Posted on 05/12/2005 2:08:29 PM PDT by Cat loving Texan
CBS Lied: Ken Starr Taken Out of Context
May 12, 2005
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: All right, ladies and gentlemen, listen up. We're going to go back to the Ken Starr quote that was -- or actually a sound bite that aired -- on the very little-watched CBS Evening News on Monday night. We talked about this quite a bit yesterday on Puke Day, and it turns out that the sound bite that you are going to hear is so out of context as to be near criminal, according to Mr. Starr. So I want to play for you first the sound bite. Ken Starr -- Pepperdine University, is where he is now -- and this is how his sound bite ran and how it was reported in the print media a couple days later on the CBS Evening News Monday night. Now, I must tell you that CBS ran this bite within the context of saying that Starr's comments had to do with the Republicans triggering the nuclear option, and they ran this as his thoughts on that.
STARR: This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government. It may prove to have the kind of long-term boomerang effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful senators may come to regret.
RUSH: Would it come as a surprise to you if I were to tell you that Ken Starr was not talking the Republicans triggering the nuclear option when he made that statement? Because he wasn't! I am in receipt of an e-mail written by Ken Starr in which he clarifies this, because they've been inundated at his office from people all over the place who are perplexed, curious, outraged. They don't understand. "Why in the world would you say this about the nuclear option?" Starr said, "I didn't say that about the nuclear option. I was talking about something else." Let me share with you some details. This is an excerpt of the Starr e-mail: "I have now seen the CBS report. Attached is an exchange with Steve Engle, who alerted me earlier today to the other dimensions of the wild misconstruction of what I said in the Gloria Borger interview. Here's a brief background. I sat on Saturday with Gloria Borger for 20 minutes approximately, had a wide ranging, on-camera discussion. In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather has been lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure from our history' snippet was specifically addressed to the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. I said in sharp language that that practice was wrong. I contrasted the current practice and that employed viciously against your father with what occurred..."
This is not to me. The e-mail is not to me. "...with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process as numerous Republicans voted, rightly, to confirm a former ACLU staff worker. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer but they voted -- again rightly -- to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. You know all this too well and indeed painfully well, as we remember the terrible ordeal of Bob Bork in 1987. In the interview I did indeed suggest and have suggested elsewhere that caution and prudence be exercised in shifting or modifying rules but I likewise made clear that the filibuster represents an entirely new use and misuse of a venerable tradition. Anyway our folks here at Pepperdine's public information office are scrambling to get the full transcript of the entire interview but our friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets as used represent, A, my views, or B, what I in fact said. Kindly feel free to share this message with anybody you deem appropriate." Well, the message has been shared with me. So we have something on the order, not quite to the full extent, but we have something on the order of the Dan Rather forged documents. We have Ken Starr, who sat for 20 minutes with Gloria Borger. They then cut up this interview, and applied the sound bite where he said, "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions," to a question that was asked about judicial filibusters that the Democrats are using, and the nuclear option that the Republicans are thinking of triggering.
Those who watched the CBS Evening News on Monday and those who then read reports which quoted from the CBS Evening News are convinced that Ken Starr was discussing the nuclear option when he said, "This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government." He was not talking about the nuclear option. He was talking about "the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience," Meaning we're not going to have a judge because he is, you know, pro-abortion or anti-abortion; we're not going to have a judge because of the way he's going to rule on cases; we're not going to have a judge because of his ideology. That's what Starr was railing against, and he points out: "Look, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Republicans didn't agree with her judicial philosophy at all. But Clinton won the election. They voted to confirm her, because elections have consequences. The president gets the nominees he wants. This is serious. This is a specific attempt to malign Ken Starr, to misquote him, to take him out of context, and to use the out-of-context snippet or sound bite as an attempt to rally people against the Republicans and their triggering of the nuclear option. About that, again, what Starr did say is that "caution and prudence be exercised in shifting, modifying rules, but I likewise made clear about the nuclear option that the filibuster represents an entirely new use and misuse of a venerable tradition." So the bottom line is that Ken Starr is on the right page. He's on the same page as everybody else about this but CBS sought to purposely take his sound bite out of context, and apply it to the nuclear option. Here it is again. This is the sound bite. It's audio sound bite 22, Mike, and it is Ken Starr as CBS presented him talking about the Republicans' attempt to use the nuclear option.
STARR: This is a radical, radical departure from our history and from our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government. It may prove to have the kind of long term boomerang effect, damage on the institution of the Senate that thoughtful senators may come to regret.
