Sharon Bush to follow up Kitty interview coming up!

I am so glad I called in sick!

Lets hope Sharon Breaks down and admits she was lying when she denied Kitty's claims.

Kitty got right in his face on every issue.
She did not back down and Matt was about to "attempt" to pull his hair out. LOL

Sharon Bush is truly an abused woman.I really feel sorry for her. Her appearance is proof positive of the greed and meanness of the Bush Crime Family.

Neil is an ass. So are all the rest of them.
In a decent family, with all that money, Deep Pockets/Deep Throat Poppy would have paid her big $$'s to keep her and his grandchildren in the style they deserve. He was too cheap to even do that much.

Family values are completely out the window at the WH. Georgie should have arranged to pay her too. He should have known that she was abused and would talk to someone. But they have such disregard for women that they didn't even think of the results of their meanness.

You can tell from the interview that she is still afraid of the Family. She is in fear of her life. What a shame!

I'm not up on the Neill & Sharon Bush divorce, I don't care at all for any of the Bushes. But when did it become the grandparent's duty to provide the divorce settlement??

the hush money at the very least.
If he had done that,Sharon would probably
have not opened her mouth to Kitty Kelly.

Joseph Kennedy would have done it in a heart beat.

the hush money at the very least.
If he had done that,Sharon would probably
have not opened her mouth to Kitty Kelly.

Joseph Kennedy would have done it in a heart beat.

Lauer was an ass. We knew he would be. She got some very good points across. And she did not back down when he pushed her.

Why anyone would take this book seriously is beyond me. Kelley was pathetic in that interview.

She stayed on point, something damned few politicians are able to do these days. She had several good hits....such as...thanks for having me on, I know the WH was pressuring you to not interview me ( something Lauer did not deny ). She made the point of "look what happened to others who wrote anti Bush books" Lauer let that one slip by. She turned the tables on Lauer and asked who HE was voting for. She made it clear she had more than on witness to Sharon's drug statement. She was hardly "pathetic".

I was amazed at how well Kitty handled Matt. She was ready for everything and made all her points effectively.

Clarke, Joe Wilson, et al are credible people. That's what makes them different from Kitty Kelley.

:-)

Why would anyone want to support this kind of slime? I don't think that we need to rely on vicious gossip like "George HW Bush diddled little boys" to make the case that his son is a terrible President. While I don't really feel like the Bushs' deserve any sympathy at all because they have used these kinds of gutter tactics through their proxies, I do feel like our political discourse needs to be held to a higher standard than this kind of crap, and I refuse to endorse it. It's irrelevant, it makes it legitimizes the slime tactics from the other side, and it just alienantes preople from politics further. I don't care that they drew first blood. Why would any young person want to go into public life and subject themselves and their families to this kind of shit? I don't see the appeal to this book at all. It's not consistent with liberal values. I understand the desire to expose the Bush family as hypocrites, but come on. This book is over the line. It has too many outrageous bombshells to pass the smell test for me. I can certainly understand how people who loathe what this President has done and what he stands for (as I do) would want it to be true, but in the end, I think that to the extent that this sideshow is identified with our message it degrades our message because it is not credible. I suspect Kitty Kelly has been looking at the NYT best seller lists and saw all the books liberals like us have been buying recently and decided to cash in by writing a schadenfreude laced fantasy novel for us. Wouldn't it be great if we found out that George Bush's dad was just as creepy as Michael Jackson? Or that in the 1970's, Laura Bush was the biggest coke dealer in Texas when she wasn't performing back alley abortions? We'd win the election in a landslide then. Hmmn. No thanks. I'm not drinking that kool-aid, Kitty.

not since she saw all the books by "liberals like us."

The timing has more to do with her publisher wanting to sell more books then change the election. I thought her interview went mostly well, she didn't let Matt turd-boy Lauer get to her.

Call it what you will, but if it is the truth, the American people really need to know it. There are millions of people in this country who are completely wrapped up in the "sanctity" of George Bush. They believe he is the second coming, for Christ's sake. They believe he is an honest, upright, and moral man.

I don't know about you, but just the opposite is true as far as I am concerned, and the sooner the real truth about George Bush and his villany is exposed the better.

Even if it takes a gossip monger to get the big question out there, then so be it. I don't give a big rat's ass how the bastard gets taken down, just so long as he does and never comes up again!!! :argh: :grr: :mad:

More power to Kitty Kelley and anyone else who can help get the monsters out of the White House!

What do you call Unfit for Command????? What do you call the scare tactics by Chainey???? What do you call Zell Miller's RNC speech???
The gloves are off ( I hope) Nice guys finish last. Slime indeed!!
Go for it Kerry/Edwards!!!!!! A democrat in North Carolina

What do you call Unfit for Command????? What do you call the scare tactics by Chainey???? What do you call Zell Miller's RNC speech???
The gloves are off ( I hope) Nice guys finish last. Slime indeed!!
Go for it Kerry/Edwards!!!!!! A democrat in North Carolina

I don't have any argument with you. Check the structure on this thread.

:headbang:
rocknation

That was my first attempt.It's hard to read some of these and keep quiet. By the way, I'm still hoping that Kerry will take the Tar-heel state.I know, I know, what all the polls say,and we sure have our share of repukes,but don't count us out just yet.

There are quite a few people who don't view Clarke or Wilson as credible. You and I don't agree with them, but if they were universally believed, this campaign would be playing out very differently.

You may not like the topics she chooses to delve into, her writing style, etc., and you certainly are free not to like her, but her credibility has to do only with whether she has reported the truth. If, as you say, you don't have time to determine whether she is telling the truth, it's unfair for you to label her as not credible.

I should've said I don't want to waste my time. I apologize.

No one, outside the Family, knows if the charges in the book are true or not. If you don't like Bush, you'll probably believe it. If you like Bush or you just don't like these kind of books, you'll probably think it's a bunch of crap.

There's probably some truth and some fiction. I just don't have the time to try and guess what's true and what isn't. I'd rather concentrate on exposing Bush's lies and misdeeds during the past 4 years.

has not built Kerry a large lead, according to polls, and has not assured him of a Nov. victory at this point.

The importance of this book, if true, is that it (a) reaches people who are not interested in Bush's lies and misdeeds as President or who refuse to view them for what they are, and (b) exposes the hypocrisy of * and speaks to his character. Again, that may not be an issue for you, but it is an issue for a number of "undecided" voters and even some who were planning to vote for Bush.

It is true that it is hard to prove libel against a public figure but it is not impossible, as Tom Cruise's successful lawsuits show. That is only one possible explanation for why she has not been successfully sued; certainly her targets have had the resources to do so. An explanation that is more plausible to me is that what she says is nearly 100% true, if not 100% true, even though it is not high-minded.

Libel suits have a high standard of proof in the US. But Kitty Kelly's books are also published in Germany, France, and the UK where the burden of proving libel is not very high at all (this is why you read about people like Tom Cruise winning libel suits in Europe here for the same allegations that get a pass here in the US because of our greater protections of press).

by the admin -- direct lies are clearly actionable. The public figure notion only applies to the degree of harm. A quasi- or vortex public figure must prove actual malice when he brings a defamation action arising out of a matter of legitimate public interest.

Libel and slander are two forms of defamation (or defamation of character), which is the tort of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. When the communication is in writing, it is termed "libel". If made via the spoken word, the correct term is "slander". Both acts share a common legal history, although they may be treated differently under modern legal systems. The statement need not be derogatory in itself to be actionable, as where it constitutes invasion of privacy or portrays the person in a false light, as by calling a prominent Democrat a Republican.

Many nations have various civil and criminal penalties for libel and slander, and different conditions for determining whether an offense has occurred. Some legal systems, including some in the United States, require in some situations that the subject of the communication prove, in a civil court, that the defendant made statement with "malice", meaning either believing it was false or with "reckless disregard" for whether it was. There are four categories of statement, however, that are defamatory per se, which means they are so inherently derogatory that a plaintiff need prove only that they were made: Those are statements accusing a person of:

having committed a crime
having a loathsome disease (such as leprosy long ago or AIDS now)
being unchaste (in many jurisdictions this still applies only to females)
being bad at their trade or business

Other systems, such as that of England and Wales require only that the statements be false and defamatory (more on English Defamation law can be found below.)

http://united-states.asinah.net/american-encyclopedia/wikipedia/s/sl/slander_and_libel.html

http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Slander%20and%20libel

she spilled the beans, then had to back off of it if she ever wanted to see her children again -- or see another morning, for that matter.

bush's response was typical and expected. her job now is to convince the world that she didn't see w. do lines at camp david.

---------------------

matt lauer was an ass to kelley, though. right out of the chute he asks her whom she votes for. and she asked him right back. she handled herself well. he tried to be patronizing, but she's smarter than the former haberdasher.

and for all the people decrying how low american politics has sunk if people's personalities are becoming the issues ... it's always been that way. it was that way 200 years ago and it'll be that way in the future. candidates and their representatives say ugly things about each other. learn to live with it.

kerry's wife, clinton's daughter, and anyone who accuses this administration of a hangnail -- they all seem to be fair game for the republicans to demean. bush avoided his guard service, he's a lying cokehead, and his family put the saudi royal family ahead of u.s. citizens. there's something wrong now about pointing that out?

...and interviewer asks someone who they are voting for...they would respond with "I'll tell you who I'm voting for if you tell me who YOU are voting for!"

My take on the interview was that Lauer's obnoxious, inquisitional style was an act. I'm not a regular viewer but he seemed to be playing the well-established role of "tough interviewer". Even Russert, another NBC frontman, whose Catholic/corporate/Republican bias is indisputable, assumes the hard-hitting "bad cop" role from time to time just to keep his "fair and balanced" credentials up to date. Lauer does not strike me as a Bushbot. The point was that they scheduled Kelley for 3 interviews. And even the corporate, war is cool, GE culture that permeates the whole NBC machine, especially on cable, that's a pretty courageous move.

immediately following his interview with Kitty? The man was treating her like a little kitten. He was actually putting words in her mouth. Near the end of the interview with Sharon he says: "Let me ask you a question. You never saw George W. Bush using cocaine at Camp David." Sharon: "No." Lauer: "You never heard anyone say they saw George W. Bush using cocaine at Camp David." Sharon: "No."

