First, Find the Forger

NY Times ^ | September 22, 2004 | WILLIAM SAFIRE

[neverdem]

OP-ED COLUMNIST

Whoever, having devised any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. " U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 63, Section 1343.

WASHINGTON — At the root of what is today treated as an embarrassing blunder by duped CBS journalists may turn out to be a felony by its faithless sources.

Some person or persons conceived a scheme to create a series of false Texas Air National Guard documents and append a photocopied signature to one of them. The perpetrator then helped cause the fraudulent file to be transmitted by means of television communication to millions of voters for the purpose of influencing a federal election.

That was no mere "dirty trick"; it could be a violation of the U.S. criminal code. If the artifice had not been revealed by sharp-eyed bloggers, a national election could have been swung by a blatant falsehood.

Who was the forger? Did others conspire with him or her to present a seeming government document - with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to defraud, which is a felony in Texas? Who was to benefit and how?

CBS News belatedly apologized and agreed to appoint independent examiners. That's a start.

The government and the courts have no business forcing journalists to reveal sources. But no ethic requires a journalist to protect a source who lied. Accordingly, Dan Rather went to the Texas ranch of his source and telecast Bill Burkett's admission of having falsely "thrown out the name" of someone who gave him the false evidence. Burkett now claims his real source was some hard-to-find mystery woman.

What benefit did the Bush-hating Burkett gain from CBS in return for his fake documents? One plausible answer: he got coveted access to someone high up in the Kerry campaign.

We learned last week that Burkett had reached Kerry's convention introducer, former Senator Max Cleland, to plead for access to higher-ups so as to launch a "counterattack." Cleland confirms getting the call and says he told him to try the D.N.C., (where Terry McAuliffe, as former prosecutor Joseph DiGenova noted on MSNBC, carefully denied a role only in the preparation of the documents).

When his call to headquarters was not returned, Burkett then asked Mary Mapes, the CBS producer, to help him gain the top-level Kerry access he so highly valued.

Only days before the telecast, Mapes or some other "60 Minutes" staff member delivered the goods: their "unimpeachable" source was paid off with a call from Joe Lockhart, the Clinton press aide newly hired to strip nuance out of Kerry's message. With the number supplied by CBS, Lockhart called Burkett. We don't know what was said, but the call from on high was payoff in itself.

What should CBS do now? First, release Rather's interview with Burkett in its entirety; viewers are entitled to the outtakes now. Next, let Mary Mapes, at the center of all this, speak to reporters. Third, expend some Viacom resources to track down the possible original sources, including the man whose name Burkett says he "threw out" to mislead CBS.

Appointing independent reviewers should not be a device to duck all others' questions; that's Kofi Annan's trick to stonewall his oil-for-food scandal. But lacking the power of a grand jury's subpoena or testimony under oath, victimized CBS cannot put real heat on the perpetrator or conspirators. We have hard evidence of crimes by low-level operatives here - from wire fraud to forgery - as well as the potential of high-level political involvement. Is no prosecutor prepared to enforce the law?

Conservatives should stop slavering over Dan Rather's scalp, and liberals should stop pretending that noble ends justify fake-evidence means. Both should focus on the lesson of the early 70's: from third-rate burglaries to fourth-rate forgeries, nobody gets away with trying to corrupt American elections.

[MeekOneGOP]

---

Media Research Center:
Dan Rather on Bill Clinton:
"I think he’s an honest man."

   O’Reilly: "I want to ask you flat out, do you think President Clinton’s an honest man?"
    Rather: "Yes, I think he’s an honest man."
    O’Reilly: "Do you, really?"
    Rather: "I do."
    O’Reilly: "Even though he lied to Jim Lehrer’s face about the Lewinsky case?"
    Rather: "Who among us has not lied about something?"
    O’Reilly: "Well, I didn’t lie to anybody’s face on national television. I don’t think you have, have you?"
    Rather: "I don’t think I ever have. I hope I never have. But, look, it’s one thing-"
    O’Reilly, jumping in: "How can you say he’s an honest guy then?"
    Rather: "Well, because I think he is. I think at core he’s an honest person. I know that you have a different view. I know that you consider it sort of astonishing anybody would say so, but I think you can be an honest person and lie about any number of things."
    O’Reilly: "Really?!?"
    Rather: "Yeah, I do."
    O’Reilly: "See, I can’t. I want my government to be honest across-the-board. I don’t want people lying."

---

[Cboldt]

Safire believes felonies have been comitted.

On that point, he used the weasel word "could," as in "That was no mere 'dirty trick'; it could be a violation of the U.S. criminal code."

If you take his contention at face value, a scheme by a party to stick to a deliberate false statement that might affects the voters' choice of candidate, becomes criminal. "Bush said that Iraq presented an imminent threat," for example. Other talking points that are deceptive, partial truths, etc. would be similarly afflicted. "The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth havd been discredited." The list is pretty long!

The statute is designed to (and by my read, is effective only to) criminalize duping people out of something of pecuniary value. It does not criminalizing duping people to change their vote.

