"Lockhart, the second Kerry ally to confirm contact with retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, said he made the call at the suggestion of CBS producer Mary Mapes."

- Methinks they're setting her up to be the fall guy...

WHERE IS THE CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION?
THAT IS THE QUESTION RIGHT NOW!!!!

I'm just a patsy.

Maybe someone at Kerry/DNC read John Ellis's "dear mary" post where he reminds her that CBS (at least) has a record of all her emails, phone calls, and cell phone calls. If I were Mary, I'd stay away from Starbucks.

http://johnellis.blogspot.com/2004_09_19_johnellis_archive.html#109569495981662112

Now the favorite son campaign co-ordination should be investigated.

Why were Mapes and Lockhart even talking?
I can think of no good reason for a CBS producer to be talking to a Kerry campaign
advisor other than coordination of their
efforts to destroy Bush. Makes you wonder who else has been talking to whom and why?

Bill,

It's ugly, ain't it.

Here, you have an allegedly unbiased newsperson, Mary Mapes, saying, "Hey, Kerry campaign, this guy's got some good dirt that might help you defeat Darth Va-, er,... the president."

That sorta blows the whole charade of fair, objective, and unbiased.

I figure Lockhart and Cleland are coming forth to put their version on the record, because they're afraid of what beans Burkett will spill. He's ALREADY said he passed the material off to the Kerry folks.

They gotta get their stories out there before he finally breaks down and tells the truth.

Whatever the truth may be...

CBS needs a low level patsy.
DNC needs a firewall to protect it from discovery of deep damaging involvement in the story.

Quid Pro Quo.

CBS coughs up Mapes. DNC admits they knew something but they did not direct
the story.

Look, the news business is competitive and sometimes you have to cut a few corners to get the story on the air first. In the rush, it's easy to inadvertently coordinate your coverage with the Democratic National Committee and become its official news organ.

I just watched 12 minutes and 20 seconds of "I Feel Like Hell" from danron (see cbsnews.com) and somewhere in the middle I realized exactly what speech I was seeing: "I am not a crook".

Wanna bet Burkett made some threats? "I know where the bodies are buried around here, and if I go down, you all go with me.", and Burkett has now admitted to a criminal offense, make no mistake.

Here's the quote from Lockhart you excerpt: Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."

So Lockhart called Burkett and what does he say they talked about, according to the AP piece?

Joe Lockhart denied any connection between the presidential campaign and the papers. . . .

"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."

Lockhart said he thanked Burkett for his advice after a three to four minute call.

Lockhart said he does not recall talking to Burkett about Bush's Guard records. "It's baseless to say the Kerry campaign had anything to do with this," he said.

So, Joe Lockhart, one of the top guys in the Kerry campaign, a very busy, important man, takes the time to call this guy, AFTER being told that he's helping CBS on a story about Bush and the Guard and claims now that they talked about . . . Swiftboats?

I know it's not a new question, but how dumb do they think we are?

keypusher,

"I know it's not a new question, but how dumb do they think we are?"

After all the cr*p from Clinton that a majority of folks swallowed, they think we are very dumb, indeed.

Viewed in the light most favorable to
Lockhart, that is, the call went down just as he describes, Mapes must have implied to Burkett she "knew people" and could get him in touch with party higher-ups as a reward for his help. Burkett tends to view himself as a both a playah and a crusader who could tell the higher-ups a thing or to...it sounds like an opportunity for such a call would appeal to him... it would have been useful to get him to hand over the memos.

But in the light most favorable to all, it still seems highly improper to reward a source in such a manner, or for the campaign to participate in a media arranged call...

So the Kerry/Clinton folks have been involved. To what extent? They willingly jump to the front to get the least incriminating story out there quickly. Then hope folks are satisfied and move on to something else. After all, isn't it better to admit to a little harmless activity than to be found out that their involvement might be deeper?

All these media commentators say this is bad journalism and bad judgement. This is farsical. No amount of bad judgement can explain not interviewing Staudt. He is mentioned by name. No amount of negligence can explain not talking to him. It is the very first thing you would do upon reading that memo.

I guess I had argued for a measure of stupidity before. But I have reconsidered after thinking about the Staudt thing. Its just not possible. When Staudt came out they said his testimony was invalid cause he was partisan. That is a purely political maneuver. I can't hold up the house of cards anymore. I think there was collusion.

J. Edgar Hogg --
Why were Mapes and Lockhart even talking?
I can think of no good reason for a CBS producer to be talking to a Kerry campaign
advisor other than coordination of their
efforts to destroy Bush

Boy, if this isn't coordination between the Kerry campaign and CBS, it's something very much like it. Why are Lockhart and Cleland admitting these communications? Because they're trying to get ahead of the story with their own version of events before the proverbial you-know-what hits the fan.

