For the last time, Mr. Billion-to-one:

who is the other one of the "two people alive" who supposedly verified the "facts" in these memos?

well here lets play it this way, in a court of law if you asked a witness, if they thought these documents reflected the times and events back in those days and they gave the reponses

"Knox stated that she did not believe the Killian documents were authentic, but that she did type similar documents and that she did believe that the content of the documents reflected Lieutenant Col Killians views in 1972-1973..."

and

the next witness who knew Killian Lieutenant Strong, and he stated after seeing the documents and asked if be believed they were real he said

so his included the what was compatible with the man. I see that as the statement of the strong ethics of Killian. yes I know strong has done some backtracking, and to me this is pathetic... but human nature understandable he does not want to lose his friends that are life long right wing friends. It takes an incredibly amazing person to give up most if not all his friends he has made his entire adult life. The right wing do not forgive for treason to their party. Just ask David Brock as he describes it in his book.

again I in a jury would accept his first statements as the police do when they do their interviews with suspects. The police ambush suspects and witnesses all the time to get the truth out.

Finally, a name. Lieutenant Strong. (Also David Brock again, but I'll let that pass.) Strong gives a weak confirmation, at best: "compatible with the way business was done at the time." Yes sir, billion to one proof.

You've got two problems, inventor: the format of the documents, and their content. The format, of course, matches exactly what anyone can produce in Microsoft Word with default settings. They don't look like any document produced by Bush's squadron.

Rather's supporters spent months trying to find a period typewriter that could reproduce the memos. They failed. Now you come up with a theory that the military has an OCR system that can remove the Courier typeface from underneath a signature, leaving every pixel of the signature intact, and then drop it onto a new version of the document rendered in Times New Roman. If this system exists, there should be other documents stored in it. Are there any? Nobody's seen one in the three years since the story aired.

Then there's the content. The documents appear to fit in the previously-known timeline of Bush's National Guard service. I argue that they were intentionally forged to fit the timeline, but not without problems, like the General who's supposedly pressuring someone to "sugar coat" a report, despite having retired a year earlier. You can explain that away by saying he still had influence, but that's an assumption for which you have no evidence. No one who was there at the time actually remembers that pressure being applied on Bush's behalf. No one remembers any of the other newsmaking "facts" about Bush being ordered to report for a physical, suspended for disobeying that order, etc.

Using my patent-pending numerico-estimalogical methods, I'd say it's a Brazilian trillion times more likely that the memos are exactly what they look like: modern forgeries.

Ok!!! I'll play! Let's ask some witnesses about how Dan Rather and his staff conducted themselves in verifying the veracity (there's that word again) of the story. For my list of witnesses I'll use this.

My first witness is General Robert Hodges - Killian's immediate superior at the time in question......

"General Hodges, were you contacted by CBS News concerning a memo allegedly written by LtCol. Killian concerning the performance of Lt. George W. Bush?"

"Yes, they contacted me on 6Sept about it by phone."

"Did you confirm that the documents in question were real?"

"No, I didn't."

"You didn't? Who did you talk with at CBS on 6 Sept?"

"Mary Mapes"

"General, she claims that you told her the documents were real."

"I didn't say that. I told her that if he wrote them, that's what he felt"

"IF he wrote them?"

"Yes, IF he wrote them."

"So, you never confirmed the authenticity of those documents?"

"No, I did not"

"Did you have subsequent communications with CBS about those documents?"

"Yes, I contacted Dan Rather and Mary Mapes on 10Sept and told them I was convinced they were not authentic".

"So, when Dan Rather claimed you had verified the validity of the documents, he was lying?"

"Absolutely."

This alone should end this lawsuit, but we could go on to testimony by Emily Will, Linda James, James Pierce and Marcel Maley, all document experts hired by CBS, all with misgivings about their authenticity. Still, Rather went to air with it and embarrassed himself, and dealt a serious blow to the reputation of CBS News. Frankly, I'd have fired him on the spot.


Edited to add...

That was kind of fun. Let's do another witness shall we?

Let's call Emily Will, one of the four document examiners contracted by CBS to verify these memos.......

"Ms Will, did you examine these memos for the purposes of authenticating them for CBS?"

"Yes"

"And what was your conclusion?"

"I had some problems with them."

"Problems? Such as?"

