Posted on 03/24/2007 9:19:19 AM PDT by Doctor Raoul
Plame’s testimony shifting, source says The public testimony of former CIA officer Valerie Plame before a House committee last week conflicts with what she told a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee three years ago, a government source told The Examiner this week. The difference centers on Plame’s role in a CIA supervisor’s decision in 2002 to send former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, her husband, on a trip to Niger to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein pursued uranium for nuclear bombs. The trip eventually embroiled the White House in a three-year criminal investigation. Plame has filed suit against current and former Bush officials for leaking her covert CIA occupation to the news media. Her version of events would represent a major piece of evidence if the suit reaches trial. Her lawyer declined to respond to questions submitted this week by The Examiner. Before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee last week, Plame testified under oath that a CIA colleague, whom she did not name, first mentioned her husband as a trip candidate during a discussion at Langley headquarters. She denied recommending her husband, as Republicans have reported in their attempt to show why Bush officials discussed her occupation. According to a U.S. government source, who spoke to The Examiner this week on condition of anonymity, Plame did not mention this incident when she provided secret testimony to the Senate Intelligence committee in 2004. “This is a whole new story,” the source told The Examiner. A 2004 committee report quoted a CIA worker, whom it identified as a “reports officer,” as telling staff that Plame offered up her husband’s name. It also quoted from a memo Plame wrote recommending her husband for the trip. “We have checked the transcript of the comments made to the committee by the former reports officer and I stand by the committee’s description of his comments," said Sen. Christopher Bond, R-Mo., vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “I stand by the findings of the committee’s report.” Bond said he was willing to re-interview witnesses. Melvin Dubee, spokesman for committee chairman Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said he has heard no such talk on the Democratic side. Wilson wrote in a 2003 New York Times column that the CIA sent him to Niger after Vice President Dick Cheney made a request to investigate a report of a Saddam-Niger connection. Wilson said he found no evidence of an uranium deal. The Wilson column brought news media inquiries about the trip. Several administration officials, in explaining that the White House had no role in sending him to Niger, told reporters his wife worked at the CIA and had recommended him. In other words, there was an explanation for discussing his wife other than the allegation from Wilson that the White House outed a covert officer purely to punish him for his New York Times column, they say. rscarborough@dcexaminer.com
Mar 23, 2007 3:00 AM
by Rowan Scarborough, The Examiner
Two different stories, both under oath. When will perjury charges be brought?
Was she under oath the 1st time?
The date on her email is the day before the meeting she gave as the reason for writing that email.
Wait, she lied? I'm shocked I tell you, just shocked!!!
Her testimony also conflicts with plain common sense.
Plame testified that she was sitting at her desk, when she heard her neighbor's phone ring as he took the call from the VP's office. He popped over to her desk to complain about it, when a shadowy passer-by came past, overheard what was going on, and suggested she ask husband Joe Wilson about making the trip.
Now, is it everyday practice for "covert" agents to sit around in a cubicle farm, overhearing each other's conversations and phone calls? Is it typical that a hotshot "covert" agent would forget the name of someone who knew her marital status, husband's name, and husband's background?
The whole Plame version of the story makes no sense and is clearly a horror of prevarication.
By definition, "testimony" means it was under oath.
Now, that is what perjury looks like, if anyone is interested. We have the memo.
When Fitz gets done prosecuting the Duke lacrosse team, maybe he might want to look into this.
Never.
The Dumbocraps have no interest in looking under any more rocks right now in re Plamegate.
It's not typical, it's laughable.
And wasn't the Libby jury's point that "Hell, you couldn't have forgotten something like that!"
Bring that jury back, have them send send Val Plame to the Judy Miller Suite at SUPERMAX.
Whenever you give statements to Congress you're considered to be under oath. At least according to Tony Snow!
I believe in the second questioning she was asked to "promise to tell the truth" no "swear to tell the truth" This could come up sooner or later. Someone might wnat to check an earlier thread about the swearing in on the second one.
Notice, Jay Rocky said that they aren't concerned, they aren't even talking about re-interviewing her.
Duh...
PING
I imagine that Scooter's attorneys are collecting all this :-)
I really wish that Scooter would hire Victoria Toensing or her husband, Joe DiGenova.
I wasn't all that impressed with his lawyers in the first trial.
Ditto!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.