Full Text Of Letter From Bill Clinton Lawyer To ABC Obtained

[kpete]

Full Text Of Letter From Bill Clinton Lawyer To ABC Obtained

http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/07/full_text_of_letter_from_bill_clinton_lawyer_to_abc_obtained

[William769]

1. A bunch of people on DU should feel shitty about themselves right now.

And if they don't, they should!

[Bunny]

4. Huh?

Why should some of us be feeling shitty? What did I miss? :shrug:

[Debau2005]

12. There were some posts upset that

Clinton had not responded to ABC. I think that may be what he is referring to.

[William769]

14. There were more than just some

And some should have been deleted.

[Debau2005]

15. I stopped reading them

after about the second one. They tended to make me angry!

[William769]

16. Me too!

:hi:

[Lex]

21. Please hit alert on posts when you feel they break the rules

so that the Mods can take a look at them.

Thanks.

[William769]

23. Trust me, I Wished that worked.

[Lex]

37. Please feel free to contact the Admins

if you feel the Mods aren't doing their jobs correctly.

The contact info is at the bottom of each page at DU:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/contact.html

:hi:

[tsuki]

73. Yes, do. Then hit ignore.

[FredStembottom]

26. With respect........

Nonsense! It's a Big ol' Board that millions can post to - and no one is required to have faith in any one particular person.

:spank:

[William769]

28. You don't need to have faith in any one particular person.

But you also don't need to be a horses ass without having all the facts. With respect of course.

[FredStembottom]

42. I am just advocating for a broader view.......

It's a board open to all. Horse's asses will always be with us but, in my opinion, should not be removed summarily.

[nashville_brook]

87. no one here has all the facts -- and we're ALL horse's asses every now

and again. we're human, not republicans.

[Bunny]

18. Ah! I did not know that. Okay, thanks!

I'm a fan of The Big Dog, and I'm glad to see that he responded.

[William769]

19. Me too!

Sometimes I really lose my cool with some of the shit that gets posted.

[desi]

39. Don't lose your cool William769..

Just remember..."the usual suspects."

[AspenRose]

50. I understand

Don't feed the....you-know-what's!

[druidity33]

74. instead of...

madly responding to posters, i have a little "troll" list tackd to my desk next to my computer to remind me if it's someone who usually pisses me off...
i don't usually hit the ignore button on anyone, because seeing ignore on my screen usually makes me want to see what was said (masochism?)...
but, whatever works for ye...

[AntiFascist]

64. Perhaps bitching about it prompted a response? n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

5. I missed something. What do you mean?

[Connie_Corleone]

8. WHA??

Did I miss something?

[Tesha]

17. Actually, the polled question was "When will WJC say something?"

Actually, the polled question was "When will WJC say something?"

As far as I can see, the answer is still to be determined.

When I see BJ on the Nightly News speaking for himself
(rather than through his legal mouthpieces), *THEN* we'll
know which DUers "should feel shitty about themselves".

Tesha

[oasis]

25. Who's TJ?

:shrug:

[desi]

36. "When I see BJ on the Nightly News speaking for himself"

Looks like BJ to me..as in Blow Job..it could be a typo but I doubt it. Obviously not a FOB (FanOfBill)

[oasis]

66. I can't imagine that some are still obsessed with Clinton's sexuality.

Excuse my ignorance.:spank:

[gully]

30. Oh puleeze.

:eyes:

[Tesha]

40. "Oh puleeze" yourself. Have we heard the Big Dog speak yet? (NT)

[gully]

44. "The Big Dog?"

:eyes:

He has spoken about this several times. And YES, I've heard him speak through his attorneys.

[Tesha]

56. "Through his attorneys" -- How challenging!

"Through his attorneys" -- How challenging! That'll make a difference!

Tesha

[Seabiscuit]

63. Clinton is in a position of having to contact ABC through his attorneys

because important legal issues are involved.

Bill Clinton is a public figure, and as such is considered fair game when it comes to media criticism under the libel laws, unless actual malice can be established.

In order for Clinton to get a court order to stop the airing of this piece, he must show a judge not only that the documentary is factually incorrect and misleading, but that ABC knew it and aired it anyway with a "reckless disregard for the truth". In other words, he must show actual malice on the part of ABC.

