In September 2004, about two months from election day, then CBS news anchorman Dan Rather did a story on that week’s 60 Minutes II broadcast that would jettison the venerable newsman into a surreal downward spiral that finally ended with his early retirement from the Tiffany network, after a storied 40-year career, because of the story about President Bush’s National Guard records... or lack of them.
I happened to be watching that particular broadcast, and as soon as Mr. Rather began the story, I instantly realized that I had heard this tale before, perhaps from a book I had read years before. Rumors had circulated prior to the 2000 election about the dubious, behind-the-scenes work of Bush loyalists Karen Hughes and Joe Allbaugh in "scrubbing" Dubbya’s National Guard service records so they could withstand media scrutiny.
The most damming of those service records mysteriously disappeared and are missing to this day.
Which brings us to today.
This past summer, attorney Martin Gold picked up the phone on behalf of his client Dan Rather, hoping to shed light on some of the mysteries that still surrounded CBS’s flawed report from September 2004 on President Bush’s National Guard duty.
To this end, he called a man in Albuquerque named Erik T. Rigler.
Earlier this month (Nov. 20) the New York Observer ran a story highlighting Rather’s travails in redeeming his good name, and proving once and for all that the story that got him fired was indeed true after all.
More than two years earlier, in the aftermath of what would become known as Rathergate, CBS had hired Mr. Rigler, a former Navy aviator and F.B.I. agent, in part to get to the bottom of the controversial documents at the heart of the affair. Where had the documents come from? Was the content accurate if not authentic? Who was the source?
For reasons that remain unclear, CBS eventually curtailed Mr. Rigler’s investigation. His findings were never made public. Nor, as it turns out, were they made available to Mr. Rather—a fact that years later, continued to stick in the anchorman’s craw.
According to Mr. Gold, this past summer when he reached Mr. Rigler, the investigator said he would be happy to talk but first had to run it by CBS. Weeks later, Mr. Gold hadn’t heard back. He called again. Shortly thereafter, according to Mr. Gold, he received a letter from the legal department at CBS telling him to stop harassing their client. A volley of contentious communications ensued and on Sept. 19, Mr. Rather officially gave up on phone calls and letters—he filed a $70 million civil lawsuit against his former bosses at CBS and Viacom, including Les Moonves, Sumner Redstone and Andrew Heyward.
"I tried to talk to Rigler and CBS shut me down," said Mr. Gold.
From his office at Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal in Manhattan, where he is a partner, Mr. Gold talked with NYTV on a Monday afternoon. CBS lawyers, trying to tamp down Mr. Rather’s lawsuit, filed a lengthy motion to dismiss argument in New York Supreme Court. In the court papers, CBS lawyers portrayed Mr. Rather’s complaint as a "thinly-disguised" defamation suit that should be time-barred due to a one-year statute of limitations. They further alleged that Rather’s actions were a "regrettable attempt" to "... settle old scores" and that he was aiming "... to misuse the discovery process and the power of subpoena in an effort to vindicate his own faulty reporting."
Over the course of a half-hour, Mr. Gold dismissed CBS’ "frivolous" arguments and said he was confident the lawsuit would move forward. Along the way, he hesitated to discuss many details of his legal strategy, but conceded one thing: He intended on hearing from Mr. Rigler.
"There’s no question about that," said Mr. Gold. "We’ll be very interested in taking his testimony and subpoenaing his records."
"The more they try heaven and earth to prevent me from talking to the guy, the more it becomes highly charged," he added. "The more I want to talk to him."
"Dan Rather is one of the most important figures in the history of broadcast journalism, and for more than 40 years was one of our most valued colleagues," CBS said in a statement last week. "That is why we at CBS are mystified and saddened by the baseless and self-serving allegations and distortions of fact raised in his lawsuit."
For his part, Mr. Gold proceeded to pick apart CBS’ legal argument. He said that while the suit was in large part about addressing damages to Mr. Rather’s reputation, CBS was wrong to portray it as a defamation suit in disguise.
"What they’re saying is that you can’t dress up one kind of claim in some other claim’s clothing and get past the statute of limitations," said Mr. Gold. "Of course you can’t. But it’s not defamation. What we’ve alleged is a scheme."
CBS lawyers noted that "... no such nefarious scheme" existed between the White House and CBS executives. Per the motion, "CBS and its executives are not now, and never have been, out to get Dan Rather.
Mr. Rather’s initial complaint lacked specifics about how the White House may have leaned on CBS executives in the aftermath of the admittedly, flawed report, which begs the question, "Does Mr. Gold have more evidence of any such collusion?
He did note that at the time of the initial controversy, Viacom, CBS’ parent company, had more money on the line in Washington than the entire value of the CBS News Division, but Gold declined to discuss specifics.
"All I can say is that more stuff keeps coming in," he said. "The answer is, yes, there’re more."
Rather’s attorney also suggested that recently, he had been surprised by the apparent culture of secrecy at the news division. He added that Mr. Rigler was hardly the only person hiding behind one of CBS’ patented "... agreements of secrecy" that he keeps butting heads with.
"Who do these guys think they are?" said Mr. Gold. "The National Security Agency?"
According to Mr. Gold, his client, Mr. Rather, was under no such restrictions.
"We made it perfectly clear to them that they weren’t going to pay him extra money and get him to sign a non-disparagement release," said Mr. Gold.
Mr. Gold continued but declined to say what it would take to settle the suit. He insisted that the complaint was about more than $70 million.
"In the wake of what’s happened to Rather, there have been important investigative stories that haven’t been broadcast," said Mr. Gold. "Because the people involved say, ‘If this is what happened to Dan Rather, what’s going to happen to little old me?’"
"He was the poster boy for the liberal journalist that they wanted to get rid of," said Mr. Gold. "Today the climate has changed. Somewhat."
I may be gratuitously extrapolating here but I think Mr. Rather could just turn out to be the Bush regime’s worst nightmare, if this lawsuit is not settled out of court. If Rather’s attorneys can drag Karen Hughes and Joe Allbaugh before the court, along with [as of yet] unidentified players [Karl Rove] pulling the strings from the White House, a few revelations may leak out of this trial.
And, somehow, I don’t see Rather settling this case. I believe he’s truly pissed off at these people for effectively truncating his otherwise stellar career at the Tiffany network, and rightly so. We all know the fundamental story was true. The flaws were in its presentation. It was sloppy but I don’t believe for a moment that Rather deserved to be fired over it. Ultimately, the Bush regime still wielded considerable power back in 2004, and they got what they wanted.
Let’s hope the tide has turned.
Impede, impeach and imprison.
Peace