Rather May Call Both BUSHES As Witnesses

[kpete]

Former "Evening News" Dan Rather choked back tears on several occasions today when discussing his decision to file a lawsuit against CBS and he left many audience members with a sense that he may call President George W. Bush as a witness should the lawsuit proceed to trial (and Rather said he hoped it would).

When asked by Carol Joynt, host of the "Q&A Café" held at Nathans restaurant who worked with Rather at CBS in the 1970s, whether "he'd like to" call President Bush as a witness in the trial, Rather said "I'd like not to answer the question," leaving both Joynt and audience members wondering whether the newsman has Bush in his sights." Joynt later told Yeas & Nays, "From the look in his eye -- and he gave me a definite Ratheresque look -- I got the impression he will call the president as a witness. Possibly both of them: 41 and 43. He implied the suit is not against them, but what the suit is about stems directly from his antagonistic relationship with them."

more at:
http://www.examiner.com/blogs/Yeas_and_Nays/2007/9/26/Rather-chokes-up-and-hunkers-down

[grasswire]

1. what a gift he could give the world...

...even at this late stage, if he could seriously ding the Bushes.

Make news, Dan! Get the best legal advice you can find, and make news!

Too bad Gerry Spence is too old to take the case.

[chelsea0011]

2. Oh, he'll be declared an enemy combatant before they ever testify

to anything.

[Cheap_Trick]

3. what's the point?

they'd both lie like fucking dogs on the stand.

[Maraya1969]

23. With a good cross examiner they would be toast. I would love to see it.

And can you spell "perjury"?

[rateyes]

4. Subpoena the documents of Dubya's service in the TANG...

Dan. They're relevant to the case. My how I'd like to be the lawyer deposing those two asshats.

[Scriptor Ignotus]

7. I believe said documents are mysteriously missing

and if they're not already, they will be.

[rateyes]

8. Then, somebody will have some serious 'splainin' to do....

"Losing" the military records of any person is some serious shit. But, that's not to say you're wrong.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

5. I only wish Bush was subject to the laws of this nation and be forced to appear.

I wish.

But, we no longer live in a nation of laws, a Constitutionally-driven democracy.

[tanyev]

6. Can you say egg-ZEK-yu-tiv PRIV-lij? Bush can.

[rateyes]

9. That would get laughed out of court...

Executive privilege over matters that happened when he wasn't the executive? Nope. Won't work.

[tanyev]

12. I'm not saying it would. But he's tried it on everything else.

[rateyes]

14. That's true, and so far....

we're still waiting on those contempt charges. My bet is that Pelosi hopes we'll forget about them. I won't forget.

[ieoeja]

11. Can you say Jones-v-Clinton? n/t

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. wasn't Clinton a named party in that lawsuit though?

[ieoeja]

10. Before his firing...

... I don't believe he had a valid, legal reason for putting them under oath on this subject. But now they are material witnesses in a civil suit. And in Jones-v-Clinton the US Supreme Court ruled that a sitting president could be subject to subponeas in civil suits.

When Jones-v-Clinton was going down I kept pointing out to my CON friends the Pandora's box they were opening.

[Annces]

13. I can't see them every testifying

However Rather is a tenacious person, and I am glad he is going for it.

[Kurovski]

15. K&R. (nt)

[Imagevision]

16. The Bush's would never show and W would laugh and grin this one away as usual...

[B Calm]

17. I think by law he has to show up. This was settled under President Clinton.

[Patsy Stone]

18. Godspeed, Dan.

:patriot:

[DemoTex]

20. Bu$hco will prevail on CBS to settle big with Rather (close to the $70-large).

Rather knows that he, potentially, has Bu$hco by the short hairs. Bu$hco will never let this get to court. Ergo, Bu$hco will play their cards to have Bu$h-buddy Sumner Redstone get CBS/VIACOM to settle with Dan. Since Dan knows the game and the stakes, the settlement will be near the $70 million nominal amount of the suit-at-law. $70 mil is a big number, so there will probably be some quid pro quo for CBS/VIACOM from the Bu$hco regime.

[Blackhatjack]

22. People sue for different reasons and $$ is not always the bottom line...

I think Dan Rather is after restoring his reputation and his good name more than the money.

I doubt he will settle for a large cash amount with an attached confidentiality clause that prevents him from speaking about his claims and his settlement.

[bleever]

21. Thread about showing support for Dan Rather over here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x1918014