If indicted, Rather could flee the country and find sanctuary with comrade Castro
Posted on 09/22/2004 9:39:42 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Safire: It Was A Crime
Newsmax.com
Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004
Quoting U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 63, Section 1343, New York Times columnist William Safire went straight to the heart of the CBS Rathergate scandal, writing, "At the root of what is today treated as an embarrassing blunder by duped CBS journalists may turn out to be a felony by its faithless sources."
Writing in Wednesday's New York Times, Safire noted that the statute holds, "Whoever, having devised any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both."
Safire contends that law applies to those who "conceived a scheme to create a series of false Texas Air National Guard documents and append a photocopied signature to one of them."
Says Safire, that person "then helped cause the fraudulent file to be transmitted by means of television communication to millions of voters for the purpose of influencing a federal election" -- which he adds is "no mere 'dirty trick' but a potential violation of federal law."
Safire writes that it must be revealed:
Who the forger was?
Did others conspire with him or her to present a seeming government document - with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to defraud, which is a felony in Texas?
Who was meant to to benefit from the forgery and how? While admitting that the feds and the courts "have no business forcing journalists to reveal sources," Safire argued that there is no ethic that requires a journalist to protect a source who lied.
Accordingly, he wrote, Dan Rather went to the Texas ranch of his source and telecast Bill Burkett's admission of having falsely "thrown out the name" of someone who gave him the false evidence, adding that his real source was some hard-to-find mystery woman named Lucy Ramirez.
Safire speculates that in return for his fake documents the Bush-hating Burkett got "coveted access to someone high up in the Kerry campaign."
Burkett was able to reach Kerry's ally former Senator Max Cleland, to "plead for access to higher-ups so as to launch a 'counterattack,' on Bush who was benefitting from the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth attacks on Kerry's war record. Cleland, he says, confirmed getting the call and said he told Burkett to try the Democratic National Committee . . ."
When Burkett's call to DNC headquarters was not returned, he then asked CBS producer Mary Mapes to help him get the top-level Kerry access he craved.
Prior to the 60 Minutes telecast, Mapes or some other "60 Minutes" staff member got Burkett what he wanted - a call from Joe Lockhart, the newly hired former Clinton press aide. With the number generously supplied by CBS, Safire recalls that Lockhart called Burkett. "We don't know what was said," Safire wrote, adding that "the call from on high was payoff in itself."
Safire wonders what CBS should do now. He suggests that:
The network should release Rather's interview with Burkett in its entirety, including the outtakes.
Mary Mapes, at the center of all this, should be allowed to speak to reporters.
Viacom should use their vast resources to track down the possible original sources who likely have engaged in criminal conduct. Appointing independent reviewers should not be a device to duck all others' questions, Safire argued, saying that this is UN Secretary Kofi Annan's trick to stonewall his oil-for-food scandal.
"Conservatives, he adds, "should stop slavering over Dan Rather's scalp, and liberals should stop pretending that noble ends justify fake-evidence means. Both should focus on the lesson of the early 70's: from third-rate burglaries to fourth-rate forgeries, nobody gets away with trying to corrupt American elections."
Oh, I'm fairly certain that Ms. Mapes' lawyer has advised her to STFU.
For the purposes of wire fraud, you do not even need to send the fraud to a recipient to be guilty of the crime. That's a long stretch in the federal pen, longer than the sentence poor Martha Stewart is currently serving. It would be poetic justice if it the Feds threw the book at all involved in committing and covering up this crime. And it makes Watergate look like small potatoes in the annals of crime.
BTTT
According to Volokh, there is neither statutory nor case law that indicates that "fraud", as a term of art, means anything outside of trying to cheat people out of their property.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2004_09_21.shtml
He doesn't believe that election fraud would apply.
I doubt he's right, but have not researched the issue.
"from third-rate burglaries to fourth-rate forgeries, nobody gets away with trying to corrupt American elections."
Can Safire really believe this??
