Posted on 09/20/2004 8:54:24 AM PDT by TheGeezer
Edited on 09/20/2004 9:07:32 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
Update by moderator:
EXCLUSIVE
STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER:
Last week, amid increasing questions about the authenticity of documents used in support of a 60 MINUTES WEDNESDAY story about President Bush's time in the Texas Air National Guard, CBS News vowed to re-examine the documents in question—and their source—vigorously. And we promised that we would let the American public know what this examination turned up, whatever the outcome.
Now, after extensive additional interviews, I no longer have the confidence in these documents that would allow us to continue vouching for them journalistically. I find we have been misled on the key question of how our source for the documents came into possession of these papers. That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where—if I knew then what I know now—I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question.
But we did use the documents. We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry. It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.
Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully.
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could have no effect on the government's purpose for requiring the governmental record.
It may just be a class A misdemeanor - that's still good for up to a year in jail.
A news organization with the prestige of CBS cannot be seen as falling for the writings of a disgruntled Texan who was in the NG. What credibility does he have? Who is the umimpeachable source? CBS knows and they are not quite ready to hand him/her out to dry at this point.
I know.
But CBS is going to make a cgood try of it.
If we keep the pressure on them, they will eventually have to publicly admit who the supposed unimpeachable source was that Rather kept referring to.
But for now, it looks like they're going to try and have Burkett take the fall.
We should not let up though.
Okay - got it. I was posting my previous just as you were answering my first.
Interesting.
uh...what about Danny boy believed in the content of the memo!!! Hmmm. The inquiring mind want to know.
First, defamnation is not criminal, no felony, etc.
I hadn't thought about the Staudt angle. Maybe his reputation has been tarnished by this.
Killian is a non-starter on a civil case, it is impossible to defame a dead person. And, as far as I know, the law has not extended defamtion to kin of the defamed person.
President Bush's reputation is the one most harmed by this. The worst damage he could suffer would be loss of the election due to the defamation. A suit might cost him the election ... politics complicates the calculus quite a bit. But GWB does have a good defamation case, IMO.
What if the Kerry campaign or DNC was involved in transmitting the documents to CBS?
Smells like a month old dead mackrel.
Um...this would be forgery of an internal military document. Federal offense.
The TXANG is not a Federal organization.
I understand that you want it to be one, and I'll believe you if you can give me a cite or piece of case law that fits this fact pattern. Before you do though, please do take the time to review the comments and citations already covered. I've gathered up the links to make that a bit easier for anybody who want to build a solid argument, one that would actually hold up in court.
And indeed the DNC and Kerry campaign were ready to run with the CBS story. Both entities (interwined as they are anyway) were involved, to be sure.
Thanks. I never watch CNN. Just once it would be nice to hear the MSM tell the truth without the spin.
MSM telling the truth...a real oxymoron!
When they're deployed in a foreign war during wartime, I believe the usual military laws apply.
Forgery of official documents is a felony offense.Cite please. See #563 above.
USC Title 18 Part 1 Chap. 25:
Section 494. Contractors' bonds, bids, and public records
Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any bond, bid, proposal, contract, guarantee, security, official bond, public record, affidavit, or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States; or
Whoever utters or publishes as true or possesses with intent to utter or publish as true, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited; or
Whoever transmits to, or presents at any office or to any officer of the United States, any such false, forged, altered, or counterfeited writing, knowing the same to be false, forged, altered, or counterfeited -
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
Here's my (uneducated non-lawyer) take:
Whoever falsely makes, alters, forges, or counterfeits any ... public record, ... or other writing for the purpose of defrauding the United States, or;
The Constitution starts and plainly states "We, the People of the United States ..." and therefor the laws as placed are directly pertinent to the People. These frauds were perpetrated against the People of the United States and their Elected and Appointed representatives, the result of which would be the usurpation of the Presidential Electoral process as delineated in that Constitution. I submit that the Vote you or I cast is worth much more than any banknote in the stead of freedom, and should be held as such.
(Got to cut and run -- lunch is over.)
This is how I interpret it, but under the Texas statute for forgery (the only unclear issue is whether an "intent to harm" occurred, and most cases would support that the loss of office would constitute harm):
(a) For purposes of this section:
(1) "Forge" means:
(A) to alter, make, complete, execute, or authenticate any writing so that it purports:
(i) to be the act of another who did not authorize that act;
(ii) to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case; or
(iii) to be a copy of an original when no such original existed;
(B) to issue, transfer, register the transfer of, pass, publish, or otherwise utter a writing that is forged within the meaning of Paragraph (A); or
(C) to possess a writing that is forged within the meaning of Paragraph (A) with intent to utter it in a manner specified in Paragraph (B).
(2) "Writing" includes:
(A) printing or any other method of recording information;
(B) money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit cards, badges, and trademarks; and
(C) symbols of value, right, privilege, or identification.
(b) A person commits an offense if he forges a writing with intent to defraud or harm another.
(c) Except as provided in Subsections (d) and (e) an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
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.