"Well, I noted discrepancies in the signatures and also some questions about the letterhead, the proportional spacing of the font, the superscripted "th" and the improper formatting of the date."

"Not exactly a ringing endorsement is it?"

"Ah, no, not at all."

"So, you notified CBS that there was a potential question about the fonts and spacing?"

"Yes I did."

"Mr Rather was aware of that potential problem?"

"Yes or at least one of his staff members was."

"Did you offer any suggestions to the CBS News staff of Dan Rather on what further steps they should take to authenticate the documents?"

"Yes, I told Ms Mapes that CBS should contact Peter Tytell who is a typewriter expert."

"Did they do that?"

"I don't know, you'd have to ask him."


Ok, so let's ask him. Next witness, Peter Tytell....

"Mr Tytell, did CBS contact you regarding questions over a typewritten document's authenticity?"

"Yes, a woman named Yvonne Miller who said she was an associate producer left me a voicemail on 7Sept."

"Did you respond to that voicemail?"

"Yes, I called her at 11 am 8Sept about it and she told me they didn't need me anymore."

"So, this was before the story aired on the night of 8Sept?"

"Yes"

Nice "due diligence" there by these crack journalists....

Aquilla

again with all your wisdom thrown out... you just can not grasp, though you are an expert on the documents and the two hired to come out with an independent report concluded they themselves after how many months could not determine if the documents are false... again they had the right wing accusation that the documents were not to the proper format and you assume they were not looking into that issue at all? yet again they concluded after talking to all the experts including the ones used by CBS that they could not definitively rule they were not real..... geee good thing you have done so much more work than they. please do tell me who gets you your infinite source above these investigators.... one a right hand legal hand to a bush.... Im sure he had no conflict of interest... but again read the outcome.... they could not rule it was not real..... yet you can...... hmmm who should I believe here???????????

and once again bush taking the 5th and just saying he did nothing improper is like being in court and a defendent taking the 5th...


and by the way I certainly can mix graphical with letters that is very easy...

now to summarize, if the two; one a former attorney general under republicans, after months concluded they can not absolutely say they are false. well by gollie that is good enough to me to say it absolutely was a great job of journalism. Or is it only Rove that can tell you the truth. I have always wondered why a person would want a low life like rove in their house?

Goooo Dan, let this be your greatest hour in bringing down the house of shame.... please spend every penny of your money in this lawsuit till justice is done... get that discovery till the end of the trail.

Cheerleading aside, good cheer as it was....

Your argument now seems to have evolved into a "well the documents might have been true, prove they weren't". Sorry, inventor, that dog don't hunt. The burden of a responsible journalist is to make sure their story is accurate before it goes on air. Now, sometimes even professional, high-quality journalists get it wrong and they get in trouble for it. Sometimes they even get fired for it. Sometimes though, they don't get fired or demoted because they can prove that they took every reasonable step to ensure their report was accurate. Perhaps some evidence surfaced after the story that contradicted the story. In Rather's case though, that didn't happen. He knew there were questions about those documents. He knew it, his own experts told him about the font thing. Still, he aired the story. That was totally irresponsible and completely unprofessional for him to do. He should have checked further and he didn't. He didn't do his job, period. Because of that, his entire news organization was embarrassed and he was discredited. That's why CBS moved him to the back bench.


Aquilla

Um, the documents are fake. I don't even think Rather is fighting that anymore.

I believe he's saying he was unfairly let go. Fake but accurate was far more damning than the actual fake documents. If he an Mapes had just said, "Shucks folks, we were duped," he'd still be on the air today. Still in last place, but still on the air.

I don't think you can think for rather. Plus that is not the suable aspect of the lawsuit. and as you point out it is out his contractual relations... he was sucker punched is why he has legal grounds to bring the lawsuit. The network told him to say certain things because they said they would do certain things. This a contract. He abided by his part and read what they lawyered up him to say. And what could be interesting now with the new twist is the implied allegation that the white house may have had some dealings with this issue with CBS execs. If so, I hope dan owns CBS after this. The white house no business dealing with a election issue behind closed doors on a media issue.



no I disagree if we use your standard of journalism, then no document can ever be used unless it is an original. sorry that just ain't going to cut it.

