Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

In New Letter, Clinton's Lawyers Demands ABC Yank Film

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Tom Yossarian Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:24 AM
Original message
In New Letter, Clinton's Lawyers Demands ABC Yank Film
(Hope this isn't a dupe). To Bob Iger Found at: http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/sep/09/in_new_letter_clintons_lawyer_demands_abc_yank_film

Dear Bob,

Despite press reports that ABC/Disney has made changes in the content and marketing of "The Path to 9/11," we remailn concerned about the false impression that airing the show will leave on the public. Labelng the show as "fiction" does not meet your responsibility to the victims of the September 11th attacks, their families, the hard work of the 9/11 Commission, or to the American people as a whole.

At a moment when we should be debating how to make the nation safer by implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, "The Path to 9/11" calls into question the accuracy of the Commission's report and whether fabricated scenes are, in fact, an accurate portrayal of history. Indeed, the millions spent on the production of this fictional drama would have been better spent informing the public about the Commission's actual findings and the many recommendations that have yet to be acted upon. Unlike this film, that would have been a tremendous service to the public.

Although our request for an advance copy of the film has been repeatedly denied, it is all too clear that our objections to "The Path to 9/11" are valid and corroborated by those familiar with the film and intimately involved in its production.

-- Your corporate partner, Scholastic, has disassociated itself from this proect.

-- 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, who served as co-executive producer on "The Path to 9/11," has stated that he raised concerns about the accuracy of several scenes in the film and that his concerns were not addressed during production.

-- Harvey Keitel, who plays the star role of FBI agent John O'Neill, told reporters yesterday that while the screenplay was presented to him as a fair treatment of historical events, he is upset that several scenes were simply invented for dramatic purposes.

-- Numerous Members of Congress, several 9/11 Commissioners and prominent historians have spoken out against this movie.

-- Indeed, according to press reports, the fact that you are still editing the film two days before it is scheduled to air is an admission that it is irreparably flawed.

As a nation, we need to be focused on preventing another attack, not fictionalizing the last one for television ratings. "The Path to 9/11" not only tarnishes the work of the 9/11 Commission, but also cheapens the fith anniversary of what was a very painful moment in history for all Americans. We expect that you will make the responsible decision to not air this film.

Sincerely,

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

Douglas J. Band
Counselor to President Clinton
Office of William Jefferson Clinton
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
blue cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:30 AM
Response to Original message
1. Time to sue
We need to also send emails to those who are reporting on the scandal, to keep reporting on the scandal.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Abenoxious Donating Member (11 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #1
8. I don't know...
Conservatives are complaining about freedom of speech.
If the movie is a lie, won't that be obvious to the public after the movie is shown?
Let's face it 9/11 happened on Bush's watch, how can Clinton be blamed?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:44 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. as obvious as no connection between Saddam and 9/11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NOLADEM Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:56 AM
Response to Reply #10
14. Well put.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HarukaTheTrophyWife Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #8
13. Slander and libel aren't covered by freedom of speech.
And let's face it, there are millions of uninformed Americans in this country that can blame ANYTHING on Clinton's penis. The Clenis is all powerful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Gman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Two words explain how Clinton can be blamed:
Clinton's Penis! It's been the go-to excuse of last resort now for years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blue cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 09:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
18. Freedom of speech
doesn't cover lies. They are lying to American parents through ABC and their children through Scholastic, and the world. I know Scholastic backed out, but only because of pressure. This scheme is massive. They are trying to take over everything, even hollywood.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 09:45 AM
Response to Reply #8
22. There's no right to slanderous or libelous speech
As a matter of fact exactly the opposite.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zanne Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:48 AM
Response to Reply #1
11. ABC covered itself when it labeled it "fiction".
Edited on Sat Sep-09-06 08:49 AM by zanne
If they call it "fiction" there can't be any "lies".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Wretched Refuse Donating Member (105 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:50 AM
Response to Reply #1
12. The long and winding Path to 9/11
Well, could not we go further back in our time machine and ask:
What the hell did George Bush I do to stop Osama? I mean why not do that? He had the whole middle east in his grubby little hands back in 1991, so why not take Osama out right then either?

Now HERE is a concept for y'all,

It has struck me that this "non-issue" (really if you think about all the treason this admin is doing, this is a non-issue) is REALLY the DLC re-asserting itself as the controller of ALL things Democrat.
I mean it is all a Clinton (+administration) face saving thing that now supposedly ALL good Dems come to the aid of their "fearless leader." Well, it really is sapping our "momentum" on other more important issues, and the corporate controlled DLC KNOWS THAT.

So, I have stayed outside the blogosphere on this one, except for the few phone calls to ABC radio to gnash my teeth on the air, with the likes of Levin (the Zionist) and the new idiot (Jerry) last night taking over Laura Ingram's 8-10 slot in the NY ABC market.

Screw Disney and ABC, they were the next to fall to the nazis after Fox anyway, everyone knew that. I believe that ABC is also stirring the pot to get all good Dems back into the DLC fold, as Hilary was starting to get REALLY antsy at the calls to debate Tasini and with Lamont, and the Screw the DLC push happening as of late, I feel this is the motive for the over-hype of this non-issue.

This all just another Corporate-control of our sense of "what is important."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
StraightDope Donating Member (716 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #12
21. Is there some reason...
that you keep posting the exact same thing in multiple threads? I was just wondering...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Toots Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #12
25. It may surprise you but Dems as you refer to them have never left the fold
Of Truth. Any Democrat that does not support the Truth is not in truth a Democrat. Particularly in such an important aspect of history. If it were true that Clinton's Administration was in some way responsible I would wish to know about it. Let the Truth win out and as long as that be the main guiding principle of the Democratic Party we shall overcome..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:31 AM
Response to Original message
2. Clinton grew up working class
He knows when to fight these bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. Yes, let's support The Big Dog's effort 100%!
Way to go Bill Clinton! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sydnie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
4. Good
Let's hope they next letter they receive from his lawyers (if they air this mess) is to notify them that a suit has been filed.

The Path to 9/11
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freedom_from_Chains Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:34 AM
Response to Original message
5. You know ABC could be getting threatened from both sides
on having their FCC license revoked. Although I would think the Republicans would have the stronger card.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felinity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:36 AM
Response to Original message
6. Wheres the filing for an injunction?
And why wasn't it done yesterday? There seems to be more than enough cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #6
16. Felinity, please explain what that means in layman terms.
We non-legalese savy folks want to know what's going on. I don't know what filing an injunction means/entails.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felinity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 09:28 AM
Response to Reply #16
17. I need a lawyer!
From my limited knowledge base, an injunction is a court order preventing a action from taking place, or from continuing. Say someone is flagrantly damaging your reputation by spreading lies and misinformation about you. You could sue them for damages and ask the court to issue an injunction (gag in this case)immediately forbidding them to continue to do so until the case can be heard.

In this case, you could argue that profligating lies and misinformation about members of the Clinton administration by airing this flawed and obviously slanderous program would cause irreparable damage to those individuals, not to mention the country at large; and the Court would hopefully agree and order ABC to pull it.

My concern is that it is too late. A federal judge would have to be rounded up on a weekend. They would have to issue the injunction. I am uncertain as to whether it would then have to be served, and whether TPTB at Disney would be anywhere to be found if it does.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MoonRiver Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Oh, I really hope this can be done.
To prevent this is why nobody in the Clinton adm. was/is - given/being given copies of the film. BASTARDS!
:mad:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Felinity Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #19
24. Which will only make it worse if it goes to trial
It is obvious that they withheld previewing from those most likely to be slandered, or who would find fault. It is a clear indication of bias; and to me, an admission of clear intent to deceive and do harm.

Ironic that the people actually involved were not consulted as to the course of events. So much of history is written without that benefit of first-hand accounts. Academically bereft.

Let's make a film about Katrina, but not talk to anyone who was actually involved, except Chertoff.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:38 AM
Response to Original message
7. go Dog Go!
Sue the bastards! If anything just for the disclosure so we can find out where the REAL money behind this is coming from!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
City Lights Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 08:43 AM
Response to Original message
9. Take 'em down, Big Dawg!
I hope this fiasco haunts Disney-ABC until the end of time. :mad: :grr:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Red Right and BLUE Donating Member (774 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 09:36 AM
Response to Original message
20. GIT 'EM!!!
Shoulda let sleeping dogs lie, you bastards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Justice Is Comin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 09:56 AM
Response to Original message
23. This is the legal positioning Clinton's smart lawyer
is doing. It's essential for a libel suit if you know in advance that libel is intended, that you make a good faith effort to offer a cease and desist opportunity, advise you are putting them on notice that they are about to defame with untrue facts and that this going forward will be proof that they intend to do it maliciously.

Clinton's counsel is brilliantly showing an attempt to pre-mitigate damages. If ABC goes forward and they use the words "9-11 commission report" or they don't clearly state that it is entirely a fictional drama, they don't have a legal leg to stand on.

To my knowledge there has never been broader notice of a libel and defamation liability--up to and including from Congress--that has ever happened in American history.

Boy this is something.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Yossarian Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Sep-09-06 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #23
26. I think you are right.
While I'm no lawyer, I would imagine that the paper trail being generated before the fact may lead to either ABC/Disney backing down or legal procedings after the showing if the inaccuracies and libelous assertions still exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Apr 24th 2024, 08:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC