No, Christy, It's Just You

Christy Hardin Smith of firedoglake seems to favor the stifling of dissent - here she is commenting on Victoria Toensing's testimony before Rep Waxman's Plame hearing yesterday:

Waxman says that he is going to hold the record open, and check Toensing's statements on the record.  Waxman says he will be checking with Fitzgerald on his interpretation of the law.  [CHS asks:  Is it me, or is that a "correct the record, or there may be a perjury question in the offing if we find errors in your testimony?"]

A perjury charge against an expert witness for expressing the same view of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act that she presented in op-eds and court filings (15 page word file)?  Is it me, or is that ridiculous?

Oh, well - Ms. Smith was also sure that Judy Miller was in trouble for perjury.  Her fawning over Fitzgerald's sleuthing skills ought to be embarrassing in retrospect, but maybe Waxman has a cast a similar spell.

LET THE RECORD NOTE: My current official editorial position on Ms. Plame's status is that this element of the statute has not been tested in court, briefs have not been filed, no judge has ruled, and we just don't "know".  However, I think the weight of history favors Ms. Toensing (and snippets of that history are in the "More On The IIPA" portion of this post).

MORE:  Why so negative?  If expert witnesses can be nailed for perjury for offering their view, maybe we can call back all the economists who testified over the years...

LEST I FORGET - I ought to hat tip pgl of The Angry Bear, with whom I have a gloomy personal history.  His habit of posting on topics about which he knows nothing and then being rude about his own ignorance sort of irks me.  Go figure.

ERRATA:  This Victoria Toensing piece from Oct 2005 includes this:

So why didn’t Patrick Fitzgerald, the special counsel investigating the “leak,” close up shop long ago?

One possible answer is that someone lied about a material fact when testifying before the grand jury or obstructed justice in some other way. If that is the case, the prosecutor should indict.

Well, it would include that if the link worked - try the Google cache.  For search purposes the excerpted text is fine, but the title is "The White House’s Legal Katrina" by Victoria Toensing, Posted: 10/18/2005.

Comments

[Dalton]

Instead of whining about me personally...why not provide substantive rebuttals to my points?

Blathering on about what you refer to as "trolls" or "leftists" merely illustrate an inability to counter my charge that Bush and his administration are inept at best.

Tell me what Bush has done RIGHT.

[Dalton]

I see everybody is having a problem coming up with anything Bush has done RIGHT.

Sorry, in the future I'll try to ask easier questions.

[TMF]

DULLton

We GET IT

Democrats good/Republicans bad

Its a silly, infantile little world you live in

Give it up and go back to whatever circle jerk you came from.

[Dalton]

TMF,
I notice you still haven't come up with anything Bush has done right, still throwing out inane personal attacks.

Well, this should give you an idea of how strongly the Senate feels about allowing the Bush administration to make important decisions without oversight:

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Senate voted overwhelmingly Tuesday to end the Bush administration's ability to unilaterally fill U.S. attorney vacancies.

With a 94-2 vote, the Senate passed a bill that canceled a Justice Department-authored provision in the Patriot Act that had allowed the attorney general to appoint U.S. attorneys without Senate confirmation.

[TMF]

DULLTon

The senate voted to give the senate more power?

Color me shocked

[John G. Ryan]

Maguire is right. There is a difference between determining legislative intent and interpreting a statute. But, in either case, the problem with looking to persons involved in drafting a statute for either type of interpretation is that they have a view of what the drafter intended which the language may not convey to others. I am a great fan of Ms. Feldman but suggest that the principle from the British case is sound common sense which, as common sense, might not be accepted at SCOTUS today. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

[Dalton]

TMF,
Oh, I see, as Bush would say: The glass half empty.

Duh.

*And I notice you still just can't come up with anything he's done RIGHT.

[TMF]

Bush bad Demcrat good

[Dalton]

TMF,
"Bush bad Demcrat good"

It's spelled "Democrat."

Duh.

*Still nothing RIGHT, huh? That's not surprising.