HILLARY! UNCENSORED: "Crooked Claims About Clinton" - Dave Schippers not happy with hit piece

"fact" check dot org/phone call with Schippers ^ | 2-6-08 | Novak/DFU

[doug from upland]

HIT PIECE ON "FACT" CHECK DOT ORG

For those who had not seen it, a former TIME MAG journalist (she got canned) named Viveca Novak did a hit piece on HILLARY! UNCENSORED: Banned by the Media.

As you can see by the incendiary headline and sub-headline, there was clearly an agenda. It wasn't a "fact" check; it was an editorial to dismiss the film, dismiss the importance of the lawsuit, and do some damage control. Perhaps Hillary is mildly concerned. After it appeared on "fact" check dot org, it was placed on Newsweek's website. While purporting to be non-partisan, it is clear that the piece was designed to do damage to the film whose unedited 13-minute segment on Google Videos and YouTube has been seen by four million people.

Pursuant to Novak's boss, Brooks Jackson, yesterday I submitted a 12-page response which he promised to place on his website if it was not a rant. It was a reasoned piece and definitely not a rant. I have made contact with someone at Newsweek and am awaiting their promise to allow me to answer.

Now, on to Dave Schippers. Here is what the "non-partisan" Novak told her readers in her hit piece:

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.

That's fair and non-partisan, right? Here is my response to that journalistic equivalent of a drive-by shooting:

Of all the conclusions in the entire piece, perhaps more than any others, this is the most unfair. Dave Schippers is a great American. It is a shame that the above description is the only reference to 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 mention that he twice voted for Bill Clinton. No one can dispute that such background information about Schippers is important.

While discussing on the phone what Novak did to him, I suggested to Schippers that it might be appropriate to demand an apology and retraction from Novak. He thought that such might be a good idea. Here is hoping he takes the time to do it.

What Novak did regarding Lucianne Goldberg shows more about her journalist integrity:

Another character from that era who is involved in this story is Lucianne Goldberg.

The response:

Yes, it was on Goldberg’s site that the link on Google Videos was leaked to her readers. But there was no conspiracy here. The rough-cut segment on Google Videos was unpublished and for our internal use and that of journalists. Someone who saw it apparently alerted Goldberg to the URL. She simply put the URL on her website so others could see it. That was her role, and it was done without any direction from those involved with our film, including Paul. It wasn’t sinister at all. I find it curious that some kind of conspiratorial link was created here. As an aside, and since the CLINTON CHRONICLES was mentioned in Novak‘s analysis, a comment is necessary. Many of you came to know that documentary 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.

On another interesting note, Novak, who admitted that she only reviewed the 13-minute unedited rough-cut segment, actually described Peter Paul as the narrator of the film. That is a mistake that someone supposedly doing a thoughtful piece would not make. It requires a suspension of disbelief.

When(or if) Jackson publishes the response, I will bring it here. If he doesn't, you'll see it anyway, and we will try to find a way to give him some grief on the net and on YouTube.

[doug from upland]

* I am described as a “conservative Republican” and a believer in Paul’s case. That is an accurate description, with the caveat that the first word of the description, conservative, is most assuredly the operative one. What readers of the review have not been told, however, 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 by the Clintons, their surrogates, their private investigators, or their colleagues. 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, including the 1000+ pages of the transcript from the David Rosen trial, spoken with witnesses, and attended court proceedings. I am a believer that no one, Democrat or Republican, should be above the law and that this story needs to be told.

[PROCON]

You tryin’ to give us a heart attack. Egad! that’s scarey.

Sorry, my Friend, I'll try to tone it down a bit!!

[doug from upland]

Question & Answer Posted on

Q: Are there any certificates like this one naming stars in honor of his victims? That would be a lot of certificates and I could buy them all in one shot and combine shipping. Feb-06-08
A: I haven’t done that, but will take it under advisement. A star named JIM McDOUGAL WAS WHACKED might be interesting.

(Thanks for the question. I hope others will go have some fun — http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=220199516322&ssPageName=ADME:L:LCA:US:1123 )

[doug from upland]

* 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.

Mostly true? We maintain that the statement is entirely true and in no way misleading. We made it clear in the film that the fax demand on Hillary Clinton for Senate official stationery 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 actually really didn’t matter when the stock pledge had been made. Wolfson vowed, on Hillary’s behalf, that no contributions would be accepted from Paul. After that vow, they wanted more money that they vowed to voters they wouldn‘t take. It should also be noted that 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. Another very important point is being missed. It was not somehow better that Hillary directed federal funds from a stock pledge to a state party. That is a violation of the law. And there is no record that $55,000 Paul sent in untraceable securities has ever been declared in any filings. As additional background, through Rosen’s other fax communications, Hillary was pressuring Paul to make the contribution on her behalf to the Working Families Party because she had promised them funding based on Paul‘s earlier pledge to her campaign.

[doug from upland]

Question & Answer Answered On

Q: Is this star a safe distance from earth and has this been framed using bullet proof glass? Feb-06-08
A: It is very, very far from earth. Come on, how can I sell this thing for $7.95 if I have to use bullet proof glass? Actually, when Hillary hears of this, I may well need to be bullet proof. Strange things seem to happen to those who cross the Clintons. I guess they are just lucky.

[doug from upland]

* Novak: It's pretty clear that it would have taken a lot more than $5 million from any investor to save Stan Lee Media.

Clear to whom? Unless Novak had a forensic accountant evaluate the condition of Stan Lee Media, that appears to be an editorial opinion. Keep in mind that Stan Lee Media went out of business, as did many dotcoms, because it ran out of cash. Paul has demonstrated and will do so in court 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, one of whom had a substantial job with the President, and three top Disney officials (led by their No. 3 executive HR Chief William Wilkinson) who came aboard Stan Lee Media to take over management in January. All of them came aboard because of their knowledge and understanding that Clinton would be a factor that would assure adequate capitalization with their management.

[RaceBannon]

Doug, you left out that Hillary worked with Shippers in the impeachment of Nixon.

[Pagey]

BTTT!

[Marysecretary]

I’m sure you didn’t expect a ticker tape parade from the enemy.

[doug from upland]

She worked with Jerry Zeifman. I’ve had a few conversations with him. Of all the people he supervised, Zeifman did not give a positive job referral to only two people: Bernie Nussbaum and Hillary Diane Rodham.

[In God I trust]

My goodness Doug, you are certainly one that won’t quit. I don’t know how you keep up the energy and drive but I’m very thankful for your hard work. Don’t give up my man and my prayers are with you always. I hope all this pays off for you and the country. I will help in anyway possible so you can email me for suggestions. Thank you Doug, and please God, bless this GREAT PATRIOT!!!

[doug from upland]

I didn’t know about them before I so the “review.” I don’t mind constructive criticism. A hit piece filled with lies, however, is another matter.

[Seaplaner]

Apologies if this seems a bit "tinfoilish", but one wonders if Viveca Novak wrote this of her own volition, or, if it was an assignment from Hillary (or from her operatives).

No idea here, but Hillary's tentacles do run deeply through the media.

Doug, as always, YOU DA MAN!

[doug from upland]

Please make sure everyone you know sees the segment we have on Google - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019&pr=goog-sl

(Helping with Peter’s legal fund would also be helpful.)

[doug from upland]

I have no information about it, but I can make a guess. Over four million people have seen the unedited trailer. A whole bunch of people are going to be under oath who do not want to be under oath. My suspicion is that Hillary is somewhat concerned. Perhaps while he is not drunk driving, Sid Blumenthal is doing the hit work such as this.

[In God I trust]

(Helping with Peter’s legal fund would also be helpful.)

Details please

I've been sending these threads and your video links to everyone that hasn't asked me to stop. Some people I know just aren't interested. So many folks I know just have their heads in the sand and don't see whats happening in this country. I try, Lord knows I try, but to no avail sometimes. It's sad. Hey, my eyes were blind until 2000, but now I see clearly.

[doug from upland]

Perhaps I am misinterpreting the intent and tone of the headline and sub-headline, but a reasonable person could conclude that the analysis didn’t appear to be truly non-partisan. If someone is “checking facts,” “Errors in Clinton Video” would have seemed somewhat less incendiary, significantly more non-partisan, and less dismissive of our work. “Four-time convicted felon” could have been more fair if the defendant also carried a label. Our film acknowledges that Paul has a felony record. But in this case, the defendant, who has not been given a label, was impeached, lost his law license, committed and suborned perjury, had his secretary hide evidence under her bed, turned a false affidavit in to the court, was held in civil contempt by the court, paid the plaintiff $850,000 to settle the case, etc. A key witness in Paul v Clinton is Hillary Clinton. Independent Counsel Robert Ray determined that she had given “factually inaccurate” testimony in the Travel Office case. The sub-headline leads people to the inevitable conclusion that the plaintiff has absolutely no credibility. That he is less credible than the defendant is certainly open to speculation. Putting the argument of credibility aside, Paul has always asked people to simply look at the evidence in the case.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[doug from upland]

We are working on the details. Peter is going to need a great deal of money to fight this battle.

[In God I trust]

You got it. Keep me informed please. I’ll give what I can as often as I can. Off to bed. Hope you are getting some rest these days. Don’t burn out Doug. Take care of yourself please.