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.
There is a type of fraud known as journalistic (or journalism) fraud. That type of fraud is not criminal. The policing of journalism fraud is by the so-called profession of journalism, via hiring and firing.
Mike Barnicle is till working in journalism. So is Peter Arnett. So is Doris Kearns Goodwin. In other words, journalistic integrity is a flippin' joke, and the sooner the public wakes up to that, the better.
My inspection of the federal laws would not indicate a forgery offense, primarily because (and if) the documents do not constitute a governmental record (they were supposedly kept for his own files). The use of the looser mail and wire fraud statutes seems more applicable to the original source, along with state forgery laws. The subsequent people who passed these on did not, of course, "forge" anything, but there is still fraud to contend with, and more importantly, the potential for accessory liability.
Well, the order to George Bush is a government record, just as much as after action reports and the like.
I reach my conclusion because these documents would have no legal effect even if they were authentic. They are worthless, except as a matter of misrepresenting history.
---I'll be surprised if there is NO proposal for legislation, to criminalize the forgery of any papers that serve to defame a candidate for federal office. That wouldn't stop rumors, lies and deception, but it would stifle the fabrication of corroborating evidence.---
This is a forgery with attempt to defraud. Fraud does not have to involve money, but can involve an attempt to impede governmental operations or functions. There was a case like this involving campaign fraud in a case in Ohio I believe.
That's enough to get the FBI out asking questions. If persons deny knowledge of this and are later shown to be connected, lying to federal officers will be enough to put them away. The fraud and forgery charges would not even have to be pursued.
A criminal conspiracy to influence a federal election through fraudulent documents, it sounds scary enough to get people singing and denying every which way.
Another reason pointed out last week is that O'Reilly's radio program is on Westwood, which is also owned to some extent by Viacom, as is see-bs.
That's exactly the type of case I'd like to read. Do you have more information that might help to find it?
Who was with Cleland when they went to Texas to deliver that letter?
Jim Rassman, the man Kerry pulled out of the water.
thanks
I watch little of CNN but IMHO Wolf was hammering Rather and CBS. He had "experts" on who were supporting the CBS spin but he was very tough in his questioning of them. CNN is struggling for viewers. The harder they go after this story the better chance they have to pick off some. In the meantime, Carl Cameron is on now with Shep saying the Kerry camp was promoting the 60 Minutes report.
"We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry."
The only thing the SOB is sorry for is getting caught!
This might be it:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=U10296
U.S. Supreme Court
McINTYRE v. OHIO ELECTIONS COMM'N, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)
Shall I bill my normal fee? :^)
off-topic, but does anyone know where this quote came from?
"There is no native American criminal class other than the US Congress?"
Welcome any suggestions. Can't find. Thanks
No, my job is a condescender for Dan Rather's CBS.
And all you right-wingers who discovered our little problem, well, your conservative credentials lend credence problems to that discovery.
(sniffs disapprovingly, looks down nose at you)
You are dealing with the UCMJ, which has a narrower definition of intent than the common-law. The document you mention might fall afoul of the following, though.
18 U.S.C.A. § 912
Whoever falsely assumes or pretends to be an officer or employee acting under the authority of the United States or any department, agency or officer thereof, and acts as such, or in such pretended character demands or obtains any money, paper, document, or thing of value, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
The good news just keeps coming...
I'm doing a little digging. But just to expand on your "doesn't need to involve money," I agree. But it does have to relate to some present legal right or obligation. One can forge licenses, identification, orders (one reservist was convicted for forging military orders, and getting paid by her employer while "on duty."), etc. Also, wills, contracts, judgements that might affect child custody, etc. In elections, forged or faslified signatures on petitions for referenda or party qualification, forging voter registration papers and the like would also be criminal. But in all cases, a present legal right is affected.
I don't see a present legal right reflected in any of the Killian forgeries.
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.