[Jeff Chandler]

The rats aren't in any legal trouble over this. Journalists won't reveal their sources (the rats), so the rats won't have to admit they stole the documents. It's the perfect set-up and the rats end up looking like fools.

[longtermmemmory]

Rather can't back down. Deception does not have first amendment protection. The producer of the forgeries will not be protected. Under any standard of law, a lie does not get first amendment protection.

[Servant of the 9]

Journalists won't reveal their sources (the rats), so the rats won't have to admit they stole the documents.

Not normally, but they will nark out a phoney source that plants things, if they think it's their only chance of survival.

So9

[cloud8]

"The rats aren't in any legal trouble over this."

Not yet they aren't.

Someone sent Dan Rather forged military documents, and that is very, very against the law. Soon the FBI will be looking into this, and someone will be going to jail. 5 years is about right.

From the US Code:

TITLE 18--CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

PART I--CRIMES

CHAPTER 47--FRAUD AND FALSE STATEMENTS

Sec. 1001. Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully--
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;

shall be fined under this title [used to be "fined not more than $10,000" but that was changed in 1994] or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

[bilhosty]

"The rats aren't in any legal trouble over this. Journalists won't reveal their sources (the rats), so the rats won't have to admit they stole the documents. It's the perfect set-up and the rats end up looking like fools.'

Who did they steal them from? The doc's were forged by the 'rats.

[savedbygrace]

In the case of fradulent documents or false evidence, the reporters have no 1st Amendment protection. Therefore, instead of facing Contempt charges, they'd be looking at felony Obstruction charges.

I'm not a lawyer, so I'm willing to be corrected by someone who knows.

[N. Beaujon]

The rats aren't in any legal trouble over this. Journalists won't reveal their sources (the rats), so the rats won't have to admit they stole the documents. It's the perfect set-up and the rats end up looking like fools.

Who said anything about legal trouble over this? No one has made the contention the docs were stolen, they were faxed to CBS and they are forged. (Who do you steal forged documents from?)

As far as any other docs and their origin, weren't some released by the White House themselves (I assume in just a pile of paperwork under FOI or something.) Is it me who is confused or is there some legal issue here that I'm not aware of?

I would like to see a lawsuit against Rather and CBS for fraud, etc, etc. But that's a non-starter. Since NY Times v. Sullivan, et al, the media can get away with virtually anything. EVEN gross misrepresentation, even if they know it to be false as long as you cannot prove their was Malice involved (See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, et al.) The standard for malice is almost impossible to meet (but see Mason vs. The New Yorker Magazine on accuracy using quotations.)