Today Rep. Waxman as Ranking Member of the House Reform Committee, published a "fact sheet" on potentially applicable laws regarding nondisclosure, particularly as it relates to maintaining a security clearance. Another phrase for "fact sheet" is "talking points," so treat accordingly--although almost all the facts Waxman refers to are either admitted or well implied by Rove's lawyer. Such is the one that when Novak told Rove about it, he said, "yeah, that's what we've heard too." And then did not back off or later repudiate the story that clearly used him as one of the two sources.
So here's what Waxman turned up. I notice there is little if any attention paid to the question of whether Rove had security clearance, what level it was, and whether he had it at the time of the leaks. I hope the Ranking Member wouldn't be wasting his time reading the government forms if he didn't already know Rove was signed up. The man was Bush's right, er, lobe from the get-go---how does he not get top security clearance in George's world? But it's not proven in this document.
That's about where the good news stops for Rove and the White House [all emph me]:
Mr. Rove, through his attorney, has raised the implication that there is a distinction between releasing classified information to someone not authorized to receive it and confirming classified information from someone not authorized to have it. In fact, there is no such distinction under the nondisclosure agreement Mr .Rove signed.
One of the most basic rules of safeguarding classified information is that an official who has signed a nondisclosure agreement cannot confirm classified information obtained by a reporter. In fact, this obligation is highlighted in the "briefing booklet" that new security clearance recipients receive when they sign their nondisclosure agreements: 'Before. ..confirming the accuracy of what appears in the public source, the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified. If it has not, ...confirmation of its accuracy is also an unauthorized disclosure.'
...Mr. Rove's attorney has implied that ifMr. Rove learned Ms. Wilson's identity and occupation from a reporter, this somehow makes a difference in what he can say about the information. This is inaccurate. The executive order states: 'Classified information shall not be declassified automatically as a result of any unauthorized disclosure of identical or similar information.' Mr. Rove was not at liberty to repeat classified information he may have learned from a reporter. Instead, he had an affIrmative obligation to determine whether the information had been declassified before repeating it. The briefing booklet is explicit on this point: 'before disseminating the information elsewhere. ..the signer of the SF 312 must confirm through an authorized official that the information has, in fact, been declassified.'
So that covers Rove, pretty much. Is there anything the White House might be guilty of, in general?
The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must 'take appropriate and prompt corrective action.' This includes a determination of whether individual employees improperly disseminated or obtained access to classified information. The executive order further provides that sanctions for violations are not optional. The executive order expressly provides: 'Officers and employees of the United States Government. ..shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently. ..disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified.'
There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.
This is not partisan sniping, this is a clear-minded reading of the statutes, and a non-recommending brief. It reaches no conclusions in the paper, and uses information generally stipulated by Rove's spokesperson. Given a fair reading of this law, I think calling for a review of Rove's security clearance is the absolute least that should be demanded as a result of this. And based on the growing trickle of background assertions by sources "close to the investigation," it seems like that may be the best Rove wants to hope for right now. Of course, it's a Saturday which means this particular set of leads will likely die until picked up again by someone reading the NYT archives.
--TJ
Comments