Douglas Caddy

Well Elenin and YU55 have come and gone and despite Richard C. Hoagland’s assertions of their historical cosmic purpose, nothing occurred. He has yet to formally and officially acknowledge this and probably never will. He bet the ranch on these two entities being supremely significant and lost completely. There is no doubt that even his most ardent fans will examine his speeches and writings with far great caution in the future. These days Hoagland uses his Facebook page, where he now has over 27,000 Friends, to communicate daily, no longer putting much emphasis on his website, www.enterprisemission.com I find his Facebook page to be full of fascinating and valuable postings on all types of subjects. Almost all of the posts are made by his Friends and not by Hoagland himself but frequently Hoagland will comment on them. His knowledge of science and aerospace is broad and a lot can be learned from what he writes when he is not caught up in a specific foray, such as Elenin and YU55. He is always courteous and gentlemanly in his comments, so there is no way that one cannot come to like him as person while still disagreeing whenever that occasion arises. Here is a post made a few hours ago by one of his Friends, which reflects the mindset of many others in the wake of his recent debacle: “As to the "Richard is God / an imposter debate ... Look. RCH is obviously intelligent, informed and intuitive ... but still human, so not perfect, infallible. I enjoy his wonderful input, but don't automatically take it as absolute gospel. Does not an open mind require healthy skepticism?”

How the JFK assassination and Watergate are related The speaker is Daniel Sheehan. Here is his biography: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsheehan.htm I am posting only the first four parts of his speech. There are four additional parts on another subject that I found equally fascinating. In one of these parts Sheehan talks about John Kennedy, Jr. I can post these four other parts if Forum members indicate an interest.

How the JFK assassination and Watergate are related The speaker is Daniel Sheehan. Here is his biography: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKsheehan.htm I am posting only the first four parts of his speech. There are four additional parts on another subject that I found equally fascinating. In one of these parts Sheehan talks about John Kennedy, Jr. I can post these four other parts if Forum members indicate an interest.

Five myths about J. Edgar Hoover Washington Post By Kenneth D. Ackerman, Published: November 9 1Hoover was a gay cross-dresser Despite rampant speculation — that Hoover was gay, a cross-dresser or had no sex life — the truth about his sex life is nearly impossible to pin down. Hoover was married to his job and zealously protective of his public image. He lived in an era when being outed as gay would cost anyone his career and reputation, and he was not one to risk such consequences. The story that Hoover, a lifelong bachelor, participated in cross-dressing, all-male sex parties in New York hotel rooms, as reported by British writer Anthony Summers in a 1993 biography, has been widely debunked by historians. The story’s source, the wife of a businessman and Hoover confidante, had a grudge from a contested divorce, and other investigations of the story came up empty. If Hoover did have a gay relationship, most likely it was with his longtime FBI associate director, Clyde Tolson, another lifelong bachelor — but even this is disputed. Hoover and Tolson worked together more than 40 years. They traveled on vacation and official business, rode to work together, shared lunch nearly every day at Washington’s Mayflower hotel and sometimes even wore matching suits. Hoover, at his death, left Tolson most of his estate. Their relationship, by all appearances, was stable, discreet and long-lasting. But what they did physically behind closed doors, if anything, they kept between them. Hoover did have some high-profile female friendships, including with actress Dorothy Lamour. In his 2004 biography of Hoover, Richard Hack cites sources claiming that he was discovered spending the night with Lamour in a Washington hotel — an isolated incident — and that when she was asked later about a sexual relationship between them, she said, “I cannot deny it.” 2 Hoover’s secret files kept presidents from firing him. Hoover had particularly good relationships with at least two presidents he served under: Franklin D. Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Of the others, Harry Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon all considered sacking him, but, files aside, they had good political reasons for keeping Hoover. Even in the 1960s, he had a strong public image as an honest, competent law enforcement technocrat. While his relationship with John and Robert Kennedy was often tense — yes, it was Hoover who, through wiretaps of Chicago mob boss Sam Giancana, discovered President Kennedy’s affair with mob-connected socialite Judith Campbell Exner — Hoover also could have been covering up embarrassing secrets for Camelot. Still, Hoover built his FBI files into an intimidating weapon, not just for fighting crime but also for bullying government officials and critics and destroying careers. The files covered a dizzying kaleidoscope — Supreme Court justices such as Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, movie stars Mary Pickford and Marilyn Monroe, first lady Eleanor Roosevelt, physicist Albert EinsteinZionist leader Chaim Weizmann and philanthropist John D. Rockefeller III, among others — often replete with unconfirmed gossip about private sex lives and radical ties. By 1960, the FBI had open, “subversive” files on some 432,000 Americans. Hoover deemed the most sensitive files as “personal and confidential” and kept them in his office, where his secretary, Helen Gandy, could watch them. Today, with few exceptions, Hoover’s FBI files are open for any American to see at the National Archives. They make fascinating reading and paint a stark portrait of power run amok. 3 Hoover was a coward. Critics often accused Hoover of cowardice, pointing, for instance, to the fact that he didn’t join the military in June 1917, when he finished law school and the country was entering World War I. Instead, he took a draft-exempt job at the Justice Department. Hoover, by most signs, would have preferred to join his contemporaries going “over there” to fight the Germans. At Central High School in Northwest Washington, he joined the cadet corps and was its captain during his senior year. He relished the pomp and ceremony, marching in uniform and palling around with his fellow cadets.Later, at the Justice Department’s Radical Division, Hoover’s craving for action led him to participate in a raid in February 1920 against one of the most dangerous leftist groups of that period, the L’Era Nuova gang in Paterson, N.J. The agents carried guns and confiscated plenty of weapons and explosives. Hoover interrogated the group’s leader and extracted the only direct evidence about the 1919 anarchist bombings that prompted that year’s Red Scare. Rather than fleeing the draft, the more likely reason that Hoover took the Justice Department job in 1917 was that his 61-year-old father, Dickerson Naylor Hoover, who suffered from mental illness, had been forced to leave his job as a government clerk without a pension, making young J. Edgar financially responsible for the family. If anything, Hoover’s guilt over staying behind probably added to his later zeal against subversives at home. 4 Hoover was African American. There are two theories that Hoover had African American heritage. One has it that he was born to an African American mother and secretly adopted by the Hoover family, a theory based on discrepancies in certain birth and census records. However, genealogist George Ott investigated the claim, failed to substantiate it and said he believes it to be false. More plausible are stories like that told by writer Millie McGhee in her 2000 book “Secrets Uncovered: J. Edgar Hoover — Passing for White?” McGhee, an African American, claims that, based on family stories and genealogical records, she and Hoover had a common ancestor, a great-grandfather, making him a distant cousin. Hoover’s father’s family had roots in Virginia and Mississippi in the antebellum South, where interracial liaisons were not uncommon. Some mixing in his family tree is a possibility but remains unproven. Hoover’s attitudes on race reflected those in the old Washington, where he grew up, a largely segregated Southern city. As FBI director, he repeatedly refused to involve the bureau in investigating anti-black race riots or protecting black civil rights workers in the South, insisting that these were matters for local police, even after the Supreme Court’s 1954Brown v. Board of Education decision. 5 Hoover’s legacy is a stain on the FBI’s reputation. Hoover leaves a bipolar legacy. For better or worse, he built the FBI into a modern, national organization stressing professionalism and scientific crime-fighting. For most of his life, Americans considered him a hero. He made the G-Man brand so popular that, at its height, it was harder to become an FBI agent than to be accepted into an Ivy League college. But he also stands as a reminder that 48 years of power concentrated in one person is a recipe for abuse. It was mostly after his death that Hoover’s dark side became common knowledge — the covert black-bag jobs, the warrantless surveillance of civil rights leaders and Vietnam-era peace activists, the use of secret files to bully government officials, the snooping on movie stars and senators, and the rest. Hoover’s name, carved in stone at the FBI headquarters on Pennsyl­vania Avenue, should serve as a caution to the public and the dedicated professionals who work inside. The FBI’s license to intrude into people’s lives gives it a special public trust. If the daily reminder of Hoover’s excesses can help impart that message, it will be the best safeguard for the positive side of his legacy: a modern, professional, science-based and accountable detective force serving the public interest. Kenneth D. Ackerman, a D.C.-based lawyer at OFW Law, is the author of “Young J. Edgar: Hoover and the Red Scare, 1919-1920.”

Jim writes: "THat is not what this forum is supposed to be about." This was written by someone who is a frustrated Grand Inquisitor. Jim, who are you to decide what this forum is supposed to be about? As to my posting something about JFK and Cuba, as you write above, I suggest you read Howard Hunt's book, "Give Us This Day", which is his first person insider account of the failed invasion of Cuba, which served to awaken JFK as to what he faced if he were to have a successful administration. I am not anti-Kennedy. I post articles that take reflect all types of views about JFK as a means to keep the public interest up in getting to the bottom of what really happened before, during and after the assassination. I do not accept Stephen King's thesis that puts all the blame on Oswald. But I do believe his fictional book will serve to keep the public's interest alive in the issue. More than half of the Americans living today were born after 11/22/63. They need to be educated and informed on the assassination if they are not to come to believe it is merely a footnote in American history. To most young people today Vietnam and Watergate are subjects that they know nothing about, which is why controversy about the JFK assassination must be kept alive. Our Forum serves that purpose most forceably. On September 14, 1960, JFK delivered these words, which reflect my personal political views: "If by a 'Liberal' they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal,' then I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'"

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nixon-library-20111112,0,2397244.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nixon-library-20111112,0,2397244.story

Watson's outburst exposes split within hacking committee The Independent James Cusick and Cahal Milmo Saturday, 12 November 2011 Divisions, playing to the gallery, the failure to hunt as a pack, and a lack of co-ordinated questioning damaged the efforts of the parliamentary committee that has spent years probing the phone-hacking scandal, according to committee chair John Whittingdale. His committee faces criticism that it failed to deliver definitive evidence on who inside News International was ultimately responsible for the criminal culture in the tabloid's newsroom. Speaking privately after James Murdoch had appeared before the media committee for the second time, Mr Whittingdale suggested he doesn't see eye-to-eye with the most high-profile of his colleagues, Labour MP Tom Watson. He criticised the deputy chair of the Labour Party for labelling Mr Murdoch as "the first Mafia boss in history who didn't know he was running a criminal enterprise". The Independent understands the committee is preparing a fast-tracked publication of attendance records, which will show Mr Watson focusing on the hacking inquiry and less on probes into football and gambling. Mr Whittingdale yesterday said his committee would stop taking testimony. But Mr Watson said: "I know the chairman has said there won't be any more witnesses – but we work as a team and the committee has yet to decide on our next step. James Murdoch's evidence yesterday, in relation to Tom Crone [News International former legal manager] and Colin Myler [the former News of the World editor], was new. And I believe we should give both the opportunity to return again before us, if they want to." At times the absence of co-ordinated questioning of Mr Murdoch appeared to separate the committee's inquisitors into for-and-against Murdoch factions. Mr Watson alleged "omerta" at News International – a business group bound by coded secrecy – while Paul Farrelly referred to a Banquo-like spirit of Rupert Murdoch, saying he had a "growly Australian accent rattling around in his head". Both the men are Labour MPs. Tory MP, Louise Mensch, generously warned Mr Murdoch that she would have to leave early to pick up her children from school. He wished her "good luck". She ended her questioning by wishing the News Corp boss "luck" in pursuing the "ethical review" of his company. Mr Whittingdale made no reference to Mrs Mensch, Mr Farrelly or others in his assessment of the James Murdoch session. Focused on Mr Watson, Mr Whittingdale accused his colleague of failing to give prior notice of new revelations to be incorporated into his line of questioning. Mr Watson had revealed that a former Army Intelligence officer, Ian Hurst, and 16 of his associates were victims of computer hacking. He also revealed that ex-News International boss Rebekah Brooks told Tony Blair that Mr Watson was "mad" and urged the ex-prime minister to "call this man off". The divisions do not auger well for the committee's report on phone hacking which will be delivered in next year. The lack of a consensus on where the buck should stop inside News International is potentially damaging for both the authority of the report and for Mr Whittingdale's leadership of the high-profile parliamentary committee. MPs Divided: The Key Players John Whittingdale The wise owl of the culture committee. But his neutrality is seen as compromised by his closeness to Les Hinton, once Rupert Murdoch's closest confidant. Dined with Rebekah Brooks – but denies any friendship. Tom Watson The committee's attack dog. His solo sorties, based on years of extensive research, have been ruthless and headline grabbing. Has been rewarded with a seat in Labour's Shadow Cabinet. Louise Mensch The former chic-lit author had surprised many by being aggressive in some sessions. But she showed her kinder side when wishing "luck" to James Murdoch. Priority this week: leaving early to pick up the kids. Paul Farrelly Perhaps distracted by the "growly Australian voice" he kept hearing in his head, the Labour MP seemed to lose track of the meaning of the words "final question". He used the phrase three times.

Hacking police find 'bombshell' emails: Now detectives may want to question James Murdoch Daily Mail By Stephen Wright Last updated at 12:36 PM on 12th November 2011 Police investigating phone-hacking at the News of the World have recovered a series of ‘bombshell’ emails which they believe takes the inquiry to ‘a new level’. The emails were among tens of thousands held by the newspaper at a data storage facility in India. Police are believed to want to question News International chief James Murdoch and former Sun and News of the World editor Rebekah Brooks about their contents. Discussions have taken place with the Crown Prosecution Service about whether Mr Murdoch should be arrested and interviewed under caution. Last night it was unclear whether the emails suggest Mr Murdoch and Mrs Brooks were involved in a cover-up of phone-hacking or prove they had knowledge of malpractice at the News of the World, which was closed in July. Both Mrs Brooks, who has already been arrested in connection with the inquiry and is on police bail, and Mr Murdoch deny any wrongdoing. The latest twist in the case emerged 24 hours after Mr Murdoch – the son of media mogul Rupert Murdoch – was grilled for two and a half hours on Thursday by a House of Commons select committee. In a bruising second appearance before the Culture Committee, he insisted he had not learned until recently that the practice of illegally eavesdropping on private phone messages went beyond a single ‘rogue reporter’. Detectives on Operation Weeting, the Scotland Yard squad investigating phone-hacking, took a detailed note of his comments. His testimony will be compared to the emerging email evidence in India, before he is interviewed by police. Last night speculation was growing that the new development could be linked to the large-scale deletion of News of the World emails. In January 2007, the News of the World’s then royal editor, Clive Goodman (left), and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were jailed for illegally intercepting voicemails Three months ago, the technology firm HCL told the Home Affairs Committee it was aware of the deletion of hundreds of thousands of emails at the request of News International between April 2010 and July 2011, but said it did not know of anything untoward behind the requests to delete them. HCL said it was not the company responsible for emails on the News International computer system that are older than a couple of weeks. It said another unnamed organisation was responsible, but confirmed it had co-operated with it in deleting material. It stressed that since it was not the company that stored News International’s data ‘any allegation that it has deleted material held on behalf of News International is without foundation’. In January 2007, the News of the World’s then royal editor, Clive Goodman, and private investigator Glenn Mulcaire were jailed for illegally intercepting voicemails, but News International maintained until earlier this year that they were acting alone. While testifying on Thursday, Mr Murdoch was accused by Labour MP Tom Watson of acting like a ‘mafia boss’ whose company operated ‘omerta’ – a code of silence to cover up criminal behaviour. After Mr Murdoch repeatedly denied being aware of wrongdoing within the company he has led since 2007, Mr Watson told him: ‘You must be the first mafia boss in history who didn’t know he was running a criminal enterprise.’ Mr Murdoch confirmed he had not been detained for questioning by police, but informed sources say that will change in the coming weeks. One source told the Mail: ‘It is possible the most shocking revelations in the phone-hacking scandal are yet to come.’

