Plame On!

Let's get into the Plame hearing conducted by Rep. Waxman today.

Matt Apuzzo of the AP deserves the props we gave him - this story seems to hit the key controversies and presents both sides.  Here we go:

(1) Was Valerie involved in sending Joe?

"I did not recommend him. I did not suggest him. There was no nepotism involved. I did not have the authority," she said.

That conflicts with senior officials at the CIA and State Department, who testified during Libby's trial that Plame recommended Wilson for the trip.

Yes, it does conflict - here is Grenier of the CIA, as liveblogged by Joyner and Wheeler.

Or here is Special Counsel Fitzgerald's indictment, point 7.  And let's note that I am setting to one side the State Department people who also thought Ms. Wilson was behind the trip because they may have been misinformed.

Finally, John Podhoretz provides a funny bit of testimony telling us that, although she did not recommend her hubby for the 2002 Niger trip, Ms. Wilson went to her boss accompanied by the man who did, talked to her hubby about the assignment, and wrote the recommending email.  She also (per the SSCI) had recommended her hubby for his 1999 trip to Niger.  So please pardon our confusion about her obvious non-involvement here.  (And how will this be treated in the movie?  Will Val be dragged into her boss's office at gunpoint?  Or depending on how they want to position the film, the producer could have the CIA waterboard her into giving up her husband's name - good looking woman, bondage, water everywhere... just thinking out loud and trying to help.  TGIF.) [And here is Byron York double-checking with Sen. Bond that the Senate Intel Committee stands by its story.]

(2) Was Ms. Plame covert?

From Matt Apuzzo:

Plame also repeatedly described herself as a covert operative, a term that has multiple meanings. Plame said she worked undercover and traveled abroad on secret missions for the CIA.

But the word "covert" also has a legal definition requiring recent foreign service and active efforts to keep someone's identity secret. Critics of Fitzgerald's investigation said Plame did not meet that definition for several reasons and said that's why nobody was charged with the leak.

Also, none of the witnesses who testified at Libby's trial said it was clear that Plame's job was classified. However, Fitzgerald said flatly at the courthouse after the verdict that Plame's job was classified.

...

Plame said she wasn't a lawyer and didn't know what her legal status was but said it shouldn't have mattered to the officials who learned her identity.

"They all knew that I worked with the CIA," Plame said. "They might not have known what my status was but that alone - the fact that I worked for the CIA - should have put up a red flag."

She didn't know her legal status?  She's so covert that not even she knows if she is legally covert!  And we are more than three years into this.  Oh, my - well, I don't know her status either.  Maybe they call her the wind.  (But they call the wind Mariah...)

The WaPo was OK on this issue this morning as well:

In the CIA's eyes, the revelation of Plame's name in any context, whether she was stationed here or abroad, gave away a national security secret that could have dangerous repercussions. When Novak's column unmasking her as a CIA operative was published on July 14, 2003, the CIA general counsel's office automatically sent a routine report to the Justice Department that there had been an unauthorized disclosure of classified information.

As part of normal procedures, the agency made a preliminary damage assessment and then sent a required follow-up report to Justice. Then-Attorney General John Ashcroft decided to open a criminal investigation but three months later recused himself because the probe led into the White House. Patrick J. Fitgerald, the U.S. attorney for northern Illinois, became special counsel and began to investigate "the alleged unauthorized disclosure of a CIA employee's identity."

In February 2004, after reviewing what the FBI had, Fitzgerald widened his investigation to include "any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure," plus any efforts to obstruct the probe.

* * *

Some news stories created initial confusion over Plame's status by suggesting that disclosure of her name and employment may have violated the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. That law, passed in response to disclosure of the names of CIA officers serving overseas by former CIA employee Philip Agee, made it a crime to disclose the names of "covert agents," which the act narrowly defined as those serving overseas or who had served as such in the previous five years.

"Covert agent" is not a label actually used within the agency for its employees, according to former senior CIA officials. Plame, who joined the agency right out of Pennsylvania State University, underwent rigorous spycraft training to become an officer in the Directorate of Operations. (The term "agent" in the CIA is only applied to foreign nationals recruited to spy in support of U.S. interests.)

It is funny watching CREW try to lower the bar:

Plame's testimony today "will be very forceful and clear, and there won't be any question what classified means," said Anne Weismann, chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington...

