WI George W Bush sues CBS for Slander

This is what Bush would NOT want. If Bush sued, expect Killian and other TX NG people to testify under oath that Bush missed his NG duties (which was well documented before CBS's report). Further, you'd get ex-Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes testifying (again) that he used his influence to get Bush into the NG. (As he did earlier...and as the BBC reported in 1999...)

This may be considered a conspiracy theory, but, IMHO, the Killian Documents were a plan to DEFLECT things from Bush. (In John Brady's book, "Bad Boy", he recounts the famous "confrontation" between Dan Rather and George H.W. Bush, before which Bush pointed out that Rather had been a friend for years. Further, according to another source, the Bush family owned stock in CBS. Finally, Pete Brewton's book on George H.W. Bush was supressed by Simon and Schuster (owned by CBS) in 1992 because "George Bush is going to win the election.")
 
(a.) Discovery. CBS' (or Rather's) lawyers would be able to depose the President and ask him about the details of his time in Alabama as a TANG officer, paying specific attention to the facts nobody disputes, that is, why did the young George W. Bush fail to meet his service requirements when living in that state, requirements he was later forced to make up for at home in Texas?

(b.) I'm sure I'm forgetting some very obvious examples, but exactly when else has a contemporary POTUS sued someone for defamation? While in office?

If Bush were to do this then the period when he is popularly considered to have 'jumped the shark' starts when the papers are delivered to CBS.

Forget about Katrina, or Dubai Ports, or Harriet Miers; this is when everybody looks at the 43rd presidential administration and says, "they've lost it."
 
Why should he go to court? The story went nowhere, the documents are known forgeries and CBS was humiliated while Dan Rather was destroyed and Bush didn't have to do anything to make all this happen.

Orville, getting Jerry Killian to testify many years after his death would be a bit of a challenge.;)
 
Why should he go to court? The story went nowhere, the documents are known forgeries and CBS was humiliated while Dan Rather was destroyed and Bush didn't have to do anything to make all this happen.

Orville, getting Jerry Killian to testify many years after his death would be a bit of a challenge.;)

THis was a horribly blantant attempt to sway the election by committing a fraud on the American people.

Bush wouldn't do it. But could someone else?

As a slam at the democratic process you would think many others could have interest in order to present a claim to the courts.

Maybe Cheney? It was an attempt on his job too.


And if he wins, it helps accerlerate the loss of respect for the mainstream media.
 
I know there has been unfair press coverage here and there but this incident was remarkable. I figure Bush might have been too proud to bother with something like that and CBS did a rather thurough job of destorying themselves anyway... but maybe Cheney could talk him into it, see it as a way to punish the media that was being so critical of him over the Iraq war

If a judge kept it to just was the CBS report a defamation of Bush's character and a libelous event and didn't allow it to go off into other tangers he could win and really embarass CBS
 
There is a good reason elected officials do not sue for slander or libel. Under Supreme Court standards, a public official has to prove actual malice. This is almost impossible to prove do so they do not sue.

AH
 
There is a good reason elected officials do not sue for slander or libel. Under Supreme Court standards, a public official has to prove actual malice. This is almost impossible to prove do so they do not sue.

AH

But the timing...

Circumstancial evidence is strong.

Hell, there might be an email out there where they talk about the best time to release the story to impact the election.
 
I know there has been unfair press coverage here and there but this incident was remarkable. I figure Bush might have been too proud to bother with something like that and CBS did a rather thurough job of destorying themselves anyway... but maybe Cheney could talk him into it, see it as a way to punish the media that was being so critical of him over the Iraq war

If a judge kept it to just was the CBS report a defamation of Bush's character and a libelous event and didn't allow it to go off into other tangers he could win and really embarass CBS

Did you not read the first point I made? There's a very good chance Bush would have been forced to go on the record about his youthful indiscretions in Alabama.

