Victoria Toensing specifically said, "I wrote the law" when she testified?

[rocktivity]

Not "I co-wrote the law" or "I helped write the law?" Then she definitely purjured herself...unless she's also written a law that redefines perjury!

Wikipedia: In 1981, (Toensing) became Chief Counsel to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where she helped draft the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982.

Washington Times: "There is not one fact that I have seen that there could be a violation of the agent identity act," said Victoria Toensing, a lawyer who helped draft the 1982 act...

The New York Times: Ms. Toensing helped draft the law protecting the identity of intelligence agents years ago. She continued to insist today that under the act, Mrs. Wilson was not a “covert” agent...

Media Matters: ...Toensing was apparently referring to a law she helped draft as chief counsel on the Senate intelligence committee, the 1982 Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA)...

link:www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/11/221829.shtml|Newsmax:] ...But (Toensing), the former deputy attorney general who helped draft (the) Intelligence Identities Protection Act...said earlier this year that it's unlikely any laws were broken in the (Plame) case...

Her own freaking official biography: While Chief Counsel for Senator Barry Goldwater, Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, 1981-1984, Toensing was instrumental in winning passage of...bills to protect the identities of intelligence agents and to protect certain classified information from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act...

How's that for a diverse consensus--even the right-wing blogs deny Icky Vicky wrote the law! Happily, there is Daily Kos to explain it all for you.

:headbang:
rocknation

[Warren Stupidity]

1. usually splitting hairs does not constitute perjury.

unless we are talking about the clenis, this sort of misstatement is not going to get her in trouble. Waxman had other major issues with her statements, as he made clear in his closing remarks to her.

[rocktivity]

2. "Drafting" a law is NOT "writing" it, and she DIDN'T write it single-handedly

"I helped draft the law" would have been the truth. "I helped write the law" would have been technically true. "I wrote the law" is a flat-out lie--but of course, that's just my interpretation!

:P
rocknation

[JDPriestly]

3. I can't believe Ms. Toensing ever actually litigated a case or even graduated from law school.

She would be laughed out of Court. Maybe that is why she turned to lobbying to make a living.

[POAS]

4. Even if she wrote the law who cares

We all learned that it isn't the law that counts, it is the signing statement that matters.

[donsu]

5. I heard her say that

sometimes Wash. Journal has her on. she is part of the neo con gang.

[Arkansas Granny]

6. Even if she did write the law, that doesn't mean that she is in a

position to know what Valerie Plame's status was at the time she was outed. My understanding is that the CIA considered her status as covert, or did I miss something here?

[robinlynne]

7. she also said "helped draft the law" several times. dont think there is an issue here.

The issue is:
head of the cia says plame was covert.
PLAME IS COVERT.

[Jack Rabbit]

8. Yawn

She helped draft the law. She said the wrote the law. OK, she was one of several people who wrote the law.

Do you really want to spin that into a perjury charge? Go argue the point with Britt Hume. You're not selling me.

[rocktivity]

10. My apologies, then--I didn't realize this was a "majority rule" issue!

I'll review her testimony, tally up how many times she said "write" versus "draft," and consider whatever she said more often to be the truth!

:rofl:
rocknation

[Me.]

9. Wrote The Law....

What I'm wondering is if she meant that literally. Was she the note taker in the room, the one with the pencil? That's pretty much all many women staffers were allowed to do 20 or 30 years ago.

[Mabus]

11. Not to mention that the law was based on previous ones and amended since 1982

Victoria does not acknowledge that the law she "wrote" was based on previous statutes. Moreover, the law she "wrote" has been amended since 1982. To my knowledge, Victoria did not work on the amendments to the 1982 Act that were passed as recently as 2004. More importantly, she has failed, to my knowledge, to admit that the law she "wrote" has been amended at all.

According to the wiki: The Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982 (Pub.L. 97-200, 50 U.S.C. § 421-426) is a United States federal law that makes it a federal crime to intentionally reveal the identity of an agent who one knows to be in or recently in certain covert roles with a U.S. intelligence agency. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_Identities_Protection_Act

When you look at the legislative history of this act you find that the "Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982" was predicated on a law originally written in 1947. Moreover, the legislative history shows that the Act has been made amended since it was originally passed:

As an example, the history of the first provision of the Act says:
50 USC § 421

Source
(July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, § 601, as added Pub. L. 97–200, § 2(a), June 23, 1982, 96 Stat. 122; amended Pub. L. 106–120, title III, § 304(b), Dec. 3, 1999, 113 Stat. 1611.)

Amendments

1999—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 106–120, § 304(b)(2)(A), substituted “shall be fined under title 18” for “shall be fined not more than $50,000”.
Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 106–120, § 304(b)(2)(B), substituted “shall be fined under title 18” for “shall be fined not more than $25,000”.
Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 106–120, § 304(b)(2)(C), substituted “shall be fined under title 18” for “shall be fined not more than $15,000”.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 106–120, § 304(b)(1), added subsec. (d).

Short Title

For short title of this subchapter as the “Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982”, see section 1 of Pub. L. 97–200, set out as a Short Title of 1982 Amendment note under section 401 of this title.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00000421----000-notes.html

50 USC § 422's legislative history: July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, § 602, as added Pub. L. 97–200, § 2(a), June 23, 1982, 96 Stat. 122; amended Pub. L. 107–306, title III, § 353(b)(9), Nov. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 2402.

50 USC § 423's legislative history: July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, § 603, as added Pub. L. 97–200, § 2(a), June 23, 1982, 96 Stat. 123; amended Pub. L. 107–306, title III, § 353(b)(1)(B), title VIII, § 811(b)(1)(E), Nov. 27, 2002, 116 Stat. 2402, 2422; Pub. L. 108–458, title I, § 1071(a)(1)(CC), Dec. 17, 2004, 118 Stat. 3689.

50 USC § 426's legislative history: July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, § 606, as added Pub. L. 97–200, § 2(a), June 23, 1982, 96 Stat. 123; amended Pub. L. 106–120, title III, § 304(a), Dec. 3, 1999, 113 Stat. 1611.

So, from the legislative history we of the Act's provisions we find that four of the six statutes have been amended since 1982. But since she insists she wrote the Act herself, she appears to be claiming to have authored the amendments as well.

[against all enemies]

12. If perjury is that easy to prosecute, then the first question to every

Republican witness should be "Are you an Idiot?"

A yes and they're off the hook, a no, then begin the perjury investigation.

First witness?

George W Bush please.

[AtomicKitten]

13. and a very poorly written law at that