Update: Former U.S. Attorney to investigate Rathergate!
(Hat tip: Power Line)
According to Drudge:
CBS DOC SOURCE SET TO SUE NETWORK FOR LIBEL
Wed Sep 22 2004 00:05:20 ETBill Burkett, the man identified yesterday by CBS as the source of the controversial documents used in its September 8 “60 Minutes II” report questioning President Bush’s Air National Guard service, plans to sue the network, the NY SUN reports.
Burkett has had “several meetings with lawyers to determine the best course of action.” The planned lawsuit would center on “defamation of character and libel.”
Mr. Burkett “told me everything about the process” of his dealings with CBS and how he came into possession of the documents at the heart of the controversy, a lawyer close to Burkett said.
The lawyer said the CBS News producer, Mary Mapes, promised to protect Mr. Burkett with complete anonymity and CBS was to “expend both time and money authenticating” the memos.
“Bill Burkett went with CBS News on this over ABC News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post because they promised to work the hardest to protect him and authenticate the documents. ,” Mr.Van Os told the Sun. “Bill leveled with [CBS] about his doubts over the papers, and they promised him they would take their time. They spent all of three days, maybe less, on authentication.”
Developing…
And the Kerry campaign is involved. See you back in the Senate in January, Mr. Kerry.
More links…
Patterico explains the facts to CBS. Also see Power Line.
Semi-related post over at Evangelical Outpost.
Interesting quote over at Michelle Malkin’s place.
Why would you see him in the Senate in January? He hasn’t spent much time there the last 20 years.
Comment by Mike — 09.22.04 @ 7:18 am
Comment by La Shawn — 09.22.04 @ 7:26 am
heh that was brilliant Mike
Morning La Shawn
Comment by Sherry — 09.22.04 @ 8:14 am
So La Shawn, this must mean you plan to be in the Senate by January too? Say it’s so.
Comment by Jim R — 09.22.04 @ 8:26 am
By the way, Bill’s law suit threat is just more political noise from this character. Not only is it much more difficult to get a political defamation ruling against a news organization, but there is no law that says a news organization must keep their sources anonymous. Of course certainly not if the information turns out to be bogus.
And his lawyer(s), if he has one, know it.
Comment by Jim R — 09.22.04 @ 8:34 am
“Why would you see him in the Senate in January? He hasn’t spent much time there the last 20 years.”
Well, he has to sleep somewhere when Tuh-RAY-suh kicks him out.
Comment by AWG — 09.22.04 @ 9:17 am
That’s why he/she has 5 or 6 different houses spread across the country. He goes to the Senate when he’s bored from skiing, windsurfing, mountain climbing, et al.
Comment by Chris Roberts — 09.22.04 @ 9:35 am
Jim R.
Who says you have to have a winnable case
For most of these kind of lawsuits the criteria for suing is does the person or entity have deep pockets? the deeper the pockets the more likely there will be a pay off.
Question is does CBS want to pursue this and keep the spot light on them and their practice (Rathergate) or do you give this Bill guy and his lawyers a pay off and he (Bill)suddenly falls silent and the issue goes away?
That is the question!
Heck, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a class action suit filed against CBS on our behalf because of shoddy reporting, netting a law firm multiple millions!
My 2 cents,
John
Comment by John C James III — 09.22.04 @ 10:02 am
How exactly is the Kerry campaign involved?
Comment by RepJ — 09.22.04 @ 10:14 am
RepJ,
So far, the acknowledged link was Mapes calling Kerry HQ, and asking Joe Lockhart to call Burkett, since he had info that would move things along.
How far things went, and why Mapes would even do this, remains to be seen.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.22.04 @ 10:21 am
Hey AIM has an article giving a new meaning for CBS - The Corrupt Broadcasting System.
I wonder? How do you like this?
‘We’re CBS - you can trust us for fair and accurate reporting - until the PAJAMAHADEEN
proves us wrong. BUT until then you can TRUST CBS!’
LaShawn ??? Are you in your PAJAMAS ???????
Comment by John C James III — 09.22.04 @ 11:38 am
Wait. Is he suing because they called him a liar?
Comment by actus — 09.22.04 @ 11:48 am
Good afternoon, Sherry. Hello, everyone. Thanks for commenting.
John - I wish I were home in my PJs.;) I have a day job.
