Does Anyone Still Believe The CBS Memos Are Genuine?

[Donger]

If so, please take a peek...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/graphics/cbsdocs_091804.html

I'm Rather sure an apology is forthcoming.

[trndobrd]

I'd never really looked at the "memo's". The Fighter Squadron had their mail delivered to a PO box? WTF? That wasn't even a 'good' fake.

[Donger]

I'd never really looked at the "memo's". The Fighter Squadron had their mail delivered to a PO box? WTF? That wasn't even a 'good' fake.

Actually, I think the P.O. Box 34567 was real. It's also listed as a valid address in some of the documents provided by the WH.

[trndobrd]

Actually, I think the P.O. Box 34567 was real. It's also listed as a valid address in some of the documents provided by the WH.


I'm sure it is a real PO box...just that military headers usually list the Department of the Army, Airforce or Navy or something of that nature. Then the military installation, then the mailing address.

That looks like the mailing address for a televangelist or mail order adult video club.

[Donger]

I'm sure it is a real PO box...just that military headers usually list the Department of the Army, Airforce or Navy or something of that nature. Then the military installation, then the mailing address.

That looks like the mailing address for a televangelist or mail order adult video club.

I'm trying to figure out a way to insert a "Why are you questioning John Kerry's patriotism?" here, but I'm at a loss...

[trndobrd]

I'm trying to figure out a way to insert a "Why are you questioning John Kerry's patriotism?" here, but I'm at a loss...


Maybe this will help.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132820,00.html

[RINGLEADER]

Drudge is reporting that Rather is going to broadcast an interview with Bill Burkett, the guy that the Boston Globe discredited in February who is supposedly the source of the documents.

I'm waiting for the "replica" defense (or as the New York Times called it, the "Accurate but Fake" defense).

I've got a feeling Burkett is going to come clean that he created them from documents he saw. It seems so important to Rather that they be able to get some mileage out of this story (while ignoring the polls that show no one to the right of Michael Moore could give a rat's azz whether they're true or not).

[BigOlChiefsfan]

Turning bright lights on this one shows some interesting little cucurachas scurrying under the 'fridge.

Viacom’s Redstone dumps stock during Rathergate (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3857)

Unless someone has hacked the Security and Exchange Commission’s website, it would appear that Viacom’s Chairman and CEO Sumner Redstone chose to sell almost $12 million worth of stock in the midst of the Rathergate scandal roiling its wholly-owned subsidiary, CBS. A copy of the SEC’s Form 4 “Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership” posted on their website indicates that the billionaire exercised 341,500 options, and sold the stock on the same day, September 14, 2004.

As the worlds of journalism and politics buzzed with speculation over the depth of trouble CBS and Viacom faced, the boss of bosses sold stock.

When insiders sell stock during a corporate crisis, it always raises eyebrows. If the insiders are acting on knowledge unavailable to the public, they could face severe penalties, as Martha Stewart has so recently discovered.

One legitimate excuse for the sale would be if Redstone’s options were expiring on that day. He could then readily maintain that he was not reacting to inside information. But his options don’t expire until 2007. He is still holding options for another 658,500 shares, expiring the same day, August 1, 2007.

Of course, Redstone still holds indirectly, via a company he controls, and via stock options, about 105 million other shares in Viacom. So he has not liquidated more than a tiny fraction of his total holding in Viacom.

It is frankly mind-boggling to contemplate that Redstone would take such a step. There must be some compelling reason for him to have exercised the options and sold the shares, a reason which would immediately cause the SEC to accept it as valid. But we don’t know what it is.

Absent such a compelling reason, the SEC is known to look very, very closely at insider sales of stock during a time of corporate crisis. A man of Redstone's wealth does not need to bring such trouble down on his head. But neither did Martha Stewart, of course.

At the end of trading Friday, Viacom stock closed at $34.73. By selling at $35, Redstone made an extra $92,205 on his shares, compared to what they were worth at the end of the week. His profit on the deal totaled $6,744,625 before brokerage fees.

[patteeu]

Turning bright lights on this one shows some interesting little cucurachas scurrying under the 'fridge.

Viacom’s Redstone dumps stock during Rathergate (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=3857)

Unless someone has hacked the Security and Exchange Commission’s website, it would appear that Viacom’s Chairman and CEO Sumner Redstone chose to sell almost $12 million worth of stock in the midst of the Rathergate scandal roiling its wholly-owned subsidiary, CBS. A copy of the SEC’s Form 4 “Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership” posted on their website indicates that the billionaire exercised 341,500 options, and sold the stock on the same day, September 14, 2004.

