Posted on 09/23/2007 7:19:42 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
As I said, quite possibly the single most ill-advised lawsuit since Oscar Wilde filed libel charges against the Marquess of Queensberry.
I remember back in 2004 there were published take-downs of the whole incident. From the fonts to the content. I seem to recall Jim Geraghty from National Review doing a pretty good job. I cannot seem to locate.
Schadenfreude-on-steroids ping to Today show list.
Goldberg-isms, too funny.
Perfect! Wish I would have thought of that. Thanks for posting.
I don’t know about others, but I miss the days of Who, What, Why, and When news. I really don’t want to hear the “news” the provider wants to sell. The “According-to-an-ABC-(or-other-network)-poll” type of self-generated news is nothing more than editorial passing for news. Anyone can design a questionnaire to get the desired results, but the networks pass this crap off as news.
Keep suing, Dan, and perhaps you’ll get the justice you and the others deserve.
Gotta love this one, No matter what happens we win.
Finkelstein should know better... a settlement with RATher will be made before this gets dug up again.
Couple of gems here. Hitting all the branches on the way down in the laughingstock tree, and CBS having to prove that the story was bogus. A happy article!
But on the other hand, instead of sending him off to Reading Gaol, CBS may decide to just pay the money they owe their whore for taking the fall, under cover of a settlement to spare their shareholders unpredictable legal expense. Will watch this with some interest.
“The beauty of this lawsuit, which has most legal observers laughing so hard that their neck veins look like one-pound sausage casings with five pounds of ground chuck in them, is that if it goes to trial (shortly after unicorns file my taxes), CBS will be put in the position of having to prove that the story was bogus.”
This would be a double plus good bonus as it would also put 2 fish into the side of HMS Mary Mapes.
ROTFLMAO!
|
Finkelstein should know better... a settlement with RATher will be made before this gets dug up again."
The line you quote is Goldberg's, not Finkelstein's. Goldberg himself suggests that the case is very unlikely to go to trial, but if it ever did it would put CBS in the position described. By the way, Finkelstein = me, governs.
Rather will try to argue that CBS didn’t put him on air when they had a contractual duty to do so and regardless of the truth of the Bush/TANG story, Rather should have been on 60 Minutes as specified in the contract.
CBS may well decide that the way to defend against Rather’s contractual claim that he was due certain slots will simply be to destroy him.
They may well say that there was ample evidence of way too much instability to put him on the air in an uncontrolled situation. There would be a number of people at CBS and other nets that would testify to his actions, words, etc.
CBS could claim: “Who cares what the contract said. We had a duty to protect the company and more importantly, the public from Mr. Rather’s actions. We wanted to do it gently. We would never have mentioned this publicly, but Mr Rather, through this trial, forced our hand.
We paid him his full salary, out of respect. For his own good, and the company and America’s good, we put him out to pasture. He brought all this current negative notoriety on himself.
We were simply trying to protect CBS, our stockholders. America.... and in-fact Dan himself and his legacy.... from an unstable, out of control Dan Rather.”
A jury could eat that up.
This absolutely delicious....LMSMs' credibility (or lack thereof), by trial....by discovery....and the American public gets to watch....but will ABCNNBCee_BS show this circus.
NO!.....the show must go on!
Good post, and way cheaper to do than $70 million. or even $5 million.
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.