HILLARY! UNCENSORED - factcheck.org to receive 11-page answer from co-producer

Freepers, they may be a few changes, but I wanted to get this to you before it is sent to factcheck.org. Brooks Jackson promised me that I would get to respond, and that response would be a PDF file on their website.

Viveca Novak: We analyzed only the preview, because it is readily available on the Internet and has drawn such a large audience; we viewed the longer film to make sure we weren't misunderstanding Paul's charges.

That is a startling, yet important admission, the candor of which I appreciate. It never occurred to me to analyze only a roughcut segment and pass judgment on someone’s film. I am pleased that such admission was made and hope viewers will view the entire film to make their own judgment. I hope you will all read the documentation that is stored on hillcap.org. The entire film has actually been made readily available to journalists with a free link we provide on youperview.com.

Viveca Novak: (referring to our roughcut segment) And what it leaves out is often more important than what it tells us.

That is a fair statement, and what is left out of a review is often more important that what it tells us.

* Peter Paul is not the narrator of the film, and I‘ve never heard that claim before. We actually hired a notable voiceover actor for the film.

* It was not necessary to compare this to any other documentary. This documentary is uniquely based on home videos, the personal experiences of someone whom the Clintons called a friend, and legal proceedings with a former president as the defendant. Peter Paul was induced to become Hillary’s largest donor and the largest donor ever to a Senate campaign. These facts distinguish our work from those others Novak characterized as political attack pieces.

* Yes, Paul has a felony record. That is duly noted throughout the mainstream media in the first few sentences of any article. If the plaintiff in this case carries such a description on factcheck.org, it seems to me that fairness dictates the defendant receive a description. The defendant was the first elected president in our history to be impeached. He plea bargained his guilty plea to perjury in the Jones civil case to receive a misdemeanor sentence requiring him to surrender his law license. He obstructed justice, suborned perjury, turned in a false affidavit to the court, and as the chief law enforcement officer of this nation, he tried to deny a lowly former employee her day in court. The effort has clearly been made to label Paul, who was never charged with perjury or obstruction of justice and who has never held public office in an effort to kill the messenger.

* I am described as a “conservative Republican.” That is an accurate description, with the caveat that the first word of the description is most assuredly the operative one. What readers of the review have not been told is that we deliberately hired liberal Democrat writers and editors because we wanted a balanced piece of work. It should be noted that those writers and editors don’t want their names used because of fear of retribution. I am more than “a believer in Paul’s cause.” For over 2 ½ years, I have vetted information, read thousands of pages of documents, spoken with witnesses, and attended court proceedings. I am a believer that no one should be above the law and that this story needs to be told.

* Novak: (re: the Cuban Coffee Caper) Paul claims that he was part of a covert government operation when he was arrested for these crimes.
Had I been asked, I would have been glad to provide additional useful information. The sub-headline from the Miami Herald said that the government knew in advance of the fraud on Castro yet did nothing to stop it. It is not merely a claim by Paul and should not be labeled as such. A reading of the transcript of legal proceedings at the time will reveal that, prior to the plan going operational, Paul was in the apartment of Elaine Schoor discussing the plan in great detail. Every word was caught on a government wire. Yes, the government really did know and allowed it to go forward.

* re: the vetters missed the information
I do not see how that is possible. Paul had been thoroughly vetted by the Secret Service for years and in particular with the Clintons he was vetted for hosting the President at a DNC dinner with DNC Chair Rendell in Feb, 2000. He was vetted again by DNC Chair Rendell when Paul hosted at Rendell's request the Hollywood Fundraiser for Al Gore June 8, 2000. He was vetted by the White House and Hillary's campaign when he hosted two fundraisers for Hillary Clinton on June 9, 2000 where he sat next to Hillary for 3.5 hours. He was vetted by the White House and Hillary's lawyers when he hosted the Gala and when he attended a Clinton library fundraiser Aug 13 at Barbara Streisand with the entire first family. It is ludicrous on its face to believe that all these vets failed to produce background on Paul, especially since Paul told Hillary ON TAPE about his anti-Castro activities as a lawyer in Miami and his undercover work on Bert Lance. Felonies are the first things that appear when they run a Social Security number. When I first began the project, I asked a friend with access to Lexis-Nexis to do a search for me. In a few hours, I knew about Paul’s record. Attorneys and other professionals are far more skilled than am I in vetting.

* It is true that President Clinton did not have a written agreement with Paul. That would have been a conflict of interest for a sitting president. Whether no one was witness to the conversations regarding the business deal is another matter that will be determined during discovery and trial. A key witness will be Chelsea Clinton. The day after the Gala, Barbra Streisand held a brunch at her Malibu estate for Clinton Library donors. In front of witnesses, including the biggest donor to the DNC, Haim Saban, Chelsea stated that the family stayed up late after the Gala playing Scrabble and discussing how excited they were that dad was going to work for the man who created Spider Man (Stan Lee, co-founder of Stan Lee Media). In her sworn declaration, Hillary swore that she knew of no such arrangement. Her denials will make the testimony of Chelsea quite interesting.

* In the Novak piece and throughout the media is a common misperception that is at the heart of the matter before us. The claim is always made that the Hollywood Gala was to benefit New York Senate 2000, a joint committee consisting of Hillary Clinton's campaign committee, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee and the New York Democratic Party. That is simply contrary to the facts and was certainly never the intent of the donor. From the time her agents (including her husband) first solicited Paul to support the First Lady’s campaign and then pay for the Gala, as corroborated by Jim Levin's testimony in the Rosen trial, it was Paul’s intent to do what Bill Clinton asked him to do. Paul directly benefited her Senate campaign, something for which Bill Clinton thanked him in a handwritten later several days after the Gala. It was all about an effort to hire a president as a rainmaker for Stan Lee Media. It was a business deal with political ideology playing no role. As a friend of Ronald Reagan and the Hollywood conservatives, Paul had no interest in benefiting any joint committee, particularly the New York Democratic Party. What was left out of the analysis of HILLARY! UNCENSORED was Hillary’s sworn declaration that was submitted to the court on April 7, 2006. Hillary’s own words admit that the concert was for “my Senate campaign.” She actually admitted what Paul has been contending for seven years. I do not know of a mainstream media source that has ever reported that sworn admission.

* Novak: Three days after the fundraiser, we learn in the video, The Washington Post ran a short item revealing Paul's felony record; Hillary Clinton's spokesperson, Howard Wolfson, first said her campaign would accept no contributions from him, then two days later corrected himself to say it would return the single $2,000 check it had received from Paul. As for Paul's production of the gala, Wolfson said it was an in-kind contribution.
Unfortunately, Novak left out some very important information that appeared in the Lloyd Grove item.
WASHPOST: Paul was paid "a nominal fee" for his producing services, he said, and Wolfson said Stan Lee donated $100,000 to cover some expenses for the event. As for the rest of the estimated $1 million-plus cost, "it was an in-kind contribution . . . and not a check," Wolfson said.
Wolfson was speaking on behalf of Hillary personally when responding to the Post’s questions. Do others understand the significance of the acknowledgement by Hillary’s official spokesman that the event cost over a million dollars? We will have more to say below about Hillary’s knowledge and direct role in this saga. It may lead people to conclude that HILLARY! UNCENSORED is far from “Crooked Claims About Clinton.” I have searched through the FEC reports and can find no reference of the “nominal fee” paid for Paul’ producing services. We will have more to say about the $100,000 contribution from Stan Lee that never was.

* Re: the Brian Ross 20/20 clip.
We do not believe the use of the clip is unfair at all. It shows Hillary’s refusal to ever discuss the name, Peter Paul. Despite FBI evidence presented in court that Paul personally donated $1.2 million, she has never acknowledged his name in any media quotes or FEC filings as the largest donor to her campaign or as a donor of anything to her campaign. When she finally mentioned his name in her sworn declaration, her first comment about Paul was demonstrably false. There exists video evidence to prove that they met in 1993, not 2000 as she swears. That is exposed in the full documentary.

* Novak: As for his claim that, around that time, Hillary Clinton's "finance director faxed me a request for $100,000," that's mostly true, but a bit misleading. The money had been promised by Paul months earlier, was to be paid in stock, not cash, and was to go to a group called Working Families, which was supporting Hillary Clinton, not to Clinton's own campaign committee.
We disagree that what we presented is in any way misleading. We made it clear in the film that the faxed demand on Hillary Clinton for Senate letterhead by her finance director was made in reference to enforcing the stock pledge made at Spago on June 9, 2000. In fact, there is more to the story that the readers need to know. It really didn’t matter when the stock pledge had been made. Wolfson told the voters on Hillary’s behalf that no contributions would be accepted from Paul. The stock pledge was never reported to the FEC as required by law when it was made at DNC Chair Rendell's demand as the price to host the Spago lunch. It was directed by Hillary through her finance director on her official Senate campaign stationery. It was a violation of the law to direct a federal contribution to a state party, the Working Families Party. And the $55,000 Paul sent in untraceable securities has never been declared in any filings. As additional background, through Rosen’s additional fax communications, Hillary was pressuring Paul to make the contribution on her behalf to the Working Families Party. Besides being the Democratic Senate candidate in New York, she was also the candidate of the Working Families Party and had promised them some funding based on Paul's pledge to her personally in their June fundraiser together.

* Novak: The video then takes us into allegations of business fraud by Bill Clinton. Cogan and Paul claim on camera that the president, through an associate, stole away a Japanese investor who had promised to put $5 million into Stan Lee Media. The Clinton associate, according to the video, cut a different deal with the investor that didn't involve Paul's company. Paul offers no evidence on the video to support that,…”
We learned from the testimony of Jim Levin in the David Rosen criminal trial, that Levin was designated as Bill Clinton’s eyes and ears to evaluate Paul and Stan Lee Media. After it passed muster, Levin would coordinate all of Paul’s expenditures in producing the fundraiser and preparing for Clinton to work with Paul and his company. Levin signed a non-circ agreement and was given access to proprietary business information and relationships exclusively because of Clinton's promise to Paul. In the film, we provided a copy of a memo stating Tendo Oto's intent to establish joint ventures with SLM in Asia and the US. Oto gave $5 million for the Japanese joint venture for Asia and promised another $5 million in November 2000 for the American joint venture as his share of Paul’s $17 million employment agreement with Clinton. The president confirmed the agreement to Oto in person at the Streisand brunch on August 13, 2000. Clinton secretly sent Levin to Japan to deliver official White house photos of Oto sitting behind Clinton's desk in the Oval Office. Levin, on Clinton's behalf, finally comvinced Oto to go into business with Levin as Clinton's agent. Is a recorded document with the Secretary of State in Illinois evidence? We provided the screen shot of the document Levin had recorded with Oto for VentureSoft USA. It was recorded six days after Hillary’s election.

* Novak: It's pretty clear that it would have taken a lot more than $5 million from any investor to save Stan Lee Media. If Novak had a forensic accountant evaluate the condition of Stan Lee Media, I would find that conclusion acceptable. Keep in mind, however, that Stan Lee Media went out of business, as did many dotcoms, because it ran out of cash. Paul intends to demonstrate that $5 million would have easily carried the company though a cash crunch in November, 2000, during the dotcom meltdown, until the former president came aboard on January 20, 2001. How many millions of dollars would have been invested in the company with the announcement that Clinton was on the board? Money may have well come even sooner if the announcement had been leaked. Around Stan Lee Media, the business relationship was common knowledge. In discovery, you will learn of two White House employees who left Clinton’s employ early to come to work for Stan Lee Media, one of whom had a very substantial job with the president.

