Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evidence that CBS News 60 Minutes II is guilty of malice and intent to defraud
ABC Evening News and USA Today | 9/14/2004 | Daniel

Posted on 09/14/2004 9:43:28 PM PDT by charleston1

I don't normally watch the ABC World News Tonight, but after a tip from someone a time zone ahead of me, I decided to watch and videotape their news tonight. I am glad I did. As described on several other threads, ABC News took their gloves off and gave CBS News/60 Minutes a good hard public flogging. In an article entitled "Casting Further Doubt," ABC News left no doubt that the CBS Evening News has perpetrated a clear case of fraud on its listening audience. The written article is located here.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/Investigation/bush_guard_documents_040914-1.html.

In the article, ABC news systematically dismantled what was likely to have been Dan Rather's “Swan Song”. Instead, it will undoubtedly be the story that drowned his career, a career I used to respect years ago. I still fondly remember the Dan Rather that went to Afghanistan to report on the Mujadin. Wow, how far he has fallen since hiking through the mountains of Afghanistan. Whether ABC knows it or not, they went one step further than their story suggests. That is, they exposed malice and fraud by CBS News/60 Minutes. As I mentioned at the beginning of this article, I videotaped the news article. I stood there stunned as I watched the interview by Brian Ross with Emily Will and I have reviewed it several times. Was I seeing things? Yes I was! There in black and white was Ms. Will going over the one document CBS News gave to here to presumably authenticate. Brian Ross stated:

“Emily Will, a court certified examiner from North Carolina, says she saw problems right away with the one document CBS hired her to check in the days before the broadcast.”

Ms. Will said: "I found five significant differences in the questioned handwriting, and I found problems with the printing itself as to whether it could have been produced by a typewriter."

On camera, Ms. Will goes over an enlarged display copy of the document she examined. Therein is the problem and the answer to the question of whether CBS News was honestly just reporting the facts. Unless Ms. Will is lying, CBS News/60 Minutes gave her a document that CBS has never publicly admitted that they had in their possession. Ms. Will carefully reviewed the alleged signature of Jerry B. Killian on the June 24th, 1973 letter addressed to “Sir”. I first found this same document on the USA Today website as one of six (not four as reported by CBS) alleged Killian documents which I first shared here on September 11th: search under "Killian" for the "Two more 'Killian' Documents" thread. Since CBS News did not make the June 24, 1973 document available at their website as part of their original story, the question for me ever since has been why? As it turns out in perfect hindsight, CBS has made significant efforts to lead the public to believe that they only had four documents. Just go back and watch the 60 Minutes II, interview again or go see the four documents on their website today. Why only four CBS documents? Recall that Marcel Matley, the respected signature expert used for the 60 Minutes II, interview to support the authenticity of the alleged Killian documents, was also only given one document to examine. Mr. Matley was given the 04 May 1972 document in which Lieutenant Colonel Killian allegedly ordered then Lieutenant Bush to report for his annual physical “not later than” May 14, 1972. This is a case of authentication shopping!!! It is also fraudulent and it was clearly done with malice as there is no other reason to restrict an honest authentication expert from seeing all of the evidence unless you already know the answer you want to hear. If anyone was duped, it would appear to be the documents experts themselves and an unsuspecting TV audience. Obviously, CBS should have shared all of their documents with all of their experts. It would appear that the truth they were looking for is frustratedly hard to find and harder to accept—a truth which exists in the minds of the investigators but not in their fictitious documents. In the end CBS News chose to use for its broadcast, the one signature that looked most authentic when compared to other known signatures of the late Colonel Killian. CBS News cast aside the document Ms. Will told them was not authentic. Of course, it is possible that Ms. Will was using the June 24, 1973, document as a prop provided by ABC, but I don't think so. I think Ms. Will did examine document number five of six (chronologically speaking). If not where did she get it, ABC News? Oh, and Bloggers, it’s charleston1@cox.net. Thanks.


TOPICS: Editorial; News/Current Events; Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: abcnews; cbsnews; emilywill; killian; malice; rather; usatoday
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last
To: charleston1

Good findings. Thanks for posting.


51 posted on 09/14/2004 10:20:12 PM PDT by BunnySlippers ("F" Stands for FLIP-FLOP ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: charleston1
Excellent analysis. I would like to add something else to this, to take it a step further.

According to president of CBS News itself made this damning statement to the New York Times:
Addressing staff concerns, Mr. Heyward said, "The story was thoroughly vetted as all pieces of '60 Minutes' are, and the more they know about the process, the more reassured they will be that we used every appropriate journalistic standard and safeguard in reporting the story."