Clinton's attorneys' letter to ABC sets forth the evidence of falsehoods in three primary areas of the documentary and provides factual detail about the falsehoods. It further demands and urges that ABC either correct the falsehoods or not air the documentary. That puts ABC on formal legal notice of the falsehoods and of Clinton's demand that they correct them or not air the piece. So now if ABC proceeds to air the piece with all the falsehoods in it Clinton and his attorneys have made a prima facie case of actual malice on the part of ABC.

I wouldn't be surprised if ABC pulls the documentary and buries it.

However, if ABC airs it with all its falsehoods, watch for Clinton's attorneys to slam ABC with a major libel suit which will not only demand millions in damages, but also a court order telling ABC to (1) stop airing the documentary, and (2) issue public apologies and retractions on its various channels regarding its airing of a documentary portraying Clinton in a false light.

I gather from your postings you didn't know about any of this.

[northernsoul]

72. Thank you, Seabiscuit

What President Clinton is doing is a much more effective strategic move to squash this excrebable propaganda once and for all than simply making a personal statement that Disney could easily write off as a personal temper tantrum / sour grapes. I'm glad to see that somebody else around here gets it. Sheesh.

[northernsoul]

71. That's actually more powerful

Pres. Clinton making a personal statement on his own would be easily dismissed as sour grapes. The text of the letter makes it clear that Disney may be be looking down the barrel of an extremely expensive libel suit. Trust me, that's going to be a lot harder for the suits at Disney to laugh off.

[Seabiscuit]

77. I also called ABC and Disney and spoke to their shareholder reps:

I warned them, that as a shareholder, I will hold them liable if the value of Disney shares takes a hit as a result of ABC airing that "documentary". I also warned that if Clinton's attorneys file a libel suit against ABC and Disney, and that if people around the world begin boycotting ABC and Disneyland, Disneyworld and Disney products, causing them huge financial losses and a major negative impact on the price of their stock, there may well be a class action shareholder suit against both, which could be ruinous for both ABC and Disney.

I was told they were both getting tons of phone calls and the vast majority were from people angry about the proposed "documentary".

[northernsoul]

81. Yeah! I like the way you think!

If a libel suit doesn't scare 'em, a shareholder derivative suit sure will! Are you a member of the bar, or just a very savvy layperson?

[Seabiscuit]

88. Answer:

A savvy investor and yes, a member of the bar.

[calimary]

89. Here's what I just sent to Disney:

Gentlepeople,

PLEASE do the right thing. Not the "right" thing (as in pandering to the so-called "right" wing of American politics. PLEASE don't slander or libel the Clinton administration! "The Path to 9/11" is filled with lies, distortions, misrepresentations, and deceptions. PLEASE don't put it on the air! I don't want to feel compelled to stop watching ABC, or joining the growing boycott of ABC sponsors. But if this despicable miscarriage of truth and justice is allowed to air, I'm going to have to do both those things.

PLEASE pull this awful program!!!

Thank you.

------------

BTW - good thread here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

BTW part two: ALL that contact info and more has been updated in the Five Star Activists' Resource Thread. Check Part Sixty, ESPECIALLY the Third Add.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Seabiscuit]

90. I like it! Here's mine:

"As a Disney shareholder, I would view the airing of this irresponsible and fraudulent rewriting of American history as an egregious breach of Disney's fiduciary duties. A major libel suit against ABC and Disney from Clinton and other Clinton administration officials who are the target of outrageous defamatory falsehoods in this spurious documentary is not the only concern: there could be massive boycotts of Disney themeparks and products by an angry public, all of which would drive the price of Disney stock down, resulting in sell-offs and a huge shareholder derivative lawsuit against Disney. I can't believe there aren't enough lawyers with the good sense at ABC and Disney to convince their executives of the sheer folly of airing this disastrous politically motivated smear piece."

[calimary]

91. CORRECTION on the links in my previous post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2817563&mesg_id=2817563

[Maat]

86. I'm glad he spoke through his attorneys.

It sends a nice message to those at ABC - about the potential consequences of their actions.

[Double T]

20. Lighten up!!! The good people here on DU almost always mean well......

sometimes it takes a while for ALL the available information to disseminate. Who knew Clinton and his representatives had ALREADY sent a letter to ABC. The 'Big Dog' is on top of the situation.

[madrchsod]

46. i saw that also

what a lot of people fail to realize is that big dog must have a few nasty words for abc but sometimes it`s best to keep one`s mouth shut and let others do the talking

[kurth]

2. "A fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions

aka revisionist propaganda aka LIES.

-------------------------------------------------------

September 1, 2006

Dear Bob,

As you know, ABC intends to air a two part miniseries, “The Path to 9/11,” which purports to document the events leading up to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. ABC claims that the show is based on the 9/11 Commission Report and, as Steve McPherson, President of ABC Entertainment, has said: “When you take on the responsibility of telling the story behind such an important event, it is absolutely critical that you get it right.”

By ABC’s own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong. The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known.

Despite several requests to view the miniseries, we have not been given the courtesy of seeing it. This is particularly troubling given the reputation of Cyrus Nowrasteh, the drama’s writer/producer. Mr. Nowrasteh has been criticized for inaccurately portraying historical events in the past. In response to previous criticism, he has even said, “I made a conscious effort not to contact any members of the Administration because I didn’t want them to stymie my efforts.” Indeed, while we have not been given the courtesy of a viewing, based upon reports from people who have seen the drama you plan to air, we understand that there are at least three significant factual errors:

-- The drama leads viewers to believe that National Security Advisor Sandy Berger told the CIA that he would not authorize them to take a shot at bin Laden. This is complete fiction and the event portrayed never happened. First of all, the 9/11 Commission Report makes clear that CIA Director George Tenet had been directed by President Clinton and Mr. Berger to get bin Laden (p. 199 & 508-509). Secondly, Roger Cressy, National Security Council senior director for counterterrorism from 1999-2001, has said, on more than one occasion, “Mr. Clinton approved every request made of him by the CIA and the U.S. military involving using force against bin Laden and al-Qaeda.”

In addition, ABC’s own counter-terrorism consultant, Richard Clarke, has said that contrary to the movie:

1) No US military or CIA personnel were on the ground in Afghanistan and saw bin Laden;

2) The head of the Northern Alliance, Masood, was nowhere near the alleged bin Laden camp and did not see bin Laden; and

3) CIA Director Tenet said that he could not recommend a strike on the camp because the information was single-sourced and there would be no way to know if bin Laden was in the target area by the time a cruise missile hit it.

As Clarke and others will corroborate, President Clinton did in fact approve of a standing plan to use Afghans who worked for the CIA to capture bin Laden. The CIA’s Afghan operatives were never able to carry out the operation and the CIA recommended against inserting Agency personnel to do it. The Department of Defense, when asked by President Clinton to examine the use of US troops to capture bin Laden, also recommended against that option.

-- The drama claims that former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright refused to sanction a missile strike against bin Laden without first alerting the Pakistanis and notified them over the objections of the military. Again, this is false.

-- Using newsreel footage of President Clinton, the drama insinuates that President Clinton was too pre-occupied with the impeachment and the Lewinsky matter to be engaged in pursuing bin Laden. This allegation is absurd and was directly refuted by ABC News consultant Richard Clarke in his book, Against All Enemies: “Clinton made clear that we were to give him our best national security advice without regard to his personal problems. ‘Do you recommend that we strike on the 20th? Fine. Do not give me political advice or personal advice about the timing. That’s my problem. Let me worry about that.’ If we thought this was the best time to hit the Afghan camps, he would order it and take the heat.”

While these are three examples that we are aware of that are utterly baseless, they are clearly indicative of other errors in the substance and bent of the film. Indeed, the overall tone in the advertisements we’ve seen for this drama suggest that President Clinton was inattentive to the threat of terrorism or insufficiently intent upon eliminating the threat from bin Laden. Note that the 9/11 Commission Report says:

-- We believe that both President Clinton and President Bush were genuinely concerned about the danger posed by al Qaeda.” (p. 349)

-- “By May 1998 … clearly, President Clinton’s concern about terrorism had steadily risen.” (p. 102)

-- “President Clinton was deeply concerned about bin Laden. He and his national security advisor, Samuel ‘Sandy’ Berger, ensured they had a special daily pipeline of reports feeding them the latest updates on bin Laden’s reported location.” (p. 175)

-- “President Clinton spoke of terrorism in numerous public statements. In his August 5, 1996, remarks at George Washington University, he called terrorism ‘the enemy of our generation.’” (p. 500)

We challenge anyone to read the 9/11 Commission Report and find any basis for the false allegations noted above or the tenor of the drama, which suggests that the Clinton Administration was inattentive to the threat of a terrorist strike.

Frankly, the bias of the ABC drama is not surprising given the background and political leanings of its writer/producer, Mr. Nowrasteh, which have been well-documented on numerous conservative blogs and talk shows in his promotion of this film. Mr. Nowrasteh’s bias can be seen in an interview he gave to David Horowitz’s conservative magazine Frontpage, during which he said:

"The 9/11 report details the Clinton’s administration’s response – or lack of response – to Al Qaeda and how this emboldened Bin Laden to keep attacking American interests. The worst example is the response to the October, 2000 attack of the U.S.S. Cole in Yemen where 17 American sailors were killed. There simply was no response. Nothing."

But as Sandy Berger told the 9/11 Commission: “o go to war, a president needs to be able to say that his senior intelligence and law enforcement officers have concluded who is responsible.” And as the 9/11 Commission report repeatedly acknowledges, the US did not have clear evidence of bin Laden’s connection to the attack on the USS Cole before the end of the Clinton Administration (p. 192, 193, 195 & executive summary).

While ABC is promoting “The Path to 9/11” as a dramatization of historical fact, in truth it is a fictitious rewriting of history that will be misinterpreted by millions of Americans. Given your stated obligation to “get it right,” we urge you to do so by not airing this drama until the egregious factual errors are corrected, an endeavor we could easily assist you with given the opportunity to view the film.

Sincerely,

Bruce R. Lindsey
Chief Executive Officer
William J. Clinton Foundation

Douglas J. Band
Counselor to President Clinton
Office of William Jefferson Clinton

Cc: Ms. Madeleine K. Albright
Mr. Samuel R. Berger
Mr. Richard A. Clarke
Mr. Stephen McPherson
Mr. George J. Mitchell
Mr. John D. Podesta
Mr. David Westin
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States

[kpete]

3. thanks for posting

[moondust]

29. Anybody who really wanted to "get it right" would have:

1. Worked with the "real characters" who were involved in the real events to write an accurate script and film it.

2. Submitted a rough cut of the finished film to the same "real characters" for verification of accuracy.


The makers of this film did neither. This is nothing but a partisan hack job before an election.

[Cronus Protagonist]

53. Excellent! Thanks for posting that

[babylonsister]

6. Dated September 1st. The Big Dawg was on it! K&R! nt

[bluestateguy]

7. It's actually written by staffers

but with his authorization.

[Miss Chybil]

13. Usually how it works... nt

[NanceGreggs]

9. Thanks, kpete!!!

Let's get this one on the GP ASAP!!!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[liberal N proud]

10. Thanks for posting

[helderheid]

11. you are ON IT, kpete! Thanks! Recommended!

[wicket]

24. kpete rocks!!!

:kick: :kick: :kick:

[question everything]

22. Good, Sue the shit out of them

perhaps this is the only way to attack them.

On Olbermann yesterday, Benvenisti commented that Clinton did go after Bin Laden but then it was portrayed as "wagging the dog."

[Lindacooks]

27. That is absolutely FABULOUS!!

This is exactly what every Democrat should do when a repuke lies about them. Every single time.

The only thing missing from the letter is the threat of a lawsuit, because that piece of crap ABC is going to air is slander.

[Raksha]

51. I read the whole letter, and it seems the threat of a lawsuit

is clearly implied, if not stated directly.

[Lindacooks]

68. Let us hope so.

It's about damn time that Democrats started standing up to Repuke slander and libel. Imagine if John Kerry had fought back against the Swiftboat liars.

[emulatorloo]

75. No, try imagining if the MEDIA had **covered** Kerry's response to Swift

ies. instead they buried it, as they will probably try to bury this.

Kerry campaign responses to Swiftliars covered here in DU research forum - worth reading, because the media buried it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_oet&address=358x2555

[Lindacooks]

79. Yes, you're right.

I still wish he had sued their asses off.

[Catherine Vincent]

31. Alright!

Now we're cooking!

[ms liberty]

32. Kayyy and Arrr! Get'em Big Dawg! And thanks to you, kpete! n/t

[AX10]

33. K & R!

[Pacifist Patriot]

34. Splendid! K & R

[walldude]

35. Thanks kpete, nice to see his lawyers are on it

I've been laying off the movie threads just because there are too many talking about nothing, but this may just light a fire under ABC's ass. They seem to be hinting that if the movie airs as is, there's gonna be trouble. This is getting good :evilgrin:

[TahitiNut]

38. ABC deserves the "Leni Riefenstahl Award for Media Hubris"

"Who cares what you think?" They do - and will do anything they can get away with to change that.

Fascism. No. Question. About. It.

No longer 'creeping' but blatantly assuming control in leaps and bounds. Unstopped and unopposed by anything approaching the scale necessary.

[ananda]

45. Now I have to boycott ABC and CBS..

Ugghh. First the blatantly false Path to 911, then the cutesy evil bushbot Katie Couric.

Are there any stations left to watch?

[Imagevision]

41. Faux news will run with ABC 9-11 dramatization like it's gospel

that's when continued damage builds!!

[graywarrior]

43. Good. Glad to see he's hitting back.

If I were he, I'd be royally pissed about everything the right-wing bastards have tried to fling at him.

[Rex]

47. Some people here were wondering what BC was up to

there ya go!

[aggiesal]

48. We should place the movie in the Urban Legend website.

Does anyone have the website link that keeps track of urban legends?
And can we contact them and ask them to place this movie as an urban legend?

Also, we should start referring to this movie as fiction, purely for right wing entertainment.
Just a thought!!!

[mnhtnbb]

52. Snopes website for Urban Legends

www.snopes.com

[aggiesal]

54. Just sent. Let's see what they do with it. n/t

[mnhtnbb]

49. Good for Clinton. Come out swinging.

[Time for change]

55. Thank you Bill !!!!!!!

[Straight Shooter]

57. K&R

:dem:

[ronnykmarshall]

Go get 'em Bill!

Sue the fuck out of the bastards.

[ronnykmarshall]

58. Go get 'em Bill!

Sue the fuck out of the bastards.

[me b zola]

59. k&r

:kick:

[Generator]

60. Excellent

Will send to my husband. He doesn't know what the brouhaha is about-sometimes DU is a insular place.

The propaganda is SO BAD that lawyers are involved. Crikey!

[EVDebs]

61. ABC stands for "Anything BUT Credible"

""By ABC’s own standard, ABC has gotten it terribly wrong. The content of this drama is factually and incontrovertibly inaccurate and ABC has a duty to fully correct all errors or pull the drama entirely. It is unconscionable to mislead the American public about one of the most horrendous tragedies our country has ever known...""

[depakid]

62. Setting them up

For a libel suit.

One can only hope.

[patricia92243]

65. "an endeavor we could easily assist you with .....

"an endeavor we could easily assist you with given the opportunity to view the film" - priceless.

[Rainscents]

67. Thank YOU... President. Bill Clinton!!!

:applause:

[GeorgeGist]

69. Send a copy to your local ABC affiliate /nt

[northernsoul]

70. This may be laying the groundwork for a libel suit

Granted, when a public figure sues for libel, he or she has to prove that the libel was committed with malice by the defaming party, along with actual falsity. But based on Norwasteh's proclaimed bias, the facts may be there. You pissed off the wrong Big Dog this time, Disney.

[Disturbed]

76. This could be a Class Action Lawsuit.

All the people that are portrayed wrongly in this Crap-udrama could sue ABC.

[northernsoul]

82. Well, there's probably not enough of them for a class action

Having some professional experience in this area, a libel cause of action would be too individuated and the plaintiffs who could sustain such a viable suit simply wouldn't be numerous enough for a true class action. However, having to fend off libel suits from Bill Clinton, Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger and a slew of others is not a welcome prospect. Now, where this gets really kinky is if ABC does go ahead and show the movie and thus proceed to loss a ton of $$$ to libel lawsuits, then Disney's shareholders can turn around and sue the company essentially for pissing the corporation's money away (it's called a "shareholder derivative" suit). That could indeed turn into a class action. Check some of Seabiscuit's posts above.

[rodeodance]

78. yeah for Big Dog.

[Ouabache]

84. the biotch on MSNBC around noon today said BC was lashing out

at the ABC show. Yes, 'lashing out'.

I couldn't believe she said it that way, but I didn't stay tuned to see the report, if they even followed up with one later. Olbermann ought to go wrestle that bitch to the ground and yank some hair out of her head for repeating such a blatantly offensive meme, the MSNBC staffer who wrote it should be fired.

[Kire]

80. I don't even watch ABC anyway.

[Erika]

83. ABC better have their ass kicked

or they will be sued for defamation. I think they are finally realizing that.

[symbolman]

85. BEEUTIFUL!!

I was wondering if our last REAL Presiden, someone I can CALL President without puking, was going to fight this blatantcy.

Doesn't ABC know that WE REMEMBER what happened before? Or in the words of Jon Stewart, "Do they think we're RETARDED?"

GO BILL!