Senator pushes for revokation of Rove's security clearance

RAW STORY
Published: Tuesday June 13, 2006

Even though attorneys for Karl Rove have announced that he will not be facing charges relating to the outing of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson, Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) still wants to see Rove's security clearances revoked, according to a letter acquired by RAW STORY.

"The criminal investigation of Mr. Rove may be over, but serious questions remain about his misuse of classified information," Lautenberg said in a statement.

Rove, as "Official A" in the Libby indictment, is fingered in court filings as having disclosed Plame's name to reporters on multiple occasions.

In both a press release and in television news appearances, DNC chair Howard Dean has pressed the case that, while Rove has been cleared of perjury relating to the matter, he may still have been involved in the leak of classified information.

Lautenberg reiterates this point: "The President said he would not tolerate classified leaks from his staff, but there is no evidence he is willing to hold Mr. Rove accountable."

In a letter acquired by RAW STORY, Lautenberg asks the Presidential Security Officer Mark Frownletter to reconsider Rove's security clearance and launch an investigation:

#

June 13, 2006

Mark Frownfelter Security Officer Executive Office of the President 725 17th Street, NW, Rm. 4101 Washington, DC 20503

Dear Mr. Frownfelter:

Despite having written to you on November 14, 2005, I have not yet received an assurance that you are treating the information disclosed in the indictment of I. Lewis Libby (a.k.a. “Scooter Libby”) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as an adverse information report on Karl C. Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff to the President of the United States, thereby invoking the appropriate investigation and reevaluation of Mr. Rove’s security clearances. Today’s announcement that the criminal investigation of Mr. Rove has ceased makes the need for your review more urgent.

According to the indictment, a White House official identified as “Official A” disclosed the identity of an undercover CIA agent to columnist Robert D. Novak, who published the information. White House officials have confirmed that “Official A” is Mr. Rove. In addition, Mr. Rove has been identified in media reports as disclosing the identity of the agent to another reporter, Matthew Cooper of Time magazine.

As you know, such activity is prohibited under Federal regulations governing access to classified information:

Classified information may be made available to a person only when the possessor of the information establishes that the person has a valid “need to know” and the access is essential to the accomplishment of official government duties. The proposed recipient is eligible to receive classified information only after he/she has been granted a security clearance by the EOP Security Officer.

As EOP Security Officer, when the possibility of a violation of these standards becomes evident, you are required to take “prompt action to investigate alleged violations of security, and recommen[d] appropriate administrative action with respect to violators.”

The actions described in the indictment led to the publication of the name of a CIA operative whose employment status was classified. This revelation of classified information damaged national security by destroying an operative’s covert cover, compromising intelligence gathering operations, and endangering the safety of other CIA employees and their contacts.

I would like your assurance that you are taking prompt action on this case, and that you will follow up with appropriate administrative actions regarding Mr. Rove’s access to classified information.

Sincerely,

[Signature]

United States of America v. I. Lewis Libby, Criminal No. 05-394, (D.D.C. Filed Oct. 28, 2005) Id. at 8 Jim VandeHei and Carol D. Loennig, Rove’s Future Role is Debated, The Washington Post, November 3, 2005, at A1, A10. 5 C.F.R. 1312.23, Access to Classified Information 5 C.F.R. 1312.22 (a)(3)