Perjury count on Victoria Toensing: Four

[Sir Jeffrey]

By my count:

Count 1: Lying about VPW's covert status under oath even after presented with Hayden's statement.

Count 2: Lied by claiming that nobody at the White House leaked VPW's name to the press even after reminded of Rove's testimony from the Libby case

Count 3: Lied about her statements in a Washington Post article even after having them re-read to her

Count 4: Lying, a second time, about VPW's covert status to a different questioner.

Anyone see additional perjury counts?

These statements were very different from her mostly awful legal interpretations and "insight". These were false statements made under oath before the committee. She offered these statements not as her opinion, but as FACT, and I want to see her nailed for perjury.

[BOSSHOG]

1. And she wore red on a Friday

I believe the woman deserves a fair and speedy trial.

[Pachamama]

62. With White Shoes before Easter??????

For that she deserves the death penalty!!!! :eyes:

Sorry, I had a John Waters moment from "Serial Mom"....great movie....

[poverlay]

2. She should have taken a lesson from Scooter. It's not the crime, it's the lie that'll get you... nt

[Greeby]

3. Judging by what he said at the wrap-up

I have a feeling Waxman is gonna try and get the goods to nail her to the wall on this

[fooj]

24. I have one word for Miss Vickie...

CHECKMATE!

[Annces]

4. I don't know why they are asking opinions anyway

This woman does not speak for the government, even if she helped write the law. Why don't they call in CIA people.

[Sir Jeffrey]

7. IIRC the Republicans wanted to call her...

to offer a different interpretation of the law. Instead, they may have gotten her disbarred and indicted.

[Schema Thing]

13. Waxmen indicated that in his closing comment

"we were happy to have you here to accommodate the minority"... or substance thereof.

[Robbien]

15. Yeah, she was a witness FOR the RNC/administration. Ha!

She was a witness called in by the GOPers.

Problem is most of the GOPers didn't bothering showing up.

[wryter2000]

18. Yeah

They didn't even stick around to help her out. They pretty much deserve each other.

[TahitiNut]

39. She was a 25-year-old junior staffer, fresh out of Law School by the skin of her teeth ...

... and has apparently never done a thing since then, since it's a mediocre experience she's never been able to overcome. The self-aggrandizement is appalling - an over-inflated elephant fart.

[TahitiNut]

56. Correction: A 42-year-old junior staffer.

Born about 1940, she got her BA in 1962 and her JD in 1975.

She was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, 1976 - 1981
She was Counsel, U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, D.C., 1981-1984
She was Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice, 1984-1988

[Annces]

58. Those look like good credentials

She must be smart if nothing else.

[TahitiNut]

61. She's been a political hatchet woman from the beginning.

For someone with a law degree, those are lower tier jobs - paying far, far less than most lawyers get in private practice with a major firm or in a corporate legal department.

There are probably more than 100 "Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals" in the DoJ.

[Booster]

75. This woman isn't interested in making money; it's the power

she wants. And also, think of the perks she must get for the vile job she does.

[spotbird]

95. Her last real job was 20 years ago?

"Flash in the pan" may better describe her career.

[robinlynne]

63. Repugs insisted on having her. luckily the dems were prepared. and then some.

[MN ChimpH8R]

69. You get nothing past Waxman

He is always prepared in Fitz-like fashion. Saw part of it and Henry ground her into a fine powder Bambi vs. Godzilla stye

[spotbird]

5. Is there video of the

confrontation between she and Waxman anywhere?

[LSK]

10. CSPAN will probably re-air it, check crooksandliars and firedoglake also

I also recorded the whole hearing on DVD.

Oh yeah the house committee website might have a stream available for replaying.

[wryter2000]

19. Here's their schedule

http://inside.c-spanarchives.org:8080/cspan/schedule.csp

[spotbird]

92. Thank you.

Is it available on line.