RUSH: He was not talking about the nuclear option. Once again, as CBS purposely misrepresented. He was not talking about the nuclear option whatsoever. He was talking about the practice of invoking judicial philosophy as a grounds for voting against a qualified nominee of integrity and experience. Now, I remember saying yesterday after playing this bite, I said, "This is absurd." Remember me saying that, my friends? This is absurd. It's stupid. How is the nuclear option "an assault on the judicial branch of government"? That's what didn't make sense to me yesterday -- and, I'll tell you what, I'm equally as guilty because I didn't suspect CBS of playing a game at all, and that's irresponsible on my part. From now on whenever CBS does anything under the guise of news, that purports to shift the discussion on an ideological basis they are not to be trusted. There is a reason nobody is watching the CBS Evening News anymore, and it's not who anchors it. It's who's producing this garbage and who's putting this garbage together. Maybe in part the anchors here and there, but the bottom line is: CBS News cannot be trusted, because CBS News is not news. It's CBS commentary and editorializing under the guise of news. They are having to still make things up, take things out of context, basically lie about what people have said, in order to further an agenda, and the agenda in this case is, as usual at CBS, to harm Republicans and conservatives -- and in this case they used Ken Starr to do it. Now, what does this also tell you about their impressions of Starr? Because during the Clinton years, they hated this guy. They despised Ken Starr. Now all of a sudden they trot him out, and they're acting like he's the lone voice of reason among Republicans. Why in the world would they take a guy who they hate?
Why in the world would they take a guy who they despise and twist his words, take them out of context, as a means to hurt Republicans? The answer is: Because secretly they know he has integrity. They know he has credibility, and they know when they play this sound bite out of context that everybody is going to believe Ken Starr. "He said it! You gotta accept it!" It's not ultimate compliment to Starr in the sense of their impression of him, but it is the ultimate insult in terms of what they did. They actually fabricated essentially an opinion Starr has about the nuclear option that he doesn't hold, and they cut up the interview with him and they pieced it together in such a way as to make it look like he was talking about something that he was not discussing. He's like all of us. He thinks that this focus on judicial philosophy... This is an attack on Democrats. What Starr actually did was criticize Democrats. This business of judicial philosophy, deciding these seven nominees aren't worth it because of their judicial philosophy -- which is exactly what Bush has said, by the way. Bush said it's an argument over judicial philosophy, a code word, but Starr picks it up and says this argument over judicial philosophy is going to come back and boomerang against the Senate and they're going to regret it down the road. He was not saying that about the nuclear option. I wanted to pass this on to you and get it out there because to me it's huge. It is gigantic. It is. It is beyond irresponsible because it was done purposely. It can't be irresponsible and purposely done at the same time. Irresponsible would mean somebody wasn't paying attention. This is worse than irresponsible. It's dishonest. It's cheating. It's whatever you want to attach to it. But from now on I'm going to promise you anything comes from CBS, screw it. The first impression is going to be just like when I read the New York Times: Gee, what if that's true?
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Now, as you know Ken Starr -- I think I mentioned this. Ken Starr has asked CBS for the entire transcript of his interview. They are refusing. CBS is refusing to give Ken Starr the full transcript of his interview. Now, given that it's CBS and given what we already know, there are some intelligent conclusions that we can draw, and that is that Starr is right and CBS is not going to give him the evidence to prove it, leaving it his word against theirs. Well, I know whose word I'm going to accept in this, and that would be Ken Starr's. So he wants the full transcript; they're not releasing it. The full transcript would tell the tale here. CBS once again, it appears, has things to hide.
END TRANSCRIPT
ping
That was also true. But Ken Star took a dive from the beginning. He overlooked a dozen felonies, well documented cases of selling intelligence to the ChiComs, and focused on a stained dress.
He was the Clintons' choice for the job. He did it well. He presented a case that could easily be attacked.
Rule #1 for dealing with the media -- demand a copy of all recordings and transcripts as a condition for doing an interview.
Who would have guessed!!??
Oh come on. I have heard the clown claiming Clinton would never leave the White House, that Clinton was planning a staging a coup during blackouts from Y2K, and just about any nutso thing you could imagine.
Here's a link to his latest drivel. Hillary to switch parties and run for President as a Republican in 2008 I listened to Quinn this morning and even he was laughing at Larry.
BTW. What Congressional inquires do you think this hustler is responsible for? I sure can't think of any. He sure is popular among talk show people looking to fill air time with something sensational, but beyond that I can't think of anyone who pays attention to anything he says.
Quinn has been wrong many times in the past.And he has made an ass of himself many times. Jim Quinn is not the final say on anything as far as I'm concerned.
Larry has stated that unless people do something to expose Clinton, he would not leave office.
Guess what. There were rumblings that the election in 2000 that Jesse Jackson was planning to riot with Al Sharpton and his group so that Clinton would declare a national emergency. Remeber when Jackson was screaming about the blacks not getting to vote? Remember Al Gore and his comments? When Bush won,Bush made Jackson & Sharpton aware that they would be targeted if riots ocurred.
Clinton was planning on not leaving, and that is a fact that most people know little of.
Nichols was not saying that Y2K was a big deal.
. Hillary to switch parties and run for President as a Republican in 2008
Hillary has switched parties...you just don't know it.How do you explain Newt and his support for Hillary? Don't ever say never.
BTW. What Congressional inquires do you think this hustler is responsible for? I sure can't think of any. He sure is popular among talk show people looking to fill air time with something sensational, but beyond that I can't think of anyone who pays attention to anything he says.
Oh you don't remember the impeachment of Bill Clinton?...Who do you think brought out that evidence? Why is it that CNN, NBC,CBS and all the other alphabet news agencies have been in contact with Larry for so many years now?
YOu clearly know little if anything about what is going on behind the scenes. My contact with Larry has been very interesting to say the least.
Everything, and I mean everything he has told me has been proven to be true, including the attacks on New York and Washington, which he said would ocurr sometime in Septemeber of 2001. GUess what?
His information about Juanita Broderic, his revelation of Jennifer Flowers, the Ron Brown death..which he told Ron Brown to shut his mouth or he would not be long for this earth. Guess what? Bye BYe Ron Brown.
What about Vince Foster and the cover-up. Larry said that Vince did not commit suicide. There was a cover-up investigation of that.
Ever Hear of Whitewater?...Guess who brought that to the attention of Congress.
but beyond that I can't think
Your last part of your statement says it all.
Larry is a freind and I will not allow you to just say anything just because you support Bill Clinton.
Or......Is that you Bill?
Why was it that Billy boy said in an interview when asked which 3 critics would he most like to silence...and his comment was.."Larry Nichols, Larry Nichols and Larry Nichols."
Ken Starr...American traitor who used his Johnson with two hookers and was taped by the Democrats. NOw you know why Starr was a failure in his investigation of Whitewater.
That I absolutely agree with. Quinn, to put it mildly, is an undereducated idiot, even though he is well intentioned. He has a good sense of humor, and can be entertaining, but from an educational standpoint, the guy is a zero.
The only time I ever called his show was back before the Y2K thing when Larry Nickols and other hucksters/hustlers were overrunning his show with all their absolute promises of DOS disaster (and you had to buy your survival kit from them). I have considerable professional knowledge in the field and tried to tell Quinn (and his listeners) that the world was not going to end and that New Years eve 2000 was going to be just like any other and they should not waste their money or disrupt their lives over the bogus Y2K panic. I was very polite and professional when I called and he simply didn't want to hear any facts -- zero. All he wanted was predictions of doom, and if you didn't buy into that paranoia, he didn't want to talk to you. I barely got through two sentences and he hung up and called me just another mind-numbed fool who was going to die because I didn't have a year's worth of Spam or whatever he was pushing in my basement.
The only intelligent talk radio in Pittsburgh is Jerry Bowyer. He moved from mornings to afternoon, so I don't get the hear him much anymore, by on the scale of intelligence and value in listening, Quinn is kindergarten and Boyer is Post Grad School.
Is it any real surprise?
I don't believe a word of that. Well, at least beyond the fact that Nichols may have said it.
Whitewater? Actually, that was the New York Times who first brought that to light -- from an editorial standpoint, inadvertently, but they deserve the credit for the scoop.
Monica's hummers? That was Newsweek with some help from Drudge and evidence from Linda Tripp and PR advice from Lucianne Goldberg.
Larry Nickols had nothing to do with either other than sitting on his phone talking to hungry local radio shows pretending he had sources for the same information that was already published.
As to 9-11, please tell me, and hopefully the FBI, what the hell this Clown in Conway had knowledge of (including the date) before it actually happened. As a matter of fact, I think most Freepers would like to know.
And to your snide little remark about me being a Clinton supporter ----------------- I'll let it go this time. I won't the next.
Anyway... The NY times consulted Larry Nichols..just as the Washington times...just as Newsweek...just as Tom Brokaw.
And as far as 911 goes...there are tapes of the show What's Right, What's Left....Pastor Ernie Sanders show.....they were talking about this in April, May June, July and August..just prior to 911....call pastor Sanders at 216-901-0933.
9 pm to midnight EST....anyway..my postings to you have finished...you are ignorant and refuse to listen to someone who knows much more about these things than you.
I feel like I'm arguing to a brick wall.
Maybe someday you will learn the truth...but for now...just remain ignorant.
Maybe someday you'll quite being taken in by hustlers.
What else is new?
Creative editing at CBS? I just can't believe it </sarcasm>
They who do not learn from their mistakes are doomed to repeat them.
Click OPTIONS / WEB FEATURES / ENABLE JAVA
You can also specify that Windows Media Player always run in it's own window. That's my preference, but most folks like it to run within the Firefox window.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.