Comments on: Waxman Hearing, Panel II — Part II

By: Tom Maguire

Tom Maguire — Sat, 17 Mar 2007 12:35:35 +0000

CHS asks: Is it me, or is that a “correct the record, or there may be a perjury question in the offing if we find errors in your testimony?”

It’s just you - indicting expert witnesses who are expressing the same view they put forward in op-eds and court amicus briefs is not sporting.

Sorry to see the urge to stifle dissent here.

By: Mauimom

Mauimom — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:25:47 +0000

Should be good news-watching this weekend for all us ‘crats ;->

However, I’m not holding my breath waiting for “good” guests on the Sunday talkers.

Same old, slime old, I’ll bet.

By: Mauimom

Mauimom — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:22:00 +0000

Help me, as a youngster I saw the Beatles on Ed Sullivan!

Raven, I was in college when the Beatles were on Ed Sullivan. [I.e., I’m way older than you.]

By: Petrocelli

Petrocelli — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 23:04:46 +0000

Ole hippie chick (#211)

You must be doing something wrong … ever heard of Kamasutra?

By: OhioBlue

OhioBlue — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 21:35:09 +0000

Raven – Gotcha, unfortunately. I saw Elvis on Ed Sullivan and the cameras never strayed below his waist.

By: theExile

theExile — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:44:20 +0000

What’s wrong with the Bu$h administration, why didn’t they make Toestink either Head of the CIA or the “new” Intelligence Czar?

By: barrelhse

barrelhse — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 20:11:55 +0000

Ole Hippie Chick (#211):
Can we say “as good as” instead of “better than”?
just sayin…

By: terry hallinan

terry hallinan — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:52:02 +0000

As a former federal worker who had a SECRET clearance, I can agree with (UGH!) Toensing on one thing. IF I were disclosing classified info (after I confirmed they had the appropriate clearance AND a need to know)

Ha. I had a Top Secret clearance. So there. LOL!

That could be carefully worded. One could be told before entering about the nature of the information but not necessarily by the briefer. If there was briefing material, classification is normally printed on the material.

When talking to a group, one normally knows what is expected.

I think it was a dodge.

Best, Terry

By: Skeptic

Skeptic — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:51:24 +0000

Mark H at 355: Can it be that the CIA was wrong in classifying Plame’s job as a covert NOC with regard to the CIIPA law? As she has said, she was LIVING her cover. That’s what cover means!

By: terry hallinan

terry hallinan — Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:44:59 +0000

cinnamonape says:

Toensing perjured herself: She lied about the statute…the statute does not require that the agent live abroad.

Here’s what the definitions section states quite explicitly:

(4) The term “covert agent” means—

(A) a present or retired officer or employee of an intelligence agency or a present or retired member of the Armed Forces assigned to duty with an intelligence agency—
(i) whose identity as such an officer, employee, or member is classified information, and

(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years SERVED outside the United States;…”

Plame states that she SERVED abroad within the five year window of her exposure by the minions in the WH.

The issue is NOT her covert status…but whether the law can be successfully prosecuted because it requires that the MOTIVES of those who expose the agent be explicated by the prosecutor. The way that TOONTSES wrote the law essentially makes it impossible to protect those who lay their lives on the line if they or their operations are exposed for politically craven purposes.

Is that really grounds for perjury prosecution?

I am not questioning whether it was a lie. I thought it most odd that Toensing could claim that one had to be STATIONED abroad in the last 5 years.

Best, Terry