LTTE help needed - could Rather have been prosecuted?

[NewJeffCT]

I don't think so, but this Letter from Bert Gay (2nd one down in the link) says that Rather could have been. I'd like to set the record straight & also bring up the dichotomy of CBS's response regarding their response to the still not disproven Bush memo (harsh & quick) vs. their response to the proven lies of Kathleen Willey in the 1990s(still waiting for those firings & apologies...)


Don DeCesare is dead wrong at least twice in the article "Dan Rather: Flawed, Perhaps, But Always First" .

On the first point, "first" should not be placed above "accurate." That is why I no longer pay great attention to broadcast news, and prefer printed material. In the final analysis, I've got a few minutes. I don't need my news a nano-second after the event has occurred.

And secondly, "flawed" is an understatement. What Mr. Rather did is actually illegal and can be prosecuted.

However, because it's Dan Rather, others had to fall on a sword and Mr. Rather gets a pass.

Instead, he gets folks like the author throwing him bouquets. Mr. Rather's zeal, arrogance, and bias placed him in a position of having to step down.

All due respect to Mr. DeCesare; however, he is apparently too close to Mr. Rather to utilize his own journalistic skills.

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/letters/hc-lets0315.artmar15,0,7440366.story?coll=hc-headlines-letters

[H2O Man]

1. That's an ignorant person

saying something that is downright foolish. To be "prosecuted," Rather would have had to have violated a penal code. There are no penal codes for reporting the news. At very most, a person who feels that a Rather story injured them could file a suit in civil court, but those are not "prosecuted."

[NewJeffCT]

5. I thought so

Even then, don't they have to prove malicious intent? And, the two people that CBS appointed both have connections to Poppy Bush and found no malicious intent, if I recall.

[H2O Man]

13. Well, they can file a suit

in civil court anytime. In a case like this, it would be tossed out without ever seeing any testimony, etc. There is no civil case that could possibly be brought against Rather here.

The part about "prosecution" is hilarious. The fellow hasn't identified what the criminal charge would be. It's be fun to put him on the hot seat by asking him specifically what section of the penal code he believes Rather violated? But, on the other hand, the overall feel of his letter is that the author is not remarkably more insightful than a pile of dog feces on a sidewalk. Better to just walk around that pile of dog feces, than to stop and attempt to engage it in a debate.

[Bridget Burke]

2. Probably not. But Rather is not the one who'd be embarrassed....

If the matter came to trial. Criticism of the memo had more to do with office automation in the 1970's than the truth of the charges.

Bush pulled strings to get into the TANG. Then he failed to meet his commitment. Nobody has ever contradicted these FACTS.

Please, let's have a trial!

[Jensen]

7. Yeah!!! Lets have a trial.....

I bet they K rove and Comapany would not stand for a trial!

[plant-fan]

3. Prosecuted for what ? Lèse-majesté ?

In case the writer hasn't noticed, in this country we have no king and it's no crime to offend our Dear Leader. He can go suck eggs.

[htuttle]

10. George Washington tried that about 200 years ago

Tried to prosecute John Peter Zenger for reporting unattractive news about President Washington. Washington lost the case. I don't think any president has seriously tried to do it again (seems they use dirty tricks nowdays instead).

Worst case for Rather, CBS might have been sued for libel, which is a CIVIL, not criminal matter. However, that would allow CBS to make it's full case in court as to the truthfulness of the charges that Bush didn't fulfill his Guard obligations. That's the last thing Rove would have wanted.

[Fleshdancer]

4. well, using this flawed logic....

I think it's safe to say that Faux news could be prosecuted because they were the first to declare Bush the winner of Florida in 2000 when we now know he didn't get more votes than Gore.

The thing that really irritates me about the Dan Rather story is that people think the entire story is made up. We would rather focus our time and energy on Rather and yet no one else has looked in to the actual story. The question still remains...did W show up for duty or not? It shouldn't be this difficult of a question to answer if he was there.

[happyslug]

6. Remind the idiot that the allegations in the letter was NEVER Questioned

The issue was whether it was a real letter from the time period OR a more recently reproduced letter. What the letter said WAS NEVER QUESTIONED. It fact it was ADMITTED TO. Thus Rather and CBS can NOT even be changed with liable, for what they said was TRUE. The attack was on one letter that supported CBS's report NOT the report itself.

This is the whole problem with "memo-gate", the CHARGE in memo-gate was one letter was a forgery, not that the CHARGE supported by that letter was false.

[KharmaTrain]

8. Rather's Questions Were Never Answered. I'd Love To See A Case

Instead of playing "well your guy lied, too"...why not go back to the questions Rather was asking about Bunnypants service. That "memo" was only one part of a large report CBS had done and was working on that the RNC had to stop and destroy, and sure enough they did.

We could only wish that someone would be stupid enough to try nailing Rather on some stupid charge. It'd turn the court room not into a trial on Rather's reporting, but on Bunnypant's military service and the main elements of the story.

Rather's guilt was only in starting to find and air the truth about this corrupt regime and it's braindead head puppet.

[rucky]

9. Novak. n/t

[NewJeffCT]

11. If you read the letters further down

Somebody did mention in another letter, that if the media were truly liberal, he (the letter writer) would be on CNN and Bob Novak would be in jail...

[NewJeffCT]

12. draft response so far...

Letter writer Bert Gay of Manchester seems to be outraged over Dan Rather, even going so far as saying Rather could be prosecuted.

For what exactly would you prosecute Rather? None of the facts in the memo, or in the 60 Minutes story itself, were disputed. The CBS investigation was led by two men with connections to the President¡¯s father, yet they found no malicious intent.

Despite this, CBS issued a public apology and fired several employees. Rather¡¯s otherwise distinguished career now has a black cloud over it.

For comparison, I would like to direct Mr. Gay back to the 1990s. 60 Minutes rushed a similar story to air that disparaged a sitting president using a witness with a shaky background. However, this witness, Kathleen Willey, was later proven to be a liar in a court of law.

Despite this situation, there was no outcry from the media over Kathleen Willey, no CBS investigation, no public apology and no firings. That liberal bias at CBS at work again!

[UTUSN]

14. "Illegal" WHAT? The Broadcast Was All TRUE

*******QUOTE*******

http://www.jamesgoodale.net/pages/6/index.htm

.... Lost in the commotion over the authenticity of the documents is that the underlying facts of Rather’s 60 Minutes report are substantially true. Bush did not take the physical exam required of all pilots; his superiors gave him the benefit of any doubt; he did receive special treatment and Lieutenant Colonel Jerry Killian, Bush’s commanding officer, was unhappy with the loss of ANG’s investment in him when Bush informed Killian he was leaving for Alabama. Before the broadcast, Mary Mapes, the CBS producer of the program, confirmed the facts in the documents with retired Major General Bobby Hodges, who had been Killian’s superior in the ANG. Later Hodges told the panel he did not think the documents were authentic, but did not disagree that the facts were substantially correct.

Following the broadcast, Marian Carr Knox, who was Killian’s secretary at the time, confirmed the facts of the broadcast, saying, “There’s no doubt in my mind that the information is correct.” When the panel cross-examined Knox she seemed less certain of what she had told Rather but she did not contradict any of the broadcast. Since the broadcast, no one has come forward to say the program was untruthful. ....

********UNQUOTE*******

[saracat]

15. Odd isn't it that Bert Gay doesn't have a problem with Brian Williams

rushing in with a false news story about the Saddam judge, running his picture and blowing his anonymity because he claimed he was assassinated. He later admitted he identified the wrong judge and he has now shown his picture around the world! Talk about due diligence and journalistic skills! Why isn't Williams fired? He gets away with oops! And even Jon Stewart treads lightly on him!

[NewJeffCT]

16. Republicans are allowed to make mistakes

But, anybody that is critical of a Republican (even a fellow Republican) has no margin for error.