fo b3 commission meeting 1-5-04 fdr- minutes of the 12-8-03 meeting 674

8/14/2019 FO B3 Commission Meeting 1-5-04 Fdr- Minutes of the 12-8-03 Meeting 674

1/5

N A T I O N A L C O M M I S S I O N O NT E R R O R I ST A T T A C K S O N T H E U N I T E D S T A T E S

Minutes of th e December 8,2003 MeetingThe Chair called the Commission to order at 4:45 PM on December 8, 2003. The Chair,Vice Chair, Commissioners Ben-Veniste, Fielding, Gorelick, Gorton, Lehman, Roemer,and Thompson were in attendance.Minutes. T he Chair asked for approval of the minutes of the November 6-7th andNovember 19l meetings. Commissioner Ben-Veniste suggested several changes to theNovember 19th minutes, stating, as he had done at previous meetings, his strong view thatthe Chair should schedule more time for Commission meetings, as some agenda items arecovered in haste an d others are deferred because of insufficient time for consideration.Upon agreement with Commissioner Ben-Veniste's changes, the Minutes were approved.Interview Guidelines andPossible Extension. The Chair opened discussion on theinterview guidelines topic and a wider discussion ensued. Commissioner Ben-Venistenoted his surprise at the Chair and Vice Chair's statement to the press that theCommission believes it can meet its deadline, when that very question was a topic fordiscussion at the meeting. He also noted his strong surprise at the Guidelines onInterviews. He had not seen them before and stated his strong opposition to them.Commissioner Roemer added that he wanted to be on the record against the Guidelines,and believed that the Commission needed to respond strongly and immediately to theletter from White House Assistant Counsel Monheim. He also stated his strong supportfor an extension. He noted that the original time envisioned for the Commission was 24months, and that the Commission needs to set its standard as one of doing not a good jobbut an excellent one. In his view this requires 24 months. He noted that staff says theyca n get the job done, but they vary in their estimates of the quality of the job they can do.He believes the Commission should be on record seeking an extension.Commissioner Gorelick noted examples of how time constraints are impinging on theCommission's work. First, because of time constraints, the Commission proposes tointerview former Attorney General Reno and former FBI Director Freeh beforeinterviewing former FBI Deputy Director 'Bear' Bryant and Steve Colgate. In her view,this is backwards, and the Commission will not be able to ask Reno and Freeh all thequestions that need to be asked. Second, she noted that review of the PDBs will likelyrequire several rounds of negotiations with the White House. This will take a lot of time.Commissioner Gorelick also observed that if any outside observer stepped back andlooked at the Guidelines and the Monheim letter, they would be shocked. She stated thatshe did not intend to be critical of staff: they are doing the very best they can, and it isimpressive.The Vice Chair observed that he had met with seven of the nine teams, and that he beganeach discussion with the question: Can you get the job done in time? Every answer he

C O M M I S S I O N SENSITIVEFO R OFFICIAL U S E ONLY


2/5

COMMISSIONSENSITIVEFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

has received was in the affirmative. Commissioner Gorelick said that she saw noinconsistency: the gap is between what the staff believes it needs to do andCommissioners' ownjudgment about what they need to do. Commissioner Ben-Venistesaid that the staff defer to the Executive Director; the Executive Director noted that hewas not present at any of the meetings the Vice Chair mentioned.Commissioner Ben-Veniste asked for greater detail on the hearing proposal: Who is totestify, what is the list of witnesses, who can tell the story? He also stated his concern asto whether investigative work will be done or reviewed properly, because Commissionersdid not have enough time to do their job. The Vice Chair agreed that the Commissionneeds to have more dates set aside for meetings in April andMay.The Chair observed that time is always a hard judgment. You can always use more of it.Would the report be better with two additional months? Yes. Four additional months?Yes. But some deadline must always be chosen.Commissioner Gorton asked several questions that need to be considered with respect toan extension. What is the view of the staff? Will the staff be around an additional sixmonths? At what point will the Commission's recommendations have the most impact?Commissioner Gorton noted that, for himself, this argued for a December 31, 2004deadline, making recommendations to a new administration. The staff may be ready inMay, but when will the Commissioners be ready to issue a report? In his view, theFamily Steering Committee and the public generally believe the Commission needs moretime. Commissioner Gorton also commented, as several Commissioners did, that theCommission can only recommend: Congress and the President will decide. Balancingthese several factors, Commissioner Gorton gave greater weight to requesting aDecember 31st extension.Commissioner Gorton mentioned that he found the Monheim letter insulting. It was hisview that the Commission should invite White House witnesses to testify. Either theycome, or they do not. What we ask those witnesses, and how much time we require, isour business, not their business. He concluded that the Commission should accept noneof the conditions the White House is seeking to impose.The Chair offered his impressions on the timing question, noting that there is dead timeafter the primaries and before the Conventions, and the Commission has the opportunityto influence the platforms of both political parties. Commissioner Lehman agreed. Heworked with Senators Jackson and Tower on a "Defense Recovery Act" in the summer of1980, and the ideas were adopted 100% by the Republicans and 90% by the Democrats attheir party conventions.Commissioner Ben-Veniste observed that the Commission under the current scheduledoes not have time for follow-ups, and that the Commission will not have the time to getthings right unless it gets things right the first time. He observed that the Commissionwill be carrying out three full-time tasks at onceconducting interviews, conductinghearings, and writing a report.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE 2FOR OFFICIALUSE ONLY


