PlameGate Hearing Today

By Jeralyn, Section Valerie Plame Leak Case
Posted on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:43:00 AM EST
Tags: Valerie Plame Wilson (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

If you are by a computer this morning, don't miss the Valerie Plame hearing which will be webcast on C-Span as well as the Oversight Committee's website.

Chairman Henry A. Waxman announced a hearing on whether White House officials followed appropriate procedures for safeguarding the identity of CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson. At the hearing, the Committee will receive testimony from Ms. Wilson and other experts regarding the disclosure and internal White House security procedures for protecting her identity from disclosure and responding to the leak after it occurred. The hearing is scheduled for Friday, March 16.

The witnesses are:

* Ms. Valerie Plame Wilson, former employee, Central Intelligence Agency * Dr. James Knodell, Director, Office of Security, The White House
* Mr. Bill Leonard, Director, Information Security Oversight Office, National Archives and Records Administration
* Mr. Mark Zaid, Attorney
* Ms. Victoria Toensing, diGenova & Toensing, LLP

I'm looking forward to hearing Valerie Plame Wilson tell her side of the story.

Former CIA Analyst Larry Johnson posts how he thinks Valerie Plame Wilson should answer the questions.

[hat tip to Susan Hu of Daily Kos.}

< Senate Rejects Iraq War Pull-Out Measure | Bill Richardson To Sign Medical Marijuana Bill >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

PlameGate Hearing Today | 35 comments (35 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

thanks, jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by orionATL on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:10:10 AM EST

i would have missed the heariing had you not brought it up.

i suspect that plame's unmasking is a stroy that is not over yet.

Well, what I wanna know is... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by dutchfox on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:30:05 AM EST

Who's behind the Niger documents?

gee jim (4.50 / 2) (#3)
by cpinva on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:48:12 AM EST

since when did fmr ambassador wilson ever claim to be a "secret agent"? once again, when you have no facts, make with irrelevant pejoratives.

so, is ms. toensing going to tell everyone, including the cia and ms. plame, that ms. plame wasn't really covert? for that alone, it would be worth watching!

: I'm hoping (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by wethepeople on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:13:22 AM EST

there's a camera on Toensing's face while Plame is testifying.

Plame said (4.00 / 0) (#21)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:25:39 PM EST

she was covert. She said she never recommended her husband. Is she lying under oath? I would like to hear the RWNJ's call one of our CIA operatives a liar. That would be an ironic twist!

Fux news... (3.00 / 2) (#8)
by desertswine on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:25:35 AM EST

During its coverage of the hearing, Fox News Channel cut down the sound to feature commentary by Novak who labeled Plame's contention that she was a "covert operator" as "absurd." Novak also brought up Plame's political contributions to the Democratic Party, to imply that she was partisan.

Nothing but (1.00 / 0) (#1)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 07:10:56 AM EST

Uh... I hope Johnson is saying, tell the truth...

;-)

And I see Waxman isn't going to have the Secret Agent de luxe, Joe Wilson...

Wonder why???

Let the trashing end (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 08:38:17 AM EST

jimakaPPJ - you folks have been trashing Plame for years now. Finally she has a chance to speak and tell her side of the story.

Firedoglake had a great article on what Waxman should pursue.

Lets face it - the Congress has been rubber stamping the Bush administration for too long. Thanks to the 2006 elections we finally have some accountability in place.


The next talking point... (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by sphealey on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:40:56 AM EST

I can already hear the next talking point: "The CIA's statement and Plame's testimony cannot be trusted, so there is still no evidence that she was covert."

sPh


: Well... (5.00 / 0) (#25)
by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 01:05:09 PM EST

...when all else fails, they'll just stick their heads in the sand. Heh.

You got your wish (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by Repack Rider on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:28:54 AM EST

Jim,

Valerie is testifying under oath. Are you happy now?

I sure am. Can't wait until Victoria Toensing gets up there.


Re: Nothing but.... (none / 0) (#13)
by Skyho on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:37:33 AM EST

Are you unaware, oh sheesh, that is a given....

Is it possible you could actually try to be reasonably knowledgeable about a subject before posting? I realize it may be tough when you live like a mushroom, but, please, try peeking out of your fertilized frenzy and look around, first.


: hehehe, fertilized frenzy (none / 0) (#17)
by Electa on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:05:25 PM EST

I luv it.

: SkyHo (none / 0) (#28)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:47:43 PM EST

Well, tell us oh great one, why wouldn't we have Wilson testify? At the least he could confirm her story of how he got to go??
Your problem is that you understand that this whole thing is a house of cards, and that Mr. and Mrs. Wilson can answer a lot of questions.
BTW - Nice try at trying to change the subject by attacking the other person.
Didn't work.
BTW - Speaking of knowing of what you speak, aren't you the guy who claimed that bombing attacks should be made in the Full Moon?? (I'm still laughing.)

Best qualified (1.00 / 2) (#7)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:46:47 AM EST

Joe has been called the "best qualified" to investigate the Niger issue. Perhaps Val can tell us how a man with zero investigative training or experience can be considered even minimally qualified to investigate a covert attempt by Iraq to secure yellowcake.

And Bush is qualified to be president (5.00 / 3) (#11)
by Dadler on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:16:52 AM EST

Let the hot air out of yourself already, you bag of wind. Lemme see, Wilson was an Africa expert, had relationships with government officials, oh no he had NO experience that would make him qualified for a fact finding trip to Africa. It doesn't matter who would've went, you kids simply can't stand like adults and take responsibility for the hundreds of thousand or innocent murders committed on the stack of lies of which the Niger story is merely one.

Go trash your grandmother, go trash a nun. You guys are so full of sh*t it's a wonder you can suck in a single breath.

The world's flat to you folks. Reality has long ago passed you by.

Sad and pathetic and, in free America, without any excuse.


No experience (1.00 / 1) (#16)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:01:16 PM EST

I said he had no investigative experience and no investigative training. He was sent to investigate a relationship that both Niger and Iraq would have reason to keep secret. If you think being an "Africa expert" is good qualification for that kind of an investigation, you are welcome to your opinion.

Doris Kearns Goodwin can fairly be described as an "America expert" but she would not likely be considered to be the best qualified to investigate potential uranium smuggling in the US.

That Joe was willing to tell a lie that you wanted to hear about his findings may be his "qualification."


Re: No experience.... (5.00 / 1) (#23)
by Skyho on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:49:00 PM EST

That Joe was willing to tell a lie that you wanted to hear about his findings may be his "qualification."

Amir,

Do you think the CIA listened only to Mr. Wilson? The report, compiled from information gathered from many inputs, was ignored by the real president, Cheneys office. That was the issue.

Your ignorance, if only yours, is laughable. The fact is, there is a sizable, but, happily, dwindling group who spew such nonsense.

Thimk!


: Here are the facts, Skyho. (none / 0) (#32)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:05:50 PM EST

The fact is, Wilson told the CIA that Iraq had attempted to purchase....

The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue,..... The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting
I think it plain that if Wilson had included the above in his NYT article none of what followed would have occured....
Now. Tell me why Wilson left that out???
You being so smart, etc, etc.....

"Experience" as you define it (none / 0) (#26)
by KM on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:20:40 PM EST

Perhaps you can tell me how much "investigative experience and investigative training" General Fulford and Ambassador Owens-Fitzpatrick had.


Not to Mention (none / 0) (#27)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 03:33:48 PM EST

How qualified he is to judge Amb. Wilson in the first place.


squeaky (none / 0) (#33)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:07:41 PM EST

Forget about Wilson's lack of experience...

The question really is, why didn't the CIA use a real sure enought agent???


: Yawn (none / 0) (#34)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:12:49 PM EST

Dadler (none / 0) (#29)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:52:31 PM EST

Bush was elected.

Wilson was selected.

Big difference.

BTW - You are manufacturimg things. I have posted and you have read where Wilson told the CIA two things.

Iraq had not purchased yellowcake.
Iraq had attempted to purchase yellowcake.

Bush claimed the latter, not the former.

Now, what is your excuse for making things up, making incorrect statements and making multiple ad hominem attacks.

You shame yourself.


government hearings (1.00 / 2) (#12)
by diogenes on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:24:39 AM EST

If Plame really were a secret agent, and if Novak's column really did "out" her, then why hasn't the person (Armitage) who leaked to Novak been charged with any crime?

Sigh - how many times (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:41:32 AM EST

does this dumb question have to be answered and debuked before it sinks in?

Libby's guilty verdict: Media myths and falsehoods to watch for
The big one will be the oft-repeated claim that "No underlying crime was committed":

Since a federal grand jury indicted Libby in October 2005, numerous media figures have stated that the nature of the charges against him prove that special counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald's investigation of the CIA leak case found that no underlying crime had been committed. But this assertion ignores Fitzgerald's explanation that Libby's obstructions prevented him -- and the grand jury -- from determining whether the alleged leak violated federal law.

In what way? (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:05:53 PM EST

In what way was he prevented?


: How about you (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:15:51 PM EST

explain how he was prevented. Use google if you need help.
After all, it's been said before that the best way to learn is to teach.

Bad link above (none / 0) (#15)
by Edger on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 11:43:47 AM EST

Spinning The Libby Conviction


Libby's "obstruction" (1.00 / 1) (#22)
by diogenes on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:47:26 PM EST

Fitz knew all along that Armitage had leaked Plame's "cover", so what in the world would Libby's testimony have to do with it?
Please explain in one or two simple sentences why Armitage wasn't indicted, since I am rather dim today.

Try Google (5.00 / 1) (#24)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:58:51 PM EST

Since you are rather dim today, you most likely will not understand what has been answered to you and others scores of times, when you had been less "dim", I would suggest that you try google, TL archives may give you your answers


diogenes (none / 0) (#30)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:54:54 PM EST

Shorter:

Neither squeaky or edger can answer because they know the answer dstroys their world view.


: Try Google (none / 0) (#36)
by squeaky on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 10:47:48 PM EST

Don't waste time (none / 0) (#20)
by Che's Lounge on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 12:19:20 PM EST

trying to argue with the RW apologists. They will never admit the truth. We all know Sandy Berger screwed the pooch and paid the price. That is what makes these maroons such hypocrites.

: Che (none / 0) (#31)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Mar 16, 2007 at 09:57:40 PM EST

What??
He stole classified documents, destroyed same. Was caught with them in his pants....
For that he was fined $10,000, lost his Secret Cleance for a few years and was given some community service...
Wow.... What torture. This man probably has scars on his back....