◆ SpookStack

In Mr. Fine's report, on page eight, paragraph three, he notes: “In addition, we found that the FBI had no policy requiring the retention of signed copies of national security letters. As a result they were unable to conduct a comprehensive audit.” Can you explain why something as important and serious as a national security letter would not have a signed copy retained in the records of the bureau? CAPRONI: I can say that there were different processes in different field offices but, no, I can't. I mean, there's no reason why there wasn't a policy that said, "You have to keep a copy of the signed copy." What we keep, which is typical of how our records are, is the carbon copy, in essence, which is typically initialed. But no, in the world of Xerox machines, there's no reason why we hadn't told people to hang onto a signed copy. GOODLATTE: Mr. Fine, did you draw any further conclusions from that? And do you know why they were not retained? Or is there any... FINE: They weren't retained because there wasn't a clear policy that was enforced. GOODLATTE: No ulterior motive that you know of? FINE: We don't believe there is an ulterior motive. But this was an example of the incredibly sloppy practice that was unacceptable. GOODLATTE: ] agree. Let me ask you: When did you first learn of the problem with the FBI's improper use of exigent letters? FINE: Well, we began our audit in, as required by the Patriot reauthorization act, around the beginning of 2006. As you can see from this report, there are a lot of issues. And we did interviews and document request and field files. FINE: I think, sort of, the first indications that we learned about it were in the spring or summer of last year, but we had to work through those issues. GOODLATTE: And who did you learn that from?