i want to bring in jeffrey toobin to assess. s right now and a lot of reaction from viewers all over the world, jeffrey. that these two individuals, these young people spent four years in prison for something they did not do. what do they do about that? how do they regain those four years? >> you know what? i think the answer is they get on with their lives. there are always possibilities. it happens in the united states rarely. i can't say i know how often it happens in italy trying to sue people. the best answer is to get on with their lives. amanda knox is fortunate she has a loving family. she has people who love her, who care about her. she can continue with her education. it just seems to me that the last thing amanda knox wants or needs is the inside of another courtroom. you pointed out earlier it is possible that the prosecution here will appeal to the highest court in italy, which could reinstate these charges. that suggests to me amanda knox ought to take her vacations elsewhere in the future. stay the heck out of ital

our senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin is with us from new york tonight. jeffrey, four years since she was arrested. nearly two since she was convicted. what changed over time that led to this dramatic reversal today? >> the evidence against her was somewhere between thin and nonexistent. two things. a confession that was confused and simply unbelievable and not really a confession at all. and a dna test of blood on a knife that turned out not to say what the government said it was. take those two things away, there's simply no case against her. >> jeff, stand by. we'll have much more on this story coming up in just a few moments. >>> first, other breaking news tonight. cnn is told tonight the new jersey governor chris christie is on the verge of announcing whether he'll seek the 2012 presidential nomination. in conversations with several sources today it was clear the governor wants to make his decision this week. one of the sources told me christie spent time this weekend in discussions with his wife about the pros and the cons of a late entry into the ra

i'm joined via skype by jeffrey toobin. jeff, this is quite a story.tart with the 13th amendment. let me read it it to you. quote, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall exist within the united states. now, it doesn't specify people, does it, jeffrey? >> it doesn't specify people, but if there is one court or one judge in the united states who thinks it applies to anything other than people, i would be very surprised. i mean, it is implicit that it only applies to people. >> i want to bring in fad lassnick, you're a former head trainer at seaworld. you work with marine parks around the world. what do you think about this? are seaworld's killer whales enslaved? >> well, i have spent my life doing what i do and taking care of animals, and i can tell you firsthand that seaworld does a terrific job with everything they do with the animals at seaworld. i just think this thing is crazy. it really does beg the question of why does peta does do something like this? and it shows how ridiculous they are. i mean, what's next? are we going to say that ani

let's take it up with jeffrey toobin. ffrey, there's a law on the books that i think has been in effect since the 1970s. banning the u.s. government from assassinating individuals. how does the u.s. government legally justify killing a u.s. citizen now? >> because we're at war. i mean, it's as simple as that. right after 9/11 congress authorized the use of military force against al qaeda. that law is still in effect, it was the authorization for the war in iraq, for the war in afghanistan and as an active member of al qaeda, this guy is fair game under our laws. >> so if he was a member of another terrorist group, not al qaeda, would it still be legal? >> well, not under this use of force authorization. i mean, there are various findings. the president can issue what's called an intelligence finding relating to other people. this post-9/11 authorization only applies to al qaeda. but just to answer your broader question, i mean, this ban on assassinations is really pretty much irrelevant at this point. so many presidents si

they'll lose $58 of that if they test positive for drugs. >> i want to ask our legal analyst jeffrey toobinre considering this. three states have already passed it. the aclu is fighting this. is there a legal precedent here? can this happen? >> well, the question of is it constitutional is a very separate question of is it a good idea. in terms of is it constitutional, there isn't a definitive ruling yet. but my sense is, it is. the government is free, usually, to attach strings when it gives a benefit. it can say, we want you to do certain things, fill out a form, to give you a benefit. now, the question is, is a drug test so intrusive and so unreasonable that it is an unconstitutional strain. and since the government does have an interest in not wasting money and not subsidizing drug use, i think they could come up -- the government could come up with a reason that the courts would approve. >> and kimberly, in terms of why these states want to do this, many of these states say that, you know what? their budget -- just they're in trouble financially. they have to make some cuts. their budg

. >>> let's bring in john avalon and jeffrey toobin to talk about that. political fireworks. we are going to get some because in addition to the news jessica broke we see an energy adviser that pushed for the loan raised a half million dollars for the president's re-election campaign. >> solyndra stinks and all of the e-mails show culpable and the wisdom of making the loans. however, to this piece of breaking news, the white house has already turned over 70,000 documents and 900 documents from the white house. the issue at end is what to do with the president's blackberry. it is unprecedented technology territory and that's one of the reasons it makes sense to invoke executive privilege to stop it from becoming a political fishing expedition. >> the blackberry new precedent here. >> when obama came president, people said don't carry a blackberry, people will suppress it. bad embarrassing news comes out at 6:30 on friday. i don't think it is going to i don't think this is going to be that legally controversial. if it's about the blackberry, this is the core of presidential dec