Actus - Burkett says CBS promised to protect his anonymity and authenticate the memos, neither of which they did.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.22.04 @ 12:15 pm
and thats a basis for libel how?
Comment by actus — 09.22.04 @ 12:22 pm
Ask his lawyer. Did you see the link I provided?
Comment by La Shawn — 09.22.04 @ 12:25 pm
Mr. Burkett, Dan Rather, and Ms. Mapes all need some quiet time. I have 3 straitjackets and a nice mental institution I can refer them to.
Comment by ratso ferrari — 09.22.04 @ 1:36 pm
PAJAMAHADEEN
I like it.
Comment by Mike — 09.22.04 @ 2:06 pm
I think it makes for a great Mastercard commercial!
orsa.blogspot.com/2004/09/priceless.html
Comment by SDH — 09.22.04 @ 2:13 pm
“That’s why he/she has 5 or 6 different houses spread across the country.”
Corection, Chris: *Tuh-RAY-suh* has 5 or 6 different houses. John-boy gets to live in them because he’s married to her. If she ever decided to kick him out of her house, I don’t think he’d be welcome in any of them.
Comment by AWG — 09.22.04 @ 4:49 pm
LaShawn, please get your facts straight. You have “U.S. Attorney to Investigate Rathergate.” That would imply a criminal probe. The truth of the matter is, CBS News appointed a former U.S. Attorney General to investigate itself. Either you made a stupid mistake or are being intellectually dishonest. You tell me which it is.
Then you make a statement that the Kerry campaign is involved, but offer no evidence of such involvement. How can you make a blanket statement like that? I guess the blogosphere is full of allegations without substantiation, and this is yet just another example of it. Unbelievable.
Comment by Ron — 09.22.04 @ 4:59 pm
Good grief, Ron. Lighten up! So I missed the word “former.” Is it fatal?
Check in any newspaper and you’ll read that CBS put its source in contact with Joe Lockhart, a member of the Kerry campaign. If you want to have a semantics debate, this is not the blog for you. Lockhart is working for Kerry, which means the Kerry campaign is involved.
Do you want me to believe a Bush staffer wouldn’t get the same treatment in a similar situation? Don’t answer that. It’s rhetorical.
By the way, I don’t mind dissent, but I loathe sarcasm.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.22.04 @ 5:12 pm
Fair enough, LaShawn. I will dispense with the sarcasm.
I do take issue with your comment that the Kerry campaign is involved. Lockhart explained his position yesterday on MSNBC…that he had a three- to four-minute call with the guy, and the memos weren’t discussed.
You can believe Lockhart or not believe him, I don’t care. What I do care about is fairness to both sides. I haven’t seen it on this blog, at least not yet. Let’s talk about both Kerry’s strengths and weaknesses, as well as both Bush’s strengths and weaknesses. As far as Kerry’s campaign actually being involved, no proof yet exists.
For the record, I don’t have a horse in this race. Both candidates don’t do a thing for me. I do have a problem with Bush and Iraq, but it isn’t enough for me to vote for Kerry. Come November, I plan to leave the President area blank.
Comment by Ron — 09.22.04 @ 5:42 pm
Who said this blog was fair? I’m an unashamedly biased politically conservative Christian, not a liberal journalist spewing “fair and objective” drivel. As long as people are civil on my blog, I’ll let them have their say. But I don’t hide the fact that I am a pro-Bush, anti-Kerry, patriotic, freedom-loving American who thanks God every day that I was born in this country.
Comment by La Shawn — 09.22.04 @ 5:53 pm
Is this blog fair? I would deem it fair to middlin’ !
Comment by Mark Slater — 09.23.04 @ 7:24 pm
Isn’t it ironic that as soon as Clinton and his surrogates get involved with the Kerry campaign, legal and criminal issues arise (not that Kerry couldn’t produce them on his own)?
Perception is reality. SEEMS everything the Clintons touch is corrupted. You would think at some point, someone would tell them to just go home. Then again people who go up against Slickster and the Hilldabeast have a way of meeting face to face with EXTREME misfortune.
Comment by Raymond C. Coleman — 09.23.04 @ 7:57 pm
Raymond, in that case, the Feebs better put a suicide watch on Burkett before he winds up like Vince Foster, until after all this mess is over.
