Mar 16 2007
Plame Silliness
I have to admit the Plame Game is getting a bit boring. And the duplicity of the attack on Libby and the administration over forgotten details verses the out and out lying by the Wilson’s and Fitzgerald is just mind boggling. What would be interesting is if ANYONE would take on the Wilson’s for all their lies and get them under oath. It seems Valerie Wilson dropped some whoppers this morning, and from what I heard of her testimony she needs acting lessons because ‘the poor injured agent’ act came off like amatuer night at the elementary school play. Tom Maguire notes we have REAL conflicting statements under oath now, but so what – if no one does anything about it? A headline “The Wilsons Lied” is about as shocking as Bill Clinton parsing words to twist his fibs. Want to get my attention? Someone make a case and show how Valerie lied (or Joe did in his book, etc.).
I mean she is up there saying Richard Armitage was politically motivated to leak her identity to the media as retribution against Joe (OK, she is saying the administration did, but we all know who leaked her name!). Some newspapers seem to enjoy being lied to, they find it admirable. At least that is all I can figure when they do not call Plame on her inconsistencies under oath.
Anyone know if there are any legal ramifications for Valarie lying under oath to a Congressional committee?
On the flip side, I thought Waxman was going to have a coronary during Victoria Toensings testimony.
#1: Suggest you prove your asinine assertion about lying under oath. Plame spelled out that she had been out of the country on secret assignment within 5 years of the outing. Suggest you prove other wise or shut the pie hole.
#2 As for Victoria Toensing’s fallacious assertions – she can’t even explain the law she claims to have written.
Section 426 of the IIPA provides:
Toensing exposed not only as a skanky liar, but a really really bad lawyer.
Did Valerie Plame commit perjury?…
In sworn testimony before the Waxman committee, Valerie (Garbo) Plame testified:
“I“I did not recommend him (Joe Wilson), I did not suggest him, I did not have the authority.â€â€
Not exactly correct:
Via: Tom McGuire:
“(1) Was Valerie …
Soothsayer, do you revel in being a fool?
In Joe Wilson’s book, he himself admits that Plame was in Washington before July, 1997 as he had met her at a party at the Turkish Embassy then. So, how many fingers do you have? ’98, ’99, ’00, ’01, ’02, ’03. Ooops, that seems to be six years. So you are trying to tell us that Plame, who was busy helping Joey get a divorce (since he was still married when they stated their little affair), getting married and having twins was still covert? Are you trying to convince us that while Joey and Val, baby, were having pillow talk, she just happened to let it slip that she was covert? If you buy into that, wow, do I have some bridges to sell you.
No, Plame did not testify that she had been “out of country” within the five years. She testified that she HAD BEEN covert and HAD BEEN out of the country. She never said when. But in your desire to go “ah, ha, the evil Bush outed a covert agent” your hearing seems to have gotten bad if you think she said she was out of the country within the last five years.
Plame lied throught her teeth. Grenier testified at the Libby trial that Plame recommended her husband for the trip to Niger. She testified today that she did not.
But don’t worry; with the Democrats running this scam hearing, she will never be prosecuted for perjury. The Dems are only interested in ruining the careers of Republicans, not getting to the truth.
sooth:
This whole thing is ridiculous. If Valerie Plame had not sent her husband off on this trip and if he had not lied in the NYT oped page none of this would have happened. None of us would ever have heard of her. Even the WaPo editorial board calls Joe Wilson a blowhard. After the Senate Intel committee outed him as a liar Kerry was forced to drop him from his campaign.
Today there was no mention of Armitage the leaker or of the fact that lefty David Corn was actually the first one to put this woman’s name in print. No one was charged with the underlying socalled crime of outing a covert agent. And she does not even know if she is covert and she is contradicting sworn testimony. So is she a liar? I think so. This whole thing has been a farce.
The truth is these people are not only politcally motivated they are trying to cover their butts for their own inompetence and if Plame and Wilson are typical of the kind of people the CIA depend on for intel it is no wonder they were wrong about the Soviets, Libya, Pakistan, North Korea, Iraq, AJ Kahn, Iran and God only knows what else.
When all is said and done Valerie and her blow hard husband will be rich and famous and they will have silly people like you fawning at their feet. Meanwhile Libby faces jail when it is obvious that Fitzs knew there was no crime, and knew who the leaker was before he ever called for a Grand Jury. So much for justice.
Soothie: You know more about the law than the person who wrote it? Please spare us your drivel opinions about Ms. Toensing. I invited on several previous occaisions to tell us who pays you to post on the internet, but you’ve declined to respond.
Valerie had to lie. The Wilson’s are suing Cheney and Libby so she needs to stay on message. However, testimony at the Libby trial contradicts much of her testimony today.
I particularly like – she overheard a call to someone who’s name she can’t remember and someone else who she can’t remember says “how about Joey going” and then she sends an email… And she’s a Democrat attending strategy dinner as a spouse….wonder if Chuckie Schumer was at the dinner.
Didn’t Chuckie send multiple emails about this case to DOJ seeking to influence the investigation…isn’t he also at the center of the US Attorney show trial complaining about emails asking about investigations? Hmmmm
Did you forget how to READ when you retired? She only needs to have BEEN out of the country- not to have LIVED out of the country. It could have been for one afternoon in Toronto. She testified she took secret trips outside the US – that qualifies her. Learn to read, man.
I find it fascinating that you take the word of obviously partisan political hacks – Libby, Rove, Toensing – over a non-partisan career CIA operative. This woman was a covert NOC agent – unprotected by diplomatic cover – who traveled around the world trying to track WMD’s to protect the US – and you prefer to believe the rants of partisan liars. Go ahead, wallow in the trough, ye unwashed and clueless.
Toensing CLAIMS to have written it. She may have worked on it – but the intent of a staff hack is not the same thing as legislative intent – and when it comes to reading the statute – yes – I can read it better than she can – cause she’s a partisan liar.
As for who pays me – I am fortunate in that publishing royalties from rock and roll in the 70’s and 80’s pays me enough I don’t need to be paid for posting on the internet.
“I find it fascinating that you take the word of obviously partisan political hacks”
Carville, Begala, Stephenopoulos, etc. etc., are not partisan political hacks? Henry Waxman is not partisan? The Democrats in Congress are not partisan? I won’t call them hacks, even though, upon examination, some might fit the definition. Do you live in an alternate universe?
Soothsayer, answer this:
why did Plame recommend her husband for such a sensitive mission if she wanted to remain covert? Now either the mission was for the purpose of proving Iraq had been seeking yellow cake from Niger or it was for the purpose of debunking the administrations claim. My guess it the latter. So if Plame wanted to stay covert, why did she allow her husband to write his op-ed that started the whole storm? And why did the CIA not stop her from attending the EPIC conference with Joe Wilson or stop her from other things such as listing her employer (Brewster-Jennings) on her campaign donation; from being listed in Who’s Who in D.C.; stop her from giving post-partum seminars to women’s groups; stop her from doing the Vanity Fair piece; stop her from traveling the D.C. party circuit?
Are you so stupid you really think that covert CIA agents go around letting every one know who they are?
“Did you forget how to READ when you retired? She only needs to have BEEN out of the country- not to have LIVED out of the country. It could have been for one afternoon in Toronto. She testified she took secret trips outside the US – that qualifies her. Learn to read, man.”
Didn’t say when she went out of the country on secret assignment. If it was before 1997, she qualifies. After 1997? No, she did not qualify then.
She was careful not to say when.
BTW, Toensing’s testimony was a strong killer. MacRanger is going to post his opinion later.
AJ and ALL –
It appears Plame was never placed under oath officially, so she was free to lie. Her words today will come back to haunt her.
http://www.penraker.com/archives/007721.html
Here is the weak oath she was asked to promise –
“Henry Waxman just swore in Valerie Plame. He said it was the custom of his committee to put all witnesses under oath. He then administered this oath:
“Do You promise to tell the truth and nothing but the truth?”
That seems awfully weak. Waxman omitted, the traditional “So help you God” He also omitted the requirement to “swear” to the honesty of her testimony. She was only required to “promise” which seems to be a much lower standard. People break promises all the time; they dare to break oaths much less frequently.
Given this lame formulation was Plame actually under oath? Probably not.
The Democrats have gone out of their way, once again, to single-mindedly erase any ceremonial use of the word “God” in public life. This is very odd, since the Supreme Court has specifically OK’d ceremonial uses of the word.
One commentator on Findlaw said that ” in the absence of an oath, Americans are ordinarily free to lie.”
Didn’t say when she went out of the country on secret assignment. If it was before 1997, she qualifies. After 1997? No, she did not qualify then.
Actually not. She would have had to be stationed out of the country not just out for a few days or weeks. The law was very strict on this. This whole law was in answer to Aldrich Ames outing CIA agents and congress really had to water it down to get it passed.
I doubt the woman was ever covert. She was stationed at our embassiess. Our embassies are full of CIA just like other countries’ embassies are full of their intelligence people. These people all knew each other and watched each other like hawks.
The CIA likes to grandstand to obliviate the fact that they accomplish nothing. Real covert agents are in the field and never, never go to Langly. Real agents are outed by our senators on a regular basis. They don’t sit around waiting for the WH to notice them sitting at their desks and sending their blowhard husbands on covert missions.
In reading all your posts I am wondering why you even answer this bozo Soothsayer. He has been a trouble maker for a long time. You will never convince him of the truth. He has his own truth and he will never change his mind. Your talking to him is a waste of time. He always rebuts you with palpable lies and quotes from people you never want to hear about because they are so left and discredited many times over. It is really sickening to see everyone trying their best to make him see the truth. He is pulling your chain and laughing at you the whole time.
It’s pointless, but … soothy — you’re a blind idiot. Plame was not covert at time of leak, plus the Wilson’s themselves exposed Val way before (Who’s Who, dem fundraisers, journalist meetings) ARMITAGE leaked. Toensing was an author of the law and is highly credentialed — not a lame hack like the Wilsons and all the Clintonistas and the partisan nut-jobs like the rodent Waxman, et. al. Finally, the CIA knew she really was not covert, otherwise they would have stipulated that important item when they referred it to DoJ. The CIA was only claiming classified information was leaked — nothing about the much more sensitive and dangerous covert status.
Did you forget how to READ when you retired? She only needs to have BEEN out of the country- not to have LIVED out of the country. It could have been for one afternoon in Toronto. She testified she took secret trips outside the US – that qualifies her. Learn to read, man.
Sooth, you really have to learn to read above the second grade level.
If you had listened to Toesing in her testimony she clearly stated this.
Did your supervisor underline those points in crayon, or was it you when he pointed them out?
A.J. – Dealing with the Democrats will require a degree of political organization and commitment that the Republicans have not achieved yet.
Was Armitrage working or had he left the administration when the leak occured?
lurker-
Are you unable to READ or LISTEN? Plame testified she’d been out of the country on a secret mission wihtin the last 5 years. Ergo – she qualifies as covert. Toensing can’t read her own freakin’ statutory language.
As my earlier post explained – Toensing was reading the WRONG part of the statute. Let’s all read together one more time:
(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,
(ii) who is serving outside the United States or has within the last five years served outside the United States;
Plame has served (it does not say live or reside – it says serve – so a trip overseas qualifies under the statutory language. And Plame had made numerous trips abroad throughout.
She WAS covert.
I’m not a lawyer. I would never read some 1982 statute and pretend I know what the understanding of that statute is in 2007. There’s so much crap that could have gone on over the past 25 years in term of court precedence and the law being interpreted any number of ways. As a non-lawyer, it seems that it’s impossible to know exactly what a law “means†just by reading the original statute.
For the time being, you’ll excuse me if I trust the understanding of Toensing (who drafted the original statute and is a practicing attorney who has represented covert agents in DC courts) over yours, Soothsayer.
In the end, though, her status is really a non-issue. My annoyance at this whole affair is that it seems obvious to me that there was no violation of the law. That’s what’s important. No one was found guilty of violating the law. There were never any charges even brought against anyone regarding the IIPA. Why are we still talking about this?