No, there probably won't be any questions about "classified", since the key question is whether she was "covert" under the statute.

Let give some props to Rep. Tom Davis:

Rep. Tom Davis, the ranking Republican on the committee, said, "No process can be adopted to protect classified information that no one knows is classified. This looks to me more like a CIA problem than a White House problem."

Well, if this was a good day for the Wilso-philes, what would a bad day look like?  I guess we need to see how the WaPo, Times, and LA Times spin it.  But keep hope alive!  The press did join in the suit arguing that there was no underlying crime, so there is at least a chance that some of the editors and reporters have apprised themselves of the issues.  But forget about the columnists.

We Grade The Times:

(1) Was Valerie involved in sending Joe?  Their coverage:

Ms. Wilson told the committee that, despite what has been written and said repeatedly, she did not recommend her husband for the trip to Africa. In fact, she said, she had unhappy visions “of myself at bedtime with a couple of two-year-olds” to handle alone if her husband went overseas. (The Wilsons have young twins.)

“I did not recommend him, I did not suggest him, there was no nepotism involved,” she said. “I did not have the authority.”

Ms. Wilson said she did sound out her husband about the trip after she was asked to do so, but that her husband was picked for the trip because of his background in Africa.

Nothing mentioning the trial testimony or the indictment. 

Grade: F

(2) Was Ms. Plame covert?  The closeet they come to acknowledging a controversy is this:

Soon afterward, Ms. Wilson was unmasked by Mr. Novak. That incident led to an investigation to find who had leaked her name, possibly in violation of the law.

Grade: Are you kidding?  F.

And under "Random Noise" we will note this:

Administration critics have long asserted that Ms. Wilson’s name was leaked to intimidate others who differed with the White House.

Administration critics have long asserted many things.  But did the Libby trial provide evidence that intimidating critics (or punishing Wilson) was the motive?

Just for instance, Richard Armitage of State leaked the Plame info to both Bob Woodward and Bob Novak.  Would a reasonable reader conclude from the transcript that he was hoping to intimidate critics?

Did Karl Rove hope to intimidate critics by saying "I heard that, too" to Bob Novak (who was confirming the story he got from Armitage)?

Here is what Walter Pincus speculated about the motive of Ari Fleischer, who Pincus has said was his source:

I wrote my October story because I did not think the person who spoke to me was committing a criminal act, but only practicing damage control by trying to get me to stop writing about Wilson.

Well.  If the new Times policy is to free-associate and print random speculation, they might try telling their readers that:

(a) Joe Wilson's critics think that his wife was involved, in some fashion, in sending him to Niger.  As Libby said in his grand jury testimony, the implication is that Wilson is not an impartial judge of the White House - CIA intel dispute, a point on which the press should have picked up.

(b)  Valerie Wilson did not have "covert" status as defined by the Intelligence Identities Protection Act.  A reasonable special counsel would have at least disclosed that to the court and clarified that he was simply looking for perjury charges before having a reporter locked up for 85 days.

Hey, it has been asserted - we meet the Times standard.

STILL MORE:  Ms. Plame's statement and a transcript of her testimony.

Comments

[arcanorum]

FRITZ!

[Jeff]

Turns out OVP contacted CPD on February 12, 2002 with an inquiry about the Niger story. One of Plame's subordinates reported it to her, and one of her superiors, hearing what was going on, suggested her husband for a mission to Niger.

Point is, CPD learned about OVP's interest in the previous intel report on Niger-Iraq on February 12, not - as evidence at the trial appeared to show - on February 13. There was a formal tasking to CIA that day. But OVP expressed its interest in the Niger story to CPD the day before, and that triggered CPD to come up with the idea of sending Joe Wilson.

That's the way it looks to me anyway at the moment.

[clarice feldman]

So, Jeff, the only way the OVP could have avoided being tagged w/ "behesting" Munchausen was to never look at or question the crap the CYA was sending up there?

The only evidence we have is that one day later (Frb 13)he got the doc he was asking about, looked at it and asked if the Agency had anything more.
Unless you believe in time traveling premature esp.

[Jim E.]

John Pod also wrote: "Valerie Plame Wilson is a very effective witness."

[Appalled Moderate]

From now dead thread:

Jeff:

I accept the timeline, but not Val's "somebody made me write the memo" explanation. Be nice if she had said "who". Then we could subpeona the guy to find out. Because, on the believability scale, this sounds a lot like Libby's Russert tale.

If someone made her write the memo, she would likely have phrased it very differently. Like, " I have been asked about my husband's qualifications..."etc. Then she could have been as glowing as she wanted, and insulated herself against a nepotism charge. (Which, given the way the memo was phrased, was an internal charge she exposed herself to.)

[Jeff]

I'm not talking about behesting, clarice. Cecil and I and many others have had a long-running debate about the order of events in February 2002. At trial, it looked like evidence was introduced that meant that CPD came up with the idea of sending Wilson before hearing of OVP's interest in the Niger story. The testimony that Plame gave under oath today makes it look like that's not the case, that in fact CPD heard about OVP's inquiry about the Niger story and that prompted them to come up with the idea of sending WIlson on a mission to look into it.

I think you may just not be up on what was testified to today.

[Lew Clark]

From unreliable sources close to the "case", (actually it's only half a case now, H&R drank two six packs before breakfast), Plame is right. The CIA is having a horrible time recruiting for similar positions to Plame's, due to fear of disclosure. The parking lot is filthy, food remains unserved in the cafeteria, and I won't even go into how the bathrooms smell!

[clarice feldman]

Jeff, if JPod's synopsis doesn't make clear how preposterous her latest version is, nothing I am afraid will get thru to you on that point.(Was Ray McGovern walking the halls that day?)

[Jim E.]

clarice,
Instead of reading J Pod, why not see what she said herself?

[bgates]

AM - Be nice if she had said "who". Then we could subpoena the guy to find out.
But that guy works at the CIA, and should therefore (per Ms Plame's testimony) be presumed to be a covert operative. Anyone seeking to learn his name should be targeted by a Special Prosecutor, likewise anyone mentioning the names 'Grenier' or 'Tenet' or anyone else connected with the CIA, all of whom should be presumed to be working deep undercover.

[ordi]

No No No Clarice you don't understand! Everything our pal Val says is the gospel according to Joe!

Sarc off

[Jeff]

Grenier of the CIA

Tom, apart from the fact that you seem to be stepping on your own prior talking point with regard to Grenier's testimony, Plame's testimony today was not that she was not involved in Wilson's mission at all - indeed, she testified that she went to Wilson to ask him to come in to the CIA, and she introduced him at the February 19, 2002 meeting before leaving - but that she neither recommended her husband nor suggested him for the mission. Someone else came up with the idea of Wilson for a mission - suggesting him, in other words - and then her superior asked her to write up a memo or email memorializing the matter. Does reciting his qualifications in response to a request from others mean she recommended him for the mission?

And of course Grenier didn't say that Wilson's wife recommended him for his mission, contra Apuzzo - nor does 7. of the indictment say Grenier said that.

[Ranger]

John Pod also wrote: "Valerie Plame Wilson is a very effective witness."

Posted by: Jim E. | March 16, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Yes, well the WaPo's take from former CIA types was she was an minimally competant operative that "presented herself well." Sounds like the description still fits.

[Rick Ballard]

Toensing is doing quite well.

[Jeff]

clarice

First, did you actually see the testimony instead of relying on the snarky report of JPod? Furthermore, nothing in what JPod says calls into question the point I made. JPod was belittling, not calling into question the veracity of, the account Plame gave in her testimony.

The point, again, is that Plame testified under oath that CPD heard initially from OVP that it had inquiries about the Niger story on February 12, not February 13.

[Ross]

What a bimbo! I'm pretty sure she used to work the drive-up window at my local Dairy Queen.

[Southside]

Go Toensing Go

[windansea]

An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president's office about yellowcake from Niger

Supervisor: Well, when you go home this evening, would you ask your husband to come in.

Then her supervisor asked her to write an e-mail about the idea. She did so. That e-mail, she said, was the basis for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence claim that she had been responsible for sending her husband to Niger for the CIA.

this looks like perjury to me, since her email was sent the day before Cheney asked CIA to check out the NIger info

[sbw]

Your assignment tonight, Jim, should you ridiculously care to accept it, is to see how much Plame appears in the major press compared to how little Toensing. ... This tape will self-destruct in 10 seconds.

