ARCHIVES REVIEW TEAM FACT SHEET

Lindsey March 22 letter: NARA collected approx. 10,800 pages of documents

from Clinton Archives in response to our EOF document requests. Approx. 25%
have been produced to the Commission. EOF 2: 610 out of 3,164; EOF 3: 835
out of 1,761; EOF 5: 232 out of 1,619 or x out of 5,865; specific requests: y out of
90.

2. The Review Team has reviewed or been briefed on all of the documents collected
by NARA [once we have been briefed on all presidential communications].
Approx. 1,500 pages involved presidential communications; the remainder
(approx. 9,300 pages if Lindsey's figures are right) we reviewed in approx. 10
boxes at the Archives.

Out of the boxes at Archives, we selected approx. 800 pages of documents for
further review. The documents that we did not select generally fell into these
categories: (a) they had already been produced to the Commission; (b) they were
duplicates of documents that had already been produced to the Commission (often
multiple copies); and (c) they were clearly not covered by our document requests
and were not relevant to our work,,.^^ ^
r

4. Out of the documents we selected >r further review) ^\s had already 3

been produsecLjtpJhe Comn issiq: Theiejmaindex b2urnentsT-brok£_dpwn as

wore clearly or rgti sive to ou
21 were ageTicy^orninientsBubject to our agencylTocument requests; and 22 ^^were
cxlocuments not covered by our document requests but of potential interest to the
Commission.

5. The Archives collected approx. 1,500 pages of documents reflecting presidential

communications. After setting aside approx. 500 pag^s^f duplicates, there were
approx. 100 documents remaining. Of those 100, S^iocurjiertfs were not
previously shown or briefed to the Commission. Of those 3^ocunae^its/7 were
clearly or arguably responsive and<3ywere not responsive. Thos^29jSon- ~—
responsive documents broke down as follows: $fc%ere prepared by the
Intelligence Directorate regarding MONs; 6 were prepared by the Intelligence
Directorate regarding covert action annual reviews; 4 were distributed within the
NSC front office; 3 were distributed within the TNT Directorate; 4 were from
TNT to another directorate; 2 were prepared by regional directorates; and 1
concerned WMD.
Dan Marcus
From: Bruce Lindsey [BLindsey@wlj.com]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 10:48 AM
To: Jamie Gorelick; Dan Marcus
Subject: Documents

Jamie and Dan:

As Dan knows but Jamie may not, I am President Clinton's representative to the National
Archives and Records Administration (NARA). I am concerned that the staff of the 9/11
Commission is making initial findings of fact -- so-called staff statements -- based on an
incomplete record.

In response to various requests from the Commission to the Executive Office of the
President (EOF) for documents, including Clinton Administration documents, NARA has
produced to the White House over 10,800 pages of Clinton Presidential records: 3,164
pages in response to EOP No. 2; 1,761 pages in response to EOF No. 3; 5,865 pages in
response to EOP No. 5 and 90 pages in response to specific requests from the Commission.
Given the unique reason for the Commission's existence and the security clearance of the
Commissioners and staff, President Clinton did not assert executive privilege with respect
to any of these documents.

At my request, NARA asked the White House to inform it of the number of Clinton
Presidential records that were ultimately produced to the Commission. My understanding is
that only around 25% of the documents produced by NARA to the White House have been
forwarded to the Commission: 610 pages in response to EOP No. 2, 835 pages in response to
EOP No. 3, and 232 of 1,619 pages of EOP No. 5 documents produced in December, 2003.
Three other tranches of EOP No. 5 documents were produced to the White House in January,
February and early March, 2004, and the White House has not advised NARA as to how many of
these documents were forwarded to the Commission.

In light of these facts and statistics, it is difficult to understand how the Commission
or its staff can make informed judgments. As Dan knows, I raised this concern to Philip
in a telephone call in February and again last Thursday in a meeting with Philip and Dan.
Bruce R. Lindsey