In regards to yesterday's post about Clinton...

Check out what ThinkProgress.org has to say about the "blame Clinton" defense that I was talking about yesterday.

They start off talking about Attorney General Alberto Gonzales going on Larry King Live. Here's what Gonzales had to say:

"I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it’s my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an example.

"I can also say that it’s my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant and so those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today."

And here is what ThinkProgress.org has to say:

"The issue with the Bush’s warrantless domestic wiretapping program is that it violates a federal criminal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Despite what Gonzales is implying, the Clinton administration never violated FISA and never claimed they could violate FISA. Here’s why:

"1. Prior to 1995, FISA did not cover physical searches. (With Clinton’s signature, the law was expanded to cover physical searches in 1995.) The search of Aldrich Ames home occurred in 1993. It did not violate FISA.

"2. Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified in 1994 that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches, before FISA required physical searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant. Gorelick was arguing that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches in the absence of Congressional action. At no time did she suggest that, after Congress required the President to obtain a warrant, the executive branch could ignore the law, nor is there any evidence the Clinton administration failed to comply with FISA."

And one reader pointed out in a comment under the ThinkProgress.org post that Gonzales kept saying "it's my understanding." That phrase is great lawyer-speak for really saying, "I'm going to give this statement as 'my opinion' because I know I'm wrong, and when I'm called out for it, I can say I was stating opinion and not fact, so that I don't look like a bigger liar than I already am."

more info:
In Desperation, Gonzales Smears Gore (ThinkProgress.org)