"Rathering" Brian Ross Off of ABC 20/20
In light of the media's feeding frenzy about the excesses of one lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, in providing gratuities to members of Congress, its worth reviewing how ABC reporter Brian Ross, who bills himself as the "last investigative reporter on a major network" handled an important political story on which he obtained an exclusive from me - to expose the Hillary Clinton campaign finance fraud that helped her win her Senate seat.
The allegations I made, which he corroborated in a highly touted 20/20 broadcast on July 13, 2001, resulted in the first ever criminal indictment and trial of a U.S. Senator's finance director, David Rosen, for election fraud in May, 2005. After allowing his subordinate to be unnecessarily indicted and tried, Senator Clinton's ranking campaign finance official, Rosen's boss, treasurer Andrew Grossman has at long last admitted to the FEC that it was he that broke the Federal Election Law by hiding more than $721,000 in contributions made by me in three false reports to the FEC.
Coincidentally, as I was working on this blog entry, Human Events
published: Federalist Society Slams ABC's Scalia Story: Repeat of Rather-Mapesthe latest Brian Ross ABC 20/20 efforts to engineer a story - this time to discredit Justice Scalia. (see below if you dont click on the link)
The course of conduct that is demonstrated by ABC 20/20 in my case, and now apparently repeated in the Federalist-Scalia report, demands that Brian Ross be scrutinized the same way that Dan Rather was. The implications may be quite different with Ross, as he seems to be following the direction of his superiors at Disney ABC rather than his own journalistic agenda as a Rather-esque anchor. Nevertheless, Ross' consistent efforts to dissemble and omit strategic facts in order to support an "unjournalistic" agenda should be exposed and challenged.
When ABC 20/20 lobbied with my then lawyers at Judicial Watch to take over Mike Wallace's 60 Minutes exclusive interview with me covering my allegations of Clinton campaign crimes in May, 2001, "investigative" reporter Brian Ross promised to present my story factually and impartially. He convinced me that the story would focus on the bona fides of my message, and not on me as the messenger. I was assured that ABC would honor its commitment not to sensationalize the story based on my past, but merely report on the testamentary, documentary and photographic evidence I had presented of Clinton and DNC misconduct.
Because ABC 20/20 is really a news entertainment program that relies on ratings, rather than facts, to make a profit for its parent Disney Company, it makes deals in order to get exclusive news- like stories. When I agreed to provide ABC with a story of significant value, even though I was not paid for it, my remuneration was a promise from Brian Ross that the story would be presented in a mutually agreed way. If I had not cooperated in providing exclusive access to information and documents, I would not expect the interview to deliver any predetermined objective. Since it was a condition of my exclusivity that Ross would tell the entire, fully documented story about the Clinton campaign fraud, as opposed to a story of the colorful donor, I reasonably expected that Ross would deliver on his promise.
My story segment was the most popular of any reported by 20/20 during the 2001 season, garnering its largest audience of that year. That translates into significant profits made by Disney on my story. But Brian Ross violated the terms of our agreement when he edited the story to eliminate the key Clinton campaign official, David Rosen, entirely from the story. Rosen turned out to be the only one that was indicted and tried for election fraud based on my allegations. Most disturbing was the fact that because of ABC's editing Rosen out of the story, his defense raised his absence from my interview with Brian Ross as an inconsistency in my allegations of Rosen's wrongdoing!
Rosen's defense attorneys, in the May, 2005 trial of Hillary's finance director, entered as evidence before the jury, the entire 20/20 broadcast and pointed out that I never referred to their client during the thirty minute interview with Brian Ross. The implication was that my allegations that Rosen played a role in the three false FEC reports filed by Hillary's campaign was an afterthought.
No one told Rosen's jury that until two days before the July 13, 2001 20/20 broadcast I was assured by Brian Ross and his producer Rhonda Schwartz that Rosen, with Bill Clinton liaison Jim Levin, were key parts of their story. I was requested by Schwartz, three days ahead of the broadcast, to Fed Ex better quality pictures of Rosen to be used in the broadcast.
As it turned out, Ross went to great lengths to sanitize the broadcast by keeping any photos of Rosen out of the story. When a key photo showing my Japanese partner Tendo Oto being illegally smuggled in to the federal fund raising event for Hillary by David Rosen himself, after Oto illegally contributed $27,000 to the event, Ross referred to the picture of Rosen as an unnamed Clinton official!