[Jeff]

Toensing also just stated something that is inaccurate. She claimed that the IIPA requires the CIA to report annually to congress on the measures it is taking to protect covert agent's identities. In fact, it is the President, after receiving information from the DCI, who is obligated to provide an annual report to the congressional intelligence committees. Thus, the responsibility falls to the President; and the failure to do so is the President's failure.

[Ranger]

Jeff,

Many, many laws require the president to report to congress on agency activities. In fact, this ammounts to the preseident signining a cover leter to the agencies report. For all pratical purposes, it is the agency that reports, thought the president, to congress. Talk about picking nits.

[hit and run]

Lew Clark:
From unreliable sources close to the "case", (actually it's only half a case now, H&R drank two six packs before breakfast),

I made a representation in the previous thread that I was leaving....maybe to come back after a couple of beers.

Although I have to break my word to do this - as I have not yet had any beers - I fear I must as a fair warning to everyone.

Mrs hit and run just called and asked me to pick up a two bottles of tequila on my way home.

I am apologizing in advance if I should show up here later. hit and run and tequila can either be a really beautiful thing - or it can get really ugly. And as a man of great immoderation, I fear for the worst.

I may send an email to Tom asking him to go ahead and ban my IP now. I would not blame anyone else for doing the same.

May God have mercy on our souls.

[sylvia]

"Maybe they call her the wind. (But they call the wind Maria...)"

That was genius. That's Friday humor.

[theo]

Here is from an NYT story up now about the Plame testimony:

"Her husband, a former diplomat with considerable experience in Africa, traveled to the continent in 2002 to investigate rumors that Saddam Hussein was trying to acquire uranium from Niger to build Iraq’s nuclear arsenal. In July 2003, an Op Ed essay by Mr. Wilson in The New York Times expressed deep skepticism about Iraq’s arsenal, and by implication skepticism about President Bush’s justification for the war that toppled the Iraqi dictator.
Soon afterward, Ms. Wilson was unmasked by Mr. Novak. That incident led to an investigation to find who had leaked her name, possibly in violation of the law. While no one was prosecuted for the leak itself, Mr. Libby was found guilty of lying to grand jurors and F.B.I. agents during the investigation. Administration critics have long asserted that Ms. Wilson’s name was leaked to intimidate others who differed with the White House."

Hmmm---- Ms. Wilson was "unmasked by Novak." Well that is not really true. Novak is a reporter and only knows what people tell him. This explains why there was "an investigation to find out how leaked her name." But someone reading this article would have to assume that the investigation did not reveal who in fact did the leaking. Or perhaps that this information was "not fit to print."

And notice the new allegation that Plame was outed to intimidate OTHERS who might differ with the White House. The old story was that it was to get revenge on Saint Joe.
So I guess that this outing would intimidate anyone who had gone on a mission for the CIA whose spouse worked there. Just how big a universe is that?? And it does not appear that there has been noticeable silence since July 2003 of those "who differed with the White House."

The New York Times -- "All The News That Fits Our Predetermined Narrative And None That Does Not."

[Gabriel]

So if Mrs. Plame perjures herself under oath today, will we get another Independent Counsel?

[ajacksonian]

VPWs status: known CIA Employee married to high flying Ambassador and full exposure to any and all gossip columnists that are at any of the typical events such a couple would go to.

That was known in 1998 when she married the Ambassador. One cannot be covert and do that, nor within the 5 year waiting period after one is taken out of that status. Therefore, VPW was either no longer a covert agent or she should be up on a whole slew of charges for all of the security regulations she violated.

Say, did Amb. Wilson get his NYT Editorial cleaned up by the CIA first, as is required with any disclosure of bought and paid for government information that is classified? Because, even if not in the contract for such work, it *is* part of the contract. And even if he voluntarily went over on his own funds, such a report, once it is classified, is then under all the laws of same for disclosure.

I look forward to that trial...

[clarice feldman]

Did they mention her meeting w/ Kristof?

[TMF]

SHe's more of a shrewd misleader than a flat out liar from what I can tell...

In other words your typical Democrat

[TMF]

I wonder when she first had political aspirations

This niger thing was like hitting the jackpot for this nitwit

[arcanorum]

So if Mrs. Plame perjures herself under oath today, will we get another Independent Counsel?

