Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

STATEMENT FROM DAN RATHER (UPDATE: Statement released)
http://www.drudgereport.com ^ | Drudge

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.


TOPICS: Breaking News; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: badfaith; cbsnews; danrather; danron; dontbelieveaword; forgery; hedratherblather; killian; liar; meastupida; memogate; napalminthemorning; nonpology; rather; rathergate; rathertranscript; seebsnews; stainedbluememo
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 721-727 next last
To: Cboldt

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


661 posted on 09/20/2004 12:35:26 PM PDT by Turin_Turambar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 646 | View Replies]

To: All
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.

662 posted on 09/20/2004 12:37:44 PM PDT by 1Old Pro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: claudiustg
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.
663 posted on 09/20/2004 12:39:27 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 653 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red

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.


664 posted on 09/20/2004 12:39:41 PM PDT by arizonarachel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper; All

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


665 posted on 09/20/2004 12:41:23 PM PDT by anglian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 615 | View Replies]

To: Turin_Turambar
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.

666 posted on 09/20/2004 12:44:02 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 661 | View Replies]

To: anglian; Mo1

Pinging Mo for #665.


667 posted on 09/20/2004 12:46:17 PM PDT by cyncooper (And an angel still rides in the whirlwind and directs this storm.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 665 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt; claudiustg

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.


668 posted on 09/20/2004 12:46:57 PM PDT by Turin_Turambar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

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


669 posted on 09/20/2004 12:47:55 PM PDT by F.J. Mitchell (If God had intended Kerry to be our President, we would all have sh*t for brains too!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: F.J. Mitchell
I've never felt more condescended in my whole life.You done good.


670 posted on 09/20/2004 12:50:39 PM PDT by Lazamataz ("Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown" -- harpseal)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 669 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt
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.

671 posted on 09/20/2004 12:56:39 PM PDT by Turin_Turambar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 666 | View Replies]

To: Turin_Turambar
... 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.

672 posted on 09/20/2004 12:59:59 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 668 | View Replies]

To: Cboldt

---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.


673 posted on 09/20/2004 1:02:21 PM PDT by claudiustg (Go Sharon! Go Bush!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 663 | View Replies]

To: babaloo

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.


674 posted on 09/20/2004 1:04:00 PM PDT by valleygal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 651 | View Replies]

To: Turin_Turambar
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?

675 posted on 09/20/2004 1:04:06 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper; anglian

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


676 posted on 09/20/2004 1:04:16 PM PDT by Mo1 (Why is the MSM calling the Vietnam Vets and POW's a suspected group??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 667 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz

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

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


677 posted on 09/20/2004 1:07:31 PM PDT by BlessedByLiberty (Respectfully submitted,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 656 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day

That's a keeper!

Nice going.

:-)))


678 posted on 09/20/2004 1:12:14 PM PDT by SerpentDove (I love HDTV...now I can count Dan Rather's sweat beads.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 410 | View Replies]

To: Republican Red
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 !

679 posted on 09/20/2004 1:14:16 PM PDT by LiveFreeOrDie2001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 659 | View Replies]

To: Turin_Turambar
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.

680 posted on 09/20/2004 1:16:03 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 671 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 641-660661-680681-700 ... 721-727 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson