O'Reilly Factor still smearing Gore, misrepresenting his testimony on profiting from advocacy
SUMMARY: Fox News' Megyn Kelly misrepresented former Vice President Gore's congressional testimony to suggest that he lied about not profiting from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation.
On the June 4 segment of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, host Bill O'Reilly and Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly smeared former Vice President Al Gore by stating that he has profited from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation, and Kelly misrepresented congressional testimony Gore gave to suggest that he had lied when he said otherwise.
O'Reilly teased the segment by stating, "Al Gore is becoming extremely wealthy with all this global warming stuff." During the segment, O'Reilly said of Gore, "I believe that he is profiting by the green movement." Kelly replied, "He appears to be. There's nothing wrong with that; he's a capitalist." Kelly continued: "The problem is people are -- some people are coming down on him because when he testified before a House committee in April, he claimed that every penny he has made has gone to a nonprofit. Now, maybe he just misspoke. Or maybe he was speaking about this one particular firm that you and I were talking about tonight, but it's not clear."
In fact, when specifically asked about profiting from his investments through the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins related to renewable energy and climate change mitigation legislation during April 24 congressional testimony, Gore said that "every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge." He subsequently further explained that "[e]very penny from the movie, from the book, from any investments in renewable energy" has "gone to" the non-profit.
From his April 24 exchange with Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN):
BLACKBURN: So you're a partner in Kleiner Perkins. OK. Now, they have invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap-and-trade legislation. So is the legislation that we are discussing here today, is that something that you are going to personally benefit from?
GORE: I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge.
And Congresswoman, if you're -- if you believe that the reason I have been working on this issue for 30 years is because of greed, you don't know me.
BLACKBURN: Sir, I'm not making accusations, I'm asking questions that have been asked of me and individuals -- constituents that were seeking a point of clarity, so I am asking you for that point of -- point of clarity.
GORE: I understand exactly what you're doing, Congresswoman. Everybody here does.
BLACKBURN: And, well -- you know, are you willing to divest yourself of any profit? Does all of it go to a not-for-profit that is an educational not-for-profit --
GORE: Every penny that I have made --
BLACKBURN: Every penny --
GORE: -- has gone to it. Every penny from the movie, from the book, from any investments in renewable energy. I've been willing to put my money where my mouth is. Do you think there's something wrong with being active in business in this country?
BLACKBURN: I am simply asking for clarification --
GORE: I'm proud of it.
BLACKBURN: -- of the relationship.
GORE: I'm proud of it.
As Media Matters for America documented, on the May 1 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, guest host Laura Ingraham aired a heavily doctored version of that testimony to suggest that Gore has profited from his advocacy of renewable energy and climate change mitigation. On June 4, Fox News promoted The O'Reilly Factor's segment on "Gore's green money," asking: "Is Al making tons of cash off global warming fears?"
From the June 4 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: And then, Megyn Kelly has been looking at Al Gore getting very, very wealthy. How is the former vice president doing it? We hope you stay tuned for those reports.
[...]
OREILLY: Thanks for staying with us. I'm Bill O'Reilly. In the "Kelly File" segment tonight, two interesting situations. Apparently Al Gore is becoming extremely wealthy with all this global warming stuff, but first ...
[...]
O'REILLY: Now, this is my favorite story of the day. Investor's Business Daily tells Miss Megyn and your humble correspondent -- that's me -- that Al Gore, when he left office, had $2 million --
KELLY: Right.
O'REILLY: -- and now he's worth $100 million.
KELLY: A hundred million beans, Bill.
O"REILLY: So baseball has been berry, berry good. So it's global warming -- that's what's got to be doing it for the guy.
KELLY: He's doing all right, let me tell you.
O'REILLY: A hundred million, man.
KELLY: Now listen, he's done everything -- you know the guy, obviously. He had An Inconvenient Truth. He's got a book. He's had -- he's an adviser to Google since 2001; that's a good company to be in on the ground floor with. He's on the board of Apple, another good company.
O'REILLY: But 2 million to 100 million?
KELLY: So that's my point. OK, so how does that justify $100 million? And by the way --
O'REILLY: He's in the hedge fund. That's where --
KELLY: -- and by the way, he says he gives -- he gave the profits from An Inconvenient Truth to --
O'REILLY: Polar bears.
KELLY: -- a non-profit. So I'm just saying -- so where is his personal money coming from if all of this is true? Well --
O'REILLY: Yes?
KELLY: -- he is the co-founder of a group called Generation Investment Management, which is a socially conscious investment firm that he founded. And so they take people's dough and they invest it in socially conscious causes, including causes relating to the environment. I don't know, Bill, but I would assume that's where the bulk of his money comes from, because you don't make $100 million on the board of Apple.
O'REILLY: You're socially conscious, are you not?
KELLY: I guess so.
O'REILLY: I am.
KELLY: [unintelligible] the next girl.
O'REILLY: Yeah, we're socially conscious. Have you gone from 2 million to -- well, you didn't have 2 million to start with, you're a young woman --
KELLY: I would like to get to 2 million.
O'REILLY: But that's a pretty big increase in eight years.
KELLY: Yeah.
O'REILLY: But -- and we're both socially conscious, and I know most of our audience, you're socially conscious out there. Have you increased your wealth like that?
KELLY: We're in the wrong business. We have to form an investment fund --
O'REILLY: Well, I heard that one of the things that Al Gore is doing is that he's manufacturing life jackets for polar bears so they -- that was a joke. And he's selling them, and you know, there's nobody else doing that. But I believe that he is profiting by the green movement. I think he's doing that. Yeah.
KELLY: He appears to be. There's nothing wrong with that; he's a capitalist. The problem is people are -- some people are coming down on him because when he testified before a House committee in April, he claimed that every penny he has made has gone to a nonprofit. Now, maybe he just misspoke. Or maybe he was speaking about this one particular firm that you and I were talking about tonight, but it's not clear.
O'REILLY: Maybe he'll produce his tax returns.
KELLY: But it's clear that -- I mean, it doesn't appear from $100 million that every penny he has made has gone to the nonprofit.
O'REILLY: But he said that, maybe we should ask him -- would you call him and ask him for his tax returns in 2008?
KELLY: Hello, Al, this is Megyn. He takes my calls.
O'REILLY: Listen, he likes you. He likes you.
KELLY: You think so?
O'REILLY: He doesn't like [Fox News host Bill] Hemmer. But he likes you, and maybe he'll give you have his tax returns for 2008 so we can see that he gave all that money to charity.
KELLY: You know, his daughter, Sarah, she's in journalism. Maybe I'll start there and work my way up.
O'REILLY: Yeah. We're gonna put Miss Megyn on the tax return for Al Gore. Thanks very much, Megyn. Nice to see you. Right back with "Reality Check" tonight, starring some Fox News haters, and some new information about that terrible Air France crash in the Atlantic.
O'Reilly: "But that's a pretty big increase in eight years."
$100 million in eight years is "pretty big" to O'Reilly, who makes $10 million a year in addition to untold thousands for speaking engagements. He can easily come close to or beat Gore's mark.
KELLY: "You know, his daughter, Sarah, she's in journalism. Maybe I'll start there and work my way up."
Sarah, you're on notice, be on the look out for stalkers from Fox.
Doesn't Al pay his carbon offsets to firms he owns?
It's assinine for Media Matters to ignore the fact that Al Gore has a substantial investment portfolio in a government taxing scheme that will generate billion of dollars.
2. What government taxing scheme are you talking about? Provide links. Green energy is a good idea; if you think otherwise then the best thing I can say is that you don't know what you're talking about.
3. It is ludicrous to ignore the fact that Gore is sounding the alarm on global climate change, which the scientific community accepts as true. It's happening. Denying it is ridiculous.
4. Al Gore being wealthy has absolutely no bearing on whether what he says about climate change is true.
1: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1794519/posts
2. Cap and Trade is a government taxing scheme that affords Al Gore the opportunity to take a percentage on the trades made. He is doing it successfully with GIM in Europe.
3. What proof do you offer that the earth has not been warming since its "big bang?" I don't recall any electric facilities or cars during the ice age that covered North America. So it there was an ice age how did the ice melt?
4. Really? That's like Soros doesn't have any bearing on the financial markets. Al Gore and his friends in Silicon Valley are making a killing off cap n trade in Europe. Do a little research on your own.
You do know that the Pentagon has publicly stated that global warming is the #1 national security issue facing the U.S., don't you?
In addition, can you supply an data that the mean air temperature of the attitudes above 40,000 feet have warmed? I know in urban areas, over the past 100 years, the temperatures have warmed - maybe we should paint our roof tops white, quit building roads, and tile roof/tar shingle roofs and see if they would have the warming trends. Just an idea that something is creating warmer temperatures in medium and larger metro areas. When you go out to rural areas the average temperature in the US has remain steady.
In addition, the "warming" trend cited by Al Gore is from data over 100 years old and over that period the temperature has marginally increased by 1 degree. Is it possible that the data, the eyeballs which captured the data, and tools to acquire the data have changed drastically over that 100 year period and have become more or less accurate?
MMfA didn't ignore the portfolio as much as you ignored sworn testimony as to how it is used.
Reality 1: Troll 0.
Now to your comments: 1) Politicans never lie, so even under oath I would believe Al Gore; 2) please provide a transcript link to the testimony. I have searched with no avail.
Right wingers have perfected name calling IMO. Apologist, blame america first, messiah, fill-in-the-blank in-chief, evil doers, evil enablers, socialists, fascists, I can go on for ever.
Matter of fact, all right wingers do is live (and in the case of media figures, make living) on name calling. Seems to give them some satisfaction in their misery.
The Obama administration continues on a some sort of mix path of a political theory advocating an authoritarian hieracrchical government (that's the true definition of fascism) combine with a political theory advocating state ownership of industry or capital(that's the true definition of socialism). Examples, a wage czar and taking over public corporations are some quick examples of those two political theories.
When you combine the two theories, you have Marxiam Socialism. Here's a wiki link, I don't have time to give you a lesson why many people we are on this path. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Doctrine_of_Fascism
Al Gore has done more for our country, and our world than you will ever hope to accomplish.
Al Gore sits on the board of Google, Apple, and several others companies. Has been for years. His income from those is typical of others sitting on boards and consulting. See this 2007 Newsweek article outlining his various incomes streams. http://www.newsweek.com/id/71011
To make the assumption that all of Al Gore's income comes from green initiatives is tomfoolery and disingenuous at the very least and an outright lie at the most.
Rolling Stone did a great story on how unfairly Al Gore has been treated for years by all sides. It is well worth a look.
In May 2002, even the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation issued a notice of violation against the operation, informing the company that runs the mine and pays Gore his $20,000 a year that it had infringed the Tennessee Water Quality Control Act due to high levels of zinc in the river.
A CNN Article in 1998:
The Gores, on the other hand, had assets of between $1.5 and $1.77 million in 1995, but by the end of 1996, their wealth had dropped to between $880,000 and $1.1 million. A year later, that figure was down to between $770,000 and $870,000. The good news is that the 50-year-old vice president is not enriching himself at the public trough. On the other hand, this potential president could be a financial dolt. After all, since 1993 he has made $171,500 a year, plus $1,186,261 in royalties for his bestseller, Earth in the Balance, and an additional $100,000 from Tipper's 1996 book of photography, Picture This: A Visual Diary.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663
Al Gore is chairman and founder of a private equity firm called Generation Investment Management (GIM). According to Gore, the London-based firm invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are going green. “Generation Investment Management, purchases -- but isn’t a provider of -- carbon dioxide offsets,” said spokesman Richard Campbell in a March 7 report by CNSNews.
GIM appears to have considerable influence over the major carbon-credit trading firms that currently exist: the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) in the U.S. and the Carbon Neutral Company (CNC) in Great Britain. CCX is the only firm in the U.S. that claims to trade carbon credits.
CCX owes its existence in part to the Joyce Foundation, the Chicago-based liberal foundation that provided $347,000 in grant support in 2000 for a preliminary study to test the viability of a market in carbon credits. On the CCX board of directors is the ubiquitous Maurice Strong, a Canadian industrialist and diplomat who, since the 1970s, has helped create an international policy agenda for the environmentalist movement. Strong has described himself as “a socialist in ideology, a capitalist in methodology.” His former job titles include “senior advisor” to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, “senior advisor” to World Bank President James Wolfensohn and board member of the United Nations Foundation, a creation of Ted Turner. The 78-year-old Strong is very close to Gore.
I'm glad to hear that Megyn is thinking about talking to Sarah. Her first question should be, what exactly is this journalism? Is it like socialism?
Hence, my slightly sarcastic point. In other words, O'Racist and his teabaggers are obsessing and slamming Al Gore without a shred of evidence of wrong-doing, but completely ignore the terrorist-enabling Dick Cheney.
I'm not, I repeat NOT, against Honest Al making as much loot off his power point presentation as he can. In fact I'm all for the principle of a snake oil salesman plying his trade, but don't tell me you're not making one red penny off the show!
I noticed Al didn't mention his indulgences business Generation Investment Mang. Honest Al buys his offsets (indulgences) off HIMSELF! What a bargain!
GIM
Check out the "founding" members of GIM. Gore, Hank Paulson, David Blood, Peter Knight, and Mark Ferguson.
Megyn came in with the same information you can find online in a Bloomberg article, nothing new, nothing earth-shattering. This was nothing but an excuse to speculate, draw conclusions, indict Gore and place the burden of proof on him.
If you're hoping to change minds about Gore's movtives and intentions, bring something of substance to the table, instead telling us how weird it is to make $100 million in eight years.
Kelly also pointed out at least 5 other sources of his income so the report was fair and not the hit piece that Mike was suggesting.
And of course what your comments fail to take into consideration about O'Reilly's wealth is the fact that he pays about 50% in taxes, and so over a 10 year period of a $10 million salary he would not have the same fortune as Gore. And even if he did, so what. I see remarks about O'Reilly's wealth on this site all the time. I guess it is fair to criticize him for being wealthy but not question Gore's wealth in any way.
"Pretty good reason" doesn't prove the accusation and it doesn't shift the burden of proof to Gore.
Here's the answers:
a) He would have revealed the truth about his income.
b) He would have put the green cash machine on hold.
c) All of the above
Also, please point out where I said anything criticizing O'Reilly because he makes a lot of money. I just do not believe that his ratings justify his shoddy journalism and his career as a smear merchant. I know you disagree, but to me, ratings do not equal quality.
"Apparently Al Gore is becoming extremely wealthy with all this global warming stuff"
"So it's global warming -- that's what's got to be doing it for the guy."
And when the woman he hired to do this hit job suggested that he made alot of money from Apple and Google his dismissive response was: "But 2 million to 100 million?"
And then finally, his conclusion is:
"But I believe that he is profiting by the green movement. I think he's doing that. Yeah."
I don't why I have to read the article and listen to the segment for you, but there you go. All completely unsubstantiated and all reported on a News channel as if it were researched and fact. He even suggests that Megyn Kelly has been looking into this to get the facts and that he will have the report later on in one of his teasers.
But where is the substance? There is nothing there. Do the research and the leg work, then do the story. Don't give me a bunch of maybe this, maybe that nonsense. That wouldn't have made it past me when I was the editor of my small high school newspaper. Pathetic, bitter smear merchant. But as always, you have two sets of rules - we know this.
I mean, in the world of right wing greed, I know that you don't see it this way, but he did, and he does.
Also, is it so hard to believe that a VP can go out, do some lectures, and haul down a lot of cash? And as others have said, he sits on several boards, which I'm sure pay him more than enough cash.
Say he is worth $100 million today. 9 years, so we're looking at him pulling down around 11 million per year? Not out of the question at all.
Just don't tell us NONE of it is funding the energy hog mansion in TN. If you're going to profit off of the green scene then at least be honest about it. I know that's hard for the Buddhist monk money grubber. It is telling that Al isn't transparent about this.
Buying carbon offsets is akin to buying indulgences from the Catholic Church for your sins and then you keep committing the sin, yet to find out that way to Heaven didn't require you to purchase nothing.
Also, almost all politicians make their money after they retire from being politicians. They do it through sitting on boards and making speeches. Show me how much money Cheney, G-Dub, Newt, others are making since their retirement to prove there is something unusual about Gore. I don't know why it matters that Gore is making money from sitting on boards and making speeches, but clearly it is an issue for the right - otherwise this conversation would be meaningless. Also, prove to me that he is not donating the money he earns off his green initiatives. Otherwise, this is just another O'Reilly hit job that is lapped up by his audience which lacks in critical thinking.
Gore is profiting off saving the planet. Cheney profited off the deaths of innocent people/soldiers.
But running a non-profit, it would be nice to see the compensation that algore receives from his non-profit activities that are based on uncertain theories that will be devestating to the world's economy.
Obama's economy=Enormous numbers of wallets with little money
Global warming is not an uncertain theory. There are over 690 peer reviewed papers supporting it, while none refute it. Interestingly, you rely on economics (and right-wing economics) to state that the world economy will be ruined. Which has proved more accurate at making predictions, hard science, or economics?