Fitz's investigation while dormant could be reactivated should his services be required. But I'm not sure if Plame's false testimony might not be the good kind, the kind that brings down the bad guys, better ask Fitz.

[clarice feldman]

(OT) FNC reporting thugs tried to kidnap a UN official in Gaza and the UN is threatening to remove all its people from there.Oh dear, there goes the Gazans major funding source.

[sbw]

The chairman is badgering the witness.

[sylvia]

Yes Judy Miller and Libby should join forces and sue for false arrest. That is something that is not done enough in this country I think. The IIPA statue was clearly listed as the reason for investigation on Libby's indictment when clearly no infraction of that was committed.

I would think there is some rule against doing that. You can't have some prosector say "yeah I'm starting a murder investigation for Sinbad because he was reported dead in Wiki", and then put a bunch of people under oath and ask them personal questions, knowing all the while that Sinbad is hale and healthy. (did you all catch that story today?) There has to be probable cause. So Libby and Miller should demand - Is she or isn't she? And if she isn't, do the American thing and sue, sue, sue.

[Tom Maguire]

Turns out OVP contacted CPD on February 12, 2002 with an inquiry about the Niger story.

I don't know why that could not have happened - all we know is the DIA report came out on Feb 12 and questions about the CIA view came back to them from (at least) State and Defense that day.

Why couldn't Libby (say) have seen the DIA report, made a note for the boss to ask about it, and then called the CIA himself?

That said, Ms. Wilson is hardly disinterested or objective here (what with the civil suit and all), and it would have been nice if the CIA had hit upon that story, rather than Cheney's briefer, a few years ago.

Oh, well - if the CIA can't produce "some guy" to vouch for Ms. Plame's latest story, their operational skills belong in the wastebasket.

[obsessed]

from Think Progress:

Gen. Michael Hayden recently told Reps. Henry Waxman (D-CA) and Silvestre Reyes (D-TX) that there was no doubt Victoria Plame Wilson was covert. Cummings — relaying what Waxman had told him — said that Gen. Hayden expressed clearly and directly, “Ms. Wilson was covert.”

Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”

[arcanorum]

I wonder when she first had political aspirations

she was probably just along for the ride, then she saw the dollar signs, and decided to cash in her chips.

our next US congresswoman from New Mexico.

[theo]

There is something that has always been troubling to me. IIRC in the famous July 6 Op Ed piece, Wilson insists right up front that he did not see any classified CIA documents in connection with his trip. But he sure seemed familiar with what teh CIA knew. Isn't it entirely possible that he did have access to classified documents that he should not have had and did this pre emptive denial to protect the person -- say a family member -- who gave him such illegal access?

[arcanorum]

Cummings asked, “During the past five years, Ms. Plame, from today, did you conduct secret missions overseas?” She answered, “Yes I did, congressman.”

stationed overseas? no.

did any of these 'covert' missions meet the threshold of IIPA definition of covert? no.

[arcanorum]

Isn't it entirely possible that he did have access to classified documents that he should not have had and did this pre emptive denial to protect the person -- say a family member -- who gave him such illegal access?

not only possible, but in fact rather likely.

[SunnyDay]

Toensig is not intimidated, heh.

[sbw]

Whatever happened to the gong used for the gong show? Whenever representatives start pontificataing, I'd like the opportunity to give it a whack.

Understanding is lost under all the words.

[arcanorum]

"Oh, well - if the CIA can't produce "some guy" to vouch for Ms. Plame's latest story, their operational skills belong in the wastebasket."

The New York PD can dredge up some 'witness' months after a police department civilian killing, but the CIA cant find a guy who recommended big hair Wilson go to Africa? No wonder we dont trust CIA competency.

[bgates]

Jeff - And of course Grenier didn't say that Wilson's wife recommended him for his mission, contra Apuzzo - nor does 7. of the indictment say Grenier said that.

from the liveblogS
He got a response “probably within a couple of hours.” It was from someone he did not know but was “fully knowledgeable about what had happened.” He got confirmation that CIA had sent Wilson to investigate Niger uranium and went into some detail about the mission. Conveyed that State, Office of VP, and Defense had all “expressed interest” in the issue.