I have a feeling this story was just given the usual treatment by CBS. I believe this is standard treatment for their news. I believe CBS routinely does "expert shopping" and reports the opinions, facts, and findings selectively.

The difference is this time they got caught. And they only got caught because of the very recent development of the internet blogsphere. Just imagine if blogs were around during the Clinton years...

I believe in light of these new revelations ALL CBS News reports over the years are now suspect and need to be thoroughly reviewed for manipulations.

Vincent Foster, anyone..?
52 posted on 09/14/2004 10:21:06 PM PDT by counterpunch (The CouNTeRPuNcH Collection - www.counterpunch.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: charleston1
The other two documents aren't "breaking news", nor is the existence of two not used by CBS any sort of "Smoking Gun". What is eminently newsworthy, however, is that another MSM entity not only has "Seen the Light" but deemed it fit to bring it to the masses. I imagine the top-floor offices at CBS aren't real pleasant places to be along about now ... whether you're Les Moonves, Dan Rather or just an expendable mid-level producer.
53 posted on 09/14/2004 10:21:16 PM PDT by timberlandko (Murphy was an optimist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: the_Watchman

check out the link on post 18...I think he included the docs there if memory serves.


54 posted on 09/14/2004 10:22:33 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Wild_Bill_8881
I think they did speak with her:

"that sounds like something he was saying again and that evil Bush was selected, not elected and he's unfit for command ... oh by the way, you know those documents are frauds. Bush, yeah he's like Hitler, he his, and he beat up on Ma Richards like nuthin's business."

They used what they could use. If you listen to how Rather described their so-called supporting witnesses you'll see what I mean, those sentiments bad about Bush he repeated verbatim, the incriminating stuff they swept aside and ignored. Exact same M/O as neglecting to mention this #5 memo that the examiner raked them over the coals over.

55 posted on 09/14/2004 10:22:41 PM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288; charleston1

? It was news to me that someone had reviewed the docs days earlier and is not cited by 60 minutes as refuting the validity of what they examined. This is a huge story and someone who is trying to help get the facts out is doing more than posting vanity, imo. But then....that's just my opinion.

Hope you are having a great day/evening.


56 posted on 09/14/2004 10:23:25 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: spyone

what I meant was I wonder if CNN knew that their counterparts at CBS had - likewise - received all 6 docs; at that point CBS had (as they do still) admitted having only 4 of the six docs. It's this poster's fine observation that CBS gave the examiner memo #5 that is the first clue that CBS wasn't just blind & stupid here.


57 posted on 09/14/2004 10:24:11 PM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: spyone
Wow! I guess you told me......Now go upstairs and tell you Daddy what a man you were tonight here on Free Republic!

The management here at FR has been asking for a halt to "Vanity Posts" for days now, So my "snotty butt" isn't going anywhere :-)

58 posted on 09/14/2004 10:24:45 PM PDT by MJY1288 (John Kerry Says He Can Do a Better Job of Implementing President Bush's Policies :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

You did good. Thanks!!!


59 posted on 09/14/2004 10:26:47 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

Good job. Welcome. Ignore the thread sheriffs unless they're mods.


60 posted on 09/14/2004 10:27:58 PM PDT by Jenya (Buy Unfit for Command. Donate to Swiftvets.com. It's your American duty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: timberlandko
The other two documents aren't "breaking news", nor is the existence of two not used by CBS any sort of "Smoking Gun".

I beg to differ - nobody, until now, knew - for certain - that at least one of the 2 memos released on USA Today site had been previously received by CBS News. CBS had a duty to report that and to make sure each & every examiner had an opportunity to see them all in tandem. After all, their one & sole "expert" (who isn't even certified), the spiritual handwriting analyst, has written that if one document from a group is deemed a forgery then the rest are all suspect, too. Especially when signatures & other characteristics on the then reported forgeries matches others in the set.

61 posted on 09/14/2004 10:28:05 PM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

It wasn't CNN, it was USA TODAY. I assume they know/knew because I assume they get their leads here(hi dan!) like much of the media. Charleston posted this info 2 or 3 days ago.


62 posted on 09/14/2004 10:28:16 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: spyone
Yes, those are the links to the docs which were posted on USATODAY. However, what is needed to substantiate the analysis on this thread is a screen shot from the ABC news report of the display used by the expert which CBS bypassed. That screen shot would demonstrate that the document she was shown was not one of the four which CBS used. That is what demonstrates the malice.
63 posted on 09/14/2004 10:30:42 PM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

OK, stay...but just shut up for awhile.


64 posted on 09/14/2004 10:30:46 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

But did they talk to her before or after the 60 minutes II piece came out last wendsday? if before, why didn't they use her on the show?

are they cherry picking information like they did with Col. Killons son and widow?


65 posted on 09/14/2004 10:30:46 PM PDT by Wild_Bill_8881 (If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: swheats

That appears to be what Christopher Cox of the House is saying as well. This is an attempt to throw an election by manufacturing a story. Not so good.


66 posted on 09/14/2004 10:30:56 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: spyone

Coming from someone who has made SEVEN comments on this thread so far, I think you should STFU


67 posted on 09/14/2004 10:32:34 PM PDT by MJY1288 (John Kerry Says He Can Do a Better Job of Implementing President Bush's Policies :-))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: the_Watchman

Oh, I see your point...or...USA TODAY could do the right thing and report it for us, because they probably know what ABC has shown. They have been very silent, haven't they?


68 posted on 09/14/2004 10:35:51 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: Wild_Bill_8881

I think the secretary had something to do with the documents. She seems very partisan and I bet she has been concocting these stories for a long time. She isn't a spring chicken, for sure, but I would like to know if she has kids and what their connection is to the political world of Herry Kerry.


69 posted on 09/14/2004 10:35:56 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: spyone

We can't really fault USA TODAY. What charleston1 saw is very subtle. You would have had to pay close attention to the date on the memo when the expert was discussing a different feature. That's what makes this thread good.


70 posted on 09/14/2004 10:41:00 PM PDT by the_Watchman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: AHerald

I agree with you. What is the matter with everyone here these days? More and more thread police than ever!


71 posted on 09/14/2004 10:41:43 PM PDT by ladyinred ("John Kerry reporting for spitball and typewriter duty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Wild_Bill_8881

cherry picked everything! if they'd let anybody vet the stuff any further the whole thing would have totally collapsed all around them (as it did). They were just big enough suckers they let it fall apart on the air instead of in the production room where it belonged. And it is for that reason Rather & Mapes should be given their walking papers and CBS apologizing immediately! If they don't it means there is a true conspiracy here, maybe not in the making (I'll still follow the Bernard Goldberg thesis on that) but in the cover-up and response to their fraud & forgery.


72 posted on 09/14/2004 10:42:24 PM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: MistyCA

I'm not getting that impression, she pretty flatly denied having anything to do with the current documents.....or at this point should I call them physical evidence, exhibits 1 through 6

and with her all that "guard yakity yak" and selected not elected stuff and being 86 wouldn't that have played well to a TV audience...or is she too looney and/or over the top?


73 posted on 09/14/2004 10:43:15 PM PDT by Wild_Bill_8881 (If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

I apologize for the rude treatment you are getting here. The post was very informative, well thought out and just plain interesting!


74 posted on 09/14/2004 10:45:10 PM PDT by ladyinred ("John Kerry reporting for spitball and typewriter duty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: charleston1
I still fondly remember the Dan Rather that went to Afghanistan to report on the Mujadin.

Get off it charleston, you're adding nothing to the breaking news. I remind you that Buckhead and others who started the ball rolling on this scandal didn't have to post their groundbreaking remarks as vanities. Enough vanities!

As poster Steven W said here or elsewhere this evening these so called journalists have been doing this for years and only now got caught, and any informed person would know it. For your benefit I'll relate a well known and once reliably reported anecdote about your one time hero.

After the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in San Francisco, your hero flew to the City (as SF is known to its residents), stood in front of a pancaked freeway across the water in Oakland, dressed in military fatigues, one or two day shave (or unshaven make up) on his face and "reported" while people behind him were literally dying inside the rubble. Just off the camera, as reported Herb Caen, at the time a columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle, was parked your hero's black limo and through the open door of it were observed plates of fresh fruit, a bottle of french champagne and a bowl of caviar! What then was the complete unreported news? The complete, unreported (except by Caen in a local rag) news, the complete picture which you never saw on your screen, was of a millionaire television personality, dressed in a rented actor's costume, prancing for the camera in front of a scene of a great tragedy while being pampered and attended to. And that was likely the picture in Afghanistan, and that is with variations the picture of your idiot box news every day, your hero or any other pretty face. The camera chooses, the camera hides more than it shows, it's not news, it's show biz!

