THE PAPER TRAIL: A Comparison of Documents

I don't see one thing on that page that wasn't brought up here, do you?

I haven't been able to keep up with you folks, but I hadn't seen the
Social Security # vs. Service # issue before. Is that new?

It's a nice graphic, though, and doesn't seem to be stupid or easily refuted. As long as everyone knows that there's lots more where that came from.

Joseph Newcomer Rocks!

"ABC news is reporting that the democrats had these memos before CBS. This was just a rumor last week, but ABC says it has documents to prove it."

That is a big story, if ABC can and does prove it.

But it is CBS which has the ethical obligation, to determine the validity of the docs. and they didn't.

I'm pretty sure at this point, the media is becoming more and more "polarized" with dems going for CBS and CNN, conservatives for Fox.

ABC could score a coup, if they wrapped the whole thing up into a stinkbomb for CBS and the dems. Would love to see that.

Competition among the media, to get the big stories, nailed tight with proof, would be nice to see.

[singing, dancing] "Louie, Louie, ohhh..."

George W. Bush will be reelected by a margin of at least ten per cent

I don't see one thing on that page that wasn't brought up here, do you?

I don't. I can't believe CBS is still standing by these documents!

They seem tailor made to the current situation as well.

Okay seriously. Are they all forged government documents or are they supposed to be from Killian's "personal" files? I have been thinking of them as forged government docs. But if they are supposed to be personal docs that Killian made for his own records, that does not seem like a felony. But if there has been a felony there should be an investigation and prosecution by the feds.

While I am no lawyer, and may be wrong, I argue that it is a felony offence (actually multiple times over) regardless of rather or not the documents are purported to represent personal memorandums from Killian to Killian or not. In fact, however the first document rebukes that argument right off the bat as you will see from my arguments below.

Please evaluate my justification of this position as follows:

1^st: People do not generally sign personal documents that are intended strictly for personal consumption. The fact that documents are signed clearly indicates an intent to fraudulently represent them as more than personal annotations (which would probably have been hand written). And while this does not distinguish a felony in and of itself, it does rebuke the argument which may be taken by anyone charged with a crime resulting from this incident that the documents where “never intended to represent public or official documents” – although that argument is already muted as a result of some of the content of the documents anyway.

2^nd: The documents where intended to fraudulently represent documents that would have been entered into a service members official file. The use of the terms “MEMORANDUM FOR 1st Lt. (notice period) George W. Bush” in first document of the image and “MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD” in the third make this painfully obvious.

This argument is the first weakening of the chain in any future claim that the documents where “never intended to represent public or official documents”.

3^rd: The first document shown in the image was fraudulently represented as a communiqué between Killian and Bush. All memorandums between service members regardless of their “personal” intent are official government documents and subject to the same protections against forgery as any other government document (that is to say that such a memorandum would be official and as such a fraudulent production of one would be a fraudulent production of an official document – a felony office). This is the second weakening of in the chain that the documents where strictly personal and not Government.

4^th: The first document shown in the image represents an “order to report”. Point blank such a document, if it is real, represents a written direct and lawful order. As such it is unquestionably an “official” matter and not personal. There is NO question as to whether the misrepresentation of a Military movement order is a felony.

5^th: The documents where released with the intention of misleading the American public as to their authenticity. That is an attempt to commit a public fraud and I would imagine as such is further a felony.

6^th: The documents where released with the intention of discrediting a candidate for a Federal election. Consequently, it can be easily argued that the felonious production of the documents was in conjunction with an attempt (and if enough people are involved a conspiracy) to interfere with a Federal election. If this argument is accepted by the courts it would constitute yet another felony office.

7^th: A signature was provided, on each of the documents, with the intention of representing Killian’s signature. That is a forgery and is a felony regardless of the purported purpose (i.e. “personal” or “official”) of the documents.

8^th: The signature was intended (and signed with title as such) to represent a Field Grade officer of the United States military. That can be construed as impersonating a military officer – also a felony.