Comment by Andy — 09.25.04 @ 1:27 am
Lockhart was involved, he works for the Kerry campaign, the Kerry campaign was involved. It works for me. Kerry has some extremely dubious folks working for him as does Bush. I will not vote for Kerry but will find it difficult to vote for Bush. His family has been involved in espionage, energy, finance and arms for nearly a hundred years. And no I didn’t learn it from Kitty what’s -her-name or anyone else. Its all available on the internet. Do a search on the Skull & Bones Club, of which Kerry is also a member. I also cannot vote for a Texas energy administration, whose policies have cost this Californian much more than the tax-cuts ever gave and whose debt will have to be paid by my heirs forever. I would expect that this would be all of your cases too, I mean about energy costs.
Stan in San Diego
Comment by stan — 09.26.04 @ 4:18 pm
Stan; The “Texas energy administration” didn’t cause your financial pain. Gray Davis’ inept intervention of the Free-Market in energy distribution & consumption coupled with greed for quarterly gains is the root of your misery. What Enron did was wrong, but they were “encouraged” to do so by the eco-freaks within Cali-Poli.
Comment by Andy — 09.26.04 @ 10:39 pm
Andy,
Don’t forget the Clinton admin reforms to executive pay and compensation. The ones that led to CEOs and other high-ups getting more stock-options and performance bonuses in place of large paychecks.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.26.04 @ 10:48 pm
SCSIwuzzy, perhaps you can enlighten me as to how Dubya’s to blame for shenanigans that preceded him. Must be that pre-cog thing that the lefties are so attuned to.
Comment by Andy — 09.26.04 @ 10:53 pm
Andy,
< like that
I can’t, which is the point.
If I put a smiley after every line that was written to illustrate the absurdity or illogic of some of the things I am responding to, I would wear off the ink on the : & ) keys
I just trust people to know the truth behind the lines. And as I’ve said, the left is in tune with the higher truths, so naturally I have high expectations where they are concerned.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.27.04 @ 1:59 pm
Odd… half of the last post was cut off, and too quickly to have been LaShawn… (not that she would, our beloved benevolent despot)
of different styles and variations to suit your whim and stay below your nausea threshold.
But, anyway, since the left has such a superior grasp of the higher truths, I expect them to see behind the lines the point being made (or mocked). I hold them to a higher standard of truth detection as result of this, than hold the less nuanced righties that frequent LBC.
Please season the above with
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.27.04 @ 2:07 pm
Andy,
Are you a Californian? De-regulation started under Pete Wilson. You’re being very naive when you excuse the Texas energy administration from their participation in this. Ken Lay was a best friend of the Bush family and sat in on secret meetings with VP Cheney to set energy policy for the whole country!! Honest Republicans in CA even agree. Your view is Republican spin.
Stan in San Diego
Comment by stan — 09.27.04 @ 3:21 pm
Stan,
No, I’m not from La-la land — occasional visits suffice to remind me why it’s not for me. Deregulation, on the face of it had nothing to do with your mess. The root of your mess is excalating consumption of energy and water without the corresponding increase in production, leading to importation. Gray Davis, who you had until last Fall, artificially intervened in the distribution of energy, amongst other policies.
Cause & effect. Whenever the free market is impinged by irrational policies, inefficiencies will follow. Wherever there are inefficiencies, a market will develop to mitigate those problems — or take advantage if you will.
And you’re blaming the vast TexEA conspiracy? Someone will have to enlighten me. I’ve heard of the Maryland Energy Administration, but I’m not familar with the Tex Energy Administration, or is that some sort of shadow organization.
Enron was as much a friend of the Bush administration as it was of Clinton, Ann Richards and Gray Davis — an equal opportunity lobbyist/campaign contributor. All Enron cared about was lobbying for deregulation and trying to position itself for 1st mover advantage whenever possible. This is not the same as being in bed w/donors, as was the case with the TexDems and their Sharpstown stock fraud scandal.
Furthermore, to use your logic, McCain is corrupt and untrustworthy for being associated with Keatings.
As for secret meetings with Cheney, so what if the eco-freaks weren’t invited. Without being privy to the meetings, speculating on the significance is moot. What if Bush was considering attacking Iraq and needed advice on kickstarting the Iraqi infrastructure in the aftermath? The last thing they’re going to do is advertise that. Or perhaps it was to discuss how to reopen the issue of drilling in Alaska without needlessly riling up the greenies? That’s not necessarily a nefarious thing — to blunt the anti-oil crowd. Cheney can have all the secret meetings to formulate the policies he wants, but nothing becomes official w/o congress’ stamp of approval.
All the same, just because Enron was mismanaged, doesn’t mean that Lay don’t know energy and energy policies. Edison was a genius with electricity and established various industries, but never managed a company — does that mean Edison should be discredited in assisting in formulating electrification policy. Or how about the Rockefellers? Getting rich from your expertise in a certain industry is not “EVIL”
Let’s clear up some urban legends. Certain greedy schemers within Enron came up short trying to capitalize on the margins — technically not illegal under Clinton, but devasting nonetheless for the economy and market confidence. No one proved Lay complicit in defrauding the stockholders, but I can support the rationale that the buck stops at the CEO’s desk and this is something that Lay avoided.
As an aside, while I feel sorry for those former employees who lost everything, it must be said that they were STOOOPID for putting all their eggs in one basket instead of diversifying their 401K. But that’s greed for you.
Honest Liberals in CA agree that Gray was a dismal failure. This view of evil corporations is economically clueless.
If you thik deregulation is evil, then you should petition to reinstate pre-deregulation rules for Ma Bell and the airline industry and watch your costs double/triple overnight along with sinking quality of service. If we didn’t have deregulation, we wouldn’t have cell phones, broadband, Southwest or Jet Blue today.
If one is profitable in the status quo, why even seek change? Monopolists are by nature conservative — risk nothing. I thot Liberals were all about progressive change. Although I understand Liberals also hate to see any industry/business lose in a cutthroat market and will do anything to prop up economic dinosaurs.
As for the economic woes, they’re all self-inflicted, from over-inflated property costs to expulsion of businesses. Systemically, the problem was the Dems thot they could kill the gold-laying goose in perpetuity. With the resources that Cali has, there’s no reason why it couldn’t be flat out the richest State in both GDP and per-capital stats.
My sympathies to Ah-nuld in trying to turn that shipwreck around. Perhaps Tom will get his chance to continue growing the economy after the Guvernator breaks the back of the Cali legislature and tires of dabbling in Cali politics.
Comment by Andy — 09.28.04 @ 2:19 am
Andy,
I am so glad we (that being PECO, the energy company in Philly Metro at the time) successfully fought off Enron back when we went through dereg. Enron and it’s profitability is a perfect illustration of how if something seems too good to be true, it prob. is.
Stan,
Your view is no les spin than Andy’s. To blame it all on Bush and co is lazy thinking, and propaganda, esp since the problem began long before Bush was even Gov. of Texas. Heck, I’d have to do a timeline, but the problem probably started before he was with the Rangers.
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.28.04 @ 9:32 am
SCSI; don’t get me wrong. I don’t condone any company that pursues profitability by any means necessary. I’ve had friends that lost all kinds of money invested in eCompanies with dubious products and equally dubious business models in the aftermath of the DotCom bust. Greed, plain and simple, will blind anyone who succumbs to the allure of quick money conjured up with smoke & mirrors.
Enron got greedy and started dealing in the intangibles — derivative commodities that may or may have no real value. Within that corporate culture, certain people within got even greedier and sucumbed to pencil-whipping their quarterly targets and reports. In essence, Enron got caught short trying to offload gobs of debt tied up in junk worth pennies on the dollar.
But I plead guilty to readily using counterspin hyperbole to eventually come around to the truth. Should I use some sort of marker to separate my spin vs the truth?
That said, as a professional Jack-of-all-trades, I am indeed master of none, so I do appreciate it whenever anyone corrects whatever misconceptions I may have blathered, if for no other reason than to stick it in my knowledgebase.
Comment by Andy — 09.28.04 @ 1:11 pm
Andy,
I was agreeing with you
I am glad we didn’t have the same weak politicians and greedy energy companies here in PA (our pols were too greedy to give in the greens, and the local energy comapnies fought enron tooth and nail to keep them out)
Comment by SCSIwuzzy — 09.28.04 @ 2:19 pm
SCSIwuzzy: 10-4
Comment by Andy — 09.28.04 @ 7:17 pm