Obscure federal regulations strike back — redux

Those pesky federal regulations could end up annoying the White House almost as much as the Dems who keep brining the up. Yesterday, there was ample discussion of Standard Form 312, which is a nondisclosure agreement for federal officials, which Karl Rove signed, which prohibited him from even confirming confidential information, which, late last week, was the White House’s latest defense.

Yesterday, however, we were back to Executive Order 12958.

The president unveiled a new line yesterday — he’d fire the leakers if they’re convicted, not just for leaking — which was obviously at odds with the old standard. Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) gently reminded Bush that this simply isn’t a matter of changing one’s mind; he has a legal obligation he has to follow.

Your new standard is not consistent with your obligations to enforce Executive Order 12958, which governs the protection of national security secrets. The executive order states: “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.” Under the executive order, the available sanctions include “reprimand, suspension without pay, removal, termination of classification authority, loss or denial of access to classified information, or other sanctions.”

Under the executive order, the President may not wait until criminal intent and liability are proved by a prosecutor. Instead, the President has an affirmative obligation to take “appropriate and prompt corrective action.” And the standards of proof are much different. A criminal violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which Special Prosecutor Fitzgerald is investigating, requires a finding that Mr. Rove “intentionally disclose[d]” the identity of a covert agent. In contrast, the administrative sanctions under Executive Order 12958 can be imposed without a finding of intent. Under the executive order, the President is required to impose administrative sanctions – such as removal of office or termination of security clearance – if Mr. Rove or other officials acted “negligently” in disclosing or confirming information about Ms. Wilson’s identity. (emphasis added)

Established policies governing the executive branch are not suggestions. Bush doesn’t have the luxury of concluding, “I’d prefer to wait to see if indictments are issued.”

E.O. 12958 mandates White House action. Will the president comply?

I think this is a blind alley for the Democrats. Executive orders are presidential mandates that have binding authority over the executive branch of government. Since they are neither laws nor court orders, I don’t believe either Congress or the courts can compel the president to abide by them. If Bush wants to ignore EO 12958 he can, and I don’t think his opposition can stop him.

  • I dunno–at the very least it’s a tool to use in the court of public opinion–which in the end, will count a lot more than anything Congress and the courts can do.

    I see this building up to enough of a groundswell that Rove will have no choice but to go–either by resignation or firing.

  • I expect the release of new executive order “clarifying” EO 12958. It should be published around 4:30 this Friday.

  • “… or other sanctions.”

    I can see it now: ‘Bad Karl. No more use of the White House exercise equipment. Now get back to work.’

  • I think Peter vE nails it. Having said that, if used smartly by the Dems, then Darrell is also right in his first sentence, especially if W issues a new EO counternanding EO 12958.

    Regardless, Reid should shut up about it and let the Dems in the House and outside the Beltway beat this drum. Reid and the other Dem Senators need to get out in front of the forthcoming Supreme Court nominee. Say it loud, say it often: W and the GOP abuse power and are beholden to extremist special interests. C’mon now, say it with me:

    W and the GOP abuse power and are beholden to extremist special interests.

    Do we need to present facts and verifiable quotes to back up this statement? No. Emphatically, NO. lets steal a page from their playbook. Say it over and over and never feel the need to defend the statement. let the pundits argue about it. The more they argue back and forth, the more it gets said.

  • I can see it now: ‘Bad Karl. No more use of the White House exercise equipment. Now get back to work.’

    Oh yeah, I can just see Porky Pig on the treadmill, I’m sure he spends a lot of time there. Ewww, I don’t need that image, pardon me while I retch.

  • Comments are closed.