* Novak: But the jury acquitted Rosen.
What is left out in this segment of the review is of critical importance. The Clinton-appointed judge, before a word of testimony was heard, told the jury that Paul was thoroughly corrupt individual, a con man, and couldn’t be believed. The prosecution did not object and agreed that Hillary had nothing to do with the case. The jury was poisoned by the judge, and Paul was never called to testify. Other key witnesses, such as Howard Wolfson, Aaron Tonken and Kelly Craighead, all knew that Rosen could not hide the cost of the Gala as charged because he did not have unique information about the cost of the Gala. They all had participated in a conference call on July 11, 2000 when the $1.1 million budget was discussed. That is why Wolfson acknowledged the cost of over a million dollars when quoted in the Washington Post. The video of Hillary’s phone conversation was withheld by the office of a US Attorney and never used in the trial or in an official investigations.

* Novak: Besides, Bill Clinton was no longer president at this point, and the U.S. attorney that indicted Paul reported to a Republican Department of Justice, which was part of the Republican administration.
The “Republican” Department of Justice did not prosecute Hillary in the early days of the Bush Administration despite the conclusion of Special Counsel Robert Ray that Hillary’s testimony before the grand jury had been “factually inaccurate.” The Republican Department of Justice allowed Sandy Berger to walk away with a virtual slap on the hand for stealing and destroying classified documents that are now forever lost as part of our history. We are never going to know what was so important to Clinton that Berger risked his reputation and very freedom.

* Novak: Meanwhile, the FEC, mounting its own enforcement action in connection with the gala triggered by a complaint by Paul, couldn't find much to go after, either. It reached a conciliation agreement with New York Senate 2000 and its treasurer, Andrew Grossman, in December 2005. The settlement involved a payment to the FEC of $35,000 and required New York Senate 2000 to amend its disclosure report to reflect an additional $721,895 in in-kind contributions, bringing the total to $1.24 million. As to Hillary Clinton specifically, the agency voted 5-0 on a motion to "[f]ind no reason to believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton violated any provision of the [Federal Election Campaign] Act or regulations in connection with this matter and close the file as to her." Two of the votes were from Republicans and three from Democrats. That's not part of Paul's video, either.
Unfortunately, there are important elements left out of the review. The FEC never called key witnesses, such as Wolfson, who acknowledged to the Washington Post as her official spokesman that he, and thus Hillary, knew the cost of the event. The FEC never called Craighead, who conceived the Gala with Levin. The FEC has never viewed 5-minute tape of July 17, 2000 because it was withheld by the US Attorney in NY from 2001-2007. It was finally obtained by Paul’s lawyers after all the investigations were concluded. Also missing from Novak’s analysis is the fourth amended FEC report of January 30, 2006. In that report, Paul’s in-kind contribution was still never reported as required. Instead, it is listed as an $839,000 expense of the campaign instead of an in kind contribution by Paul through his shell companies. Perhaps even more incredible is the claim in Clinton’s fourth amended report that Stan Lee donated $225,000. We provide in the film Lee’s sworn deposition that he gave no money. No money. Senator Clinton has received demand letters and faxes to her office giving her a link to Lee’s sworn deposition and demanding that she set the record straight. She knows he gave no money, but she refuses to correct the record. In addition, on tape and under oath, Lee admits to “exchanging” $100,000 checks, thus hiding the identify of the real donor. People have gone to jail for smaller violations. Although the FBI and FEC are aware of Lee’s admission under oath, they have done nothing about it.

* Novak: Let's start by saying the fundraiser itself was perfectly legal, and these kinds of events – albeit usually with less star power – took place frequently before passage of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002.
Yes, these kinds of fundraisers were legal, but that certainly doesn’t tell the whole story. Pursuant to court testimony, it was Levin and Craighead who came up with the idea for a dramatic event to take place for Hillary just before the Democratic Convention in Los Angeles. They conceived the idea after a Chicago fundraiser for Hillary. The next day, Levin called Paul to solicit him to pay for the event if the President would agree to work with him. The solicitation and coordination admitted by Levin as an agent for the candidate, through Bill Clinton, was a felony. It is critical to understand the role of some of the players. Levin, Craighead, Tonken, and Bill Clinton were not a part of any joint fundraising committee. They were, in fact, all agents of Hillary Clinton. Craighead was a White House employee. As agents, their direct solicitation of a donation of over a million dollars was not legal.

* Novak: Now we'll take Armor's charges in turn. First, he says the videotape shows Clinton "had personal involvement and personal knowledge of the details of this gala," contrary to the representations of her lawyers. That's false.
As you recall from above, Hillary’s official spokesman acknowledged in the Washington Post that the cost of the gala exceeded a million dollars. Does anyone believe that the official spokesman would be saying something in the Washington Post that Hillary did not know? On tape, Hillary says that she got a full report from Kelly. On July 11, 2000 was another conference call involving Paul. Participating in the call were Levin, Rosen, Craighead, and Wolfson. A budget was discussed during that call of well over a million dollars. The parties discussed Paul paying $525,000 and philanthropist Cynthia Gershman paying $525,000. When Hillary says that Kelly gave her a full report, I accept her statement. Prior to the Gala, Hillary had knowledge that the event would cost over a million dollars.

* Novak: Clinton was certainly aware of the upcoming fundraiser, but all we hear in this phone call is a politician's routine call scratching under the chin those who are knocking themselves out for her.
Routine call? Hillary told them that Kelly, her agent and one who participated in the direct solicitation of Paul’s in-kind contribution, would convey to them what she needed. She offered her further assistance.

* Novak: Somebody else solicited Cher to appear at the fundraiser. Clinton may have thanked her for agreeing to perform, but she did not ask her to do so.
It would have been very helpful if Novak discussed this with me before going to print. Hillary did not only initiate a call to Cher. She also called Diana Ross. I expect to see the testimony from Tonken clarify the matter. Tonken did indeed begin the solicitation of the performances. In the case of those two mega-stars, however, Tonken did not seal the deal. Unlike the others who performed, Cher and Ross had a requirement prior to their final agreement. Each of them required a personal phone call from Hillary herself to discuss it. Tonken set it up; Hillary sealed the deal or they would not have performed.

* Novak: What Clinton's lawyers have maintained is that "she didn't know about the disclosure issues," says Ken Gross, a former FEC enforcement chief who practices campaign finance law and isn't involved in this case. "There's a big difference between knowing some things about the fundraiser and knowing what was disclosed on the forms. The former is not legally relevant to whether she's culpable." Although Clinton does say that her aide gave her "a full report" on the event, there's no evidence the aide shared with her detailed breakdowns of cost.
There is some very important additional background that was left out of this review. On July 11, 2001, Hillary’s counsel, David Kendall, accepted service for Hillary in the civil suit. On July 3, 2001, treasurer Andrew Grossman accepted similar service. Included in the service to both parties were bank statements, invoices, cancelled checks, and other evidence from Paul that totaled approximately $1.6 million. Although I will not concede Hillary’s lack of earlier knowledge, I will engage in a supposition. Let’s suppose that Hillary was kept in the dark until July 11, 2001. Let’s suppose that she was the last to know about the two initial false FEC reports. Having actual receipt of the information from the donor on July 11, 2000, how could it be that Hillary allowed her treasurer to file a third false report on July 30, 2001 that only claimed $401,000? How is that possible? A week after Kendall was served, Paul’s counsel held a press event at the National Press Club that was attended by at least one member of Hillary’s team. And a personal messenger delivered to Hillary’s senate office a demand letter that she report Paul’s contributions properly.

* Novak: And Cher's performance was not an illegal contribution anyway – nor were those by Diana Ross and the other stars who studded the gala. Under federal law, anyone can volunteer his or her services to a campaign, and the value of those services is not counted against federal contribution limits. Lawyers, graphic artists, entertainers, accountants, chefs and others do it all the time.
That is interesting, but it only tells part of the story. The performances were directly solicited by Hillary’s agents, who were not part of any joint fundraising committee. The stars didn’t come forward on their own to donate their services. The other part of the story that is never reported is the professional services donated by famous photographer, Annie Liebovitz. She generally charges her high end clients $25,000 for a sitting. In connection with the Gala, she donated her services for four sittings. Although the campaign only declared $10,000 as the total value, it is interesting that the campaign declared those donated services as an in-kind contribution. Why was that declared and not the services that were clearly of much higher value?

* Novak: But the fundraiser was never meant to be "independent," a term which has a very specific meaning in campaign law. It was to benefit the DSCC, the Democratic Party in New York and Hillary Clinton's campaign committee, and it was perfectly legal for representatives of all three groups, including Clinton, to be involved in planning it.
Again, the question arises as to the beneficiary of the fundraiser. Paul clearly intended it to be Hillary’s Senate campaign. That was the intent of the donor from the very outset. The intent of the donor has been completely ignored. He was not trying to solidify a business relationship with the DSCC, the Democratic Party of New York, or the Working Families Party. Hillary admitted in her sworn declaration that the concert was for “my Senate campaign.”

* Novak: Later in the video, Armor declares that this was "the largest fraud in election funding history." That's absurd. The only finding of anything illegal in connection with the fundraiser was the underreporting of the cost of the event by about $722,000, which resulted in a fine of $35,000. To put this in context, last year alone the FEC collected 10 fines of $100,000 or more. People sometimes go to prison for campaign fraud.
Absurd? No matter the amount of the fine, has there been another case where someone has hidden $720,000? Hidden it after two false reports and a demand by the donor, who provided documentation? Yes, people do go to prison for campaign fraud. The point of the film, however, is that some people are above the law.

* Novak: Paul's lawsuit against the Clintons and others – a version of the same one that was filed and dismissed in 2001 when Paul was a fugitive – hasn't been faring particularly well in California state court.
I guess we will see how it fares after the status conference on February 21 and the setting of the trial date. For those who don’t know, a trial date had actually been set in February of 2007. Paul delayed it while he appealed for Hillary to rejoin her husband as a defendant.

* Novak: As to the remaining defendants, including Bill Clinton, what's left of the suit largely has to do with the alleged wooing of Paul's Japanese business investor into a separate partnership.
What’s left of the suit? That description is an attempt to diminish the importance of the historic civil suit. It is about a business fraud and collapse of a public company. Paul intends to prove the Clinton role in the demise of Stan Lee Media. What’s left of the suit includes depositions to be taken from Bill, Hillary, Chelsea, Al Gore, Ed Rendell, Wolfson, Craighead, Rosen, Gray Davis, Streisand, Cher, Diana Ross, John Travolta, Larry King, and a host of others.

* Novak; It's possible, though, that Hillary Clinton could be called as a witness.
Possible? The readers deserve to know what Judge Aurelio Munoz said in the courtroom on April 7, 2006. “I will entertain no motion that prevents Senator Clinton from testifying in this case……………..did you hear that, Mr. Kendall?”

* Novak: 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 the tape, is the former chief investigative counsel for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee during the 1998 Clinton impeachment hearings.
Of all the sentences in the entire piece, this one, more than any other, is the most deceptive and unfair. Dave Schippers is a great American. It is a shame that the above is the only sentence describing him. Schippers worked in the Kennedy Justice Department and helped take down the Chicago Mob. He is a lifelong Democrat. And perhaps most importantly, Novak failed to tell you that he twice voted for Bill Clinton. Schippers and I have had many conversations since impeachment. As a guest on my radio show, he told me that when called by Henry Hyde to be the chief investigative counsel, he thought he would wrap up his work in a matter of weeks. He said, however, that he was astounded by the criminality he discovered.

* Novak: Another character from that era who is involved in this story is Lucianne Goldberg.
Yes, it was on Goldberg’s site that the link on Google Videos was leaked. But there was no conspiracy here. The roughcut segment on Google Videos was unpublished and for our own internal use. Somehow, someone who saw it alerted Goldberg to the URL. She simply put the URL on her website. That was her role. It wasn’t sinister at all. I find it curious that some kind of conspiratorial link was created here. As an aside, the CLINTON CHRONICLES was mentioned. Many of you came to know it as the “Falwell video.” Did you know that Jerry Falwell had absolutely nothing to do with the production or editing of that documentary? He simply became one of the distributors and generated revenue through distribution. His name was used in an attempt to discredit the film. I will raise the question here. Was an association made with the “Clinton basher“ Goldberg an attempt to taint or diminish the work we have done for HILLARY! UNCENSORED? The readers can make that determination.

* Novak: Paul is now represented by another conservative legal group, the United States Justice Foundation, after having a falling-out with, and suing, Judicial Watch.
I don’t understand the point, unless it is to diminish his counsel as among the “Clinton haters.” Paul would love to be represented by one of the top law firms in the country, however, he does not have the millions of dollars in assets that the Clintons have acquired to pay for such representation.

* Novak: According to the Associated Press, the HillCAP Web site is operated by two conservatives who were instrumental in the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth site in 2004, Robert Hahn and Scott Swett.
Again, the only point I can see for the reference is to diminish the credibility of our work. Neither Hahn nor Scott is responsible for writing, editing, or producing HILLARY! UNCENSORED. They are webmasters who manage the documents and content on the site. They have done so competently and at a reasonable price.

* Novak: Paul's movie isn't the only one that is lobbing accusations at Hillary Clinton. Citizens United, another group that long has been involved in efforts against the Clintons, is selling "Hillary: the Movie" online and was in federal court recently over its attempt to run ads for the film in primary states during election season.
This film has nothing to do with the analysis of our work. It appears to be inserted once again to taint what we have produced.

There are going to be some interesting questions during depositions. One of the most interesting will be regarding the business relationship of Paul and Clinton. As stated earlier, the FBI determined that Paul had personally spent at last $1.2 million on Hillary’s campaign. On August 15, 2000, through her official spokesman, she began disavowing him. The claims in public to all of the voters that her campaign would take no money from him was clearly a lie.

Bill Clinton’s answer should be enlightening regarding this horrible felon, this guy who only was paid a nominal fee for producing, this guy who is imagining a business relationship with the president, this thoroughly discredited conman. Why was Peter Paul allowed to greet President Clinton on September 22, 2000 as he exited Air Force One after touchdown in Los Angeles? For what possible purpose was Paul allowed to be there? A reasonable person would conclude what Paul has claimed. The President assured him they still had a business deal no matter what was being said to the press and the voters. What did Paul do after the assurance? He sent $55,000 in untraceable securities to the Working Families Party at the direction of Hillary. There really can be no other reasonable conclusion.

I must admit that I was shocked when I saw this analysis of my work. It clearly has needed its own fact checking, and it seemed to me to be far removed from a non-partisan analysis. When a friend read it to me, I would have guessed that he had been written by Sid Blumenthal. Nevertheless, I want to thank Brooks Jackson for the opportunity to respond. He promised I would be given that opportunity and proved to be a man of his word.

I read the hit piece when it came out, and wasn't surprised, to be quite honest.

Factcheck.org is probably one of the most intentionally misleading names ever used to describe an appendage of the mainsttream media.

The thing that really amazed me was their insistence that Peter Paul's allegations shouldn't be taken seriously because he was of dubious character.

As if everyone who surrounded the Clintons during their reign of error didn't have an extremely compromised morality-and that's giving things a generous spin.

That's precisely the point though.

You wouldn't find someone with unimpeachable character-no pun intended-to make these incredibly specific allegations, because the Clintons did not seek support from people with upstanding character.

That's what makes them the Clintons in the first place.

Viveca Novak was smack in the middle of the fabricated Plame leak scandal. (She is no relation to Bob Novak.) Maybe somebody remembers the details, but she was mostly able to stay below the radar. In any event, I’m pretty sure she has an agenda.

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.