Does Dan Rather have a Legal Leg to Stand On?

[101Scout]

Lets take a very quick look at this. Dan Rather presented a story about Bush's missing military service of which was later accused of being not authentic. Rather was basically blacklisted at CBS for which he exited his career at CBS over. With Rather's $70 mil lawsuit now filed, does he have a legal leg to stand on?

Remember, Rather came on air immediately after the righties cried bad wolf, and apologized for not having authenticating the disputed information in his piece. My point is, that information wasn't proven wrong either, if my memory serves me correct. It just wasn't authenticated for which Rather publically admitted to and apologized for. Does that not count in the broadcasting community as being justified at that point?


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Rather's suit singles out CBS executives

By Matea Gold, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
September 20, 2007

NEW YORK -- -- Veteran CBS anchor Dan Rather filed a $70-million lawsuit Wednesday against his former employer of 44 years, alleging that executives at the network damaged his reputation and broke the terms of his contract by sidelining him during his final months at CBS News and then forcing him out.

The lawsuit, filed in New York state Supreme Court, comes as a startling postscript to the saga that enveloped the news division three years ago, when a furor erupted over a piece Rather did for the weekday edition of "60 Minutes" alleging that President Bush received preferential treatment during his Vietnam War-era stint in the Texas Air National Guard.

An independent panel concluded that documents cited in the story could not be authenticated.

[Crazy Guggenheim]

I stand with Dan! The secretary who saw the papers said the contents of them were correct.

[101Scout]

I stand with Dan! The secretary who saw the papers said the contents of them were correct.

I stood behind Rather also during that Republican Roast on his ass. If Rather wins this case in the future, it's too bad he can't fire one up the Republican's ass also since the Senate has gotten into the business of going after independent organizations such as MoveOn. If not for the Repukes concerning that report, CBS would have left Rather alone to his work.

[101Scout]

The anchor's suit, first reported on the New York Times' website, claims that CBS Corp. and its former parent company, Viacom, broke Rather's contract, committed fraud, tarnished his reputation and restricted his ability to seek work, all in an effort to contain the political fallout over the National Guard story.

The complaint singles out as defendants CBS Chief Executive Leslie Moonves, Viacom Chairman Sumner Redstone and former CBS News President Andrew Heyward.

In Rather's suit, he claims 'fraud' was committed as well. Can anyone explain what fraud was committed by the CBS Corp?

[Crazy Guggenheim]

In Rather's suit, he claims 'fraud' was committed as well. Can anyone explain what fraud was committed by the CBS Corp?

Scout, PM Strangelove! :clapping:

[101Scout]

I found this Palast article extremely interesting. He reams Rather like a high powered lath. He's pissed as hell at Rather for NOT sticking to his guns on the original story that he reported. To Palast, Rather caved and the rats who he caved to bit him in the ass.

What Palast continues to tell in his article is how the BBC reported the real true grit story about Bush's gravy military duty that was family privilaged. How Bush was, in fact, given the breaks to make the grade and avoid Nam. I want Palast to bring this out more! He doesn't like Rather firing a lawsuit now against CBS, but come on Palast, get your act together and help nail these govt suck asses who runs the media and gets eporters fired when they get too close to the truth!!

I'd say if Palast would get behind Rather with what he knows, that Rahter would have a legal leg to stand on. I don't think Palast wants to help Rather out at this point.



[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Sept 24, 2007

The Story Still Not Reported

By contrast, BBC never backed down from the story of the fix that got Little George out of ‘Nam. We had a smoking hot document [view it here] and an interview with the crucial source: the man who confessed to making the call for Bush to the head of the Air Guard.

No, I won’t give you his name. I don’t expose sources - unlike Dan and CBS. That’s another thing that makes me just FURIOUS. Rather revealed, then blamed, a source, retired Air Guard officer Lt. Col. Bill Burkett. Burkett, an Abilene rancher, is a courageous, stand-up guy. [See The Real Lt. Col. Burkett]. But after standing up with Dan, he was ruined, ostracized from the cattle business. No one would sell him feed. Dan got a multi-million dollar kiss-off from Viacom. Burkett got dead cows and bankruptcy.

And there’s more. More that Dan didn’t report. As I said, Dan picked up an old story, one that I reported, as did others, in 1999. But we added our discovery of a confidential document which had walked its way out of the files of the US Department of Justice. It was a whistleblower statement that explained why the Lt. Governor of Texas, Ben Barnes, who arranged for George W. to get into the Air Guard, kept silent about it for 35 years. It states that, in 1997, Governor George W. Bush overruled his state’s Lottery director and gave a billion-dollar contract to a company tied to Barnes. Barnes received a cool fee of $23 million from the contractor.




But what about all those other preening birds on the chicken ranch known as US television news? Rather tells us he wasn’t alone in failing to ask tough questions. Not one damn US reporter asked Bush at a press conference, “Yes or no, Mr. President: Did your daddy call Ben Barnes to get you out of the war in Vietnam?”

[For the record, BBC did ask for the President’s denial or admission. We got none. And when Dan’s CBS boss, Leslie Moonves, said Dan’s story, “ignored information that cast doubt” on the revelation that Bush Sr. put in the fix to get his son into the Air Guard, I asked Moonves to provide that information. In fact, I offered him $100,000 for his info which would have shown Dan’s story false. He never produced it.

[101Scout]

This article is inspirational. I hope to hell that Blumenthal's viewpoints come true and this thing is on the money.... or on the exposure. Hang in the Dan Rather and make this go as far as it can to expose the govt influence in our news media.

Hmmmm, could Blumenthal be a witness as well for Rather in his 'trail'?


[Only registered and activated users can see links]

Dan Rather, CBS, and George W Bush
Sidney Blumenthal

A famous broadcast journalist is preparing to expose his former employer's cravenness and self-censorship over the United States president's Vietnam-war record, reports Sidney Blumenthal.

3 - 10 - 2007


Dan Rather's complaint against CBS and Viacom, its parent company, filed in New York state court on 19 September 2007 and seeking $70 million in damages for his wrongful dismissal as CBS Evening News anchor, has aroused hoots of derision from a host of commentators. They've said that the former anchor is "sad", "pathetic", "a loser", on an "ego" trip and engaged in a mad gesture "no sane person" would do, and that "no one in his right mind would keep insisting that those phony documents are real and that the Bush National Guard story is true."

If the court accepts his suit, however, launching the adjudication of legal issues such as breach of fiduciary duty and tortious interference with contract, it will set in motion an inexorable mechanism that will grind out answers to other questions as well. Then Rather's suit will become an extraordinary commission of inquiry into a major news organisation's intimidation, complicity and corruption under the Bush administration. No congressional committee would be able to penetrate into the sanctum of any news organisation to divulge its inner workings. But intent on vindicating his reputation, capable of financing an expensive legal challenge, and armed with the power of subpoena, Rather will charge his attorneys to interrogate news executives and perhaps administration officials under oath on a secret and sordid chapter of the Bush presidency.

In making his case, Rather will certainly establish beyond reasonable doubt that George W Bush never completed his required service in the Texas Air National Guard. Moreover, Rather's suit will seek to demonstrate that the documents used in his 60 Minutes II piece were not inauthentic and that he and his producers acted responsibly in presenting them and the information they contained - and that that information is true. Indeed, no credible source has refuted the essential facts of the story.