JFK Researchers and the Murdoch Investigation

[John Simkin]

When I was a teacher I often had to deal with bullying. I always told the child who was being bullied, that the bully is always a coward. My advice was to look them in the eye, stand upright, and tell them what you think of the situation you find yourself in. It is advice that I have used myself, especially against senior members of the organisation I was in. If they are a bully, they will always backdown and unlikely to cause you any trouble.

Rupert Murdoch and his editors are all bullies. They are also cowards and have been unwilling to go before the various parliamentary committees that have been investigating this affair.

Murdoch is in the same position that Joseph McCarthy was in when he was taken on by Joseph Nye Welch on live television. You can see this episode on my webpage on McCarthy. Just look at McCarthy's face at the end of the clip. This marked the end of his power (unfortunately, some of the things he developed, including the blacklist, remained in place).

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAmccarthy.htm

I believe that Murdoch is in the same position as McCarthy was in on 9th June, 1954.

[Paul Rigby]

Murdoch's media empire is better viewed as an intelligence operation created with specific political goals in mind. You start making progress on understanding the issues involved when you begin assessing the hacking as spying...

Or fabricating:

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Murdoch phone hacking and 7/7 Investigation

From: "J7: The July 7th Truth Campaign"

To: homeaffcom@parliament.uk

Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011

To the members of the Home Affairs Select Committee

The revelations of phone hacking by News International calls into question the role of the police and the Murdoch press during the investigation into the London Bombings on July 7th 2005.

A Times report written by Daniel McGrory and dated 25/08/2005:

The youngest of the July 7 bombers, he made three desperate telephone calls begging for help from the other members of the terror cell minutes before he blew himself up on a London bus.

The frantic last messages are seen by Scotland Yard as vivid proof that the British-born Muslim extremists intended to die in the attacks.

Knowing that all four men were supposed to synchronise the timing of the explosions, Hussain ran out of King’s Cross Underground station and tried to reach his accomplices by mobile telephone.

It was just before 9am, but by then all his fellow bombers were already dead. The other three had triggered their devices within seconds of one another at 8.50am.

Hussain is believed to have first called Mohammad Sidique Khan, 30, the alleged leader of the group, saying: “I can’t get on a train. What should I do ?” Then in quick succession he left the same message for Shehzad Tanweer and Jermaine Lindsay as, clearly agitated about his next move, he hurried away from the station.

A police source who has heard the telephone calls said: “His voice was getting more and more frantic with each call.” Investigators could tell from his breathless voice that Hussain was walking fast as he made these calls.

Source: The Times 25th August 2005

These messages were not played nor even were they claimed to exist during the recent 7/7 Inquests.

We need to know:

Did the Times hack the phone messages of the 4 accused of 7/7?

Who was the ‘police source’ who gave this information to the Times?

Why did the 7/7 Inquests not have an opportunity to hear these messages?

Why did the 7/7 Inquests not refer to these messages?

Regards

J7: the July 7th Truth Campaign

Posted by Bridget at 7/12/2011 10:35:00 AM

http://77inquests.blogspot.com/2011/07/murdoch-phone-hacking-and-77.html

[John Simkin]

Rupert Murdoch donated $1m to a pro-business lobby in the US months before the group launched a high-profile campaign to alter the anti-bribery law – the same law that could potentially be brought to bear against News Corporation over the phone-hacking scandal.

News Corporation contributed $1m to the US Chamber of Commerce last summer. In October the chamber put forward a six-point programme for amending the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, a law that punishes US-based companies for engaging in the bribery of foreign officials.

[John Navin]

This Sunday New York Times story details the failure of Scotland Yard to investigate the hacking by Murdoch's paper. Bringing it back to the JFK/Dallas realm, by studying today's news stories you can begin to comprehend what went on in America in late 1963 and early 1964. Collusion between journalists and intelligence/police to cover up -- it's often claimed that a conspiracy would need to be vast and include many people who would've talked -- but look at Murdoch's hacking scandal. The police let the evidence sit there and rot. It's taken YEARS to get people interested again... Edited July 16, 2011 by John Navin

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Murdoch's media empire is better viewed as an intelligence operation created with specific political goals in mind. You start making progress on understanding the issues involved when you begin assessing the hacking as spying.