Excuse me, but since when did a declarative statement become a question? If he had treated Kitty and Sharon with some degree of equanimity you might have a point, but I'm afraid Lauer is indeed a "Bushbot". Sorry, but did you see the interview with Sharon as well as with Kitty?

ON EDIT: P.S. I don't see the series of 3 interviews as being "courageous", but rather as an effort to take what he gets from her on one day, do some research that afternoon, and try to trip her up the next day. No, I think it's a case of there being "more method in his madness" than having anything to do with the "public interest".

I didn't see the Sharon Bush interview. But it's still possible that the Today Show team are playing a double-sided media game. Lauer could have stopped, as FOX would do, at "You never saw George W. Bush using cocaine at Camp David.". But he went further to ask "You never heard anyone say they saw George W. Bush using cocaine at Camp David." He knows that there is at least one witness to the conversation with Kelley and Sharon. She has just been put on record. If she's lying, she's trapped. Kelley likely has notes, possibly tapes.

The other point is more subtle: the longer this kind of mud-strewn gossip, whether true or false, brews in the popular imagination, the deeper it begins to sink in. Look what happened to Clinton. Even the rightwing media gets caught up in it, screwed between their ratings-driven love of muckraking and their corporate-driven love of Bush. The longer that FOX and Drudge and all the rest of the Republican media machine keeps having to repeat "Bush was not AWOL. Bush was not a druggy. Bush is not liar", while it helps to ease the bad conscience of their loyal fans, for the general public, there's a sense that "Well, if this guy is so beyond reproach, why they are all these people saying such terrible things about him."

When she said she did not tape the interview with Sharon Bush I thought Lauer was going to bust a gasket. He made her admit that she taped 'most' of her interviews, and then, of course, blasted her for not taping that one. She tried to explain that the meeting was at lunch at a noisy restaurant, but it didn't "cut no mustard" with Lauer.

I hope you're right that Lauer is perhaps being shifty and coy in all this, but my experience with watching him actually raises a lot of "Red Republican flags". :shrug: :)

To make such an incendiary and critical charge, Kelley should not have included it without corroboration. Without something more substantial, it invalidates what is undoubtedly the general truth of her whole book. Her publishers have claimed they vetted her allegations in detail. So there may be more to this.

But you certainly made your case against Lauer. Trying to get the kids off, I missed more than I thought.

stands by the contents of Kelly's book. A witness attending the lunch is a credible source, especially since it was someon hired by the * wife.

with this publicist in tow. Lauer probably wouldn't allow it though. He so desperately wants to discredit Kelley.

and will chop it up. I'm sure Kelley is too busy to make 3 separate trips to the Today Show.

of questions - apparently only those authors who criticize Bush are subject to such scrutiny.

fan of the Today Show. She said that she could tell that the * wife was covering her a** and just wants to be sure her kids are not cut out of the family fortune. She said that the wife appeared frighten and she believes that she told Kelly what Kelly claims she told her. My friend pointed out that even the wife admitted she was hysterical after the lunch and so afraid of the * lawyers.

The friend also said that if he did cocaine at Camp David, that was after he was saved. She asked how many times can someone be saved.

I was tickled that this fan of Lauer and the show who is not political believes that Kelly's book is probably true and that the ex-wife was just trying to protect her fortune and her kid's place in the family.

like Today AND it's women who will also be able to sniff out Sharon and observe what your friend did. In fact it's a double wham because they will be pissed at Bush for doing coke and be pissed that these women are scared to death of this clan. Love it.

for being so mean to Kelly - she wondered what was up with that.

I am still excited about the reaction! :bounc:

on their allegations in their books on Hillary & Bill Clinton? I don't recall seeing Matt Lauer or anyone else putting their feet to the fire.

Perhaps her feet are being held against the fire, at last.

I thought Matt Lauer’s interview approach to Kitty Kelley was unprofessional especially when held up against his approach to Sharon Bush. I would have preferred if Mr. Lauer would have allowed Ms. Kelley to answer his questions. Apparently, Ms. Bush does not dispute that she met with Ms. Kelley and that Ms. Bush was critical of President Bush over the course of a 4 hour lunch and a follow-up telephone interview. It would have been nice if we had an opportunity to hear what Ms. Bush admits she told Ms. Kelley if Ms. Bush disputes that she made statements about President Bush’s cocaine use at Camp David (also, Ms. Bush seems to deny telling Ms. Kelley about cocaine use at Camp David, but does not seem to deny a more general discussion of cocaine use). Finally, it seemed unbalanced to question Ms. Kelley’s motives for publishing an account of the interview which was corroborated by the third-party witness when Mr. Lauer did not question Ms. Bush’s motives for recanting her interview (I would have liked to know whether recanting her interview might have some implications for her divorce and custody matters).

sources in his Bush valentines masquerading as books. Why is it that only those who are CRITICAL of Bush get raked over the coals, while those who gladly spew out the talking points spoonfed to them get a complete pass?