The end to a slander campaign; the woman speaks out

[Mavdog]

Woman Denies Rumors of Kerry Affair
39 minutes ago Add Top Stories - AP to My Yahoo!

By MATTHEW ROSENBERG, Associated Press Writer

NAIROBI, Kenya - A woman who has been the subject of rumors linking her to Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) denied Monday that she ever had an affair with the Democratic presidential candidate.

Breaking her silence four days after the allegations surfaced on the Internet, Alexandra Polier issued a statement to The Associated Press, saying, "I have never had a relationship with Senator Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false."

Kerry already has denied reports that he had an extramarital affair. On Monday, his campaign said he would have no further comment.

Polier's statement was released to the AP in Nairobi, where the 27-year-old freelance journalist is visiting the parents of her fiance, Yaron Schwartzman, an Israeli who was raised in Kenya. She previously worked as an editorial assistant for the AP in New York.

"Whoever is spreading these rumors and allegations does not know me," Polier said, appealing to the media to respect her privacy and the privacy of her fiance and his family.

Polier also took issue with reports that referred to her as a former Kerry intern.

"I never interned or worked for John Kerry," she told AP over the phone.

In a separate statement, Polier's parents, Terry and Donna Polier of Malvern, Pa., dismissed the "completely false and unsubstantiated" allegations about their daughter.

"We love and support her 100 percent and these unfounded rumors are hurtful to our entire family," the statement said. "We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States."

The statement did not address purported quotes by Polier's parents in the British tabloid The Sun that were harshly critical of Kerry.

Kerry has won 14 of 16 Democratic primaries and caucuses, and is expected to be the Democratic challenger to President Bush (news - web sites) in November.

Rumors of a relationship between Kerry and Polier first appeared Thursday on the Internet and were picked up by newspapers in several countries outside the United States. Few U.S. publications printed her name, however.

Asked Friday about the reports, Kerry told reporters: "I just deny it categorically. It's rumor. It's untrue. And that's the last time I intend" to respond to questions about it.

Regarding her silence until now, Polier said, "Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them. It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to address them."

By Monday, reporters and photographers were camped outside the Schwartzmans' Nairobi home, and at one point pursued the car of Yaron's mother, Hannah Schwartzman, as she left the walled compound.

Polier and Yaron Schwartzman met at Columbia University. They arrived in Kenya last October.

Polier graduated from Clark University in Worcester, Mass., in 1999. She received her master's in journalism from Columbia in 2003.

[Chiwas]

Hope this is true and the campaigns advance in a more clean atmosphere.

Why do I care? We have a saying that points: "when the US sneezzes, Mexico gets a flu".

[madape]

now the Kerry campaign has confirmed that Polier dated Kerry's finance advisor, Peter Maroney. Of course, there was no mention of this anywhere in Polier's statement. Then again, I don't think she'd want the world to know that she boinked everyone on Kerry's staff (including the Senator himself). She's probably just doing what she's being told to do at this point, anyway. You can bet she's been heavy contact with the Kerry camp since the story broke. They probably even wrote her statement for her. But the truth of this tramp will come out. You can't be a skank-whore who sleeps with entire campaign staffs and not have someone notice. Is it too late for me to apply to be a Democratic politician?

As my boy Nate-Dog used to say. "It ain't no fun if the homey's can't have none".

Right John?

[madape]

AP: "<gulp> Ahhh.. OK, who's next?
JK: "Hello there"
AP: John? I don't think so. You've already been here twice today. You'll have to go to the back of the line with Mr. Kennedy"
JK: "What? Don't you know who I am?"
AP: "OK, fine. But only if you can get rid of this parking ticket I got last week at the University?"
JK: "It's a deal"

[Mavdog]

And now an example of how adolescents react when they are caught being very, very bad boys...like for slandering people they don't know and also for being untruthful:

But the truth of this tramp will come out. You can't be a skank-whore who sleeps with entire campaign staffs and not have someone notice.

Now, you shouldn't take failure of the campaign to attack a candidate with false rumors so bad. What a glorious attempt tho of behaving just like your hero Matt Drudge, now this woman is labeled a "tramp" and a "skank-whore" because she didn't do what Drudge alleged. Hmmm, if she is so despicable for NOT doing what she was alleged to have done, just how low and repugnant does that make those who actually knowingly slander(ed) her? They are the lowest of low, the bottom feeders who eat and breathe the waste of society produced by people who have no hesitation, no remorse in carrying out their goals of personal attack politics via rumor, innuendo and fabrication. As they say, you are what you eat...

