Posted on 09/15/2004 12:44:41 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
CBS News President Andrew Heyward said yesterday that his network will not reveal the source of disputed documents used to report that President Bush received favored treatment in the Texas Air National Guard, even though that decision may mean many Americans would distrust a 60 Minutes report on the subject. "I'm confident the story was appropriately vetted before it went on the air. It is the nature of this kind of investigative reporting that sometimes sources remain confidential," Heyward said in a telephone interview. "We're going to hang tough, even if that leaves some questions unanswered."
The charged political atmosphere surrounding the story has made it more difficult to identify sources publicly, he said.
"This is a political hot potato," Heyward said. "There's a kind of harassment, an attempt to intimidate, that I think gives people pause."
(Excerpt) Read more at baltimoresun.com ...
If I were a journalist, and a source gave me bad info in bad faith, I'd burn him in an instant.
How hard is that?
Do I have it right?
In general, yes. However, if the journalist is participating in criminal actions (such as forgery, knowingly representing forged documents as genuine--SUBTLE-AS-A-BRICK-HINT), and he gets caught, he's hosed.
What is the crime in knowingly representing a forged doucment as authentic? The effect is political. The libeled person is GWB.
CBS has been caught, for all practical purposes. Who presses the criminal charge, and what statute has been broken?
Do they stand by the lie that Ben Barnes was Lt. Governor in 1968, cuz he wasn't, and that was the year Bush enlisted in the TANG.
Don't need a memo source for that little nose grower.
Forgery of official government documents is a F-E-L-O-N-Y.
What did Heyward know, and when did he know it?
LOL... It's easy to respond to all your supporters when there only is one!
Probably weren't any sources. The documents were forged in-house at 60 Minutes. Wouldn't be the first time by any means.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
This sums up their position and their clarification.
Stonewalling, stonewalling. (I remember well how CBS pumelled Nixon on this issue in the early 70's.)
Uh, no Mr. Hayward, that would mean that most Americans would not trust CBS period.
I hear you, and that blanket statement is made by most people here. But, if the forgery has no use, except for political damage, I wonder if the forgery statutes kick in. For example, one of the forged documents is an order to GWB, that due to its date is no longer operative. Even though it is a forged document, it can't be used to accomplish what it says on its face.
Unlike a forged ID, or a forged credential that can be used to gain access, etc., these forgeries have no effect to the benefit of the bearer.
What these documents are is a forgery of history, a creation of a false history. THey aren't being sold, to defraud a person of money. They are being used to political influence.
Guess I'll look up statutes that describe the felony of forged documents. I'm not convinced that these forgeries are a felony.
The general (not statutory) definition: forgery is the act of creating a false document or modifying a real one so that it can be used as if it were the original, real deal.
The Killian documents are not that.
Most of the references I've found so far cover financial instruments, court documents that affect court decisions or other legal rights, identification papers used by the bearer, and art (for the purpose of defrauding a buyer).
Still looking ...
They do.
Unlike a forged ID, or a forged credential that can be used to gain access, etc., these forgeries have no effect to the benefit of the bearer.
The law makes no differentiation as to benefit or non-benefit. It's in place to preserve the integrity of government records.
That's exactly what they're after. Bush's old line is perfect: "When I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible." He's acknowledged that he used to drink too much but has otherwise declined to elaborate. The inferences are pretty obvious. Most people accept that, whatever Bush did way back when, he straightened himself out, and good for him. But this is still a danger zone if the press can find a way to whip up controversy.
This, of course, is the same reason WE wanted Bill Clinton's medical records. (Frankly, I still suspect Clinton of using while in the White House. I think Monica was right about that.) The difference, of course, is that the MSM simply ignored Clinton's stonewall on his records -- just as they ignore Kerry's refusal to release his service records -- while they have gone into feeding frenzy mode over Bush arcana. Gore almost won in 2000 with the late hit on Bush's DUI. I fully expect the 'rats to try it again this year if they can find the least tiny peg for a story.
These documents (with the exception of the order to GWB) are not passed off as government documents. Most are personal notes.
The government records are unaffected by the presence of these forgeries.
I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to read a statute or a court case on facts that resemble these. So far, after seeing 10 or so cases, I have found none. The cases involve immigration, identification, insurance, money, checks, testimony/evidence to be used in judicial proceedings, professional credentials, 18 USC relates to forgery of money, etc.
Still looking ...
Here's one, UCMJ ...
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl123.htm <-- UCMJ - Article 123 - Forgery
"Any person subject to this chapter who, with intent to defraud--""(1) falsely makes or alters any signature to, or any part of, any writing which would, if genuine, apparently impose a legal liability on another or change his legal right or liability to his prejudice; or"
"(2) utters, offers, issues, or transfers such a writing, known by him to be so made or altered; is guilty of forgery and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct."
These documents, if genuine, do NOT impose a legal liability, or change a legal right.
Here's one, UCMJ ...
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/mcm/bl123.htm <-- UCMJ - Article 123 - Forgery
If under all the circumstances the instrument has neither real nor apparent legal efficacy, there is no forgery.
That line is buried later on in the statute. Now, I don't think these documents are under the UCMJ, and offer this statute only as a way of example.
Still looking ...
Here is a paragraph from a case where the defendant forged a military document ...
Insurance Fraud Prosecutor Gooden Brown said the indictment alleges that Clark, formerly employed as a customer service representative by the Palisades Safety and Insurance Management Corporation located in Berkeley Heights, told her employer that she had been called to active military duty by the United States Army. An investigation by the Division of Criminal Justice - Office of Insurance Fraud Prosecutor determined that Clark submitted forged documents to support her claim, including a copy of U.S. Army active duty military orders in which she (Clark) was to report to Fort Dix, NJ en route to Fort Leonard Wood, MI, for a period of 12 months in support of "Operation Iraqi Freedom." While the investigation confirmed that Clark was a member of a New Jersey National Guard Reserve Component Unit, it was determined that Clark had not been called to active duty but had actually become employed at the American International Group (AIG) Insurance Company. During the eight-month period (March 24 through Nov. 28, 2003) in which it is alleged Clark perpetrated the fraud, the Palisades Corporation paid Clark her $12,678 salary.Definitely used the forgery for legal effect.http://www.state.nj.us/lps/newsreleases04/pr20040611a.html <-- Clickit
Still looking ...
I do recall a case where someone altered elements of the command history, not for anyone's benefit, and got six-six-and-a-kick for his trouble.
Also, when it's "memo for file," it's considered an official record--even if it's the CO's "private" documents (basically, any communication about personnel under his command is considered official).
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.