as far as your speculation not fact that "That's why CBS moved him to the back bench." please prove that. again we are now getting wind that the CBS execs were dealing with the white house on this issue. Again it was not the white house giving the journalists interviews for factual presentation. The execs have no right to step in the way of journalism. If they did these execs need to be fired. Now we did not see this information in the right wing study by the Bush1 attorney general did we. again a un-biased report would have brought in the information that the white house was discussing what ever with the CBS non journalist with the execs and what this discussion was. don't you think a un-biased report would have gone into these back door issues.



goooo dan.....

no I disagree if we use your standard of journalism, then no document can ever be used unless it is an original. sorry that just ain't going to cut it.

as far as your speculation not fact that "That's why CBS moved him to the back bench." please prove that. again we are now getting wind that the CBS execs were dealing with the white house on this issue. Again it was not the white house giving the journalists interviews for factual presentation. The execs have no right to step in the way of journalism. If they did these execs need to be fired. Now we did not see this information in the right wing study by the Bush1 attorney general did we. again a un-biased report would have brought in the information that the white house was discussing what ever with the CBS non journalist with the execs and what this discussion was. don't you think a un-biased report would have gone into these back door issues.



goooo dan.....

I don't think it's quite that simple, but you do bring up a good point with your OCR theory. Computer technology has definitely changed things in the area of document authentication, just ask the US Treasury Department when it comes to those green documents they print. And, it certainly has an effect in the journalistic world as well. That's why serious journalists have rigid standards they have to work towards, and those standards are under constant review and revision.

Generally speaking, a copy of a document could be used as supporting evidence for a story as long as due diligence is used to authenticate that document. What constitutes "due diligence" depends on the importance of the document to the story. If it merely confirms other sources of information, that's one thing. However, if it is the foundation for the story, that's quite a different thing. What the ethical journalist has to ask themselves is whether or not the story depends on the authenticity of that document. If it does and that journalist can't confirm the authenticity, the story never sees the light of day. Happens all the time. Stories get killed for lack of solid proof of their veracity. Journalists don't get in trouble for not running with a story they can't completely support with evidence, even if they know or think the story is true. They do get in big trouble for going with a story that they can't support. That's what happened in Rather's case.


Aquilla

Aquilla you elude to a standard of journalism you claim to be the bible of journalism as far as relating to documents. Can you provide this written in stone version you are claiming to be relevant. Again as much as you hate it I will bring up the standard the right wing used for years by David Brock. again when he was being published in the rev Moonie right wing rag the Washington Times and Spectator types quoted all over by the right wing owned media he claimed there are no such standards by the right. Again he was making 6 figures just on his daytime job and being paid 7 figures by other right wing trust fund kids who own media to go after Anita Hill and Hilary. His book completely says he was the opposite of what you claim is the right wing media bible of journalism. Again he was a top paid by the right wing media trust fund elitists and they did not fire him or retract the years of trash the right wing put out. and a fundamental difference here is he Brock, a part of the right wing propaganda later stated it was lies and did not meet any journalism standard. Whereas Dan Rather is not claiming it was not true, again in fact he states



Below is a bit more that Rather seems to be trying to expose as I have eluded to. Seems the mainstream media just is not putting this very important story in the forefront. Can not find the corporate media willing to educate the public over this critical statement of their rival CBS. I would think in a real competitive atmosphere you would want your competitor to look bad. But gee you just can not find this information with this point of view in the right wing corporatist owned media can ya.

http://www.helium.com/tm/607062/former-anchor-rather-suing
Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS casts wider media net



Note the bolded words... note it stated/inferred he was not worried over the truth, journalism integrity, or the importance of a free press. He was afraid of the companies standing in Washington.

So inventor, the reason you keep bringing up David Brock is so you can say:

"Dan Rather is more honest and ethical than self-confessed liar David Brock."

That's basically it, right?

No... And I did not respect Nixon for his very serious lies and he never admitted to all if any of his real serious lies. He should have gone to jail. His crimes were un-real and we only got to hear about them because of a source that did not turn over documents that could be confirmed. And that was a president of the united states. Or even as we know Brock did the hit job (paid for by trust fund right wing hater owner of the media Scaife for the right on Anita Hill who told the truth, as Brock stated in his book it appears a supreme court justice in essence lied under oath,,, wow a supreme court justice who is going to uphold laws, a supreme liar... That supreme court justice Thomas was a friend and very fond of Brock. Same with as Brock tells us, was it Judge Silberman who feed him many of the lies of the right wing. again, source book "blinded by the right"

So you do not believe people can face reality and then change??? Another liar to the media example with a political agenda... now another self confessed liar hero to the right wing was Lee Atwater, as we know once he had brain cancer he appeared to have a change in his person. He tried to apologize to several of the people (democrats) he was trashing in the media during his pathetic life. So you are saying another hero of the right can not eventually come clean.

So as bad as some people have been in the past yes I do believe they can eventually love america and humans more than their love of hating certain americans. As rare as this may be yes it does show hope... this is in essence why whistle blowers in all levels of government/industry need the utmost protection.

With this; I believe Dan Rather loves freedom, america, and humanity more than those who would hope to silence him. A free press is more important than a government or rich people owned/controlled press. It brought a corrupt idiot Nixon down when it was just barely working.

I question why people would like to deny Dan his day in court, and further for all information on this issue to be brought forward for the truth to be known. again I would like a independent council. (not one run by a republican) funny how the right wing funded the Paula Jones nonsence lawsuit (and her nose job) that was eventually dismissed to nothing by the right wing Judge but seem to have something against Dan getting his day in court or the truth and all details from coming out.

another peek at the sparring. seems we get bits and more bits here and there. again here Dan who knows better than the right who claim the ownership has no influence in the news, well Dan is saying it does. and seems there may be a private investigators report that was paid for by CBS that has some interesting information. Now why would CBS not want to release this document as requested. again the judge ordered discovery to proceed.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2...dan_rather.html



here is a decent book by one of the people involved, by Mary Mapes.

http://truthandduty.com/documents.htm

as she points out they did check dates and things that were reported as fitting the time line. And again she even points out the addresses that were listed in the documents were date accurate. and again who would spend that amount of time and get everything right. and again the confirmations by two people that were there remembering facts that no other document out there contained. again was this immaculate conception?

Dude, the documents were written in Microsoft Word, standard settings, Times New Roman 12 point font. That's not exactly 'getting everything right.' You seem to be forgetting this for some reason.

Dude, you know so much more than the right wing people hired by CBS to do a fact check allegedly agreed on with the white house. (see I would have put in a partisan dem, I am tired of the investors and judges being partisan right) They after spending the time could not rule the documents as fakes with all the kings horses and all the kings men. again the items disclosed could have only been known by two living people and they did concur to the events. again that is close to 1 in 2 billion odds. the death sentence takes a much lower standard.

Dude a document can be in that form from scanning and putting documents into electronic form to reduce storage that as we know the military was involved in, again the republican Congressperson the Dukester was put in jail recently for taking bribes from a republican company that did such work. Again call for a independent council... If you dare get to the truth....

goooo Dan....

You are the only person in the world suggesting that these documents were scans. No one in the military, at CBS, or anywhere else has said that they were scans. Please provide evidence that they are scans. Not that they COULD BE scans, but someone saying "Yes, I scanned those documents." It would be very easy for those who researched these documents to find out. Mary Mapes surely would have written in her "decent" book that they were scans, no? This seems to be an important fact that only you know.

Cheerleading aside, it's pretty obvious, inventor, that you don't have clue word one about what this case is really all about. It's about "process" and whether or not Dan Rather followed the journalistic process he was contracted to follow with CBS. It is not about whether or not CBS can prove the documents true or not at all. The question here is could Dan Rather prove they were true to the journalistic standards of CBS News. Standards he agreed to when he signed his contract. Now, after the fact, after the story aired you are attempting to "prove" that they might have been accurate. That may fly here in this forum, but it doesn't meet the standards for network journalism. Now, I know this is a difficult concept for you to comprehend, but generally speaking, journalists are expected to be able to verify their stories before they air them. And, generally speaking, if they don't, they get fired like Mary Mapes or demoted like Dan Rather.


I do agree with you on one thing. Gooo Dan, just GOOOOO AWAY! You're embarrassing yourself.


Aquilla

since it appears I need to refresh you, I was the one that posed the following questions. So questions for the debate, what are the facts we have to date. what are the theories backed by the facts you can present. 3, Will Dan Rather get his day in court? Does he deserve one and what is going to be his legal strategy. what are the theories backed by facts. So sorry you do not have a clue to the real debate.

And it appears you want Dan to go away, please do pre tell all on what grounds. Again not one credible source that investigated the issue has come forward to say that the issue is not accurate. again CBS hired the big time right wing guy to come in and clean house, but again his conclusion is that the documents could not be proved to be false, and you are alledging that maybe he was too stupid and did not look at the right wing calling the documents produced by word technology. again this was a big time right winger appointed by CBS and apparently the white house had him picked too. Now what the heck does the white house have anything to do with conversations with CBS execs over this matter?????? But back to the point you are alleging that this right wing hand picked guy is sooo stupid that stupidity must run in the higher ups, just the right wingers in the blogs are smart enough to investigate that. If that is your contention I have to say it is about the dumbest thing I have ever heard of. I hope that is not your defense. But because you have this special insider knowledge please give it to us because I have not seen anyone give the details out. Please continue to embarrass yourself....

Next you are even more clueless than ever. the case is a contractual one on rathers side. Specifically CBS made a deal with him to make statements that were not true and in return CBS told him they would do a proper investigation. So Dan read the CBS lawyers statements as agreed upon and CBS DID NOT do what they promised. And it turns out from early indications CBS did this while conspiring with the white house to hush the investigation for monitary gain of FCC approvals of some of the things they were involved in. Again why would CBS be trying to stop the depositions/discovery on the white house communications.... GEEE why didn't CBS tell us they were dealing with the white house??? again that is news... If they had nothing to hide as you seem to believe why are they hiding everything....

stop embarrassing yourself... be specific to the issues I raised...





excellent so you are saying possibly I can be smarter than everyone in the world?????? well by gollyle I have proven that in several areas in my career before. thats why I do win international awards.... why gee that is the only way the patent office gives you patents. Gee did you know that the patent office ill not give you a patent on anything that someone else in the world ever thought of before. thanks for enlightening me....

I know to you you are the center of the universe, but watch out you may fall off the flat earth...

Hey I have proved the military does scan documents, and again the right wing hero Dukester just went to jail for taking bribes from a company he helped do that. what do you really expect me to believe the military is not scanning old materials to go paperless? Not if you believe that you are a fool. Even the patent office started scanning all old patents 15 years ago.

here is a nice OCR program that scans and puts it into word format.

http://www.irislink.com/c2-480-225/Readiri...CFRpOagodIBI9WA
Powerful and accurate OCR software



here is even programs that OCR and translate for the military appears to be back in 1998
http://www.kanungo.com/workshop/abstracts/holland.html

inventor of the OR died recently
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/11/us/11she...nyt&emc=rss


military studying OCR in 1974
http://stinet.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRec...ifier=AD0787197



http://www.fcw.com/print/2_2/news/63118-1.html



Darn another discussion that the documents were scanned and OCR...
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=7103

Even for you, this response is over the top. No one connected with this story has ever claimed that these documents were scanned. Only you. That doesn't make you smart, it makes you a conspiracy theorist.

I asked you not COULD they be scans, but ARE they scans. See the difference?

Who scanned the documents?

Who verified and reported that they are scans? Mapes?

What does "right wing hero Dukester" have to do with this debate? Did he/she scan the documents?

What was the chain of custody of the documents before "Lucy Ramirez" had them and a "dark-skinned guy" turned them over to a Democratic Party operative at a livestock show, who then faxed them from Kinko's to Mary Mapes?

What is interesting about all this, perhaps a better word at this point might be entertaining is that in Dan Rather's defense, Inventor has actually demonstrated where Rather failed in his responsibility as a journalist. Inventor has advanced a possible explanation for why the documents were formatted the way they were. His theory which is entirely reasonable should have been investigated by Dan Rather, Mary Mapes and crew prior to airing the story. Prior to airing the story they should have looked further into why those documents were formatted in the fashion they were. That was their job as journalists. "Chain of custody" is a good description. Good journalists follow that principle BEFORE they run the story. Dan Rather got caught with his pants down. He didn't have an answer, even a theory like Inventor's. He hadn't performed the due diligence required of a journalist. Had he done that, he might have been able to establish the trail of these documents and been able to answer the questions raised, WHEN they were raised. Assuming, of course that the documents were authentic. He didn't do that, he didn't even raise a defense at the time of the type we've seen raised here by Inventor. That's really the bottom line in all of this. Sloppy, lazy, call it what you want. It's crappy journalism and has no place in network news.


Aquilla

to summarize to the jury,

dear jury as you saw we heard the president of the united states testify that he went to war with forged documents that there was no chain of custody and the person whos signature was verified well the date was of a time that he did not hold that office. Yet this document was used in a state of the union address that tens of millions if not hundreds of millions assume the president who has for free thousands of experts at his disposal at ever 3 am at night to do his bidding. Yet, even with a warning from intelligence to remove the citation he still broadcast it all over the world. thus steeing the bar around the world and certainly for a lessor level the media. If the president is allowed to lie for war then a person who did attempt as we know the information/documents were shown to expers and they did say the signature was consitent and the documents absolutely could not be ruled false.

Then in a another major outreach the information was sent to the president the day before for his comment. At no time to this date has the president ever stated that the information is not accurate. after all the person who even got him one of his back door positions and money has come forward to admit it.

Then members of the jury, to this date the information in the documents with the dates and events perfectly correlate to the industry norm. Not one document presented is not timely to the days events and if they would have been items in the wrong order could have shown that they were made up. But members of the jury we have information in the documents that have been corroborated by only to living people that could do such a thing and have knowledge of it. this by itself is close to a billion to one odds which in murder cases DNA is less accurate.

Next we have learned the white house somehow got involved with the investigation behind closed doors and no-one from CBS management or the white house publicay disclosed this. Thus is very strange that the white house would be dealing covertly with the media over a matter of no national security behind closed doors.

to add to the strange is the fact that CBS is trying to prevent all discovery, if they have nothing to hide why are they hiding everything... Why would they not want the discussion with the white house known? why do they not want to give all information they found to Dan? this is not a matter of national security. why are they acting like it is.

And Jury the clincher is a partisan republican friend of the presidents family was hired to get to the bottom of this. and with all the right wing bloggers who got this rolling (special note the so called independent blogger who got it moving was actually a top republican insider). anyway jury this former partisan republican attorney general found he could not prove the documents are not authentic with the bloggers info and all the partisans men. This investigation took this partisan many months and he could NOT conclude the documents are false. But we know bloggers even on AD still know better than that former republican attorney general partisan.

In light of a former partisan republican attorney general that was friend of the family of the president could not with his unlimited resources find conclusively that the documents were fake, well I think we have met the threshold that these documents were worthy of presenting to the public. Not to mention the president himself to date will not come out publicly and say it ain't so. he was given the chance the day before to go on record and he did not. Not only that he controlled the justice department and no grand jury was convened by the white house to determine all issues. In fact the president did not even open all records which only he has the ability to do.

so jury is it conceivable/probable that the management negotiated in bad faith with Dan and the american public, well that clear.

Couple of suggestions here for you, Inventor. First of all, don't give up your day job especially if it doesn't involve any form of written communication. That's a good job fit for you. Second of all, before you enter "court" to address the "jury" you should probably remove the tin foil hat. I'm told judges frown on that sort of apparel.

Now, on the actual substance of the dispute. Let's see if you can answer a few simple questions.....

When the questions concerning the documents' formatting came out after the story aired, why didn't Dan Rather have an answer for why they were that way?

Why did he get caught flat-footed without an explanation, any explanation even the one you've presented here as a possibility?

Why wasn't Rather aware that questions over the format would be raised and thus prepare an answer or even a possible explanation for those questions?

Why was it so easy to discredit this entire story?

Was it a lack of due diligence on the part of Dan Rather?

Was that lack of due diligence a breech of Dan Rather's contract with CBS?


edited to make the questions easier to read for obvious reasons.....

Aquilla

I only had 3 or 4 questions, and they were simpler than yours Aquilla. He woudn't answer those, why would he answer yours? (inventor, please feel free to answer my questions though!)



More seriously, this is, I don't know, the 18th time you've ignored the standard for presenting facts:


They weren't ruled "true." That's the point. Yes, the signature looked right, but the even signature expert noticed that the document was typed in the wrong font for the early 70's. Not to mention, Marcel Matley, CBS' signature expert said this in the September 27, 2002 issue of The Practical Litigator


He said that it is impossible to say whether a signature is true from a copy. So, no, of course they weren't proven "false," because the guy asked to prove them was looking at a copy. A copy of a document written in Microsoft Word, no less.

Good point, Carlitos. Perhaps I should simplify my set for now to a single question, with more to follow.


Inventor, why don't you answer Carlitos' questions?


Then, you can answer mine.


Aquilla

Here intellectually challenged, First if I were you I would not give up your day job if anyone will hire you, with your ignorance shown my guess is only a tax payer job would pay you for your incompetence demonstrated. as your ability to understand basic logic is comical.

Now back to your questions, why would he have an answer, he had people check the issue. The issue was not one time refuted by the white house when it was asked of them for comment. Again if Bush does not know what was going on back then because as we know he was a drunk even when he had kids he would not stop his abusive behaviors. It was only when his kids were 4 and his wife told him to leave he finally sobered up at the age of over 40... thus you are trying to say he was not a drunk his entire youth? All he had to do was come out and tell the truth... as we now know he did have later have the white house get involved behind the scenes and tried to keep that quiet. Only Rathers lawsuit has brought that top secret of national security out.

His story has only been called into question by the high level republican insider that fraudulently posed as some kind of independent blogger, when he was an insider to top politics.. Again the white house appointed dream team could not with unlimited resources and the white houses blessing and support conclude the documents were false. So it is interesting you know better? what specifically do you know that this former partisan republican attorney general did not know. Please do enlighten us, or do you channel?

Needless to say if the documents were false I am sure the present day injustice department would have had a grand jury held to get to the bottom of it. As we know the current in-justice department has held 4.6 to one investigations against dems to republicans. And yet we know just from the convictions the amount of money stolen has to be well over 100 to one the republicans have been convicted of. Ney Dukester abramoff et al. I am confidnet with the billions unaccounted for it would have been the republicans because the rovian in-justice department was definitely after anything they could on a dem and walking away from what they could in republican corruption. Once again there were rported property of the federal government. a grand jury was never conviened and a special prosecutor never appointed, yet removing federal documents and stating they are real almost for sure is a federal crime.

I know I am talking over your pay grade. Your attitude is a part of the problem not the solution...

according to your standard of something must be 100% or can not be aired. Do you know our court systems in a civil trial do not require that.

Again if you paid attention only an original document can be 100%. So the Niger document that Bush went to war over was a copy correct. and he was even willing to include it in a state of the union address. Now where should the standard be higher in the state of the union address or in the media? Remember republican David Brock stated during the Clinton times, he was a high paid hit man of the media paid by the spectator, the National review, the washington times and scaife to write lies a that the right wing noise machine was making. He was paid big bucks and he came clean and the republics hated him for telling the truth. Now did these papers magazine and so on retract and fire the editors for these admitted lies? See these were admitted to. Difference is Rather is cleared by the panel saying they could not determine they were false and these were a panel of the white house. Big difference.

Also the definite finding of falsity was not found.... thanks for bringing up that point.... either in context, content or witnesses.

inventor,
Your years of insulting, condescending, and avoiding direct questions are enough. I'm recommending that you be banned from this forum. Either do what everyone else here does - cut, paste and answer direct questions, or stop posting here. At some point, the entertainment value just isn't worth your avoiding every subject and posting blog-type rants about republicans and whatever. Debate or leave.

I don't know, Calitos, the entertainment value is still pretty high in this thread. There is this perverse sense of enjoyment to engaging in a battle of wits against an unarmed person. In any case, since this thread is about faked documents and the responsibility of journalists when reporting on them, I thought I'd throw an example that happened this past week out. This happened to the LA Times, who unlike Dan Rather took it very seriously and published this apology and explanation of what happened in their newspaper. From that article.........




and.....




Ok, the LA Times got fooled and published a story with a shaky foundation, even though it had far more foundation than the Rather story did. But, unlike baby Dan and his merry band of tin foil sycophants , the LA Times fessed up to their mistake, admitted it in their paper and explained what happened and what went wrong. They also promised their readers that they were doing an internal review so that such a mistake didn't happen again. That's how a professional journalist does things. They don't run around and whine and cry about the size of their office and how badly they'd been treated and it wasn't their fault..... wa-wa-wa big baby.

Oh, and inventor, still waiting for the answer to the questions. Consult with your mother ship if you must.

Aquilla