[kg_veteran]

Now, you shouldn't take failure of the campaign to attack a candidate with false rumors so bad. What a glorious attempt tho of behaving just like your hero Matt Drudge, now this woman is labeled a "tramp" and a "skank-whore" because she didn't do what Drudge alleged.

Just out of curiosity, how do you KNOW that she didn't do what she is alleged to have done? Because SHE denies it? Yeah, there's conclusive proof.

Hmmm, if she is so despicable for NOT doing what she was alleged to have done, just how low and repugnant does that make those who actually knowingly slander(ed) her?

This is called begging the question.

Your question assumes facts not yet established.

They are the lowest of low, the bottom feeders who eat and breathe the waste of society produced by people who have no hesitation, no remorse in carrying out their goals of personal attack politics via rumor, innuendo and fabrication. As they say, you are what you eat...

Give me a break, Mavdog. I'm not taking a side on this one because I don't think we have full information yet, but for you to suggest or imply that Drudge is doing something that CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC wouldn't do if they had access to the same rumors regarding Bush, well, it's incredibly naive or incredibly myopic.

[Evilmav2]

The fat is in the skillet, and this girl doesn't want to get burned. Where there is smoke there is usually fire, and for the last few days we have seen a lot of it billowing out of the upper stories of the Kerry campaign tenement.

This business may or may not go away, but somehow I think this girl's denial has more to do with her trying to escape the attentions of a gathering media storm, than with the actuality of whether or whether not she conducted a two year extramarital affair with John Kerry.

There may be nothing to this story, or Kerry's folks are simply repressing it, but I somehow find it easy to believe that "Junket Jet Setter" Kerry, a man who indulged in mid-90's flings with such former soap opera stars as Catherine Oxenberg and Morgan Fairchild, might well have tagged onto his finance advisor's gravy train and done some pretty unseemly unmarital things with this girl...

[MikeB]

Unless they have pics...or a semen stained ugly assed blue dress that she kept as a souvenir...then if he says no and she says no...then its NO.

You can suspect and believe what you want...but without physical proof then you don't have squat.

[kg_veteran]

Unless they have pics...or a semen stained ugly assed blue dress that she kept as a souvenir...then if he says no and she says no...then its NO.

You can suspect and believe what you want...but without physical proof then you don't have squat.

Mike, you're right in the sense that if no one can come up with anything else, it will be impossible to prove that they had an affair. At the same time, however, it's only fair to point out that this woman could have PLENTY of potential reasons to lie.

Accept her word at face value if you want; I'm not going to, just like I won't accept the story at face value without more information either.

[Mavdog]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, you shouldn't take failure of the campaign to attack a candidate with false rumors so bad. What a glorious attempt tho of behaving just like your hero Matt Drudge, now this woman is labeled a "tramp" and a "skank-whore" because she didn't do what Drudge alleged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Just out of curiosity, how do you KNOW that she didn't do what she is alleged to have done? Because SHE denies it? Yeah, there's conclusive proof.

So much for the time honoured American judicial principle of innocence until one's guilt is proven. You're position is a bit like the knight in Holy Grail judging the women accused of being a witch...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm, if she is so despicable for NOT doing what she was alleged to have done, just how low and repugnant does that make those who actually knowingly slander(ed) her?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is called begging the question.

Your question assumes facts not yet established.

The participant in the alleged affair denies it, the "facts" supporting the opportunity (she wasn't an intern) are false, and you seek to "establish" the facts?
Blindness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
They are the lowest of low, the bottom feeders who eat and breathe the waste of society produced by people who have no hesitation, no remorse in carrying out their goals of personal attack politics via rumor, innuendo and fabrication. As they say, you are what you eat...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Give me a break, Mavdog. I'm not taking a side on this one because I don't think we have full information yet, but for you to suggest or imply that Drudge is doing something that CNN/ABC/CBS/NBC wouldn't do if they had access to the same rumors regarding Bush, well, it's incredibly naive or incredibly myopic.

Your view of their professionalism is damn low. Even fox, the standardbearer for the narrow right wing, didn't go with the story because it did not check out. They'd do the`same for any story without any support. Do you hear them making any reports on Bush's alleged`drug use and`such? No...if your assertion were true, they would be.

The talk of a "liberal media bias" is crap. There's as many conservative media outlets as the other side.

[southern_sweets]

Just curious...

if the rumor turned out to be false and enough proof was provided that those of you supporting Bush would dismiss the rumor, would you change your mind and vote for Kerry?

if the same rumor surfaced about Bush and enough proof was provided that you knew it was true, would you change your mind and vote for Kerry?

You might want to ask yourself if this is the reason you would not vote for Kerry. Or is it other issues where your views and Bush's are more in agreement?

...just a thought.

[kg_veteran]

So much for the time honoured American judicial principle of innocence until one's guilt is proven. You're position is a bit like the knight in Holy Grail judging the women accused of being a witch...

I never said Kerry's "guilt" was proven. I just said that the affair hasn't been proven or disproven. You were lighting into Madape and calling him a slanderer, as if the matter had been conclusively resolved by this woman's denial. It hasn't.

The participant in the alleged affair denies it, the "facts" supporting the opportunity (she wasn't an intern) are false, and you seek to "establish" the facts?
Blindness.

Keep on calling me blind. You're the one who's making assumptions. I'm simply waiting for all of the facts to come out before calling people slanderers and jumping to conclusions.

Your view of their professionalism is damn low.

No, my view of their objectivity is pretty low. I find it rather amazing (no CBS pun intended) that you honestly believe that they are objective.

Even fox, the standardbearer for the narrow right wing, didn't go with the story because it did not check out. They'd do the`same for any story without any support.

Unless you know somebody at Fox News or have a quote from Fox News talking about this story, you're just speculating as to why they didn't run the story.

The talk of a "liberal media bias" is crap. There's as many conservative media outlets as the other side.

I think you just contradicted yourself.

[FishForLunch]

Wasnt it Weasely Clark you started this rumor by his of the record comments to reporters? I bet they will try to blame bush for spreading this rumor.

[Drbio]

Originally posted by: FishForLunch
Wasnt it Weasely Clark you started this rumor by his of the record comments to reporters? I bet they will try to blame bush for spreading this rumor.

Indeed it was. That's why all the democraps are so pissy right now. One of their own tossed the first stone.

[Mavdog]

I never said Kerry's "guilt" was proven. I just said that the affair hasn't been proven or disproven. You were lighting into Madape and calling him a slanderer, as if the matter had been conclusively resolved by this woman's denial. It hasn't.... I'm simply waiting for all of the facts to come out before calling people slanderers and jumping to conclusions.

Perhaps you don't have the same definition of "slander". Do the accusations of being a "tramp" and a "skank-whore who sleeps with entire campaign staffs" not fall into slander? Certainly they do as the accuser has no basis in fact.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your view of their professionalism is damn low.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No, my view of their objectivity is pretty low. I find it rather amazing (no CBS pun intended) that you honestly believe that they are objective.

No one is entirely objective. Some are able to put their personal feelings aside when doing their job however.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even fox, the standardbearer for the narrow right wing, didn't go with the story because it did not check out. They'd do the`same for any story without any support.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Unless you know somebody at Fox News or have a quote from Fox News talking about this story, you're just speculating as to why they didn't run the story.

Reasonable assumption.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The talk of a "liberal media bias" is crap. There's as many conservative media outlets as the other side.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think you just contradicted yourself.

Oh? and how did I do that? The role of commentators is much different than reporters. George Will is not a reporter, nor is Molly Ivans.

[madape]

I'm not a reporter either. I can think the whore is a filthy tramp if I want to. I'm entitled to my own opinions. The fact that I voice my opinion on an internet web-site doesn't mean I am committing slander.

Drudge, however, is a reporter, and he reported nothing but the facts: that the media was investigating Polier... that Clark told reporters Kerry would implode due to a scandal... that the story was making a big impact in the democratic race.

There was no "slander" by anyone. Not me, not Drudge, not Clark, not anyone. Maybe YOU should look up the definition of slander, because you obviously have no clue.

[Mavdog]

I'm not a reporter either. I can think the whore is a filthy tramp if I want to. I'm entitled to my own opinions. The fact that I voice my opinion on an internet web-site doesn't mean I am committing slander.

Here, I will help you thru your personal failure to understand the english language. "Think" is one thing; publicizing such defamation is another. Clearly a nuance that goes over your head it seems.

slan·der ( P ) Pronunciation Key (slndr)
n.
Law. Oral communication of false statements injurious to a person's reputation.
A false and malicious statement or report about someone.

v. slan·dered, slan·der·ing, slan·ders
v. tr.
To utter a slander about.

Drudge, however, is a reporter, and he reported nothing but the facts: that the media was investigating Polier... that Clark told reporters Kerry would implode due to a scandal... that the story was making a big impact in the democratic race.

So now Drudge is a "reporter" and not a news service as others have claimed. If he is a reporter he owes full investiagtion of a news item before publicising, which he did not do. The story had NO "facts" and what it did state as real has been PROVEN to be false. Public statements by those involved contradict the story, false statements by Drudge in his story about the alleged accomplice's work history, all show the lead was without substance...but that doesn't stop the immoral attacks on these people.

There was no "slander" by anyone. Not me, not Drudge, not Clark, not anyone. Maybe YOU should look up the definition of slander, because you obviously have no clue

Let's review: calling someone a "tramp" claiming "that she boinked everyone on Kerry's staff (including the Senator himself)" and also referring to her as "a skank-whore who sleeps with entire campaign staffs" clearly falls within the definition above. The post in question contains false and malicious statements, injurous to a person's reputation.
Guilty as charged.

[madape]

Drudge DID report the facts. He never claimed that the woman had an affair with Kerry, only that the story was being investigated by other media outlets. Are you claiming this is false? In that case YOU SLANDERER! YOU ROTTEN, DISGUSTING SLANDERER!

But even by your own definition, you are wrong. Does it look like I am orally communicating to you right now? Can you hear the words "SKANK WHORE" and "TRAMP" come out of my mouth? NO! You want to know why? BECAUSE I'M TYPING THIS ON A COMPUTER! It is not "oral communication". It's printed. Printed defamation equates to libel, not slander. You knew that right? right?!?!

In any case, when you accuse someone of slander, the burden of proof is on you. (any lawyers correct me if I'm wrong) In order for a prove slander, you must prove some kind of pecuniary damage. I don't think that my ranting on this internet site is causing Kerry, the skank-whore, or anyone else involved any financial loss or mental duress. Neither you nor I are committing slander, or libel, or anything criminal by stating our opinions on an internet forum, just we aren't committing slander when we say that Tom Hicks is a greedy bastard who traded A-Rod to fatten his wallet.

It's amazing to me. You sit here and act like you know what you are talking about. But you don't. You are just as clueless on slander as the rest of us... but you think you are smart enough to accuse everyone else on the board of committing it. Guilty as charged my ass. Stupid as charged is what I say to you.

[Psychedelic Fuzz]

so let me get this straight...clark starts a rumor that kerry boinked an intern...then a woman comes forward and says she never did it with kerry...and that she was never an intern...therefore both parties are innocent...and it's all the right wing media's fault?

makes perfect sense to me...I'm not voting at all until an aging actor or pro wrestler decides to run for president.

[Mavdog]

Drudge DID report the facts. He never claimed that the woman had an affair with Kerry, only that the story was being investigated by other media outlets. Are you claiming this is false? In that case YOU SLANDERER! YOU ROTTEN, DISGUSTING SLANDERER!

Actually, Drudge "reported" rumors and incorrect statements. You also don't need to yell, or are you that upset? tsk tsk, calm down.

But even by your own definition, you are wrong. Does it look like I am orally communicating to you right now? Can you hear the words "SKANK WHORE" and "TRAMP" come out of my mouth? NO! You want to know why? BECAUSE I'M TYPING THIS ON A COMPUTER! It is not "oral communication". It's printed. Printed defamation equates to libel, not slander. You knew that right? right?!?!

In looking up the legal definition of slander, it appears that you actually committed Libel. Mea culpa for confusing the 2 (as I am not a lawyer), but you're still guilty of the offense.

In any case, when you accuse someone of slander, the burden of proof is on you. (any lawyers correct me if I'm wrong) In order for a prove slander, you must prove some kind of pecuniary damage. I don't think that my ranting on this internet site is causing Kerry, the skank-whore, or anyone else involved any financial loss or mental duress.

Assumptions on your part, The woman may just be reading what you write, causing severe anguish. Your lack of respect for the lady is very troubling...clearly a sign that you have issues with women. Please seek professional help for your problems!

Neither you nor I are committing slander, or libel, or anything criminal by stating our opinions on an internet forum, just we aren't committing slander when we say that Tom Hicks is a greedy bastard who traded A-Rod to fatten his wallet.

That might just be truth about Hicks...but you did make more than mere "opinions", you made malicious statements, which could cause mental anguish and embarassment, about the woman. Again, if you have personal issues with women seek help, don't hide behind screen names while you act out your problems.

It's amazing to me. You sit here and act like you know what you are talking about. But you don't. You are just as clueless on slander as the rest of us... but you think you are smart enough to accuse everyone else on the board of committing it. Guilty as charged my ass. Stupid as charged is what I say to you.

Actually YOU are the only one who I pointed out made statements that were untruthful, malicious, with intent to cause harm. If you want to call yourself "stupid as charged" be my guest...I won't disagree.

[Usually Lurkin]

Originally posted by: Mavdog

Assumptions on your part, The woman may just be reading what you write, causing severe anguish.

Dirty, Rotten, Filthy lies!!!!!
You have no proof that this woman reads dallas-mavs.com!
Why are you trying to start such a horrible rumor????

[madape]

Grandma says she did it all for a job reference

maybe i should update my dialogue:



AP: "<gulp> Ahhh.. OK, who's next?
JK: "Hello there"
AP: John? I don't think so. You've already been here twice today. You'll have to go to the back of the line with Mr. Kennedy"
JK: "What? Don't you know who I am?"
AP: "OK, fine. But only if I can put you on my resume."
JK: "It's a deal"

[digit]

Take one part Kerry, one part Fonda ...

... and try to whip up a political row

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Wednesday February 18, 2004
The Guardian

A new dirty tricks campaign to embarrass the Democratic frontrunner, John Kerry, backfired ignominiously yesterday when it emerged that a widely circulated photograph of a protest against the Vietnam war was a crude forgery.
The photograph, falsely credited to Associated Press, combined two separate images to make it appear as if Mr Kerry shared a stage at an anti-war rally in the early 1970s with the actress, Jane Fonda.

Ms Fonda is reviled by many Vietnam vets for her wartime visit to Hanoi, and the image was widely aired over the internet by a fringe group of Vietnam veterans who have pursued a vendetta against Mr Kerry for years.

In less than a week, the forgery travelled from a message board on a rightwing website to a Vietnam veterans' mailing list to mainstream organisations. Two British national newspapers - the Daily Mail and the Mail on Sunday - used the photograph in editions on Friday last week and at the weekend.

The revelation that the photograph was a fake follows the rumour that Mr Kerry had had an affair with a young trainee reporter.

That claim, which started on the rightwing Drudge report website, was largely ignored by American papers when it first surfaced, but was leapt on by some British newspapers.

On Monday the woman at the centre of the furore, Alexandra Polier, issued a statement in which she denied ever having had a relationship with Mr Kerry.

Inside the Kerry campaign, Democratic operatives said yesterday they were certain that the forged photograph would not be the last attempt to try to discredit their candidate's Vietnam war record.

"There are going to be a lot of dirty tricks in the campaign. It's like the story of the intern, which flew high as a kite before being shot down," said John Hurley, Mr Kerry's campaign adviser on veterans' issues.

Although it is possible to trace the Fonda-Kerry forgery through the internet, it was not clear yesterday who created the photograph. There was no direct evidence targeting the altered image to the Republican party.

However, the episode was seized on by Democrats as evidence of Republican trickery in an election season already notable for its low tactics.

The furore over the concocted photographs - and the smear that Mr Kerry had had an affair with Ms Polier - have also provoked a debate within the US media on its role in perpetuating campaign mud slinging.

Various Republican grandees and officials from President George Bush's re-election campaign have warned that operatives are mining Mr Kerry's 18-year voting record in the Senate, as well as his history as a Vietnam veteran turned war protester, in search of damaging material. Mr Kerry has formidable critics in a fringe section of war veterans who played a key role in the distribution of the forged image.

Although Mr Kerry is widely respected both for his courage in the Mekong delta and for his activism following his return from Vietnam, he has aroused the wrath of a small, but vocal minority.

Among his most devoted enemies over the years is a veteran from North Carolina. Ted Sampley, a former Green Beret, was bitterly opposed to Mr Kerry's leadership in re-establishing American relations with Vietnam, and openly accuses him of betraying missing US soldiers.

The election campaign has given new meaning to Mr Sampley's previously lonely campaign. On his website for veterans against Mr Kerry, he has portrayed the candidate in front of a Vietcong flag, and in a legitimate picture in a rally several rows behind Ms Fonda.

He also played a crucial role in circulating the forgery. "It was a dream come true that picture coming up at this point of time," he told the Guardian. "If it was real, I would be promoting it left, right and centre."

Mr Sampley says he suspected immediately the photograph was a fake, and he decided not to post it on his website. Instead, he claimed, he sent the image to six friends.

"It's a pyramid. I have no idea where it was going or not," he said, adding: "I didn't tell them not to publish it."

Ken Light, the photographer responsible for the original image of Mr Kerry, said yesterday that lawyers for the Corbis agency, which owns the picture, were contemplating legal action.

"It made me feel very angry that it was a complete deception," Mr Light said. "Having one of your images faked in that way for a political cause, or as part of a dirty tricks campaign, doesn't make you very happy."

The Guardian...

[Drbio]

Kerry is bad enough without having to manufacture things.