It's somewhat like the Time/Life situation in the 50's and 60's -- Henry and Claire Booth have these little magazines which operate as propaganda vehicles and sometimes even more.

---------

Good point. Time-Life is the best example of the seamlessness of Intel and journalism. This is perhaps what "scandals" are designed to conceal. I recently finished the The Publisher, the bio of Henry Luce by the leading US historian of the New Deal Coalition, Alan Brinkley. I had high hopes, given some of his earlier work on The New Deal which I found profound. Also I had seen how some of the Claire Booth Luce Stuff had made it into the Academic journals, I mean her concrete work on Cuba ops. Or perhaps I should say It was in the Journal of Diplomatic History {I think} one of the more staid journals and the article was written by Max Holland. And this was in 1999, before 9/11. That matters and if you think it doesn't check out what A and E was airing the 1990s on such folk as Sirhan Sirhan and the Rev Jimmy Jones.

Well I'm thinking.. so if Clare and her Cuban friends were allowed in one of the professor's journals maybe Brinkley will go wide-circulation re Clare and her idea of a party. Nope. There were snippets of Clare's eccentricity and that was it. Clearly the link between journalism and intelligence is unfit for professors to legitimate. If Brinkley feels constrained, everyone else sure does. [Check out his review of Brothers that appeared in NYT Book Review.]

Generally I was disappointed with The Publisher. It felt like the whole time Brinkley was poised on a cliff. The Dive never happened and it may have been for professional reasons.

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

Rupert Murdoch donated $1m to a pro-business lobby in the US months before the group launched a high-profile campaign to alter the anti-bribery law – the same law that could potentially be brought to bear against News Corporation over the phone-hacking scandal.

News Corporation contributed $1m to the US Chamber of Commerce last summer. In October the chamber put forward a six-point programme for amending the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, a law that punishes US-based companies for engaging in the bribery of foreign officials.

------

Very interesting John. What is your source, as I would like to post about it. Also do we have any comparison with previous contributions between Murdoch and Chamber , if any?

[John Simkin]

Rupert Murdoch donated $1m to a pro-business lobby in the US months before the group launched a high-profile campaign to alter the anti-bribery law – the same law that could potentially be brought to bear against News Corporation over the phone-hacking scandal.

News Corporation contributed $1m to the US Chamber of Commerce last summer. In October the chamber put forward a six-point programme for amending the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, a law that punishes US-based companies for engaging in the bribery of foreign officials.

------

Very interesting John. What is your source, as I would like to post about it. Also do we have any comparison with previous contributions between Murdoch and Chamber , if any?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/14/hacking-murdoch-paid-us-lobbyists

[John Simkin]

One of the factors that makes a good JFK researcher is the ability to ask the right questions. People who are following this case are very excited about the televised grilling from a parliamentary select committee on Tuesday. Rupert Murdoch is a very poor performer in these kind of situations. He is being briefed this weekend by lawyers and a public relations expert who helped salvage the reputation of American chat show host David Letterman when he was blackmailed over a series of affairs with work colleagues. The media mogul has drafted in Steven Rubenstein to offer advice on how best to present himself during the hearing on Tuesday. Murdoch is also being briefed by Dan Tench, one of the UK's leading media lawyers. Next week's parliamentary hearing, taking place in the Boothroyd room, is set to be a moment of high drama watched by millions.

The group of journalists who have been working on the case have suggested the following questions for Rebekah Brooks, James and Rupert Murdoch

Questions for Rebekah Brooks

1) As editor of the Sun and NoW, did you honestly not know about phone hacking, when so many of your reporters and executives say it was openly discussed in the newsroom?

2) If not, who was checking the source or veracity of the material on which Sun and NoW stories were based? Was it the legal department? If not, why not?

3) Did you ever see any transcripts of voicemail messages?

4) In November 2002 you were personally confronted by senior Scotland Yard officers with evidence that a Metropolitan Police detective was being targeted by your newspaper acting on behalf of murder suspects. What action did you take as a result of that meeting?

5) After this meeting, you knew that private investigators with criminal backgrounds were employed by your newspaper. What did you do to or stop, or at least monitor, this?

6) In 2003, you admitted paying police officers but were interrupted in your explanation by your deputy, Andy Coulson. Would you now like to explain how many police officers your newspapers paid, when you paid them, and why?

7) On 10 July, you wrote to John Whittingdale saying that the Guardian had "deliberately misled the British public" in its report saying that News International had paid Gordon Taylor and others £1m in damages and costs over phone hacking. Why did you say that and would you like to withdraw it?

8) Why, as the CEO of a major British company, did you refuse to come and give evidence to a committee of the House of Commons? Did that not show contempt for parliamentary democracy?

9) How often did you meet (formally and socially) David Cameron in the year before he became prime minister?

10) How often have you met him (formally and socially) since?

11) Did you ever at any stage privately brief David Cameron and/or Andy Coulson on material NI reporters were gathering?

12) If so, was any of this information from illegally obtained material?

13) How often have you met (formally or informally) Dick Fedorcio, the head of press at Scotland Yard? Is it correct that you have had dinners with him?

14) How was it possible for the NoW to be employing private investigators without your knowledge? Did you not have control or sight of your own editorial budget?

15) Have you seen any evidence that Sara Payne's voicemail messages were hacked by the NoW or Sun? Did you persuade Sara Payne not to complain about this?

16) Can you give your account of the conversations that preceded your decision to publish the fact that Gordon and Sarah Brown's son, Fraser, was suffering from cystic fibrosis?

Was the source a health worker or the relative of a health worker? Was the source paid for the story?

17) Did the former prime minister, then chancellor of the exchequer, welcome having his son's medical condition revealed in your newspaper?

18) Why was it necessary to close down a profitable newspaper?

19) What did you mean when you told staff that there were worse revelations to come? What are these revelations?

20) Are you remaining on the NI payroll and continuing as an employee of the company?

Questions for James Murdoch

1) Why did you pay £1m in damages and costs to Gordon Taylor and others in 2009 and seal the evidence? Would you agree that this could be described as "hush money"?

2) On whose advice did you make this decision?

3) Why did you agree the payoff to Max Clifford? Is it right that the value of this was £1m? Is it fair to describe this as "hush money"?

4) Why didn't you make a clean breast of what was discovered in the spring of 2009 instead of covering it up?

5) You have said this decision was based on "incomplete information". What further information would have made these payments right?

6) Was evidence of criminality concealed at any time from:

The News Corp board?

The NI board?

Parliament?

Police?

The PCC?

7) Are you aware of section 79 of RIPA which can be used to prosecute any director showing "consent, connivance or neglect" of offences relating to interception of communications?

8) The Guardian story of 9 July 2009 showed that the "one rotten apple" story NI had stuck to for three years was untrue – and known by then within NI to be untrue. Why did you issue a statement denying it?

9) Did you read the full email evidence upon which the May 2007 report from Harbottle & Lewis was based? Those emails, according to the advice of a former DPP, Ken MacDonald, are believed to contain evidence of possible illegal activity by staff.

10) Why, in 2007, didn't you take the action that Will Lewis is said to have taken in 2011 in relation to the evidence upon which the Harbottle & Lewis report was based?

11) Why did it take at least four years for the significance of these emails to become evident – and why did the company sit on the evidence before handing it over to the police?

12) The Metropolitan Police's former head of counter terrorism, Peter Clarke, has said of NI's behaviour: "This is a major global organisation with access to the best legal advice deliberately trying to thwart a criminal investigation. [it offered] prevarication and what we now know to be lies." Is that a fair description of how your company behaved towards the police? Until 2011?

13) If it was right for Andy Coulson, Les Hinton and Rebekah Brooks to resign, even though they denied knowledge of what happened on their watch, why is the same not true for you?

Questions for Rupert Murdoch

1) When did you become aware of the 2009 payments authorised by your son James to buy the silence of people whose voicemails had been hacked by NI employees?

2) It is understood the value of these payments was in the region of £2m. Which News Corp executives or board members knew about them?

3) Were News Corp's audit committee, board or general counsel made aware of these payments? If not, why not? Should they have been?

4) When previously unknown evidence of criminality within your company becomes known to senior executives isn't it their responsibility to inform the police and regulators rather than try to cover it up?

5) What do you now think of your son's decision to try to conceal this evidence of criminality with secret payments rather than inform the appropriate law and regulatory authorities?

6) The Guardian's story of 9 July 2009 exposed these payments and the fact that the "lone rotten apple" theory within your company was wrong. What action did you and/or the News Corp board take as a result of this story?

7) Once it became publicly known in July 2009 that more than one reporter had been involved in illegal practices did it not concern anyone within News Corp that they had been misled?

8) Did the News Corp general counsel not read the email evidence upon which the 2007 Harbottle & Lewis report commissioned by NI was based? If he did, why did he miss the material which led to the emails being handed over to the police four years later?

9) Do you agree with the evidence of the senior police officer who told MPs last week that your company had "deliberately tried to thwart" a criminal investigation… "with prevarication and ... lies"?

10) How could a company which obstructs the police and misleads Parliament and regulators be considered a fit and proper company to run a media organisation?

11) Do you agree that the actions of your company between the beginning of 2009 and the end of 2010 could be termed a cover-up?

12) You apologised in every newspaper at the weekend. But in your own Wall Street Journal last week you said you and your fellow executives had handled the crisis "very well… with just a few minor mistakes". Is that still your view? What were those mistakes?

13) Does News Corp ever use security/corporate intelligence companies in its business dealings?

14) Have you ever personally seen or been aware of material derived from the accessing of intercepted communications?

15) In your negotiations with the Wall Street Journal shareholders did you have any access or intelligence supplied by external security companies?

16) If it was right for Andy Coulson, Les Hinton and Rebekah Brooks to resign, even though they denied knowledge of what happened on their watch, why is the same not true for you?

[John Navin]

Rebekah Brooks is arrested in London. She knows all of the dirty little secrets and now she's in the custody of the police...

[Guest Gary Loughran]

The arrest is most likely a ruse to prevent her questioning mentioned by John, above. It is extremely suspicious and unlikely the previously inept Met suddenly found evidence with which to hold Brooks.

There will be no domino effect as the impact is too far reaching.

[John Navin]

Scotland Yard chief Paul Stephenson resigns. Busy Sunday.

[John Simkin]

The arrest is most likely a ruse to prevent her questioning mentioned by John, above. It is extremely suspicious and unlikely the previously inept Met suddenly found evidence with which to hold Brooks.

There will be no domino effect as the impact is too far reaching.

The arrest of someone by appointment on a Sunday by the police has never taken place before. The police have made it virtuall impossible to get any questions out of Rebekah Brooks on Tuesday's session in Parliament. It seems that the current investigation is also part of the cover-up.

It will also be interesting who replaces Paul Stephenson. It should of course be someone from outside the Met. However, I suspect it will be another compromised insider who will continue the cover-up.

[John Navin]

The odd death of Daniel Morgan in 1987. He'd been investigating police corruption. His partner, Jonathon Rhees, was the last person to see him alive. Yup, the same Jonathon Rhees later hired by News Of The World.

What a mess.

[Bernice Moore]

Most people now paying attention to the practices of Rupert Murdoch’s papers have no idea what came before. Here’s an article I wrote 13 years ago for the Columbia Journalism Review that provides useful background as the News of the World scandal continues to widen…. Russ Baker

http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/07/14/how-has-murdoch-improved-with-age/

[John Simkin]

As with the JFK assassination, the witnesses are beginning to die. Sean Hoare, the News of the World journalist, who told the New York Times that Andy Coulson knew about the phone-hacking, was found dead today. Hoare was only in his mid-40s.