The reason people in the Kerry campaign are owning up to these conversations is that they fear the consequences of having Mapes' phone and email records turned over to truly independent investigators appointed by CBS.

The shouldn't be so worried. The chances of CBS appointing truly independent investigators are essentially zero.

It's funny to see people in the Kerry campaign reacting this way in response to such a vanishingly small possibility. The reason is that they would as individuals rather sell out the Kerry campaign now than be singled out later as the cause of the collapse of the campaign and Kerry's disastrous loss.

And what about USA Today? Who gave them their copies of forged documents to compliment the copies broadcast by Rather at CBS. The same memos went to USA Today and CBS... (and Rather can't even get that part of the story right)

Who fed dirty docs to USA Today? Why has this disappeared from the blogosphere? USA Today was a parallel play with CBS.

Somewhere in the confluence where USA Today meets CBS, we should find the sneaky, eggsucking rodent with the crusty whiskers... the beady-eyed mastermind behind Operation Fortunate Son.

For what it's worth. Early in the story lifecycle, there were reports that Staudt had refused to comment. Refused to comment, not even contacted. It's all the same to CBS.

I can't fathom at all why the democrats would come clean. This is totally uncharacteristic.

Maybe there is something so explosive it might be better to take this route?

They learned that stonewalling only increases attention, and maybe they don't want to repeat the spectacular fall of Rather.

Bill- you've done a marvelous job covering this whole issue, but unfortunately it may seem that it isn't quite done yet. One more huge scoop about collusion would drive a nail into the whole thing.

It just seems so odd, why would they talk? Except for cutting their losses.

SJDOSS- I think they want her as a fall guy too, but this seems almost counterintuitive because it reveals communication between the Kerry campaign and the media.

The Democracts might come clean if they lose DC. There has to be _some_ sort of soul searching if they're going to hold together, doesn't there?

Interesting line from Blankley on scarborough. Sasso, kerry's right hand man, got fired from dukakis campaign for something similar to rathergate.

Rob,

Burkett, having spoken with Cleland and Lockhart, represents a danger to them. He's already spoken about his communications with Cleland.

It may be the Dems are going to hang him out to dry. They need to go on the record to put their spin on the communications before they screw him good, and he then gives his side.

They're doing this because the full truth is so ugly that it would destroy Kerry and the Dems.

I think Lockhart came clean because there is a paper or phone bill trail, and his current explanation of the contact is the least criminal or offensive version. The truth is probably that they were all in it together, but they hope this will silence the critics.

Riiiiight....

The curveball's coming in a few days. These people still think they're on top of the media and both Cee BS and the DNC are going to offer up their sacraficial lambs. They had a plan blow up in their faces because they were outflanked by the blogosphere. But it's hard to teach old dogs new tricks...

I'm not aware that either CBS or Dan Rather has apologized to President Bush. Am I the only one who thinks this is long overdue?

The recent Sasso addition raised a huge red flag for dem/pollster/consultant Patrick Caudell who said he did not trust Sasso and thought it could turn out to be bad for the Kerry campaign. Caudell tends to get things right.

I don't think the Clinton tie works well; if Clintons were covering the trail, there'd be a lot more new dead bodies not talking to reporters.

Mapes cell phone is almost certainly provided/paid for by CBS. Which means that CBS has those records just for the asking. If CBS is going to do an independent investigation the fact of the phone calls is going to come out sooner or later - better to get a story out that can't be proven false. "Lockhart couldn't recall the producer's name" - not likely, keeping his rolodex up to date is his business. Burkett didn't happen to mention the memos? Seems unlikely.

Wow, this really is the story that just keeps giving.

Phase ll has arrived. USA Today is apparently reporting tomorrow that Mapes and Burkett had a quid pro quo: the release of the dirty docs to CBS was contingent upon Mapes connecting Burkett with the upper eschelon of the DNC/Kerry Campaign.

Can anyone say, "RICO"?

I think Cleland and the people at the Kerry campaign are anticipating Burkett talking and possibly Mapes and phone records being subpoenad by the Texas Attorney General or possibly Congress.
They aren't coming clean. They are creating a cover story. Clearly what you are hearing is better than the reality. After all, if Kerry wins they can all get presidential pardons.

I can't remember, maybe, might have...

Reagan had Alzheimer's. Lockhart coming down with the same illness? I remember a brown haired woman, comb line down the middle, looking something like the former NOW president, a member of Clinton's administration, testifying in a court hearing or before Congress, repeatedly saying "don't recall, don't remember" to almost every question (Travelgate?).

