Tensing testifies that Plame not covert.

[Petra-O IX]

As aired on cspan today on the investigation conducted by Henry Waxman, Mrs. Tensing (who wrote the law concerning outing covert CIA agents) testified under oath that valarie Plame does not qualify as covert. Waxman responded by asserting that a general had informed him that mrs. Plame was covert and Mrs. Tensing asked him if the General had testified under oath to that.


So as we see it is now settled that Plame was not covert.

BTW this is the Law that Victoria Toensing helped write(she didn'y write it by herself):
(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;

Ms. Plame testified under oath that in addition to working in Washington, she "also traveled to foreign countries on secret missions to find vital intelligence."

Why hasn't Mrs Toensing not explained why Ms Plame was not "covert" despite her sworn testimony .

The best that anyone has come up with to discredit Ms. Plame in this arena of opinions is to simply state that she is a liar.

 

[pinoybaptist]

So as we see it is now settled that Plame was not covert.

Well, how about the subject herself testifying that she was indeed a covert operative ?

I think she did this under oath.

Shouldn't she be held liable if she lied ?

 

[NiteShift]

Why hasn't Mrs Toensing not explained why Ms Plame was not "covert" despite her sworn testimony .

Apparently Toensing explained it to Fitzgerald's satisfaction, since he announced that there were no grounds for prosecuting Libby on any such charges.

Plame didn't even know if she was technically covert or not. She said, "I'm not a lawyer, but..."

The best that anyone has come up with to discredit Ms. Plame in this arena of opinions is to simply state that she is a liar.

Well, she also testified that she did not recommend her husband for the Niger trip, but the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation was in possession her memo doing exactly that. So we can take her testimony with a grain of salt, at the least.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Apparently Toensing explained it to Fitzgerald's satisfaction, since he announced that there were no grounds for prosecuting Libby on any such charges.
.

What was the content of the statement she made to Fitzgerald? Fittzgerald may have been persuaded by other factors.

Plame didn't even know if she was technically covert or not. She said, "I'm not a lawyer, but..."

And yet she still believes she has a case, maybe she recieved some advice from a lawyer.

Well, she also testified that she did not recommend her husband for the Niger trip, but the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation was in possession her memo doing exactly that. So we can take her testimony with a grain of salt, at the least

I don't have a copy of theat memo, so for now I will take your word for it.

The real question is did she fit the criteria for being a covert agent in accordance to the laws that Ms.Toensing helped to write.
(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;
Ms Plame says she was covert, Ms. Toensing said she did not qualify yet she gave no explanation as to why in accordance to such laws that she helped create.

But I am just like everyone else standing on the sidelines waiting to see how this case developes. I stand on neutral ground without any preconcieved bias.

 

[NiteShift]

But I am just like everyone else standing on the sidelines waiting to see how this case developes. I stand on neutral ground without any preconcieved bias.

A very good place to stand

 

[777]

BTW this is the Law that Victoria Toensing helped write(she didn'y write it by herself):
(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;

"And", not "or", both conditions must be met, Toensing.

On Dec. 30, 2003, the day Fitzgerald was appointed special counsel, he should have known (all he had to do was ask the CIA) that Plame was not covert, knowledge that should have stopped the investigation right there. The law prohibiting disclosure of a covert agent's identity requires that the person have a foreign assignment at the time or have had one within five years of the disclosure, that the government be taking affirmative steps to conceal the government relationship, and for the discloser to have actual knowledge of the covert status.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705_pf.html

More explicitly:

Plame was not covert. She worked at CIA headquarters and had not been stationed abroad within five years of the date of Novak's column.

 

[Petra-O IX]

"And", not "or", both conditions must be met, Toensing.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705_pf.html

More explicitly:

Question is who has more credibility?
A quote from the same article written and authored by Ms Toensing:

THIS GRAND JURY CHARGES THE MEDIA with hypocrisy in asserting that criminal law was applicable to this "leak" and with misreporting facts to wage a political attack on an increasingly unpopular White House. To wit:

This is Ms. Toensing doing some role playing, she is acting the part of judge and jury.
Lets not be so eager to jump to conlusions otherwise we will start to resemble an old time lynching mob that wants to see a hanging just for the sake of seeing a hanging.
777, what you have quoted from an article written in the Washington Post by Ms. Toensing does not qualify as a sworn testimony.


A quote from Joe Friday:

Just the facts Ma'mm

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

It is amazing to see the libs try to hang on to nothing as evidence to vilinize someone who has done nothing.

 

[Petra-O IX]

It is amazing to see the libs try to hang on to nothing as evidence to vilinize someone who has done nothing.

What are you talking about.
I pointed out that from 777's post that Toensing had written an article for the Washington Post, this is where 777 recieved his information. Toensing's article was mostly opinion and it was not a sworn testimony. I need proof from both sides to decern for myself. Toensing has not offered proof but only opinion. In a court of law that is not enough, in a court of Public Opinions it will suffice and public opinion is enough to damage a persons reputation. We should be concerned that our opinions are grounded in truth lest we be guilty of causing harm to a person reputation. Certainly we can agree on that much, can't we 2 Timothy2:1-4?

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

What are you talking about.
I pointed out that from 777's post that Toensing had written an article for the Washington Post, this is where 777 recieved his information. Toensing's article was mostly opinion and it was not a sworn testimony. I need proof from both sides to decern for myself. Toensing has not offered proof but only opinion. In a court of law that is not enough, in a court of Public Opinions it will suffice and public opinion is enough to damage a persons reputation. We should be concerned that our opinions are grounded in truth lest we be guilty of causing harm to a person reputation. Certainly we can agree on that much, can't we 2 Timothy2:1-4?

Her words contain much authority as she was a major part in crafting the law regarding covert status. whether in court under oath or in ans article she has remained consistent. She is not making commentary on what others have done she is giving facts on what she has done. That has much authority and wieght under oath or not.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Her words contain much authority as she was a major part in crafting the law regarding covert status. whether in court under oath or in ans article she has remained consistent. She is not making commentary on what others have done she is giving facts on what she has done. That has much authority and wieght under oath or not.

Then she should testify under oath. If Plame is lying she should be prosecucted for perjury. If Toensing is lying she should be tried for perjury but statings ones opinion outside these Hearings that are being conducted will not put her in jeopardy . Valarie Plame is under oath Toensing is not and she has little to lose and a lot to gain.
In your opinion Toensing is being truthfull but that is just an opinion, I'm still waiting to see the results.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Then she should testify under oath. If Plame is lying she should be prosecucted for perjury. If Toensing is lying she should be tried for perjury but statings ones opinion outside these Hearings that are being conducted will not put her in jeopardy . Valarie Plame is under oath Toensing is not and she has little to lose and a lot to gain.
In your opinion Toensing is being truthfull but that is just an opinion, I'm still waiting to see the results.

You must have missed her testimony under oath last week in the same investigation. Toensing has nothing to lose or gain however Plame is on the hot seat and has everything to lose and a whole lot to gain.

 

[Petra-O IX]

You must have missed her testimony under oath last week in the same investigation. Toensing has nothing to lose or gain however Plame is on the hot seat and has everything to lose and a whole lot to gain.

I am aware that Ms Toening did testify.
She didn't testify to what she wrote in her news\opinion peice that she wrote for the Washington Times. She didn't testify as to specifically why Valarie Plame did not have covert status, she did say she wrote a law and according to that Valarie plame did not qualify for covert status,which is kind of vague.In the Court of Public Opinions Toensing has set herself up as Prosecuter, Judge and Jury if you want to go by that then Valarie Plame indeed is guilty and the Hearings that have been taken place has been a waste of good taxpayer dollars.
And that raises the question of which is more influential, is it seeking truth and justice my formal legal proceeding or is it by means of Courts of Public opinion that do the most damage?

 

[777]

Question is who has more credibility?

Between Plame and Toensing? Between someone who claims "once covert, always covert" and someone who co-wrote a law that says otherwise?

This is Ms. Toensing doing some role playing, she is acting the part of judge and jury.

Not really, she's writing an op/ed piece....

Lets not be so eager to jump to conlusions otherwise we will start to resemble an old time lynching mob that wants to see a hanging just for the sake of seeing a hanging.

A reference to Fitzgerald? But who's about to rot away in jail?

777, what you have quoted from an article written in the Washington Post by Ms. Toensing does not qualify as a sworn testimony.

She didn't testify to what she wrote in her news\opinion peice that she wrote for the Washington Times. She didn't testify as to specifically why Valarie Plame did not have covert status, she did say she wrote a law and according to that Valarie plame did not qualify for covert status,which is kind of vague.

Because Plame's status didn't apply in the Libby trial, it was off-topic.

Then she should testify under oath. If Plame is lying she should be prosecucted for perjury. If Toensing is lying she should be tried for perjury but statings ones opinion outside these Hearings that are being conducted will not put her in jeopardy . Valarie Plame is under oath Toensing is not and she has little to lose and a lot to gain.

Well, first you have to supenoa Plame for a reason and there is that exemption, you'd have to get her on perjury and she would take the Fifth.

Just the facts Ma'am.

What more facts do you need? Trial's over.

In your opinion Toensing is being truthfull but that is just an opinion, I'm still waiting to see the results.

It's not just an opinion to Scooter Libby.

 

[Petra-O IX]

Between Plame and Toensing? Between someone who claims "once covert, always covert" and someone who co-wrote a law that says otherwise?



Not really, she's writing an op/ed piece....



A reference to Fitzgerald? But who's about to rot away in jail?



Because Plame's status didn't apply in the Libby trial, it was off-topic.




Well, first you have to supenoa Plame for a reason and there is that exemption, you'd have to get her on perjury and she would take the Fifth.



What more facts do you need? Trial's over.



It's not just an opinion to Scooter Libby.

What are you talking about 777, Scooter Libby or Valarie Plame? I thought the topic was about Valarie Plame but you keep introducing obscure articles from the Washington Post and try to persuade that it has a bearing on Valarie Plames testmony.
Instead of relying on vague testamonies why don't some wise person pull out Plames record from the CIA and check it out.
These hearings have proved absolutely zilch not because enough questions weren't asked but because the right questions were not asked.The way it stands it is Toensings word against Plames word without zero evidence.
As for Scooter, I don't think he will rot in prison. I'm sure he will be accomodated by one of the finest executive prisons in the land , if he isn't pardoned first.

 

[777]

What are you talking about 777, Scooter Libby or Valarie Plame?

There you go again - "or" excludes, substitute it the word "and".

I thought the topic was about Valarie Plame but you keep introducing obscure articles from the Washington Post and try to persuade that it has a bearing on Valarie Plames testmony.

WaPo is "obscure"???


You wanted Toesning's explanation of why Plame wasn't covert, the article told you that.

Substitue "and" for "or".

Instead of relying on vague testamonies why don't some wise person pull out Plames record from the CIA and check it out.

She didn't meet the criteria for "covert" by the definition of the criteria.

These hearings have proved absolutely zilch not because enough questions weren't asked but because the right questions were not asked.

No, what I'm trying to say is that Plame hasn't committed perjury yet and never will.

The way it stands it is Toensings word against Plames word without zero evidence.

Nobody was on trial for "outing her" 'tis the reason.

As for Scooter, I don't think he will rot in prison. I'm sure he will be accomodated by one of the finest executive prisons in the land , if he isn't pardoned first.

By this president? Heh.

And that raises the question of which is more influential, is it seeking truth and justice my formal legal proceeding or is it by means of Courts of Public opinion that do the most damage?

Got a preference?

 

[Petra-O IX]

There you go again - "or" excludes, substitute it the word "and".



WaPo is "obscure"???


You wanted Toesning's explanation of why Plame wasn't covert, the article told you that.

Substitue "and" for "or".



She didn't meet the criteria for "covert" by the definition of the criteria.




No, what I'm trying to say is that Plame hasn't committed perjury yet and never will.



Nobody was on trial for "outing her" 'tis the reason.



By this president? Heh.



Got a preference?

And in the end you have stated a whole lot of nothing.Let me know how the Hearing concludes itself .

 

[777]

"Stating a whole lot of nothing" sometimes equals concession. Forget it.

In all fairness, maybe they don't tell CIA agents if they're covert when they're covert:

REP. DAVIS: The Intelligence Identities Protection Act makes it a crime to knowingly disclose the identity of a covert agent, which has a specific definition under the act. Did anyone ever tell you that you were so designated?

MS. PLAME WILSON: I'm not a lawyer.

REP. DAVIS: That's why I asked if they told you. I'm not asking for your interpretation.

MS. PLAME WILSON: No, no. But I was covert. I did travel overseas on secret missions within the last five years.

REP. DAVIS: I'm not arguing with that. What I'm asking is, for purposes of the act -- and maybe this just never occurred to you or anybody else at the time -- but did anybody say that you were so designated under the act? Or was this just after it came to fact?

MS. PLAME WILSON: No, no one told me that. And that --

http://yargb.blogspot.com/2007/03/transcript-of-plame-testimony.html


Plames isn't a lawyer, by the way.

 

[Petra-O IX]

"Stating a whole lot of nothing" sometimes equals concession. Forget it.

In all fairness, maybe they don't tell CIA agents if they're covert when they're covert:


http://yargb.blogspot.com/2007/03/transcript-of-plame-testimony.html


Plames isn't a lawyer, by the way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valerie_Plame#Career
There is the claim that the law to protect intelligence identities could not have been violated because Valerie Wilson had not lived overseas for six years. Too bad this is not what the law stipulates. The law actually requires that a covered person “served” overseas in the last five years. Served does not mean lived. In the case of Valerie Wilson, energy consultant for Brewster-Jennings, she traveled overseas in 2003, 2002, and 2001, as part of her cover job. She met with folks who worked in the nuclear industry, cultivated sources, and managed spies. She was a national security asset until exposed

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

I am aware that Ms Toening did testify.
She didn't testify to what she wrote in her news\opinion peice that she wrote for the Washington Times. She didn't testify as to specifically why Valarie Plame did not have covert status, she did say she wrote a law and according to that Valarie plame did not qualify for covert status,which is kind of vague.In the Court of Public Opinions Toensing has set herself up as Prosecuter, Judge and Jury if you want to go by that then Valarie Plame indeed is guilty and the Hearings that have been taken place has been a waste of good taxpayer dollars.
And that raises the question of which is more influential, is it seeking truth and justice my formal legal proceeding or is it by means of Courts of Public opinion that do the most damage?

I do not understand what your beef is with toensing here. Are you bothered because she wrote the piece in the Times? Certainly not. Im sure you have a larger sense of genuiness than that.

If you want to look at airing something out in the court of public opinion you do not have to come very far away from Plame. You can stop right at her husband. This guy has been a media monger since he returned from his "mission" the Plame got him.

In the end Teonsing is more credible whether or not you like her answer.