So sorry this is OT, but you have got to see this:

Does RNC owned server connect missing e-mails to Ohio vote theft?

Curiouser and curioser

The paragraph that describes her employment was marked TS/NOFORN. To anybody with clearance, this meant she was covert and worked abroad.

No it doesn’t. It means something in that paragraph is TS/NOFORN. Ultimately the point is, with regards to someone in the CIA and their affiliation with the CIA, you simply SHOULD NOT make assumptions. You either KNOW that they openly work for CIA or you DON’T KNOW. If you don’t know, you clarify that point before passing their name along to uncleared folks.

Understood that classification levels next to paragraphs refer to the contents of that paragraph…

I am referring to the responsibility of a cleared individual who read that particular paragraph (a short one at that, IIRC) that mentions her CIA status. As I read it, the NOFORN designation was unambiguous and applied to her/CIA status. I can’t find the document now, but that doesn’t matter, because the designation refers to the entire contents of the paragraph.

Further, I wouldn’t ask my briefer to further clarify her status, or activities abroad, because I don’t have a need to know… and neither do “uncleared folk”.

Hence, my conclusion, to assume the most harmful scenario, if revealed. I assume the worst, but share that assumption with no one.

Do you think Ms Toensing or anyone she represents cares about such inconsistencies? She’s gotten the story out, the Believers have used it to bolster their own positions. Compare, for instance, Mr Cheney’s unique perspective on the brilliance of our accomplishments in the middle east.

These folks understand news cycles.

kemo @ 195
dakine01 @ 184
emptywheel @
100
JGabriel @
31
Marcy, just wanted to note one other aspect of the INR memo with respect to Toensing’s testimony.

Toensing repeatedly testifies that the OVP and other administration officials involved had no way of knowing that Valerie Wilson’s status was classified. But didn’t the INR memo itself mark her status as secret?
—————————

No.

The paragraph in which her name appears is marked secret. Though that’s not tied specifically to her name. In fact, I think that Rohn didn’t know she was covert, and therefore the S in that paragraph pertains to the meeting more generally. Note, too, that that’s not even the highest level paragraph in the letter, which it probably would have been had they known she was covert.

Which basically means they should lose their security clearance for leaking that info (cf, Armitage). But that it’s not proof they knew she was classified.

If I remember my security rules, the highest level classification of a page pretty much covers the entire page, i.e., if the page is secret, all info is secret, if top secret then TS, and so on. TS is the highest official classificaiton but from there starts all the alphabet soup shred outs for clearances…

Of course, I may be an idiot.
—————

The paragraph that describes her employment was marked TS/NOFORN. To anybody with clearance, this meant she was covert and worked abroad.

No it doesn’t. It means something in that paragraph is TS/NOFORN. Ultimately the point is, with regards to someone in the CIA and their affiliation with the CIA, you simply SHOULD NOT make assumptions. You either KNOW that they openly work for CIA or you DON’T KNOW. If you don’t know, you clarify that point before passing their name along to uncleared folks.

[Mod Note; please don’t requote more than twice. It gives the Margin Faerie a headache. Thanks]

Dare I mention that even if we accept the characterizations of Toensing’s statements as analyzed above, there is roughly zero chance that anyone could consider them to be material to the House Committee investigation?

And consequently, there is zero chance of a perjury charge?

Just curious as to whether folks agree with that – my text editor is not finding “perjury” anywhere in this thread just now, so I am guessing it has not been discussed.

The Christy quote is this:

Waxman says that he is going to hold the record open, and check Toensing’s statements on the record. Waxman says he will be checking with Fitzgerald on his interpretation of the law. [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?”]

Thanks.

bonkers @
110
Petrocelli @ 87
This is worse than the plague and Europe is way ahead of us in successfully treating cancer of all types with complimentary treatments.
——————

I’m not sure Europe has the AMA to contend with. This movie “Hoxsey” covers this topic very nicely, and shows what can happen if you try to stand in the way of the money train, or in other words the medical industry.

google video

bonkers,
Thank you for the link. I watched the entire video. Having been victimized twice in the past two years by conventional medicine, I was a receptive audience.

I do not condemn all of conventional medicine. I come from a long line of doctors and nurses. But I believe there is a tunnel vision among medical professionals which marginalizes effective treatments. Sadly, I also believe greed plays a part in which treatments are accepted by the mainstream and which are condemned as “worthless.”

Before I acknowledged my own atheism I used to say that I believed god had provided us the cure for all diseases. While I will no longer credit a deity for this, I still believe that the cure for everything is out there. We just need to find it.

Thanks again. And my heartfelt support to Elizabeth and John Edwards.

Maybe you could clarify another point I thought Ms. Toensing mischaracterized. Isn’t it the case that Scooter first learned of Plame’s identity and CIA dept affiliation from the VPOTUS (ref the famous note in his own handwriting)? We still don’t know from whence the VPOTUS got it, right?

Dog

scheduled to be 4 hours.

on c-span now.