CBS Relied On Dems for Documents

RatherBiased.com ^

[RatherBiased.com]

The Washington Post and The New York Times both have huge stories in today's editions on the connections between Bill Burkett, CBS News, and the Democratic Party. Memogate is the story that just keeps giving.

First from the Post's:

The former Texas National Guard officer suspected of providing CBS News with possibly forged records on President Bush's military service called on Democratic activists to wage "war" against Republican "dirty tricks" in a series of Internet postings in which he also used phrases similar to several employed in the disputed documents. [...]

In e-mail messages to a Yahoo discussion group for Texas Democrats over the past few months, Burkett laid out a rationale for using what he termed "down and dirty" tactics against Bush. He said he had passed his ideas to the Democratic National Committee but that the DNC seemed "afraid to do what I suggest."

In another message, dated Sept. 4, Burkett hinted he might have had advance knowledge of some details in an explosive segment that aired Sept. 8 on the CBS News program "60 Minutes." [...]

"I believe that Bush knows that there is more coming out than Ben Barnes," Burkett wrote. "No proof, just gut instinct."

In an Aug. 13 essay for a liberal webzine called OnlineJournal.com, Burkett hinted again that President Bush was going to be attacked. This time he was more specific:

Americans will get through the gotchas of the preemptive strike from the Republican swift boat crews who want to elevate obviously flimsy charges in order to immunize Americans from more Bush assaults. The Bush assaults are rumored to finally close the issue of Bush's disappearance from his Air National Guard duty in Alabama; efforts and methods to falsify and cover up Bush problems in his files; and the obvious disciplinary actions that led to his grounding from flying. Both sides will count on the electorate to sicken of this style and leave the real meat on the table untouched.

As documented in most recent polls, the real issues of Iraq have already required enough Maalox for most Americans. Most Americans don't like war. They are rapidly moving their focus to their domestic issues of jobs, healthcare and education.

Burkett elaborated on his thoughts in an Aug. 31 posting not printed in the Post:

While some of us pine for the return of Bill CLinton, that's not the real answer. Many of us have risked everything on this election. And the disappointment is deep and difficult to manage.

But we fight on, inspite of incompetance at the top.

The truth probably is that many of the insiders simply didn't think to chekc someone out in Texas. Does that mean they won't check out those that submit themselves for key positions, as well. That's what we all think.

CBS has said that it obtained its controversial documents within the last few weeks. It may have received them from Burkett following the latter's unsuccessful attempts to pass them on to former Democratic senator Max Cleland who traveled to Texas in late August. Before Cleland's trip, Burkett had telephoned the ex-senator saying that he had damaging information about Bush. He was told to pass this information along to the Democratic National Committe but, according to the Post, national hq was less than enthusiastic.

In an Aug. 21 posting, Burkett referred to a conversation with former senator Max Cleland (D-Ga.) about the need to counteract Republican tactics: "I asked if they wanted to counterattack or ride this to ground and outlast it, not spending any money. He said counterattack. So I gave them the information to do it with. But none of them have called me back."

Cleland confirmed that he had a two- or three-minute conversation by cell phone with a Texan named Burkett in mid-August while he was on a car ride. He remembers Burkett saying that he had "valuable" information about Bush, and asking what he should with it. "I told him to contact the [Kerry] campaign," Cleland said. "You get this information tens of times a day, and you don't know if it is legit or not."

Contacted by the New York Times, Cleland confirmed contact with Burkett, acknowledging that the disgruntled former guardsman had offered him information relating to Bush's guard service.

"I couldn't swear to it whether he used the term documents or information," Cleland told the paper. "It was some kind of stuff, some kind of information he wanted to get to the campaign, or something, regarding Bush's National Guard service. I referred him up to somebody in the campaign."

CBS has publicly denied Burkett was its source although a source within the network told Times reporter Jim Rutenberg that Burkett had "helped with the reports" but did not elaborate on exactly how.

Burkett's lawyer, a prominent Democratic activist named David Van Os who is the party's candidate for the Texas Supreme Court denied that his client had forged the Memogate documents.

"From my knowledge of Bill's character, I am 100 percent positively, unequivocally certain that Bill Burkett has not created or falsified any documents," Van Os told the Times.

Stan Merriman, co-founder of a group seeking to make the Texas Democratic party more liberal, echoed Van Os's sentiments in a Sept. 17 posting to the Yahoo Texas Democrats mailing list.

"Our brother, Bill Burkett is under siege by the Carl Rove [sic] smear machine," Merriman wrote.

"David Van Os assures me that as Bill's legal Counsel on a longstanding basis, any assertions that Bill has engaged in 'forgery' vis a vis the now infamous documentation of the Bush desertion of duty as a Texas National Guardsman is total smear with the footprints of the Karl Rove modus operandi all over it."

"I stand with both our brothers Burkett and Van Os and applaud their guts to stand up to the right wing slander machine; President Kerry and many of our DNC brethren can take a lesson from our two populist fellow-Texans who have the cajones to look contemptuously in the eye these ruthless cowards bringing down our formerly proud democracy and tell them to go to h*ll."

A long-time associate of Burkett's is James Moore, a former reporter for CBS's Houston affiliate, KHOU. Since 1994, Moore has been hounding Bush over his National Guard service. Eventually, he left "objective" journalism and has since become a part of the anti-Bush cottage industry that has sprung up following Bush's emergence as a national figure. He is the author of two books on the president,

Bush's Brain and Bush's War for Reelection.

While researching his second book, Moore received assistance from Burkett who provided him with a number of documents which Moore used to make the case that Bush had acted dishonorably during Vietnam. Some of these documents were given to CBS News which used in a Feb. 12 Evening News report which relayed Burkett's charges that Bush had instructed staff members to destroy documents which cast doubt on his Guard service.

Mary Mapes, the producer of CBS's Sept. 8 report which relied on the controversial Memogate documents likely was the recipient of these papers since, according to the network, she has been working on the Bush Guard story for the past five years and is based in Dallas. CBS officials have confirmed that Mapes interviewed Burkett.

[JoJo Gunn]

[cricket]

bump for a great thread. . .

[PhilDragoo]

[jporcus]

Aren't there laws against all this? Isn't the whole Viacom corporation (board of directors, ...) breaking the law if it turns out that Dan Rather was complicit in taking false documents to put forward as propaganda in support of a political party, and they do nothing about (or defend) Rather?

[Bonaparte]

Thanks for posting this update. The moves coming from CBS are like a badly damaged fighter who's just trying to survive the remaining rounds, willing to take a few head shots to protect his ribs, catch his breath, get his feet working again. If only enough people would seriously go after the affiliates and the sponsors, CBS would crack. They'd admit to the forged docs, give up their sources and can Rather, just to breathe again.

Nissan
nissan-ir@mail.nissan.co.jp
1-800-647-7261

Pfizer
ccfeedback@pfizer.com
1-800-733-9393

Aventis
aventis-ir@aventis.com
1-800-221-4025

Campbell's
http://www.campbellssoup.com
1-800-257-8443

KIA
requires registration
1-800-333-4542

Sprint
nicholas.sweers@mail.sprint.com
1-913-624-3000

Aflac
http://www.aflac.com/about_us/media_center_contact.asp
1-800-992-3522

Citi
investorrelations@citi.com
1-800-285-3000

Ameriquest
https://www.ameriquestmortgage.com/contact.html
1-800-523-3964

Splenda
http://www.splenda.com/vcrc/emailform.jhtml
1-800-7-SPLENDA

SBC
drucilla.cessac@sbc.com
1-210-821-4105

Ford https://www.ford.com/en/company/investorInformation/shareholderQuestions.htm
1-800-392-3673

American Express
ronald.stovall@aexp.com (Note: e-mail address correction. Thanks Steve.)
1-800-525-3355

Here is a...

List Of CBS Sponsors

Here is a...

Map Of CBS Radio Affiliates

Click on a region and the list appears. Some of these stations, eg. 2 in Houston, are already cutting the airing of CBS news, demanding that CBS come clean. Type the stations call letters and frequency, eg. "610 KFRC", into google and you will know if the station has an online presence. They will probably be even more receptive to your complaint if they broadcast online. Be especially attentive to stations in your local area. Email, phone, fax, write, and call in to talk shows. If you have time and inclination, you could even contact the stations sponsors directly as well.

Here is a...

List Of CBS TV Affiliates

Both domestic and foreign. Do the same google search as for radio affiliates and then contact them.

Here is a...

[devolve]

Burkett needs some publicity

Good find

[igoramus987]

from http://www.vanosforsupremecourt.com/ too

"Letter from Lieutenant Colonel (Ret.) Bill Burkett
Former Client of David Van Os

...

There is no one in the entire field of law that I would select to represent me over David Van Os. Therefore, I have faith that he can be more influential in returning the beginning of balance and equity to this important court. Certainly, by the responses given by Mr. Brister to the Senate confirmation committee, his responses will be far more honest, dignified and legally correct than what Mr. Brister told that committee.

Bill Burkett"

[Colofornian]

Wow! You mean all we have to do is forge some historic documents, get some media hound to buy into their authenticity, let some scandal develop, and then the mainstream media will quote our FREEPINGS at length in articles from coast to coast? Where do we sign up?

[ArmyBratproud]

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/petoc.html
Texas Penal Code
http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/statutes.html
Texas Statutes.

Pat Cadel told Bill Oreilly on Thurs Night that he had his lawyer check into it.

Cadel said that his lawyer mentioned that in the state of Texas....it is a substantial crime to forge a govt. document.

He said something about 2. But there is more than one fake memo in this issue.

I have a link to the Texas criminal/penal code.....I'll look it up

[onyx]

There you go.
Now you have Burkett on your list.
Looks like 40 miles of bad road to me.

[Michael121]

hehehehe Full blown gonzo.

[jporcus]

Thanks. I'm thinking of something even bigger than this, i.e., not just Burkett being in trouble, but the entire Viacom Corp. Let's say that Rather knowingly conspired to use the forged documents that came from the Democratic Party, using the power of CBS as a news organization to hurt the Republicans in a presidential election. There must be federal laws against corporations allowing this to happen, i.e., if rather than proactively doing something like firing Rather and issuing corrections, they simple "let it ride".

[grey_whiskers]

You wrote:

"Wow! You mean all we have to do is forge some historic documents, get some media hound to buy into their authenticity, let some scandal develop, and then the mainstream media will quote our FREEPINGS at length in articles from coast to coast? Where do we sign up?"


[Full rack of Sarcasm Torpedoes ARMED. FIRE!]
What if I have a grainy wrinkled fax of a Photoshop
picture of RatherStupid(TM) giving a Lewinski
to a llama?

And then claim all of the tin-foil hobos I
interviewed ("what's the frequency, Kenneth")
authenticated the picture?

And then--oops--other people are able to
recreate the picture on Photoshop, but I claim
that the photo could have been taken with
the (notoriously authenticatable--just ask UFO nuts)
Polaroid?

And I don't have the originals?

And I won't name my source?

And then impugn the motives of those questioning
these faxes, saying I won't succumb to pressure from
well-financed partisans?

And then--gasp--it turns out that every person
I asked about the story who disagreed, I didn't
use? Or that I lied to them about what they
were verifying? Mis-describing the pictures over
the phone, pretending they were eyewitness notes
instead of a fax of a Photoshop document?

And then--shudder--it turns out that those I DID
quote from, back off from their claims, except for
one 86 year old woman who used to be Rather's
typist tell me she heard other journalists
saying he sucked Donkey D*cks? And she still
says my photo is fake, because I used a Llama,
and not a Donkey, in the picture? But she
knows "these kind of thoughts went around" the
newsroom, and did I know that he was a knee-jerk
liberal, too?

And after all this comes out, I then bleat that
since RatherLazy(TM) is not answering the charges
it only makes them more likely to be true?

Will, say, PETA buy into it? No? Aren't they interested
in ANIMAL RIGHTS?

How close-minded are YOU, anyway?


THE ABOVE IS A FAIRLY 'ACCURATE' 'coroboration' of
the rigorous logic and analysis of RatherDumb(TM) and CBS.

[ArmyBratproud]

FUNNY YOU MENTION THAT. We would have to ask one of the lawyers of FR is they think this would fly. I know how to look up legal cases and codes and statutes to an extent.
BUT THEY WOULD KNOW IF IT WOULD FLY.
The State Atty folks in Austin are starting to hear rumbles...from what I understand...so who knows.

Texas Penal Code - Chapter 2 Sect. 7.02 (maybe (a) 2, 3 and (b))

§ 7.02. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR CONDUCT OF
ANOTHER. (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense
committed by the conduct of another if:
(1) acting with the kind of culpability required for
the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person
to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense;
(2) acting with intent to promote or assist the
commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids,
or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or
(3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the
offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission,
he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the
offense.
(b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit
one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators,
all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed,
though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed
in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have
been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

[clee1]

Wasting your time with Ford. Their Board is as leftist as RATher and CBS.

[Colofornian]

Hey, if this was reversed and Burkett's ranch was part of a Republican pact to do in the Democratic presidency, we'd see pictures all over the media with reporters intoning, "Here we are, outside the Burkett Republican Compound..."

[Diddley]

Isn't it sad that a man (either Burkett or Rather) can have his life so consummed with hatred for Bush that there seems to be little else in his life? He (they) give up almost everything else to pursue charges against Bush (which seem rather [no pun intended] meaningless when examined).

[ArmyBratproud]

Just thinking...but...I wonder if CBS can be charged since there office is not is Texas. Not sure how that works.
I guess they drag their sorry butts down here after they serve them with extradition papers.

WHILE WE ARE PONDERING ABOUT IT....This looks interesting too.

SUBCHAPTER B. CORPORATIONS AND ASSOCIATIONS


§ 7.21. DEFINITIONS. In this subchapter:
(1) "Agent" means a director, officer, employee, or
other person authorized to act in behalf of a corporation or
association.
(2) "High managerial agent" means:
(A) a partner in a partnership;
(B) an officer of a corporation or association;
(C) an agent of a corporation or association who
has duties of such responsibility that his conduct reasonably may
be assumed to represent the policy of the corporation or
association.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 7.22. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF CORPORATION OR
ASSOCIATION. (a) If conduct constituting an offense is performed
by an agent acting in behalf of a corporation or association and
within the scope of his office or employment, the corporation or
association is criminally responsible for an offense defined:
(1) in this code where corporations and associations
are made subject thereto;
(2) by law other than this code in which a legislative
purpose to impose criminal responsibility on corporations or
associations plainly appears; or
(3) by law other than this code for which strict
liability is imposed, unless a legislative purpose not to impose
criminal responsibility on corporations or associations plainly
appears.
(b) A corporation or association is criminally responsible
for a felony offense only if its commission was authorized,
requested, commanded, performed, or recklessly tolerated by:
(1) a majority of the governing board acting in behalf
of the corporation or association; or
(2) a high managerial agent acting in behalf of the
corporation or association and within the scope of his office or
employment.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 4, eff. Sept.
1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 7.23. CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF PERSON FOR CONDUCT IN
BEHALF OF CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION. (a) An individual is
criminally responsible for conduct that he performs in the name of
or in behalf of a corporation or association to the same extent as
if the conduct were performed in his own name or behalf.
(b) An agent having primary responsibility for the
discharge of a duty to act imposed by law on a corporation or
association is criminally responsible for omission to discharge the
duty to the same extent as if the duty were imposed by law directly
on him.
(c) If an individual is convicted of conduct constituting an
offense performed in the name of or on behalf of a corporation or
association, he is subject to the sentence authorized by law for an
individual convicted of the offense.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.


§ 7.24. DEFENSE TO CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY OF
CORPORATION OR ASSOCIATION. It is an affirmative defense to
prosecution of a corporation or association under Section
7.22(a)(1) or (a)(2) that the high managerial agent having
supervisory responsibility over the subject matter of the offense
employed due diligence to prevent its commission.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, § 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974.
Amended by Acts 1975, 64th Leg., p. 913, ch. 342, § 5, eff. Sept.
1, 1975; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, § 1.01, eff. Sept. 1,
1994.

[jporcus]

Good points. There's got to be something unlawful, nevermind unethical, about all this.

[ArmyBratproud]

Before anything...would have to find the statute/penal code that shows that what Burkett (or whoever else they worked with ) did was actually a crime as Pat Cadel's atty suggested it was. I am looking throught he Penal Code listings right now. I don't want to look through those statutes...I don't know what it goes under. An atty could probably find it in 2 minutes....

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/statutes/petoc.html

See
TITLE 4. INCHOATE OFFENSES

CHAPTER 15. PREPARATORY OFFENSES

§ 15.01. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT
§ 15.02. CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY

You can click on the Chapter 15 bar (as with all other chapter listings....and it will open the Sections.