Plame: you're missing a LIVE discussion on WaPo

[grasswire]

I posted info about this live chat, but it doesn't appear that anyone took notice.

A LOT of info is being presented. Followers of the Plame investigation ought to be watching. It's too late to be submitting questions, probably.

http://discuss.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/zforum/04/r_editorial_Sanford.htm

[Al-CIAda]

1. Sorry to have missed it, thanks -eom

[papau]

2. Well it is over and I have learned a lot- about GOP assertions/no comments

So we learn from our GOP Lawyers that:

Whether the CIA in fact is taking affirmative measures to conceal her identity and whether she had a foreign assignment in the last five years is not proven by "being" a covert agent "working" for a "cover company". But we never find out what "taking affirmative measures" means...... interesting. And is Plame covered by the Act (i.e. must be covert, covert status must be classified, must have had permanent assignment in a foreign country currently or within the last five years, government must be taking active measures to keep identity covert etc.) is questioned by Toensing but not answered by her..

And violations of a signed secrecy agreement is only a crime if Justice calls it a crime? (they never explain if it is a crime, and suggest an internal CIA investigation by the IG)

And CIA concerns now are not important - only what they did prior to the leak is important - but we do not discuss what they did prior to the leak - they just assert it was not enough.

Wilson's qualifications, or lack thereof, and the circumstances of his being sent to Niger is asserted to be "crucial to whether a crime was committed" - like why?

As whether the administration official who leaked the information committed a crime is never answered....hmmmmmmm - we only get that for a crime to be committed, the government employee giving the information to the reporter must know the person's status is classified and that she is truly covert.

And the 2001 Toensing WashPo editorial on the leaking of the contents of a federal wiretap relating to the investigation of former Senator Robert Torricelli, entitled "They Call It a Leak. I Call it a Crime," where she asserts "any time the disclosure is a felony...the policy is to conduct a concerted effort to find the lawbreaker." is not relavent because it was a grand jury leak, and not treason, and grand jury leaks have none of the high requirements to find criminal conduct that this specific (CIA Leak) leak incorporates....

And Toensing refuses to say Novack's disclosing the name of a covert CIA while not illegal is at least something to be frowned on, because Novak was defending Bush on a national security issue - whether reasonable people would say there was a weapons of mass destruction threat - and we should want journalists aggressively reporting on the intelligence gathering capabilities of the CIA in such situations ....hmmmmmmmm..

And no comment on the idea that the (liberal) authors Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper are being threatened with jail time while Bob Novak, the (conservative) author of the original article, is left alone..... hmmmmm

And Novak's second Plame column that discloses a CIA front company is not a crime because we do not know if the information was classified - besides it is public policy under Bush that journalists would not be prosecuted for such a disclosure in most situations....hmmmmmm.......

And Toensing suggest Novak was disclosing whether or not nepotism was involved in the CIA assigning Wilson to an important mission, and the public should know about this - I love how we now have an Toensing assertion that a Novak assertion covers his ass.

And of course there is the assertion that giving someone a false identity and a front does not meet the legal standard of affirmative measures to protect the identity if that person drives to a desk job at Langley.

And the assertion that the public does not have a right to know who committed a crime because it does not spell out such a right in the Constitution. LOL :-)

And Toensing asserts that the CIA saying that: "Might cause difficulties" does not reach the legal standard of affirmative measures necessary to qualify her as a covert agent under the law. Indeed she asserts that asking Wilson to do the job proves that the CIA was not "cautious about her identity".

And there is no answer to the fellow who noted that the editorial piece implied no harm, no foul since Plame herself would not be in danger, ignoring all of the people in foreign lands that Plame was known to work with, both foreigners and U.S. citizens, being put at risk..... I guess a GOP lawyer like Toensing just ignores the world when caught in a lie or in something illogical.

[HootieMcBoob]

3. Sounds like a load of BS

:puke:

But thanks for the break down. :)

[htuttle]

4. It sounds like it's safe for Phil Agee to start his magazine up again

What the hell, if they aren't going to prosecute disclosure of CIA agents anymore, I say let's do some disclosing!

[librechik]

5. why should I want to hear more of Toensing's lies?

I was interested until i saw her name.