DNC Lawyers Work To Muzzle Swift Boat Vets' Ad

humaneventsonline.com via Drudge ^

[Grig]

HUMAN EVENTS has obtained a copy of a letter which lawyers for the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry have sent to television station managers attempting to suppress the blistering anti-Kerry TV spot created by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and first reported here on HumanEventsOnline.com.

The letter claims the ad is "false" and "libelous" and suggests, in not-so-subtle terms, that TV stations should use their "legal authority" to refuse any requests for advertising airtime, stating that "because your station has this freedom [to refuse the ad], and because it is not a 'use' of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor" (emphasis added).

As their first piece of evidence of the ad's supposed lies, the DNC/Kerry lawyers claim that the veterans in the ad "purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam" but, "in fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's." The problem is that none of these men claimed to have served on Kerry's SWIFT Boat. They simply said they "served with John Kerry" -- and they did.

The letter goes on to make several more misleading statements about the advertisement, in an attempt to protect Kerry's "war hero" record. Read the full text below.

[demlosers]

OK, but then they should have mentioned in the ad one or two examples of how Kerry lied about his combat record.

That did cross my mind. This could be part of an overall strategy to draw out discussion about specifics in the media.

Or the Swift Boat guys may have a series of ads to discuss specifics about Kerry's lying. One or two more ads would do it. Money could be a problem at the moment.

[aruanan]

Second, in a libel suit, the measure of damages is based on the harm to a person's reputation, and so Kerry's reputation would be relevant.

Assuming, of course, libel was established to have occurred. I think the fact that months and months have gone by with these Swift Boat vets saying these things in interviews and publishing accounts without Kerry threatening to sue for libel is evidence of his hoping it would all just blow away and he wouldn't have to deal with it.

[ridesthemiles]

I agree with you. I heard it, and I would have to think long and hard about my choice of candidate if proven Vietnam vets were producing and paying for that ad themselves. It says alot right there. These guys cannot be rich.

[longtermmemmory]

Campaign rules do not allow coordination between Party and Candidate.

The fact the Party and the Candidate are coordinating their lawyers in order to control commercial appearnces of opposition smack of a violation of the CFR rules.

IOW it should have been seperate law firms or just one making the letter. Who is paying the lawyer fees? Are these fees being reported. If this is probono then is the value being reported as a campaign contribution?

[hellinahandcart]

"This letter is the first use by the Kerry Campaign of its massive legal division. The Kerry Campaign intends to win this campaign by abuse of the laws by a combination of using illegal contributions, advertisements, and organizations to support Kerry; while using the courts to supress legal acts by the Bush campaign."

It goes beyond that. Kerry has his legal apparatus set up in FLORIDA to contest the election the way the Goron did, REMEMBER? It was all over the news a few months back.

[Cboldt]

... AND ITS TOO LATE TO GET ANOTHER CANDIDATE...

It is never too late. Not even after the election has been held.

[Krodg]

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet.

His Commanding Officer at the time was not the one who actually signed the reccomendation either. How did he get it??

[Not A Snowbird]

The more the dems shriek, the more people rush to the Internet to view the ad to see what all the fuss is about.

[Julliardsux]

1) They do not deny that the doctor treated Kerry, they only say he did not sign the sheet.

2) The people do NOT claim to have served ON THE SWIFT BOAT with Kerry - they just claim to have served with Kerry. Indeed, the picture in which many of them appear is a picture of swift boat captains. Of course 2 captains would not be in charge of one boat.

Classic strawman arguments.

[cajungirl]

do the swift boaties take donations. I will bet that if they did we could scrounge up lots of money for them. Everyone I know would send.

[Max7]

Hugh Hewitt talking right now with Peter Beinert about the swift boat thing. Tune in, if you can. (3:12 PST)

[RetiredArmy]

Good ole Perkins Coie is one of the attorneys here. They are HQ here in socialist pig pen of Seattle. What a total surprise!

[marty60]

Yes well Fascists have no problem when it's one of their own doing the slander etc etc. But let Actual Vets try to get the TRUTH out about the Lurch, and the StormTroopers spring into action.

[TheBattman]

IF the RAT legal team is successful, then Moore and his ilk should immediately be shut down as well-

At least the Swift Boat Veterans are actually eye witnesses, not engineered voices...

[CA Conservative]

Okay, gotcha now. Good points.

[Grig]

Here is the letter, typed to be readable.
Please forgive any errors, this was done quickly.

---

Dear Station Manager:

We are counsel to the Democratic National Committee and John Kerry, respectively. It ahs been brought to out attention that a group calling itself "Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" has bought time, or may seek to buy time, on your station to air an advertisement that attacks Senator Kerry. The advertisement contains statements by men who purport to have served on Senator Kerry's SWIFT Boat in Vietnam, and one statement by a man pretending to be the doctor who treated Senator Kerry for one of his injuries. In fact, not a single one of the men who pretend to have served with Senator Kerry was actually a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and the man pretending to be his doctor was not. The entire advertisement, therefore, is an inflammatory, outrageous lie.

"Swift Boat Veterans For Truth" styles itself as a group of individuals who personally served with John Kerry in the United States Navy in the Vietnam War. In truth, the group is a sham organization spearheaded by a Texas corporate media consultant. It has been financed largely with funds from a Houston Homebuilder. See Slater(?), Dallas Morning News, July 23, 2004.

In this group’s advertisement, twelve men appear to make statements about Senator Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not a single on of these men served on either of Senator Kerry's two SWIFT Boats (PCF 44 & PCF 94).

Further, the "doctor" who appears in the ad, Louis Letson, was not a crewmate of Senator Kerry's and was not the doctor who actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. In fact, another physician actually signed Senator Kerry's sick call sheet. Letson is not listed on any document as having treated Senator Kerry after the December 2, 1968 firefight. Moreover, according to the news accounts, Letson did not record his "memories" of that incident until after Senator Kerry became a candidate for President in 2003. (National Review Online, May 4, 2004)

The statements made by the phoney "crewmates" and "doctor" who appear in the advertisement are also totally, demonstrably and unequivocally false, and libellous. In Particular, the advertisement charges that Senator Kerry "lied to get his Bronze Star." Just as falsely, it states that "he lied before the Senate." These are serious allegations of actual crimes - specifically, of lying to the United States Government in the conduct of its official business. The events for which the Senator was awarded the Bronze Star have been documented repeatedly and in detail and are set out in the official citation signed by the Secretary of the Navy and the Commander of the U.S. Forces in Vietnam. And yet these reckless charges of criminal conduct are offered without support or authentication, by fake "witnesses" speaking on behalf of a phoney organization.

Your station is not obligated to accept this advertisement for broadcast nor is it required to account in any way for its decision to reject such an advertisement. Columbia Broadcasting System v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94 (1973); You Can't Afford Dodd Committee, 81 FCC2d 579 (1980). The so-called "Swift Boat Veterans" organization is not a federal candidate or candidate committee. Repeated efforts by organizations that are not candidate committees to obtain a private right of access have been consistently rejected by the FCC. See e.g., National Conservative Political Action Committee, 89, FCC2d 626 (1982).

Thus, your station may freely refuse this advertisement. Because your station has this freedom, and because it is not a "use" of your facilities by a clearly identified candidate, your station is responsible for the false and libelous charges made by this sponsor.

Moreover, as a licensee, you have an overriding duty "to protect the public from false, misleading or deceptive advertising." Licensee Responsibility With Respect to the Broadcast of False, Misleading or Deceptive Advertising, 74 F.C.D. 2d 623 (1961). Your stations normally must take "reasonable steps" to satisfy itself "as to the reliability and reputation of every prospective advertiser." In re Complaint by Consumers Association of District of Columbia, 32 F.C.C.2d 400, 405 (1971).

Under these circumstances, your station may not responsibly air this advertisement. We request that your station act immediately to prevent broadcasts of this advertisement and deny any future sale of time. Knowing that the advertisement is false, and possessing the legal authority to refuse to run it, your station should exercise that authority in the public interest.

Please contact us promptly at either of the phone numbers below to advise us regarding the state of this advertisement.

Sincerely yours,

blah blah blah..

[angkor]

His Commanding Officer at the time was not the one who actually signed the reccomendation either.

It's been posted around here a few times lately.

His CO refused the Purple, didn't know Kerry had gotten it until years after the war.

The recommendation was signed by some officer in Saigon who had nothing to do with Kerry's command. He has since passed away.

[Libertina]

Does your brother-in-law beleive people should be scared of and comply with nasty-grams?

[InvisibleChurch]

he's not even a man (kerry)

[PeoplesRepublicOfWashington]

Is it legal for the sKerry campaign and the DNC to collaborate like this under Campaign Finance Reform rules?