[tnlefty]

26. 'Twas a beautiful thing, Cummings, Watson, Van Hollen were all

after her for her statements and then Waxman went after her again. She didn't look too happy at the end of the hearings, and that made my day. I can't stand that mean-spirited, hateful, vile female!!!

[LSK]

6. "I didnt talk to Ms Wilson or anyone at the CIA"

Randi just played that quote.

[speedoo]

8. Sorry, but I don't think so.

Much as I want to see her nailed, I think she protected herself from perjury. Remember, she's an attorney.

[rfranklin]

17. Her statements were opinions....

She admitted she was only basing her statements on her evaluation of public testimony in the Libby trial.

However, she did reveal that she was no more expert on this incident than most of us here.

[POAS]

23. Seems her one assertion was not opinion

when she stated that VPW had not traveled/operated outside the US in over 5 years.

[alcibiades_mystery]

36. It's not perjury if she states that that's what she thinks

She is not in a position to know. You can't perjure yourself if you don't know, even if you make the claim.

On the other hand, if Plame had NOT worked overseas in the past five years, she COULD be charged with perjury, since she stated that she had, and she's in a position to know. Nothing Toensig said constitutes perjury. It's all spin and disgusting partisanship, sure, but she didn't LIE about anything.

[spotbird]

96. Sure you can

if a witness knowingly makes a material misrepresentation of a factual matter, sworn, where the witness really does not know, that's perjury.

[fooj]

30. She was so full of crap I felt like after listening to her I needed a shower.

[POAS]

21. Yet she was unequivocal when she said

that VPW had not travelled outside the US for the CIA in longer than 5 years.

That is why they pressed her about having talked to Plame or CIA. How could she be so sure?

[Sir Jeffrey]

25. Exactly...

that is what stuck out for me. She stated certain opinions she has expressed in other outlets as indisputable facts. That crosses the line into perjury.

It was tough for me to keep track of her statements of opinion, but I specifically counted these four instances where she purposefully stated, as fact, patently false information.

on edit

I just realized this post was my 666th. Bad omen for Ms. Toensing

:evilgrin:

[POAS]

29. You little devil!

[alcibiades_mystery]

37. It does not cross the line into perjury

n/t

[merh]

45. She had read it at FR or one of the other right wing spin sites

or maybe Libby's Defense team website or an article written by WorldNet or the WashingtonPost - those sources are never wrong :sarcasm:


Okay, so they never think they are wrong. :freak:

[tinfoilinfor2005]

80. Hey sweetie, how are you doin'?

Love to see you chiming in once in a while, but I think I would love to see your opinions here every day!

Miss you!!!

[merh]

97. Hello toots!

It's good to see you too.

Hopefully soon I can post a little more than I do now.

I miss you too :hug:

I hope you and mrtinfoil are well. :loveya:

[Raksha]

79. Yeah...how can anyone not in the CIA claim to KNOW,

as a matter of indisputable FACT, when a covert agent goes overseas, where she goes, how long she stays there and who she meets? Nobody outside the CIA is SUPPOSED to know, fer cryin' out loud--that's what being a covert agent is all ABOUT!!! What the hell is wrong with these people?

[Morgana LaFey]

85. but that's NOT what she said

and that's not what the law says either.

Neither she nor the law talk about "travel" outside the states.


(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; or


see more here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=429211&mesg_id=429211


Now, I think you can argue that "travel" is serving, but let's not confuse the actual language.

[TheBaldyMan]

22. I think Waxman may be protecting her from perjury, keeping the record open.

8-O

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

46. Agreed. But I Think They're Still Going To Make It Transparent That It Was All Bullshit.

Thankfully, we have the ability now to do so. That's monumentally important in my opinion.

[Raksha]

76. BFD - remember that Gonzales is an attorney too.

Never stopped anyone from spouting off misleading b.s. opinions as "expert legal opinions" if they think the public is stupid enough to buy it. She may have been able to technically protect herself from perjury, though. I'm not a lawyer and I wasn't able to watch it, so I can't say one way or the other.

