(Updated Below)
Some new details on the preparation of the President’s Daily Brief (PDB) and its presentation to the President and a small number of other officials are discussed in a Central Intelligence Agency declaration (pdf) filed last week in the prosecution of former Vice Presidential aide I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby.
“Six mornings a week, intelligence briefers meet with the President and selected senior Executive officials to provide a daily intelligence briefing. Each briefer meets with one or more designated officials to present an oral briefing and a binder containing written materials for each official’s review,” wrote CIA official Marilyn A. Dorn.
She argued in her March 2 declaration that responding to Mr. Libby’s request for production of various PDBs and related material would be extremely burdensome and might also infringe on executive privilege.
A March 7 response from Mr. Libby is available here.
The CIA has agreed to process a Freedom of Information Act request from the Federation of American Scientists for redacted PDB materials that it had declassified and provided to the Office of Special Counsel.
But the Agency denied a request for fee waiver because, CIA official Scott Koch wrote on March 3, “disclosing the information you seek is not likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations and activities of the United States Government.”
Update: The Court today partially granted and partially denied the Libby request for discovery of PDB-related material and other items. The government was ordered to provide the defense with “redacted versions of the documents provided to the defendant during his morning intelligence briefing that were also viewed by the Vice President” or “topic overviews of the subject matter contained in those documents.”
See the Court’s March 10 Order here (pdf), and the underlying Memorandum Opinion here (pdf).
This report serves as a landscape assessment and toolbox from which local governments can negotiate an informed position when it comes to the levers available to them and includes a first-of-its kind analysis of eight executed community benefits agreements.
When a hurricane hits, it’s all hands on deck – that goes for federal data, too. Pulling back from our investments in timely, accurate, and accessible public data will only make us less prepared and put us all at greater risk.
This is bigger than a singular elimination of race and ethnicity questions. It could accelerate the second wave of widespread reductions to demographic data, leaving public health officials with even less information to deliver better health outcomes for all Americans.
Soft law was never meant to be a permanent solution. Treating it as one, and letting the sandcastle stand in for the skyscraper indefinitely, is how we end up with a decade of voluntary commitments and no enforceable accountability to show for it.