Peter Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 60 Minutes II Interview with Marian Knox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 When a fraudulent form is used to demonstrate a substance, the fraudulent form becomes the substance. Gee, imagine Dan Rather doing what journalists are supposed to do, and feature Marian Knox in the initial report, and not bringing up the memos at all. The substance of the debate is not whether Bush disobeyed orders over 30 years ago, and was treated favorable due to his lineage, but whether a high ranking news official used his bulpit of millions of viewers to influence opinion before an election by using fraudulent documents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 16, 2004 Author Share Posted September 16, 2004 When a fraudulent form is used to demonstrate a substance, the fraudulent form becomes the substance. Gee, imagine Dan Rather doing what journalists are supposed to do, and feature Marian Knox in the initial report, and not bringing up the memos at all. The substance of the debate is not whether Bush disobeyed orders over 30 years ago, and was treated favorable due to his lineage, but whether a high ranking news official used his bulpit of millions of viewers to influence opinion before an election by using fraudulent documents. 33554[/snapback] I didn't realize that Dan Rather was running for President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I didn't realize that Dan Rather was running for President. 33558[/snapback] That post says pretty much everything that needs said about you, Pete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I didn't realize that Dan Rather was running for President. 33558[/snapback] Apt retort, that also demonstrates your reading comprehension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 That post says pretty much everything that needs said about you, Pete. 33572[/snapback] Thats ok he probably doesn't know Carville is working for Kerry either.... All he knows is Bush bad... Kerry Good.. and today's koolaid is cherry.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 16, 2004 Author Share Posted September 16, 2004 That post says pretty much everything that needs said about you, Pete. 33572[/snapback] Hey, Mr. BIG PICTURE, your reply says all one needs to know about you. I was under the impression that we had an election for President. The underlying issue relates to GWB. You guys choose to ignore it and/or defend. Instead, you guys are focusing in on these documents -- which may be fabricated -- but we now know that the substance of them was accurate. If the documents are false and Dan Rather knew that, he should pay. Yet, even Bill O'Reilly says that he does not think that Dan Rather knowingly used fabricated documents. More importantly, as Marian Knox says, GWB was not the citizen soldier that he would have us believe. So there you go Mr. BIG PICTURE. To me, the election is much more important than Dan Rather. Unfortunately for me, I am not a big fan of either candidate. As a Republican, if GWB had kept his eye on the ball rather than get distracted with Iraq, I would be supporting him with both my money and my vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 16, 2004 Author Share Posted September 16, 2004 Thats ok he probably doesn't know Carville is working for Kerry either.... All he knows is Bush bad... Kerry Good.. and today's koolaid is cherry.. 33591[/snapback] That knee jerk argument does not work with me. I am a Reagan Republican who has trouble with GWB because of Iraq. I am not a big fan of Kerry. As a result, I feel a bit like Pat Buchanan in the sense that I believe the "right" went "wrong." Save the knee jerk arguments for someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Instead, you guys are focusing in on these documents -- which may be fabricated -- but we now know that the substance of them was accurate. 33659[/snapback] From who? Marion Knox? The 86 year old woman who admits to being a Bush-hater? Yeah, her testimony would hold up in court. I wonder if she has such crystal clear recollections about all the national guard members from the 70's. It's like asking Shaq to testify about Kobe, about 40 years from now. Of course her opinions carry more weight than those of Killian's son and wife. Duh. What a load of garbage. If you don't see the many things wrong with what Dan Rather did (and continues doing), you are hopeless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 16, 2004 Author Share Posted September 16, 2004 From who? Marion Knox? The 86 year old woman who admits to being a Bush-hater? Yeah, her testimony would hold up in court. I wonder if she has such crystal clear recollections about all the national guard members from the 70's. It's like asking Shaq to testify about Kobe, about 40 years from now. Of course her opinions carry more weight than those of Killian's son and wife. Duh. What a load of garbage. If you don't see the many things wrong with what Dan Rather did (and continues doing), you are hopeless. 33675[/snapback] Actually, her testimony would hold up in Court. Again, Dan Rather should pay "Big Time" (to quote Cheney from a few years back) if he knowingly used fabricated documents. Yet, it appears that the substance is accurate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Yet, it appears that the substance is accurate. 33693[/snapback] Of course, the importance of that statement depends on what you want to argue about. If you want to argue about Bush's NG record...then the content is probably accurate, yes. Big surprise...anyone here who didn't know Bush was a piss-poor Guardsman before this story broke, please speak up. If you want to argue about Dan Rather's and CBS's journalistic integrity...it doesn't make a damn bit of difference whether the content is accurate or not if the source documents are forged. If they're forged, the simple fact is that Dan Rather took an editorial opinion, added fabricated sources, and pretended it was a hard news story. That's a HUGE no-no, regardless of the "content" of the fabricated source. And at this point, even if the documents turn out to be real, it's pretty clear that Rather's and CBS's process for verifying the documents, and hence their integrity, has some very fundamental flaws in it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paco Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 My second year in college I got to be editor of our college newspaper. Early in the year there was rumor about some group trying to get the campus pub shut down and turned into a deli or something. We got the tip from a reliable source. I interviewed about 10 people who could have been involved, and all 10 said the same thing: no one is trying to close down the pub. Someone had an idea, but the idea was squashed, so it's a dead issue. Like a moron, what did I do? Run a front page story: "Future of Pub Questioned" That week in my journalism class, the professor took the time to use the article as an example of crappy journalism. "Everyone said there was no issue, right?" he said. "But the paper continued to run a headline that says the opposite of what everyone else is saying. The headline should have read "Pub Rumor False" and the story should have been buried inside the paper." He was right. I was wrong. It was irresponsible. Funny how I learned that at age 19 in college, and CBS still hasn't figured it out. They ran a non-story. Shame on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Actually, her testimony would hold up in Court. Heresay evidence holding up in court? Did she have personal knowledge of things (if so she should name names).... or does she think he got favors? All I heard from her last night were personal opinions (from a person who admits to being anti-Bush)...not facts that could be substantiaited.. give me a break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 16, 2004 Author Share Posted September 16, 2004 Heresay evidence holding up in court? Did she have personal knowledge of things (if so she should name names).... or does she think he got favors? All I heard from her last night were personal opinions (from a person who admits to being anti-Bush)...not facts that could be substantiaited.. give me a break. 34016[/snapback] I love the amateur lawyers. First, she specifically stated that GWB disobeyed an order. That is direct evidence. It is not hearsay. As for the rest, since you seem to think that you are a lawyer, you may want to take a look at Rules 602, 701,801, 803, 804, and 806 of the Evidence Code by way of example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Heresay evidence holding up in court? Did she have personal knowledge of things (if so she should name names).... or does she think he got favors? All I heard from her last night were personal opinions (from a person who admits to being anti-Bush)...not facts that could be substantiaited.. give me a break. 34016[/snapback] What happened last night was an interview, not testimony. Whether or not the information she has to offer would be allowed in court depends on too many variables to bother going in to. Depending on precisely what she says and the purpose for which it is being offered it may or may not be hearsay evidence. The inquiry wouldn't even end there. The hearsay rule has many, many exceptions and the the testimony might, again depending on a lot of variables, qualify under one of those exceptions. The question is not whether the information would "hold up" in court, the question is whether, if admitted into evidence, would a jury believe her or not? Nobody knows the answer to that, we can only speculate and give our own opinions. You clearly are not going to believe this woman no matter what she has to say and others are going to believe her no matter what doubts are cast on her story. There are probably some people in the middle who could actually be objective about this but they aren't likely to be found posting here. This is why we have jury selection, even those who claim to be entirely unbiased are likely to be biased as hell. Of course, thats a biased opinion on my part... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmac17 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 First, she specifically stated that GWB disobeyed an order. That is direct evidence. It is not hearsay. First, I'm not a lawyer (though I played one on TV) but how does she know he disobeyed an order? Because someone else told her, right? Though I guess if she typed up documents to that effect it would count.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBorn1960 Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 You clearly are not going to believe this woman no matter what she has to say and others are going to believe her no matter what doubts are cast on her story. There are probably some people in the middle who could actually be objective about this but they aren't likely to be found posting here. This is why we have jury selection, even those who claim to be entirely unbiased are likely to be biased as hell. Of course, thats a biased opinion on my part... 34093[/snapback] No.... I believed her when she said the documents were fake! I believe when she said GWB was a very polite gentleman and must have had good parents.. I also believe that her current opinion is low of GWB and that she feels he might have done less than she expected. I also believe that she has a right to her opinion... doesn't make her opinion right or factual.. I am quite sure she does not have all the facts and what she has to say is speculation. I would also like to hear the opinions of the wife and son to be fair... they might have a better perscpective on how their dead husband and father felt... I also doubt Rather has the balls to do this as it would be counterproductive to his pewrsonal campaign against the Bush family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 Hey, Mr. BIG PICTURE, your reply says all one needs to know about you. I was under the impression that we had an election for President. The underlying issue relates to GWB. You guys choose to ignore it and/or defend. Instead, you guys are focusing in on these documents -- which may be fabricated -- but we now know that the substance of them was accurate. If the documents are false and Dan Rather knew that, he should pay. Yet, even Bill O'Reilly says that he does not think that Dan Rather knowingly used fabricated documents. More importantly, as Marian Knox says, GWB was not the citizen soldier that he would have us believe. So there you go Mr. BIG PICTURE. To me, the election is much more important than Dan Rather. Unfortunately for me, I am not a big fan of either candidate. As a Republican, if GWB had kept his eye on the ball rather than get distracted with Iraq, I would be supporting him with both my money and my vote. 33659[/snapback] So when Dan Rather steps all over his dick and then parades an 86 year old woman out who can't even wait for the question before saying "however, the contents of the letter are accurate," you are right there believing it - simply because it fits your current political mindset. I'm sorry I have a hard time believing an 86 year old woman can remember ANY person she didn't have much contact with 30 years ago, much less specific details. I'd be shocked if she could remember what she had for dinner last Thursday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted September 16, 2004 Author Share Posted September 16, 2004 So when Dan Rather steps all over his dick and then parades an 86 year old woman out who can't even wait for the question before saying "however, the contents of the letter are accurate," you are right there believing it - simply because it fits your current political mindset. I'm sorry I have a hard time believing an 86 year old woman can remember ANY person she didn't have much contact with 30 years ago, much less specific details. I'd be shocked if she could remember what she had for dinner last Thursday. 34241[/snapback] I bet you believed her when she said that the documents were fake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted September 16, 2004 Share Posted September 16, 2004 I bet you believed her when she said that the documents were fake. 34267[/snapback] The memoes being fake has nothing to do with this woman's 30+ year old memories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts