STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER (UPDATE: Statement released)

http://www.drudgereport.com ^ | Drudge

[TheGeezer]

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.

[Turin_Turambar]

Try this one for Virginia in 1993

246 Va. 174, 431 S.E.2d 648
(1) harm or prejudice to right of another person is not element of crime of forgery of public record

[1Old Pro]

Dan's "so-called' apology statement is a JOKE.

I expected their statement to be a joke which only continues the controversy and the daily shame CB must face.

Dan rather, CBS and the Dems are sunk in political quicksand and are sinking slowly keeping these stories about how CBS and the Dems lie in the news every day.

[Cboldt]

Neat case. Did you read it? It holds against criminialising the pamphleting of issues by anonymous publishers. In this case, there was NO suggestion that the contents of the pamphlet were false, misleading, or libelous.

[arizonarachel]

Did you know Kerry served in Vietnam?
Oh wait, who's Kerry again? I wonder who is having a difficult time making a decision on who to vote for after all this mess.

[anglian]

Check this out: Howard Dean amidst the Tex-Mess
This is a photo of Howard Dean at a "Texas for Democracy" rally in Austin on August 22, 2004. The man standing to the right of Dean is David van Os. http://tobiasofb.typepad.com/weblog/
AND THIS TIMELINE http://blog.spartac.us/?p=233

[Cboldt]

LOL. That's a fun case too. Anyway, the defendant in that one falsified his ID upon being stopped for traffic violations. He assumed the name and other details of his brother, and signed papers with his brother's name. The purpose of that was to avoid personal liability. There are those pesky present legal rights, even though the only person affected was the perp, still criminal.

In the CBS/Killian case, even if the forged Killian memos were authentic, no present legal rights are affected.

[cyncooper]

Pinging Mo for #665.

[Turin_Turambar]

Ohio case is not relevant. But as pointed out by my earlier citation to V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 32.21, the actual maker of the documents if guilty if he is indeed in Texas, and would be guilty in most states, because the standard is HARM, not just prejudice to a right. Whoever cooked them up needs to go to the pokey.

[F.J. Mitchell]

I've never felt more condescended in my whole life.You done good.

[Lazamataz]

I've never felt more condescended in my whole life.You done good.

[Turin_Turambar]

You're not reading that case. The defendant is the traffic court judge, who messed with the record TO AID IN THE ELECTION of the person convicted of the traffic offense by concealing the presence of his criminal record. There is no question of personal liability or even of harm. Your position is specifically rejected:

FN8. Asserting what he calls "an additional, independent ground" in support of his position, Campbell argues that "the alteration to the docket sheet could not, as a matter of law, harm or prejudice the rights of another, for it lacked any legal capacity to do so." (Emphasis in original). "[T]he docket sheet," he says, "does not touch or impact tangible property rights [and] cannot be relied upon by others to their detriment...." (Emphasis in original). But Code § 18.2-168 is designed, not to protect property rights, but to protect the integrity of public records. The General Assembly, the author of public policy, has decided "as a matter of law" that forgery of any public record, for whatever reason, is a criminal offense. It is, therefore, immaterial whether a particular public record can be shown to have a special capacity to cause unique harm or prejudice to the rights of another.

[Cboldt]

... as pointed out by my earlier citation to V.T.C.A., Penal Code § 32.21, the actual maker of the documents if guilty if he is indeed in Texas, and would be guilty in most states, because the standard is HARM, not just prejudice to a right ...

Yes, and as I understand it, in Texas the legal definition of HARM is broad. However, the practical application of the term, HARM, requires personal injury, property damage, pecuniary loss, or loss of some present legal right.

If the legal definition of HARM is broadened to include anything that a person can assert is harmful - "forged a letter from my girlfriend, hurt my feelings (maybe even broke up over the forgery), guilty of a felony" would be the inevitable result.

[claudiustg]

---n this case, there was NO suggestion that the contents of the pamphlet were false, misleading, or libelous.---

Yeah, wrong case I think. :^(

I'm looking.

[valleygal]

Thanks for sharing your perspective, too! I'm getting my info here as I'm not watching the TV right now.

It does make sense that Rather is being hammered, though. They most likely feel they're caught in the suction of Dan's sinking ship.

[Cboldt]

You're not reading that case. The defendant is the traffic court judge ...

You are right. I didn't read it to the end. Are the Killian memos a public record, in any way? I don't think they are as a default matter, as criminal docket sheets are.

Which gets to another point regarding the forgeries ... if Bush had indeed ignored a direct order, why does the official record contain no evidence of disciplinary action?

[Mo1]

Oh my .. now that is in interesting dot to throw in the mix

[BlessedByLiberty]

...No, my job is a condescender for Dan Rather's CBS...

I hope you are paid a very large salary with golden parachute! :)

[SerpentDove]

That's a keeper!

Nice going.

:-)))

[LiveFreeOrDie2001]

WOW !!

I called CBS News at 212-975-3691 and asked "Why Dan Rather's statement did not include an apology to the American People and the President"

Answer: "I don't believe the President wants an apology"

CLICK !

[Cboldt]

You're not reading that case. The defendant is the traffic court judge ...

Man, I couldn't find Campbell v. Commonwealth, 246 Va. 174, 431 S.E.2d 648, using Google, but I did find a pertinent quote from it, from another case.

HINES v COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA - Record No. 0481-02-1 (2003)

"At Common Law the Counterfeiting a Matter of Record is Forgery; for since the Law gives the highest Credit to all Records, it cannot but be of the utmost ill Consequence to the Publik to have them either forged or falsified." 2 Matthew Bacon, Abridgment *568 (1786). The common-law crime of forgery of public records, a capital offense in England, was augmented by statutes punishing the lesser offense of forgery of certain private documents. See, e.g., An Act Concerning Counterfeit Letters or Privy Tokens to Receive Money or Goods in Others Men's Names, 1541-42, 33 Hen. VIII, ch. 1 (Eng.). Unlike the crime of forgery of public records in which "ill Consequence to the Publik" was conclusively presumed, and unlike the common-law crime of forgery of private papers in which proof of potential harm or prejudice to another was required, conviction of the several statutory offenses generally required proof of actual harm or prejudice to the rights of another person. See 1 Hawkins at 263 n. 1; 2 Bacon at *568. Id. at 179-80, 431 S.E.2d at 651.