MARK MEADOWS. oeDamet Nom Caan Ccomurres on ovensica togthantacren CONGTeSS of the United States cura Bouse of Representatives ecfatagine Secours ‘Washington, WE 20515-3310 ‘se Bananey coe July 23, 2019 ‘The Honorable William P. Barr ‘Attomey General ULS. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW ‘Washington, DC 20530 The Honorable Michac! Horowitz Inspector General USS. Department of Justice 950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 4706 Washington, DC 20530 Dear Mr. Attomey General and Inspector General Horowitz: ‘On June 22, 2018, Citizens United submitted a Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) request to the State Department seeking all records relating to an October 2016 briefing of officials at State by Christopher Steele. The timeframe of the request was September 1, 2016, to November 30, 2016, On August 8, 2018, Citizens United filed a lawsuit against the Department of State, seeking the disclosure of the requested records. The Department of State located six records (24 pages) that potentially contained Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) information and equities. After reviewing the records, the FBI asked for no information to be withheld on 13 pages; asked for information to be redacted pursuant to FOLA Exemptions |, 3, 6, 7 (C) and 7(E) on six pages that the Department of State released in part; and asked for five pages to be withheld in full pursuant to FOIA Exemptions (b)(3) and (b)(7(E). ‘One of the documents at issue is a one-page e-mail from former Deputy Assistant Secretary in the State Department's Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Kathleen Kavalec, to FBI official Stephen Laycock, dated October 13, 2016. This e-mail contains a five-page attachment, which was withheld in full from the FOIA production on the basis of the (b)(3) and (©)(7)(E) exemptions.' The (b)(3) and (b(7)(E) exemptions the FBI used as justification for withholding the five-page attachment raise concerns. First, exemption (b)(3) protects information that is specifically exempted from public disclosure by statute, which in this case was Section 102(A)(i)(1) of the National Security Act of 1947, as amended by the Intelligence Reform and "This documents identified by the Department of State as C06682575 (seve , Declaration of Michael G. Seidel at 6\(Civ. A. No. 18-1862 (RDM).Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, 50 U.S.C. §3024(i)(1), which provides that the Director of Notional Intelligence (“DNI") shall protect from unauthorized disclosure intelligence sources and methods. ‘While the FBI has provided a broad overview of (b)(3), its court filings do not apply the exemption to the specific five-page attachment at issue, except to state withholding it would “protect unclassified information that would reveal FBI intelligence sources and methods."* However, I have personally reviewed the five-page attachment in an unclassified setting, in camera at the Department of Justice. The sources I recall viewing in the five-page attachment are based on open-source media reporting, making the FBI's contention to withhold open-source media reporting as “intelligence sources and methods” completely unfounded. ‘Similarly, the FBI cited the (b)(7\(E) exemption as justification for withholding the five- page attachment. Exemption (b)(7)(E) protects “records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes [when release] would disclose techniques and procedures for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions, or would disclose guidelines for law enforcement investigations or prosecutions if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law? According to the FBI, this information is protected because “the intelligence source, method, and activity information at issue related to the conduct of an FBI investigation, and thus also constitutes investigative technique and procedure information. Release of this information ‘would disclose the identity of methods used in collecting and analyzing information, including how and from where the FBI collects information, and the methodologies employed to analyze it™ After viewing the attachment myself, this means the FBI withheld the information from the FOIA production so the public would not become aware they had refied on intelligence citing open-source media reporting to pursue elements of an investigation into President Trump. As such, I'm writing to encourage the FBI to provide the five-page attachment in its unredacted, unclassified form to the American people via the FOIA process. We do not need to litigate the fact open-source media publications are not intelligence sources and methods to be withheld from FOIA as the law intends. In anticipation of Inspector General Horowitz’s report, the transparency awarded by this information will allow the American people to better understand full context of the investigations into President Trump. Sincerely, fark Meadows Member of Congress 214,015 25 USC. §SS200)7HE). “See Declaration of Michael G. Seidel, supra note 2 at 19.