(HILLARY! UNCENSORED) Newsweek’s “Crooked Claims” In Defense of Hillary Clinton Illegalities

DFU NOTE: If I have time on this trip, I hope to be able to confront Viveca Novak. She has refused to go on Ben Barrack's radio show, claiming she will only go on a venue that is "neutral." Gee, Viveca, your piece of tripe wasn't neutral. When I have time, we will be answering her hit piece. Perhaps we need to see that on factcheckingfactcheck.org.

We must be making some progress in our effort to break the media blockade surrounding Paul v Clinton et al and its evidence of illegalities directed by Hillary Clinton with Bill’s help, that won Hillary a seat in the US Senate and allowed her to avoid accountability ever since.

Today, seven years after Robert Novak broke the story of Peter Paul’s claims against Hillary Clinton’s election fraud, Newsweek finally deigned to publish a story on the subject. , outsourced by Newsweek to Factcheck.org’s disgraced Time Magazine reporter Viveca Novack, pretended to debunk the recently released unedited 13 minute trailer of the 63 minute unfinished documentary Hillary! Uncensored and Peter Paul’s 7 year crusade to expose Hillary’s frauds to the American people.

This journalistic equivalent of a plugged up colostomy bag takes first prize for its pandering to Clinton apologists who believe that the Clinton Real-Politik trumps the Rule of Law, and any effort to challenge and expose clear evidence of Hillary’s blatant contempt for following the law is a right wing attack job.

The most telling omission that is emblematic of the numerous misrepresentations and material omissions presented by Ms Novack’s story, is its complete silence on Hillary Clinton’s statements to the Washington Post in August 2000, before her election, that she vowed not to take any money from Peter Paul and she declared he had not given any money at all to her largest fundraising event. Then, nine days later she had her finance director fax a new demand that Paul wire untraceable securities worth $100,000 to illegally benefit her campaign through a state committee.

The Department of Justice in May, 2005, told the jury in the criminal trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen, that in fact peter Paul was Hillary’s largest donor because he gave more than $1.2 million to pay all expenses for Hillary’s largest fundraiser, the same one Hillary assured voters through the Post that Paul had given no money at all towards!

The article’s mischaracterizations are clearly intended, like the Washington Post Sunday Magazine 8000 word Cover Story in October, 2005 and the New York Times 3000 word story in March, 2005, to insulate and sanitize the impact of Paul’s imminent discovery and trial date to be set in the Clinton civil fraud case pending in Los Angeles.

I spoke this morning with Viveca. They may give me a chance to respond.

This is typical of how she slanted this tripe for the Clintons:

"Many of the individuals and groups helping Paul have long histories of Clinton-bashing or attacks on other Democrats. David Schippers, for example, who appears on tape, is the former chief investigative counsel for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee during the 1998 Clinton impeachment hearings."

I asked Viveca, the disgraced TIME MAG reporter who got canned (that's how she would do it), if she knew the history of Schippers. She said yes, but when I waited for her to give me some info, it was not forthcoming. I informed her that Schippers was a lifelong Democrat, who worked in the Kennedy Justice Dept and helped take down the Chicago mob. In addition, he twice voted for Bill Clinton. I asked her if that might have been more fair to include that in her Schippers comments. Her response was that it was my opinin that such would be fair. Giving the false impression that Schippers was a Clinton-basher is totally unfair to a great American.

Viveca makes the determination of the financial condition without any background on her financial expertise. "Not exactly. It's pretty clear that it would have taken a lot more than $5 million from any investor to save Stan Lee Media." Actually, Peter intends to prove, through forensic accounting, that the $5 million would have indeed carried the company through until at least Jan. 20, 2001. That is when Bill Clinton would have come aboard the company. What do you think that would have done for the company, Viveca?

Viveca made not mention of the most critical part of the potential legal jeopardy for Hillary. Nowhere in her hit piece was there a mention that Kelly Craighead was a White House employee and AGENT of Hillary Clinton. Her agent was part of the direct solicitation of over a million dollars. That was illegal.

Hillary Clinton absolutely knew that the event cost over a million dollars. Her official spokesman acknowledged such in the WASHPOST. Viveca didn't tell you that.

Plain and simple, this is a deliberate hit piece orchestrated to harm the credibility of our film.

Hey, Viveca, Peter Paul is not the narrator of the film. Why didn't you just say you don't recall as you did to the OIC investigating the Plame matter?

This is a great quote. "And what it leaves out is often more important that what it tells us." Yes, Viveca, that is often true. You should live by that philosophy when evaluating someone else's work. You left out telling your bosses at TIME that you were being called to testify in the Plame case.

There is much more of this story to tell, and I'll do so shortly. If I owned factcheck.org, I think I would be tempted to do to Viveca what TIME did to her. Say adios.

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.