Response From DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel - January 2, 2018

U.S.
Department of Justice
Office of Legal Counsel
Washington, D. C. 20530
January 2, 2018
Ian Bassin
Executive Director
The Protect Democracy Project
FOIA.protectdemocracy@gmail.com
Re: FOIA No. FYl 7-135;

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 of Information 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 376 pages ofresponsive records. We
have enclosed 51 pages of responsive records, 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
attorney-client, 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 325 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 oflaw 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 of Information 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."
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: Saturday, January 21, 2017 9:45 AM
To: (b) (6)
Subject: FW: Current list
Here is the list we are working from now. We have not received will get it soon and will
send to Qlml as it is modeled after•O>Ja or getting that today and will send to
tm1D
Document ID: 0.7.12561.53813

Document ID: 0.7.12561.53813
Stewart, Scott (OLC)
From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:03 PM
To: Gannon, Curtis E. (Ole)
Subject: FW: Executive Orders
Attachments:
(b) (5)
[UJltiJ]- FINAL.docx;
EWW-REVJSED.docx
The six latest versions of the immigration EOs.
Document ID: 0.7.12561.20370


Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 6:18 PM
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole}
Subject: FW: Executive Orders
Attachments: (b) (5)
- ONE LAST ADDITION.docx;
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
Document ID: 0.7.12561 .42858

-m·a__ (o_tc_1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
From: (b) (6) (Ole)

Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 5:19 PM
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC}
Subject: RE: F& ls
The re are so many! I'm checking now to make sure I' ve comple t e d all mine .
From:-GJ8
Sent: Monday, January 23, 2017 5 :18 PM
To: OLC}< (b)(6) • ; Hart, Rosemary (Ol e}
<
Subject: RE: F&ls
Thank you l Sorry to have missed it earlier.
From: (b) (6) Ole)

To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} <
Cc:lllllmmJIII<.
Subject: FW: F&ls
From: (b) (6) (Ole)

Sent: Wednesday, Janua ry 18, 20171:29 PM
To: MIQmJI < (b )(6) •
Cc: Hart, Rosemary {Ole) < (b) (6) •
Subje-et: F&ls
I think, but am not sure, that t his is a ll my remaining F&ls except the one on (b) (5)
llllllf:>mlllll for wh ich I' m still w ait ing resolution of (b) (5) If I' m missing any, ple ase
le t me know.
Document ID: 0.7.12561.53715

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

To: (b) (6) (Ole}
Cc: IIIIElalll
Subject: RE: Executive Orders on Immigration
Great. Thanks!
From: (b) (6) (Ole)

To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) <1 (b) (6)
Cc: ~ < (b)(6) ~
One small nit on this one as well. We made this change before. I don't know if they missed it or objected to
it.
From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole)

S e ~l76:42 PM
To: ~ OLC} (b) (6) ,
Hey, that's great. If all of them are that clean, we'll be In good shape!
(b) (5)
from: I (b) (6) (OLC)

To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} < (b) (6)
ec: •mJW•< (b) (6) ~

Subject: RE; Executive Orders on Immigration
Here is (b) (5) with one nit, and its corresponding F&L

S e n ~ary 23, 2017 6:16 PM
To: ~ OLC)< (b) (6) , (b)(6) (OLC)
< ;@@I-< (b) (6) • (b) (6) {OLC}
<I (b) (6)
Cc:EXM < (b) (6) ~
Subject: Executive Orders on Immigration
Here are the immigration documents that are (b) (5) If you could review
them by tomorrow (or earlier if possible} that would be great! Please see if any additional edits or
Document ID: 0.7.12561.13026

comments need to be made; especially no e any new provisions.
And check to see if your F&Ls need to be revised.
Thanks,
Rosemary
Document ID: 0.7.12561.13026

·--
To:
Subject: FW: Executive Orders on Immigration
REVISEDtl l ldocx

Sent: Monday, January 23, 201710:25 PM
To: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC) < (b)(6) "
Subje ct: FW: Executive Orders on Immigration
From: I (b) (6) (OLC)

To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) ~
(b) (5)
From: Hart, Rosemary (Ole)

Document ID: 0.7.12561.12814


Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 12:01 AM
To: MSiffiM
Subject: RE: wrapping things up here
Thanks!
From: rM U)Q-
To: Hart, Rosemary IOLC) < (b)(6) •
Subject: RE: wrapping things up here
Very glad to hear that things are winding down for the evening. I'll check in with you in the morning re plans
for the immigration orders.
Hope you get home safely and sleep well!

To·MU>IPI< (b) (6)
Subject: wrapping things up here
We just got off the phone with WHCO and are w rapping things up. Should be out of here soon.
In the morning, we can assess where we are on immigration. I think a sEO is the only one with remaining
issues. I will send you the redline if you didn't get it already.
Thanks for all your help today and tonight. We should have a better day tomorrow .
Document ID: 0.7.12561.12805


Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 2017 12:02 PM
To: (b) (6) Ole)
Cc: (b) (6)
We haven't sent any of them back yet
From : (b) (6) (OlC)

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 201711:49 AM
To: Hart, Rosemary (OlC) <~
ec:mmmJ• >
This makes qne other change thatO:>m,oticed; I don't know whether you've already sent these back.
From: (b) (6) OLC)

Document ID: 0.7.12561.12760

Stewart, Scott {OLC}

I am thinking that I should alert Policy that we are redlining the immigration EOs. Does that make
sense, or should I just ask them the status on their side?
Document ID: 0.7.12561 .45014


Subject: RE: Thursday and Friday
Thanks very much, Rosemary. I' m working to get some clarity on t he rest of the week. Will let you know.
From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole}

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 201712:23 PM
To: Stewart, Scott {OLC) < (b) (6) ,
Subject: Thursday and Friday
Stewart: IIIJ and I are focusing on immigration today, of course. I think we have issues with only two -
(b)(5)
But, looking ahead to Thursday fo r a minute, we were thinking we might have to do (b) ( 5)
IG>ml Do we have a decision on which WJI&J]version is going forward? Do we have a amJSII
EO, yet? For@QfldM we did get that version over the weekend, but we all thought that review might
be premature because it hadn't gone through much in the· way of clearances at the WH yet. Can we get some
insight on where that one stands? We don't want to be caught flat-footed on this tomorrow.
And I am reviewing draft redlines of some others-but do you know yet if there has been any winnowing of
the list below? It will be difficult to process all of the potentials on the list below, so if you had any guidance
on current thinking on the Friday roll-out, that would be great.
Thanks,
Rosemary
From: .Stewart, Scott {OLC)

Sent: Monday, January 23, 201710:57 AM
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < (b)(6) •
Cc: Stewart, Scott {OLC) < (b) (6) •
Subject: Friday list
Rosemary- below are the items potentially for Friday. I've noted the ones I have or think I should have. I'd
be grateful if you could send the others to me {sorry fo r the volume). I've added notes about what I think is
the latest, in the hopes that that is helpful.
_.a,e ________________
Document ID: 0.7.12561.42094
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
Document ID: 0.7.12561.42094

-@•Ql-_0_1c.1____________________
From: (b) (6) (OLC)
Sent : Tuesday, January 24, 2017 12:56 PM
To: Hart, Rosemary (O LC); llllltlma
Subje ct: (b) (5)
Att achments:
I've added a couple of edits to the EO, hoping Rosemary still hasn't sent these over. I've also attached the
corresponding F&L, with open issues highlighted.
Document ID: 0.7.12561.12732


To: (b) (6) (Ole); •w-1•1•r.m:o&'lw-
Subject: RE: (b) (5)
1am not sending anything over until later this afte rnoon, when we are suppose d to get some guidance from
WH policy t e am on the whole immigration batch.
from: (b) (6) OLC}

Sent: Tuesday, January 24, 201712:56 PM
duplicate
Document ID: 0.7.12561.12705

Stewart, Scott {OLC}

Cc: Gannon; Curtis E. {OLC)
Subject: FW: 2pm versions of immigration EOs
docx; FINAl-
(b)(S) (1.24.17
noon).docx; docx; (b) (5)
WJ1m1.24.17
Rosemary {CC to Curtis to get him the latest docs) - attached are the current versions of the
~ entioned earlier~ (b) (5)
~ Changes may come from those, so I think the move for now is for the AAs to see
how these look without yet diving into redline preparation. But please let me know if you think that
there is a better way to proceed.
(b) (5)
Document ID: 0.7.12561.19882


To: Gannon, Curtis E. (Ole); Stewart, Scott (Ole)
Subject: RE: 2pm versions of immigration EOs
thanks
- Original Message- -
From: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC}
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) < (b) (6) ., ; Stewart, Scott (Ole}< (b) (6) .
Sounds good to me.
-Original Message--
To: Stewart, Scott (Ole)< (b) (6) ·
Cc: Gannon, Curtis E. (OLC} < (b) (6)
Curtis: I would like to share the new drafts and the cover memos with the pertinent AAs as soon as I
can, cautioning them that things might change later today.
Rosemary
-Original Message---
Document ID: 0.7.12561.19509

Document ID: 0.7.12561.19509

To: (b) (6) (Ole}
Cc: (b) (6)
Attachments: (b) (5) (1.24.17 noon).docx; (b) (5)
(b) (5) ocx; FINAL- (b)(5)
(b) (5) (1.24.17 noon).docx
• Here are yours. They may change (b) (5) For (b) (5)
please just check to see if you see any changes from the one we saw earlier this week.
I am still working on your redline.
Note cover memos for drafters' intent.
Rosemary
Document ID: 0.7.12561.54159


To: (b) (6) (OLC}
Cc: lllllll:mJIIII
Correct. Though if you see something, say something. :-}
- Original Message--
From: OLC)
To: Hart, Rosema OLC <
Cc: mmlmJI<
I'm assuming (b) (5) but if that's wrong, let me know!
--Original Message- -
From: Hart, Rosemary {OLC)
Document ID: 0.7.12561.54209


To: (b) (6) (Ole}
OK!
(b) (6)
(b) (6) ,
Whoops-it's actually in (b) (5) , so I'll make it on the most recent version you just sent.
-Original Message-
From: (OLC)
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < (b) (6) •
Cc· MmiQM~
Rosemary--
aelJhas suggested another edit on the NijJIE>JIAssuming that's the redline you're working on, do
you want me to send it now or later? I didn't want to create version control problems.
--Original Message---
Sent: Tue sda Janua 24 2017 2:23 PM
Document ID: 0.7.12561.24159

From: (b) (6)
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ol e)
Subject: form and legality memos for tonight
Attachments: 2017-01-19 Fl Memo -
(b) (5)
Rosemary: Here' s what we have for tonight (minus Ills (b) (5)
•mJBJlland mvEJBanemo}.
Document ID: 0.7.12561.53667

. .m•a•~(O-LC~)_______________
From: (b) (6) {Ole)
Cc: (b) (6)
I should add that (b) (5)
- Or ~
From: ~ (OLC)
To:Hart, Rosemary(OLC)< (b) (6)
Cc: - < (b) (6)
OnlO>J&JI. this adds in the one change I suggested last night (which we have suggested on
previous occasions).
On (b) (5) I've added the nits we made last night and the editWl&uggested. It's intended
{I thinkW)IUJ]andWlmJhad some concerns about that.) The

edits made by the NSC looked fine to me.
On I've added and beefed up the comments as we discussed (and elsewhere}.
I've highlighted the new/revised comments.
Document ID: 0.7.12561.12148


Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 1:03 PM
To: wm•w•
10)$){ OtC)
(OLC}; 11111mm1111 (Ole); m
Subject: Friday signings ...
Hi all. We've got the list of docume nts tentatively s,eheduled for signature on Friday:
(b) (5)
-
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
As a result, we are awaiting revised versions and so t his is a heads up for now
that we will need to review any changes and settle on fina l language.
We will need to issue F&Ls for the E0s, so those may need to be updated depending on changes made. We
will try to have paperwork signed as early on Thursday as we can.
Let me know if you have any questions.
Rosemary
Document ID: 0.7.12561.53709


Sounds good l I'll hold on it.

To: Stewart, Scott (OLC) < (b) (6) •
Subject: FW: (b) (5)
This is the latest redline, but I met with. a go over her comments yesterday and she was going to redraft.
Please don't send this out until I check with her 011 an updated version. She got sidetracked yesterday
focusing on (b) (5)
• (b) (6) (Ole}

. - , .. ., . ' I • •
duplicate
Document ID: 0.7.12561.41234

Stewart, Scott (OLC}

Thank you, Rosemary. Looks good. I' ll pass it back to try to push things along.
To: Stewart, Scott (Ole}< (b) (6) >
Subje ct: (b) (5)
Scott: Here is the updated version of (b) (5) D ad sent it yesterday, but it was sent
with the others and I focused on the ones signed today.
RH
From: (OLC}
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC} <· (b)(6) •
Here it is. It was just tied up with t he other ones.
-Original Message--
From: OLC}
Document ID: 0.7.12561.41227

Document ID: 0.7.12561.41227

Subje ct: RE: FINAL- (b) (5)
(1.24.17 noon}+OLC (1 25 2017)
Perfect- thanks!

To: Stewart, Scott (OLC
Subject: FINAL-- 1.24.17 noon)+OLC (125
2017)
Send this one. Took care of a nit and attributed comments to OLC.
Document ID: 0.7.12561.41218


To: Gannon, Curtis E. (Ole)
Cc: Hart, Rosemary {OLC}; Stewart, Scott (OLC}
Subject: Lastest EO/PM forecast
Curtis - John Bash let me know that this is the forecast for tomorrow and Friday {and at least part of early
next week}:
Tomorrow: (b) (5)

(b)(S)
"Early next weelc': (b) (5)

aw
John said (b) (5)
(b) (5) Perhaps you will have more detail when you speak
with Greg.
Document ID: 0.7.12561.17940

-----------------------
From:
Sent:
IIIIIIDmlllll
Wednesday, January 25, 2017 6:22 PM
Subject: Re: Friday signings ... CHANGE IN PLANS!
(b) (6) See you tomorrow :)
On Jan 25, 2017, at 6:19 PM, Hart, Rosemary (OLC) <~ wrote:
(b) (6)
From: amJm•
To: Hart, Rosemary (OlC) ~
Subject: RE: Friday signings... CHANGE IN PLANS!
Ok, great! Hope you have a good evening!

To:N-->J@• (b) (6) .
Subject: RE: Friday signings ... CHANGE IN PLANS !
Yes, I spoke with him already.
Thanks for checking!
From: MG>IGIJI
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole) c (b)(6) "
Subject: FW: Friday .signings ... CHANGE IN PLANS!
Thanks, Rosemary. Could we update lmIGtlthat (b) (5) probably isn't

going? {I noticed that he wasn't on your follow up email, but maybe you already talked to him.)
(b) (6) OLC)

{Ole) < (b) (6) •
< (b) (6) • (b) (6)
Subject: RE: Friday signings •.. CHANGE IN PLANS!
Document ID: 0.7.12561.54072

## 1-4 are with WHCO, which is reviewing our redlines (Nate's partial
deadline). We are still reviewing El&DI. I've asked that we get the
passbacks as early in the day as possible so we can review them and work to
fi nalize during the day. I don't anticipate anyone has to work on anything
tonight.
Scott is double-checking on that because if that's not the case,

that would be a huge load for us and a significant s hift in the plans we just
heard about.
I am sorry about the constantly changing plans. This is not unus ual early on
in an Administration1 but I know it can be frustrating. We'll power through!
Thanks for everything,

Rosemary

Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 20171:03 PM
Document ID: 0.7.12561.54072

Document ID: 0.7.12561.54072
-w·w__ (o_
t c_1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
From: (b) (6) (Ole)

Sent : Wednesday, January 25, 2017 6:53 PM
Subje ct: Re: Friday signings ... CHANGE IN PLANS!
If there are no EOs tomorrow, I hope you can leave before midnight!
(b) (6)
Attorney-Adviser
(b) (6)
On Jan 25, 2017, at 5:53 PM, Hart, Rosemary (Ole) < (b)(6) · wrote:
Document ID: 0.7.12561.23551

Document ID: 0.7.12561.23551

To: Stewart, Scott (Ole}
Subject: Re: (b) (5) EO (25 Jan 929pm)
Great.tlDIJ::11;,d I will review asap tomorrow.
> On Jan 25, 2017, at 11:04 PM, Stewart, Scott (OLC) < (b) (6) • wrote:
>
> Their passback on the Friday immigration EO.
>
Document ID: 0.7 .12561 .40989

_.,.w__ (o_
t c_1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
From: (b) (6) (Ole)

Sent : Wednesday, January 25, 201711:25 PM
Subje ct: Re: EO (25 Jan 929pm)
Sounds good.
(b) (6)
Attorney-Adviser
<
-
(b) (6)
On Jan 25, 2017, at 11:14 PM, Hart, Rosemary {OLC) wrote:
Let's talk in the morning.
Begin forwarded message:
From: "Stewart, Scott (Ole)" < (b)(6) ,
Document ID: 0.7.12561.23542

duplicate
Document ID: 0.7.12561.23542

-w·w--_o_tc.1______________________
From: (b) (6) Ole)
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 8:54 AM
Subject: RE: (b) (5) EO (25 Jan 929pm)
That works. By then I should be able to send you a few minor changes to the draft.