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. You should fax these to Waxman. His fax number is:

[phone] (fax). If you don't have a fax, I would do it for you if you like.

[Sir Jeffrey]

12. Hell, I am sure Waxman knows more about this than I do...

to me it looks pretty obvious he is going to pursue the matter further.

[Susan43]

31. Toensing lies

Victoria Toensing repeatedly says she was a "drafter" or "writer" of IIPA. But here are a few facts.

The bill was introduced in the House in Jan. 1981 and the Senate in Feb. 1981 (HR-4, S-391 97th congress)

What that says to me is that the bill had to have been written in 1980 as bills are usually written before they are introduced. Right?

According to Toensings resume, she was living and working in Detroit in 1980 and did not go to work for congress until 1981. She may have worked on the bill and helped it through congress, there is no way of know how much she worked on it. But it's interesting to note that it was the House bill that was eventually passed, not the Senate bill. I also find it interesting that she was hired as "Chief Counsel" to Goldwater as she was just a young lawyer only 6 years out of law school. But I can't figure out a way to check that.

I can't give direct links on Thomas but if you go here, you can get to the bills - http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d097query.html

Toensing's resume.
http://www.digenovatoensing.com/attorneybiosvt.htm

Maybe I'm not seeing this clearly because I don't like the woman, but it seems obvious to me that she could not have written the IIPA.

[merh]

51. She didn't write the bill, she may have helped to tweek some of

the language, but she didn't write it. Her testimony proved that.

BTW, Welcome to DU :hi:

[LSK]

11. Randi said Waxman told her he was leaving the record open

in case she wanted to change her tune?

[Sir Jeffrey]

16. I think...

she may be given the chance to "correct" her testimony later on once they disprove her awfully dumb statements.

[lyonn]

33. Good, it's about time someone proved her a liar

Maybe this will tone down her absolutes when she gets in front of the cameras on the MSM.

[librechik]

14. It's obvious she can plead insanity

altho she probably doesn't know that herself.

Waht a monster!

[rodeodance]

20. oh, was that her problem today?? te he. good one.

[TankLV]

28. She can plead "I'm a repuke - I can't help it (lying)" defense...

[The Wielding Truth]

32. Perjury and slander. She proclaims to Congress that she knows the law.

She is delusional and living in the Republi-con Reality that she is always right. Time for her to be awakened.

[Sir Jeffrey]

48. No slander...

just perjury. Being an ass in front of Congress doesn't = slander

[ChairmanAgnostic]

27. when did she testify under oath?

bin laden with work today, and missed it.

[Sydnie]

34. Today

replay is on now on C-SPAN but she is at least a few hours into it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

42. many thanks nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

35. That's not perjury

Count 1: She was making an argument for a particular interpretation of the law. You can't "lie" about an interpretation. That's not perjury.

Count 2: Again, this is an intepretation of what it means to leak. If Armitage was the first leaker, then nobody subsequent would be a "leaker." This is their crazy argument. Yes, it is insane, but it is not a lie. That's not perjury.

Count 3: Once again, you're mistaking an interpretation for a fact. THat's not perjury.

Count 4: Second verse, same as the first.

You do not understand what perjury IS. If I say that I interpret a statute one way, and you interpret it another, that's not perjury, even if your interpretation is the standard understanding, and mine is off-the-wall stupid. It's not a lie. It's a difference of opinion. That's the case for each of the points you mentioned. It is silly to think that any of these come even close to constituting perjury. You're just plain wrong about this, and I don't know how else to put it. You're wrong.

[Sir Jeffrey]

44. Watch VT's testimony again...

before you insult me and my knowledge of the law. I know the difference between a statement of opinion, which is what MOST of VT's testimony was, and a (mis)statement of fact, of which I counted four specific instances where VT made intentional mis-statements of fact.

Calling an expert witness in to give expert testimony does not usually result in perjury, which is what VT was supposed to do. However, if I call in an expert witness and the expert witness lies under oath about a material fact in the case, the expert witness just committed perjury. That is what VT did.

Elements of perjury:

1. You must be under oath
2. You must make a false statement while under oath. Falsity is determined by the context of the issue at hand, not the defendant's interpretation.
3. You specifically intended to make the statement with knowledge of its falsity.
4. You lied about something material (important to the case)

To address the specifics in your post:

Count 1: In addition to making her argument for a particular interpretation of the law, she specifically said that VPW was NOT covert. A mis-statement of FACT, not opinion, by VT in direct contradiction to both the findings of the special prosecutor and the head of the CIA, a BUSH APPOINTEE. This is why, as another poster in this thread mentioned, the committee members pressed her on this point by asking her whether she had any extra information or any direct conversations with the CIA or VPW about the matter. She had an opportunity to limit her statement to "my opinion is...". Once being informed of Hayden's statement, she could have avoided perjury by saying "I will have to review Mr. Hayden's statement" or something like that to step away from her statement. She did not do so. She stuck to her statement. That is perjury.

Count 2: If someone (Rove, Fleischer, Libby, etc.) testified in the Libby trial that they leaked the name, and they are/were in the White House, VT committed perjury by claiming that nobody in the White House leaked the name. Watch her testimony again and you'll see my distinction. Again, the committee pressed her on this point pretty hard and she stuck to her statement. She had the chance to limit her statement to "my opinion is...". She did not. She stuck to her statement. That is perjury.

Count 3: She lied, under oath, about statements she made/wrote to the Washington Post in a newspaper article. I was so dumbstruck by the first two violations that I couldn't even believe she was lying about her own words in a newspaper article. She *could* challenge this count by claiming that the Post erred in what was printed.

Count 4: see count 1.

Perjury is crossing the line from saying "It is my opinion that blah blah blah..." to saying "It is" or "It is not" and there is no credible/reasonable alternative view backed up by facts. Yes, most of her testimony was opinion, but these four instances of her statements to the committee were presented as undeniable facts.

[alcibiades_mystery]

50. You're wrong

1) She stated throughout that she was referring to her interpretation of the law. She wouldn't have to elaborate every time that she was explaining her understanding of the law, because that was the context of the testimony.

2) This turns on the definition of leak, so it remains opinion regardless of how anybody else defines leak. Nothing you said here changes that.

3) Her statements about the WP piece were opinion, pure and simple. Describe the perjury charge for count three. What did she say that was a false rendering of the facts. Name it.

4) See count 1.

She was in no position to state facts on any of these matters anyway, so no perjury would apply there either. You also completely misunderstand the function of the questioning. They pressed her on these points not because she was committing perjury, or because they had her on perjury, but because they wanted to make her look foolish in the way she was constructing her opinion. It seemed to be without merit as a construction.

But let's wager. If there is any suggestion by the committee that Ms. Toensig should be charged with perjury, say, between now and September 1, I'll donate $50 to DU. If not, you donate. Needless to say, we'll also have to change our sig lines for three months to indicate that the other person was correct, and we were wrong. Up for it? You're just so wrong here that I can't believe it. This is easy money from you for DU, as I see it.

[Sir Jeffrey]

52. Are you an attorney?

[alcibiades_mystery]

53. No

Now how about that wager?

[Sir Jeffrey]

54. Had any legal training at all?

[alcibiades_mystery]

55. A bit, in contract law

That's neither here nor there. Instead of prattling with this asinine faux-Socratic questioning (presumably to demonstrate that you do have training in the law, which seems like remarkably poor training given your claims), you could address the substance of my points. But apparently you want to make this an ad hominem operation. That's the first symptom that you're done with argument. The second is that you won't take the wager. Hurry up now.

I'll make it plain to you, to put an end to the Q&A charade: I am not a lawyer, and my full contact with the law is made up of several years working in corporate finance in one of the big Wall Street law firms. I know how to read and evaluate asset backed security contracts and registration statements, but I do not claim to be a lawyer, I do not claim to have any legal training germane to your claims, and I am very open about that. I do think I understand how perjury works, however, I I will state again that nothing she did constitutes perjury as I understand it. I will further put my money where my mouth is on that point, and I encourage you to do the same.

[Sir Jeffrey]

59. Geez...

Look, first off YOU started with the ad hominem attack in your first post in this sub-thread and have continued until now. I suspect your next post will insult me further because you seem to enjoy that. It makes you feel better than me, I suppose, which you seem to feed off of.

Second, I was genuinely interested in what you had to say until now. Contrary to whatever ulterior motive you ascribed to my questions, I was actually wanting to know if you had any legal training. I would like to get an opinion from someone more informed than me about legal matters.

Third, I have addressed the substance of your claims. Your response is to say "you're wrong, bet me". I suppose Juan Cole was wrong when he turned down Jonah Goldberg's bet too, right?

Fourth, do I really expect VT to be brought up on charges of perjury? No. I expect her to be called back to the committee in order to correct her "mis-statements". I fully expect her to retract her statements from today's testimony once she figures out how bad she f-ed up.

Now I will go back to whatever it is stupid people like me do in the evening.

[alcibiades_mystery]

60. I did not issue any ad hominem

To say that you're wrong is not an insult.

My response was not "you're wrong, bet me." I stated very explicitly why I continue to think that you're wrong, and I addressed each of your points substantively. The bet was an added bonus, to make the differing interpretations a bit more interesting.

VT is not f'ed at all. They kept the record open in order to get other people to rebut her reading of the law. I'll go a step further. Not only will she NOT be brought up on charges. Nobody will even suggest such a thing (because nothing she said comes within a thousand miles of perjury). If she is f'ed, it is because they succeeded in portraying her as a parsing, lunatic, political, partisan hack.

[Raksha]

81. Thanks for your clear explanation of what constitutes perjury.

I didn't get to see the hearing (hope to catch a replay later) and have to depend on these threads to understand what happened today.

[Sir Jeffrey]

83. You're welcome...

The elements for perjury I have listed are pulled directly from the doj.gov website. Even though the gentleman to whom I was responding disagreed that she met all the elements, he didn't disagree with the elements as I have them listed.

[alcibiades_mystery]

86. I do agree with the conditions

She fails to meet condition 2, and - quite frankly - I don't think she meets condition 4 either.

[POAS]

47. The perjury that I suspect

is her unequivocal statement of fact that Plame had not travelled outside the US for the CIA for more than 5 years.

If she has information about the travels of a CIA operative how did she get it. If she does not have that knowledge why did she assert it as fact!

[SusanaMontana41]

49. I think you're on to something here.

That information would be classified, yes? So how did she find out? Did she have security clearance?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

82. from my recollection,

She was using the "logic" that since Plame was headquartered in Langley at CIA headquarters, therefore she was not covert, and seemed to be using that info of "she hasn't been out of the country in five years" line to support that assertion as well.

VT seemed to think that you had to be out of the U.S.A. to be covert.


yes I am a lawyer - nonpracticing.

[Sir Jeffrey]

84. She also seemed not to understand...

the possibility that VPW's cover could have been a desk job at the CIA. I mean, if everyone thinks that nobody working covert works a desk job at Langley, to me that would be a "creative" cover story, right?

[Manifestor_of_Light]

94. Looking at Plame's testimony that she did go outside the country,

on covert assignments, Toesuck's statement that Plame was never out of the country in the last five years is also false.

[alcibiades_mystery]

87. Do you agree that she committed perjury?

I just don't see it.

The OP seems to believe that perjury can operate as follows:

REP: The head of the CIA says she was covert, and the special prosecutor says she was covert. So, was she covert?

WITNESS: No.

REP: Aha! Perjury!

That's simply not how perjury operates, as I understand it. What do you think?

[Sir Jeffrey]

88. I think you are oversimplifying my argument. nt

[alcibiades_mystery]

89. Please feel free to complicate it for me

:shrug:

[POAS]

98. I tend to agree with you

about the OP's version of "perjured" testimony by VT. There is at least one area that I think crosses the line, which I mentioned at the beginning of this "sub-thread" and won't bother to repeat here.

The only other way I see her perjuring herself by stating opinion and with the "qualifiers" she was careful to insert into her testimony is if this testimony conflicts with other testimony she has given elsewhere and she has been active in this case previously.

During the early days of the Fitzgerald investigation she wrote an amicus brief for Judith Miller and Matt Cooper. If what she testified today conflists with that or other testimony or statements given she could have perjured herself here today.

[BuyingThyme]

38. Didn't she say she had a hand in writing the law about covert agents?

And wasn't this law written in 1947 as shown here:

http://www.intelligence.gov/0-natsecact_1947.shtml

Was it amended in such a way that she may have participated?

[Susan43]

40. That is not the same law.

Toensing claims that she had a hand in writing the IIPA of 1982. I don't think she did. But anyway, this is a separate law from the 1947 law.

[BuyingThyme]

43. I see. Am I correct in assuming that the definition of "covert"

as used in the 1982 law is addressed only in the 1947 law?

And is that not what the snake lady was referring to?

[TahitiNut]

70. The 1982 legislation (IIPA) amended the code shown in the 1947 act.

Note the title:NATIONAL SECURITY ACT OF 1947
ACT OF JULY 26, 1947
(As Amended)
The "as amended" refects the changes of the IIPA.

[AuntPatsy]

41. If she was their secret weapon today than I am fairly sure

they are working overtime to develope another, beware those backed into a corner...

[glitch]

64. Ain't that they truth. Kind of scary isn't it? nt

[northernsoul]

57. Legal Question: does this constitute perjruy or Contempt of Congress?

I'm just a simple medical litigator, I'm not very up on my Federal criminal law.

[Sir Jeffrey]

67. I think contempt of Congress..

doesn't fit. She didn't really disrupt the proceedings and answered all the questions she was asked. Being passionate does not = a contempt charge. Maybe if she called Waxman an asshole or gave him the finger you'd see a contempt charge.

[spanone]

65. Contempt of Congress.....She should be jailed on bad attitude alone.

[Nikki Stone1]

66. According to a caller of Randi's, she lied about her age

He claimed she was 40 in 1981 when she wrote the executive order on covert operators.

[Sir Jeffrey]

68. Immaterial...

you can lie about your age if it has no bearing on the case.

[Nikki Stone1]

71. I know it's not a serious charge, dear. I just found it amusing.

:)

[Sir Jeffrey]

72. Sorry...

I thought you might have meant to suggest it as another perjury charge.

Her lie-per-minute ratio was off the chart.

[Nikki Stone1]

73. That's ok. I wasn't clear with smilies either

:)

[rocktivity]

74. She also lied about David Corn being the first to leak Plame's name

When Novak had done it two days earlier. If she didn't know that wasn't true, she should have. Anyhow, welcome to the ranks of the Dead Pundits Walking, Icky Vicky!

:headbang:
rocknation

[tinfoilinfor2005]

77. Calling Old Lefty Lawyer!!!!

Yoooo hooooo..........

Damn; old Lefty Lawyer has left the building.

Sure would like her opinion right about now....

[BillySHEARS]

78. a toon

~BillySHEARS

[Laurier]

90. I missed the testimony. Have you a link to a video or transcript?

Much obliged if you do, thanks.

[Sir Jeffrey]

91. Don't know of anything comprehensive yet...

http://www.crooksandliars.com/

They have some video highlights right now.

[Laurier]

93. Thank you.

I'll go check it out. Much appreciated!

Added: I can't view it with Firefox, apparently, but thank you just the same. It will probably become available in a format that does not require me to resort to IE, though, so I'll wait a bit :)