let's bring in jeffrey toobin and john. fireworks. we're definitely going to get them. in addition to the news that jessica broke, we're seeing the advisor campaign. >> solyndra stinks. there may be doubts about the wisdom of making these loans. however, to this piece of breaking news, as jessica said, the white house has turned over 70,000 documents and 900 documents from the white house. the issue here at hand is what to do with the president's blackberry. it's unprecedented territory. it's one of the reasons that it invokes the executive privilege to stop this from becoming a political fishing expedition. >> what do you think about this, the blackberry new precedent here? >> remember when obama became president and they said don't carry a blackberry. people will end up subpoenaing you. it's been 2 1/2 years and i think it's like the old days in the clinton administration. bad embarrassing news comes out at 6:30 on friday. >> there isn't a company or government in the world that doesn't use that one. >> i don't think it's going to be legally controversial. if it's the

i want to turn to drew given who is in amanda's home town seattle and jeffrey toobin and former l.a.eputy district attorney marcia clark author of the book "guilt by association." jeff, in your opinion, was this the correct verdict? >> absolutely. i mean, this was really a terrible case. there were two pieces of evidence against her. there was this confession that was clearly discombobulated and false and a piece of dna that was completely discredited, plus the real killer is in prison. rudy guede has all his dna, his blood at the scene and the prosecution of amanda knox and her boyfriend seemed inexplicable to me. >> a lot has hinged on dna evidence that was later reversed or later ruled basically useless. >> yeah, exactly. anderson, it's one of these things that you look at. wow, why did nobody look at this at the time of trial? why did it get this far if it was this badly handled? we found it was. they have a different system there. at trial, unlike here, where we weed it out before we get to court. there it seemed as though they go to trial, then weed it out on appeal. here appea

. >>> let's bring in john avalon and jeffrey toobin to talk about that. political fireworks. we are going to get some because in addition to the news jessica broke we see an energy adviser that pushed for the loan raised a half million dollars for the president's re-election campaign. >> solyndra stinks and all of the e-mails show culpable and the wisdom of making the loans. however, to this piece of breaking news, the white house has already turned over 70,000 documents and 900 documents from the white house. the issue at end is what to do with the president's blackberry. it is unprecedented technology territory and that's one of the reasons it makes sense to invoke executive privilege to stop it from becoming a political fishing expedition. >> the blackberry new precedent here. >> when obama came president, people said don't carry a blackberry, people will suppress it. bad embarrassing news comes out at 6:30 on friday. i don't think it is going to i don't think this is going to be that legally controversial. if it's about the blackberry, this is the core of presidential dec

. >> let me ask jeffrey toobin if that is, you know, legal. is that appropriate?ional restaurant association, a lbying group here in washington, to release all documents? they said their policy is, they don't discuss personnel matters, like most companies don't discuss personnel matters. >> but he could certainly wave his confidentiality. he could wave any documents that he signed. >> but jeffrey, who says the women want all of that information to come out right now? >> not necessarily -- their names could be excluded. there are all sorts of ways you could disclose more information here consistent with both normal corporate policies and protecting these women's privacy. but it is important to remember, there are only two solid facts we know. undisputed fablgts facts. as cain said today, there was a sexual harassment claim against him. the other fact is that some money was paid to these women as politico reported yesterday. why? how much? >> right. >> it raises all sorts of questions that if you are running for president of the united states, you absolutely have to

our cnn senior legal analyst jeffrey toobin joins us from new york. i don't know if you agree or not, jeff, enthralling perhaps the cases here? what jumps out at you? >> well, health care reform really could be the biggest case that has been before the court since bush v. gore. but here you have president obama's major achievement as president of the united states and the supreme court very likely will issue a thumbs up or thumbs down in the next -- you know, before the -- july of next year. it is a huge, huge case. >> jeff, what about the make-up of the court? it's changed. has it at all changed its rulings or its character now that you have three female justices on the court? >> well, i think more important than three female justices is you have four democratic justices. i mean the political polarization that we see in congress we see in the supreme court now. there are five republicans on that court, there are four democrats on that court and that really tells you pretty much all you need to know about how they resolve most cases. >> do we expect t

state senator who helped push that law through the state legislature and cnn legal analyst jeffrey to be toobinwhy did the court say no? >> it's a peculiar decision. they veto those two decisions from going into effect and say we'll hear the full case later. i think you can read into what they're saying the laws that sweep so broadly, every student has to prove his or her citizenship and every possible illegal immigrant has to prove and carry papers at all time, that was so broad the court said that was a vital of some provision of the constitution probably due process of law but again they didn't explain it. >> senator, did you go too far? too sweeping? did you go too far here? >> no. i don't believe so. i think that what he said was a misrepresentation. the first provision dealing with schools simply deals with the fact that we're asking for a birth certificate. same thing we ask from every citizen in the state of alabama to get a handle on the numbers of finding out what the impact really is on our school system. i don't think it went too far. to say it was asking for citizenship is off. the