Video: Henry Waxman grills Victoria Toensing

posted at 10:18 pm on March 16, 2007 by Bryan

This occured earlier today, during Rep. Waxman’s Valerie Plame show trial. Keep in mind that Victoria Toensing wrote the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, the law that was at the center of the Plame-Wilson fracas. Keep in mind that she knows what the law is for and whom it covers, since she wrote it. Keep also in mind that Toensing was called to Waxman’s kangaroo court as a witness. Witnesses generally answer questions asked of them in such settings. That’s why they’re there.

Now, watch Nostrildamus not allow said witness, an expert’s expert since she wrote the law in question, to answer questions.

Oddly, on the central question of Plame’s covert or not status, the Minute Man says Waxman’s silence was thunderous.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Waxman is an flaming idot.

rplat on March 16, 2007 at 10:21 PM

Are there ANY non-tards in Washington? Please, somebody point them out.

Metro on March 16, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Is there anybody else that wanted to reach through the screen and tell him to kindly shut up??

When you’re going to have an answer come back at you that contradicts the point you’re trying to convey, don’t let them talk!

Great stategery! (Yes, that’s correct)

HarryStar on March 16, 2007 at 10:36 PM

Wow.

There’s someone who’s NOT getting the answers he wants and uses his position as a bully-pulpit to try to shut her up when he realizes it.

What a knob. (as we used to say as kids)

Mt

Mistahtibbs on March 16, 2007 at 10:45 PM

Nostrilitus.

JammieWearingFool on March 16, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Vickie rocks. She is a towering intellectual giant over olfactimonious. I was hoping she would tear him apart.

Valiant on March 16, 2007 at 10:49 PM

why does he ask questions when he already knows what he wants to hear?

lorien1973 on March 16, 2007 at 10:49 PM

I thought she handled herself really well, and Waxman’s bloviations didn’t knock her off balance. It’s interesting that he would refer to her trying to accurately answer his question as an attempt to force him to yield his time.

I suspect in some other of the dozens of hearings Waxman will hold over the next two years, he won’t interrupt Cindy Sheehan when she’s called in as an “expert” witness.

eeyore on March 16, 2007 at 10:50 PM

I just caught the very tail end of her interview with Levin. She mentioned that there weren’t any Repubs in the hearing. Who knows, maybe they felt it was a waste of time for these flaming tards that they are and are only fishing for the ends that justify the Impeach Bush/Cheney/Rove means. And this after the Dem’s claimed they were not going to be holding these types of “investagations.” You all know the rest.

OK. The Conservatives stayed home in 06′ as I was saying months before the election and I said they were going to spank these Repubs for NOT doing their jobs. Heard EdLay on Rush today and he sounded like he had a lot of air taken out of him. Didn’t sound like the moniker that he once had as “The Hammer.” Its all gonna continue to play out. Dem’s will continue to make jackasses out of themselves. Come’o 08′

auspatriotman on March 16, 2007 at 10:54 PM

why does he ask questions when he already knows what he wants to hear?

lorien1973 on March 16, 2007 at 10:49 PM

My guess is that he’s a tard who relies on other tards for support.

Metro on March 16, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Is there anybody else that wanted to reach through the screen and tell him to kindly shut up??

You got the reach for the screen part right. But I wanted to do more than tell him to shut up, and I did not want to do it kindly.

BTW, a transcsript of Toensing’s testimony can be found here.

thirteen28 on March 16, 2007 at 10:59 PM

Obnoxious little twerp.

First Toensing dissed him with her disinterested stare, then she squashed him like a bug by quoting facts and citing statutes.

Waxman: “Where did you get your information, and why should I believe you?”

Toensing: “I read the trial testimony.”

Waxman: “Doh!”

fogw on March 16, 2007 at 11:02 PM

Toensling was interviewed on Mark Levin tonight.
She had an interesting take on Plame’s testimony.

billy on March 16, 2007 at 11:03 PM

This is why we vote in elections, for those idiots who wanted to “send a message to those in Washington” by staying home. Thank you very much! Now we get at least two years of this drivel.

Troy Rasmussen on March 16, 2007 at 11:04 PM

Toensing handled that hostile environment like a champ.

As for this:

Now, watch Nostrildamus not allow said witness, an expert’s expert since she wrote the law in question, to answer questions.

Hilarious. I wasn’t going to be the one to kick of mocking this guy’s looks, and that obviously has nothing to do with his dickitry here, but I’ve got to point out that he looks very familiar.

Everyone no doubt remembers the “Mohammed cartoon” controversy… but do you remember one of the fake images used by the Imams who turned that thing in to the mess it became? Let me refresh your memory… They used an image from a completely unrelated “pig squealing contest” to really enrage the religion of perpetual outrage (a term I believe Malkin coined), by LYING and saying it was part of the “cartoons” used to mock Mohammed, by dressing him up as a pig.

I assume many of you know what I’m talking about already, but to be clear, this image was NOT part of the Danish cartoons, but it WAS used by the Imams who started the whole controversy MONTHS AFTER THE ACTUAL CARTOONS WERE PUBLISHED.

Without further ado:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/004485.htm

RightWinged on March 16, 2007 at 11:06 PM

Waxman is one of the most impertinent creatures on Earth. That he is a representative of a free people is a shame. That the media doesn’t grill him on this is professionally wanting, but that is the understatement of our time.

Troy Rasmussen on March 16, 2007 at 11:04 PM

So true. However, it is what it is and this kind of puerile tantrum is heavenly exposure. The libs can’t help themselves. They can’t lead, only criticize, blame and diminish others who try. This will continue into Nov. 2008.

Entelechy on March 16, 2007 at 11:18 PM

Stop calling Waxman a ‘tard. He’s not retarded, he is a lying, worthless POS.

And I want him to keep being what he is, in public, a pathetic dishonest piece of garbage, revealing himself to the world for just what he is. Each time he talks, a little more of him comes out for all to see

08 is coming–time to Clean House

Janos Hunyadi on March 16, 2007 at 11:20 PM

There is no point to this whatsoever other than to satisfy the political delusions of grandeur and revenge that are present in Waxman’s own mind. What a complete sham.

CP on March 16, 2007 at 11:21 PM

It’s like debating with bumper stickers.

- The Cat

MirCat on March 16, 2007 at 11:25 PM

What do you suppose the women Democrats in Congress would have to say if a Republican badgered Valerie Plame like that?

Maxx on March 16, 2007 at 11:28 PM

If you’re asking me, Maxx, I would say that every “woman Democrat in Congress is a dishonest partisan hag who would do just about anything to Advance the Cause

Some of them are not as bad as Waxman, some are of his caliber, and a few are worse.

I don’t think I can take almost two more years of this sh+t

Janos Hunyadi on March 16, 2007 at 11:36 PM

What a blithering, partisan idiot. And worse, just think of the number of absolute morons who put this boob in office. Our taxes at work….. FRED THOMPSON FOR PRESIDENT…. Nostril-man would pee his pants in fear.

ultracon on March 16, 2007 at 11:46 PM

I know the guy can’t help it but…every time I see Waxman, I always think of the ‘Pigman’ episode of Seinfeld.

austinnelly on March 16, 2007 at 11:54 PM

Victory over the Wax Man.

A shame he wasn’t shown melting in 3-D like his Fifties mentor.

(Vincent Price in the “House of…”)

This kangaroo kourt kind of krap is as low as it gets in political puppet theater.

Plame commits perjury (about not recommending her husband for the Niger trip to the CIA) openly and preposterously, and no one ‘notices’. Live.

It is all as transparently fraudulent (“Don’t confuse me with the facts, Ms. Toensing!”) as a poliburo purge trial.

profitsbeard on March 17, 2007 at 12:01 AM

Ladies and Gentlemen…….

Don’t you realize?

This is an example of how the Democrats will defend this country in a time of war, against real enemies.

This is an example of how the Democrats will secure the borders (not).

This is an example of how the Democrats will govern for the next two years.

This is an example of your rights under a Democrat Administration. You don’t get to answer.

This is an example of what happens when RINOs are tolerated.

This is an example of what happens when you don’t vote, “out of principle”.

This video is an example, and needs to spread all over the country…….

PinkyBigglesworth on March 17, 2007 at 12:07 AM

I know the guy can’t help it but…every time I see Waxman, I always think of the ‘Pigman’ episode of Seinfeld.

austinnelly on March 16, 2007 at 11:54 PM

I’ll add to that an episode of the Twilight Zone… if you haven’t seen it, nevermind.. if you have, you know what I’m talking about (it’s older than me, but it’s been on reruns plenty of times, I watched it as a kid)

But even more uncanny (a word I find annoying for some reason) is the photo I linked to in my 11:06 comment… Did anyone check that out? The similarities are seriously creepy.

RightWinged on March 17, 2007 at 12:18 AM

Toensing is a babe.

LegendHasIt on March 17, 2007 at 12:33 AM

When did Republicans get so weak? This is WAR. The Democrats are taking no prisoners.

When you know you have an idiot like this as “Chairman” you need to use strategy. You hand pick people to testify, whether they are relevant or not, with the sole purpose of giving him a verbal beat down.

Once you put is disrespectful belligerence on display, and wear him out – then you bring out the people with something to say.

The interruptions were infuriating. In the words of the Vice President of the United States of America – “F**K You!”

Agrippa2k on March 17, 2007 at 12:34 AM

It’s very unlikely that we’ll retake the House or Senate in 08.

So two years of this, and they’ll just be warming up.

a4g on March 17, 2007 at 12:44 AM

For the Valerie Toensing interview with Levin pay close attention to the 26:20 mark.
Also her to “what did you think of the Republicans on the comittee?”

billy on March 17, 2007 at 1:06 AM

I found the root of the problem and, as usual, the Democrats were the cause, i.e “in power”:

They all started with good intentions, then were infiltrated…… give it thiry years, and we have our current situation, and NO MSM will ever touch it,

House Committee on Un-American Activities (HUAC or HCUA) (1938–1975) was an investigative committee of the United States House of Representatives. It is often referred to as the House Un-American Activities Committee. In 1969, the House changed the committee’s name to the Committee on Internal Security. When the House abolished the committee in 1975, its functions were transferred to the House Judiciary Committee.

To find the truth, you have to find where it came from….

HUAC became a standing (permanent) committee in 1946. Under the mandate of Public Law 601, passed by the 79th Congress, the committee of nine representatives investigated suspected threats of subversion or propaganda that attacked “the form of government guaranteed by our Constitution.”

Under this mandate, the committee focused its investigations on real and suspected Communists in positions of actual or supposed influence in American society. The first, such investigation looked into allegations of Communists in the Federal Theatre Project in 1938. A significant step for HUAC was its investigation of the charges of espionage brought against Alger Hiss in 1948. This investigation ultimately resulted in Hiss’s trial and conviction for perjury, and convinced many of the usefulness of congressional committees for uncovering Communist subversion.[1]

If this doesn’t read like the Liberal Democratic Agenda, I don’t know what does……..

PinkyBigglesworth on March 17, 2007 at 1:54 AM

Who votes for morons like this guy? What a jerk!

Mojave Mark on March 17, 2007 at 2:08 AM

I’m sorry that Mr. Waxman is my Representative. I didn’t vote for him either time, but I’m clearly outnumbered in my district.

MattSkosh on March 17, 2007 at 2:11 AM

I’m sorry that Mr. Waxman is my Representative. I didn’t vote for him either time, but I’m clearly outnumbered in my district.

MattSkosh on March 17, 2007 at 2:11 AM

Don’t be sorry, Matt. We need to learn to fight in the shade…….. start with one e-mail, one phone call to conservative talk radio, then move onto letters to other members of congress, build your own movement, it is being done today, you can do it tomorrow….

If you need someone on your “left” in the assault, just ask, you will be amazed at who stands up.

We all have families, there are positions for everyone… believe me, the Democrats have the Soros, et al, network in place, with over 15,000 paid positions, and we are volunteers…………

What can Free Men Do?

Fight…

PinkyBigglesworth on March 17, 2007 at 2:34 AM

Waxman made a complete fool of himself when questioning Toensing, because he didn’t follow a lesson taught in law schools about a lawyer asking one too many questions of a witness. The lesson comes in the following story:

It is about a man who allegedly bit off another mans ear, and the lawyer defending him.

The lawyer asked the witness: Did you see the man bite off the ear?
The witness replied: NO!
At that point the lawyer should have dismissed the witness but, instead, he asked one more question:
How, then, can you say he did it?
The witness replied: Because I saw him spit it out.
The lawyer lost the case.

The lesson in the story: Only ask questions you already know the answer to.

Case in point:

Waxman asked Toensing: How did she know that Plame was not a covert agent.
Toensing replied: Because I wrote the directive explaining the criteria for covert agents, and she didn’t meet the criteria.

Obviously, Waxman didn’t heed the lawyerly lesson by asking a question he should have known the answer to.

