Allah - Oy.
<font size=4>Another bombshell, this one from the New York Sun.
<font color=green>
Bill Burkett, the man identified yesterday by CBS as the source of the controversial documents used in its September 8 "60 Minutes II" report questioning President Bush's Air National Guard service, plans to sue the network, according to Mr. Burkett's former lawyer, David Van Os. . . .
Mr.Van Os, the lawyer, said in a telephone interview with The New York Sun that his former client had <font color=blue>"several meetings with lawyers to determine the best course of action."<font color=green> He said the planned lawsuit would center on what he termed <font color=blue>"defamation of character and libel."<font color=green> Mr. Van Os declined to name the attorneys Mr. Burkett consulted with, nor would he discuss why he is no longer representing Mr. Burkett. . . .
Mr. Burkett <font color=blue>"told me everything about the process"<font color=green> of his dealings with CBS and how he came into possession of the documents at the heart of the controversy, the lawyer said.
<font color=black>
Before we proceed, bear in mind that Van Os has a duty of confidentiality with respect to any information given to him by Burkett during the course of his representation -- even though he isn't representing Burkett anymore. The fact that Van Os could talk to the Sun means Burkett must have released him from that duty, which, as we'll see, was not such a bright move.
<font color=green>
It was Mr. Burkett who was misled, according to Mr. Van Os. The lawyer said the CBS News producer, Mary Mapes, promised to protect Mr. Burkett with complete anonymity and CBS was to <font color=blue>"expend both time and money authenticating"<font color=green> the memos.
<font color=blue>
"Bill Burkett went with CBS News on this over ABC News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post because they promised to work the hardest to protect him and authenticate the documents,"<font color=green> Mr. Van Os told the Sun. <font color=blue>"Bill leveled with [CBS] about his doubts over the papers, and they promised him they would take their time. They spent all of three days, maybe less, on authentication."
<font color=black>
I know what you're thinking: "Burkett shopped the documents." Not so, according to Van Os. Let's keep going.
<font color=green>
Mr. Van Os described Mr. Burkett as a struggling rancher — and frequent Bush administration critic — who received a phone call one night in late February, after an appearance on the MSNBC show "Hardball" in which he was critical of Bush administration policies. The caller asked Mr. Burkett to go to Houston to view <font color=blue>"some important paperwork"<font color=green> detailing Mr. Bush's record of service in the National Guard. Mr. Burkett told the caller, whom Mr. Van Os identified only as <font color=blue>"a Texas man with Air National Guard experience,"<font color=green> that he would not go to Houston for that but would be in the city March 4 for the Simmental cattle show, said Mr. Van Os.
<font color=black>
Major contradiction #1: Burkett told USA Today it was Lucy Ramirez, not a <font color=blue>"man with ANG experience"<font color=black>, who called him after the Hardball show. Was Burkett lying to his own lawyer? Or did he lie to USA Today? Or both? Imagine what the CBS legal department will do with this when Burkett gets on the stand at the libel trial. Back to the article, though.
<font color=green>
In late May, however, Mr. Burkett began getting calls inquiring about the memos from <font color=blue>"national newspapers and TV,"<font color=green> said Mr. Van Os. The lawyer said Mr. Burkett told the reporters that he declined to comment or said he knew nothing about the documents.
One organization was more persistent than the rest, said Mr. Van Os. <font color=blue>"CBS News called the most and promised the most [to Mr. Burkett],"<font color=green> Mr. Van Os said. <font color=blue>"They said they'd been working on this story for five years and had other corroborating evidence [to support the memos]."<font color=green> Mr. Van Os said his former client was repeatedly told that all they needed was the documents and promised that Mr. Burkett would have nothing to do with the story.
"Late May", <font color=black>huh? If Van Os is telling the truth, then this story was "active" a lot earlier than mid-August. And note who approached whom. According to Van Os, it wasn't Burkett shopping the documents; on the contrary, news organizations were calling him seemingly out of the blue. The obvious question, then: Who told them he had the memos? Who was in a position to know? Or is Van Os simply lying here to take the heat off his buddy and shift the blame to CBS?
On we go.
<font color=green>
On September 2, Mr. Van Os said, Mr. Burkett gave producers from CBS copies of the documents he had received in Houston, keeping the originals. He said Mr. Burkett received assurances that CBS would immediately begin an extensive authentication process.
<font color=black>
Major contradiction #2: Burkett told USA Today he destroyed the originals on his way home in March after receiving them in Houston. Stopped off at a Kinko's in Waco and burned them in the parking lot, he did. So what's Van Os talking about re: <font color=blue>"keeping the originals"<font color=black> on September 2nd? Does he mean the original photocopies? If so, why wouldn't Burkett have given those to CBS? He said he destroyed the original memos because he was worried about forensic evidence from Lucy Ramirez being left on the docs, but there would have been no such problem with the original photocopies.
How do you think Burkett's going to do in that libel suit, hm? I'm thinking CBS probably isn't too worried.
Other highlights from the Sun article: Van Os is quoted as saying it was CBS's producers, not Burkett, who faxed the documents from the Kinko's in Abilene on September 2nd, and he insists that the Kerry campaign never responded to Burkett's offers by e-mail to discuss Bush's ANG service with them. Heh. They didn't have to: Cleland, Lockhart, and Howard Dean were already talking to him on the phone.
So, that's the latest bombshell. All I can say is, I hope Burkett is reading Roger L. Simon. At this point, no one but the best will do.
In other news, Dan Rather still thinks the documents are real.
UPDATE: Reader Stan B. e-mails with an excellent point about why CBS might indeed be worried about a lawsuit: <font color=purple>"Regardless of the slim odds they would have to pay anything, they would be subject to subpoena and doc production requests. Stonewalling a court is a little different from stonewalling the public." |
