8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
1/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
2/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
3/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
4/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
5/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
6/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
7/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
8/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
9/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
10/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
11/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
12/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
13/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
14/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
15/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
16/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
17/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
18/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
19/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
20/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
21/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
22/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
23/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
24/32
July 10, 2014
The Honorable Darrell E. Issa
Chairman
Committee on Oversight and Government ReformUnited States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Issa:
I write in further response to your letters of March 18 and May 27, 2014, andmost recent letter requesting testimony from Assistant to the President David Simas
regarding the White House Office of Political Strategy and Outreach (OPSO). Bo
predecessor made significant efforts in our previous letters to accommodate your sta
in this matternamely, to better understand how OPSO is operating in compliance requirements of the Hatch Actand my last letter closed with an invitation to conta
you have additional questions.
Instead of continuing that dialogue, you opted to seek testimony at a Commi
from an immediate advisor to the President, a request that you undoubtedly understa
special concerns in light of the constitutional separation of powers. Accordingly, I
emphasize the salient features of OPSO and to ask that you provide a detailed explaspecific questions concerning OPSOs compliance with the Hatch Act that the Com
believes remain unanswered. I am hopeful that we might together find a way to ma
information available to you that would answer any legitimate remaining questions.time, we must ensure that any accommodation is faithful to our respective constitutiand cannot be misunderstood as an effort by the Committee to seek confidential inte
House information in an effort to gain a competitive advantage for the Committees
candidates in elections this fall.
Your prior correspondence suggests the Committees interest in OPSO bega
of its review of newspaper articles and the description of OPSO contained therein.1
on these second-hand accounts, I did not read your letters to identify any reported Oactivities that would violate the Hatch Act. But it was clear from your earlier corres
that you would benefit from a better explanation of what OPSO does and, just as imit does not do. The previous letters we delivered to the Committee accordingly prov
substantial information to that end.
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
25/32
analysis regarding ongoing or contemplated policy initiatives. It also works with co
and political groups to evaluate public support for Presidential policies and initiative
Additionally, it communicates with Democratic organizations to remain informed abcurrent political environment in order to advise and assist Presidential decision-mak
of note, it conducts these activities with a tiny staff currently Mr Simas, two other
commissioned officers, and one administrative assistant.
Second, regarding what OPSO does not do, it shares no resemblance to the p
features of the prior Administrations Political Affairs Office, which was the subjec
substantial criticism by OSC and by your Committee under former Chairman Waxm
know from the investigative report you cited in your March 18 letter, your Committinvestigating the prior Administrations Political Affairs Office after learning of a
political briefing by the Deputy Director of the prior Administrations Political Aff
the General Services Administration (GSA).2 According to the investigative reportDeputy Director at the White House displayed slides to GSA officials describing th
House Republicans the White House wanted to defend in the 2008 election . . . [and
House Democrats the White House wanted to defeat; briefing attendees also testifiGSA Administrator asked her employees how we could help our candidates in t
election.3
In stark contrast to the Political Affairs Office in the prior Administratioconsistent with the guidance in OSCs 2011 Report, it is worth again emphasizing th
of OPSO, as I explained them in my last letter to you:
[OPSO] has not been and does not intend to be[] operating a political boiler
room managing the 2014 midterm elections; providing political briefings toagency officials on targeted races or how to help candidates; coordinating
political appointee travel to political events; tracking candidate fundraising;
encouraging political appointees to volunteer for political campaigns.
The letter we received last Thursday requesting testimony from Mr. Simas a
the Committees response to the information we have provided thus far. Notably, th
identifies no legitimate questions that remain unanswered after the Committee receiinformation we provided in our prior letters. Nor has the Committee identified any
OPSO is operating contrary to our representationsand I trust you would bring any
evidence to my attention immediately. Rather, the letters substantive content is limshort sentences in which the Committee expresses a broad and undefined desire to q
Simas on the role and function of the White House Office of Political Strategy and
including on whether the White House is taking adequate steps to ensure that polit
by Administration officials complies with relevant statutes . . . .4
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
26/32
We have already provided substantial information on the steps we have take
Hatch Act compliance. Thus, without a more detailed explanation from the Commi
continued interest in this matter, we are hindered in our ability to propose an appropaccommodation of additional information. It is plain, however, that the extraordina
hearing testimony from Mr. Simas, which lacks a sufficient predicate and raises sub
separation of powers concerns, is not appropriate.
Administrations from both parties have long taken the position that congress
requests for information may impact important Executive Branch interests, especial
that would impinge on the Presidents need for advice from advisors who will speak
and openly with him and among themselves. These interests are especially acute wat the Presidents most senior Assistants. As you know from over a decade of servi
Congress, it is exceedingly rare that such individuals appear to testify before a cong
Committee.
With regard to the request at hand for testimony from Mr. Simas, the combin
important Executive Branch confidentiality interests and the corresponding absencesufficient predicate need for his testimony presents a further difficulty. It raises the
the Committees desire for information may not be limited to OPSOs compliance wAct but instead may extend to internal information about Mr. Simas analysis and ad
current political environment and how that informs the Presidents development of pother actions. I am certain we both agree that neither political party should have the
conduct a partisan inquiry to gain inside information in seeking political advantage;
reach a mutual accommodation must reflect that.
As first articulated by former President Reagan, I continue to believe that go
negotiations and the tradition of accommodation should continue as the primary methe Legislative and Executive Branches interact and resolve disagreements. In the sapproach, I am providing with this letter certain documents that address specific que
have raised in your letters. These include slides used in a mandatory Hatch Act trai
provided to White House staff this past spring and attended by all staff then and curassigned to OPSO; a calendar invitation for a March 2014 meeting on the Hatch Ac
members of the White House Counsels Office and lawyers from the Office of Spec
and email correspondence reflecting that the then and current OPSO staff received a
directed to review the reports by the Office of Special Counsel and your CommitteeAdministrations Political Affairs Office in order to understand precisely what activ
permitted and which were not. As I trust you will appreciate, these documents dem
we are applying the lessons of both OSCs and this Committees reports. In additiodocuments, and in order to address any other questions you have about OPSO, my s
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
27/32
In closing, I wish to assure you that it remains the policy of this Administra
comply with congressional requests for information to the fullest extent consistent w
constitutional and statutory obligations of the Executive Branch. I look forward to mforward on this matter in that spirit of cooperation, and I and my staff are at your di
that purpose.
Sincerely,
W. Neil Eggleston
cc: The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings, Ranking Minority Member
The Honorable Carolyn Lerner, Special Counsel
U.S. Office of Special Counsel
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
28/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
29/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
30/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
31/32
8/12/2019 Issa WhiteHouseLetters
32/32