I did not initiate the conversation you responded to. I just tried to help you understand. Apparently I failed
Thank you for your concern. As a criminal defense attorney, i was completely unaware of the “he would love to drag Clinton through the mud” exception to the ethical rules governing client confidentiality and statements to the media. If I ever have a question about the finer points of the Rules of Professional Conduct you’ll be my first call.
I think you’re arguing something completely different than what Arkadin and others are. You’re arguing that Starr can’t say anything because of attorney client privilege. They are simply saying that if Clinton was the client Fox would have asked Starr about it by now. They aren’t arguing that Starr would have talked about the situation.
Apparently Ken is comfortable enough ethically to talk about substantive aspects of his criminal client's case in an op-ed. But yeah Fox would be remiss to ask him a single question about it. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/opinion/letters/jeffrey-epstein.html
Respectfully disagree, that’s not what Ark is saying and Fox clearly isn’t burying the Epstein case—they have dozens of articles about it. Moreover, that’s not what the article/blog/blurb said with which I took issue. It doesn’t say or imply anything about Clinton; it just takes Fox to task for not grilling their correspondent on-air about his personal clients. I think the crux of this disagreement is that Ark assumed my statements were an endorsement of Fox and/or Starr and ran with it. They weren’t. I was simply pointing out that there are very obvious and understandable reasons why Fox wouldn’t force Starr to talk about this, and there are plenty of valid grounds to criticize both without fixating on such nonsense.
There was no criminal case against Epstein in March. Those comments and that article were written months prior to his arrest.
Starr was on Ingraham tonight and blabbed all about his Epstein representation, presumably to defend the NPA. Guess they're comfortable asking Starr about Epstein after all.
So I guess he got authority from his client, the Daily Beast article is moot, and the posters who said Fox didn’t want to question him about it were wrong . There’s a difference between an attorney voluntarily offering a comment about a case and a media company attempting to elicit info about their correspondent’s personal cases. Sry not sry.
Nah nah Fox has close to zero morals about literally anything and you can bet your ass if the president and his boys weren't heavily implicated you'd have gotten a question about it. Fuck out of here pretending like they give a single fuck about starrs responsibility as a lawyer
A conversation acknowledging state run media in 2019 America isn't that stupid tbh. More people should talk about it
This is pathetic Ark. They asked him about it. You’re arguing a counter factual now. In the event that Starr had chosen to remain silent about it, Fox wouldn’t have respected his decision out of ethical concerns, I never said that. I clearly stated that they would be chomping at the bit to get him on air. They would refrain, if he didn’t want to be interviewed, because: 1) They’re not going to find many high profile legal correspondents if they try to force them to talk about their personal clients against their wishes; and, 2) It would make for extremely boring and uncomfortable programming. “Ken, do you think Jeffrey did it?” “....” “Ken?” “I can’t discuss that.” “Riveting stuff Ken, back to you Maureen.”
The line of questioning if they weren't feeling so guilty would be something like "Ken when you were investigating bill clinton's sex acts around the White House did you have any idea that he was preying not only on of age women but also little girls?"
So Starr admits to using his connections to Bush’s justice department to pressure Acosta on the Epstein issue.
Lol @ the idea that Fox feels guilty about anything ever. They don’t give a shit. They have a bajillion articles and broadcasts about the case. I have little doubt that if Starr didn’t represent Epstein, they would bring Starr on to ask him exactly those questions about Clinton. And Starr would happily oblige and put on his dog and pony show. But he does represent him, so it’s a different situation. You think Fox is ashamed that their high profile legal consultant has high profile clients in the news? C’mon dude they love this shit. They hired him hoping something like this might happen down the line, because it helps them get first access. This goes back to my original point about the Daily Beast article—it’s disgusting to criticize a criminal defense attorney for representing criminals, even a POS like Ken Starr.
No, I don't think they feel that kind of guilt. I think they feel the kind of guilt that comes from being involved in fucking kids for decades
I think that Rupert Murdoch was fucking little kids with Jeffrey epstein so they're calculated in the way they want to cover it
Let me guess, you think that means nothing w/r/t how Fox might cover this case until a stronger connection can be proven in a court of law?
Not at all. Do you think everyone in the guy’s address book participated in or knew about his crimes?
I feel quite well actually. Strange? I dunno man, I’ve only been asked “how can you represent someone like that?!?” a thousand times by the same people who whine about the constitutionality of their speeding ticket, or think that the government shouldn’t place any restrictions on them owning firearms, or believe that they shouldn’t have to pay taxes, etc... I find that the general public has very little understanding or appreciation for the role of defense attorneys (until they need one, of course), and I see that sentiment writ clear in the Daily Beast article and Ark’s comments.
I haven't commented on him representing people at all It's amazing a lawyer can have this bad of reading comprehension
Do you think Ken Starr was providing Epstein anything other than high level influence? Has he ever been a criminal defense attorney?
You have repeatedly endorsed that Daily Beast article despite my exhaustive attempts to explain why Fox can’t just force Starr to answer questions about the case, completely disregarding the defense attorney’s role and responsibility in cases like these. True, you haven’t solely focused your criticism on attorneys in your ever-shifting argument of “well fox should ask him and he can choose not to respond,” to “well if he didn’t represent him you can bet he’d be happy to discuss Clinton’s involvement,” to “well Murdoch is a child molester,” but the net effect of your comments have been to consistently attempt to devalue and demean my otherwise innocuous point about defense attorneys.
No one has said fox should force him to answer anything. I haven't said fox should even ask him anything. I've explained to you numerous times that their coverage is influenced by the people implicated. If you can find actual quotes that resemble anything you said in those "quotes" shoot It's mind blowing that you can't understand that point and that you can't acknowledge the tremendous, tremendous slant that they present on literally every piece of coverage
an on its face normal point about the standards fox news uses in broadcasting based on partisan lean should not have caused this absurd tangent especially with the evidence provided
It’s mind blowing that you are taking my statements to mean that I think Fox is impartial. All I took issue with was the daily beast article, which you supported and says exactly what I criticized if for saying.
I havent done any of the things you keep saying You keep making things up and some how can't grasp the point that literally all I've ever said is that fox is covering it with a slant on purpose, like they do everything else
i just went back and read the daily beast article and this entire exchange because I hate myself Why?Pokes you're being a fucking moron about this and letting your emotions tied to your REPEATEDLY STATED position as a criminal defense attorney send you flailing take a breather, go back and re-read the discussion
Definitely not participated. Likely not the extent of his crimes, but likely pressured in some shape or form in relation to them. This is Rupert Murdoch we’re talking about. A non-American who we’ve allowed to turn our system inside out. Forgive those of us who don’t think he deserves the benefit of the doubt. He’s ruined your profession as well, in case you haven’t been paying attention.
He's just one stupid motherfucker that consistently tacks right hiding behind the facade of centrism. He is a Republican. Which speaks volumes these days.
There is a tangential relationship between Epstein and Murdoch beyond being a listing in the black book. Ghislaine's father was Rupert's arch-rival in Britain's publishing world.