That person “mentioned” that Wilson’s wife worked in the division and was the impetus behind the trip.
....
Did you [Grenier] tell him [Libby] about the wife connection? “I believe I did.” He [Grenier] thinks he told him [Libby] “something to the effect” that the wife was “why Wilson was sent” but mentioned it “only in passing.”

From the indictment:
7. On or about June 11, 2003, LIBBY spoke with a senior officer of the CIA to ask about the origin and circumstances of Wilson's trip, and was advised by the CIA officer that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and was believed to be responsible for sending Wilson on the trip.

So Jeff, is your argument that 'responsible for' and 'impetus' are not 'recommended'?

[windansea]

Jeff and friends are probably too busy playing gotcha politics to notice, but if Val is typical of CIA agents tasked to protect us from WMDs we should all be very very afraid

(from other thread)

An officer serving under her was upset to have received an inquiry from the vice president's office about yellowcake from Niger

yes, very upsetting, being asked to actually check something out about WMDs

and evidently, while she was comforting that junior officer,

our CIA agents need comforting when given tasks

some guy walked by her office and suggested her husband should go to Niger to check it out.

probably the janitor

She said she was ambivalent about the idea because she didn't want to have to put her 2 year-old twins to bed by herself at night.

yes, my personal comfort is more important than national security

Still, she and the guy who had just happened to walk by then went to her supervisor.

true heroes!!

[Sue]

Point is, CPD learned about OVP's interest in the previous intel report on Niger-Iraq on February 12, not - as evidence at the trial appeared to show - on February 13. There was a formal tasking to CIA that day. But OVP expressed its interest in the Niger story to CPD the day before, and that triggered CPD to come up with the idea of sending Joe Wilson.

An aide, maybe? What a kerfunkle. To believe one part of the story you have to ignore the other part. Libby didn't lie to Pincus when he said an aide raised the issue with the CIA.

[sylvia]

"In February 2004, after reviewing what the FBI had, Fitzgerald widened his investigation to include "any federal criminal laws related to the underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure."

So Fitz didn't have the covert option, so he "widened" it to include any related to the "underlying alleged unauthorized disclosure". The problem is, THERE IS NO LAW related to the unauthorized disclosure. So obstruction of any justice to any criminal law is not possible. Heck, even Plame doesn't know about any broken laws. How is anyone else supposed to know.

[not the senator]

Very cute of you to use the AP story on the covert issue. Let's go to the videotape why don't we?:

Waxman's opening statement:

"I have been advised by the CIA, that even now after all that has happened, I cannot disclose the full nature, scope and character of Ms. Wilson’s service to our nation without causing serious damage to our national security interests. But General Hayden and the CIA have cleared these following comments for these hearings. During her employment at the CIA, Ms. Wilson was undercover. Her employment status at the CIA was classified information, prohibited from disclosure under Executive Order 12958. At the time of the publication of Robert Novak’s column on July 14, 2003, Ms. Wilson’s CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information."

So unless you are saying that the CIA Director, General Hayden is lying in his statement to Congress, there's no getting around it. The discussion is over. She was covert at the time and hence, there was an underlying crime.

It might not have been prosecutable because of the intent and knowledge provisions of the law but that couldn't be determined until it was investigated. Libby obstructed a legitimate investigation.

[sylvia]

"Oh, well - if the CIA can't produce "some guy" to vouch for Ms. Plame's latest story, their operational skills belong in the wastebasket."

Maybe they can send Joe Wilson on a mission to find him.

[ben]

Joe Wilson is a proven liar, even the MSM will admit as much...the Wilson-Plames are partisan Democrats with an agenda...what possible reason would we have to believe anything Valerie Plame says? Regardless of what she says, I would like one good reason to believe any of it...nothing she said today makes her a"covert" agent, and there is enormous amounts of testimony that she was involved in picking and sending her husband to Niger...so what is the discussion really about? The same old story, the conspiracy to "out" someone that wasn't covert, and which even a 2 year investigation couldn't find any evidence of...so Fitzmas having been a bust, the Democrats are going to try the case in the media, where facts and evidence are not a factor...

[Jeff]

Toensing offered a falsehood when she said she has stuck to the language of the statute. She glosses service as foreign assignment, and covers up the fact that it is a gloss, not a statement of the law.

But she just admitted that she's given her legal interpretation.

And now she's saying again that the officer has to reside overseas. The statute nowhere says that. The legislative history of the statute nowhere says that.