Thursday, October 28, 2004

What Happens When We Hand Out "Immunity" Cards

Truth Laid and INDC have updates on the continuing Corpolitical attack by the NY Times and CBS. This skirmish is the October surprise of weapons being stolen out from under the nose of the US Military.

Apart from the report being untrue, the continuing attempts by the NY Times and CBS to affect the election outcome is becoming the story, for many.

Both Rathergate and now this Ammogate have fizzled. They will try again. This weekend.


Are you surprised by this? What did you think would happen when you mix oen of the nation's dominant industries - media - with an immunity card from all the checks and balances of our society? Did you expect that a corporate-political (yes, this site INVENTED THE WORD CORPOLITICAL) mafia would somehow NOT be attracked to that lucrative combination?

And just because this month's corpolitical mafia happens to be Leftist Democrats, doesn't mean that this is a red-vs. blue issue. The Republicans certainly will not be absent for too long from this immunity picnic.

Tuesday, October 26, 2004

Dan Rathergate's Hail Mary Pass...Incomplete

Dan Rather, reputation tarnished, investigation ongoing, retirement being forced sometime in Spring 2005, decides that things will be OK if he can complete one final Hail Mary pass and affect the outcome of the election.

"I can still be remembered as a contender...instead of a bum...I can still have lots of great dinners in New York with Eva Marie. And Martha, when she is released from Abu Garaib. And Harvey and his actress pals. I'll be feted and fawned over as a famous and influential eminence gris..., " reasoned the galvonics within Rather's left lobe.

So reports Drudge. Well, kinda.

"Jeff Fager, executive producer of the Sunday edition of 60 MINUTES, said in a statement that 'our plan was to run the story on October 31.' "

Newsflash for Dan: You already took the dive for the short-end money. We're on to you. You ain't Brando. Your antics are more like Rod Steiger. Pathetic.

Many have theorized that there would be no "October surprise" (i.e., a Bush initiative) this election, because it would be too transparent and would backfire.

Dan Rather, as a surrogate Kerry initiative, has now had both a September and October bombshell either blow up in his face, or fizzle. Goodbye, Dan. Good riddance. Sorry you sold your soul and legacy to the corpolitical mafia. I hope the price was worth it.


If you're into the tit-for-tat thing, you've gotta relish what the Bush team, or some surrogate, might have in store this weekend.

If I were betting, the most obvious surprise to occur would be the publication of a secreted set of Kerry's military records, to back some folks/swiftvets claiming to have been involved in a court martial/dishonorable discharge/etc. of Kerry back in the early 70's. The groundwork has all been laid.

Killing Zarqawi, complete with video, would be swell. US forces seemed to have missed him, a few days ago.

Killing Osama, while under the protection of mullahs in Iran, would also be a good move.

Finally, re: the Rovian playing field of motivating turnout, particularly the traditionalist voters being herded to the polls in Ohio to vote against gay marriage, who then must pull the lever for Bush or Kerry, watch for the outting of some secret Kerry "Massachusetts Plan" to support gay marriage after the election. (Maybe some deceased liberal activist's administrative assistant typed some personal file memos to Kerry, lauding Kerry's secret plan to approve gay marriage, which come to light, CBS-style.....)

I don't think there's enough octane in any "Kerry met with VC" story to qualify. Deaf ears.

Sunday, October 24, 2004

Tantalus Field Delusion at Los Angeles Times

My political alter ego over at Grand Royal Fit writes about a certain cognitive dissonance that defines many leftists. It's the "Tantalus Field" delusion.

GRF defines the Tantalus Field Delusion as a psychological condition in Leftist minds. It has two basic manifestations. The first is the Leftist mind that cannot appreciate that it is unbelievably difficult to avoid things tending to chaos. Those are the deluded Left - the foaming morons at rallies and the like. I now politely excuse myelf from those conversations, unless I am wasted and willing alienate good looking bimbo people, which are many in Hollywood.

The second is the Left group that suffers cognitive dissonance - they generally understand that keeping an advanced civilization afloat takes real effort, but whenever such general understanding conflicts with their emotional need to be empathetic to short-term concern of the wounded bird-in-hand, their brain goes into over-ride mode, and their emotional need trumps their general understanding of the world. That trumping occurs by the Leftist changing, in their head, the facts (or syllogism) on the table. That's cognitive dissonance - the Left will jump through all kinds of mental hoops to distinguish the set of facts belonging to the real world, from their heartfelt emotional yearning that the immediate situation be remedied.

Logic folks can argue whether it is a form of Begging the Question or some other fallacy. I might update that label, and call it the "Fallacy of the Overweight Monday-Morning Quarterback Who Loudly Screams As To What He Would Have Done, Albeit He Had No Solutions During the Broadcast 24 Hours Earlier." OK, chunkybutt, thanks.

GRF describes Tantalus as a psychological condition in Leftists, rather than a matter of logic. Emotions trumping logical thought.

Low and behold, the Los Angeles Times serves up great Tantalus Field pieces today. Pretending to show themselves as capable of balance, the Opinion section (Page M1) carries the compilation pieces, "What's Going Right in Iraq." and "Hey You, Say Something Nice."

Note the Tantalus Field congitive dissonance which underlies the leftist inability to state one positive aspect to the Iraq war.

Christopher Hitchens: "...[T]he huge generator being installed, piece by gigantic piece, in Baghdad. When it comes on stream in a few months, there will supposedly be more than enough energy... .Where was this generator when it was needed, about 18 months ago? Who was supposed to be in charge of seeing to that then, and why has he or she not been summarily fired?"

Hitchens shows the delusional form of Tantalus Field. For the leftist Hitchens, massive, capital and labor intensive projects such as building a power plant are supposed to just happen. Compare to GRF's Tantalus Field, wherein the leftist solution is a magical war to topple a country where there are no deaths. Regimes toppled without blood, and generators magically appearing to power a city, and space ships that just appear and fly to the moon. Tantalus Left.

Arthurs Schlesinger Jr: "The whole project was incompetently perceived, planned and managed, and it's a disaster....The removal of Saddam is the only positive thing."

Schlesinger evinces the cognitive dissonance flavor of the Tantalus Field mind. Emotionally, he doesn't like the war whatsoever. But his mind understands that "stuff is tough." What happens when these two forces clash, in the Leftist Mind? The emotions win, and in order to keep his mind from being in an agitated state of contradiction - a yin/yang turmoil - he turns on a fact and syllogism filter that prevents him from having to process any fact that would contradict his needy emotional side. "The whole project was incompetently perceived, planned and managed, and it's a disaster." That's it. Forget about the mechanics of the fastest relative military victory in modern history (the clash of two giant military machines). Forget about the lowest casualty rate in history. Forget about the lowest civilian casualty rate in history. Forget about a paradigmatic shift in precision bombing. Forget that the US missed killing Saddam by 45 seconds, with the first missile of the war. Forget that the oil field sabotage was prevented. Forget that...

...never mind, the Leftist mind of Schlessinger and Hitchens are in no condition to analyze any of these facts. Because they are off picking daisies in their Tantalus Field.

Monday, October 18, 2004

Death By a Thousand Grey Slants

Sinclair Broadcasting plans to air “Stolen Honor,” a film/news/documentary/negative political ad (whatever it is) this week. The film, which I have not seen, is said to portray Kerry in a negative light.

TV sells eyeballs to advertisers. More eyeballs, more to sell. Ratings = eyeballs = sales. Ergo, ratings affect sales which affect earnings which affect stock price.

Thus, smart guys correctly ponder, “Will Sinclair get higher ratings for “Stolen Honor” than it otherwise draws for its regular programming?

The New York Times folks want you to believe that they have the same cutting-edge business savvy to ask the same question. So they run a page C1 - the Business Section - piece today entitled, “Risks Seen for TV Chain Showing Film About Kerry."

Now, the article starts out correctly, stating that the station group is “running a significant financial…risk by telling its stations to pre-empt regular programming to carry the film.”

But guess what word doesn’t appear in the article?


Nope. Nowhere. A business page lead article about the financial risks of a TV group pre-empting programming, andthe artcile uses neither the concept nor the word, Ratings.

Similar to the front page, “You’re Blacklisted” fiction piece that the New York Times ran about Mel Gibson in connection with “The Passion of the Christ,” the New York Times with this piece tries to punish Sinclair in the financial markets for running the film.

But, ratings is 95% of the financial ball game.

The “ratings-discussion-free” article includes musings about highly unlikely future advertiser boycotts; future license revocation actions; deregulation aspects; and other misgivings. Yet the simple business question that any Wall Street analyst would ask – “Were the ratings worse, better, or the same?” – is not even referenced by the New York Times.

I make the odds that "Stolon Honor" will garner significantly higher ratings that the regulalry scheduled programming. Not a tough call.

So, why this New York Times piece?

I don’t make a career out of cataloging the bias of the New York Times, and this is by no means their biggest slant. But this one is so obvious, for those of us in the business. But given everyone’s addiction to front page analysis, this one might go unnoticed.

So, voila.

NY Times Tries Another Blacklist Piece

Exclusive: Must credit Scylla & Charybdis:

[Update: Why Blacklist? Because it is effective. Really effective. ]

Sinclair Broadcasting plans to air Stolen Honor, a film/ news/ documentary/ negative political ad (whatever it is) this week. The film, which I have not seen, is said to portray Kerry in a negative light.

TV sells eyeballs to advertisers. More eyeballs, more to sell. Ratings = eyeballs = sales. Ergo, ratings affect sales which affect earnings which affect stock price.

Thus, smart guys correctly ponder, "Will Sinclair get higher ratings for Stolen Honor than it otherwise draws for its regular programming?"

The New York Times folks want you to believe that they have the same cutting-edge business savvy to ask the same question. So they run a page C1 - the Business Section - piece today entitled, "Risks Seen for TV Chain Showing Film About Kerry."

Now, the article starts out correctly, stating that the station group is "running a significant financial risk by telling its stations to pre-empt regular programming to carry the film."

But guess what word doesn't appear in the article?


Nope. Nowhere. A business page lead article about the financial risks of a TV group pre-empting programming, and the article uses neither the concept, nor the word, "Ratings."

Similar to the front page, "You're blacklisted and you've ruined your career" fiction piece that the New York Times ran about Mel Gibson in connection with his $370 million runaway hit The Passion of the Christ (which no studio would touch), the New York Times with this Sinclair piece tries to punish Sinclair in the financial markets, for running the Stolen Honor film. "You'll be blacklisted by the FCC and your advertisers will abandon you and the people will rise against you, so investors, sell today!"

But, ratings are 95% of the financial ball game in the TV world.

The NY Times' ratings-discussion-free article includes musings about highly unlikely future advertiser boycotts; future license revocation actions; deregulation aspects; and other misgivings. Yet the simple business question that any Wall Street analyst would ask, "Were the ratings worse, better, or the same?" is not even referenced by the Times.

I make the odds that Stolen Honor will garner significantly higher ratings that the regulalry scheduled programming. Not a tough call. So, why this New York Times piece?

I don’t make a career out of cataloging the bias of the New York Times, and this is by no means their biggest slant. But this one is so obvious, for those of us in the business.

So, voila.

In the face of overwhelming consumer acceptance of Passion of the Christ, the New York Times created its own "to your personal detriment" blacklist, suggesting to studios that every studio had blacklisted Mel Gibson. The rumor becomes the self-fulfilling prophesy. But, the false story blew up in their faces, when the Times' failed to adequately disguise the identities of the fake quotes ascribed to the Dreamworks studio chiefs. They went public the next day and ruined the Times' attempt to blacklist Gibson.

So now, in the face of likely consumer acceptance of Stolen Honor, The New York Times has learned a bit. Its blacklisting is now effected by suggesting to the investing community that the "ruin" lies down the road at some vague and untestable time -- and irrespective of the objective ratings, available almost real-time. "Yes," implies the Times, "Sinclair will pay dearly for this transgression; best for investors to stay away, to avoid the coming carnage."

"Ignore the man behind the curtain...Sinclair investors shall pay the price, down the road...."

That, folks, is how a blacklist works.

Tuesday, October 12, 2004

Texas Attorney General Ducks a Complaint

I received the following response to my letter (below) to the Texas Attorney General's Office:

-----Original Message-----
From: Public Information []
Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2004 7:14 AM
To: [BummerDietz]
Subject: Re: Criminal Tampering Matter

Dear [BummerDietz]:

Thank you for your recent message. We appreciate your contacting the Office of the Attorney General and making us aware of your views.

In Texas, the county or district attorney has original jurisdiction to pursue alleged violations of the law. Therefore, you may wish to share your concerns about alleged violations of the law with the Taylor County District Attorney at (325) 674-1261.

Again, thank you for writing.

Carlos Ibañez
Public Information & Assistance
Office of the Attorney General of Texas


My original letter to the Texas Attorney General:

Greg Abbott
Texas State Attorney General
Office of the Attorney General
300 W. 15th Street
Austin, TX 78701

Re: Criminal Tampering Matters

Dear Mr. Abbott:

I am writing to you to bring to your attention a potential criminal matter relating to events currently in the national spotlight. As you are likely aware, the CBS program 60 Minutes broadcast on Wednesday, September 8, 2004 a program concerning four memos purportedly related to President Bush’s service in the Texas Air Guard. Those memos are available at the CBS News website:

CBS broadcast its 60 Minutes program in Texas via several affiliate stations. The producer of the program is a Texas resident. The program concerned events and people located in Texas. The program featured four documents procured by CBS in the state of Texas. Since that broadcast, the four documents have been widely proven to be forged documents.

The Texas Penal Code (Sec. 32.31) governs forgery. “Forgery” includes publication of a forged writing. I assume that under Texas law, a television broadcast constitutes a publication. Significantly, under the statute, criminal intent is presumed when two or more “governmental records” are at issue.

Prior to its broadcast, CBS was warned by its experts that the documents were forged, yet CBS broadcast the program. There is a prima facie case of felony forgery against CBS under Penal Code 32.21.

The purpose of this letter is to alert you to potential witness tampering and evidence tampering by CBS. Penal Codes 37.05 and 37.09 (attached) pertain the tampering.

On September 15, 2004, CBS broadcast an interview that it undertook with 86-year-old Marina Carr Knox, a Texas resident. A review of the broadcast transcript reveals a rather obvious attempt to tamper with Ms. Knox, as a witness. The curious editing and overdubs on the transcript also suggest that the editing of the tape, itself, constitutes tampering (as in, deleting or destroying evidence of Knox’ actual testimony, tampering with it to insert desired exculpatory statements.)

Under Texas Penal Code 32.21, CBS has four plausible defenses to a felony forgery charge, highlighted as follows:

1. The act wasn't "forgery" as:
a. Act was authorized; and
b. Documents were not backdated; and
c. Item is a true copy of an original.
2. CBS had no criminal intent.
3. Texas law doesn't apply – Federal law preemption, or lack of contacts with Texas.
4. Constitutional defenses - 1st amendment.

Defenses #3 and #4 are not addressed here, albeit CBS did remove the 86-year-old Ms. Knox from Texas to New York to undertake the actions at issue.

Bluntly put, the CBS interview with Knox on its face is a tampering with Ms. Knox’s recollections, in order to establish for CBS some foundation, and admissible testimony, as to defenses 1a, 1b, and 1c, above. In addition, the interview seems designed to tamper with Ms. Knox’s recollections as to defense 2, by providing CBS with some foundation and admissible evidence as to the forgeries not being government records. This is critical, because forgery involving 2 or more government records is a strict liability crime under the statute – criminal intent is inferred.

I have attached a transcript of the Knox interview, plus its location on the Internet.

I hope the foregoing is helpful to you in your duties. I am not a Texas resident, and I have no standing to make any official request of you. Further, I have no first hand evidence or testimony to offer, just the foregoing analysis of items publicly available. As such, this letter should be considered “for your information” only.

Very truly yours,


Monday, October 11, 2004

Team America, F*ck Yeah

[UPDATE: YOU MUST SEE THIS; there are no words for how perfect it is. Kudos to INDCJOURNAL.]

You heard it here first: The film Team America: World Police is going to upstage the election.

I just came from the premiere at Grumman's Chinese. Stunning.

It's funny. A Hollywood crowd guffawed throughout.

But more importantly, the film defangs the Anti-War Hollywood Left at an important time; not only will that faction be powerless to sway any more undecided voters in a certain 18-25 age band, but Kerry may actually lose votes, via guilt by association.

Stop reading now, unless you don't mind being told a few details from the film.

Sean Penn, who a few days ago went into a Falcon/Snowman hissy fit condemning the South Park guys for a Rolling Stone interview, is killed by the puppet American commandos in the film, for joining the terrorist squad organized by North Korean short-man Kim Jong-Il.

A who's-who of antiwar actors are portratyed in the film - as puppets, against their will - each being part of an egotistical new world council, the Film Actors Guild. FAG. Again and again, the film identifies the members as being part of this group. It's FAG against Team America.

Tim Robbins gets killed, as a terrorist sympathizer. So does Susan Sarandon. And Liv Tyler. And Janeane Garafalo. Helen Hunt is sawn in half. Martin Sheen buys the farm. George Clooney gets a bullet. The Matt Damon puppet is a terror 'tard, and is terminated with prejudice.

Alec Baldwin is shot by Kim Jong-Il, for being an ineffective terror supporter. Hans Blix is also killed by Kim. Eaten alive by sharks.

Michael Moore is portrayed as a fat socialist double-fisting some hot dogs, with ketchup and mustard running down his face. Of course, he dies. Suicide bomber.

There is projectile vomiting, puppet sex and ample islamo-fascist death and taunting.

All of this, to the stated theme that Americans may be dicks, but liberals are pussies, and terrorists are assholes. It goes from entire scato-sexual weltpolitic is built from that playground humor.

And...Spotteswoode. WTFIT?

Why does it upstage the election? Because the Hollywood Left are portrayed as morons. In a pop culture language that will resonate with young teens through adults.

The fireworks should begin in a few days, when at least one actor/actress portrayed as a FAG (or, a felllow traveler therewith) will simply not be able to contain himself. He will take the bait and pick a fight with the South Park creators, and the movie. Very publicly. Good for the Box Office...hmmmm, interesting Fahrenheit tactic.....

And that silly complaining actor will find himself being laughed at, not laughed with. Why? Because he's arguing against....puppets.

His political position? Laughed at; guilt by association.

A stunning evening. The Center/CenterRight has its own untouchable Hollywood oracle. How strange is that?

[update: clueless wonder-reviewer at WaPo - yes, the political capital of the nation - cannot see through his left goggles:

Stunned by all the fun, I am almost moved to salute Parker and Stone for their nuanced and careful takedown of American jingoism and the seemingly disastrous foreign policy that Team America stands for.

Only that isn't quite how it played to an audience on Tuesday night, at one of those free-ticket radio station giveaway previews [code: an audience of morons, who don't have a Masters in French literarture, like me] in a packed cineplex in Northwest Washington. The biggest laughs came when "Team America" assaulted any and all concepts of ethnicity, or when the joke was on gays, Michael Moore or a vast left-wing idiocy.

The movie feels like an elaborate inside joke [known only to me] on the very Americans laughing hardest at its easiest gags, oblivious to the sly, allegorical digs at a USA brand of bravado. [Yes, those laughing folks just don't understand that they are being mocked...] What I took as a lampoon of Bushworld seemed to be received, in the seats around me, as a triumph of Bushworld. Pollsters and campaign workers, take note: "Team America" will only further confound your election-year data.

Thursday, October 07, 2004

Ouch. Yet Another Texas Felony Statute, Triggered

Texas Penal Code, Section 37.10(a)2 states that a person commits an offense if he “makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record.”

Under 37.10(g), criminal intent is established if 2 or more documents are at issue.

And, its a felony.

So CBS has yet another Texas felony problem.

Count 'em:

Texas Crimes:

Original Broadcast:

Penal Code 32.21 (Forgery)
Penal Code 37.10 (Tampering with Government Record)

Post-Broadcast Cover-Up:

Penal Code 37.09 (Tampering with Physical Evidence)
Penal Code 36.05 (Tampering with Witness)

The Federal Crimes:

18 USC Sec. 1341. - Frauds and swindles
18 USC Sec. 1342. -Fictitious name or address
18 USC Sec. 1349. - Attempt and conspiracy
18 USC Sec. 1343. - Fraud by wire, radio, or television
47 USC Sec. 508 – [Payola] Disclosure of payments connected with broadcasts
18 USC Sec. 1512. - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

CBS INTERNAL MEMOS REVEALED...Whistleblower Emerges...

I can't take it anymore. No wise-ass pop culture references in this post....just.....


CBS: Sue me for libel.

Texas Penal Code 32.21 is the Texas Forgery statute. CBS Legal reviewed the statute prior to the September 8th 60 Minutes broadcast. Two experts had already warned CBS that the memos were forgeries. CBS Legal tweaked the original broadcast, in a clumsy attempt to wipe up its felony fingerprints, by claiming "personal files." See Memo #1.

Days later, after every expert came forth and impugned CBS, in desperation CBS decided to tamper with a witness - 86 year old Marian Carr Knox - to plant into her mind some shred of a claim to a felony forgery defense. See Memo #2.

I surmise that there are two CBS Legal Memos that look something like this:


To: CBS Legal Head
From: CBS Legal Staff
RE: Bush Guard Piece and CBS's Felony Forgery Problem under Texas Law
Date: Septemer 7, 2004

Question Presented: What are CBS's Potential Defenses to Forgery under the Texas Penal Code?

Answer: CBS's lack of criminal intent is the applicable defense under the statute - it would be very difficult to establish that CBS, a bona fide news organization, had the "intent to defraud or harm another." However, criminal intent is presumed if the act involves 2 or more government documents. Accordingly, CBS' only real defenses would be constitutional or jurisdictional challenges, neither of which are strong here.

Recommendation: In order to avail itself of a "lack of intent" defense, the subject matter cannot consist of 2 or more government documents. If CBS canshow that it believed that the subject items were from "personal files," CBS likely has no exposure under the forgery statute. Accordingly, we recommend that CBS state in the publication itself that it believes the memos to be from non-governmental files. The use of that qualifier is admissable by CBS at to CBS's state of mind at the time of the publication in question.

