<table><tr><th>From:</th><th>Kathy Ruemmler</th></tr><tr><td>Sent:</td><td>Friday, October 17, 2014 8:04 PM</td></tr><tr><td>To:</td><td>jeffrey E.</td></tr><tr><td>Subject:</td><td>Fwd: letter from Sauber to WP</td></tr></table>

Letter from Dach's lawyer.

Forwarded message
From:="Schultz, Eric" mailto  > >
Date: Oct 16, 2014 6:18 PM
Subje=t: letter from Sauber to WP
To: "Kathy Ruemmler"
Cc: =br>

40=A0 Re: My client Jonathan Dach

Dear Carol:

40=A0 I want to raise with you and your colleagues, to whom I ask=that you circulate this letter, a serious question about the continued use=of Jonathan Dach's name in the follow-up articles that the Washington Post intends to pu=lish.

Q=A0 You repeatedly told us that your initial article on this su=ject was not really about Jonathan Dach—it was a story about what =ou saw as pressure exerted on DHS investigators and what you perceived as disparate treatment of Secret Service personnel =ersus White House staff or volunteers. In fact, it would seem that M=. Dach's actual activities in Cartagena were nearly irrelevant to =our story.

Now that the initial story is out, with the not unexpected buzz it generate=, I would ask that you from this point forward refrain from using Mr. Dach=E244s name. He has served his purposes for your reportingQ=94repeating his name in connection with these allegations only deepens the wounds he has already suffered.

If the Post insists, for no reason we can ascertain, to include the name, i= seems the very least the paper should do is to include, whenever his name=is used, reference to his continued denials and to the fact that his=signature, to say nothing of his name, does not appear on the hotel register.

Let me give you an example of how your continued emphasis on whether or not=he acted inappropriately in Cartagena has gone unnecessarily over the line=of propriety. On your MSNBC appearance last Friday you said;<=>

"And the (hotel] made clear to investigators that there was no way a w=man could just write a number down for a room in the president's hotel=where there was a lot of high security."

This statement presents two problems: It is fi=st and foremost highly misleading. As you know the erroneous h=tel log was dated around 12:01 AM on the morning of April 4th.=C2* And as you know, the President did not arrive in Cartagena until April 13<=up>th, almost 10 days later. On the night of April =rd and the morning of April 4th, it wasn&=39;t the president's hotel -- it was just a hotel. Your choi=e of words, whether accidental or purposeful, would leave any viewer w=th an impression you may have sought, but which was clearly wrong.<=>

Q=A0 More to the point, there is no reason to keep harping on Mr= Dach's behavior and whether you think he really had a woman in hi= room. The thesis that Mr. Dach misbehaved is irrelevant and it continues the unfairness we have presented to y=u for several months now.

Q=A0 We would ask that you not name him any further, or at the v=ry least if you feel compelled to name him please include the denials and =n accurate recitation of the evidence presented to the White House at the time the early decisions were made../u>

On another note we also point out that Leslie Dach w=s not a registered lobbyist during his tenure at Walmart. <=u>

Eric Schultz

w 202/456-4674 <tel:202%2F456-4674>

c 202/503-5929 <tel:202%2F503-5929>

eschultz@who.eop.gov <mailto:eschultz@who.eop.gov> <=u>