Posted on 09/21/2007 9:24:02 AM PDT by Jean S
This has been O.J. week on cable TV. But the most interesting story out of the courts — and the world of TV news — is Dan Rather v. CBS Corporation, Viacom Inc., Leslie Moonves, Sumner Redstone and Andrew Heyward.
Rather, the former anchor of the CBS Evening News, is still really, really mad about losing his job in the wake of the George W. Bush/Air National Guard/phony documents story. And now he is telling his version of events in the form of a $70 million lawsuit against his former employers.
You remember the story. Aired at the height of the 2004 presidential campaign, Rather reported that Bush received preferential treatment to get into the Guard during the Vietnam era.
Rather based his conclusions on newly discovered documents purporting to prove that preferential treatment.
Of course, it turned out the documents were phony, or at least impossible to verify. CBS retracted the story, and Rather apologized.
Now Rather is making some rather astonishing allegations.
First, he claims that, after the report stirred controversy, top CBS management conducted a sham investigation of the story for the purpose of making sure that damaging information about George W. Bush be kept secret.
“CBS announced that it was conducting a thorough independent investigation into the underlying story of the broadcast and its production,” the lawsuit says, “when in fact its intention was to conduct a biased investigation with controlled timing and predetermined conclusions in order to prevent further information concerning Bush’s Texas Air National Guard service from being uncovered.”
This fake investigation, Rather charges, was done so that CBS could “pacify the White House” by making Rather the “scapegoat” of what would become known as Rathergate.
Rather also reveals that while all this was going on, he strongly believed in the Bush story — he apparently still does — and threatened to hire his own private investigator to keep looking into it.
CBS, according to Rather, then hired its own private eye, whom Rather says came to the conclusion that “the [documents] were most likely authentic, and that the underlying story was certainly accurate.” But Rather alleges that CBS — not wanting to do anything to hurt the Bush White House — kept the investigator’s findings under wraps.
Perhaps you were unaware of CBS News’s unwavering support of George W. Bush. I certainly was. I would bet that the White House was, too.
In any event, Rather alleges, CBS bigwigs forced him to apologize, even though he believed no apology was necessary.
Finally, according to Rather, on Nov. 3, 2004 — the day after Bush was reelected — CBS told Rather he “was being terminated as anchor of the CBS Evening News.”
Rather’s move wasn’t made public until weeks later, when it was cast as his own decision, one made apart from the Bush/Air National Guard controversy.
Will this end up in a courtroom? It’s hard to say.
But CBS will have to defend itself, even if the case only reaches preliminary skirmishes.
And what interesting skirmishes they might be.
On one side, you’ll have Dan Rather arguing that the CBS News Bush Air National Guard report was legitimate.
And on the other side you’ll have CBS News arguing that the CBS News Bush Air National Guard report was … well, not legitimate.
CBS management will have to argue what nearly everyone, except Dan Rather, knows: that the Bush report was no good, that it should never have been broadcast, and that CBS made a mistake by airing it.
Now that will be a story.
York is a White House correspondent for National Review. His column appears in The Hill each week.
The lawyers are perfectly rational to enrich themselves off of Dan Rather. Lots of billable hours here.
Apparently, we all were.
Byron York seems to be a bit rusty on some details. Although claims were made that President Bush got preferential treatment to get into the guard, that wasn’t the point of Rather’s forged documents, but rather to “prove” he got away with not fulfilling his duties later on while in the guard.
Wonderful, isn't it?
I can hardly wait to see Katie’s ‘reporting’ on THIS story!
read
I have no doubt that they can come up with lots of evidence that there was a conspiracy to perpetrate a fraud, and that Dan Rather was in the middle of it, but that is likely to expand the scope of a problem that they thought they had swept under the rug.
This should be fun to watch.
That was a different story, but the trouble with lies is that it's difficult to keep them all straight.
On one side, you’ll have Dan Rather arguing that the CBS News Bush Air National Guard report was legitimate.
And on the other side you’ll have CBS News arguing that the CBS News Bush Air National Guard report was … well, not legitimate.
____________________________________________________
And Rather’s real goal of this lawsuit will come to fruition. Bush will be out of office and required/requested to testify!!!! Rather believes he (Rather) will then be exonerated.
I'm sure that CBS can easily do this, but they have to worry about providing evidence of their own culpability, so they will be "pulling their punches". It should be interesting.
and thus they invented the new Orwellian doublespeak phrase, “fake but accurate.”
I’m not sure that Bush has to answer a civil proceeding subpoena
I also believe that the date would be stamped, not typed.
No, there is no "at least".
They're fake. They're as fake as fake gets.
Claiming that a document produced with Microsoft Word in the Times New Roman proportional font came from a US military typewriter in 1971 is just good old-fashioned fake.
Prolly not if he is sitting. But I am not sure about once he is out of office. I think Rather waited til now to try his luck.
Dan Rather should be charged with fraud and jailed.
Dan Rather should be charged with forging U.S. military orders and jailed.
bump...
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.