Posted on 11/05/2008 5:21:19 PM PST by My Favorite Headache
NEW YORK - A New York City judge says he wants to see documents that passed between a law firm and a panel CBS hired to investigate a Dan Rather story on President Bush.
Judicial Hearing Officer Ira Gammerman told attorney David Versfelt on Wednesday to let him examine the papers so he can decide whether Rather's lawyers may see them.
Versfelt's law firm was hired to advise the panel. Versfelt says the papers are protected by attorney-client privilege.
(Excerpt) Read more at omg.yahoo.com ...
That's a really nasty thing to say about Comedy Central.
&&&
Same here. Once we got satellite, it was curtains for them.
I immediately called one of my sisters when the word first came out that Palin was to be interviewed by Charlie Gibson. Both of us, as huge Palin fans, were willing to tune in to the network.
We had a good laugh back then when we realized that 1) we didn't know which network he was on, and 2) we thought he was still on in the morning.
Of course, I was able to get the info in time, and we each watched the supercilious inquisition. We each concluded, as well, that we will never again watch that hideous toad Gibson, though.
“CBS vs. Rather
How can we lose?”
C?BS! can ‘vindicate’ Rather.
I was interviewed by these guys. I expounded on how the documents were obviously, undeniably, irrefutably fake. Referred him to Joseph Newcomer’s analysis, among others.
And I also explained how I was a storm trooper in Rove’s clone army, and received orders by satellite through my fillings.
Please take my deposition!
John / Billybob
A lot of people were interviewed by this panel whose testimony did not make it into the report.
Rather doen’t know what he is getting into here with this deposition request. When these papers between CBS and the Thornburgh panel are reviewed, if attorney/client privilege does not prevent it, they will show that the panel had proof that that these documents were fake. But that finding would then expose CBS to civil and criminal liabilities. So Thornburgh, like a good attorney protecting his client, made sure that the panel conclusions “could not prove or disprove the authenticity of the documents”, disregarding the findings of its lawyers.
Rather, in his ignorance, is not aware of what he is asking for. If they are released to Rather’s attorneys, Rather will be in possession of proof that the memos are fakes. He will have proven his own theory and defense that the memos were real.
Nice going Dan, you moron.
Correction to next to last sentence -
He will have proven that they are NOT real.
I have always felt exactly that way - that to protect the client Thornburgh and the law firm stayed their hand in concluding the documents were fake. The erected a standard of proof that exceeds metaphysical certitude and said it was not met. But in fact, there is not a scintilla of evidence they are authentic. The Report totally, systematically and comprehensively demolishes every argument put forth by Mapes, and proves her to be a prolific liar in dozens of crucial particulars. The “meshing analysis” - an insane delusion or fancy lie, take your pick. The content - all wrong and definitively probative of forgery as well. Fake and inaccurate. The forensic analysis of the document by Peter Tytell is an unqualified opinion of forgery. They never referenced Joseph Newcomer - whose opinion was also definitive and conclusive.
I think there was a fear of legal jeopardy if they concluded it was fake, so they tried to thread the needle.
But all they have succeeded in doing is giving the delusional lefty nuts of the world - including Dan Rather - a crutch upon which to carry on their Ahab obsession, insisting always, “the documents have never been proven fake.”
They are getting what they deserve for tying to shade the truth when the truth was demanded.
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.