vickie toensing CALLS IN to wolfie's show about Clinton's "abuse" of FISA

omg someone duct tape this woman's fucking mouth. She calls in and butts into wolf's discussion with Jeff Toobin about whether Clinton did the same thing as bushit with wiretaps, toobin did an excellent job of refuting that Winger talking point when BAM there is that red headed lying sack of shit phoning in! And omg Jeffrey does not even fight back! :argh:

It was the aldrich ames case and he did not wiretap his phones did he???

:argh:

If clinton went to the fisa court after searching that dude's house? and did they search that dude's house or is toensing making shit up?

if it's pressing. That's why the whole Bush not going to FISA is even more rediculous. It's the most flexible law for the President. They can basically do anything they want anyway and Bush still couldn't live within it.

searches at the time

The Ames story is of a physical search for security reasons and at the time (one search in summer 93, and another in the fall 93)physical searches were not covered by FISA.

Clinton saw this loophole and supported an amendment to FISA that would close the loophole. That was passed and Clinton signed the amendment in 94.

The search was in 93, the bill was passed in 94. :-)

Toensing CLAIMED to have (which was probably b.s. anyway), but he basically held his ground.

wrote the fucking law that Fitzgerald is now charged with enforcing - the outing of a covert agent law. And it's SO badly drafted and drawn, it's well neigh unenforceable.

She and her husband, the rodent-like Joe DiGenova, are notorious Repuke ass-suckers who haven't been able to get the air time they once loved so much.

Pricks, both of them.

I hate them both and yes, since the OJ trial and her nightly showing on Geraldo she has to fight for her 15 minutes again. WITCH!

Tick tock.

A penis ("prick") is useful. Neither DiGenova nor Toensing are. Both are wastes of protoplasm - a couple of the most digusting and corrupt reichbots ever to escape a law school.

I believe it was a search and seizure and Clinton went to the FISA court as he was supposed to do after the fact. He might have made that point.

That Clinton went to the FISA court for that?

Look, I'm not buying vicky's line but this is the NEW neo-talking point and it must be shot down

The original version of the law was silent on warrantless physical searches of suspected spies or terrorists. The Clinton administration claimed inherent authority to conduct such "black bag" jobs, including searches of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames's house that turned up evidence of his spying for Russia. But it later sought amendments to FISA that brought physical searches under the FISA framework.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901884_2.html

this paragraph this dude made in the link you provided confuses me and makes me wonder if he's a loony:

" Thanks to a warrant authorized by Attorney General Janet Reno, a team of agents from the sprawling National Security Division had permission to enter the Ames home in Arlington, Va. There was only one minor problem. The attorney general of the United States does not have the authority to order a warrantless physical search of a citizen's home, argued Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University National Law Center. The Aldrich Ames search in my view was obviously and egregiously unconstitutional."

How can it be warrentless is Reno issued a warrent? I mean, if she didn't have the authority, that's another point. But how can they even claim it was warrentless if Reno issued a warrent?

a judge can issue a warrant. You can't issue a warrant to yourself...

Maybe he just wasn't aware of it. To me, he came across as someone who didn't have all the facts yet so he wasn't ready to blame Clinton, yet he couldn't exonerate him either (until he knows what was done).

time (one search in summer 93, and another in the fall 93)physical searches were not covered by FISA.

Clinton saw this loophole and supported an amendment to FISA that would close the loophole. That was passed and Clinton signed the amendment in 94.

The search was in 93, the bill was passed in 94. :-)

I also found it in the WaPo story pertaining to this so it is out there. The idiots on tv love to be distracted by nutjobs like the red haired freak toensing.

Toensing admitted she didn't know whether Clinton had in fact followed the FISA law and obtained a warrant. Then, two minutes later, she again stated as fact that Clinton didn't follow the FISA law.

I think I saw her bloviating on CNN this morning. She must be the Republican point woman.

Their followers used to accuse the Dems of wanting to do exactly what they have done in reality.

CSPAN this morning, CNN now . . . seems like it's not only us smelling blood in the water.

She's about as low on the totem pole as they can go - utterly worthless, as is her husband.

Oh, good. They're now scraping what's under the garbage can.

It doesn't matter, Clinton ISN'T THE FRICKn'G PRESIDENT

If joe murders someone, a defense that since joe did it I can do it doesn't cut it

Will the democrats stop getting side tracked PLEASE

just askin.

our wonderful congress people

I feel better now because I can be easily distracted. :hi:

Thanks to a warrant authorized by Attorney General Janet Reno, a team of agents from the sprawling National Security Division had permission to enter the Ames home in Arlington, Va. There was only one minor problem. The attorney general of the United States does not have the authority to order a warrantless physical search of a citizen's home, argued Professor Jonathan Turley of George Washington University National Law Center. The Aldrich Ames search in my view was obviously and egregiously unconstitutional.

http://mediafilter.org/caq/Caq53.court.html


according to this.......anti clinton site.....

There was a warrant. So, it wasn't a warrantless search. They just argued Reno's authority to issue the warrant.

and Wolfie knows that too. That's why he asked Toensing if Clinton went and got FISA court approval afterwards. Toensing said she didn't knoe and then "supposed" they didn't.

there was no precedent set with Gorelick's remark. No adjudication resulted. We still do not know if wiretapping without a warrant is wrong when done by a president in "wartime"

She's trying to say well, Clinton did it so it must be ok, and Gorelick even said presidents have the right to (conduct warrantless searches) Has a judge said a president has the right? No.

She is only trying to muddy the waters. And it's hilarious, because suddenly what Clinton does is a shining example to Toensing, who made millions over the last decade declaring Clinton the equivalent of an axe murderer. Now he's AOK to her cuz he can save her butt boys ass.

If Clinton was acting illegally, (which has not been proven) that doesn't make actions by someone else acceptable or legal. When will they ever respond to something with a real answer or logical response that addresses the point of discussion. I don't think they are capable of it. This is the real blame game. Clinton made me do it is one of their stock answers.

He ain't the fuckin president anymore. HE"S GONE, you stuppid beyotch. I guess he was smart enough to get away with what your pet hamster couldn't.

Unlike Greenpeace and those terroristic Quakers!

who ditates to CNN how the game should be played. Read this transcript;

BLITZER: All right, thanks very much, Brian Todd over at the courthouse today.

Let's get some legal analysis, what this all means.

Joining us, our senior legal analyst, Jeffrey Toobin. He's in New York,. And Victoria Toensing, she's a former federal prosecutor. She's joining us on the phone.

Vickie, give us your reaction to what has happened.

VICTORIA TOENSING, FORMER JUSTICE DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL: Well, I read the indictment -- indictment out here in California, where I'm -- I'm at a spa and not supposed to be doing such things.

But I guess my initial reaction, Wolf, was, if this is a cover- up, it's about something that was not illegal. And so, it's -- it's an amazing series of facts put in the indictment that don't make sense to me, because every single thing that Scooter Libby could have admitted to would not have been a violation of the law.

BLITZER: But what if -- if he was lying to the grand jury and insisting he heard about -- Victoria, about Valerie Plame from journalists, as opposed from government officials, that sounds, at least according to the prosecutor, like a flat-out lie.

TOENSING: Well, but here's -- here's the vulnerability in the prosecutor's case.

And that is, is to admit that you also heard it from the CIA. There's nothing in the indictment that says that he was told it was classified and that he wasn't supposed to reveal it, which would have been a significant fact I would have put in, if I had been writing this charge and I had had that evidence. So, if that never occurred, then -- you know, then the jury's going to be looking at it.

If you're the defense attorney, you phrase it as, this is one person's memory and this is another person's memory.

BLITZER: It's not just one person, though. There are at least three journalists who claim they learned about this CIA operative from -- from Scooter Libby. And there are at least three or four government officials who apparently have gone before the grand jury and said they told him a -- a lot earlier about her identity.

