Gillibrand - It's not retroactive immunity

A couple weeks ago I criticized Kirstin Gillibrand for being in favor of Telecom immunity by voting for the FISA Bill. She doesn't see it that way. Here is part of her return email explaining her vote:

Second, the revised law did not provide retroactive, blanket immunity to the telecommunications companies that conducted searches of phone calls and emails at the behest of the administration without warrants, which I stand strongly against.

This is confusing to me. If you are strongly against retroactive immunity for telecoms, why would you vote for this bill? Rep. Gillibrand goes on:

In addition, Title II of the bill rejects blanket immunity for telecom companies and instead directs federal district courts to determine whether "substantial evidence" supports civil protection for telecom companies that aided the government after 9/11. The administration wanted full retroactive immunity from lawsuits and so putting the onus on the telecoms to prove their innocence represents a fair compromise that ensures oversight of the executive branch.

Oh, now I understand. The Bill doesn't give telecoms retroactive immunity. But from everything I've read, what the Bill does give the telecoms basically results in immunity. The telecoms do not need to prove their innocence, they only need to show evidence that the President requested that they help out with warrant less spying.

One thing I must say however, is that Rep. Gillibrand has responded to every email I've ever sent her.