3/5

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFOR OFFICIAL USE O NLY

Commissioner Fielding noted that if we seek an extension, it should be because webelieve we need an extension to be credible. The downside, he noted, is that the reportwill be forever blemished if the Comm ission publicly argues for an extension and doesnot receive one.The E xecutive Director commented that he can argue deadlines round or flat. Thepolitics, in his judgment, is a washand that is a judgm ent for Com missioners anyway.He noted that deadlines are always arbitrary and restraining that there is never enoughtime. Staff have said it is very hard to meet the deadline, but they will do it. But manystaff cannot stay past the summer. Moreover, when would we know that we get extratime? It may not be until April, when it is already too late. He observed that the stafffeels the same way as Comm issioners do: they are comm itted to excellence. In responseto Commissioner Ben-Veniste's comment that the staff has only one chance to "get itright," the Executive Director observed that staff have rescheduled interviews and calledback officials for second and third interviews as needed. He noted that the staff is opento ideas from Com missioners about sequencing of interviews and how w ork can be donebetter; staff will do their very best to meet Com missioner expectations.The G eneral Counsel observed that the schedule is tight and difficult. Under othercircumstances he would have argued for an extension, but he noted the Commission'sdilemma: If it cannot be known until March or April whether the Commission will get anextension, it is not much help to the staff. The Commission has no choice but to act formost of its scheduled life as if there is no extension.Commissioner Ben-Veniste observed that, setting all politics aside, the Commissionneeds more time for factual work and sufficient time for the Commissioners to read,digest, and discuss matters collegially. Even if the work gets done, there will still need tobe time for Commissioners' mid-course and end-course corrections.The Chair observed that he and the Vice Chair have stated publicly that the Commissioncan meet its deadline because of their desire to keep staff focused on the goal and to showthe world that the Commission is working hard. That said, the Chair asked whether itwould be p ossible to have a quiet conversation on the possibility of an extension.Com missioner Go rton observed that such conversations w ould be in the Post the nextday; Commissioner Roemer observed that publicity alone would not defeat the need orinterest of the Com mission in making such an inquiry.The Ex ecutive Director outlined a plan for engaging Comm issioners' advice and input inthe final report. The plan is to get draft monographs to Commissioners early enough sothat they can provide comment and direction; drafts would be presented toCommissioners in beginning in January and ending in April. A second round ofdiscussions on key policy issues would follow in April; a draft report would be circulatedto Commissioners in May. In other words, all Com missioners would have three bites atthe app le with respect to each team's draft conclusions and recommendations.

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFO R OFFICIAL USE ONLY


4/5

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYCommissioner Thompson stated his belief that the odds of getting an extension are slim.There w ill be no overt rejection of the C omm ission's request; the proposal will just d ieon the vine. Unless the Commission is prepared to extend to the end of 2004, and iswilling to fight to get such an extension, the effort is not worth making, in his judgment.The V ice Chair stated that all Comm issioners grapple with the question: W hat is the bestway we can fulfill our mandate? Each C ommissioner has to be able to answer, forhimself or herself, "we have met our mandate, or done all that we can to meet it." Heobserved that, as best he is aware, there is no possibility of a free-standing bill for anextension of the Commission. He said that he and the Chair had discussed this question,and that they would be guided by the w ill of the C omm ission. If directed, he and theChair would be willing to speak to the Senate and House leadership and seek m ore time.Com missioner Roemer advocated a six-month extension. Politics will make it verydifficult to accomplish anything in 2004, he noted; therefore a December 2004 launchfrom his viewpoint was far preferable. Commissioner Ben-Veniste thought it useful toask for what the Commission truly needsanother two monthsand then let the politicssort out the actual date. The Chair stated that he and the Vice C hair would make suchqueries as the Com mission directs, and that he is also concerned about the ability of staffto mak e the deadline. Com missioner Gorelick, responding to Commissioner Tho mpson'searlier comm ent, thought the best app roach to take in such conversations is: "we can doit, focus and get it donebut we would do a better job if we had more time."Commissioner Gorton stated that the conversation had been constructive, and that hecontinues to believe December 31 , 2004 is a better deadline. He approved of quietinquiries by the C hair and Vice C hair to seek an extension. He also stated that he thoughtthe Com mission could take up to two additional mon ths in the absence of legislativeaction; the Commission, after all, is scheduled to exist for two more months after theformal reporting deadline of May 27 th. He recommended that the Commission (1) holdinformal talks with Congress and the Wh ite House about an additional 2 months tocomplete its work; (2) keep in mind that the Commission can take 2 more monthsanyway; and (3) write back to the W hite House and insist on more flexibility in theconduct of its interviews, that the Comm ission cannot accept limits on time, number ofstaff, or limits on qu estioning at interviews through a pre-screening process. A consensusagreed on points one and two.Interview Guidelines Rejected. Com missioners Gorelick and Roem er agreed withCommissioner Gorton in his proposed response to the Monheim letter, and stronglyrejected guidelines with respect to pre-meetings. Com missioner Gorelick stated that itwas prudent to meet before an interview, but she rejected an agreement in writing, as itwould look as if the Com mission had accepted an attempt by the White House to tailor itsquestions. She stated that such an agreement did not comport with the independence ofthe Comm ission. Comm issioners Ben-Veniste and Roemer stated similar objections.The General Counsel took issue with C ommissioner Roemer's remarks. He noted thatthe Joint Inquiry did not get a single White House interview, and its approach should not

COMMISSION SENSITIVE 4FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY


5/5

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLYbe the model for the Commission. The Chair interceded, noting differences in perceptionas well as reality. He stated that both the General Counsel and Commissioners are right.He stated that he understood and endorsed what the General Counsel was doing to elicitinformation, but he also understood that Comm issioners found this particular piece ofpaper on interview guidelines highly objectionable.Comm issioner Gorton agreed with Commissioner Gorelick's earlier observation: do whatyou have to do to make the interview process workbut this particular piece of paper oninterview guidelines is shocking and must be rejected form ally.The Executive Director said that the views of Commissioners were coming through loudand clear. The staff had never agreed with the Monheim letter on W hite H ouseinterviews that commissioners found so objectionable. The Interview Guidelines forother agencies had been agreed to only 'ad referendum,' and he believed staff had nowbeen instructed by the Commission to repudiate that agreement. The staff wouldtherefore prepare appropriate letters both to the White House, on the one hand, and toDan Levin as the representative of the executive departments.Oaths. Discussion turned to topic of sworn testimony. Reflecting upon previousCommission discussion, the General C ounsel recommended that all public witnesses besworn in before they testify, and that if White H ouse witnesses choose not to be sworn in,the Commission should allow them to testify and direct all questions about unwillingnessto testify under oath to the witnesses and to the White House. Comm issioner Ben-Veniste observed that if witnesses refused to be sworn in, so be itand they will have toexplain. Commissioner Gorelick agreed that White House witnesses would stick out inan unfavorable manner if they refused to be under oath, but the decision was theirs tomake. A consensus agreed on this approach.The General Counsel explained further that only a few of the 760 interviews conductedby staff have been under oath. Staff policy has been to conduct interviews under oath incases where essential facts are in dispute or where there are doubts about the veracity of awitness. Com missioners expressed no objections to this policy.Adjournment. The Commission adjourned at 6:55 PM.

COMMISSION SENSITIVEFOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

fo b3 commission meeting 1-5-04 fdr- minutes of the 12-8-03 meeting 674

Documents