[MeekOneGOP]

hahahaaaaa!

[getitright]

http://www.vote.com/

Should Dan Rather resign? Vote here.

[ironman]

I guess he's speculating but strongly suggests.

"Some person or persons conceived a scheme to create a series of false Texas Air National Guard documents"

In your opinion, if the documents were indeed authentic, not fake, would they be offical Texas Air National Guard documents, or are would they just be "personal records" of Killian?

[aBootes]

Very interesting that the criminal code applicable to this incident has popped up in the NYT.

[dirtboy]

nobody gets away with trying to corrupt American elections.

Unless, of course, there is no controlling legal authority.

[Just mythoughts]

"Find the forger? I am beginning to think Kerry himself, known for his investigative prowess, studied the hate Bush, AWOL sites and banged out suggested wording for someone to use in forging documents. As he said about President Bush in the Rolling Stone interview explaining his yes vote on Iraq, "he didn't expect them to "eff" it up" and not retype using time appropriate technology:)"

JFKerry is known for using a signature/autopen of the Secretary of Navy Lehman, without permission. Lehman says he did not write the citation nor did he sign it.

Appears that the investigation should start at the top with JFKerry and his band of brothers.

JFKerry was a sitting senator in 1986 when he got that senate perk.

[pepperdog]

I agree NYC--the first step that must be taken is for CBS to admit the documents are forgeries. Without that there is nowhere for this to go other than foundering around with by guess and by gosh. And that is what CBS wants to do, internal investigations, apologies, but never admit the falseness of the documents. They have talked with their lawyers and don't want to open that box. Somehow they must be forced--how I don't know. This is about a lot more than just Dan Rather.

[Cboldt]

I guess he's speculating but strongly suggests.

We'll see as time goes on. I am quite sure that the statute he cited is not applicable, however.

In your opinion, if the documents were indeed authentic, not fake, would they be offical Texas Air National Guard documents, or are would they just be "personal records" of Killian?

At least the order to George W. Bush would be an official document, but for simplicity of analysis I take all of them as official. The legal problem is that even if the documents are taken as authentic (the reader falls for the forgery), they have zero legal effect, today.

I see a fraud claim by CBS, but only if they paid for the documents on the pretext that the documents were authentic. In tat case, CBS was defrauded. Much as you or I would be if we paid for an "original - first edition" Superman comic book, but found that the object was a reproduction.

GWB has a clear defamation claim (civil liability, money damages only), but it is not clear that he would prevail on it because, as a public figure, he would have to prove actual malice or reckless disregard for the truth on the part of CBS. It's an arguable case, yes, but GWB is not a slam-dunk winner on it. As a political matter, it would not be wise to pursue it anyway. The public is on to the fact that the documents were forged, and GWB's reputation is at worst, marginally damaged by the forgeries. I would say that his reputation is MORE damaged by the incessant false assertion by Terry McAuliffe and others that GWB failed to meet his ANG obligation. Yet, we don't hear a clamor for civil or criminal penalty for that repeat lie.

Or the oft repeated lie that GWB said "We have to go to war against Iraq because it is an imminent threat." He never said that. He advocated preemptive war, before Iraq became an imminent threat, and while it was NOT an imminent threat.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Bump!

[neverdem]

Whoever, having devised any scheme or artifice to defraud transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. " U.S. Criminal Code, Chapter 63, Section 1343.

Considering the statute cited by Safire, unless someone sings a song, everyone but the forger has plausible deniability and can claim they were innocent dupes, IMHO.

[RS]

From Vote.com's "privacy policy"...

"There are several different types of emails we send to our users:
~ skip ~
Commercial Emails - Some of our partners may wish to contact you about products or services they provide.

By using vote.com you agree to be spammed...

[Republican Red]

Does any FReeper have a picture of the notorious "Mapes"?

[getitright]

thank you. too late now for me, but hopefully you warned others in time.

[Sal]

I am beginning to think Kerry himself, known for his investigative prowess, studied the hate Bush, AWOL sites and banged out suggested wording for someone to use in forging documents. ...

JFKerry is known for using a signature/autopen of the Secretary of Navy Lehman, without permission. Lehman says he did not write the citation nor did he sign it.

Nicely put, Jmt. Now I'm going to translate that into bull in a china shop terms. Less suggestive, less subtle, but I defy anyone to contradict:

IOW Kerry has a history of forging documents--or possibly sending or allowing one of his people to do so.

In his new and improved 1986 Silver Star citation, Kerry presents us with Secretary of the Navy Lehman's FORGED signature--whether by pen or autopen. He has a history and it's not admirable.

[Anti-Bubba182]

On Scarborough Country Now.

[neverdem]

I watch TV so little that I only have basic cable now. I was paying $56 a month when I was just listening to some talking heads and the History Channel. The only show I really miss is Brit Hume's.

[potlatch]

LOL, that's great Phil!! I saw it in the email. You did a great job on that!

[potlatch]

I love the Lockhart graphic Smartass!! Saved it!