) RE: Subject: (b) (5) (b) (6) From: (Ole) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 4:08 PM (b) (5) (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel On Jan 16, 2017, at4:04 PM, (b) (6) (Ole)< • wrote: (b) (6) (b) (5) Yeah. (b) (6) From: Ole) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:59 PM To: OLC < Subject: Re: (b) (5) (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel (b) (6) On Jan 16, 2017, at 3:57 PM, (b) (6) (Ole)<; ( b ) (5 ) Document ID: 0.7.12561.27679 (b) (6) >wrote: (b) (5) (b) (6) Got it; thanks! (b) (6) From: {OLC) Sent: Monday, January 15, 2017 3:47 PM To: I OLC < Subject: RE: consultation" I accidentally left a pasted inEJE>I after the text, please ignore it. (b) (6) (b) (6) • (b) (5) This looks great ( made a few edits in yellow. Let me know if they make sense. (b) (6) (b ) (6) Feel free to do more: Document ID: 0.7.12561.27679 • •I (b) (6) From: (OlC) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:19 PM To: OLC < Sub· (b) (6) Document ID: 0.7.12561.27679 I think that's all fair, and I'll made edits accordingly. From: (b) (6 ) To:· ·· Ole) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 3:10 PM Subject: RE: OlC I have made some edits in yellow bellow that are totally up to you whether or not to include, as they do make it longer. I didn't touch (b) (5) Thanks! Take a look? Document ID: 0.7.12561.27679 (b) (6) From: Ole} Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 2:47 PM OLC This may be relevant- Document ID: 0.7.12561 .27679 (b) (5) duplicate Document ID: 0112561 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 •@•@• .o.Lc.)________________________ (b) (6) From: (OLC) Monday, January 16, 2017 4:11 PM Sent: (b) (6 ) To: (OLC} (b) (5) RE: Subject: Definitely. From: (b) (6) (Ole) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 4:07 PM To: (OlC)< (b)(6) Subject: Re: (b) (5) (b) (5) Yes. (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser ~ Counsel IIIIIIIVWHIII Document ID: 0.7.12561.27683 'cluplicate Document ID: 0112561 .3683 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .3683 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .3683 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .3683 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .3683 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .3683 Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 6:43 PM To: (b) (6) (OLC} Subject: Near Final (b) (5) Attachments: Near Final (1.16.16)+l l ldocx Thanks for continuing to work on this. I have added some internal comments and questions. See attached. And call if it is easier to discuss. Document ID: 0.7.12561.27621 -w·w-.o.Lc.)____________________ From: (b) (6) (O LC) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 7:00 PM To: Hart, Rosemary {O LC) Subject: RE: (1.16.16)+ Att achments: I'll call you in 5 minutes; I need to relocate. Document ID: 0.7.12561.27622 Near Final Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 7:03 PM To: (b) (6) (OLC} Subject: - Near Your messag.e Near Fi nal (1.16.16)+. anada) was read on Monday, January 16, 2017 7:03:25 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Document ID: 0.7.12561.27612 (b) (6) (OLC) (b) (6) Fro m: OLC) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 7:18 PM To : Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: RE: Attachments: Document ID: 0.7.12561.27614 -Near Final -@•@--.0.L.c1_______________________ (b) (6) From: O LC) Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 7:29 PM To: Hart, Rosemary {O LC) Subject: RE: (1.16,16) Near Final I I Att achments: Here, with hopefully the things we've discussed addressed for tonight's purposes. Document ID: 0.7.12561.27611 Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 7:29 PM To: Subject: Thanks. Will read now. Document ID: 0.7.12561.27602 (b) (6) (OLC} -Near Final Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Monday, January 16, 2017 7:45 PM To: Subject: (b) (6) RE: (1.16.16)-+III This is good. I can clean up and send. Thanks ! Document ID: 0.7.12561.27601 OLC} (b) (5) -Near Final Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 10:21 AM (b) (6) To: Subject: (b) (5) (OLC}; (b) (6) -- PLEASE READ (b)(5) Attachments: (1.16.16)+ OLC again (116 2017).docx Importance : High (b) (5) Document ID: 0.7.12561.27346 {OLC) Near Final am•w•.(O _Lc_)___________________ (b) (6) From: Sent: {OLC) Tuesday, January 17, 201712:23 PM (b) (6) To: Subject: RE: (OLC) llllllll6JIIIII PLEASE READ (b) (5) Yeah, that I don't know. It's a good question. (b) (6) (b) (5) (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser ~ ounsel IIIIIIIIVWUIIII On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:16 PM (b) (6) Ole) <; (b) (6) · wrote: (b) (6) From: (OLC) Sen ~ry 17, 201712:14 PM To: -.w.&lllalll(Ole) < Subject: Re: (b) ( 5) (b) (6) -- PLEASE READ (b) (5) jumping on a call on another matter, but I can call you when I'm done. (b) (6) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel (b) (6) Document ID: 0.7.12561.27294 Am (b) (6) On Jan 17, 2D17, at 12:04 PM, (b) (6) OLC) <. > wrote: Hey, I just tried calling you. (b)(5) (b) (6) From: (OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 201711:54AM (b) (6 ) To: Hart, Rosemary {OLC) (b) (6) Cc: ~ ., Subject: Re: - -- PLEASE READ (b) (6 ) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel (b )(6) (b) (6 ) On Jan 17, 2017, at 11:35 AM, Hart, Rosemary {OLC) < >wrote: OK. Thanks. Dan should be back soon, and I can ask him for his ideas on this. From: (b) (6) OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 201711:22 AM (b) (6) To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < fiJmJIOLC} Subject: RE: From: • (b) (6) (b) (5) (b) (6) > - PLEASE READ (OLC) Sent: Tu esdav. Januarv 17. 2017 10:47 AM Document ID: 0.7.12561.27294 - (b )(6) _ _ ,.,...,,. . -----,., ·-· ·--· 1 -·, ---· To: Hart, Rose IBlml(OLC - - - .. . .. . . .. . >·, (b) (6) < Subject: RE: That could work, I think. (b) (5) >;lti)Iml Document ID: 0.7.12561.27294 From: OLC) (b) (6) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 201710:43 AM To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole)< W>J® (OLC) ;I (b )(6) Subject: RE: l see. OK. I'll see what I can find. From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 201710:37 AM (b) (6) To: OLC} (b) (6) (b)(6) (OLC) < Subject: RE: EEJI- • ;IQJM PLEASE READ (b ) (5) (b) (6) From: OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 201710:28 AM To: Hart, Rosema OLC < ru)lmloLC} < Subject: RE: Document ID: 0.7.12561.27294 (b ) (6) (5) duplicate __ (o_Lc_) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (b) (6) From: Sent: (OLC) Tuesday, January 17, 2017 12:26 PM OLC) To: Subject: I believe tE)Uwrote the comment, so I'm sure he would know. (b) (6) From: (OLC) Sen ~17 l2:25 PM To: 1111111111111W. OLC} < Subject: RE: - PLEASE READ (b)(5) (b) (6) • From somethingl J lsent me earlier: - From: If you need a sample comment, here's one ofQiJMs that might be helpf ul: (b) (6) Document ID: 0.7.12561.27276 (OLC) sent: Tuesoa , January 17, 201712:24 PM To (Ole}< Subject: Re: -- PLEASE READ Is there a cite for (b) (5) I should look at? (b)(6) Attorney-Adviser Office of Legal Counsel (b) (6) On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:22 PM, (b) (6) (Ole} < But, yeah, feel free to call me when you are free at Document ID: 0.7.12561.27276 (b)(6 ) (b) (6) • wrote: duplicate Document ID: 0112561 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 duplicate Document ID: lltiJJUJ._oL~c)________________ (b) (6) From: Sent: (OLC) Tuesday, January 17, 201712:53 PM To: RE: Subject: (b)(6) (b) (5) ,OLC) - PLEASE READ Let's talk. I chatted withWJIUJ]. withltDIGJlin But, I think might be easier to talk about this on the phone, or for you to discuss person and explain the actual issue we are dealing with. There does seem something different here in that the (b) (5) I (b) (6) Ole) (b) (5) I would j ust ask him the question generally- llllllllfflTffl ~ Office of LI ii Counsel MQJ1m On Jan 17, 2017, at 12:32 PM, (b) (6) (OLC) < (b)(6) " wrote: Can we discuss this EO with him? I' m still not sure how close hold this all is. (b) (6 ) Document ID: 0.7.12561 .27214 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .2?214 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .2?214 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .2?214 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .2?214 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .2?214 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .2?214 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .2?214 .IDIID• •{O_Lc_)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (b) (6) From: Sent: {OLC) Tuesday, January 17, 20171:29 PM (b) (6) To: Subject: ,OLC) RE: lllllltDISJIIII PLEASE READ Oh no! (b) (6) From: {OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 20171:28 PM Ole)< Ack! I Fro m: havelG)I&JJwith a similar problem! (b )(6) {OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 20171:26 PM To: (Ol C} • Subject: RE: PLEASE READ at.Dll:JIIII- (b)(6) Got it. Right. (b) (6) OLC) (b) (5) Yes, please! From: (b) (6) {OLC) 17 20171:24 PM (OLC} < Sent: Tuesda To: Subject: RE: , (b )(6) · -- PLEASE READ I can send t hemWJitiJ] Sorry, we should send From: themWJltiJ1 or not? (b) (6) (OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 20171:23 PM (Ole)< - PLEASE READ Do you want me t o dra ft an email t o them or do you want t o? I want to send call, perhaps Qi>lm)and I could give you a call from his office? From: (b)(6) Document ID: 0.7.12561.26909 (OLC) them tmJU After I'm off my S e n ~171:03PM To:~ OlC} • < (b)(6) • Subject: RE: -- PLEASE READ (b) (5) (b) (6) ------ ; Hart, Rosemary {Ole} I'm not very familiar with that issue, but I figured as well. (b) (6) ; Hart, Rosemary (OLC}. _ an From: (b) (6) {Ole) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 201712:57 PM (b)(6) To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < • (b) (6) Ole} - PLEASE READ (b) (5) From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 201712:49 PM OlC From: (b) (6) ; IIIIIGJmllll(OLC) ~ (b )(6 ) ~ Cc:- -OLC)< Subject: ~uestion for you to)mJ]andru>l(m We have (b)(S) - Basically, the question is • uestion t hat we would love your views on. (b) (5) (b) (5) (b) (5) Document ID: 0.7.12561.14691 (b) (5) (b) (5) From: Hart, Rosemary {OLC) S e n ~ry 17, 20171:22 PM To: ~ OLC)< - PLEASE READ Sure, loop him in. And Document ID: 0.7.12561.14691 al t oo. (b) (6) OLC) duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14691 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14691 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14691 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14691 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14691 •m•m•. {O_Lc_)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ (b) (6) From: {OLC) Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:14 PM Sent: (b) (6) To: {OLC);- - · Cc: _ ........ , ... UJ,,,.,~OLC) Subje ct: RE: - question for you (b) (5) (b) (5) Tremendous thanks, UNI for your help on all this. From :¥'9J{ Ole) Sent: ; e; :, January 17, 2017 3:08 PM To: (OlC)< (b) (6) Cc: - {OLC)~ Subject: RE: 111tuestion for you (b) (6) This is super helpful. Thank you! Document ID: 0.7.12561.53655 ;UJml< • (b) (6) • (b) (6) • (b) (5) From: lti>M Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 2:30 PM To: lllllltDDllll(OLC}< Cc:- (OLC) OLC)< Subject: RE:~ uestion for you I was in the middle of an email saying that , but that it seemed like we have an in-house From: (b)(6) OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 2:25 PM To: OlC < What follows is my quick take. Document ID: 0.7.12561.53655 would be in a much better position than me to answ er, So count this as a "me too," with gratitude that < (b) (6) · duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .53655 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .53655 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .53655 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .53655 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .53655 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .53655 duplicate (b) (6) (OLC) (b) (6) From: (OLC) To: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:54 PM (b) (6) OLC); (b) (6) Subject: RE: a:iuestion for you Sent: (OLC); (b) (6) (b) (6) (OLC); OK; I'm going to send it on. (b) (6) From: Ole) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:53 PM (b ) (6) Ole)< (b) (6) (Ole) < (b) (6) , • , This works from my perspective. (b) (6) From: (Ole) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:47 PM OlC)< (b) (5) To accommodate we could add the following ( (b) (5) (b) (5) Although, this makes it more cumbersome. From: ·e G)Jmll (Ole) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:44 PM T < < s (b) (6) ( b ) (6 ) (b) (6) (b) (5). - Ole)< --tiJIUJ • • - ; ; 4V Jk OlC} Ole} you I likf'IMlc; approach also because (b) (6) (b) (5) (Ole) (Ole)< (b) (6) Subject: RE: ~ Document ID: 0.7.12561.14520 uestion fo r you (b)(6 ) • · . ···-~···~_....,...~. -~---~ ... .. ..-- -~· ...~. ~ From: (b) (6) (OLC) (b) (6) >·, (b) (6) (b) (6) OLC}<. (b) (6) (OLC) < (b)(5) (b)(6) ., • I wonder if we could j ust state something like the following: (b) (5) (b) (6) From: (OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:32 PM To:IIIIIIDBt>IIII( OLC} < mmn<- Subj ect: RE:~ >; .,._.....,..yl;Jll!JIIII(Ole) < (b)(6) •m•a (OLC) < (b)(6) · • uestion for you So I've drafted (b) (5) If you all are ok, I'll send it on to Rosemary. (b) (6) ;I (b) (6) That is correct. OLC) • (b) (5) (b) (6) From: OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:08 PM To: (b) (6) Sounds good. (b) (6) OLC} <= = = = = = = = = (b) (5) (b) (5) Document ID: 0.7.12561 .14520 • (b) (6) {OLC}<_ (b) (6) .: (b) (6) From : I OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:05 PM .r..... (b) (6) • ---- (b) (6) OLC) <. (b) (6) • ;mlJ > Subj ect~ you (b) (5) and I are thinking language on this. I'm going to try to draft some placeholder (b)(6) From : (OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 2:56 PM To: (OLC (b) (6) (b)(6 ) OLC} <. •tDGJJl< J Subject: RE: (b) (5) I did find this from IIIIIO>IG>IIII( From: OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 2:51 PM (b) (6 ) To: (OLC}< < (b) (6) II • (b) (6) < >·, (b) (6 ) (OLC} (b) (6) Subject: RE:tlllliuestion for you No, it isn't working for me either, and it wasn't working for . (b) (6) From: OLC) S e n ~ry 17, 2017 2:50 PM (b) (6) To: IIIIIIVl&W.all(OlC) <; (OLC) ~ Subject: RE: ~ uestion for you • his morning. (b)(6) Am I the only one for whom Perceptive Search is not working? duplicate Document ID: 0.7.12561.14520 , (b) (6) • duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14520 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14520 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14520 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14520 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14520 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14520 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14520 duplicate Document ID: 0112561 .14520 (b) (6) From: OLC) (b) (6) OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:57 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: Attachments: (b) (5) -Near Final (b) (5) Document ID: 0.7.12561.2611 3 -IDlliJ-·(o_L_c1_____________________ From: (b) (6) (OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 4:07 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC); Subje ct: Att achments: (b) (5) MGJII F&l (b) (5 ) ~ 30pm +1111.17).docx; IIIIIWltDllll l -17-2017) ... +rh.docx Document ID: 0.7.12561.53718 Near Final (b) (5) (b) (6) From: Sent: To: Subject: {OLC} (b) (6) Tuesday, January 17, 2017 4:25 PM (b) (6) notes etc. (b) (5) (b) (5) https:/ / Document ID: 0.7.12561.32291 (OLC) (b) (5) Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 6:12 PM (b) (6) To: (b) (5) RE: Subject: (OLC} Looking at this now. From : I (b) (6) { Ole) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:57 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) < Subject: (b)(6) (b) (5) • duplicate Document ID: 0.7.12561.26091 Gannon, Curtis (OSG) From: Gannon, Curtis (OSG) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 8:48 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Subject: RE: Signing schedule Even better! From: Hart, Rosemary {OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 8:48 PM (b)(6 ) To: Gannon, Curtis (OSG) < Subjed:: RE: Signing schedule And they will follow up · (b) (5) From: Gannon, Curtis (OSG) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 8:47 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) ~ Subjed:: RE: Signing schedule Excellent. Thanks! From: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 8:43 PM To: Gannon, Curtis(OSG) ~ Subject: Signing s-ehedule Just got off a long call with Steve and Scott. We now have a list re: issuance plan for the first week. This will help us focus our resources during the next several days. Note: We only issue paperwork for the EOs, but we approve via email on all the others. I've highlighted the EOs for the first couple of days. Need to turn to more immediate stuff, but will send you an update later tonight or tomorrow. Friday: (b) (5) Document ID: 0.7.12561.46127 Monday (b) (5) Wednesday: EW• Thursday: I . (b) (5) (b) (5) (b) (5) Monday: Document ID: 0.7.12561.46127 (b) (5) (b) (6) (OLC) (b) (6) From: (OLC) Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 201 7 10:10 AM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: RE: Attachments: -Near Final (b) (5) (b) (6) From : (OLC) Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2017 3:57 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < Subject: duplicate Document ID: 0.7.12561.25961 -tpJm-.(O_Lc_)___________________ (b) (6) From: {OLC) Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 10:33 AM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: RE: -Near Final (1.16.16) Attachments: (b)(5) From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole) Sent: Wednesda , Janua 18, 201710:30 AM To: (OLC}< Subject: -tlll.18}+rh Looks good. See my tweaks to Document ID: 0.7.12561.25922 -Near Final (1.16.16)+. (b) (5) 730pm Accurate? Please edit as necessary. Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 1:27 PM To: Gannon,Curtis(OSG) Subject: RE: (b) (5) -Near Final (1.16.16) + OLC {118 2017) Will do. Thanks for responding. From : Gannon, Curtis (OSG) Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 20171:22 PM (b) (6) To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < Subject: Re: (b) (5) 18 2017) -Near Final (1.16.16} + OLC (1 And I won't have more time to look at it this afternoon, so please proceed as you see f it with Steve. {I'm on my way to his office to interview a DAAG candidate.) On Jan 18, 2017, at 1:18 PM, Gannon, Curtis {OSG) < (b) (6) "' wrote: Thanks, Rosemary. I haven't done any research, but your proposal makes sense to me. (b) (6) On Jan 18, 2017, at 10:45 AM, Hart, Rosemary {OLC) < wrote: (b) (5) p g y can j ust go ahead. (b) (5) let me know what you feel comfortable doing on this. Thanks, Rosemary (b) (5) < (1.16.16) + OLC (1 18 201 i ).docx> Document ID: 0.7.12561.45949 -Near Final Hart, Rosemary (OLC) From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 1:28 PM To: Gannon,Curtis(OSG) Subject: RE: (1.16.16) + OLC {1 18 2017) (b) (5) -Near Final thanks From: Gannon, Curtis (OSG) Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 20171:18 PM (b) (6) To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < (b) (5) Subject: Re: 18 2017) Document ID: 0.7.12561.45950 Near Final (1.16.16} + OLC (1 (b) (6) OLC) (b) (6) From: Sent: To: {OLC) Wednesday, January 18, 201 7 1:29 PM (b) (6) Cc: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} Subject: F&Ls Attachments: (b) (5) EO Form and Legality (b) (5) ru)IEJJ.docx; EO Form and Legality (b)(5) docx; EO Form and Legali docx; EO Form and Legality - I think, but am not sure, that this is all my remaining F&Ls except the one on (b) (5) let me know. Document ID: 0.7.12561.14191 (b) (5) If I'm missing any, please ••• From: Sent: (b) (6 ) Wednesday, January 18, 2017 1:34 PM (b ) (6 ) To: Subject: (OLC} RE: F&Ls Awesome-thanks very much! (b) (6) From: Ol e) Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 20171:29 PM To:e G > J l d l ~ Cc: Hart, Rosemary {Ole)< Subject: F&Ls (b) (6) , duplicate Document ID: 0.7.12561.13669 (b) (6) From: OLC) (b) (6) OLC) Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 201 7 1:50 PM To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: RE: (1.16.16H lill730pm +. (b) (5) -Near Final 1.18) + rh Attachments: Near Final Getting closer, I hope! From: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 201710:30 AM To: 'OLC} < Subject: +1111.1s)+rh duplicate Document ID: 0.7.12561.25756 -Near Final (1.16.16)-tilt30pm (b) (6) OLC) (b) (6) Fro m: {OLC) Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2017 2:17 PM To : Hart, Rosemary (OLC) Subject: (b) (5) RE: (1.16.16)+ill730pm -11111.18) + rh+ll ill14Sp) -Near Final Attachments: Near Final Ugh! I keep having version problems. I'd added something to that effect, but I must not have sent you the right one. What you wrote seems good. 11ve also fixed a weird highlighting glitch in another comment. To: Subject: ~1.18) + rh+- -Near Final (1.16.16)+ili730pm 145p) I thought we should flag Document ID: 0.7.12561.25736 (b) (5) See attached. -W•W'111111.