Here's the telecast of Schuster and his non-apology apology. 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OIxgw04Y0Fc

---- Original message ----
>Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2008 14:30:52 -0500
>From: "Gorelick, Steve" <[log in to unmask]>  
>Subject: Suspension of MSNBC Correspondent David Shuster  
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>   Students on the HC-J list:
>
>    
>
>   Some of you may or may not be aware that MSNBC
>   anchor David Shuster said  on the air on Thursday
>   that Hillary Clinton had "pimped out" her
>   27-year-old daughter by having her call Democratic
>   superdelegates on behalf of her mother.  Shuster,
>   who apologized on the air for his comment, has been
>   suspended.
>
>    
>
>   I thought some of you might like to see the email
>   exchange between MSNBC correspondent Shuster and
>   Hilary Clinton's press secretary that immediately
>   followed the "pimping" comment.  And I'd love to
>   know what you think.
>
>    
>
>   I don't, though, want to seem completely neutral: I
>   love rough, honest political reporting that cuts
>   through the spin and calculation, but I confess to
>   being old-fashioned enough to feel that no serious
>   print or broadcast reporter should ever use language
>   like this.
>
>    
>
>   But this email exchange is very revealing of the
>   ongoing struggle between campaign staff and the
>   press that is quite routine during a national
>   campaign.
>
>    
>
>   Steve Gorelick
>
>    
>
>   ______________________________________________________
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Philippe Reines
>   To: David Shuster
>   Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 7:14 p.m.
>
>   David - how hard is it for someone, anyone, in the
>   vast MS/NBC universe to contact any one of us at the
>   campaign for comment about Chelsea before going on
>   air and saying that she is being "pimped out" ? It's
>   absurdly offensive. And what the hell does that even
>   mean?
>
>   I just don't get MSNBC - does GE not allow you to
>   make toll calls? What's the problem.
>
>   Philippe Reines
>   Press Secretary
>   Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: David Shuster
>   To: Philippe Reines
>   Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 8:51 p.m.
>
>   Nice to hear from you, philippe.
>
>   It is a fact that chelsea has made calls to
>   superdelegates, as your campaign colleagues have
>   acknowledged. It is also a fact that the campaign
>   has reacted quite harshly to any media who have
>   sought to interview chelsea. That was the point. By
>   slamming any reporter who seeks to chat with chelsea
>   while simultaneously having chelsea do campaign
>   tasks such as trying to convince super delegates to
>   support her mom, that's the reference.
>
>   Chelsea is polite and does a fine job of saying "I
>   don't want to talk.". But for campaign staff to then
>   jump down the throat of a reporter who seeks to talk
>   to chelsea...that's an issue.
>
>   --------------------------
>   Sent using BlackBerry
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Philippe Reines
>   To: David Shuster
>   Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:00 p.m.
>
>   Since you guys asked for the transcript - here
>   specifically is what David said on air:
>
>   SHUSTER: "But doesn't it seem like she's being--but
>   doesn't it seem as if Chelsea is sort of being
>   pimped out in some weird sort of way?"
>
>   I have a hunch that such offensive and unacceptable
>   language was never used on MSNBC's air about Karenna
>   Gore, the Bush twins, Venessa & Alex Kerry, Kate
>   Edwards, the Romney sons - or any other adult
>   offspring who chose to campaign on behalf of a
>   parent.
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Philippe Reines
>   To: David Shuster
>   Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:16: p.m.
>
>   David - I want to make sure I'm crystal clear here -
>   you're saying that because she doesn't grant
>   interviews and makes calls on behalf of her mother,
>   you are right to say that she is being pimped out?
>
>   I don't need to read a the whole transcript for
>   context, you were way out of line. Nobody's jumping
>   down your throat about asking for an interview or
>   talking about calls she made. And you know it.
>
>   There is simply no excuse for being so offensive.
>
>   By actually rationalizing your behavior rather than
>   accepting responsibility and apologizing, you become
>   the poster child for everything wrong with tv
>   journalism, and it's a shame your NBC colleagues
>   have to be associated with this (expletive).
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: David Shuster
>   To: Philippe Reines
>   Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:29 p.m.
>
>   No. That's not what I'm saying. And if you bothered
>   to look at the transcript and saw all of the glowing
>   things I said about chelsea and the way she was
>   raised, you would know that.
>
>   The issue is not her making calls. As + said on the
>   air, I have no problems with that what so ever. The
>   issue is not her refusing interviews. The issue is
>   that the campaign has come down hard on reporters
>   who merely sought to ask chelsea questions. You
>   can't have it both ways. Reporters have long
>   respected the clintons desire that we avoid chelsea
>   and let her have her space. But to get angry at
>   reporters seeking to talk to her now is patently
>   unfair. And you know that.
>
>   --------------------------
>   Sent using BlackBerry
>
>   -----Original Message-----
>   From: Philippe Reines
>   To: David Shuster
>   Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2008 9:49 p.m.
>
>   I think we've each said what we have to say on this
>   matter. Based on this email exchange, we're assuming
>   two things:
>
>   1) You are not disputing that you said on air: "But
>   doesn't it seem like she's being--but doesn't it
>   seem as if Chelsea is sort of being pimped out in
>   some weird sort of way?"
>
>   2) You have no intention of apologizing for the
>   above.