The result – Waxman went into orbit.

pocomoco on March 17, 2007 at 2:54 AM

Reminds me of something Kenneth Copeland had said when telling a joke.

Man on the stand: “Yeah I saw him break in last night when I was standing across the street.”

Lawyer: “And you could tell it was him from across the street at night?”

Man on the stand: “Yeah.”

Lawyer: “Really now. Exactly how far can you see in the dark?”

Man on stand: “I don’t know. How far’s the moon?”

- The Cat

MirCat on March 17, 2007 at 3:09 AM

Henry Waxman is the poster-child of the kid that was beat up every day at school for his lunch money… and grew to be a man with some limited power, and it’s payback time on anyone and everyone who dares cross him.

I kind of feel sorry for him.

…kind of

SilverStar830 on March 17, 2007 at 3:37 AM

Victoria Toensing waxed Waxman!

Hoorah!!!

The Force is With You, Victoria!

William

William2006 on March 17, 2007 at 4:13 AM

It really is disgusting that people like this can puff out their chests and prove nothing, wasting tax payers money. What a lying pompous ass waxman is.

Highrise on March 17, 2007 at 5:10 AM

Victoria Toensing has been writing and saying for some time that Plame was not “covert” under the Agent Identities Protection Act because Plame did not meet the criteria of that Act’s definition of “covert.” So when the subject comes up, feel confident in saying that Plame was not covert. Nothing that Plame said changes that conclusion. It was a dishonest piece of testimony she gave.

Also feel confident is saying that Joe Wilson lied in his op-ed column in the NY Times, which he did.

Phil Byler on March 17, 2007 at 8:08 AM

Wasn’t Waxman in Dune when he was younger and had hair?

warriorlawyer on March 17, 2007 at 8:44 AM

Hmm. That didn’t work. I meant Piter De Vries on that page…

warriorlawyer on March 17, 2007 at 8:45 AM

“I’m not yielding my time to you” is a debate tactic preceeding a rhetorical rant.

What happened to honest investigating? It’s clear that talking heads like waxman have convinced themselves they are the owners of absolute moral authority.

Victoria bitch slap him but good.

csdeven on March 17, 2007 at 9:25 AM

Are there ANY non-tards in Washington? Please, somebody point them out.

Metro on March 16, 2007 at 10:27 PM

Yes, there are many: conservative Republicans. Whenever liberals act both retarded and domineering as Henry Waxman just did and get caught for it, liberals always come up with the argument that it is “Washington” that is the problem. No, liberals such as Waxman are the problem.

januarius on March 17, 2007 at 9:30 AM

Gosh, that was disgusting. Could she have just gotten up out of her chair and walked out? He obviously was *not* interested in anything she said. She didn’t get more than 8 words out at a time! He never let her finish a sentence.

jatfla on March 17, 2007 at 9:34 AM

Now I understand why they call Washington, D.C., “Hollywood with Ugly People”. Same quality morons, only ugly.

bloggless on March 17, 2007 at 10:01 AM

The hearing was a liberal sound bite fest for the MSM.

George on March 17, 2007 at 10:01 AM

Holding Toensing hostage at his hearing and browbeating her from a distance was simply the little worm’s reaction to the total absense cogliones.

rplat on March 17, 2007 at 10:09 AM

He ended the day by calling her a liar…he would “check” on her testimony….what an ignorant slut!!!!I tried to email his office and it came back that he did not accept comments from other than his consituents…Oh, I see ONLY IDIOTS NEED APPLY!!!

Mellen on March 17, 2007 at 10:11 AM

I would pay money to watch him be dragged out into the street and beaten to a pulp.. pompous ass!

Viper1 on March 17, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Nostrildamus

More like “Nostril-dumbass”

ej_pez on March 17, 2007 at 10:23 AM

I saw her on Hannity last night. She is awesome. Waxman is an embarrassment, as most of our politicians are. Please Joe Lieberman, jump ship and save America! We learned our lesson!

ctmom on March 17, 2007 at 10:23 AM

This is an example of your rights under a Democrat Administration. You don’t get to answer.

Damn, this reminds me of that time they let Barney Frank get his mitts on the gavel.

I generally despise hyberbole, but damned if that audio doesn’t remind me of Der Fuhrer or maybe Krushchev.

saint kansas on March 17, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Is it true Waxman has named his Nostrils Tora and Bora

Fandango on March 17, 2007 at 11:45 AM

Excuuuuse me-but I’m a ‘little twerp” who was beatten up for her lunch money money too…and I find it insulting that you you compare those like me to that fa**** Henry Waxman!
*lol*
RUN FRED RUN!

annoyinglittletwerp on March 17, 2007 at 11:58 AM

Is the Mark Levin interview of Victoria Toensing available anywhere on the internet for listening now?

Phil Byler on March 17, 2007 at 12:11 PM

Hannity & Colmes reaches the bench..

Although I did like this tut-tuting her for trying to get word definitions right

After all, it doesn’t depend on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is..

Reaps on March 17, 2007 at 12:16 PM

Looking forward to see Victoria on Foxnews. If Waxyboy won’t let in edgewise, I’m sure Foxnews (and if other stations are smart about it) will let Victoria do the talking.

Not a very honest investigation this Waxman is doing. Not in the least.

Kokonut on March 17, 2007 at 12:43 PM

The hearing was a liberal sound bite fest for the MSM.
George on March 17, 2007 at 10:01 AM

If Waxyboy won’t let in edgewise, I’m sure Foxnews (and if other stations are smart about it) will let Victoria do the talking.
Kokonut on March 17, 2007 at 12:43 PM

According to Ms. Toensing 1 Republican member of the hearing committe – ONE - was there when she testified. The only reason her testimony was nearly drowned out is because the Republican contingent wasn’t sitting there waiting to ask the questions that’d let her roll over the Demomidgets.

Where were these freakin’ RINO deserters? Who are they?

I.WANT.NAMES!

We should kick their lazy negligent A** for this!

The Ritz on March 17, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Are there ANY non-tards in Washington? Please, somebody point them out.

Well obviously Toensing is an expert but Waxman can’t stand the truth.

Under the definition, I may not know the law but I know what I like: find noted, Henry Waxman.

Waxman knew that if he didn’t shut down Toensing that whatever else he could blow at Republicans, would mean zilch.

Speakup on March 17, 2007 at 1:30 PM

When he insisted it was a yes/no question, she should have said:
“Senator, everyone in this room has heard of the famous yes/no question ‘Have you stopped beating your wife?’.

I’m not going to allow you to put words in my mouth, or redefine the meaning of the words that I have carefully chosen to answer the question as precisely as possible. Either you’ll allow me to give the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, or you’ll gavel me down and I’ll say nothing at all to you, and wait to respond to one of your colleagues who is more interested in the truth than in trying to change the meaning of my answers.” [During this speech, every time Wax Museum interrupts her, she should re-start the sentence being interrupted.]

When he berated her for defining terms, she should have said: “At least I’m not debating what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

But other than that, she nailed him pretty good.

The Monster on March 17, 2007 at 1:39 PM

I summon Nonfactor to tell us stupid neocons how the author of the law is wrong. (And feel free to throw in some BS about how there really was a crime, but Fitzgerald couldn’t continue because of Libby’s obstruction.)

RightWinged on March 17, 2007 at 1:48 PM

I thought Waxman’s goal was to save the world from cigarettes. Looks like he’s expanding his operations a bit.

Ass clown.

jaleach on March 17, 2007 at 1:51 PM

“How can you state anything definitely?”

Less than two seconds later:

“Now give me that as a ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ answer.”

Waxman is a moron.

tommy1 on March 17, 2007 at 1:51 PM

Oh, and as Toensing pointed out on Hannity & Colmes last night – Clearly Plame couldn’t have been that concerned about her identity… considering she donated $1,000 to Al Gore’s presidential campaign UNDER THE COVER NAME OF THE ORGANIZATION SHE WORKED FOR!!! It’s also been reported that she was attending various Democratic meetings.

RightWinged on March 17, 2007 at 1:52 PM

Ahem.

see-dubya on March 17, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Oh, and Toensing keeps pointing out that Plame’s recommendation of her husband was supposedly in response to Cheney seeking out their help to find someone… yet apparently the email she wrote was on February 12, and Cheney’s meeting took place on the 13.

RightWinged on March 17, 2007 at 1:53 PM

08 is coming–time to Clean House

Janos Hunyadi on March 16, 2007 at 11:20 PM

This is true, but I am afraid that unless the president gets the fence out of his ass and becomes a leader, all will be lost. Someone needs to step forward and quit worrying about what the liberals think and become a leader. Might start by pushing for English, official language and close the borders with the exception of the “hit you in the ass door”

Wade on March 17, 2007 at 1:56 PM

If Plame hadn’t recommended her momma’s boy husband for the trip to Niger, none of this would be happening and she would still be employed by the CIA.

