CLINTON's Lawyers-ANOTHER-Letter-"ABC Failed To Address Factual Errors"

[kpete]

In New Letter, Bill Clinton's Lawyers Hammer Iger For Failing To "Address the Factual Errors That We Brought To Your Attention"
By Greg Sargent

After watching the first installment of "The Path to 9/11," Bill Clinton's lawyers wrote another blistering letter to Disney chief Robert Iger. In the letter -- which we've obtained -- Clinton lawyers Bruce Lindsey and Douglas Band hammer Iger for failing to address the film's problems in ABC's edits: "Having now seen the first night of this fiction, it is clear that the edits made to the film did not address the factual errors that we brought to your attention." The letter concludes that the film does "a disservice to the American people" and is "disgraceful." Full text after the jump.

The full text:

September 10, 2006

Dear Bob,

We are deeply disappointed that ABC and the Disney Corporation chose to air "The Path to 9/11." The final product was fraught with error and contained contrived scenes that are directly contradicted by the findings of the 9/11 Commission Report. The film has undoubtedly cemented in millions of viewers' minds a false impression of critical historical events.

While there is not enough room here to fully document the fiction in your film, attached to this letter is a detailed fact sheet listing the numerous inaccuracies in the film according to the 9/11 Commission.

Nine days ago, we wrote to you asking simply that the miniseries tell the truth, as researched extensively and definitively by the bipartisan 9/11 Commission. We asked that your network not present outright fiction as historical fact to the American public. In fact, we took pains to detail sequences in the movie that were plainly invented, based upon the version of the film that was shown to television critics and distributed to many conservative commentators. During our two recent conversations, you assured us that you were personally taking the responsibility to ensure that appropriate edits to the film would be made. Publicly, ABC said that the editing process was ongoing and that it was irresponsible" to condemn the film before seeing the finished product.

Having now seen the first night of this fiction, it is clear that the edits made to the film did not address the factual errors that we brought to your attention. "The Path to 9/11" flagrantly ignored the facts as reported by the 9/11 Commission and invented its own version of history. The result, in our judgment, is irreparable damage to the Commission's work. More importantly, it is a disservice to the American people.

That the film directly contradicts the findings of the 9/11 Commission is troubling. That it defames dedicated public officials is tragic. But the fact that it misleads millions of people about the most tragic and consequential event in recent history is disgraceful.

Sincerely,

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

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

[wicket]

1. K & R

:kick:

[OzarkDem]

2. Sounds very serious

They're not messing around with ABC any more. I hope they take further action.

[NovaNardis]

49. The question is...

Does ABC just get off with a nasty letter?

I hear American Airlines is threatening to sue. That would be great PR for them, lawsuits from a major airline and a former Presidential administration. Go Mickey!

Best person to be right now? Michael Eisner.

[Toots]

64. Now that is a law suit that has merit.

Any personal libel or slander can be written off as a fiction account of the times and those people having been in place at the time but a business expecially an airline ongoing business to be libeled like this is indefensible.

[EST]

78. What's really cool is that Bill Clinton and the majority of the

former public figures are now private citizens, not politicians. Seems to me that slander and other charges are now definitely in order.

These automatons are motivated by money and power. Take either of those things away, especially money, and they are beaten, resoundingly.

I hope to see Mr. Clinton as the new owner of Disney. Wow, wouldn't that open up a nice stream of revenue for aids research and treatment!?

[NobleCynic]

131. Unfortunately I don't think that applies to Clinton

Former presidents are public figures of such magnitude that I think the argument can be made that they will always be classified as public figures in regards to slander charges.

[marshall]

136. Public vs. Private figures

I agree that the movie did sort of cover its ass by drawing a clear line between public and private figures. Wasn't the woman at the end who had the husband on flight 93 supposed to be Todd Beemer's wife? They had two sons and she gave birth to a daughter a few months after 9/11 (if I recall correctly). In the movie they had different names, and she had three daughters.

I'm not sure what the laws are about slander but I know that public figures have a much harder time proving it.

[Xenotime]

134. It would be nice to see Steve Jobs asking Clinton for permission...

to do anything.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ldf]

79. well, aren't you just a ray of sunshine?

yes. by all means. let's just ignore the whole thing.

riigggghttttttt. :rofl:

welcome to du. for what it's worth. pay attention and you may learn something. i think "may" is the operative term here....

i won't hold my breath.

[JDPriestly]

82. You could sue War of the Worlds if it depicted you to the

public in a false, disparaging light. It is not just that the 9/11 movie is fictional. It is that it misrepresents the facts about how specific historical figures acted with regard to and during specific historical events so as to harm the reputations of the historical figures. You can depict Clinton satirically -- make fun of him on TV. You can state your opinion about him even if the opinion you state is unflattering. But, if you seriously depict Clinton doing bad or stupid things he did not do and saying things he did not say when you know he didn't do or say those things, and if that depiction can be shown to cause viewers to think less of Clinton or to believe he actually did the bad or stupid or harmful things that he did not do, then you can be sued. That kind of lie is called slander or, if it is written, libel. Clinton has to meet a tough legal standard to prove libel or slander. Clinton's lawyers are warning ABC that ABC may be crossing the line of what is acceptable.

The thing that amazes me is that ABC has not had the common sense to give Clinton a meaningful chance to correct the falsehoods to the audience watching the show. They could have, for instance, broken the series up into smaller segments and allowed Clinton, Albright and others in the Clinton administration to explain their view of the facts to the audience watching the show. It is really foolish of ABC not to have done that. ABC was warned that the movie was probably libelous and that showing it, falsehoods and all, would possibly lead to a lawsuit, but they showed it anyway. ABC is run by a group of fools.

Trust me, you wouldn't like it if someone made a movie about you that harmed your reputation by depicting you as doing stupid or bad things you did not do. You would look for a lawyer right away.

[halobeam]

146. Wouldn't you LOVE a movie titled "Analysis of Path to 9/11"

narrated by Clinton himself, and almost lecture-type (as Inconvenient Truth was) format. With the "real" ex-administration there...with their pointer on a slide show presentation depicting the whole thing. Imagine THAT viewer turn out LOL. Hey, a girl can dreams, can't she?

Hey, Mr. Michael Moore, you got a minute?

[lisainmilo]

154. yes!

I would!

[JDPriestly]

156. Great Idea -- but where would you broadcast it. On ABC? And when.

The damage is done. And it's really bad.

[JackDragna]

86. Let's dissect the logical fallacies in your statement, shall we?

"War of the Worlds" was always meant to be fiction. It in no way drew reference to "real world" alien invasions, because, well, there aren't any. As for these nebulous 99% of "other" films to which you make reference, I cannot make any specific comment because your example is so specious. Suffice to say, however, that any film that tries to portray real people in a real way has some responsibility to not make up events about those people as much as possible, at least when those events go directly to the person's character or real-world conduct. It's no big thing, in my mind, to make a scene in a Civil War movie where Abe Lincoln has an argument with his wife over dinner, but saying Abe Lincoln was secretly a Confederate spy is another matter entirely.

Apparently, one is a "freaking pussy" by being upset over a media hatchet job over politicans from one's party. No, sir, we're not the pussies. We're the ones taking notice and not sitting back when the right-wing media machine pumps out propaganda on public airwaves. We're tired of your modus operadi of putting out blatant falsehoods and telling us to "get over it already." If your side cannot tell the truth, expect to be called on it. I also suggest you take a few classes in formal debate, as your arguments here wouldn't pass muster in a high school debate class. Good luck and good night.

[Steak]

89. this isn't a high school debate class..

i did very well there. This is the internet, and a very low-brow, pedestrious destination within it. No need for well written commentary.

Just typing 'Bush Sucks' is cause for cheering round these parts, so don't try to pretend it is an intellectually driven forum. It is a dart board.

[JackDragna]

91. So you can just put up trash..

..and expect it to just stand as trash? Some people may use it for a "dart board," but bad arguments are bad arguments. You made several. Either learn how to debate or go elsewhere.

[susanna]

96. If it's a dart board, you should shoot better. n/t

[ms liberty]

99. pedestrious?

:rofl:

Bless your deluded little heart. Welcome to DU...enjoy your brief stay!

[susanna]

105. Yeah - but I have to say, it is a FUN word. n/t

[Old and In the Way]

122. The poster is obviously anti-pedestry.

Probaby has latent pedestrantic tendencies, though.

[EST]

148. "Errant pedantry" is probably his strong suit.

Makes me wonder what it is that drives a person to manipulate his way onto a board just to spew a few nasty pedantic criticisms in the middle of a fairly high-brow intellectual discussion.
Takes all kinds, I guess. (sigh)

Bushitheads all seem so ugly-no room for beauty or manners.

[Patchuli]

100. Have you anything but hate to add here? nt

[cboy4]

130. Thanks for reminding me because it can never be said enough:

[rateyes]

138. Buddy hamburger, if you had to become

"pedestrious" to get to this site, you are dumber than you sound. No need to "walk" to get anywhere on the internet. You can browse by simply typing in a valid url.

As for your "no need for well written commentary" remark, I can see that you took that notion to heart.

Welcome to DU, and enjoy your stay, brief as it surely will be, troll.

[susanna]

95. Uh...

War of the Worlds was fiction and viewers understood that before seeing it.

JFK was an ersatz-conspiracy theory movie and viewers understood that before seeing it.

As for lack of balls, it seems to me that only folks who worry about their own state of "ballsiness" really use that old canard... But I'm sure you knew that. Most normal people are perfectly happy with their level of ballsiness. So have a nice day! :-)

on edit: clarification

[LeahMira]

143. Did they understand? Really?

I can't claim to remember, but from what I've been told the radio presentation of War of the Worlds resulted in large scale panic among those folks who did not realize it was fiction because they tuned in late, after the disclaimer had been aired.

I do remember seeing JFK. There were several high school kids in the row directly behind us. At one point, one of the kids stage whispered to his pals, "I didn't know that happened!" I turned around and stage-whispered back, "It didn't!" Oliver Stone did a neat job of filming some staged scenes in black and white to give the impression of older film footage and, as you say, many movie viewers understood where he was going artistically in the film, but the young kids did not "get" that. At least Oliver Stone had the decency to not put out his film until some thirty years after the actual event happened. Teachers could use the film as a tool for a class in history, to encourage their students to research the actual events... or as a tool for a class in film, to discuss historical fiction as a specific film genre. The Warren Commission had long since published its findings, and the nation had long since had plenty of time to figure out who did what, although we may never really understand why.

Meanwhile, there has been no similar amount of time passed after September 11, 2001. The Presidential Commission has only just released its report and most people have not read it... most probably won't read the actual document, but will depend on reviews and such to learn what the report actually says.

ABC can probably wiggle off the hook by claiming that it always advertised this program as a DOCU-drama, but in the environment of unreality we live in today, when the majority of people still believe that Iraq sponsored the terrorist attacks on the U.S. even though the administration now claims (none too forcefully, though) that this is not the case, ABC cannot wiggle off the moral hook. This program, aired not only on the anniversary of the attack but also close to the election, is intended to spread falsehoods that its producers hope will influence the outcome of that election. The frightening thing is that they may succeed, but even more frightening is the thought that the next generation of voters may also believe the fiction, and vote accordingly when their turn comes around.

[wakeme2008]

3. Iger will respond with .... But I was told they cut out the lies

HOW was I to know they left them in.

[susanna]

98. Because, that's your job (?????) n/t

[gratuitous]

4. And? And?

Come on! If you're going to have your lawyer write a nastygram, it has to finish up with what you intend to do next, even if it's only something as lame as "We are exploring all of our legal remedies available for your willful mispresentations." Something that would put ABC on notice that a lawsuit just might be filed against them, you know?

[symbolman]

8. Sounds like a bunch of saber rattling

and not much blade glinting in the light of the sun.

I don't see a lawsuit forming from this. too bad.

[Cameron27]

10. It looks to me like they're laying the groundwork

A lawsuit is going to be expensive...this is serious shit going on, and they're probably still weighing in costs, consequences etc.

I hope they do decide to sue and I sure wish they would do it before the Nov. elections. It will make shills who plan to rewrite history with slander and lies think twice.

[JDPriestly]

85. They have to allow ABC the opportunity to apologize.

You don't just rush out and sue. You give the other side the opportunity to settle the dispute. ABC could, for example, show a film and the people who funded that false film could offer to fund an equally expensive film that presents the accurate view of 9/11. There are lots of other possibilities for settling this dispute without lawsuits. Clinton's lawyers are wisely giving ABC the chance to think through some alternatives.

[Cameron27]

129. I don't think that there is a rush to sue

but there were two letters sent.

The first was an appeal to correct scenes that were not historically accurate and were in essence a defamation of Clinton's character. On edit I see by other posts that they actually stated "defamation."

The second letter states: "Having now seen the first night of this fiction, it is clear that the edits made to the film did not address the factual errors that we brought to your attention." etc. etc.

I'm not a lawyer, but it does seem to me that they're crafting these letters and timing their release in a manner that suggests laying the ground work for a lawsuit. Whether they decide to go through with it is another story.

You may be correct in suggesting that they'll accept an alternate way to settle the issue, I hope that they don't. ABC was very smug in ignoring all appeals from significant players involved in the actual events. I think we can agree that the intent is to discredit Clinton and others to shift blame away from bush. Whether or not abc apologizes and airs a more accurate depiction of these events may be beside the point.

A lawsuit, with all the publicity surrounding it, may discourage the rovian strategy from being fully implemented which would help Hillary and all dem candidates. Then again, maybe Clinton finally just got tired of having his name dragged through the mud.

Pure speculation by me of course.

[halobeam]

147. see my post #146. now THERE'S an alternative I'd accept.

----You may be correct in suggesting that they'll accept an ALTERNATE WAY TO SETTLE THE ISSUE, I hope that they don't. ABC was very smug in ignoring all appeals from significant players involved in the actual events. I think we can agree that the intent is to discredit Clinton and others to shift blame away from bush. Whether or not abc apologizes and airs a more accurate depiction of these events may be beside the point.---------

[Cameron27]

150. You know, I can see it in my mind now.

That would just be sooo sweet...I love your idea.

[JDPriestly]

155. Agreed. But, you have to be willing to settle a dispute through

alternatives other than a lawsuit.

[Miss Chybil]

13. They don't need to threaten.

They will just do.

[Cygnusx2112]

32. I was just about to write this, but you said it oh so well... n/t

[The Wizard]

33. It usually goes something like

Kindly contact our offices to discuss settlement. If you fail to respond within ten days of the date of this letter suit will be instituted against you without further notice. We are also exploring the possibility of seeking criminal sanctions against you and all parties involved.
Or, we're going to bend you motherfuckers over a chair and make you do the Ned Beaty squeal like a pig part in "Deliverance."

[gratuitous]

35. Well, it could be different in different states

I know that the code of professional responsibility for attorneys in my state say that if an attorney threatens to sue in a letter, then a suit must be filed if the other party doesn't make a satisfactory response. This is intended to cut down on the "see you in court" tough talk, and keep civil disputes, well, civil. But most corporate folks and particularly their attorneys recognize the language that "my client reserves all of his/her/their/its rights and remedies under the law" to mean that a lawsuit could very well be filed. As you suggest, a time fuse is also usually included for some kind of response, whether 10, 20 or 30 days. I note that that language is also missing from this letter.

ABC will probably blow the letter off. A "threatening" letter without a threat or a time limit isn't much of a threat.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

36. In what states could ABC/Disney be sued?

If Clinton--likely the only PT911-libeled public figure with a team of lawyers already on staff and retainer--chooses California, then he has until September 30th to send the same kind of letter Carol Burnett sent the National Enquirer in 1976. That letter ultimately resulted in a $50,000 damage judgment, reduced from a $1.6 million jury award.

See post number 30 for language from the California Civil Code section on libel, and another GD thread at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x2106814

[BR_Parkway]

126. Most likely they are waiting to see what is in Part 2, would be rather

stupid to threaten to sue over part 1 only to find out that part 2 cleared up all previous issues. They're simply laying the groundwork at this point.

3 seperate letters, establishing the incorrect info, to show anyone that regardless of public figure, libel/slander is going on. 1 to start that ball rolling, a 2nd to clarify any issues the other side responed with, this 3rd one to say "we're watching and you didn't fix the problems". I can see how this particular letter, in the middle of the mini-series gives them grounds to say "hey, we kept trying to give them a chance to fix this before the end of the series but they didn't" in court

[JDPriestly]

87. Criminal sanctions? Are you serious?

[AZBlue]

38. Exactly! I kept reading, awaiting the legal terminology to come.

I'm still waiting. :-(

[JDPriestly]

83. Actually, they are wise not to threaten a lawsuit.

[gratuitous]

132. Well, they don't have to threaten a lawsuit specifically

Because, as I mentioned above, once a lawyer says "Do thus-and-such or we'll sue," then they have to sue if the other party give them the raspberry. But there was a complete absence of either time deadline or suggestion for a remedy in the letter. I don't know how much the Clinton Foundation paid their attorney to write this letter, but it wasn't a very effective letter from my experience.

[Hugin]

5. *ahem*... Not only the above, but, it is also evidence of premeditation.

Always of interest in legal proceedings and findings of guilt.

[walldude]

16. Exactly, they have been warned twice, once before

it aired and once during, this looks to me like they are making a case for pre-meditation. This thing could have a huge impact considering it's so close to election, it could effect campaing finance, the FCC, the fairness doctrine.

[Seabiscuit]

59. Sorry, prag & walldude - "premeditation" is not an element of libel.

It's an element of first degree murder, which is a criminal law offense.

It is *not* an element of libel, which is part of civil, not criminal law.

Defamation law is civil law, and includes slander (oral defamation), libel (written/filmatic defamation) and false light (either).

I think the words you're looking for here is "actual malice", which must be proven since Clinton, et. al. are "public figures". This letter makes an even better case for actual malice:

Clinton's lawyers are doubling down: They warned Iger to correct the flaws or bury the crockumentary in their September 1 letter. Now, after the first half has been aired, they're warning them with a twist of the now double-edged blade: you promised to edit out the offensive fictions, but you in fact did not! So you'd better get it right before you air the second half or else!

This could also possibly double the damages awarded, because now Disney/ABC will be found liable for two separate claims of libel - one for the first half, another for the second.

It's obvious Clinton's lawyers are on top of this and have put in the time to compile the attached list of fictions which contradict the 9/11 Commission's Report.

Now let's see what actually happens. I hope this isn't another Karl Rove is being indicted story. If Clinton doesn't sue I'll have lost all respect for him. If he were my client and refused to take my advice and sue, I'd quit on him. Forever.

[Hugin]

73. Sorry, Seabiscut... But, it *IS* in the NEW MEDIA.

And I quote:

"Also, the defamatory statement must result in actual or presumed damages. If the defamation is libel, damages are presumed to exist. The permanent nature of a libelous statement has led courts to allow recovery for libel without proof of actual or special damages in considering the ability, especially via the Internet, to distribute widely, and the fact that written words generally require more premeditation than those spoken. If the defamation is a slander, a plaintiff will have to establish actual or special damages unless the false accusation is slander per se where damage is presumed to exist. Special damage means pecuniary loss or loss capable of assessment in money terms. Examples include loss or refusal of employment and general loss of business. A causal link between the slander and the special damage must be established which is not too remote."

From:

http://newmedia.cityu.edu.hk/cyberlaw/gp18/intro.html

[Seabiscuit]

81. If that's where you got the idea, I can understand your confusion.

Unfortunately, that web page was written by a couple of people who editorialize a lot about stuff. They get it right when they talk only about the "elements" of defamation, but they fudged it when they talked in your quote about "written words generally require more premediation than those spoken" - pure editorializing. Not the law.

My point is that "premeditation" is a legal term of art which applies only to first degree murder, where it is a formal *element* of the offense.

It is not one of the elements of a cause of action for libel and need not be proven or even addressed at all.

[Hugin]

145. I have many other references where pre-meditation is a component of libel.

Which are very current.

If you'd like to see them.

[Seabiscuit]

149. Sure. Feel free to send me a private message.

[JDPriestly]

92. But it's Clinton's professional reputation that is being damaged.

If I remember correctly that is libel per se, and the damages have to be to reputation, not necessarily pecuniary. I might be wrong about this, and it may depend on state law, but I think that is what I learned oh so long ago.

[EST]

104. Seabiscuit-

A quick personal thank you for your clarity of thought and analysis. You have contributed greatly, over time, to my own understanding and, I'm sure, that of many others.
I'm in your debt.


On edit: Also thanks for your calm and patience-admirable.

[Seabiscuit]

151. Thank you so much.

I haven't noticed your handle before. But what a nice message - perhaps the nicest I've ever received.

[PegDAC]

71. It wouldn't surprise me

if there's another letter tomorrow that's even more specific.

[Seabiscuit]

152. I would be surprised.

The letter wasn't specific because the attachment (which we haven't seen) is, according to the latest letter, extremely specific. There's nothing more they needed to do.

They have satisfied all the preliminary matters that must be attended to prior to filing suit. All that's left is to see if Clinton actually authorizes his obviously very diligent attorneys to do so.

(I'm not holding my breath - Clinton's left a very bad taste in my mouth since he left office, and I no longer trust the dude - hell, I lost my trust in him when he uttered the words: "I did not have sex with that woman").

[tularetom]

6. Clinton when confronted - "Ah didn't tell 'em to write that"

Anybody can hide behind a lawyer especially someone who is trying to stay on the good side of ol' GHW Bush and preserve his future place on the Carlyle board of directors. But you won't see Clinton stand up like a man and denounce this shit. I've defended this wimp for 10 years, but if he won't stand up for himself, fuck him. If everybody wants to believe 9/11 was his fault, and he won't lift a finger to contradict them, then maybe there is some truth to it.

The only bad part is he is dragging good people like Albright and Berger down with him.

[William769]

11. Man there seems to be one in every crowd here.

:eyes:

[pnwmom]

20. WTF? Clinton's official statement: the path to 9/11 was "despicable."

That sounds like "denouncing" to me.

http://www.bestsyndication.com/?q=091006_9-11_miniseries_President_Clinton_mad.htm

[Lindacooks]

53. Oh, for god's sake, grow up.

Sounds like a bit of envy there, to me. Methinks thou dost protest too much.

[gully]

7. Note the word "defames" they're getting ready for a defamation suit.

At least I hope so.

[TahitiNut]

26. When an attorney uses the word "defames" he's serious, imho.

The ground is plowed ... let's see if they plant something. (I hope so.)

[Seabiscuit]

61. You hit the nail on the head! (speaking as an attorney)

[TahitiNut]

84. Glad to have the confirmation. I've spent too much time with attorneys

... in my life, sad to say. Not that I don't appreciate the quality of thinking and ethics of many I've worked with (much to be admired) - but the necessity driving a couple of such collaborations wasn't pleasant. (To say the least.)

I certainly can't see a responsible attorney using a term like "defame" unless (s)he were serious and had done his/her homework. I think the people who enforce professional conduct might have something to say to an attorney who was reckless with that language.

[CoffeeCat]

9. I hope they sue Disney's/ABC's butts...

It's time for Democrats to stop taking bullshit like this.

We all saw what happened to John Kerry when he was "swiftboatted" by these
conscious-lacking, amoral thugs. If you ignore the lies, and hope that people
will see the truth--you lose.

You must fight for yourself, stand up to evil and refuse to enable wicked
people who malign others for their personal gain.

Clinton and his cabinet members should sue. I think they have a serious libel
case. Even though they must prove "malice", since they are public figures--I think
they can do it. The partisan agendas of the yahoos who made this movie leave no
doubt that these people published these lies with "malice." The producers and ABC/Disney
were told that what they were showing was lies. They published anyway. That's malice.

Fight back Democrats!!! Stand up to these classless thugs!

[walldude]

12. kpete you are a godsend... We love you...

I can't help but wonder why the Dems don't throw this whole Lewinski thing back in their faces. The Repugs keep saying that Clinton was too busy worrying about being impeached to effectively do his job. Well who's freakin fault would that have been? If the goddamn repugs hadn't been trying everything known to mankind to get rid of Clinton then he wouldn't have had to worry about being impeached for a personal issue. If they want to lie their asses off and claim it was the Lewinski scandal that caused Clinton to "miss" Osama then throw it back in their damn faces. Hell maybe if the Republicans hadn't been so busy trying to nail Clinton they could have actually helped him do his job.

[Dinger]

40. More Love For kpete From Ding :)

Keep up the awesome work kpete, and THANK YOU!:patriot:

[bobbieinok]

44. AND didn't repubs say Bill's concern re BinLaden were attempts to divert

to stop KStarr????????

I remember repubs and 'pundits' ridiculing Clinton's attempts to get BinLaden after the embassy bombings......

[walldude]

50. Yeah they called it "wagging the dog"... n/t

[PegDAC]

72. He couldn't win.

He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't.

[npincus]

14. Q: Would Bill sue ABC/Disney with his wife's presidential aspirations

to consider? That's a question.

Being embroiled in a lawsuit with a media giant woud be a distraction to Hillary at a time when she is seeking the Dem nomionation. I hope Clinton sues thier asses, but am wondering if he will defer to keeping the peace for Hillary.

[William769]

15. What makes you think Hillary is running?

[Karmageddon]

25. He might be waiting until after she wins the Senatorial election

But I doubt the '08 pres. race be a factor in deciding to take legal action.

[ananda]

39. Who cares if Hillary runs?

I don't. I don't like her hawkish voting record.

There are other Dems I would much prefer...

... mainly Al Gore!!!!

[Seabiscuit]

62. The lawsuit wouldn't involve Hillary, as she wasn't defamed; and Bill

isn't running for anything. She is free to do whatever she wants, suit or no suit, and has no motive to talk Bill out of it.

[TheMadMonk]

124. If Hillary is put up as a candidate in 08...

That would be the final proof that the Dem power brokers are working for the other side.

The gods bedamned US as a whole is just too effing mysoginistic to directly elect a candidated that does not have the actual glandular dependages. "Les boules formidable" (no matter how formidahblah) just won't cut it.

Appologies to the forward thinkers here, but your albatross is just too bloody big of a burden for anyone lacking the appropriate appendage to be taken seriously.

[REACTIVATED IN CT]

17. Is the fact sheet that was attached to the letter available ? n/t

[bvar22]

18. Is a Class Action lawsuit possible ?

I have been deeply traumatized by this fiction misrepresented as truth.
I didn't sleep at all last night.

[Seabiscuit]

63. Not enough potential plaintiffs. Those who are being defamed,

Bill Clinton, Sandy Berger and Madeleine Albright, can file separate lawsuits, then file a motion to consolidate their claims into one case.

[TheMadMonk]

125. Better to keep them separate.

Three suits.
Three judges.
Three juries.

Three times the chance of ABC et. al. being taken to the cleaners.

[dpbrown]

19. Take those Goebbels propaganda bastards to court!

I hope Disney loses its broadcast license and has to pay millions in damages over this!

Liberal media, my ass!

[whalerider55]

21. bad disney bad disney....

no dessert for you.

file the g'damned lawsuit, and stop farting around. when you send letters like this, despite releasing them publicly, you are making the assumption they will be read with all of the due seriousity with which you have sent it. is there anything about these f*ckwads that leads you to believe anything short of tying them up in court for irresponsibly using the airwaves at exactly the same time they are lobbying congress for special disney dispensation in their public management of the media will be effective.

and please- the big dog got an 8 mil ADVANCE for his book, Hil a multi-million dollar advance as well. i don't want to hear how expensive the lawsuit is gonna be. given the clear public disclosures about P29/11 so far, the discovery should be pretty damning.

get started. light a fire. the lawyers are on retainer, already.

fight back, or let them define history, again.

sheesh. am i missing something here?

whalerider

[TahitiNut]

27. "seriousity"??

:rofl:

[whalerider55]

28. well....

truthiness... seriousity....

i'm just trying to seize the language back from the word butchers. it takes creativity, and subversiveness.

and a lot of seriousity.

whalerider


:evilgrin:

[ProgressiveEconomist]

22. "Outright fiction as historical fact", "you assured us", "irreparable damage",

"ignored the facts as reported by the 9/11 Commission and invented its own version of history".

These phrases jump out after a quick browse of contemporary libel law. Lindsey is setting the stage for libel litigation against a public figure, by giving Iger a chance to refute the elements required to get into court:

--prior notice that the allegations were false and defamotory;

--evidence that Iger/Disney/ABC showed "reckless disregard for truth";

--claims of "irreparable harm" that can be mitigated only by a damage award for com-pen-sa-tion.

The next step for Clinton's lawyers to take after Iger fails to respond satisfactorily to this notice is spelled out at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/11/113522/984 .

The real goal of litigation IMO would be to get the same kind of discovery against Iger, David Horowitz, and Richard Mellon Scaife that Paula Jones got against Big Dog, though the legal complaint won't say that.

[PegDAC]

74. The most important thing to be discovered

is who funded this piece of raw sewage.

[orleans]

23. where did you find a copy of this letter? i'm trying to google it

and can't find it.

[bliss_eternal]

24. Can't say I feel sorry for them.

They brought this on themselves. :)

[babylonsister]

29. But will they do anything about it besides write letters? nt

[ProgressiveEconomist]

30. We'll see, soon. Clinton/Berger/Albright have until Sept 30th

to preserve options for legal action in the future, if they go after Disney in California, and if I've located the right statute.

From http://law.onecle.com/california/civil/48.html :

"48a. 1. In any action for damages for the publication of a libel in a newspaper, or of a slander by radio broadcast, plaintiff shall recover no more than special damages unless a correction be demanded and be not published or broadcast, as hereinafter provided. Plaintiff shall serve upon the publisher, at the place of publication or broadcaster at the place of broadcast, a written notice specifying the statements claimed to be libelous and demanding that the same be corrected. Said notice and demand must be served within 20 days after knowledge of the publication or broadcast of the statements claimed to be libelous.

2. If a correction be demanded within said period and be not published or broadcast in substantially as conspicuous a manner in said newspaper or on said broadcasting station as were the statements claimed to be libelous, in a regular issue thereof published or broadcast within three weeks after such service, plaintiff, if he pleads and proves such notice, demand and failure to correct, and if his cause of action be maintained, may recover general, special and exemplary damages; provided that no exemplary damages may be recovered unless the plaintiff shall prove that defendant made the publication or broadcast with actual malice and then only in the discretion of the court or jury, and actual malice shall not be inferred or presumed from the publication or broadcast. ..."

[Seabiscuit]

68. Clinton's attorneys have already complied with sec. 48a.

The September 1 letter with its demands was written less than 20 days after learning of the contents of the film as initially released to conservative pundits;

The September 10 letter with its demands was written less than 20 days after viewing the first episode (in fact, written the same night it aired).

They have a year from tonight's airing of the 2nd half to file a libel claim under the applicable one-year statute of limitations for intentional torts.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

88. Are you sure? The statute calls for a demand for a corrective broadcast

(see post #30). Did Clinton demand a corrective broadcast?

The statutory requirement makes a lot of sense--it wouldn't be an efficient use of court resources to take libel cases that could be resolved with retractions.

This doesn't appear to be one of those cases, but why take a chance and ignore the clear instructions in the civil code?

[Seabiscuit]

144. Yes, Clinton made that demand in the September 1 letter w/r/t the

entire miniseries.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

153. Assuming you are correct, then according to 48a.2 ABC has until Oct 2nd

to broadcast 5 a corrective video, or Clinton/Berger/Albright then can sue for millions of dollars, if I'm reading it correctly (see post #30 for the text of the civil code). Do you agree?

[Seabiscuit]

157. Since the original Clinton letter demanding corrections was dated 9/1,

and since, according to Sec. 48a.2 the corrections must be "published or broadcast within three weeks after such service" of Clinton's original demand letter, then I read the statute as requiring Disney/ABC to broadcast on all ABC channels during the same primetime time slot as the film was broadcast, a detailed retraction and detailed explanation of the falsities and fabrications the Clinton letters complained of by September 22. That's a week from next Friday.

I don't see them complying by then or ever. I think they're calling Clinton's bluff, as they see it.

[mvd]

31. There should still be lawsuits

And we should demand they show an alternative - like Fahrenheit 9/11. But thankfully, the movie was so bad that I bet most of the masses turned it off and went to football. I bet only political junkies followed it from start to finish. BTW, I watched for just a minute, and even the sound was bad!

The movie could backfire on them!

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wiley50]

37. Welcome to DU!

Just wondering
how soon it will be
before you go "poof"

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Wiley50]

90. Well, He lasted an hour and 17 minutes

When will they ever learn?

[chchchanges]

41. There were actual lawsuits filed against F911

... The repugs have tried to take M. Moore to court for ages. Problem is... he (Mr. Moore) actually had a pretty solid paper trace on his claims. That is why Right Wing heads were exploding all over this beautiful nation of us.

Also there was the issue of that Reagan biopic that repugs screamed to high heavens to have canceled, and they did. Or the fact that Disney refused to carry F911, and on and on....

[stepnw1f]

47. Ding, Ding, Ding!

Welcome to DU!

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Secular Agent Man]

42. Bye bye MICKEY!

[stepnw1f]

46. Notice You Never Watched it

and second how you trust a bunch of people who never bother to prove shit to you?

[Name removed]

56. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

60. "I have never seen it but I did hear that Micheal Moore's movie was full"

But of course you didn't.... Also... I don't buy "I do not remember anyone on this or any other blog trying to stop anyone from seeing Fahrenheit 911. Let the American public see both and decide. Just wondering."

Because I remember plenty.... funny you don't. Maybe you should see, and not be so afraid of it.

[JDPriestly]

97. Michael Moore's film took true scenes -- not depictions of scenes

and edited them so as to cause the viewer to reach certain conclusions that some may disagree with. That is not defamatory. There was nothing untrue. There was no fiction. The editing was the expression of an opinion. That is a huge difference in terms of the law. Expressing opinion is not libel. Take the scene of Bush in the classroom reading My Pet Goat. Everything that happened really happened. The editing may have made Bush look foolish. The depiction was not, however, defamatory because the fact -- that Bush sat in the classroom and read My Pet Goat was true. Bush really did sit in the classroom and read My Pet Goat. That is not false.

Moore makes documentaries. He arranges true pictures so as to support his interpretation of the facts, but he does not create or even fictionalize the facts.

[mnhtnbb]

70. What , you heard from Rush Slimebaugh that F 9/11 was full of lies?

Michael Moore ran his movie through lawyers vetting for facts numerous times. That's the reason no one could sue him--he did his f*ing homework
and only presented facts. Just because Slimebaugh and his ilk didn't like the facts didn't make them any less true.

You better watch out putting up this kind of crap on DU or you'll be called out for a freeper.

[PegDAC]

75. True Believers

were the only ones to watch all of this debacle.

[Raksha]

43. They are creating a very public paper trail.

They want to go on record as having warned Iger/Disney/ABC by expressing their anger over the inaccuracies in PT9/11 and (especially in this letter) the failure to correct them. I expect a letter along these same lines after the second half airs. It will probably mention the propaganda effect of Shrub's speech in the middle of the second half. Only AFTER that will the serious legal threats begin. What they are doing now is laying the groundwork.

[Boxer0591]

57. groundwork

And what will you do if the opposite happens? I mean, what if the movie generates enough interest in the public to demand a real investigation and President Clinton and Co. come out looking worse?

What will you do then?

Blame Bush?

[Flubadubya]

65. Bwahaha....

If a REAL investigation were undertaken and the TRUTH came forward your pRez would be impeached and deposed for real... not like Clinton (wishful Rethug thinking). :grr:

[papau]

66. LOL - "real investigation" was done & truth is out -only GOPers don't like

the all A's and nearly clean report card on Bill's efforts, and the all F's and rather dirty report card on Bush.

When the truth is not good for the political reputation of all things GOP, the GOP want to invent a better, albeit fictional, "truth". LOL :-)

A new public demand for a real investigation is not needed since the GOP control courts and DA's and the Dept of Justice and the investigative power of Congress and investigated from a dozen different directions if they wanted to - but you'll note that Dem demands for an investigation have been stonewalled for 5 years - heck even the Senate Part two Report promised a year ago has only released the first two "Chapters" - and will wait until after the 06 election before even considering the release of the rest.

The Gop have, and will continue to block any investigation - and for good reason.

[lolly]

101. "Real Investigation?"

Get real. Democrats have been calling for an investigation into what the hell happened on Bush's watch for years--just who do you think has been desperately blocking these investigations?

You want an investigation?
Call your congressman. Call your senator. DEMAND an investigation. NOW. Full. Everything.

Bring. It. On!

[bobbieinok]

45. RW talk radio has been telling these lies for 5 years....listeners think

these lies are 'truth', so Hannity et al's claims that 'Clinton and democrats are trying to rewrite history' are believed by RW radio listeners.

[IWantAChange]

48. QUESTION??

is there the potential for a lawsuit???

[StrictlyRockers]

52. I am very curious. I am a Medical Paralegal.

This is not my field. I have worked in asbestos for the past five years.

I think there is potential for a law suit, but I'm not sure how you get around artistic license and the first amendment. Berger, Clinton or Albright need to prove that they were somehow injured by Pt911, preferably financially. For instance, this mini-series has demonstrably injured their ability to acquire employment in some way. Libel and slander are not as easy to prove under the US justice system as they are in other systems, like Britain's for example.

[PegDAC]

76. You betcha!! n/t

[dogday]

55. It is CRIMINAL.....

[D23MIURG23]

58. Angry letters mean nothing if they don't signify more serious things

If there are no actions to back this language up then it is a joke. I'm sure Iger already knows he has done a disservice to the American people and everything else that letter says if he has been paying attention at all. If they aren't going to make any actual moves they should have saved they paper this was written on.

[AtomicKitten]

67. I hope somebody sues ABC/Disney til they bleed.

eom

[tlsmith1963]

69. I Heard...

that ABC postponed the second half of "Path to 9/11" until Saturday. Maybe they felt the heat from our side. The San Diego Chargers game will air instead. Nice to know that "my" Chargers dumped that awful movie!:evilgrin:

Tammy

[BootinUp]

80. Reminds me of a video game

When you would be flying an attack helicopter and then things go badly and all these missiles are raining in on you, you just hear over and over from your computer nav warning system: "Incoming, Incoming, Incoming" and then a bright flash.

[SnakeEyes]

93. I'll be shocked if there is a lawsuit NT

[ScreamingMeemie]

94. Why would you be shocked SnakeEyes?

I'm curious to know...

Welcome to DU... :hi:

[SnakeEyes]

106. Libel and slander cases aren't easy in this country.

It's not like say in England where the burden is put upon the accused. In what way will they be able to claim that it has damaged them. There has to be a physical damage that they can ask be compensated for. For instance a vicious lie published by a newspaper leads someone to not be able to get a job anymore, especially in their chosen field.

I'd fight the lies of the movie through the means of expressing ones ideas rather than through the courts. I think it would have a the potential to have a negative backlash from people who would say "it's just a movie" and call it "petty". Something that I think would not be wise those close to an election.

[ScreamingMeemie]

107. It's just a movie that happens to use the names of real people...

doing fictional things. Things that are in direct opposition to a recorded document (i.e. The 9/11 Commission Report) I think there are very good grounds.

[SnakeEyes]

108. Yes but you still have to show a real damage to the plaintiff in

A libel/slander case. The burden is on them to prove it harmed them in a real way that needs to be compensated for. Look at all the stuff that tabloids make up about people. There is a reason we don't see lawsuits that often regarding them. And they have the money and lawyers to do it if they wanted to do so.

[ScreamingMeemie]

109. So... you are saying that blaming 9/11 entirely on the Clinton

Administration is not "real damage"... I think there are very good grounds, grounds that perhaps scare you.

[SnakeEyes]

110. Please explain, and simply saying "reputation" won't work in court.

You have to show how that harmed reputation has damaged you in real way. In a financial way, can't get a job, whatever.. something has to be proven. Libel/Slander cases just aren't easy and why they aren't as common in the US.

[ScreamingMeemie]

111. Why would I "simply say" reputation when I didn't upthread.

here:

Read up:

Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Anglo-French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel

*** It is not just reputation. The "essence of truth" of your misguided miniseries is in direct opposition to the facts of the 9/11 Commission Report...which, in case you conveniently "forgot" was based upon testimony obtained under oath from most except for the scared members of our current administration. :hi:

[SnakeEyes]

113. "my" misguided miniseries?

I'm not defending the miniseries, I am only commenting on the legal aspect and potential for victory in court with a libel/slander case.

[ScreamingMeemie]

115. At this juncture, SnakeEyes, I find that very hard to believe.

Perhaps, if you quit playing "devil's advocate" and posting one sentence replies that end in N/T I might be persuaded to believe you. :hi: Either or, care to respond?

[SnakeEyes]

116. 7 posts of mine in this thread.

2 are NT, 5 are not. But thanks for challenging me on one sentence NT posting. Not playing "devil's advocate" I am playing "amateur lawyer".

[ScreamingMeemie]

117. Sorry, a compilation of your postings in other threads (which you can

do too with a small donation) led me to believe that you were playing devil's advocate. Perhaps you will prove me wrong...perhaps not. :hi:

[SnakeEyes]

120. I don't see how but ok. NT

[ScreamingMeemie]

121. Ok. N/T

:hi:

[Lone_Star_Dem]

112. Showing damages in this case is not the difficult task

The damage is a given since they're all paid for their expertise. You defame their character with liable and they could loose one speaking gig, that's damage.

[SnakeEyes]

114. If they can directly link liable in the movie

to a speaking gig they lost or didn't get then they certainly can sue and win but they have to be able to show that it happened. They cannot sue saying it could, might or may lead to a loss.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

119. Actually, employment-related defamation is a bit different

It's up to a judge to decide if it could hurt their career, since this is something that could effect them not just once, but for the rest of their life.

[pbartch]

118. Didn't you read Clinton's letter???????????????

"The result, in our judgment, is irreparable damage to the Commission's work. More importantly, it is a disservice to the American people."

Sure as I'm tying black on white.......his lawyers say ABC'S CRAP 9/11 Mockudrama is complete with untruths.....and it is damaging Clintons work.

READ THE LETTER!!

[TheMadMonk]

127. Uh-Uh. SInce getting their arses sued, the tabloids are...

... very careful about what they print. Alien lovers and dog-headed babies are one thing, but printing demonstrable lies about real people is something completely different. At the very least they salt their articles with an entire cellar of "alleged"s and "purported"s before putting the paper to bed.

[sunnystarr]

102. I'm really curious about

the fact that the film was distributed unedited to foreign markets. Since Clinton and his administration have business dealings around the globe wouldn't that also show that they were injured as a legal element? With 9 days notice (according to the letter) didn't ABC/Disney have a duty to make corrections earlier?

[TheMadMonk]

128. Is this an avenue by which they could do an end run around...

... the restrictive slander/libel laws of the US. Sue in non-US jurisdictions and serve the perps if/when they decide to holday in sunny Oz, or the dreary Old Sod. Disney has assets all over the world. Grab where the grabbing is easiest.

[Crunchy Frog]

103. I hope to God that Bill Clinton and the Democrats

follow through on this. If they don't then this will just be seen as so much noise and dismissed as whining.

I hope that they've got their lawyers working every angle of this, and have congressional investigations planned into the whole fiasco.

[exlrrp]

142. I wouldn't bet on it

Democrats seem to be into more "symbolic protest" than actual protest and the Clintons are definitely the leaders here

[Matilda]

123. Key sentence: "The film has undoubtedly cemented in millions

of viewers' minds a false impression of critical historical events".

Isn't that what it was supposed to do? So the dummies out there will believe that Clinton and
not good ol' Bush was responsible for 9/11 and vote the Republicans back in November.

Then Disney can issue a belated apology which nobody will take any notice of and it will be too
late anyway.

[Cobalt Violet]

133. K & R.

[cyberpj]

135. blah..blah...blah...... but nothing said about DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT.nt

[dogday]

137. The Micky Mouse Club doesn't give a shit

Here is the response from Disney

[exlrrp]

139. DEAR BOB????!!!!

Oh yeah, thats a real tough one all right, I bet dear Bob is just shaking in his gucci loafers

[exlrrp]

140. oops double entry-canceled

.

[oc2002]

141. blah blah blah ABC will wipe its ass with it.

ABC says 'So, watcha gona do punk?'