Replies

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!

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.

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.