Skip to comments."Crooked Claims About Clinton" - HILLARY! UNCENSORED co-producer gives initial response for FR
Posted on 01/26/2008 7:58:17 AM PST by doug from upland
NOTE: I have spoken with Brooks Jackson, who will give me an opportunity to respond and keep it as a PDF on the factcheck.org site. Viveca Novak described me as a conservative Republican. That's fair, but I think she also needs to be descibed. Her previous job was with TIME MAG from which she was fired for not telling her bosses she was called in by the OIC to testify in the phony Plame case. If some of you have some time, please do some research for me about her. I will be preparing the full responsed when I return home. For now, here is a preliminary response for your perusal.
We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit, "consumer advocate" for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews, and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding.
The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state, and federal levels.
The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation.
Director, Annenberg Political Fact Check
Brooks Jackson is a journalist who covered Washington and national politics for 34 years, reporting in turn for The Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal and CNN. At CNN he pioneered the "adwatch" and "factcheck" form of stories debunking false and misleading political statements starting with the Presidential election of 1992. His investigative reporting for The AP and the Journal won several national awards. He is the author of two books: Honest Graft: Big Money and the American Political Process (Knopf, 1988) and Broken Promise: Why the Federal Election Commission Failed (Twentieth Century Fund: 1990).
Deputy Director, Annenberg Political Fact Check
Viveca Novak is a journalist who covered politics and government in Washington for nearly 20 years, reporting in turn for Common Cause Magazine, National Journal, the Wall Street Journal and Time magazine. At Time she was a co-winner of Harvard University's Goldsmith Prize as well as the Clarion Award for investigative reporting into the campaign finance scandals of President Clinton's 1996 re-election campaign. She is co-author of Inside the Wire , about the Guantanamo Bay detention center (Penguin Press: 2005). She holds an M.S. in journalism from Columbia University and an M.S.L. from Yale Law School.
DFU INITIAL RESPONSE (the response to factcheck and Newsweek will be slightly different and written when I have more time):
It is interesting, albeit outrageous, that a group describing itself as non-partisan would title an article, CROOKED CLAIMS ABOUT CLINTON. It certainly would have been helpful if Viveca Novak had spoken with me. Perhaps it could have kept her from embarrassing herself and making herself look like a kneepad-wearing Clinton Kool-Aid drinker.
1. It should be noted that she admits analyzing only the trailer.
2. This video reminds her of various documentaries about Clinton.
3. Her commentary can be applied to her her hit piece - "And what it leaves out is often more important than what it tells us."
4. "Sitting with them is the narrator of the video, Peter Paul...." Anyone who has seen this film realizes, when they hear a few voices, that Peter Paul is not the narrator. We hired a narrator, who has done a great deal of voiceover work. I would have narrated but do not have the voice for it. Viveca, Peter did more than sit with them. He paid well over a million dollars for the event that was produced in less than four weeks. He greeted them at the reception and spent several hours with them.
5. Peter is always described as a three-time convicted felon. When I spoke with Viveca, she didn't particularly appreciate my suggestion that fairness would be also describing the defendant in the case. He was impeached. He committed perjury. He suborned perjury. He had Betty Currie hide evidence. A witness had her dog killed, her tires slashed, her children threatened by name, and was assaulted in the Oval Office. He lost his right to practice before the Supreme Court. He lost his law license. He turned in a false affidavit to the court. He lied to his daughter, his wife, his cabinet, and all of the American people while wagging his finger at us. He had his gang describe Monica Lewinsky as a troubled stalker, yet she was given top secret clearance at the Pentagon.
6. In the vetting process, a Clinton lawyer, probably the lying weasel David Kendall, claimed that they missed the vet They did not know of Peter's past felony record. That's interesting. Peter had already been vetted by the Secret Service approximately six times. He spent time with presidents Reagan, Carter, Nixon, and Ford. The Secret Service visited his home to evaluate it as a possible site for an event. For years, Peter had been thoroughly vetted. A criminal record and time in prison for the Cuban Coffee Caper would not be hard to find. When I began this project, I asked a FReeper at a university to do a Lexis-Nexis for me. Within an hour, I knew of Peter's record and had info on the criminal case. They missed the vet? That is ludicrous on its face.
7. Peter claims the government knew about the Cuban Coffee Caper? Claims? Had Viveca consulted me, I would have been able to direct her to the sub-headline from the Miama Herald that stated the government knew. Indeed they did know. Before the CCC was put in motion, Peter was in the apartment of a woman named Edith Schoor. The apartment was wired by the government. The transcript was part of legal proceedings. Yes, Viveca, the government knew. It is not merely a claim by Peter Paul.
8. The things we leave out? How about leaving out of the hit piece that the Al Gore event for which Peter paid at the Beverly Hills Hotel was never declared by the campaign. Ed Rendell should have declared the in-kind contribution. Attempts to reach Rendell have not been successful. He has received fax demands from me to his office to finally come clean, but I doubt that will happen. See you under oath, Ed.
9. The claim is made that the even was a joint fundraiser, not just a Hillary for Senate event. That's interesting. Peter has always maintained that, as the donor, his intent was an in-kind donation directly to Hillary. The campaign has never filled out the proper paper work with the FEC, something that is going to ultimately be shown in discovery. In her sworn declaration presented to the court by Kendall April 7, 2006, we can use Hillary's own characterization of the event. She described it as being for "my Senate campaign." That sentence was one of the few sentences in the declaration I have described as something worthy of the Pulitzer Prize for fiction.
10. It is correct that the president did not have a signed contract with Peter. The president cannot do something like that while in office. It is clearly a conflict of interest. Everyone in the Stan Lee Media office knew Clinton was coming aboard as a rainmaker. Several veteran execs of Disney were lured to the company. Off the top of my head, at least one notable person working for the president left early and came to California to work for SLM. Everyone knew. Except perhaps Hillary. I guess the wife is just always the last to know. Bill is going to answer some interesting questions while under oath. Perhaps the most interesting is about what occured on Sept. 22, 2000 when AF-1 arrived in Los Angeles. Peter was described as a horrible felon whom they barely knew. They would take no money from him. Why were they meeting as the president stepped of AF-1? For what possible purpose? There is photographic evidence of the meeting. The purpose is clear. A short time after the gala and after the campaign had disavowed him, Peter was asked, on Hillary letterhead, for another $100K. Remember, they vowed in the WASHPOST to take no money from him. Viveca made a point that such was from an earlier stock pledge. So what. They vowed to take no money from him. By the way, Viveca, in violation of the law, the stock pledge was not reported. Why wasn't that part of your story? Gee, the things we leave out. Peter met with Bill as he stepped off AF-1. Clinton's assurances that they still had a deal is what convinced Peter to direct Stephen Gordon, his comptroller, to send $55K to the Working Families Party in New York at Hillary's direction. By the way, it was illegal to direct federal funds, untraceable securities as they were, to a state party. That money has never appeared in any reporting. Peter indeed has evidence of Clinton interferece in his business. His eyes and ears and business advisor, Jim Levin (strip club owner lap dance provider to the president), recorded the business deal between Tendo Oto and himself, on behalf of Clinton, six days after Hillary was elected. Yes, there is evidence. And there is other evidence that will be part of discovery.
11. The claims that Hillary had no knowledge is preposterous. On Aug. 15, 2000, Hillary trotted out the official spokesman, Howard Wolfson. Besides vowing to take no money from Peter Paul, he acknowledged that the event cost a million dollars. Does anyone think that was hidden from Hillary? After all, she admits on tape that her agent, White House employee Kelly Craighead, had kept her completely briefed. On a July 11, 2000 conference call, which included Peter, Aaron Tonken, Howard Wolfson, David Rosen, and Jim Levin, they discussed a budget of $1.1 million. Peter was solicited to pay for half, and Cynthia Gershman was expected to pay for half. Peter was directly solicited by agents of Hillary ---- her husband, Levin, and Craighead ---- to pay for the event. That direct solicitation made it all hard money and illegal. Viveca has made a legal analysis but is really no authority on the subject. Hillary knew about the underreporting from the beginning. And the coup de gras is what happened on July 11, 2001. In the civil suit, Kendall was served with papers that included evidence of $1.6 mil that Peter had spent. His counsel held a press event a few days later at the National Press Club, attended by at least one Clintonite, and a messenger delivered a demand letter to Hillary's Senate office. Yes, Hillary knew.
12. Viveca is also not a forensic accountant. No matter what happened to the stock, $5 million from Oto, promised in November, would have easily carried the company thorough until Bill came aboard on Jan. 21, 2001. The company would have instantly raised a huge amount of money with the announcement.
13. It is true that the lawsuit was filed after Peter's indictment. That is not, however, the whole story. Mike Wallace had the draft company beforehand. That is what alerted the Clintons that something needed to be done to Peter. We will have more to say about that in the official response.
14. Viveca refers to the "Republican Department of Justice." Would that be the one that did nothing to Hillary after Robert Ray's final report concluded that he testimony to the grand jury was "factually inaccruate?" Would that be the Republican Dept of Justice that let Sandy Berger off the hook? That Republic Dept of Justice?
15. John Armor has essentially been called a liar by Viveca, despite the fact that she is making a legal evaluation without benefit of any legal training. I think I'll go with John on this one.
16. No, the July 17, 2000 phone call on tape was no routine call. Both Cher and Diana Ross were solicited by Aaron Tonken. But it required more than that. Both of them needed to hear from Hillary directly before they would agree. Hillary's phone calls, one of which she admits on tape, is what it took to seal the deal. She was the closer. Regarding Cher donating her performance and the value not needing to be declared. Famous photographer Annie Leibovitz also donated her professional services --- four portrait sittings. She normally charges $25,000 for a sitting. Although they grossly devalued her services, the campaign actually declared $10,000 for her services (I think that's the number). Declaring $10,000 was no big deal to Hillary, but she certainly didn't want to declare hundreds of thousands of dollars.
17. "Ahem" What kind of subheadline is this: The Civil (Ahem?) Suit. That showed professionalism and non-partisanship, didn't it?
18. Possible Hillary will be called? I was in the courtroom on April 7, 2006 when Judge Aurelio Munoz said: I will entertain no motion that prevents Mrs. Clinton from testifying in this case.................did you hear that, Mr. Kendall?
19. Viveca's attack on Dave Schippers was particularly egregious, painting him as a Clinton hater. He was the one chosen by the Republicans to prosecute impeachment. It would have been helpful information for Viceca to tell her readers that Dave worked in the Kennedy Justice Dept and helped take down the Chicago mob. He was a lifelong Democrat. HE TWICE VOTED FOR BILL CLINTON!
20. The Lucianne Goldberg "involvement" is preposterous and deliberately deceiving. She had absolutely nothing to do with the film. Nothing. Someone, she gained knowledge of the unpublished URL of the google video that we posted for our own internal use. She put the URL on the website and people began to view and view and view. It is over 4 million since she posted it in October. The Clintons have done this kind of thing before. They once described THE CLINTON CHRONICLES as "that Falwell video." Jerry Falwell had nothing to do with the making of the film. He chose to be one of the many distributors.
Well, FReepers, there is the first reaction. As long as it is not a rant, Brooks Jackson promised he would publish the response. I will try to keep the response to "factcheck".org a notch below a rant.
(Sorry, no time for spell checker or content check. I have to run.)
He added that he only produced the gala and hasn't given or raised money for the first lady's New York campaign. "And we will not be accepting any contributions from him," Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson vowed.
Viveca stories on FR:
Bookmark for reference
BIG BOOKMARK FOR LATER!!!
GOOD WORK, KEEP IT UP AND THANK YOU!!!!
Bump for future read and dispersal.
Excellent response - keep up the excellent work - prayers for you all.
Updated rumor on Viveca?
OUTSTANDING! Thanks doug from upland. Great FReeper BUMP!
I have to go out for the day but will read this when I get back.
Doug, again, thank you and God bless you.
I'm thinking this is going to take too long to affect the election.
Feb 21 is status conference in L.A. in which trial date will be set. Discovery can then begin. We anticipate Hillary under oath during summer congressional recess.
Thank you for the post and the link. I’ll be sure to check FactCheck on a regular basis.
I forgot to add more to No. 2. What any other video has to do with this one is puzzling. This video chronicles a legal case and an investigation of a campaign finance fraud. Viveca had no need whatsoever to link any other videos with what we have produced.
I really would like to get to the bottom of who put her up to this. If she withheld information from her bosses at TIME, however, getting to the truth may be somewhat problematical.
Viveca did a hurried hit piece with a minimum of research. I would have been glad to speak with her and get her up to speed on thousands of pages I have vetted. It was probably important to the Clintons to attack the film before the S. Carolina primary and certainly before Super Tuesday.
We also hired liberals to work on the project, including a writer and the final editors. None of them wanted their names associated with this project because of fear of reprisals.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.