http://whitehousetapes.net/clip/lyndon-johnson-jacqueline-kennedy-lbj-and-jacqueline-kennedy

News of the World lawyer Tom Crone expected to face censure Parliamentary committee likely to characterise James Murdoch as ill-informed rather than mendacious By James Robinson, Lisa O'Carroll and Richard Wachman guardian.co.uk, Friday 11 November 2011 14.59 EST Tom Crone, News International's chief lawyer at the time phone hacking was rife, is likely to be severely reprimanded by the culture, media and sport select committee. The parliamentary committee investigating phone hacking at the News of the World is expected to heavily criticise Tom Crone, the paper's former lawyer, when it publishes its report into the affair. Highly placed Westminster sources said Crone was likely to be severely reprimanded by the Commons culture, media and sport select committee over his failure to fully answer questions about surveillance carried out by the paper when he gave evidence in September. Crone told MPs in September he "may" have commissioned private investigators "a long time ago maybe … on various things like tracing, maybe a bit of surveillance". James Murdoch is expected to be characterised as ill-informed rather than mendacious by MPs, but News Corp's deputy chief operating officer is also likely to emerge with little credit when the report is finally published. It is thought MPs will express surprise at Murdoch's lack of knowledge about phone hacking at the paper at a time when several key documents were circulating within the company that clearly showed the practice was widespread. Murdoch said on Thursday in his own evidence to the committee that it was Crone and another unnamed NoW executive who commissioned a private investigator to spy on two lawyers who are acting for phone-hacking victims suing the paper. MPs are believed to be furious at what they regard as Crone's failure to offer up the whole truth about his involvement in that activity. Colin Myler, the NoW's former editor, is also likely to be criticised in the report to be published at the end of the year or the beginning of 2012. MPs are expected to attack him for saying in September 2009 that the company had conducted its own inquiry two years earlier and "no evidence was found" that hacking went any further than a single NoW journalist. Myler also told MPs: "No evidence or information emerged to suggest that others at the News of the World knew of these activities or were complicit in them." The committee is likely to take Myler to task because at the time he made that statement in 2009, he had seen the "for Neville" email, which showed the practice was not limited to a single "rogue reporter". Crone had also seen that email. The question about whether its content was discussed with Murdoch remains a matter of dispute between the News International chairman and the two former NoW executives. The committee's chairman, Conservative MP John Whittingdale, has said: "It is plain that of the two accounts we've heard, one of them can't be true." Myler issued a statement late on Thursday insisting: "My evidence to the select committee has been entirely accurate and consistent." Murdoch will come under further pressure at the end of the month, when he faces re-election as Sky chairman at its AGM. Its independent directors wrote to Sky shareholders on Friday urging them to vote in favour of Murdoch and arguing there was no evidence of "any negative reputational effect on the company as a result of the News of the World issues". Sky's deputy chairman, Nick Ferguson, wrote that Murdoch had "always acted with integrity". But it emerged that a powerful shareholder body, the Association of British Insurers, will urge its members to consider carefully whether to re-elect Murdoch on the grounds that his family connections cast doubt on his independence. News Corp, which is controlled by Murdoch family trusts, owns 39.1% of BSkyB. The ABI stopped short of recommending its members to vote against, however. Murdoch is expected to win because the News Corp stake means nearly every one of the remaining independent investors would have to vote against for him to lose. But a sizeable rebellion would be embarrassing, particularly if it is followed soon after by a withering verdict from the select committee. MPs are expected to point to Murdoch's failure to ask detailed questions about why Myler and Crone recommended paying phone-hacking victim Gordon Taylor £725,000 to settle a hacking action in 2008 as evidence of ineffectual leadership. But they will stop short of calling the veracity of his testimony into question. The committee is highly unlikely to call any more witnesses or hear any more evidence. Separately, News International has told Myler's solicitors it will not hand over company records, including business diaries and emails that could corroborate his claims he told James Murdoch about the significance of the "for Neville" email. He made the request more than a week ago but it was declined. Asked during Thursday's hearing if he would release the files, Murdoch said: "We can review that and I can come back to you." News International refused to say last night if it would now grant Myler's request. "We will respond to the committee," said a spokesman. It is unclear what, if any, sanctions the select committee could levy for misleading parliament. The hacking inquiry broke new ground when it threatened to summon James Murdoch and his father Rupert to give evidence in July, a power that had not been used for centuries, before they eventually agreed to appear

