Question about Toensing's testimony yesterday....

[shraby]

No one has asked it yet. How does Victoria Toensing know what Valerie Plame did at the CIA for the past 5 years?
If Plame had covert status, who is telling Victoria the details of when Plame was in the U.S. at the desk, out of the U.S. doing the nation's work?
She insists Plame wasn't covert because of these facts...I ask again, HOW DOES VICTORIA KNOW????

[blogslut]

1. Maybe Waxman will require Vicky

To answer those questions, in the presence of legal counsel.

[JohnnyRingo]

2. It's my impression that she doesn't know

She's another Buxh footsoldier trying to build a firewall around the White House.
By her own testimony, she never asked the CIA or Plame what she did at The Company.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-young/fox-news-apologizes-for-y_b_43634.html

These people start with a predetermined goal then work backward to alter the facts to fit.

[EVDebs]

3. More important, who was the real target of the leak ?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x267177

[lazer47]

4. All of the Panel

get to invite who ever they want to invite the Repug's get to invite 3 or 4 and the Dems invite 3 or 4, she was invited by a repug to make the proceedings distract from the seriousness of the testimony,, she didn't make it and Waxman threatened her with perjury,, in his own way

[napi21]

5. She WAS asked a similar question! I'm not positive, but I think it was

Waxman. Hekept asking "Do you have independant knowledge?" Vicki finally said what she knew, she read in the newspaper, magazines, and the Libby trial transcript.

The only quasi confirmation she had for her statements was that the CIA guy who testified at the Libby trial(Granier?) never stated that he told Novak Plame was covert nor did he say anything about a danger to National Security if he printed her name.

As much as I detest Vicki, she had a valid point when she said the CIA had ample time to pick up the phone and call Novak, or any of the WH folks and say "KEEP QUIET!" and itcertainly seems like no one at the CIA ever did that.

[riderinthestorm]

7. Actually I believe someone did call Novak from the CIA to quash the article

I didn't get a chance to read/listen to all of the testimony yet but I'm sure I read it here on DU that Novak was called by the CIA to quash the article. I'll try to search for it.

[Tanuki]

19. The CIA did ask him to back off, but they could not explicitly identify

Plame to Novak as a covert operative (or confirm any information he might have already had) without violating the law. I'm sure it was clear to him why they were calling, though, so it is disengenous of him to claim he had no idea that she was undercover. It is totally bogus for the right wing to pretend that the CIA was remiss in not outing Plame to Novak.

[benddem]

20. they did

they asked him not to print it, but they couldn't reveal that she was covert....cause she was covert.
He called the CIA to ask if she worked for the CIA. He had no right to know. Unfortunately he is a dumbass. They should have sent the horses head to his house.

[pnwmom]

21. She did not have a valid point.

The CIA did contact Novak and urgently asked him not to print the article.

But they could NOT tell him exactly why -- since to tell him that she was covert would have meant that THEY were giving an unauthorized person classified information. If they told him she was covert, then THEY would have been breaking her cover.

Icky Vickie knows this well, but she is taking advantage of other people's lack of understanding.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

6. Yep, she lied.

She lied about Plame being covert (desk job at Langley, therefore not covert) and Plame not being out of the country for five years.

[bbgrunt]

8. what \i'd ;like to know is that the end of it?? There

are a lot more questions I'd like to see answered--like how wilson's report was disseminated and who in the vp's office got the information.

Was this the end of it?

If not, what is the next step?

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

9. I was upset that not one of the Reps asked her that. They asked her if she knew it from

two specific sources..one was from the CIA and I forget the other, and she said no. They should have asked her told her the details of Plame's employment.

[TahitiNut]

10. She doesn't. She knows, however, that the CIA can't divulge the specifics.

She's leveraging the fact that the CIA is more responsible than she is. She's exploiting the classified nature of Plame's activities to peddle an outright LIE - perjury. She's perverting her legal training and counting on not being impeached in a perjury trial - where the rules of evidence would require CIA affidavits. The fact of the matter is that she's making a claim that she also knows she does not have a factual basis to make. It's just another version of the BIG LIE tactic of fascists.

[knowbody0]

12. and to me it appears

she's the best they have. Laughable.

[TahitiNut]

16. David Brock's "Blinded By The Right" gives an excellent insight ...

... into the abject abandonment of anything resembling truth or integrity in the right-wing Campaign of Lies. There isn't the slightest indication that conscience plays a role - these people are almost(?) unimaginably devoid of any concern that their spewage has any veracity. It's a very disturbing read, imho. (I have a hard time tolerating people who lie.)

[knowbody0]

17. you and I both

liars and thieves, how DO they sleep?

[pnwmom]

22. That's exactly right. The CIA can't defend itself without disclosing

classified information, which they're not going to do.

[grasswire]

11. the very fact that Novak wouldn't quash the story...

....despite being asked to do so by the CIA reveals the political motive behind the story. Novak knew good and well WHY he was leaking Plame's identity. It was for political purposes. It was important to the WH. It was ordered by the dark forces he had done things for previously. If there were not a dark purpose, he would surely have cooperated with CIA and protected her.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Ms. Toensing admitted she doesn't know any more than what is public record

The best way to look at Ms. Toensing's testimony yesterday is to consider it the broad outline of a defense she would present if she represented one charged under the IIPA with leaking Ms. Plame's identity to the press.

It would be up to a judge to determine whether or not her argument holds any water.

Is Ms. Toensing being misleading? Perhaps so. There are other acts with which one could be charged in this case, such as the Espionage Act, if the prosecutor doesn't think he could get a conviction under the IIPA. It would be difficult to prove a case brought under the IIPA.

A right wing talking point that is completely false is that no damage was done by the outing of Ms. Plame. If the White House leakers did nothing illegal, we need to tighten the law.

Another completely false talking point is that there is no evidence that she was covert; her employment was classified and she had a cover, which she and her husband dutifully used when applying for credit or simply answering an offhand question about what she does for a living. That's plenty to suggest she was covert. The DCI entered a statement into the record stating she was covert. Now, whether she was covert under the IIPA is another question.

Ms. Toensing can make the argument she is making. However, for her to say that Ms. Plame was not covert as defined by the IIPA in way to suggest she was not covert in any way, shape or form is misleading.

[Patsy Stone]

14. She doesn't.

It's called lying.

[kestrel91316]

15. Direct this question to WAXMAN. NOW. He needs a well-written

letter about this, in case he has overlooked your very important question.

[niyad]

18. I believe that valerie answered that question--something along the lines of "my records were and are

classified, so how does SHE know?"