Lockhart said Mapes asked him the weekend before the story broke to call Burkett. "She basically said there's a guy who is being helpful on the story who wants to talk to you," Lockhart said, adding that it was common knowledge that CBS was working on a story raising questions about Bush's Guard service. Mapes told him there were some records "that might move the story forward. She didn't tell me what they said."

Common knowledge? Who told you? When? What exactly did you hear, from whom, when? Common knowledge?

"He had some advice on how to deal with the Vietnam issue and the Swift boat" allegations, Lockhart said Monday, referring to GOP-fueled accusations that Kerry exaggerated his Vietnam War record. "He said these guys play tough and we have to put the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more."

Hmmm... from the posts from Burkett that I seem to recall..."putting the Vietnam experience into context and have Kerry talk about it more" isn't exactly what Burkett was advocating. From what I remember, it was more like, "slam the door on them" and terms like bloody, battle, etc. Anyone have a quote handy?

Pardons? Loyalty? From Kerry? He'll change his mind.. especially once those somebodys become unwashed nobodys. We just might see Kerry lose it over this scandal; dissemble. This guy's a pathological control freak. The medal scandal points to an underlying disorder. Oedipus Monsterous. His vanity will not handle this new scandal well, especially with Teresa screaming "scumbag" in the background in seventeen different languages. Operation Fortunate Husband is about to get its comeuppance. Money: You never get to earn it quite like you thought you would!

david: Was that a shot from the hip about RICO? Because, looking at the statues at the usdoj, I find:

"9-110.330 Charging RICO Counts

A RICO charge where the predicate acts consist only of state offenses will not be approved except in the following circumstances:

Local law enforcement officials are unlikely to investigate and prosecute otherwise meritorious cases in which the Federal government has significant interest;

Significant organized crime involvement exists; or

The prosecution of significant political or governmental individuals may pose special problems for local prosecutors."

That seems to be the ticket to me? Any comments?

Thad O,

I'm not a lawyer, plus, it's past my bedtime.

I can't tell you the technicalities of RICO.

But it wasn't a "shot from the hip."

It was a realization that these folks are scared to death that they may be discovered, and if they are, they will be exposed as a completely corrupted organization, a criminal conspiracy.

So…
First, Texas Penal Code 32.21, forging documents, or transferring or publishing forged documents, is a crime. If the subject is two or more “government documents,” then the matter is malum in se – criminal intent is inferred. E.g., you forge, transfer or publish government document copies at your own risk.* And, it bumps up to a felony if 2 gov docs are involved.

Burkett faxes the forged documents to CBS from Abilene TX. Details still breaking.

Burkett does so on what he says is the condition that CBS would help arrange a conversation with the Kerry campaign.

Mary Mapes, a Texas resident and the 60 Minutes producer of the now discredited CBS segment, calls Joe Lockhart, the former press secretary to President Clinton and a Kerry campaign aide, and asks Lockhart to call Burkett (making good on CBS’s promise to Burkett).

Lockhart states that he spoke with Burkett for 3-4 minutes.

The day after the CBS story, the DNC commences its “favorite son” ad campaign.

And, Tom Daschle takes to the floor, to denounce Bush over the CBS Story.

Call me crazy...but the underlying act here is a felony. So were the “second rate” Watergate burglaries.

It is all amplifying…..

____
* - Yeah, there might be a juicy constitutional defense in there…..

Bill,

Told you it would be Lockhart in the earlier thread, 'Is Burkett the Real Source?'

Do I get a prize?

So much for the claims of confidentiality. Given CBS's contacts with the Kerry campaign in which their source was revealed, it's clear they were lying about that, too.

In CBS lingo, "confidential" means "insiders only." And they DARE accuse blogs of not being transparent or self-correcting! A blogger that did this would be ridden out on a rail.

This is kind of, but not really, off the subject, but it's been running through my mind for the last several hours (and 4 Killian's Irish Reds, which I drank in honor of Bush's superior officer in the TANG).

Sunday, I watched Tom Daschle and John Thune debate on "Meet The Press". It seemed as though both guys spent about half of their time asking each other to disavow negative attack ads that these 527-type organizations were running on behalf of each of them. And it occurred to me that this type of issue comes up in almost every debate nowadays--one guy wants the other guy to condemn an attack ad that he probably had nothing to do with. It even came up between John McCain and George W. during the 2000 primaries (though I don't think these organizations were called 527's before McCain/Feingold).