75 posted on 09/14/2004 10:46:11 PM PDT by Revolting cat! ("In the end, nothing explains anything!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

This whole episode reminds me of the 1992 NBC Dateline story on GM trucks allegedly exploding upon impact. NBC staged the accidents, failing to ignite anything, and eventually resorted to rigging the trucks with explosives. NBC paid GM dearly for that piece of defamation. While I believe W. would not and should not consider a defamation suit here, the implications are far greater and insidious.

Even if one were to stuff ballot boxes in Chicago to swing a state's election, it pales in comparison to the nationwide effect of an MSM outlet deliberately trying to throw a national election at a time when the country is facing its greatest peril since Stalin detonated the Hydrogen bomb. One need not live in the "fever swamps" and conjure vast conspiracies here--the facts speak for themselves: at a bare minimum, CBS News wittingly or through sheer incompetence and hubris, has committed the most brazen journalistic fraud in an hundred years (remember the Maine?). This must go well beyond Dan Rather, who never struck me as an intelligent person--most anchors are just talking heads. There are bigger fish to fry--one must always ask, qui bono, who benefits?

Criminal charges must be filed when the forger is outed--it's the only the truth can come out (and even then, it probably won't).

I doubt the DNC did anything other than pass the documents along, though their motives in doing so are pretty obvious. If, on the other hand, McAuliffe & Co. knew or should have known that the docs were fakes (because the source was incredible) or if DNC staffers or Kerryites were involved in the composision, then it is no exaggeration that we are talking Watergate-level stuff here. That would bring down the whole D. party for a decade, as Watergate harmed Rs.


76 posted on 09/14/2004 10:46:17 PM PDT by Ilya Mourometz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

Then how does that fit the "we were duped" defense?

looks kinda weak to me at this point


77 posted on 09/14/2004 10:46:52 PM PDT by Wild_Bill_8881 (If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Wild_Bill_8881

exactly why Daniel's post here is such a bombshell - ABC didn't know what they were looking at!


78 posted on 09/14/2004 10:47:32 PM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

Works for me, I'd love to see this go nuclaer..as the pres would say, and let the fallout hit as it may

so how we get this out?


79 posted on 09/14/2004 10:53:07 PM PDT by Wild_Bill_8881 (If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Wild_Bill_8881

I am not saying she knew about them. I am saying that she may have been repeating her version of events and stories to someone else who has some interest in the campaign....like one of her kids or something. I think the source of the memos may be close to her in some way. JMHO.


80 posted on 09/14/2004 10:53:28 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Wild_Bill_8881

The more I think about it, the more I would be looking for some connection to that old woman. She may not have a clue about the forgeries, but that does not mean she was not the source of the storyline...even inadvertently.


81 posted on 09/14/2004 10:56:00 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: MistyCA
I think the secretary had something to do with the documents. She seems very partisan and I bet she has been concocting these stories for a long time. She isn't a spring chicken, for sure, but I would like to know if she has kids and what their connection is to the political world of Herry Kerry.

Killian's secretary would know what memos should look like. She would not have made some of the mistakes that were made here.

82 posted on 09/14/2004 11:01:41 PM PDT by supercat (If Kerry becomes President, nothing bad will happen for which he won't have an excuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

If you read Charleston1's posting the other day(see the link on post 18), the interesting thing he pointed out is that when you compare the USA documents to the CBS documents, is the CBS ones are ammended by certain passages being underlined in pen, that aren't on the USA documents, meaning that someone(dnc? cbs?) has tampered with them to give certain sentences emphasis, or, that CBS received their documents after USA received theirs.


83 posted on 09/14/2004 11:03:30 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: MistyCA
Well actually she'd back up their storyline perfectly if they weren't so dead set on proving that a bunch of forged documents weren't, damn they're doing back flips with physic handwriting analyst weirdo's, typewriter repairman with bad memories, and anybody else they can dig up

it just doesn't make sense..are they really that arrogant that they think they can get away with anything?

if so, what does that tell ya about all the other stories they've pushed over the years?
84 posted on 09/14/2004 11:05:19 PM PDT by Wild_Bill_8881 (If ya can't dazzle 'em with brilliance, baffle 'em with BS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Revolting cat!

That was completely unnecessary and hateful.


85 posted on 09/14/2004 11:11:02 PM PDT by texasflower (How appropriate...... the pro abortion party is the "D 'N' C")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: spyone
CBS received their documents after USA received theirs

That is in line with what I've thought, too - albeit IMO CBS may have gotten theirs' first & USA Today later. If USA Today already had theirs' then it might indicate they knew they'd get burned and simply put them up with their other stories when they did. In any event, I always assumed USA Today got them independent of CBS and - until now - thought CBS may have only gotten 4 of the 6 docs while USA Today got the whole bundle. What poster here has revealed, however, is that CBS got the other two as well but never disclosed that fact nor did they let the fact they knew - for certain, they've inadvertently indicted themselves, again - because they didn't put forth those two while revealing the other four as if they were legit (knowing some if not all were totally suspect)

86 posted on 09/14/2004 11:12:12 PM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: supercat

I explained in later posts that I do not mean to suggest she put these memos out. I don't think she knew anything about the forgeries, but I do think she originated some of the stories and someone else took it from there. JMO


87 posted on 09/14/2004 11:13:01 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

Looks like you've been vindicated!!


88 posted on 09/14/2004 11:14:06 PM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wild_Bill_8881

It's like everything else. If you didn't see it happen or get it from someone you KNOW you can trust, take it all with a grain of salt. Damn, I hate liars. It doesn't do much for our faith in human nature when we see the extremes people will go to just to push their agenda. Common cheap trash.


89 posted on 09/14/2004 11:15:14 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Look, I know that you are excited about your revelation, but your vanity post isn't "Breaking News" and will piss off quite a few FReepers. Come on, surely you are smart enough to figure out what "Breaking News" means...

Looked like breaking news to me. But then, what do I know. I just glad I found the post. It was a darn nice read.

90 posted on 09/14/2004 11:16:46 PM PDT by BJungNan (Stop Spam - Do NOT buy from junk email.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

But that's my point. If looking at the same document and CBS's has a few sentences underlined and USA's doesn't, it means CBS either received theirs later or else underlined in ink themselves.


91 posted on 09/14/2004 11:16:49 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: MistyCA

I agree with you.


92 posted on 09/14/2004 11:17:51 PM PDT by spyone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
BREAKING NEWS?

The way things are going with all the sites that do not want FR to post even excerpts of their stories, this will indeed become what we consider breaking news - FReeper summaries of stories.

As this summary goes, that FReeper did a good job.

93 posted on 09/14/2004 11:20:08 PM PDT by BJungNan (Stop Spam - Do NOT buy from junk email.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288

I agree, to a point . . .

I think "vanities" can sometimes be very usefull, but it would be great if they were somehow flagged. I personally read the latest posts page (mostly to see what is "hot"). It is almost impossible to know beforehand whether a post is "linked" information or a vanity.

Maybe a heading in the title??

VANITY: Evidence that CBS News 60 Minutes II is guilty of malice and intent to defraud

just my two cents . . .

BTW - I think the poster has down so good work on this and is apparently new - I too vote for the "cut some slack".


94 posted on 09/14/2004 11:27:53 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: An.American.Expatriate

Okay,

I can't figure out the html tags for a bitmap. I put the first image on my website: www.challengerdisaster.info. Can anyone private e-mail on how to get the pics here instead?


95 posted on 09/14/2004 11:30:52 PM PDT by charleston1 (No prisoners.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: spyone

Good! Thanks. :)


96 posted on 09/14/2004 11:32:23 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: spyone
If looking at the same document and CBS's has a few sentences underlined and USA's doesn't, it means CBS either received theirs later or else underlined in ink themselves.

I concur & why it was also feasible that CBS didn't get two documents that USA Today did - but now we know they got at least one of those extra two that USA Today did, too :)

97 posted on 09/14/2004 11:37:32 PM PDT by Steven W.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: charleston1

No Problem

Replace the ( with < and the ) with > below.

(img src="url here")


98 posted on 09/14/2004 11:38:46 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: swheats
I think he's saying whoever produced this segment, and it could've been Rather, seems to have had an agenda to get minimal CYA on the document's authenticity.

I'm rather impressed with how "hard" ABCNews has been on this CBS snafu.

99 posted on 09/14/2004 11:39:46 PM PDT by newzjunkey (Why are we in Iraq? Just point the whiners here: http://www.massgraves.info)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Steven W.

I recently checked the cretae and modification dates of the PDF's at CBS and USA Today.

CBS's documents were created 8/9/2004 at around 9:00 PM
USA Today's were created on 9/9/2004 at around 1:00 PM and were MODIFIED on 9/11/2004.

Also of note is that the CBS Documents have a page size of 13 x 18 (approximate as the vary slightly) and the USA todays have a size of 8.31 x 10.33)


100 posted on 09/14/2004 11:44:01 PM PDT by An.American.Expatriate (A vote for JF'nK is a vote for Peace in our Time!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-170 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson