Did CBS Broker Documents for Access to the Kerry Campaign? (Time Line Flow Chart)

Polidock.com ^ | September 21, 2004 | PretzeLogic

[ClancyJ]

I agree. A great cover-up with the visit to the Ranch and a chance to seal the deal with Burkett OR (which I believe) hand the forgeries to him for Mapes and him to fax to CBS.

[sully777]

Let's not forget the coordinated attack on the Prez by NYTimes and WashPost, and other MSM sources the same day 60 Minutes II runs story.

Kerry/DNC are taking on water and their ship is listing badly. MSM trying to free themselves and look as if they weren't on the ship even though they're floating on lifeboats that say "Property of SS Memogate"

[Redcoat LI]

Lucy?

[Starboard]

FWIW, Cleland's "visit" to Crawford was August 26.

[Chesterbelloc]

If this was a made-for-tv movie, Lucy Ramirez would turn out to be Mary Mapes...

[ClancyJ]

Here are some things I wrote down reviewing the timeline last night.

4-27-04 - Kerry mentioned there were unanswered questions on Bush's record-reference to "verbal orders" to recommend suspension because of missed physical-issued by Bush commander-Lt. Col Killian - 8-1-72.

8-25-04 - Max Cleland's trip to the Texas Ranch

9-8-04 - Rather Report aired

9-9-04 - First reference to Fortunate Son - memos first and foremost on tape.

(When was Fortunate Son written and filmed?)

[dano1]

One theory is that perhaps Mapes had to humor Burkett until he actually gave her copies of the memos, and that's why Mapes was willing to call Lockhart at Burkett's request.

Perhaps CBS had already been told the content of the memos, or been shown the memos, but not yet received copies of the memos. This might also explain why Hodges had not been shown the memos by CBS.

A very curious aspect of this whole story is "why would Mapes be willing to jump through hoops like this for Burkett?". After all, who was Burkett to Mapes? Why would she want to do him a favor. Maybe Burkett was balking in actually handing copies of the memos over to CBS, and this favor for Burkett was a precondition for Burkett to feel comfortable actually giving the memos to Mapes. Maybe CBS didn't yet physically have the memos, and they needed to butter Burkett up to get the memos, which they got at the last moment.

It would be very interesting to know if the Burkett/Lockhart phone conversation took place before or after the docs were faxed from the Texas Kinkos.

Killian's former secretary could be the "unimpeachable source" cited by Rather. Maybe she was not shown the documents either by CBS, when they vetted the story with her, for the same reason that CBS did not actually yet have physical possession of the docs.

The above would explain why Rather repeatedly drew a distinction between the authenticity of the memos and the veracity of the story. Rather knew that the CBS sources hadn't actually seen the memos, because CBS was trying to vet the story prior to the time that CBS actually had the memos. It would also help explain why the Democrats admitted to having had the memos before CBS had them.

[Starboard]

FWIW, Cleland's "visit" to Crawford was August 26.

---

Correction: believe ClanyJ is right, it was August 25 (Wednesday).

[ClancyJ]

Maybe Mapes "needed" Burkett because he is the fall guy to be used IF problems occur. (Maybe Mapes arranged with the Dem campaign to get the documents forged. Had to be someone with a little knowledge of word processing, military lingo.)

[L.N. Smithee]

Next time you review your info for a timeline, don't forget to include the insertion of the phrase "sugar-coated" in Demo pundits' talking points, noted in several transcripts.

[CharacterCounts]

"Roberts tells Mapes that White House is not challenging the documents"

This why the Dems claim they were set up by the White House. CBS provided copies to the White House, which released them with only a comment about them being dirty tricks.

I believe the White House knew they were fakes but just CBS and the Dems self destruct.

[PretzeLogic]

We are working on widening the circle, so to speak. There is a tie in with Barnes and James C. Moore because so many of the talking points used by Democrats seem to come from early articles by James C. Moore. We already know that Moore spammed his mailing list to promote the Barnes video on Austin4Kerry.org.

[Starboard]

"I didn't forge anything," Burkett said. "I didn't fake any documents. The only thing I've done here is to transfer documents from people I thought were real to people I thought were real. And that has been the limitation of my role. I may have been a patsy."

USA Today (see links in post)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1222758/posts

[ClancyJ]

Good point. Sugar-coated ties this to the democrats.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

The article contains a provocative title but it's garbage. The contents of the article do not support the title at all and all the information the democrats released at that time reflect exactly what was in the papers the Whitehouse released.

[Buck W.]

"I think Max Cleland did the one armed hand off to Burkett when he went to Texas to pull his political theater at Bush's ranch."

Thinking back to The Fugitive TV show, wasn't the protagonist searching for the "one-armed man"? Yup, I bet it was Max!

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Why would anyone seriously include "Lucy Ramirez" in a timeline?

I agree. Burkett is just making crap up left and right. If you'd like to include the fictional Ramirez and the secret agent man who handed Burkett the documents in the chart, you might as well include Conn, the first guy that Burkett fingered and then later recanted.

I believe Burkett forged the docs himself.

[ClancyJ]

You have done a fabulous job - so nice to see it all laid out.

A suggestion: Do we need to reference where we got the dates as we go along? Might help later when we have conflicts.

[Mannaggia l'America]

CBS's new logo:

[PretzeLogic]

The article contains a provocative title but it's garbage. The contents of the article do not support the title at all and all the information the democrats released at that time reflect exactly what was in the papers the Whitehouse released.

You're talking about the NewsMax article, right?

Why do you think the content of article does not support the conclusion? I am not trying to be snotty. I need to know what you mean so we can decide whether to include it in the next update.