Judge restores Rather’s fraud claim vs. CBS

[IDemo]

Source: Associated Press

updated 1 hour, 7 minutes ago

NEW YORK - A New York City judge has restored a fraud claim he previously dismissed from Dan Rather’s lawsuit against CBS Corp. over a story about former President George W. Bush.

Rather’s lawyer Martin Gold said Tuesday the fraud stems from CBS’ failure to keep promises it made to Rather before firing him over problems with the story about Bush’s Vietnam-era military service.

Judicial Hearing Officer Ira Gammerman dismissed the claim last year because of technical legal errors but ruled Rather could refile it.

CBS lawyer James Quinn says that ruling was on technical grounds and he will move right away to have the complaint dismissed.

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32062034/ns/entertainment-arts_books_more/

[Dennis Donovan]

1. Rec'd- get 'em Dan!

:bounce:

[villager]

2. still on the frequency, Kenneth!

Go, Dan, go!

[hlthe2b]

3. GO, DAN!!!!!

good news.

[wtbymark]

4. good CBS, hope you go down in a big lump

for protecting the chimp

propoganda will lead to the end of network news (isn't karma awesome)

[Gregorian]

5. I just let out a gasp. It even surprised me. I must still have optimism.

There must be some honesty and reality based justice.

I would so love to see President Pinhead slammed to the mat.

[No Elephants]

53. So would I, but let's not hold our breath. neither Prescott nor George H got nailed.

[bbinacan]

6. What does this mean?

"Rather’s lawyer Martin Gold said Tuesday the fraud stems from CBS’ failure to keep promises it made to Rather before firing him over problems with the story about Bush’s Vietnam-era military service."

What were the promises and how did it relate to the veracity of the story?

[Lasher]

41. CBS promised to defend him and extend his contract in exchange for his silence.

Rather's papers say he could have defended the Bush story, but, relying on CBS' promises to defend him and extend his contract, he was "misled into remaining silent and unfairly taking the brunt of the blame for misconceptions about the broadcast."

http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_wires/2008May08/0,4675,RatherLawsuit,00.html

The suit, filed in State Supreme Court in Manhattan, claims that CBS and its executives made Rather "a scapegoat" in an attempt "to pacify the White House."

<snip>

Rather says in his suit that (Viacom Chairman Sumner) Redstone made it clear that a Bush victory would be good for Viacom and that it was "important to Vicacom to have good relations with the Oval Office."

The former anchor also says he was silenced from making public statements to defend his reputation because CBS made several promises to him -- which he says never materialized -- in exchange for his silence.

They include a contract extension and a promise that if Rather hired his own private investigator to look in the National Guard story that CBS would share any of its findings with the investigator.

Rather's lawyers said that in the summer of 2004, Rather and CBS agreed on a contract extension that would end his tenure as anchor and keep him on as a full-time correspondent for "60 Minutes" and "60 Minutes II." He would be paid approximately $24 million for his work through June 2010. The contract was never put in writing.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=3625465&page=1

[Divine Discontent]

44. yep! which means they LIED to him! and they shall be shamed in the end, hopefully! GO DAN!

damn CBS.

[No Elephants]

54. Not understanding: On the one hand, CBS got Rather

to promise to be silent about the National Guard story and not defend it. On the other hand, CBS and Rather agreed that CBS would share its findings about the National Guard story if Rather hired a private investigator to look into it? Let's say the investigation resulted in a "smoking gun." Wouldn't Rather's promise to be silent hold anyway? So what would be the point of investigating? For his own personal satisfaction?

The briefs probably go into it more. However, on the surface, those are two critical facts that seem to conflict with each other.

[Lasher]

62. Hiring a private investigator does not equal going public.

But you're right, that does seem inconsistent. I don't know if chronology has something to do with it or not. But to me there are two main issues: Their broken promises to defend him and to extend his contract.

[No Elephants]

72. What part of "for his own personal satisfaction" said to you "going public?"

[Lasher]

75. Somebody forgot their happy pill today.

[spotbird]

57. Why did he agree to silence?

He should sue the bastards, but he should have done what was right at the time.

[Lasher]

61. Because his employer asked him, with assurances they would defend him.

He trused them and they sold him out to the Bush administration.

[No Elephants]

73. How many milliion did it say he was supposed to be paid for his silence?

Whatever that number is, that's why he agreed. That, plus keeping him on. You're right. He does not exactly have the moreal high road position in this case, but, then again, neither does CBS. As between Rather and CBS, I hope CBS has to pay through the nose.

[FiveGoodMen]

7. Crossing my fingers...

[bleever]

8. Three cheers for Dan Rather getting justice in the Troopergate saga.

He was torpedoed by the RW, and his employers cooperated.

[mallard]

49. Re: yes, finally, something good from the american newsroom

Book 'em 'Dan-o', and nail 'em to the floorboards, while you're at it!

[Dinger]

9. Did Cronkite Ever Weigh In On This?

Anyway, I am delighted, and what the hell, even optimistic.:)

[jhrobbins]

10. Cronkite did weigh in on it and it was shameful-a blight on his legacy.

[Dinger]

11. Really?

I never heard what he said. Maybe I don't want to know.

[chatnoir]

13. I totally missed that -- what was said?

Tried Googling but the first few pages didn't turn anything up.

[peacetalksforall]

21. What Cronkite said was shameful - a blight on Cronkite's legacy?

Can you explain? I missed that.

[jhrobbins]

40. He was interviewed right after this situation and of course, they asked him about

the case. He essentially threw Dan under the bus saying words to the effect that Dan should never have done what he did without corroboration- that it was against the canon of journalism, etc, etc. That is me paaphrasing what I remember from the interview. I will go look for it so I can link it, but it wasn't the support you would have suspected from the old horse to the 'young(er)' horse at the same network.

[1monster]

37. Walter Cronkite carried a grudge against Dan Rather because CBS made him

step down from the anchor chair for the Evening News so they could keep Dan Rather who was being ardently wooed by ABC television.

Cronkite never forgave Rather for succeeding him.

It is sad, because Rather always looked up to and respected Cronkite. I believe that he never said any thing nasty about Cronkite despite Cronkite's animosity toward him.

[Mind_your_head]

12. I hope they aren't just "dancing Dan along"......Dan spending more time, money, energy, and effort

for NOTHING.

Most judges are lawyers (members of the 'Bar' ~ look that origin up, if you don't know it).

I would like to believe that this is a positive/good thing, but my EXPERIENCE has taught me that Mr. Rather is just being led down an expensive "garden path" with no real future. Hope that I am wrong, but I'd bet I'm correct.

[applegrove]

14. I wish Rather would give up. I don't think CBS owed him a job. Look at what happened

to Aaron Brown. Sometimes you just loose a job and it is nobody's fault.

[MissDeeds]

16. You're joking, right?

Either that or you don't know the whole story surrounding Rather's forced resignation.

[applegrove]

19. He was forced out months after CBS went to air with a story that didn't

have solid paper evidence behind it even if the story behind it all is probably true. You need solid evidence for news stories or any accusation. You just do. The facts are the facts but you have to be able to back them up.

I don't think that they would have fired Rather for that alone. They were probably itching to get rid of him since he had been there for 25 years and all the anchors were retiring or being let go. I was really upset that Aaron Brown got replaced. I liked him much more than Rather. But a job isn't a right.

[MissDeeds]

25. Oh please

:rofl:

[applegrove]

28. I'm glad your laughing at me. Much better than if you were horrifyingly offended at what

I said.:hi:

[MissDeeds]

29. All in good fun

:hi:

[earcandle]

32. That hasn't been true since 2001, although it may be true again now.

[applegrove]

34. Oh yeah - I'm not talking about Fox or any of the shows that are fox wannabees.

[PSzymeczek]

35. It DID have evidence behind it.

The Colonel's secretary said the facts supported it.

[sabrina 1]

45. He did have evidence.

He was set up by the WH. He followed all procedures and sent what he had to the WH for either a denial or verification. I know Rove was involved. There was no denial from the WH. Combined with the other verifications he had, that apparent inability by they WH to deny the evidence, led to the conclusion that they had no rebuttal, which of course, they did not.

But the set-up was already planned. And while in retrospect it's easy to say he should have known that there was a Rovian plot to undermine the story, there was nothing about the evidence he had or about the non-response from the WH to lead anyone to believe that their evidence was not solid.

If only Democrats were as willing as the rightwing to lie and cheat and deceive instead of giving a rubber stamp to the deceivers every time and throwing their own people under the bus.

There was a deliberate plot to deceive the reporters and distract from the main issue of Bush's not so honorable military 'career'. That Rather didn't detect the plot, until afterwards, is NOT a reflection on him, it is a reflection on the deceivers, the plotters who went to great lengths to try to prevent the truth about the unelected president from getting out.

What should have happened is that all those involved, the freepers et al, should have been hounded by the press until what they did was uncovered. Instead they were allowed to get away with not answering questions at all.

And as always, Dems trying to appear to be 'fair', walked away from a good reporter and then complain about the media. It was shameful that what happened to him did not become a major cause for people who want a media that can tell the truth without fear. But it didn't, and we have the media we have, far worse now than it was even then.

[The Hope Mobile]

60. The secretary stated that she had not typed up those exact papers

but that she had typed many similar to it and that they were all aware of the problems with W's "military service". So, basically, she proved that all of the allegations were true BUT it was considered sloppy reporting because the document he used as evidence was not considered authentic. Most of the documents had been destroyed by a long-time Bush associate if I remember correctly.

[sabrina 1]

76. The problem was that someone set out to deliberately

deceive Dan Rather and the public. What no one knows is, who retyped the document if it was retyped? And when was it retyped, and for what purpose? Someone clearly did have a copy of the real document and made a real effort to produce a replica of it with a few small differences.

Those differences would not have been noticed by most people, but one Freeper, who turned out to be rightwing activist lawyer, claimed he did, right after the airing of the show, almost as if he had been waiting, as if he knew what to look for. He has refused to answer questions, so far, about his role in all of this.

Was the document destroyed then? And why? Why would someone re-type a document and then destroy the original? Why did the WH not just tell Dan Rather's producers when they were asked, because they were, that the information was not true? That is easy to answer, because it was true.

So, knowing that a denial would not convince anyone, they decided instead to divert, to distract and to deliberately plot to kill two birds with one stone. 1} Completely discredit Dan Rather and 2) change the focus of the story to 'the sloppy media'. It was a perfect Rovian ploy and it worked because CBS refused to stand up them.

I always pictured Rove in the WH that night, waiting for the show, all his ducks in a row, the Freeper lawyer ready to start the ball rolliing, the rest of the rightwing noise-machine prepared to pick it up from there. And I picture Rove smiling.

I hope Dan Rather calls the Freeper lawyer as a witness. He will be placed under oath and will not have the luxury of refusing to answer questions as he has in the past. And that's just one of the characters involved who badly need to be questioned where they cannot refuse to answer.

Finally, I don't think you can call something 'sloppy' on the part of the good guys, if the bad guys are operating in the background to ruin the efforts of the good guys. Iow, if you bake a cake, using all the right ingredients, but someone throws something that doesn't belong there into the mixture while you're not looking, who is to blame when the cake doesn't taste the way you thought it would?

[mbperrin]

79. Most concise rundown I've seen. Thanks!

It IS amazing how far some obfuscation will go and make folks not notice the HERD of elephants in the room.

I hope this can all come out in court and cost the perpetrators a HUNK o'hiney!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

65. Funny post n/t

[peacetalksforall]

18. Are you kidding. Rather doesn't just get in front of the screen and say anything he wants.

He has producers. Everything is planned out. (Think editing room at a newspaper.)

They had the best goods so far in testimony on what happened behind the scenes with the George Bush military history. A person doesn't even have to walk by the CBS building to know that they knew they had some things come together and permission was given to proceed. They they turned on him, mafia style.

I didn't see your sarcasm signal and I have a feeling your not kidding with us and I resent it.

You give your employer decades of your life and they turn on you?

No single employee self-approves proceeding with a case as serious as that one was.

CBS prostrated themselves to the BFEE and made it look as though it was all the call of Rather. Rather filed a suit. The tide has turned.

[applegrove]

23. Right what he says is planned out. And the producer who didn't vet

the documents enough was fired or quit. Then months later they let Rather go. I think they just wanted some new blood a CBS. I think he was let go for numerous reasons. And though I wouldn't agree with most of those reasons they have a right to hire and fire people.

[BlueMTexpat]

30. What planet are you from?

You work for CBS, right?

Sheesh!

[applegrove]

31. We disagree. I'm sorry.

[paulsby]

52. you are right.. don't let them get you down

you are correct. rather et al did NOT properly vet the documents.

[sabrina 1]

47. The producer was wrongfully fired also. Perhaps you should

read her book.

Of course they have the right to fire whoever they want, I have the right to walk under a moving train, but it isn't a good idea. That argument always gets to me. It doesn't take into account at all, what is right. Every employer has a 'right' to fire whoever he wants but a good employer doesn't use that right unless there is a good reason.

There was not only no good reason to fire either the producer or Dan Rather, there was a compelling reason, for the sake of a free press, to use all their resources to get to the bottom of one of the most egregious deceptions ever perpetrated by some of the most vile and dishonest individuals in the political arena today, to prevent the media from doing its job.

And their decision to fire these two people had a very chilling effect on what we have a right to, anyone else who might dare to pursue facts about public officials and uncover deceptions, such as the deception that Bush was a military hero, from even trying.

By not pursuing this story, the public did not just lose a good, honest reporter, we lost way more than that as the current excuse for news demonstrates.

But yes, CBS had a right to fire whoever they wanted to. That right trumped the rights of millions of people in this country, but if you want to stick to that defense of what they did, you have a right to do so and we have a right to vehemently disagree.

I hope Dan Rather wins big in this lawsuit. CBS needs to pay for what they did, although no amount of money can give him his reputation back, nor give us back whatever faith we still had in the media back then.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

68. Sabrina 1, I wish I could recommend your reply!

It is spot on and brilliantly written.

[sabrina 1]

78. Thank you, this case always bothered me

because there were so many unanswered questions and so many on the 'left' more than willing to ignore the fact that someone, knowing the information Dan Rather had on Bush was true and probably could not be refuted, decided not to deny it, but instead, to throw something else into the equation, pre-meditated a deception with the help of many individuals who were never required to reveal why they did it, and who was the orchestrator of the plot.

As Patrick Fitzgerald pointed out when he indicted Scooter Libby, he could not pursue the real criminals because Libby was 'throwing sand in his eyes'. But Fitzgerald did hold the deceiver responsible. In the Dan Rather case, the deceivers got away with their deception and the blame has been placed on the deceived. There has always been something very wrong with that. The public's right to know the facts was impeded by CBS's refusal to uncover the nest of plotters which many believe went all the way to the WH.

[spotbird]

58. I thought you were kidding

above. Apparently, you're serious.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

66. Another funny post n/t

[SpiralHawk]

15. "Curses. Unsmirk." -xCommander AWOL (R - Chickenhawk)

[winyanstaz]

17. Well I hope Dan finally gets some Justice.

This is so long over-due. I think they are just hoping he dies of old age before they have to get into it.

[derby378]

20. Stick it to The Man, Dan

Show them what happens when a real journalist is given the boot and replaced with a vapid mouthpiece.

[Mr. Sparkle]

22. Im happy for Dan, I hope he wins and it costs CBS millions. n/t

[Vidar]

24. Possibility of justice for Dan Rather. k&r.

[wundermaus]

26. Book 'em, Danno!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LnK8b_jk8w

Hell Yeah!

[BlueMTexpat]

27. At long, long last ... some justice perhaps.

Go get 'em, Dan! Truth is always the best defense and there was no untruth in your reports about *.

Shame on CBS!

[Hekate]

33. Go Dan!

:woohoo:

[johnaries]

36. Yay, Dan! I wish Walter were alive to see this.

[David Zephyr]

38. Give 'Em Hell, Dan!

K&R.

[georgiaguy]

39. Only rich boys got in National Guard during Vietnam era

I was in high school during the Vietnam (Class of '73) and
every male of draft age wanted in the National Guard during
this area to avoid being forced into military. Those with
political connections, including many wealthy and privileged,
got commissions in the National Guard. It had a long waiting
list and Bush the Disaster jumped to the head of that line.
The same was true of former VP Dan Quayle. Draftees were sent
to Vietnam. One cousin volunteered (or be drafted) for a four
year stint. Since the Texas National Guard official in the
documents was dead, the right wing went into a frenzy to push
doubt on the letters. IBM typewriters of the time could
provide the type of lettering in the documents. Alberto
Gonzales and Karl Rove made sure that Bush's records in the
National Guard and his DUI were withheld from public. When the
60 Minutes piece came out, the right wing attacked the
messenger and then swiftboated John Kerry. The right wing is
doing the same to Obama now.

[eggplant]

43. Welcome! n/t

[TexasProgresive]

67. Actually that's not completely true

I did not come from a rich background and yet I served in the same Texas Air National Guard Unit that B*sh is supposed to have. The difference is that I was on a waiting list that was 18 months at the beginning and whittled down to 9 because people above me dropped off for what ever reason. B*sh is another story. He did not wait- was immediately sworn in as an enlisted man, went to basic, came out and somehow jumped over OTS (officers training school) to flight school. That was the beginning of a sordid military career for DimSon. He is the only person I've ever heard of that served in the military and cannot produce a DD-214. Not only that but when he was Governor of the state of Texas he had his crony disappear all his prior records by issuing him and Laura new driver's licenses with new numbers. Texas logs and files under the license number and so if you don't have that number those records are lost in the system.

I have something else in common with B*sh. I left the 147th and moved out of state and then returned later. You don't just say I'm going to Alabama to work on a campaign. The process is to get discharged from your existing unit and get sworn in to a new one within 45 days. So my DD-214 shows that I have 3 honorable discharges while DimSon doesn't even have a DD-214.

He is AWOL and a deserter. And I don't believe that coward ever flew the F-102. He might've gone up in a TF-102 with an instructor but I bet he never qualified to fly that flying brick solo - it actually takes real skill.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

69. Thanks for your insight

You know of what you speak. I hope that the TRUTH about B*sh comes out, finally.

[sutz12]

77. We should make that a rallying cry against the Birthers...

We'll worry about Obama's birth certificate when Shrub produces his elusive DD-214.