Discussion: CBS has the following 5 potential defenses to felony forgery under Penal Code 32.21:

1. The act wasn't "forgery".
a. Act was authorized; +
b. Not backdated: +
c. Item is a true copy of an original
2. The item wasn't a "writing"
3. The person had no criminal intent. Intent is very difficult to show, unless 2 or more government documents are involved.
4. Texas law doesn't apply - Federal law preemption, or lack of contacts with Texas.
5. Constitutional defenses - 1st amendment.

[blah blah blah]

Appendix to Memo
Texas Penal Code
§ 32.21. FORGERY.
For purposes of this section:
(1) "Forge" means:
(A) to alter, make, complete, execute, or authenticate any writing so that it purports:
(i) to be the act of another who did not authorize that act;
(ii) to have been executed at a time or place or in a numbered sequence other than was in fact the case; or
(iii) to be a copy of an original when no such original existed;
(B) to issue, transfer, register the transfer of, pass, publish, or otherwise utter a writing that is forged within the meaning of Paragraph (A); or
(C) to possess a writing that is forged within the meaning of Paragraph (A) with intent to utter it in a manner specified in Paragraph (B).
"Writing" includes:
(A) printing or any other method of recording information;
(B) money, coins, tokens, stamps, seals, credit cards, badges, and trademarks; and
(C) symbols of value, right, privilege, or identification.
(b) A person commits an offense if he forges a writing with intent to defraud or harm another.
(c) Except as provided in Subsections (d) and (e) an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.
(d) An offense under this section is a state jail felony if the writing is or purports
to be a will, codicil, deed, deed of trust, mortgage, security instrument,
security agreement, credit card, check, authorization to debit an account at a
financial institution, or similar sight order for payment of money, contract,
release, or other commercial instrument.
(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if the writing is or purports to be: (1) part of an issue of money, securities, postage or revenue stamps; (2) a government record listed in Section 37.01(2)(C); or (3) other instruments issued by a state or national government or by a subdivision of either, or part of an issue of stock, bonds, or other instruments representing interests in or claims against another person.
(f) A person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more writings of the same type and if each writing is a government record listed in Section 37.01(2)(C).


To: CBS Legal Head

From: CBS Legal Staff

RE: Bush Guard Piece and CBS's Felony Forgery Problem under Texas Law

Date: Septemer 13, 2004
Question Presented: What Post-Broadcast Acts Can CBS Do To Buttress Forgery Defenses under the Texas Penal Code?

A. Procure additional admissible eyewitness support to CBS’s previous claim that the memos were not government files. Given that CBS had no backup for the claim when made, some post-broadcast support could be helpful with a jury.

B. The wording of the statute leaves some room to argue that a bad, or even faulty, copy of an original document, is not a forgery. Accordingly, CBS should procure admissible eyewitness evidence suggesting that the documents are copies of documents known to exist. In the face of the prosecutor having to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the documents are "forged," CBS would have a witness testifying that it is possible that the memos are bad copies of original material - hence, they are not "forged."

Killian secretary Marian Carr Knox, 86, stated publicly that the memos would have to have been typed by her, and they were not, so they are false. CBS might be able to use her testimony as evidence of the lack of a business record, which is admissible, to establish that these are not "government files."

In addition, Ms. Knox is likely quite impressionable, given her advanced age. CBS’s expert interviewers can plant foundational defenses into her head, off camera, and then record, edit and broadcast her repeating the defenses. This testimony will be admissible on many levels, and unimpeachible if Knox, 86, passes away before trial.

If we can flip Ms. Knox before any investigation begins, CBS will have avoided exposure to the forgery statute. But: The tampering statutes may apply to our activities.

We recommend that the existing team (Mapes and Rather) be used, so as not to widen the circle of CBS employees exposed to prosecution under the Texas witness tampering and evidence tampering statutes.

The key is to obtain from Knox admissible foundation on these four items:

Foundation 1. The general writing of memos, by Killian, on this subject, was authorized. 32.21.a1Ai

Foundation 2. It was authorized at the time. 32.21.a1Aii

Foundation 3. The memos accurately reflect existing, or once-existing, original source material. 32.21.a1Aiii

Foundation 4. The memos are not from government files, per se. 32.21.b, e and f.

Discussion: [blah blah blah]


Appendix/Update: Relevant Transcript of Interview with Knox, broadcast September 15th, set forth below.

Result: Our CBS team successfully induced Knox to lay the desired defense foundation on all four requested bulletpoints.

“…Now, she wants to set the record straight about the memos that CBS News obtained. Knox says she didn’t type these memos, [Foundation 4 achieved] but she says she did type ones that contained the same information. [Foundations 1, 2 and 3 achieved]

’I know that I didn’t type them,’ says Knox. [Foundation 1] ‘However, the information in those is correct.’ [Foundation 3]

…Did Knox ever hear Killian talk about this, or did he write memos about Bush not taking the physical? [Foundation 1]

’He was upset about it. That was one of the reasons why he wrote a memo directing him to go take the physical,’ says Knox. Knox says that Killian started what she calls a "cover-your-back" file -- a personal file where he stored the memos about the problems with Mr. Bush's performance, his failure to take a physical, and the pressure Killian felt from upstairs….“It's just like a personal journal,” says Knox. “You write things. It was more or less that.” [Foundations 1, 2, 3 and 4]

“These memos were not memos that you typed, and you don’t think they came directly out of his files,” Rather asked Knox. [Foundation 4]

“The information, yes,” [Foundation 4] saysKnox. “It seems that somebody did see those memos, and then tried to reproduce and maybe changed them enough so that he wouldn’t get in trouble over it.” [Foundation 3]


*- Hypothetical textual material, for analysis purposes only, respecting the public figures and public involved. (In other words, these are made up.) The author makes all statements herein intending them as included under the coverage of California Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 425.16 in connection with one or more official inquiries currently underway.

Monday, October 04, 2004

Nuke Silos, Hissy Fits and Dan Rather's Aspen Villa

[Update alert: See the update to The CBS Tampering Checklist]

Why shouldn't Dan Rather's multi-million fortune be at risk, for commerical fraud? The chilling effect it might have upon the free exchange of ideas and the exercise of our 1st Amendment right to speak freely?

We have no problem with the devastating effect - the chilling effect - that medical malpractice lawsuits have had upon the willingness of doctors to treat the poor.

So when did Dan achieve relative sainthood and get immunity?

Maybe if Dan's Aspen house was at risk for his routine and clumsy fraud - ask Ken Lay about that - those frauds would become rare.

Is all this just a bunch of corpolitical BS?


Two Cooks

In the nuclear missile business, two officers in a silo are needed to perform the launch sequencing. In the U.S. Congress, both houses must pass a bill. In the corporate law business, a neutral partner must perform a cold read and approval of an "opinion letter" issued by the firm. For checks over $5000, most businesses require two signatures.

My no-good, coke-addicted, thievin' cousin has a sensible wife, who makes sure that he can only spend $25 a day without her PIN or co-signature.


The "dual control" aspects of our lives, from annihilation to paying a bill, are ingrained. We trust it, somewhat.

Enter the Corpolitical MSM

MSM reporters still project the fiction that they "fact check." They want you to think of an objective cold reader vetting an article or a story. They want you to think that there is adult supervision.

It ain't so. Over the past few decades, the process morphed. The old act of reviewing a piece has now become the act of making a few little changes to the piece, to insert technical libel defenses. The process now involves lawyers, not journalists.

Any challenge to the central thesis of a piece is no longer fair game. The "fact checking" question is no longer, "Did X do Y, and does this piece accurately reflect reality?" Instead, it is: "Is there any way we can get sued when we run this?" Followed by, "If so, insert some defenses that will keep the case away from a jury." And the lawyers do.

But it's done under the cynical claim that the MSM is still "fact checking." Invoking that mental image.

Dan Rather's MemoGate laid it bare. It could not have been scripted any better. It's broken, folks. Broken.

The tabloids have set the bar in this area of the law. Simply put, if you cannot prove that the publisher acted with actual malice, there is no case against the publisher.

The MSM has picked up on that. It's called, immunity. Immunity is like a monopoly. Money seeks monopolies. Power seeks immunity. Join the two, and it's a real party.

Add in reporter's shield laws (preventing you from learning that the journalist's source might be made up, or worse) and an alliance between legal advocacy groups and politicians and journalists of a kindred spirit, and you really get clean laundry. Several new immunities get created: Litigation privilege, where things said in a lawsuit pleading are privileged; legislative privilege, where things said in a legislature are privileged; reporter's shield laws, where a journalist cannot be compelled to reveal a source; and of course, the bona fides of the 1st Amendment.

Tragedy of the Commons

This piling-on of immunity has destroyed the balance of things. None of us voted on this immunity and benefits package. It got assembled in the backroom.

We have created an effete class of thugs who have virtual immunity from the community at large. And powerful interests have taken note, and formed corpolitical mafia-like machines to exploit the new immunities. For money - their own. For power - their own.

What if...?

Juxtapose for a moment....

What if your doctor was safe from any lawsuit, unless you could prove that s/he plotted to destroy your life, by mixing up the blood type or amputating the wrong arm, on purpose?

What if your lawyer was safe from any malpractice lawsuit, unless you could prove that he set out with the purpose of ruining you financially, because you married the girl he secretly wanted?

That's the legal standard for journalism malpractice.

Well,the 1st Amendment isn't going anywhere. Nor is the Supreme Court likely to redraw Sullivan and its progeny. So ranting about the evils of the press, is just a rant.

The morphing of the Main Stream Media into Attack Media - granted, it's tabloid ratings related -- will be corrected only by front line responsibilty placed upon the live people involved. Yes, by firing editors. By firing reporters. By firing producers. By making every hit piece by the MSM into a career decision by the people involved. By making the immediate, revolving door rehiring of offender akin to tossing your new Lexus keys to a meth addict -- something that just isn't done.

The out-of-control end-of-century fraud in our securities markets was partly remedied by Sarbanes-Oxley (which removed the hidden technicalities of the corporate shield protecting top corporate executives who filed cooked financials). Actual people were made responsible. No more hiding behind Adelphia-style decision-making. If you are a top exec of a company that filed cooked books, you are presumed to be attendant to the details.

Because if not you...who?

Every penny you have is at risk. Funny thing happens when actual people are made responsible. They get their house in order.

The MSM needs to have a new code. With consequences for violations. The code cannot be imposed by the government - it isn't gonna happen.

Lawyers, acting through bar associations, disbar their own members. Doctors do a similar thing. The movie studio trade group tells you when a film is too dirty for kids.

A Journalists Guild would be a good place to start cleaning up the mess. First, by cleaning up the vetting process. With MSM newspapers and TV stations asked to join.. and to draft their own set of practices. With sanctions. With mandatory blacklist periods for violations.

Watch a Journalist Throw a Snarky Hissy Fit

Wanna witness a true spectacle? Take a journalist friend for a drink, and watch them foam over the thought of their imaginary Guild requiring every story to bear the certification, below. Wear a spittle mask:

The undersigned editor (“Editor”) of ____ (the "Publication") hereby certifies that:

1. Editor and Publication are members of [Editors Guild] and operate in accordance with the [Editor’s Guild Rules of Practice] (the “Standards”) .
2. Editor has taken personal responsibility for the preparation and vetting of the piece entitled _____ (the “Piece”).
3. Editor has directly reviewed the facts and sources used in the Piece, in accordance with the Standards.
4. To the best of Editor’s knowledge, the sources and facts cited in, and relied upon in preparing, the Piece, are reliable.
5. To the best of Editor’s knowledge, none of the sources or facts are used in the Piece in a manner which materially misstates or misrepresents such facts or sources.

6. To the best of Editor’s knowledge, no sources and facts have been intentionally excluded from the Piece for the purpose of materially misrepresenting the veracity of facts or sources used in the Piece.

After 2 hours of Rather-like foaming about the Free Press and Paul Revere, etc., you'll be told - as if you're being let in on a secret that only those in the brotherhood know - that it "just isn't workable."

And then think of lawyers, imposing fees and disbarment upon themselves.

Doable? You bet.

Wise? Let's have a full debate.

Stupid Girls. Can't Believe You Faked It

The Dallas Observer ran a hard diligence piece a few days ago on General Hodges and CBS News' fakery. Hodges is one of the guys who CBS News faked as an authenticator of the forged Killian memos.

Mark Stuertz, the author of the Observer article, apparently got a hold of disgraced ex-journalist Mary Mapes after failing to get CBS News to call back:

"Mapes declined to discuss Hodges' charges. 'I can't, I just can't,' she says. But she did forward [the now discredited] study by Utah State University Associate Professor David Hailey disputing the contention that the memos were created on a word processor using digital type rather than a '70s-era typewriter--the key challenge to their authenticity. 'I really believe they are not digitally produced,' Hailey says. 'I'm not saying that they're authentic. I'm saying they were probably typewritten. That doesn't make them authentic. But it does take CBS off the hook a little bit.' "

David Hailey, now part of the CBS Felony Abatement Team?

David and Mary, faking documents is a crime. Stupid, stupid girls.

You stupid girl
You stupid girl
Can't believe you fake it
Can't believe you fake it