To: (Ole}
I am going-down to the SCIF to read a document and should be back in a bit.
9:30 for a call?
From: (b) (6) (OLC)

To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) ~
Subject: RE: (b) (5) O (25 Jan 929pm)
let me know when a good time to call you would be.

Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 201711:15 PM
Document ID: 0.7.12561.23522

Document ID: 0.7.12561.23522
(b) (6) OLC)
From: (b) (6) (Ole)

Sent : Thursday, January 26, 2017 9:25 AM
That makes sense.

To: - Ol e) '" (b) (6)
Subject: RE: • EO (25 Jan 92.9pm)
I just finished reviewing the draft. It might make sense for meto review your redline and add my edits on
top. I think I can do that in 10 minutes, and then we can talk?
From: (b)(6) (OLC)

Sent Thursday, January 26, 2017 9:14AM
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) <
Subject: RE:
Here are my comments on everything butllltl
From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole}

Document ID: 0.7.12561.23519

Document ID: 0.7.12561.23519
~@1m--.o.tc.1_______________________
From: (b) (6) (Ole)
To: (b) (6) OLC}
Subject: RE: EO
I'm a doofus-losing track of too many similar provisions. Never mind, and thank you!
From: (b)(6) Ole)

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 201710:31 AM
To: (Ole}< (b )(6) •
Subj ect: RE: EO
(b) (5)
From: (b) (6) (Ole}
To: (OlC) < (b) (6) ·
Subject: RE: EO
I have long since lost track of your original comments- sorry! (b) (5)
(b) (5)
From: I (b)(6) Ole)

To: I Ole}< (b) (6) •
Subject: RE: EO
It is lmJBI Did I cite it wrong in my comment? Sorry if I did.

From: (b) (6) (OLC)
S e n ~ry 26, 201710:21AM
To: IIIIIIIWIUlllll(OLC) <: (b) (6) •
Subject: RE: EO
Orisitl&@;
From: (b)(6) Ole}
Sent: Thursday, January 26,, 201710:19 AM
To: (Ole)< (b) (6) ·
Subject: EO
You looked at this section, I think. Is this the right reference? (b) (5)
Document ID: 0.7.12561.22294

(b) (5)
Document ID: 0.7.12561.22294


To: Stewart, Scott (OLC}
Subject: RE:Today
HI Scott.
a nd I have been emailing back and forth this morning on the (b)(S) EO. We should have a
final redline (mostly technical) within the hour.
I am reviewing - s (b) (5) passback, and .also Ills initial redline. Should be done by noon
with both of those.
On the others, we are a bit in a holding pattern, as we need drafts from WHCO.
From: Stewart, Scott (Ole}

To: Hart, Rosemary{OlC) ~
Subject: Today
Good morning, Rosemary! Just wanted to see how the EOs for tomorrow are looking. ( I've heard nothing
further from WHCO this morning.}
Document ID: 0.7.12561.40978

-m1m--.. {0_1_c1_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
From: (b) (6) (OLC)

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 201 7 11:20 AM
To : Hart, Rosemary (O l e)
Subject: Re: (b) (5) EO (25 Jan 929pm)-fli+ rh
Attachments: (b) (5) EO (25 Jan 929pm)+lil + rn.. . Uocx.docx
Here it is. I've removed the internal comments and removed highlighting except where I've edited stuff
since/while we talked.

To: (OLC) < (b) (6) ·
Subject: RE: ...__,.,,... EO (25 Jan 929pm)- + rh
let's t alk now. DDIG)]

From: (b) (6) (Ole)
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) <
Subject: RE:
Also, do you think we need to (b) (5)
From: (b) (6) {OLC)

To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) <! • •
Subject: RE: EO (25 Jan 929pm)+m + rh
Let me know whenever you want to talk.
From : (b) (6) (OLC}

OLC <1
Here you go.

To: I (OLC} < (b) (6)
Subj ect: RE: . 0 {25 Jan 929pm)+a + rh
Sure. That makes sense.
Document ID: 0.7.12561.23515

From: (b) (6) {Ole)
To: Hart, Rosemary (OLC) < (b) (6) •
Subject: RE: (b)(5) EO {25Jan 929pm)i!Dm + rh
I'm working through your comments and questions. Should I shoot it back to you before I call?

To: Ole}< (b) (6) >
Subject: RE:· (b) (5) EO (25 Jan 929pm)+III+- rh
Jeff is covering the 10 a.m. meeting, so I am available t o talk wheneve r you are. I am here ataG>JWW
From: (b) (6) (OLC)
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole)
Subject: RE:
Sounds good. Will look at it right now.

To: (OLC} <
Subject: · (b) (5) EO (25 Jan 929pm)+
I generally agreed with your edits, except where noted, and have added some edits and questions of my
own. Please review.
Jeff and I have a 10 a.m. meeting with an intradepartmental group. I will see if he can cover- I am already
pressed for time this morning. I' ll circle ba ck with you when I know my schedule over the ne xt hour.
Document ID: 0.7.12561.23515

. .V,Il9 _ _o_Lc.)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
From: (b) (6) (Ole)
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 12:08 PM
Subject: RE: (b)(5) EO (25 Jan 929pm)~ rh
Attachments: (b) (5) 0 (25 Jan 929pml+ I I + rh.+l l locx.docx
Here you go!

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 201712:06 PM
To: - (Ole} < (b) (6) ·
Sub~ EO (25 Jan 929pm)i l l t rh
Thanks. Would you mind (b) (5) and sending to me? It would save me a few minut es!
From: (b) (6) (OLC)

To: Hart, Rosemary (Ol e) , (b) (6) .
Subject: RE: EO {25 Jan 929pm)- + rh
(b) (5)
(b) (5)
Document ID: 0.7.12561.23271

I'm sorry for the fuss!

Document ID: 0.7.12561.23271

Document ID: 0.7.12561.23271

To: Gannon, Curtis E. (Ole); Stewart, Scott (Ole)
Cc: (b)(6) (OLC)
Subject: (b) (5) EO {25 Jan 929pm)+ OLC {1 26 2017}
Attachments: (b) (5) EO (25 Jan 929pm)+ OLC {1 26 2017).docx
Curtis and Scott: Here is our redline of the latest passback on this EO, which is slated for issuance
tomorrow. Please let us know if you have additions, changes, or questions for us.
Thanks,
Rosemary
Document ID: 0.7.12561.17224

-l•@-ai_(o_t_c1______________________
From: (b) (6) (Ole)
To: Hart, Rosemary (Ole); •mJGJIII
Subject: RE: (b) (5) EO (25 Jan 929pm}+ OLC {1 26 2017)
Attachments: EO Form a nd legality - (b) (5) docx
Here's the F&l

Sent: Thursday, January 26, 201712:33 PM
Document ID: 0.7.12561 .55062

Response From DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel - January 2, 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Response From DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel - January 2, 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

U.S.

Office of Legal Counsel

Re: FOIA No. FYl 7-135;

Dear Mr. Bassin:

cc: Matthew Berns, Trial Attorney

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

Document ID: 0.7.12561.53813

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

The six latest versions of the immigration EOs.

Document ID: 0.7.12561.20370

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Document ID: 0.7.12561 .42858

From: (b) (6) (Ole)

Thank you l Sorry to have missed it earlier.

From: (b) (6) Ole)

From: (b) (6) (Ole)

Document ID: 0.7.12561.53715

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

From: (b) (6) (Ole)

Subject: RE: Executive Orders on Immigration

From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole)

from: I (b) (6) (OLC)

ec: •mJW•< (b) (6) ~

From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole)

Subject: Executive Orders on Immigration

Document ID: 0.7.12561.13026

And check to see if your F&Ls need to be revised.

Document ID: 0.7.12561.13026

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC}

From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole)

From: I (b) (6) (OLC)

From: Hart, Rosemary (Ole)

Document ID: 0.7.12561.12814

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

Hope you get home safely and sleep well!

From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole)

Document ID: 0.7.12561.12805

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

We haven't sent any of them back yet

From : (b) (6) (OlC)

From: (b) (6) OLC)

Document ID: 0.7.12561.12760

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Document ID: 0.7.12561 .45014

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

From: Hart, Rosemary {Ole}

From: .Stewart, Scott {OLC)

Document ID: 0.7.12561.42094

Document ID: 0.7.12561.12732

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

from: (b) (6) OLC}

Document ID: 0.7.12561.12705

From: Stewart, Scott (OLC)

Document ID: 0.7.12561.19882

From: Hart, Rosemary (Ole)

Sounds good to me.

Document ID: 0.7.12561.19509

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

Document ID: 0.7.12561.54159

From: Hart, Rosemary (OLC)

Correct. Though if you see something, say something. :-}

I'm assuming (b) (5) but if that's wrong, let me know!

Document ID: 0.7.12561.54209