"Mr President, is it true that you imbibed illicit narcotics when you were working as a staffer on Mr Blount's senate campaign? Remember you are under oath, sir, like that last guy who sat here in the Oval Office."

"I'm afraid I cannot recall."

Yeah, if I was Bush in early 2005 I really want this dominating the news cycle for a couple of months (because Dan Rather was dumped from the CBS Evening News in March 2005. He'll send his lawyers, he has nothing to lose. You think he's afraid of hurting the feelings of the GOP base at this point?) That'll show the librul media.

By all means harp on with your political grievances, but don't complain when other people (ME) ask you how a nominally professional guy like the 43rd POTUS decides to break precedent and volunteer for such an irrational act.

This would be like Clinton telling Paula Jones' lawyers he wants them deposing him at the earliest possible moment.
 
This is what Bush would NOT want.

Indeed, indeed, indeed.

If Bush sued, expect Killian and other TX NG people to testify under oath that Bush missed his NG duties (which was well documented before CBS's report). Further, you'd get ex-Texas Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes testifying (again) that he used his influence to get Bush into the NG. (As he did earlier...and as the BBC reported in 1999...)

Exactly so. This would have biten GWB hard.
 
You can't sue someone for slander. Slander is a criminal offense, and I'm pretty certain that it's a felony in most states, and must proceed only with the indictment of a grand jury. Second, slander cases are extremely hard to prove, since one must prove deliberate malice on the part of the accused. Also, truth is an absolute defense against a slander charge. If in the discovery process it was found that there was any truth to CBS's story, then not only would the case be lost, Bush would end up going down, hard.

Furthermore, even the attempt to prosecute a critic of the administration would set a terrible precedent, and it would probably cost Bush the election, because it is rightly seen as an abuse of power. Even a simple defamation suit would be seen in the same way. And the way defamation statutes are written pretty much exempt them from protecting public officials while they are in office.
 
A lot of issues here, some misrepresented, some answered correctly.

First, the assumption that the documents were a forgery is dubious. The documents were not shown definitively to be a forgery. The origin of the document was controversial, and various forensic examiners reached different conclusions--contrary to the Wikipedia's statement. Consequently, at this point the provenance of the documents cannot be truly known. Further, there was more to the story than the documents. (More on this below.)

Second, slander is spoken defamation. Libel is printed or otherwise mechanically reproduced. Generally, iirc, questions of mechanically or reproduced material, such news broadcasts, are handled under libel, though this varies in jurisdictions.

Third, questions of slander, libel, and defamation are almost always civil not criminal actions. I am hard pressed to think of defamatory action that is criminal except for the food defamation laws, and these laws are doubtful constitutionality. (Though, under the recent spate of appointments of radical, activist justices, such as Scalia and Roberts for whom stare decisiis is but a speed bump, the law is shifting all the time.)

Fourth, Dubya is and was a public figure, as pointed out by Comrade Hamilton. Winning a libel and/or slander suit for a politician (or any public figure) is extremely hard, as Comrade Hamilton. The standard of proof is very hard to meet. Dubya would basically have to show that there was no basis in fact for the accusation and that Rather and CBS were not just negligent in their actions but they knowingly acted with malice in the legal sense in broadcasting the story, which is very hard to do. Remember, the story was more than just the letter. The letter was just a part of the whole story. Really, Dubya's case, were it to have been brought, would have been much weaker than Kerry's case had Kerry sued the Swift Boat Liars. A reasonable basis--read broadly--and an absence malice are all that is needed to be shown, with latter being the key. Even if the documents were to be shown to be entirely forgeries, but CBS did not act with malice or reckless disregard for the truth (read broadly), then Dubya loses.

Fifth, Dubya would have to show his reputation had been damaged by the broadcast. This would have been hard to do as his reputation was actually enhanced by the story. The handlers of Dubya and the radical right ignored all facts in the story except the questions about the authenticity of the document. They portrayed Dubya as a victim of a witch hunt rather than as a man who clearly had received special treatment by the military and whose special treatment merited investigation. If the documents were false, but the essence of the story is true, then Dubya has not been damaged.

Sixth, as numerous other well-informed Comrades have noted, an action for defamation would have allowed--indeed, demanded--the CBS lawyers to focus on Dubya's less than stellar military record and his numerous other personal failings to show that the essence of the story was reasonable, if not entirely correct, such a lawsuit would have been a disaster for Dubya. Remember, the story was about Dubya's service record. The documents were but a small piece of the story--though a new and flashy piece. There appears to have been other evidence that Dubya did not have the best service record and was given special treatment.

Dubya and his had no interest in the truth, which the trial might have revealed. These folks were not saying, "Here are all the records on Dubya's service." No, these folks were stonewalling. This is why Dubya's handlers went after one discrepancy in the story and did not address the multitude of discrepancies in Dubya's service record. It was simply was not in the campaign's interest. Likewise, Dubya's people ignored the overwhelming evidence in Kerry's outstanding military record and sought to paint him as a poor serviceman. The hypocrisy still amazes me.

You can't sue someone for slander. Slander is a criminal offense, and I'm pretty certain that it's a felony in most states, and must proceed only with the indictment of a grand jury. Second, slander cases are extremely hard to prove, since one must prove deliberate malice on the part of the accused. Also, truth is an absolute defense against a slander charge. If in the discovery process it was found that there was any truth to CBS's story, then not only would the case be lost, Bush would end up going down, hard.

Furthermore, even the attempt to prosecute a critic of the administration would set a terrible precedent, and it would probably cost Bush the election, because it is rightly seen as an abuse of power. Even a simple defamation suit would be seen in the same way. And the way defamation statutes are written pretty much exempt them from protecting public officials while they are in office.
 
Last edited:
(snip) Third, questions of slander, libel, and defamation are almost always civil not criminal actions. I am hard pressed to think of defamatory action that is criminal except for the food defamation laws, and these laws are doubtful constitutionality. (Though, under the recent spate of appointments of radical, activist justices, such as Scalia and Roberts for whom stare decisiis is but a speed bump, the law is shifting all the time.)

Slander may still technically be a criminal offense in some states, in the sense that there are old laws still on the books (for example, here in WA, slander was a gross misdemeanor under a 1909 law that was repealed last year), but I agree that they'd almost certainly be unenforcable due to 1st Amendment issues.

(the attachment is the former RCW 9.58, the recently repealed criminal libel & slander law)
 

Attachments

  • RCW 9.58.pdf
    63.5 KB · Views: 2,397
Last edited:
Media Ex Machina

The media is all-powerful when it comes to slander and libel. Furthermore, being a public official has nothing to do with it. Media defendants argue all the time that even a private person is a public person if they become involved with a public story in the media. In short, a private person, Richard Jewell, has now lost all rights of privacy protection. Why? Because the media have decided on their own that they don't want him to have any rights of privacy, so he doesn't GET any protections/rights of privacy. So if the Atlanta Journal-Constitution wants to accuse him of being the Atlanta Centennial Park Bomber (I missed that explosion by one day folks), they can, and there is nothing Jewell can do about it. The "reason" being he is a "public person" now. Because the newspaper just made him one.:confused: The law has given the press absolute power to practice CALLOUS DISREGARD under the aegis of 1st Amendment rights. If an individual practices the same behavior he can face criminal charges depending on the level of damage done. If the target should have died, then it's Second Degree Murder by Callous Disregard. But media outlets? Only if the publisher gets on a megaphone and declares certain knowledge of Jewell's innocence but he's going after him anyway to pump up sales and because he hates Jewell's guts for refusing an interview!

No one in America is safe. Not officials. Not private persons. If the wolfpacks want to get you, they will get you.

Jewell's lawsuit against the paper? Thrown out. 1st Amendment. Uber Alles.
 
Top