I'm in shock. I expected something professional and we get THIS?!! It reads like it was written by a 4th grader! "so that's what we are doing"? Yeah, okay, whatever.
I think what happened is that they there were going to come out with a statement, vetted by the CBS lawyers, earlier in the day. And then there was the mother of all internal battles over the memo content with the CBS lawyers on one side and Dan Rather on the other. The clock kept ticking and ticking and ticking (insert "60 Minutes clock here"). 12:00 passed. 3:00 passed. 5:00 passed. And finally Heyward says, "damnit!!! We need to put SOMETHING out. Here [type][type][type] use this. Damn it!! I want some *%@# answers!!!
Andrew "Bahgdad Bob" Heyward issues statement to the press:
"We established to our satisfaction that the memos were accurate or we would not have put them on television. There was a great deal of coroborating [sic] evidence from people in a position to know. Having said that, given all the questions about them, we believe we should redouble our efforts to answer those questions, so that's what we are doing."
.
BTW I have established to MY satisfaction that the picture of Andrew Heyward shown above is "accurate" or I would not have posted it here on Free Republic.
The efforts they're redoubling are merely to corroborate the accuracy of their existing report. By redoubling, they're continuing their biased search for corroborating evidence that will fit what they
a priori believed to be the accuracy of their story.
The fact that they not yet provided any other substantiation, while having thrust forward such feeble forgeries about which they were warned in multiple ways aforehand, under the guise of having been vetted by a legitimate news organization, speaks volumes of substantiation concerning their transparent and corrupt attempts to influence an election on the basis of documents they had every reason to believe were forged.
They have shown they are partisans shills outside the mainstream ethics of journalism, ready and willing to trade reputation for momentary corrupt influence.
Just as their rationalization for bypassing the documents' authenticity question to advocate for the so-called accuracy of something fraudulently represented is not logical, Heyward's current statement cleaves to SeeBS's unsubstantianted premise they claim to believe (against reason) to be true. They would sucker all of us with this Leftist heart-felt old saw, that is, their so-called belief. A lawyer knows how to defend an individual against claims of lying if the individual "believes" what he's saying, but these are corporate lies, propped up with the strongest tenuous support they've got, that is, fraudulently produced documents represented by SeeBS if not the counterfeiter(s) to be government documents. Lawmakers long ago clarified these circumstances to be criminal violations, with serious consequences.
SeeBS's "belief" in this context is a lie, told to their corrupted Kool-aid drinkers so as to perpetuate their undeserved lofty journalistic reputation and government-influencing past, while harkening to an individual's get-out-of-jail-free impetus for saying that which can be proved to be false.
SeeBS has surprised the citizenry for the last time concerning their willingness to use jihadist tactics: being willing, figuratively, to blow themselves and their employees' reputations up for their corrupt, partisan cause.
SeeBS seeks to convert its constituents' ideological generosity and the fog of time to lift themselves from the hook onto which they've climbed. But, as the saying goes, "Elephants don't forget."
As capitalists we can refuse to help SeeBS pay their employees, and as a republic with a still-functioning judiciary, we should prosecute the perpetrators for the felonies they've committed and other laws they may have broken, in full measure.
HF