What Really Happened Between J. Edgar Hoover and MLK Jr. By John Meroney Clint Eastwood's J. Edgar presents an understandably fictionalized portrait of the notorious FBI director. The real history, though, is more interesting The Atlantic Magazine http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/11/what-really-happened-between-j-edgar-hoover-and-mlk-jr/248319/ J. Edgar is the biographical drama one would expect Hollywood to make. It trots out all the familiar lore and long-standing gossip about the man who ran the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1924 until he died in 1972: He was fixated with anti-communism, maintained confidential files on prominent Americans, and perhaps was a closet homosexual. But the film misses the opportunity to tell a story that most of America hasn't heard—probably because it's easier to digest the accepted wisdom that J. Edgar Hoover is "diabolical" (as producer Brian Grazer recently called him) than tarnish the mythology of 1960s-era heroes, the Kennedys and Martin Luther King, Jr. "I have been seriously misquoted in the matter of slurs against the FBI," King told Hoover in 1964. If there is anything surprising about the film it's how even-handed the picture is, especially given the script by Dustin Lance Black, which reads like an indictment of Hoover. Credit for the restraint goes to director Clint Eastwood. For example, in a scene where Hoover tries on his mother's dress, moviegoers are left wondering whether the character does this because he's a latent cross-dresser or merely longs to be close to her. When it comes to the real J. Edgar Hoover, separating fact from conjecture is challenging because he had so many enemies. Post-Cold War Soviet Union archives reveal that the KGB employed a decades-long systematic campaign of character assassination and disinformation against him. One wonders how much of that may have been inadvertently mainlined into the more sordid accounts of Hoover "history," perhaps even in this picture. Some dramatic license is permitted for films "based on a true story," but there's one important plot line of the picture that's flat-out fictional and not open to guesswork: Hoover's tumultuous relationship with King. Moviegoers who see J. Edgar will leave the theater with the impression that Hoover drove the surveillance of the young civil rights leader - ordering agents to bug his hotel room and wiretap his telephone calls - because he considered the minister a threat to national security. According to the movie, Hoover persuades his reluctant boss, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, to sign off on such procedures. But records from Freedom of Information Act disclosures and the pioneering research of civil rights historian David J. Garrow tell a far different, and more insightful, story. In the summer of 1963, Hoover wasn't the only one preoccupied with King. So was the Kennedy White House. That was because one of King's closest advisers, Stanley David Levison, and another man who ran one of King's offices, Jack O'Dell, were secret Communist Party operatives. For at least a year, the president and his attorney general brother had been receiving classified data, transcripts of wiretapped telephone calls (which they sanctioned), and intelligence reports confirming the men's affiliation with the Soviet-controlled Party. This information also chronicled the work they were then doing for King. President Kennedy didn't worry about an espionage leak, or that the men would necessarily insert propaganda into King's speeches—although some King advisers apparently did see to it that King's plans to criticize communism ("that it was an alien philosophy contrary to us," is how King said he intended to describe it) were scrapped. Rather, the president feared the political fall-out that would come if it were revealed that the nation's foremost civil rights leader had advisers with ties to the Soviet Union. In May, President Kennedy told his brother he didn't want the minister anywhere near him. "King is so hot that it's like Marx coming to the White House," he says on a White House tape. But by June, the president had grown weary of the risks King was causing him and decided to have a come-to-Jesus meeting with the minister in Washington. In the Rose Garden, he exhorted King that Levison, was, as Kennedy described him, a "Kremlin agent." Get rid of him, demanded the president. King looked the Kennedy in the eye and promised he would. But King merely pretended to break off contact with Levison while actually continuing to confer with him through intermediaries. The president, however, was aware of King's back-channel communication arrangement with Levison—because his brother had already authorized wiretaps and bugs on Levison himself. Distressed, the Kennedy wondered what else King was hiding. Later that summer, because of White House-authorized surveillance on at least one King associate, the Kennedys learned the minister was having extra-marital affairs. When tape recordings of King's "bedroom activities" surfaced, J. Edgar Hoover apparently listened. Leonardo DiCaprio deftly plays the curious old man hearing these tapes. (What Eastwood finessed is an improvement from Black's screenplay that reads, "Hoover is listening, his forehead is misty, he may even be masturbating.") In fact, the recordings revolted Hoover. J. Edgar leads us to believe that all of this voyeurism came at the instigation of Hoover. But the date of October 10, 1963, offers a different narrative: that was when Attorney General Robert Kennedy, angered by King's recalcitrance to comply with the president's demand to oust Levison, ordered Hoover to have bureau agents wiretap King's telephones, including the one in the preacher's Atlanta home. "I asked the FBI to make an intensive investigation of Martin Luther King," Robert Kennedy later privately acknowledged to journalist Anthony Lewis, "to see who his companions were and, also, to see what other activities he was involved in. This is also the reason that President Kennedy and I and the Department of Justice were so reserved about him, which I'm sure he felt. We never wanted to get close to him just because of these contacts and connections that he had, which we felt were damaging to the civil rights movement and because we were so intimately involved in the struggle for civil rights, it also damaged us. It damaged what we were trying to do." Of course, the assassination of John F. Kennedy later that fall cast a pall over the future of civil rights until Lyndon Johnson began pushing it again the following year. Nevertheless, the new president—now recipient of the results from the bugs and wiretaps that were capturing Martin Luther King's every move—was watchful of the minister, though apparently for additional reasons. Johnson seemed to consume the King surveillance with gusto, especially the personal stuff. "He listened to the tapes that even had the noises of the bedsprings," Time correspondent Hugh Sidey reported in 1975. Johnson would say, "Goddammit, if you could only hear what that hypocritical preacher does sexually." J. Edgar also leaves one to conclude that Hoover's disapproval of King was all-encompassing. At one point in the picture, the supposedly repressed Hoover comes unhinged, fulminating against King, and - in a risible fictionalization - he even crafts a poison-pen letter to the minister pretending that he's black. "You know you are a complete fraud and a great liability to all us Negroes," dictates the movie's Hoover. "White people in this country have enough frauds of their own but I am sure they don't have one at this time that is anywhere near your equal." The filmmakers, of course, want viewers to recognize that Hoover is ironically describing himself. The truth is, Hoover never sent such a letter to King. Most of Hoover's animus toward the civil rights leader can be traced to a statement King made to the press that implied that FBI agents in Southern states were too "friendly" with segregationists and local police. "Dr. Martin Luther King is the most notorious xxxx in the country," Hoover replied to reporters in November 1964. Seeking to clarify his remarks to the FBI director, King met with Hoover in Washington a few weeks later. "I want to assure you that I have been seriously misquoted in the matter of slurs against the FBI," King told him. In the meeting, Hoover defended his agents, saying that they were only interacting with Southern policemen because they needed information that could be used to build legal cases to combat federal civil rights violations. "I would like to give you some advice, Dr. King," Hoover told him. "One of the greatest things you could accomplish for your people would be to encourage them to register and vote. Registrars in the South now have to be much more careful than in the past, and there are fewer attempts to prevent Negroes from registering. We're monitoring registration and voting procedures very carefully." This from the "monstrous" FBI director, as J. Edgar's screenwriter recently called Hoover. Despite the rift between Hoover and King, Hoover remained a real FBI man—he was no Joe McCarthy, whom the movie character Hoover insults as an "opportunist." Still, most people who see J. Edgar would never know that when segregationist governors such as Ross Barnett (Mississippi) and George Wallace (Alabama) campaigned against civil rights legislation by smearing Martin Luther King for supposedly being part of a "communist training school" in Tennessee and claiming that King "belonged to more communist organizations than any man in the U.S," it was Hoover's bureau that produced information refuting such lies. As author Taylor Branch reveals in his history of the civil rights movement, during the "freedom summer" of 1964, Hoover received information indicating that it was likely white supremacists would kill Martin Luther King at any moment. Hoover authorized FBI agents to accompany the unaware King on a flight through the South to secure his protection—that's just what an FBI man would do. Because most people now seem to learn history from the movies, it's unfortunate that a rather telling scene like that wasn't in this script. This article available online at: http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2011/11/what-really-happened-between-j-edgar-hoover-and-mlk-jr/248319/

I think a more interesting and rewarding fictional book by King, with the same title of 11/22/63, would have been a story with LBJ as the key figure, rather than JFK. It could have commenced with the strange circumstances surrounding LBJs securing the vice presidential nomination at the 1960 Democratic Convention and then followed LBJ over the next three years as the web that he had spun involving Bobby Baker, Billie Sol Estes, Texas oil men, etc. slowly but inexorably entrapped him in a horrific fight for survival so as to not end up being prosecuted and sent to prison. All these historical scandals were on the cusp of exploding just when JFK was assassinated as vividly shown by the suppressed LIFE magazine cover and article. The story could have been told through the eyes of his trusted White House aides Cliff Carter and Jack Valenti with LBJs possible role in orchestrating JFKs assassination only being hinted at through thinly sketched clandestine meetings and cryptic telephone conversations that he had. The book might end with LBJs being administered the oath of office on the plane carrying the body of JFK, with the knowing winks and slight smiles exchanged between LBJ and Texas Rep. Albert Thomas at the time. Or it might end with LBJs mental deterioration that commenced soon after that led him to seek psychiatric help, with the notes and records of the psychiatrist on his case being partially disclosed.

James Murdoch as laughing stock: not good for survival prospects at BSkyB Chairmen of FTSE 100 companies don't usually last long when they are being ridiculed By Nils Pratley Guardian November 11, 2011 Bosses of FTSE 100 companies don't usually last long when they become a laughing stock. James Murdoch finds himself in this position today, the widespread response to his testimony to parliament yesterday being captured by the Telegraph's pocket cartoonist, Matt. Brilliant. Being chairman of a large public company requires an ability or willingness to ask tough questions of executives and to stick your nose into their affairs of behalf of shareholders. Those were not qualities on display at News International, it is felt. The Guardian's leader styles Murdoch as The Man Who Wasn't There. The Times leader (paywall) concludes that "a powerful organisation with a victim complex has the capacity to do great damage, not least to itself." Alex Brummer in the Mail says Murdoch's failure to track the cash "smacks of inexperience and even incompetence". News Corporation owns 39% of the shares in BSkyB. But the official line, or polite fiction, has always been that James Murdoch is chairman on merit, having performed commendably as chief executive (if one ignores the big loss on buying a stake in ITV). It's rather harder to maintain that stance now that fundamental questions of business judgment are being raised. The other argument has been that non-News Corp shareholders want James Murdoch as their chairman. Well, we'll see about that they vote on resolution 9 at the annual meeting on 29 November. But, if the vote against Murdoch's re-election turns out to be modest say 20% of non-News Corp votes senior non-executive directors such as Nicholas Ferguson and Jacques Nasser should ask why. Part of the answer, one suspects, is that having a weakened Murdoch as chairman could be viewed as having a few advantages, from the point of view of ordinary shareholders. A showdown would be avoided but Murdoch might be less inclined to push any issue where the interests of News Corp could be construed as colliding with those of other investors; madcap adventures like the ITV share-purchase might be thought less likely to happen. But, come on, these are poor arguments. The non-executives' job is to do what's best for the company. They should ditch James Murdoch for two good reasons: he's not the best person for the role and having an independent chairman is a healthier way to live

James Murdoch calm and contrite during gruelling inquisition by MPs Apologies, that 'For Neville' email, and a failure to recall: the main themes of Murdoch's answers By Lisa O'Carroll and Josh Halliday guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 November 2011 16.56 EST http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/nov/10/james-murdoch-phone-hacking-answers • It was a gruelling interrogation. Over almost three hours James Murdoch was grilled by MPs trying to establish who knew what about phone hacking at the News of the World. In one of the strangest moments, one MP likened News International to a branch of the mafia, bound by a code of silence. For the most part, Murdoch appeared calm and contrite, sticking firmly to a strategy of heaping blame onto the former editor and legal chief of the News of the World and apologising on at least five occasions for alleged illegal activity at the now defunct newspaper. "I have had some time to reflect on these events … we are all humbled by it … it is something that we are very sorry about," Murdoch told the committee, echoing his father's "humblest day of my life" remarks in July. The apologies James Murdoch apologised repeatedly for errors in the past, going back to when he was a 16-year-old and the Sun published its infamous Hillsborough edition in 1989 blaming fans for the disaster: "It was 22 years ago and I was far away and a much younger person, and obviously no proximity to it. But I am aware of the hurt it caused and I am very sorry for it." He was as contrite about hiring investigators to spy on Tom Watson: "I apologise unreservedly for that … it is absolutely not acceptable" and  for News of the World's decision to send a private eye to spy on two lawyers representing phone-hacking victims: "It is not something that I would condone, it is not something I had knowledge of, and it is not something I think that has a place in the way that we operate." Murdoch also regretted not taking "the newspaper's" revelations seriously. "At various times through this process – and I am sorry for this – the company moved into an aggressive defence too quickly." Overall, he said he had "some time to reflect on these events". Surveillance and smears However MPs were undeterred by his contrition, and Watson landed a significant blow when, under parliamentary privilege, he revealed he was told by a former News International employee there was a "diktat" at the newspaper group "to dig up as much information you can about the members of the select committee". The source told him that former chief executive Rebekah Brooks "took an absolute pathological dislike" to the MP and "tried to smear" Watson "as being mad". She had gone to Tony Blair to try and get Watson taken off the select committee alleging he was "mad". Murdoch appeared unfazed saying he had "no knowledge" of any of that, or any interest Brooks had taken in Watson. Later, Tory MP Louise Mensch raised further allegations about surveillance the company had allegedly ordered in the past on every member of the committee. For Neville The most forensic of the MPs' analysis focussed on the now notorious "for Neville" email referring to transcripts of Gordon Taylor's voicemails, apparently ordered by News of the World's chief reporter Neville Thurlbeck. In July, Murdoch testified he was "not aware" of "for Neville" email. This time round, Murdoch admitted that he was made aware of the existence of the "for Neville" email but said he was not shown it or told of its full contents by the paper's editor Colin Myler and legal chief Tom Crone when they discussed settling Taylor's case on 10 June 2008. Murdoch insists he was never told of the significance of the email and that it wasn't flagged up as "for Neville"; hence his failure to recall it in July. "The so-called 'For Neville' email – now referred to as the 'For Neville' email but not then referred to as the 'For Neville' email – was mentioned to me as evidence that was important with respect of it being a transcript of a voicemail interception that came through, that proved it was on behalf of the News of the World," Murdoch said. "It was not shown to me, nor was it discussed with me its other feature – that it was 'For Neville', and that it might indicate wider-spread knowledge or wider-spread activities of phone hacking," he added. Gordon Taylor Paul Farrelly pressed Murdoch on why a payout was made to Taylor when the company had been maintaining at the time that phone hacking at the paper was confined to the royal editor Clive Goodman and the private detective Glenn Mulcaire. After all, why would a royal editor target someone in football? "The one thing ... that really showed us, and I think showed any 10-year-old really, that the News of the World's line did not stack up was the fact that Gordon Taylor was not a member of the royal family or the royal household. Did you not say 'He's not royal?'" Mr Farrelly asked. Murdoch's answer to this appeared to suggest that he had simply failed to interrogate this contradiction. Tom Crone Tom Crone Murdoch says he was not told of a key internal memo sent by Tom Crone to Myler of 24 May 2008 warning them that Taylor had got hold of the "for Neville" email and that was "fatal" to News International's defence. Murdoch insisted there was never any discussion of wider criminality or wrongdoing with Crone or Myler. "I think Mr Crone and Mr Myler were very much driving the agenda around the Taylor litigation," he said. 10 June meeting For almost three hours, Murdoch stuck rigidly to the line that his only "substantive" meeting with Crone and Myler was on 10 June 2008. It was that crucial meeting, Murdoch said, where Crone and Myler could have told him the significance of the bombshell "for Neville" email but did not. "Certainly, the nature of the 'for Neville' email and any suspicion of wider spread wrongdoing was never mentioned to me," Murdoch said. Murdoch said: "Its dual importance – that it was beginning of suspicion other individuals were involved at News of the World was not described to me at all." He said he was also kept in the dark about legal opinion from Michael Silverleaf QC advising Crone a week earlier about a "culture of illegal information access" in which at least three NoW journalists were implicated. Crone and Myler Murdoch said Crone and Myler's evidence to the committee was "inconsistent and not right". Murdoch said that the pair's testimony was "full of supposition" and their assertion they had told him about the 'For Neville' email "was misleading and I dispute it". Murdoch added: "Assertions that Mr Crone and Mr Myler made about my knowledge [of phone hacking] were wrong." Tom Watson – mafia and Thurlbeck Watson revealed that he had met Thurlbeck privately. Reading from a transcript of his conversation with Thurlbeck, Watson said that Crone told the former chief reporter that he had shown Murdoch the "for Neville" email in May 2008. "This is not some vague memory, I was absolutely on a knife edge," Thurlbeck had told Watson. "Tom [Crone] took it to him. The following week I said 'did you show him the email?' He said 'yes I did'. Now he can't remember whether he showed it to Mr Murdoch or not". It was a moment that threatened to throw the calm and assured Murdoch, but he dispatched Watson's assault by refusing to comment on what Crone and Thurlbeck might have discussed. Watson twisted the knife moments later when he suggested Murdoch and the UK arm of his father's media empire had adopted an "omerta" code of silence and compared it to a mafia organisation, "bound together by secrecy" who pursued their objectives "with no regard for the law". Murdoch replied: "I frankly think that is offensive and not true." Management Today A different tone was adopted by Damian Collins MP who told Murdoch that the newspaper group "may not have been the mafia but it was not Management Today". Murdoch barely bristled at the comparison but the editor of Management Today, Matthew Gwyther, posted on Twitter that he was "happy to give the Murdochs a session on how to run a company according to the proper standards any time

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/10/politics/nixon-lincoln-memorial/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Newly Released Transcripts Show a Bitter and Cynical Nixon in ’75 The New York Times By ADAM NAGOURNEY and SCOTT SHANE November 10, 2011 For 11 hours of secret grand jury testimony 36 years ago, Richard M. Nixon, a disgraced former president, fenced with prosecutors over his role in the Watergate scandals, bemoaned politics as a dirty business played by both sides and testily — as he described his own demeanor — suggested he was the victim of a special prosecutor’s office loaded with Democrats. The testimony, which Nixon presumably thought would always remain secret, was released by the Nixon Presidential Library and Museum in Yorba Linda, Calif., on Thursday in response to an order by a judge. The transcripts offered a remarkable portrait of Nixon after he left office: bitter at his disgrace and cynical about politics. He presented himself as a victim of governmental abuses by his enemies during his long career in politics, and said that prosecutors, with an eye to ingratiating themselves with the Washington media “and the Georgetown set,” were out to destroy him. “In politics, some pretty rough tactics are used,” he said. “We deplore them all.” At one point, as he denied that his White House had engaged in anything out of the ordinary, he spoke with grudging admiration of what he said were the hardball tactics used against him by the Kennedy White House, asserting that it had directed the I.R.S. and other government agencies to discredit him as he ran for governor of California. “They were pretty smart, I guess,” he said. “Rather than using a group of amateur Watergate bugglers, burglars — well they were bunglers — they used the F.B.I., used the I.R.S. and used it directly by their own orders against, in one instance, a man who had been vice president of the United States, running for governor.” By the time Nixon appeared at the grand jury, on June 23 and 24 of 1975, he had, by virtue of his pardon by Gerald R. Ford, immunity from any crimes he had committed, though he was still subject to perjury charges based on what he said to this grand jury. Nixon, a lawyer, repeatedly answered questions in a hedged and clipped manner, often saying he did not recall conversations, some of them just two years old. “I never recall any income tax return; I never recall seeing any result of any of this done,” he said. Nixon repeatedly reminded his questioners that he had been preoccupied with grave matters of state, including the war in Vietnam. He seemed aware of how much he was claiming a failure of memory. “I want the grand jurors to understand that when I say I don’t recognize something, it isn’t because I am trying want to duck a question,” he said. Stanley J. Kutler, a historian whose years of litigation helped lead to the release of the material, said he expected no shocking revelations from Nixon’s testimony. But the hours of Nixon talking and sparring are a window on the personality of the 37th president. “If you know the voice of Richard Nixon, it’s a virtuoso performance, from the awkward attempts at humor to the moments of self-pity,” said Mr. Kutler, emeritus professor of history at the University of Wisconsin. “It’s just terrific stuff.” In the course of his testimony, Nixon appeared to flatly deny accusations that the White House had used the I.R.S. to try to discredit a sitting chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Lawrence O’Brien, and that he had an enemies list. Tim Naftali, the director of Mr. Nixon’s library, noted that in the Watergate exhibit on display there, there are tapes in which Nixon is heard ordering the use of tax audits against opponents and assembling an enemies list. “The grand jury testimony sheds more light on President Nixon’s personality and character than it does on the remaining puzzles of Watergate,” Mr. Naftali said. “Even under the protections of grand jury secrecy, which was inviolate at that point, the president, it appears, was unwilling to be more forthright about his role in what the House Judiciary Committee determined were abuses of government power.” Mr. Naftali noted that even with the protections of the grand jury testimony, Nixon did not answer what has been one of the biggest outstanding questions from the Watergate scandal: The reason for the 18 ½-minute gap in a tape recorded in the Oval Office.” The distinctive Nixonian blend of pugnaciousness and self-pity comes through clearly in the 297 pages. Prosecutors’ tape experts were “these clowns.” He refers to G. Gordon Liddy, who headed the White House plumbers, as “a very bright young man in one way, very stupid in others.” At another point, Nixon asserted that “as a result of my orders, and I gave them directly, that never to my knowledge was anybody in my responsibility for heckling” George McGovern, Nixon’s Democratic opponent in 1972. “Now, actually my decision was not all that altruistic, to be quite honest,” Nixon said. “My decision was based on the fact that I didn’t think it would do any good. Why martyr the poor fellow? He was having enough trouble.” Nixon even directed some humor at himself, as he recalled telling Alexander M. Haig Jr., to look into the 18 ½-minute gap on the White House tapes. “I said to him, ‘Let’s find out how this damn thing happened,’ ” Nixon said. “I am sorry, I wasn’t supposed to use profanity. You have enough on the tapes.” Nixon returns again and again to the notion that he was singled out for conduct that was common in politics and public life. He said he was the target of eavesdropping not just by Democrats but by the F.B.I. “The F.B.I. was at one point directed to bug my plane,” he said, and J. Edgar Hoover, the F.B.I. director, “once told me that they did.” Despite the decades that have passed, some passages were redacted because they contained still-classified information. Nixon told prosecutors that “only if there is an absolute guarantee that there will not be disclosure of what I say, I will reveal for the first time information with regard to why wiretaps were proposed, information which, if it is made public, will be terribly damaging to the United States.” But his disclosure appears to have been cut from the transcript. In a ruling last July in historians’ litigation over the Nixon archives, Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the District Court in Washington said he believed that the historical importance of Nixon’s testimony justified a rare exception to the standard secrecy of grand jury records. Nixon often flashed his disdain for the prosecutors, whether he was belittling the way they asked their questions or accusing them of being partisan. “You can play that trick all, all day,” Nixon admonished the prosecutor. “We can take all day on that. Ask the question properly.” “I am not unaware that the vast majority of people working in the special prosecutor’s office did not support me for president,” he said. Ian Lovett and John Schwartz contributed reporting.

Rating James Murdoch's performance before MPs By Robin Brant Political Correspondent, BBC News November 10, 2011 James Murdoch survived his second grilling by MPs on the culture, media and sport select committee. He survived the comparison with a Mafia boss. He survived the claim that Asda was a better run business that News International. Most significantly he completely denied the accusation that he had lied about what he knew of phone hacking at the News of the World. He had been called back to face MPs to explain inconsistencies in the evidence, in particular what he knew about widespread hacking and when he knew it. In black tie and with a poppy on his lapel Mr Murdoch appeared solemn. He was precise and insistent in his answers, at times combative. He told them two former executives at the News of the World were to blame. The former top legal advisor Tom Crone and editor Colin Myler misled parliament and he disputed their version of events. He was clear: they did tell him about - but not show him or explain the full significance of - the For Neville email sent to a reporter which detailed a transcript of a voicemail intercept. He was repeatedly asked to recall and comment on meetings, phonecalls, emails and legal briefings. He was succinct and insistent. Aware that this was also a chance for him to attempt to repair the damage done to News International and its stable of newspapers he said sorry, he said he was humbled. Then he was likened to a mafia boss. The Labour MP Tom Watson, a fierce critic, also referred to Omerta, the vow of silence. It was the climax of an increasingly bitter exchange. James Murdoch called it offensive. James Murdoch has come under increasing pressure from some shareholders over his future at News Corp. Today was the opportunity to rebut their criticisms and show them he is the man to carry on leading its subsidiary News International. This was his chance to help to salvage any chance he has of succeeding his father in the top job. But he did not emerge from this session as a media executive with a strong handle on dealing with serious problems at the coalface. He rejected the claim that he had been "incompetent" but he said he had spent time reflecting on how well he had done as the man in charge as the scandal emerged. They took "too long" to come to grips with it he admitted. It has been a "huge focus for the last year" to get to the bottom of this, he said. It was at times a commanding performance, but, and it is a big but, the focus of much of the session was on illegal or simply bad things that his newspapers had done. He apologised for the phone hacking. He apologised for the surveillance carried out for the News of the World. It was "appalling" and "shocking" that some people, including a 14-year-old girl, were secretly followed. He apologised for the Sun's coverage of the Hillsborough disaster. The questioning also strayed into an investigation into computer hacking and claims that emails were illegally intercepted. James Murdoch and the empire that his father Rupert has built up has been seriously damaged by all of this. The BSkyB buyout was killed off. The News of the World was closed. There are numerous police and judicial investigations underway. James Murdoch may have come close to clearing his name today on the claim that he knew about the scale of hacking, but the arm of the company he runs has a huge mess on its hands, a mess highlighted in great detail today by MPs. And it is a mess that he is deeply involved in

http://maddowblog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/10/8739055-group-read-the-nixon-testimony

James Murdoch Denies Misleading Parliamentary Panel The New York Times By ALAN COWELL and SARAH LYALL November 10, 2011 LONDON — Testifying on Thursday for a second time before a British parliamentary inquiry into the phone hacking affair besieging his company, James Murdoch, News Corporation’s deputy chief operating officer, calmly declared that he had not misled the committee at his earlier appearance in July. And he all but accused two former underlings, whose accounts directly contradicted his on a crucial point, of lying. Mr. Murdoch appeared confident and virtually unflappable, repeating over two and a half hours of intense questioning that in 2008, no one told him of the growing body of evidence that phone hacking was widespread at the company’s now-defunct tabloid, the News of the World. “None of these things were made available to me or discussed with me,” Mr. Murdoch said. Asked if he had given misleading testimony about what he knew and when he knew it, Mr. Murdoch was adamant in his denial. “No, I did not,” he said. He did appear to alter one aspect of his previous account. In July, he said he had no knowledge in 2008 of an e-mail containing damning evidence that phone hacking at the paper was not limited to one journalist or one incident, as the company asserted at the time. On Thursday, he acknowledged that in fact, he had been made aware of the existence of the e-mail, but insisted that no one told him what it actually contained. It held the transcript of a hacked cellphone message, marked “For Neville,” apparently a reference to the paper’s chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck. Rather, Mr. Murdoch accused two former executives of News International, the British media subsidiary of News Corporation, of getting the account wrong when they told the committee earlier that they had made him aware of the e-mail’s contents. “Certainly in the evidence they gave to you in 2011 in regard to my own knowledge — I believe it was inconsistent and not right, and I dispute it vigorously,” Mr. Murdoch said. Referring to the former executives, Colin Myler, then the News of the World’s editor, and Tom Crone, then its lawyer, he added: “I believe their testimony was misleading, and I dispute it.” At one point, a committee member, Tom Watson, angrily compared the Murdoch media empire to a mafia family bound together by a vow of silence — omertà. “You must be the first Mafia boss in history who didn’t know he was running a criminal enterprise,” Mr. Watson snapped. Mr. Murdoch did not rise to the bait, but instead responded with a pained expression. “Mr. Watson. Please. I don’t think that’s appropriate,” he said. After the hearing, John Whittingdale, the committee chairman, said the panel would now draw up a report for Parliament, possibly by the end of the year, and it would be up to the House of Commons to determine any sanctions as a result of the panel’s findings. Mr. Murdoch was a similarly deft witness in July when he appeared before the parliamentary committee investigating the phone hacking scandal that was riveting the country. Sitting alongside his 80-year-old father then, along with family members and legal representatives, he deflected lawmakers’ questions, maintaining that he had learned only recently how widespread the hacking problem really was. On Thursday, he returned alone to Parliament to face much more skeptical questioning from the panel. But his calm did not crack as he defended himself against mounting evidence that he and top executives at News International knew three years ago that hacking was not limited to a single rogue reporter jailed a year earlier, but was pervasive at The News of the World, which the company shut down in July as the scandal exploded, shortly before Mr. Murdoch’s first round of testimony. As the hearing began on Thursday and Mr. Murdoch was invited to revisit that testimony, he asked to comment about his father’s remark then that he had been humbled by the affair. “I think the whole company is humbled,” he said, adding he was “very sorry” and adding that he wanted to ensure that such events “do not happen again.” Much was riding on how Mr. Murdoch, 38, handled the lawmakers’ questioning, including his personal credibility and the health of the News Corporation media empire. The hacking scandal has tarnished the corporation, rocked its stock price, scuttled its $12 billion bid to take over the satellite giant British Sky Broadcasting, and added to strains between Mr. Murdoch and his father. At least 16 former employees of The News of the World have been arrested, and a series of executives up the corporate ladder — including the publisher of The Wall Street Journal and chief executive of Dow Jones, Les Hinton — have resigned. His testimony certainly did no damage to News Corporation’s share price, which rose 1.4 percent in trading in the United States, to $17.19, up from its Aug. 8 low of $14.01, as the scandal was at a peak. The hearings have a role beyond the fate of Mr. Murdoch and that of his company. They are seeking to get to the bottom of to a scandal that has reached deep into British society, raising questions of intimate and self-serving ties linking the media, the political elite and the police. The panel came to the hearing armed with recently released News of the World documents related to a case central to the doubts about Mr. Murdoch’s earlier testimony: that of Gordon Taylor, the chief executive of the Professional Footballers’ Association. In 2008, after Mr. Taylor claimed that his voice mail messages had been repeatedly hacked by the tabloid, Mr. Murdoch authorized News International to pay him more than £450,000 ($725,000) and legal fees exceeding $322,000. In his July testimony, Mr. Murdoch maintained that the episode had done nothing to alter his understanding that a single reporter, Clive Goodman, the former royal reporter at The News of the World, had engaged in phone hacking in 2007. On Thursday, he said that “no documents were shown to me or given to me” at a crucial meeting in 2008 with Colin Myler, who was editor of The News of the World at the time, and Tom Crone, who was its legal manager. “The meeting, which I remember quite well, was a short meeting, and I was given at that meeting sufficient information to authorize the increase of the settlement offers that had been made” to Mr. Taylor, he said. “But I was given no more than that.” In July, Mr. Murdoch had testified that he had been given an oral briefing on the Taylor case and “did not get involved directly” in the negotiations on the settlement. He denied that the payment was motivated by a desire to keep the matter from becoming public, saying that the aim instead was pragmatic, to avoid damages and legal costs from a judgment at trial. In that testimony, he declined to discuss releasing Mr. Taylor from the agreement’s confidentiality clause. But after he testified, Mr. Myler and Mr. Crone contradicted Mr. Murdoch’s account, saying they had had direct conversations with him about evidence of broader hacking during the time the Taylor case was being handled. They said Mr. Murdoch knew when settling the lawsuit about the e-mail with the transcript of the hacked cellphone message marked “For Neville.” ”In fact, we did inform him of the ’for Neville’ e-mail which had been produced to us by Gordon Taylor’s lawyers,” Mr. Myler and Mr. Crone said in a statement after Mr. Murdoch’s July testimony. The panel has seen a memo dated June 3, 2008, from a lawyer with News International’s counsel at the time, Farrer & Company, warning executives that there was “a powerful case that there is (or was) a culture of illegal information access” at the paper. The lawyer, Michael Silverleaf, also said there was “overwhelming evidence of the involvement of a number of senior journalists” in the paper’s attempts to illegally obtain information about Mr. Taylor.

James Murdoch claims truth about phone-hacking was hidden from him War of words erupts as two ex-News of the World executives, Colin Myler and Tom Crone, refuse to take the blame By James Robinson guardian.co.uk, Thursday 10 November 2011 15.49 EST James Murdoch was embroiled in a rancorous war of words with two of his former senior News of the World executives after he told MPs during a marathon questioning session that they had failed to tell him the truth about the scale of phone hacking at the paper and had misled parliament. In a two-and-a-half hour session that saw a periodically contrite Murdoch fighting for his corporate reputation and his status as Rupert Murdoch's heir apparent, the 38-year-old repeatedly denied being told three years ago about evidence that hacking went beyond a single journalist at the paper. But his account was quickly contradicted by both those executives, former NoW legal head Tom Crone and ex-editor Colin Myler. Crone issued a statement on Thursday night describing Murdoch's evidence as "disingenuous". Myler said he stood by his own account of events. Murdoch had earlier emerged battered but still standing from the dramatic session before the culture and media committee during which: • He refused to rule out the possibility that News International would close the Sun if evidence of hacking emerged. • An MP claimed that all members of the committee had been placed under surveillance by News International. • Murdoch was compared to a mafia boss who presided over a culture of "omerta". He told MPs that Crone and Myler had failed in 2008 to tell him about evidence that proved at least three other NoW reporters were involved in hacking. That evidence included an email sent to the paper's then chief reporter, Neville Thurlbeck, containing transcripts of hacked messages from PFA chief executive Gordon Taylor's phone, and a warning from News International's QC Michael Silverleaf that there was "a culture of illegal information access" at the paper. Murdoch, who was running NoW publisher News International when a £725,000 settlement was paid to Taylor in 2008, added: "The information I received about the Taylor case was incomplete. The full extent of knowledge within the business … was not made clear to me. I believe this committee was given evidence by individuals either without full possession of the facts … or it was economical." Asked if Crone and Myler had misled the committee, Murdoch replied: "It follows that I do. I believe it was inconsistent and not right, and I dispute it vigorously. I believe their testimony was misleading and I dispute it." In their evidence to the committee in September, Crone and Myler insisted they told Murdoch about the existence of the "for Neville" email and this was why he agreed to settle Taylor's case. In a withering statement, Crone said: "I can perfectly understand why James Murdoch felt the need to discredit Colin Myler and myself. The simple truth is that he was told by us in 2008 about the damning email and what it meant in terms of wider News of the World involvement. "It seems he now accepts he was told of the email, of the fact that it contained transcripts of voicemail interceptions and that those interceptions were authorised by the News of the World. "Perhaps Mr Murdoch could explain who he thought was doing the authorising at the News of the World? At best, his evidence on this matter was disingenuous." Myler also hit back at his former boss, insisting: "My evidence to the select committee has been entirely accurate and consistent. I stand by my account of the meeting with James Murdoch on 10 June 2008. "I have been clear throughout about the significance of the 'For Neville' email, as evidenced in my opening statement to the committee when I appeared before them in 2009." Murdoch distanced himself from the decision last year to settle a similar hacking case brought by Max Clifford worth around £1m at a time when the paper was still denying hacking was widespread. He said the former chief executive Rebekah Brooks had negotiated that payment. "Mrs Brooks did discuss the arrangement [with me] … but not in any great detail," he said. It emerged last month that Silverleafhad warned that the company was certain to lose the Taylor case and that Crone had told Myler in a note prepared in advance of a 2008 meeting with Murdoch to discuss the case that the company's position was "very perilous". Murdoch insisted he had not been told about the contents of any of those documents in any detail. He said he authorised Crone and Myler to settle with Taylor following a meeting on 10 June 2008 at which he was told an email existed which showed hacking had been commissioned by the NoW. Just as he did at his last appearance before MPs, however, Murdoch said he was not told those instructions had been issued by journalists other than the former NoW royal editor Clive Goodman, who had already been jailed for phone hacking. In a twist that cast further doubt on Murdoch's recollection of events, Tom Watson revealed he had spoken to Thurlbeck who told him Murdoch had been shown the "for Neville" email. The Labour MP described a conversation with Thurlbeck immediately before the committee hearing, during which Thurlbeck said Crone had confirmed to him that the "for Neville" email had been passed to Murdoch. Watson said Thurlbeck had recalled that Crone had told him: "I'm going to have to show this to James Murdoch." Watson said Crone had subsequently told Thurlbeck he had done so, but had reassured him he would keep his job with the words: "It's OK. We're going to settle." Murdoch told the committee: "I cannot comment on what Mr Thurlbeck and Mr Crone discussed." Watson also accused Murdoch of overseeing a mafia-style organisation that obeyed a code of "omerta", an allegation Murdoch described as "offensive". The Tory MP Louise Mensch went on to make the remarkable claim that all the members of the committee had at one time been placed under surveillance by NI. Murdoch, meanwhile, refused to rule out closing the Sun down if it could be shown that hacking had taken place. He apologised to MPs for the company's decision to use a private investigator to place MPs under surveillance – which he said he learned about a few weeks ago – and said that was "just not acceptable". He also showed contrition for News International's response to the Guardian's initial revelations in July 2009 about the extent of hacking at the paper. "The company pushed back too hard," he said. "At various times during this process – and I am sorry for this – we moved into an aggressive defence too quickly." But he denied he had acted incompetently by failing to get to grips with phone hacking at an earlier stage. "No, I don't think it shows me to be incompetent … I behaved reasonably given the information I had," Murdoch said. On Thursday night the charman of the committee, John Whittingdale, said he would "want to see any evidence" that MPs on the committee have been followed.

Nov 10, 12:55 PM EST Nixon shed no light on tape gap to grand jury By CALVIN WOODWARD and NANCY BENAC Associated Press WASHINGTON (AP) -- In long-secret testimony, Richard Nixon swore to grand jurors that the famous gap in a White House tape was merely an accident. The 18 1/2 missing minutes of a conversation between Nixon and his chief of staff were considered crucial in determining the president's role in covering up the Watergate scandal that drove him from office. Under oath, after he left office, he was no help to investigators probing what was said during the gap. The National Archives and its Nixon Presidential Library released a transcript of the testimony Thursday, a rare look inside grand jury proceedings. Nixon told grand jurors that in his view, it was simply an accident that some of the tape got erased. He claimed "I practically blew my stack" when he found out how much.

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/coroner-bobby-kennedy-autopsy-shocker-thomas-noguchi-forensics#.TrteMQMUrMc.facebook

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/phone-hacking/8881159/Tom-Watson-reveals-new-phone-hacking-evidence.html