Talk:Victoria Toensing
 | This article was nominated for deletion on December 25, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tagged article
editI came across this article in reading Plame affair legal questions and realized that there were no citations of sources in it. Much of it may come from Toensing's biography posted on her law firm website. The article does not appear to be entirely written following W:NPOV and may appear to be an advertisement for Toensing and her law firm. Originally, it failed to mention that Toensing is married to Joseph E. diGenova, her law partner in the firm. It also fails to mention her political biases that become clear when one watches her deliver commentary on media talk shows. Even though the article does not appear very short, I also tagged it with a "legal-stub" tag to alert people that it needs improved development. --NYScholar 23:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I listened to Toensing speak before the House investigative committee on the Plame Leak. She has ZERO credibility. It was obvious that she was trying to divert the heat off the White House and onto the CIA for not doing more to protect Plame's identity.
Ms Toensing is a lawyer, and lawyers are there to represent their clients. In investigations involving classified information, the primary focus is on whether or not the information is classified, and whether or not there was a compromise.
Her primary role was/is to muddy the investigation on behalf of her "client(s)" whoever they are.
It was obvious from the hearing that there was, in fact, a wreckless violation of our National Security Act which could, could already have, or will in the future endanger U.S. personnel.
Ms. Plame was the most credible witness at the hearing.
Ms Toensing can be placed in the same category as Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh.
Near the end of today's hearings Henry Waxman read from a letter from the CIA (which was cleared by them) that stated:
"...at the time of the publication of Robert Novak's column on July 14, 2003 Mrs. Wilson's CIA employment status was covert. This was classified information"
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1205&Issue=Disclosure+of+CIA+Agent+Identity
Warning of deletion request
editScroll up to top; placed template on article; due to lack of source citations in this article for nearly a year (at least), this article will be subject to deletion if these problems are not corrected immediately. Scroll up for previous user's comments about this problem and the possibility that this article, lacking proper sources WP:BLP#Sources) violates not only the no-ads policy but also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and WP:V, core editing policies in Wikipedia. --NYScholar (talk) 02:33, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
- Although the Christmas 2007 request was made, no citation was ever provided in the ensuing decade. I removed the unsourced material and also the material sourced solely to the subject's own website. Activist (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Add "Involvement with FBI informant in Uranium One scandal" section?
editI suggest to add to this article a new section title: "Involvement with FBI informant in Uranium One scandal". This is significant information with current event and media coverage. I tried to include both POV and their respective sources.
On October 25, 2017 the FBI removed the "gag order" on their informant related to the Uranium One deal scandal. As the informant lawyer, Victoria Toensing, stated that the informant "work uncovering the Russian nuclear bribery case and the efforts he witnessed by Moscow to gain influence with the Clintons in hopes of winning favorable uranium decisions from the Obama administration".[1][2] During a C-SPAN interview, Hillary Clinton said that any allegations that she was bribed to approve the Uranium One deal were "baloney".[3]
Francewhoa (talk) 22:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
References
- ^ Solomon, John (2017-10-25). "FBI informant in Obama-era Russian nuclear bribery cleared to testify before Congress". The Hill (newspaper). Retrieved 2017-11-07.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=(help) - ^ "Gag order lifted: DOJ says informant can speak to Congress on Uranium One, Russia bribery case with Clinton links". Fox News. 2017-10-26. Retrieved 2017-11-07.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=(help) - ^ Tatum, Sophie; Mallonee, Mary Kay; Schneider, Jessica. "FBI informant allowed to testify on uranium". CNN. Retrieved 2017-11-07.
{{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=(help)
- Looking for a picture of Toensing and/or diGenova on commons (no luck) I stumbled over c:File:2018-03-08.Interview Summary of Campbell Interview for Members-2.pdf. –84.46.52.169 (talk) 02:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Split into Victoria Toensing and Joseph diGenova articles
editCurrently Joseph DiGenova redirects to this page. The NYT reports that the Trump Whitehouse will hire diGenova to bolster the Whitehouse legal defence team.[1] I think this is reason enough to split the article. Additionally the article provides further information of Toensing and diGenova involvement with other players (Sam Clovis, Eric Price, Mark Corallo) in the Special Counsel investigation (2017–present).
Haage42 (talk) 18:50, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
References
- ^ Haberman, Maggie; Schmidt, Michael S. (2018-03-19). "Trump to Hire Lawyer Who Has Pushed Theory That Justice Dept. Framed the President". New York Times. Retrieved 2018-03-19.
"Republican Party operative"
editWhat is a "Republican Party operative"? This descriptor seems to be coming from the Politico article "Ukraine scandal ropes in Clinton-era GOP operatives", but I'm not sure it's such a widely-understood term that it ought to be used without explanation in the first sentence of a Wikipedia article. Unless I'm just the one out of the loop... GorillaWarfare (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
- @Soibangla: Thanks for adding more sources to the "Republican Party operative" descriptor.
You could add a fourth with this Politico article if you wanted.(Edit: Just did this myself). But I still can't really figure out what they mean by it—if we were to try to paraphrase "Republican operative", what would be roughly equivalent? GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2021 (UTC)- Yes, it's a vague moniker, but I guess I'd interpret it to mean someone (typically an attorney) who has no official public role but operates on behalf of those who do. It certainly has a connotation of shadiness. soibangla (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Sounds a bit like she's a super spy or something. I would love to find a better synonym, but none come to mind that wouldn't be extremely wordy. GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it's a vague moniker, but I guess I'd interpret it to mean someone (typically an attorney) who has no official public role but operates on behalf of those who do. It certainly has a connotation of shadiness. soibangla (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Footnote 46
editWhy does footnote 46 link to diGenova & Toensing's website and not the New York Times, as it purports to quote? Thanks. Nobs01 (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Fixed. Great question, thanks for noticing that. I've replaced it with the correct citation. GorillaWarfare (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- That makes at least three such instances of their site used as a source, I fixed two yesterday. ha. soibangla (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- While making this fix I did check the two remaining usages of that ref and they at least seemed plausible. Bizarre, I wonder when/how that happened. GorillaWarfare (talk) 16:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- That makes at least three such instances of their site used as a source, I fixed two yesterday. ha. soibangla (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