TOENSING: Well, Wolf, that could well be so, but if he remembers -- it was all over a period of 48 hours, and -- and if -- if you want me to -- to, you know, look at it from a defense viewpoint, you would say, people sometimes can't remember when things happen all in a -- in a flurry of...

BLITZER: All right.

Well, let me...

TOENSING: ... who said what when.

BLITZER: Let me interrupt, Vickie, for a second.

Jeff Toobin is our senior legal analyst.

And the attorney who represents Libby, Joseph Tate, basically is making that -- that argument: Well, the recollections can differ when you look back over a long period of time, Jeff.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: That's right.

And I think Victoria is really sort of outlining a lot of what the defense will be. Why did he lie when he's not covering up something that's illegal? He could have admitted it. It was just an honest mistake. That's one defense.

Another defense is, he didn't remember the -- the -- the -- the facts well enough. That's a -- that's a common defense in a perjury, false statement case.

You know, they're -- they're -- they're not always successful, but -- but they are -- they are perfectly legitimate defenses. Another thing I think is -- is -- is worth thinking about is, it will -- it will be in the defense's interests to try to make this case as complicated as possible, to say that this is really about a dispute about the war in Iraq, about the competence of the CIA, and you need to have that full, muddy context.

What the prosecution is going to say at the trial is no, no, no, we don't want to hear about the war in Iraq. We don't want to hear about the CIA. This is simply a case about lying -- and keep it as narrow as possible.

And Judge Reggie Walton, who is going to be the judge here, is going to have a real tug-of-war between the two sides about how much extraneous context evidence to allow...

BLITZER: All right.

TOOBIN: ... from both sides.

BLITZER: What about that, Vickie?

TOENSING: Well, but, Jeff, I don't even think you have to make it about the war in order to say that the CIA's conduct is at issue.

You know, what are they doing sending somebody over to Niger who is not qualified for the job, who doesn't have background in that area, at the request of his wife, and then allowing him -- and this is the key thing -- him to write about it in "The New York Times" as an op-ed? I can't do that when I represent somebody with CIA -- in a CIA situation.

What did they think was going to happen after this person was criticizing the administration in "The New York Times"? People were just going to say, well, that's just nice? Weren't they going to say, who is he?

BLITZER: All right, button it up, Jeff.

TOOBIN: But -- but the argument Victoria is making will be met by the argument: We don't care why Joseph Wilson went to Niger.

The fact is, he did. And Vic -- and Scooter Libby testified about it in the grand jury. We don't care about the context.

TOENSING: But, Jeff...

TOOBIN: That's what the prosecutors will argue.

TOENSING: .. that goes to the valid classification.

BLITZER: All right.

TOENSING: That goes to the valid..

BLITZER: Well...

TOENSING: The validity of the classification of her name.

BLITZER: Victoria Toensing, Jeff Toobin, we're going to continue this down the road, but not today, because we are out of time.

But thanks to both of you for sharing some thoughts with us.

Is because this thing Toensing's claiming will be repeated over and over just like that shit about Valerie Plame. Valerie's relationship to her husband and the CIA had nothing to do with the truth behind Joe's findings of the Niger story. However, it was a powerful bit of bullshit. I don't want to see this shit happen TWICE.

she has been all over repeating horseshit. :grr:

She's their tool. I just hope Media Matters can clear this up. My brain hurts :)

The more we're talking about him, the less we're talking about the real problem. When the right gets everyone having the Clinton discussion, they have succeeded in changing the topic.

They must pay her a lot.

It was like watching one of those dolls with the pull out string in her back.
Over and over and over and over.

I actually got a charge out of her comedy act.

I only continued to watch because James Bamford was on, whose airtime she totally sucked up! :grr:

He doesn't have a clue. He'll believe Toesing.

He cant get ahead of the Chimperor.

:)

Really it would not surprise me if they found this out.

...ass every night during the Clinton impeachment. And those were the good days.

Don

omg I can't believe I remember that. Geraldo thought he was so cool for coining that. :puke:

Not that for one second do I think he did. This is a desperation move by the Repukers that will back fire bigtime.