As the worlds of journalism and politics buzzed with speculation over the depth of trouble CBS and Viacom faced, the boss of bosses sold stock.

When insiders sell stock during a corporate crisis, it always raises eyebrows. If the insiders are acting on knowledge unavailable to the public, they could face severe penalties, as Martha Stewart has so recently discovered.

One legitimate excuse for the sale would be if Redstone’s options were expiring on that day. He could then readily maintain that he was not reacting to inside information. But his options don’t expire until 2007. He is still holding options for another 658,500 shares, expiring the same day, August 1, 2007.

Of course, Redstone still holds indirectly, via a company he controls, and via stock options, about 105 million other shares in Viacom. So he has not liquidated more than a tiny fraction of his total holding in Viacom.

It is frankly mind-boggling to contemplate that Redstone would take such a step. There must be some compelling reason for him to have exercised the options and sold the shares, a reason which would immediately cause the SEC to accept it as valid. But we don’t know what it is.

Absent such a compelling reason, the SEC is known to look very, very closely at insider sales of stock during a time of corporate crisis. A man of Redstone's wealth does not need to bring such trouble down on his head. But neither did Martha Stewart, of course.

At the end of trading Friday, Viacom stock closed at $34.73. By selling at $35, Redstone made an extra $92,205 on his shares, compared to what they were worth at the end of the week. His profit on the deal totaled $6,744,625 before brokerage fees.

I've got a problem with this article. Martha Stewart wasn't an insider in the company whose stock she sold as I think the article implies. The penalties she faced were for lying to investigators not for selling stock.

Other than that, the story is interesting, but not a reason to jump to conclusions about Redstone's sale IMO. Not that anyone is doing so (including the author of the article).

[homey]

We don't need these documents to know that Bush dodged the war

[Duck Dog]

We don't need these documents to know that Bush dodged the war


Really? What proof do you have?

[homey]

The fact that no one knows where he was for a year.

[Donger]

The fact that no one knows where he was for a year.

Dan? Is that you?

[Duck Dog]

The fact that no one knows where he was for a year.


Yes we do. Where have you been?

Non the less, I suppose the draft dodging subject didn't keep you from voting for Clinton, eh?

[patteeu]

We don't need these documents to know that Bush dodged the war

You need the documents to be either genuine or convincing forgeries to keep Dan Rather and Mary Mapes from looking like an extension of the DNC dirty tricks department. Unfortunately for you, Dan, and Mary, they aren't.

[Cochise]

The fact that no one knows where he was for a year.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're an idiot.

[KCWolfman]

We don't need these documents to know that Bush dodged the war
Ahh, the Machiavellian response.

Then why forge them and why have the left place them on display?

You realize not only are you denouncing Bush, but you are denouncing your own party for being stupid enough to create documents illegally that were not necessary?


Oh, and I believe jAZ probably still believes they are real - at least until he crawls out from under the bed covered in dust bunnies and gets some therapy for the last 2 weeks.

[KCWolfman]

The fact that no one knows where he was for a year.
Maybe he was in Cambodia? Or was that Laos? Perhaps it was Vietnam in the Spring and Kamchatka in the Fall?

[homey]

The simple fact that you assume that someone that is anti-bush is a Democrat says a lot and affirms stereotypes. A true Republican doesn’t support a neo-conservative agenda. The reason people are following this man? Might I quote Julius Caeser?

"Beware the leader who bangs the drum of war in order to whip the citizens into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.

And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch, and the blood boils with hate, and the mind closes, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizens. Rather, the citizens infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader and gladly so.

How do I know? For this is what I have done, and I am Caesar."

Caius Julius Caesar (100-44 BCE)
Roman General and Statesman





Maybe he was in Cambodia? Or was that Laos? Perhaps it was Vietnam in the Spring and Kamchatka in the Fall?

No, it definitely wasn't anywhere overseas where he might get hurt.

[Cochise]

I think a better quote from Caesar would be, in describing you, "Men willingly believe what they wish." In spite of the evidence, that is.

[KCWolfman]

The simple fact that you assume that someone that is anti-bush is a Democrat says a lot and affirms stereotypes. A true Republican doesn’t support a neo-conservative agenda.

Okay, for clarification: Stop stereotyping those who don't vote for Bush as non-Republicans, oh, and those that are voting for Bush are stereotypical neo-conservative Republicans.


Irony, your table is prepared.