Looking for what caused your world to come crashing down on you Val? Look in the mirror, with your husband standing next to you.

fogw on March 17, 2007 at 2:21 PM

Waxman: Yes or No?
Toensing: No.
Waxman: How can you say that so definitively? Do you have information we don’t?

In an alternate universe where Toensing answers ‘yes’:

Waxman: Yes or No?
Toensing: Yes
Waxman: Well folks, you’ve heard it from the expert! Rove is guilty!

Waxman is brilliant. I hereby dub him “Waxmind.”

tommy1 on March 17, 2007 at 2:21 PM

This is true, but I am afraid that unless the president gets the fence out of his ass and becomes a leader, all will be lost.

The Pres. will actually attempt the opposite.
Time will run out on the National Guard at the border, they will be ordered elsewhere and the flood will continue in earnest. If we as citizens allow him to complete his repatriation of Mexicans to America mission.

Clean house? George has already demonstrated his willingness to shaft his own party members who dare to heed the public message (or even worse defend the Constitution) instead of follow his party line.

Speakup on March 17, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Is the Mark Levin interview of Victoria Toensing available anywhere on the internet for listening now?

Phil Byler on March 17, 2007 at 12:11 PM

I posted it earlier. It is here. Just click.

billy on March 17, 2007 at 3:24 PM

why does every democrat come across as a pompous jackass?

wryteacher on March 17, 2007 at 4:20 PM

Henry Waxman is a POS. It is amazing this cheap crook isn’t doing time. Waxman sure bit off more than he can chew trying to browbeat Victoria Toensing.

mcgilvra on March 17, 2007 at 4:24 PM

why does every democrat come across as a pompous jackass?

Because they’re pompous jackass’s.

lowandslow on March 17, 2007 at 5:01 PM

why does every democrat come across as a pompous jackass?

Because the Democrat party logo is the jackass!

pocomoco on March 17, 2007 at 5:02 PM

I wonder what Waxman thinks will be accomplished with this?

Does he think that Congress has the authority to conduct criminal investigations? It does not. Only the Administrative branch has the authority to conduct criminal investigations through the Department of Justice.

Does he think that Congress has the authority to determine guilt or innocence and assign punishments for criminal activities? It does not. Only the Judicial branch of the government has that authority through the federal (or state) court system.

Just what is Waxman and the others trying to accomplish here? This faux trial is only a stick that he and the rest of the Democrats are trying to use as a whip with which to punish President Bush and others for the crime of being a Republican. Other than attempt to change the Intelligence Identities Protection Act to include all current and former CIA employees (something the act does not do), what can the Democrats actually do? Absolutely nothing, except for make fools of themselves in front of the public.

RedinBlueCounty on March 17, 2007 at 5:58 PM

Look at the ears. There needs to be an investigation as to how many Obamas the Waxman family owned.

dingoatemebaby on March 17, 2007 at 8:20 PM

According to Ms. Toensing 1 Republican member of the hearing committe – ONE – was there when she testified. The only reason her testimony was nearly drowned out is because the Republican contingent wasn’t sitting there waiting to ask the questions that’d let her roll over the Demomidgets.

Where were these freakin’ RINO deserters? Who are they?

I.WANT.NAMES!

We should kick their lazy negligent A** for this!

The Ritz on March 17, 2007 at 1:21 PM

Here are the Republican members of the oversight committee:

Rep. Tom Davis, Virginia, Ranking Minority Member

Rep. Dan Burton, Indiana

Rep. Christopher Shays, Connecticut

Rep. John M. McHugh, New York

Rep. John L. Mica, Florida

Rep. Mark E. Souder, Indiana

Rep. Todd Russell Platts, Pennsylvania

Rep. Chris Cannon, Utah

Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee

Rep. Michael Turner, Ohio

Rep. Darrell E. Issa, California

Rep. Kenny Marchant, Texas

Rep. Lynn A. Westmoreland, Georgia

Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, North Carolina

Rep. Virginia Foxx, North Carolina

Rep. Brian Bilbray, California

Rep. Bill Sali, Idaho

http://oversight.house.gov/about/members.asp

I’m not sure which one was actually there…

Gianni on March 17, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Oh, and Toensing keeps pointing out that Plame’s recommendation of her husband was supposedly in response to Cheney seeking out their help to find someone… yet apparently the email she wrote was on February 12, and Cheney’s meeting took place on the 13.

RightWinged on March 17, 2007 at 1:53 PM

Did you get this from the Levin interview or somewhere else? I heard this last night but it seems no one else is mentioning it on the internets.

Clean house? George has already demonstrated his willingness to shaft his own party members who dare to heed the public message (or even worse defend the Constitution) instead of follow his party line.

Speakup on March 17, 2007 at 3:19 PM

Bush, is after all, only 1/3 of the gov’t. We’re seeing what Democrat control of Congress really means.

http://oversight.house.gov/about/members.asp

I’m not sure which one was actually there…

Gianni on March 17, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Nice find

billy on March 17, 2007 at 11:06 PM

Did you get this from the Levin interview or somewhere else? I heard this last night but it seems no one else is mentioning it on the internets.

Got it on H&C, though I heard it on the Levin interview you linked to as well. Thanks btw.

RightWinged on March 18, 2007 at 12:35 AM

Why hasn’t anyone mentioned that the Director of the CIA considered Plame covert?

That one thing has kinda thrown a spanner into this whole thing for me.

harry on March 18, 2007 at 8:20 AM

Waxman…my hero!!!!

Golfer_75093 on March 18, 2007 at 12:09 PM

If manly men heal faster, then Henry Waxman heals very slowly indeed. What a partisan pinhead.

ReubenJCogburn on March 18, 2007 at 1:35 PM

So basically, Waxman wants Toensig to answer Yes/No to a vague question that does nothing to get at the truth but provide him with exactly the type of bullshit answer he wants. Sheesh.

In court, the prosecutor cannot force you to answer Yes/No, but apparently Waxman thinks he’s governed by a different set of rules.

Seixon on March 18, 2007 at 1:48 PM

Why hasn’t anyone mentioned that the Director of the CIA considered Plame covert?

That one thing has kinda thrown a spanner into this whole thing for me.

harry on March 18, 2007 at 8:20 AM

What the Director of the CIA thinks isn’t relevant to the law. Covert status has a specific meaning under the law, that is the only meaning that matters.

Gianni on March 18, 2007 at 3:06 PM

Gianni on March 17, 2007 at 10:00 PM

Thanks for coming through Gianni! We have elected and are PAYING these idiots to represent us and they apparently have other things to do on our dime. How is it that a Gathering of Eagles is needed to speak our mind while those we’ve sent to Washington for that very purpose are AWOL? My rep’s in SC and every one of these sluggards is hearing from me.

The Ritz on March 18, 2007 at 4:09 PM

Waxman(D), of the flaccid subpoena…

His show-trials never lead to action. They are an end unto themselves.

DANEgerus on March 18, 2007 at 6:20 PM

Of course “Crypt Keeper” Waxman did not want to give his time to let Victoria Toensing answer properly, because that meant he would have to have time for the truth!!!!

And we cannot have that, can we?

Pres Bush and AG Gonzalez had better grow a “pair” and start fightening back and stop acting like beaten men. If they cannot grow a “pair”…THEN THEY SHOULD BORROW SOME FROM MICHELLE!

The Bush Administration is becoming the Bush AdminiCASTRATION.

The False Dervish on March 18, 2007 at 9:35 PM

Nostrilitus.

JammieWearingFool on March 16, 2007 at 10:49 PM

Nostrildumbass.

R D on March 19, 2007 at 12:35 AM

Why are the biggest idiots from California? Well except for Kerry, Kennedy, Biden, Murtha, Fwank…OK never mind.

R D on March 19, 2007 at 12:37 AM

Does it look like he was a breach baby that got his nose stuck on something on the way out?

R D on March 19, 2007 at 1:45 AM

I, too, care little for Waxman’s physical characteristics; however, I’d hate for anyone to use my “physique” as an argument against my position. ‘nuf said on that… Henry Waxman is – plain and simple – a full-tilt socialist from California. He exhibits the instinctive behavior of his species – ad hominem attacks and emotionalism over reason and logic. He is what he is and his kind need to be defeated in the political arena by conservatives. Don’t look for Republicans to do a thing – they are nothing more than casting couch starlets who will perform any act to get a pat on the head from the MSM and the power elite.

Pahlavan on March 21, 2007 at 11:06 AM