Tensing testifies that Plame 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.

 

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 ?

 

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..."

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.

 

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

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

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.

 

A very good place to stand

 

"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 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:

 

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?

 

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.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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 .

 

"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