CNN's Blitzer interviewed Toensing after Libby verdict, did not disclose her legal work for CNN during probe
SUMMARY: Wolf Blitzer brought on attorney Victoria Toensing
to discuss the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, but Blitzer
did not disclose that Toensing co-wrote
a legal brief during
the related CIA leak investigation on behalf of CNN and media outlets arguing against forcing them to testify, nor
did Blitzer mention that she was a member of the Reagan administration.
On the March 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer brought on attorney Victoria Toensing to discuss the conviction of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney, on charges of perjury, obstructing justice, and making a false statement. Blitzer identified Toensing as "a former Justice Department official," a "former federal prosecutor," and one of many "legal experts [who] have questioned [special counsel Patrick J.] Fitzgerald's case and their tactics." But Blitzer did not disclose that Toensing co-wrote a legal brief during the related CIA leak investigation on behalf of CNN and 35 other media organizations, arguing that the media should not be forced to testify before Fitzgerald's grand jury. And while Blitzer did mention that Toensing was a "former Justice Department official," he did not mention that she served as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Criminal Division during the Reagan administration.
The on-screen text identified Toensing as "former federal prosecutor":
The brief that Toensing co-wrote, filed on March 23, 2005, asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to overturn a three-judge panel's ruling that then-Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper and then-New York Times reporter Judith Miller had to testify before a grand jury that was investigating the CIA leak case at the time. The brief argued that the journalists should not be jailed for refusing to testify before the grand jury because "the circumstances necessary to prove" a violation of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) "seem not to be present here," and therefore, the trial court should be ordered to hold a hearing "to determine whether specific elements of the [IIPA] ... have been met." Blitzer did note that Toensing "helped write" the IIPA.
In a February 23 column, Washington Post ombudsman Deborah Howell wrote that editors of the Post's Outlook section "should have mentioned the court filing" when they published a February 18 op-ed that Toensing wrote about the case. The Post was among the media organizations Toensing represented in filing the brief.
From the 4 p.m. ET hour of the March 6 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:BLITZER: Coming up, what's next for Scooter Libby? Does he have a good chance at an appeal? Victoria Toensing, former top Justice Department official, she's standing by live to join us right here in The Situation Room.
[...]
BLITZER: Let's get some more now on our top story, the guilty verdicts against former White House aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby. The special counsel, Patrick Fitzgerald, says he's gratified by the jury's decision. Some legal experts have questioned Fitzgerald's case and their tactics, among them Victoria Toensing. She's one of those critics. She's a former Justice Department official, former federal prosecutor. Vickie, thanks very much for coming in.
TOENSING: Good to be here.
BLITZER: He, according to this jury, men and women of his peers, he's convicted of lying to the FBI, lying to a federal grand jury. Presumably, he's going to jail at least for some period of time. Was justice served?
TOENSING: Well, I didn't think justice was served by bringing the case in the first place.
[...]
BLITZER: How worried should [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove, Dick Cheney be about this civil lawsuit that [former Ambassador] Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame Wilson are now moving forward with?
TOENSING: Oh. Well, it's like a mosquito. I mean, there's just no basis, there's just no basis. There's just no basis for that civil lawsuit, and I predict it'll be thrown out. Do I get to come back here when that -- when that case goes away? And also --
BLITZER: You'll come back --
TOENSING: -- just by the way, the sentencing guidelines say only 15 to 21 months, not a year and a half to three years. It's a Level 14. Fifteen months to 21 months.
BLITZER: Which was what -- so -- but presumably, if this holds, he'll spend a little time in jail.
TOENSING: It depends, because the judge isn't bound now by the guidelines anymore.
BLITZER: All right. Victoria Toensing, former Justice Department official, and helped write the law on which a lot of this case was initially based. Thanks for coming in.
Is MMFA implying that because she worked for the Reagan Administration that she is somehow less than ethical? I think they are and that's pretty weak IMHO.
No, they aren't implying Toensig is unethical. They're saying background info was omitted. She worked for Reagan, and she was involved in the leak case. Both facts were not mentioned, but should have been. Both items are important for the viewer to know, otherwise the viewer will think she's some kind of impartial, objective observer with no axe to grind. The viewer can draw his or her own conclusions about ethics and whether she's being fair or not.
CNN did not also disclose that Toensing and her husband DiGenova are also close personal friends of Bob Novak. They party together on the weekends and Novak was an invited guest to a special party for her birthday. Neither was there mention about an article she just wrote for the Washington Post blaming opractically everyone but Libby.
I understand the relevance that she wrote the brief. That should have been mentioned but wasn't. I just don't see the connection between Reagan and this case. Did only Republicans work for Reagan?
"Did only Republicans work for Reagan?"
Did Toensing work only for a Republican president? The answer to that is yes.
Yes, 20 years ago. How could CNN have missed it.
Did CNN mention that Wolf Blitzer went to Franklin Delano Roosevelt High School? I think that was important to disclose too.
"I think that was important to disclose too."
No, it wasn't.
"Yes, 20 years ago. How could CNN have missed it."
They didn't "miss it". They said Toensing was a "former Justice Department offical". That was 20 years ago. If they can say that, they can add the important fact that it was under Reagan.
No excuse for omitting it. None.
You're not explaining why it was important or relevent to note that she worked for Reagan, you are simply stating it as fact. Why does it matter which administration she worked for?
Why do you want to hide that fact? You are apparently arguing that information like what party or administration someone served under should never be disclosed (even though it frequently, regularly is, and for good reason--although for unknown reasons, Blitzer omitted it at least three times), that less information for the viewer is better than more information, then we have a very fundamental difference of opinion.
I agree with Solon, below. If the person worked for Clinton, the viewer needs to and would want to know (certainly the typical Fox News fan would want to know that). Bush 41? Tell the viewer, reader or listener. Let the people decide if knowing it is relevant or not. You want the decision left up to Wolf Blitzer. That's not my view, and I don't think it's the viewpoint any citizen should have, or that most citizens do have.
I don't want to hide it. I'm just not expecting CNN to disclose it because I don't see the direct relevence. But, I could be wrong.
she obviously has, and has had, a bias in this case for quite awhile. but she's being presented as just a legal expert. she says the case should not have been brought to begin with. apparentlly lying to a grand jury and federal agents is ok with her.
Absolutely. That's why it should have been mentioned that she wrote the brief. But working for the Reagan administration should not in and of itself indicate any bias in this case. Anyway, that's my last word on this thread.
Partisan connections should always be disclosed so we know we are listening to a partisan. YES, they should have disclosed she worked in the Reagan administration. If she had worked for the Clinton administration THAT should be disclosed.
Complete disclosure would be nice, but it would somewhat complicate the mission of the Corporate media: every 'cast would expend as much as 50 minutes dislosing that the whole idea is to paint Repugnants as noble victims of the leftist conspiracy, that all guests are liars and cheats in the employ of liars and cheats, and all hosts are chosen primarily for their ability to segue from lie to lie, from liar to liar, without missing any of the advertising breaks; thus, disclosure is impractical, leaving insufficient time for Corporate advertising.
Not if they replaced that other 10 minutes with commercials, Conley.
And the newscasters wore Nascar-style ad-festooned suits.
Victoria Toensing and her husband are the GOP's designated legal spin team farmed out to all the media when a big story breaks to get the Republican talking points out there fast and reframe the story.
No Quarter did an analyis of her worthless and inaccurate legal opinions on the Plame case earlier.
http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2007/02/victorias_secre.html
Here was Fitzgerald on the spin Toensing was putting out years ago.
BLITZER: He, according to this jury, men and women of his peers, he's convicted of lying to the FBI, lying to a federal grand jury. Presumably, he's going to jail at least for some period of time. Was justice served?
TOENSING: Well, I didn't think justice was served by bringing the case in the first place.
Her background should be disclosed, but since she supports Libby lying to the FBI and grand jury, I think she exposed herself as a republican shill.
Toensing is a regular on the Blitzer comedy hour and she must have a contract where the Blitzer refrains from challenging the more speculative remarks that this former lawyer presents.
The article should just be out how CNN is more and more following the ways of FOX and MSNBC by bringing on "experts" who are really just biased commentators with a lot of experience in the area that they're talking about in particular.
Although, she DID write some of the law in question for this case...if you're a constructionist, her opinion may matter more.
She is a conservative, plain and simple. Nothing wrong with that except when it's not mentioned viewers believe that she is "unbiased" about this verdict.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
What's the big deal with all theses chatterboxes that show up on the screen after a big news break? Hell,interview me, I'm a former Dept of Justice employee! I only was a janitor, but I can call myself a "Former Justice Dept Offical. "
Toensing is just one, in a long line of husseys that wandered around the Reagan Adminstration,pretending to be important,now almost 20 years later they think they're relevent.
Toensing was a joke yesterday, with a Hip-Hop glow to her hair,that looked liked she had just left a Rave Party at 8 in the morning.
You know, a class mate of mine said today that the whole trial was ridiculus to begin with. I forgot what is argument was or if he wven had one. What does it take to convince these people that they're wrong??? There are no WMDs, they ignore that. People keep dying, they say it'll work eventually. Wilson exposes that there were no uranium deals and they expoe his wife to get back at him. Libby is indicted for the leak and they tell us it's ridiculus to try him.
To make a war analogy: The Americans have crossed the Elbe, the British have captured Bremen and the Canadians have overrun Holland. Do REALLY have to wait for the Russians to reach Berlin?