O'Reilly ordered Wiehl's mike cut after mishearing her on U.S. attorney issue
On the March 21 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor, host Bill O'Reilly attacked co-host Lis Wiehl for asserting that the Bush administration had offered to allow White House staffers to appear before the congressional committees investigating the controversial firings of eight U.S. attorneys only if no transcript of the interviews is produced. O'Reilly called her claim a "lie" and maintained that Wiehl "did not do [her] homework." In response, Wiehl read from a March 20 letter from White House counsel Fred Fielding to the chairmen and ranking members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees, in which he laid out the conditions under which White House staffers could appear. Wiehl read: "Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, a transcript, subsequent testimony." O'Reilly apparently misheard Wiehl -- replacing "oath" with "open" -- and went on to state: "Open transcript means it gets to The New York Times. There is a transcript to the senators who, if they lie, can charge them with crimes. You know it, and you misled my audience, who comes here for the truth."
Revisiting a common tactic, O'Reilly instructed his staff to turn off Wiehl's microphone: "Cut her mike. Cut her mike. She's not allowed to speak for three minutes." He went on to ask: "What can we do to her? What can we do to her?" While Wiehl's voice could be heard in the background, her microphone appeared to be turned off.
Regardless of O'Reilly's misinterpretation, Fielding's letter -- which Wiehl read accurately -- stipulates that such interviews be "conducted without the need for [a] transcript." At no point in the letter did Fielding use the term "open transcript" or indicate that he would allow the production of a private transcript available to the committee members, but not the public or the press. From Fielding's March 20 letter:
Such interviews may cover, and would be limited to, the subject of (a) communications between the White House and persons outside the White House concerning the request for resignations of the U.S. Attorneys in question; and (b) communications between the White House and Members of Congress concerning those requests. Those interviews should be conducted by both Committees jointly. Questioning of White House officials would be conducted by a Member or limited number of Members, who would be accompanied by committee staff. Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, transcript, subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of subpoenas. A representative of the Office of the Counsel to the President would attend these interviews and personal counsel to the invited officials may be present at their election.
As an additional accommodation, and as a part of this proposal, we are prepared to provide to your Committees copies of two categories of documents: (a) communications between the White House and the Department of Justice concerning the request for resignations of the U.S. Attorneys in question; and (b) communications on the same subject between White House staff and third parties, including Members of Congress or their staffs on the subject.
After ordering Wiehl's microphone cut, O'Reilly added: "I'll scold my own people here 'cause they're not -- she's not telling you the truth. There is a transcript. Every word [White House senior adviser] Karl Rove and anybody else said would be on paper."
Furthermore, O'Reilly told his listeners that the U.S. attorney scandal is unimportant because "[i]t has nothing to do with your life." After Wiehl insisted that it did matter, O'Reilly said: "And now you made a terrible mistake, and you're smarter than that, and you misled my audience, and I'm furious. I am furious at you."
From the March 21 edition of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: So, Bush says, "Yeah, you can talk to 'em, but I'm not gonna let you set the precedent of issuing a subpoena in a non-criminal action. Because it disrupts the executive branch." Bush is absolutely, 100 percent correct. You cannot run the executive branch -- every time you do something, there's a subpoena for you guys to explain why. You just can't do it. It's impossible to disrupt the office. So he's right, and he'll win. There's not a court in the land, even the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals -- not a criminal matter.
They're not gonna allow subpoenas to float into the Oval Office on a question of politics, especially since he's making them available to testify in front of Congress. And if they lie, they go to jail. All right?
WIEHL: That's right. But there's no transcript of it. There's no way that we're -- the people are gonna find out about it.
O'REILLY: No, wait a minute. Hold it. That's another lie.
WIEHL: No!
O'REILLY: You see. I don't like you today.
WIEHL: Why not?
O'REILLY: Because you are not -- you did not do your homework.
WIEHL: Yes, I did!
O'REILLY: No, you didn't. You did not do your homework. There is a record of every word that is said.