Anyway, in my wildest wet dream, I hope that Kerry brings up the Swift Boat ads in one of the debates (and I'm almost certain that he will). I hope that he decries these scurrilous, personal attacks against his honorable service in Vietnam (*yawn*). I hope he slightly more than implies that W's campaign had something to do with them, and I outright pray that he asks Bush to publicly denounce them--right on the stage at the debate. And I hope that Bush says something like this:

I do denounce those ads. They impugn your service to your country, which I think was honorable. It's disgraceful (I personally don't think the Swift Vets are disgraceful, but stay with me here). Could my campaign have stopped those ads from airing? I can't say. You'd have to ask the Swift Vets that. But what I can say is this: at no time has any member of my campaign ever, in any way, colluded with a major media outlet--either FoxNews or anyone else--to put out a so-called "hit piece" denigrating your service to your country, Senator. At no time have we stood by, with knowledge beforehand, and allowed the media to put forth demonstrably fabricated evidence that you didn't fulfill your duties to your country, Senator. And the Republican National Committee certainly never had an advertising campaign waiting in the wings to follow up or capitalize on any lies put forth by the media regarding your service. Can you say the same, Senator?

I hear through the MSM that Karl Rove has his minions monitor these "right wing" blogs. Could one of you minions forward this to him?

Someone on another blog, can't remember which, made the point that if a producer from 60 minutes called up and asked for a favor, a political operative could hardly say no. You have to think about the future in politics. It does not necessarily indicate collusion.

Yes it does, allison. Even the idea of having to protect your future career -- in politics or the press -- is evidence of collusion.

The mystery deepens. USA Today reports this morning: "Burkett now maintains that the source of the papers was Lucy Ramirez, who he says phoned him from Houston in March to offer the documents. USA TODAY has been unable to locate Ramirez." Burkett claims he's a patsy. I believe him. He goes on to say an unknown man walked up to him with the envelope at a Houston livestock show, not the woman who called him. Burkett never saw her, but says he can produce phone records of her call.

The USA Today link: http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+CBS+backs+off+Guard+story&expire=&urlID=11705426&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fpoliticselections%2Fnation%2Fpresident%2F2004-09-21-cover-guard_x.htm&partnerID=1660

I just love the way Dan Rather says that he was "misled" – and that CBS was "duped." He even went to some extreme to get Burkett to say that he had misled poor ole Dan.

Dan seems to expect that we should now rush to him and offer comfort since he has pointed out to us that he is obviously the victim. And we especially should offer him our condolences now that he has said he is sorry - for his having been misled.

Bill,

Told you it would be Lockhart in the earlier thread, 'Is Burkett the Real Source?'

Do I get a prize?
Posted by: Just Passing Through at September 20, 2004 11:10 PM

Has anyone thought to ask when Lockhart will resign from his DNC party position? Why is it that the dems demand that Bush campaign people resign at the slightest appearance of impropriety (i.e. when it was revealed that a repub lawyer gave legal advise to the Swiftboat veterans), but it apparently is ok for dems to collude with a major news organization and nobody at DNC be held accoutable?

Naw. It was the obvious connection. The other Clintonion remnants like Carville, and McAuliffe have too much to lose to get their hands directly dirty. Clinton's merry pranksters that went on board the Kerry campaign don't have that exposure. Plausible deniability works for them where it might not for bigger fish. Lockhart falls under that umbrella, has always been a nasty infighter, and has the same echoing void where principles usually reside that Clinton does. A guy like Lockhart will have a few Get out of Jail Free documents of his own salted away somewhere and can be reasonably assured that he'll get the support to weather this. He is the logical choice for fronting the defense whether or not he actually colluded in the fraud at any deep level.

The fool in the attic here is Rather. He thought he could define the destination - everybody must share his politics and would agree that that the story MUST be true and MUST matter - and that the road getting there would not matter. If you don't share his politics and don't agree that the story must be true and must matter, then the road to get there has to be verified. He should have known that.

I still think Lockhart is only the point defense for the DNC and the campaign. I just don't think that defense will unravel and it will get any deeper into the DNC or the campaign itself until after the election. The DNC is banking on this being a non-story by then and everybody will return to business as usual. I think that they are wrong in that though. The set up one of their strongest allies to bolster a story that they thought would turn Kerry's fortunes around. CBS and the MSM survive and prosper on credibility and at least the appearance of impartial journalism. CBS and the MSM in general are not going to forget this.

I watched Lockhart being interviewed this morning on Fox before going to work. I must admit he certainly learned from the master-Bill Clinton-on how to set up a cover story. I mean, he was Clinton's mouthpiece for awhile so he had to learn something. It was "I didn't inhale", and "I never had sexual relations with that woman" all over again. I don't believe that his phone conversations with Mapes and Burkett were not for coordinating/approving this. What else could they be? For the record, I didn't believe Clinton either.

Why would Burkett need C-BSs help in contacting the Kerry campaign? Did he missplace Clelands private phone number? Both CBS and Lockart/Kerry are lying, as expected.