Douglas Caddy
-
Posts
11,311 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Store
Posts posted by Douglas Caddy
-
-
Catherine Austin Fitts was interviewed on The Power Hour on August 29, 2013. She asserted that we are in transition between the Old Economy and the New Economy, which are parallel worlds so to speak. The New Economy will seize the assets of the Old Economy while casting off all its liabilities. Examples of this are cities that are declaring bankruptcy where billions of dollars in the pensions of the retired public employees are being eliminated, freeing the Elite to take over the unburdened assets of the municipalities by starting anew.
Fitts believes this is a planned agenda by the Elite that has been in effect since 2001. The Elite in any major financial crisis will come out on top and not suffer serious consequences such as what happened in the meltdown of the economy in 2008, which was a goal of the Elite’s agenda.
It would appear from her argument that the primary goal of the Elite is to bring about The Great Default, probably sooner than later. This way they can engineer the elimination of all liabilities from the Old Economy, such as social security, and begin anew with the New Economy that will be under their total control and to their exclusive benefit.
So The Great Default in inevitable if for no other reason than the Elite see it as a way to achieve their agenda.
Here is a link to the interview of Fitts on The Power Hour on August 29, 2013:
http://www.thepowerhour.com/past_shows/schedule_08_26_2013.htm
-
-
-
Bottom of Form
From the article: "The L.A. Free Press Special Report Number One, co-edited by Assassination Revisionist Mark Lane, reports that, when Rep. Thomas Downing (D., Va.) established the Committee, another leading revisionist, Washington lawyer Bernard Fensterwald, Jr., was offered the key post of chief counsel. Fensterwald allegedly told Lane that the CIA had levelled a death threat at Fensterwald if he should take the post, and that three other attorneys had been similarly warned off. After Fensterwald then turned down the post, it went to the abrasive, dynamic Richard Sprague, the successful prosecutor of the famous Yablonski murder case at the United Mine Workers."
------------------------------------
September 5, 2013
www.lewrockwell.com
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/murray-n-rothbard/assassination-revisionism%e2%80%a8
/
This first appeared in The Libertarian Forum, Volume XI, NO.2, March-April, 1978
Someone has, indubitably, shot and almost assassinated Larry Flynt, creator and publisher of Hustler and other publications. Why did he do it? The Establishment theory is that a lone nut Christian did it, and indeed they picked up an authentic Christian at the scene of the crime, only to find that he was not the assassin.
Let us examine the alternative possible theories: (1) the Lone Nut Christian. But why would the lone Christian, however nutty, try to kill Larry Flynt shortly after he had converted from pornography to Jesus? Maybe before, but after Larry saw the light? Why would a Christian kill a newly found brother? Of course, he might have his doubts, as we all may, about the sincerity of Brother Flynt’s conversion. But this way madness lies, for surely we can’t kill all suspect newcomers to a proselytizing Church. And if someone like Chuck Colson remains unscathed, why pick on poor Flynt? And so soon? (2) Flynt might have been shot by a fellow pornographer, sore at Larry’s desertion of their common cause to that of Christianity. Dubious, for after all pornographers tend to be more interested in moolah than in ideology or solidarity, and so any pornographer would probably bid good riddance to a formidable competitor. And that leaves (3), the fascinating hypothesis, somehow neglected in press speculation, that Flynt’s shooting may have nothing whatever to do with Christianity, but is rather related to the fact that only a few days previously, Larry Flynt had taken out ads all over the country, offering no less than $1,000,000 reward “for information leading to the arrest and conviction of anyone involved in the planning or execution of President Kennedy’s murder, or for information which makes it possible for the truth to come out.” Oho! The Kennedy Assassination redivivus! In fact, Flynt had become such an Assassination buff that he had recently purchased the L. A. Free Press, and made the veteran revisionist Mark Lane the major editor of a new supplement, or Special Reports, on the Kennedy murder. The first supplement had just appeared on the stands. There have been so many murders, and mysterious deaths, surrounding the assassination of Kennedy and Oswald (and of Officer Tippitt), that we would have to go with this unsung hypothesis as at least a likely explanation.
The press has hinted at a fourth explanation for those who cannot quite swallow the Lone Nut Christian theory: (4) that the Mafia gunned down Flynt for interfering with their magazine distribution monopoly. But the very raising of the point about the Mafia is dangerous for the Establishment, because there is much evidence that the Mafia was hip-deep in the Kennedy Assassination itself. So that is not likely to be a well-publicized theory.
Larry Flynt adds one more name to a growing roster of mysterious and unsatisfactorily explained political assassinations and quasi-assassinations in recent years:
John F. Kennedy; Lee Harvey Oswald; John Connally; and Officer J. D. Tippitt—all killed or wounded on or around Nov. 22, 1963 in Dallas. Robert F. Kennedy; Martin Luther King; George C. Wallace; and Malcolm X. All of these were ostensibly killed or wounded by lone nuts, with the exception of Malcolm, where the top “conspirator” claims that his fellow convicts had nothing to do with the murder. And then, on the possibly political level, there are the murders of Sam Giancana and Johnny Roselli, both supposed to be purely gangland killings of undetermined and trivial origin.
II. THE HOUSE COMMITTEE
How goes the House Select Committee on Assassinations? The answer, unsurprisingly, is: not very well. It looks as if the well-orchestrated ouster of Richard Sprague early last year has drawn the Committee’s teeth and assures yet another governmental whitewash of the KennedyOswald and King killings.
The L.A. Free Press Special Report Number One, co-edited by Assassination Revisionist Mark Lane, reports that, when Rep. Thomas Downing (D., Va.) established the Committee, another leading revisionist, Washington lawyer Bernard Fensterwald, Jr., was offered the key post of chief counsel. Fensterwald allegedly told Lane that the CIA had levelled a death threat at Fensterwald if he should take the post, and that three other attorneys had been similarly warned off. After Fensterwald then turned down the post, it went to the abrasive, dynamic Richard Sprague, the successful prosecutor of the famous Yablonski murder case at the United Mine Workers.
After Sprague showed signs of taking the job seriously, he was subjected to an unprecedented, and seemingly coordinated smear-campaign in the press, after which he was fired by the new Committee chairman, Rep. Henry Gonzalez (D., Tex.) after almost hysterical personal attacks directed by the Congressman against Sprague. Was there any “old boy” Texas influence working on Gonzalez?
Since then, the Committee has been quiet, which L. A. Free Press hopes is a sign that the Committee is doing effective work behind the scenes. But the signs are not good, if we can credit the report in the Feb. 20 issue of New Times. For, apparently, the new chief counsel, G. Robert Blakey, has been so low-key that he has returned almost half a million dollars to the Treasury as unneeded. Many staff members have complained that Blakey’s action has pulled punches in the investigation and has crippled its effectiveness.
There are more sinister aspects to Blakey’s behavior than simple penny-pinching. For as soon as he took over the post, Blakey cracked down on his staff, required them to sign agreements that they would not acknowledge their jobs at the committee without permission. Violation will bring instant dismissal and a $5,000 fine.
More troubling than the mere martinet aspects of the Blakey regime is its attitude toward the CIA, the self-same agency that allegedly threatened Fensterwald. For Blakey has refused to allow access to classified material to any staff member who cannot get CIA clearance. Not only that: any staff members who do read CIA documents must submit any notes they make to the Agency for review! Blakey’s refusal to call former CIA director and admitted perjurer Richard Helms before his committee, is of a piece with a statement he once made about U.S. intelligence agencies: “You don’t think they’d lie to me, do you? I’ve been working with those people for twenty years.” Hmmm.
There is also an ambivalence in Blakey’s attitude toward organized crime—which possibly had important links to the assassination (pace Giancana, Roselli, and, especially, Jack Ruby). After building a reputation as a crusader against racketeers, including a stint as Special Prosecutor in Bobby Kennedy’s organized crime strike force, Blakey weighed in with an anti-free press affidavit supporting La Costa Ranch in its libel suit against Penthouse Magazine in the winter of 1976. Things get curiouser and curiouser.
At any rate, we may now judge that another Warrengate is in the works, that the Committee may eventually peter out with yet another rubber-stamp of the Oswald-Ruby-lone nuts thesis. So what else is new?
-
The sexy new Watergate book by Phil Stanford that John Dean is trying to suppress is finally out. White House Call Girl – available now at Amazon and wherever else fine eBooks are sold.
-
September 3, 2013
A Scandal-Scalded Murdoch as a Song-and-Dance Man
The New York Times
September 3, 2013-09-04
It has been an eventful couple of years for Rupert Murdoch. In Britain, evidence that reporters at several of his newspapers routinely hacked into private cellphones as they pursued hot stories led to the demise of News of the World, one of his mightiest tabloids, and incited an official government inquiry into the culture, practices and ethics of the British press.
Last June, Mr. Murdoch announced that he was divorcing his third wife, Wendi Deng, whom he married in 1999. And now, with Australia in the midst of a federal election campaign, Mr. Murdoch, a harsh critic of the incumbent Labor Party and the owner of 70 percent of the country’s newspapers, is once again the topic of the day in his native land.
The dramatists have taken note. Richard Bean, the author of “One Man, Two Guvnors,” is writing a play on the phone-hacking scandal for the National Theater in London at the invitation of its artistic director, Nicholas Hytner. Closer to home, the Melbourne Theater Company has just staged the premiere of “Rupert,” a cabaret-style dramatization of Mr. Murdoch’s life by one of Australia’s best-known playwrights, David Williamson.
The play, which opened on Thursday at the Arts Center in Melbourne, uses two actors to play Murdoch. Guy Edmonds is the young Rupert. Sean O’Shea, appearing as Mr. Murdoch’s 82-year-old self, also offers commentary and direction as the action unfolds — very quickly to accommodate a career spanning more than six decades.
Mr. Williamson, whose fiddling with the text and constant updating took him through 50 revisions, starts with Mr. Murdoch as the young heir to a failing Australian newspaper and follows him as he parlays success in Australia to tabloid triumphs in Britain, the purchase of The Times of London, and inroads into the United States.
Little is left out, not even the shaving-cream pie that a comedian heaved at Mr. Murdoch when he appeared to testify before a parliamentary committee looking into the hacking scandal.
The six other members of the ensemble cast take on multiple roles to populate an often crowded canvas.
The reviews have been good, although critics hoping to see Mr. Murdoch’s head served on a platter came away disappointed.
The Age, Melbourne’s non-Murdoch daily, praised Mr. O’Shea’s portrayal of Mr. Murdoch as “a roguish larrikin” (Australian slang for a hooligan or rowdy) with a “hint of menace beneath the charisma,” while complaining that Mr. Williamson pulled too many punches.
It was an open question how the Murdoch-owned papers would handle the subject. The Australian, a national daily owned by Mr. Murdoch, gave a more than respectful account of the play. Its reviewer complained that Mr. Williamson had tried to cram too many events into one evening’s entertainment, but called the first act “light and delightfully funny.” Lee Lewis, the director, he wrote, “sets a cracking pace, and her cast doesn’t miss a beat.”
The hands-off approach to Mr. Murdoch was deliberate, Mr. Williamson said, part and parcel of his decision to depart from his more familiar naturalistic style and use the cabaret format.
The Murdoch character “invites the audience to see his real story,” not the story from what a Murdoch paper might call “effete caffe-latte-sipping inner-city left-liberal elites,” Mr. Williamson said. “He casts his own show so that the younger version of himself is considerably more handsome and dynamic than he was, but, as he tells his audience, this is his show, so he can do what he likes.”
Mr. Williamson is probably better known to American audiences as a screenwriter. He wrote the film version of his play “Don’s Party,” directed by Bruce Beresford, and the screenplays for “Gallipoli” and “The Year of Living Dangerously,” both directed by Peter Weir.
In Australia, where he first rose to prominence in the early 1970s, he is best known for satirical plays like “The Removalists,” “The Perfectionist” and Brilliant Lies,” which he has turned out at the rate of nearly one a year.
Brett Sheehy, the artistic director of the Melbourne Theater Company, approached Mr. Williamson a year and a half ago to write a play. “I told him I’d love him to consider something which was a bit different from his usual work — something which was thematically very global,” Mr. Sheehy said. “I asked him where was the heat and passion in discussions with his friends, at dinner parties, barbecues, get-togethers? He said: ‘Oh God, that’s easy. The power relationship between the media and politics. The News of the World troubles. The Leveson Inquiry.’ ”
Mr. Sheehy suggested that he take that as his subject, and splash it on a big canvas.
“Rupert immediately sprang to mind as a subject,” Mr. Williamson said. “He is the most powerful Australian or ex- Australian ever to have lived.”
A dramatic precursor immediately presented itself: Richard III. “Both men, through a combination of boldness, ruthlessness, charm and steely ambition rose to rule their realms,” Mr. Williamson said. “Richard gets his comeuppance on Bosworth Field, but what’s remarkable about Rupert is that he never does. The other difference, I guess, is that Richard killed many to get to the top. Rupert just fires anyone who doesn’t toe the ideological line.”
As a dramatic figure, Mr. Murdoch has already made his debut on the stage, as the thinly disguised press baron Lambert Le Roux in “Pravda,” David Hare and Howard Brenton’s 1985 satire about the British newspaper industry. Anthony Hopkins took the role.
In “Selling Hitler,” a 1991 British television mini-series about the Hitler diaries hoax, Barry Humphries acted the part of Mr. Murdoch, whose newspaper The Sunday Times (in London) ran excerpts from the fake diaries.
In an interview with The Age, Mr. Bean described his play in progress as “funny but grotesque,” and, in an adjectival pileup, a “state of the nation, press, politics and police in bed with each other” play.
Mr. Murdoch was invited to “Rupert,” but has not responded. A theater spokeswoman said that members of his extended family were expected. The play is to come to Washington in March for five performances at the International Theater Festival.
-
-
From the article: “In addition, my inquiries unearthed the existence of a shadowy SAS unit that answers to MI6, as well as the names of two MI6 officers who were linked by a number of sources to Diana’s death.”
-
-
-
-
Yahoo Uncovered Syria Chemical Weapon False Flag in January
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/08/anthony-gucciardi/chemical-weapons-false-flag%e2%80%a8/
-
From an email sent to me by Len Colodny yesterday, August 24, 2013:
Today www.watergate.com becomes the host of the "Colodny Collection" research site.
Last year, I created a trust, "Colodny Collection, LLC," to hold all my work and work-related materials.
It now includes all my research materials from both "Silent Coup" and "Forty Years War."
This will make all of my research available to anyone who wants to use it.
Along with these materials I am disclosing in full my relationship with Bob Woodward, which started almost 33 years ago, in an article entitled "Bob Woodward Lied to Me, Lied to His Readers and Lied to Our History".
Accompanying the article are the entire and unedited tape recording of my Nov. 19, 1980, telephone conversation with Woodward, and a transcript of that call.
This tape, which was undisclosed until now, is the first known record of the "real" Bob Woodward at work, and shows how he abused the reputation generated by his Watergate reporting.
To the few people who have heard of this call, Woodward has claimed the tape and transcript do not match. Now you can judge for yourself.
This page also contains the three fraudulent stories from the Post, which are at the heart of this story.
"The Colodny Collection" offers evidence that calls into question what was really behind Woodward's role in the "Watergate" story.
The first posting from the "Collection" is "The Woodward/Haig Connection," in which Woodward conceals his true relationship with Gen. Alexander Haig, the former National Security Council aide and White House chief of staff.
Regards,
LenLen Colodny
Colodny Collection LLC -
-
Police docs from JFK assassination packed away in rarely-seen Dallas rooms
by REBECCA LOPEZ
|Follow: @rlopezwfaa
WFAA
Posted on August 22, 2013 at 6:54 PM
Updated yesterday at 7:12 PM
[To view video, click on link]
DALLAS -- Sr. Cpl. Roderick Janich holds the keys that unlocks the door to the history of the Dallas Police Department.
In this small room, marked "press room," are some of the original artifacts from November 22, 1963.
Cpl. Janich brought out a door saved from the old police headquarters.
“A lot of history has gone through this door," he said.
The door that Lee Harvey Oswald stepped through when he was interrogated about the murders of President John F. Kennedy and Officer J.D. Tippit.
"The world changed that day," Janich said.
It changed, too, for the police officers investigating the murders. Angry people phoned in death threats, blaming the department for the assassination of the president.
“The president was very popular, and it happened in Dallas, unfortunately," Janich said.
The most important Dallas police documents are held in a vault at City Hall. The city archivist, John Slate, is the only one who can bring them out and display them. White gloves are required.
"That is the original homicide report for the president," Slate said, holding a piece of onion-skin paper.
One of the most interesting things when reading the documents is that the homicide and police reports never refer to the victim as President John F. Kennedy. He’s referred to as the deceased -- "The deceased was riding in the motorcade."
There are 11,000 items in the archives from the Kennedy assassination.
"This was sent to the Oswald while sitting in the city jail," Slate said, holding up another page.
It's one of the rarely seen telegrams sent to Oswald.
“It says, 'You are dead,'" Slate read.
And there is an Oswald interrogation report with corrections made with a red pen, part of the mountains of evidence that would have been presented if there had ever been a trial for the man who killed the president.
E-mail rlopez@wfaa.com -
-
Angry Nixon: New tapes reveal an overwrought president in grips of Watergate
-
If not the end, the beginning of the end.
-
The CIA has publicly admitted for the first time that it was behind the 1953 coup against Iran's democratically elected prime minister Mohammad Mosaddeq. Something that they have been denying for 60 years.
How long will it be before it admits to their role in the assassination of JFK. Maybe it will be in 2023?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup
-
44 Years Later, a Washington, D.C. Death Unresolved
Mary Pinchot Meyer's death remains a mystery. But it's her life that holds more interest now
By Lance Morrow
Smithsonian magazine, December 2008
-
August 17, 2013
The New York Times
No Stranger to Conspiracy
By DAN BARRY
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/18/opinion/sunday/no-stranger-to-conspiracy.html?hp&_r=0
AS a veteran newspaper reporter, I’ve heard some things. I once sat in a Friendly’s restaurant in Connecticut with an earnest nun who, between sips of her Fribble, confided that an evil man who looked like Pope Paul VI — but who was not Pope Paul VI — had seized control of the Vatican in the 1960s. A papal double, she explained. And she had photographs to prove it.
I knocked back a double Fribble and asked for the check.
Journalists will entertain conspiracy theories because conspiracies, in fact, do take place, and at our best we seek out the stories behind the stories. But we also pay a price if we don’t buy into every one. If you write that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon in the summer of 1969, some reader somewhere is guaranteed to call you a government dupe. Hey, Jimmy Olsen! Everyone knows that Armstrong took one giant leap on a secured movie lot. Sap.
Though I am not unfamiliar with being called a patsy, I still respect and admire those who challenge the conventional wisdom; this is how I was raised, as you will see. Even so, I was still cold-cocked by the response to a recent This Land column of mine that touched on the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.
Holy Zapruder.
The column focused on Patric Abedin, who owns a Fort Worth burial plot right beside Lee Harvey Oswald’s. The granite marker he placed above the empty grave says NICK BEEF, a curious name that has prompted years of Internet speculation. Let’s just say that Mr. Abedin, or Mr. Beef, has his reasons, going back to when he was a boy and saw President Kennedy at an Air Force base the night before the assassination.
In the column, I referred in passing to Oswald as the man who killed Kennedy. I did not use the phrase “alleged assassin.” I did not attribute the reference to the Warren Commission. I simply wrote that Oswald assassinated Kennedy, thinking that nearly 50 years have passed — a half-century! — and no one else has been convincingly tied to the murder.
So began my refresher course. While some readers wrote to say nice job and have a nice day, others got right to the point: I was a government patsy, employed by a newspaper that has worked in concert with various insidious powers to suppress what really happened in Dallas. One reader charged me with a “virtually treasonous act.”
The rough consensus among these unhappy readers was that at least two gunmen were involved, and that the Warren Commission was inept at best, corrupt at worst. In addition, I was a thought-free tool — a sap, really — who, among other failures, had made no reference to the House Select Committee on Assassinations report of 1979, which concluded that while Oswald fired the fatal shot, there also existed the probability of a conspiracy among unknown participants.
It might spawn another conspiracy belief for my critics to learn that I am of proud conspiracy-theorist stock. While other fathers pursued hobbies like golf, mine spent his free time trying to expose a government cover-up of the existence of U.F.O.’s. His preferred family outing was to pull over the station wagon and search the night skies for extraterrestrial activity.
That’s how we Barrys rolled.
My father was also obsessed with the murder of Kennedy, one of his few heroes. Our family bible was not the Bible but Mark Lane’s “Rush to Judgment,” a sort of conspiracy primer on the assassination. Other children discussed the films of Walt Disney; my siblings and I discussed the film of Abraham Zapruder.
As time moved on, though, my questions about the Kennedy assassination gave in to a general acceptance that Oswald had acted alone. Probably.
But a half-century after the tragedy, I remain in the minority. According to an Associated Press-GfK poll conducted earlier this year, 59 percent of Americans believe in an assassination conspiracy. Presumably, that includes my three siblings.
At least I am in fast company. Among the nonbelievers is the prominent presidential historian Robert Dallek, whose most recent book, “Camelot’s Court: Inside the Kennedy White House,” is one of many Kennedy books coming out in time for the assassination’s 50th anniversary in November.
“If there was some grand conspiracy, it would have been outed by now,” he said.
Mr. Dallek is more intrigued by the apparent need to believe in a conspiracy. “They can’t accept that someone as inconsequential as Oswald could have killed someone as consequential as Kennedy,” he said. “To believe that only Oswald killed Kennedy — that there wasn’t some larger plot — shows people how random the world is, how uncertain. And I think it pains them; they don’t want to accept that fact.”
Jesse Walker, the books editor at Reason magazine and the author of “The United States of Paranoia,” also to be released in the coming days, said that conspiracy theories have a long and potent history in this country and are hardly embraced by only the fringe.
“Conspiracy theories emerge at this place where our natural tendency to find patterns and tell stories meets our natural tendency to have suspicions and fears,” he said.
Now and then I think of that nun at Friendly’s all those years ago. More often, I think of my father, who taught me about Watergate and other true conspiracies, dying without seeing a U.F.O. or trusting the official story of how his hero had died.
The murder of a president has not been easy for any of us who remember it.
“I love my country and find it hard to shrug and ‘move on,’ ” one of the more thoughtful conspiracy theorists wrote to me. “Good luck to us all.”
Dan Barry is a national correspondent who writes the This Land column for The New York Times.
-
Mark Lane audio interview: Did the Secret Service help kill JFK?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/mark-lane-did-the-secret-service-help-kill-jfk/
-
News International could face corporate charges over phone hacking
Metropolitan police investigation has interviewed 'very senior figures' from organisation now known as News UK
- By Jamie Doward
- theguardian.com, Saturday 17 August 2013 09.53 EDT
- 2013-08-17 16:17:51
'Senior figures' from Rupert Murdoch's News International corporation (now named UK News) have been formally interviewed by the Metropolitan police. Photograph: Noah Berger/AP
Rupert Murdoch's British newspaper division could face corporate charges in relation to the Metropolitan police's phone-hacking investigation, it has been claimed in a report by The Independent.
Two "very senior figures" in News International, now renamed as News UK, have been interviewed in relation to the corporate aspect of the investigation, which is also examining allegations of bribery of public officials, it has emerged.
The allegations indicate a new line of inquiry is opening into the Murdoch empire which has potentially serious consequences for News UK, the company that owns the Sun and the Times newspapers. In an attempt at damage limitation following the scandal, News Corp was separated from News UK.
Such an inquiry would mirror events in the US where the Department of Justice and the FBI are investigating Murdoch's US parent company, News Corp, under the Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act which can impose severe penalties on companies that bribe foreign officials.
Labour MP Chris Bryant, who was one of the most vocal critics of News International when phone hacking was uncovered, said the Met had told him they were "actively investigating corporate charges and that they were in correspondence with the American authorities, the FBI."
Bryant said the law in the UK is now as tough as in the US due to the enactment of the Bribery Act 2010.
"Under the Bribery Act, the body corporate can have charges laid against it if its corporate governance was so reckless as to be negligent," Bryant said.
Sue Akers, who was head of the Met investigation, confirmed to the Leveson Inquiry last year that she had sought legal advice with regard to bringing "both individual and corporate offences". Her comments sparked claims that News Corp directors could be prosecuted for neglect of their duties.
Now evidence is emerging that the Met is taking an active role in pursuing the corporate aspect of the investigation.
John Turnbull, a senior News Corp lawyer, has been interviewed formally by the Met, a source told Reuters. More than 125 people have so far been arrested and more than 40 charged in relation to the criminal aspect of the investigation which led to Murdoch closing the News of the World.
Sources say the Met is waiting until the criminal trials of individuals have concluded before deciding if it can press corporate charges.
Rebekah Brooks, the former News International chief executive, is due to stand trial along with eight others on September 9, while eight Sun journalists are scheduled to stand trial in January over alleged unlawful payments to public officials for stories.
The Met's detectives have benefited from an information-sharing agreement with News Corp's Management and Standards Committee (MSC), which was set up to conduct an internal investigation into the phone hacking and bribery allegations.
It has emerged that Akers sent a letter last year to Lord Grabiner, the MSC's chairman, advising him that there was a possibility corporate charges could be brought against Murdoch's companies.
"We have cooperated with all relevant authorities throughout the process and our history of assistance is a matter of record," a News UK spokesman said.
-
‘JFK’s Last Hundred Days,’ by Thurston Clarke
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/books/jfks-last-hundred-days-by-thurston-clarke.html?hp
Article by Charles Burris on the Watergate Conspiracy
in Watergate
Posted
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2013/09/charles-burris/the-watergate-conspiracy/