Plame hearing transcript Panel 2 continued
Continued from transcript of Panel 2 during Plame hearing:
#
REP. VAN HOLLEN: And yet, based on your understanding of the regulations and the statute, and the information that was out in the press, which really -- which clearly raised suspicions of the unauthorized disclosure of information, wouldn't that have triggered an investigation in your view?
MR. LEONARD: Again, in circumstances like that, even if it was just an inadvertent, out-of-ignorance type of disclosure, you would want to find out why it happened so you could preclude it from happening again, even if it's by ignorance.
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Right. I mean, not just that you would want to, but.--
MR. LEONARD: You're obligated to.
REP. VAN HOLLEN: -- you have an obligation, do you not?
MR. LEONARD: Yes, sir.
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Now, with respect to the tendency of the criminal proceedings, I understand your testimony, and there's nothing in the statute or the regulations that prohibits you from doing this -- this other -- this other investigation, under the regulations and revoking a security clearance, isn't that correct?
MR. LEONARD: You mean concomitantly, while there's an investigation going?
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Right.
MR. LEONARD: You're absolutely right.
REP. VAN HOLLEN: I mean, you're absolutely free to do that and nothing prohibits you from undertaking an investigation under the -- an administrative action.
MR. LEONARD: The directive is very clear that when there is evidence of potential criminality, that there would be the requirement to coordinate with legal counsel and the requirement to coordinate with the Department of Justice with the expectation then, again, that those issues would be worked out.
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Worked out in coordination with -- (inaudible) --
MR. LEONARD: Yes, sir.
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Mr. Knodell, if I could just ask you, do you know of any -- and this doesn't mean you are personally privy to the conversations -- but have you heard of communications within the White House that bear on the question of whether or not an investigation of security breaches should have been conducted?
MR. KNODELL: No.
REP. VAN HOLLEN: You don't know of any -- whether it's direct communications or hearsay, since you've been there -- have you had any conversations with anybody in the White House about the disclosures that have been the subject of --
MR. KNODELL: No, I have not.
REP. VAN HOLLEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. WAXMAN: Thank you, Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Hodes.
REP. HODES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Knodell, do employees sign nondisclosure agreements agreeing not to disclose classified information in connection with your briefings of them?
MR. KNODELL: Yes, they do. At the time they're issued a clearance, they sign a nondisclosure agreement.
REP. HODES: And am I correct that those nondisclosure agreements and security clearances are reviewed every five years?
MR. KNODELL: That's correct --
REP. HODES: Now, I understand that Mr. Rove came into service in the White House in 2001, is that correct?
MR. KNODELL: I believe so.
REP. HODES: So in 2006, you would have conducted a review of Mr. Rove's security clearance?
MR. KNODELL: We would have initiated a reinvestigation, that's correct, but the FBI conducts our background investigations.
REP. HODES: And are you aware of whether or not that, in fact, has happened in connection with Mr. Rove?
MR. KNODELL: I don't have first-hand knowledge on it, but very easily could go back and check.
REP. HODES: So there would be documents which someone in the federal government has about whether or not Mr. Rove, for example, ought to still have a security clearance?
MR. KNODELL: Correct.
REP. HODES: And do you agree with me that under the regulations, whether a person is truthful and complete in their answers to questions, and whether or not they are a person disposed towards candor is an important factor in determining whether someone continues to have access to classified information?
MR. KNODELL: It's considered in the adjudication process, yes.
REP. HODES: And if someone lied about what they did, that would be important, wouldn't it?
MR. KNODELL: Yes, it would.
REP. HODES: And you've now heard and seen on this video, Mr. McClellan saying that Mr. Rove told him that he had nothing to do with security leaks, but we know that Mr. Rove did leak classified information. Does that indicate to you that such a lack of candor should lead to a reexamination of Mr. Rove's security clearance?
MR. KNODELL: I clearly don't know the content of their conversation.
REP. HODES: Is it something that -- anything you've heard today or read in the press or read anywhere else -- raises a question in your mind, as the Senior Security Officer in the White House, about whether or not you ought to go and ask some questions about it?
MR. KNODELL: Yes, we could -- we could do that.
REP. HODES: Will you do it?
MR. KNODELL: I'll discuss that with senior management.
REP. HODES: Will you get back to us and let us know what senior management and you discuss and what you conclude, sir?
MR. KNODELL: Yes, I will.
REP. HODES: Does Mr. Libby still have his security clearance as of this date?
MR. KNODELL: No, he does not.
REP. HODES: When was that removed?
MR. KNODELL: The day he resigned -- I believe it was.
REP. HODES: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
DEL. NORTON: Could I have back the White House chart I asked Mr. Knodell to look at? Look at the middle row, and I'd like your view, Mr. Knodell -- given the Executive Order, which you're charged to enforce -- 129.58 -- whether you think any of those officials, or any official in the White House besides the president, would meet the standards of the Executive Order, which, as you know or the information for -- if you're conducting an investigation -- if there's an -- if we need to -- if there's an official need to know, if you need to verify information concerning security -- would any of those officials have had a need to know the name of a covert agent?
MR. KNODELL: I really wouldn't know.
DEL. NORTON: Why would you not -- you're the man charged with enforcing the Executive Order 129.58, and you're answer is what?
MR. KNODELL: I don't know if they would have a need to know. I don't have enough information.
DEL. NORTON: Because that depends on what they say? Isn't that a matter of regulation and law? I'm saying, based on their position.
MR. KNODELL: Well, people do -- I didn't mean to interrupt you --
DEL. NORTON: No, go ahead.
MR. KNODELL: -- people do have to have a need to know for someone with classified information to pass classified information. They also have to make sure that there a nondisclosure agreement -
DEL. NORTON: So, need to know the name of a covert agent -- you can think of a circumstance where an official, one of those officials, would need to know the name of a covert agent -- and I've just given you the basis?
MR. KNODELL: I don't know what the White House does, day-to-day, in their operations, and who they're staying in contact with.
DEL. NORTON: So in day-to-day operations, that could change because almost anybody could find out the name of a covert agent, given changes in day-to-day operations at the White House?
MR. KNODELL: No ma'am. What I'm saying is, I don't know if any of those folks would have a need to know.
DEL. NORTON: Look, just let me say frankly to you, Mr. Knodell, I don't think you need to be -- I think that -- I congratulate you on your willingness to be here.
I know you wouldn't have been here if the White House hadn't said you must or could. I have been far more interested in remedy because national security is involved here.
MR. KNODELL: Yes, ma'am.
DEL. NORTON: Normally, the notion of the White Housing investigating itself is perfectly understandable where there's not national security matters involved.
But if I may say so, I really do think, given what you've testified concerning your office, that you are truly the fall guy here. I say that because you've testified that you felt a virtual injunction on administrative -- without coordinating with your superiors, all of whom, obviously, the higher-level support to the president of the United States. You clearly don't think you can do an independent investigation.
Do you think that this investigation should lie with someone more independent than you so that you're not subjected to these --
REP. WAXMAN: The gentlelady's time has expired -- (cross talk) -- but if the gentleman wants to respond to that question.
MR. KNODELL: I'm good.
REP. WAXMAN: You don't wish to respond to the question?
MR. KNODELL: Thank you.
REP. WAXMAN: Okay. Well, I want to thank the two of you very much for being here. You've been very helpful.
Mr. Knodell, I know it's been a -- you came here on short notice. And it's not been an easy time for you. It's -- however, I guess you sense the frustration of the members of this committee when we hear of a breach of national security, and we were told the president was going to do an investigation, and the White House has virtually done nothing -- not even to take away the security clearances pending any other investigation by anyone else. But those are my comments, and I want to thank both of you for being here. We have a third panel waiting to come on.
MR. KNODELL: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
REP. WAXMAN: Thank you.
#
Panel 3 of Plame haring transcript at this link
|
