When is * obligated to pull security clearances?

[Peachhead22]

I was just watching 'The West Wing' and it got me to thinking. http://firedoglake.blogspot.com/2005/10/not-counting-yet-but-just-in-case.html">This page says according to http://www.fas.org/sgp/clinton/eo12958.html">Executive Order 12958 Shrub is required to revoke security clearance for even suspected leaks of classified material. I would assume that means immediately. And the TWW episode made the point that delays (never mind a promotion) would bring up all kinds of problems for the Prez himself. Pretty much prima facie evidence of a cover up.

Since we know, or at least the recent NY Post story says, that Rove told * two years ago of the leak, I foresee a whole new level of hurt for * himself. Plamegate's gonna be at least as big as Watergate, and * will go down in history as the reincarnation of Nixon.

Is there anyone here with experience in federal law?

[kestrel91316]

1. Um, Bush doesn't HAVE to do anything he doesn't want to do.

Laws and rules are for the Little People.

And no, nobody is going to impeach him WHEN he refuses to suspend, fire, or revoke security clearance on all the indictees, even if they are indicted for espionage. He will say "fuck you" to the nation. And the Republicans will say that is just fine.

[madrchsod]

2. watergate was a burglary

that would rate a 6 month jail term and 2 years probation. this shit is close to treason

[ashling]

3. when is B* obligated to tell the truth?

[DU9598]

4. A real pres

Probably June 2003 at the latest.

[texpatriot2004]

5. On the DU homepage there is a counter ticking every second

it's been over 800 days past the time when he should have acted. Every day is a charge against him.