WIEHL: Such interviews would be private and conducted without the need for an oath, a transcript --
O'REILLY: Oh, open transcripts.
WIEHL: -- subsequent testimony, or the subsequent issuance of --
O'REILLY: Stop. Stop. Stop talking.
WIEHL: So how would we ever find out about what happened?
O'REILLY: Stop talking. It's not about you, and you're misleading the audience. Stop talking.
Open transcript. In the congressional hearing, there's a transcript. If they lie in front of Congress, they're prosecuted.
WIEHL: How are we gonna know if they lie, Bill?
O'REILLY: [Sen. Patrick] Leahy [D-VT] will know.
WIEHL: How is he gonna know?
O'REILLY: Because there's a transcript for Leahy. It's just not a public transcript.
WIEHL: But you just started with saying this doesn't have an effect on we, the people. It does have an effect on we, the people --
O'REILLY: No, it doesn't.
WIEHL: Yes, it does.
O'REILLY: It has nothing to do with you. It has nothing to do with your life.
WIEHL: Your local law-enforcement officer, the head local law enforcement in your state has everything to do with your life.
O'REILLY: No, it doesn't. And now you made a terrible mistake, and you're smarter than that, and you misled my audience, and I'm furious. I am furious at you. It is -- there is a transcript available. It's available to the senators in the committee, and that's all they need to charge this guy with lying in front of Congress. And you, Lis Wiehl, misled --
WIEHL: It's not an open transcript.
O'REILLY: -- the Radio Factor audience.
WIEHL: It's not an open transcript, so we don't find out.
O'REILLY: Cut her mike. Cut her mike. She's not allowed to speak for three minutes. That's all right.
It's not -- as I said, open transcript means it gets to The New York Times. There is a transcript to the senators who, if they lie, can charge them with crimes. You know it, and you misled my audience, who comes here for the truth. What can we do to her? What can we do to her?
WIEHL: I'm just getting [inaudible]
O'REILLY: No. All right. You see? I'll scold my own people here 'cause they're not -- she's not telling you the truth. There is a transcript. Every word Karl Rove and anybody else said would be on paper. If they lied, Leahy could take that and have them charged with lying to Congress, and you get five years for every lie. Wiehl and all the other propagandists tell you there is no transcript. And then when you call them on it, she sneaks in the word "open transcript." Open, which means The New York Times gets it. OK. That's what Bush doesn't want.
Because The New York Times gets the transcript and, as we demonstrated yesterday, cherry-picks and twists things around, OK, to make points that aren't true, like the immigration thing in New Bedford. Babies weaned from mothers' breasts because the feds -- you know, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
But the bottom line is, and I'm gonna take a break and then let Wiehl talk again, but I'm furious at you. The bottom line is that when Rove and [former White House counsel Harriet] Miers and anybody else goes in to testify before the Senate subcommittee headed by the partisan Leahy, who wants to embarrass the Bush administration -- Leahy wins no matter what happens, by the way. He wins because the press will pick up on it.
That -- every word they say is recorded. And the words are there. So if Leahy then gives the words to his staff and says, "You find out if they're telling the truth," and it comes back, "Senator Leahy, Karl Rove lied," Rove can go to jail.
That's what Bush allowed. He allowed that. What he didn't want was an open transcript because then the executive branch again says, "Nothing that's said in here is confidential." It all gets into the pages of The New York Times, and you can't run a presidency that way. You can't. No one could.
Bill, I think that...."OKAY, SHUT OFF HIS COMPUTER RIGHT NOW. THE PRINCE IS SHUTDOWN FOR 3 YEARS. BUSH WANTS EVERYTHING JUST DO IT HE IS THE PRESIDENT."
Bill, it is working again...any transcript will do. But let the AMEIRCAN people hear it and read. If Rove isn't hiding anything, what is the big deal? Okay, I'll shut up Bill.
Karl Rove is a a great American(Hannity)...he should act like it and appear in front of America, not his donaters/enablers
"...you misled my audience, who comes here for the truth."
No they come to have their delusions validated.
Or to be entertained. Simply because one listens to the show, it does not mean one agrees with everything or anything that said. You can enjoy the circus without being a participant.
Well.... I don't know about that, here is a telling statistic:
"Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers."
So that clearly says Fox viewer = Bush Supporter, there is a strong correlation.
So, Bill-O is on Fox, people that watch his show are by definition Fox viewers, and ergo are Bush supporters. Yeah there are always a few exceptions, but the trend is clear. People tune into Fox (and Bill-O) to have their pro-Bush belief system reinforced.
"such interviews would pe private and conducted without a need for an oath, transcript....." sounds clear. cutting someone's mike does not change the english language, just makes you look childish.
perhaps like Flush is is stuffing Oxycotin?
Wasn't it O'Lielly who also had a problem understanding 'truth' mishearing it (deliberatly?) as 'troops' in Condoliar's lying before a congressional commetee?
Even an apology from The Big Giant Head shouldn't be enough to keep this woman from resigning. If she continues to work for that idiot, then it's a sign that she needs as much if not more psychological help than mic-cutter. That kind of lack of self-respect is a serious call for help.
How long is this guy going to be treated as someone who is even remotely "normal" by the rest of the media when he is obviously a Republican Commissar?
Agreed.This guy is simply an embarassment. If Fox had any standards of ethics (ha ha ha) they would can his abusive butt. I had to listen to this kind of crap for my first 18 years of life, and there is absolutely nothing funny about it whatsoever to me.This guy simply enables other abusive men to practice similar verbal abuse on their own families. Anyone thinking B.O. is entertaining clearly never had to live under such a regime and don't have to bear the scars.
This is just classic BillyO, that you have to laugh out loud! First he misunderstands her...and then, to compound his error, he cuts her mic! Omigod, this is just freakin' funny - BillyO at his best!!!
Hey, Loofahlover, ...DO YOUR HOMEWORK!!!
Bill Olliely,
The biggest DUFFUS in the WORLD!!!
He's the biggest DOOFUS! Bumpkin! Blowhard!
Sorry, should have spelled Duffus, Doffus, no insult intended for the good citizens of Duffus Scottland.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=doffus
"no insult intended for the good citizens of Duffus Scottland."
...though an insult nonetheless for the citizens of Scotland, which is a country that actually exists. ;)
How about some sweet smileys here, Dave? I'd like one with a face burning another face with a flamethrower! Get it? ;) <--- Think what COULD be there!
PS: Lis Wiehl is unspeakably hot in person, which means this is the only way I can possibly communicate that sentiment to the world. She's like Vicki Vale to my unpredictable (yet compelling!) Batman/Joker hybrid.
you can't run a presidency that way. You can't. No one could.
Clinton could.
President Clinton not only could, he did.
Examples please.
And don't forget to include your sources.
Are you kidding???? http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/jan-june07/attorney_03-20.html
In the Clinton administration, four different White House counsels testified in public and under oath. Eight deputy or associate White House counsels testified in public and under oath. Ten officials -- ten times -- officials in the position of Mr. Rove testified in public and under oath.
A total of 47 times, Clinton senior White House officials testified in public, under oath, with a transcript, so it will be very hard for Congress to accept any less in these circumstances where we don't know what the facts are, but we...
Aww C'mon, cut BO some slack...
After all, it's a little hard to hear with such a severe case of cranial rectumitis.
Wow, he's even a tyrant and bully towards his own co-host.
This is just further proof that O'Reilly has gone off the deep end into insanity.
O'Reilly misleads his audience on television and radio almost every single time he speaks. This is not the first time that O'Reilly has done something like this. In 2005, when Condoleezza Rice was going through confirmation hearings to be Secretary of State, he played a clip of Barbara Boxer on the Radio Factor grilling Condoleezza Rice during her confirmation hearings, and Boxer said to Rice in the clip something to the effect of "...your committment to the truth is in question.." when she was talking about statements that Condoleezza Rice made in the run-up to the Iraq War. O'Reilly then went off on Barbara Boxer and said that she was totally out of line by questioning Condoleezza Rice's committment to the troops. A caller to his Radio Show pointed out that Boxer said "truth", not "troops", and O'Reilly said she was wrong, and then started going on and on about how if you "come into the No Spin Zone, you should get your facts straight", and the usual nonsense that comes out of his lying mouth. The man is really sad and pathetic and should just retire. Maybe he needs to make a lot of money because he paid off Andrea Mackris to just disappear off the face of the Earth. Do a Google search on Andrea Mackris if you don't know who she is and how she is connected to Bill O'Reilly. It will help you to find out just who Bill O'Reilly really is.
THANK YOU.
njguy93@yahoo.com
I was going to mention the same incident, NJGuy. I'm glad you remebered the context better than I did. Al Franken used to play that quite a bit, and it never stopped being funny.
BilldO is a national treasure. Telling his pinhead audience that this situation has nothing to do with their lives, can you picture the goofball in his "No Spin" polyethelyne windbreaker, sitting back on his couch and thinking " It don't? Ah, good, I didn't feel like doing no thinkin tonight anyways"
Sorry, NJGuy, I forgot my rude counterpart to your always-polite sign-off.
F**k you, HBLefty
That had to be one of the most entertaining segments I have ever heard. Perhaps someone could answer this, and help me with my ignorance. Where did they get that letter? Did it leak? What a stupid negotiation eh, I see no good reason for not having a transcript other than covering up a lie or embarassing information. The random forced resignations of all these justice officials. This is big people, lets hope it doesn't roll off of everyones backs, and then this will be another Bush administration miracle!
sometimes i wonder if the CIA will show up at people's doors for this. "hey has anybody seen Matt in a while?"
You can always tell when O'Reilly is lying and knows it.
When he says something he knows isn't true he enunciates very carefully and slowly, like he's making sure he's getting the lie exactly correct and not accidently speaking the truth, and he starts to shake a little.
I witnessed this last night. He was telling a guest somebody was lobbying for a law to make viewing child porn legal in public librarys. He spoke very slowly and shook a little. Then his guest corrected him saying what was lobbied for was ADULT porn not child porn.
It didn't stop O'Reilly from blathering on like he hadn't heard her but picking up on his mannerisms when he knows he's lying was interesting.
Sweet screaming monkeys, this man is nuts! Does anyone know if he even acknowledged that he misheard her? Not that he would admit to it...
BilldO only acknowledges the occasional meaningless trivial error, just to put out the illusion of caring about accuracy.
The big picture stuff, like being completely wrong about just about everything for the last several years, seems to be forgotten by the next day.
That was sad even for BOR.
He used another story where he had the facts wrong ("Babies weaned from mothers' breasts") to support his mistaken understanding of this story.
It's like a batter striking out twice on the same pitch.
Wow, Billo! What a whiney crybaby you are!! "I'm furious with you so I'm taking my ball and going home to my Mommy! WAAA! WAAA!" Please. How can anyone take this whiner seriously? Really!!!
It has been a while since BOR's contribution bore any relevance to any intelligent discussion on any subject. I'm a bit surprised that MM has devoted this much space to him. It was amusing!
and....Bill'o is a pornographer his own self, ya know
A few years back he wrote a masterpiece about a crack dealer (Robo) who would use the drug to get sex from underage girls....a great line from it is..."put down that pipe and get my pipe up" literary genius!!!
the best part of all is there is audio of him reading it himself, I guess like a books on tape sort of thing. Randy Rhodes plays it often.
Pathetic fool...
PDrum CA
Where is the "Why is this here" post by Tommy and a defense of Bill-O from him.
Don't forget, tomeeeee would also add his ever expected "this is silly" rant.
Or the perennials:
'So what?--O'Reilly's a jerk, and you'll never see me defend him, but it's only his opinion and aren't there more important things for all of you and MMFA to rant and whine about, and who cares?, and you people here are just as bad with your name-calling and it's all just really ridiculous and silly, apparently.'
