A new barrage from House Dems, beginning - but most certainly not limited to - the new DCCC video. Enjoy.
Democratic Leadership writes letters...
The Honorable J. Dennis Hastert
Speaker
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Speaker:
Recent revelations that White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove was involved in the disclosure of classified information regarding the identity of CIA covert agent Valerie Plame raise serious questions that we believe the House of Representatives has a duty to investigate.
It has been two years since Ms. Plame's status as a clandestine service officer was revealed in a Robert Novak column. For obvious reasons dealing with the safety of covert agents and their network of sources, unauthorized disclosures of the identities of CIA agents are among the most serious of national security breaches. This fact alone should have spurred House committees into action and hearings should have been convened to take testimony under oath.
If that had been done, and if appropriate sanctions had been placed on those identified as having acted wrongly, the American people could have been assured that anyone who disclosed classified information was no longer in the employ of the federal government. Regrettably, none of that happened.
We urge you to direct that committees with jurisdiction over the Plame matter schedule hearings immediately. In previous Republican Congresses the fact that a criminal investigation was underway did not prevent extensive hearings from being held on other, much less significant matters.
The House has neglected its oversight responsibilities on many crucial issues related to the war in Iraq, including the justification for going into war, the lack of proper equipment for our troops, and the abuses at Abu Ghraib. The list goes on. We cannot continue to be derelict on the Plame matter as well.
The American people deserve the truth about who in the White House recklessly endangered our national security by disclosing classified information. We want to work with you to restore the reputation of the House for vigorous oversight of activities in the executive branch and, especially given the revelations about Mr. Rove, believe the disclosure of Ms. Plame's CIA status is an excellent place to start.
Thank you for your consideration of our views. We look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Nancy Pelosi
House Democratic Leader
Steny Hoyer
House Democratic Whip
Robert Menendez
House Democratic Caucus Chairman
James E. Clyburn
House Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman
91 Democrats write letters...
Dear Mr. President,
We write in order to urge that you require your Deputy White House Chief of Staff, Karl Rove, to either come forward immediately to explain his role in the Valerie Plame matter or to resign from your Administration.
Franks and Conyers write letters...
Ms. Elizabeth Bazan
Mr. Charles Doyle
American Law Division
Congressional Research Service
The Library of Congress
101 Independence Avenue, SE
Washington, D.C. 20540
Dear Ms. Bazan and Mr. Doyle,
We write to request your opinion as to whether or not very high- ranking members of the President's staff are subject to the Congressional impeachment process. The Constitution in its discussion of impeachment does not spell out with any specificity which federal officials are impeachable. We believe that the rationale for impeachment clearly applies to high-ranking officials who wield presidential authority in many cases with even more impact than some cabinet officers. And we do not see any Constitutional language that would exclude such officials from the impeachment process. But because this appears to be a question of first impression, and because of the grave importance of this matter, we write to ask your opinion as to whether or not it is Constitutionally permissible to initiate impeachment proceedings against the President's Deputy Chief of Staff, or other similarly highly placed officials.
Rep. Barney Frank
Rep. John Conyers
Henry Waxman writes fact sheets...
Fact Sheet
Karl Rove's Nondisclosure Agreement
Today, news reports revealed that Karl Rove, the White House Deputy Chief of Staff and the President's top political advisor, confirmed the identity of covert CIA official Valerie Plame Wilson with Robert Novak on July 8, 2003, six days before Mr. Novak published the information in a nationally syndicated column. These new disclosures have obvious relevance to the criminal investigation of Patrick Fitzgerald, the Special Counsel who is investigating whether Mr. Rove violated a criminal statute by revealing Ms. Wilson's identity as a covert CIA official.
Independent of the relevance these new disclosures have to Mr. Fitzgerald's investigation, they also have significant implications for: (1) whether Mr. Rove violated his obligations under his "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement" and (2) whether the White House violated its obligations under Executive Order 12958. Under the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order, Mr. Rove would be subject to the loss of his security clearance or dismissal even for "negligently" disclosing Ms. Wilson's identity.
KARL ROVE'S NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
Executive Order 12958 governs how federal employees are awarded security clearances in order to obtain access to classified information. It was last updated by President George W. Bush on March 25, 2003, although it has existed in some form since the Truman era. The executive order applies to any entity within the executive branch that comes into possession of classified information, including the White House. It requires employees to undergo a criminal background check, obtain training on how to protect classified information, and sign a "Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement," also known as a SF-312, promising not to reveal classified information.1 The nondisclosure agreement signed by White House officials such as Mr. Rove states: "I will never divulge classified information to anyone" who is not authorized to receive it.2
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST "CONFIRMING" CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
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.3
THE INDEPENDENT DUTY TO VERIFY THE CLASSIFIED STATUS OF INFORMATION
Mr. Rove's attorney has implied that if Mr. 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."4
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."5
"NEGLIGENT" DISCLOSURE OF CLASSIFIED INFORMATION
Mr. Rove's attorney has also implied that Mr. Rove's conduct should be at issue only if he intentionally or knowingly disclosed Ms. Wilson's covert status. In fact, the nondisclosure agreement and the executive order require sanctions against security clearance holders who "knowingly, willfully, or negligently" disclose classified information.6 The sanctions for such a breach include "reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions."7
THE WHITE HOUSE OBLIGATIONS UNDER EXECUTIVE ORDER 12958
Under the executive order, the White House has an affirmative obligation to investigate and take remedial action separate and apart from any ongoing criminal investigation. The executive order specifically provides that when a breach occurs, each agency must "take appropriate and prompt corrective action."8 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."9
There is no evidence that the White House complied with these requirements.
