Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evidence that CBS News 60 Minutes II is guilty of malice and intent to defraud
ABC Evening News and USA Today | 9/14/2004 | Daniel

Posted on 09/14/2004 9:43:28 PM PDT by charleston1

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-170 next last
To: Wild_Bill_8881

The more I think about it, the more I would be looking for some connection to that old woman. She may not have a clue about the forgeries, but that does not mean she was not the source of the storyline...even inadvertently.


81 posted on 09/14/2004 10:56:00 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: MistyCA
I think the secretary had something to do with the documents. She seems very partisan and I bet she has been concocting these stories for a long time. She isn't a spring chicken, for sure, but I would like to know if she has kids and what their connection is to the political world of Herry Kerry.

Killian's secretary would know what memos should look like. She would not have made some of the mistakes that were made here.

82 posted on 09/14/2004 11:01:41 PM PDT by supercat (If Kerry becomes President, nothing bad will happen for which he won't have an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

If you read Charleston1's posting the other day(see the link on post 18), the interesting thing he pointed out is that when you compare the USA documents to the CBS documents, is the CBS ones are ammended by certain passages being underlined in pen, that aren't on the USA documents, meaning that someone(dnc? cbs?) has tampered with them to give certain sentences emphasis, or, that CBS received their documents after USA received theirs.


83 posted on 09/14/2004 11:03:30 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MistyCA
Well actually she'd back up their storyline perfectly if they weren't so dead set on proving that a bunch of forged documents weren't, damn they're doing back flips with physic handwriting analyst weirdo's, typewriter repairman with bad memories, and anybody else they can dig up

it just doesn't make sense..are they really that arrogant that they think they can get away with anything?

if so, what does that tell ya about all the other stories they've pushed over the years?
84 posted on 09/14/2004 11:05:19 PM PDT by Wild_Bill_8881 (If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

That was completely unnecessary and hateful.


85 posted on 09/14/2004 11:11:02 PM PDT by texasflower (How appropriate...... the pro abortion party is the "D 'N' C")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: spyone
CBS received their documents after USA received theirs

That is in line with what I've thought, too - albeit IMO CBS may have gotten theirs' first & USA Today later. If USA Today already had theirs' then it might indicate they knew they'd get burned and simply put them up with their other stories when they did. In any event, I always assumed USA Today got them independent of CBS and - until now - thought CBS may have only gotten 4 of the 6 docs while USA Today got the whole bundle. What poster here has revealed, however, is that CBS got the other two as well but never disclosed that fact nor did they let the fact they knew - for certain, they've inadvertently indicted themselves, again - because they didn't put forth those two while revealing the other four as if they were legit (knowing some if not all were totally suspect)

86 posted on 09/14/2004 11:12:12 PM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: supercat

I explained in later posts that I do not mean to suggest she put these memos out. I don't think she knew anything about the forgeries, but I do think she originated some of the stories and someone else took it from there. JMO


87 posted on 09/14/2004 11:13:01 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

Looks like you've been vindicated!!


88 posted on 09/14/2004 11:14:06 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wild_Bill_8881

It's like everything else. If you didn't see it happen or get it from someone you KNOW you can trust, take it all with a grain of salt. Damn, I hate liars. It doesn't do much for our faith in human nature when we see the extremes people will go to just to push their agenda. Common cheap trash.


89 posted on 09/14/2004 11:15:14 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Look, I know that you are excited about your revelation, but your vanity post isn't "Breaking News" and will piss off quite a few FReepers. Come on, surely you are smart enough to figure out what "Breaking News" means...

Looked like breaking news to me. But then, what do I know. I just glad I found the post. It was a darn nice read.

90 posted on 09/14/2004 11:16:46 PM PDT by BJungNan (Stop Spam - Do NOT buy from junk email.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

But that's my point. If looking at the same document and CBS's has a few sentences underlined and USA's doesn't, it means CBS either received theirs later or else underlined in ink themselves.


91 posted on 09/14/2004 11:16:49 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: MistyCA

I agree with you.


92 posted on 09/14/2004 11:17:51 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
BREAKING NEWS?

The way things are going with all the sites that do not want FR to post even excerpts of their stories, this will indeed become what we consider breaking news - FReeper summaries of stories.

As this summary goes, that FReeper did a good job.

93 posted on 09/14/2004 11:20:08 PM PDT by BJungNan (Stop Spam - Do NOT buy from junk email.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

I agree, to a point . . .

I think "vanities" can sometimes be very usefull, but it would be great if they were somehow flagged. I personally read the latest posts page (mostly to see what is "hot"). It is almost impossible to know beforehand whether a post is "linked" information or a vanity.

Maybe a heading in the title??

VANITY: Evidence that CBS News 60 Minutes II is guilty of malice and intent to defraud

just my two cents . . .

BTW - I think the poster has down so good work on this and is apparently new - I too vote for the "cut some slack".


94 posted on 09/14/2004 11:27:53 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Okay,

I can't figure out the html tags for a bitmap. I put the first image on my website: www.challengerdisaster.info. Can anyone private e-mail on how to get the pics here instead?


95 posted on 09/14/2004 11:30:52 PM PDT by charleston1 (No prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: spyone

Good! Thanks. :)


96 posted on 09/14/2004 11:32:23 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: spyone
If looking at the same document and CBS's has a few sentences underlined and USA's doesn't, it means CBS either received theirs later or else underlined in ink themselves.

I concur & why it was also feasible that CBS didn't get two documents that USA Today did - but now we know they got at least one of those extra two that USA Today did, too :)

97 posted on 09/14/2004 11:37:32 PM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

No Problem

Replace the ( with < and the ) with > below.

(img src="url here")


98 posted on 09/14/2004 11:38:46 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: swheats
I think he's saying whoever produced this segment, and it could've been Rather, seems to have had an agenda to get minimal CYA on the document's authenticity.

I'm rather impressed with how "hard" ABCNews has been on this CBS snafu.

99 posted on 09/14/2004 11:39:46 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Why are we in Iraq? Just point the whiners here: http://www.massgraves.info)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

I recently checked the cretae and modification dates of the PDF's at CBS and USA Today.

CBS's documents were created 8/9/2004 at around 9:00 PM
USA Today's were created on 9/9/2004 at around 1:00 PM and were MODIFIED on 9/11/2004.

Also of note is that the CBS Documents have a page size of 13 x 18 (approximate as the vary slightly) and the USA todays have a size of 8.31 x 10.33)


100 posted on 09/14/2004 11:44:01 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson