Evidence that CBS News 60 Minutes II is guilty of malice and intent to defraud update 2

9/20/04 | charleston1

[charleston1]

Update at the bottom:

On September 15th, CBS News issued a three-page news release. CBS was still standing by its National Guard story in the wake of an article by ABC News about previously unknown document examiners hired by CBS, having doubts about the Killian documents they had been hired to review.

I wrote an article in follow-up to that ABC News story exposing CBS for deliberately withholding the fact that they had more than four documents. It was entitled “Evidence that CBS News 60 Minutes II is guilty of malice and intent to defraud” and posted it here the night before the CBS news release:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1216338/posts

Several bloggers were reporting on my article and were adding new information at their websites and I am thankful to every one of them! I wondered if CBS would address the authentication shopping issue I had raised here, and whether CBS could stop the issue from surfacing in the MSM. The answer in both cases is yes. As it turns out CBS lied about a key piece of their original 60 Minutes II segment “For the Record” in their three page public news release. I believe they did so for the sole purpose of stopping the authentication shopping issue from erupting in the MSM! CBS was apparently willing to take the risk—total compromise of their news organization’s credibility—if they are caught, in a slick effort to suppress the world of Bloggers. As I was reading the CBS news release I ran into the lie on page one:

“Procurement of The Documents

The 60 MINUTES Wednesday broadcast reported that it obtained six documents from the personal files of Lt. Col. Killian, four of which were used in the broadcast.”

(CBS News release here: http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf)

I was heartened, “CBS is admitting they had all six documents” but in almost the same instant I was blown away. The release said the broadcast had reported and thus admitted that there were six documents all along. I thought, “Is my memory failing me?” I admit it; I did not tape 60 Minutes II on September 8, 2004. I also admit that I really doubted myself. Could I have missed the reporter stating something that obvious--that CBS had obtained six (6) documents? Then why only four documents at the website? I had to know the truth so I did the unthinkable and purchased a complete copy of the transcript for the newscast from BurrellesLuce via the CBS News website. I paid $17.00 for the electronic text version of the document but it sure felt priceless I read the document and realized that the transcript exonerates me. I double-checked with an electronic search using Microsoft Word. A friend double-checked both ways as well.

So how does the official transcript read? For the sake of completeness, something lacking in the original CBS report, I am including the Dan Rather quote that leads into the Killian documents in its entirety:

“RATHER: (Voiceover) Then-Lieutenant Bush went to Georgia, completed a difficult Pilot training program and was assigned to duty back in his hometown, Houston, flying F-102s out of Ellington Air Force Base. Today on the airbase, a moth-balled F-102 is emblazoned with the president's name. But even in 1970 then-Lieutenant Bush was already something of a celebrity at the airfield. A press release issued that year by his unit points out that the young lieutenant is the son of the local congressman. Mr. Bush had signed a six-year commitment to fly for the Air Guard. And early on, the young pilot got glowing evaluations from his squadron commander, Colonel Jerry Killian, who called Lieutenant Bush "an exceptionally fine young officer and pilot," who "performed in an outstanding manner." That is part of the public record.

But 60 MINUTES has now obtained a number of documents we are told were taken from Colonel Killian's personal file. Among them, a never-before-seen memorandum from May 1972 where Colonel Killian writes that Lieutenant Bush called him to talk about how he "can get out of coming to drill from now through November." Bush tells his commander he is working on a campaign in Alabama and may not have time to take his physical. Killian adds that he thinks Lieutenant Bush has gone over his head and is "talking to someone upstairs." Colonel Killian died in 1984. We consulted a handwriting analyst and document expert who believes the material is authentic.”

So that was it, “a number of documents.” In fact, there is no mention in the transcript of the 60 Minutes II broadcast that could lead anyone to conclude that CBS News reported that they possessed six documents and used four. To the contrary, as anyone who visits the CBS News website to review the story and learn more can attest, there are still just four of the six documents at the their website

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

Amazingly, today CBS News has added back an edited portion of the original broadcast transcript.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/08/60II/main641984.shtml

(See all six documents here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-09bushdocs.pdf.)

The question remains, Why? Is it because two of them failed the authentication-shopping gambit? If CBS were to put up all six documents up on their website, everyone would have an opportunity to see what CBS withheld from all four original CBS document examiners—all of the evidence at one time, side by side. Of course that is really what document examination is all about, looking at all of the evidence and drawing a conclusion therefrom.

As I pondered the reason CBS placed their simple yet bold statement

“The 60 MINUTES Wednesday broadcast reported that it obtained six documents from the personal files of Lt. Col. Killian, four of which were used in the broadcast.”

into their three page news release, the reason became clear. It gave other MSM outlets a reason to ignore the Blogosphere, which was raising the crucial issue of authenticity shopping. After all CBS had made it clear in their original broadcast that they had six documents all along. Therefore, end of story, back to the ol’ “CBS was duped” MSM line. Phew.

Can it be that instead of being forced to explain why they went forward with a story they suspected and then learned was clearly fallacious from their first team of documents experts, CBS will simply be forced to admit that their entire news organization is somewhere between extremely gullible and utterly stupid? I think the answer depends on what people make of a little public lie buried in a three-page news release. I think it depends on whether people realize that CBS tried to cover-up the fact that they had six documents all along and then lied in a news release to stop the truth from emerging from a new form of news media that threatens the foundations of their power. I think it depends on whether people understand why CBS only requested that their first two document examiners look at only one full signature when CBS had two questionable documents with full signatures. In the end, I guess “circling the wagons” and being called stupid sure beats the heck out of being identified as a deliberately biased news media giant with an agenda that involves debasing the public perception of a sitting President, all in a transparent attempt to affect the outcome of a National election.

Note: I will make available at my website a document with quotes for all references to the words six, 6, four, 4, document, and documents to any blogger who privately e-mails me and requests same (charleston1@cox.net). I would also hope that CBS/60 Minutes II, posts the entire unedited transcript at their website for all to see in the interest of full public disclosure in their ever-aggressive effort to report the truth.

UPDATE:

Remember that the USA Today had all six documents all along and that tonight on CBS Evening News Burkett told Dan Rather that he had advised CBS to authenticate them. That is where CBS "admits" their failure.

I believe that USA Today got the same advice from Burkett. The difference? My best guess is that the USA Today actually put the documents through the authentication process and accepted the results (the documents were frauds.)

Tonight on Scarborough Country, they interviewed Linda James (documents examiner) and she specifically stated she had problems with the "J" in Jerry Killian (document #5 at USA Today.) Specifically the shape was wrong. On authentic Killian signature documents the "J is rounded" she said. On the questioned document it was not. Now I believe that is the real reason CBS went with four documents. They dumped the weird "J" document because they knew it was not authentic.

On the other hand, even after Emily Will and Linda James advised CBS the documents had problems, CBS persisted and went to two new examiners. They were definetely authentication shopping. That is fraud and it was done with malice. The lie I exposed above though apparently small, is actually the first obvious evidence (chronologically) of a cover-up by CBS. A blatant and successful attempt to silence the Blogosphere at the MSM level if only temporarily.

See my very first post at Free Republic here:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1213444/posts

Thanks for listening.

[charleston1]

Update at the bottom