0 scandals. >> if we don't have a joint committee, we're never going to get the truth and where are the survives? 14 months later, the people who survived have not been made able to the u.s. congress for oversight purposes, so i'm going to block every appointment in the united states senate until the survivors are being made available to congress. >> because of the segment, lindsey graham is going to block every appointment made by the president. on that day, on that monday, it was apparent that the so-called eyewitness may have had some questionable motives. david brock on our show that night disclosed that even fox news itself was weary of using the other source. >> and the other witness appears to be some type of british mercenary who apparently in conversations with fox news, asked for money to talk and so, you know, fox news even drew a line there, but it was good enough for cbs. >> turns out, cbs was also publishing davies book. the connection did not disclose during that original report. while fox news may have shied away from him because he asked for money, it didn't stop the same fox news from running over 13 segments. mainstream validation was even comically evident at a rally for the now defeated virginia candidate, ken cuccinelli, a week before tuesday's election. his warm-up acts stalking the crowd with -- including congressman frank wolf. >> the man who was going to get to the bottom of what's going to happen in benghazi. >> i appreciate that introduction and we are going to get to the bottom and if anyone watched "60 minutes" last night, today? >> it's obviously a very, very difficult day for everyone there, but my question is how much real self-examination is is being done there. i watched lara this morning on cbs this morning and even though there was an apology, and even though it was borderline mistakes were made, i don't believe there was still an adequate explanation of just what kind of vetting really was done. at the end of the day. >> journalism 101. you have a single source. you have with -- >> most dangerous thing in the universe. >> who is a self-interested source because the source is trying to sell books. then you have a story, which is a political hot potato, which can be red meat to certainly one side of the argument and it seems to me that raises the bar and makes it more crucial that you do your due diligence and i didn't hear anything in the explanation of what we did to vet that leads credibility to the argument we were fooled. you shouldn't have been fooled. >> so, the piece is here is that this was basically, you see this story, you think this is going to light up the right. and it did and it's also like a box for us to check the next time we're accused of liberal media. remember, we did that benghazi story. the threshold is the imprint of simon and shuster,al l though it has now been recalled. being pulled out of -- we're trying to get video of them packing up the books. >> by the way, that's a cbs decision. >> conservative imprint that publishes books by glenn beck, sarah palin. i mean, that's the world this story is coming out of. those are some red flags. >> they wants to key into it. there's an automatic audience there, but when you're going to wade into that, you have to be careful. you cannot stain your reputation just because you want to sort of fuel this. one other quick point. after the national guard story, you know, 2004, "60 minutes," their last real huge embarrassment, they appointed a panel. did lots of interviews, hired lots of lawyers. >> i want to talk about that. famously dan rathers producer on the story of the national guard documents, forged documents about president bush's record in the national guard. had this to say, the story is done to appeal to more conservative audiences. they appear to have done the story to appeal to conservative audiences. you can't avoid the parallels here, bill. >> you can't avoid them because everybody's going to think oift of it. but to me, this is a far lesser scandal because i don't see this as, people aren't doing this sort of in a presidential election, trying to influence voting. i think, i may be wrong, but i think people have to step back and say, look, there's a lot of agendas being played out here. you're saying cbs wanted to court the writer. but my sense is they weren't wanting to do something on benghazi, spent a lot of time, then this guy's book showed up. >> it was a mini perfect storm. they needed to inject a big b12 shot into that benghazi story. one of the things we try to tell some of our students is how to watch television and be aware this that fellow's story, had nothing. i mean, in essence, had nothing to do with the same old story they were telling in the rest of the piece. this was a little bit of smoke and mirrors. let's inject a dramatic, heroic story. >> i want to say one thing. getting involved in this, you then see the impact. because the state department didn't like this at all. they kind of went after this guy. they wanted to go after and so, reporting on this is a mind -- what does have to happen, or just do diligence and put up what appears to be a fabricator and put the credibility of the cbs news on the line. thank you, all, really. coming up, this is the city of pasadena's website. said here, we have the kind of community, culture and responsiveness attracting attention. they are for one thing related to their government. their effort to suppress the latino vote. why a texas ballot initiative was the most important election of the week you haven't heard about, coming up.