Posted on 09/17/2004 3:55:38 PM PDT by Redcoat LI
WASHINGTON — It was the first public allegation that CBS News used forged memos in its report questioning President Bush's National Guard service — a highly technical explanation posted within hours of airtime citing proportional spacing and font styles.
But it did not come from an expert in typography or typewriter history as some first thought. Instead, it was the work of Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes who helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal, the Times has found.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
I'm laughing my head off. LA Times must think we all have cooties....conservative cooties, that is.
Where does the LA Times get off using that blogger garbage?
The LA Times knows exactly who and what FreeRepublic is since they sued us for $million for posting their articles in full.
They owe FR an appology and full credit for outing Rather!
Sorry, only qualified pajama wearing personell who have passed basic VRWC clandestine training in commonsense are issued the super scooby decoder ring. Have you? Can you prove you didn't? Can I prove you didn't? Can I prove any negative? Of course I can since everyone knows you can't prove a negative so thereby I have proven it. You're hired! Report to Area CWRV upon receipt of this notification.
"...who went all the way to Abilene, TX to fax the documents from a Kinkos near the home of Bob Burkett."
Nah we still play nice. It's just that the other side is so dumb and easy to run circles around.
What!!! Not some nerd sitting in his pajamas surfing the web?
See BS just wanted to somehow get Bush...
Look at how pathetic their "reporting" was.
1) They got answers that they didn't like from the widow Killian and Killian's son, and didn't put them on camera.
2) They failed to even interview the people the Killians told them could shed light on the controversy.
3) They failed to heed their own experts' advice that there was something amiss about the memos.
4) They paraded out so-called experts who never authenticated the memos in total.
5) They put the testimony of Ben Barnes on television -- testimony that was in stark contrast to what he had said previously on the record, which his own daughter debunked.
6) They stonewalled for a full week, defending the obviously fraudulent memos.
7) To bolster their story, they bring out the 86-year old secretary of Killian (Knox), who said the memos were fake and that she didn't type them.(This is supposed to be a defense?)
8) They fail to disclose that Ms. Knox is a partisan who thinks Bush was "selected" rather than "elected."
9) And througout all of it -- the most staggering omission: Gen. Staut, the person who knows the truth, is ALIVE. But See BS refuses to actually take the time out to interview him to see if he made Killian "sugar coat" the memos or if Bush made it to the Guard because of preferential treatment.
10) If anyone would know, it would be Staut, since he was the one who ADMITTED BUSH INTO THE GUARD, but that's a minor detail that See BS doesn't care much about.
11) Think about it -- CBS would rather use HEARSAY evidence from a DEAD GUY against Bush than to go to the ACTUAL SOURCE. Just plain ole pathetic, if you ask me.
I think a high school cub reporter could have done a better job at getting to the truth than these alleged professionals over at See BS. They are such a joke and a fraud and have ZERO credibility.
EARTH TO LA TIMES - This just in :
We are all very passionate and very active conservative "activists" here. This is a conservative active web site. We all contribute to the RNC. In fact, many of us will likely have made much bigger contributions to the RNC than BuckHead.
So there. You "outed" us as conservative activists. Could have saved yourself the trouble and just read the text on the home page of FreeRepublic.Com though. Would have been a lot quicker.
OK, here's what I think after a few minutes on Lexis. BTW, I am currently prosecuting a lawsuit, in part for invasion of my privacy, against a California state agency, and (while not a lawyer myself) have some familiarity with the law on privacy.
1. The California constitution is - I think - a little unusual in that it guarantees the right to privacy. It's a fairly broad right the way it is written into the constitution, and the boundaries around what is an invasion haven't been very well established. I think it could be construed to apply in this situation.
2. Why California law? FR's servers are located in Fresno. Regardless of where Buckhead lives, or where the reporter works, I think CA law applies, because the LA Times was rummaging through FR's servers for the information.
3. The normal public figure rules shouldn't apply here. Buckhead is a private individual, who had an absolute expectation of privacy with respect to his posts on FR. In this area of the law, believe it or not, expectation is what counts. If someone reasonably expects their identity to remain confidential, that is what the law looks to.
I'd love to hear from some lawyers; we know they're out there. I'll try to do something more comprehensive on the subject over the weekend. I couldn't find any cases directly on point in a quick search of California law, but there may be some federal or other state law on point.
Assuming a lawsuit was feasible, you can count me in for a contribution.
"On FreeRepublic?"
"I am shocked, SHOCKED I tell you"
If I were Buckhead,I think I would register as a DemonRat just to piss the Times off AND the rest of them.
Actually, that statement is priceless in the LA TIMES.
Is it a left-handed compliment? They didn't *have* to include Buckhead's brash (to them) statement.
And thank you for your proper punctuation, Cat! < wink >
Strategy ideas?
Anyone?
Touché.
...and NO I'm not serious.
So true, so true.
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.