[mzmolly]

42. Go Dan!

:toast:

[onestepforward]

46. Best wishes to Dan!

[vanboggie]

48. K&R with great enthusiasm!!! n/t

[myrna minx]

50. Congratulations Dan Rather.

Your reputation was besmirched by the bottom feeders and shame upon your employers for caving into the crackpot "birther" esque wing of the GOP. K&R

[Corey_Baker08]

51. You Got This Dan!!! Where Behind you all the way K&R n/t

[DeadEyeDyck]

55. Dan, the pit-bull n/t

[jeremyfive]

56. Couldn't Watch CBS Anymore After that Mistake

Dan Rather's story was true--many witnesses. It was the letter that was a "plant"--very similar to the planted story about Sara Palin denying that she had tried to ban "Harry Potter" and other books. Well, there's a planted lie, too. True, she didn't try to ban "Harry Potter" but she did try to ban "Catch 22" and a host of other controversial books, including "Pastor, I am Gay." This lie deflected the media for awhile away from the actual story wherein Palin handed her town librarian a list of books she did not want to see in the library, then fired her over the matter. Only the anger of the community restored the librarian to her post.

This is the type of lie that he GOP engages in frequently--and they spend big money to lie. Ever see, "The Hunting of the President"? 200 million dollars wasted there. But the truth is, George W. Bush did go AWOL, just as he crashed a number of cars in DUI incidents (and in states other than Texas where Daddy's money couldn't cover it up by having it erased from the records). Just as his Daddy hushed up his insider trading crimes.

And the truth is that Sara Palin did all she could to ban books. (Not the "Harry Potter" lie that the GOP planted.)

Don't think the GOP lies? Ask Harold Ford, Jr. about the lies of the GOP during his political campaign. This is the lying group of dirtbags that gave the term "swiftboating" a whole new meaning.

CBS? They're new slogan should be, "We sold out and covered up for the chimpanzee."

[janet118]

59. Guess what story was bumped for National Guard story.

Scheduled for Sept. 8, 2004: The trail of the forged documents about "yellow cake" uranium with Ed Bradley. It was replaced with Dan Rather's National Guard story and never aired because supposedly CBS was freaked out by the blowback about sketchy documents in the Rather story. Hmm-m-m-m . . .

CBS Owes Ed Bradley an Apology

But CBS still owes Bradley a belated apology stemming from its shameful decision during the 2004 presidential campaign to pointedly refuse to run a factually solid story of his that chronicled how the Bush administration had misled the country into war. Specifically, the Bradley story detailed the murky circumstances surrounding bogus Nigerien documents unearthed in 2002 -- the alleged smoking gun -- that purported to prove that Saddam Hussein had purchased 500 tons of so-called yellowcake uranium to build a nuclear bomb. The documents turned out to be obvious fakes, but that didn't stop the Bush administration from eagerly using them in an effort to scare Americans with doomsday talk.

- - - snip - - -

Yet to this day, CBS has not apologized for its timorous Niger surrender, which smeared Bradley's good name and hard work -- after the National Guard story erupted, Heyward told Bradley his Niger report wasn't good enough to broadcast, despite the fact it had already been slotted to run. (Ironically, Bradley's Niger investigation was set to air September 8, 2004, but got bumped by the National Guard scoop.)

Here's my take on Dan Rather: Rather made a deal with CBS to remain silent. Why? If you deal with snakes you get bit. The joke was on him. He was looking out for his cushy job and lost it anyway. I don't think Mr. Rather is a man of either courage or integrity. He has always struck me as someone who generally played along but tried to push his way to the front whenever he sensed the winds of change were about to blow. He kissed up to the Bush administration after 9-11 and misjudged the timing and wind direction on his leap for the bandwagon in 2004.

[90-percent]

63. GIVE 'EM HELL, DAN

Or just get out the truth and have them think it's hell!

-90% jimmy

[spiritual_gunfighter]

64. Hell yes!

The evidence was always there, Rather got shafted I hope he wins this.

[earth mom]

70. Kick some ass Dan!

:woohoo:

:applause:

[pacalo]

71. K&R.

[Rhiannon12866]

74. K&R. Excellent news! Long past due...

They don't make them with the integrity and commitment to real news that Dan has, anymore! :-(

I used to work with CBS, his publicist was my contact at news, and I always had the greatest respect for Dan Rather and his dedication to presenting hard news, no fluff, the last of the network greats... :patriot: