Posted on 02/02/2008 9:46:58 AM PST by doug from upland
Newsweek Runs with FactCheck on Hillary Media Ben Barrack February 2, 2008
A quick check of Factcheck’s mission page identifies them as “non-partisan consumer advocates” whose goal is to “reduce deception and confusion in U.S. politics”, a noble endeavor indeed. The implication is that they’re qualified to be a resource within media circles when their brethren are, oddly enough, checking facts.
In a piece by Viveca Novak dated January 18th that also appeared in Newsweek, the subtitle fingers the plaintiff, Peter Paul, in a pending civil suit as “falsely” accusing Hillary Clinton of crimes and misconduct relative to a Hollywood gala underwritten and produced by Paul on August 12, 2000.
The article focuses on the “trailer” for the documentary film, “Hillary! Uncensored” in which claims made by plaintiff Peter Paul are more than just a little damning if true. Paul contends Novak’s group used the trailer, which has gotten approximately four million views on google, to push another agenda. “This was an attempt to discredit me under the auspices of analyzing a rough-cut segment of a sixty-three minute documentary,” Paul said.
Novak began her article with a summary that consisted of four bullet points and it is exclusively that summary and those bullets that are addressed here. However, I did read the entire article so I did not misunderstand Novak’s claims.
Bullet #1
Novak’s first conclusion is Peter Paul’s allegation that the Clintons retaliated against him with an indictment for filing a lawsuit against them is false because a securities law violation indictment filed by the US Attorney in New York against California resident Paul came days before Paul's civil fraud lawsuit against the Clintons was filed in California (11 days to be exact). Paul does not deny that but makes a very compelling argument that the Clintons knew the lawsuit was coming well before the indictment against him was filed. “My lawsuit against the Clintons had been prepared months earlier in draft form for Mike Wallace to review,” said Paul. “Wallace was preparing a CBS 60 Minutes exclusive interview with me in April, 2001 (Paul was indicted on June 8th).”
Paul asserts that as part of the CBS 60 Minutes’ vetting process, Wallace made the lawsuit known to the Clintons two months prior to Paul’s indictment. “Ultimately, ABC’s Brian Ross of 20/20 took over the interview in May when Wallace backed out,” he says. Paul maintains his lawyers were negligent in filing the suit as late as they did but has no doubt the Clintons knew it was coming as a direct result of the vetting process that was done by CBS and then ABC for the story that appeared on 20/20 in July, 2001.
Bullet #2
Here, Novak adopts Clinton attorney David Kendall’s position with respect to the five minute video of a phone call placed by Hillary Clinton to Paul in his office on the, “first day I began paying for the largest fundraiser of Hillary's campaign,” says Paul. The video was introduced into evidence this past June and Novak contends, as does Kendall, that it demonstrates nothing more than Senator Clinton “thanking organizers of a fundraiser”. With that claim, Novak appears to be choosing sides in a lawsuit that is about to proceed to trial (a trial date is to be set in late February), which is fine when you’re writing an op-ed but typically frowned upon when one is engaged in objective reporting. To illustrate, this is what Kendall said in his reply brief to the video when it was submitted:
"To the extent that it is authentic, the videotape shows that Senator Clinton is gracious to her supporters, that she has a sense of humor, and nothing more."
As for the opinion shared by Kendall and Novak, there are a few things said by Senator Clinton on the tape that would indicate she was doing a bit more than “thanking organizers”. Things such as,
“I got a full report from Kelly (Craighead – Clinton and White House aide) when she got back and told me everything that you’re doing,” and “I will check in with you from time to time,” and “You just let me know if there’s anything that I need to do and I know you and Kelly (Craighead – Clinton’s aide) talk all the time so she’ll be the person to convey whatever I need.”
Moreover, none other than entertainer “Cher” was the topic of conversation on that tape (recorded on July 17th, 2000) as well, with Hillary giving coordinator Aaron Tonken credit for “selling” the idea of the gala to Cher even though she admits to talking to Cher personally about performing. The fact that Hillary is on tape admitting to talking to Cher at all leaves open the possibility that she was taking part in the coordination of the gala, a crime according to FEC law. Moreover, it also lends credence to Paul’s claim that, “Aaron Tonken told Hillary that she needed to close Cher and Diana Ross,” Paul says, “because they wanted to be asked personally by the first lady.”
Further indication that Novak may not be completely neutral is in one of her sub-headings, which reads, “The Civil (ahem) Lawsuit” and is clearly meant to portray that the suit should not be taken seriously. When an objective reporter at an organization like FactCheck is writing about a pending lawsuit, it is not usually considered appropriate for the writer to attempt to diminish the veracity of a complaint or sway public opinion, let alone media opinion, prior to said case being heard in a court of law.
Bullet #3
Novak’s third bullet hones in on the disparity between what 1st Amendment attorney John Armor alleges in the film and what punishment was actually handed out by the FEC. Armor calls this, “the largest election law fraud in the history of the United States,” while Novak seems to indicate again that she has chosen sides in a pending lawsuit by calling that allegation, “absurd”. After doing so, she points to the fact that the Clinton campaign was fined for nothing more than a reporting violation. It is here that she omits some very important facts.
The reporting violation had to do with hiding the name of Senator Clinton’s largest donor, Peter Paul from the public. Specifically, it had to do with what DOJ Prosecutor Daniel Schwager termed at the time, “Denying the public the right to know that Peter Paul personally gave $1.2 million". In fact, in the 2005 criminal trial of Clinton’s campaign finance director, David Rosen, he (Rosen) was facing 15 years in prison (5 years for each false report, of which there were three) for doing just that.
Ultimately, Rosen was acquitted but the charges against him were not re-applied to any other group or individual. The reports were still found to be false and Paul’s contributions remained hidden. The fine Novak refers to was a paltry $35,000 when you compare it to the 15 years in prison Rosen was facing. There was one other stipulation to come out of the trial. As part of a “Conciliation Agreement”, the Clinton campaign had to file a fourth report and would be granted immunity for past transgressions in their reporting practices relative to Event 39 (the August 12th, 2000 Hollywood Gala that is at the root of this case).
Clinton Treasurer Andrew Grossman accepted responsibility for the three false reports and signed the fourth one. Paul’s FEC complaint, filed on December 31st even implicates the FEC itself. “After Clinton Treasurer Andrew Grossman accepted responsibility for the three false reports,” says Paul, “and after the DOJ Prosecutor said it was a crime to deny the public's right to know of my personal contribution to Hillary's campaign, the FEC enabled another report to be filed by Grossman which not only omitted my name but turned my contribution to the campaign to a payment from the campaign,” he said.
Again, not mentioned by Novak is the strong evidence that the fourth report is false as well, in at least three ways:
Paul is not shown to have personally contributed anything to event 39 (the gala) on the report. There is a copy of a signed affidavit by FBI Special Agent David Smith, saying Paul contributed approximately $1.2 million.
Over $800,000 appears in the report as having been paid to or by Paul’s holding companies and not Paul himself. This would seem to contradict what both the FEC found as well as what FBI Special Agent Smith swears to in the aforementioned affidavit.
Stan Lee is identified as having contributed $225,000 to Event 39 in the report (scroll to page 34 of the report). However, he is clearly shown admitting he did not contribute anything in what is identified as a videotaped deposition on Paul’s site.
In a report filed by Paul with the FEC on December 31st, 2007 (not earlier this year as stated by Novak – this fact is important because due to vacancies and delayed appointments, the FEC is not reviewing any cases filed in 2008), he called for a re-opening of the investigation into the Clinton campaign’s failure to identify the contributions made by Senator Clinton’s largest donor, stating that because the fourth report is false, the guidelines meted out in the conciliation agreement were not met and immunity should rescinded. “The FEC needs to set aside its settlement agreement with Clinton and her campaign because of the fraudulent report,” Paul said.
Pragmatically speaking, if David Rosen was facing 15 years in prison (5 years for each false report), Paul may well be justified in expecting that someone be faced with a similar indictment for the fourth report, if it is indeed false. Andrew Grossman signed that report in addition to taking responsibility for the three prior false reports for which Rosen was acquitted relative to his role in filing them.
Bullet #4
Novak’s fourth salvo in the opening of her piece maintains that the “Hillary! Uncensored” trailer makes “deceptive use of an ABC ‘20/20’ clip” to make it appear that the Clintons were pretending they didn’t know who Peter Paul was. The clip in question does show ABC’s Brian Ross asking Hillary if she recalled working with Paul and her subsequent refusal to answer. There is another clip taken from that 20/20 piece that appears in the full-length documentary.
Specifically, Ross is heard doing a voiceover telling the viewers that Senator Clinton didn’t want to talk about Paul’s lawsuit, which is followed by footage of Clinton telling him why.
Clinton: “I’m just not going to comment on it. It is not anything that I’m going to have anything to say about. It’ll just work its way out as all of his frivolous lawsuits do (referring to Paul’s attorney at the time, Larry Klayman).”
Even Novak concedes that the Clintons didn’t come “rushing forward” to make it known how extensive their dealings with Paul were but based on footage used from the 20/20 piece, there doesn’t appear to be “deceptive use” of it either.
In addition, Senator Clinton submitted a sworn declaration on April 7th, 2006 in which she chose to use as a defense against Paul’s claims that she had “no recollection” of very specific events relayed by Paul in his sworn declaration on March 26th, 2006. In fact, her line of reasoning seems to be that Paul’s recollections are not correct because she would have remembered them if they were.
If multiple examples of Senator Clinton saying, “no comment” in response to questions about her knowledge of her largest donor (as found by the FEC, the DOJ, and the FBI) in the 20/20 piece coupled with claims of ignorance about Paul’s claims in her signed declaration don’t equate to “pretending not to know who Peter Paul was”, what would?
For the record, Novak declined to appear on my radio show because she doesn’t believe it to be a “neutral” forum.
Ben Barrack is a radio personality airing on KTEM AM1400 in Temple, Texas. He maintains a website at www.benbarrack.com.
DC Chapter ping.
Where’s Webb Hubbel when you need him (to take the fall)? This continues to be an amazing case — and case study in MSM malfeasance.
Why are the Clinton’s hiding all their past record? This in itself should tell their supporters something. People just don’t like to admit they’ve been wrong all these years. Or .....that they’ve been fooled by these people. Come on people, this is your country we’re talkin about here. Don’t give it back to the Clinton machine and let them ruin it.
Great to meet you there. I have about an 11-page response that I hope factcheck will post. They told me they would if it wasn’t a rant. I really had to control myself to not make it a rant.
I will be doing a youtube today showing Peter taking his polygraph and being shown to be telling the truth about the business relationship with Bill and discussions with Hillary.
Looking forward to it.
This reminds me of snoops.com with regard to “urban myths”. They are as liberal as can be and the site cannot be trusted on anything political in nature.
Them aint bullets, them is cannon balls.
There’s an FEC in charge of the Hen House?
The fact is that Peter Pau is telling the truth, as far as I can determine.
I think Newsweek knows that too, but their partisan agenda takes precedence over the truth — as it does for all of the MSM.
Newsweek must be focused on fairy tails. News seems to escape them.
Why is this important, compared with all the hundreds of other crimes committed by the Clintons over the years? Everybody already knows that the Clintons made a mockery of the campaign finance laws and got away with it. Don’t they?
I don’t get it. Rape is a much more serious crime than lying about how involved you were in planning a fundraiser.
THIS MAY HELP - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&pr=goog-sl
Why is it important? She is going to be grilled under oath during the summer congressional recess, along with Bill, Chelsea, Gore, Rendell, Wolfson, Craighead, Gray Davis, Streisand, Cher, Diana Ross, etc. The civil fraud case is going to expose the massive campaign finance fraud in which she compromised all three branches of government, including a federal judge and the office of a US Attorney.
Falsely, my size 5 1/2 foot!
ping
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.