KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS SeeBS caught LYING AGAIN!!Rush Limbaugh is nailing them on his show today, also, btw.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.
Posted on 05/12/2005 10:45:25 AM PDT by Pikamax
KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS [Ramesh Ponnuru]
CBS, AP, and other outlets reported earlier this week that Starr had said that getting rid of the judicial filibuster would be a "radical, radical departure from our history and our traditions, and it amounts to an assault on the judicial branch of government."
This seemed like a very odd thing for Starr to say, so I contacted him.
He forwarded to me an email he had sent to someone else who had asked about this matter:
"In the piece that I have now seen, and which I gather is being lavishly quoted, CBS employed two snippets. The 'radical departure' snippet was specifically addressed -- although this is not evidenced whatever from the clip -- to the practice of invoking judicial philosopy 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 . . . with what occurred during Ruth Ginsburg's nomination process, as numerous Republicans voted (rightly) to confirm a former ACLU staff lawyer. They disagreed with her positions as a lawyer, but they voted (again, rightly) to confirm her. Why? Because elections, like ideas, have consequences. . . . In the interview, I did indeed suggest, and have suggested elsewhere, that caution and prudence be exercised (Burkean that I am) in shifting/modifying rules (that's the second snippet), but I likewise made clear that the 'filibuster' represents an entirely new use (and misuse) of a venerable tradition. . . .
"[O]ur friends are way off base in assuming that the CBS snippets, as used, represent (a) my views, or (b) what I in fact said."
FRAUD from CBS?? Gosh, who'da thunk. Isn't Starr the guy who let Bill Clinton walk in exchange for a "guilty" plea tailor written to neither prove nor disprove Clinton's guilt or innocence? So now he's trying to regain relavance. I'm beginning to dislike him INTENSELY.
The latest from CBS - unreal.
KEN STARR'S REAL VIEWS SeeBS caught LYING AGAIN!!Rush Limbaugh is nailing them on his show today, also, btw.
Please let me know if you want ON or OFF my General Interest ping list!. . .don't be shy.
This, IMO, is the real crux of it: if Republicans back off this time, then we all KNOW the demonRATs will never, never, ever hesitate - should they ever again have a majority. So WTF are they afraid of after all? The possibilities are endless.
Do you really believe that, were the democrats in the majority and such obstruction was occuring by the republican minority, that democrats would hesitate for one minute to go nuclear? If you do, you are dreaming. Therefore I do not see the danger.
Ladies & Gentlemen,
I have now read the e-mail from Judge Kenneth Starr stating that CBS News cut and pasted his comments in order to report that his viewpoint on the "nuclear/constitutional option" in the US Senate to the exact opposite of what he said. I also understand that CBS has refused to release the entire transcript of his interview which would, of course, establish immediately whether Judge Starr is telling the truth.
It would also establish whether certain CBS employees edited the Starr statements in a way to slander him, as well as grossly to violate ordinary journalistic standards.
I have practiced First Amendment law in the US Supreme Court for more than 30 years. I have just sent a recommendation to Judge Starr that he file suit against CBS for its failures, including a demand that the court order CBS to release the full transcript.
I would NOT be the attorney on such a case. I believe, however, it would succeed. I submit that it is time for CBS, if it did edit Judge Starr's comments to the reverse of what he actually said, should act immediately to cut its losses, admit its errors, and fire the people responsible for this broadcast falsehood.
I seek an answer to this e-mail, but I'm not very hopeful that I will receive one.
Very Truly Yours,
John Armor /s/
John Armor, Esq.
Highlands, NC 28741
What they did to Ken Starr is a typical 60 Minutes tactic. To do other than a live interview is asking for trouble.
Well, then, mission accomplished.
See-bs was successful if they got a "quote" like this from Starr entered into the Senate record.
Just doing the job of deceiving the public once again.
But he don't have either..
i.e. his inditing Bubba on sex while horny.. while a mountain of evidence proved virtual treason.. or at least sedition <--which there are Zero laws against in the United States.. and Treason is defacto legal....
Oh! yeah.. Nevermind.. (Sedition is legal here).. and treason is merely a political tool..
Reid and See-BS are definitely in cahoots on this one, IMO.
Anyone who talks to CBS should have their head examined.
Thank you. Great news.
I think that what you are describing as a "Gentleman's Filibuster" is simply the result of the fact that the Republicans control the flow of activities on the Senate floor. The Republicans are forced to conclude sessions without a vote because the Democrats threaten to filibuster. The Republicans control the floor virtually all the time.
If the Republicans forced the Demoncrats to filibuster, then the Demoncrats would control the floor. The cameras would roll non-stop recording Demoncrat lies.
If the Republicans forced this, then the media would have a field day blaming Republican stubborness for closing down the Senate.
As for your opinion that the filibuster should be retained for judicial nominees, do you really think that a majority Demoncrat Senate would retain this rule if the situation was reversed? The media would have a field-day pointing out how there was no Constitutional super-majority associated with "advice and consent".
It's a modification of the old Stalinist and Maoist propaganda ploy of airbrushing out the political opponents who aren't "convenient" at the time.
The only exception was when Johnson nominated Abe Fortas to move up from Associate Justice to Chief Justice. In that one instance, Republicans and Democrats not only supported the filibuster, but a majority of all Senators voting, voted against Fortas. Four days later, Fortas withdrew his name.
A few years later, Fortas resigned from the Court itself over ethical problems that had first reared their head in the Senate at that time.
And now you know the REST of the story.
Congressman Billybob
Yes, but only as long as 1 of them could talk. You can't have one person fillibuster, stop talking (which ends the fillibuster), and then start another one or replace that speaker with another speaker.
It would only last about 24 hours at most.
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.