Ross also ignored any reference to Rosen's superior, Andrew Grossman, who actually signed and filed the three false reports Rosen was tried for. Those facts were collectively hidden by Brian Ross' investigative prowess. Now that Grossman has finally admitted to the FEC that he was responsible for the false reports, and he has agreed to correct the reports and pay a fine, it should further damn Brian Ross as a dissembler and hider of the facts, rather than a crack investigative reporter that uncovers and exposes the facts.
The lesson here is quite significant. A simple journalistic fraud, intended to mislead an audience, sensationalize an issue at the expense of its truth and significance, drive ratings and protect a powerful political figure supported by the Chairman of the parent company of the news program, can become a key piece of evidence to obstruct justice in an important political trial. That is what happened here. When the prosecutor made no effort to correct the erroneous impression presented by David Rosen's attorneys- using Ross' edited omission of my naming Rosen in my interview with Brian Ross as evidence of Rosen's innocence- then we should be very concerned about keeping reporters honest. Even "investigative" reporters.
I am hoping that Ross has finally picked the wrong group to apply his special reporting techiques to, and that he will finally be accountable for his abuse of his role as the chief investigative reporter for ABC. I am hoping he will soon be playing cards with Dan Rather as the unceremoniously dismissed "last investigative" reporter for a major network.
Federalist Society Slams ABC's Scalia Story: Repeat of Rather-Mapes
by Robert B. Bluey
Posted Jan 24, 2006
The Double-Standard of the Liberal Media
The conservative Federalist Society, the centerpiece of an ABC News story questioning Justice Antonin Scalia’s ethics, today compared the network’s reporting on the story to the infamous Dan Rather and Mary Mapes episode regarding President Bush’s National Guard records.
ABC News Chief Investigative Correspondent Brian Ross reported Monday for ABC’s “Nightline” that Scalia was out of town at a Federalist Society legal seminar on Sept. 29, 2005—the day of Chief Justice John Roberts’ swearing-in ceremony. The piece contains video footage of Scalia on a tennis court at the Colorado hotel where he was presenting for a Federalist Society legal seminar.
Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo on Tuesday released a detailed rebuttal (see below) to the ABC News segment. He said it grossly distorted Scalia’s involvement in the two-day Federalist Society conference and exaggerated his time on the tennis court. Leo also questioned the legality of the video footage, which he called an invasion of privacy.
“Justice Scalia taught a comprehensive course about the separation of powers under our Constitution,” Leo said. “Reminiscent of Dan Rather’s and Mary Mapes’s false National Guard story, ABC Nightline knew in advance of airing its program that he did not simply ‘attend’ a ‘judicial education seminar,’ and it grossly misled viewers by suggesting that the event was a ‘junket’ rather than a serious scholarly program that required much work and advance preparation.”
Prior to the story’s airing Leo said he spent time on the phone on multiple occasions with ABC News Producer Rhonda Schwartz to clarify errors in the story, including her belief that Scalia was on a tennis excursion. He said Schwartz and her colleagues showed no interest in correcting the errors.
But more importantly, Leo said, is the concept ABC News suggests in the piece: that it is unethical for judges to interact with lawyers. Leo called it “absolutely absurd” that judges should be bound by some sort of “gag rule” preventing them from attending conferences such as those sponsored by the Federalist Society.
The ABC News segment featured Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor, who the network calls “a recognized scholar on legal ethics.” Gillers attacked Scalia for his involvement in the conference, calling it “an activity that is itself of dubious ethical propriety.”
And as for the tennis game, Leo said ABC News’ emphasis on Scalia’s play—including video at the beginning of the segment, suggesting he was in Colorado for recreation, not business—distorts the whole story.
“The event started at 8 a.m. each of the mornings,” Leo said, “and, despite ABC Nightline’s emphasis on Justice Scalia participating in tennis at the hotel, he spent less than two hours playing the game over the course of those two days.”
Leo also said the hotel where the conference was held had denied ABC News’ request to videotape, but despite this, the network used undercover cameras in some cases. Leo called it illegal and an invasion of privacy for the hotel’s guests.
A representative of ABC News was not immediately available to respond to the Federalist Society’s charges.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo released the following information Tuesday in response to the ABC News report about Justice Antonin Scalia’s attendance at a Federalist Society-sponsored legal seminar last September.
Justice Scalia....Teaches A Course
The Facts
1. Justice Scalia taught a comprehensive course about the separation of powers under our Constitution. Reminiscent of Dan Rather’s and Mary Mapes’s false National Guard story, ABC Nightline knew in advance of airing its program that he did not simply “attend” a “judicial education seminar, ” and it grossly misled viewers by suggesting that the event was a “junket” rather than a serious scholarly program that required much work and advance preparation.
• Justice Scalia taught a 10-hour course while in Colorado, lecturing the more than 100 lawyers in attendance as well as answering numerous questions they presented.
• Prior to the course, Justice Scalia produced a 481-page course book containing edited cases on separation of powers issues. All attendees received the book in advance and were expected to review the material and prepare in advance of the course.
• Justice Scalia arrived and left Colorado without spending any extra days to engage in recreational activity. He arrived at the hotel the night before the course at 11 p.m., having traveled by car for three hours the night before. He departed at around 6:30 a.m. the morning after the course ended in order to fly back home. The event started at 8 a.m. each of the mornings, and, despite ABC Nightline’s emphasis on Justice Scalia participating in tennis at the hotel, he spent less than two hours playing the game over the course of those two days.
• Justice Scalia presented the course with LSU Law Professor John Baker. Both were present together on the rostrum for the ten hour course, and both received reimbursement for travel and lodging.
• John Baker received an honorarium. Justice Scalia did not.
2. Justice Scalia did not attend Chief Justice Roberts’s swearing-in ceremony at the White House on September 29 because he chose to respect a longstanding commitment to teach a course to over 100 lawyers who had traveled from at least 38 states. This was not, as Nightline suggested, missing an important Washington function so as not to miss a tennis outing.
• There was virtually no advance notice that John Roberts would be confirmed and sworn-in on September 29. It was not absolutely clear until the day before.
• Justice Scalia had accepted the invitation to teach on October 10, 2004—nearly a year before the course dates. Almost all participants had registered and paid for the course by August 2005, nearly two months in advance.
• To have cancelled just a couple of days before the start of the course would have caused many attendees to lose the money the spent on plane tickets and hotel deposits, and, as the sponsor, the Federalist Society would have faced tens of thousands of dollars in damages that would have to be paid to the hotel for breaking a contract.
3. Justice Scalia was teaching a scholarly program that was educationally rigorous and open to anyone who wanted to come.
• The course was approved by at least 30 state bars for continuing legal education credit. Most of the lawyers in attendance have to take such accredited continuing legal education programs in order to remain licensed to practice law.
• The Federalist Society welcomed anyone who wished to come to the event. Members simply were asked to pay the registration fee, and non-members were welcome to attend if they paid the Society’s nominal dues ($5 for students, $25 for lawyers) along with the registration fee. Indeed, at least 10 of those who came to the course were non-members who joined and paid the registration fee in order to attend.
• More than 100 lawyers and law students were in attendance.
4. ABC Nightline was fully aware that its piece was misleading and inaccurate, and the way in which it prepared the story bespeaks hypocrisy.
• Several hours before the program aired, the Federalist Society spoke with Nightline’s senior producer, David Scott, as well as the investigative reporter who worked on the story, Rhonda Schwartz. The Federalist Society set forth the above facts and made very clear that tennis occupied a miniscule part of Justice Scalia’s time in Colorado. Nightline nevertheless chose to lead with a “tennis outing” theme and grossly failed to present the facts surrounding the course in a way that demonstrated the amount of time and work involved.
• At least a week before this conversation, the Federalist Society had spoken with Rhonda Schwartz and informed her in explicit terms that Justice Scalia taught a 10-hour course attended by lawyers. Nonetheless, ABC’s website, on the night of the broadcast, cast the issue as Justice Scalia attending a judicial education seminar. There is a world of difference between teaching a 10-hour course and coming to a resort to hear other speakers between various recreational activities—but Nightline chose to manufacture the false impression that Justice Scalia was at a function that entailed much play and little work.
• It is ironic that, in preparing a story that seeks to make the point that judges should be held to high standards of ethical integrity, ABC itself broke the law by trespassing on private property and invading the privacy of private individuals who did not give permission to be videotaped. Indeed, ABC contacted the hotel for permission to film the Society’s activities, and permission was denied by hotel management.
Mr. Bluey is editor of Human Events Online.