Eugene Volokh is right since if the wire fraud law were applied to politics, it would put the world's second oldest profession permanently out of business.
I had just about given up on Safire. Maybe I should give him a second chance. Maybe.
Should all this result in indictment, if I were the prosecutor, I'd cut Ms. Mapes a sweet deal to roll over on Rather. Just to see Dan do the perp walk.
Elsewhere in the US code, the term "defraud" is used in connection with elections.
I don't know if it ever became law (I don't have access to Lexis or the US Code here), but see for example the anti-corruption act of 1989, as introduced in the House:
(a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (d), deprives or defrauds, or endeavors to deprive or to defraud, by any scheme or artifice, the inhabitants of a State or political subdivision of a State of the honest services of an official or employee of such State, political subdivision, or Indian tribal government shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for not more than twenty years or both.
(SNIP)
`(d) The circumstances referred to in subsections (a), (b), and (c) are that--
`(1) for the purpose of executing or concealing such scheme or artifice or attempting to do so, the person so doing--
`(A) places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing;
`(B) transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds;
`(C) transports or causes to be transported any person or thing, or induces any person to travel in or to be transported in, interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(D) uses or causes the use of any facility of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(2) the scheme or artifice affects or constitutes an attempt to affect in any manner or degree, or would if executed or concealed so affect, interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(3) as applied to an offense under subsection (b), an objective of the scheme or artifice is to secure the election of an official who, if elected, would have some authority over the administration of funds derived from an Act of Congress totaling $10,000 or more during the twelve-month period immediately preceding or following the election or date of the offense.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c101:H.R.3490.IH:
If indicted, Rather could flee the country and find sanctuary with comrade Castro
So, Miss Mary could be looking at 20 years in the pen? How interesting.
Perhaps, but isn't the point not to throw people in jail, but survive a motion to dismiss so that we can get discovery? This novel legal theory may be plausible enough to get discovery going.
---According to Volokh, there is neither statutory nor case law that indicates that "fraud", as a term of art, means anything outside of trying to cheat people out of their property. ---
It is problematic. I could find some Canadian and British case law that refers to fraud with the intention of impeding governmental functions. In the US this sort of fraud seems to be settled by bring suit in court.
There may be, however, a third way. What is the monetary value of a sixty minute infomercial during prime time that has the weight of objective fact? It's in the millions, a lot of millions.
That would be fitting. Rather and Castro.
This quote is interesting:
'CBS News released a statement yesterday standing by its
reporting, saying that each of the documents "was
thoroughly vetted by independent experts and we are
convinced of their authenticity." The statement added that
CBS reporters had verified the documents by talking to
unidentified people who saw them
"at the time they were written." '
Someone needs to shove this up RatherEvil'sTM and Lockhart's rears!
try 18 USC 1001
An often-raised defense is the claim that because the alleged act or activity has no reasonable relation to the Federal government, no Federal jurisdiction exists. This defense focuses on the language of Section 1001 that requires that the conduct occur "in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States." In describing the situations in which the prohibited conduct must occur, the courts have construed the statute broadly and stressed that Section 1001 protects the government "from the perversion which might result from the deceptive practices described." Bryson v. United States, 396 U.S. 64 (1969).
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/crm00903.htm
That's it. Case closed. Wake us in 6 months when they issue the "Mistakes Were Made But There Was No Criminal Intent" report.
This is a total smoke screen to attempt to throw the blame away from a "fellow journalist". Burkett had access to Kerry campaign people from the git-go. The slimy Ben Barnes, Kerry's Nantucket neighbor and $500K campaign fundraiser was Burkett's partner in crime, along with Mary Mapes, Dan Rather and Dan's ugly daughter. This whole thing was a DNC/Kerry/Rather/Barnes/Mapes/Burkett cooked up deal--they all were just so stupid that they didn't believe anyone would discover that the documents were fake so quickly. Thank God for FreeRepublic.
Ratherbiased and his SeeBS staff would have been right at home working for Stalin, framing political opponents with forged documents.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.