CBS Relied On Dems for Documents

RatherBiased.com ^

[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.