I'm flabberghasted. I knew Billo was a moron, but I hade no idea he was this moronic, and on such a galactic level. It takes my breath away.
BTW Can I get an auto-graphed picture of you, Bill, to put at the top on my 2007 holiday tree? I now it's a bit early, but I hate standing in line
people come to me for the truth.
nobody in their right mind would go to bill o'reilly for the truth.
o'reilly is about as much out of touch with reality as limbaugh,
hannity, cavuto, coulter, and the bush administration
O'REILLY: It's not -- as I said, open transcript means it gets to The New York Times.
And from there to the American people who would be able to make up their own minds! The horror! Open transcript means it would also be able to get to Fox News.
But does he still think she would make a great pole dancer?
Bill could learn something from Emily Litella. (I miss Gilda)
It is partially Lis Wiehl's fault, because she didn't pronounce "oath, a transcript" clearly, and when O'Reilly immediately says "open transcript" she doesn't correct him.
what, exactly, is liz wiehl's fault?
No, O'Reilly's just hearing what he wants to hear, because he not only misheard "an oath, a transcript," but that was prefaced by "without the need for". If he hear "open transcript," then he heard her say, "...without the need for an open transcript."
Yeah, here we go with the "personal responsibility" angle that conservatives like to toss around as though it means anything to them.
BILL O'REILLY GOT IT WRONG. Period. Own up to it already.
O'REILLY: So, Bush says, "Yeah, you can talk to 'em, but I'm not gonna let you set the precedent of issuing a subpoena in a non-criminal action. Because it disrupts the executive branch." Bush is absolutely, 100 percent correct. You cannot run the executive branch -- every time you do something, there's a subpoena for you guys to explain why. You just can't do it. It's impossible to disrupt the office.
------------
Yeah. Interesting how "disruption" becomes an issue now when, during Clinton's eight years, the Repugs had NO PROBLEM stirring up subpoenas -- civil and criminal -- for Whitewater, Lewinsky, whatever they could dream up. Bush can't figure out how to tie his shoes but Clinton continued to deal with major international issues even while he was swatting at flies.
If you open your eyes, you will notice that all of those non-issue Clinton molehills made into mountains 1) had nothing to do with actually running a democratic government and 2) were either very OLD or very irrelevant information about doing the JOB a President is elected to do. Or, as I've said for more than 8 years, "Do you care who your dentist sleeps with when deciding to get your teeth fixed?"
Well, BOR has learned how to yell "Stop talking" instead of "shut up" to people.
Baby steps, people.
Bill O'Reilly is another BushCo sock puppet, he'll say anything his sponsors will buy off on, I think it's too funny that Tony Snowjob got the gig, why didn't they just pick Bart Simpson?
It doesn't surprise me too much that Bill would practice a little shift-on-the-fly censorship, there, of course FOX has been taking the country for a ride for a while now, this is the famous 'filter' we keep hearing so much about, well, how about a little truth in advertising, there, and replace FOX with 'B.S.'? It's shorter, and easier to remember between commercials...they don't call it 'programming' for nothing....
tommy is still here? where are you tommy? I've missed your insightful commentary.
Here is an interesting aspect of the dynamic of O'Reilly's and Weihl's argument that PROVES!! that O'Reilly is OUTRIGHT LYING!! in regards to his use of the term "open transcript."
Let's assume for a moment that Bill O'Reilly actually believes what he was saying and actually believes that he heard "open" instead of "oath, a" in his argument. Lis Weihl begins to read the statement describing the testimony terms between the WH and Senate right after O'Reilly told her that there is a record of every word and that she is wrong. O'Reilly mishears her reading and thinks that it says "open transcript." That would mean that O'Reilly actually agrees with what she was reading. If he agrees with what she was reading, then why shut her up? Why not get behind what she was reading and smack her down with it? Fact is that he knows that there are no transcripts in the WH offer and he knows that what she was reading did not say "open."